Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (41) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84361 
Subject: Re: Investigations into USAID
Date: 02/06/25 12:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 14
I don't think we differ that much. If there is an established procedure to credential Presidential agents, then it should be followed. And if Trump was in too big of a hurry to get going, that comes as no surprise to me. So by now I assume everyone is properly credentialed and the President, through his agents, can get back to bringing in the sunshine.

Somewhat. After our discussion the other day, I had a little free time and dug into a bit. A lot of what DOGE is trying to do appears to run afoul of the Privacy Act of 1974:

en.wikipedia.org - Privacy Act of

In a nutshell, the Act prevents federal agencies from disclosing personally identifiable information collected or stored by their agency to any other agency, or for purposes other than that for which it was collected. So (for example) the Treasury Department can't just give people from another agency access to their entire payments systems data. There are a few categories of exemption (not relevant here), and you can disclose with notice and consent of the individuals involved (probably not feasible here). As you can guess from the date, this was done in response to Watergate and the Nixon Administration's perceived misuse of agency records for an "off-label" purpose.

That appears to be the statute that's being cited by folks trying to stop DOGE from gaining total control of all these systems. The agencies aren't supposed to allow other agencies to access information protected by the Privacy Act.

That appears to have been the line drawn in the injunction that was agreed to in the first of those suits, which bars Musk and DOGE from having access to the Treasury records and systems. Musk's lieutenants that are part of Treasury can look at the data, but Musk cannot.

abcnews.go.com - Judge weigh block doge accessing treasury department records
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (41) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community