Government Efficiency (6 Viewers)

[RobF]

I think this topic deserves its own thread, both to discuss generally the topic of government efficiency, and specifically the so-called 'Department of Government Efficiency' and the incoming Trump administration's aims to "dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure Federal Agencies".

The announcements have been covered in the The Trump Cabinet and key post thread, but to recap, Trump has announced that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will work together on a not-actually-an-official-government-Department of Government Efficiency, which is intended to work with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to "drive large scale structural reform, and create an entrepreneurial approach to Government never seen before," with the 'Department' to conclude its work "no later than July 4, 2026."

Musk has previously said that the federal budget could be reduced by "at least $2 trillion", and Ramaswarmy, during his presidential campaign, said he would fire more than 75% of the federal work force and disband agencies including the Department of Education and the FBI.

 

[TampaJoe]

They should probably sentence him, but this is where he gets special treatment.

You still haven't said which part of the process wasn't followed. Or what part of the process is flawed. Your reasoning shouldn't simply be, b/c he was charged with a crime it was therefore a political attack. Otherwise you are saying that no politician can ever be charged.

A large amount of discretion is placed on the DA and the AG as to whether or not someone is charged and with what he/she is charged. In the NY cases, the criminal charges were based on 3 misdemeanor reporting violations past the statute of limitations which morphed into 34 felony counts (count stacking). The misdemeanors were elevated to felonies based on the legal theory

You seem to be combining a couple of things... he was convicted of falsifying records with the intent to obscure his payments to Stormy Daniels in order to help get him elected. Not just general bank fraud.

But again, your no victims thing is simply not the way the law works - a bank does not need to have directly lost money, they just need to be tricked into taking a deal they otherwise would not have taken b/c the risk profile was too great.

Where was the allegation of “intent” to “obscure” named in the indictment. After all that was the aggravating felony? Except I believe that’s a federal issue and that the appropriate federal authority declined the case. So the aggravating felony was never really adjudicated in court by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

I wonder why Hillary was never charged with these same felonies. She routed payments thru her law firm to pay for the Steele Dossier. I think she only paid a fine.

Lastly somebody brought up that the claim that Trump is threatening to do the same thing and that we should believe him. I just want to point out that the NY AG and DA Bragg both ran on promises to get Trump. Sounds like the same thing to me. So one is lawfare and one is not?

 

[bird]

And I have talked to commercial real estate developers and it isn't uncommon for the banks to rely on the financial statements provided instead of doing a full independent investigation. They rely on the fact that the law is supposed to protect them from people knowingly lying to them.

Not to mention, iirc, that the auditors have to sign off on the financials and they have to use generally accepted auditing procedures.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

A large amount of discretion is placed on the DA and the AG as to whether or not someone is charged and with what he/she is charged. In the NY cases, the criminal charges were based on 3 misdemeanor reporting violations past the statute of limitations which morphed into 34 felony counts (count stacking). The misdemeanors were elevated to felonies based on the legal theory

Where was the allegation of “intent” to “obscure” named in the indictment. After all that was the aggravating felony? Except I believe that’s a federal issue and that the appropriate federal authority declined the case. So the aggravating felony was never really adjudicated in court by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

I wonder why Hillary was never charged with these same felonies. She routed payments thru her law firm to pay for the Steele Dossier. I think she only paid a fine.

Lastly somebody brought up that the claim that Trump is threatening to do the same thing and that we should believe him. I just want to point out that the NY AG and DA Bragg both ran on promises to get Trump. Sounds like the same thing to me. So one is lawfare and one is not?

You can look this up yourself it isn't hard:

https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-04-SOF.pdf

That isn't remotely close to the campaign finance violations that Hillary settled with the FEC.

This is what is so infuriating. It's like people take no more than 2 seconds of a soundbite and think "hey, I know better than the prosecutors in this, it's all the same. LAWFARE!!!"

 

[MT15]

I just want to point out that the NY AG and DA Bragg both ran on promises to get Trump.

Once again - this isn’t exactly correct. Bragg’s campaign statement was that he would follow the facts and hold Trump accountable for any wrongdoing. The case was filed before he was elected, he was simply promising to follow through. Calling a promise to uphold the law even for powerful defendants is a far cry from promising to “get Trump”. Here is an account from Newsweek:

“While campaigning, Bragg said: "I have investigated Trump and his children and held them accountable for their misconduct with the Trump Foundation. I also sued the Trump administration more than 100 times for the travel ban, the separation of children from their families at the border. So I know that work. I know how to follow the facts and hold people in power accountable."

He also said that he would continue with Vance's investigation and hold Trump "accountable by following the facts where they go."”

Similarly, James also promised to follow the truth when investigating Trump. This quote is from WaPo.

“I will be shining a bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings, and every dealing, demanding truthfulness at every turn.”

James had already investigated Trump during his first term, and when she ran for re-election she was aware of his criminal activities. Promising to carry out an investigation and following the facts where they lead is not a pledge to “get Trump”.

Joe, in order for this to be “lawfare”, Trump has to be innocent. He is not - he’s been a criminal his entire life. It’s a failure of our justice system that it took this long to try to hold him accountable for his crimes. Wealthy men often get by with stuff you or I could never get by with. If Trump were not wealthy, he would have been in jail for sexual assault decades ago.

 

[MT15]

Here is an example of the kind of prosecution that Patel is promising. Joe - you tell me if you think Hutchinson should be even investigated. From the other thread - thanks to Optimus for the post:

Next week, Cassidy Hutchinson will turn 28. The New Jersey native graduated from Christopher Newport University in Virginia five years ago. She interned briefly on Capitol Hill before taking a job at the White House, earning a write-up in the college newspaper. She worked in the Trump administration for a little over two years.

This, according to Kash Patel, earns Hutchinson a spot as one of 60 “Members of the Executive Branch Deep State.” Should he be confirmed to run the FBI, as President-elect Donald Trump desires, Hutchinson and those 59 others could find that their stints as government employees, however brief, earned them federal criminal investigations. Not because they compromised the public trust, but because they ran afoul of Trump — or Patel.

 

[MT15]

Link to the article and a further quote. Now, THIS is a promise of lawfare.

“Melania Trump’s former chief of staff and later Trump administration press secretary Stephanie Grisham made the list because she eventually spoke out against her former boss. So did Alyssa Farah, who worked for the government only as a member of the Trump administration, but became part of the “deep state” when she offered negative information about Trump publicly.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/03/patel-deep-state-trump-retribution/

 

[coldseat]

Link to the article and a further quote. Now, THIS is a promise of lawfare.

“Melania Trump’s former chief of staff and later Trump administration press secretary Stephanie Grisham made the list because she eventually spoke out against her former boss. So did Alyssa Farah, who worked for the government only as a member of the Trump administration, but became part of the “deep state” when she offered negative information about Trump publicly.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/03/patel-deep-state-trump-retribution/

This seems like it's as much to intimidate the people that are going to be working in the new administration into silent, compliant loyalty, than it is about going after the people who spoke the truth about Trump from the last administration.

They don’t want any leaks for all of the illegal and immoral things they're planning on doing and want North Korean style fear of retribution to keep people in line.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Joe, in order for this to be “lawfare”, Trump has to be innocent.

I will mildly disagree with this. A guilty person can be a victim of "lawfare". Everyone is entitled to due process and probable cause must be met before prosecution begins. If those steps weren't followed, even if the person was guilty, their rights were still violated.

In this case, there was probable cause to investigate Trump. As you noted, these investigations began before the NY AG ran for re-election, and was facing political pressure to back off of Trump. The vow to continue was not "lawfare".

 

[UriUT]

Back to the topic at hand in this thread - this is an interesting read from the Atlantic today about Elon/Vivek's plans for DOGE. And it makes precisely the point I was making in the pre-election discussion about MAGA designs for dismantling the administrative state. We heard several comments from people like Vivek and MTG that the Supreme Court's rulings about the Chevron doctrine open the door to bring down all sorts of federal regulations - but that's not what it means at all, at least not for a new administration. In fact, the rulings limit or constrain what agencies (i.e. the executive branch) can do for themselves - they are not a source of federal agency authority to change, they are a limitation.

I think Trump II is going to have a major problem in its implementation: Most of the key leaders in this effort have little to no experience in these areas. And it's easy to say you're going to tear down the bureaucracy, but in the US we have a very specific process for administrative law changes - and it requires extensive skill and knowledge of how it works . . . in other words, it requires the very people they vilify.

Musk and Ramaswamy Are Making a Big Mistake

They want to blame the bureaucrats, but they’re going to need those very same bureaucrats if they want to get anything done.

www.theatlantic.com

This is an interesting angle that the side effect of Chevron protects against the abuse of our government. My question is the flip side. These clowns are trying to hamper the agencies and more than likely, milk the cow for their own benefits. Chevron won't protect the public when there aren't any agencies applying what is left of their authority. Clean water and clean air? Nah. And I cannot help myself but imagine a "Shawshank Redemption" scenario where businesses can be exhorted. We're in that space where unscrupulous characters are driving the bus. Endless court fights, or just give us something something so we'll ignore it or drop our suit? Sure Chevron will protect you up to scotus, but we'll burden you with the vast government resource. Wasn't there reports of his aides asking for $ to be considered for posts? More, musk can squeeze out competition by doing away with ev subsidies. He has that first to market advantage, and would be able to survive the government reducing ev subsidies.

Btw, I wish certain people would actually read that article to absorb the premise of this thread. Maybe be a little more humble and learn.

[edit: I'm aware that the author laid out arguments against much of what I say. I find it not difficult that installing some unscrupulous lawyers to strong arm a business isn't difficult. Or I am just over reacting. Probably so.]

 

[MT15]

I will mildly disagree with this. A guilty person can be a victim of "lawfare". Everyone is entitled to due process and probable cause must be met before prosecution begins. If those steps weren't followed, even if the person was guilty, their rights were still violated.

In this case, there was probable cause to investigate Trump. As you noted, these investigations began before the NY AG ran for re-election, and was facing political pressure to back off of Trump. The vow to continue was not "lawfare".

A valid point.

 

[MT15]

Putting this here because two “tech bros” are running this outside the actual government agency that proposes to dismantle the federal government. And “tech bros” were largely responsible for the Vance pick as VP. I think we need to at least consider that these billionaires have designs on taking over our country in ways that are very different than we have seen before.

This is from a user named Daniel Kibblesmith on BlueSky. I haven’t quite figured out how to share an individual post over there. When I use their share function, and paste here, nothing shows up.

“We need to start recognizing that tech companies maneuver through the world the way they do because they believe they can outlast the paradigm of national governments and are positioning themselves as the power structure of a post-governmental world.”

 

[RobF]

Putting this here because two “tech bros” are running this outside the actual government agency that proposes to dismantle the federal government. And “tech bros” were largely responsible for the Vance pick as VP. I think we need to at least consider that these billionaires have designs on taking over our country in ways that are very different than we have seen before.

This is from a user named Daniel Kibblesmith on BlueSky. I haven’t quite figured out how to share an individual post over there. When I use their share function, and paste here, nothing shows up.

“We need to start recognizing that tech companies maneuver through the world the way they do because they believe they can outlast the paradigm of national governments and are positioning themselves as the power structure of a post-governmental world.”

I think you can just post the URL of the BlueSky post now. Let's see:

Daniel Kibblesmith (@kibblesmith.com)

We need to start recognizing that tech companies maneuver through the world the way they do because they believe they can outlast the paradigm of national governments and are positioning themselves as the power structure of a post-governmental world.

bsky.app

 

[TampaJoe]

You can look this up yourself it isn't hard:

https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-04-SOF.pdf

That isn't remotely close to the campaign finance violations that Hillary settled with the FEC.

This is what is so infuriating. It's like people take no more than 2 seconds of a soundbite and think "hey, I know better than the prosecutors in this, it's all the same. LAWFARE!!!"

Explain to me why falsifying business records by Hillary to conceal her payments for opposition research on Trump is different from the Trump charges.

Also could you provide me with the felony state criminal statute that Trump was attempting to cover up in the Daniels case. The key in the Daniel’s case was the aggravating felony that raised these from 3 misdemeanor violations past the statute of limitations to 34 felony counts.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Explain to me why falsifying business records by Hillary to conceal her payments for opposition research on Trump is different from the Trump charges.

Also could you provide me with the felony state criminal statute that Trump was attempting to cover up in the Daniels case. The key in the Daniel’s case was the aggravating felony that raised these from 3 misdemeanor violations past the statute of limitations to 34 felony counts.

Just out of curiosity, are you asking because you read the Statement of Facts that was linked for you multiple times and can't find the answer or are you asking because you haven't bothered to read it for yourself?

 

[TampaJoe]

Just out of curiosity, are you asking because you read the Statement of Facts that was linked for you multiple times and can't find the answer or are you asking because you haven't bothered to read it for yourself?

I read it.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I read it.

One, it's a difference between federal statutes (Clinton payments) and New York State law (Trump payments).

Two, the payments for the Fusion GPS oppo research came from the DNC and Hillary's campaign, as they were campaign expenses. Trump's payments were also campaign expenses, but they were paid through other means (his foundation, his own personal bank account).

Both situations involve campaign expenditures, but only Trump tried to hide that information by making payments from sources that don't have to be reported as campaign expenditures.

Does that help?

Edit: To be clear, the crime in Trump's case was business fraud. He misrepresented campaign expenditures as business expenditures. Clinton never claimed the payments she and the DNC made were not campaign expenditures.

 

[TampaJoe]

One, it's a difference between federal statutes (Clinton payments) and New York State law (Trump payments).

Two, the payments for the Fusion GPS oppo research came from the DNC and Hillary's campaign, as they were campaign expenses. Trump's payments were also campaign expenses, but they were paid through other means (his foundation, his own personal bank account).

Both situations involve campaign expenditures, but only Trump tried to hide that information by making payments from sources that don't have to be reported as campaign expenditures.

Does that help?

Edit: To be clear, the crime in Trump's case was business fraud. He misrepresented campaign expenditures as business expenditures. Clinton never claimed the payments she and the DNC made were not campaign expenditures.

One clearly was campaign expenses (Clinton). The Trump expenditures were for a perfectly legal NDA related to his personal conduct. The Federal Election Commission was aware of these transactions and refused to press any charges because they didn’t consider them as campaign related. Information that wasn’t allowed into evidence at trial. Why was that?

I ask again, what felony criminal state statute was the aggravating factor that raised 3 misdemeanor reporting violations past the statute of limitations to 34 felony counts? Specifically what law was broken and was that law charged specifically in the indictment in this case or any other case and adjudicated with a guilty verdict?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

One clearly was campaign expenses (Clinton). The Trump expenditures were for a perfectly legal NDA related to his personal conduct. The Federal Election Commission was aware of these transactions and refused to press any charges because they didn’t consider them as campaign related. Information that wasn’t allowed into evidence at trial. Why was that?

I ask again, what felony criminal state statute was the aggravating factor that raised 3 misdemeanor reporting violations past the statute of limitations to 34 felony counts? Specifically what law was broken and was that law charged specifically in the indictment in this case or any other case and adjudicated with a guilty verdict?

I thought you read the Statement of Facts. It lays out exactly why these were considered campaign expenditures/contributions.