Married A Horn said:

---

1. The stated goal as pointed out is to slow Trump's agenda thru lawfare.
2. 100% of Sam's energy is focused on bashing Trump - not the corrupt evil left.
3. When this all gets kicked out at the SCOTUS, Sam will be found to be dead wrong. Yet again.

Think about point 3. When the SCOTUS says basically all the same stuff yall have been saying, just reply to every post Sam has made with a quotation of the majority's opinion.

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam, like every single person on the left, is more worried about corruption in DOGE than the trillions of dollars of corruption DOGE is finding.

---

Evidently I'm not as worried about it as you are.

---

It should be your number one concern.

If we do nothing, it will be the destruction of the U.S.

---

I was referring to corruption in DOGE. Apparently you all are convinced that it's rampant and must be hidden from scrutiny by the courts.

---

All the accusations against DOGE are coming from the corrupt people responsible for all the fraud & scams scattered throughout the government.

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam, like every single person on the left, is more worried about corruption in DOGE than the trillions of dollars of corruption DOGE is finding.

---

Evidently I'm not as worried about it as you are.

---

It should be your number one concern.

If we do nothing, it will be the destruction of the U.S.

---

I was referring to corruption in DOGE. Apparently you all are convinced that it's rampant and must be hidden from scrutiny by the courts.

---

All the accusations against DOGE are coming from the corrupt people responsible for all the fraud & scams scattered throughout the government.

---

They're coming from about half the states in the US.

---

Primarily blue states correct ?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam, like every single person on the left, is more worried about corruption in DOGE than the trillions of dollars of corruption DOGE is finding.

---

Evidently I'm not as worried about it as you are.

---

It should be your number one concern.

If we do nothing, it will be the destruction of the U.S.

---

I was referring to corruption in DOGE. Apparently you all are convinced that it's rampant and must be hidden from scrutiny by the courts.

---

All the accusations against DOGE are coming from the corrupt people responsible for all the fraud & scams scattered throughout the government.

---

They're coming from about half the states in the US.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam, like every single person on the left, is more worried about corruption in DOGE than the trillions of dollars of corruption DOGE is finding.

---

Evidently I'm not as worried about it as you are.

---

It should be your number one concern.

If we do nothing, it will be the destruction of the U.S.

---

I was referring to corruption in DOGE. Apparently you all are convinced that it's rampant and must be hidden from scrutiny by the courts.

---

All the accusations against DOGE are coming from the corrupt people responsible for all the fraud & scams scattered throughout the government.

---

They're coming from about half the states in the US.

---

how many of them are red states with red state legislatures/governors/st atty generals?

I saw it was 14 states, has that number increased?

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Lol half. Trying to change the optics from the ones who are getting investigated to 'half the country.'

We see thru you Sam. It doesnt work. You are siding with evil. We are defeating evil.

---

This is a vital post, a concept to follow through. In recent decades every Tom, Dick and Harry on the left - and plenty on the right - opened up false-front charities or "NGOs" as a get rich schemes for their friends and relatives. The government then began giving away "Grants." https://t.co/mBG7iW4L4Z

— RetrogradeAmnesia (@LesChouans1793) February 16, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Other decisions make it clear that the courts have a role.

This court is not removing presidential authority or controlling the flow of funding. They are not usurping his power to decide on security clearances. They are not saying illegal activity has occurred. They are simply pausing some of DOGE's activities so that evidence can be presented.

Despite your protestations, you don't seem at all interested in seeing the evidence. Quite the contrary.

---

The court has taken de facto control of the distribution of funds by telling the president what he can and cannot do in regard to it.

Ok, it's clear you know there is no evidence of any illegal activity, and that this is a fishing expedition. Can you at least tell me the illegal behavior that is being alleged? I don't mean abstract accusations of "there could be corruption" because that is true of anything the government is involved in. I mean specific accusations of illegal behavior.
You're not only not interested in evidence at all, you mock a question about the existence of any of it. You're interested in shutting down an effective audit that can track the actual flow of funds, and want to go back to the general ineffective "audits" that have never resulted in any changes to wasteful or fraudulent spending. It's clear it's not evidence of illegal behavior you're concerned with. Quite the contrary.

---

Mainly it has to do with violations of labor and privacy laws. Among other things they're alleging that DOGE employees with read-only clearance are altering files. That Musk has access to sensitive information about his competitors, a conflict of interest. And so on.

Plaintiffs don't have to prove their case at this stage. All they have to do is show a likelihood of success on the merits. Two of the courts are maintaining the status quo in order to prevent irreparable harm until they have more evidence. This is something Congress can't do; they necessarily take much longer to act.

There's nothing unusual here. It's how the system is supposed to work.

---

Data management is part of the purview of the USDS. Obama's website for the USDS had these words:

"The United States Digital Service is a startup at the White House that pairs the country's top technology talent with the best public servants, to improve the usefulness and reliability of the country's most important digital services.

…what we realized was that we could potentially build a SWAT team, a world-class technology office inside of the government that was helping agencies. We've dubbed that the U.S. Digital Service…they are making an enormous difference…"

The United States DOGE Service isn't doing anything it wasn't already purposed to do - using technology to improve government efficiency across the agencies.

The TRO petition's cites look pretty thin. It seems to be a grab-bag of cases and emotional arguments that some members of USAID won't have jobs and be able to pay bills if they are let go.
Anyway, the copy I found has broken links in the footnotes that are supposed to support their claims.

Yes, there is nothing unusual about those who want to derail a precise auditing of USAID and other agencies judge-shopping for a judge who openly stated his contempt for President Trump and is willing to work with them on delaying and "bureaucratizing" the implementation of the audit until enough red tape has been wrapped around it to derail it into another typical "audit" with no detailed tracking of the flow of funds. Maybe you will get your wish and a publicly biased judge will be able to stop any accountability for the spending of funds on circumcision in foreign countries or terrorist-aligned groups.

Where was this concern for Samantha Powers having access to her competitors' data when she was head of USAID? She ended up with an increase around $23 million in net worth after being the USAID director. That is an actual event of possible corruption to look into, but you don't care about that nor do you argue that the judicial system should be looking into it, because the laughably very recent concern that a specific individual in DC (and literally one else in the civil service, LOL) might get rich through their civil service position is not what this judicial action is really about.

---

Samantha Powers is reprehensible. If someone had evidence against her and didn't pursue it, they dropped the ball.

Whinging about anti-Trump judges won't get you far in court. Hopefully Trump's lawyers will do better.

---

She is not going to be investigated. That is the point of this TRO for shutting down the President's integration of USDS with USAID and other agencies, as it was designed to do originally under Obama. They don't want this information coming to the surface and people being investigated, hence the order to delete the data that was gathered.

Your whining about my point that I have no reason to trust a judge who has called one of the sides in the case a "tyrant" before taking the case and compared his presidency to the Civil War and Jim Crow doesn't change the phenomenon of bias evident in those statements. There is a code of conduct for Federal judges and it looks like he violated it.

"Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge's honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired."

Derogatory comments about one side in a case reasonably calls into question his impartiality.

"Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity
(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:
(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office;"

He is on video making oppositional statements about President Trump.

---

I've never seen any evidence of that. Which judge are you talking about?

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam, like every single person on the left, is more worried about corruption in DOGE than the trillions of dollars of corruption DOGE is finding.

---

Evidently I'm not as worried about it as you are.

---

It should be your number one concern.

If we do nothing, it will be the destruction of the U.S.

---

I was referring to corruption in DOGE. Apparently you all are convinced that it's rampant and must be hidden from scrutiny by the courts.

---

All the accusations against DOGE are coming from the corrupt people responsible for all the fraud & scams scattered throughout the government.

---

They're coming from about half the states in the US.

---

how many of them are red states with red state legislatures/governors/st atty generals?

I saw it was 14 states, has that number increased?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam, like every single person on the left, is more worried about corruption in DOGE than the trillions of dollars of corruption DOGE is finding.

---

Evidently I'm not as worried about it as you are.

---

It should be your number one concern.

If we do nothing, it will be the destruction of the U.S.

---

I was referring to corruption in DOGE. Apparently you all are convinced that it's rampant and must be hidden from scrutiny by the courts.

---

All the accusations against DOGE are coming from the corrupt people responsible for all the fraud & scams scattered throughout the government.

---

They're coming from about half the states in the US.

---

how many of them are red states with red state legislatures/governors/st atty generals?

I saw it was 14 states, has that number increased?

---

22 states, mostly blue, plus DC.

A plaintiff's lawyer makes an argument to the judge in court. Defense lawyer leaps up and responds, "Of course he would say that, Your Honor…he's representing the plaintiff!"

That's the equivalent of what you're saying. It's not an argument. We basically have two political parties in the US, and they tend to oppose each other. They don't typically sue themselves.

What it does show is that, contrary to Historian's claim, not all the accusations against DOGE are coming from the same corrupt bureaucrats who are being targeted.

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Other decisions make it clear that the courts have a role.

This court is not removing presidential authority or controlling the flow of funding. They are not usurping his power to decide on security clearances. They are not saying illegal activity has occurred. They are simply pausing some of DOGE's activities so that evidence can be presented.

Despite your protestations, you don't seem at all interested in seeing the evidence. Quite the contrary.

---

The court has taken de facto control of the distribution of funds by telling the president what he can and cannot do in regard to it.

Ok, it's clear you know there is no evidence of any illegal activity, and that this is a fishing expedition. Can you at least tell me the illegal behavior that is being alleged? I don't mean abstract accusations of "there could be corruption" because that is true of anything the government is involved in. I mean specific accusations of illegal behavior.
You're not only not interested in evidence at all, you mock a question about the existence of any of it. You're interested in shutting down an effective audit that can track the actual flow of funds, and want to go back to the general ineffective "audits" that have never resulted in any changes to wasteful or fraudulent spending. It's clear it's not evidence of illegal behavior you're concerned with. Quite the contrary.

---

Mainly it has to do with violations of labor and privacy laws. Among other things they're alleging that DOGE employees with read-only clearance are altering files. That Musk has access to sensitive information about his competitors, a conflict of interest. And so on.

Plaintiffs don't have to prove their case at this stage. All they have to do is show a likelihood of success on the merits. Two of the courts are maintaining the status quo in order to prevent irreparable harm until they have more evidence. This is something Congress can't do; they necessarily take much longer to act.

There's nothing unusual here. It's how the system is supposed to work.

---

Data management is part of the purview of the USDS. Obama's website for the USDS had these words:

"The United States Digital Service is a startup at the White House that pairs the country's top technology talent with the best public servants, to improve the usefulness and reliability of the country's most important digital services.

…what we realized was that we could potentially build a SWAT team, a world-class technology office inside of the government that was helping agencies. We've dubbed that the U.S. Digital Service…they are making an enormous difference…"

The United States DOGE Service isn't doing anything it wasn't already purposed to do - using technology to improve government efficiency across the agencies.

The TRO petition's cites look pretty thin. It seems to be a grab-bag of cases and emotional arguments that some members of USAID won't have jobs and be able to pay bills if they are let go.
Anyway, the copy I found has broken links in the footnotes that are supposed to support their claims.

Yes, there is nothing unusual about those who want to derail a precise auditing of USAID and other agencies judge-shopping for a judge who openly stated his contempt for President Trump and is willing to work with them on delaying and "bureaucratizing" the implementation of the audit until enough red tape has been wrapped around it to derail it into another typical "audit" with no detailed tracking of the flow of funds. Maybe you will get your wish and a publicly biased judge will be able to stop any accountability for the spending of funds on circumcision in foreign countries or terrorist-aligned groups.

Where was this concern for Samantha Powers having access to her competitors' data when she was head of USAID? She ended up with an increase around $23 million in net worth after being the USAID director. That is an actual event of possible corruption to look into, but you don't care about that nor do you argue that the judicial system should be looking into it, because the laughably very recent concern that a specific individual in DC (and literally one else in the civil service, LOL) might get rich through their civil service position is not what this judicial action is really about.

---

Samantha Powers is reprehensible. If someone had evidence against her and didn't pursue it, they dropped the ball.

Whinging about anti-Trump judges won't get you far in court. Hopefully Trump's lawyers will do better.

---

She is not going to be investigated. That is the point of this TRO for shutting down the President's integration of USDS with USAID and other agencies, as it was designed to do originally under Obama. They don't want this information coming to the surface and people being investigated, hence the order to delete the data that was gathered.

Your whining about my point that I have no reason to trust a judge who has called one of the sides in the case a "tyrant" before taking the case and compared his presidency to the Civil War and Jim Crow doesn't change the phenomenon of bias evident in those statements. There is a code of conduct for Federal judges and it looks like he violated it.

"Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge's honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired."

Derogatory comments about one side in a case reasonably calls into question his impartiality.

"Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity
(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:
(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office;"

He is on video making oppositional statements about President Trump.

---

I've never seen any evidence of that. Which judge are you talking about?

---

Judge McConnell. I watched the videos of him speaking.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam, like every single person on the left, is more worried about corruption in DOGE than the trillions of dollars of corruption DOGE is finding.

---

Evidently I'm not as worried about it as you are.

---

It should be your number one concern.

If we do nothing, it will be the destruction of the U.S.

---

I was referring to corruption in DOGE. Apparently you all are convinced that it's rampant and must be hidden from scrutiny by the courts.

---

All the accusations against DOGE are coming from the corrupt people responsible for all the fraud & scams scattered throughout the government.

---

They're coming from about half the states in the US.

---

how many of them are red states with red state legislatures/governors/st atty generals?

I saw it was 14 states, has that number increased?

---

22 states, mostly blue, plus DC.

A plaintiff's lawyer makes an argument to the judge in court. Defense lawyer leaps up and responds, "Of course he would say that, Your Honor…he's representing the plaintiff!"

That's the equivalent of what you're saying. It's not an argument. We basically have two political parties in the US, and they tend to oppose each other. They don't typically sue themselves.

What it does show is that, contrary to Historian's claim, not all the accusations against DOGE are coming from the same corrupt bureaucrats who are being targeted.

---

maybe those states are benefiting and are going to lose them if they dont stop Doge

The shortest path is usually right, follow the money

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Other decisions make it clear that the courts have a role.

This court is not removing presidential authority or controlling the flow of funding. They are not usurping his power to decide on security clearances. They are not saying illegal activity has occurred. They are simply pausing some of DOGE's activities so that evidence can be presented.

Despite your protestations, you don't seem at all interested in seeing the evidence. Quite the contrary.

---

The court has taken de facto control of the distribution of funds by telling the president what he can and cannot do in regard to it.

Ok, it's clear you know there is no evidence of any illegal activity, and that this is a fishing expedition. Can you at least tell me the illegal behavior that is being alleged? I don't mean abstract accusations of "there could be corruption" because that is true of anything the government is involved in. I mean specific accusations of illegal behavior.
You're not only not interested in evidence at all, you mock a question about the existence of any of it. You're interested in shutting down an effective audit that can track the actual flow of funds, and want to go back to the general ineffective "audits" that have never resulted in any changes to wasteful or fraudulent spending. It's clear it's not evidence of illegal behavior you're concerned with. Quite the contrary.

---

Mainly it has to do with violations of labor and privacy laws. Among other things they're alleging that DOGE employees with read-only clearance are altering files. That Musk has access to sensitive information about his competitors, a conflict of interest. And so on.

Plaintiffs don't have to prove their case at this stage. All they have to do is show a likelihood of success on the merits. Two of the courts are maintaining the status quo in order to prevent irreparable harm until they have more evidence. This is something Congress can't do; they necessarily take much longer to act.

There's nothing unusual here. It's how the system is supposed to work.

---

Data management is part of the purview of the USDS. Obama's website for the USDS had these words:

"The United States Digital Service is a startup at the White House that pairs the country's top technology talent with the best public servants, to improve the usefulness and reliability of the country's most important digital services.

…what we realized was that we could potentially build a SWAT team, a world-class technology office inside of the government that was helping agencies. We've dubbed that the U.S. Digital Service…they are making an enormous difference…"

The United States DOGE Service isn't doing anything it wasn't already purposed to do - using technology to improve government efficiency across the agencies.

The TRO petition's cites look pretty thin. It seems to be a grab-bag of cases and emotional arguments that some members of USAID won't have jobs and be able to pay bills if they are let go.
Anyway, the copy I found has broken links in the footnotes that are supposed to support their claims.

Yes, there is nothing unusual about those who want to derail a precise auditing of USAID and other agencies judge-shopping for a judge who openly stated his contempt for President Trump and is willing to work with them on delaying and "bureaucratizing" the implementation of the audit until enough red tape has been wrapped around it to derail it into another typical "audit" with no detailed tracking of the flow of funds. Maybe you will get your wish and a publicly biased judge will be able to stop any accountability for the spending of funds on circumcision in foreign countries or terrorist-aligned groups.

Where was this concern for Samantha Powers having access to her competitors' data when she was head of USAID? She ended up with an increase around $23 million in net worth after being the USAID director. That is an actual event of possible corruption to look into, but you don't care about that nor do you argue that the judicial system should be looking into it, because the laughably very recent concern that a specific individual in DC (and literally one else in the civil service, LOL) might get rich through their civil service position is not what this judicial action is really about.

---

Samantha Powers is reprehensible. If someone had evidence against her and didn't pursue it, they dropped the ball.

Whinging about anti-Trump judges won't get you far in court. Hopefully Trump's lawyers will do better.

---

She is not going to be investigated. That is the point of this TRO for shutting down the President's integration of USDS with USAID and other agencies, as it was designed to do originally under Obama. They don't want this information coming to the surface and people being investigated, hence the order to delete the data that was gathered.

Your whining about my point that I have no reason to trust a judge who has called one of the sides in the case a "tyrant" before taking the case and compared his presidency to the Civil War and Jim Crow doesn't change the phenomenon of bias evident in those statements. There is a code of conduct for Federal judges and it looks like he violated it.

"Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge's honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired."

Derogatory comments about one side in a case reasonably calls into question his impartiality.

"Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity
(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:
(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office;"

He is on video making oppositional statements about President Trump.

---

I've never seen any evidence of that. Which judge are you talking about?

---

Judge McConnell. I watched the videos of him speaking.

---

No, saying that judges guard against arbitrary and capricious acts by potential tyrants isn't a violation. It's stating the obvious.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam, like every single person on the left, is more worried about corruption in DOGE than the trillions of dollars of corruption DOGE is finding.

---

Evidently I'm not as worried about it as you are.

---

It should be your number one concern.

If we do nothing, it will be the destruction of the U.S.

---

I was referring to corruption in DOGE. Apparently you all are convinced that it's rampant and must be hidden from scrutiny by the courts.

---

All the accusations against DOGE are coming from the corrupt people responsible for all the fraud & scams scattered throughout the government.

---

They're coming from about half the states in the US.

---

how many of them are red states with red state legislatures/governors/st atty generals?

I saw it was 14 states, has that number increased?

---

22 states, mostly blue, plus DC.

A plaintiff's lawyer makes an argument to the judge in court. Defense lawyer leaps up and responds, "Of course he would say that, Your Honor…he's representing the plaintiff!"

That's the equivalent of what you're saying. It's not an argument. We basically have two political parties in the US, and they tend to oppose each other. They don't typically sue themselves.

What it does show is that, contrary to Historian's claim, not all the accusations against DOGE are coming from the same corrupt bureaucrats who are being targeted.

---

maybe those states are benefiting and are going to lose them if they dont stop Doge

The shortest path is usually right, follow the money

---

You're almost helping them make their case. If Trump has actually managed to target these cuts in such a way that only blue states and Democrats are harmed, that's a huge issue in itself.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam, like every single person on the left, is more worried about corruption in DOGE than the trillions of dollars of corruption DOGE is finding.

---

Evidently I'm not as worried about it as you are.

---

It should be your number one concern.

If we do nothing, it will be the destruction of the U.S.

---

I was referring to corruption in DOGE. Apparently you all are convinced that it's rampant and must be hidden from scrutiny by the courts.

---

All the accusations against DOGE are coming from the corrupt people responsible for all the fraud & scams scattered throughout the government.

---

They're coming from about half the states in the US.

---

how many of them are red states with red state legislatures/governors/st atty generals?

I saw it was 14 states, has that number increased?

---

22 states, mostly blue, plus DC.

A plaintiff's lawyer makes an argument to the judge in court. Defense lawyer leaps up and responds, "Of course he would say that, Your Honor…he's representing the plaintiff!"

That's the equivalent of what you're saying. It's not an argument. We basically have two political parties in the US, and they tend to oppose each other. They don't typically sue themselves.

What it does show is that, contrary to Historian's claim, not all the accusations against DOGE are coming from the same corrupt bureaucrats who are being targeted.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam, like every single person on the left, is more worried about corruption in DOGE than the trillions of dollars of corruption DOGE is finding.

---

Evidently I'm not as worried about it as you are.

---

It should be your number one concern.

If we do nothing, it will be the destruction of the U.S.

---

I was referring to corruption in DOGE. Apparently you all are convinced that it's rampant and must be hidden from scrutiny by the courts.

---

All the accusations against DOGE are coming from the corrupt people responsible for all the fraud & scams scattered throughout the government.

---

They're coming from about half the states in the US.

---

how many of them are red states with red state legislatures/governors/st atty generals?

I saw it was 14 states, has that number increased?

---

22 states, mostly blue, plus DC.

A plaintiff's lawyer makes an argument to the judge in court. Defense lawyer leaps up and responds, "Of course he would say that, Your Honor…he's representing the plaintiff!"

That's the equivalent of what you're saying. It's not an argument. We basically have two political parties in the US, and they tend to oppose each other. They don't typically sue themselves.

What it does show is that, contrary to Historian's claim, not all the accusations against DOGE are coming from the same corrupt bureaucrats who are being targeted.

---

maybe those states are benefiting and are going to lose them if they dont stop Doge

The shortest path is usually right, follow the money

---

You're almost helping them make their case. If Trump has actually managed to target these cuts in such a way that only blue states and Democrats are harmed, that's a huge issue in itself.

---

or, they were only helping blue states and its getting evened out. Think North Carolina and FL disaster response

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

The reason the DOGE audit is being so virulently opposed by the civil service and those who support their lifestyles, when previous audits were never a media sensation to this degree, is due to one change. Previous audits had to go through the bureaucrats to get information on expenditures. They had to ask the ones who were actually corrupt to hand them data, and of course they got the data the bureaucrats wanted them to see.
Pulling data straight from the databases with programs that can get granular details in a timely manner bypasses the civil service's ability to hide what they want hidden. They don't get the opportunity to hand over massaged data/hide data they don't want auditors to see. I have participated in audits of technical systems (not finances, but adherence to security standards) and saw where information gaps could be exploited by a bad-faith actor in an audit based solely on auditor questions/answers from the audited, even in those cases where the auditor sat with employees at a computer to go over the details.
At $36 trillion in debt with no $36 trillion product in sight anywhere, it's reasonable to infer there is massive fraud and waste in the civil service system.

The goal of the litigation is stop audits that bypass the civil service employees who are being audited. If they succeed in their stated goal, the data systems will be legally closed off to anyone except the bureaucrats who implement the spending. That is why they are screaming about "data privacy" while they, including their defenders here, are completely dismissing evidence of fraud and waste that has shown up so far. It's not your private data they are concerned about. It's their private data they are scared you will see.

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Other decisions make it clear that the courts have a role.

This court is not removing presidential authority or controlling the flow of funding. They are not usurping his power to decide on security clearances. They are not saying illegal activity has occurred. They are simply pausing some of DOGE's activities so that evidence can be presented.

Despite your protestations, you don't seem at all interested in seeing the evidence. Quite the contrary.

---

The court has taken de facto control of the distribution of funds by telling the president what he can and cannot do in regard to it.

Ok, it's clear you know there is no evidence of any illegal activity, and that this is a fishing expedition. Can you at least tell me the illegal behavior that is being alleged? I don't mean abstract accusations of "there could be corruption" because that is true of anything the government is involved in. I mean specific accusations of illegal behavior.
You're not only not interested in evidence at all, you mock a question about the existence of any of it. You're interested in shutting down an effective audit that can track the actual flow of funds, and want to go back to the general ineffective "audits" that have never resulted in any changes to wasteful or fraudulent spending. It's clear it's not evidence of illegal behavior you're concerned with. Quite the contrary.

---

Mainly it has to do with violations of labor and privacy laws. Among other things they're alleging that DOGE employees with read-only clearance are altering files. That Musk has access to sensitive information about his competitors, a conflict of interest. And so on.

Plaintiffs don't have to prove their case at this stage. All they have to do is show a likelihood of success on the merits. Two of the courts are maintaining the status quo in order to prevent irreparable harm until they have more evidence. This is something Congress can't do; they necessarily take much longer to act.

There's nothing unusual here. It's how the system is supposed to work.

---

Data management is part of the purview of the USDS. Obama's website for the USDS had these words:

"The United States Digital Service is a startup at the White House that pairs the country's top technology talent with the best public servants, to improve the usefulness and reliability of the country's most important digital services.

…what we realized was that we could potentially build a SWAT team, a world-class technology office inside of the government that was helping agencies. We've dubbed that the U.S. Digital Service…they are making an enormous difference…"

The United States DOGE Service isn't doing anything it wasn't already purposed to do - using technology to improve government efficiency across the agencies.

The TRO petition's cites look pretty thin. It seems to be a grab-bag of cases and emotional arguments that some members of USAID won't have jobs and be able to pay bills if they are let go.
Anyway, the copy I found has broken links in the footnotes that are supposed to support their claims.

Yes, there is nothing unusual about those who want to derail a precise auditing of USAID and other agencies judge-shopping for a judge who openly stated his contempt for President Trump and is willing to work with them on delaying and "bureaucratizing" the implementation of the audit until enough red tape has been wrapped around it to derail it into another typical "audit" with no detailed tracking of the flow of funds. Maybe you will get your wish and a publicly biased judge will be able to stop any accountability for the spending of funds on circumcision in foreign countries or terrorist-aligned groups.

Where was this concern for Samantha Powers having access to her competitors' data when she was head of USAID? She ended up with an increase around $23 million in net worth after being the USAID director. That is an actual event of possible corruption to look into, but you don't care about that nor do you argue that the judicial system should be looking into it, because the laughably very recent concern that a specific individual in DC (and literally one else in the civil service, LOL) might get rich through their civil service position is not what this judicial action is really about.

---

Samantha Powers is reprehensible. If someone had evidence against her and didn't pursue it, they dropped the ball.

Whinging about anti-Trump judges won't get you far in court. Hopefully Trump's lawyers will do better.

---

She is not going to be investigated. That is the point of this TRO for shutting down the President's integration of USDS with USAID and other agencies, as it was designed to do originally under Obama. They don't want this information coming to the surface and people being investigated, hence the order to delete the data that was gathered.

Your whining about my point that I have no reason to trust a judge who has called one of the sides in the case a "tyrant" before taking the case and compared his presidency to the Civil War and Jim Crow doesn't change the phenomenon of bias evident in those statements. There is a code of conduct for Federal judges and it looks like he violated it.

"Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge's honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired."

Derogatory comments about one side in a case reasonably calls into question his impartiality.

"Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity
(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:
(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office;"

He is on video making oppositional statements about President Trump.

---

I've never seen any evidence of that. Which judge are you talking about?

---

Judge McConnell. I watched the videos of him speaking.

---

No, saying that judges guard against arbitrary and capricious acts by potential tyrants isn't a violation. It's stating the obvious.

---

You're deflecting and misrepresenting his remarks. Such a comment made as an abstract point is "stating the obvious". Unfortunately for you, him directly referencing the Trump administration is a partisan political statement and a violation of the code of conduct.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

The reason the DOGE audit is being so virulently opposed by the civil service and those who support their lifestyles, when previous audits were never a media sensation to this degree, is due to one change. Previous audits had to go through the bureaucrats to get information on expenditures. They had to ask the ones who were actually corrupt to hand them data, and of course they got the data the bureaucrats wanted them to see.
Pulling data straight from the databases with programs that can get granular details in a timely manner bypasses the civil service's ability to hide what they want hidden. They don't get the opportunity to hand over massaged data/hide data they don't want auditors to see. I have participated in audits of technical systems (not finances, but adherence to security standards) and saw where information gaps could be exploited by a bad-faith actor in an audit based solely on auditor questions/answers from the audited, even in those cases where the auditor sat with employees at a computer to go over the details.
At $36 trillion in debt with no $36 trillion product in sight anywhere, it's reasonable to infer there is massive fraud and waste in the civil service system.

The goal of the litigation is stop audits that bypass the civil service employees who are being audited. If they succeed in their stated goal, the data systems will be legally closed off to anyone except the bureaucrats who implement the spending. That is why they are screaming about "data privacy" while they, including their defenders here, are completely dismissing evidence of fraud and waste that has shown up so far. It's not your private data they are concerned about. It's their private data they are scared you will see.

---

There may be some who are opposing it for those reasons, but you're acting as if the courts don't recognize the executive's interests and prerogatives here. They do recognize them, and it's their job to balance them with other concerns.

In other words, this is Civics 101.

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

The reason the DOGE audit is being so virulently opposed by the civil service and those who support their lifestyles, when previous audits were never a media sensation to this degree, is due to one change. Previous audits had to go through the bureaucrats to get information on expenditures. They had to ask the ones who were actually corrupt to hand them data, and of course they got the data the bureaucrats wanted them to see.
Pulling data straight from the databases with programs that can get granular details in a timely manner bypasses the civil service's ability to hide what they want hidden. They don't get the opportunity to hand over massaged data/hide data they don't want auditors to see. I have participated in audits of technical systems (not finances, but adherence to security standards) and saw where information gaps could be exploited by a bad-faith actor in an audit based solely on auditor questions/answers from the audited, even in those cases where the auditor sat with employees at a computer to go over the details.
At $36 trillion in debt with no $36 trillion product in sight anywhere, it's reasonable to infer there is massive fraud and waste in the civil service system.

The goal of the litigation is stop audits that bypass the civil service employees who are being audited. If they succeed in their stated goal, the data systems will be legally closed off to anyone except the bureaucrats who implement the spending. That is why they are screaming about "data privacy" while they, including their defenders here, are completely dismissing evidence of fraud and waste that has shown up so far. It's not your private data they are concerned about. It's their private data they are scared you will see.

---

There may be some who are opposing it for those reasons, but you're acting as if the courts don't recognize the executive's interests and prerogatives here. They do recognize them, and it's their job to balance them with other concerns.

In other words, this is Civics 101.

---

One of the points of the litigation is to restrict access to the data systems to the civil service bureaucrats entering the data and to shut down direct access to auditors. You support that. There will be no fix for our national debt problem when the judiciary rules the systems are closed to anyone else.

Enjoy your ride to $40, $50, $60 trillion national debt and what the destination entails. Economics 101. Too bad the rest of us have to be on the same ride with you.

---