A group of White House staffers turn up at Treasury and demand access to computer systems. A senior Treasury official denies them access. The White House complains to the Treasury Secretary, who orders compliance with the White House’s demands. The senior official still refuses, so the Treasury Secretary fires him, and the remaining officials grant access. The President publicly announces that he approves of the staffers’ actions and he authorised them.
Whatever legal argument you can come up with that this is a crime, will a judge and jury buy it? The access was authorised by the President and the Treasury Secretary; your argument is their authorisation was illegal and hence isn’t valid. But unless you can prove Musk and his staffers somehow knew that it was legally invalid, where is the mens rea?
And even if the trial court accepts it, will the conservative SCOTUS majority uphold the conviction of a Republican administration’s officials on the basis of that argument?
Of course, he could be pardoned for all federal crimes, and may be that's the plan. An entire administration and staff free of the law, hence the "wholesale removal of regulations" remark.
Removal of law.
Officially Musk is a “Special Government Employee” in the Executive Office of the President, with zero salary. So he’s technically not just CEO of a US government contractor, he’s separately a US government employee.
I don’t believe that’s an “extra-legal title” because (a) “Special Government Employee” is a status explicitly authorised by legislation (b) the law gives the President a great deal of latitude on how to structure the White House staff. Every previous President has invented a bunch of new roles in that staff, based on the priorities of his administration, and has never sought or needed Congressional authority to do so. What Musk is doing is controversial and novel but his actual underlying position (some random ally/friend of the President is given an unpaid job in the White House) isn’t
Can anyone please confirm?
