3 ms·
IANAL. I would think fraud needs investigation much deeper than; "This $200 million is being spent on <insert program> that we don't need at the moment." First
by monkmartinez 2y ago
IANAL. I would think fraud needs investigation much deeper than; "This $200 million is being spent on <insert program> that we don't need at the moment."
First you find where the money is being spent and if it doesn't match the goals of the administration, you turn it off. If there is potential for fraud, you mark the case for further evaluation and investigation. The most important first step is always to stop the bleeding and in this case, bleeding money.
You can come back to investigate at a later time. Prosecuting fraud before the bleeding has stopped is a waste of time imo.
- alabastervlog 2y ago> First you find where the money is being spent and if it doesn't match the goals of the administration, you turn it off. If you're attempting to illegally seize control of the government's spending from Congress, sure, you do that.
- hypeatei 2y ago> First you find where the money is being spent and if it doesn't match the goals of the administration, you turn it off The executive doesn't appropriate funds, Congress does. So that's completely wrong. > think fraud needs investigation much deeper than... Exactly but DOGE isn't doing that.
- xnx 2y ago> "This $200 million is being spent on <insert program> that we don't need at the moment." That's "waste" (in their opinion), but they keep saying "waste, fraud, and abuse".
- tim333 2y agoFair enough, prosecuting takes time but announcing what happened doesn't. So far we seem to get them claiming that 160 year old people are claiming social security which turned out to be them just defaulting to an old date of birth if they didn't know the actual one. Have there been any announcements of actual fraud found that stand up to a common sense look at what they are saying?