Updated: Super Bowl Sunday — once again, proving that his ”courage comes from a bottle” (i.e., he’s drunk, on this Sunday afternoon), Hinderaker weighs in — to describe this case as an ex parte partisan judge, preventing Donald Trump from “accessing his own documents”.

It scarcely bears repeating, but these documents do not belong to Donald Trump.

They belong to all of us as taxpayers, not him. A bipartisan Congress long ago established that. By law. 18 USC § 208(a).

So, the case holds in fact, John — that people like Musk who do not swear oaths required by federal statutes, and who will not disclose their conflicting interests… and/or people who will not submit themselves to the lobbying laws, and thus (according to statutes) have no legitimate business in seeing private financial documents of American citizens — they cannot have access to them — especially my payments to the United States Treasury and my 1040.

That’s what this case actually rules. John is a sad, bitter old man… one given to fits of preposterous lies. End, update.

Yes. We all know the whole idea was to flood the zone — with lawless barrages of “orders” (some of them, truly trivial: “Gulf of America; renaming Lake Michigan and annexing Green Bay, WI“), in order to “break a lot of stuff — and quickly“. [And of course, to distract from the autocracy being shoved down our throats.]

The central bulwark against this gambit is naturally turning out to be courageous federal civil servants, backed by federal judges (appointed by both Democratic and Republican administrations). These civil servants are insisting that the law be followed — and many are being walked out of their buildings (at least initially) for doing so. Most will win back their positions (if they sue for them), plus substantial damages, when all the dust settles.

But in the mean time, we want to acknowledge their significant sacrifices, in real time by quoting from last night’s memo of law filed by 18 states (which resulted in Musk being locked out from US Treasury payment data). Here’s that bit (and all 41 pages of it, as a PDF):

…The federal government maintains a compilation of ethics laws that constitute an ethics code to govern the conduct of federal employees. Included amongst the ethics rules, title 18 of the U.S. Code provides restrictions on federal employee conduct in order to ensure such employees avoid conflicts, including personal interests that affect official action. See 18 U.S.C. § 208(a). SGEs are governed by these ethics rules, including § 208(a), and subject to penalties under section 216 of the Code. See 18 U.S.C. § 216 (describing the penalties and injunctions for violating, inter alia, §§207 and 208, including civil penalties up to $50,000 for each violation, and/or an injunction against further violations). The only exception from § 208(a)’s requirements relevant here would be for the appointing official of an SGE (with a duly filed financial disclosure pursuant to chapter 131 of title 5) to review the SGE’s disclosure and certify that the SGE’s work “outweighs the potential for a conflict of interest.” 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(3)….

The Privacy Act of 1974 “provides certain safeguards for an individual against an invasion of personal privacy,” by requiring governmental agencies to maintain accurate records and providing individuals with more control over the gathering, dissemination, and accuracy of agency information about themselves. Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records, 87 Fed. Reg. 16244, 16245 (Mar. 22, 2022); 5 U.S.C. § 552a. To accomplish this purpose, the Privacy Act sets forth conditions for disclosure of private information and precludes an agency from disclosing information in its files to any person or to another agency without the prior written consent of the individual to whom the information pertains. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)….

The Privacy Act lists 13 exceptions to the bar on disclosure, only one of which is relevant here: (i) an agency may disclose the records it maintains within the agency “to those officers and employees of the agency… who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties.” Id. § 552a(b)(1) (emphasis added). Moreover, each agency that “maintains a system of records” is required to publish a system of records notice (“SORN”) in the Federal Register identifying the “existence and character” of that system. Id. § 552a(e)(4). Agencies are required to give 30 days’ notice of new or revised SORNs, allowing public comments. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(11). A SORN must include information on the categories of individuals and records in the system, the routine uses of the records, and the agency’s policies on storage, access, retention, and disposal. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4)….

Now you know. These guys with Tangerine 2.0 are less competent than most fifth graders — at least as to following the well-settled black letter federal law. But we won’t be overwhelmed; we are prepared — and we will keep… winning. Out.

नमस्ते