Assassin said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

If what is being reported is true, it is the largest scandal of my lifetime, and it better end with many people going to jail forever.

---

That is certainly the way it is headed.

Will you come over from the dark side?

---

I've always been conservative. Fiscally, we must be conservative. We need to follow the Constitution, and the intent of the founders to create a society free of burdensome restrictions, the government always erring on the side of freedom, rather than government-knows-best. And limited government. Regulations yes, capitalism requires regulation to work well, but within reason. Not what the progressives have done. And the rule of law, equally applied. Even socially, I'm in the middle.

Anyways the Republican party, and Trump, do not embody those values. I will never be a registered Republican or Democrat, or give any money to those politicians. That's part of what is wrong with the country. The tribalism, and how easily money influences minds and elections.

I do want to say that I am cautious about these reports. What I haven't seen, is what percentage of the USAID budget was used fraudulently, or wastefully. I am plenty shocked at some of these expenditures, but was it 90% fraud, or 10% fraud? That will make a big difference.

Whatever the percentage is, it needs to be eliminated, people put in jail given the scope of the fraud, and there need to be regular audits going forward. Bipartisan audits.

This one time, it makes sense for Musk and some kid hackers to sweep through the government, but that will eventually backfire, if it happens every year. One of the kid hackers will leave himself a back door into the Treasury and it will explode big time.

---

Actually a well-thought-out post. Except maybe for the last paragraph. Any kid named Big Balls is not going to leave a back door open!

---

🚨Well, well, look who had his chubby fingers in the USAID cookie🍪 jar🫙$$$ pic.twitter.com/0C3CLOdLQ5

— Giordano Bruno (@GioBruno1600) February 8, 2025

Rajiv was rattled by the email and sent it to Hillary's people. What did Hilda do? Her first instinct was to do a background check on the woman who sent it! Pure psychopath. pic.twitter.com/lxK2awSbDb

— Rosie Memos (@almostjingo) February 9, 2025

Redbrickbear said:

---

Rajiv was rattled by the email and sent it to Hillary's people. What did Hilda do? Her first instinct was to do a background check on the woman who sent it! Pure psychopath. pic.twitter.com/lxK2awSbDb

— Rosie Memos (@almostjingo) February 9, 2025

---

nein51 said:

---

I can't believe anyone who sent that wasn't fired immediately. Like within minutes of it being received. Certainly no way you can have a working relationship with those two people.

I've read a lot of "resignation" emails but that's a doozy.

---

I have been told several times by people working in Africa that if you were some official in some African country and you had a meeting with State or USAID about building a road or something the first thing the Americans would say would be "What have you done for LGBTQ+ rights… https://t.co/IVpSeWxhZC

— Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry (@pegobry_en) February 9, 2025

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Remember when Politico leaked the Dobbs decision and conservative Supreme Court justices were almost assassinated?

Turns out that was govt-funded pic.twitter.com/2AfOxy2ZOL

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) February 5, 2025

---

This may be the most sinister of all the actions.

For those that throw around the term fascist but do not understand it - this is actual fascism.

---

Exactly. It helps to know the real definitions of terms.

---

Indeed. Still hoping that Harrison will clarify.

---

He and I already have, repeatedly. I even created a separate thread on socialism, communism, fascism, etc.

---

historian said:

---

I never said that and I never considered the possibility of Trump violating the law as legitimate or acceptable. But I've also not seen any evidence that he has broken the law. My only issue with his actions is that he relies too heavily on EOs. The Left has no room to complain: Pres Obama ("pen & phone") and fake president Biden both did all kinds of things with EOs, much of it idiotic & tyrannical.

EO's in of themselves are not illegal or unconstitutional. In many instances, they are directly within the presidents legitimate authority. For example, the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and the leader of the executive branch. He has the prerogative to issue instructions to those under his constitutional authority. Many of his EOs fall under this category and were merely reversing stupid EOs by Biden (or whomever was pulling his strings). Others are more complicated.

None of this legitimizes the judge who far overstepped the bounds of his authority. He deserves to be severely punished along with all evil law-fare judges who ignore the constitution. At the very least they need to be removed from their positions and disbarred to prevent them from ever practicing any kind of law again.

I've said repeatedly that Trump needs to follow up on some of these actions with legislation, meaning he will have to work with Congress. That's more difficult, especially with so many evil fascists in Congress who cannot cope with reality.

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Trump's team files motion to dissolve the ex-parte illegal lawfare:

"At approximately 1:00 a.m. on Saturday, February 8, 2025, this Court issued an exparteTemporary Restraining Order that purported to limit access to a vast swath of Treasury systems to only "civil servants," while prohibiting "all political appointees" from doing the same.

On its face, the Order could be read to cover all political leadership within Treasuryincluding even Secretary Bessent.

This is a remarkable intrusion on the Executive Branch that is in direct conflict with Article II of the Constitution, and the unitary structure it provides.

There is not and cannot be a basis for distinguishing between "civil servants" and "political appointees."Basic democratic accountability requires that every executive agency's work be supervised by politically accountable leadership, who ultimately answer to the President.

A federal court, consistent with the separation of powers, cannot insulate any portion of that work from the specter of political accountability.

No court can issue an injunction that directly severs the clear line of supervision Article II requires. Because the Order on its face draws an impermissible and anti-constitutional distinction, it should be dissolved immediately.

At minimum, the Court should either clarify or modify its Order, so as to avoid its most direct constitutional and practical hazards.As written, the injunction is markedly overbroad.

There is no sound reason that it should extend to Treasury's leadership, who are charged with overseeing and administering the Department without interruption.

To the extent the Order applies to senior political appointees at Treasury, it is an extraordinary and unprecedented judicial interference with a Cabinet Secretary's ability to oversee the Department he was constitutionally appointed to lead. Interfering with those basic functions, even for a day, will cause irreparable harm to the government.

By contrast, Plaintiffs have not even attempted to show how they would suffer any irreparable harm as a result of Treasury's political leadership being excluded from the temporary injunction.

If the Court is unwilling to grant relief from its Order, the United States respectfully requests that the Order be stayed pending the disposition of any appeal that is authorized, or at a minimum that such relief be administratively stayed for a period of seven days to allow the United States to seek an emergency, expedited stay from the Court of Appeals.

To be clear, notwithstanding the Order's defects, Defendants are in compliance with it. As described below, Defendants have taken what they believe to be all necessary steps to comply with the Court's Order. But this is not a durable status quo.

To remedy the serious problems beget by the Order's breadth, the Court should immediately dissolve, clarify, or modify the Order while this matter is being briefed, argued, and decided on the merits."

---