Scott Pruitt is a very effective EPA director. It makes him a prime target for the far-left and the media who are trying to take him out. They attack – in a coordinated fashion – every single thing he does. Behind the movement to oust him are some very bad actors.
Scott Pruitt might lose his job but it won’t be because he deserved it. It will be the result of a mass assault from the far-left.
Ordinary travel and living arrangements are reported as if they were wasteful, unethical, and even criminal. He is accused of the kind of pay-to-play activity people like Hillary and Obama actually were engaged in.
In fact, Jeff Dunetz at The Lid explains who the opponents are behind the mindless assaults on Scott Pruitt. It concerns the Environmental Integrity Project [EIP], Sea Change (set up by Nat Simons), and Tom Steyer, among others. Steyer is tied to George Soros’s Democracy Alliance and Simons is a close associate of none other than Hillary Clinton’s.
Such is the irony of the left indicting Pruitt for cronyism. It’s all fake.
To give a quick summation:
EIP is anti-coal and it’s run by a disgruntled EPA employee who left angry over George Bush interfering with the Clean Air extremism. EIP is indirectly funded by Sea Change, an anti-fracking firm tied to a shadowy Russian firm called Klein Ltd. The man who runs Sea Change, Nat Simons, is closely tied to Hillary Clinton and Tom Steyer. Steyer, in turn, is tied to Soros’s Democracy Alliance. There are a number of other players, all tied to the Clinton-Obama environmental extremism and the Progressive Revenge Politics. This includes the sue-and-settle lawyer Larry Shapiro.
Scott Pruitt is the man who uncovered the sue-and-settle corruption cases between the Obama administration and environmental groups suing them [at the wishes of the administration] with a wink-and-a-nod, knowing Obama’s peeps would “settle”.
The facts disprove the accusations, in other words, reporters are lying
Wall Street Journal editor Kimberly Strassel wrote: “This Pruitt flap is absurd. Obama EPA officials spent as much or more on travel”. And career EPA ethics officials say he [Scott Pruitt] paid “reasonable market value” for the condo”. “Lessor had no business in front of EPA” at that time. “The press might at least try to pretend it didn’t have two standards.” she wrote.
Yes, Scott Pruitt has tallied some domestic security costs. But his life and that of his family’s lives are constantly threatened.
The lease deal he has for a condo complies with federal ethics regulations regarding gifts, and use of the property. It is not a gift.
A memo issued from EPA principal deputy general counsel Kevin Minoli on March 30 states:”the Ethics Office [staffed by career officials] reviewed the lease agreement . . . Under the terms of the lease — if the space was utilized for one 30-day month — then the rental cost would be $1500, which is a reasonable market value….Therefore, entering into the lease was consistent with federal ethics regulations regarding gifts, and use of the property in accordance with the lease agreement did not constitute a gift as defined in those regulations.”
Ms. Strassel outlined costs compared to the prior administration:
- Pruitt travel/security costs for 2017: $160k
- Gina McCarthy travel/security costs for 2013-16: $630k
- Former EPA Chief, pre-McCarthy, Lisa Jackson travel/security costs for 2009-12: $332k
- Pruitt in 2017:–G7 Summit in Italy: $84k –Morocco: 40k
- EPA Chief McCarthy in 2016:–Ghana: 68k –Peru: 45k –Tokyo: 75k
- Gina McCarthy in 2015:–Paris: 41k –Dubai: 90k –Tokyo: 68k –Italy: 56k (a trip that, like Pruitt, involved a private tour of the Vatican)
- McCarthy in 2014:–Vancouver: 62k (it’s impressive to spend that much just getting to Canada) –Vietnam: 68k
- McCarthy in 2013:–China: 55k
- Jackson in 2012:–Israel: 65k
- Jackson in 2011:–Rio De Janeiro: 60k –Montreal: 51k –China: 156k (wow).
Rand Paul supports Pruitt but the WH might cave
There is strong support from Senator Rand Paul who calls Pruitt likely “the bravest and most conservative of Trump’s cabinet”, adding “we need him to drain the swamp”.
The White House might sacrifice him if he can’t stem the bleeding from the fake news media.