No. of Recommendations: 2
Wish there was a transcript or a summary. All I know is it's vague, but a judge has ruled it's legal, and the vagueness seems to give nothing to attack.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Wish there was a transcript or a summary.
It's not a long video. And he cites actual statutes, so it's not somebody just arguing out of their butts. Also, no mention of a judge ruling it legal was made. Apparently, a TRO was rejected because the language of the TRO was too vague and not backed by facts. A ruling of the merits was not issued, and the judge -according to Legal Eagle- left open the possibility for refiling. Meanwhile, a lawsuit is underway to stop DOGE based on the fact that it claims to be two separate things at two separate times, but complies with the statutes in neither instance. So, the vagueness is exactly the point to attack. I don't think they are going after Musk himself, but it appears he is violating several laws, as well.
The lawyer representing that non-profit watchdog group really isn't suitable for video. His attire was kind of a mess. But if you close your eyes and listen, he seemed to know what he was talking about, even anticipating administration arguments and showing how they were invalid.
