13 ms·
I find it wild that apparently there is no law onto which government workers can cling to refuse these requests. Is it all just based on conventions, goodwill a
by drowsspa 2y ago
I find it wild that apparently there is no law onto which government workers can cling to refuse these requests. Is it all just based on conventions, goodwill and culture?
- kupopuffs 2y agowho even knows the law in the moment? the seal of the president is p convincing. heck just look at all the social engineering/phishing that works
- afandian 2y agoDo civil servants have trade unions in the US? This seems like a place they could step up to offer advice.
- lazyasciiart 2y agoYes, and they have sued over several events so far. I don’t know what advice they could give in the moment.
- afandian 2y agoIf I were in their shoes I would take some small comfort from a constitutional lawyer even saying "officially we don't know". It's not often you're asked to do something that could break the law, with the whistle-blowing chain being potentially broken at the top.
- jpcom 2y agoWhy do you want them to refuse audit requests? There is no upside to hiding egregious government waste other than paying politicians via kickbacks more than what is legally mandated.
- InDubioProRubio 2y agoWaste is all things i do not understand? And i dont understand all things, because i fired the experts. Thus all is waste. Its running a state, how hard can it be- my cousin was major of a town once.
- lazyasciiart 2y agoSame reason you won’t send me the credentials to your bank accounts.
- account42 2y agoI will however gladly send all credentials to my work-related accounts to authorized individuals in my company (with appropriate verification of course).
- vel0city 2y agoYou should never send your credentials. Granting access to someone who should have access is one thing, but not your credentials that individually identify you. Also, if it isn't coming through standard protocols and procedures you probably shouldn't do it.
- goku12 2y agoYou never give your individual credentials to anyone for any purpose - be it personal or official. In fact, leakage of credentials and unauthorized access to privileged information is a failure in many types of audits. That's a very poor data security practice - especially in government organizations handling any sort of private and personal information. In case the auditors absolutely need data, they arrange extra channels outside the normal employee access channels to officially review, authorize and convey the data - just like how bank employees can see your account information without requiring your bank password or pin. I don't believe that anyone who has worked in any official capacity would make such claims. The distortion of such well-defined practices is an attempt to gloss over the illegality of unprecedented events in progress right now.
- 2y ago
- scarab92 2y ago[flagged]
- jgilias 2y agoEven if that advisor hires college kids with known links to The Com? There are reasons behind some processes. Such as getting a security clearance to access sensitive data.
- scarab92 2y ago[flagged]
- DonHopkins 2y agoThen you will admit that President Trump has idiotically terrible and absolutely unethical judgement? Or do you want to defend that?
- ModernMech 2y agoWe’ve come a long way from “Hillary shouldn’t be President because she has demonstrated a disrespect for national security information protocol” to “its Trump’s right as POTUS to disrespect national security information protocol”
- TheSpiceIsLife 2y agoAnyone is quite welcome to escalate to whatever level they think appropriate in opposition to whatever they feel motivated by. Just be aware of the consequences of failing, or succeeding.
- aqueueaqueue 2y agoWhy do you have to accept it? Trump doesn't accept the actual law.
- dkjaudyeqooe 2y agoThat's a gross misrepresentation of what's happening here. We don't have to respect anything, except the law. Trump and Musk's actions are neither legal, ethical nor sensible. If you're of that mind then removing Musk and Trump via any legal or political means is not only acceptable but, if you care about your country, an imperative. The biggest problem America has is how readily it normalizes incompetence and evil, to its detriment.
- InsideOutSanta 2y agoThere are laws, but you will get fired if you try to follow them, and lawsuits to remedy that take time. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/usaid-security-leaders-removed-refusing-elon-musks-doge-employees-acce-rcna190357 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/usaid-sec...
- pred_ 2y agoAnd when you have an executive on one hand stating that only the president and the AG can interpret laws for the executive [0] and that you can't break laws if you're "saving the country" [1], that approach also just doesn't seem too promising. [0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensuring-accountability-for-all-agencies/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensu... Sec. 7 [1] https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114009179225169296 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1140091792251...
- darkwater 2y agoThis will end badly and it will not be fun at all in the end, but it is fascinating to watch how this new wave of fascism unfolds.
- rob74 2y agoYeah, if we (even in other countries) weren't all personally affected by it, I couldn't stop laughing. The way things are, I'd rather go with Max Liebermann, who reportedly commented on the previous wave of fascism with the words "I couldn't eat as much as I would like to throw up" ("Ich kann gar nicht soviel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte" - https://www.aphorismen.de/zitat/93763 https://www.aphorismen.de/zitat/93763).
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y agoA good read: https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/the-purge-of-the-deep-state-and-the https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/the-purge-of-the-deep-sta...
- 2y ago
- snickerbockers 2y ago[flagged]
- Maken 2y agoSo, if the president orders a public employee to execute a random person on the street, they have no legal basis to refuse?
- tored 2y agoProbably not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
- intended 2y agoThis was the specific argument raised in the SC verdict - but this is a question of whether the President is immune. The question here is just BS. The President created organizations to enact the executives will. The executive is now saying they want the power to come back to them. Which it always was - they had to work through the structures they created. Apparently they dont want the institutions.
- lazyasciiart 2y agoThat’s simply not true. Congress has the power to organize the executive branch, not the president. Congress created the agencies and departments and they cannot be closed by the president. Edit: Constitutional explanation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-2/creation-of-federal-offices https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/sec... report on Congress control of executive branch agencies https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45442/2#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20neither%20establishes%20administrative,to%20the%20President%20for%20signature). https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45442/2#:~:te...
- intended 2y agoI am talking about this EO https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensuring-accountability-for-all-agencies/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensu... > the Constitution also provides for subordinate officers to assist the President in his executive duties. > Therefore, in order to improve the administration of the executive branch and to increase regulatory officials’ accountability to the American people, it shall be the policy of the executive branch to ensure Presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch. And of course: > President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties.
- scarab92 2y ago[dupe]
- junon 2y agoThis is a straw man argument. I don't like Musk. That's true. The reasoning is irrelevant. Let's take someone I do like. Linus Torvalds. If Trump (or Harris or ...) appointed Linus, unilaterally, to do what Musk is doing, I'd still have a problem with it. Now the two responses you might have are: - I don't believe you. - Linus wouldn't be bad either. Both of which completely miss the point. Nobody should have singular, unilateral, unsupervised access to governmental systems like this.
- bdcravens 2y agoImagine if Obama had given Bill Gates a similar role.
- matwood 2y agoThe people on Fox would have literal heart attacks on air. I'm remember them going crazy because Obama wore a tan suit (it's got a wiki page!). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_tan_suit_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_tan_suit_controve...
- JohnBooty 2y agoTruly an incident where I couldn't tell how much of that was legitimate insanity, and how much of it was carefully curated fake-controversy-as-distraction. A common question I ask myself about conservatives every single day. Multiple times a day, lately. It's objectively true no sane person would have cared about that issue.
- OKRainbowKid 2y agoOr George Soros.
- chasd00 2y ago
- RichardLake 2y agoThe enforcement of these laws should be a function of the executive. There are ways for the supreme court or congress to intervene when the executive isn't doing their job. Sadly that requires them to believe a series of checks and balances is necessary. Given that it is down to the voters, and they thought a racist, rapist, conman should be president giving them the power of the executive - which has been growing increasingly powerful for my adult lifetime.
- jrs235 2y agoIt seems the only thing the supreme Court can do now days is rule if something is unconstitutional or if a last has been broken. But has no check on the executive according to the regimes arguments. The only check is for Congress to impeach and convict apparently. And there are too many demagogue followers in those changes for that to ever happen.
- pclmulqdq 2y agoThe real check here is for congress to write laws that are actually specific in their text. That is hard, though, so they instead write laws that empower parts of the executive branch to do some broadly-defined thing, including the power to make the relevant rules. When you get an executive who doesn't play your game, those poorly-written laws come back to bite you.
- alistairSH 2y agoThat's an overly simplistic view of governance. You're effectively says Congress should mandate every detail of every regulation. Even in areas where knowledge is changing (level of chemicals that are toxic, which medicines are useful and safe, etc). The whole premise of our system is that the people within the system operate in good faith. And that's worked for most of 200+ years. I would posit that no amount of legislation will be able to stop bad-faith actors from screwing up the system, even more so when they convince ~50% of the voting popular that "burn it to the ground" is a reasonable take.
- intended 2y agoThe most distressing thing I learned in the past 3 ~~Years~~ edit: months,, was how MUCH laws are about norms. Norms, are basically the way laws work in the real world. I despaired, because this is natural to lawyers, and alien entirely to the layperson. No one is going to think Justice, and then accept “Oh, our norms are how laws work”.
- lazyasciiart 2y agoThe past three years? Why that time period? (I thought trumps first term was when it all became obvious).
- intended 2y agoCrap. Typo; I learnt about it in November, while hearing a magistrate and lawyer discuss something.
- csomar 2y agoLaws come from norms with a few practices to make them seem "legit". It's too hard and expensive for the ruler to oppose the masses. It has a significant political cost. Successful rulers just ride the masses current trend. It's like a tamed down hysteria.
- ReptileMan 2y agoThere is no constitutional way the president to not have access to any data in the executive branch. And since doge is reporting to him - it just send the data to the president and he will forward it to whomever he pleases. Even the concept of independent executive agencies is probably more vulnerable constitutionally than more people think.
- gg82 2y agoAll the court cases being brought is going to end up in the SCOTUS over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory . There is a pretty good chance that this will be confirmed.
- drowsspa 2y agoYeah, that's my point. Not even the president should have unrestricted access to that data. He's not a king or the head of a corporation. And government workers aren't his subjects or employees. In most places, at least honest government workers can stand their ground because they're backed by a law governing this access.
- ReptileMan 2y agoChange the constitution then.
- drowsspa 2y agoShould have made it clear that I'm not American and I'm just finding it wild from afar. I guess it's a testament to American democratic cultural history that no coup has occurred in American history when the president has such an absolute authority over the executive branch, as informed to me by the other comments. Let's hope for the sake of the whole world it remains like this.
- Cthulhu_ 2y agoLaws are only a suggestion, they are not being enforced and there are no consequences. The other thing is that in the US, people's lives depend on their jobs, with half of polled people indicating they live paycheck to paycheck. This makes them easy to manipulate into complying, putting their morals aside because standing up for morals or indeed the law will mean they lose their job. I mean the US president declared yesterday that only he gets to decide on law and called himself king on his social media. There's heaps of 'legal' texts that indicate it means he can be deposed and yote into jail, but if there's nobody enforcing them they're useless.
- _heimdall 2y agoDemocracy is held together by people willing to follow the rules. In Trump's first administration they realized the trick is to just move so fast that you flood the system and can do whatever you want before anyone sees through all the noise or has a chance to stop you. Steve Bannon was interviewed on camera saying as much.
- tmountain 2y agoHere's Bannon's quote verbatim -- "I said, all we have to do is flood the zone. Every day we hit them with three things. They’ll bite on one, and we’ll get all of our stuff done, bang, bang, bang. These guys will never—will never be able to recover. But we’ve got to start with muzzle velocity."
- ncr100 2y agoSmells like traitor meat.
- vuln 2y agoThis is also the MO of startups. Look at AirBnB, Uber, Lyft. All illegal businesses that had enough capital to burn through lawsuits and keep operations going until they were too big to fail and whipped the snot out of city and state legal counsels.
- disqard 2y agoIndeed, VC culture (esp. for the fabled "unicorn" wannabes) is DOGE culture. It might rarely be admitted openly, but it sometimes is alluded to... e.g. Eric Schmidt's Stanford talk where he said: "I want to say that if your product becomes popular, you can hire a bunch of lawyers to sort everything out. If no one uses your product, don’t worry -- no one will care that you stole someone else’s content."
- stainablesteel 2y agono it's based on elections
- pembrook 2y agoWhy would you want a law that says government workers have zero accountability over how they spend the money they extract by threat of violence from the citizenry? We should all have "root access" to everything but the most national-security sensitive topics.
- laserbeam 2y agoThe value of laws (in general) is being challenged in the US right now. At least, so it appears from afar. Enjoy going through a power grab.
- RandomTisk 2y agoOne side is understandably on edge but nothing DOGE has been doing is unexpected, except in the sense that it's actually happening or seems to be happening. It went through the whole political process's standard change control mechanism, in other words the current Administration literally campaigned on it and received a mandate via both the EC and popular vote.
- misiti3780 2y agoThat is the definition of an unelected bureaucrat
- cryptonector 2y agoThe Constitution vest all executive authority on the president. The president can delegate that authority. That's what all is happening here. Within the executive branch the president has practically total power, hardly if at all possible to constrain by statute, and that's by design in the Constitution. The president needs the Senate's "advice and consent" to hire principal officers, and does not need the Senate's "advice and consent" for certain other officers as specified by statute. The US Digital Service ("DOGE") is an agency where he did not need the Senate's advice and consent. The president does NOT need the Senate's advice and consent to fire anyone in the executive branch. For principal officers this was established by the failed impeachment of Andrew Johnson for firing a confirmed cabinet secretary nominated by Lincoln. For other officers this was established by judicial precedent fairly recently when Biden terminated two Trump appointees to minor offices and they sued (and lost). Similarly the president needs the Senate's advice and consent to enter into treaties. The Constitution is silent as to terminating Senate-confirmed executive officers, officers whose appointments did not require Senate confirmation, or treaties (abrogation). It's essentially settled law that the president does not require the Senate's advice and consent for any of those kinds of terminations. Therefore, under the Constitution and the political and binding judicial precedents, there can be no law "onto which government workers can cling to refuse these requests."
- drowsspa 2y agoThanks for the explanation. Like I said, sounds wild that yes, the American Constitution does establish the president as basically a king over the Executive branch. Copying what I typed elsewhere, I guess it's a testament to American democratic cultural history that no coup has occurred in American history when the president has such an absolute authority over the executive branch. Let's hope for the sake of the whole world it remains like this.
- jquery 2y agoThey’re wrong. They are advocating for an extremely niche and fascist view of executive power in America. One that goes beyond even strong Unitary executive theories (which themselves are a relatively new idea, stemming from George W. Bush).