Comment by sophacles | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sophacles | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Others have asked, and I'm going to ask: Prove the fraud. That is a specific charge, with a specific meaning - as you point out yourself in your comment.

Pointing to money that was spent differently than you think it should be is not fraud, no matter how much you want to claim it.

Pointing to money being spent in suboptimal ways is not fraud. Maybe it's waste - but often it's what the law calls for (aka definitionally the opposite of fraud).

Yelling very loudly about how it's all fraud and waste is not proof. It doesn't matter how loudly you yell.

Repeating "there's so much fraud, omg, fraud everywhere, soooo much fraud" over and over is not proof. Even if your repetitions would make an animated gif jealous.

Actually prove the fraud: Show that the money was spent in a way different than proscribed by law, that the people authorizing the spending were lying, and there was direct enrichment of someone via those lies and misspending. It's not hard if of it around.

> Show that the money was spent in a way different than proscribed by law

When people find loopholes in the law to obtain grants, do you defend their actions because technically it didn't break the law?

DOGE is apparently exposing a system of dubious and questionable spending at scale. If "wasteful" is an understatement, don't be surprised when taxpayers use "fraud" to describe the decisions made to blow their money.

Even if a court finds that funding that "drag show in Ecuador" was lawful, doesn't take the sting out. It doesn't take the fact away that someone benefited who probably shouldn't have, relative to the government's broader budget purposes. It might enrage people even more that it was a systemic abuse of grant money.

> When people find loopholes in the law to obtain grants, do you defend their actions because technically it didn't break the law?

I don't defend their actions as moral. I think the loophole should be closed. I also think that they didn't commit fraud, as a loophole is by definition legal.

As for all your nonsense about money being spent different than you would like: I get it, you're very upset. As I covered before: money being spend different than you would like it to be spent is not fraud, no matter how much you rant and hate.

I'm not an American and I'm not expressing my likes or dislikes in this matter. I'm interested in seeing a healthy America. I'm interested in the details, drama, action, science and politics which trickles down or across to the rest of us in the world.

You mention morality, but then say my "likes" are nonsense. You've even pushed me into the "rant" and "hate" zone! I'm trying to have a civil discussion about curious things. Insinuating I'm ranting and hating doesn't help.

Maybe we differ on the morality point. In my mind, anything immoral is a problem worth solving.

The law sometimes trails behind what the community needs. In my country Australia, the law sometimes doesn't protect the community from harm (bail laws, police strip-search powers, weak foreign investment review boards, lack of industry oversight allowing criminal gangs to infiltrate construction industry including major government contracts - yes these are real and recent examples.) We don't want the law to fail. We like "the law", and because we like it, when it does fail we need to face it, name it, and deal with it.

My entire line of commenting has been based in:

Prove fraud.

The post I originally replied to accused fraud. There is a legal definition of fraud - so prove it.

Everything you're going on about has nothing to do with fraud, and is 100% irrelevant since its not about evidence of fraud.

I mentioned morality of loopholes because to me your question looked like some sort of end-run around providing evidence of fraud. That's also why I clearly stated the difference between my opinions and the legal factuality.

Prove the claimed fraud.

If you want the law changed, that's fine - convince congress to do it. Even if the law changes, fraud must be proved under the laws that were relevant when the allegedly fraudulent event occurred.

So again - prove fraud (hint, i doubt you can no matter what your feelings are).

> Prove the claimed fraud.

This is a forum not a court of law. You're hung up on "fraud" and lost sight of the discussion.

Sometimes "fraud" is, for the time being, billowing black smoke. There's a small chance it's a harmless smoke machine, not a fire. Some will cling to that hope, but many others will yell fire.

The process with DOGE is unfolding, so hang tight! Surely you agree "efficiency" would be a good outcome. They're aiming for a tight ship not a cash-haemorrhaging behemoth.

Let Musk work on it for a bit. Heckle later if he doesn't get results. I'll join you in heckling, but for now it's great what they're doing. Shocking that Teslas are burning.

You originally replied to someone who asked "How much fraud and abuse...", so they weren't tethered to only "fraud", they were talking about the generally alarming and wasteful spending of the public's money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com