Steve Scalise

Rank 33 of 47
|
Score -8
1/8/2026, 9:24:29 PM
X
In reply to:
Steve Scalise
@SteveScalise
·
9d
Walz’s admin ENABLED FRAUD by RETALIATING against whistleblowers.

Employees who sounded the alarm on massive fraud said the MN Department of Human Services focused on those who reported fraud INSTEAD of cracking down on fraudsters.

They live in a constant fear of retaliation.
Steve Scalise
@SteveScalise
·
9d
Under Tim Walz, Minnesota officials were PART of the fraudulent schemes!

Records were backdated to justify $680,000 in taxpayer funds to a grantee with no proof of work.

The state employee who approved it? Walked straight into a job with the same grantee.
Steve Scalise
@SteveScalise
·
9d
Tim Walz KNEW about widespread theft of taxpayer dollars but did NOTHING to stop it.

@RepBrandonGill: When did he know about it?

MN State Rep. Robbins: From the very beginning

Gill: What was the Walz Administration’s response?

Robbins: They did nothing.
Steve Scalise
@SteveScalise
·
9d
🚨 ICYMI: @GOPoversight exposed the TRUE scale of Minnesota’s fraud crisis.

Backdated records. Missing money. No accountability.

What we saw wasn’t a mistake — it was SYSTEMIC FAILURE.

🎥 WATCH the key moments ⬇️

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing immigration and welfare issues in Minnesota, using statistics to challenge the claim that Somali immigration strengthens the state. The tone is critical and aims to provide evidence against the positive impact of immigration.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement may cause harm by potentially stigmatizing the Somali community through selective statistics without context. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It risks disrespecting the dignity of the Somali community by focusing on welfare statistics, which could perpetuate negative stereotypes. [-2]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive dialogue, as it presents data without context or acknowledgment of broader socioeconomic factors. [-1]