User Tag List

Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: EPA broke spending law on Pruitt phone booth: government watchdog

  1. #1
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    8,971
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 2,793 Times in 1,873 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    363419

    EPA broke spending law on Pruitt phone booth: government watchdog

    A government watchdog agency concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency violated federal laws in spending more than $43,000 to install a private phone booth in EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s office.

    The Government Accountability Office found that the EPA did not comply with the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act by failing to notify Congress before spending more than $5,000 on the phone booth.

    According to Section 710 of that law, any agency or department head or government employee appointed by the president must inform relevant members of Congress before spending more than $5,000 “to furnish, or redecorate … or to purchase furniture or make improvements” to an office.
    ...
    The EPA “was required to notify the appropriations committees of its proposed obligation,” the GAO wrote in the report. “By failing to provide such advance notice, EPA violated the provision.

    The agency also violated another law, the Antideficiency Act, by spending "in a manner specifically prohibited by law" the independent, non-political government agency that investigates spending of taxpayer money on behalf of Congress also concluded.
    ...
    The Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Trey Gowdy, R-SC, has also asked for an interview with the head of Pruitt’s security detail and documents explaining how the agency justified his first-class flights and the need for more spending on security.

    Gowdy said in an interview on Sunday that he wants to know if the EPA is misusing taxpayer money and questioned that first-class flights are necessary for security reasons.

    "So the notion that I've got to fly first class because I don't want people to be mean to me, you need to go into another line of work if you don't want people to be mean to you. Like maybe a monk, where you don't come in contact with anyone,” Gowdy said on Fox News Sunday.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/inmates-kil...ry?id=54496289
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to The Barbarian For Your Post:

    Rusha (April 17th, 2018)

  3. #2
    Over 500 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    646
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 366 Times in 245 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    144638
    OK. Let's look at the EPA's behavior, under Clinton, Obama, and Bush, that is.

    Read all the articles below and then ask yourself why spending on security issues for a man receiving constant death threats is being blown out of proportion. We have billions of dollars spent outside of all oversight compared to less than $100,000 on security and the democrats and rinos are screaming bloody murder. I say, trace the real illegal money spent, the billions of dollars funneled to radical activist groups. Billions of dollars taken in legal system blackmail.

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials have accumulated at least $6.3 billion in more than 1,300 obscure spending accounts akin to slush funds that are essentially beyond congressional, media and public scrutiny.
    The accounts – which were created through EPA’s Superfund program – are not technically secret because the agency officially acknowledges their existence. But getting concrete details about deposits and expenditures is extremely difficult.
    The EPA deposited more than $6.3 billion into an estimated 1,308 special accounts between 1990 and 2015, according to the agency’s website, and has spent more than half of the total. The agency doesn’t publicly report individual special account balances or expenses.
    The “special accounts” are financed by legal settlements between the agency and parties responsible for polluting Superfund sites. Funds are deposited and spent without prior congressional approval.
    “This is the very definition of an out-of-control agency, if they can raise their own money and not have to go to Congress to have it appropriated,” Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment told TheDCNF.
    The rest of the above quote can be found at: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/29/th...like-accounts/

    Here is an article that shows exactly how the slush fund worked and how the EPA sent money to NGOs that support the marxist agenda and have no legal interest in the fines that the EPA leveled.

    For years, compliance and legal settlements at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) against corporate wrongdoers have funneled millions of dollars to nonprofit, ideology-driven organizations to promote their agendas. Under the watchful eyes of Administrator Scott Pruitt at the EPA and General Jeff Sessions at the Justice Department and, perhaps, with Congress’s help, that could change. What is needed is a system of checks and balances that ensures corporate actors who fail to follow the rules or comply with U.S. environmental law face appropriate corrective measures without being forced to line the pockets of ideological advocacy groups.
    In 2016, Harley Davidson agreed to a multi-million-dollar fine for selling devices that allowed motorcyclists to cheat U.S. emissions standards. The 340,000 devices, called “super tuner” kits, sold to customers raised harmful emissions. On top of a $12 million civil penalty, the settlement with EPA also included $3 million that, in part, went to an NGO to swap out wood burning stoves with new ones. However, the DOJ has since proposed reversing the Obama-era requirement, ending payments to outside groups that are not parties or victims in lawsuits.
    Ten states and the District of Columbia are challenging that decision, citing the argument that older wood-burning stoves represent a health hazard. Additionally, 11 states’ attorneys general are calling for the court to deny the new settlement agreement and restore the $3 million penalty.
    Here's the link to the rest of the article: http://www.freemarketcentral.com/pos...en-slush-funds

    How about some more evidence of how the epa has operated under democrats and rino republicans?

    (NaturalNews) The shameful federal agency that was responsible, in large part, for poisoning scores of mostly African-American children with lead in Flint, Mich., as well as one of the worst river contaminations in Colorado history, has a secret slush fund it uses to fund shadowy operations that are beyond oversight.

    As reported by The Daily Caller, the Environmental Protection Agency fund, which amounts to some $6.3 billion, comes from some 1,300 obscure spending accounts that are essentially out of reach of Congress, public watchdogs and the media.

    The accounts, created via EPA's "Superfund" program, are not technically secret because the agency does acknowledge their existence. However, trying to get specific details about deposits into the accounts, as well as expenditures, has proven difficult at best.

    The DC reported that the EPA has deposited more than $6.3 billion into an estimated 1,308 special accounts over the course of 25 years, from 1990–2015, according to the agency's website, having spent more than half of that amount. The agency has not disclosed specifics of what it spent the money on, or released any public information regarding account balances or expenses.

    No congressional oversight

    Some of these expenses, as we have reported in the past, are most likely being used to fund EPA paramilitary teams like the one sent to terrorize the small Alaska community of Chicken in the fall of 2013, for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act.

    The Alaska Dispatch News questioned the need for the raid, as well as the tactics used by heavily armed EPA agents:

    "Did it really take eight armed men and a squad-size display of paramilitary force to check for dirty water? Some of the miners, who run small businesses, say they felt intimidated. Others wonder if the actions of the agents put everyone at risk. When your family business involves collecting gold far from nowhere, unusual behavior can be taken as a sign someone might be trying to stage a robbery. How is a remote placer miner to know the people in the jackets saying POLICE really are police?"

    As further noted by The DC, the EPA's "special accounts" are generally financed by settlements between the agency and parties held responsible for pollution at Superfund sites. Congress does not get a say on how funds are spent once they are deposited.

    "This is the very definition of an out-of-control agency, if they can raise their own money and not have to go to Congress to have it appropriated," Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Energy and Environment told The Daily Caller.
    The rest of the above article can be found at: https://www.naturalnews.com/054007_E..._accounts.html

  4. #3
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    8,971
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 2,793 Times in 1,873 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    363419
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    Read all the articles below
    Here's the relevant one:

    The embattled chief of the Environmental Protection Agency broke federal law when he spent more than $43,000 of agency funds to install a soundproof telephone booth in his office, federal investigators have found.

    The Government Accountability Office concluded that Scott Pruitt violated the Antideficiency Act by not informing Congress before he authorized the construction of the booth, which Pruitt said was needed to deter eavesdroppers. The violation subjects Pruitt to a range of punishments that could include suspension or even dismissal.

    "Because EPA used its appropriations in a manner specifically prohibited by law, EPA violated the Antideficiency Act," said the GAO report, which was released Monday.

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...416-story.html

    No question, no ambiguity. He broke the law. End of the story. Whine and make excuses as you will. He still broke the law, and that's what matters. Doesn't matter at all how you feel about it. That's how it works.

    Learn to live with it.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  5. #4
    Over 500 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    646
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 366 Times in 245 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    144638
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Here's the relevant one:

    The embattled chief of the Environmental Protection Agency broke federal law when he spent more than $43,000 of agency funds to install a soundproof telephone booth in his office, federal investigators have found.

    The Government Accountability Office concluded that Scott Pruitt violated the Antideficiency Act by not informing Congress before he authorized the construction of the booth, which Pruitt said was needed to deter eavesdroppers. The violation subjects Pruitt to a range of punishments that could include suspension or even dismissal.

    "Because EPA used its appropriations in a manner specifically prohibited by law, EPA violated the Antideficiency Act," said the GAO report, which was released Monday.

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...416-story.html

    No question, no ambiguity. He broke the law. End of the story. Whine and make excuses as you will. He still broke the law, and that's what matters. Doesn't matter at all how you feel about it. That's how it works.

    Learn to live with it.
    When you care as much about billions of dollars being spent illegally as you do a few thousand dollars, then I'll say you have a point. Until then, you don't have a point. Neither do you have any credibility. What we're talking about with Pruitt is a technical violation of the law. What we're talking about with the EPA under Clinton, Obama and Bush is gross criminal behavior. But, as usual, you could care less about those billions of dollars because it benefitted your marxist causes. That's all you care about. The destruction of your nation means nothing to you. All you care about is your political causes.

  6. #5
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    8,971
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 2,793 Times in 1,873 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    363419
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    When you care as much about billions of dollars being spent illegally as you do a few thousand dollars, then I'll say you have a point.
    Here's a thought experiment for you:

    Steal a car. When you get caught, tell police that they can arrest you when they arrest someone you think has stolen much more.

    Tell me how that works out.

    No whining, no excuses. It's really simple; he broke the law. He got caught. End of the story. Learn to live with it.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to The Barbarian For Your Post:

    Rusha (April 21st, 2018)

  8. #6
    Over 500 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    646
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 366 Times in 245 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    144638
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Here's a thought experiment for you:

    Steal a car. When you get caught, tell police that they can arrest you when they arrest someone you think has stolen much more.

    Tell me how that works out.

    No whining, no excuses. It's really simple; he broke the law. He got caught. End of the story. Learn to live with it.
    LOL. The people who do it are called stool pigeons. Cops and prosecutors use them on a daily basis. And this is what Mueller is trying to do to Trump. He's trying to apply enough pressure to people who know him to get them to testify against him whether it be true or not. He's well-known for such tactics. Federal prosecuters do this regularly. They get caught at it too. There was a case not too long back where the entire case was thrown out because of federal prosecuter misconduct. You might have heard of it. The Cliven Bundy case.

    Here's an experiment for you. Try being honest.

  9. #7
    Over 2500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,607
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 876 Times in 577 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    353623
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    The Cliven Bundy case.
    Ah, a Bundy fan? Then your freeloader name makes sense.

  10. #8
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    8,971
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 2,793 Times in 1,873 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    363419
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    LOL. The people who do it are called stool pigeons. Cops and prosecutors use them on a daily basis.
    Yeah, organized crime detests stoolies, because they trip up guys like Manafort. But since Al Capone, the feds have been using pressure on underlings to flip and put criminals in jail. It's a good thing, and a perfectly legal and Constitutional practice.

    And this is what Mueller is trying to do to Trump.
    Maybe so, if there's enough evidence to indicate that Trump actually is a criminal. We aren't privy to that, and he (like anyone else) deserves the benefit of a doubt until all the evidence is laid out. So don't go making him into a crime boss until you know for sure.

    He's trying to apply enough pressure to people who know him to get them to testify against him whether it be true or not.
    We don't know that he's targeting Trump. Maybe circumstantial evidence looks bad for Trump. But that's not enough. And usually, when a witness flips against the boss, what the law needs is information as to where the evidence is, not mere accusations.

    He's well-known for such tactics.
    Mueller's brought down a number of big-time crooks, so yes, he's good at it. If someone crossed the line, he should be sweating about now.

    Barbarian suggests:
    Here's a thought experiment for you:

    Steal a car. When you get caught, tell police that they can arrest you when they arrest someone you think has stolen much more.

    Tell me how that works out.

    Here's an experiment for you. Try being honest.
    I'm pretty sure you got the message.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  11. #9
    Over 500 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    646
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 366 Times in 245 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    144638
    deleted post

  12. #10
    Over 500 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    646
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 366 Times in 245 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    144638
    Your message came through loud and clear. You will focus on small time technical violations committed by those you hate because it suits your purpose, and all the time ignore massive criminality that has been done by those you support. Your hypocrisy shines through very clearly. Your double standard is immense.

  13. #11
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    8,971
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 2,793 Times in 1,873 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    363419
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    Your message came through loud and clear.
    Yours too.
    You will excuse felonies committed by those you follow because it suits your purpose, tossing up supposed crimes of others as a diversion. I'm not the only one who notices. You ignore massive criminality that has been done by those you support.

    It's how you roll. Far as I'm conerned, the chips can fall where they may. If someone actually finds something criminal any of the people you hate have done, then let those people take a fall for it. Fine with me. Just don't try to use imagined crimes to divert attention from those criminals already found to be guilty.

    Your hypocrisy shines through very clearly. Your double standard is immense.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to The Barbarian For Your Post:

    Rusha (April 21st, 2018)

  15. #12
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    8,971
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 2,793 Times in 1,873 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    363419
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    Ah, a Bundy fan? Then your freeloader name makes sense.
    Bundy doesn't consider himself a freeloader. His cattle need food, he'd rather not pay for it, and next door to his property is grazing land he doesn't own.

    So he takes it.

    Right wing ethics.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us