Politico reporter: No evidence shown of DOGE discovered waste and abuse
Politico’s Eugene Daniels appeared on “Washington Week” with The Atlantic, as one of the commenters. A segment shows them talking about USAID and other DOGE audits. Daniels claimed that neither the Trump administration nor DOGE has provided evidence of the waste and abuse that had been exposed. Daniels explained that “things will be missed” when people work in a large organization.
From Real Clear Politics (video transcript):
JEFFREY GOLDBERG, THE ATLANTIC, HOST: But I have to ask, I mean, there are many documented cases of government waste, including in USAID. I’ve covered countries where USAID was not the most efficient deliverer of services. Did they set themselves up in a kind of way? Was there a kind of a laxity in the way that these things were administered that allowed this to happen, or is that just an unfair —
EUGENE DANIELS, POLITICO: I mean, I think when you have a bunch of humans doing one thing and the bigger the organization gets, there’s always going to be some thing that is missed. I think what we have not —
GOLDBERG: This show, for instance.
DANIELS: But what we’ve seen — what we have not seen from Elon Musk or this administration is in the evidence of all of this abuse that they’re talking about, right? Like they say they’ve gone in, they found all of this waste that has been happening. We haven’t seen it.
I will say though, it matters — it’s a test case and it matters who or what organizations or groups of people push back. We’re not seeing a lot of pushback on the Hill, where there’s absolute — where they are supposed to have the power of the purse. They created these organizations. Republicans are not saying anything. I’ve talked to many of them, Republicans. Why do you think you don’t have the power?
Additional Reading:
Schwartz, I. (2025, February 8). Politico’s Eugene Daniels: We have not seen evidence of waste and abuse at USAID that Elon Musk is talking about. Real Clear Politics. Link.
Category: Media
$11,000 a year for an internet subscription……… yeah no waste there.
That whole subscription scam sounds like the woman that pled not guilty to prostitution charges because she technically wasn’t selling sex. She was selling condoms for $250 and you got to use them for free.
What is it exactly that he needs to see? USAIDS own records aren’t enough to say hey, we’re spending a couple of metric shit tons of US cash on stupid shit? Does he need to see pallet loads of cash flown into a country in the dead of night? He’s seen the evidence in his own subscription system.
But it will end. It’s starting to clear. In the morning when the sun rises, sometimes it is hard to believe that there there ever was a night.
“Things will be missed.”
So government is just incompetent, not intentionally wasteful.
Not a great defense.
“Oh well, these things will happen.”
“Meh.”
“It is what it is.”
To be fair though, how many of us said, “Good enough for government work?”
Yeah but that was after we actually did something. Plus they were paying me $1,200 a month.
Reminds me of the Clinton era–
“I’m not crooked, just stupid”.
I forgot the “Aw shucks, fellas…”
“Daniels explained that “things will be missed” when people work in a large organization.”
Yeah, no. Simply saying “whoops, oh well.. we’re a big outfit, these things will happen here” doesn’t excuse you from causing waste or allowing tangential spending that leads to or is the direct result of fraud and/or abuse. That was a pretty stupid comment — but then again it’s Politico. I’d seen better and more honest journalism in my old High School newspaper…
It isn’t here, you must have dreamed you put it there. Are you suggesting this is a knife I hold in my hand? Have you gone mad? Or is it I that am mad?
“But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked.
“Oh, you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.”
“How do you know I’m mad?” said Alice.
“You must be,” said the Cat, “or you wouldn’t have come here.”
“You have no real power!?”
“Exactly. That is why I need you.”
Or as Captain Kirk put it:
“We don’t see the evidence.” – said with eyes and minds fully shut.
The willfully blind (e.g. Lars) are the most pitiful, and the most dangerous to have trying to guide anything.
“Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not’.” Hat tip to a dude named Jeremiah (no, not the Bull Frog, the other Jeremiah)
We can also use this one…“There are none so blind as those who will not see.” Paraphrased from the teachings of that Former Jewish Carpenter by John Heywood (English poet, 1546), then again in print by Messrs Thomas Chalkley’ (1713) and Jonathan Swift (1738).
Today’s edition of “yellow journalism” goes back to even before Randolph Hearst, the one that made that phrase come about.
Apparently in the Gospel according to Lars, if there is abuse and waste it’s OK because it was disclosed somewhere. Following that, then is DOGE merely reading what USAID has said? Is DOGE wrong to try and stop the waste? Per Lars it is. But that’s like finding a copperhead in your tent and leaving him be because he’s been there all day had you looked.
Very good, brother!
Preach on!
Politico says no waste, fraud, or abuse? Hmm…an organization that gets millions from the Feds says the Feds are not committing waste, fraud, or abuse. Yeah, no bias or conflict of interest. Seems like Dems are executing SOP, and deny, deny, deny.
It’s like they haven’t learned their lesson from November…
Will of the people be damned!
You forgot to add “counter accuse”
They should investigate The False Commander “Phony” Phil Monkress (CEO of All-Points Logistics) and All-Points Logistics.
I can only imagine Phildo is sweating harder these days when working balls.
51 Intelligence officials signed a letter stating that there is no fraud, waste or abuse within US Agency for International Development. Case closed.
Hey uhhmm, wait a minute, uhhmm, wasn’t it discovered that Politico was receiving money from ISAID? Mmmm? Something like $8 million last year?
No, that’s what was said, but not what happened.
Politico got $24K in FY24 from USAID. These are subscriptions. So,… 120 people at an agency of 10K subscribed to it because, hell, so do a lot of other folks.
Now, I don’t expect you to believe me, but here’s the website, and you can search for yourself:
https://www.usaspending.gov/
And you’ll find this, when looking for spending from USAID to Politico for FY24:
https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_72REFS24PC00047_7200_-NONE-_-NONE-
All in all, I’m fine with 200/month of taxpayer money going to subscriptions to keep engaged people informed on things. That’s far better than folks who are tuned out and not doing their jobs.
I understand that a lot of people subscribe to Politico. Now you can explain to me why the good folks at USAID need to subscribe on the taxpayers dime.
If it’s part of their job, why not? $200/year for an employee to be more informed and effective at their job is a great deal.
I bet the folks at USAID use computers too – should USAID be giving money to Dell or HP to buy them? I’d be pretty damn sure that having a computer makes them more effective than not. Same goes for being informed on international developments in their job.
You work for the government, correct? Does the government cover travel, training and tools related to your job, or do you pay everything out of pocket?
I am, and they do pay for everything job related, to include safety toe boots and protective eyewear. Now, what does Politico provide to USAID that cannot be found elsewhere for nothing? Why just use Politico, why not FOX, CNN, USA Today? I’m quite certain USAID has far better open-source intel available than just a single news organization. I have to justify and account for every cent. And You’ve gone way past silly with your use of computers etc. in your argument.
If you already owned safety toe boots yourself, couldn’t they be provided ‘for nothing’? My example of the computer was because I have several, including some that aren’t actively used. Should my job expect me to use one of those entirely capable laptops to do my job, or should they get me my own? That sounds to me like a fair question, given that it’s ‘available for nothing’.
And Politico does (or did, at least) some decent subscriber-only reporting in other parts of the world in the past. I again don’t find interested employees spending $200/year on it to be egregious.
Since you don’t like my computer example, here’s a different one. There’s a ton of open-source information on mathematics, of course. But if $230 buys an NSA geek an IEEE membership so they can more easily read the latest journal articles about cryptography advances, again, great in my book. I want people being informed and effective at their job. Saying no to such expenditures is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
I’m questioning the need to pay for a subscription to a politically biased publication. And I’m referring to open source Intel, very different than open source info. A professional membership such as you describe would be a different thing altogether, and would also probably be denied.
If it were information instead of propaganda it might be useful. But it isn’t.
Nonsense.
1) It is not part of their job.
2) The assumption that reading a particular publication like Politico makes anyone more informed and effective is, at best, debatable.
Not me. There is plenty of news out there for free and Politico are obvious democratic.hacks.
Reminds me of the old Steve Martin routine about how to make a million dollars and not pay taxes.
“First, you get a million dollars…then, when the IRS asks you why you didn’t pay your taxes? Two simple words; ‘I Forgot’…when the IRS yells at you, ‘you FORGOT to pay your taxes?’…two simple words; ‘EXXUUUUUSE MEEE!'”.
A classic.
Krusty was about to get sued for stealing that one…
https://youtu.be/eLngG6qzv6Q?si=JL3XaoHNkesyI6LI