CFAA is predicated on “without authorization.” I’m pretty sure they all have Trump’s and Bessent’s authorization. It would be like prosecuting the IT guy hired by the CEO for going into the system. What am I missing?
> I’m pretty sure they all have Trump’s and Bessent’s authorization.
From what I've (very-superficially) read, zero of the prescribed clearance protocols were followed before giving the DOGE Boys access to highly-confidential systems and data. Perhaps Trump has authority to waive those protocols — but did he do so? He seems to be letting Musk run wild. And when Trump was in trouble for taking classified documents with him to Florida, didn't he claim that he'd "mentally" declassified the documents?
So the prosecution would be based on the notion that access was “unauthorized” because certain “protocols” weren’t followed even though the legally relevant principals had provided apparent authorization?
In that case, I’d support applying similarly creative and capacious legal interpretations in hunting for ways to prosecute civil servants that participated in “Resistance” activities. Prosecuting government employees for breach of disclosure obligations is always like shooting fish in a barrel. There were also widespread reports of career employees misrepresenting facts or withholding information from political appointees. I bet you could premise 18 USC 1001 prosecutions based on that.
