{"id":939,"date":"2018-12-09T18:33:03","date_gmt":"2018-12-09T17:33:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.lesgrossesorchadeslesamplesthalameges.fr\/?page_id=939"},"modified":"2018-12-10T15:00:52","modified_gmt":"2018-12-10T14:00:52","slug":"the-pentagons-massive-accounting-fraud","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blog.lesgrossesorchadeslesamplesthalameges.fr\/index.php\/the-pentagons-massive-accounting-fraud\/","title":{"rendered":"The Pentagon’s Massive Accounting Fraud"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Trop long, h\u00e9las, on n\u2019a pas le temps de vous traduire\u2026<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sachez seulement, si vous ne lisez pas l\u2019anglais, que l\u2019arm\u00e9e US, tout en r\u00e9clamant de plus en plus d\u2019argent \u00e0 son gouvernement, donc aux contribuables, refuse obstin\u00e9ment de se soumettre \u00e0 un \u00ab\u00a0audit\u00a0\u00bb,<\/em> c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire \u00e0 la moindre expertise comptable. \u00ab\u00a0Continuez de cracher et ne demandez pas pourquoi\u00a0! \u00bb pourrait \u00eatre sa devise.<\/span><\/p>\n

L\u2019auteur s\u2019est livr\u00e9 \u00e0 une enqu\u00eate fouill\u00e9e et il est loin d\u2019\u00eatre le seul. Des lanceurs d\u2019alertes issus du s\u00e9rail ont m\u00eame, \u00e0 diverses reprises, attach\u00e9 le grelot. Pure peine perdue.<\/span><\/p>\n

Exemples : Il a \u00e9t\u00e9 impossible aux chercheurs de retrouver la moindre trace concr\u00e8te de 21 milliards de dollars de d\u00e9penses du Pentagone entre 1998 et 2015\u2026 On parle d\u2019une fraude grosso modo estim\u00e9e \u00e0 une centaine de milliards de dollars, et sans aucun moyen de rien v\u00e9rifier, puisqu\u2019ils rechignent \u00e0 montrer leurs livres de comptes\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n

Dave Lindorff\u00a0 raconte comment ils s\u2019y prennent.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Pentagon\u2019s Massive Accounting Fraud Exposed<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Dave Lindorff \u2013 I.C.H. \u2013 <\/strong>4.12.2018<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

How US military spending keeps rising even as the Pentagon flunks its audit.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

December 04, 2018 \u00ab\u00a0Information Clearing House<\/a>\u00a0\u00bb\u00a0–\u00a0\u00a0On November 15, Ernst & Young and other private firms that were hired to audit the Pentagon\u00a0announced<\/a>\u00a0that they could not complete the job. Congress had ordered an independent audit of the Department of Defense, the government\u2019s largest discretionary cost center\u2014the Pentagon receives 54 cents out of every dollar in federal appropriations\u2014after the Pentagon failed for decades to audit itself. The firms concluded, however, that the DoD\u2019s financial records were riddled with so many bookkeeping deficiencies, irregularities, and errors that a reliable audit was simply impossible.<\/span><\/p>\n

Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan tried to put the best face on things, telling reporters, \u201cWe failed the audit, but we never expected to pass it.\u201d Shanahan suggested that the DoD should get credit for\u00a0attempting<\/em>\u00a0an audit, saying, \u201cIt was an audit on a $2.7 trillion organization, so the fact that we did the audit is substantial.\u201d The truth, though, is that the DoD was dragged kicking and screaming to this audit by bipartisan frustration in Congress, and the result, had this been a major corporation, likely would have been a crashed stock.<\/span><\/p>\n

As Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, a frequent critic of the DoD\u2019s financial practices,\u00a0said<\/a>\u00a0on the Senate floor in September 2017, the Pentagon\u2019s long-standing failure to conduct a proper audit reflects \u201ctwenty-six years of hard-core foot-dragging\u201d on the part of the DoD, where \u201cinternal resistance to auditing the books runs deep.\u201d In 1990, Congress passed the Chief Financial Officers Act, which required all departments and agencies of the federal government to develop auditable accounting systems and submit to annual audits. Since then, every department and agency has come into compliance\u2014except the Pentagon.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now, a\u00a0Nation<\/em>\u00a0investigation has uncovered an explanation for the Pentagon\u2019s foot-dragging: For decades, the DoD\u2019s leaders and accountants have been perpetrating a gigantic, unconstitutional accounting fraud, deliberately cooking the books to mislead the Congress and drive the DoD\u2019s budgets ever higher, regardless of military necessity. DoD has literally been making up numbers in its annual financial reports to Congress\u2014representing trillions of dollars\u2019 worth of seemingly nonexistent transactions\u2014knowing that Congress would rely on those misleading reports when deciding how much money to give the DoD the following year, according to government records and interviews with current and former DoD officials, congressional sources, and independent experts.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIf the DOD were being honest, they would go to Congress and say, \u2018All these proposed budgets we\u2019ve been presenting to you are a bunch of garbage,\u2019 \u201d said Jack Armstrong, who spent more than five years in the Defense Department\u2019s Office of Inspector General as a supervisory director of audits before retiring in 2011.<\/span><\/p>\n

The fraud works like this. When the DoD submits its annual budget requests to Congress, it sends along the prior year\u2019s financial reports, which contain fabricated numbers. The fabricated numbers disguise the fact that the DoD does not always spend all of the money Congress allocates in a given year. However, instead of returning such unspent funds to the US Treasury, as the law requires, the Pentagon sometimes launders and shifts such moneys to other parts of the DoD\u2019s budget.<\/span><\/p>\n

Veteran Pentagon staffers say that this practice violates Article I Section 9 of the US Constitution, which stipulates that<\/span><\/p>\n

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.<\/span><\/p>\n

Among the laundering\u00a0tactics<\/a>\u00a0the Pentagon uses: So-called \u201cone-year money\u201d\u2014funds that Congress intends to be spent in a single fiscal year\u2014gets shifted into a pool of five-year money. This maneuver exploits the fact that federal law does not require the return of unspent \u201cfive-year money\u201d during that five-year allocation period.<\/span><\/p>\n

The phony numbers are referred to inside the Pentagon as \u201cplugs,\u201d as in plugging a hole, said current and former officials. \u201cNippering,\u201d a reference to a sharp-nosed tool used to snip off bits of wire or metal, is Pentagon slang for shifting money from its congressionally authorized purpose to a different purpose. Such nippering can be repeated multiple times \u201cuntil the funds become virtually untraceable,\u201d says one Pentagon-budgeting veteran who insisted on anonymity in order to keep his job as a lobbyist at the Pentagon.<\/span><\/p>\n

The plugs can be staggering in size. In fiscal year 2015, for example, Congress appropriated $122 billion for the US Army. Yet DoD financial records for the Army\u2019s 2015 budget included a whopping $6.5 trillion (yes, trillion) in plugs. Most of these plugs \u201clack[ed] supporting documentation,\u201d in the bland phrasing of the department\u2019s internal watchdog, the Office of Inspector General. In other words, there were no ledger entries or receipts to back up how that $6.5 trillion supposedly was spent. Indeed, more than 16,000 records that might reveal either the source or the destination of some of that $6.5 trillion had been \u201cremoved,\u201d the inspector general\u2019s office\u00a0reported<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

In this way, the DoD propels US military spending higher year after year, even when the country is not fighting any major wars, says Franklin \u201cChuck\u201d Spinney, a former Pentagon whistle-blower. Spinney\u2019s revelations to Congress and the news media about wildly inflated Pentagon spending helped spark public outrage in the 1980s. \u201cThey\u2019re making up the numbers and then just asking for more money each year,\u201d Spinney told\u00a0The Nation<\/em>. The funds the Pentagon has been amassing over the years through its bogus bookkeeping maneuvers \u201ccould easily be as much as $100 billion,\u201d Spinney estimated.<\/span><\/p>\n

Indeed, Congress\u00a0appropriated<\/a>\u00a0a record amount\u2014$716 billion\u2014for the DoD in the current fiscal year of 2019. That was up $24 billion from\u00a0fiscal year 2018\u2019s<\/a>\u00a0$692 billion, which itself was up $6 billion from\u00a0fiscal year 2017\u2019s<\/a>\u00a0$686 billion. Such largesse is what drives US military spending higher than the next ten highest-spending countries combined, added Spinney. Meanwhile, the closest thing to a full-scale war the United States is currently fighting is in Afghanistan, where approximately 15,000 US troops are deployed\u2014only 2.8 percent as many as were in Vietnam at the height of that war.<\/span><\/p>\n

The DoD\u2019s accounting practices appear to be an intentional effort to avoid accountability, says Armstrong. \u201cA lot of the plugs\u2014not all, but a substantial portion\u2014are used to force general-ledger receipts to agree with the general budget reports, so what\u2019s in the budget reports is basically left up to people\u2019s imagination,\u201d Armstrong says, adding, \u201cDid the DoD improperly spend funds from one appropriated purpose on another? Who can tell?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe United States government collects trillions of dollars each year for the purpose of funding essential functions, including national-security efforts at the Defense Department,\u201d Senator Grassley told\u00a0The Nation<\/em>. \u201cWhen unelected bureaucrats misuse, mismanage and misallocate taxpayer funds, it not only takes resources away from vital government functions, it weakens citizens\u2019 faith and trust in their government.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

This Pentagon accounting fraud is d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu all over again for Spinney. Back in the 1980s, he and a handful of other reform-minded colleagues exposed how the DoD used a similar accounting trick to inflate Pentagon spending\u2014and to accumulate money for \u201coff-the-books\u201d programs. \u201cDoD routinely over-estimated inflation rates for weapons systems,\u201d Spinney recalled. \u201cWhen actual inflation turned out to be lower than the estimates, they did not return the excess funds to the Treasury, as required by law, but slipped them into something called a \u2018Merged Surplus Account,’\u201d he said.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIn that way, the Pentagon was able to build up a slush fund of almost $50 billion\u201d (about $120 billion in today\u2019s money), Spinney added. He believes that similar tricks are being used today to fund secret programs, possibly including US Special Forces activity in Niger. That program\u00a0appears<\/a>\u00a0to have been undertaken without Congress\u2019s knowledge of its true nature, which only came to light when a Special Forces unit was ambushed there last year, resulting in the deaths of four US soldiers.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cBecause of the plugs, there is no auditable way to track Pentagon funding and spending,\u201d explains Asif Khan of the Government Accountability Office, the Congress\u2019s watchdog on the federal bureaucracy. \u201cIt\u2019s crucial in auditing to have a reliable financial record for prior years in order to audit the books for a current year,\u201d notes Khan, the head of the National Security Asset Management unit at GAO. Plugs and other irregularities help explain why the Pentagon has long been at or near the top of the GAO\u2019s list of \u201chigh risk\u201d agencies prone to significant fraud, waste, and abuse, he adds.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Nation<\/em>\u00a0submitted detailed written questions and requested interviews with senior officials in the Defense Department before publishing this article. Only public-affairs staff would speak on the record. In an e-mailed response, Christopher Sherwood of the DoD\u2019s Public Affairs office denied any accounting impropriety. Any transfer of funds between one budgetary account and another \u201crequires a reprogramming action\u201d by Congress, Sherwood wrote, adding that any such transfers amounting to more than 1 percent of the official DoD budget would require approval by \u201call four defense congressional committees.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The scale and workings of the Pentagon\u2019s accounting fraud began to be\u00a0ferreted out<\/a>\u00a0last year by a dogged research team led by Mark Skidmore, a professor of economics specializing in state and local government finance at Michigan State University. Skidmore and two graduate students spent months poring over DoD financial statement reviews done by the department\u2019s Office of Inspector General. Digging deep into the OIG\u2019s report on the Army\u2019s 2015 financial statement, the researchers found some peculiar information. Appendix C, page 27, reported that Congress had appropriated $122 billion for the US Army that year. But the appendix also seems to report that the Army had received a cash deposit from the US Treasury of $794.8 billion. That sum was more than six times larger than Congress had appropriated\u2014indeed, it was larger than the entire Pentagon budget for the year. The same appendix showed that the Army had accounts payable (accounting lingo for bills due) totaling $929.3 billion.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI wondered how you could possibly get those kinds of adjustments out of a $122 billion budget,\u201d Skidmore recalled. \u201cI thought, initially, \u2018This is absurd!\u2019 And yet all the [Office of Inspector General] seemed to do was say, \u2018Here are these plugs.\u2019 Then, nothing. Even though this kind of thing should be a red flag, it just died. So we decided to look further into it.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

To make sure that fiscal year 2015 was not an anomaly, Skidmore and his graduate students expanded their inquiry, examining OIG reports on Pentagon financial records stretching back to 1998. Time and again, they found that the amounts of money reported as having flowed into and out of the Defense Department were gargantuan, often dwarfing the amounts Congress had appropriated: $1.7 trillion in 1998, $2.3 trillion in 1999, $1.1 trillion in 2000, $1.1 trillion in 2007, $875 billion in 2010, and $1.7 trillion in 2012, plus amounts in the hundreds of billions in other years.<\/span><\/p>\n

In all, at least a mind-boggling $21 trillion of Pentagon financial transactions between 1998 and 2015 could not be traced, documented, or explained, concluded Skidmore. To convey the vastness of that sum, $21 trillion is roughly five times more than the entire federal government spends in a year. It is greater than the US Gross National Product, the world\u2019s largest at an estimated $18.8 trillion. And that $21 trillion includes only plugs that were disclosed in reports by the Office of Inspector General, which does not review all of the Pentagon\u2019s spending.<\/span><\/p>\n

To be clear, Skidmore, in a\u00a0report<\/a>\u00a0coauthored with Catherine Austin Fitts, a former assistant secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development who complained about similar plugs in HUD financial statements, does not contend that all of this $21 trillion was secret or misused funding. And indeed, the plugs are found on both the positive and the negative sides of the ledger, thus potentially netting each other out. But the Pentagon\u2019s bookkeeping is so obtuse, Skidmore and Fitts added, that it is impossible to trace the actual sources and destinations of the $21 trillion. The disappearance of thousands of records adds further uncertainty. The upshot is that no one can know for sure how much of that $21 trillion was, or was not, being spent legitimately.<\/span><\/p>\n

That may even apply to the Pentagon\u2019s senior leadership. A good example of this was Donald Rumsfeld, the notorious micromanaging secretary of defense during the Bush\/Cheney administration. On September 10, 2001 Rumsfeld called a dramatic press conference at the Pentagon to make a startling\u00a0announcement<\/a>. Referring to the huge military budget that was his official responsibility, he said, \u201cAccording to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.\u201d This shocking news that an amount more than five times as large as the Pentagon\u2019s FY 2001 budget of an estimated $313 billion was lost or even just \u201cuntrackable\u201d was\u2014at least for one 24-hour news cycle\u2014a big national story, as was Secretary Rumsfeld\u2019s comment that America\u2019s adversary was not China or Russia, but rather was \u201ccloser to home: It\u2019s the Pentagon bureaucracy.\u201d Equally stunning was Rumsfeld\u2019s warning that the tracking down of those missing transactions \u201ccould be\u2026a matter of life and death.\u201d No Pentagon leader had ever before said such a thing, nor has anyone done so since then. But Rumsfeld\u2019s expos\u00e9 died quickly as, the following morning on September 11, four hijacked commercial jet planes plowed full speed into the two World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Since that time, there has been no follow-up and no effort made to find the missing money, either.<\/span><\/p>\n

Recalling his decades inside the Pentagon, Spinney emphasized that the slippery bookkeeping and resulting fraudulent financial statements are not a result of lazy DoD accountants. \u201cYou can\u2019t look at this as an aberration,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s business as usual. The goal is to paralyze Congress.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

That has certainly been the effect. As one congressional staffer with long experience investigating Pentagon budgets, speaking on background because of the need to continue working with DoD officials, told\u00a0The Nation<\/em>, \u201cWe don\u2019t know how the Pentagon\u2019s money is being spent. We know what the total appropriated funding is for each year, but we don\u2019t know how much of that funding gets spent on the intended programs, what things actually cost, whether payments are going to the proper accounts. If this kind of stuff were happening in the private sector, people would be fired and prosecuted.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

DoD officials have long insisted that their accounting and financial practices are proper. For example, the Office of Inspector General has attempted to explain away the absurdly huge plugs in DoD\u2019s financial statements as being a common, widely accepted accounting practice in the private sector.<\/span><\/p>\n

When this reporter asked Bridget Serchak, at the time a press spokesperson for the inspector general\u2019s office, about the Army\u2019s $6.5 trillion in plugs for fiscal year 2015, she replied, \u201cAdjustments are made to the Army General Fund financial statement data\u2026for various reasons such as correcting errors, reclassifying amounts and reconciling balances between systems\u2026. For example, there was a net unsupported adjustment of $99.8 billion made to the $0.2 billion balance reported for Accounts Receivable.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

There is a grain of truth in Serchak\u2019s explanation, but only a grain.<\/span><\/p>\n

As an expert in government budgeting, Skidmore confirmed that it is accepted practice to insert adjustments into budget reports to make both sides of a ledger agree. Such adjustments can be deployed in cases where receipts have been lost\u2014in a fire, for example\u2014or where funds were incorrectly classified as belonging to one division within a company rather than another. \u201cBut those kinds of adjustments should be the exception, not the rule, and should amount to only a small percentage of the overall budget,\u201d Skidmore said.<\/span><\/p>\n

For its part, the inspector general\u2019s office has blamed the fake numbers found in many DoD financial statements on the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), a huge DoD accounting operation based in Indianapolis, Indiana. In review after review, the inspector general\u2019s office has charged that DFAS has been making up \u201cunsupported\u201d figures to plug into DoD\u2019s financial statements, inventing ledger entries to back up those invented numbers, and sometimes even \u201cremoving\u201d transaction records that could document such entries. Nevertheless, the inspector general has never advocated punitive steps against DFAS officials\u2014a failure that suggests DoD higher-ups tacitly approve of the deceptions.<\/span><\/p>\n

Skidmore repeatedly requested explanations for these bookkeeping practices, he says, but the Pentagon response was stonewalling and concealment. Even the inspector general\u2019s office, whose publicly available reports had been criticizing these practices for years, refused to answer the professor\u2019s questions. Instead, that office began removing archived reports from its website. (Skidmore and his grad students, anticipating that possibility, had already downloaded the documents, which were eventually were restored to public access under different URLs.)<\/span><\/p>\n

Nation<\/em>\u00a0inquiries have met with similar resistance. Case in point: A recent DoD OIG report on a US Navy financial statement for FY 2017. Although OIG audit reports in previous years were always made available online without restriction or censorship, this particular report suddenly appeared in heavily redacted form\u2014not just the numbers it contained, but even its title! Only bureaucratic sloppiness enabled one to see that the report concerned Navy finances: Censors missed some of the references to the Navy in the body of the report, as shown in the passages reproduced here.<\/span><\/p>\n

A request to the Office of Inspector General to have the document uncensored was met with the response: \u201cIt was the Navy\u2019s decision to censor it, and we can\u2019t do anything about that.\u201d At\u00a0The Nation<\/em>\u2019s request, Senator Grassley\u2019s office also asked the OIG to uncensor the report. Again, the OIG refused. A Freedom Of Information Act request byThe Nation<\/em>\u00a0to obtain the uncensored document awaits a response.<\/span><\/p>\n

The GAO\u2019s Khan was not surprised by the failure of this year\u2019s independent audit of the Pentagon. Success, he points out, would have required \u201ca good-faith effort from DoD officials, but to date that has not been forthcoming.\u201d He added, \u201cAs a result of partial audits that were done in 2016, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines have over 1,000 findings from auditors about things requiring remediation. The partial audits of the 2017 budget were pretty much a repeat. So far, hardly anything has been fixed.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Let that sink in for a moment: As things stand, no one knows for sure how the biggest single-line item in the US federal budget is actually being spent. What\u2019s more, Congress as a whole has shown little interest in investigating this epic scandal. The absurdly huge plugs never even get asked about at Armed Services and Budget Committee hearings.<\/span><\/p>\n

One interested party has taken action\u2014but it is action that\u2019s likely to perpetuate the fraud. The normally obscure Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board sets the accounting standards for all federal agencies. Earlier this year, the board proposed a new guideline saying that agencies that operate classified programs should be permitted to falsify figures in financial statements and shift the accounting of funds to conceal the agency\u2019s classified operations. (No government agency operates more classified programs than the Department of Defense, which includes the National Security Agency.) The new guideline became effective on October 4, just in time for this year\u2019s end-of-year financial statements.<\/span><\/p>\n

So here\u2019s the situation: We have a Pentagon budget that a former DOD internal-audit supervisor, Jack Armstrong, bluntly labels \u201cgarbage.\u201d We have a Congress unable to evaluate each new fiscal year\u2019s proposed Pentagon budget because it cannot know how much money was actually spent during prior years. And we have a Department of Defense that gives only lip service to fixing any of this. Why should it? The status quo has been generating ever-higher DoD budgets for decades, not to mention bigger profits for Boeing, Lockheed, and other military contractors.<\/span><\/p>\n

The losers in this situation are everyone else. The Pentagon\u2019s accounting fraud diverts many billions of dollars that could be devoted to other national needs: health care, education, job creation, climate action, infrastructure modernization, and more. Indeed, the Pentagon\u2019s accounting fraud amounts to theft on a grand scale\u2014theft not only from America\u2019s taxpayers, but also from the nation\u2019s well-being and its future.<\/span><\/p>\n

As President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who retired from the military as a five-star general after leading Allied forces to victory in World War II, said in a 1953 speech, \u201cEvery gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.\u201d What would Eisenhower say today about a Pentagon that deliberately misleads the people\u2019s representatives in Congress in order to grab more money for itself while hunger, want, climate breakdown, and other ills increasingly afflict the nation?<\/span><\/p>\n

Correction:\u00a0An earlier version of this article included a mention of $6.5 billion in plugs in 2015. In fact, as cited elsewhere in the story, the correct figure is $6.5 trillion.\u00a0The article also cited an inaccurate figure for the percentage of federal tax dollars received by the Pentagon. In fact, the Pentagon receives more than half of every dollar of federal discretionary spending, not two out of every three federal tax dollars. The text has been corrected.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

This article was originally published by\u00a0\u00ab\u00a0<\/em>The Nation\u00a0<\/em><\/a>\u00a0\u00bb\u00a0–<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Source : http:\/\/www.informationclearinghouse.info\/50711.htm<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

December 2018<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        Trop long, h\u00e9las, on n\u2019a pas le temps de vous traduire\u2026   Sachez seulement, si vous ne lisez pas l\u2019anglais, que l\u2019arm\u00e9e US, tout en r\u00e9clamant de plus en plus d\u2019argent \u00e0 son gouvernement, donc aux contribuables, refuse obstin\u00e9ment de se soumettre \u00e0 un \u00ab\u00a0audit\u00a0\u00bb, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire \u00e0 la moindre expertise comptable….<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.lesgrossesorchadeslesamplesthalameges.fr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/939"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.lesgrossesorchadeslesamplesthalameges.fr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.lesgrossesorchadeslesamplesthalameges.fr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.lesgrossesorchadeslesamplesthalameges.fr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.lesgrossesorchadeslesamplesthalameges.fr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=939"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.lesgrossesorchadeslesamplesthalameges.fr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/939\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.lesgrossesorchadeslesamplesthalameges.fr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=939"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}