E.P.A. Chief Scott Pruitt (a.k.a. The Swamp Thing)

#1

BowlBrother85

1 star recruit
Joined
Sep 18, 2013
Messages
41,160
Likes
36,026
#1
Here is a running list of Scott Pruitt's scandals since he was appointed E.P.A. Administrator in February 2017:

1) His need for round-the-clock security. Apparently, Pruitt is in dire need of security wherever he goes (even Disneyland). According to a letter that Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse sent to the Inspector General, Pruitt's security detail also tagged along personal trips to the Rose Bowl and to his home in Tulsa, OK. His security detail cost more than $830,000 during his first 3 months in office alone, compared to $465,000 for former administrator Gina McCarthy's entire year in office in 2016.

2) His need to always travel first class. Pruitt fancies himself a jet-setter. Months of receipts obtained in February by the Environmental Integrity Project under the Freedom of Information Act show that in early June 2017 Pruitt spent $90,000 in travel in less than a week. After an event in Cincinnati, he and a handful of staffers flew to New York on a military jet at the cost of $36,086.50, all for Pruitt to jump on a plane to Rome for another $7,003.52. He even spent $1,061 on first class travel from Washington D.C. to New York which cost six times more than two media aides who flew coach... for a flight which only lasts about an hour and 10 minutes.

3) His shady housing arrangement. Pruitt began renting a room in a townhouse owned by a top D.C. energy lobbyist in early 2017. It just so happens that this same lobbyist and his wife funded Pruitt's campaigns for attorney general in his home state of Oklahoma in 2010 according to the Daily Caller. It goes without saying that Pruitt occupied this room at a drastically reduced rate...only paying rent at all while he was there (ever had a deal like that yourself?) and overall only paying a little over $600 per month (in Georgetown for God's sake?). This condo was also used as a fundraiser location for at 3 Republican members of Congress while Pruitt was living there. Finally, it turns out that a client of the condo owner's firm received EPA approval for an oil pipeline project while Pruitt was an occupant of the condo (with the discount rate, of course).

4) His soundproof phone booth. It appears that Pruitt spent $43,000 on this booth for his office last fall according to records obtained by the Washington Post. Who does he think he is? Nick Saban?

5) The raises to his cronies. I saved the best for last. Pruitt gave two of his political aides raises using a little known provision in the Safe Water Drinking Act. It permits the EPA administrator to hire up to 30 people into the agency without approval from the White House or Congress. But instead of doing that, Pruitt used the residual funds totaling $28,130 and $56,765 to give just two of them raises by those amounts. The latter employee now reportedly makes more than $160,000 annually which is a higher salary than most senior level employees at the EPA earn (this man has been on the job for one year).

...and before our Republican posters cry partisanship about this information... Pruitt was grilled thoroughly yesterday on these matters by none other than Ed Henry of Fox News. Drain the swamp? Yeah, whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#2
#2
Clearly the only solution is to defund the EPA.

All in favor say Aye.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 people
#4
#4
Clearly the only solution is to defund the EPA.

All in favor say Aye.

Actually, I would have to agree. There is no point in any government administration if it's sole purpose is to enrich those who work there... but once again, drain the swamp? :eek:lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#5
#5
Actually, I would have to agree. There is no point in any government administration if it's sole purpose is to enrich those who work there... but once again, drain the swamp? :eek:lol:

Closing down the government, I thought you'd come around. I like it.
 
#7
#7
Actually, I would have to agree. There is no point in any government administration if it's sole purpose is to enrich those who work there... but once again, drain the swamp? :eek:lol:

Now we be getting somewhere. Next let's look at house and Senate members net worth pre and post career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8
#8
Number 4 might depend on what kind of “phone” is in that booth and could come with a whole slew of requirements to have it there
 
#9
#9
Here is a running list of Scott Pruitt's scandals since he was appointed E.P.A. Administrator in February 2017:

1) His need for round-the-clock security. Apparently, Pruitt is in dire need of security wherever he goes (even Disneyland). According to a letter that Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse sent to the Inspector General, Pruitt's security detail also tagged along personal trips to the Rose Bowl and to his home in Tulsa, OK. His security detail cost more than $830,000 during his first 3 months in office alone, compared to $465,000 for former administrator Gina McCarthy's entire year in office in 2016.

2) His need to always travel first class. Pruitt fancies himself a jet-setter. Months of receipts obtained in February by the Environmental Integrity Project under the Freedom of Information Act show that in early June 2017 Pruitt spent $90,000 in travel in less than a week. After an event in Cincinnati, he and a handful of staffers flew to New York on a military jet at the cost of $36,086.50, all for Pruitt to jump on a plane to Rome for another $7,003.52. He even spent $1,061 on first class travel from Washington D.C. to New York which cost six times more than two media aides who flew coach... for a flight which only lasts about an hour and 10 minutes.

3) His shady housing arrangement. Pruitt began renting a room in a townhouse owned by a top D.C. energy lobbyist in early 2017. It just so happens that this same lobbyist and his wife funded Pruitt's campaigns for attorney general in his home state of Oklahoma in 2010 according to the Daily Caller. It goes without saying that Pruitt occupied this room at a drastically reduced rate...only paying rent at all while he was there (ever had a deal like that yourself?) and overall only paying a little over $600 per month (in Georgetown for God's sake?). This condo was also used as a fundraiser location for at 3 Republican members of Congress while Pruitt was living there. Finally, it turns out that a client of the condo owner's firm received EPA approval for an oil pipeline project while Pruitt was an occupant of the condo (with the discount rate, of course).

4) His soundproof phone booth. It appears that Pruitt spent $43,000 on this booth for his office last fall according to records obtained by the Washington Post. Who does he think he is? Nick Saban?

5) The raises to his cronies. I saved the best for last. Pruitt gave two of his political aides raises using a little known provision in the Safe Water Drinking Act. It permits the EPA administrator to hire up to 30 people into the agency without approval from the White House or Congress. But instead of doing that, Pruitt used the residual funds totaling $28,130 and $56,765 to give just two of them raises by those amounts. The latter employee now reportedly makes more than $160,000 annually which is a higher salary than most senior level employees at the EPA earn (this man has been on the job for one year).

...and before our Republican posters cry partisanship about this information... Pruitt was grilled thoroughly yesterday on these matters by none other than Ed Henry of Fox News. Drain the swamp? Yeah, whatever.

1. Were the threats similar between he and his predecessor?

2. Did the fight hours for the military crew go towards their monthly mandates? If so, did they fly above their monthly mandate?

3. Who cares.

4. Was this a security requirement? Was their evidence of surveillance and / or threats of surveillance?

5. Did this money come out of budget appropriations that were already going to the EPA?
 
#10
#10
1. Were the threats similar between he and his predecessor?

2. Did the fight hours for the military crew go towards their monthly mandates? If so, did they fly above their monthly mandate?

3. Who cares.

4. Was this a security requirement? Was their evidence of surveillance and / or threats of surveillance?

5. Did this money come out of budget appropriations that were already going to the EPA?

1) I don't know but I'm guessing the average American wouldn't know Scott Pruitt from Jeremy Pruitt.

2) I'm more angered by any tender foot who needs to travel first class on an hour and 10 minute flight on taxpayer dime. That's absurd.

3) I care. Especially about the part of the condo owner's client getting approved for an oil pipeline project. That is an obvious conflict of interest for an EPA administrator.

4) No clue. The price tag seems excessive to me but I'm no expert on such details.

5) My understanding is no. This was a loophole exploited by Pruitt's office - and a clear abuse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#14
#14
1) I don't know but I'm guessing the average American wouldn't know Scott Pruitt from Jeremy Pruitt.

2) I'm more angered by any tender foot who needs to travel first class on an hour and 10 minute flight on taxpayer dime. That's absurd.

3) I care. Especially about the part of the condo owner's client getting approved for an oil pipeline project. That is an obvious conflict of interest for an EPA administrator.

4) No clue. The price tag seems excessive to me but I'm no expert on such details.

5) My understanding is no. This was a loophole exploited by Pruitt's office - and a clear abuse.

1. I'm not sure what the average American knows is relevant.

2. Plenty of Senators fly first class all the time, on the taxpayers' dime, for short flights. You specifically referenced the price tag of the military flight. My hunch is that money would have been spent that month for the mandatory flight hours for the crew. Might as well be transporting someone.

3. I don't care about such things.

4. You would be amazed at how much the government routinely spends for things.

5. So, this money is money that simply wasn't in the budget? I find that incredibly hard to believe. It's possible, but not plausible.
 
#15
#15
If the phone booth was for a STU I’d be shocked if they could do it for less than that, and not including the STU cost.
 
#17
#17
1. I'm not sure what the average American knows is relevant.

2. Plenty of Senators fly first class all the time, on the taxpayers' dime, for short flights. You specifically referenced the price tag of the military flight. My hunch is that money would have been spent that month for the mandatory flight hours for the crew. Might as well be transporting someone.

3. I don't care about such things.

4. You would be amazed at how much the government routinely spends for things.

5. So, this money is money that simply wasn't in the budget? I find that incredibly hard to believe. It's possible, but not plausible.

1) Pruitt is just livin' the dream... on taxpayer dime.

2) This is not a Senator or an elected official of any type... and it doesn't excuse wasteful spending.

3) I think you would be in the minority there.

4) Deflection... and it doesn't excuse wasteful spending.

5) Pruitt's office clearly abused the purpose of a provision. Those funds were to be allocated to add employees in an emergency in support of the Safe Water Drinking Act. Instead, Pruitt's office just used it to line the pockets of two of his Oklahoma buddies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#18
#18
1) Pruitt is just livin' the dream... on taxpayer dime.

2) This is not a Senator or an elected official of any type... and it doesn't excuse wasteful spending.

3) I think you would be in the minority there.

4) Deflection... and it doesn't excuse wasteful spending.

5) Pruitt's office clearly abused the purpose of a provision. Those funds were to be allocated to add employees in an emergency in support of the Safe Water Drinking Act. Instead, Pruitt's office just used it to line the pockets of two of his Oklahoma buddies.

1. Having security is hardly living the dream. It's not like you have more fun or enjoy life more because you have a security detail. In fact, it's often a big ****ing hassle.

2. Right, it's a Cabinet Member. As for it being wasteful spending, I think it's as wasteful as almost all other government spending.

3. I'll gladly be in the minority.

4. It's not a deflection. It's saying you have no idea how much **** costs in this area.

5. Were these two individuals given this money right before the close of the fiscal year?
 
#20
#20
1. Having security is hardly living the dream. It's not like you have more fun or enjoy life more because you have a security detail. In fact, it's often a big ****ing hassle.

2. Right, it's a Cabinet Member. As for it being wasteful spending, I think it's as wasteful as almost all other government spending.

3. I'll gladly be in the minority.

4. It's not a deflection. It's saying you have no idea how much **** costs in this area.

5. Were these two individuals given this money right before the close of the fiscal year?

1) Security detail for a trip to Tulsa, OK? Whatever, buddy. We will have to agree to disagree here. I think it's dumb.

2) Yes, it's very wasteful and easily avoidable.

3) And I will gladly voice my disapproval to Pruitt's conflict of interest in granting EPA approval for an oil pipeline project to a condo owner's client who was simultaneously giving him a discount on his D.C. residence. This is called corruption!

4) Not as big a deal as the others... so okay, I guess.

5) The point is they shouldn't have been given this money at all. It was an exploitation of a loophole and a clear misappropriation. This was a provision in the Safe Water Drinking Act for new employees... it was used to give existing employees raises.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

VN Store



Back
Top