94chem said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

94chem said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Can you post receipts backing that all up?

---

Here's one on many available stories on Dudek. As the story implies, and I will confirm, he was fired for violating the equivalent of an NDA. Executives love this stuff, amirite?

The Newly Elevated Acting Head of Social Security Covertly Helped DOGE

---

I applaud anyone willing to bring to light the fraud and corruption that has bankrupted this nation. When exposing fraud is considered a fireable offense, I side with the one exposing the fraud.

---

Fine, but Dudek himself, if you would read the article, admitted that this list of dead people likely contains very little in the way of fraudulent payments.

Also, if you would simply read, an audit of payments between 2015 and 2022 uncovered about 1% in erroneous payments. Bear in mind, that total (~$70 billion) is the total deviation, including all overpayments and underpayments.

Again, if you would read the links earlier in this thread, the audit from 2 years ago already uncovered these "death" errors, conceded that they likely had no effect on payments, but recommended that SS fix the system anyway. SS declined, citing a $5 - $8M price tag.

I'm not dismissing fraud, which may be occurring to the tune of several billion dollars per year, nor am I against proper audits, but putting a mid-level "whistle-blower" whom senior executives had never heard of in charge of a 58,000 person company is insane. It just is.

And, what fraud did he expose?

---

Which article?

Because nothing in the link on this post has him saying that.

mjschiller said:

---

Who is cashing those checks?

---

Canyonag77

He gets those "whippersnappers" (his words) checks and goes to buy all the Ensure he can, now, afford.

94chem said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

Great! 100% support this. Let's do it.

But maybe until we get there, could we have Elon and the President cool it with trumpeting the findings as smoking gun proof of nefarious activity? Or maybe since we can't control them, at least let's not bring their mischaracterizations here.

---

Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant. They're shining bright lights on things we've never been allowed to see. People should want to know the truth.

They're showing us the data, not making the conclusions for us. There is nothing at all wrong with what they're doing. Unless you've got something to hide.

---

They're not making conclusions????

Here is the President of the United States just out right lying about this data, drawing the conclusion that this data reflects people that are "on Social Security" while a room full of people just lap up the lies with giggles and applause:

President Trump just exposed Social Security as a massive fraud with people who are over 300 years old receiving checks: pic.twitter.com/b36Na75QKy

— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) February 20, 2025

---

It's perfectly fair to draw a conclusion that fraud is present without making the claim that fraud has been proven in specific case to a legal standard of guilt.

When Trump says "on Social Security" he is technically correct but people infer the "on Social Security" means receiving benefit checks. It is absolutely true that there are millions of active, i.e. the "Dead" field set to "False," SSNs representing people in the SSA database .

Those millions of records are erroneous which is an indicator of "potential fraud." The investigations that follow will determine whether those records are merely erroneous (incompetence by itself) or fraudulent (being used to collect benefits or mask the identity of illegal aliens in the labor force).

DOGE is not investigating, they are auditing. Detecting evidence of potential fraud is exactly what an audit produces. The FBI will do the investigations and and could either receive checks or be credited with tax receipts. The Attorney General will prosecute the criminal cases referred by the FBI.

---

That's nice that you believe that, and would be even nicer if it were true. The employees at social security sign agreements every year regarding data security, and what they may and may not do with it. One employee (Leland Dudek) decided to violate his agreement and to release this data. He was put on unpaid leave (likely to be fired). DOGE then instructed the head of social security to bring him back to work. She refused because he had committed a serious violation of his secrecy commitment. She was overruled, and resigned. This employee is now the acting chief, until Trump's nominee is confirmed. Rewarding people who violate confidentiality agreements is a very North Korean way of doing things. I don't know if Dudek is a bad actor or not; but he's now got 58,000 employees under him, and he got there by violating his agreement.

As you sit here and cheerlead, exercise some discernment. Pray for discernment. Long for truth. Seek it. Try not to be impressed by a cute color chart that was drawn by a new 23 year old HR employee with a BA in Government. Mindless platitudes and charts are on the walls of every big company. So what.

---

Dudek didn't violate any legal and valid data security policies. President Trump is the chief information security officer of the United States, the chief classification authority of the United States, and the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. He is the unitary executive.

All data security "agreements" drafted by the director of the IRS are only valid if they support the orders and intent of President Donald Trump. Furthermore, President Trump signed an EO directing every executive branch employee to fully cooperate and grant access to DOGE employees. It was not Dudek but the now fired former leadership of the IRS that was violating the orders of President Donald Trump.

Executive branch policy serves the President who is the duly elected representative of the electorate. Rebellious bureaucrats deserve to be fired immediately and proswcuted sedition against the elected government. The IRS leadership were petulant children that thought they were the expression of the people's will. Time behind bars and heavy funes will help them realize that.

FWIW, that color chart is take from GAO Rreport 24-105833 Fraud Risk Management. You should read it.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105833

Yeah, I don't know that completely ignoring congress, or ignoring the responsibility of SCOTUS to rule on the legality of interactions between POTUS and independent agencies, is a great plan.

When the IRS was being used by the executive branch to target Christian non-profit organizations, we saw a small example what can happen.

I know you're angry, but think.

94chem said:

---

Yeah, I don't know that completely ignoring congress, or ignoring the responsibility of SCOTUS to rule on the legality of interactions between POTUS and independent agencies, is a great plan.

When the IRS was being used by the executive branch to target Christian non-profit organizations, we saw a small example what can happen.

I know you're angry, but think.

---

Ah, I think perhaps you've misunderstood what "independent agency" means. The IRS is part of the Treasury department, which is under the Executive Branch. The IRS is not independent from the President's authority.

94chem said:

---

Yeah, I don't know that completely ignoring congress, or ignoring the responsibility of SCOTUS to rule on the legality of interactions between POTUS and independent agencies, is a great plan.

---

Independent agencies? Have you ever read the Constitution?

There are three branches of government. That is it.They each have a constitutional role and are co-equal.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

94chem said:

---

Yeah, I don't know that completely ignoring congress, or ignoring the responsibility of SCOTUS to rule on the legality of interactions between POTUS and independent agencies, is a great plan.

---

Independent agencies? Have you ever read the Constitution?

There are three branches of government. That is it.They each have a constitution role and are co-equal.

---

Independent agencies are those that have been specifically created outside of the three branches. For example, the Postal Service and NASA. The IRS is *not* an independent agency.

94chem said:

---

Yeah, I don't know that completely ignoring congress, or ignoring the responsibility of SCOTUS to rule on the legality of interactions between POTUS and independent agencies, is a great plan.

When the IRS was being used by the executive branch to target Christian non-profit organizations, we saw a small example what can happen.

I know you're angry, but think.

---

This is basic high school inteo to constitutional government information but I guess it needs to be said. The President (and his appointed representatives in DOGE) can ignore what Congress says unless it is in the form of a bill passed by both the House and the Senate. Then, he can still veto the bill if it doesn't have a 2/3 majority. The President cannot ignore the bills passed by Congress that have already been signed into law. Congress didn't pass any law that implemented data security agreements as statute law.

Congress makes statutory policy and the President makes regulatory policy. You won't find any "data security agreements" in statute. It's all regulatory policy that...President Trump explicitly waived for purposes of cooperation with DOGE.

Th responsibility of SCOTUS to rule on interactions between the Executive and Legislative branch only comes into play when there is a case brought before the court. I am not aware that either the House or Senate has asked SCOTUS to intervene and make a ruling.

Who is it exactly that you believe has standing to bring a case to SCOTUS regarding President Trump's authority to exercise oversight of the executive branch as he has delegated it to DOGE? It's purely a regulatory matter, not a statutory one.

The President does not have authority to hire or fire whomever he pleases in the executive branch agencies. He can appoint the boss, subject to confirmation.

And Social Security is absolutely an independent agency within the executive branch. Can't believe you're arguing this point. Again, think. Think of the implications about what you're saying.

94chem said:

---

The President does not have authority to hire or fire whomever he pleases in the executive branch agencies. He can appoint the boss, subject to confirmation.

And Social Security is absolutely an independent agency within the executive branch. Can't believe you're arguing this point. Again, think. Think of the implications about what you're saying.

---

SSA is not an independent agency. It is part of the Executive Branch and subject to the President's authority. "Independent agency" has a specific meaning. Your usage of the term is not correct.

He can fire anyone appointed position in the Plumb book. He doesn't have to ask Congress' permission. He can reassign career civil service employees to other duties without asking Congress' permission. See Spicer v. Biden.

SSA being an "independent agency" only means that it does not answer to a cabinet secretary. It doesn't mean that they don't answer to POTUS.

He absolutely does.

And, if I might go a bit further, the amount of name-calling people receive just for questioning the current administration is so narrow-minded. It reminds me of the great Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who after suffering so many years under totalitarian Soviet rule, finally traveled to the US, and quickly met with opposition when his shallow American critics assumed that his objection to godless Soviet communism would imply approval of godless American capitalism. Turns out, the enemy of my enemy may not be my friend after all.

Asking why the world's richest man - father of 13 children by 4 women, and rife with conflicts of interest across the globe - and Donald Trump, who buys the silence (although not well, it seems) of his trysts, should be trusted to wield moral authority on all things governmental, does not seem to be an unmerited line of query. If that makes me a "woke liberal," then Solzhenitsyn must be a communist.

At 6:30 tomorrow morning, I will be preparing my lesson on Revelation, as I am leading a group of high school students through it this year. I claim no special insight, but it is fascinating to read about the fall of Babylon the Great, symbolic of the global systems of religion, politics, economics, etc., that have long-oppressed humanity. More than anything, I see in this transition from one administration to the next the replacement of one form of Babylon by another. I will take the good as it comes, but I do not see wisdom right now. I see a caricature, an imitation, even a counterfeit. 6 is so close to 7, isn't it?

I'm not here to win friends. I'm only one of 330 million citizens, unschooled in matters of government. I just would ask that more people were paying attention, if only a few.

I wonder how many of these are illegal aliens using deceased persons Social Security numbers. This was a big deal about 30 years ago.

You're quite the one to complain about name calling when you ridiculed, "a cute color chart that was drawn by a new 23 year old HR employee with a BA in Government" that was actually extracted from a GAO report to Congress. You are not winning your argument on the evidence so you default to claiming that people are being mean to you for "questioning."

FWIW, the TRO to prevent the disestablishment of USAID was just vacated. How's that for mediation between the authority of the Executive and the Legislative?

BREAKING: Judge Nichols has rejected further relief for USAID workers and has dissolved his restraining order on the Trump administration's effort to dismantle the agency. https://t.co/IWYJI4vbgj pic.twitter.com/6seLzq1Jy7

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 21, 2025

Quote:

---

The US has a living citizen between 360-369 years of age

---

Reparations baby, it is on.