5 ms·

> I’m cheering on the DOGE strike teams. I'd cheer if the DOGE strike teams in OMB, etc., were to be arrested, indicted, duly tried and convicted, and imprison

> I’m cheering on the DOGE strike teams. I'd cheer if the DOGE strike teams in OMB, etc., were to be arrested, indicted, duly tried and convicted, and imprisoned for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and possibly the Economic Espionage Act. But I'm under no illusion that this would ever happen with Trump controlling the DOJ. Maybe Maryland's Democratic state government can make some state-law crime stick if the DOGE people ever venture across the District line.

jalapenos 2y ago
And only 4 more years of this. Enjoy!
- dctoedt 2y ago
  Maybe less than four years. The mid-terms are next year, and I've been reading that a lot of GOP officeholders are terrified of what's going on but also terrified of opposing The Dear Leader — because of fears for their personal safety and that of their families.
rayiner 2y ago
CFAA is predicated on “without authorization.” I’m pretty sure they all have Trump’s and Bessent’s authorization. It would be like prosecuting the IT guy hired by the CEO for going into the system. What am I missing?
- dctoedt 2y ago
  > I’m pretty sure they all have Trump’s and Bessent’s authorization. From what I've (very-superficially) read, zero of the prescribed clearance protocols were followed before giving the DOGE Boys access to highly-confidential systems and data. Perhaps Trump has authority to waive those protocols — but did he do so? He seems to be letting Musk run wild. And when Trump was in trouble for taking classified documents with him to Florida, didn't he claim that he'd "mentally" declassified the documents?
  - rayiner 2y ago
    So the prosecution would be based on the notion that access was “unauthorized” because certain “protocols” weren’t followed even though the legally relevant principals had provided apparent authorization? In that case, I’d support applying similarly creative and capacious legal interpretations in hunting for ways to prosecute civil servants that participated in “Resistance” activities. Prosecuting government employees for breach of disclosure obligations is always like shooting fish in a barrel. There were also widespread reports of career employees misrepresenting facts or withholding information from political appointees. I bet you could premise 18 USC 1001 prosecutions based on that.
    - dctoedt 2y ago
      That’s pretty black-and-white thinking, with no apparent recognition that there are shades of gray.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

jalapenos 2y ago

And only 4 more years of this. Enjoy!

dctoedt 2y ago
Maybe less than four years. The mid-terms are next year, and I've been reading that a lot of GOP officeholders are terrified of what's going on but also terrified of opposing The Dear Leader — because of fears for their personal safety and that of their families.

rayiner 2y ago

CFAA is predicated on “without authorization.” I’m pretty sure they all have Trump’s and Bessent’s authorization. It would be like prosecuting the IT guy hired by the CEO for going into the system. What am I missing?

dctoedt 2y ago
> I’m pretty sure they all have Trump’s and Bessent’s authorization. From what I've (very-superficially) read, zero of the prescribed clearance protocols were followed before giving the DOGE Boys access to highly-confidential systems and data. Perhaps Trump has authority to waive those protocols — but did he do so? He seems to be letting Musk run wild. And when Trump was in trouble for taking classified documents with him to Florida, didn't he claim that he'd "mentally" declassified the documents?
- rayiner 2y ago
  So the prosecution would be based on the notion that access was “unauthorized” because certain “protocols” weren’t followed even though the legally relevant principals had provided apparent authorization? In that case, I’d support applying similarly creative and capacious legal interpretations in hunting for ways to prosecute civil servants that participated in “Resistance” activities. Prosecuting government employees for breach of disclosure obligations is always like shooting fish in a barrel. There were also widespread reports of career employees misrepresenting facts or withholding information from political appointees. I bet you could premise 18 USC 1001 prosecutions based on that.
  - dctoedt 2y ago
    That’s pretty black-and-white thinking, with no apparent recognition that there are shades of gray.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]