there's a whole lot to unpack here, and none of it is good. at the end of the day, you can consider Musk an outside contractor. how exactly is that treason? also, in which part of the constitution does it say anything about the federal payment system? that's not an article I'm familiar
The power of the purse is the authority of the United States Congress to levy taxes and control government spending. It's a key part of the separation of powers in the Constitution and a check on the executive branch. If Musk actually stops any payment that was authorized by Congress then he is violating the Constitution.
DOGE also has no legitimate need or legal right to access the federal payment system. He is in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and should be arrested and put on trial along with any other DOGE employee who has accessed the federal payment system.
If the employee exceeded authorized access or acted without authorization to manipulate the payment system, they could be charged under the CFAA, which criminalizes unauthorized access to computer systems.
Obstruction of Federal Proceedings or Official Duties - 18 U.S.C. § 1505 or § 1913:
§ 1505: Obstruction of agency proceedings or congressional actions.
§ 1913: Prohibits using appropriated funds to lobby or interfere with government decisions, though applicability may depend on intent.
Interfering with congressionally mandated payments could constitute obstruction of lawful government functions.
Theft or Conversion of Government Funds - 18 U.S.C. § 641:
If the payment was lawfully owed and the employee’s actions deprived the recipient of funds, this could be seen as theft or conversion of government property.
False Statements or Fraud - 18 U.S.C. § 1001:
If the employee falsified records, submitted false information, or lied to justify stopping the payment, they might face charges for making false statements.
Conspiracy - 18 U.S.C. § 371:
If others were involved, conspiracy charges could apply to defraud the U.S. or commit other offenses.
Malfeasance or Misconduct in Office:
While not a specific federal statute, general misconduct or breach of public trust could lead to charges under broader provisions or administrative penalties (e.g., termination, fines).
You will need to do some mental gymnastics to find a criminal statute that could be used to prosecute that and it does not appear the US Attorney for DC is at all interested in doing that.
Musk and DOGE employees could be arrested and tried by the DOJ if a democrat wins the next Presidential election. These are the crimes they have broken.
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) - 18 U.S.C. § 1030:
If the employee exceeded authorized access or acted without authorization to manipulate the payment system, they could be charged under the CFAA, which criminalizes unauthorized access to computer systems.
Obstruction of Federal Proceedings or Official Duties - 18 U.S.C. § 1505 or § 1913:
§ 1505: Obstruction of agency proceedings or congressional actions.
§ 1913: Prohibits using appropriated funds to lobby or interfere with government decisions, though applicability may depend on intent.
Interfering with congressionally mandated payments could constitute obstruction of lawful government functions.
Theft or Conversion of Government Funds - 18 U.S.C. § 641:
If the payment was lawfully owed and the employee’s actions deprived the recipient of funds, this could be seen as theft or conversion of government property.
False Statements or Fraud - 18 U.S.C. § 1001:
If the employee falsified records, submitted false information, or lied to justify stopping the payment, they might face charges for making false statements.
Conspiracy - 18 U.S.C. § 371:
If others were involved, conspiracy charges could apply to defraud the U.S. or commit other offenses.
Malfeasance or Misconduct in Office:
While not a specific federal statute, general misconduct or breach of public trust could lead to charges under broader provisions or administrative penalties (e.g., termination, fines).
Again, none of those directly applies to what DOGE is doing. You have to really stretch the meaning of those laws to try to make it fit. Prosecutors do this regularly, but the current US Attorney is unlikely to.
