The spectacular revelations that have been coming to the US taxpayer via the DOGE team and President Donald Trump are setting the democrats and the swamp into a tizzy.
The US citizens are now seeing the way that their tax money is being spent and they don't like it. Moreover, the democrats are having to openly defend a system of corruption and theft which does not say much for their chance at re-election. Unless they are able to take the Congress in the midterms.
This case in point shows that a number of "charities" and "NGOs" have sued in court for the President to release their frozen funds. The Executive has argued that it needs more time to examine these funds and their authenticity but , lucky for them, they were able to find an Obama appointed judge who ruled in their favor.
The case was then appealed up to the Supreme Court of the United States where Trump found no joy as the justices came down on partisan lines with the Chief Justice (also a swampster) rounding out the opposition to the anti-corruption streak. thus compelling Trump to follow the guidleines as were imposed by the lower court judge (but with some addtions on the part of the Judge). Sounds convoluted? it is . So here is a little less complicated version.
On March 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld a lower court's order requiring the Trump administration to release nearly $2 billion in foreign aid funds that had been previously frozen.
Official Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court declined the administration's emergency request to stay the lower court's order mandating the disbursement of the funds. The Court instructed U.S. District Judge Amir Ali to clarify the government's obligations to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order concerning the release of the funds.
Summary of the Judgment and Its Basis
The judgment stems from a lawsuit filed by global health groups and non-profits challenging an executive order by President Trump that halted foreign aid. The plaintiffs argued that this action violated federal laws and exceeded presidential authority. The lower court agreed, issuing a temporary restraining order that required the administration to release the funds. The Supreme Court's decision to uphold this order reinforces the principle that the executive branch must adhere to legal obligations and cannot unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress.
Lower Court's Authority to Compel Payment Amid Allegations of Graft
Federal courts possess the authority to enforce compliance with the law, including compelling the executive branch to disburse funds as mandated by Congress. In this case, the lower court acted within its jurisdiction to ensure that the administration fulfilled its legal obligations. While allegations of graft within the system are serious, they do not inherently negate the court's power to enforce lawful disbursement of funds. Addressing such allegations would typically involve separate legal proceedings focused on investigating and remedying the corrupt practices, rather than withholding funds appropriated for legitimate purposes.
In summary, the Supreme Court's ruling underscores the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that the executive branch complies with its legal obligations, irrespective of allegations concerning the potential misuse of funds.
A very good video which shows that the "Loss" in this particular situation may well be a "Win" from someone with more "lawyering"
I would suggest you look at the "Four Boxes Diner" series on Youtube
My thought, of course, is the argument of "What about a situation where the Judge is also involved in the corruption?" does this sound like Round two of "Lawfare"
Maybe.
If so, then the President's argument could go something like this
The executive branch has both a constitutional and statutory duty to ensure that taxpayer funds are used responsibly and in accordance with the law. If there is credible evidence of corruption in the foreign aid payment system or judicial misconduct, the executive branch has several legal and procedural avenues to address the issue while still complying with the Supreme Court ruling.
Executive Branch Duties in the Face of Corruption
Investigate and Prosecute Corruption
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and other law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, have the authority to investigate fraud and corruption within federal programs.
If corruption is found, federal prosecutors can bring charges against individuals or entities misusing foreign aid funds.
Executive Oversight of Foreign Aid
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the relevant federal agencies (such as USAID or the State Department) can conduct audits and investigations into the distribution of funds.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent congressional watchdog, can also assess how funds are being allocated and ensure compliance with financial regulations.
Temporary Suspension of Funding on Legal Grounds
If fraud is demonstrated, the President can direct agencies to halt disbursements to specific organizations or countries under existing anti-corruption laws.
The Foreign Assistance Act allows the President to withhold aid from entities engaged in corruption or human rights violations.
Seeking Relief Through Higher Courts or Congress
If there is suspicion that a lower court judge is complicit in corruption, the DOJ can appeal the ruling or request an emergency review by the Supreme Court.
Congress has the power of the purse and can launch investigations or amend appropriations laws to restrict or reallocate funds.
Addressing Potential Judicial Complicity
If there is credible evidence that a lower court judge is complicit in corruption, the executive branch can:
Report the judge to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee for investigation.
Request impeachment proceedings through Congress if there is proof of wrongdoing.
File a motion for recusal or a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction if bias or corruption is evident.
Conclusion
While the executive branch must comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling to release the funds, it also has tools to investigate, expose, and combat corruption in the system. The proper course of action is to disburse the funds as required while simultaneously launching legal and investigative measures to prevent fraud and hold wrongdoers accountable.
We can only hope that the President's office follows a tactic similar to the one in the conclusion. This order is oly for $2 billion, not for the whole amount that has been so far discovered. This will be a good battle to win as any defeats dealt to the corrupt operators will not be handled well as this is their first time operating without the cover of a corrupt Justice Department and/or FBI apparatus.
The war continues.
Comments