4 ms·

No, just the ones violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act like Musk and DOGE employees are doing right now.

liontwist 2y ago
So if an administrator in a school district allegedly violates policy all their employees are open season? (We are also talking about no trial to determine whether your claims are true)
- UltraSane 2y ago
  What Musk is doing with DOGE is the most unconstitutional power grab any US Citizen has tried is a very long time. The normal rules do not apply anymore.
  - liontwist 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - UltraSane 2y ago
      Do I need to remind you that Elon Musk has gained unauthorized and illegal access to the federal payment system? It is very possible he will be arrested for doing this if a democrat gets elected unless Trump pardons him. But then his US citizenship can be revoked. EDIT: "Wasn’t he authorized by the President, the chief executive?" The President doesn't have the authority to do that.
      - epicureanideal 2y ago
        Wasn’t he authorized by the President, the chief executive?
        ModernMech 2y ago
        It's an interesting question. The president's powers are supposed to be limited and checked. That was the whole point of the American Revolution. One of the ways the president is limited is that the he can't authorize people to commit crimes. e.g. he couldn't instruct his AG to open an investigation into his political opponent under false pretenses in order to hurt his electoral chances. If the AG were to do that, it would be a crime. So the question isn't whether the president has authorized Musk to do something, but whether or not the president even has the power to do the thing he delegated. And what is the power in question? It's control over spending appropriated by Congress. And that's where separation of powers comes in. Congress is supposed to control the purse strings, and the president is supposed to make sure the money is spent on the priorities of the people, taking care of prosecuting fraud and abuse. The point of giving Congress this power is to give the people a mechanism to set their priorities on how their own money is spent. It shouldn't be the case that one guy comes in and then gets to decide how to spend all our money. But that appears to be what they are trying to do, in claiming that their cuts are all under the guise of reducing fraud and abuse. But really what they're trying to do is do an end-run around Congress. They want all the money, but they don't want to have Congress vote on it, because they don't actually have the votes to implement the agenda they want to, since Congress is so divided. So instead they're just taking the funding they have and allocating it in ways that support only the agenda items they want to see implemented.
        jart 2y ago
        The thing that makes revolutions fail or succeed is whether or not they take control of the money. Trump isn't doing that. He appears to just be auditing for fraud and corruption. If he was trying to control the money, then he'd need to march doge into the federal reserve. But he can't because it's not organized under the executive branch. They claim they're not even part of the government.
        UltraSane 2y ago
        " He appears to just be auditing for fraud and corruption." The constitution gives Congress sole authority to control spending and any payments Musk stops is a extreme violation of the Constitution. I really hope this ends with Musk either in prison for life or with his US citizenship revoked and him deported back to South Africa.
  - counters 2y ago
    Actually, the point is that the normal rules _do_ apply, and the normal rules very much encourage the publication of the names and likenesses of civil servants. I'm kind of surprised that no one has made the argument that there is something special about these individuals, the work they're doing, or the circumstances of their work. There are, after all, exceptions to the "normal rules." But the fact that no one is making this argument is, at the end of the day, quite telling.
- sanderjd 2y ago
  It has nothing to do with whether they are doing anything wrong. They're high level federal employees. Hundreds of years before anyone invented the word "doxxing", newspapers would have printed their names and likenesses. They have chosen employment which puts them into the public interest. No more no less.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Cody-99 2y ago
  If the administrator of a school district brings in his goons to destroy the schools systems then yes they would obviously be named? Why on earth do you think the people destroying the system would be excluded from criticism?

So if an administrator in a school district allegedly violates policy all their employees are open season? (We are also talking about no trial to determine whether your claims are true)

UltraSane 2y ago
What Musk is doing with DOGE is the most unconstitutional power grab any US Citizen has tried is a very long time. The normal rules do not apply anymore.
- liontwist 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - UltraSane 2y ago
    Do I need to remind you that Elon Musk has gained unauthorized and illegal access to the federal payment system? It is very possible he will be arrested for doing this if a democrat gets elected unless Trump pardons him. But then his US citizenship can be revoked. EDIT: "Wasn’t he authorized by the President, the chief executive?" The President doesn't have the authority to do that.
    - epicureanideal 2y ago
      Wasn’t he authorized by the President, the chief executive?
      - ModernMech 2y ago
        It's an interesting question. The president's powers are supposed to be limited and checked. That was the whole point of the American Revolution. One of the ways the president is limited is that the he can't authorize people to commit crimes. e.g. he couldn't instruct his AG to open an investigation into his political opponent under false pretenses in order to hurt his electoral chances. If the AG were to do that, it would be a crime. So the question isn't whether the president has authorized Musk to do something, but whether or not the president even has the power to do the thing he delegated. And what is the power in question? It's control over spending appropriated by Congress. And that's where separation of powers comes in. Congress is supposed to control the purse strings, and the president is supposed to make sure the money is spent on the priorities of the people, taking care of prosecuting fraud and abuse. The point of giving Congress this power is to give the people a mechanism to set their priorities on how their own money is spent. It shouldn't be the case that one guy comes in and then gets to decide how to spend all our money. But that appears to be what they are trying to do, in claiming that their cuts are all under the guise of reducing fraud and abuse. But really what they're trying to do is do an end-run around Congress. They want all the money, but they don't want to have Congress vote on it, because they don't actually have the votes to implement the agenda they want to, since Congress is so divided. So instead they're just taking the funding they have and allocating it in ways that support only the agenda items they want to see implemented.
        jart 2y ago
        The thing that makes revolutions fail or succeed is whether or not they take control of the money. Trump isn't doing that. He appears to just be auditing for fraud and corruption. If he was trying to control the money, then he'd need to march doge into the federal reserve. But he can't because it's not organized under the executive branch. They claim they're not even part of the government.
        UltraSane 2y ago
        " He appears to just be auditing for fraud and corruption." The constitution gives Congress sole authority to control spending and any payments Musk stops is a extreme violation of the Constitution. I really hope this ends with Musk either in prison for life or with his US citizenship revoked and him deported back to South Africa.
- counters 2y ago
  Actually, the point is that the normal rules _do_ apply, and the normal rules very much encourage the publication of the names and likenesses of civil servants. I'm kind of surprised that no one has made the argument that there is something special about these individuals, the work they're doing, or the circumstances of their work. There are, after all, exceptions to the "normal rules." But the fact that no one is making this argument is, at the end of the day, quite telling.
sanderjd 2y ago
It has nothing to do with whether they are doing anything wrong. They're high level federal employees. Hundreds of years before anyone invented the word "doxxing", newspapers would have printed their names and likenesses. They have chosen employment which puts them into the public interest. No more no less.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Cody-99 2y ago
If the administrator of a school district brings in his goons to destroy the schools systems then yes they would obviously be named? Why on earth do you think the people destroying the system would be excluded from criticism?