Democrats are asking EPA administrator Scott Pruitt to explain why he won’t recuse himself from President Donald Trump’s climate regulation rollback.
Lawmakers in Congress want to know why the former Oklahoma attorney general has not asked permission from the agency’s ethics office before signing off on Trump’s order nixing the Clean Power Plan (CPP). They believe Pruitt’s previous lawsuits against the rule required the Republican to recuse himself.
Their complaints come after the president signed a pair of executive orders earlier this month rolling back the CPP, which seeks to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas levels by nearly 30 percent over the next 10 years.
“We believe you are required to have secured authorization from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Designed Agency Ethics Officer (DAEO) to participate in these matters,” Sens. Tom Carper of Delaware and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, among others, wrote in a letter to Pruitt.
“We seek your written confirmation that such authorization has been granted, or that you will recuse yourself from these matters going forward,” they added, referring to an agreement Trump’s EPA head made in January seeking authorization to participate in matters related to legal issues he has previously engaged in.
The group of lawmakers wants to know if Pruitt has in any way recused himself from the merits of the CPP.
“If you have recused yourself from these matters, please provide the name(s) and identify the position(s) of the individual(s) you have directed to act in your stead,” they wrote.
Carper opposed Pruitt’s nomination in January and urged his Democratic colleagues to postpone voting on the former AG even after Congress subjected him to a grueling six hour-long confirmation hearing.
“While Committee Democrats acknowledge that Mr. Pruitt did submit responses to many questions, too many of his answers fail to provide requested documents, substance, and clarity needed about his potential conflicts of interests,” Carper wrote in a letter January to Republican Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, who chairs the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.
He was referring to concerns that Pruitt’s lawsuits against the EPA might represent a conflict of interest if he was confirmed — Carper wants Pruitt to recuse himself from agency matters dealing with litigation he initiated as the Oklahoma AG.
But of course we all know by now the Demac-RATS are all for Big Goverment,More Regulations,More Red Tape and Mountain of papers to sign
So the Democrats decide what is “unethical”? That’s like a meth dealer being allowed to tell us what is “medicine”.
Love the Democrats getting all by the book suddenly . Democrats sure are silent about
Susan Rice and others using their political job titles to spy on private citizens and political opponents . Podesta was right … “this isn’t over ” . The trail of bread crumbs goes right to the top of the Democrat party operatives . They thought they would win and could cover their tracks . Wrong again .
Democrats are poor losers. Shameless. Do they think that turning blue in the face will win them votes in the midterms? They’re trying to bog down the GOP and economic recovery from hope and change.
Look at last year when the little demac-BRATS held a little sit-in for gun control with that ugly old bald headed jackass John Lewis
Claiming that Pruitt has a conflict of interest in rolling back the Clean Power Act is about as lame as anyone can get. He is not the one making the decision, that was made by President Trump. Pruitt’s job is just to implement the decision.
For the Democrats to cry ethics is like a prostitute giving a nun a bad time for indecent exposure because the nun exposed her ankle.
If ethics were truly applied, the climate change movement couldn’t exist. It was initially created by adding fudge factors to the IPCC models. When it was clear that real data didn’t support the cause, they started altering the historical data, dropping sensor stations to get the desired results, and ignoring reliable data such as that from satellites. The ocean acidification paper replaced real data that didn’t support its conclusion with computer simulated data. There is the use of tax payer funded agencies to support what amounts to a political campaign. There are many more items that could be listed.