Merged USAID: is it really a bunch of crazy leftists? / Trump Was Absolutely Right to Shut Down USAID

[johnny karate]

What is it you think they're doing? I suspect you don't actually know.

No one really knows. That's the point. What I do know is that they have little to no experience doing anything. They're kids.

Never said. Authority is all that's required for authority.

Then I'm not clear what you're arguing. I asked you about accountability for this process after you claimed there was no accountability before (there absolutely was) and now you're just citing "authority".

Guess who that is. Guess how he views the current situation.

There is currently no official USAID administrator. That requires a legal process that this administration is sidestepping.

The previous administrator however was who was charged with accountability for the agency. Your claim that there was no accountability remains unsubstantiated and weird.

Not really. I made the case that their spending isn't transparent. You can trust them as much as you like, I don't really care.

Cool. Your claim that Trump is reducing government spending remains unsubstantiated.

I don't care if you don't trust Trump. I don't expect you to. You aren't required to.

What I do expect you to do is acknowledge his legal authority to run the executive branch. That's the part of how the system works that you seem to have a problem with.

It was how the system worked before too. Yet you've been making the argument that USAID was an unaccountable rogue agency. Why?

That's exactly how it came to be. And now it may come to un-be, through that same process. Don't like the results? Win the next election.

If it's the same process, then why do insist there was no accountability for the agency?

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think the president has the power to authorize people with no process or confirmation into posts that don't exist.

Presidents do that all the time. They're often called "czars". These are advisory posts with no legal authority. The only real difference here is that Trump is taking their advice seriously, but as president, that's his prerogative.

Musk doesn't actually get to tell anyone what to do. He makes recommendations, and then other people (such as Rubio with USAID) who do have the legal authority then enact those recommendations.

You're supporting a nascent monarchy in what used to be a republic.

Yeah, no. This is just chicken little paranoia. Seriously, all this blowback is happening because Trump is cutting the size of government. Do you not understand how contrary that is to an actual authoritarian takeover?

Trespassing, accessing computer systems without authorization

Your claims of trespassing are rather thin. Just because you haven't been authorized to go somewhere doesn't mean that no civilian can be. And from all accounts, Trump gave DOGE authorization to access those computer systems.

, installing software and hardware without security vetting.

What software and hardware was installed, what security vetting was required? Do you even know?

Awww, you believe what was said! Suuuuuure they have "read only" access. If you believe that I have a beachfront luxury hotel in Gaza to sell you.

I'm not going to affirm you in your paranoia.

 

[Ziggurat]

You misspelled, "Oops, I was mistaken."

I note you didn't answer the question.

 

[johnny karate]

And do you have evidence that DOGE has illegal access to classified information?

We have no way to know because there is zero oversight for any of this. But it seems you're fine with unvetted, inexperienced kids beholden to an unelected foreign national rooting around in government databases.

You've come along way from being Very Concerned about Hillary's emails.

 

[JayUtah]

I note you didn't answer the question.

Because it was a ham-fisted attempt at distraction.

You added the "illegal" qualifier to create a new distinction that amounts to a straw man. For purpose of law and regulation, any access to a system on which classified information is stored, or through which classified information is transmitted, is presumptively considered access to the classified information itself. The Treasury payment system contains classified information. Musk and his little code monkeys have access to it. Therefore under the law they have accessed classified information.

The fact that the Trump administration is handing out security clearances like raffle tickets has legal significance, of course. This is probably why you moved the goalposts. The problem is the actual, practical effect of careless access to classified information. Prior to Trump taking office, Musk himself was under investigation for violations of his own security clearance for his interactions with Vladimir Putin. No, I do not trust Elon Musk to take the proper precautions to safeguard the classified information he has access to.

 

[Ziggurat]

We have no way to know because there is zero oversight for any of this. But it seems you're fine with unvetted, inexperienced kids beholden to an unelected foreign national rooting around in government databases.

What's with the xenophobia? Why is the left, in perfect unison, suddenly going for this smear?

Musk isn't a foreign national. He's a US citizen.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because it was a ham-fisted attempt at distraction.

You added the "illegal" qualifier to create a new distinction that amounts to a straw man.

It's not a straw man. It's at the heart of the entire matter. Civilians access classified information all the time. When legally authorized, there's no problem with such access. The complaint about accessing classified information is only significant if that access was illegal. If it was authorized, then what's the problem? Not the access itself, but the access itself was the entire basis for complaint. So the complaint only matters if the access was illegal.

And it hasn't even been demonstrated that any classified information even was accessed by DOGE, let alone that it was done illegally.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

It is a side effect we can tolerate to get ◊◊◊◊ done. Shut it all down.
I was a fan of Millei from the moment he won.
This is how the bloat gets slimmed. ¡Afuera!
Some things gets hurt in the process but it must be done for the prosperity of everyone long term.

I’m going to give some thought in hopes of remembering the last time I read something so ignorant. I may be awhile.

 

[TragicMonkey]

What's with the xenophobia? Why is the left, in perfect unison, suddenly going for this smear?

Musk isn't a foreign national. He's a US citizen.

Was he security-vetted to ensure his foreign entanglements don't make him a security risk? Oh, that's right: there was no security vetting because he's the king's special friend.


eta: I'm not wild about the queen being a foreign whore, either, if it comes to that.

 

[Ziggurat]

Was he security-vetted to ensure his foreign entanglements don't make him a security risk?

It amuses me that you think military intelligence never looked into the man responsible for so many of their satellite launches.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It amuses me that you think military intelligence never looked into the man responsible for so many of their satellite launches.

It appalls me that you think that con artist is trustworthy, and that being trusted with one thing means he can be trusted with everything. You trust your mailman to deliver your mail to you, right? Now give him your ATM card and pin, and the login credentials to your retirement accounts, and your medical records. Why wouldn't you? You trusted him with your mail.

 

[JayUtah]

It's not a straw man. It's at the heart of the entire matter. Civilians access classified information all the time. When legally authorized, there's no problem with such access.

That's the straw man. You want us to believe that the Muskrats have a security clearance equivalent in effect to the ones held by the people he has locked out of the building.

I've never heard of a security clearance being granted in under a month under ordinary circumstances, and one of my employees took a year to receive his clearance simply because he had once dated someone from China. For all intents and purposes, the people now accessing classified information for Elon Musk have simply been rubber-stamped, without the level of inquiry that a security clearance normally represents. Insisting that all must be well because their access has received a legal wand-waving misses the point and is therefore a straw man.

The complaint about accessing classified information is only significant if that access was illegal.

No, the complaint is significant if there is a rational reason to believe the information is not being practically safeguarded. Lots of people had legal access to classified information and went to the electric chair for subsequently mishandling it. The topic does not begin and end with the perfunctory granting of a security clearance.

And it hasn't even been demonstrated that any classified information even was accessed by DOGE, let alone that it was done illegally.

Asked and answered. As long as you're going to wave the law, you have to concede that the law presumptively considers access to a system on which classified information is kept as access to the information. There is no handwaving around that.

 

[JayUtah]

It amuses me that you think military intelligence never looked into the man responsible for so many of their satellite launches.

Elon Musk was under investigation for allegations that he violated his security clearance by meeting with Vladimir Putin behind closed doors. That investigation was terminated by the Trump administration. The pre-Trump military and intelligence communities indeed were suspicious of him.

 

[Axxman300]

Trump tried to claim that $50 million was going on condoms for Gaza that were used for bomb making. With, unsurprisingly, not a shred of evidence.

Donald Trump says he stopped $50 million for condoms going to Gaza. Is it true?

The U.S. has spent millions of dollars to send contraceptives to other countries. Did Trump's White House really stop $50 million in condoms for Gaza?

www.usatoday.com

As I mentioned elsewhere, recipients of USAID money, that was supposedly guaranteed and on the basis of which programmes to help people, and often save lives, had been undertaken, have been told to cease operations in places such as Ukraine, immediately. Lives will undoubtedly be lost as a result.

Here's the best part: they did give $50 million for condoms in Gaza...Gaza Provence, South Africa. Trying to cut down on AIDS and STDS. Those evil bastards.

Yes, that's right, our new administration can't read a map. Oh hey world, we still have nuclear weapons. Enjoy your day.

 

[zooterkin]

Here's the best part: they did give $50 million for condoms in Gaza...Gaza Provence, South Africa. Trying to cut down on AIDS and STDS. Those evil bastards.

Yes, that's right, our new administration can't read a map. Oh hey world, we still have nuclear weapons. Enjoy your day.

I've seen that claimed, but couldn't find confirmation, which is why I didn't repeat it earlier. I've also seen it claimed that it's Gaza province in Mozambique, not South Africa.

$50 million buys a lot of condoms, too, (about a billion), so even if it was Gaza in Africa, the money was undoubtedly for more than just that.

So, there may be some truth in it, but it's probably not quite that simple (even if Trump is).

Is the US sending $50m in condoms to Gaza as Trump claims?

The US president has listed the stopping of condoms to Gaza as an accomplishment. But is he thinking of the wrong Gaza?

www.aljazeera.com

 

[TomB]

That's the straw man. You want us to believe that the Muskrats have a security clearance equivalent in effect to the ones held by the people he has locked out of the building.

I've never heard of a security clearance being granted in under a month under ordinary circumstances, and one of my employees took a year to receive his clearance simply because he had once dated someone from China.
For all intents and purposes, the people now accessing classified information for Elon Musk have simply been rubber-stamped, without the level of inquiry that a security clearance normally represents. Insisting that all must be well because their access has received a legal wand-waving misses the point and is therefore a straw man.


No, the complaint is significant if there is a rational reason to believe the information is not being practically safeguarded. Lots of people had legal access to classified information and went to the electric chair for subsequently mishandling it. The topic does not begin and end with the perfunctory granting of a security clearance.


Asked and answered. As long as you're going to wave the law, you have to concede that the law presumptively considers access to a system on which classified information is kept as access to the information. There is no handwaving around that.

The president has the authority to hand out security clearance.
Doing so without proper vetting, however, could be grounds for impeachment.
As can declining to perform the actions required by bills passed by congress and signed by the (previous) president.

As far as USAID goes, he has the authority to redirect the focus for discretionary spending. Any specific spending authorized by Congress that is administered by USAID he has a duty and obligation to fulfill.

It's true that USAID was initially created by an executive order. But it cannot be dismantled with one. this is due to The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C. 6501 which further established USAID and gave a short term (60 day) time limit in which the President (Clinton) could abolish the agency and transfer functions to the Department of State. That window passed 27 years ago.
The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C. 6501

 

[JayUtah]

The president has the authority to hand out security clearance.

He absolutely does. The whole notion of a security clearance exists only in the executive branch and is wholly within the duties of the President to direct. That's why the argument, "It's okay because it's legal," doesn't instill any confidence when the concern is the actual handling of the information.

Doing so without proper vetting, however, could be grounds for impeachment.

Well, an impeachable offense is anything the Congress says it is. Since the President has sole authority to issue security clearances, you'd have to argue that the manner in which he does so amounts to a "high crime" or "misdemeanor." The President can make a security clearance legal in any case, but not advisable. The advisability aspect would get a greater toehold in an impeachment proceeding. Giving a Top Secret clearance to President Xi of China, for example, would be solidly impeachable on the grounds that the administration has deemed China an adversary nation.

As can declining to perform the actions required by bills passed by congress and signed by the (previous) president.

That's more directly impeachable because the President is obliged to execute the law. His failure to do so puts him in jeopardy of impeachment, and the reasons he might give for not doing it may provide a justification.

 

[johnny karate]

What's with the xenophobia? Why is the left, in perfect unison, suddenly going for this smear?

Musk isn't a foreign national. He's a US citizen.

Fair point on him not being a foreign national.

However, the concern that a foreign-born person is accessing government databases with sensitive information is exactly as xenophobic as the Constitutional clause that prevents that same person from running for President.

And you failed to address the substance of my post.

 

[zooterkin]

Fair point on him not being a foreign national.

However, the concern that a foreign-born person is accessing government databases with sensitive information is exactly as xenophobic as the Constitutional clause that prevents that same person from running for President.

And you failed to address the substance of my post.

Well, he is a US citizen, but he is also a foreign national - he has South African and Canadian citizenship too.
He apparently was an illegal immigrant at one point, working in California to set up PayPal.

 

[JayUtah]

Well, he is a US citizen, but he is also a foreign national - he has South African and Canadian citizenship too.

This makes it harder to get a security clearance, but by no means impossible. Basically you have to convince the administration that you will side with the United States should a conflict ever arise out of foreign citizenship.

Even if you're a full U.S. citizen with no encumbering foreign citizenships, the existence of significant personal business interests in foreign countries is a red flag. If you have significant investments in foreign countries—especially adversary nations—and there is a potential for that country to exert economic pressure on you by way of those investments, to the detriment of the United States, this ordinarily weighs quite heavily against being granted a security clearance. You have to show that your foreign business interests are sufficiently decoupled from the influence of foreign governments.

He apparently was an illegal immigrant at one point, working in California to set up PayPal.

That will generally be mooted by the granting of U.S. citizenship. It has a rhetorical effect, of course, because Musk technically falls into the same category as others that the Trump administration has threatened to denaturalize.