Sam: "Not every case is about good against evil."

The problem Sam, is how often recently you ignore evidence when we are fighting against Evil.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "Not every case is about good against evil."

The problem Sam, is how often recently you ignore evidence when we are fighting against Evil.

---

We are always fighting against evil. That doesn't mean every case is about good against evil. Sometimes it's about competing goods. Even the worst criminals may invoke constitutional rights that are important to all of us...and we had best listen when they do.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "Not every case is about good against evil."

The problem Sam, is how often recently you ignore evidence when we are fighting against Evil.

---

We are always fighting against evil. That doesn't mean every case is about good against evil. Sometimes it's about competing goods. Even the worst criminals may invoke constitutional rights that are important to all of us...and we had best listen when they do.

---

You have chosen to oppose investigation into the fraud and corruption, Sam.


I don't know why you did, but your choice is clear and frankly revolting.

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Really...no fix for our national debt problem without direct access by Elon Musk? None at all?

It almost sounds like, and let me make sure I remember your phrase, you're "rejecting the options outlined in the Constitution because they don't appear to have enough support to be on the table right now."

So it's fine for everyone else to wait and wait until Congress acts, but you're having none of that.

I am not supporting any particular outcome in these cases. Let that sink in. I'm as concerned about the debt as you are. I'm also concerned about things like privacy and labor rights. Understand that sometimes there are important values on both sides of an issue. Sometimes they come into conflict and have to be balanced. Not every case is about good against evil.

---

No fix without access to the data systems controlling the flow of funds by those other than ones entering the data in it. Not hard to see. You're so fixated on Elon Musk that you're willing to close off auditor direct access to the data systems to anyone else just because of your spite for him (shown by your accusation of corruption against him without evidence and wide-sweeping defense of the civil service opposed to direct audits).

We share the same lack of faith in Congress. You believe it to be a failure in checking the executive branch thus requiring judicial overreach, I think it is a failure in checking the civil service "branch."

The civil service bureaucracy has become a 4th branch of government that has had very few checks on its power. If the judiciary succeeds in removing the Executive's power to manage the bureaucracy that reports to him and have access to its data systems, there will be 0 checks on its power.

None of the Constitutional options I listed for wrong behavior by a President applies to the civil service. They are an entrenched power base and if they get to deny access to funding data systems to anyone but themselves, then yes, there is not going to be a solution. Enjoy the ride.

That's not what I 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.

---

Not when the judges themselves are being capricious and arbitrary tyrants. That's what is obvious but Leftists won't admit that. It's completely irrational and unconstitutional for a handful of fascist judges to try to usurp power from the leader of the executive branch who is doing his job and what he was elected to do while following the constitution. Arguably, what these judges are doing is treasonous.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "Not every case is about good against evil."

The problem Sam, is how often recently you ignore evidence when we are fighting against Evil.

---

We are always fighting against evil. That doesn't mean every case is about good against evil. Sometimes it's about competing goods. Even the worst criminals may invoke constitutional rights that are important to all of us...and we had best listen when they do.

---

You have chosen to oppose investigation into the fraud and corruption, Sam.


I don't know why you did, but your choice is clear and frankly revolting.

---

He is supporting the evil.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "Not every case is about good against evil."

The problem Sam, is how often recently you ignore evidence when we are fighting against Evil.

---

We are always fighting against evil. That doesn't mean every case is about good against evil. Sometimes it's about competing goods. Even the worst criminals may invoke constitutional rights that are important to all of us...and we had best listen when they do.

---

You have chosen to oppose investigation into the fraud and corruption, Sam.


I don't know why you did, but your choice is clear and frankly revolting.

---

Indeed I have not.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Really...no fix for our national debt problem without direct access by Elon Musk? None at all?

It almost sounds like, and let me make sure I remember your phrase, you're "rejecting the options outlined in the Constitution because they don't appear to have enough support to be on the table right now."

So it's fine for everyone else to wait and wait until Congress acts, but you're having none of that.

I am not supporting any particular outcome in these cases. Let that sink in. I'm as concerned about the debt as you are. I'm also concerned about things like privacy and labor rights. Understand that sometimes there are important values on both sides of an issue. Sometimes they come into conflict and have to be balanced. Not every case is about good against evil.

---

No fix without access to the data systems controlling the flow of funds by those other than ones entering the data in it. Not hard to see. You're so fixated on Elon Musk that you're willing to close off auditor direct access to the data systems to anyone else just because of your spite for him (shown by your accusation of corruption against him without evidence and wide-sweeping defense of the civil service opposed to direct audits).

We share the same lack of faith in Congress. You believe it to be a failure in checking the executive branch thus requiring judicial overreach, I think it is a failure in checking the civil service "branch."

The civil service bureaucracy has become a 4th branch of government that has had very few checks on its power. If the judiciary succeeds in removing the Executive's power to manage the bureaucracy that reports to him and have access to its data systems, there will be 0 checks on its power.

None of the Constitutional options I listed for wrong behavior by a President applies to the civil service. They are an entrenched power base and if they get to deny access to funding data systems to anyone but themselves, then yes, there is not going to be a solution. Enjoy the ride.

---

The constitutional options you listed aren't the only ones available. Obviously there are different ways of dealing with the bureaucracy. And of course access to data systems wouldn't matter much if Congress cut off their funding.

That said, I'm not opposed to access by people with proper clearance and a need to know. I've already explained that, but you keep inventing arguments that I've never made.

Any chance you'd be interested in discussing this with me instead of the Sam you've conjured in your own mind? I have to say I'm feeling kind of left out.

Well whatever you do, don't go watch 60 Minutes that was on tonight, or someone might get upset.

It might fall asleep from boredom. Another option is being brainwashed by the fascist propaganda.

Perhaps that depends upon the individual who just takes in what they want rather than what they need?


To avoid brainwashing, you can:

learning-mind.com+2
Don't believe all that you read
Don't believe the hype
Don't buy into fear or scare tactics
Watch for someone's agenda
Look out for subliminal messages
Follow your own path
Do your own research
Cut out what you can and seek balance
Identify the manipulative message you've received
Find an opposing message, whether it

Those are actually good ideas. It is for those reasons I look at every news source critically. It's also why I rarely waste my time with any of the Leftist media. I learned in the 1980s about their lies, deceptions, half-truths, & other Goebbelsian propaganda techniques. They are often clever and can be informative but grey are usually insulting to the intelligence because of what they don't say and how they spin their reports.

What? You don't like Large Scale Social Deception?

Nope!

GROW A PAIR -- KEEP THE DOGE MEMES COMING, AMERICA.pic.twitter.com/ByJvNo52gd

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) February 13, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Really...no fix for our national debt problem without direct access by Elon Musk? None at all?

It almost sounds like, and let me make sure I remember your phrase, you're "rejecting the options outlined in the Constitution because they don't appear to have enough support to be on the table right now."

So it's fine for everyone else to wait and wait until Congress acts, but you're having none of that.

I am not supporting any particular outcome in these cases. Let that sink in. I'm as concerned about the debt as you are. I'm also concerned about things like privacy and labor rights. Understand that sometimes there are important values on both sides of an issue. Sometimes they come into conflict and have to be balanced. Not every case is about good against evil.

---

No fix without access to the data systems controlling the flow of funds by those other than ones entering the data in it. Not hard to see. You're so fixated on Elon Musk that you're willing to close off auditor direct access to the data systems to anyone else just because of your spite for him (shown by your accusation of corruption against him without evidence and wide-sweeping defense of the civil service opposed to direct audits).

We share the same lack of faith in Congress. You believe it to be a failure in checking the executive branch thus requiring judicial overreach, I think it is a failure in checking the civil service "branch."

The civil service bureaucracy has become a 4th branch of government that has had very few checks on its power. If the judiciary succeeds in removing the Executive's power to manage the bureaucracy that reports to him and have access to its data systems, there will be 0 checks on its power.

None of the Constitutional options I listed for wrong behavior by a President applies to the civil service. They are an entrenched power base and if they get to deny access to funding data systems to anyone but themselves, then yes, there is not going to be a solution. Enjoy the ride.

---

The constitutional options you listed aren't the only ones available. Obviously there are different ways of dealing with the bureaucracy. And of course access to data systems wouldn't matter much if Congress cut off their funding.

That said, I'm not opposed to access by people with proper clearance and a need to know. I've already explained that, but you keep inventing arguments that I've never made.

Any chance you'd be interested in discussing this with me instead of the Sam you've conjured in your own mind? I have to say I'm feeling kind of left out.

---

Congress can get organized to oppose a president, but I have no faith in Congress stopping the flow of funds to the bureaucracy, especially given Senator Menendez's conviction and the number of congressmen who become millionaires in a short time in DC. The efficacy of procedures start to erode in the face of practical corruption.

Once again, the President is the final arbiter of security clearances. Their "need to know" was given to them in the President's order to use more efficient technology to carry out an audit of spending by agencies in his branch to improve government efficiency, part of their defined duties from the beginning of the USDS under Obama. It boils down to whether the President can have direct access to the data on funds entrusted to his office by Congress and managed by his administration.
See the bureaucrat recently on video who said he was "dumping gold off the Titanic into the ocean," admitting he was moving $20 billion of taxpayer money from the EPA to a small number of Democrat party donors' businesses as fast as he could before someone could stop him. There is your civil service bureaucrat "with proper clearance" who has more access to taxpayer money data than the President currently.

I shall take you at your word and respect you for efforts. Obviously we often disagree on many things, but with your continued efforts to seek out the truth in all this mess, at least you should have some substance to the discussions.

It appears that there be weaknesses within the Constitution? Or is it us?

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Really...no fix for our national debt problem without direct access by Elon Musk? None at all?

It almost sounds like, and let me make sure I remember your phrase, you're "rejecting the options outlined in the Constitution because they don't appear to have enough support to be on the table right now."

So it's fine for everyone else to wait and wait until Congress acts, but you're having none of that.

I am not supporting any particular outcome in these cases. Let that sink in. I'm as concerned about the debt as you are. I'm also concerned about things like privacy and labor rights. Understand that sometimes there are important values on both sides of an issue. Sometimes they come into conflict and have to be balanced. Not every case is about good against evil.

---

No fix without access to the data systems controlling the flow of funds by those other than ones entering the data in it. Not hard to see. You're so fixated on Elon Musk that you're willing to close off auditor direct access to the data systems to anyone else just because of your spite for him (shown by your accusation of corruption against him without evidence and wide-sweeping defense of the civil service opposed to direct audits).

We share the same lack of faith in Congress. You believe it to be a failure in checking the executive branch thus requiring judicial overreach, I think it is a failure in checking the civil service "branch."

The civil service bureaucracy has become a 4th branch of government that has had very few checks on its power. If the judiciary succeeds in removing the Executive's power to manage the bureaucracy that reports to him and have access to its data systems, there will be 0 checks on its power.

None of the Constitutional options I listed for wrong behavior by a President applies to the civil service. They are an entrenched power base and if they get to deny access to funding data systems to anyone but themselves, then yes, there is not going to be a solution. Enjoy the ride.

---

The constitutional options you listed aren't the only ones available. Obviously there are different ways of dealing with the bureaucracy. And of course access to data systems wouldn't matter much if Congress cut off their funding.

That said, I'm not opposed to access by people with proper clearance and a need to know. I've already explained that, but you keep inventing arguments that I've never made.

Any chance you'd be interested in discussing this with me instead of the Sam you've conjured in your own mind? I have to say I'm feeling kind of left out.

---

Congress can get organized to oppose a president, but I have no faith in Congress stopping the flow of funds to the bureaucracy, especially given Senator Menendez's conviction and the number of congressmen who become millionaires in a short time in DC. The efficacy of procedures start to erode in the face of practical corruption.

Once again, the President is the final arbiter of security clearances. Their "need to know" was given to them in the President's order to use more efficient technology to carry out an audit of spending by agencies in his branch to improve government efficiency, part of their defined duties from the beginning of the USDS under Obama. It boils down to whether the President can have direct access to the data on funds entrusted to his office by Congress and managed by his administration.
See the bureaucrat recently on video who said he was "dumping gold off the Titanic into the ocean," admitting he was moving $20 billion of taxpayer money from the EPA to a small number of Democrat party donors' businesses as fast as he could before someone could stop him. There is your civil service bureaucrat "with proper clearance" who has more access to taxpayer money data than the President currently.

---

Yeah, that's one example of a bureaucrat with proper clearance. How many Trump bureaucrats would you have doing as bad or worse? I'm done with the "tu quoque" arguments. I know it's all you've got, but it's lame.

You have no faith in Congress, but everyone else is supposed to trust them. I'm still not sure how that works.

Sam resorting to the lie that he somehow has more credibility than anyone else here.

Sadly predictable.

For those interested in the issue, I suggest you go back and look up the ABSCAM scandal. Back when the media cared about corrupt Congress critters, that.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Really...no fix for our national debt problem without direct access by Elon Musk? None at all?

It almost sounds like, and let me make sure I remember your phrase, you're "rejecting the options outlined in the Constitution because they don't appear to have enough support to be on the table right now."

So it's fine for everyone else to wait and wait until Congress acts, but you're having none of that.

I am not supporting any particular outcome in these cases. Let that sink in. I'm as concerned about the debt as you are. I'm also concerned about things like privacy and labor rights. Understand that sometimes there are important values on both sides of an issue. Sometimes they come into conflict and have to be balanced. Not every case is about good against evil.

---

No fix without access to the data systems controlling the flow of funds by those other than ones entering the data in it. Not hard to see. You're so fixated on Elon Musk that you're willing to close off auditor direct access to the data systems to anyone else just because of your spite for him (shown by your accusation of corruption against him without evidence and wide-sweeping defense of the civil service opposed to direct audits).

We share the same lack of faith in Congress. You believe it to be a failure in checking the executive branch thus requiring judicial overreach, I think it is a failure in checking the civil service "branch."

The civil service bureaucracy has become a 4th branch of government that has had very few checks on its power. If the judiciary succeeds in removing the Executive's power to manage the bureaucracy that reports to him and have access to its data systems, there will be 0 checks on its power.

None of the Constitutional options I listed for wrong behavior by a President applies to the civil service. They are an entrenched power base and if they get to deny access to funding data systems to anyone but themselves, then yes, there is not going to be a solution. Enjoy the ride.

---

The constitutional options you listed aren't the only ones available. Obviously there are different ways of dealing with the bureaucracy. And of course access to data systems wouldn't matter much if Congress cut off their funding.

That said, I'm not opposed to access by people with proper clearance and a need to know. I've already explained that, but you keep inventing arguments that I've never made.

Any chance you'd be interested in discussing this with me instead of the Sam you've conjured in your own mind? I have to say I'm feeling kind of left out.

---

Congress can get organized to oppose a president, but I have no faith in Congress stopping the flow of funds to the bureaucracy, especially given Senator Menendez's conviction and the number of congressmen who become millionaires in a short time in DC. The efficacy of procedures start to erode in the face of practical corruption.

Once again, the President is the final arbiter of security clearances. Their "need to know" was given to them in the President's order to use more efficient technology to carry out an audit of spending by agencies in his branch to improve government efficiency, part of their defined duties from the beginning of the USDS under Obama. It boils down to whether the President can have direct access to the data on funds entrusted to his office by Congress and managed by his administration.
See the bureaucrat recently on video who said he was "dumping gold off the Titanic into the ocean," admitting he was moving $20 billion of taxpayer money from the EPA to a small number of Democrat party donors' businesses as fast as he could before someone could stop him. There is your civil service bureaucrat "with proper clearance" who has more access to taxpayer money data than the President currently.

---

Yeah, that's one example of a bureaucrat with proper clearance. How many Trump bureaucrats would you have doing as bad or worse? I'm done with the "tu quoque" arguments. I know it's all you've got, but it's lame.

You have no faith in Congress, but everyone else is supposed to trust them. I'm still not sure how that works.

---

LOL, it's just one. Go with that. Maybe you can encourage your side to file false claims with the FISA courts against a president. Or you can ask the FBI to prosecute an incoming cabinet member and threaten his wife and son for doing what many other incoming cabinet member have historically done, which is talk to peers in foreign countries about policies. Or maybe they can sign an FBI memorandum ordering the surveillance of Catholics, and parents of school kids as extremist threats when they exercise 1st Amendment rights to protest DOE initiatives. Or they can write up a "Russia dossier" with the help of the intelligence agencies to derail a president who said he was going to try to rein them in. Be sure your guys prevent the DOD systems from being accessed by DOGE, wouldn't want them finding where that $1 trillion went that they claim they lost to the last set of "auditors."

You're right, I do suffer from a physical ailment diminishing my ability to walk but you are a complete clown to pretend that there is minimal corruption in the civil service and claiming the real problem is potential corruption in an agency tasked with uncovering corruption.

---

Wake me up when you're ready to talk about DOGE.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Really...no fix for our national debt problem without direct access by Elon Musk? None at all?

It almost sounds like, and let me make sure I remember your phrase, you're "rejecting the options outlined in the Constitution because they don't appear to have enough support to be on the table right now."

So it's fine for everyone else to wait and wait until Congress acts, but you're having none of that.

I am not supporting any particular outcome in these cases. Let that sink in. I'm as concerned about the debt as you are. I'm also concerned about things like privacy and labor rights. Understand that sometimes there are important values on both sides of an issue. Sometimes they come into conflict and have to be balanced. Not every case is about good against evil.

---

No fix without access to the data systems controlling the flow of funds by those other than ones entering the data in it. Not hard to see. You're so fixated on Elon Musk that you're willing to close off auditor direct access to the data systems to anyone else just because of your spite for him (shown by your accusation of corruption against him without evidence and wide-sweeping defense of the civil service opposed to direct audits).

We share the same lack of faith in Congress. You believe it to be a failure in checking the executive branch thus requiring judicial overreach, I think it is a failure in checking the civil service "branch."

The civil service bureaucracy has become a 4th branch of government that has had very few checks on its power. If the judiciary succeeds in removing the Executive's power to manage the bureaucracy that reports to him and have access to its data systems, there will be 0 checks on its power.

None of the Constitutional options I listed for wrong behavior by a President applies to the civil service. They are an entrenched power base and if they get to deny access to funding data systems to anyone but themselves, then yes, there is not going to be a solution. Enjoy the ride.

---

The constitutional options you listed aren't the only ones available. Obviously there are different ways of dealing with the bureaucracy. And of course access to data systems wouldn't matter much if Congress cut off their funding.

That said, I'm not opposed to access by people with proper clearance and a need to know. I've already explained that, but you keep inventing arguments that I've never made.

Any chance you'd be interested in discussing this with me instead of the Sam you've conjured in your own mind? I have to say I'm feeling kind of left out.

---

Congress can get organized to oppose a president, but I have no faith in Congress stopping the flow of funds to the bureaucracy, especially given Senator Menendez's conviction and the number of congressmen who become millionaires in a short time in DC. The efficacy of procedures start to erode in the face of practical corruption.

Once again, the President is the final arbiter of security clearances. Their "need to know" was given to them in the President's order to use more efficient technology to carry out an audit of spending by agencies in his branch to improve government efficiency, part of their defined duties from the beginning of the USDS under Obama. It boils down to whether the President can have direct access to the data on funds entrusted to his office by Congress and managed by his administration.
See the bureaucrat recently on video who said he was "dumping gold off the Titanic into the ocean," admitting he was moving $20 billion of taxpayer money from the EPA to a small number of Democrat party donors' businesses as fast as he could before someone could stop him. There is your civil service bureaucrat "with proper clearance" who has more access to taxpayer money data than the President currently.

---

Yeah, that's one example of a bureaucrat with proper clearance. How many Trump bureaucrats would you have doing as bad or worse? I'm done with the "tu quoque" arguments. I know it's all you've got, but it's lame.

You have no faith in Congress, but everyone else is supposed to trust them. I'm still not sure how that works.

---

LOL, it's just one. Go with that. Maybe you can encourage your side to file false claims with the FISA courts against a president. Or you can ask the FBI to prosecute an incoming cabinet member and threaten his wife and son for doing what many other incoming cabinet member have historically done, which is talk to peers in foreign countries about policies. Or maybe they can sign an FBI memorandum ordering the surveillance of Catholics, and parents of school kids as extremist threats when they exercise 1st Amendment rights to protest DOE initiatives. Or they can write up a "Russia dossier" with the help of the intelligence agencies to derail a president who said he was going to try to rein them in. Be sure your guys prevent the DOD systems from being accessed by DOGE, wouldn't want them finding where that $1 trillion went that they claim they lost to the last set of "auditors."

You're right, I do suffer from a physical ailment diminishing my ability to walk but you are a complete clown to pretend that there is minimal corruption in the civil service and claiming the real problem is potential corruption in an agency tasked with uncovering corruption.

---

Wake me up when you're ready to talk about DOGE.

---

Go back to sleep; the $1 trillion the DOD admitted they "lost" is safe while the TRO is in effect.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

lololololol!

Digging deeper into the judicial shenanigans, I'm seeing Judge McConnell kept the gravy train going by taking management of fund distributions out of the President's hands, while Judge Engelmayer issued a TRO against the President and USDS having access to the data.
Engelmayer's ruling is a thing of beauty.

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/court-filings/state-of-new-york-et-al-v-trump-et-al-order-2025.pdf

Judge Engelmayer cites a single case law justifying his grant of the TRO restricting financial data access solely to members of the Treasury bureaucracy and blocking out auditors, and it's a case about Navy sonar hurting some dolphins. I'm not only having a hard time seeing what that has to do with restricting the rights of the President of the United States to have auditing access to the funds entrusted to him, but the very case he cited justifying his TRO was already slapped down by the Supreme Court in 2008, stating it would be an "abuse of discretion" to continue the lower court's injunction.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/555/7/

So half of this "constitutional crisis" is based on a single case law cite about sonar and dolphins that was struck down in 2008. What a clown judge.

---

Engelmayer's citation is to the 2008 SCOTUS decision.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

lololololol!

Digging deeper into the judicial shenanigans, I'm seeing Judge McConnell kept the gravy train going by taking management of fund distributions out of the President's hands, while Judge Engelmayer issued a TRO against the President and USDS having access to the data.
Engelmayer's ruling is a thing of beauty.

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/court-filings/state-of-new-york-et-al-v-trump-et-al-order-2025.pdf

Judge Engelmayer cites a single case law justifying his grant of the TRO restricting financial data access solely to members of the Treasury bureaucracy and blocking out auditors, and it's a case about Navy sonar hurting some dolphins. I'm not only having a hard time seeing what that has to do with restricting the rights of the President of the United States to have auditing access to the funds entrusted to him, but the very case he cited justifying his TRO was already slapped down by the Supreme Court in 2008, stating it would be an "abuse of discretion" to continue the lower court's injunction.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/555/7/

So half of this "constitutional crisis" is based on a single case law cite about sonar and dolphins that was struck down in 2008. What a clown judge.

---

Engelmayer's citation is to the 2008 SCOTUS decision.

---

Yes, a TRO based on a single decision striking down an injunction concerning sonars and dolphins. An excellent basis for creating a "constitutional crisis."

---

So the decision is still good law. Why do you think he cited it?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

lololololol!

Digging deeper into the judicial shenanigans, I'm seeing Judge McConnell kept the gravy train going by taking management of fund distributions out of the President's hands, while Judge Engelmayer issued a TRO against the President and USDS having access to the data.
Engelmayer's ruling is a thing of beauty.

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/court-filings/state-of-new-york-et-al-v-trump-et-al-order-2025.pdf

Judge Engelmayer cites a single case law justifying his grant of the TRO restricting financial data access solely to members of the Treasury bureaucracy and blocking out auditors, and it's a case about Navy sonar hurting some dolphins. I'm not only having a hard time seeing what that has to do with restricting the rights of the President of the United States to have auditing access to the funds entrusted to him, but the very case he cited justifying his TRO was already slapped down by the Supreme Court in 2008, stating it would be an "abuse of discretion" to continue the lower court's injunction.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/555/7/

So half of this "constitutional crisis" is based on a single case law cite about sonar and dolphins that was struck down in 2008. What a clown judge.

---

Engelmayer's citation is to the 2008 SCOTUS decision.

---

Yes, a TRO based on a single decision striking down an injunction concerning sonars and dolphins. An excellent basis for creating a "constitutional crisis."

---

So the decision is still good law. Why do you think he cited it?

---

Because the judge references the case stating "they [the states] will face irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief" due to "hacking."

I'm eagerly waiting for the sophist's spin on this gem of judicial wisdom.

BUDOS said:

---

It appears that there be weaknesses within the Constitution? Or is it us?

---

It appears it is a weakness in us. The procedures are there, but we refuse to fix the problem within the constitutional framework. What you weigh is the path that will have to be taken the longer you wait to deal with a structural problem, the one in question here being continuous deficit spending. At some point if you don't address a critical national problem, you're faced with the dilemma Colombia had with Pablo Escobar. Extra-constitutional means to preserve a constitutional government and society.
Colombia faced M-19 Marxist terrorists and the cocaine cartels. An airliner blown out of the sky by Pablo, the Supreme Court stormed and half the justices murdered by M-19 in an attack financed by Pablo, assassinations of national political candidates, a truck bombing of the national intelligence agency HQ, judges hearing specific cases were murdered, car bombings, and so on.
The out of control violence was a direct challenge to their constitution and they were losing because they couldn't find Pablo. Their answer was to use extra-constitutional means to save the government. Police/military personnel formed death squads that went after his legal/financial apparatus the same way Pablo went after Colombian civil society. His accountants, bankers, lawyers, property managers, etc, were shot or bombed. Pablo moved his family out of country. He became isolated and cut off from his funding, and he was finally found and shot down in 1993.

Our problem is of a much different nature thankfully, but we will still face the same type of dilemma in relation to our debt. If the interest payment reaches a point of causing a financial crisis, then either the problem is fixed within the constitutional framework (but if so, how did we not fix it before?), or we use extra-constitutional means to fix the problem, whatever those options might be (and they don't have to be violent options in our case), or the constitutional system falls apart in its inability to fix the problem either inside or outside its framework. The closer we get to national instability caused by a financial crisis due to the debt interest payments, the more our options get narrowed to more and more extra-constitutional means.

It's heartening to see someone else so concerned about the deficit!