[estearum]

It's not dodging the question. GP's comment says that one should consider the possibility. Essentially that we should follow what several federal courts have been doing and cease offering the government the "presumption of regularity" in its conduct.

People are referencing David Sacks as an impartial government authority about 2 weeks after he went on a tirade against Bernie Sanders for some type of nationalization of AI, and then went completely radio silent when his own boss suggested the same thing a week later.

There is no political appointee in our government – not one – who can be afforded the presumption of regularity.

[SpicyLemonZest]

One should consider the possibility, but it doesn’t seem to me that the comments are full of people who haven’t. I think David Sacks is a hypocritical Trumpist, valuing his own pocketbook above all else and seeing his political connections as key to maintaining it. His perspective is valuable not because it’s impartial, but because it illustrates how hypocritical Trumpists see this very important issue with which we’re faced.