Chat Trump Says Mar-A-Lago Raided By FBI

[stripfan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891665888891326803

 

[stripfan]

Diversity in its ultimate form.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891698012516229622

 

[stripfan]

 

[stripfan]

 

[stripfan]

 

[SamPerkins]

 

[SamPerkins]

 

[SamPerkins]

 

[SamPerkins]

 

[stripfan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891203787655647722

 

[stripfan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891602836972097832

 

[stripfan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891673777097801747

 

[24hrs]

Bug eyed Adam Schiff has got to be the most transparently corrupt swamp creature in DC.

Adam Schiff alongside Chuck Schumer, Mad Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi. That's like the Mt. Rushmore of swamp creatures

 

[Hornet]

Please tell me again how DOGE isn't exposing any government corruption and Elon is just stealing your information

4.7 TRILLION

FFS. No wonder everyone hates Democrats.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891650669913752063

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891614960452522187

This is one of the stupidest things you have ever posted. The funds are not untraceable. Electronic payments have a From and a To bank account number and recipient is named. All payments processed are also given a reference number by the bank so that they can be traced when the recipient says “I didn”t get it”. Banks generate a Proof of Payment that can also be shared with the recipient to show that a payment was sent.

That is not what they are complaining about. They are complaining that payments were missing the optional TAS code for cross-referencing to a budget.

In electronic payments description/comments field that might make it a little easier for the accountants to record what the payment is for. But, the government will have the proper controls (a purchasing requisition system with approvals (against a budget) and a P.O. # before the payment can even be processed) so the accountants can still figure out what the payments were is for through cross referencing the payment, the vendor invoice and the purchasing system. And if the vender isn’t setup no payments will be made. Setting up a vendor means a vendor credit check, getting their TIN (tax id number) and other data to make sure they are legitimate. All companies will have complex controls around payments. That description/comments data field acts just like the memo line on a cheque that is also optional. Leaving it blank doesn’t stop the cheque from clearing. In the example below, there will still be an invoice from the gas company and the cheque has a cheque # and it says it’s payable to “People’s Gas Company”. So, it is traceable and you can figure out what it was for and why.




What they are complaining about is that the TAS field would make budget reconciliation easier. But, it is optional and not mandatory which would imply they have other ways to reconcile to the budget. And that is most likely the purchasing system and those controls. I have done business with the US Government. You need a contract, you need them to give you a PO (purchase order) to invoice them and get paid. They don’t generate a PO with a purchase requisition process. They don’t pay without a PO#.

The real question, is if this TAS id was so critical why was it only optional and not mandatory?

 

[24hrs]

Shilling for the establishment in 2025 is crazy work

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891557463377490431

 

[24hrs]

Reporter got cooked

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891882871029137728

 

[vandisney]

Tune in for the REAL news

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891895764688715834

 

[Hornet]

The tinfoil hat club is going nuts because an optional data field was not used

 

[vandisney]

 

[vandisney]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1891904611704832356