Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m disgusted by the level of grift. Who is the auditor of USAID?

Democrats want to keep as much as possible secret, like who all was on the USAID board besides Samantha Powers??

So ridiculous. USAID is audited. Every single project is a) chosen by the US government and b) competitively bid and awarded. Then those projects have to report. It wasn't that long ago that some corruption was identified and an entire contractor was shut down (AED). When something is truly corrupt, USAID found it. In 2008 the mortgage industry screwed over the entire country and basically sent us into a depression and we were like, "okay, you get a second chance" and gave them a pile of money. Are you serious that USAID, which essentially provides humanitarian services, is a 'grift'? GTFOH.

This is what gives me pause, some of the stuff coming out is troubling. I am no longer on board with the Agency and its' powers. Good riddance to Samantha Powers, btw. Total b.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m disgusted by the level of grift. Who is the auditor of USAID?

Democrats want to keep as much as possible secret, like who all was on the USAID board besides Samantha Powers??

So ridiculous. USAID is audited. Every single project is a) chosen by the US government and b) competitively bid and awarded. Then those projects have to report. It wasn't that long ago that some corruption was identified and an entire contractor was shut down (AED). When something is truly corrupt, USAID found it. In 2008 the mortgage industry screwed over the entire country and basically sent us into a depression and we were like, "okay, you get a second chance" and gave them a pile of money. Are you serious that USAID, which essentially provides humanitarian services, is a 'grift'? GTFOH.

Yeah. It was a grift along with the good programs. CIA was working with USAID on certain projects. Funding trans parties and operas overseas is ideological and has no discernible benefits. I worked with NGO people for years overseas and they could be jaded. They all had wild stories about USAID. You claim projects were competitively bid, but what if the only bidders are corrupt construction companies in XYZ developing country who do a mediocre job requiring replacement in a few years by an equivalently corrupt company owned by the country's president's son in law.... you're not left with much option.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m disgusted by the level of grift. Who is the auditor of USAID?

Democrats want to keep as much as possible secret, like who all was on the USAID board besides Samantha Powers??

So ridiculous. USAID is audited. Every single project is a) chosen by the US government and b) competitively bid and awarded. Then those projects have to report. It wasn't that long ago that some corruption was identified and an entire contractor was shut down (AED). When something is truly corrupt, USAID found it. In 2008 the mortgage industry screwed over the entire country and basically sent us into a depression and we were like, "okay, you get a second chance" and gave them a pile of money. Are you serious that USAID, which essentially provides humanitarian services, is a 'grift'? GTFOH.

Hear, hear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m disgusted by the level of grift. Who is the auditor of USAID?

Democrats want to keep as much as possible secret, like who all was on the USAID board besides Samantha Powers??

So ridiculous. USAID is audited. Every single project is a) chosen by the US government and b) competitively bid and awarded. Then those projects have to report. It wasn't that long ago that some corruption was identified and an entire contractor was shut down (AED). When something is truly corrupt, USAID found it. In 2008 the mortgage industry screwed over the entire country and basically sent us into a depression and we were like, "okay, you get a second chance" and gave them a pile of money. Are you serious that USAID, which essentially provides humanitarian services, is a 'grift'? GTFOH.

I’m confused about lack of concern for US soft power? I would assume they would care about that.

USAID was attacked by Musk first because USAID’s IG was investigating Musk and Starlink..

So Musk had all the IGs fired.

Then he accessed the classified info—probably about Ukrainian positions.

Musk turned Starlink off for drones when Ukraine was trying to mount an attack against Russia. Just because.

Russia “mysteriously” got its hands on Starlink. Hmmm, I wonder how that happened!!

http://oig.usaid.gov/node/6814

Full lawsuit, worth a read:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277213/gov.uscourts.dcd.277213.1.0.pdf

Anonymous wrote:AFGE is suing to stop the shutdown.

Finally!!!

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/06/politics/labor-groups-sue-trump-usaid/index.html

AFGE is suing to stop the shutdown.

Well, once the programs are stopped, it’ll be so hard and expensive to restart. So whether it will be restarted or not, major damage has already been done, including the US reputation as a development partner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under what legal authority is this happening?

I cannot understand how you can legally lay off 97% of an agency that is created from statute by Congress, has statutory obligations to fulfill, and currently has appropriated funding.

Explain it like I’m five.

None. Absolutely none. The money for these programs has been appropriated. It is mathematically impossible to carry out the statutory duties of the agency with 3% of the staff.

This is Trump’s second impoundment test case after the funding freeze last week.

The money has not been appropriated. They are operating under a CR that expires March 14.

A continuing resolution means they have money from the temp stop gap provided by Congress at previous appropriation levels. They have money, they have statutory obligations to meet, they are open for business.

In what world does a CR mean the POTUS can lay off an agency?

Seriously. The utter stupidity of these people.

Anonymous wrote:Under what legal authority is this happening?

I cannot understand how you can legally lay off 97% of an agency that is created from statute by Congress, has statutory obligations to fulfill, and currently has appropriated funding.

Explain it like I’m five.

It’s unlawful and they are not supposed to but they are doing it anyway because the people who are supposed to stop them were either fired or just won’t. There you go.

Complaint just dropped.

I agree that this is an impoundment test case.

And I am sorry for the lives being wrecked along the way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under what legal authority is this happening?

I cannot understand how you can legally lay off 97% of an agency that is created from statute by Congress, has statutory obligations to fulfill, and currently has appropriated funding.

Explain it like I’m five.

None. Absolutely none. The money for these programs has been appropriated. It is mathematically impossible to carry out the statutory duties of the agency with 3% of the staff.

This is Trump’s second impoundment test case after the funding freeze last week.

The money has not been appropriated. They are operating under a CR that expires March 14.

A continuing resolution means they have money from the temp stop gap provided by Congress at previous appropriation levels. They have money, they have statutory obligations to meet, they are open for business.

In what world does a CR mean the POTUS can lay off an agency?

Moreover, they have no idea what will be in the next funding bill. If the White House wants to defund foreign aid, they can wait for Congress to do it. They don’t get to start the process early before a budget is passed.