And here is the same audit done in 2018, again from the Inspector General (your report was 2016). It's the most recent followup to your report, which is now outdated.
Seems the 6.5T must have evaporated. As expected.
This is why using simple smell tests to raise suspicion is worth noting.
Just look at the first page of each document. The one I linked clearly states on page "i" both an Objective and a Finding ("did not adequately support $2.8 trillion in third quarter journal voucher (JV) adjustments and $6.5 trillion in yearend"). Your document neither addresses this issue nor does it include any stated objective nor does it include any stated findings. No one who even skimmed this document would suspect it even addresses this topic. We can't just assume, as you would like to do, that a massive problem of long standing would just disappear in a couple of years. No one thinks that the Pentagon stole $6.5T in one year. The fact that the $6.5T figure appears anywhere on Pentagon account books is the problem. When "adjustments" with no reasonable explanation overwhelm real assets and transactions, the accounts are without meaning. In such a situation, we can be sure that lots of resources are being diverted to unapproved purposes, even if those diversions don't tally to the trillions. (Although, when the budget is 3/4 of a trillion per year, it's not going to take long to get there.)
Frankly you seem to be arguing with straw men. Why is that? Do you have any professional experience with accounting? Have you ever produced a balance sheet? Have you ever read one?
>The fact that the $6.5T figure appears anywhere on Pentagon account books is the problem
It doesn't as I linked. It's derived from a (quote) "non-statistical sample" and is full of double billing. I pointed this out with sources. This number is not from tallying items on books - it's from taking not statistically controlled sample and extrapolating, using poor methodology (as pointed out in the links I provided). This is basic stats and arithmetic.
When X money comes from gov to dept A, goes on a book, then goes to dept B, goes on a book, this is not 2X dollars. This is how they get such ridiculous numbers by not balancing books. This is pointed out in enough well sources internet places besides what I posted that it's not worth digging it up more.
Coincidentally, the DoD recently completed it's second complete audit [1] in late 2019, even later than the 2018 one I posted above. Again, they found "No evidence of fraud". If you search that gov site, you'll find documents in depth about the audit(s).
I get that you want to stick to a clearly incorrect audit from 2016 for your narrative of incompetence and fraud, but when I've provided 2 annual audits that show otherwise, it's clear you're holding onto a belief over fact.
You're linking to press releases now, so this discussion has run its course. You refuse to acknowledge that unjustified adjustments have overwhelmed the rest of the books. Reading the press release, we find it's bragging about a few parts of DoD, not even including USArmy which is what we were talking about.
So your first link in this thread, which is a press release, and your second link, which is a Dave Lindoff opinion piece, are valid, but linking a .gov release with a link to the actual audit means this thread has run it's course? That's intellectually dishonest.
>not even including USArmy which is what we were talking about.
The linked audit clearly states Army. Look at the audit page. Search the word "Army". First (and only) Army link goes to the Army section of the audit. Since you didn't even look, I'll post the Army section for you [1].
This has become completely dishonest. You're not even looking at the audits from the DoD, including the one you care about, to update your world view.
>You refuse to acknowledge that unjustified adjustments have overwhelmed the rest of the books.
I admit they did in 2016. The 2018 and 2019 audits no longer have that result. Do you acknowledge subsequent audits resolved the discrepancies and found no evidence of fraud?
Seems the 6.5T must have evaporated. As expected.
This is why using simple smell tests to raise suspicion is worth noting.
https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jan/08/2002077454/-1/-1/1/UND...