Comment by mfer
18 hours ago
Setting aside legitimate (thats a matter of judgement)...
Some previous attempts for DOGE to get data has resulted in data being deleted before they can look and requests for judges to block access to data.
DOGE may be trying to be covert in order to stop these two activities from happening before they can get and review the data.
> Setting aside legitimate (thats a matter of judgement)
By definition, a judge decides what's legitimate.
If DOGE expects their access to be blocked by a court judgement, and bum-rushes agencies to exfiltrate data ahead of the judgement, that's also criminal intent.
I am not sure what you are getting at. "Covert" isn't how I'd describe DOGE's actions. "Brazen" maybe?
People have admitted in news interviews to destroying government data to prevent others from knowing what the government was doing. That’s likely criminal. This is a legitimate reason to get at information before people who might destroy have the opportunity.
What’s happening with judges is very political. We likely won’t know what’s allowed until things have gone through the appeals process. There have been cases of judges admitting they will rule against the current administration no matter the topic or law. This is messy, to say the least.
>There have been cases of judges admitting they will rule against the current administration no matter the topic or law
What exactly did they say and who said it?
>What’s happening with judges is very political. We likely won’t know what’s allowed until things have gone through the appeals process.
What is very political about it?
Since appeals are also decided by judges why is that a better system?
>People have admitted in news interviews to destroying government data to prevent others from knowing what the government was doing. That’s likely criminal. This is a legitimate reason to get at information before people who might destroy have the opportunity.
Yes, this is precisely the accusation being made against DOGE: they are the government actors criminally trying to to prevent the public from knowing what they're doing.
>There have been cases of judges admitting they will rule against the current administration no matter the topic or law.
No, there haven't, but feel free to provide a source.
In American system, appeal process is a very formal thing - it checks whether all the ts were crossed, whether process was followed. It is not checking the evidence, it is bringing new evidence, nothing like that.
That is how it was designed.
Citation or you're full of shit.