Scott Pruitt out at EPA

From the President, just a few minutes ago.

Of course the left is having a field day, HuffPo writes:

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s controversial tenure ended amid a whirlwind of ethics scandals and at least 18 federal investigations.

Full text of his resignation letter:

Mr. President, it has been an honor to serve you in the Cabinet as Administrator of the EPA. Truly, your confidence in me has blessed me personally and enabled me to advance your agenda beyond what anyone anticipated at the beginning of your Administration. Your courage, steadfastness and resolute commitment to get results for the American people, both with regard to improved environmental outcomes as well as historical regulatory reform, is in fact occurring at an unprecedented pace and I thank you for the opportunity to serve you and the American people in helping achieve those ends.

That is why it is hard for me to advise you I am stepping down as Administrator of the EPA effective as of July 6. It is extremely difficult for me to cease serving you in this role first because I count it a blessing to be serving you in any capacity, but also, because of the transformative work that is occurring. However, the unrelenting attacks on me personally, my family, are unprecedented and have taken a sizable toll on all of us.

My desire in service to you has always been to bless you as you make important decisions for the American people. I believe you are serving as President today because of God’s providence. I believe that same providence brought me into your service. I pray as I have served you that I have blessed you and enabled you to effectively lead the American people. Thank you again Mr. President for the honor of serving you and I wish you Godspeed in all that you put your hand to.

Your Faithful Friend,

Scott Pruitt

528 thoughts on “Scott Pruitt out at EPA

  1. Pruitt became a lightning rod. If Wheeler can do the same good job, maybe that is for the good.

    • I think that’s the decision that Trump must have reached – getting rid of distractions before the midterms. I will miss Pruitt, loved watching him drive the left crazy.

    • Anybody will become a lightning rod if they get between the left and power.
      Even if they have to invent the charges out of whole cloth.

      • “Anybody will become a lightning rod”

        And yet WUWT has that silly “we respect real names more than handles” policy

        • The only thing I can say about this is, 33 billion dollars to a state sponsor of terror whose presidents get cheers going of, “death to America”. You can’t even come close to that.

          • It doesn’t make up for what Scott did and look at the way he was forced out also. I would say it’s pretty good traditional media vetting. It’s just too bad it doesn’t work the other way around.

        • You can bet the “corruption” was manufactured, as the social-marxists regularly do against opponents.

          • Do you have any evidence of Pruitt’s guilt, Chris?

            I didn’t think so. You are just speculating, aren’t you.

          • Of course I do, Tom. If you would use Google, you would have it too. Here is one I already posted:

            A $100K discount on a $400K house is massive. Especially in an appreciating market, when the house was bought for $400K one year earlier. Oh, and her employer, a lobbying firm, covered the loss. Gee, kinda sounds suspicious.

            There’s his $50/night for a room in DC at a house owned by a lobbyist friend. Now, if Pruitt was paying $50/night x 30, or $1500 per month, that would be fine. But no, only on the nights he stayed there. That’s way under market value.

            There is his insistence on flying first class, which has been well documented. Business class I can understand if he is concerned about getting bothered by citizens, but first class?

            There is the extremely expensive remodeling for his offices. And when challenged on it, he shamefully threw his staff under the bus. As if his staff is going to do that without his direction. Here is a more complete list:

          • Chris – Your post alleges a few hundred thousand dollars of unsubstantiated accusations, in the same town where the Clinton’s took hundreds of millions.

            Question – what did YOU write about the Clinton’s graft and where? References required.

            Nothing? Quelle surprise!

          • I imagine that what he spends on housing for his job is at least tax deductible, if not a reimbursable expense from EPA. So, you complain if he saves taxpayers money, and if he costs taxpayers money. That looks pretty much to me as a Catch 22 situation where you get to whine either way.

          • ‘Tin foil’ hats again. You need to expand your vocabulary.
            Of course, that might require an original thought.

          • No. Her’s and Bill’s reputations for corruption were well earned.
            (Kinda reminds me of this:

            A Reply to Simon’s:
            “So you think the Clintons are corrupt? If so is that fabricated by the right?”)

          • I viewed this video about the “Clinton murders” – I wrote an American friend – an ex-Marine and said “Do you believe any of this?” I am awaiting his reply.

            Other informed opinions are requested.

          • Well Alan …. it IS rather interesting that Hillary just happened to show up in AR the evening of Vince Fosters death, and just happened to show up at the Rose Law Firm, with secret service goons, who cleared the place, where they removed a lot of files and info, that hasn’t been seen since, but is know to exists.


            [AR = Arkansas, US abbreviation. The Rose Law firm is headquartered in Arkansas. .mod]

          • The Clinton’s are definitely corrupt. We may get more insight into the Clinton’s corruption when we get the report on their Clinton Foundation and on Hillary’s illegal handling of State Department emails.

            And then there is the issue of Hillary and Bill using her position at the State Department to sell American uranium to the Russians, for which she and Bill were paid hansomely by those involved: Approximately $145 million to the Clinton Foundation and $500,000 for a speech by Bill..

            And I recall that the Clinton’s stole tens of thousands of dollars worth of furnishings and other things from the White House when they left Office in 2000.

            And the Clinton’s sold the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House for monetary gain.

            I could go on and on and on.

          • The furnishings accusation is false. The Uranium story has been debunked a dozen times. But hey, Tom, keep living in the past and bringing up stories from 20 years ago.


            “The claim, however disputed, has echoes of a similar controversy that dogged the Clintons when they left the White House in 2001 and took $190,000 worth of gifts with them. Some who gave the gifts said they were intended for the White House, including $28,000 of gifts given to the National Park Service for the White House’s personal collection, according to The Washington Post.

            The flap eventually led to the Clintons returning $28,000 in gifts and paying for $86,000 of gifts themselves, according to an ABC News report at the time.”

            end excerpt

            The Clinton’s are moral degenerates.

            And maybe we will get some insight into whether Hillary stole things from the State Department when the report of her unlawful handling of State Department emails comes out.

          • And you specifically said “no furniture” was involved, so I submit this for your edification:


            “And one Steve Mittman from New York gave him two sofas, an easy chair and ottoman worth $19,900.

            The problem was, Mittman and a few others included on the list said they never intended their gifts to go to the Clintons. They thought they were donating to the White House itself as part [of] a major remodeling project in 1993.”

            end excerpt

        • First of all there has to be some proof of corruption. So far there is nothing but allegations. You are assuming too much that is not in evidence.

          And considering the political climate we are in and the lack of morals on the radical Left, I wouldn’t be surprised if these charges against Pruitt are all trumped up with no substance.

          A person, even a conservative, should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

          If Pruitt has done wrong, then he should pay for it. But so far there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

          Time will tell.

          • Pruitt is a political hack. The first thing he should have done was to order a full review of the EPA CO2 endangerment finding (which is full of errors), followed by an order to rework the finding, suspend the Clean Power Plan until a new finding was finished. But this guy was simply unable to function on that job. Trump has had lousy picks and this is showing.

        • That’s some kind of measure of folks here. You’re with them, agree with their ludicrous arguments against science, and they down vote you because you’re against corruption.

    • Pruitt thought that changing the EPA did not involve personal and family risk. This is clearly not so. Anyone who wants to “drain the swamp” must be prepared to put their family at risk. If not, don’t take the job.

        • This is nothing to do with “draining the swamp” which refers to financial corruption of politicians. This is about cleaning out political corruption of an administrative agency.

        • Oh please. just stop, you’re embarrassing yourself with that post and its false innuendo.

      • OMG he was the swamp. Swilling using the taxpayers money. Worst appointment in political history.

          • Hey Hunter, you are truly delusional if you don’t acknowledge that Pruitt was so ethically compromised it was ridiculous. Perhaps you don’t care that he was, so that’s on you.

          • It really is fascinating how leftists can only see corruption when it’s on the other side.
            In fact their eye sight is so good that they can even see corruption that doesn’t exist.

            Need I remind you of Obama’s EPA chief who was caught lying to congress and used an alternate name on her EPA e-mail account in order to avoid FOIA requests?
            Nobody on the left thought either of those things was worth getting excited over.

          • ‘she resigned over, as she should have. Duh’

            Yeah, funny how that was buried in the press and she was sent out with great laurels by Obama, once she’d done what she was put there to do, and then replaced by a woman who did the same thing.

          • Chris, you actually believe any of the refuge in the media? How funny and childishly naive.

          • The fact that you call Fox “ultra conservative” shows you have no clue what you are talking about.

          • Yeah, you’re right. For someone like you who is living on the fringe with Alex Jones, Fox is downright mainsteam.

          • Ha! As if you ever had an original thought in your life, Chris.
            Anybody ever notice how Progressive ‘thought’ is lockstep – with no deviation whatsoever? None ALLOWED.
            It really isn’t even necessary for you to post here, Chris – if I want your opinion, I’ll just see what’s being fed to you by the Huffington Post on any given day – which is basically nothing but projection based on reinforcing and justifying personal bigotries, supported by the bobble-headed marching brooms.

          • Ree, are you saying Fox is not right wing? Really? Clearly you don’t watch it. Granted they have a couple of neutral people worth listening to… Shep Smith, Bret Baier, but try watching Hannity without an eye patch on.

          • Chris, if you read carefully the Foxnews article, it shows that Pruitt was not prepared for the scrutiny he would get in Washington. Possibly this was his mistake.

            There were a lot of allegations and it was wise for Trump and Pruitt to step down. Any way, he started a good work and it will be continued.

            Sometimes you are winning in midst of loosing.

            The pendulum swings back and Trump is winning. As a newcomer in Washington, he will learn and achieve a lot.

            And this I am writing as a former German Green and still an environmentalist.

          • Johannes S. Herbst

            We are all environmentalists here Johannes.

            Well, except for the alarmist posters who contend renewables are the holy grail, and condemn CO2 as a pollutant. Pruitt fell prey to these zealots who adopt smear and harassment as political tools of choice.

      • When you’re up to your ass in alligators, it’s easy to forget that the initial objective was to drain the swamp

    • Wheeler used to lobby for at least one coal company and has basically worked in the Swamp for years. The Left is fearful (ref. NYT article) he’ll be much more effective than Pruitt.
      Maybe Trump will appoint Tim Ball? Perhaps James Delingpole? Better would be Mark Steyn since he’d provide much needed humor to the Swamp.

      • Getting stuff done in the halls of government is not nearly as easy as it looks. I really respect Ball, Delingpole, and Steyn, but they would get chomped up and spat out.

          • A mess like Pruitt? So you agree Pruitt was stupid to rort the system thinking there would not be consequences? He also thought he could abuse the environment without consequences to his abuse.
            Just a stupid ignorant man through and through!

        • Very true. As Sowell said:

          “Much of what is called ‘public service’ is make-work for people who have degrees but no skills that would get them the kind of money and importance they feel entitled to in the marketplace.”

          Threaten that and you will be lucky to survive.

    • Pruitt quit because Trump didn’t put boots on the ground to protect him and his family from the threats and harassment. Unless Trump smartens up and protects his people who are doing a good job he’s not going be able to get good people like Pruitt. He’ll end with do nothings like Sessions and that head of the education department who do nothing because they don’t want to put up with what Pruitt did, until he finally has enough and quit.

      • Pruitt was in legal and physical danger from the beginning. He tried bullet proofing his vehicle, assigning a security detail 7/24 for himself and his family, renting an unknown condo etc etc. All this was about security. When he could not get the state to pay for this he got inventive.

        The left, Gaia zealots and national socialists are quite prepared to promote and incite harm. Trump is not in a position to increase security for his department heads outside of the White House.

        If Pruitt thinks by quitting, attacks will cease, he is in for a shock. He supported Trump and will be pursued for life.

        • Sadly, I believe you are correct. The Gaia lunatics are active on this thread as well.

          • Nah, just the folks who point out Pruitt’s corruption. What, do you refer to anything you disagree with as Gaia lunatics? You might want to expand your vocabulary.

        • My local radio station has reported that Pruitt had ten times as many death threats aimed at him as any other EPA administrator and that’s why he needed more security.

          • Higher security is fine. What does that have to do with spending 10s of thousands of dollars on an office remodel? Or spending $50/night to stay in a room of a house owned by a lobbyist, when the going rate is at least $100 if not $150? Or insisting of first class when good security is just as possible in business class?

          • I’m compelled to let Chris have his moment, Pruitt seemed like a conservative’s kinda guy as OK AG. Some of what he did may be defensible, but some stories, not denied, are examples of petty corruption. Counter examples of Dem corruption are useless, Chris will just cite another story of something Pruitt did (defensible or not, it all sounds bad), and Chris is enjoying this tarring a bit too much.

            Chris is very predictable, this is a bad story for the enemy of progressives so he will harp on it. Predictability would be great for CliSci but in a comment string, boring.

    • I have previously described Pruitt as a “loser”
      because he refused to publicly refute
      the junk science house of cards “foundation”
      that created the fairy tale
      of a coming climate change catastrophe.

      I now add the description “crook”.

      I am thrilled to see him go.

      Anyone under so much scrutiny
      who wastes the taxpayers’ money so often,
      and hides meetings from FOIA requests,
      is a crook.

      If he talked with fossil fuel industry representatives,
      and tried to hide that fact, I can only wonder
      why he’d try to hide that. Do we want an EPA head
      who talks ONLY with environmental activists?

      Pruitt was part of the swamp even if his climate
      views were “lukewarmer” (I guess they were).

      My climate change blog:

    • Here in the swamp, it is an interesting situation. Every single other cabinet member is at least a $10 millionaire, if not much more. Pruitt’s total net worth was $400k or so, based on disclosure docs.

      DC culture is fascinating sometimes, such as going out to eat with NGO’s. It’s hard to keep up with one’s contemporaries when they don’t think about dropping $250 on a dinner for 2, and you have pull up your banking app to see if you should choose take-out or Chili’s. In many ways, I feel sorry for him; no wonder he was looking for sweetheart deals on rooms to rent.

      Note well, that many of the people in the EPA bureaucracy he manages likely have total net worth greater than him. I know a couple of mid-career Federal employees that are multiples higher than that. (And let’s not freak-out on out-of-control salaries or benefits… these folks could easily get 150% their salary in the private sector, and are just great savers.)

      • The first “scandal” I saw about Pruitt was his spending within EPA budget, then miss-use of tax funded travel. Rental deals outside of that I don’t see as scandal or anyone’s business, as long as he is not being “bought”. The already initiated investigations will find whether or not quid pro quo was involved. Since he is leaving most likely he will be cleared, had he stayed then DoJ would burn his life down and go after his children.

        • I guess the Left doesn’t want the Right to emulate their spending practices. If the Right did, then the Left couldn’t tell them apart and would get confused

        • Total rubbish 2hotel9. He was a solid, honest administrator, trying to reform a corrupted EPA, and he did wonders. These investigations are ridiculous; it takes time to drain the swamp. Good men sometimes cannot bear to see their family threatened and suffering. Such are the attacks by the Leftist climate/ environmental hateful mobs.

          • you got to admit it sounds like Obama and his Chicago house, so two wrongs don’t make a right, but two rights make a plane.

          • Shrillary couldn’t account for 6 BILLION dollars in the State Dept funds when she was working there. Oh well, don’t worry about it, the situation simply disappeared from the news. It’s Shrillary, anyway — what does it matter now? And the obomination in the White House at the time vouched for her.

            I don’t want to challenge your math Chris, but what percentage of 6 billion is 100K?

          • Hey Beng, I have no clue what right wing nut job site you got your $6B from, since you didn’t bother to provide supporting links.

          • But you are happy the crooked on the right (for the record I don’t believe the right are any more crooked than the left. Look at Robert Mueller, straight as an arrow) get to blow taxpayer money. Hypocrites.

          • Hey Simon, did you criticize Trey Gowdy for blowing through $20M in taxpayer money on 7 separate Benghazi investigations? And gee, maybe a criminal investigation is not the same thing as requesting a $27,000 bullet proof desk.

          • Don’t tell me, tell DoJ. As for the budget spending, what do you need new office furniture for every year? A new chair I can see, $46,000 in total refit simply because you are new in that office? Really? Reform the EPA, and all other USG agencies. STOP PISSING AWAY MY MONEY ON CRAP THAT IS NOT NEEDED!!!! That is a major part of reforming ALL USG agencies. Stop defending waste, corruption and graft.

          • When you consider that Hilarity had already bought a house that would then be rented and paid for by the US Government agencies as she moved into the White house, all nice pre planning and enhancement of the Clinton Legacy, except she didn’t win, and now will have to pay off the property in the normal way like other folks have to that can’t put their hands in other peoples pockets.

          • I think I read the other day that the Clinton Global Initiative was being shut down for lack of funding… I guess it didn’t take long for the “Philanthropists” to get the message that there was no longer any “play” for the “pay”. The fact that the press doesn’t cover this story wall-to-wall says everything any person who says they respect truth needs to know.

            THE PRESS, as we grew up knowing, IS DEAD. It has become PRAVDA.

          • Oh, not just them, they are just a glaringly obvious example. Lots of career politicians and bureaucrats that evade prosecution simply because of where they are politically.

  2. From what little I have seen, Wheeler intends to continue much the same policies. Still, a damn pity Pruitt is out.

    • Just why is that “a damn pity”? He is good riddance – not, of course, because of his policies but rather because of his ethics. He is really out of the same drawer as Trump : basically fine policies – but, for a person in high office, ordinary human behaviour and morals rotten.

        • Well, lets see a show of hands. Who thinks it was OK for him to use taxpayer paid staff to seek a Chik-Fill-A franchise for his wife?

          • Did I just hear the “lots of other people have done bad things and got away with it” defense?

            And did you just judge me on the basis of whether or not there was an outcry from other people about something else?

            Whether or not Scott Pruitt was corrupt in no way depends on whether other people have done bad things, or who reacted in what way to them.

            If you were the head of the EPA, would you have used taxpayer paid staff to seek a Chick-Fill-A franchise for your wife? Do you think that is acceptable?

            Perhaps you’d like to take it in turns listing things bad things that other people have done, and demanding that the other party condemn them? We could do that forever, and it still wouldn’t change anything about whether or not what Pruitt did was acceptable.

          • Philip, your —

            Ques 1: No

            Ques 2: I’m judging you on the basis of whether *you* called out Gina McCarthy, as you’ve called out Scott Pruitt. Did you personally protest against Gina McCarthy’s abuses? If so, where?

            Ques 3 and 4: No and No.

            Par. 4: My point is not about Scott Pruitt, Philip. It’s about you and your ethical consistency.

          • Pat:

            outcry: “a strong expression of public anger and disapproval”

            How did your surmise anything about me from the lack of outcry over those events?

          • I invited you to demonstrate a prior equivalent protest against Gina McCarthy’s corrupt and criminal practices, Philip. You’ve now evaded that invitation.

            Perhaps you hadn’t known the extent of McCarthy’s criminality. You could have posted so, and gone on to write that, now that you do know, you decry that, too. But you didn’t do that, either.

            You haven’t much ground left to stand on, there at the edge of the hypocrisy cliff, Philip.

          • Says the man who thinks he can surmise something about my ethics on the basis of what other people have or haven’t done.

            You started by surmising that I have no ethical qualms about corruption on the basis of the lack of public outcry, and having already done that, you now ask me to prove otherwise.

            You made an allegation without evidence, on the basis of the actions of others, and now you want me to provide evidence against your unsupported allegation.

            Do I really have to explain how that is all backwards?

          • I invited you — you, Philip, not “others” — to demonstrate your ethical repudiation of the larger crimes and offenses of Gina McCarthy and Lisa Jackson, Philip.

            You’ve now evaded doing so twice, across several posts and two days.

            It’s no stretch to surmise from your extended and specific silence that your criticism of Pruitt is not about ethics but about political opportunism.

          • You said in your first response to me:

            “Ah, yes, so much worse than Gina McCarthy’s criminal incompetence in causing the Gold King Mine spill and the $750,000 McCarthy spent on international travel in three years.”

            OK, so you’ve made a statement using sarcasm to suggest that what Gina McCarthy did was worse. OK, you’re entitled to your opinion.

            Then you go on to say:

            “No outcry over that, was there Philip. From which we can surmise that you have little ethical qualms about corruption per se, and your criticism of Scott Pruitt is mere political opportunism.”

            Hang on a second… you just made a judgement about me. On the basis of the lack of outcry. Before actually asking me what I think about McCarthy.

            You don’t know what I think about McCarthy, and you’ve already judged me on the basis of what I think about McCarthy!

            If you’re willing to acknowledge that you made a judgement about me without basis, then I will happily tell you what I think about McCarthy.

            What I won’t do is allow you to pretend that your initial allegation was reasonable. You explicitly say that your are surmising about me on the basis of the lack of outcry. That isn’t possible.

          • That’s three times you’ve avoided repudiating the larger crimes and offenses of Gina McCarthy and Lisa Jackson, Philip.

            Taking refuge behind dictionary usage provides you small cover.

            Outcry: n. 1a. a loud cry.

            My surmise isn’t about what you think, Philip. It’s taken from your behavior here, and the ethical inference that follows.

          • Regardless of which definition you use, you have no idea what I think or have said about it. You decided that I don’t care about ethics on the basis of what I have said or thought, without knowing what I have said or thought.

          • Heck, try it your way:

            “No loud cry over that, was there Philip.”

            I don’t know? Was there?

            That’s still got nothing to do with me. You could have started by asking what I think about McCarthy, but you started with the allegation.

          • That’s five times, now, you’ve avoided an opportunity to criticize Gina McCarthy or Lisa Jackson.

            So, let’s make it explicit. Was it worse, do you think, that Gina McCarthy ignored prior warnings about a likely Gold King Mine blowout before EPA workers blew it out in fact, or that Scott Pruitt asked about a Chick-fil-A concession for his wife?

            And Lisa Jackson, was it worse that she deceptively used a private email account under a false name — Richard Windsor — in that way avoiding FOIA inquiries and Congressional oversight, both, or that Scott Pruitt asked about a Chick-fil-A concession for his wife?

          • If you need to ask what I think about McCarthy, then how were you able to determine that I don’t care about ethics? Why didn’t you ask before making your judgement?

            That’s five times now you’ve asked for the evidence you need to be able to make a judgement, when you’ve already made the judgement!

            You simply wont acknowledge that you judged me first, and asked the question you need the answer to, to be able to judge me, second.

            Exactly what did you base your original judgement on? Yah know, the one you made before you asked me what I think about McCarthy? The one where you judged me on the basis of the lack of outcry?

            If you are willing to acknowledge that there was no way for you to make a judgement about whether I cared about ethics on the basis of whether or not there was outcry about what McCarthy did, I give you my word that I’ll tell you what I think about McCarthy.

          • Hmmmn. And, since the basic McCarthy accusations against the high-level communists, spies, and communist sympathizers in the Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower Executive and State Departments were proven right by subsequent Russian documents and interviews, what does that make your claims about McCarthy actually mean? What does your extreme predjudice against today’s efforts at ridding the US government of corruption and foreign influence buying BY outside governments mean – noting that charges of “foreign influence” last ONLY as long as that means only the designated democrat-national socialist candidate gets her hundreds of millions of foreign money!

            Oh. Were you talking about the other McCarthy? Today’s latest eco-illogical “hero” – The former head of the national socialist party’s EPA?

          • You could well have immediately replied with a criticism of McCarthy and Jackson, Philip, made then or at some prior time. That would have put paid to my inference. But you didn’t.

            I asked you provide or express an equivalent upset over the greater criminal excesses of the prior EPA directors as you had over Scott Pruitt. But you have not done.

            Not only have you provided none, but you have also avoided every opportunity here to express any criticism at all about their behavior. Your silence is eloquent.

            Go ahead and have the last word, Philip.

          • Lol, you’re never going to admit that it was unreasonable to surmise that I don’t care about ethics based on the lack of outcry about something, and doing so not knowing what I thought about that thing, and only then asking me what I thought about that thing.

            I will however tell you what I think about the issues you raise about McCarthy and Jackson.

            You said:

            “Ah, yes, so much worse than Gina McCarthy’s criminal incompetence in causing the Gold King Mine spill and the $750,000 McCarthy spent on international travel in three years.”

            Lets start with the travel bit.



            It is tricky to compare travel expenses across various EPA administrations.

            In total, the EPA spent about $731,000 on McCarthy’s trips and $464,000 on previous EPA administrator Lisa Jackson’s trips, according to a document the EPA press office sent reporters in March. The figures lump together both travel and security costs combined for all travelers, not just the administrator.

            Those totals encompass the two ex-administrators’ entire tenures heading the EPA. McCarthy was in office three and a half years, and Jackson served four years.

            Pruitt, on the other hand, had a significantly higher price tag despite entering office in February 2017. An EPA official told the Associated Press “total security costs approached $3 million when pay is added to travel expenses.”

            McCarthy’s trips cost on average less than $120,000 — the price tag a Washington Post report put on Pruitt’s June 2017 trip to Italy, where he visited the U.S. Embassy in Rome and took a private tour of the Vatican before attending a meeting of G-7 environment ministers in Bologna.”


            “And The Washington Free Beacon’s Elizabeth Harrington dug up some more context: President Obama’s EPA poohbahs traveled just as large.

            Lisa Jackson, EPA director from 2009 to 2013, racked up more than $332,000 on four overseas trips. Gina McCarthy, the chief in 2013-17, spent nearly $630,000 on flights and security in her 10 international travels.

            None of which made headlines, even on the web — though their yearly average bill was a bit above Pruitt’s one-year total.

            Maybe Pruitt should pass on the junkets and save the taxpayers some money, but he’s not costing them any more than the Democrats who held the same job.”

            “McCarthy spent $629,743 on airfare and security for international trips between 2013 and 2016.

            Internal EPA documents show costs for trips to Ghana ($68,382), Peru ($45,140), Tokyo ($74,738), Paris ($41,321), Dubai ($90,368), Tokyo ($67,703), Florence ($56,193), Vancouver ($62,247), Vietnam ($68,268), and Beijing ($55,385).

            Jackson spent $332,113 on airfare and security detail for just four international trips.

            Between 2009 and 2012, Jackson spent $64,963 for trips to Tel Aviv; $59,950 to Rio de Janeiro; $51,436 to Montreal; and $155,764 to Beijing, Guangzhou, and Shanghai.

            In all, the Obama EPA administrators spent $961,856 on international travel, or 7.75 times more than Pruitt.”

            7.75 times as much! But they were EPA heads from 2009 to 2017, 8 years. They took more trips, but the average cost of each trip was below Pruitt’s.

            If you have a look through this thread you’ll find that while there are many things Pruitt did that I object to, I’ve said nothing about travel. In that position international flights with staff and security are necessary, and will cost a lot of money.

            To really get into the necessary details to assess how reasonable the spending was you have to look at whether the trips were for a useful purpose, and whether or not it was necessary to spend as much as was spent to make them happen.

            While Pruitt spent on average more per trip, he did have higher security costs. Was the extra money for security necessary? Were the trips for a proper purpose? I honestly don’t know enough of the details to condemn his behavior there, or to condemn Jackson and McCarthy.

            If those travel spending figures are something that someone who cares about ethics would object to, then do you condemn Pruitt’s spending on the same basis? He managed to spend about the same amount per year, but for less flights at a greater average price per flight. Are you being consistent in your judgement of ethics on this issue?

            That’s the end of part 1! I’ve got to get back to work. I’ll have a crack at the other two issues when I get a chance.

          • My view of Pruitt, Jack, is that he was a much better EPA administrator than Gina McCarthy.

            Lisa Jackson, her predecessor, sent thousands of emails on EPA business using a fake email account under the name Richard Windsor in an attempt to avoid Congressional oversight and FOIA scrutiny. That is criminal behavior.

            It seems Scott was better than Lisa, too.

            None of that is a “defense” of Pruitt. It’s just an exposure of the ethical hypocrisy of his partisan critics.

      • Good, you see the ugliness of what they are – you’re on the way to understanding it’s ugly what they do.

  3. The agenda has been set, the agency just needs a competent manager. By all accounts Wheeler is a good manager who understands the current goals completely. What baffles me is how someone like Pruitt could make so many bonehead moves that were distracting from the core agenda.

    • so many bonehead moves

      Agreed. I’ll guess this pattern is a character flaw that should have been found prior to his appointment. One does not become a bonehead at some age or appointment-related tipping point.
      Now Andrew Wheeler will be vetted in public. Will be interesting to watch.

      • It would be nice if he could be slipped in under the flak of the up-coming replacement of Kennedy at the Supreme Court.

      • I’d be willing to bet that nothing he did was unusual, but the mostly liberal media just dug and dug and dug. But, he should have been aware that would happen, and kept his nose clean.

      • Jim,
        Nothing he did was unusual inside the beltway. But because of his inexperience, he didn’t cover his tracks well enough. So this battle was won by the “destroy Trump at all costs” crowd. The outcome of the war is a different matter though.

    • Wheeler won’t last
      His old FB posts have been dug up where he called Trump a bully and said he was a bad businessman

      • At least the democrats will be behind him… maybe Trump will get him approved.

  4. I am disappointed at the man, and at the consequences of his actions. It’s not just what you do, but how you do it. Pruitt messed up on the “how” part.

    Now can we see a list of Al Gore’s expenses ?

    • It seemed to me that one of the first things that Pruitt did upon taking office was to become comfortable as a functional part of “The Swamp.” His personal ethics seemed to ‘take a hike” anytime he needed to act to his or his family’s personal advantage with actions that were detrimental to the American public.

      “Borrowed” from an NPR posting on line:

      Ethics questions and investigations

      While Pruitt’s environmental policies were controversial, it was his spending and attempts to use the position for personal gain that resulted in more than a dozen investigations.

      Several patterns were quickly established, including unusually high spending on his office and travel and continually mixing his personal and professional lives.

      The EPA spent about $43,000 on a soundproof phone booth for the administrator’s office, and The Washington Post reported that Pruitt spent thousands of dollars on first-class plane tickets. The New York Times reported Pruitt’s chief of security proposed that Pruitt spend $70,000 on two desks, one of them bulletproof. The desks were not purchased.

      Pruitt cited security threats as one reason for the first-class travel, and he spent tens of thousands of dollars on a publicly-funded, 24-hour security detail, which his office said was necessary to protect him from threats. Pruitt’s security detail reportedly accompanied him on personal trips, including a family vacation to Disneyland. In August 2017, the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General began investigating Pruitt’s travel and security expenses and has widened the investigation multiple times.

      Pruitt aides also sought to protect their boss from questions, and help his wife pursue business deals, according to New York Times and Washington Post analyses of thousands of internal emails released to the Sierra Club under the Freedom of Information Act.

      According to CNN, Pruitt broke with a tradition set by past EPA administrators and kept a secret, non-public calendar to hide meetings with industry representatives and controversial figures. Just minutes before Trump’s tweet announcing Pruitt’s resignation, the New York Times reported that a Pruitt staffer who had questioned the deletions had been fired after doing so. At public appearances, EPA staff often told reporters and citizens that the administrator would only answer pre-planned questions, the Times reported.

      • not that there might be validity to that information, but your sources are as credible as slick willy. CNN hasn’t a shred of decency or honesty and neither does NPR with their lull you to sleep propaganda.
        “it’s ok little sheep, daddy is here to take care of you, go to sleep, go to sleep” – that is what I hear whenever NPR is randomly within earshot. Then again, my BS detector is finely tuned.

        • BS detector? No, it’s just dissonance between reality and what you believe – that’s what you are feeling.

      • Last time I flew in the US I took one look at economy and upgraded to first class. Seriously airlines treat US air passengers worse than anyone else on the planet, I’ve never seen people packed in so tight.

        • I drive 800 km a day while in the US rather than take a single domestic US flight, be it economy or first class. The only thing they don’t use yet on boarding people or in vetting them in security yet is cattle prods.

        • Eric
          May I therefore warn you off e v e r e v e r travelling on Southern Railways [Perhaps better known as Southern Failways] into London from ‘the South’.
          Several years of unadulterated Schi5t – I retired last year – oh the relief of stress!! – and, besides the directly Southern problems, today, NOTHING moved into London Victoria [Second busiest station in the UK], until about 1500.
          Railtrack problem – not Southern – but . . . . . . . . .
          Problems likely to wash over to tomorrow early rush hour we are now advised.

          Optimism is not a survival trait on Southern.
          Getting a bus can be.

          This quote might be of interest –
          “Michael Scriven said he tried unsuccessfully to board eight trains to London Bridge at East Croydon station and was “the most sardined I’ve ever been” when he eventually managed to get on one.”

          Brother, I am glad I have retired.
          I now go to London if I want to [if services are half-decent!!].

          And – yes – I accept that some budget airlines are – ahem – economic with the space, but having experienced Southern on bad days, with respect, if flying you usually get a seat. on Southern, rush-half-day; about 30% do.

          Has the RSPCA investigated? I have not seen that they have [maybe my omission . . . .].

          As noted, retired, and not, now, using Southern regularly.
          PS Do n o t ask them about their ‘New’ timetable.

          • I hear you, I used to commute into London from the South West, upgraded to first class on that commute as well, just to get a seat…

      • “…..a tradition set by past EPA administrators ”

        Ya mean like the “tradition” to use an alias to hide communications with activist groups?
        I didn’t see CNN and NPR complain about the “Richard Winston”, aka Lisa Jackson’s trick to avoid FOIA requests.

      • “…According to CNN, Pruitt broke with a tradition set by past EPA administrators and kept a secret, non-public calendar to hide meetings with industry representatives and controversial figures…”

        So he “broke with tradition,” lol. At least one past EPA administrator used private and fake email addresses to keep communications with lobby groups and controversial figures secret…

        • I don’t see why he should need to hide such meetings at all. And if it annoyed CNN and the Sierra Club then I would have trumpeted it from the rooftops.

      • According to CNN?!???!! Your sources are extremely suspect ThomasJK. What a load of horrible garbage intended to ruin his reputation, and destroy his life. It worked, he quit.

        • Some text from the CNN report in question, which never uses the term “tradition”. They do however mention that it may be illegal.

          ” (CNN)EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and his aides have kept “secret” calendars and schedules to overtly hide controversial meetings or calls with industry representatives and others, according to a former EPA official who is expected to soon testify before Congress. A review of EPA documents by CNN found discrepancies between Pruitt’s official calendar and other records.
          EPA staffers met routinely in Pruitt’s office to “scrub,” alter or remove from Pruitt’s official calendar numerous records because they might “look bad,” according to Kevin Chmielewski, Pruitt’s former deputy chief of staff for operations, who attended the meetings.

          A CNN review which compared Pruitt’s public calendar with internal EPA schedules and emails shows more than two dozen meetings, events or calls were omitted from his public calendar.

          Chmielewski said that some interactions were intentionally removed from Pruitt’s calendar after they occurred, such as meetings in June 2017 between Pruitt and Cardinal George Pell, who was charged weeks later with multiple historical charges of sexual offenses. Pell has pleaded not guilty.
          “We would have meetings what we were going to take off on the official schedule. We had at one point three different schedules. One of them was one that no one else saw except three or four of us,” Chmielewski told CNN. “It was a secret … and they would decide what to nix from the public calendar.”

          Chmielewski says he was forced to leave the EPA in February after raising questions about Pruitt’s spending and management.
          If the allegations are true, the practice of keeping secret calendars and altering or deleting records of meetings could violate federal law as either “falsifying records” or hiding public records, according to legal experts interviewed by CNN.
          “If somebody changed, deleted, scrubbed a federal record with the intent of deceiving the public or intent of deceiving anybody, it could very well be a violation of federal law,” said Larry Noble, a former general counsel at the Federal Election Commission.

          Chmielewski said Pruitt’s aides would print sections of the private calendar containing details of events, gather around a table, sometimes in Pruitt’s office, and decide what would be omitted or altered on the public calendar. He said this often occurred under Pruitt’s direction.

          CNN has reached out to EPA repeatedly for comment on the allegations.
          Chmielewski’s description of hiding controversial events from the public appears to be supported by discrepancies between Pruitt’s public calendar posted on the EPA’s website and internal schedules, emails and travel itineraries that have been released by the agency in response to public records requests and lawsuits filed by the Sierra Club and Environmental Integrity Project.
          While some of the omitted events CNN uncovered consisted of meetings with other government officials — such as a lunch with Kellyanne Conway — others involved meetings with industry executives and attorneys.

          For example, Pruitt’s public EPA schedule shows that his final meeting for the day of April 26, 2017, was with Australia’s environmental minister, but an internal calendar shows that later the same day he attended a dinner at the BLT Prime restaurant inside Trump International Hotel hosted by coal producer Alliance Resource Partners and its CEO, Joseph Craft.
          Craft, who donated $1 million to President Donald Trump’s inauguration and has given millions more to mostly Republican candidates and committees, has advocated for the rollback of former President Barack Obama’s coal-industry regulations.

          While Pruitt’s public calendar notes that he met with former Sen. Trent Lott in September 2017, his internal schedule shows that the meeting also included Anthony Chiarello, the then-CEO of shipping company TOTE. Chiarello and Pruitt discussed TOTE’s ships and their fuel sources, according to documents and a TOTE spokesperson.

          Seven of the undisclosed meetings involved individuals who were nominated or reportedly under consideration for EPA positions.
          CNN has repeatedly asked EPA officials about the allegations and why the EPA calendar omits some information shown in internal records. The agency has not returned CNN’s messages or calls.

          The EPA’s website with Pruitt’s calendar states that it “displays meetings with staff, stakeholders, elected officials, and others outside the Agency.”
          Chmielewski said some events were only recorded in a “secret” calendar and have not been made public in documents released by the EPA.
          In June 2017, Pruitt took a controversial trip to Italy that cost taxpayers $120,000. While there he dined with Cardinal Pell, a top Vatican official known for denying climate change who was then under investigation for claims of prior sexual offenses.
          The dinner never appeared on Pruitt’s official calendar. An EPA spokesperson previously said Pell was one of many at the dinner and that Pruitt was unaware the cardinal was coming there. Chmielewski says that is not true.
          “All of our time at the Vatican was spent with Cardinal Pell. Cardinal Pell was basically our host. I mean, that was who we were going to meet with,” Chmielewski said.

          He said that in addition to dinner, Pruitt had two additional meetings with Pell that have not been previously reported. One was a lunch with Pell. The other was part of a Vatican tour. Chmielewski said he witnessed Pell greet Pruitt when Pruitt arrived at the Vatican, which is also supported by an internal EPA itinerary that at the time of Pruitt’s arrival states, “Will meet Cardinal Pell.”
          About three weeks after the trip, Pell was charged in Australia with sexual assault offenses, and Pruitt’s aides decided to remove Pell’s name from the yet-to-be-released official EPA schedule, Chmielewski said.
          “Once we came back and the Cardinal was actually charged with the offenses, I alerted [top EPA staff] and that’s when it was basically taken off the schedule that we met with Cardinal Pell,” Chmielewski said. Pell has vigorously denied the charges.

          Chmielewski said EPA aides would disguise the details of some of Pruitt’s meetings or calls by labeling them “staff briefing” on his public schedule.
          On Oct 18 at 10:30 a.m., Pruitt’s official calendar states, “Staff Briefing.” But internal scheduling documents mark that time as “Meeting: Orange County Superfund Site,” and emails show private attorneys representing a local water district confirmed that they would attend the meeting, which was originally requested on their behalf by conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. Politico first reported that meeting. “

          • “They do however mention that it may be illegal”

            So the jury is still out.

            Come back and see us when the jury reaches a verdict.

          • They are addressing it as a legal issue, not just one of breaking with tradition.

            From above:

            “So he “broke with tradition,” lol”

      • Yeah, Obama never took pre planned questions from the media……HA, Ha, HA!

      • Amazing, apparently NPR think that assassins only work office hours. If Pruitt required extra security due to a large number of death threats, who in their right mind would expect that security to only be with him at the office during work hours? Of course they would go with him while on holidays, that’s what security does.

      • Thomas, looks like reality has just been downvoted again. It’s really alternative here on planet WUWT.

    • How pathetic. You’re reduced to bringing up Al Gore, who hasn’t been in office in 18 years.

      • How about his “no controlling legal authority” bit? he knew he did something wrong, but didn’t care.

    • I am reconsidering my stance of being “disappointed at the man, and at the consequences of his actions”, as I originally wrote.

      I realize that I have no benchmark to judge Pruitt’s spending habits. What are the standard practices of OTHER government officials ? Are they all clean spenders ? Are they being held to the same standards as Pruitt ? I don’t know. Now the whole thing is looking petty.

      How do any of Pruitt’s spending habits have anything to do with his job ? This is looking like a witch hunt now.

      Again, I want a detailed look at Al Gore’s spending habits and HIS deals. I want a look at all government officials’ spending habits and deals. What are the circumstances ? How is Pruitt so different in his attempt to find deals ?

      I withdraw my disappointment and replace it with curiosity to find out more.

      • Or even more current: Lisa Jackson. And who here really thinks that nobody in the Federal Government has off-calendar meetings?

      • “I withdraw my disappointment and replace it with curiosity to find out more.”

        Good! That’s the proper attitude to take.

    • ‘Now can we see a list of Al Gore’s expenses ?’

      That’s the sort of thing the press keeps suppressed, with the intent of providing the illusion of some kind of moral high ground for progressives – maintaining their bliss of ignorance, as well as sense of superiority.

      • If these kinds of spending accusations were being levied against all of Trump’s Cabinet members, a case could be made that it is a manufactured crisis. But it’s just one person, and that person had the same accusations levied when he was a government official in Oklahoma.

        • Pruitt was suing the EPA while he was Attorney General of Oklahoma so he had the same set of enemies while in Oklahoma and in Washington DC.

          That’s not to say that Pruitt is innocent or guilty, but he is innocent until proven guilty. That’s where we are right now, even though some people have already convicted him in their own minds.

          I’ll note that Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma voiced public misgivings about Pruitt after seeing all the different reports of corruption, but then Inhofe talked personally with Pruitt and said afterwards that he still had confidence in Pruitt. So apparently Inhofe doesn’t think there is any truth to the accusations.

  5. Aside from living like a character from the ancien regime, Pruitt was doing the dirty work to poison our drinking water and fouling the air… A complete creep and scoundrel…

    CO2 emissions are not pollution, but heavy metals in air and water ARE pollution… no one in his right mind would endorse such perfidy.

        • wrong.
          It is a bummer because I haven’t really seen much from you I disagree with, however, this is evidence folks here are just as guilty sometimes of echo-chambering, self-congratulation, and eating its own just like the left. Health issues aren’t a left/right paradigm thing, even if its been politicized as such.

          It doesn’t matter if Obama’s policies were no different, except that if Fluorides are not agenda number one to remove from the water supplies (since they are industrial waste couched as healthy), then it is important. We all know what a coward and puppet that man was, and we expect the opposition to be different? That is naïve.

          On one hand you folks recognize grand conspiracies (CAGW) and bad irreproducible research, but then completely dismiss the legitimate history of bought and paid science by ALCOR and other industrial giants to offload their poison onto the public.
          “Hmm, our aluminum by-product is harmful and can eat through concrete? Meh, get a few scientists to claim simply by passing over ones teeth it will prevent tooth decay”
          Those early studies have been disproven time and again and we know that fluoride damages the pineal gland. But no, that is just lefty science now eh? FCS. I love you guys but why must so many of you line right up along the false paradigm two-party talking points? It is rather disappointing.

          • “we know that fluoride damages the pineal gland. ”

            No, I was not aware of that. All I know is that I have my teeth tanks to Crest toothpaste. Please enlighten me on the dangers I face.

          • I was born during the 40s in a small town that was among the first to use fluoride in its drinking water. I rarely brushed my teeth until I started high school – (girls, you know). Now in my seventies, I still have never had a cavity. Yes, I know, it’s a very small sampling.

          • Virtually ALL dentists say that fluoride has resulted in a dramatic decrease in tooth decay over the past fifty years.

            My dentist prescribes a high-strength fluoride toothpaste to counteract the effects of dry mouth. Is he out to kill me?

            If you have actual published studies, complete with stats and their sources that demonstrate that fluoride concentrations in water supplies are harmful, put them here. Not estimates, not “suggest that”, not “consistent with” —-actual hard data. IOW real science.

            And can you explain why American lifespans have steadily increased over the years, even as fluoride use has become widespread?

            As for the observation that bags of sodium fluoride bags warn that it’s toxic, how about sitting down to a nice bag of sodium chloride and eating it? See how long it takes for you to stroke out.

            Ever hear the phrase, “the poison is in the dose”?

            Obviously not.

            Go chase some chemtrails, will you?

          • Toothpaste is 1000 ppm fluoride. Fluoridated water is about 4 ppm fluoride, or thereabouts. How could drinking the 4 ppm water POSSIBLY be helping you more than the 1000 ppm being scrubbed DIRECTLY onto your teeth??

            Water fluoridation is a scam.

          • honest liberty

            Well, that time must come when we disagree with someone. Thankfully its the nature of democracy to do so, without fear of repercussion.

            My experience with fluoridated water in the UK is that at 37, 23, and 19 years old, my kids haven’t a filling in their head, nor a tooth extracted.

            By the time I was 21 or so, my mouth was full of mercury, in the teeth that weren’t removed.

            My wife is a healthcare professional, indeed, she’s the head of a University healthcare department with 50 lecturers, including Phd qualified individuals reporting to her, and she has never heard of a problem with fluoride affecting the pineal gland, otherwise, our family would be drinking bottled water and brushing our teeth with Bicarbonate of Soda.

            Our National Health Service (NHS) provides health care to our community free at the point of treatment. Which means that, although we pay through a ‘tax’ (National Insurance) when we walk into a hospital, our healthcare is unconditional.

            That brings with it a great deal of scrutiny of the NHS, and were fluoride a problem, believe me, it would be plastered all over the national media.

        • Hotscot
          I ain’t throwing no hissy fit. I am throwing a party. Pruitt was an evil man. Good riddance.

          • And the right defines evil as anyone who gets between them and money. Which is why Pruitt was so poplar with those on the right who couldn’t care about the science or the environment. I’m just grateful he got found out before he could do too much more damage.

          • Nothing wrong with money. It’s what the greedy ones sacrifice to get it that causes problems.

          • Chris

            A report in the media, about a report in the media, over an alleged issue 15 years ago which, if corrupt, hasn’t been followed up.

            Tittle tattle.

          • HotScot – report in the media? No, facts. So if something that is corrupt is not followed up with prosecution, you are ok with that. My my my, you have quite the amoral compass.

          • And the right defines evil…the exact same way the left does
            …and we all know the left is so poor

          • Correct Simon. No one with brains is in favor of heavy metals or carcinogenic compounds in drinking water or the air… this is not a “Leftist position”… but it is opposed by Libertarian fanatics who think it’s the right of the rich and powerful to poison whom they wish to make a buck.

          • So posa, you actually are one of those idiots who believes that any level of contaminant will kill you.

          • Simon,
            You are so full of schitt you are not even in the ballpark.
            Clinton built a 9 figure Tammany Hall racket, selling gov favors ooenly.
            Obama raised 9 figures for his pist Presidency hobbies.
            Lefty bureaucrats use revolving doors to go suck off $payola at “NGOs” after passing regs to help the same.
            Eff off, lying dweeb.

          • Hunter
            Thank you for the kind words. But last time I looked Clinton wasn’t any part of the corruption running this country at this time. Pruitt on the other hand has been at the heart of it. Putting him in charge of the EPA was like making Charles Manson the Attorney General.

          • It really is fascinating how the left hates anyone who is more successful than they are.
            Then again, given the incompetence demonstrated by most on the left, just about everyone is more successful than they are.

          • Simon

            Good for you, enjoy your night and have one on me, although I suspect you’ll choke on it.

    • Ridiculous. No policy that Pruitt oversaw the undoing of had any noticeable effect on limiting pollution, they were federal land grabs.

      • Pruitt’s first attack was to cut enforcement of existing regs on acceptable toxins in water and the air… the next step was to go after the underlying legislation protecting the environment. I was around in the Fifties and remember how disgusting and obnoxious it was to get a face full of auto exhaust… in the cold weather it would hang on your clothes and skin…diesel exhaust from buses was especially pernicious… as late as the 80s European cars were still belching out fumes on folks in cafes…

        [You are required by site policy to use only one user_id/login_id while commenting. Chose one of the other (Sarastro92 or Posa) and stick with it please, or contact the site_owner off-line and explain the requirements for two id’s. .mod]

        • The levels being demanded by EPA were far below the levels proven to cause harm.
          I’m guessing that you don’t care how much other people are forced to pay, in order to provide imaginary levels of protection to you.

        • The EPA under Obama had pushed the regulatory levels of many substances down to or even below natural, background levels. It is literally impossible to push them any lower. The fact of the matter is that water and air pollution (not including non-pollutants like CO2) are at historic lows in the United States. We are already well into the point of diminishing returns on the cost versus benefit curve. The last couple of decades have been a power & money grab the the EPA; nothing more. You can continue to be a useful idiot if you wish, but when they are done destroying the “rich”, they will come for you next.

    • “poison our drinking water”

      That one had no hope of catching on. Parrot phrases have to be two words max. The best ones are one word like “climate”, said with great gravitas.

      Is there actually anyone out there who believes that an EPA head takes the job so he can poison drinking water?

    • The dose makes the poison.
      The left will only be satisfied with absolute purity of everything. (Except themselves)
      There comes a point where further reductions in levels have absolutely no impact on health but a huge impact on budgets.

      • where further reductions in levels have absolutely no impact on health but a huge impact on budgets.

        Indeed; like ionising radiation at doses below ~20 mGy.

      • The “elite” will only be satisifed with purity of control. The left will willingly follow along because the slogans make them feel so good about themselves. Their children will suffer the consequences.

      • How much arsenic would you and your family care to ingest?

        [You are required by site policy to use only one user_id/login_id while commenting. Chose one of the other (Sarastro92 or Posa) and stick with it please, or contact the site_owner off-line and explain the requirements for two id’s. .mod]

        • Unless you quit eating, you’re ingesting with each meal. It’s a naturally occurring substance in soil and, thus, in plants of all sorts. Found in the ocean, too, so seafood contains arsenic.

          • But in higher doses it is toxic… so what dose would you prefer over the EPA standards?

            [You are required by site policy to use only one user_id/login_id while commenting. Chose one of the other (Sarastro92 or Posa) and stick with it please, or contact the site_owner off-line and explain the requirements for two id’s. .mod]

          • The levels being proposed by the EPA are orders of magnitude lower than the levels proven to cause harm.

        • From what I’ve read, we are already ingesting it every single day.
          As long as it’s below the level that will cause harm, I don’t mind.

    • “Poison our drinking water”?
      I was first certified by my state’s EPA to treat drinking water in 1985. I’ve held the second highest certification since 1991.
      Could you please specify just what “poison” he has allowed in the last year?
      (Perhaps you’re thinking of dihydrogen monoxide? He had nothing do with allowing that.)

      • As noted above Pruitt’s first tact was to cut the budget and staff for enforcement… Understand now?

        [You are required by site policy to use only one user_id/login_id while commenting. Chose one of the other (Sarastro92 or Posa) and stick with it please, or contact the site_owner off-line and explain the requirements for two id’s. .mod]

        • Yes, I understand.
          I understand that:
          1. You can’t name a specific “poison” that Pruitt has allowed in our drinking water.
          2. You don’t understand that it is the various states’ “EPAs” that enforce drinking
          water regulations. The USEPA only gets involved in cases of gross negligence.
          3. You don’t understand that trimming the fat from a bloated bureaucracy is actually
          removing “poison” from our Constitutional Republic.
          4. You don’t understand what the “poison” in your Kool-Aid has done to your mind.
          (But you like it because makes you “feel” right … er …left … er … correct.)

        • As noted above Pruitt’s first tact was to cut the budget and staff for enforcement… Understand now?

          That’s what you do when something is WAY overstaffed & overpaid.

        • “Some 230,000 Americans already die each year due to hazardous chemical exposures”.

          You genuinely believe that?

          • He believes what ever he is told to believe.

            BTW, those numbers come from models that assume that the Linear No Threshold theory of exposure has been proven.

        • Chris, almost a quarter million!
          Assuming the quote (her quote, not Vox’s take.) is accurate, did she define just what are “hazardous chemical exposures”?
          (Ie If you drink water at the MCL for Atrazine, you might get cancer. That is, if you drank 5 gallons (maybe it was 50?) gallons a day every day for 70 years your chance of getting cancer would increase by 1%. )

    • hey, I voted ya up bud because I’m not stuck in the false left-right paradigm; I don’t need to believe everything that has been routed into political lines. Health isn’t a political party topic, it ought to transcend religious beliefs (pro-fluoride is religious at this point, just like CAGW)

      • At least someone gets it… but the ideological fanatics seem bent on drinking, eating and breathing toxins… At least the Chinese realize how pernicious these compounds are … but I guess the libertarian party is not very big there

        • posa, Are these the same Chinese that made the air so good in Beijing or keep putting lead into toys for children?

          • At least they acknowledge the problem… unlike WUWT readers who are oblivious to toxic compounds and think that their regulation infringes on the “freedom”… crackpot stuff we expect from Libertarians

            [You are required by site policy to use only one user_id/login_id while commenting. Chose one of the other (Sarastro92 or Posa) and stick with it please, or contact the site_owner off-line and explain the requirements for two id’s. .mod]

          • posa, I feel sorry for you about your paranoia/obsessions. Prb’ly caused by all those “toxins” and “contaminants” you’re so terrified of….

        • So, people are drinking, eating and breathing toxins, yet, inconveniently for you, they are all living longer, healthier lives than ever before in Human history.

          • He’s one of these fanatics who is so scared of his own shadow that he demands government provide absolute security for him, and he doesn’t care how much it costs other people.

            PS: He also believes that there is no such thing as a safe level for anything.
            If it’s bad, it must be removed. Completely.

    • Wow, given that he didn’t increase my permit limits by a single lb/yr, I’d say you don’t know what you are talking about.

      Obama threw out a lot of half-baked regulations that caused a lot of trouble but didn’t actually solve anything. In addition, they wrote regulations that explicitly applied to only one sector and then enforced them on everyone (bypassing the rulemaking process and ignoring the complications that were inherent in other systems).

      The result of this is huge amount of additional compliance costs for little to no benefit.
      Let’s not get into the scientific ethics that would have caused automatic failure at an elementary school science fair.

      • Pruitt slashed enforcement… so anything goes… I’m sure hell land on his feet at a certain family business whose name we’re not permitted to mention on this website

        [You are required by site policy to use only one user_id/login_id while commenting. Chose one of the other (Sarastro92 or Posa) and stick with it please, or contact the site_owner off-line and explain the requirements for two id’s. .mod]

  6. From over the pond.

    What did he do wrong? Expenses scandal is all I know, but plenty have ridden that out.

    Or is this tactical? He’s done the dirty work, now a new face to raise socialist hopes, only to be dashed again.

    Nor do I think Trump gives a monkeys about expenses or scandal, if the jobs being done, he’s happy. Perhaps I should be asking the question, what didn’t Pruitt do?

      • Kitchen is quite hot. If you can’t take the heat,……..

        Poor judgement on the little things in the first year shows a lack of political and managerial maturity. Even more confounding given his prior position as a State AG- drunk on DC power koolaide?

        Too bad,.. his policy stewardship was correct despite the peccadillos.

    • He was personally attacked by the green brownshirts a few days ago while trying to have dinner. I think it was probably related.

      • Hivemind

        I didn’t see that, not a lot of that stuff gets to us in the UK. What happened? Was it a demonstration or a physical attack?

        Either way, surely we are all allowed to have a meal in peace.

          • Chris

            So you’re sitting having a meal and are approached by someone, followed by another carrying a camera (or mobile phone) filming the event when the guy is taking a break.

            How about your boss comes into your staff canteen when you’re on a lunch break and starts talking business to you, wouldn’t you politely ask if you can finish your meal and that you’ll come up to his office straight after your break?

            There are political mechanisms for making objections, raising issues, proposing solutions etc. One of them is to call the office of the person you want to speak to, another is to email, another is to write, and another is to make an appointment to meet.

            Trucking up and harassing someone, in a public restaurant, complete with camera, and list of objections, is hardly a reasonable approach.

          • So what? Sit there and listen. And that is exactly what Pruitt did. He didn’t interrupt her, he was polite, he handled it exactly the right way. Now, if this was happening on a daily basis, I’d agree with you. But it’s happened, what, once or twice in 18 months?

            And making an appointment to meet him being a better approach? Give me a break, there is zero chance Pruitt would have agreed to that.

            I talk business all the time during lunch. I talk business over dinners, drinks. It’s not a big deal at all.

          • Chris

            How do you know this doesn’t happen on a daily basis. Because it wasn’t recorded and posted on on youtube with a script in hand?

            You talking business over lunch is elective, how many times are you approached by strangers with a baby and a cameraman?

          • Correct, HotScot, because there aren’t lots of other videos uploaded. And because it’s never been commented on by Pruitt or his staff as being an issue. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

            I’m not a public official. If I was, I would expect to be approached. And realistically, I would expect it to be my constituents that were not happy with what I was doing, not those who were happy. So, for example, if I made a ruling that reduced lobster takes in New England to let the numbers recover, I would not expect folks to say “hey, good job on saving the lobster populations.” I’d expect pissed off fishermen to tell me I was costing them their house. It comes with the territory.

          • Chris

            The evidence to the contrary is that Pruitt has resigned citing threats to him and his family. I think that’s pretty conclusive.

            You would expect to be approached? By whom? Every Tom, Dick and Harry with a gripe? The man wouldn’t get much work done if that were the case.

            No clue as to the point you’re making about lobster fishermen. There is a process available to legitimately lodge complains about a political decision. Get in line, why is your complaint more important than everyone else’s?

            Typical minority group attitude, jump the queue by whatever means possible.

          • He’s (was) a public figure. He has to be accountable for what is does. I thought she was very reasonable.

          • Simon

            It was a staged attempt at harassment. Who walks around with a list of issues on the off chance they might meet the head of the EPA?

            The passive aggressive nature is evident from her carrying the kid, if it wasn’t for publicity she would have left the brat with the one holding the camera, but no.

            Then of course, publishing it on youtube, publicity. Along with all the other indices, a pre planned event.

            The inference is that he was stalked by these people, possibly over a number of days to establish his habits.

            But that’s forgiveable according to you people because the the conventional means of communicating with a political figure aren’t good enough for you. You deem it perfectly acceptable to stalk, ambush, harass and intimidate a public figure with a pre planned agenda, offering him no opportunity to compose a response.

            But what concerns me most is that these are the methods employed by people with more violent intent. What might have been running through Pruitt’s mind when confronted in this manner.

          • It was shown later that the woman is a leftwing political activist, not just your average person on the street.

          • Thank you, Tom, and confirms HotScot’s comment above. But any intelligent person would have already correctly assumed that offhand, knowing the marxists’ ubiquitous methods.

          • Yes, one should assume it is orchestrated until proven otherwise. There’s a lot of Leftwing money out there and they love paying for things like this.

          • On tv the other day they showed this same woman wearing a t-shirt with a leftwing slogan on the front. The same infant appeared to be with her then, too, so I assume it is her child.

          • Tom Abbott

            So the woman is demonstrably using her brat as a political prop.

            Very good, how about the right whistles up photographs of dead children the left killed in China and Russia?

            That woman and her child are here today because of Capitalism and Democracy. They give her the opportunity to distort the system.

          • He has to be accountable for what is does.

            Except if you’re a marxist/leftist/social-justice moron/swamp member, then anything is A-OK as long as it’s for the cause.

    • How about staying in a DC condo owned by the wife of a lobbyist for a company with business before the EPA, for $50 a night? See what you can find for $50 a night if you think that isn’t accepting a gift.

      And now we have claims from a Trump supporting whistle-blower that he was scrubbing records of who he was meeting with and why. I’m pretty sure that’s a federal crime.

    • “Nor do I think Trump gives a monkeys about expenses or scandal”
      Damned right abut that. Trump probably secretly thought what he did was admirable.
      Side issue, can’t wait to see the baby Trump flying over London next week. Be so appropriate if they fill it full of hot air.

      • Simon

        Fairly typical of an activist minority group attitude. If you can’t win by fair means, foul is just as acceptable.

        Make the democratic majority bend to your will.

          • Simon

            Presenting a caricature of the President of the most powerful nation the world has known as a baby in a nappie is insulting, demeaning of the perpetrators, counter-productive as Brexit is, rightly or wrongly, looming and the UK will need all the friends it can get, and considering Trump has brought N Korea to the negotiating table, which is more than any western politician has done in the last 50 years, frankly, the organisers of this demonstration ought to consider what he has brought to the cause of world peace, despite them howling he was a warmonger.

            It’s simply the voice of the vocal minority attempting to overturn democracy. Once again.

      • I saw the Trump balloon this morning. It doesn’t look nearly sinister enough. I thought the socialists considered Trump to be Hitler. No mustache on the Trump balloon, just a diaper.

  7. Remember a few days ago, the green brownshirts attacked Pruitt while he was trying to have dinner. This is probably related.

  8. My version of a “dream” pick to replace Pruitt would be a PhD in Analytical Chemistry, with extensive experience in administration. What a wonderful thing it would be to have someone who could actually understand chemistry. Pipe dream I know.

    • John D. Smith

      This gets back to my constant refrain, that politics is the one place where the common man, with no qualifications, can become POTUS, or PM in the UK.

      Calling for educated people to go into politics is folly. Politicians are surrounded by advisers. The wisdom needed, is selecting the right advisor’s. Perhaps that’s why Trump hasn’t appointed a science advisor. Perhaps he doesn’t trust any of them, which goes back to, was it Roosevelt’s speech, which questioned our faith in scientists? (badly put, but I hope you get what I mean).

      Politics is about the common man. Electing only educated politicians creates the elite democratic politics was designed to eliminate.

      • No, it was Eisenhower. The left love to repeat his comments on the Military-Industrial complex, but never mention the next few paragraphs in his speech, about the Government-Academic complex. Because they benefit from it.

    • There is just such a person in SC or NC who is state EPA administrator. Forgot his name but a worthy consideration for this position.

    • My dream would be an engineer with some time in industry, some time in an environmental agency (a state agency might be particularly good), and who belongs to one or more environmental groups. Also a pipe dream I know.

  9. The real threat of taking a bullet from some left wing nutcase is a valid concern
    Now I wish Trump would close the office rather than replacing him.

    • eddie willers

      I’m as right wing as you can get. But I don’t imagine the murder of a president, or any other elected official, is any more likely to come from his opposition, than it is from his supposed supporters.

      A nutter is a nutter.

      • As a (mostly) left winger i have to say I agree with you HS. It’s why background checks are needed for all gun purchases. Nutters come in all shades of political affiliation.

      • when is the last time a Cabinet member was assassinated in the US?

        No need to assassinate anymore — haven’t you noticed your lefties’ tactics lately? Obama perfected it — just weaponize & sic the IRS, the EPA, the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, the Unjustice Dept, the media, etc, or simply throw them in jail in solitary confinement. Assassinating is so 1960s, and as Obi-Wan said — “so uncivilized”.

  10. Full text of his resignation letter:

    Mr. President, it has been an honor to serve you in the Cabinet as Administrator of the EPA. Truly, your confidence in me has blessed me personally and enabled me to advance your agenda beyond what anyone anticipated at the beginning of your Administration. Your courage, steadfastness and resolute commitment to get results for the American people, both with regard to improved environmental outcomes as well as historical regulatory reform, is in fact occurring at an unprecedented pace and I thank you for the opportunity to serve you and the American people in helping achieve those ends.

    That is why it is hard for me to advise you I am stepping down as Administrator of the EPA effective as of July 6. It is extremely difficult for me to cease serving you in this role first because I count it a blessing to be serving you in any capacity, but also, because of the transformative work that is occurring. However, the unrelenting attacks on me personally, my family, are unprecedented and have taken a sizable toll on all of us.

    My desire in service to you has always been to bless you as you make important decisions for the American people. I believe you are serving as President today because of God’s providence. I believe that same providence brought me into your service. I pray as I have served you that I have blessed you and enabled you to effectively lead the American people. Thank you again Mr. President for the honor of serving you and I wish you Godspeed in all that you put your hand to.

    Your Faithful Friend,

    Scott Pruitt

    • “However, the unrelenting attacks on me personally, my family, are unprecedented and have taken a sizable toll on all of us.”

      ….and as the left cranks it up even more

      I wish he had left that part out…you know how they are going to take it

      But the more they crank it up…the more they turn people off to them

    • “However, the unrelenting attacks on me personally, my family, are unprecedented and have taken a sizable toll on all of us.”

      Leftist 101: Harassment, lies, threats, public shaming, social media mob campaigns against you, lawsuits; nothing is beneath them as long as it serves to accomplish their goals. You have to prepare yourself to deal with that if you vocally and actively oppose their agenda.

      I had hoped Pruitt would be able to handle it but it’s understandable that he would want to protect his family. Family first.

      Mr. Pruitt, you have been the best EPA Administrator the agency has every seen. I hope Wheeler continues your great work.

      • “I had hoped Pruitt would be able to handle it but it’s understandable that he would want to protect his family. Family first.”
        Correction… Pruitt first, then money, then family.

      • Just stop with the family stuff. Trump fired him because Pruitt called too much attention to himself with his financial shenanigans. He didn’t step down, he was fired.

        • Pure speculation on your part, unless you can prove otherwise. Most people would wilt under that pressure, especially with a family on the line. If you had children, you would understand.

    • Perhaps Pruitt will head up NASA?

      Seriously, Thank you, sir for your service.
      Keep swinging from the sidelines.

      PS I doubt if the personal abuse you and your’s have had to put up with will end. These people have no heart so they want yours.

  11. Thank you Mr. Pruitt. Your efforts to substantiate science, assure costs and benefits are real, and measure effectiveness are real , and hopefully will be sustained by your successor. You gave hope that we can actually protect the environment from the expensive sloganeers. Good job.

  12. I quit reading the WUWT blog quite a while ago, when, as I recall, Anthony Watts was a supporter of having him get the post at the EPA. That is pretty sad that Mr. Watts might have chosen such in idiot as Pruitt, if I am remembering what Anthony said about wanting Pruitt. This made me lose all faith in Anthony Watts who to me at the time, to be the simple of sober thinking in fighting the various crap about methane and CO2 versus sun cycles and natural variation in climate over the last few million years. If WUWT supported Pruitt, because Pruitt is a skeptic, you did the entire skeptic movement a serious blow by backing a guy that everyone back in his home state knew he is an idiot.
    How many more Trump supporters need to resign because they are swamp rats wanting to roll back every environmental regulations that were put in place to at least TRY to fix our Earth. Shovel some more soot and dirty coal my way please.

    [“I quit reading the WUWT blog quite a while ago, when, as I recall, Anthony Watts was a supporter of having him get the post at the EPA. ” But, here you are reading again. I don’t think Mr. Watts is the one with the credibility problem. -mod]

    • You’re full of it, Mike.

      Pruitt ended the horrid abuse of the Waters of the US regulations, ended the use of secret science, ended the science advisory boards that touted their own grant-funded research, and ended the sue-and-settle corruption.

      Those accomplishments alone make him the best, most astute, and most honest EPA Administrator ever. EV-ER.

    • Mike Strong, suggest you continue NOT reading or posting here. Stick to the Huffing and Puffington Post forums.

  13. The worse part about this is allowing the Progressive/Left/Socialist machine dictate morals and acceptability standards. It’s the same thing happening with AGW. Don’t like the message? Shoot the messenger and get away with it every time. Character assassination has become their new, and successful, weapon of choice.

    • Wrong. This has zero to do with AGW. Trump has not changed his opinion on AGW. This has everything to do with Pruitt’s misuse of taxpayer funds, plus his grandstanding.

    • “Character assassination has become their new, and successful, weapon of choice.”
      Says the man who continually assassinates the character those who don’t agree with him here. Hypocrite.

  14. The despicable personal attacks on Pruitt and his family by the green shirt enforcers of the socialist left has taken their toll.

    Next man up! Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

  15. The left wing policy of scorched earth towards anyone who gets in their way is still effective.

  16. The main reason the left didn’t like him was his stand on climate alarmism. It’s incredible how far they pushed their self righteous indignation in support of the green agenda (green-dignation?). And then they complain about the cost of the extra security to protect against the threats to him and his family due only to his desire to be on the right side of the future.

    This kind of intimidation for an unpopular position must not pass unchallenged. Imagine what would have happened had this line been crossed before Obama took office. This is ironic considering that it was the Obama administration’s cow towing to green interests providing the illusion of a legitimate cause that set the stage for crossing this line.

  17. This was mainly the liberal press trying to persecute and unseat anyone who is associated with Trump. It is a part of their slow-motion coup, to stop anyone of stature working with him. But Pruit was a p.ratt for playing into their hands, and making it easy for them.


    • Don’t forget Maxine Waters explicit instructions to her “faithful” to hound all who are associated with the Trump administration so as to not allow them a moment of peace.
      Mad Max has now taken her first head.

      It’s a good thing Rep. Waters was criticized by CNN and NPR for that unprofessional incivility!
      (Oh, wait…)

    • Hilarious – you are contending that the liberal press caused Trump to fire Pruitt. You know, the liberal press that Trump attacks on a daily basis. Yeah, right, Trump is going to take his hiring and firing cues from the press.

  18. WooHoo! Away with ye, scoundrel!

    …Ach, Andrew Wheeler was a coal industry exec. Just the kinda guy you want protecting the fossil fuel industry (oh, wait, it’s “EPA”, not “CPA”. What the heck???).

    • Do you have problem with an industry executives in general, or with this one being from coal industry?

      • I don’t have a problem with any kind of executives, coal or otherwise. I don’t think Pruitt or Wheeler are the appropriate men to head the Environmental Protection Agency. The only reason to put them in the position is to negate the Agency’s mission. Why is that so crazy? It’s like putting a pacifist in charge of Department of Defense.

        • “Why is that so crazy?”
          You celebrate the threats of violence and intimidation against Scott Pruitt and his family that caused him to resign. The answer to your question is self evident.


        • Negate the EPA’s mission?
          Reining in an out of control bureaucracy that had surrendered its mission to NGOs is negating its mission?
          Attempting to return it to policy based on hard science rather than trea ring readings and “California Dreamin'” and scare them into supporing “Feel Good” regulations is negating the EPA’s mission?
          Let groups like Earth First dictate what is best for us?
          Yes, you have a problem.

    • The opposition went all out to destroy Pruitt, even making threats against his family.
      Did the opposition not look far enough ahead to consider who his obvious replacement would be? Perhaps the raging hatred on the part of the opposition blinded them.

    • For someone who claims to love science, Kristi, you fail your own standard. You have never changed your mind after having been proved analytically wrong.

      After looking up Kristi Silber and finding she actually did science, and then observing your refractory and aggressive ignorance here, I begin to wonder whether you’re an imposture who’s hijacked her name.

      • What, are you a mind reader? You have no idea whether I’ve changed my mind. If I haven’t changed it as a result of most of the evidence presented here, it’s because I find it weak, poorly reasoned and unscientific. When someone “proves” me analytically wrong, I do change my mind, and indeed I have about some things based on the articles and comments on WUWT (sometimes I do so then find out later that it’s wrong!).

        I’m not nearly interesting or accomplished enough that someone would hijack my name.

        • When someone “proves” me analytically wrong, I do change my mind…

          Great Kristi. So, where’s the error in this, or this (1 MB pdf), or this?

        • And where’s the error in this, this, or this (my DDP seminar on climate models)?

          If you want to have a valid scientifically grounded view, Kristi, be prepared to do the work. I’ve done it, as have many others here. Views here at WUWT are generally informed.

          After doing the work, my informed view regarding AGW is that no one knows what they’re talking about.

          No one in the consensus field seems to have any concept of physical error analysis.

          They all assume all the error away, and present their results with an utterly false certainty.

          That diagnosis applies to climate modeling, to the air temperature record, and to paleo-temperature reconstruction. That last has no physical basis at all, and as presently practiced does not rise above pseudo-science.

          • “After doing the work, my informed view regarding AGW is that no one knows what they’re talking about. ”
            Does “no one” include you? Or are you “special?”

          • I have no opinion about the effect of CO2 on air temperature, CdL, which removes me from that cohort.

            My informed view is that those who claim a connection between CO2 emissions and air temperature don’t know what they’re talking about. That cohort includes you (and Kristi).

          • Let’s note that neither CdL nor Kristi Silber rose to the challenge of actually doing the work. It seems that Mr. Lion lacks the Coeur.

      • Pat Frank

        It would appear the thread is infested with unannounced trolls down-voting every comment supporting you.

        Unannounced, presumably because they cant spell their own titles.

    • As expected, Kristi celebrates threats of violence and intimidation against American citizens (and their families) she disagrees with.

      ‘WooHoo’?…… From your glee we learn much about you.

    • Andrew Wheeler was a coal industry exec

      A coal industry exec is an accomplished genius compared to an SJW air-head.

  19. NYT: Showing 587 results for Scott Pruitt between 11/10/2016 to 07/05/2018

    20 Jun: Washington Examiner: Jim Inhofe ‘embarrassed’ he doubted Scott Pruitt on ethics scandals
    by John Siciliano
    Sen. Jim Inhofe, a big supporter of Scott Pruitt, defended the Environmental Protection Agency administrator Wednesday, blaming everyone from the media to billionaire Trump opponent Tom Steyer for ginning up a fervor over the EPA chief’s ethical missteps that are under multiple investigations…
    Inhofe was “getting concerned” about the media reports, but after the “face-to-face” meeting, “I’m a little embarrassed that I was starting to doubt him in some areas where he shouldn’t have been doubted,” he told reporters Wednesday morning in his office…

    20 Jun: Washington Examiner: Jim Inhofe ’embarrassed’ he doubted Scott Pruitt on ethics scandals
    by John Siciliano
    Sen. Jim Inhofe, a big supporter of Scott Pruitt, defended the Environmental Protection Agency administrator Wednesday, blaming everyone from the media to billionaire Trump opponent Tom Steyer for ginning up a fervor over the EPA chief’s ethical missteps that are under multiple investigations…

    Inhofe was “getting concerned” about the media reports, but after the “face-to-face” meeting, “I’m a little embarrassed that I was starting to doubt him in some areas where he shouldn’t have been doubted,” he told reporters Wednesday morning in his office…

    Inhofe’s main point was that Pruitt has been unfairly maligned by the media, spurred by environmentalists who have created a real threat environment in which Pruitt’s security spending is justified…

  20. Scott’s great achievement was convincing Trump to pull out of the Paris Agreement. There were plenty of folks advising Trump not to pull out (including his Sec of State) but Scott found the right argument, pointing out that it was heavily front-loaded courtesy of the US. Trump understood that viscerally as a real estate guy who puts his own money, if ever, last to appear on the table.

    Unfortunate that now the Red Team will probably never come together. Scott was unable to carry the argument against the swamp denizens still having Trump’s ear.

    The other necessary steps even Pruitt dared not press–getting out of the CFCC, for one, (only requires one year rather than 3 as in the Paris Agreement) and above all reversing the Endangerment finding. The latter could have been well along the way now had he understood how to get legislation through the system–a week’s effort would be enough to knock all three legs of the stool off the EPA argument to the Supremes. Just the argument from food productivity alone would be enough to turn the Social Cost of Carbon into the Social Benefit of Carbon. Even without Gorsuch on the court, they would have gone along with the EPA recommendation based on their own argument in the Court decision that an Agency must be considered to have the scientific know-how to create their regulations. As it is, with Gorsuch, there is utterly no reason not to pursue this effort. It will take multiple years, possibly two or three Administrations, so the outcome is uncertain,but at least for God’s sake make the effort.

  21. Pruitt accomplished some much needed changes at the EPA. Trump can likely use him elsewhere to aid in dismantling the swamp.

  22. Pruitt deserves enormous credit for bringing realism and useful purpose to an overly activist agency that lost its way in the quagmire of the environmental doomsday religion. It was a very hard job and he has achieved a lifetime’s value in just a few short months. I hope future leadership can and do further his agenda. Get rid of the CO2 endangerment finding, stop regulating the gas that feeds all life on earth, return to a sane evidence-based regulatory regimen for those things that properly belong to EPA, stop using the EPA to deindustrialize the US and to promote the far left progressive liberal agenda.

  23. The BBC is, of course, all over this story – headline news and comment pieces up already. They’ve never shown such interest in the resignation of the head of a US federal body until the past year, and showed no interest in Jackson’s departure. Why could this be, I wonder…?

  24. I understand Scott Pruitt had to put the safety of his family first.
    I offer my services to be a Trump appointtee at EPA.
    20 years in the military including time in SpecOps,
    I had friends who gave everything.
    I’m still here, with a pension. Makes me want to do more.
    That’s one reason I post here at WUWT… the Good Fight.
    The EPA is one dirty house in dire need of a deep cleaning for the sake of our Constitution and the People.
    Me, I’d tell the haters to Bring It!
    I’d relish the dark ops fight.

    Joel O’Bryan, PhD.

    • Do you have GOP reps and senators?

      Have them propose you.

      You’ve already been vetted and cleared at least TS.

      Your pension might be able to afford you a studio apartment in the DC suburbs, without having to resort to favors from industry.

      • Could live out in Manassas, though it would be a brutal commute up I66 to the Beltway.

    • Joel, are you prepared to have EVERY one of your posts on WUWT, and any other blog or web site, scrutinized, de-contextualized, flip-flopped, scrambled, fried, and castrated over and over again in the media (both social and otherwise)? Oh, and to be compared to ANYONE else who posted on the same forum? That’s what will happen. And whether or not you’re a good person, a patriot, or anything else will not matter one whit.

  25. Sadly Pruitt is gone, but no surprise. To survive the onslaught of establishment in Washington, or even state capitols, you must not only be clean as new driven snow but you must ensure that you watch not only your own back but all those might be loyal to you. You cannot control all those around you and if some of them are on the dark side they ultimately will get you. The Democrats, the Deep State at EPA, the environmental establishment were just not going to allow Pruitt to survives as Administrator. Appreciate even now that he is gone from EPA that will not be enough. They will continue to demand he be investigated. We will continue to hear and read about “terrible” things he did at EPA. Pruitt was ripping at the very essence of what the EPA had become over the past decade therefore he must be punished.

    • Rubbish. You actually think Trump makes his firing decisions based on what Democrats think? Or the “Deep State” you referred to? Or organizations like Greenpeace, WWF, etc?

    • Nonsense. He was a crook and got caught. End of story. Stop trying to defend a guy who ripped off the taxpayer.

  26. He made rookie mistakes. Democrats know how to get away with this stuff; Republicans don’t. Also, Democrats go straight for the jugular; Republicans don’t.

  27. Anyone who has been in the public sector and especially a position such as Attorney General of a state should have been more mindful of his political optics. Taking on the EPA and the Climate Change narrative of the left, plus tearing apart the architecture of the regulatory state was bound to make one a target. If they cannot make what you are doing the issue, they will make you the issue. It appears Pruitt did some dumb things that just fed ammo to his enemies. In battle, when one unit takes too many casualties, you pull them out and rotate another into the battle line. Pruitt did his part. Time for another.

  28. Meanwhile using the DOJ, FBI and FISA warrant system to attempt to overthrow the 16′ election is their moral imperative.

    Wheeler has a good grasp of climate fraud activism but I’m sorry to see Greenshirts and compliant leftist media collect a scalp of any kind. The President continues to play kiss-in-the-ring with the green fringe. “Renegotiate” Paris??

    How about ending the US involvement in the UN Climate Framework and ending any chance of another globalist atrocity such as the Paris Prison Planet roadmap?

    It was the WH that nixed “red team/blue team” debates. Pruitt did a good job regardless of some poor optics that gave them a target.

    • Agree. But, in politics optics are everything. It is all about what kind of “narrative” can I spin. Facts be damned!

  29. No one is going to ask me to be the EPA Administrator, but if I was the Administrator, I’d do at least two things:

    1) I’d try to meet for equal times with industry and environmentalists, and

    2) I’d try to make as many meetings have both industry and environmentalists in the same meeting.

    I don’t see how anyone who has seen the system work–as I have–could say that we couldn’t spend significantly less money and still have significantly *better* results.

    • Wouldn’t work, Mark. The enviros would just shout down anyone who didn’t agree with them. There would be no constructive meeting.

  30. I think on balance this is not good news. But I will wait to see.

  31. The Left may have won this battle, but slowly, Americans are realizing Leftists’ fanatical attacks against patriots trying to reduce the $2 TRILLION/YEAR being wasted by the private sector on Federal regulation compliance costs is essential for US’ economic viability.

    WHEN (not if) the CAGW sc@m is officially disconfirmed, the blowback against the Left will be epic…

    Tick-tock, tick-tock….

    • This was just a skirmish. The battle continues and real progress is being made dismantling the ‘green’ socialist agenda, corruption, and adverse regulations wrought during the Obama regime.

      “Wheeler! Next Man Up!”

      • The problem, as I’ve pointed out before, is that eventually Democrats will control everything again, and will re-do everything Trump is undoing, and then some. As much as I agree with the policy changes, they won’t last.

  32. Had taxpayer paid staff seek a Chik-Fill-A franchise for his wife.

    Stayed in a DC condo owned by the wife of a lobbyist with business before the EPA for $50 a night (see what you can find in DC for $50 a night if you think that’s not a gift).

    Spent $1560 of taxpayer money on 12 pens.

    Had a $43,000 sound proof phone booth installed in his office….. What is this?? Get Smart??

    And now claims from a Trump supporting whistle-blower that he was falsifying records of who he was meeting with and why.

    • He had his director of scheduling and advance, Millan Hupp, on taxpayer paid time, seeking to buy a used Trump hotel mattress!

  33. If you have been even a mildly public figure in a targeted industry, as I used to be, you expect threats, but when they turn into actions the going gets tougher. Death threats make you ask if it is worth it all. Then as family, wife, young children start to get depressed, resignation has to be considered.
    I liked what I read of Pruitt’s achievements and with sadness at seeing him leave, hope that pressures will now lighten.
    Police etc could treat these insidious threat crimes more seriously, but then they already have much unpleasant conduct to cope with. Geoff

  34. Too heavy on the theology, too light on warnings about the enviro extremists and their assault on America.

  35. I;m amazed by the number of people saying they don’t care about the ethical lapses because of the great things he was doing at the EPA

    It’s like saying you don’t mind if your star quarterback was a wife-beater (or worse) so long as he keeps winning.

    Very few people even making the pragmatic point: If you are going to take on powerful enemies, don’t be so careless in your private life and give them such an obvious target.

    • Totally agree, Andy. Again I don’t think what Pruitt did was far from what other cabinet officials have done over the years, but every little thing the media could find and pound into the heads of the gullible just meant he had to be extra mindful of his actions, and he wasn’t. He was naive.

      • He may have been naive. More importantly, he was corrupt. If he wasn’t, his naivety wouldn’t have mattered.

      • HotScott
        Is that where you draw your ethical standard?
        Anything not actually illegal and proven in cout of law is acceptable?

        • AndyL

          My ethical standard is never to condemn a man who is not lawfully convicted. Innocent until proven guilty.

          In fact, that’s the ethical standard of every civilised nation.

          Are you saying you’re uncivilised

          • There are lots of things that are unethical that aren’t against the law. Are you saying you never have an opinion about anyone’s ethics if what they do isn’t against the law, and proved in court?

          • Philip Schaeffer

            “There are lots of things that are unethical that aren’t against the law.”

            That’s why they fall into the category of ethics, because they’re not unlawful.

            Under age sex is immoral and illegal in the west, but some cultures accept there is a natural signal when a female is mature enough to be fertile. Often at 12 years old. I don’t like the idea, but I won’t condemn them based on my perception of morality or ethics.

          • “That’s why they fall into the category of ethics, because they’re not unlawful.”

            OK, so we’ve established that there are some things that are wrong that are not illegal.

            “Under age sex is immoral and illegal in the west, but some cultures accept there is a natural signal when a female is mature enough to be fertile. Often at 12 years old. I don’t like the idea, but I won’t condemn them based on my perception of morality or ethics.”

            So, what would you do if you found a man having sex with your 12 year old daughter?

          • Philip Schaeffer

            Must you continue to demonstrate your ignorance.

            “we’ve established that there are some things that are wrong that are not illegal.”

            No we haven’t, you said that, I didn’t.

            I don’t live in a culture that finds ‘under age sex’ acceptable. Therefore, it’s not within my gift to do anything about it if it happened here, that decision is taken out my hands by the society I live in.

            If I lived in a culture where it was legal, I would presumably have been brought up to believe in the concept and do nothing. Not that there would be anything I could legally do.

          • “No we haven’t, you said that, I didn’t.”

            ?? Isn’t the difference between ethics and laws about what is right and wrong vs what is legal and illegal?

            If nothing is wrong, then how do ethics come into it?

            “That’s why they fall into the category of ethics, because they’re not unlawful.”

            Maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Could you give an example of something that is unethical but not wrong?

          • From the Oxford living Dictionary


            PLURAL NOUN
            1. usually treated as plural Moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

            ‘medical ethics also enter into the question’
            ‘a code of ethics’

            1.1 The moral correctness of specified conduct.
            ‘many scientists question the ethics of cruel experiments’

            2. usually treated as singular The branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

            Schools of ethics in Western philosophy can be divided, very roughly, into three sorts. The first, drawing on the work of Aristotle, holds that the virtues (such as justice, charity, and generosity) are dispositions to act in ways that benefit both the person possessing them and that person’s society. The second, defended particularly by Kant, makes the concept of duty central to morality: humans are bound, from a knowledge of their duty as rational beings, to obey the categorical imperative to respect other rational beings. Thirdly, utilitarianism asserts that the guiding principle of conduct should be the greatest happiness or benefit of the greatest number

            ‘neither metaphysics nor ethics is the home of religion’

            Is there any mention of legal or illegal, right or wrong?

            Point 1.1 answers your question.

            Had you ever bothered to actually read and learn something instead of ascribing your distorted left wing notions to what you pluck out of thin air, you just might sound credible.

          • So, can you actually give an example of something that is unethical but not wrong?

          • Philip Schaeffer

            [Snip. Please refrain from making personal insults. This conversation can be had civilly. -mod]

            “1.1 The moral correctness of specified conduct.
            ‘many scientists question the ethics of cruel experiments’”

            The testing of pharmaceutical and beauty products on animals?

            Get it now?

            Some might consider it unethical, but in the interest of human health, necessary, and therefore not wrong. Others have different views on it.


          • In general, I agree that legally we are innocent until proven guilty. But I think the point Philip is making is that we don’t simply have to accept an individual’s behavior if it’s technically legal but immoral or unethical.

            I would argue that the law describes the minimum standard we set for society. It seems perfectly fair and reasonable to require our leaders to hold themselves to a higher standard than mere legality.

            Thus, while Pruitt might not be guilty of any criminal behavior, his unethical behavior (to the extent that the reports are true) renders him unfit to continue in his public office.

            I honestly don’t see what’s so controversial about this position. Seems pretty fair and reasonable to me.


          • rip

            And I would largely agree with you.

            However, what I object to is someone building a case against another simply on the grounds of evidence that doesn’t pass the scrutiny of a legal entity.

            Nor do I entirely agree with the concept that our leaders should “hold themselves to a higher standard than mere legality.” Our politicians are, by definition, ‘ordinary men’, it’s the one environment that requires no qualifications, so the lowest of the low can, quite rightly, achieve high office. Yet whilst prostitution is legal in the UK, politicians are vilified for engaging in the practise of paying for sex. So just where is the line that describes what an ordinary man can do, and what a politician can do?

            And I’ll cite here the case of Max Mosley, son of Oswald Mosely, the British Fascist sympathiser, and organiser of fascism in the UK in the 1930’s. In the late 2000’s Max was caught by the media engaging in a sex orgy with prostitutes, dressed in ‘uniforms’. Justice Eady ruled that despite one of the attendees wearing a military uniform there were no Nazi connotations to the orgy. Yet Mosely was hounded by the press because of the uniform implication and his father’s morals (actually, political beliefs), not his. Where is the morality of the MSM, which goes entirely un-prosecuted?

            The morality, or otherwise, of an issue can be identified and isolated from any crime committed in a suitable legal environment. If the crime is immoral, fine, convict someone, but no one can be justly convicted on the basis of questionable morals alone. Least of all by an uninformed, and usually ill informed, public. That process is normally undertaken by the peers of the individual if they are found to lack moral fibre overall, because they represent a risk to their institution.

            Nor must we pre judge, nor pre empt a decision, nor should we tolerate trial by media, nor the court of public opinion. Least of all trial by social media, the most pernicious, judgemental, irresponsible, and possibly immoral medium the world has ever known.

            And whilst Pruitt is held accountable by ill educated and ill informed individuals on these mediums, they happily ignore the passive, aggressive behaviour of those harassing him and threatening his family. They are as subject to the boundaries of both morality and legal conduct as Pruitt is, but whilst he is condemned, the left are happy to ignore the behaviour that delivered us the persecution practises of Stalin and Hitler.

            I form no opinion on Pruitt’s alleged digressions, be they legally or morally based, because I don’t have the full facts to hand. Similarly, I hold no opinion on Hilary Clinton, for the same reasons.

            And I object to being harangued by Philip Schaeffer, a notably legally unqualified individual, who simply refuses to accept that none of us on this blog have the ability to condemn anyone unless we have either the full facts or, the case has been presented to a legal entity for scrutiny, and judgement passed.

            I don’t believe for a nanosecond Schaeffer has read the entire contents of the emails presented as media evidence against Pruitt, in an accusation that is now, I believe, 15 years old, likely long since put to bed by the law. I believe even less that he has access to, or sight of the case for Pruitt’s rebuffal, because it simply wouldn’t cross his mind there could be such a thing.

          • “Some might consider it unethical, but in the interest of human health, necessary, and therefore not wrong. Others have different views on it.”

            Well, I would put it to you that if it is not wrong then it can’t be unethical, and vice versa. Ethics is about moral correctness, and moral correctness is about right and wrong.

          • Philip Schaeffer

            You’re running round in circles and ending up your own backside with your puerile logic.

            In your own words “if it is not wrong then it can’t be unethical, and vice versa.” Therefore, if Pruitt wasn’t prosecuted for past activities, he’s not wrong and, by your own definition, his actions are not unethical.

            Which is precisely what I said when you started on your bizarre quest for an argument.

            But is it moral or ethical to harass a man, and threaten his family, for doing his job? I contend not, yet I don’t see you screaming and stamping your little feetsies about that. All I see is you regurgitating an event from 15 years in Pruitt’s past that has long since been consigned to history. Were there any legal issues surrounding it, he would have been prosecuted. Yet you brandish a single piece of email ‘evidence’ and judge him, whilst others far more qualified than you, and in full possession of all the facts, have not prosecuted him.

            No one can judge another on a moral, ethical, or legal basis unless they are in full possession of the facts. It’s that simple. You are not in full possession of the facts. And getting back to the original argument you have evidently long since forgotten, that’s smear.

            Where does that place your moral or ethical standards, the same place your logic resides?

            Try questioning your own ethics before that of others.

            Please stop, you’re tedious, and flogging a dead horse.

          • He stayed in a DC condo owned by the wife of a lobbyist with business before the EPA for $50 a night (see what you can find in DC for $50 a night if you think that’s not a gift).

            He has admitted this. He tried to say that it was fair market value. Anyone can do a search for similar rentals in DC to see plainly that this absolutely false. Especially with no lease, and only having to pay for the nights he actually stayed there.

            If you can’t directly see the problem with that without a court to help you, then I really don’t know what to tell you. You’re lost.

            Do you still maintain that it’s all just media reports with no real evidence? You said that earlier.

          • Philip Schaeffer

            Please go away.

            I have tried to point out to you that you are not in full possession of all the facts. If you’re going to judge someone you must consider the case for the defence as well.

            You don’t because you have a personal problem with Pruitt which renders you unwilling to consider there is a case for his defence.

            I have had enough of your babbling.

          • I’ve already heard his defense from the horses mouth. He said it was fair market value. I know that to be false.

            “I have had enough of your babbling.”

            Yes, well, I think “very highly” of you too, and you won’t go away, so I guess we can both keep wishing.

  36. Sad day — thought he could survive but the opposition is desperate to save the advantages they’ve accrued on the basis of un-justifiable fear and deliberate deception. The greens will stop at nothing. Pruitt for Sainthood!

  37. Scott Pruitt saved tax payers over $1 billion in a year and started to weed activists from the EPA . You better believe he was a target but given the microscope he was under he made a few bad choices
    that the plants in the EPA blew out of proportion .
    With all the threats why would you go out to a restaurant and invite nut jobs to harass you ?
    I know it’s not right that he should be so concerned but the uncivil war is raging .

  38. Regime change at work. Just imagine the pressure on Trump. The neocon/neolib British regime change policy brought to a government near you right on the 4th July. This did not stop in 1783.

  39. Perhaps Mueller and his small army of Lawfare techs should vet Wheeler. After all, they’re not biased.

  40. I was hoping Mr. Pruitt would demand that carbon dioxide from this day forward be called a gas and not pollution.

    • … a vital gas. NOT a trace gas, NOT a pollutant, but a VITAL gas.

      0.04 % by volume is all it takes to sustain most life as we know it. It, thus, is a powerful LIFE gas, NOT a killer gas.

      • Most of the skeptics here call it a trace gas, so you’re gonna have a hard time with that.

  41. Prb’ly was offered a deal he couldn’t refuse. Or one of his kids picked up after school by a limousine w/strange people in suits inside, then dropped back at home — message received.

  42. I reject any criticism of Scoot Pruitt. He did a good job and was hounded out of his position by scoundrels.

    Mr. Pruitt, Well done Sir! Thank you for your service to America and to humanity.

    Yours truly, Allan MacRae, P.Eng.

    • So, what do you have to say about the allegations against him? Do you know what they are? What exactly do you think about them?

        • So you refuse to think about the allegations against him, and refuse to say what you think about them. Righto.

          The whistle-blower behind the most recent allegations (which are supported by a comparison of his public calendar to other documents from his department), is a proud Trump supporter!

        • Steve McIntyre spent about a decade diligently disproving the Hockey Stick that falsely supported Mann-made Global Warming alarmist nonsense.

          Many of us immediately knew Mann et al (MBH98 and subsequent papers) was false because it eliminated the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from the historic record.

          Furthermore, every dire prediction from the global warming alarmist IPCC and its minions has failed to materialize – they have a perfectly negative predictive track record.

          Then we have the hysterical reaction of the left to the election of Donald Trump. These people are demonstrably insane – their latest mantra is “Trump is the new Hitler”. How utterly offensive and imbecilic!

          And who is the one person the left hates and fears more than Donald Trump? Scott Pruitt! So they will say and do anything to harm him and hound him out of office.

          The left has no integrity and no decency. Their predictive track record on scientific issues is 100% false. They lie and cause harm to people whenever it serves The Cause.

          In conclusion, do I have to waste my time checking out every extreme statement from leftist scoundrels and imbeciles? No I do not.

          Based on the overwhelming evidence to date including their perfectly negative predictive track record and their history of vile lies, the balance of probabilities suggests that the allegations by the leftists against Scott Pruitt are wildly overblown.

          • That’s hilarious, especially on a science forum. Not many scientific principles going on there.

          • My rejection of warmist propaganda is a practical accommodation of Brandolini’s Law, which states that:

            – Alberto Brandolini, 11 January 2013

            One year earlier, I published the following statement [Note that it is still true, after more than two decades of warmist propaganda]:

            “After more than a decade, NONE of the scary predictions of the global warming alarmists have materialized. The warmists’ predictive track record is one of absolute failure.”

            – Allan M.R. MacRae, January 15, 2012

            Notwithstanding their reverse order of occurrence, you can call my above statement “MacRae’s Corollary to Brandolini’s Law”.

            “MacRae’s Corollary” is designed to save you countless hours of toil, as evidenced by the ~decade of diligent work and remarkable mathematical competence that Steve McIntyre expended to disprove Mann’s “hockey stick” (aka “hokey stick”).

            Just assume that the warmists are hopeless pathological liars, and that all their very-scary predictions of runaway global warming, wilder weather, etc are false. You will have a very high probability of being correct.

            Regards, Allan 🙂

      • How many rivers did EPA poison under Pruitt, and how many under Obama’s administrators?

      • Philip Schaeffer

        Has Pruitt been prosecuted and convicted for these ‘allegations’?

        If not, scream all you want, they are worthless until proven, and you don’t have the competence or the facts to pass judgement.

        • So the correct way is to ignore the evidence we do have, and not think about it until a court tells us what to think?

          • Philip Schaeffer

            The correct way is not to condemn a man on internet tittle tattle and speculation.

            The ‘evidence’ you are ‘served’, is not the evidence you are not served.

          • Not just tittle tattle and speculation. Testimony before congress, emails obtained through FOI requests (confirming that Pruitt had taxpayer paid staff seek a Chik-Fill-A franchise for his wife), and direct statements from whistle-blowers who worked for Pruitt regarding his public calendar, followed up by the work of journalists comparing Pruitt’s public calendar with other documents that confirm the discrepancies in his public calendar.

            This isn’t just a case of competing statements. Actual evidence has been found and presented.

          • Philip Schaeffer

            And yet, to my knowledge, no prosecution pending.

            You are peddling the concept of the ‘court of public opinion’.

          • And yet, to my knowledge, no prosecution pending against Clinton.

            Anyway, if you want to ignore the evidence we do have, you can claim that it’s just a court of public opinion.. But only if you refuse to acknowledge what evidence there is.

          • Philip Schaeffer

            I didn’t mention Clinton.

            Not my concern until she appears in court.

            “if you want to ignore the evidence we do have”

            Interested to know who “we” are, and how credible ‘your’ evidence is.

          • “I didn’t mention Clinton.

            Not my concern until she appears in court.”

            So you have no valid opinion about her until she does?

            “Interested to know who “we” are, and how credible ‘your’ evidence is.”

            We is everyone, and the credibility of the evidence can be ascertained from the emails obtained under FOI, and the cross checking between Pruitt’s public calendar and other documents obtained by journalists.

            Not everything is proven beyond reasonable doubt, but a lot is. Like using tax payer paid staff to seek a Chik-Fill-A franchise for his wife, from emails obtained under FOI laws.

          • Philip Schaeffer

            “So you have no valid opinion about her until she does?”

            I have no opinion on her, valid or otherwise because I’m unqualified to form an opinion.

            “We is everyone”

            Clearly not.

            “the credibility of the evidence can be ascertained from the emails obtained under FOI, and the cross checking between Pruitt’s public calendar and other documents obtained by journalists.”

            And you have seen this evidence have you, other than what journalists want you to see? And, of course, you are qualified to make a judgement on someone’s guilt or innocence.

            “Not everything is proven beyond reasonable doubt”

            Pretty much so, in a court of law.

            Other than that it’s trial by public opinion.

          • Here you go: The Chick-Fil-A emails obtained under FOI.




            “Three months after Scott Pruitt was sworn in as head of the Environmental Protection Agency, his scheduler emailed Dan Cathy, chief executive of the fast-food company Chick-fil-A, with an unusual request: Would Cathy meet with Pruitt to discuss “a potential business opportunity”?

            A call was arranged, then canceled, and Pruitt eventually spoke with someone from the company’s legal department. Only then did he reveal that the “opportunity” on his mind was a job for his wife, Marlyn.

            “The subject of that phone call was an expression of interest in his wife becoming a Chick-fil-A franchisee,” company representative Carrie Kurlander told The Washington Post via email.

            Marlyn Pruitt never opened a restaurant. “Administrator Pruitt’s wife started, but did not complete, the Chick-fil-A franchisee application,” Kurlander said. But the revelation that Pruitt used his official position and EPA staff to try to line up work for his wife appears to open a new chapter in the ongoing saga of his questionable spending and management decisions, which so far have spawned a dozen federal probes.”

          • Philip Schaeffer

            You’ll be telling me next you believe the Climategate emails.

            Seriously though. This email extract tells me Pruitt and his wife thought about something, then thought better of it.

            Just a feeble attempt at smear.

            And please don’t tell me you haven’t used your position to your advantage, because I’ll call you a liar.

          • “Philip Schaeffer

            You’ll be telling me next you believe the Climategate emails.”

            Are you saying you don’t believe the contents of the emails obtained from the EPA under FOI? Is the EPA fabricating emails?

            “Seriously though. This email extract tells me Pruitt and his wife thought about something, then thought better of it.

            Just a feeble attempt at smear.”

            So it’s ok to have taxpayer paid staff help line up a business opportunity for your wife?

            “And please don’t tell me you haven’t used your position to your advantage, because I’ll call you a liar.”

            What position do I have to use to my advantage? I’ve always been self employed. I’m a computer and recording studio technician.

          • Philip Schaeffer

            Where did I even suggest I didn’t believe the EPA emails? I said the content was worthless and a feeble attempt at smear.

            A staff member typed an email for Pruitt, big deal.

            “I’m a computer and recording studio technician.”

            Therefore notably unqualified to comment on legal matters. Nor does it exempt you from taking advantage of your position.

          • You’re sound a bit more defensive now that you realize that I won’t let up. You know exactly where you went wrong. It was at the point where you judged me on the basis of what other people have or haven’t done.

            Before you asked me about what I think about the issue you based your judgement of my conduct on.

            “Where did I even suggest I didn’t believe the EPA emails?

            Well, exactly what did you mean by this:

            “You’ll be telling me next you believe the Climategate emails.”

          • Philip Schaeffer


            [Snip] you would have recognised my comment for what it is, humour. The Climategate emails are as reliable as the EPA emails, but I doubt you would dial their significance into your hysterical, puerile, ill informed Pruitt rants.

            You deem it appropriate to judge people’s ethics when you know nothing about them, yet deem it ethical that a man is harassed and his family threatened, because he’s doing his job. You clearly operate in the warped world of the left.

            You have no concept of the legal implications inherent in prosecuting someone, because you have never prosecuted anyone, I have.

            Your comments on here betray your profound ignorance and blind adherence to left wing ideology.

            Do some proper reading and learn how destructive left wing ideology is.

          • You never did answer this question:

            “So it’s ok to have taxpayer paid staff help line up a business opportunity for your wife?”

            Well, is it? You say feeble smear… So does that mean that you see no problem with what he did?

          • Philip Schaeffer

            I have answered the question.

            If it’s illegal, then he’ll be punished. If it’s not, he won’t.

            Simple as.

            But it’s certainly not up to a barrack room lawyer like you to pass judgement.

          • Back on the subject of things we do know for certain:

            Pruitt stayed in a DC condo owned by the wife of a lobbyist with business before the EPA for $50 a night (see what you can find in DC for $50 a night if you think that’s not a gift).

            He has admitted this, so there is no doubt over evidence.

            What do you think about that? No back room lawyering needed there. The facts are not in dispute.

            Would you have done that? If not, why? Don’t need to be a legal expert to see why that is unacceptable.

          • Philip Schaeffer

            You are not in full possession of all the facts.

            In your own words: “Well, I would put it to you that if it is not wrong then it can’t be unethical, and vice versa.”

            He’s not been convicted of anything so until he is, it’s not unethical.

            You continue down the path of trial by media and the court of public opinion.

          • It is entirely possible to be a criminal without having been convicted. It is entirely possible to be unethical without breaking a law.

            Imagine a band robber waiting out the statute of limitations. Are you saying that if he successfully hides from the law for long enough that his actions become ethical, but that if he is found and convicted, only then do they become unethical?

          • Philip Schaeffer

            “It is entirely possible to be a criminal without having been convicted.”

            Wrong! No one is a criminal until convicted. There goes your puerile logic again.

            “It is entirely possible to be unethical without breaking a law.”

            Entirely dependent on your ethical position.

            The rest of your ‘argument’ is just nonsense.

            Stop going round in circles. It is tedious and demonstrates your lack of education.

          • So bank robbers and murderers who don’t get caught aren’t criminals? All you have to do is evade the police and you aren’t a criminal!


            I really think you have issues with the distinction between being guilty of doing something, and guilt under the law. If I murder someone, but I don’t get convicted because the evidence isn’t strong enough, I am still guilty of committing murder. I will still know that I am guilty even if the court can’t prove it.

          • Philip Schaeffer

            “So bank robbers and murderers who don’t get caught aren’t criminals? All you have to do is evade the police and you aren’t a criminal!”

            By George I think he’s getting it!

            The act itself is criminal, but unless someone is convicted in a court of law for that act, no one is a criminal because no one has had the opportunity to present their case for the defence.

            “If I murder someone, but I don’t get convicted because the evidence isn’t strong enough, I am still guilty of committing murder.”

            On the other hand, perhaps he isn’t getting it.

            No! You are not, because if the evidence isn’t strong enough, you may be convicted of Culpable Homicide, or found not guilty, or not proven in Scotland. It is then between you and your concision as to whether you committed the murder. The Criminal Justice System has done it’s job to the best of its abilities and has erred on the side of caution by not convicting someone solely because they believed they committed a crime.

            Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in civilised western democracies and the onus of proving someone guilty is entirely on the state. If that can’t be done, you could be a serial killer and still walk free and no one can legitimately call you a criminal because that is merely their unsubstantiated belief.

            The law does not make judgements based on morals or ethics, it makes judgements based on Acts of Parliament (in the UK at least) where each and every law is scrutinised and debated before it’s enacted.

            Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp. It’s accepted by every judge, jury, lawyer, cop and, for that matter, criminal, in the civilised world, but just not you.

          • Lol, this is hilarious. If you catch your neighbor stealing from you, but the police fail to investigate, will you still think the same about him as you did before you caught him stealing?

            Will you say to yourself “I can’t judge him because he wasn’t convicted”?

            Or will you think “he’s lucky he wasn’t convicted in court, but I know he is a thief”?

          • Philip Schaeffer

            If you have the evidence your neighbour stole from you, why wouldn’t the Police investigate?

            Indeed, there’s nothing to stop you raising a civil case against him, but the evidence required to seek restitution is much the same.

            If you don’t have sufficient evidence and call your neighbour a thief in public, that’s slander, because you have proven nothing.

            What you think to yourself about him is entirely up to you.

          • Philip Schaeffer

            This is really, really basic stuff. If you don’t get it you are either being deliberately awkward or you really should do a little reading on the subject because you are living in a society you don’t understand.

            These are the laws of evidence civilised society is based on. You either have the evidence, which can take a number of forms, witnesses, forensic, circumstantial etc. in which case, your case might be considered for examination in court, or you don’t, in which case, tough luck.

            Scientist’s work on much the same principle. They either have the evidence, or they don’t. If their theory is sound, their experiment can be replicated by someone else.

            Criminal and civil courts need to replicate a crime (virtually) in the public eye in order that the circumstances and evidence can be validated.

          • The bar is set justifiably high in what evidence is required and what process followed to convict and punish someone with sanctions under the law. That doesn’t mean we can’t have our own opinions about someone.

            If you are caught stealing, you will be treated like a thief, regardless of whether you actually get convicted. The people around you aren’t going to change their judgement of your guilt because the court failed to convict you.

            “We saw him stealing. He’s a thief”

            “Yeah, but we can’t say that because he wasn’t convicted” said no one, ever.

          • Philip Schaeffer

            Your opinion is your opinion, it is neither morally nor legally qualified.

            Stop running round in circles trying to justify your obtuse logic to yourself.

            And if you call someone a thief when they have not been convicted as such, you are liable to prosecution for defamation of character, which renders you the criminal.

          • Lol, you’re free to refrain from making any judgements. And I’m free to say I’m satisfied based on the evidence I’ve seen that Pruitt needed to go.

          • Philip Schaeffer

            And that’s precisely where we came in. You expected me to pass opinion on Pruitts ethics, now you tell me I’m free not to, which has been my contention all along, indeed, I’m compelled not to judge people on their morals.

            You are still happy to judge people without seeking evidence for their defence, which has been your contention all along, despite all the evidence to demonstrate that’s wrong.

            See what I mean about you running yourself round in circles?

      • Jack Davis – your ~five comments (to date) on this thread are abusive and imbecilic. You are an example of the intellectual corruption, lack of integrity and lack of decency of the extreme left.

        Thank you for making my case.

        • Allen

          Forgive me for reducing myself to the puerile.

          But he was snipped……Teehee.

          And Anthony et al (Mods) are tolerant.


  43. So – the terrorists have won – again. It seems that in the Western World, if you don’t like someone’s policies, you don’t have to wait to vote them out – just attack, attack and attack until they give up! Democracy, I weep for your passing!

    • Am I detecting a siege sentiment here? Ah, that’s good! The sooner the lunatic rejection of science this site promotes is defeated, the sooner…..
      Nah – you guys are irrelevant and inconsequential. I don’t know why I bother.

  44. I am disappointed in this. In my opinion Pruitt was doing a good job . The any thing Trump haters have won this one. I really don’t blame Pruitt for resigning. Hope Wheeler can continue to set the EPA right. Sadely the anything Trump haters are probably already looking anything to smear Wheeler with.

  45. I will say this – in the long-established tradition of being utterly unable to think dynamically, the progressive lefts two-year assault on Pruitt has left them with a replacement who was a coal lobbyist.

    If their actions weren’t so utterly hateful, and therefore utterly devoid of humor, I would laugh.
    As it is, all I can do is shake my head and roll my eyes.

    • Let me also thank Mr Pruitt for a tremendous start to the draining of EPA. All allegations, being from the Soros etc.-funded destroy Western democracy crew, are lies. Fascinating seeing the swamp scum swarming here now. Shows we are winning, and by the way, so is Trump.
      Good comment Joel.

    • Don’t worry too much, it may just be that it’s hard to see any humor in a situation where the most powerful nation on the planet has elected a narcissist delinquent as president and he has sort out sociopaths to help him bugger up all decency. It may just be that.

  46. Those who support Pruitt here seem to have only one justification for it….. the left has people who are bad or worse than him. That is such twisted thinking and sums up the one eyed support for “anything as long as it is not left” here. Happy to look past his corruption and dodgy dealings just because his views on climate change match theirs. What hypocrisy.

        • Of course but that was not my point. Anyone who believes they are right “should” fight for what they believe in. Left or right.

  47. I feel sick. What a fawning supplicating arse licking weasel resignation letter. He’s leaving Trump’s employ – why does he need to abase himself before ‘Trump the All Wise’?
    To think that such a worm of a man has been making decisions affecting the future of our world is heartbreaking.
    No wonder the space aliens haven’t made contact – they must be looking on in horror!

  48. I am an old Aussie and thus look at America from the outside, it would seem from an outsider that you have a new civil war. Your 4th of July has just passed and I took the time to study some American history including reading your declaration of independence document. Even back at that time you had many that were not patriotic to your new country.

    This time in history it would seem you have elected a real patriot as president who is trying to bring back the true essence of your historic documents. Some of the Democratic party and assorted watermelons looking from the outside are not patriots, they do not seem to care about America only their agenda.

    The advent of your new president being elected has put a large dent in their plans, I do hope that he gets your country out of the UN for I believe it is their agenda that your democrats and watermelons are following. God bless America the world needs you alive and strong.

    • Wayne,
      I’d say your view from the Great Down Under shows remarkable clarity. I would however characterize this as a new ‘Uncivil War’, as the response just above from Jack Davis so clearly illustrates. Clinically, we refer to it as Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). TDS can range from the mundane name calling to determined attempts to murder supporters of President Trump and his agenda. The following is an example of a murderous attempt to assassinate a group of Republican Representatives and Senators near Washington D.C. in June last year, as they were having a team softball game practice. The perpetrator was a socialist democrat, Bernie Sanders campaign supporter, and Obama ‘99%er’.

      This was not the act of an ‘unhinged individual’ but rather a hatred fueled, politically motivated assassination attempt, designed to kill Republican Congressmen Trump supporters and cripple President Trump’s administration as it was just getting organized. The irrational hatred of the socialist democrats drives them to murderous extremes. They are convinced the ends justify the means and the Rule of Law be damned.

      • The baseball practice shooter *was* deranged. You don’t go mowing down innocent people unless you are deranged.

        That’s the danger with overheated political rhetoric: You agitate the psychos out there to the point that they feel a need to act out violently, and the overheated rhetoric gives them permission to do so, in their minds.

        There is a civil war going on in the United States but there is uncertainty about the numbers involved. On one side, you have the “Silent Majority” Right versus the Left and the Radical Left.

        The Left and Right fight the civil war with rhetoric.

        The Radical Left fights the civil war with all sorts of underhanded methods including violence.

        Imo, the Radical Left is small in numbers. But they have a great deal of influence over the political dialog because they have the megaphones of the Leftwing Media, the News Media and the Entertainment media, which makes it look like their numbers are huge.

        So I don’t rule out some violent incidents in this civil war but I don’t think they will amount to much because the American Right is not looking for a violent confrontation, and will avoid one if possible, and the Radical Left does not have the numbers or the political support to violently overthrow our government.

        The Radical Left can cause some problems, but then the American people are going to stand up and demand that the lawbreakers be held to account.

  49. Gee Scott, couldnt you behave yourself. Whatever great things he may have accomplished, shame on him for his wanton waste for the taxpayers money. It is far too often that well paid officials abuse their offices by purloining public assets for personal use, chintzy chiseling on expense accounts and the like. It is selfish disregard and stupidity.

    • I couldn’t agree more, but watch the apologists here defend him because they like his particular destructive set of bizarre beliefs.

      • Jack, I agree that apologists will show up and defend Pruitt based on his accomplishments and try to overlook any potential ethical breeches. Some will try the old “well someone else did so and so”. I agree with your earlier post that officials must be held accountable for their actions, no excuses! If these allegations against Pruitt bear out, he should be held to account. That that is the way things are done in DC is no excuse. That being said, are you willing to stand up and also argue that the alleged misdeeds of the previous administration should also be investigated and anyone found in violation of ethical standards be held accountable?

  50. WHATEVER !! With regard to the USA EPA :
    I was an unashamed to be a SCOTT PRUITT fan and remain so !
    He initiated the NECESSARY REFORMATION of the EPA at
    POTUS TRUMP’S requirements and I hope his replacement will do likewise !
    Fortunately , there is only ONE COUNTRY who seems to be capable of casting some
    light into this bleak scientific darkness , and that is TRUMP’S AMERICA !
    Australian science has been “blinded by the MONEY , no longer , by the LIGHT ! ”

    Don Jindra
    Why does everything have to be about left and right these days?
    Don…….Since Marxism was first postulated and the French Post-Modern philosophers
    came on the scene in the 1930’s ( or so ) and incorporated it into their thinking and it later
    gained such wide acceptance ( mostly through YALE University’s humanities department )
    EVERYTHING in the WESTERN WORLD has been viewed from these perspectives !
    Obama & Clinton & the Democratic Party REPRESENT the LEFT.
    Reagan & Trump & the Republican Party REPRESENT the RIGHT.
    And then it ALL DEPENDS upon YOUR VIEW of History how you
    regard each aspect of the influence and power that each “side”
    should exercise…given that THERE SHOULD BE A BALANCE .
    FREE THE DOWN-TRODDEN MASSES and establish their Communist UTOPIA.
    This has EQUALITY OF OUTCOMES FOR GROUPS ( too bad if it’s NOT your group ! )
    You get to SHARE in the State wealth , but have no rights at all.
    ( Russia & China killed hundreds of millions of their own people and haven’t
    managed to establish anything resembling a UTOPIA ! )
    The RIGHT on the other hand has produced the CAPITALIST WESTERN
    CIVILISATION and America has taken it to it’s finest level SO FAR with
    OPPORTUNITY , PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of property and labour and
    FREE CHOICE in most things , and HIGH moral values, in SCIENCE & TRUTH !
    It has CREATED ENORMOUS WEALTH and lifted the living standard
    of everyone ! A larger “PIE” for everyone to share. LOTS OF REWARD
    AND INCENTIVE TO DO BETTER ! Encouragement and HOPE !!
    Most of Western Europe and Oceania and former British Colonies and
    Britain also enjoy these same benefits , but the degree varies !
    So Don , I do hope you will go away and READ A LOT about World
    History and REALISE WHY PEOPLE fight so hard for their particular view
    and WHY I regard the LEFT as basically murderous, ideological thugs
    who intend to disrupt my pleasant lifestyle with their actions ;
    and WHY I regard the RIGHT as more closely reflecting and
    maintaining what I have come to value.
    Then YOU won’t have to be so naive when you make YOUR CHOICE !

  51. What happened to the CLIMATEGATE UPDATE??? It disappeared on Climate Audit Wesite as well.

  52. Start naming them Scott.
    Start telling the horror stories your family has copped.

  53. Science doesn’t have anything to do with the political spectrum of left-right, conservative-liberal etc.

    It would serve science a great deal if we could refrain from bringing party politics into every issue.

    Pruitt was corrupt and incompetent, that is why it was a good thing he got kicked out.


    Kevin Chmielewski, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) whistleblower who played a central role in Scott Pruitt’s downfall at the agency, said he feels vindicated by the administrator’s departure.

    “I hate to take a credit for a man losing his job, but I guess I’d have to say that I take the credit,” Chmielewski told The Hill on Friday, the day Pruitt left the EPA.

    I hate to say it, but this guy would not have gotten any mileage, “if” all this was not true. I don’t know if any of it is true. Other than the jerk being left at the EPA to cause damage. Something the Left on knows how to do. I sure hope this guy does not find any troubles, in his life, due to this. Things are kind of crazy, nowadays.

    If our good President, gets another 4 years as POTUS, I hope there are as many Right, remaining to do the same kind of damage. The DEMONcrats are teaching us all a lesson, in dealing with them.

  55. The media attack Pruitt over chump change yet Mueller and his entrapment team
    cost tax payers over $30,000 per day and the MSM zip it for the most part .
    There must be a contest between Commey and Mueller to see who can shake down
    tax payers more . I’m betting on Mueller and his team of Democrat donors . No bias there .
    Nope .. just the swamp creatures looking out for other swamp creatures .

    • The Pruitt allegations remain without proof, like the thousands made up re Trump, also paid for by billionaires who think they should rule. As happened with the Caesars and their rich backers who took down the Roman Republic.
      Judging by the troll harvest here, we must be hurting them, as we intend to go on…..
      Great work Mr Pruitt. Thank You. Now for the next steps.

      • No, the Chik-Fil-A story comes from emails obtained under FOI, and an email from Chick-Fil-A confirming what the discussion was about, which I provided a link to back up the page.

Comments are closed.