EPA “imploding” Under Pruitt Scandals

June 7, 2018

EPA spokesman: ‘Have a great day. You’re a piece of trash.”


Shock and disappointment even among long-time aids whose careers have been damaged by association.

And who really wants a used Trump mattress?
That’s some really disgusting crazy.


12 Responses to “EPA “imploding” Under Pruitt Scandals”

  1. dumboldguy Says:

    It says something that the long-time aides he brought with him from OK are now abandoning the sinking ship. The word “crazy” is no longer adequate to describe Pruitt’s behavior (or Trump’s, for that matter).

    I’m also glad to see that my suspicions about why they sought a Chick-fil-A franchise was because of the “godliness” of the chicken sandwiches.

  2. ubrew12 Says:

    Q. Why does Scott Pruitt need a phone booth in his office?
    A. Enters as ordinary citizen ‘Pruitt’, exits as ‘ScandalMan!’

  3. Abel Adamski Says:

    One that appears to have gone under the Radar.
    Poor pathetic old Scott Pruitt, it is all catching up on him and his cronies.

    Judge Orders EPA to Produce Science behind Pruitt’s Warming Claims

    The EPA head has suggested humans are not the main cause of climate change

    EPA must produce the opposing body of science Administrator Scott Pruitt has relied upon to claim that humans are not the primary drivers of global warming, a federal judge has ruled.

    The EPA boss has so far resisted attempts to show the science backing up his claims. His critics say such evidence doesn’t exist, even as Pruitt has called for greater science transparency at the agency.

    Now, a court case may compel him to produce research that attempts to contradict the mountain of peer-reviewed studies collected by the world’s top science agencies over decades that show humans are warming the planet at an unprecedented pace through the burning of fossil fuels.

    David Schnare, a member of Trump’s EPA “beachhead” team, prepared a document in February 2017 that listed administration priorities, including reopening the endangerment finding, which allows EPA to regulate greenhouse gases and is a foundation of many environmental regulations.

    Schnare wrote that they would gather a group of researchers who claim humans are not the primary drivers of climate change as part of the effort to pull back the endangerment finding.

    “We bring on contractor support (Judith Curry’s group, supplemented by John Christy, Craig Idso, Roger Pielke, and others) to formulate analysis of the science,” he wrote in the detailed plan.

    Those are some of the handful of researchers often cited by those who reject mainstream climate science, and each has worked with conservative groups fighting climate regulations.

    The FOIA case could be the second court case that would force the Trump administration to produce its version of climate science in a courtroom within the next year.

  4. J4Zonian Says:

    Eric Lipton says at 6:20 in the video he would rather be writing about environmental policy. They should do that! because the wild waving of many slimy and smelly tentacles by Pruitt and Trump are focusing the public’s attention on relatively minor (big and disgusting and illegal but not life-threatening) ethics, corruption, and spending scandals. Meanwhile, decades of protections for the public, workers and the rest of nature are being weakened, dismantled and abandoned. Some are getting hung up in court but fighting there to keep them intact, or worse, having to put them back after the Republicans are voted into prison–er, I mean out of office–will be far more time-consuming and expensive at a time when we need to put all our efforts into civilization not ending in our lifetimes.

    What the hell, alleged newspeople, you know exactly what’s going on and are sitting back mostly just watching it happen anyway. Time for walkouts until news organizations start reporting the news? General strike? (As Gandhi put it, a national day of fasting and prayer)

    • Abel Adamski Says:

      It has happened before.
      In Australia in 1975 and the paper that was the target was a — wait for it – nah you guessed it, the Rupert Murdoch Flagship, “The Australian”


      The day The Australian’s reporters stopped writing lies

      Rupert Murdoch’s brazen intervention in the 1975 Federal election campaign led to reporters at The Australian going on strike.

      “With great power comes great responsibility.”~ Stan Lee
      “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

      IT’S STRANGE to see these two quotes side by side, but if you merge them they suddenly seem to make sense. With great power and the unfettered freedom to use it, we all must remain eternally vigilant that it is used responsibly.

      To understand the mistrust of Murdoch’s media balance, it’s useful to revisit the 1975 Federal Election campaign. A day or two after the dismissal Fairfax management issued a letter which was circulated to all staff urging “fairness, balance and professionalism” in their coverage of the forthcoming election.

      At the other end of the professional spectrum the Rupert Murdoch owned The Australian behaved with such bias and was perceived as being so disgraceful that journalists went on strike in the midst of the election campaign.

      Murdoch’s overt interference in the 1975 campaign was so bad that reporters on the Australian went on strike in protest and seventy-five of them wrote to their boss calling the newspaper ‘a propaganda sheet’ and saying it had become ‘a laughing stock’ (Wright 1995). ‘You literally could not get a favourable word about Whitlam in the paper. Copy would be cut, lines would be left out,’ one former Australian journalist told Wright’ (1995).

      ~ Tony Wright, ‘On the Wrong Side of Rupert’, Sydney Morning Herald, 13 October 1995.

      To go on strike over wages and conditions is one thing understood by all, but for 109 journalists to go on strike during a Federal election campaign is indicative of just how bad the editorial interference was.

      In the early stages of the campaign, there had been criticisms from highly regarded journalists about their copy being so altered that their stories bore no resemblance to articles that had been filed. Placement was pushed back, headlines were deemed by them as scurrilous and not reflective of the content, and so the outraged allegations of not just media bias, but direct editorial interference, precipitated a strike of journalists.

      A letter written by News Limited journalists and presented to management outlines clearly some of the concerns they had resulting in their strike action on 8th-10 December 1975, the last week of the election campaign.

      …the deliberate and careless slanting of headlines, seemingly blatant imbalance in news presentation, political censorship and, more occasionally, distortion of copy from senior specialist journalists, the political management of news and features, the stifling of dissident and even palatably impartial opinion in the papers’ columns…

      ~ Denis Cryle; ‘Murdoch’s Flagship: 25 years of The Australian newspaper’; MUP (2008)

      And the pattern continues, now however Journalists jobs are increasingly hard to come by and they learn to take it or quit with no other opportunities open to them

Leave a Reply to dumboldguy Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: