Dem States sue to block DOGE from revealing the truth

3,773 Views | 41 Replies | Last: 1 min ago by VegasAg86
ProgN
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:38p, 2/7/25
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/07/us-states-sue-to-block-musks-doge-from-accessing-payment-systems.html
Quote:
A coalition of mostly Democratic-led U.S. states filed a lawsuit on Friday to stop a Trump administration panel led by billionaire Elon Musk from accessing government systems used to process trillions of dollars in payments.

The 19 states led by the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, claim Musk's Department of Government Efficiency has no legal power to access the U.S. Department of Treasury systems that contain personal information on millions of Americans.

The lawsuit in Manhattan federal court says Musk and his team could disrupt federal funding for health clinics, preschools, climate initiatives, and other programs, and that Republican President Donald Trump could use the information to further his political agenda.

Well no **** you ignorant *****, and that's why we voted for him.

Quote:
Lawsuits also have been filed seeking to block DOGE from accessing data at the U.S. Department of Labor and the Department of Education.
You know the corruption is WAY bigger than the crap they found at USAID. They're scared ****less that their theft of our money is going to be brought out into the light and cutoff. Both Left and Right taxpayers should demand that all is revealed.

What are they trying so hard to keep hidden?
Reply Quote
82
RulesForTheeNotForMe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ProgN • 9:42p, 2/7/25
AG
Add these AG's to the RICO, Obstruction of Justice and Money Laundering charges. That'll shut'em up pretty quick.
Reply Quote
62
FriscoKid
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:44p, 2/7/25
AG
So you aren't trying to block the spending? You are trying to block an audit? I'm not a finance guy, but would this be possible in the private sector?
Reply Quote
74
FriscoKid
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:47p, 2/7/25
AG
Also, these "teams" all report to the president. If the boss wants an audit I don't think anyone has legal authority to say "no", you can't look at your team.
Reply Quote
31
FTAG 2000
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:48p, 2/7/25
AG
Suing the chief executive from reviewing the chief executive's finances.

Bold move.
Reply Quote
105
Ol_Ag_02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FriscoKid • 9:52p, 2/7/25
AG
FriscoKid said:
So you aren't trying to block the spending? You are trying to block an audit? I'm not a finance guy, but would this be possible in the private sector?


I'm in audit. The more you tell me you don't want to provide me what I'm asking for the more I'm going to scrutinize your ass. And no, it's not possible. Ive been in this twenty years and only twice have I had to go the "let's take it to the board" card. Audit, at least on the private sector, always get what they want.

Just one more example that public officials are corrupt as hell.
Reply Quote
67
TexasAggiesWin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:56p, 2/7/25
S
Anyone opposing the exposing of corruption and waste looks like (and will always look like) some of the biggest idiots in the world
Reply Quote
17
Logos Stick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ProgN • 9:57p, 2/7/25
No standing. Dismiss the suit.
Reply Quote
31
Yesterday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:00p, 2/7/25
AG
These people know that none of the individuals hired to run these organizations in the past were elected….right?

If it's a clearance issue the President can clear anyone to look at any classified material. What the **** are we doing?
Reply Quote
22
FireAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:03p, 2/7/25
AG
They don't give two ****s about the information of regular people…

Folks like James have been alerted that there's a paper trail that could lead to her and how her anti-Trump antics were financed…
Reply Quote
24
FireAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TexasAggiesWin • 10:04p, 2/7/25
AG
TexasAggiesWin said:
Anyone opposing the exposing of corruption and waste looks like (and will always look like) some of the biggest idiots in the world

You misspelled "most guilty"…
Reply Quote
6
TheEternalOptimist
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ProgN • 10:08p, 2/7/25
ProgN said:
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/07/us-states-sue-to-block-musks-doge-from-accessing-payment-systems.html
Quote:
A coalition of mostly Democratic-led U.S. states filed a lawsuit on Friday to stop a Trump administration panel led by billionaire Elon Musk from accessing government systems used to process trillions of dollars in payments.

The 19 states led by the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, claim Musk's Department of Government Efficiency has no legal power to access the U.S. Department of Treasury systems that contain personal information on millions of Americans.

The lawsuit in Manhattan federal court says Musk and his team could disrupt federal funding for health clinics, preschools, climate initiatives, and other programs, and that Republican President Donald Trump could use the information to further his political agenda.

Well no **** you ignorant *****, and that's why we voted for him.

Quote:
Lawsuits also have been filed seeking to block DOGE from accessing data at the U.S. Department of Labor and the Department of Education.
You know the corruption is WAY bigger than the crap they found at USAID. They're scared ****less that their theft of our money is going to be brought out into the light and cutoff. Both Left and Right taxpayers should demand that all is revealed.

What are they trying so hard to keep hidden?
The Conservative majority SCOTUS should intervene immediately and end all these together in ONE emergency decision.

These stall tactics and disruptions to the Executive's ability to STOP the fraud and abuse go directly against his Congressionally and Constitutionally authorized powers.
Reply Quote
9
TheEternalOptimist
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RulesForTheeNotForMe • 10:10p, 2/7/25
RulesForTheeNotForMe said:
Add these AG's to the RICO, Obstruction of Justice and Money Laundering charges. That'll shut'em up pretty quick.
One of the AG's suing is this ANTIFA aligned radical extremist:

Reply Quote
3
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTAG 2000 • 10:12p, 2/7/25
AG
FTAG 2000 said:
Suing the chief executive from reviewing the chief executive's finances.

Bold move.


And what's pathetic is they'll probably find a Hawaiian judge that will agree with them
Reply Quote
4
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:52a, 2/8/25
Close. Manhattan judge.

TRO entered. Hearing in injunction is 2/14




You can't appeal a TRO, but Trump will appeal an injunction
Reply Quote
3
mirose
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:11a
AG
Seems like pretty simple response to me. Tell them either let us audit the money and verify its use or we just cut it all off until you do.
Reply Quote
21
Hubert J. Farnsworth
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to mirose • 6:17a
mirose said:
Seems like pretty simple response to me. Tell them either let us audit the money and verify its use or we just cut it all off until you do.


And then they should renege. Audit the money and cut it off anyway.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
agpetz
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:37a
This isn't any different than the consultants/IT companies that Treasury uses to maintain the system. I'd wager a bunch of people have access to all this data.
Reply Quote
7
MouthBQ98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:55a
AG
The president has the right, the responsibility, and the clear constitutional authority to know what all federal spending is and how it is being carried out and he has wide authority in how he executes operation of the federal government.

These lawfare tactics need to be swept aside, and I'd argue that the president has no obligation in allowing any biased venue shopper federal judge to stop him from carrying out his clear cut constitutional responsibilities by enabling and participating in a long series of delaying tactics that are obviously only just that. The judicial branch isn't allowed itself to actively subvert the legitimate operation of the executive branch by the constitution simply by manufacturing political obstructions without sound legal basis.
Reply Quote
23
1 edit
ttu_85
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTAG 2000 • 7:28a
FTAG 2000 said:
Suing the chief executive from reviewing the chief executive's finances.

Bold move.
Well in a proper world where media is truthful and responsible, yes. When you have an ignorant population and a media controlled by a particular ideology, logic, reason and societal longevity break down.

You dont hate big legacy media enough. Nothing but a tool of the elitist left.
Reply Quote
3
ttu_85
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to mirose • 7:31a
mirose said:
Seems like pretty simple response to me. Tell them either let us audit the money and verify its use or we just cut it all off until you do.
Interestingly very simple and potentially very effective. IF you suspected it's dirty first cut the funding. Then let them tie it up in court. Do this once or twice these jackasses will cool their lawfare BS down.
Reply Quote
1 edit
doubledog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:32a
You know you are doing something right when Dems resort to lawfare.
Reply Quote
4
ts5641
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ProgN • 7:33a
The graft and corruption train has been going full steam ahead for 50 years. No dem wants this to end. They were right, Trump is an existential threat...to them...
Reply Quote
1
Helicopter Ben
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FriscoKid • 8:05a
FriscoKid said:
So you aren't trying to block the spending? You are trying to block an audit? I'm not a finance guy, but would this be possible in the private sector?

I can understand politicians and anyone else involved trying to block this. It's wrong and extremely suspicious, but I can understand it. What I can't wrap my head around, is why democrat voters are so upset by this. If you want to feel like you're taking crazy pills, head over to reddit and have a look at what they're saying.

None of their reasons make any sense and it seems they really don't want to know what their govt is up to. It's either that, or politics has gotten so stupid that it all just boils down to "team red has the ball so team blue is rooting for defense." It doesn't matter if team blue has been cheating all along, stealing from their fans, and otherwise abusing them, they'll keep supporting their team.
Reply Quote
4
jwhaby
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RulesForTheeNotForMe • 8:16a
RulesForTheeNotForMe said:
Add these AG's to the RICO, Obstruction of Justice and Money Laundering charges. That'll shut'em up pretty quick.


This. Tell the AGs that if they resist an audit by filing a lawsuit, and that suit is dismissed, then they will be charged with obstruction. Find out if they really think the law is on their side. Until we start enforcing penalties on illegal behavior, the bad deeds will continue.
Reply Quote
1
Get Off My Lawn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MouthBQ98 • 8:25a
MouthBQ98 said:
The president has the right, the responsibility, and the clear constitutional authority to know what all federal spending is and how it is being carried out and he has wide authority in how he executes operation of the federal government.

These lawfare tactics need to be swept aside, and I'd argue that the president has no obligation in allowing any biased venue shopper federal judge to stop him from carrying out his clear cut constitutional responsibilities by enabling and participating in a long series of delaying tactics that are obviously only just that. The judicial branch isn't allowed itself to actively subvert the legitimate operation of the executive branch by the constitution simply by manufacturing political obstructions without sound legal basis.
Practically: how does a NYC judge stop a federal employee in DC from doing work on computers that remain within DC offices? I neither follow the authority nor the execution.
Reply Quote
6
TexAgs91
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:05a
AG
Why does a mid level federal judge in the judicial branch have the authority to effectively veto the top level of the executive branch?

I know this has been how it's done, but why?

I know people will say checks and balances, but a president doesn't have veto power over the judicial branch, so no... it's not balanced.

Seems to me a president should be able to ignore a federal judge at least until backed up by the SCOTUS. And even then it's just one branch against another and should be settled by a 3rd branch: the legislative branch.
No, I don't care what CNN or MSNBC said this time
Ad Lunam
Reply Quote
3
Red Fishing Ag93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:10a
AG
F 'em

Reply Quote
2
Matt Hooper
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BMX Bandit • 9:14a
AG
Scott Bessent stated in a recent interview that 2 of the Doge people are considered Treasury personnel. Bessent mentioned that he interviewed 1 of the Doge team members personally.

Would that mean that they are not limited by this TRO / injunction?

Edit to add link:

Reply Quote
1 edit
NE PA Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:16a
What standing do state AGs even have wrt an audit of a federal government department?
Reply Quote
3
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Matt Hooper • 9:16a
That's what the order appears to say
Reply Quote
1
American Hardwood
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:18a
AG
Seems that it would be pretty easy to generate a lust of all the unelected people given clearance to access this data by, say, the last 6 administrations. It would demonstrate pretty easily that this is not the egregious problem they would have us believe it is.
The best way to keep evil men from wielding great power is to not create great power in the first place.
Reply Quote
Ags4DaWin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:29a
I am hoping that Trump and his legal team anticipated this and have a response.

Either a way to ignore it outright or a way to get this **** struck down in an expedited way.

The shock and awe of what they were doing has worn off. Now the dems amd thieves have resorted to their tried and true methods of shopping judges to obstruct.

I am usually for judicial independence but watching a single unelected judge shut down and stop what we elected Trump to do is beyond infuriating.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
TRADUCTOR
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:36a
President Trump has turned Democrats into toddlers throwing a temper lying on the floor screaming and flailing. Stopping occasionally to pick up a gun momentarily making threats until taken away.
Reply Quote
1
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ags4DaWin • 9:50a
AG
I'm sure they did. Per above at least one and maybe two are actually Treasury employees now. Interviewed with Bessent herself, not 'detailed' or 'special government employees. Engelmeyer is a typical obama judge but this won't likely have any impact on the review. They all have security clearances, this will be filed under 'noted and ignored.'


Democrats by comparison were 'give a ****' about when China hacked Treasury's systems (and not just on a read-only level.).
Reply Quote
1
Page 1 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.