Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

[superrific]

Musk has zero authority on his own. Rubio, to some degree, has authority. Anything that is being done quite literally has to come from the executive branch otherwise why would anyone listen? If musk came to your house and told you to wash your car, you would tell him to fuck off because he literally has no authority.

Ah! You've got it, by Jove! Well, almost. You're getting there.

1. So you've more or less correctly stated the legal standard: Elon has no authority. It's not quite that simple, because Elon could be given authority to do ministerial tasks. For instance, if Trump said, "we're having a cabinet meeting. I want you to go to Dunkin and get donuts for the meeting. You can charge it to the government," and Elon asks, "what kind of donuts," and Trump says, "your choice" -- that is a ministerial decision. Trump can delegate those types of decisions to anyone. But obviously the ministerial duties are not at issue, so we'll go with "Elon has no authority."

2. The next step is to determine whether Elon has in fact acted consistent with having no authority. To continue your analogy, Elon has no authority to make me wash his car. But what if he shows up with the US Marshals and says, "wash my car," he is wielding an authority he does not have. That's what is illegal. Indeed, most people, faced with the prospect of imminent arrest if they don't follow Elon's orders, would probably wash his car. And that's why Elon has to be enjoined from doing that.

3. So the list of areas where Elon/DOGE appears to have exercised authority that they do not have:

A. The five things email. That's analogous to showing up with the US Marshals for the car wash. Government employees are not in a position to stand up to Elon and say, "no, I will not obey" because that's not their jobs. It's why the government employee union sued. For some reason, the judge said the union didn't have standing -- which appears to be based on a weird quirk of the law, probably because nobody prepared for this situation -- but on the merits, Elon's actions were illegal.

B. Bullying his way into federal buildings. Clearly illegal on your theory.

C. Threatening people with consequences if they don't allow Elon's people to access the computing systems. Again, illegal. Now, if Elon brandishes an order from the president saying, "SSA, you shall give Elon Musk and his team of people access to the systems so that he can gather information to advise me," that illegality would be avoided. Think he has such a document? It also doesn't answer some of the other illegality, like laws that prohibit anyone from accessing tax returns. Or laws committing the operation of agencies to a board that doesn't answer to the president. But anyway, that's all downstream.

D. Directing the firings of all those employees. Here the standard is arguably higher (though again the case law here is underdeveloped), because showing up to Trump with a huge readout of all the employees to hire and getting ratification is not an advisory task. That's like a cabinet member sending a proposed rule making to OMB for ratification. If the cabinet member doing that has not been confirmed by the Senate (or is lawfully acting as an interim head), then it is illegal, unconstitutional and it should be voided.

We good now?

 

[superrific]

Buying cans of Bud Light and shooting them on your own property does not compare to firebombing Teslas you don’t own, firebombing showrooms (putting lives in danger)or randomly keying private property.

It doesn't. But the analogy addresses the issue of intent. You can't infer intent in a court of law merely from actions that could be easily explained in other ways. In order for a terrorism charge to stick, for instance, the jury would have to rule out "defendant was just angry" as a motivation, and on the evidence so far established, that would be impossible. As an attorney, you should know this -- but then again, there are a lot of things you don't know that you should.

This is why, for instance, the police often arrest people on minor crimes and then amend the indictment later. IIRC, the Boston Marathon bomber was initially detained on some minor charge, because that could be easily proven. Then, after investigating and finding actual evidence of intent, they charged with terrorism.

Some actions are res ipsa loquitur. Both bin Laden and McVeigh were clearly engaged in terrorism. There's no other way to describe those actions. Incidentally, because 9/11 was a transnational plot, the mens rea requirement would be lower and thus the required showing on intent is relaxed. But with McVeigh, the government had to prove a certain intent. IIRC, McVeigh either admitted to having that intent or didn't fight the point, but it would have been easily established anyway, because an anti-government activist blowing up a federal building speaks for itself.

But firebombing a Tesla dealership isn't remotely that. Hell, the government would have to prove that the defendants intended to cause property damage, which might not be possible. You'd have to rule out, "I was drunk and I was trying to throw this flaming bottle away from all the cars." This is why, often, crimes like this would be charged for a count requiring only a recklessness mens rea because that's obviously established. So before you can get these guys on terrorism, you'd have to be able to get them on malicious property destruction. It's so far away from a terrorism charge that even suggesting it should constitute prosecutorial misconduct.

 

[roostra]

@sringwal as superrific mentioned, nothing has been deemed to be unconstitutional as of yet.

My understanding of the claim being made was that DOGE itself is unconstitutional. In other words, it is unconstitutional or illegal for Elon to be hands-on in government operations. Yes, specific actions, which again are approved by Trump and presumably only the responsibility of Trump, not Elon, have been initially determined to be illegal.

The thing is, Musk is doing these things through his DOGE people. Trump may be approving them after the fact, but he has functionally (and illegally) delegated authority to do these things. There is zero evidence that Musk (and DOGE) is getting pre-approval to do the firings, cancellations of contracts, and other things they are doing.

 

[ZenMode]

Ah! You've got it, by Jove! Well, almost. You're getting there.

1. So you've more or less correctly stated the legal standard: Elon has no authority. It's not quite that simple, because Elon could be given authority to do ministerial tasks. For instance, if Trump said, "we're having a cabinet meeting. I want you to go to Dunkin and get donuts for the meeting. You can charge it to the government," and Elon asks, "what kind of donuts," and Trump says, "your choice" -- that is a ministerial decision. Trump can delegate those types of decisions to anyone. But obviously the ministerial duties are not at issue, so we'll go with "Elon has no authority."

2. The next step is to determine whether Elon has in fact acted consistent with having no authority. To continue your analogy, Elon has no authority to make me wash his car. But what if he shows up with the US Marshals and says, "wash my car," he is wielding an authority he does not have. That's what is illegal. Indeed, most people, faced with the prospect of imminent arrest if they don't follow Elon's orders, would probably wash his car. And that's why Elon has to be enjoined from doing that.

3. So the list of areas where Elon/DOGE appears to have exercised authority that they do not have:

A. The five things email. That's analogous to showing up with the US Marshals for the car wash. Government employees are not in a position to stand up to Elon and say, "no, I will not obey" because that's not their jobs. It's why the government employee union sued. For some reason, the judge said the union didn't have standing -- which appears to be based on a weird quirk of the law, probably because nobody prepared for this situation -- but on the merits, Elon's actions were illegal.

B. Bullying his way into federal buildings. Clearly illegal on your theory.

C. Threatening people with consequences if they don't allow Elon's people to access the computing systems. Again, illegal. Now, if Elon brandishes an order from the president saying, "SSA, you shall give Elon Musk and his team of people access to the systems so that he can gather information to advise me," that illegality would be avoided. Think he has such a document? It also doesn't answer some of the other illegality, like laws that prohibit anyone from accessing tax returns. Or laws committing the operation of agencies to a board that doesn't answer to the president. But anyway, that's all downstream.

D. Directing the firings of all those employees. Here the standard is arguably higher (though again the case law here is underdeveloped), because showing up to Trump with a huge readout of all the employees to hire and getting ratification is not an advisory task. That's like a cabinet member sending a proposed rule making to OMB for ratification. If the cabinet member doing that has not been confirmed by the Senate (or is lawfully acting as an interim head), then it is illegal, unconstitutional and it should be voided.

We good now?

I'm not going to debate specific actions by Doge. My claim was that there is nothing inherently illegal about their existence. You gave examples of things that you believe are illegal with their actions, but that is separate from what I said.

Regarding the actions that you believe are illegal, I would argue that the five accomplishments email is just data collecting. Not only was no one forced to respond, Kash Patel and Rubio both told their employees not to respond.

There are other things that I disagree with, but my point was that DOGE is not, in itself, illegal or unconstitutional.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

Are we talking intimidation like shooting cans of Bud Light to let trans people know you will murder them?

It's effing hilarious listening to idiots who loudly supported boycotts of Bud Light, Target, and other companies now crying and whining about Tesla being targeted for boycotts. Boo hoo. People have a right to express their anger at the guy who owns that company, and if that means not buying one or even taking a sledgehammer to their own Tesla or shooting it then so be it. It's hardly "illegal" as Trump claims. And if even if they damage a Tesla threatening to deport them to El Salvador or somewhere else is clearly unconstitutional.

Now if people are seriously threatening to kill Musk then that is obviously different, but boycotting his companies (and I wish more would get off Twitter) is perfectly acceptable. Leave it to Trumpers to ignore their own threats against products like Bud Light and Target and then whine about Tesla's plummeting sales and a boycott as somehow being illegal or dangerous. Snowflakes indeed.

 

[superrific]

I'm not going to debate specific actions by Doge. My claim was that there is nothing inherently illegal about their existence. You gave examples of things that you believe are illegal with their actions, but that is separate from what I said.

Yeah, "existence" is never illegal. If that's your claim, then I don't even know what you're talking about. Our system, except in very circumstances, addresses conduct, not existence.

Trump could appoint Musk to be Vice President 1A. That would not be challengeable in court until and unless Musk tried to act on that. For instance, claiming the mantle of president if Trump dies or becomes incapacitated -- at that point, the appointment would be adjudicated as unlawful.

 

[wmheel1287]

@sringwal

I do think the anger directed at Elon is misplaced. He cannot do anything but make suggestions to Trump. He has no authority to enact change. It has to come from the president.

I also believe that the anger toward Elon is at least partially because Democrats, for nearly a decade, have been completely unable to bring down Trump, which includes murdering him, so they've moved on to a new target, hoping to get some traction.

You should be banned from this board for making the suggestion that Democrats have attempted to murder Donald Trump.

Get the fuck out of here with that kind of blatantly inflammatory lie.

 

[superrific]

Regarding the actions that you believe are illegal, I would argue that the five accomplishments email is just data collecting. Not only was no one forced to respond, Kash Patel and Rubio both told their employees not to respond.

The fact that Patel and Rubio told their employees not to respond doesn't help your point; it undermines it. Why would the cabinet heads have to tell employees not to follow the instructions? Because they expected that employees would, under the belief that doing so had become a job requirement.

 

[superrific]

You should be banned from this board for making the suggestion that Democrats have attempted to murder Donald Trump.

Get the fuck out of here with that kind of blatantly inflammatory lie.

Oh, I didn't even see that. 100%.

 

[ZenMode]

The fact that Patel and Rubio told their employees not to respond doesn't help your point; it undermines it. Why would the cabinet heads have to tell employees not to follow the instructions? Because they expected that employees would, under the belief that doing so had become a job requirement.

Sure, it's possible that some employees did think it was a requirement. The things that you listed as being obviously illegal are debatable. Certainly not something where you can claim that they are obviously illegal.

If Trump gives Elon access to a building, and the people in that building try to stop him, that means the people in the building are in the wrong, not Elon. At least that is a pretty clear argument that could be made.

 

[ZenMode]

You should be banned from this board for making the suggestion that Democrats have attempted to murder Donald Trump.

Get the fuck out of here with that kind of blatantly inflammatory lie.

Do you believe it was Republicans / conservatives that tried to kill him?

 

[superrific]

Sure, it's possible that some employees did think it was a requirement. The things that you listed as being obviously illegal are debatable. Certainly not something where you can claim that they are obviously illegal.

If Trump gives Elon access to a building, and the people in that building try to stop him, that means the people in the building are in the wrong, not Elon. At least that is a pretty clear argument that could be made.

You know, you're learning a decent amount of law from me. You could learn more, and get more respect on the board, if you would ask questions instead of making stupid and ignorant assertions based on nothing. I'm happy to answer questions posed in good faith. It gets tiresome rebutting bullshit.

If Trump gives Elon access to a specific building in writing and beforehand, and the building isn't controlled by an independent agency, then yes the people in the building are wrong to resist. If one or both of those conditions are not satisfied, then Elon is wrong.

 

[StrangePackage]

Link?

Ramrouser has a storied tradition of blaming trans people for terrorism where it isn't the case.

 

[superrific]

Do you believe it was Republicans / conservatives that tried to kill him?

Troll troll troll. You're not getting the outrage you want, so you up the ante.

 

[ZenMode]

You know, you're learning a decent amount of law from me. You could learn more, and get more respect on the board, if you would ask questions instead of making stupid and ignorant assertions based on nothing. I'm happy to answer questions posed in good faith. It gets tiresome rebutting bullshit.

If Trump gives Elon access to a specific building in writing and beforehand, and the building isn't controlled by an independent agency, then yes the people in the building are wrong to resist. If one or both of those conditions are not satisfied, then Elon is wrong.

Why do you believe it has to be in writing and which building specifically are you referring to as independent, which presumably would be outside of the executive branches authority, and requiring access in writing?

More importantly, why do you believe that these claims are so objectively true that you can say it's obvious that Doge or Elon broke the law?

 

[dcphx]

@sringwal

I do think the anger directed at Elon is misplaced. He cannot do anything but make suggestions to Trump. He has no authority to enact change. It has to come from the president.

I also believe that the anger toward Elon is at least partially because Democrats, for nearly a decade, have been completely unable to bring down Trump, which includes murdering him, so they've moved on to a new target, hoping to get some traction.

The only people who have tried to murder Trump were Republicans*.

*of the two known assassination attempts, it is possible the USSS has foiled other attempts that did not advance to the point of Trump being in the zone of danger.

 

[wmheel1287]

Do you believe it was Republicans / conservatives that tried to kill him?

I dont believe it was anyone on any political spectrum. That kind of thing is related to mental illness not political ideology. Acting otherwise on a discussion message board is completely unacceptable.

 

[superrific]

Why do you believe it has to be in writing and which building specifically are you referring to as independent, which presumably would be outside of the executive branches authority, and requiring access in writing?

1. USIP is the most recent one. They are also targeting the FTC, IIRC.
2. It has to be memorialized for it to be an act of the president. It's why Trump can't declassify documents with his mind. I suppose there could be other ways of memorializing it, though I don't know the law in this area. Could the Trump take official action by audio recording? Maybe. But in writing is obviously the most common method, by far. Military command would be different.

 

[dcphx]

Exactly. Shooting cand of Bud Light also isn't threatening the lives of transgender people.

" At least four of the Tesla Terrorists are trans btw."

While plenty of people shoot cans on their own property without it being a threat to individuals or groups, the PUBLICATION of that particular act was what transitioned the relatively normal act into a threat to an individual and a protected group. Had someone acted to take the next step against a protected group, it would have been entirely reasonable to place a portion of the responsibility on Kid Rock.

 

[nycfan]