Donald Trump's EPA pick Scott Pruitt appears to make false statement under oath in Senate hearing
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, may have falsely stated under oath that he has not done anything to undermine a pending industrial waste case filed by the state of Oklahoma.
During his Senate confirmation hearing in January, Scott Pruitt, the Republican Oklahoma attorney general and Mr Trump to head the nation's senior environmental agency, defended his actions on a case brought by his Democratic predecessor. The state alleges that several poultry companies in Arkansas dumped thousand of tons waste into the Illinois River, which flows into Oklahoma.
Before Mr Pruitt came into office in 2011, the case received a full federal trial, but the federal judge has yet to issue a ruling.
Mr Pruitt told the Senate in January that he has “done nothing but file briefs in support of the court making a decision.”
The publication Fusion reviewed public records and found that that Mr Pruitt had actually not filed any motions or briefs of this sort. Nearly all the court filings in the six-year period since he started as attorney general have been from lawyers who were withdrawing their representation in the case, Fusion said.
The publication reported that the only substantive filing by the state since Mr Pruitt took office was a notice that the Supreme Court had issued a ruling in AEP v Connecticut, which was originally thought to be relevant to the lawsuit. The filing said the decision would ultimately not affect the state’s case against the poultry companies.
A spokesman for Mr Pruitt, John Konkus, told Fusion that Mr Pruitt had been referencing the notice about the Supreme Court decision during the confirmation hearing.
“On 7-6-2011 the Attorney General's office filed notice of relevant authority sending the court the Supreme Court decision in AEP v Connecticut which the Attorney General's office says supports their arguments made in the poultry case regarding whether the CWA displaced its federal common law nuisance case,” Mr Kronkus said.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments