●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byTheMiddleRoad ( 1153113 ) writes:
There are a lot of programs that the DOE administers. They'll continue as Trump cannot stop them. That's most of the money.
This is not the Carter DOE. Ed in the Fed has existed for over a century. They just reorganized in the Carter years.
The DOE did NCLB and other fuckery, so I won't especially miss it.
The real issues are Trump violating laws through his cuts and withholding, and spineless Congress allowing him to do so. Spineless on both sides of the aisle.
bydawg1234 ( 6925868 ) writes:
orange man bad
leon/elmo bad
byevil_aaronm ( 671521 ) writes:
I mean, it is pretty obvious. Ellon is breaking the law, and Shtrump is wrecking the economy, while simultaneously making the US a pariah in the civilized world. So I'm glad you also see that they're both awful.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byichthus ( 72442 ) writes:
Elon is breaking the law
Which?
If you're going to come back with something about conflict of interest, then kindly include how much money Elon has nefariously made through his DOGE efforts.
byunrtst ( 777550 ) writes:
If you're going to come back with something about conflict of interest, then kindly include how much money Elon has nefariously made through his DOGE efforts.
(emphasis mine)
WTF do conflicts of interest have to do with ill gotten gains? They *can* both exist and be related, but one doesn't necessitate the other.
Also, his power and wealth grabs are gobsmackingly obvious with receipts everywhere. Have you not been paying attention to anything? The shear amount, regardless of growth/decline or means of obtaining it, should be enough to make obvious he didn't earn it: https://engaging-data.com/how-... [engaging-data.com]
byichthus ( 72442 ) writes:
Which. Law. Has. He. Broken?
byevil_aaronm ( 671521 ) writes:
Have a gander:
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
byichthus ( 72442 ) writes:
LOL, you've got nothing Each one of those links leads to a navel-gazing article about how some judge or legal analyst thinks Elon's actions have likely violated a statute about access to this, or conflict of that.
Bupkis.
Predictable lazy google response, BTW.
bywhitroth ( 9367 ) writes:
What law has he broken? You mean the President, who is REQUIRED by the Constitution to "faithfully execute the laws", which are passed by Congress?
Shutting down the DoE, rather than asking Congress to do so and waiting? Sending DOGE everywhere - when NOT ONE HAS ANY SECURITY CLEARANCE, and attaching unapproved laptops to secure systems? 5 USC 552a, for a start, which means getting into social security mandates, in addition to everything else, a MINIMUM $1,000 PER COMPROMISED PII.... so $330,000.000 miniumum
byichthus ( 72442 ) writes:
I'm still waiting for: Which law has Elon broken? I've now asked this question three times, and not one of you weenies can come up with a definitive answer.
You can hyperventilate and froth on your keyboard all you want, you still didn't answer the question.
BTW, Trump didn't "shut down" the DoE. The executive order directed the DoE to devise a plan to shut itself down. He dismissed a great number of their staff, which he has the power to do, and the rest will, as you screeched, be up to Congress.
byWaffleMonster ( 969671 ) writes:
I'm still waiting for: Which law has Elon broken? I've now asked this question three times, and not one of you weenies can come up with a definitive answer.
From various ongoing legal complaints at least the following: FOIA, FACA, FISMA, administrative procedures act (APA), appointments clause of constitution, internal revenue code and privacy act.
BTW, Trump didn't "shut down" the DoE. The executive order directed the DoE to devise a plan to shut itself down. He dismissed a great number of their staff, which he has the power to do, and the rest will, as you screeched, be up to Congress.
Nixon tried to effectively kill a congressionally mandated agency he didn't like by pulling the same type of shit and was bitch slapped by the supreme court for his efforts.
I may want a million dollars but I don't have the right to rob a bank to achieve my goal. There is a legal avenue for the destruction of DOE via
●your current threshold.
byquax ( 19371 ) writes:
Yes, yes, what would judges of all people know about the law?
Do you even hear yourself?
byichthus ( 72442 ) writes:
Do you even hear yourself?
Yep. I hear this question being asked multiple times: Which law has Elon broken? And, after several replies, not one person has answered it.
bydpille ( 547949 ) writes:
With DOGE, or do his immigration violations count?
byquax ( 19371 ) writes:
Because you are apparently the only one qualified enough to determine this. Judges obviously don't count.
You sound like a complete moron.
byichthus ( 72442 ) writes:
None of the judges have stated anything definitive. They've all use weasel words like, "likely" or "possibly". If he's broken a law, he'd be prosecuted. This has yet to happen. He's been sued, but that's a civil process and yet to be litigated.
So far, it appears he's broken NO LAWS. The fact that you fail to see this makes "you sound like a complete moron."
byrally2xs ( 1093023 ) writes:
And I find it significant that this refutation of the "He broke the law" whine has stood all day, since this morning, without further elaboration.
I'm always at a total loss for imagining what law he might have broken. He has access to everything that he's accessed by Presidential permission. There's no evidence that the richest man on the planet has procured even a stick of gum illegally. Nothing that remotely resembles a support to the common whine, just hate, that's all. Simple hate.
On that last point
bydpille ( 547949 ) writes:
Perhaps nobody cares to engage with you. They may indeed be tempted to concur that they are not the same, having failed to shoot up feds, churches, and synagogues or storm capitols in the last decade.
byrally2xs ( 1093023 ) writes:
Engage with me? I didn't even post it. But nobody seems able / willing to refute the premise that the poster claiming Musk broke some law is full of shit.
byjriding ( 1076733 ) writes:
MMmm the constitution.
Congress holds the purse. Congress defined and established those organizations. Congress appointed and approved the money for those organizations.
Elon, who is not even a government official (or in MAGA speak "we didn't vote him into office") Has said they either need to be shut down or drastically cut cost. Not even trump can do that based on the constitution.
byichthus ( 72442 ) writes:
Congress holds the purse. Congress defined and established those organizations.
USAID was established by executive order of John F. Kennedy. You're right that Congress holds the purse -- they have to approve new funding. USAID was clearly used to skirt this requirement and, by your own, Constitutionally sound reasoning, it's a damn good thing it was shut down.
byWaffleMonster ( 969671 ) writes:
USAID was established by executive order of John F. Kennedy.
This is completely irrelevant.
USAID was established as a separate agency by congress via the foreign affairs reform and restructuring act of 1998. Strange people seem to know part of the history only to stop reading before they get to the part actually relevant to the issue at hand.
byrocket rancher ( 447670 ) writes:
Which. Law. Has. He. Broken?
Which. Law. Has. He. (Yet.) To. Break?
There, fixed that for you. the ethical implications of Musk's dual roles are profound. Musk has put himself in this situation, and I've got the popcorn ready for if/when he crashes and burns. He's an engineer and an entrepreneur, not a politician or administrator. The potential for conflicts of interest, even without direct financial gain, poses significant risks for him. He is going to go down hard, if he doesn't back the fuck off of this DOGE nonsense.
byichthus ( 72442 ) writes:
So... he's broken ALL OF THE LAWS. Every law. Nice.
Congratulations!!! You posted the most retarded response to my question.
byskam240 ( 789197 ) writes:
I can't believe major Tesla stock owners haven't started suing him yet. Right at a period of unprecedented competition for Tesla that is dramatically effecting their global sales the head of the company is off working on completely other things. To make matters even worse, said other things are drawing huge amounts of negative press towards Musk and his companies, alienating huge numbers of potential customers. Clearly the head of Tesla does not hold company interests as a priority.
byunrtst ( 777550 ) writes:
Which. Law. Has. He. Broken?
Which. Comment. Are. You. Replying. To? Cause you sure as shit didn't reply to mine, but here we are.
byichthus ( 72442 ) writes:
I absolutely DID reply to you. My original post, to which you replied, asked that very question: Which law has Elon broken? You, like all the other EDS sufferers here, posted a clap-back that offered nothing in the way of answering that simple question. So here we are.
byTargon ( 17348 ) writes:
Funding issues are a function of the Congress, and as such, Trump can push Congress to do this or that, but really, all of the things Trump is trying to do SHOULD be going through Congress, which would then have a vote. The fact that Trump is trying to bypass the proper system of checks and balances goes against what is listed in the US Constitution. We are not at war, no war has been declared, so the majority of the things Trump is trying to do is complete overreach.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bywalterbyrd ( 182728 ) writes:
Were you okay with Biden using taxpayer money to pay off student loans?
That is absolutely defies Article II of the US constitution. This was confirmed by SCOTUS twice.
But Biden did it, and openly bragged about it.
But it's okay when *we* do it. Right?
byrocket rancher ( 447670 ) writes:
You’re not exposing “regime BS”—you’re manufacturing your own.
Your comment relies on constitutional misstatements, false claims about Supreme Court rulings, emotionally loaded phrasing, and projection. If you want to debate debt relief on the merits, fine. But start by ditching the misrepresentations and getting your facts straight.
Were you okay with Biden using taxpayer money to pay off student loans?
Nice framing trick: Your leading question tries to present this as if it’s a scandal. Every federal program uses taxpayer money—student loans, wars, tax breaks for corporations. Singling this one out suggests selective outrage, not principle.
That absolutely defies Article II of the US constitution.
False. Flatly, legally, demonstrably false. Article II lays out executive powers—it does not mention student loans. The SCOTUS ruling in Biden v. Nebraska was based on statutory overreach under the HEROES Act, not a constitutional violation. You’re invoking “Article II” as legal theater.
This was confirmed by SCOTUS twice.
This is just a lie. Absolutely fabricated. No second ruling exists. There has been one SCOTUS decision on Biden’s student debt relief plan. A second plan is being litigated, but has not reached the Court. Claiming “twice” is dishonest, period.
But Biden did it, and openly bragged about it.
Yeah, so? He announced it publicly—like presidents do. Proposing a policy, defending its legality, and explaining it to the public isn’t “bragging.” You’re framing normal governance as criminality -- this is a rhetorical device, not an argument.
But it's okay when we do it. Right?
Speaking of rhetorical devices, here's another one. This is a garden variety partisan strawman. You invent a double standard and assign it to your opponents without evidence. Classic projection. If you want to accuse someone of hypocrisy, bring receipts. Otherwise, you’re just ranting at a mirror.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bydpille ( 547949 ) writes:
Were you okay with Biden using taxpayer money to pay off student loans?
Not relevant. The "taxpayer money" was already spent- Biden's actions dealt with revenue. (Which in every other case conservatives would identify as confiscatory government seizure of citizens' own money.) And even if the Supreme Court eventually disagreed, there was at least a colorable claim to Congressional authorization. Consulting your crystal ball to identify a new principle to justify your preferred result doesn't actually chang
bylamer01 ( 1097759 ) writes:
Regarding spending. Neither party has shown any inclination to control spending at all.
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
For one thing he's breaking the laws regarding FTI.
byichthus ( 72442 ) writes:
Good answer. Because DOGE isn't charged with actually administering over social security but, instead, evaluating possible fraud of the system, it will be interesting to see where the lawsuit regarding DOGE employees' access will go.
bywhitroth ( 9367 ) writes:
Do you ever see anything other than Fox? HE FIRED thousands of people, HE HAD HIS KIDS illegally enter secure systems.
You want a king, move to another country, fascist.
bycbeaudry ( 706335 ) writes:
He didint fire anyone.
He advised. The firing is done by the head of each department.
Narrative on TV is different than day to day actual actions.
There is and was no illegal access to any system. Each governement department has dedicated Doge employees plus lawyer. All with security clearances.
Fascist, lol (You don't even know the meaning of the word without looking it up in a dictionary)
King, lol (Kings arent elected. Trump was. Elections have consequences)
●th your current threshold.
●your current threshold.
●our current threshold.
●urrent threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
/* Halley */
(Halley's comment.)
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...