7 ms·
There 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/usa
by InsideOutSanta 2y ago
There 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...
- rob74 2y agoOr, as JD Vance wrote, "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power." (https://x.com/JDVance/status/1888607143030391287 https://x.com/JDVance/status/1888607143030391287). You really have to read it twice to understand just how far out that phrase is. So now it's the executive itself deciding what's "legitimate" (=conforming to the law), not the courts, whose role it is to interpret and enforce laws?
- SubiculumCode 2y agoOr Trump fucking referring to himself as king yesterday .. signs are clear.
- kornork 2y agoHonest question: who else, internal to the executive branch, and besides the president, should be able to interpret the laws for the executive branch? By my reading, this is a clarification that if an agency makes a significant policy change or regulation, they ought to run it by the president first. It doesn't preclude other branches of government from checking this power.
- acdha 2y agoAgencies all have their own lawyers, and it’s frequently useful to have them hash out agreements for the same reason that it’s useful for scientists to get peer review. Beyond the basic efficiency argument, it’s good to have multiple people validate your reasoning.
- tored 2y agoWhich laws? The article describes security clearance.
- InsideOutSanta 2y agoSecurity clearances are based on laws, such as the ones compiled in Title 50 U.S. Code §3341.
- tored 2y agoSo if DOGE have security clearances (unclear if the have) then their audit is legal?
- InsideOutSanta 2y agoIANAL, but there are other laws governing what DOGE is doing that they are violating, such as transparency laws.
- throw0101d 2y ago> So if DOGE have security clearances (unclear if the have) then their audit is legal? They're also responsible liable for keeping the data safe, which has already been broken at least once: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43052432 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43052432 Possibly violating: > Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— […] * https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
- tored 2y agoAs long as they keep the data safe the audit is legal?
- deleted 2y ago
- femto 2y agoIs it true to say that in practise there are no laws here? If anyone in DOGE breaks the law, can't the President just issue a blanket pardon? If the President himself breaks the law, he argues that it was in the course of his official duties [1]. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
- InsideOutSanta 2y agoI'm assuming this is what they're betting on.
- k__ 2y agoDon't know, but I read somewhere that the president can't pardon breaks of federal law.
- InsideOutSanta 2y agoIt's the other way around; the presidential pardoning power is limited to federal offenses.
- yoyoyoyop 2y agoPerhaps why yesterday he was saying he should take over the running of DC..
- nickthegreek 2y agoDC is already controlled federally.
- k__ 2y agoAh, thanks!
- sillyfluke 2y agoWhat I found significant here is that Trump (yesterday) and/or the Whitehouse stated that Elon Musk does not work for Doge and has no authority over it at all, that Elon Musk has no authority regarding anything and is solely an advisor to the president. Of course, in practical terms "in the field" this is obviously not the case. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was Elon's ego that triggered this: that at the end of the day needing a pardon would be an insult and would bruise his ego so he wants to prevent any pathway for him to be charged with a crime. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if the Doge "interns" would need one regardless.
- JKCalhoun 2y agoEasy for me to say, but I would like to think I would say, "Fire me, assholes." And have a good story for the grand children.
- mistrial9 2y agoobviously your young family would already be grown then.. and the house paid off?
- ncr100 2y agoPerhaps why 'easy for me to say' was the first part. Would be interesting to know if the poster would financially support a person in an UNSTABLE position, to, you know, Unite the States in opposition to what's an authoritarian and approaching a fascist dictatorship?
- JKCalhoun 2y agoYou'd like to think that there are at least some people for whom doing the Right Thing is more important.
- cryptonector 2y agoStatutes can't really constrain the president's authority to do this sort of thing (firing appointees, firing employees for cause, laying people off, auditing the executive agencies). Constitutionally the president is just plenipotent within the executive branch.