DOGE - Democrats Obviously Getting Exposed
https://youtu.be/7B1m5_j0l_w
These people need to be held accountable. Pay the money back and go to prison.
Yup, sometime today, Trump will be NAMING the Criminals that were stealing from the American Tax Payers.
sharePower's detractors have not provided any evidence whatsoever of a sudden increase in her wealth or that she benefited from her role at USAID beyond her salary. The claim appears to come from a website called Inside Biden's Basement, which estimated that Samantha Power was worth between $10m and $30m. There is no breakdown of the figure or methodology but it does include three of Power's government ethics disclosure forms from 2021-22.
These forms show Power's income from various sources, including her teaching salary, investments, payments for speaking engagements and book royalties. Most of those figures are published in a range, such as shares in a particular company being worth between $15,000 and $50,000 or a bank account containing between $1m and $5m. As such, the range of results returned when estimating Power's wealth are wide. If one adds up the income and investments from the form that Power submitted before she was sworn in, external as administrator in 2021, in which her wealth and income come out at between about $9m and $22m. The most recent disclosure form available on the government website gives her accounts for 2023 and is problematic because it gives one account containing "over $1m" without stating an upper limit. If you take that as being between $1m and $5m in line with her other entries, you get an overall range of $9m to $25m. In line with the filing rules, the 2021 figure does include her $461,167 salary from her previous job at Harvard, while the latest figures do not include her $183,100 salary from USAID.
So from her published accounts, it seems that she was pretty wealthy before she started working at USAID (rather like Trump was before his election) and that has not changed a great deal, although that is working within very broad ranges. Glad to help.
No, when she started working for USAID, her net was between $6.7-million and $16.5-million, it's not possible to suddenly be at $30-million on a $180K salary.
Those are financial disclosures filed by her in January 2021. She got kickbacks just like a number of other corrupt politicians.
Please read my reply more carefully eg "Power's income from various sources, including her teaching salary, investments, payments for speaking engagements and book royalties. Most of those figures are published in a range"
She got kickbacks just like a number of other corrupt politicians.
That was her reported net just before starting her Admin role at USAID; are you implying she lied?
Do you know simple math? Why do you need a link for basic math?
That was her reported net just before starting her Admin role at USAID;
You and Joe are absolute imbeciles. Both of you lie, deny and deflect like clowns.
She reported a net between $6.7m and $16.5m when she started at USAID.
Even if her net was at 16.5, how did her net get to 30 at only 180K a year after 3-years?
It's a simple answer, with simple math. For once, try not being an idiot and give an honest answer.
She reported a net between $6.7m and $16.5m when she started at USAID.
So who is lying, her or the BBC?
shareLet me decide. Where is the original source for her supposedly reporting a net only between $6.7m and $16.5m when she started at USAID (i.e. not just right wing echoes)? Oh yes, sorry forgot, that would represent 'spoon feeding'. Very convenient.
shareThose are financial disclosures filed by her in January 2021, but according to BBC, their numbers are different than hers, so either she lied or the BBC lied. Which is it? ...
It's not a complicated question and the answer should be simple.
Nevertheless; you are too disingenuous to provide a straight and honest answer.
Therefore; Evasion, Deflection and Gaslighting noted.
Those are financial disclosures filed by her in January 2021,
but according to BBC, their numbers are different than hers, so either she lied or the BBC lied.
Predictable as usual. Once again, you confirm my previous reply.
shareOnce again all you offer is the argument and take on matters all, ultimately, supplied from the partisan 'Inside Biden's Basement' which can be met or explained quite reasonably - as I have shown.
shareYou gaslighted, deflected and evaded my simple question.
There's nothing partisan about it.
She disclosed her financial net worth and you gaslight like a clown. Typical skavau dumbassery.
You gaslighted, deflected and evaded my simple question.
More gaslighting as usual.
Either she lied or the BBC lied.
You're too stupid to concede that it was her own disclosure of the net worth.
More gaslighting
Either she lied or the BBC lied.
You're too stupid to concede that it was her own disclosure of the net worth.
You're too stupid
What estimates, even if her max was 16.5m when she started with USAID, it doesn't explain how she made 13.5m in the next 3-years earning 180K a year. And yes, you're too stupid to answer something so simple.
shareI can't bothered to repeat things. Please see my previous answers and read them carefully..try and understand what, say, 'range' or 'methodology' mean
you're too stupid to answer something so simple.
>The claim appears to come from a website called Inside Biden's Basement
Holy crap that's got to be a kiddie porn site.
These are just more baseless claims from DOGE. She was already wealthy from her career as a Harvard professor who wrote several books and received speaking fees. Her husband is a law professor so he's making big bucks. The BBC link below determined that there was not a big increase in wealth in her net worth filings. She should sue Musk for defamation.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyjz24ne85o
do you have any evidence of this wealth as a professor?
shareYes. She married the older professor and they teach a class together. She filled out financial disclosure forms that the BBC reporter analyzed in the article that I posted above. She's 54 and her husband is 70.
https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114804/witnesses/HHRG-117-FA00-Bio-PowerS-20220517.pdf
https://harvardindependent.com/power-couple-samantha-power-and-cass-sunstein/
She reported a net between $6.7m and $16.5m when she started at USAID. Did she lie about her net?
Even if her net was at 16.5, how did it get to 30 at only 180K a year after 3-years?
The numbers on the forms are all ranges and estimates so it's not precise. The BBC analysis states that the 2021 number was $9M to $22M while the 2023 number was $9M to $25M. The BBC concluded that there was not a significant increase in wealth. The stock market was doing well over that period her multi-million portfolio could have done well during that time.
From the BBC article:
The claim appears to come from a website called Inside Biden's Basement, which estimated that Samantha Power was worth between $10m and $30m.
There is no breakdown of the figure or methodology but it does include three of Power's government ethics disclosure forms from 2021-22.
These forms show Power's income from various sources, including her teaching salary, investments, payments for speaking engagements and book royalties.
Most of those figures are published in a range, such as shares in a particular company being worth between $15,000 and $50,000 or a bank account containing between $1m and $5m. As such, the range of results returned when estimating Power's wealth are wide.
BBC Verify added up the income and investments from the form that Power submitted before she was sworn in as administrator in 2021, in which her wealth and income come out at between about $9m and $22m.
The most recent disclosure form available on the government website gives her accounts for 2023 and is problematic because it gives one account containing "over $1m" without stating an upper limit. If you take that as being between $1m and $5m in line with her other entries, you get an overall range of $9m to $25m.
So is BBC lying or did she lie?
shareThe guy on social media LIED and you are spreading his lies. He just misread the forms. The forms are ranges and estimates. I contend that the forms don't have to be exact since it would be burdensome for officials to pay accountants, lawyers and appraisers to provide valuations, audits, etc.
shareThat still doesn't answer my question, you are deflecting.
The net worth range was reported by Samantha Powers; so did she lie about her net worth or is the BBC lying?
It's a range. It doesn't have to be precise. Valuation of investment portfolios fluctuate daily/weekly.
shareYou're still deflecting.
Even if her net amount was at the max of her [email protected], how can she be worth 30m after 3-years @180K? ... So either she lied about her net or the BBC is lying. Which is it?
I don't need to go back and forth with a troll. I'll trust the analysis of the journalists employed by the BBC over some guy posting disinformation on social media.
GO AWAY TROLL!
He's just being obtuse, determined to see some sort of corruption and not accepting that the figures represent a range before she started, of $9-22m i.e not a definite figure. And there is no reason why she cannot have made money perfectly legitimately through investments away from her salary. He's been told this thrice now.
For someone who criticised others believing fake news and biased websites tv evidently takes disproportionate faith in just one: 'Inside Biden's Basement'. You know, "muh source" says as he has it of others.
That troll never posts his sources but he's always dismissing the mainstream media sources as propaganda. The troll is either an idiot or a Russian bot since Russian bots want to generate distrust in western institutions and mislead people with disinformation posted on social media. I would never rely on social media for news but I check it out for entertainment.
shareIt's a matter of simple deduction.
Where are the records of "legitimate investments" for the "extra millions" above the ranges reported from any of the sources while only making 180K in those 3-years?
Samantha Power's financial disclosures from 2021, when she was nominated to be the USAID Administrator, showed assets estimated to be between $6.7 million and $16.5 million.
These disclosures are part of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Form 278e, which public officials must file to report their financial interests.
It is not a question of 'lying' it is a question of not being able to be precise.
Where are the records of "legitimate investments" for the "extra millions" above the ranges reported from any of the sources while only making 180K in those 3-years?
Samantha Power's financial disclosures from 2021, when she was nominated to be the USAID Administrator, showed assets estimated to be between $6.7 million and $16.5 million.
It doesn't have to be precise if she is unable no prove how she made those extra millions.
If she had proof, then the issue would not have been raised.
why should anyone take the partisan Biden's Basement as true in particular for anything?
Just give it up, It has all been explained and the contexts given before, And since you don't use fact checkers (or offer sources) then none of what you say has been checked or is even sourced.
But muh no fact checking says lol
Are you referring to the "fact checker" that uses the BBC to back up their claims, the same BBC which receives funding from USAID?
It doesn’t take a "fact checker' to see the obvious.
It doesn’t take a "fact checker'
He's upset because he knows he can never use BBC as a source for anything ever again.
shareWrong again.
shareAll left-wing sources are funded to lie, deceive and propagandize the public.
Read below the description on the right hand side.
“ACTIVE SOCIAL ENGINEERING DEFENSE (ASED) LARGE SCALE SOCIAL DECEPTION (LSD)”
https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_FA865018C7886_9700_-NONE-_-NONE-
They deserve to be lied to and deceived if they choose to trust those sources.
read below the description on the right hand side.
I replied to CB.
I don't post links for retards, shills and liars.
Too bad. But one is never the less pleased to see that a government link can be one used as source ... when it suits.
retards, shills and liars.
Gaslighting, Deflection, Evasion, Projection and Use of Sophistries Noted … That also applies to your previous reply.
Well done on proving to everyone on this board the reasons why I don’t post links for retards, shills and liars.
Gaslighting, Deflection, Evasion, Projection and Use of Sophistries Noted
retards, shills and liars.
insults are still not arguments
All of which is regularly claimed by you - but never exampled or proven.
shareHere's the proof:
https://moviechat.org/user/66cdc9cda7334450215b72b3
Anything is particular or is that it LOL
shareAll of it. Any of it. Take your pick.
shareNow that really is gaslighting lol
shareevidence please...
sharetv: All of it. Any. Take your pick.
FF: Now that really is gaslighting
Jo; evidence please...
thats just a random website and doesnt prove anything. did you investigate yourself? I want to see the real evidence not conspiracy theories from the dark web.
sharethats just a random website
did you investigate yourself?tv's characteristically sweeping commnent without any substantiation invited a refutation, which was easy.
I want to see the real evidence not conspiracy theories from the dark web.
anyone can post conspiracy theories from the internets. so how do I know whats true or not?
shareI was needing W2 forms and income proof. in this case I will trust DOGE and Trump. the truth will come out and she will be going to jail with all the other rich Oligarchs.
sharethe BBC was being funded by USAID. Nice try though.
shareIndeed it was.
Reuters received millions from the US government (USAID) for orchestrating "large-scale social deception"
USAID paid for radical democrat "propaganda" with taxpayers money to:
-POLITICO: $34.3M
-NYTIMES: $50M
-AP: $19.5M
-REUTERS: $9M
-BBC: $3.3M
As far as the BBC is concerned in particular, the money went to BBC Media Action which has emphasised its independence from the national broadcaster.
https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/bbc-s-charity-stresses-independence-from-broadcaster-after-elon-musk-post.html
But right wingers don't do distinctions like that if there is a point to be made.
One is an extension of the other and both have admitted on their website to receiving funds from USAID.
shareBut the website does not say that Media Action isn't independent. Please show me where it says BBC News was paid for by USAID - the point.
shareClownboy, read my other replies on this post and you will find the quotes for both websites.
I even provided a link for your idiot twin Joe and he stills denies it.
As I have already point out:
1, It is highly unlikely BBC Media action would be lying about being independent of the BBC and yet actually closely associated with it. Unless this is your assumption here. And you still have not yet shown that BBC News gets anything from USAID.
2, The BBC website figure is grand accounting for all of the BBC's funding, which includes parts of it which are under its umbrella but independent of it.
3. There may well be issues in the US helping to fund a charity working to further press freedom (hard to think what they are though) but at least get your facts right.
Imbecile, both sites have a statement about being funded by USAID.
shareOnce again for the hard of understanding: the BBC website figure is grand accounting for all of the BBC's funding, which obviously includes parts of it which are under its umbrella but independent of it.
You still haven't answered why Media Action would lie about being independent of the BBC when one would suppose they would best know. Evasion noted.
Did you read the statement on both sites about being funded by USAID or are you too incompetent to find it on your own?
Gaslighting, Deflection and Evasion noted.
And did you not read where I tell you that something can be under the general umbrella of a wider organisation while remaining independent of it? EG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_federal_government
duh.
And you STILL haven't told me why Media Action would lie about their status if it can be easily checked, - and why they wouldn't be the best placed to know these things.
Evasion noted.
More sophistries noted.
shareyou STILL haven't told me why Media Action would lie about their status if it can be easily checked, - and why they wouldn't be the best placed to know these things.#
edit UPDATE tv thinks that Media Action are being paid by the UK Govt to lie about their real status!
"You still haven't answered why Media Action would lie about being independent of the BBC when one would suppose they would best know"
They are funded by the US government that's why they would lie. They've even admitted to being funded by the US government.
They are funded by the US government that's why they would lie.
They've even admitted to being funded by the US government.
They are too stupid and in denial to admit that both sites are propaganda sources being funded by the gov to lie.
shareboth sites are propaganda sources being funded by the gov to lie.
Both BBC sources are being funded by the UK gov and the US gov via USAID to spew propaganda. And idiots like you and Joe drink their koolaid.
shareBoth BBC sources are being funded by the UK gov and the US gov via USAID to spew propaganda.
What would be the point of that?
the gullible and weak minded idiots.
Because until recently, the public was not aware that they were being funded by USAID to propagandize the public.
You're so brainwashed that you couldn't even recognize the obvious.
Because until recently, the public was not aware that they were being funded by USAID to propagandize the public.
You're so brainwashed that you couldn't even recognize the obvious.
nice find. a lot of democrats will be going to jail soon. finally. lol
shareThose are just lies spread on social media by random trolls. THe BBC news organization is not funded by USAID. USAID did donate to BBC Media Action, a charity that trains journalists in the developing world. Many nations in the developing world do not have a free press so the mission of BBC Media Action is to train journalists in the developing world.
https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/truth-or-fake/20250211-no-politico-and-bbc-news-did-not-receive-usaid-funding
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/press-release/4-feb-25
So let me get this straight, you used one propaganda source to confirm that another propaganda source is not being funded by USAID? lol
shareNo. You're illiterate. The statement is from BBC Media Action, the charitable organization that is an offshoot of the BBC News organization. They are separate entities. I'll trust the journalists employed by France 24 over some guy posting disinformation on social media.
sharelol, You confirmed what I said in my previous reply by using one propaganda source to backup another propaganda source.
shareYou're illiterate.
GO AWAY TROLL!
BBC Media Action has been affected by the temporary pause in US government funding, which amounts to about 8% of our income in 2023-24.
They admit to it.
Directly from the BBC website:
"Institutional funders remain our largest source of support. In 2023–24, our main donors included the UK FCDO, USAID and Sida"
Boom! good find.
But we know there is no evidence Joe would accept.
Whitr collar welfare bums. They take your money to promote replacing you in your own lands. We won't forget.
shareYou're also illiterate. BBC Media Action is the charitable organization that operates separately from the BBC News Organization. BBC Media Action trains journalists in the developing world.
[–] joej2923 (3134) 42 minutes ago
THe BBC news organization is not funded by USAID. USAID did donate to BBC Media Action, a charity that trains journalists in the developing world. Many nations in the developing world do not have a free press so the mission of BBC Media Action is to train journalists in the developing world.
https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/truth-or-fake/20250211-no-politico-and-bbc-news-did-not-receive-usaid-funding
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/press-release/4-feb-25
he keeps linking to the BBC. LOL, it just dont get funnier than that.
shareJoe is in denial. He prefers to believe in fake news.
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Please link to a authoritative source then that tells us that BBC Media is not independent from the BBC . Or that BBC News was paid for by USAID. All one can do is show you of what they say themselves, when they ought to be best placed to know. Evasion will be noted,
shareImbecile, I quoted both websites on this post in regards to USAID.
shareAs the BBC’s international charity, we are completely separate from BBC News, and wholly reliant on our donors and supporters to carry out our work.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/press-release/4-feb-25
Are you saying they are lying or would not know for sure?
The figures on the BBC website are for funding for everything associated with the BBC, even those bits independent of it. Glad to help.
But even so, er. weren't you among those who refused to take what the BBC itself says about the matter? And yet you quote their website back to me (without a link as usual)?
No, they are not separate, one of them is an arm (extension of the other).
I see that you found the link to one site, the other site also has a statement about being funded by USAID which I provided a quote for on this post.
I didn't say they were separate. I said they are independent. Different emphasis.
But you haven't said: when Media Action say they are independent of the BBC, they are lying? And why would they do that? Is this another conspiracy I see before me lol?
More flimflam lies and more flimflam sophistries.
Gaslighting, Deflection and Evasion noted. Grow up
It is not sophistry to say you still haven't answered....
Gaslighting, Deflection and Evasion noted
Only idiots require spoonfed substantiation. Skavau
shareOnly idiots require spoonfed substantiation
Skavau
"Only idiots accept spoonfed claims without evidence"
And yet, you blindly accept false and fake evidence from the government, the msm and fact checkers. Yeah, an idiot indeed.
And yet, you blindly accept false and fake evidence
Directly from the BBC MEDIA ACTION website:
"Our statement on USAID funding
Published: 4 February 2025
STATEMENT
A free press is essential to freedom and democracy - and 75% of countries around the world do not have a free press. BBC Media Action supports local media around the world to deliver trusted information to people most in need.
Like many international development organizations, BBC Media Action has been affected by the temporary pause in US government funding, which amounts to about 8% of our income in 2023-24. We're doing everything we can to minimize the impact on our partners and the people we serve."
BBC Media Action is a charity that operates independently of the BBC News Organization. USAid is not funding the BBC News Organization. They are funding the BBC Charity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/ * BBC Charity Org *
https://www.guidestar.org/profile/27-2798378
BBC Media Action is an arm of the BBC News Organization.
I posted a statement directly from the BBC Media Action website, where they admit receiving funds from USAID and you're still denying it. lol
No. BBC Media Action is a separate charitable organization that operates independently of the BBC News Organization.
From the BBC Media Action website:
We are independent from BBC News and we rely completely on our donors and supporters to carry out our work.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/support-us
Are you even reading what tvfan is saying? Snap out of it dude.
shareHe can't, the illusion is too powerful to break out of it.
shareThe illusion is with those who cannot accept that BBC Media Action is independent from the BBC, even though they have been shown proof of that truth.
shareOne is an arm of the other and both admit on their website to accepting funds from USAID.
This is precisely why you clowns can't be taken seriously.
Please show where the BBC NEWS arm it is said got help from USAID. That you won't be able to is precisely why you clowns can't be taken seriously. There may well be an issue in the US funding that part of the BBC which promotes press freedom worldwide (though hard to think what it might be) but at least get your facts right.
shareAnd answer came there none.
shareHere, read it for yourself:
https://www.bbc.com/mediaaction/press-release/4-feb-25
Stay in denial all you want but the fact remains that BBC Media Action is an international propagandist source for the Deep State.
No. The very last sentence from your link above explains that BBC Media Action is an international charity.
From your link:
As the BBC’s international charity, we are completely separate from BBC News, and wholly reliant on our donors and supporters to carry out our work.
You cannot prove that BBC Media Action is a propaganda source for the Deep State.
Stop spreading LIES! GO AWAY TROLL!
BBC Media Action has been affected by the temporary pause in US government funding, which amounts to about 8% of our income in 2023-24.
You idiot, they were funded by USAID.
shareExactly.
shareDoes BBC Media Action receive funding from BBC license fees? From the British government?
shareI'm from the US so I'm not an expert on the license fee. I believe the license fee is paid by Brits and it partially funds the BBC News operations. Some lady was complaining that the British government separately funded BBC Media Action. I just know that the BBC operates all over the world and they provide the news in several different languages as well as documentaries. I used to login to their website and listen to documentaries on educational topics.
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/licencefee
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/category/documentaries
LOL
shareWhy are you ding-dong leftists defending this stuff before the all the facts are in?
Don't you WANT to know about government waste and corruption?
I sure do.
They seemed pretty content to be in the dark about a few things over the last few years - why do you think they'd start caring about truth now?
This sort of "insider trading" that leads to wealth acquisition by public service figures is not only not criminalized, it's common knowledge at this point.
There are internet groups that follow the investments of Nancy Pelosi and her husband for the purpose of knowing which stocks to buy that are about to go up. There is nothing special about this instance of Samantha Power doing the same.
And look at these liberal retards defending the corruption. You seriously cannot make this shit up!
shareSamantha Power is the scum of the earth. Max Blumenthal and Aaron Maté have been exposing this gargoyle for years.
shareThis is pretty much just another example of Truman's phrase, "You can’t get rich in politics unless you’re a crook."
share