UPDATE: It appears that the latest edition of THE LIST has struck a nerve with individuals closely tied to former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. For those who don’t know, THE LIST is a running log of potential oversight targets for House Democrats seeking to investigate allegations of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement by the Trump Administration and its allies. On Friday, we featured
Thanks Kurt for organizing these reports and monitoring, sin some detail in our WatchdogReport.Substack. I learned of you from Glen Kirschner's YouTube videos.
On this post above, with the analysis and revealed line of reasoning and questions, as a citizen might hope from from a District Attorney or from a judge - Arent's these all the exact questions and research that Inspectors Generals, designated as essential personnel, across the many agencies of our federal government?
Are your careful works neessary as a volunteer civil servant because our wise federal legislators have failed to provide sustainable, enforceable operation and continued work by our Congressionally created- and funded Inspectors General?
So you are revelating that actions to preserve the order and rule of law and preventive guidelines of impartial ethical standards, has been broken by the Trump presidential adminsitration, and has been failed to be corrected, accounted for, and apparently even conceived of as a possibility by all members of the 2 partisan political party Duopoly that controls virtually all of Congres, the Senate, the Presidency, and even the nominations, and Senate confirmation of all members of our highest court of Appel to law?
Your volunteer service appears MUCH needed, and I'm grateful for it. You reveal the shame, incompetence, and failure of all 3 branches of our federal government, to be more reasonable, more accountable, and more transparent thatn the requires of all commercial corporations - since the imaginary "corporate veil of immunity for managers, founders, owners of corporations, from personal legal liability" is dissolved if those managers and leaders, of corporations either intentionally violate due diliigence to prepare for reasonably foreseeable harms and dangers, or reveal their incompetence by failing to make such preparations.
Our U.S. federal office holders, both elected and appointed, CANNOT be held to any lesser degree of accountability and culpability for their failure to have easily drafted rules, and reasonably budget funds for paying such officers of accountability as Inspectors General to serve to PREVENT foreseeable harms AND intervene in intentional violations of law, regulations, ethical standards of ALL our federal agencies.
Have you made a list of illegally terminated or otherwise disabled Inspectors General, across our federal government agencies and departments?
Aren't contracts supposed to be offered after bids are received/reviewed? Just a few other questions:
Would transparency/review of all bids be helpful to be determine that 1) highest bidder was not always selected, because cost doesn't always mean the best so what companies were offered opportunities to provide bids 2) were bids received only tied to personal/political interest? e.g only 1 bid received? 3) can states get involved with any fraud discovered involving companies that receive federal funds? Also, e.g. Paying significantly much higher than market value for warehouses- different topic but appropriate at looking into fraud for personal/political interest 4) if there are any reps from either side, that oppose these investigations- can their names also be released to be transparent 5) can those reps also be investigated as having any personal interest? 6) Also, will reps from both sides that approved more $ for DHS budget also be investigated for any self/political interest in doing so, as they would also be complicit in providing funds they knew what would be abused/fraudulent at taxpayer expense?
7) transparency involves looking at both sides for complicity, and not saying/targeting only one side as being the problem. 8) Using Fraud, Waste and Abuse terminology is appropriate based on the Administrative Agenda who said prior administrations weren't doing enough to determine this (although half truth), so it's time to show that these are exactly why such things are being investigated now.
Being offended by certain verbiage and insisting using other words was once considered "woke" so demanding different verbiage should be pointed out as "woke"so sticking to terminology the administration opposed should be pointed out as such. "Woke" must now be called out as being used as bipartisan terminology and used against them to cancel any "woke" agenda, to meet the current agenda. Apologize "if there feelings are hurt" but all the above should now apply across both sides. Call it a guise to agree with R, but know those who are bright enough to read between the lines will get the irony.
Well done — way to not be bullied into silence by the legal team.
Thank you. We need accountability in every possible way.
Brilliant response to weak legal intimidation.
Swapping Kristi Noem for Markwayne Mullin is like crapping your pants, and changing your shirt 🙈
Let the depositions begin!
Thank you so much! I saw you on Glen Kirschner. I am so thankful you did this!
Thanks Kurt for organizing these reports and monitoring, sin some detail in our WatchdogReport.Substack. I learned of you from Glen Kirschner's YouTube videos.
On this post above, with the analysis and revealed line of reasoning and questions, as a citizen might hope from from a District Attorney or from a judge - Arent's these all the exact questions and research that Inspectors Generals, designated as essential personnel, across the many agencies of our federal government?
Are your careful works neessary as a volunteer civil servant because our wise federal legislators have failed to provide sustainable, enforceable operation and continued work by our Congressionally created- and funded Inspectors General?
So you are revelating that actions to preserve the order and rule of law and preventive guidelines of impartial ethical standards, has been broken by the Trump presidential adminsitration, and has been failed to be corrected, accounted for, and apparently even conceived of as a possibility by all members of the 2 partisan political party Duopoly that controls virtually all of Congres, the Senate, the Presidency, and even the nominations, and Senate confirmation of all members of our highest court of Appel to law?
Your volunteer service appears MUCH needed, and I'm grateful for it. You reveal the shame, incompetence, and failure of all 3 branches of our federal government, to be more reasonable, more accountable, and more transparent thatn the requires of all commercial corporations - since the imaginary "corporate veil of immunity for managers, founders, owners of corporations, from personal legal liability" is dissolved if those managers and leaders, of corporations either intentionally violate due diliigence to prepare for reasonably foreseeable harms and dangers, or reveal their incompetence by failing to make such preparations.
Our U.S. federal office holders, both elected and appointed, CANNOT be held to any lesser degree of accountability and culpability for their failure to have easily drafted rules, and reasonably budget funds for paying such officers of accountability as Inspectors General to serve to PREVENT foreseeable harms AND intervene in intentional violations of law, regulations, ethical standards of ALL our federal agencies.
Have you made a list of illegally terminated or otherwise disabled Inspectors General, across our federal government agencies and departments?
Good on you! Keep going!!
Beautiful!
Aren't contracts supposed to be offered after bids are received/reviewed? Just a few other questions:
Would transparency/review of all bids be helpful to be determine that 1) highest bidder was not always selected, because cost doesn't always mean the best so what companies were offered opportunities to provide bids 2) were bids received only tied to personal/political interest? e.g only 1 bid received? 3) can states get involved with any fraud discovered involving companies that receive federal funds? Also, e.g. Paying significantly much higher than market value for warehouses- different topic but appropriate at looking into fraud for personal/political interest 4) if there are any reps from either side, that oppose these investigations- can their names also be released to be transparent 5) can those reps also be investigated as having any personal interest? 6) Also, will reps from both sides that approved more $ for DHS budget also be investigated for any self/political interest in doing so, as they would also be complicit in providing funds they knew what would be abused/fraudulent at taxpayer expense?
7) transparency involves looking at both sides for complicity, and not saying/targeting only one side as being the problem. 8) Using Fraud, Waste and Abuse terminology is appropriate based on the Administrative Agenda who said prior administrations weren't doing enough to determine this (although half truth), so it's time to show that these are exactly why such things are being investigated now.
Being offended by certain verbiage and insisting using other words was once considered "woke" so demanding different verbiage should be pointed out as "woke"so sticking to terminology the administration opposed should be pointed out as such. "Woke" must now be called out as being used as bipartisan terminology and used against them to cancel any "woke" agenda, to meet the current agenda. Apologize "if there feelings are hurt" but all the above should now apply across both sides. Call it a guise to agree with R, but know those who are bright enough to read between the lines will get the irony.