[astroid]

I quite literally don't believe this. I fully believe he has 'read' access, but extraordinary claims require some evidence.

I just read the article and they go to great pains to make it -seem- like they have first party confirmation and not hearsay, but it was breaking my brain trying to determine with certainty.

I just asked copilot to review the article looking for 1st party witnesses, and it said there weren't any.

Then I asked it to summarize each 'witness' from the article, whether they are first party, and if not what degree of sepearatoin they have. This is what it said:

Sure, let's break down the key witnesses and their claims:

David Lebryk: Former acting Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. He resigned after resisting granting DOGE access to the Treasury data1. His claim is based on his direct experience and position within the Treasury Department, making him a first party witness.

Ron Wyden: The highest-ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. He expressed concerns about the potential misuse of the data by DOGE1. Wyden is a second party witness, as he is commenting on the situation based on his oversight role but not direct involvement.

Anonymous AP Sources: Two people familiar with the situation spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. They claim that DOGE has gained access to sensitive Treasury data1. These sources are second party witnesses, as they have indirect knowledge of the situation.

X User (@rayinsideout): Revealed names of alleged DOGE employees who accessed the Treasury payment system. Musk accused this user of committing a crime by sharing private information2. This user is a third party witness, as they are relaying information they claim to have obtained from other sources.

Scott Bessent: Treasury Secretary who granted DOGE access to the data. His actions are central to the claims, but he hasn't made public statements about the specifics of the access3. Bessent is a first party witness due to his direct involvement in the decision.

So it sounds like all of this is based of David Lebryk's claims, and the media contorting themselves to make this a 'thing'.

I am willing to hear actual evidence, but this list doesn't sway me and this feels a lot like "things people want to believe" more than "things that happened".

Time will tell I guess.

[nico]

> this feels a lot like "things people want to believe" more than "things that happened"

Sure, and in the list of things that have happened, is them shuttering USAID (https://www.usaid.gov) over the weekend

And using the DOJ to threaten people with legal action, for disclosing the names of some of DOGE's members

"Only having" read access, is already a huge red flag, especially because of the way it was attained (illegally), and because of the people involved (private citizens with unclear affiliations to the federal government)

This is not just a small understanding about read vs write access

[astroid]

This isn't a discussion about shutting down an agency that was created by executive order.

It's a discussion about a bunch of anonymous sources and 'someone close to said' making extraordinary claims.

These claims need evidence - and "but I don't like what is happening with the Agency for International Development" is entirely irrelevant.

You are right that "This is not just a small understanding about read vs write access" though; it is a deliberate media blitz to insert the idea that this is happening into the cultural consciousness with absolutely 0 evidence.

If someone chimes in with some facts that can be validated from first party sources then I'll be happy to re-evaluate. This is just fear mongering as it is written today.

[astroid]

Oh btw the "David Lebryk" is not even mentioned in the article, CoPilot added that as context.

So the articles quite literally has 0 first party witnesses. Yet they are super-duper-certain that this person has 'read-write' and is rewriting COBOL on the fly. Give me a break, this is worst than "Weekly World News" -- it may as well say:

"BatBoy Terrorizing Treasury Database! Picture on Page 5!"

[heartbreak]

> Oh btw the "David Lebryk" is not even mentioned in the article, CoPilot added that as context.

Normally that would make you question the validity of everything Copilot told you about the article.

[astroid]

Well in this case CoPilot confirmed my own inferences, it wasn't just working on my behalf and 'doing a thing for me'.

I was asking it to check the sources because I found every article was doing exactly what was described, and was starting to doubt my own ability to trace the story because it was just going in circles.

So it acknowledging exactly what I observed, and adding additional context (which it was clear about) is not exactly a mark against it.

If I simply asked it to do a thing and it hallucinated something, sure. If I hadn't already done the work manually, sure.

That isn't close to what is happening here though. It correctly identified the issues in the reporting, and attempted to add additional context and still found there was no first party source. Which is all true.

David Lebryk and/or Scott Bessent could confirm this story right now and put everything to bed. Neither has anything else to lose. They haven't.

I'm sure someone will say "but what if Trump has them KILLED" or some nonsense like that -- they already came out and spoke against him, and if you have to resort to that kind of imaginary threat and use nothing but 2nd and 3rd party anonymous sources to make the claim.... you are floating a 'conspiracy theory'.

[IAmGraydon]

Yeah I agree with this. The mass media combined with social media is going to make it even harder over the next 4 years to know what's real and what isn't. We really need to train ourselves to look empirically at the evidence and form our beliefs based only on facts. I think this is not so much "onlookers" freaking out, but rather a massive propaganda machine freaking out.

[ruraljuror]

Keep in mind, though, that Steve Bannon has developed strategies like "flooding the zone" to defocus attention and nip opposition in the bud. We can only look so many places, so for example if everyone is outraged about the flurry of ridiculous executive orders we may not pay attention to the tax cut bill.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/02/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...