Merged USAID: is it really a bunch of crazy leftists? / Trump Was Absolutely Right to Shut Down USAID

[plague311]

I'm not making ◊◊◊◊ up for the sake of doing it. At this point, I'm starting to think you'd swear a lot and argue against me saying the sky was blue.

I'd swear a lot to anyone because that's how I talk. I do it to literally everyone on this forum. You're not special.

My sister, and two very close friends have all been involved in decriminalization and legalization bills and efforts in WA, OR, and NV. So if you think I'm making things up, take it up with them and stop being adversarial for no good ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ reason.

Ok, bring them to forum and I will. You've made several claims and have backed up abso ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ lutely none of them, even when pressed multiple times. Now you're playing the victim? Seriously, get over yourself. This is about you making unsubstantiated claims and now you're throwing people you know under the bus.

I will be as adversarial as I feel like, whenever I feel like it. The ignore button works here too. Feel free to use it.

 

[Stacyhs]

I'm not asking what you think. I'm asking whether the judge has met her burden of proof. I don't think she has. What's your argument otherwise?

YOU don't think a federal judge who has more knowledge about both the law and the evidence than you hasn't "met her burden of proof".

 

[theprestige]

YOU don't think a federal judge who has more knowledge about both the law and the evidence than you hasn't "met her burden of proof".

No, I don't. Judgeship isn't magic. Being elevated to the bench doesn't confer divine infallibility.

The whole point of a transparent justice system is so the citizens can see and decide for themselves whether their judges (and police, and lawyers) are serving them well. Do you believe yourself to be unqualified for this responsibility?

 

[Stacyhs]

No, I don't. Judgeship isn't magic. Being elevated to the bench doesn't confer divine infallibility.

I never said it did. That's why many judge's rulings have been overturned. But YOU are not a lawyer and obviously did not read her ruling sufficiently. You've been shown already by several people, by citing and quoting from her decision, just why your criticism of the judge's order is baseless. I suggest you read it again.

The whole point of a transparent justice system is so the citizens can see and decide for themselves whether their judges (and police, and lawyers) are serving them well. Do you believe yourself to be unqualified for this responsibility?

Nothing about the judge's ruling is NOT transparent. It's the defendants who are not being transparent:

"Thus, based on the present record, the only individuals known to be associated with the decisions to initiate a shutdow of USAID by permanently closing USAID headquarters and taking down its website are Mush and DOGE Team Members. On February 2 and 3, Musk specifically stated about USAID on X that it was "Time for it die," J.R. 195, that 'we're in the process of shutting down USAID," cOML. 53, and that he had "spend the weekend feeding USAID to the wood chipper."

"Defendants have failed to provide documentation, or even to claim, that any duly appointed USAID officer actually made this decision."

"Do you believe yourself to be unqualified for this responsibility?

I'm not going to engage you in this attempt at strawmanning.

 

[JayUtah]

If we're talking about the judge in Does 1-26 v. Musk et al., No. 25-0462-TDC (D. Maryland), that is Hon. Theodore D. Chuang, who identifies as male.

 

[JayUtah]

No, I don't. Judgeship isn't magic. Being elevated to the bench doesn't confer divine infallibility.

Straw man. You are the one claiming (or at least insinuating) that Judge Chuang has not met his "burden of proof" in granting a preliminary injunction against DOGE. Your ongoing misunderstanding of that concept aside, by what specific argument are you claiming that Judge Chuang has erred in his reasoning that the plaintiffs have met their burden of proof for such an injunction?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

From a story in The Guardian on 10 March, "Rubio’s social media post on Monday said that review was now “officially ending”, with about 5,200 of USAid’s 6,200 programs eliminated." My question is how could 5200 programs be rationally evaluated in a little over a month? What were the criteria (other than vague statements that these programs did not serve the interests of the United States)? In the interests of transparency, the reports should be released.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

No, I don't. Judgeship isn't magic. Being elevated to the bench doesn't confer divine infallibility.

The whole point of a transparent justice system is so the citizens can see and decide for themselves whether their judges (and police, and lawyers) are serving them well. Do you believe yourself to be unqualified for this responsibility?

That's what the Appeal's process is for. If the verdict isn't challenged we should assume that there would be no probable grounds for doing so.
If you don't trust the Judge, you should trust the Lawyers who you are siding with.
Of course, one look at this DoJ should make you question that choice.

 

[Mongrel]

"Ninety percent of conservative outrage is from not knowing how things work." - author unknown

I'd probably amend that to "performatively not knowing how things work".
They know how it works but the need to defend the indefensible and\or "win" the argument over-rides truth.

 

[angrysoba]

From a story in The Guardian on 10 March, "Rubio’s social media post on Monday said that review was now “officially ending”, with about 5,200 of USAid’s 6,200 programs eliminated." My question is how could 5200 programs be rationally evaluated in a little over a month? What were the criteria (other than vague statements that these programs did not serve the interests of the United States)?
In the interests of transparency, the reports should be released.

Absolutely. My guess is that there is nothing that deserves the name "report" in most cases. Elon Musk says he spent a weekend putting USAID into a wood-chipper. Of course, his defenders now say that was mere bluster, but the lack of transparency is indeed what should be investigated.

 

[JayUtah]

Elon Musk says he spent a weekend putting USAID into a wood-chipper. Of course, his defenders now say that was mere bluster, but the lack of transparency is indeed what should be investigated.

The fact remains that USAID was fed into the wood chipper on that weekend, and the government can provide no evidence of authority besides Elon Musk and DOGE for doing it—Musk because he said he did, the President because he said Musk was the guy to do it, and DOGE because they're the only people tied to the institutional emails by which it was done.

The argument was offered that Judge Chuang's preliminary injunction was improperly reasoned because the judge did not first find out who actually gave the orders to dismantle USAID and relied instead on allegedly blustery statements made on Twitter. The government was ordered to produce an actual chain of authority for the action, but could not. The preponderance of evidence clearly favors the plaintiffs on this point.

 

[JayUtah]

My question is how could 5200 programs be rationally evaluated in a little over a month?

"Algorithms."

What were the criteria (other than vague statements that these programs did not serve the interests of the United States)? In the interests of transparency, the reports should be released.

I think so too, just because I believe government should be public by default. We have to keep in mind, though, that the U.S. State Department wields broad authority in determining what the foreign policy interests of the United States are. That means even a cursory report will probably pass muster in court.

 

[dirtywick]

The fact remains that USAID was fed into the wood chipper on that weekend, and the government can provide no evidence of authority besides Elon Musk and DOGE for doing it—Musk because he said he did, the President because he said Musk was the guy to do it, and DOGE because they're the only people tied to the institutional emails by which it was done.

The argument was offered that Judge Chuang's preliminary injunction was improperly reasoned because the judge did not first find out who actually gave the orders to dismantle USAID and relied instead on allegedly blustery statements made on Twitter. The government was ordered to produce an actual chain of authority for the action, but could not. The preponderance of evidence clearly favors the plaintiffs on this point.

i agree and it doesn't seem like much to ask to begin with. if it was ordered by someone else, there'd be an order.

 

[JayUtah]

i agree and it doesn't seem like much to ask to begin with. if it was ordered by someone else, there'd be an order.

Or more broadly, if what the government claims in court were true, they will need to provide appropriate evidence of it. I'm still flabbergasted by the mental gymnastics it takes to claim that because a party to an action is unable to provide evidence of its claims, the judge is somehow remiss for lack of evidence in ruling against that party.

The "who signed the order?" straw man presumes that in all cases—including willful deception—there should be a regular record of the directive. The plaintiffs are claiming the shuttering of USAID was improper precisely because it was not done via the ordinary process, via the regular channel, by traceable authority. When the defendant is accused of not following lawful procedure, it's silly to expect there to be evidence of a parallel, ostensibly lawful procedure, only with the names of the bad actors on the dotted lines. This ranks right up there with, "Are you taking notes on a criminal conspiracy?"

The judge did not sua sponte ask for the alleged proper order. The government claimed in its briefing that USAID was shuttered properly by the authority of the State Department, not by DOGE hiding behind official-sounding email addresses as the plaintiffs showed. The judge asked the obvious followup: "Can you produce the lawful order?" If the government cannot, the judge should not believe them against the weight of evidence. The presumption of regularity is based on evidence of regularity, which the government here cannot provide.

That's what the Appeal's process is for. If the verdict isn't challenged...

It's not even a verdict. It's a preliminary injunction. The relevant standard of proof is merely that the moving party is "likely" to prevail at trial. Unlike an administrative stay or a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction is appealable. And the Trump administration has appealed every order in every case, so I don't imagine this one will be any different.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

"Algorithms."

On social media I saw someone refer to Musk's algorithms that operate at light speed; this is magical thinking. On a search for light-speed algorithms, I happened upon an essay concerning Musk's management style that may be helpful here and elsewhere:

"2. Delete any part of the process you can​

The second step of Musk's algorithm is all about subtraction—a widely undervalued habit in management. In this case, it is all about deleting any part of the process you can. In fact, it is all about deleting just a bit more than you feel comfortable with. Musk: "You may have to add [parts or processes] back later. In fact, if you do not end up adding back at least 10% of them, then you didn't delete enough.""

Deleting a clinical trial (to take one of many possible examples regarding USAID) then trying to add it back is unethical and stupid.

 

[TragicMonkey]

On social media I saw someone refer to Musk's algorithms that operate at light speed; this is magical thinking. On a search for light-speed algorithms, I happened upon an essay concerning Musk's management style that may be helpful here and elsewhere:

"2. Delete any part of the process you can​

The second step of Musk's algorithm is all about subtraction—a widely undervalued habit in management. In this case, it is all about deleting any part of the process you can. In fact, it is all about deleting just a bit more than you feel comfortable with. Musk: "You may have to add [parts or processes] back later. In fact, if you do not end up adding back at least 10% of them, then you didn't delete enough.""

Deleting a clinical trial (to take one of many possible examples regarding USAID) then trying to add it back is unethical and stupid.

Well, perhaps when enough of Musk's money has been deleted he'll feel differently about that approach.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's not going to hurt him, so no one who matters will get hurt.

 

[jt512]

On social media I saw someone refer to Musk's algorithms that operate at light speed; this is magical thinking. On a search for light-speed algorithms, I happened upon an essay concerning Musk's management style that may be helpful here and elsewhere:

"2. Delete any part of the process you can​

The second step of Musk's algorithm is all about subtraction—a widely undervalued habit in management. In this case, it is all about deleting any part of the process you can. In fact, it is all about deleting just a bit more than you feel comfortable with. Musk: "You may have to add [parts or processes] back later. In fact, if you do not end up adding back at least 10% of them, then you didn't delete enough.""

Deleting a clinical trial (to take one of many possible examples regarding USAID) then trying to add it back is unethical and stupid.

But a program, such as a clinical trial, isn't a process.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

But a program, such as a clinical trial, isn't a process.

Clinical trials were stopped partway through, as one of my previous links discussed in depth. Let me quote the conclusion: "These trials were funded because they had potential to generate data that could improve health and reduce suffering. Running a trial on treatment of tuberculosis in a country with a high rate of tuberculosis has certain efficiencies and results of the study have the potential to improve the health in that country. But the benefits do not stop there. The results may be quite impactful elsewhere. Tuberculosis is prevalent across much of the world. Cases are increasing in the United States. The largest outbreak of tuberculosis on record was reported in Kansas City this year. Trials in the USAID portfolio could have led to the prevention and/or more successful treatment of diseases like tuberculosis, malaria, HIV, cervical cancer, and cholera worldwide. Now they will not. This is the greatest cruelty and waste of all."

It may be that Musk's intention always was to fire a bunch of people and then hire them back, etc. (others may disagree). But his approach, whatever its merits in the business world, have terrible consequences when applied to USAID.

 

[jt512]

Clinical trials were stopped partway through, as one of my previous links discussed in depth. Let me quote the conclusion: "These trials were funded because they had potential to generate data that could improve health and reduce suffering. Running a trial on treatment of tuberculosis in a country with a high rate of tuberculosis has certain efficiencies and results of the study have the potential to improve the health in that country. But the benefits do not stop there. The results may be quite impactful elsewhere. Tuberculosis is prevalent across much of the world. Cases are increasing in the United States. The largest outbreak of tuberculosis on record was reported in Kansas City this year. Trials in the USAID portfolio could have led to the prevention and/or more successful treatment of diseases like tuberculosis, malaria, HIV, cervical cancer, and cholera worldwide. Now they will not. This is the greatest cruelty and waste of all."

That's beside the point. What you posted before about "subtraction" was about deleting unproductive steps from a process. Canceling an unfinished clinical trial is something completely different. Even if you want to deem a clinical trail a "process," stopping the clinical trial would not be analogous to deleting an unproductive step from the process. It would be canceling the whole process.