The Environmental Protection Agency turned down the White House’s offer to help its administrator, Scott Pruitt, prepare for two congressional hearings later this week.
Pruitt didn’t hear the offer because he was comfortably ensconced in his private, soundproof booth.
The EPA did not immediately respond to TPM’s request for comment on the report.
Ditto.
I would question the judgment of any dept or agency which took up the offer of help from this WH.
That said, I wonder if the WH wanted to help craft Pruitt’s resignation speech? I don’t see him making it past May 1st (but I had my money riding on Friday the 13th so what do I know?)
Pruitt is officially under the bus.
emphasis added
Bloomberg reported Tuesday that the White House had told congressional Republicans to soften their defenses of Pruitt, one sign that the administrator’s future is uncertain.
And this is one of the problems with our government. It’s fine to “support” the Administration and there are likely many things they agree on as “Republicans,” but the lockstep, knee jerk support is ridiculous and abdicating Congress’ role in governance. And yes, it happens on both sides. Sad.
it may well happen on both sides but I cannot recall in my lifetime any other congress which just blindly supported the blatantly unsupportable as this congress has with this so-called president, his so-called agenda and all of his criminal activities and outright lies.
If I’m wrong, please let me know which congress you believe was more complicit or another congress which was just as bad, especially if it’s of the modern day Democratic party.
Not a generally bad strategy to turn down the offer for help from this administration, but this story reminds me of the voter fraud trial Kobach just crashed into the ground in Kansas. Instead of getting help from the state’s attorneys, Kobach decided to take the lead and managed to look embarrassingly inept. (Very well documented here at TPM!) Pruit seems to be cut from the same cloth, but with more pomp and paranoia. This hearing might not be in a courtroom, but I expect similar results, especially if the Republicans have been given permission to conduct oversight.
If this was Bush, I would expect an underbussing, a sudden need to spend more time with family followed by the appointment of someone less ostentatiously corrupt and attention-grabby who proceeded to implement the exact same evil agenda, if not worse.
But that would be competence of a sort and this is the Trump Administration we’re talking about here.
I don’t think the kid who is working on a C+ in Weaseling Chiselers wants help from the kid who got an F.
Not only that let’s consider -
- Team Nixon’s interference in Vietnam negotiations.
- Team Reagan’s interference in Iranian hostage negotiations.
- Which led to Reagan Admin to blow off Congress and sell arms to Iran (Iran-Contra).
- The weird sh*t that went down in Election2000.
- Valerie Plame’s name leaked as payback for her husband’s Op-Ed.
- What have I left out?
All Republicans. All showing clear disregard for Rule of Law.
Name one Democratic Congress or Admin who’s done even remotely similar…
ummm…pantsuit?
Well…generally you don’t need much help to plead the fifth. I’m just hoping he arrives there in a 20 car entourage.
I think that your theory is far more plausible than mine.
Lights and sirens?
Hmm who has Pruitt’s back that’s not afraid of Trump? May have a four lettered last name perhaps?
True. But really seems like nobody in this administration can cut the cheese in the privacy of his own office without someone leaking to the press.
The Russians probably already have Melania’s credit card PIN number.
They’ve probably already hacked Trump’s personal, unsecure cell phone, which is now essentially a microphone, picking up every word, even when not in use. And it’s unlikely the Russians are alone. I would comfortably add North Korea, China, and Israel, just for openers.
I think the headline misspelled “Perp.”
Reminds me of a corporate story from my past. A senior executive of our company didn’t like the new CEO’s staff meetings, because he thought they weren’t productive. So he decided that he would stop attending them. When the CEO called him after his first absence and asked where he was, the executive actually said that he didn’t find the meetings useful, and thought he could be more productive doing other things.
The CEO reportedly said he could help with the exceutive’s time management issues.
Before the week was out the executive had put in his retirement papers.
The parallel to Pruitt is obvious.