By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The judge found the number of unauthorized detentions to be “objectively appalling” and indicated it was likely underreported. Given the government’s continued actions after being alerted, this misconduct is now deemed intentional and will not be tolerated. To prevent further unauthorized detentions and arrests, the judge warned of mandatory show cause hearings where officials would have to testify under oath, a rare but potentially impactful measure to compel the administration to adhere to legal procedures.
Read the original article here
It appears Senator JD Vance has, shall we say, a selective memory when it comes to government initiatives and the pursuit of fraud. Specifically, his remarks suggest a concerning lack of awareness, or perhaps a convenient omission, regarding something called DOGE and the broader concept of government agencies actively working to combat wrongdoing.
The notion that no one has ever “successfully targeted fraud in the government before” is a rather sweeping statement, and when juxtaposed with mentions of DOGE, it paints a peculiar picture. It’s as if Vance is operating under the assumption that the concept of rooting out waste, abuse, and outright illegal activity within government departments is a brand-new, unprecedented endeavor.
Digging into the context, it becomes apparent that DOGE, in this discussion, isn’t referring to the cryptocurrency. Instead, it seems to be an acronym for a program or initiative that was perceived by many as a significant failure, particularly in its stated goals of addressing fraud. The critical point being made is that DOGE wasn’t designed to *find* fraud; rather, its purpose was reportedly something far more sinister.
According to many accounts, DOGE was a tool to dismantle or cripple government agencies that were actively investigating individuals and corporations, particularly those linked to Elon Musk. The narrative suggests that instead of empowering oversight bodies, DOGE was used to effectively shut them down, thereby eliminating any potential roadblocks to questionable business practices. This perspective posits that DOGE’s true function was to silence the watchdogs, not to support their efforts in uncovering fraud.
Furthermore, the idea that Vance is “accidentally honest” in his pronouncements about the lack of fraud targeting gains traction when considering this alternative interpretation of DOGE. If the initiative was indeed designed to obstruct fraud investigations, then Vance’s assertion that it didn’t target fraud would, in a twisted way, be correct. He’s essentially acknowledging its ineffectiveness in its purported public-facing mission, while perhaps implicitly understanding its actual operational objective.
The sheer number of Inspector Generals (OIGs) and other oversight bodies within the federal government that are dedicated to rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse is substantial. The existence of these entities, some of which have been functioning for decades, makes Vance’s claim about the novelty of fraud targeting particularly baffling. It’s as if he’s suggesting these agencies have been operating in a vacuum, achieving nothing of consequence.
The input suggests that the actions attributed to DOGE involved significant data breaches, with vital information being stolen from Americans. The lack of accountability and the subsequent questions about the whereabouts and uses of this data are highlighted as deeply concerning. This paints a picture of an operation that was less about transparency and accountability and more about clandestine data acquisition and the suppression of investigations.
The comparison drawn to historical instances of government manipulation and denial, such as the Orwellian “we’ve always been at war with Oceania,” underscores the sentiment that Vance’s statements are perceived as deliberate distortions of reality. The idea that the base might readily accept these pronouncements, regardless of their factual basis, points to a concerning dynamic of political discourse.
It’s also noted that regulations for federal benefit programs themselves contain inherent requirements for fraud prevention and audits. This implies that the targeting of fraud isn’t an optional or novel activity but a fundamental component of governmental operations across numerous sectors. The very structure of these programs necessitates an ongoing effort to combat fraudulent activity.
The assertion that DOGE was used to clear out anyone investigating Elon Musk or his companies is a recurring theme. This perspective suggests a targeted effort to protect specific entities from scrutiny, with the broader governmental apparatus being manipulated to achieve this end. The subsequent redirection of federal funding towards Musk’s companies, coupled with the declaration of DOGE’s “conclusion,” further fuels this interpretation.
The implication that Vance is essentially “just saying the quiet part out loud” suggests that his public statements, while seemingly disingenuous, might be a slip of the tongue that reveals a less palatable truth about the motivations behind certain government actions. The focus shifts from an inability to combat fraud to a deliberate intent to impede it, particularly for those deemed politically or economically advantageous.
The criticism leveled against Vance, describing him as a “fugliest liar” and an “asshat of a human being,” reflects the strong negative reaction to his perceived dishonesty and lack of integrity. The notion that these officials might “slip up” and reveal their true intentions, even unintentionally, is a significant point of discussion, as it allows for a glimpse behind the carefully constructed public facade.
The argument that DOGE was too haphazard and aggressive to have been genuinely about efficiency or finding fraud reinforces the idea that its objectives were far removed from typical governmental oversight. The “move fast and break things” mentality, often associated with disruptive startups, is seen as antithetical to the careful, evidence-based approach required for combating fraud. Instead, it’s painted as a strategy for dismantling checks and balances and supporting a specific political agenda.
Ultimately, the conversation surrounding JD Vance and DOGE appears to revolve around a perceived disconnect between stated intentions and actual outcomes. The criticism suggests a deliberate disregard for established mechanisms of government oversight and a willingness to manipulate narratives to obscure potentially illicit activities. The idea that Vance “conveniently forgets” about DOGE and its alleged true purpose, and claims that fraud targeting is a new concept, highlights a deep skepticism about his sincerity and understanding of governmental responsibility.