EPA lacked justification, authority for Pruitt's 24/7 security detail, watchdog finds

[Eugene]

Source: Washington Post

By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin
September 4 at 10:12 AM

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Inspector General faulted it Tuesday for spending millions on a round-the-clock protective detail for former administrator Scott Pruitt “without documented justification,” according to a new report.

The agency’s protective service detail cost taxpayers $3.5 million over just 11 months from February to December 2017 — more than double the cost of the same period a year earlier, the inspector general found.

Pruitt began receiving 24/7 protection from the moment he took office in February 2017, at the request of a Trump political appointee who said the polarizing former Oklahoma attorney general faced a higher security risk than his predecessors. Guarding Pruitt demanded triple the manpower of previous protective details, requiring special agents to pause criminal investigations and rotate in from around the country.

In its report Tuesday, EPA inspector general Arthur Elkins said the agency had no formal threat assessment process in place to determine what level of protection was actually warranted, and he questioned whether the agents assigned to the protective detail even have legal authority to protect the EPA administrator.

-snip-


Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-lacked-justification-authority-for-pruitts-247-security-detail-watchdog-finds/2018/09/04/0166c95e-acc5-11e8-8a0c-70b618c98d3c_story.html

[Gothmog]

1. Pruitt did not need more security than the POTUS

[procon]

2. Send Pruitt the bill. nt

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

3. What about his Cone of Silence panic room?

Which, BTW, was not built to the standards established for secure facilities.

Send him a bill for that, too, and make it public. Shame the m-f.

[ProfessorGAC]

4. The EPA Admin Needs Protection, As A Matter Of Course?

I guess it might be logical to have some sort of protective coverage over anybody at the cabinet level, but to double the coverage because the guy is a notorious enemy maker?

Wouldn't it be better to simply not appoint someone who specializes in making enemies?