Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Liberals are pressing for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s resignation, because he met with Cardinal George Pell to discuss Climate Change.
George Pell Secretly Met A Top US Politician In The Vatican To Discuss Climate Change
by MAX KOSLOWSKI 14 MAY 2018
Three weeks before he was charged with historic child sexual abuse, cardinal George Pell met up with controversial US politician Scott Pruitt to talk about climate change.
Pell is, of course, the most senior Catholic in Australia, and a highly controversial figure for his ultra-conservative views (plus the aforementioned charges). Pruitt is no stranger to controversy either. Appointed by Trump to head the US Environmental Protection Agency, he has rolled back regulations designed to protect the environment and faces a number of serious questions about ethics and alleged conflicts of interest.
One of Pruitt’s former staffers told The New York Times the EPA boss wanted the meeting erased from official schedules because he did not want to face scrutiny for visiting an alleged sex offender. Despite this, Pruitt claims he didn’t know about the allegations against Pell at the time the meeting was held.If you see a
At the meeting, Pell and Pruitt — who were joined by others — discussed plans to set up a debate on climate change.
…
“The president is pleased with the job that he’s doing as the administrator. However, the issues that have been raised, that I think you guys are all familiar with — they have raised some concerns,” White House spokesperson Raj Shah told reporters on Air Force One on Thursday.
…
We don’t know exactly what charges Cardinal Pell is facing. He admits “putting the Church first”.
… When discussing the church abuse scandal Cardinal Pell admitted he had put the church above the victims at times, but he wanted Australians to give the church and himself a fair go.
“I hope they will give the Catholic Church a fair go. I hope that they will understand the truth of the station,” he told Bolt.
“I fully concede the terrible crimes that have happened.
“I’d like them to give me a fair go, everyone needs a fair go, certainly the Catholic Church is entitled to that.
“I’m a Christian, I’m a priest. Now I might have put the Church first for a while rather than the victims, but I’m certainly not here to put myself first, we’re not into that.” …
In the past I have praised fellow Australian Cardinal Pell because of his climate skepticism, but if Cardinal Pell let down or hurt children in his care I will join those demanding he face justice. I know people who were victims of child abuse, lets just say I take Matthew 18:6 very literally.
But Cardinal Pell has denied the charges. And Pell is not Scott Pruitt – as far as I know Pruitt himself is not facing charges of sexual misconduct.
I’m utterly disgusted that anyone would attempt to twist the tragic mistreatment of Australian child abuse victims into a reason to fire Scott Pruitt. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had absolutely nothing to do with the suffering of those poor children.
Is it compulsory for officials to resign if they have ever met someone who is later charged with a crime? What is the time limit and how long should the meeting have lasted? Just asking….
It’s only mandatory if the politician is a conservative.
For liberals spending time with criminals is a career enhancement. Just look at Obama.
Heck they didn’t even ask Clinton to resign and he raped women!
Or Democrat John Conyers, who abused the privilege of his office for 40+ years.
I gather JFK had extra-curricular activity.
No – ‘lack-of-consent’ – that I have heard of.
Rumours swirl round his successor, LBJ, even here in the UK.
No idea if they have weight, but suggestions include at least Weinstein style behaviour.
Now decades ago, of course.
Auto
LBJ was rather coarse, to put it lightly. As noted in Robert Caro’s interminable (he’s been working on the project since the late 1970’s, and is still not finished), he had several long term sexual relationships after he was married. He also nicknamed a body part “Jumbo”.
And Hilda with the pizza parlor proprietor . . .
” Just asking….”
Asking who? Who actually said it should be “compulsory for officials to resign if they have ever met someone who is later charged with a crime?”?
I assume Eric Lipton at the NYT, as well as other Progressive reporters. They are the ones who felt it was newsworthy to report on this and link it to the Fake News ‘ton of scandals’ that they fill their papers with every single day.
Scandals like ‘he Flys on airplanes’ but not as much as the previous EPA heads. ‘He denies science’ by expecting it to be unhidden and reproduceable. Etc.
~¿~
Don’t feed the trolls
“I assume Eric Lipton at the NYT, as well as other Progressive reporters”
Well, here is his report. I don’t see a demand for resignation. Mainly he is reporting on the removal of mention of the meeting from the published schedule. That suggests that someone is a bit queasy about it, but that someone probably isn’t a liberal.
Classic Nick Stokes defense.
Headline
“Trump sticks by Pruitt even after reports he met with an accused child abuser”
Nick reads it as
“Pruitt meets with accused child abuser and nobody cared except it wasn’t in his diary”.
“Who actually said it should be “compulsory for officials to resign if they have ever met someone who is later charged with a crime?”
Actually I like this standard, I think we should enforce this standard. Now that it looks like he’s going to be charged, I think we should demand that EVERY Democrat politician who ever met with disgraced former DA Eric Schneideman should be required to resign immediately.
Oh, wait you say, that’s EVERY Democrat officeholder in New York and almost every Democrat in Washington? Oh well, too bad, it’s your rule.
Either Nick didn’t even bother to read the headline, or he’s desperate to change the subject.
‘Either Nick didn’t even bother to read the headline, or he’s desperate to change the subject.’
More like trying to spin it away on a technicality. That’s his usual method.
Heh, yeah. Nick spins more than a washing machine.
If the Earth spun as much as Nick, we’d have 9-hour days.
Only if they discuss skeptical AGW science.
Susan asks:
Is it compulsory for officials to resign if they have ever met someone who is later charged with a crime?
Just asking…..
Don’t know, but heaven-forbid someone who talks to someone who is IN PRISON!
**********************************************
Then Stokes, apologist extraordinaire, says Asking who?
Don’t play stupid. Read the post headline & you’ll understand her rhetorical question.
beng135
May 14, 2018 at 9:44 am
Don’t play stupid: ‘fraid Nicks’ not Playing…… (grin)
Only if the crime is one the social justice warriors get all excited about.
I’m not for one second playing down the child abuse question but if Pell had been charged with embezzling parish funds (for example) after his meeting with Pruitt nobody would have thought anything about it.
But two climate sceptics one of whom is possibly linked to some form of sexual misbehaviour really gets the liberal (joke!) lefties going.
That is kind of funny. By their logic, all of Schneiderman’s associates should resign, as well as others who had met with him on business.
That would definitely wipe out the ExxonKnew crowd, and stop that lawsuit cold.
But that logic only applies to conservatives and AGW skeptics. And especially conservatives who are highly productive – like Pruitt.
Desperation is the right word and the US Progressives are in the thick of it. How many “we got him this time” have come out of team Mueller? They are still completely gobsmacked over Trump taking away their power and they’ll never get over it. In fact it’s their new platform. Wait until CO2 is returned to its’ place in supporting life as we know it.
Pruit has committed the crime of not being a socialist and believing in one world order.
And Pell is guilty of wrecking criminal schemes involving the Vatican Bank and corrupt members of the Vatican or their cronies.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/cardinal-george-pell-sydney-australia-police-charges-allegations-vatican-bank-reform/
Also being a conservative who interferes with the new agenda under the current pope, which includes support for CAGW doctrine. He’s the perfect scapegoat. They can purge the guy who resists their “progressive” agenda while appearing to do something about clergy sex abuse (and simultaneously covering up or distracting from real sex abuse issues with friends of the pope in South America).
Before you believe anything being said about either Pruitt or Pell, please check the facts very carefully and bear in mind that now, more than ever, we should be applying the standard of “innocent until proven guilty”.
These two have so many of the right enemies that I cannot remain silent and fail to defend them.
Rich Davis, those of us of a more traditional bent than is currently fashionable in the Catholic Church were delighted to see Pell elevated to a senior position in the Curia as we were to see Sarah also in a position of some influence.
It came as no surprise that Sarah has been effectively sidelined and that Francis has effectively hung Pell “out to dry”. Without pre-judging any future trial I suspect that Pell’s crime has been more to do with “protecting” the Church’s reputation — as have others, misguidedly but sincerely — than any acfive participation in sexual abuse, unlike the late Keith O’Brien.
Pell was always going to make serious enemies in Rome, but for his attempts to clean up the financial dungheap in the Vatican rather than for anything else. If all the Roman clerics who persistently ignore the vow of chastity they have, supposedly, taken were to leave that city the Vatican bureaucracy would cease to function.
So the AGW crowd have been confronted with facts and they know not what to do. Crawling in a deep hole would be a good start.
So by this standard, all the other attorneys general in the group suing the oil companies should resign because they know Eric Schneiderman?
+97
Hmmm……….Now that gives me an idea. If Pruitt is persuaded to resign, does that mean we can have the Royal family resign because they Knighted Jimmy Savile?
On the recommendation of politicians – do the polies have to go to the guillotine, too?
Just asking.
Just wondering.
Nowhere does the word ‘hoping’ appear above . . . . . . . . . . .
Auto
Auto
Nope, don’t get it mate.
The royals are remote from we proles, no democratic mandate to impose influence, yet they do.
And I pay for them.
Why?
They ought to commit suicide, because they have talked to him, in person and on the phone and even written letters and emails. That’s mail fraud and the FBI must investigate. The Schneiderman-con-spiracy has just popped up.
In addition, any actors who met with Harvey Weinstein should have to return their Oscar or be prohibited from ever being nominated for one.
Two highly desirable targets at once for the liberals, the Church and a real conservative, Pruit. How can they resist! And as usual, truth is not necessarily on the menu.
Well, using the same “logic” a bunch of state attorney-generals and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse should be on the way out the door because of Eric Schneiderman…
“DESPERATION – Liberals demanding Pruitt’s resignation over Pell meeting”
I read what was posted. So who exactly are the “Liberals demanding Pruitt’s resignation over Pell meeting”? I didn’t see that reported.
Nick
You let Soon get personally attacked
You stood by while Susan Crockford got personally attacked
You may not agree with Pruit or Trump but are you going to stand by while they get personally attacked
I see plenty of personal attacks on presidents and other politicians here. And I have even seen Mr Trump personally attack others, not necessarily politicians. It happens, and it isn’t my fault.
My question is just a question of fact. The headline says “Liberals demanding Pruitt’s resignation over Pell meeting”. DESPERATION. So OK, who are they, and what did they say?
It’s a simple question, Forrest. You could actually come up with a factual answer, instead of just jibing. What liberals are demanding Pruitt’s resignation because he met with Pell?
Mr. Stokes: You read the post but not the first link at the very top of the article. Since the attacks on Pruitt have nothing to do with who is attacking him, the author left it to those curious about it to find that, maybe they thought nobody could come up with such an obtuse question. Looks like they don’t know you very well.
“maybe they thought nobody could come up with such an obtuse question”
It seems to be one of those obtuse questions that can’t be answered. The intro says
“Liberals are pressing for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s resignation, because he met with Cardinal George Pell to discuss Climate Change.”
But where is the evidence? Plenty of people think Pruitt should resign. Even, from the link
““The president is pleased with the job that he’s doing as the administrator. However, the issues that have been raised, that I think you guys are all familiar with — they have raised some concerns,” White House spokesperson Raj Shah told reporters on Air Force One on Thursday.”
But I doubt Raj Shah ia a liberal. The obtuse question is becoming more acute.
Here you go Nick.
Took me 20 seconds to Google it, including skimming other propagandist sh!te from the left that you believe is reality:
https://twitter.com/EricLiptonNYT/status/994707800277372928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.talkmedianews.com%2Ffeatured%2F2018%2F05%2F11%2Ftrump-says-he-still-has-confidence-in-puritt-as-scandals-pile-up%2F&tfw_creator=JDuckham&tfw_site=talkmedianews
Is the NYT good enough or do I need to Google for 30 more seconds?:
Well, Nick, they’ve been clamoring for Pruitt’s resignation over one issue over another since he was appointed. You’d have to be approaching white dwarf star density not to see that as patently obvious.
Yes. But this article seems to be making a big deal of liberals wanting him to resign “because he met with Cardinal George Pell to discuss Climate Change”. But shows no evidence of liberals demanding that he resign for that reason.
Joel white dwarf stars can’t even come close to Nicks density.
My apologies to Mr. Stokes, the links show liberals demanding his resignation but not for the reason stated in the headline. The NYT article (the bit I saw) didn’t have the word “resignation”. Nevertheless, obtuse and not moving toward acute because it’s not the point of the article.
“because it’s not the point of the article”
Really? It is the headline, the lead-in, and the peroration:
“I’m utterly disgusted that anyone would attempt to twist the tragic mistreatment of Australian child abuse victims into a reason to fire Scott Pruitt. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had absolutely nothing to do with the suffering of those poor children.”
The New York Times article is a bit vague but the second link to vice news is not
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/8xe9jb/trump-sticks-by-pruitt-even-after-reports-he-met-with-an-accused-child-abuser
I think even the Stokes defense will struggle to dance around that statement.
It’s about as stupid a statement as you get from anyone in journalism as Cardinal Pell is accused of a crime he hasn’t been convicted. However this is the toxic and perverse world of climate change and activism and normal morals and ethics don’t apply.
“I think even the Stokes defense will struggle to dance around that statement.”
It isn’t a statement that liberals are demanding that Pruitt resign because of dining with Pell. It is a comment by a journalist that the optics are bad. That is not the fault of liberals, and the first link makes it clear that Pruitt’s people were concerned about it:
“The E.P.A. later released official descriptions of the dinner that intentionally did not mention the cardinal’s presence, according to three current and former E.P.A. officials.
Kevin Chmielewski, Mr. Pruitt’s former deputy chief of staff for operations, said in an interview that top political appointees at the agency feared that the meeting would reflect poorly on Mr. Pruitt if it were made public. Twenty days after the dinner, authorities in Australia charged Cardinal Pell with sexual assault; he has denied the charges.
“It was a no-brainer,” Mr. Chmielewski said of the decision to keep Cardinal Pell’s participation quiet. His account was confirmed by two people who were familiar with the handling of the trip, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of concern over retribution.”
I don’t think Mr C (who was deputy CoS at the time) is a liberal.
You are talking about 3 people who is the article aimed at Nick, those 3 people?
I wonder who would really care about your so called “optics”?
Stop testing the limits of stupidity, the article is clearly aimed to the anti-trump supporters which happens to be a large portion of the reader base of many papers. They are playing to their audience because that sells papers just like all tabloids with there celebrity stories.
You also neatly sidestep the whole issue like all toxic activists and the paper has ignored, the cardinal has only been charged those charges are not proven. For you it’s probably normal to throw out legal norms in most democracies (that a person is innocent until proven guilty). For a paper to do so is worse they are supposed to journalist ethics but these days they don’t seem to exist anymore.
Scott Pruitt ought to be meeting with Australian Energy Market Operator chief Audrey Zibelman. Maybe he can straighten her out on unreliable energy and thereby save Australians a lot of grief.
“Is it compulsory for officials to resign if they have ever met someone who is later charged with a crime? ”
Apparently one should resign for a failure of proper prognostication as well as for being guilty by association. According to the NY Times, it was a dinner attended by others besides Pruitt and the cardinal, who was charged 20 days later, not a private meeting. Is Pruitt Catholic? Perhaps there were other reasons he might want to have dinner with a cardinal besides discussing climate change. Some of the Beach Boys knew Charles Manson before the Tate murders, lets kick them out of the rock hall of fame shall we?
In Matthew 18:1–6 Jesus isn’t talking about child abuse. He’s talking about people of all ages receiving him and his teachings, telling them to humble themselves as a little child; in other words, be guileless, believing, teachable and accepting, as little children are. The “little ones” are those who have accepted his teachings. In verse 6 he says (New International Version, from the original Greek), “”If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble…”
Other versions are translated the same way. The King James version, translated in the 1600’s, is confusing because they use the word “offend” rather than “cause to stumble”.
http://biblehub.com/matthew/18-6.htm
Child abuse is sick and no one should put the welfare of church, abusers, or others ahead of the victims, but it can also be difficult crime to prosecute because evidence—other than the testimony of the victims—is scarce.
come on stinkerp, this is not catechism class.
the cultural reference is generally understood to be that if you corrupt an innocent it would be better for you if you had a millstone put around your neck and were sunk to the bottom of the sea. In other words, it’s really bad to corrupt innocents.
Apparently my sharp retort was too honest to make it through WordPress stupid comment litmus test.
WordPress is marginally decent at best
sharp retort? To my mild comment or to stinkerp?
Well, I just thought that the Bible study was a little off topic is all. It’s not a question of the “correct” interpretation. It was an allusion and should be interpreted as it was likely intended by the author.
Yes, indeed.
Sharp was in reference to my response about otherwise intelligent humans believing in fairy tales, which is meant to externalize personal authority. It’s textbook mind control. The dominating class’s long con on the masses, the old high priests aren’t any different in their strategies from the new collectivist, greater goody, Eco fascists masquerading as scientists.
It’s no different than collectivism at it’s core, with just a few tweaks here and there to give the impression people are taking control of their individual lives, when reality is quite removed from that perception.
Most people refuse to strip away the conditioning, because of fear (the most powerful motivating force yet known to man), and therefore despise reductionism. The left especially hates it because it immediately illuminates the foundation of hypocrisy they’ve based their worldview, the religious despise it when the discussion impacts their comfort in some sort of external savior. So really, I see very little, foundationally, between the “sides” of the aisle. The collection of books referenced is political and was intended to limit human potential, keeping humans just internally divided enough to place faith in systems, rather than themselves.
Really, Rich, did it hurt you to have that explained? We all understand the cultural reference, but just like the “received wisdom” that humans are the primary cause of global warming, it’s based on interpretations, traditions, and beliefs, not an actual reading of the original text (or data). We can all benefit from clarifying incorrect ideas or traditions.
There is a big difference between “corrupting an innocent” in the sense described in Matthew and sexual abuse. The former means to persuade or lead an innocent to sin; in other words, purposefully turning them away from their faith in God. Millstone seems pretty severe punishment for that, but that’s what it says. Metaphors—go figure.
Child sexual abuse is a whole other level of evil, which is in fact never specifically mentioned in the Bible.
No, it doesn’t hurt me at all, but I just don’t care what the “correct” interpretation should be, by whatever lights you discern it. My point was that I don’t believe the accusations against Pell. If he is involved with child abuse, I’ll be happy to help fit him for a millstone. Quibbling about whether the author misunderstood the scripture he quoted isn’t relevant to the story.
Missing context here is the long standing anti-Catholic bias of the Australian Left, starting with Catholic opposition to Australian Communists (later folded into Labour) from the 1930s to the present. Pell readily admits to disastrous (widely reported) handling of pedophile priest cases during his tenure https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/cardinal-review-louise-milligans-case-for-the-damnation-of-george-pell-20170602-gwj4mg.htm but there are no records of Catholic endorsements of pedophilia.
This contrasts with the limited and muted response to the active endorsement by Greens (including current EU parliamentarian Daniel Cohn-Bendit) of pedophilia involving perhaps 1000 children. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/berlins-green-paedophiles-preyed-on-1000-children-7xb86zn3052
Pierre Gosselin has more links to this story which never seemed to get much traction (surprise!) outside of Germany. http://notrickszone.com/2015/05/21/germanys-green-party-apologizes-for-massive-sexual-abuse-of-children-advocacy-of-pedophilia-up-to-1000-victims/
There are many reasons Pruitt should resign.
No reasons for Pruitt to resign as far as I can see. I think he ought to get a bonus for all his hard work. I would have said he deserves a promotion, but I want him to stay right there at the EPA where he can do the most good. Once he gets the EPA straightened out, then we’ll give him a promotion.
Pruitt for President in 2024!
Of course there are.
He doesn’t follow the left-wing party line. That’s enough reason to have him hung.
Please elucidate us; what are some of the “many” reasons?
The Left, the Democratic Party and the EPA professional technocrats will do anything to see Pruitt fired. He is analogous to and as hated more than James Watt, President Reagan’s Secretary of Interior.
I have to admit that I do not see how the headline of this blog post delivers on what it claims:
DESPERATION – Liberals demanding Pruitt’s resignation over Pell meeting
At least, the delivery on the claim is not obvious on a quick read and on a quick click on the links. What group of liberals exactly is making the demand? When? Where? Answers to these questions just don’t seem to be there. Maybe the claim is true, but I am not seeing the supporting references to bear it out.
Am I agreeing with Nick S. ? Has hell frozen over ? (^_^)
Some expert at thermodynamics calculated that Hell is indeed frozen
https://www.cs.hmc.edu/~mike/misc/hell.html
In Dante’s Inferno, the lowest level of Hell, where Lucifer resides, is depicted as an endless land of ice
I agree that the headline is an exaggeration but the innuendo of the linked article is clear enough.
The list of global warming creeps grows :
Mr IPCC Perv
Mr Happy Endings
Mr . Bossy Pants
Ms Mini – Al
Mr Hide the Decline
Mr . Dress Up
Mr Maggot Man
Mr . Punch
Mr . Salsa on the Side
Who knew the global warming scam was a magnet to perverts ?
I predict the next big wave of “Climate Blues” is in the offing. The first wave followed Climategate and the Dreaded Pause. I would think the first wave were probably mainly honest believers (with fragile constitutions) in the mainstream science who were shocked by the behaviour of the top tier of researchers and the doubts caused by the Pause. They were unable to face the fear that their entire education and research efforts were for nought and they rationalized it was the spectre of the planets disastrous future and people not listening to them – classic dеиуаl.
The hardier types, with fewer scruples than the first, have now had the rug pulled out from under them by Trump and Pruitt. Paris Accord is dead; budgets around the world for climateering are being cut and Europe is showing little heart for the CO2 putsch sans USA footing the. Carbon markets that aren’t yet dead are going down in price, Me To# and EXXON knew# hero, AG Schneiderman is now He Too# and ‘Everybody knows#’.
Simply, their is no appetite for this sport without the US in it and this report shows the neurosis and rising hysteria of the new left.
All these constant ‘demands’. I wonder if it’s time for the opposition to start making demands of our own.
I enjoy reading the comments of Nick Stokes.
I think his read, of the issues discussed.
Add a certain frizzy to the dialogue.
If there were to be no Nick Stokes,
Would the world be a poorer place?
Just asking.
The real question you are implying is whether we would be happy if someone we disagree with died? C’mon man, this isn’t campus.
Twobob, Nick is a troll, whom I have seen abusing a woman scientist in a personal manner. Simply because she spoke the truth about his type of science and not in any personal manner. Your choice.
Any site like this needs someone to challenge groupthink. Nick often raises valid points. I’m sure* we are all grown-up enough to accept a few opposing views .
Susan
*Not really sure, just hopeful.
The left would demand Pruitt’s resignation if it was reported that he buttered his toast on the wrong side. /sarc
you mean, the upside of the toast when it falls to the ground?
Precisely. A dropped slice of toast always lands buttered side down. If Pruitt’s doesn’t, it means he buttered the wrong side and should resign. It would also be considered a firing offense if when retrieving his toast from the toaster, Pruitt was to butter the side on the right instead of the left side. 🙂
Scott Pruitt could suddenly reverse his position on climate change and the haters on the left would still demand his resignation for being a flip-flopper. There is no appeasing them once you become a target.
Gosh!
Anybody out there laugh at a Bill Cosby routine? Watch a Harvey Weinstein movie?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/11/disgusted-obamas-were-star-struck-harvey-weinstein/
Grabbing at straws to build a strawman.
Yes, that pretty much defines desperate.
Go Scott go!
DESPERATION?
The desperation is to politicise global warming because the science is clear – humans at the main cause.
get with the program….
“global warming” isn’t a thing anymore.
the terminology had to change to keep up with your “clear science”.
Are they calling for Scott Pruitt’s resignation because he spoke to George Pell? Well, you can argue the semantics, but they sure are latching onto it in their pursuit of Scott Pruitt:
The New York Times
Scott Pruitt dined last year in Rome with Cardinal George Pell, a Vatican leader who was also facing sexual abuse allegations. The EPA’s official descriptions of the dinner intentionally did not mention the cardinal’s presence.
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/56095-scott-pruitt-dined-last-year-in-rome-with-cardinal-george-pell-a-vatican-leader-who-was-also-facing/
Huffington Post
EPA Hid Scott Pruitt’s Dinner With Climate Denier Accused Of Child Sex Abuse
The EPA knew Vatican treasurer George Pell was under investigation, but went ahead with the dinner during Pruitt’s trip to Italy.
https://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/scott-pruitt-cardinal-sex-abuse_us_5af54e36e4b0e57cd9f82032
Vanity Fair
TRUMP TOTALLY SUPPORTS PRUITT’S DECISION TO WINE AND DINE AN ACCUSED SEX OFFENDER
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/scott-pruitt-george-pell
By contrast, The Guardian reported responsibly and avoided those excesses. Their report concentrated on the climate debate, and avoided highlighting the accusations against George Pell:
George Pell met US environment chief Scott Pruitt to discuss climate-change debate
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/11/george-pell-met-us-environment-chief-scott-pruitt-to-discuss-climate-change-debate
The Guardian is published in the UK it doesn’t have freedom of speech rights of the USA. The UK laws on defamation are among the strictest in the world, the burden of proof is on the defendant. You will find lots of things published in USA that couldn’t be published in the UK.
It’s hardly surprising the reporting is more moderate 🙂
Pell (the sceptic) is the Vatican’s top financial official; the ‘Finance Director’.
His boss, the Pope, is a raving alarmist.
This is amazing!
“Fire Scott Pruitt ” is a badge of honor . He saved tax payers a billion $ in his first year and started draining the biggest swamp in Washington . They are entitled to their temper tantrum . Rant on .
People who worked with, worked for, worked in relation with, relayed the message of, or otherwise helped Rajendra Pachauri in any way should resign?!!
Scott Pruitt is a liberal target because he has been a very effective EPA administer. Liberals have no moral compass. For liberals, the means justify the ends. If Pruitt is successfully tarred with another’s transgressions, the leaders of the Democratic party have abandoned even an appearance of decency, civility or moral standards of behavior. This marks a desperate party in disarray. Thank God level-headed Dems have an alternative.
In Australia, we still have innocent until proven guilty. I have no idea what Pell did or did not do as much of the evidence was suppressed in the initial hearing but quite a few of the charges were dropped before he was sent to trial. He is a key target for the main stream media in Australia because he is a conservative. I don’t think there would be too many US politicians who would pass the test of never having met a criminal, especially someone coming out of Chicago given the nastiness of the Daley family and subsequent city hall regimes.