@WorldHallOfFun @elonmusk Cool...so where is the info about the oversight committees...They had a job to do to protect US taxpayers...amirite?

@HeightsTiger @ClaudineGasana I welcome an audit. I welcome THIS audit. I would like the results to come out in one document after being carefully analyzed for facts and in context and in consideration for the issue that there were many oversight committees who should have weighed in.....and protested.

The issue of "missing" migrant children under both the Trump and Biden administrations involves complex nuances that are often misrepresented in public discourse. Here's an analysis based on available information: During the Trump Administration: Reported Number: In 2018, it was reported that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) could not reach 1,475 children from a sample of 7,635 children placed with sponsors from October to December 2017. This led to claims of " lost children," but the context was: Context: These children were not literally missing; rather, they could not be reached by follow-up calls. This could be due to various reasons including children moving without updating their information, sponsors not answering calls, or issues with address updates between government agencies. During the Biden Administration: Reported Number: Claims of 85,000 to 320,000 children being "missing" have circulated, based on: Context: An August 2024 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General report highlighted that around 32,000 unaccompanied migrant children did not appear for immigration court hearings from 2019 to 2023. Additionally, about 291,000 children had not received notices to appear in court, leading to the "320,000" figure often cited. This does not mean these children are "missing" in the conventional sense. Instead, it points to: Bureaucratic Issues: Problems with communication between agencies, delays in issuing court notices, or children being released to sponsors without subsequent tracking mechanisms in place. Risks: While not missing, children who do not appear for court or whose whereabouts are unknown to immigration officials are at higher risk for trafficking, exploitation, or forced labor, as per the DHS report. Are They Truly Missing? Not Literally Missing: The term "missing" in this context is often misleading. These children are: Placed with Sponsors: Typically, these children are released to relatives or vetted sponsors in the U.S. where they are supposed to live while their immigration cases are processed. Out of Custody: Once released, they are no longer in government custody, and follow-up contact might fail for benign reasons like changed phone numbers or addresses. Vulnerable: However, the lack of tracking does increase their vulnerability to various forms of abuse or exploitation. Political Framing: Both administrations have faced criticism for this issue, with narratives often shaped by political motives: Trump Era: Democrats highlighted the issue to criticize family separation policies. Biden Era: Republicans have used the numbers to criticize border policies, often inflating or misrepresenting the context to suggest children are "lost." Actual Numbers: The exact number of children genuinely at risk or in dangerous situations due to this lack of follow-up is unclear. The statistics are more reflective of systemic issues in tracking rather than children being literally "missing." In conclusion, while the language of "missing children" has been used, what's more accurate is that there's a significant administrative and procedural failure in tracking these children post-release, which does pose risks to their well-being. The numbers cited often encompass children lost in bureaucratic limbo rather than those who are physically missing or unaccounted for in a criminal context.

@CollinRugg Horrible.

@GuntherEagleman How in the fck did the oversight committees that were in place to protect the american tax payers....fail at their jobs. There were pretty much an equal number of Dems and Republicans in place who should have/could have spoken up at any moment in time.5

@JackPosobiec Like. She. Cares.

@SamidePaul @_ThePr0letariat @DefiyantlyFree now do the oversight committees

@_ThePr0letariat @DefiyantlyFree And the problems with USAID is that the oversight committees did not even begin to do their job.

@RobertKennedyJc Please look into the work of this organization to discover one of the reasons why there might be so many mentally ill and chronically ill people.

@DefiyantlyFree Why isn't anyone looking into the oversight committees and why they failed to do their job.

@ClaudineGasana Does this matter at all here? Marbury v. Madison (1803). This case set the precedent that the judiciary has the authority to interpret the Constitution, which indirectly supports the ability of judges to issue rulings that can affect executive actions.

@ShawnRyan762 What we need to investigate is how and why all of those oversight committees/layers failed!!!

@MikeBenzCyber There were oversight committees in place. How and why did all of those fail!

How and why did all of those oversight committees fail the American taxpayers??? Committee Assignments: During the Biden Administration, Lindsey Graham was a member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Specifically, he was involved with the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, which has oversight responsibilities over foreign aid, including USAID activities. Additionally, Graham sat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he was part of the Subcommittee on State Department, USAID Management, International Operations, and Bilateral International Development. This subcommittee directly deals with the oversight of USAID. Oversight Activities: Given his positions, Graham would have had opportunities to influence or question the administration's policies regarding USAID through hearings, legislation, or by using his influence to demand transparency or accountability. However, specific actions or statements by Graham concerning USAID during the Biden administration would depend on the context of his activities, hearings, or legislative initiatives at that time.

Bernie...what I want to know is how and why did all of those oversight committees fail to protect the American taxpayers? Committee Assignments: During the Biden Administration, Lindsey Graham was a member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Specifically, he was involved with the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, which has oversight responsibilities over foreign aid, including USAID activities. Additionally, Graham sat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he was part of the Subcommittee on State Department, USAID Management, International Operations, and Bilateral International Development. This subcommittee directly deals with the oversight of USAID. Oversight Activities: Given his positions, Graham would have had opportunities to influence or question the administration's policies regarding USAID through hearings, legislation, or by using his influence to demand transparency or accountability. However, specific actions or statements by Graham concerning USAID during the Biden administration would depend on the context of his activities, hearings, or legislative initiatives at that time.

The real question is WHY did the oversight fail the American taxpayers....everyone is blaming the left for expenditures when the members of the oversight committees could have raised a flag at ANY point in time... Committee Assignments: During the Biden Administration, Lindsey Graham was a member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Specifically, he was involved with the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, which has oversight responsibilities over foreign aid, including USAID activities. Additionally, Graham sat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he was part of the Subcommittee on State Department, USAID Management, International Operations, and Bilateral International Development. This subcommittee directly deals with the oversight of USAID. Oversight Activities: Given his positions, Graham would have had opportunities to influence or question the administration's policies regarding USAID through hearings, legislation, or by using his influence to demand transparency or accountability. However, specific actions or statements by Graham concerning USAID during the Biden administration would depend on the context of his activities, hearings, or legislative initiatives at that time.

@seanspicer Huh?

I went to GROK: Legislative Branch (Congress): As you've correctly noted, Congress (comprising the Senate and the House of Representatives) is responsible for making laws. They propose, debate, and pass legislation that governs the nation. This is where the primary decision on what is lawful or unlawful is established through statutory law. Judicial Branch (Courts): The role of the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, is to interpret the law and the Constitution. Courts do not make laws but rather interpret them to ensure they are applied correctly and constitutionally. This includes: Judicial Review: This is the power of courts to review actions of the legislative and executive branches to determine if they are constitutional. If a law passed by Congress is found to violate the Constitution, courts can declare it void or unconstitutional. Interpretation of Statutes: Courts interpret existing laws to apply them in specific cases, which can sometimes lead to the clarification or expansion of legal principles. However, this interpretation does not equate to making new laws but rather understanding and applying the laws as written. Executive Branch: While not directly involved in making or interpreting laws, the executive branch (led by the President) can influence what's considered lawful through: Enforcement: Deciding how vigorously to enforce certain laws. Executive Orders: These are directives from the President that manage operations of the federal government and can have the force of law within those limits, though they can be challenged in court for exceeding executive authority or violating statutes or the Constitution. Your statement that courts "merely assess the compatibility of legislative and executive actions with the Constitution" is essentially correct but should be nuanced to recognize that this assessment can significantly shape how laws are understood and applied, thus indirectly influencing legal standards. Courts can set precedents that guide future legal interpretations, which in practice can have law-making effects, even if they do not technically legislate. Therefore, while Congress decides what's lawful or unlawful through legislation, the judiciary's role in interpreting these laws and ensuring their constitutional validity is crucial to the legal framework of the U.S.

@mcuban @DOGE This would all feel better if the work was completed and then a report was done...after being scrubbed context and accuracy...before anyone at all received any information.

@MomAngtrades @mcuban @DOGE pro-tip....There were equal numbers of Dems and Republicans sitting on all of those oversight committees that were supposed to protect the American taxpayers....each side had the chance in the moment to call any of these expenditures out and NEITHER did so.