[throwworhtthrow]

> 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?

[mfer]

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.

[Braxton1980]

>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?

[LiquidSky]

>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.

[Braxton1980]

>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?

[watwut]

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.

[santoshalper]

Citation or you're full of shit.