USAID was investigating its public-private partnership between Starlink-Ukraine | Hacker News Reader

USAID was investigating its public-private partnership between Starlink-Ukraine

gizmodo.com

53 pointsgpi21 comments

> Our objectives are to determine how (1) the Government of Ukraine used the USAID-provided Starlink terminals, and (2) USAID monitored the Government of Ukraine’s use of USAID-provided Starlink terminals.

That's not really an investigation of Starlink but of the use of Starlink terminals.

Perhaps if USAID had purchased more Starlinks and/or had a contract with Palantir, then maybe the President's Malaria Initiative might be saved.

There are over 40K officially donated (excludes soldier/individual purchases) terminals in Ukraine, Poland bought >12K units, USAID ~5K. Poland covers subscription on _all of them_.

>That's not really an investigation of Starlink but of the use of Starlink terminals.

That won't matter, just like the falsehood that Musk deleted the IRS Direct File program.

This is an interesting comment, because it won't matter to who? I can't tell if you are pro or anti Musk. Are you saying that Musk misinterpreted the investigation and so shut down Starlink, or that anti-Musk people will misinterpret this news. Also, when you reference the "falsehood that Musk deleted the IRS Direct File program", it is also unclear who's falsehood it is. Musk was the one who claimed he "deleted" it. Then various people freaked out. But I think it then caught on more on the anti-Musk side. And, then seemingly nothing happened. We live in weird times.

Maybe this is one of the reasons he said he would go to jail if Trump didn’t win? (As well as all the elections shenanigans)

i have been surprised at the degree to which the government recently appears to use its discretion to punish political opponents. i am no Musk fan, but I do not think the prior govt was justified in putting their thumbs on the political scales in the way they did. perhaps this is nothing new, Trump does it all the time and Bush did as well (scooter libby case)... but still seems worth calling out.

similar to how california is proposing an ev credit that would explicitly exclude tesla, they have some parallel-invented justification for it but it is clear what the real reasons are

Musk has shown himself to be a manipulative, vindictive, controlling, untrustworthy human. All options available to governing systems should be used to keep him in check, even if destruction of his wealth is required (California EV credit Tesla exclusion, etc).

There is nothing to win by playing "fair" or "by the rules" with a bully who doesn't care about the rules.

I do not think the government should target specific people for their political beliefs, otherwise how can people fairly determine their own beliefs and vote for them

Illegal acts and a robust, documented history of lies are not political beliefs. They are facts. You are conflating persecution with accountability. His politics are his beliefs, his actions are what he does, what the facts are, and what the consequences are based on for said actions and facts.

For sure, for someone who is never held accountable, accountability is tyranny.

In what way is an exclusion from an EV credit the result of some neutral proceeding of law or prosecution?

frankly, i am not interested in a government that punishes 'lies' in this way. the government should not be in the business of making people "accountable" for their bad politics. accountability for illegal actions proceeds through the courts.

we are not a banana republic, although i increasingly worry

> In what way is an exclusion from an EV credit the result of some neutral proceeding of law or prosecution?

I am unsure why you believe legislation requires due process. Musk and Tesla have no rights to state EV tax credits. States are not obligated to be "fair." They could exclude Musk and his controlled entities from financial support simply because they want to. They could even revert any laws allowing Tesla to sell vehicles without dealers. "State's rights."

> frankly, i am not interested in a government that punishes 'lies' in this way. the government should not be in the business of making people "accountable" for their bad politics. accountability for illegal actions proceeds through the courts.

Then we are at an impasse, and can only observe or assist the gears turning to reach desired outcomes.

> we are not a banana republic, although i increasingly worry

We aren't? A private citizen preventing Congress from access to federal property and violating various laws to obtain and control access to a core government value transfer system isn't? The executive branch enabling a "special employee" to "delete" agencies when they have no authority to do so? The FBI turning over records of who prosecuted J6 insurrectionists for retaliation against civil servants for doing their job? Respectfully, we have "crossed the Rubicon" already. I understand belief systems, which are rigid, will likely prevent meeting in the middle on this topic. With that said, I believe facts (like character) always matter.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Rubio says El Salvador offers to accept deportees from US of any nationality, including Americans - https://apnews.com/article/migration-rubio-panama-colombia-v...

DOGE Employees Ordered to Stop Using Slack While Agency Transitions to Records System That Is Not Subject to FOIA - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42951458 - Feb 2025

FBI turns over details of 5000 employees who worked on January 6 cases - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42949784 - Feb 2025

Congressional Research Service: USAID Under the Trump Administration - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42941591 - Feb 2025

Well said and civil. And sourced. Better than I could do. Cheers

Musk isn't being targeted for beliefs, he's being targeted for actions. There's a substantial difference between those concepts.

what actions? and why is an EV credit bill the appropriate vehicle to do so, rather than say.. the court system?

What actions? You can't be serious! And courts are for crimes. The crimes Musk is currently committing is at the behest of Trump and, unless we follow the precedent set at Nuremberg, Trump is responsible for those crimes. Even so, the courts can't do anything about it because the legislature is responsible for trying the Chief Executive.

Is the EV credit bill the appropriate vehicle to get Musk to reconsider his actions? All I can say is it's a vehicle. I'm not a member of the legislature and I don't play one on TV. It appears Musk was poorly raised and never taught there are consequences to actions, even if you're free to perform the action. As a matter of fact, it seems like a lot of people never learned that important life lesson.

when did politics become like this.. nuremberg? the nazis killed 6m, i feel like you are living in a parallel reality

> never taught there are consequences to actions, even if you're free to perform the action

you are not free to perform an action if the government punishes you for performing that action

Other citizens may punish you for your actions. For example, a large number of people are no longer buying Teslas because of Musk's actions. As far as government creating regulations affecting Musk, well, Musk thumbed his nose to government regulations and showed his ass. What, the wittle baby can't take what he dishes out? How lame!

Ok so after all that … there’s nothing criminal about what he’s doing? Is that the summary?

There's a fine line being drawn here. While what Musk is doing may be illegal, it's at the behest of the President, which typically means the President would be held accountable, not Musk. However, if we apply the legal precedent set at Nuremberg, where following unlawful orders is itself a crime, Musk could still be held responsible. In Musk's case, he might not even have that cover—DOGE has not been authorized by Congress, which means he may not be protected by executive immunity and could be prosecuted for his actions. This applies to all DOGE staff as well.

That's the summary.

This type of abusive lawfare is exactly why democrats lost this election.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com