Don Jr. is 47 and just a kid.
DOGE Catch-All | DOGE ledger “riddled with errors”
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 1K
- Views: 21K
- Politics
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 5,168
Yes, agree with all that.
JCTarheel82
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,096
As the article notes, Citrix products were littered with critical severity vulnerabilities last year and that has continued into 2025. Seems like our NetScaler guy is constantly having to patch his appliances.
- Messages
- 13,906
Big Balls transfers to the State Department
“… Edward Coristine, who briefly worked for Musk’sbrain-chip start-up Neuralink, is posted as a senior adviser to the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Technology, a critical hub for data — both sensitive and nonsensitive, officials said.
, who also holds positions at the U.S. DOGE Service and the Office of Personnel Management, has attracted significant attention across Washington for his edgy online persona and the relative lack of experience he brings to his new federal roles.
But his new position could give him visibility into far more than just tech.
… Officials worried that his position might give him a foothold for obtaining unauthorized access to classified material and obtain compromising information on other countries and foreign activities.
… In addition to Coristine, a 23-year-old colleague of his, former SpaceX intern Luke Farritor, is also listed in the State Department’s directory as working at the Bureau of Diplomatic Technology. …”
19-year-old Musk surrogate has State Department email address
The move illustrates that Elon Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service aides are being asked to fulfill multiple roles at once.“… Edward Coristine, who briefly worked for Musk’sbrain-chip start-up Neuralink, is posted as a senior adviser to the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Technology, a critical hub for data — both sensitive and nonsensitive, officials said.
, who also holds positions at the U.S. DOGE Service and the Office of Personnel Management, has attracted significant attention across Washington for his edgy online persona and the relative lack of experience he brings to his new federal roles.
But his new position could give him visibility into far more than just tech.
… Officials worried that his position might give him a foothold for obtaining unauthorized access to classified material and obtain compromising information on other countries and foreign activities.
… In addition to Coristine, a 23-year-old colleague of his, former SpaceX intern Luke Farritor, is also listed in the State Department’s directory as working at the Bureau of Diplomatic Technology. …”
1moretimeagain
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,056
Wow, the State Department.
Marco Rubio and Big Balls, that’s a combo I never expected to see.
Marco Rubio and Big Balls, that’s a combo I never expected to see.
- Messages
- 13,906
BillOfRights
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 580
CFordUNC
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,048
Gotta love that transparency! Real administration of the people!
- Messages
- 611
It's hard for me to imagine how any judges, even the most conservative ones, would be okay with this sort of thing.
JCTarheel82
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,096
No big deal. Journalists can just take a dump at Mar-a-Lago if they need access.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 5,168
I am not sure that is illegal
- Messages
- 611
Well then why not just classify every document produced in the Executive Branch as a "Presidential Record" and be done with judicial oversight once and for all?
I must be missing something here...
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 5,168
The problem is that DOGE doesn't have an agency associated with it. That puts it under the aegis of the White House. I don't know the ins and outs of the presidential records act, FOIA or any of that, which is why I said I'm not sure. But as an office of the president agency, it could plausibly be protected.
By the same token, DOGE has no power to do anything. I'd rather people go after that infirmity rather than the presidential records.
It's not possible for DOGE (as far as I know) to be a) a presidential office; and b) empowered to do anything.
- Messages
- 13,906
Trump’s Declaration Allows Musk’s Efficiency Team to Skirt Open Records Laws
Government watchdog groups say they will challenge the Trump administration’s decision to put the initiative under the Presidential Records Act, which shields its work from public disclosure.
Trump’s Declaration Allows Musk’s Efficiency Team to Skirt Open Records Laws
Government watchdog groups say they will challenge the Trump administration’s decision to put the initiative under the Presidential Records Act, which shields its work from public disclosure.
“… “There should be no need for FOIA requests,” Mr. Musk reiterated on social media, referring to the law that gives the public the right to obtain copies of federal agency records: the Freedom of Information Act. “All government data should be default public for maximum transparency.”
But Mr. Musk's cost-cutting initiative, better known as the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, appears to be heading in the opposite direction.
… Katie Miller, an employee for the efficiency initiative, said on X that Mr. Musk’s office “was reorganized under the Executive Office of the President” and was now “subject to Presidential Records.”
That designation has a special legal meaning under a law called the Presidential Records Act. The law shields from the public all documents, communication trails and records from the president, his advisers and staff until five years after that president leaves office.
That law still requires presidents to keep a broad set of written materials created or received by them while executing their duties. Nonetheless, presidents can also dispose of their records after getting a written approval from the archivist at the National Archives, whom a president can remove from office.
On Friday, Mr. Trump fired the nation’s archivist, Colleen Shogan. No cause or reason was cited, Ms. Shogan said in her LinkedIn page post announcing her dismissal. …”
- Messages
- 13,906
“… Presidents have “complete discretion” over presidential records, said Anne Weismann, a law professor at George Washington University who oversaw public records litigations at the Justice Department at the end of her two decades at the department.
… During Mr. Trump’s first term, federal courts recognized the president’s exclusive authority over presidential records by ruling against nonprofits that sought to stop his advisers from using private messengers that automatically delete messages after a certain period.
Critics are concerned that few oversight structures exist if Mr. Trump fails to preserve the records from Mr. Musk’s cost-cutting initiative.
“They are trying to insulate this entity and the enormous power it appears to be wielding from any kind of judicial interference and public scrutiny,” Ms. Weismann said.
If Mr. Trump chooses to get rid of all those records, there is not much recourse, she said, unless Congress decides to overhaul the Presidential Records Act.”
… During Mr. Trump’s first term, federal courts recognized the president’s exclusive authority over presidential records by ruling against nonprofits that sought to stop his advisers from using private messengers that automatically delete messages after a certain period.
Critics are concerned that few oversight structures exist if Mr. Trump fails to preserve the records from Mr. Musk’s cost-cutting initiative.
“They are trying to insulate this entity and the enormous power it appears to be wielding from any kind of judicial interference and public scrutiny,” Ms. Weismann said.
If Mr. Trump chooses to get rid of all those records, there is not much recourse, she said, unless Congress decides to overhaul the Presidential Records Act.”
- Messages
- 13,906
“… the PRA directs the President, “[t]hrough the implementation of records management controls and other necessary actions,” to “take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that [presidential] activities ․ are adequately documented and that such records are preserved and maintained as Presidential records.” Id. § 2203(a).
… this court's two key PRA precedents, Armstrong v. Bush (Armstrong I ), 924 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991), and Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President (Armstrong II ), 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam).
In Armstrong I, the plaintiffs, fearing that then-President George H.W. Bush was mishandling presidential and federal records from the tail end of the Reagan Administration, alleged that Bush's “inten[tion] to delete material from the White House computer systems” ran afoul of the PRA and other statutes. 924 F.2d at 286. We dismissed those claims, holding that given “the intricate statutory scheme Congress carefully drafted to keep in equipoise important competing political and constitutional concerns,” id. at 290, “the PRA precludes judicial review of the President's recordkeeping practices and decisions,” id. at 291.
Two years later, the case returned to our court, this time focusing (in part) on guidelines issued by the White House to distinguish between presidential and federal records. The plaintiffs alleged that the guidelines violated FOIA and the Federal Records Act because they classified federal records, generally subject to immediate public release, see 5 U.S.C. § 552 (FOIA record publication provisions), as presidential records, which, pursuant to the PRA, do not become eligible for release until five years after the President leaves office (or later if the documents contain certain sensitive material), see Armstrong II, 1 F.3d at 1290–91 (comparing the two regimes).
We rejected the government's argument that Armstrong I barred this claim, explaining that the case “does not stand for the unequivocal proposition that all decisions made pursuant to the PRA are immune from judicial review.” Id. at 1293. Quite to the contrary, when determining whether the Executive's definition of “presidential records” subverts FOIA by labeling as “presidential” those federal records that are otherwise subject to immediate public release, we have authority to “review guidelines outlining what is, and what is not, a ‘presidential record.’ ” Id. at 1294.
CREW and the White House have very different views about the implications of Armstrong I and II for this case. CREW interprets Armstrong II as authorizing courts to review “the Executive's ability to exempt an entire class of records (those created on message-deleting applications) from the PRA's reach.” Appellants' Reply Br. 23. By contrast, the White House argues that the Armstrong decisions prohibit courts from reviewing any “claims that the President failed to comply with requirements of the [PRA].” Appellees' Br. 8. But we need not resolve that debate because even CREW agrees that when it comes to compliance with the PRA, courts have no jurisdiction to review the President's “day-to-day operations.” Appellants' Reply Br. 23.
As Armstrong I makes clear—and Armstrong II nowhere casts in doubt—when enacting the PRA, “Congress ․ sought assiduously to minimize outside interference with the day-to-day operations of the President.” Armstrong I, 924 F.2d at 290. That, however, is precisely what CREW now asks us to do. Determining whether White House personnel are in fact complying with the directive to conduct all work-related communication on official email would require just the kind of micromanaging proscribed by Armstrong I. …”
… this court's two key PRA precedents, Armstrong v. Bush (Armstrong I ), 924 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991), and Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President (Armstrong II ), 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam).
In Armstrong I, the plaintiffs, fearing that then-President George H.W. Bush was mishandling presidential and federal records from the tail end of the Reagan Administration, alleged that Bush's “inten[tion] to delete material from the White House computer systems” ran afoul of the PRA and other statutes. 924 F.2d at 286. We dismissed those claims, holding that given “the intricate statutory scheme Congress carefully drafted to keep in equipoise important competing political and constitutional concerns,” id. at 290, “the PRA precludes judicial review of the President's recordkeeping practices and decisions,” id. at 291.
Two years later, the case returned to our court, this time focusing (in part) on guidelines issued by the White House to distinguish between presidential and federal records. The plaintiffs alleged that the guidelines violated FOIA and the Federal Records Act because they classified federal records, generally subject to immediate public release, see 5 U.S.C. § 552 (FOIA record publication provisions), as presidential records, which, pursuant to the PRA, do not become eligible for release until five years after the President leaves office (or later if the documents contain certain sensitive material), see Armstrong II, 1 F.3d at 1290–91 (comparing the two regimes).
We rejected the government's argument that Armstrong I barred this claim, explaining that the case “does not stand for the unequivocal proposition that all decisions made pursuant to the PRA are immune from judicial review.” Id. at 1293. Quite to the contrary, when determining whether the Executive's definition of “presidential records” subverts FOIA by labeling as “presidential” those federal records that are otherwise subject to immediate public release, we have authority to “review guidelines outlining what is, and what is not, a ‘presidential record.’ ” Id. at 1294.
CREW and the White House have very different views about the implications of Armstrong I and II for this case. CREW interprets Armstrong II as authorizing courts to review “the Executive's ability to exempt an entire class of records (those created on message-deleting applications) from the PRA's reach.” Appellants' Reply Br. 23. By contrast, the White House argues that the Armstrong decisions prohibit courts from reviewing any “claims that the President failed to comply with requirements of the [PRA].” Appellees' Br. 8. But we need not resolve that debate because even CREW agrees that when it comes to compliance with the PRA, courts have no jurisdiction to review the President's “day-to-day operations.” Appellants' Reply Br. 23.
As Armstrong I makes clear—and Armstrong II nowhere casts in doubt—when enacting the PRA, “Congress ․ sought assiduously to minimize outside interference with the day-to-day operations of the President.” Armstrong I, 924 F.2d at 290. That, however, is precisely what CREW now asks us to do. Determining whether White House personnel are in fact complying with the directive to conduct all work-related communication on official email would require just the kind of micromanaging proscribed by Armstrong I. …”
BillOfRights
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 580
Is it over?
Is our 248-year experiment over?
It feels like we're committing national suicide.
Putin won without firing a shot.
We're frogs in a pot.
Is our 248-year experiment over?
It feels like we're committing national suicide.
Putin won without firing a shot.
We're frogs in a pot.
- Messages
- 13,906
I definitely was thinking tonight the hour is growing late.
And it's too late, baby, now it's too late
Though we really did try to make it (We can't make it)
Something inside has died
And I can't hide and I just can't fake it
Oh, no, no