Scott Pruitt... can we all agree on one thing?

Red or Blue, Conservative or Liberal, MAGA or Anti-Trump, Treehugger or Warmonger, young or old, black or white… can we all agree that Scott Pruitt is a corrupt, lying, self-serving scumbag?

I absolutely cannot see anyway an intelligent human being - not getting direct benefits from his corruption - could support his overt and clear corruption of the office. Regardless of your stance on global warming or any EPA policy, this guy is almost cartoonishly crooked and yet there are questions about IF he will be removed.

Pruitt has by all accounts i have read, shown a lack of integrity (to be kind) at nearly every stop in his political career. Heck I am not even sure he REALLY cares about the issues, he is just lining his pockets and those of his wife, family and friends.

For example, I personally despise Ajit Pai as our new FCC overlord and his NN repeal makes me sick. However for all his beliefs that i could not disagree with more, I have no reason to believe that he is corrupt (beyond the norms of politics :slight_smile: ), self serving and stealing tax payer money for his own personal gain.

But Scott Pruitt? Under what scenario could ANY person support him outside of the caveat i mentioned above? And I will argue against the “he is anti global warming so he fits that agenda” argument because Trump has the power to replace him with just another hardline conserative who cares about the issues and at least has some since of honor and integrity.

I don’t have to read this to say no, we can’t all agree.

I’ve read it. No.

cough ”FCC Republican faces ethics complaint after calling for Trump’s reelection”.

Honestly, Scott Pruitt is exactly what would be expected from an ideal Trump appointee: indifference to norms of governance, ethically compromised from the petty to the grand, acting in a capricious and vindictive manner toward employees who voice concerns about ethics, and dedicated to dismantling (not reforming or streamlining) the agency he is supposed to lead. When the person who has displayed the most integrity in the Trump Cabinet was a former petroleum company CEO (and despite all expectations, it really seemed that Rex Tillerson was genuinely, if incompetently, trying to serve the interests of the US public).

As if the o.p. needed proof. Yes, there is one in every crowd.

Stranger

The longer I am on this Earth, the more I believe in the inevitability of the Blazing Saddles Model of Governing.

Pruitt appears unable to separate his personal desires (Okie Hayseed, now surrounded by actual rich people, wants to be real rich just like them.) from a job that requires serving the public instead of himself.

Many people support the Clintons so it’s hardly surprising that some support Pruitt. Zealots are blind to the corruption or faults of their idols. Just see how MeToo passed Bill Clinton by with scarcely a murmur.

I say a plague on both their houses.

The Clintons are not in positions of authority. Pruitt is.

Your Whataboutism is a distraction from the matter at hand.

And, to be more specific, the Clintons are not misusing a government department’s budget.

I just read this a moment ago:

A mother confronts Pruitt and asks him to resign because of his actions as EPA Administrator. Not included in the video is Scott Pruitt hustling out of the restaurant with his much needed security detail.

Scott Pruitt is thoroughly, openly, brazenly corrupt. He is pure grift, with no principles of any kind, and just about the worst person imaginable to lead the EPA. And he’s only about the 10th most reprehensible person in the administration. As long as he’s not abusing children or destroying alliances or handing concessions to adversarial nations or coordinating secretly with our enemies, Pruitt’s got a pretty sweet deal. He can ride this gravy train for a long time.

Actually, I think all of these activities would only be to his advantage in terms of accruing credibility with Trump, who lamented that Michael Flynn and Ronny Jackson were “unfairly” vilified by the media for their venality and complete lack of ethics. Pruitt’s failings are really in the narrowness of his corruption. Steal little, you get criticized. Steal a lot, get appointed to a corporate board. Pruitt should really be aiming higher than a Chick-Fil-A franchise and a dirty mattress.

Stranger

Pruitt is thriving because he’s a shameless Trump sycophant. In Trump’s world of pathological narcissism this is all that matters. Pruitt’s larceny is hardly a problem, it’s a feature – Trump undoubtedly admires it, even while lamenting Pruitt’s small-time amateurishness.

“Cartoon villain” is exactly the image I prefer people to conjure when they think of government figures. Short of a real-deal Laissez-faire advocate, I’ll take this in a pinch.

Can you explain why?

There’s no point. Once someone comes to the discussion with the OP’s premise, there is no way to convince him otherwise. This would probably go better in another forum, because no debate will take place, only “agree with me or face insult.”

…lets forget the hyperbole in the OP for a minute. Prominent Republican strategist Ana Navarro said this today:

Would you agree or disagree with Ana on the bolded point? Remember, she was responding to this (paraphrased) from the Washington Post:

“Scott Pruitt repeatedly asked his 25-year-old staffers to put hotel reservations on their personal credit cards rather than his – then refused to pay them back.”

I saw an article today that said Pruitt is still around because of some obscure rule where because he has already been confirmed by the Senate, he can slot into another role without having to face confirmation and he would hold that position for about 200 days, 199 days longer than would be needed to take over as AG and shut down the Mueller investigation. Apparently advisors have shot this idea down but Trump wanted to do it.

No, I think there is a point.

The evidence before us is that Pruitt is comically corrupt. This isn’t some sort of weird Internet myth thing; he has been the subject of a truly remarkable number of scandals regarding his being corrupt. Well-documented scandals. In fact, in my entire life I cannot think of a public official in a generally non-corrupt country who has been connected with so many distinct scandals involving corruption.

If you are in possession of evidence or argument that this astounding array of scandals is not what it appears to be, I think you should at least briefly present it, because it sure as hell looks to me like, well, a bunch of scandals.

Then why post in this thread at all?

To answer the OP —
No. Judging by the absence of Trumpist or Republican posters in the thread, we can’t agree on even this.

… Depending on how you score this peculiar concession:

It seems to me - and of course correct me where i am wrong - that you came into this discussion with your own political bias which could of course make you - or anyone - immediately defensive if you are on Team Red.

However the entirety of my post was prefaced with an intent to remove political bias and judge on character to hold office and dedication to your policies and beliefs. My point was to ask how anyone could support/defend his brazen actions of clear corruption and abuse of office.

While I know my Ajit Pai comments clearly highlighted my political leaning, the fact is there have been some amazingly corrupt politicians from both sides of the aisle and all should have been removed, prosecuted and never allowed to be in government office. Regardless of your political color, it is still our taxes beging stolen/misappropriated.

In my opinion the only thing keeping Pruitt from being as corrupt as the likes of Rod Blagojevich (democrat), Edwin Edwards (democrat), George Ryan (republican), Kwame Killpatrick (democrat) and Bud Dwyer (republican) is a lack of access and power… something Pruitt sought to rectify by asking Trump to fire the Keebler Elf Sessions and hire him.