DOGE updates

Taken · Mar 30, 2025

Jack said:
But how will Trump get it done with so many CORRUPT judges fighting against him?

It’s a slippery slope.

Judges are “supposed” make Judgements based on the Facts of Evidence pursuant to the law.

Yet…evidence is suppressed, jurors are biased instructed, witnesses are paid to lie, and opinion supersedes the law.

If a “panel” of Judges are not in 100% agreement, what is the culprit ?
Law void for vagueness? Biased opinions? Motivational gain?

How to root out long standing corruption regarded as business as usual and seemingly untouchable to have a recourse IS intriguing.

God bless you Jack.

Glory to God,
Taken

Rockerduck · Mar 30, 2025

The Supreme Court should tell Federal Judges to stay in their Jurisdictions. The same Judges could go to the appeals court to try a stop something. The Supreme court is going to have to put on their big boy pants and tell the Judges in the Judicial branch not to interfere with the constitutional duties of the executive branch. I mean can a federal Judge stop a law from being passed by the congression branch., nope. So how can they do it to the executive branch. That's why there is the separation of powers, separate, but equal branches.

Jack · Mar 30, 2025

Court systems are almost totally corrupt! I witnessed it personally.

Taken · Mar 30, 2025

DOGE

Dept of Interior;
Reviewing …. 36,000 + !!! Grants and contracts and already have identified “Massive” amounts of Waste, Fraud and Abuse.

Astounding this has for DECADES, been backroom business as usual!

Credit DOGE (govt)

Taken · Mar 30, 2025

Jack said:
But how will Trump get it done with so many CORRUPT judges fighting against him?

I would suppose investigate, collect evidence, make a charge, and proceed according to the Law, for consequence …

Jack · Mar 30, 2025

Taken said:
I would suppose investigate, collect evidence, make a charge, and proceed according to the Law, for consequence …

The judges will STALL! The Swamp is DEEP!

Truth7t7 · Mar 31, 2025

Rockerduck said:
The Supreme Court should tell Federal Judges to stay in their Jurisdictions. The same Judges could go to the appeals court to try a stop something. The Supreme court is going to have to put on their big boy pants and tell the Judges in the Judicial branch not to interfere with the constitutional duties of the executive branch. I mean can a federal Judge stop a law from being passed by the congression branch., nope. So how can they do it to the executive branch. That's why there is the separation of powers, separate, but equal branches.

SCOTUS chief Justice John Robert's a liberal IMHO and Trump hater appointed the Obama judge in question to the FISA court and other critical positions, the very reason why Robert's recently defended him in the press

Taken · Mar 31, 2025

Jack said:
The judges will STALL! The Swamp is DEEP!

Everything has a time-line.

Taken · Mar 31, 2025

@talons

Hi.
God bless you.

Glory to God,
Taken

lforrest · Mar 31, 2025

1. Impeaching judges for showing partiality. Judges are supposed to be impartial and this used to be an important quality for the judiciary, and obstensively it still is. But we all know they have abandoned any pretences. The problem with impeachment is it requires a super majority in the Senate to take effect.

2. De-funding the judiciary is an option that can be taken by Congress. However it would affect all federal judges in an affected jurisdiction.

3. Removing security clearances. They are entirely under the authority of the president to issue or revoke. And any trial involving sensitive information would not be eligible to be heard by that Judge.

4. Laxed Enforcement. The judiciary has no power to write laws or to enforce them. That power is given at the discretion of the executive. The executive can refuse to cooperate.

Ronald Nolette · Mar 31, 2025

lforrest said:
1. Impeaching judges for showing partiality. Judges are supposed to be impartial and this used to be an important quality for the judiciary, and obstensively it still is. But we all know they have abandoned any pretences. The problem with impeachment is it requires a super majority in the Senate to take effect.

2. De-funding the judiciary is an option that can be taken by Congress. However it would affect all federal judges in an affected jurisdiction.

3. Removing security clearances. They are entirely under the authority of the president to issue or revoke. And any trial involving sensitive information would not be eligible to be heard by that Judge.

4. Laxed Enforcement. The judiciary has no power to write laws or to enforce them. That power is given at the discretion of the executive. The executive can refuse to cooperate.

Other than #3, the rest are too radical to be accepted by the majority of Americans.

Impeachment is only for high crimes, treason and misdemeanors and that is more than our definition.

Only congress can defund a federal district funds.

Congress wwrites laws, the President insures they are enforced.

lforrest · Mar 31, 2025

Ronald Nolette said:
Other than #3, the rest are too radical to be accepted by the majority of Americans.

Impeachment is only for high crimes, treason and misdemeanors and that is more than our definition.

Only congress can defund a federal district funds.

Congress wwrites laws, the President insures they are enforced.

In the Federalist 78 we have this intent for the Judiciary explained:
“It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”

Jack · Mar 31, 2025

lforrest said:
1. Impeaching judges for showing partiality.

That would be a site to behold! Kind of like bailing out the ocean with a teaspoon.

lforrest said:
Judges are supposed to be impartial and this used to be an important quality for the judiciary, and obstensively it still is. But we all know they have abandoned any pretences. The problem with impeachment is it requires a super majority in the Senate to take effect.

2. De-funding the judiciary is an option that can be taken by Congress. However it would affect all federal judges in an affected jurisdiction.

3. Removing security clearances. They are entirely under the authority of the president to issue or revoke. And any trial involving sensitive information would not be eligible to be heard by that Judge.

4. Laxed Enforcement. The judiciary has no power to write laws or to enforce them. That power is given at the discretion of the executive. The executive can refuse to cooperate.

Go get em Trump!

mailmandan · Apr 1, 2025

Elon Musk Drops Bombshell — Says Arrest Is Imminent 'Today' in Massive Social Security Theft Involving 400,000 Stolen Identities and Financial Fraud Scheme | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

Elon Musk's startling announcement of an imminent arrest linked to a vast Social Security fraud scheme raises urgent questions about government oversight and the integrity of voter registration.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

talons · Apr 2, 2025

Taken said:
@talons

Hi.
God bless you.

Glory to God,
Taken

Thought this thread would be a good place for this article

.

Why Are Democrats So Opposed to Eliminating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse?

townhall.com

Taken · Apr 8, 2025

Agencies cancelled 47 wastefulcontracts today with $87.5M ceilingvalue and $30.2M in savings,including a $3.4M @StateDeptmanagement consulting contract for“aviation advisors in Kenya”.

Credit DOGE (govt)

Taken · Apr 8, 2025

$25M in wasteful DEI grants cancelled, for $15M in savings, including:

-$265K for Queens College in NewYork to research “why BIPOC teens”read Japanese comic books
-$250K to erect “LGBTQ+ historical markers” across Ohio

Credit DOGE (govt)

Taken · Apr 8, 2025

The US African Development Foundation has terminated $51M in grants, including:

-$229,296 for marketing 100% organic shea butter in Burkina Faso

-$84,059 for a business incubator forspa & wellness entrepreneurs in Nigeria

-$239,738 for marketing pineapplejuice in Benin

Credit DOGE (govt)

lforrest · Apr 8, 2025

lforrest said:
1. Impeaching judges for showing partiality. Judges are supposed to be impartial and this used to be an important quality for the judiciary, and obstensively it still is. But we all know they have abandoned any pretences. The problem with impeachment is it requires a super majority in the Senate to take effect.

2. De-funding the judiciary is an option that can be taken by Congress. However it would affect all federal judges in an affected jurisdiction.

3. Removing security clearances. They are entirely under the authority of the president to issue or revoke. And any trial involving sensitive information would not be eligible to be heard by that Judge.

4. Laxed Enforcement. The judiciary has no power to write laws or to enforce them. That power is given at the discretion of the executive. The executive can refuse to cooperate.

It would seem there may be another way to remove Judges for bad conduct.

Rep. Andy Biggs Files Bold Resolution to Remove Deep State Judge James Boasberg Without 2/3 Senate Vote | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

Representative Andy Biggs has introduced a groundbreaking resolution to remove Judge James Boasberg, challenging judicial overreach and asserting Congressional authority. This pivotal move could redefine the balance of power within the federal judiciary.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

talons · Apr 11, 2025

Back to the future ! !

DOGE finds millions of taxpayer dollars went to fraudulent filers, some with birthdays in the future

The DOGE's review found that at least 9,700 forms claimed the filers were born 15 years in the future, and at least one filer said they were born in 2154. The 9,700 claims amounted to a total of $69 million.

justthenews.com

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on Thursday revealed that millions of dollars in unemployment insurance claims since 2020 have gone to fake people, which included instances where the claimants were not yet born.
The DOGE's review found that at least 9,700 forms claimed the filers were born 15 years in the future, and at least one filer said they were born in 2154. The 9,700 claims amounted to a total of $59 million.

The department also discovered that 24,500 people claimed to be over 115 years old and were awarded a total of $59 million in benefits. The largest cluster were 28,000 filers who claimed they were born 1-5 years ago. They received a combined total of $254 million in benefits.

"California, New York, and Massachusetts accounted for most of these improper claims, totaling $305M in unemployment benefits," the department posted on X. "Additionally, California accounted for 68% of the unemployment benefits paid to parolees identified by CBP on the terrorist watchlist or with criminal records."

Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer told President Donald Trump during a Cabinet meeting that she is working with her inspectors general to "return those dollars to the Treasury," according to the New York Post.

DOGE updates

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads