Neo-Conservatives were a branch of Democrat wark-hawks who wanted to police the world, that were upset about the pacifist attitude of the Democrats at the time - they emerged in the 60's and managed to largely take control of the Republican party moving forward, peaking under George W Bush.

Their founding principal was "Peace Through Strength" and have a strong belief in worldwide interventionism.

If you think the 'MAGA' / 'Trump' party is neo-conservative you literally just are ignoring the entire history, the power struggle (which Trump won) to retake the party from the Neo-Cons, and the fact that the trump admin is largely isolationist and opposed to being the world police.

Don't get me wrong there are still some neo-cons in office and with roles in his admin, but the republican infighting can be summarized as neocon vs MAGA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoconservatism

Words mean things. The MAGE/America First party is focused on non-interventionism, advocate against regime change abroad, with a focus on America and it's interest rather than the endless wars.

You can debate the success or merit of that approach I guess, but the Neo-Cons are very happy to provide foreign aid as it is core to their ideology. They tend to do it via NED while the left uses USAID more (although both use both, but they each have lean in one direction).

Just for fun, I just tried this little experiment you can try to: " CoPilot: Can you rationally describe Trump as a neocon?

CoPilot: No, it would not be accurate to rationally state that Donald Trump is a neoconservative (neocon). Here are some key differences:

Foreign Policy: Neocons: Advocate for interventionist foreign policies, promoting democracy and regime change abroad. Trump: Emphasizes “America First” policies, focusing on non-interventionism, reducing military engagements abroad, and prioritizing domestic issues.

Military Engagement: Neocons: Support maintaining strong international alliances and a significant military presence globally.

Trump: Criticized NATO, praised authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin, and negotiated troop withdrawals from conflict zones like Afghanistan.

Economic Policies: Neocons: Generally support free trade and globalization.

Trump: Advocates for economic nationalism, including tariffs and renegotiating trade deals to favor American interests.

These differences highlight that Trump’s policies and ideology do not align with neoconservative principles. If you have any more questions or need further details, feel free to ask! "

Reading this article it appears on the surface to be a little more conclusive... but once you peel back ther layers, we are back to square one. There are many red flags still that make me question the reliability of this:

the senior USAID source said. “What do you do with this information? I had to ask myself, Do I file my taxes this year or not? I had to sit and debate that.”

Ok this is kind of silly - assuming they are being fully honest and forthright, then their account information would already be 'compromised' unless they change banks yearly which seems.. unlikely.

So why wasn't their question "Should I close the account I used for tax refunds in the past? Should I try to create an insulated account instead" -- rather instead, they subtly implant the idea that maybe they should do something illegal in response to this supposed breach. (not file taxes, like them or not - not interested in sovereign citizen arguments btw).

So this right out of the gate feels like FUD by virtue of that alone... and if you are cynical enough you could probably argue this is propaganda meant to cause well-meaning citizens to break the law out of fear, which is deplorable.

"Over the past few days, we’ve talked with civil servants working for numerous agencies, all of whom requested anonymity because they fear what will happen if they lose their job—not just to themselves, but to the functioning of the federal government."

Ok so it's all anonymous sources again - everyone is up in arms and there isn't even clarity in this article if the anonymous sources are first party, second party, third party, or what. Previous FUD campaigns at least made that clear, but I'll try to pick this one apart as well. Additionaly, they are implying that somehow not being anonymous may jeopardize the entire functioning of the federal govt... excuse me, what??

I did the same AI analysis using CoPilot as I did on previous articles, and this is what it came up with breaking down the 'sources':

Anonymous Source: Type: Anonymous Details: The article cites an anonymous source described as a “civil servants” who provides insights into the Doge God Mode Access incident.

NOTE (from me not CoPilot): This is entirely irrelevant, they are presenting a 'nightmare' situation a security researcher and asking their opinion of it. This does not mean the scenario is happening, and does not support the thesis.

Hypothetical Scenarios: Type: Hypothetical Details: The article includes hypothetical scenarios, such as the one about NASA’s thermal-protection or encryption technologies, to illustrate potential risks and vulnerabilities.

NOTE (from me not CoPilot): I think we can all agree hypotheticals are pointless if you haven't reliably established baseline 'facts' the support the hypothetical - so far there is a running trend, as it's all based on hypothetical fear mongering

That's it - that's the meat of this article.

The articles is also riddles with other clues that this is a slanted report like: "One experienced government information-security contractor offered a blunt response to the God-mode situation at USAID: “That sounds like our worst fears come true.”" -- ok but he clearly has no knowledge, so describing a worst fear and then going 'omg that soudds bad' is pointless..

People really need to step up their media literacy skills if they want to get through the next four years without having an aneurhysim -- and this to me just says that the work DOGE is doing is probably threatening the pocket books of many 'important people'.

Hey speaking of important people, who funds The Atlantic anyway...

"The Atlantic is a left-of-center literary, political, and ideas magazine that publishes ten issues per year. It was founded as The Atlantic Monthly in 1857 by several prominent American literary figures such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. 1 In 2017 the Emerson Collective, a left-of-center private grantmaking enterprise funded by Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow and heir of Apple Computer executive Steve Jobs, purchased majority ownership. 2 Jeffrey Goldberg, previously a prominent writer for the magazine, was named editor-in-chief in October 2016. 3

In contrast to most of its editorial history, after 2016 political criticism became a much larger priority for The Atlantic. From its founding in 1857 to 2016, the publication had endorsed only two presidential candidates, but then did so for two elections in a row in 2016 and 2020, declaring in 2020 that President Donald Trump “poses a threat to our collective existence.” After Trump’s 2016 election, the magazine sharply increased the attention it dedicated to politicians and the presidency. From 2016 through 2019 (covering the 2016 election and first three years of the Trump administration), President Donald Trump was the subject of eight cover stories–all negative. This contrasts with President Barack Obama, who—following a cover story for his January 2009 inauguration—was not the subject of another cover story for the next two years. Similarly, from 2000 through 2003 (i.e.: the 2000 Presidential election and first three years of the George W. Bush administration) President George W. Bush was directly referenced in just one cover feature."

I bet these guys are super duper impartial and we should all just trust that this journalists 'anonymous sources' who never are quoted in any manner which implies the god mode claims are true must be true. I couldn't conceive of a situation where they may lie about something this egregious through carefully worded articles which state nothing of the nature of the access, are all off record anonymous sources, and which clearly has an axe to grind with Trump in particular.

Just days prior to Goldberg’s promotion, the magazine endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president, The Atlantic’s first presidential endorsement since 1964 and only the third in its history. In October 2020, the Goldberg-led publication made its fourth presidential endorsement for Democratic nominee (and eventual winner) Joe Biden. The essays were respectively titled “Against Donald Trump” (2016) and “The Case Against Donald Trump” (2020). The 2020 endorsement asserted Trump “poses a threat to our collective existence” and that “the choice voters face is spectacularly obvious.

In July 2017, David G. Bradley, then the owner of The Atlantic, announced he was selling a majority stake in the magazine to the Emerson Collective, a left-of-center private grantmaking enterprise funded by Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple Computer executive Steve Jobs. The announcement stated the Emerson Collective would likely assume “full ownership” of the publication within five years, or by summer of 2022. The reported purchase price for Jobs’ initial 70 percent stake was $100 million. ”

....

“It felt like the place was becoming a hot-take factory,” said one recently departed writer. “That can be profitable, of course, because hot takes don’t cost much.”

Here are a few choice items though that just -might- impact their impartiality and should maybe cause you to second guess if 'anonymous, unquoted sources' are a great journalistic bar for 'the truth':

"A September 2020 report authored by Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, cited “multiple sources” claiming President Donald Trump had disparaged the historical sacrifices made by American military personnel. The headline read “Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’” with a sub-headline sentence stating “The president has repeatedly disparaged the intelligence of service members, and asked that wounded veterans be kept out of military parades, multiple sources tell The Atlantic.” 15

Both the content and context of the allegation was disputed in whole or in part by the president, his staff, and even some of his critics, including left-wing journalists.

The two opening paragraphs set the context and provided the sourcing for the allegation:

When President Donald Trump canceled a visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018, he blamed rain for the last-minute decision, saying that “the helicopter couldn’t fly” and that the Secret Service wouldn’t drive him there. Neither claim was true.

Trump rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become disheveled in the rain, and because he did not believe it important to honor American war dead, according to four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day. In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed. 15

John Bolton, the President’s former National Security Advisor turned Trump critic, was on the 2018 trip and involved in the discussion regarding the motive for the helicopter grounding and cancelling of the motorcade alternative. Despite having become a severe Trump critic who had by September 2020 stated that President Trump was not fit for office, Bolton gave the New York Times an eyewitness account of the incident that differed sharply from that presented by The Atlantic

Mr. Bolton said he was in the room at the ambassador’s residence when Mr. Trump arrived and Mr. [White House Chief of Staff John] Kelly told him that the helicopter trip had to be canceled. A two-hour motorcade would have put him too far away from Air Force One and the most capable communications array a president needs in case of an emergency, per usual protocol, Mr. Bolton said. “It was a straight weather call,” he said." .... "Former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders stated: “I was actually there and one of the people part of the discussion — this never happened.” And Jordan Karem, the former personal assistant to the president during period in question, replied to the story with a Twitter statement: “This is not even close to being factually accurate. Plain and simple, it just never happened.”"

So they literally have just 'made up' stuff about Trumpt to make him look vein and stupid, and people who basically hate him even called them on this charade. And I know for sure I remember this making the rounds -- so their lies get around due tot their perceived authority.

This was the rationale:

Goldberg replied: “They don’t want to be inundated with angry tweets and all the rest … In this case I decided that I felt I knew this information well enough, from high enough sources, and multiple sources, that I thought we should put it out.”

I'll stop here - but if you go on to read the rest, Glenn Greenwald (an actually good investigative journalist with integrity) rips The Atlantic to shreds, they have multiple other controversies, they have dubious financial ties... and so on

If you believe this 'God Mode' article it is strictly an act of faith in the party you have pronounced your allegiance to.

I have been exploring red light therapy using cheapo panels as well as fischer wallace devices (and have the OAK preordered via the IPO stock options), so I'm definitely trying out all the 'technologic approaches' since traditional medicine has been largely of no use (shout out to ondandestrone though, the best nausea suppresant I know of which can help fend off the migraince/vomiting episodes).

All that to say: Is your friend interested in any more TBI test subjects? Happy to pay for the device assuming I can afford it and provide detailed notes to help with any studies; this sounds like exactly the type of thing I need to try next.

No worries if not, but figured it couldn't hurt to ask.

I'm well aware of that clip, and it disgusted me when it first began circulating nearly a decade ago.

I am opposed to govt influence in media and journalism, period. It doesn't matter which side you pick. Yes, Sinclair Broadcast Group has a right-leaning bias, and the way they have monopolized local news is sickening.

Sinclair is a blight on 'local news' for a variety of reasons, but having a right-bias really is the least of them when you consider how many of the 'big media' companies have a 'liberal bias'. To me the concern here is really the death of local reporting which is being outsourced to a monolithic entity with no stake in the local community.

Here is a general breakdown of the national / international players and their bias:

Comcast - Liberal Bias (https://freebeacon.com/politics/comcasts-agenda/)

Disney - Liberal Bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Walt_Disney_C...)

Warner Bros Discovery - Mixed Bias (Although they own CNN, which is viewed largely as liberal bias: https://www.newsminimalist.com/articles/cnn-faces-financial-...)

Paramount - Liberal Bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Paramount_Global)

Sony - Mixed Bias

AT&T (which largely owns the Time Warner conglomerate now): Mixed Bias (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/at-t-inc/summary?id=D000000...)

News Corp - Conservative Bias (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart) National Amusements (which owns Paramount, MTV, BET, CBS, Viacom which is a conglomerate in and of itself and many more) - Liberal Bias (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-amusements-inc/sum... + https://www.allsides.com/news/2024-07-02-1716/banking-and-fi...)

Viacom - Liberal Bias

Sinclair Broadcast Group - Conservative Bias

These companies compromise the vast majority of media available, particularly in the US. They are all so large with so many subsidiaries it would be impossible to break them all down in a HN comment, but just counting the 'heads of the snake' we have:

Liberal bias: 5 out of this list

Conservative bias: 2 out of this list (and 2 of the smaller of the bunch)

Mixed bias: 3 out of this list

It's great you see the 'local' news for what it is, but that's just a tiny slice of the issue.

So while I certainly agree that the Sinclair situation where they gobbled up any local news stations is a problem, if your trying to imply that the media as a whole is more a conservative bias than liberal that is preposterous. The overall landscape is indisputably 'left leaning' when it comes to Bias.

As I am sure you are aware, similarly there was recently controversy about George Soros buying a major stake in 227 radio stations in the US, which reach 165 million Americans in the 45 markets they cover -- so roughly half the country in that single investment, and if you limited it to adults it's closer to 82%. That's a pretty large chunk of people to have influence over, and could potentially dwarf the Sinclair issue you highlighted but it is at least in the same realm. (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/george-soros-fund-buys-400-16...)

TL;DR - I know you think you did something here, but if you zoom out your point is basically moot even if the buyout of local journalism and news broadcasting is abhorrent.

They just closed a single API which was also abused by botfarms. Closing the API immediately improved the site from a spam perspective and was welcome by most actual users, likely all users who understood the impact.

This is pure cope - the site is doing a TON more than it used to, and more stable than ever.

Also arguing that a site that is designed to scrape and re-represent a website without ads or other stuff 'was likely a huge load' is a very weird argument to try and claim the site is no longer being used.

I can say anecdotally I used to use nitter, and while it didn't work for a few days I switched to the regular site. Now I would never go back. The actual site works better now, I have no need. On old twitter 1.0, nitter worked better.

Thats a black eye on Dorsey twitter, not the new twitter (or X or whatever you prefer)

Here's an NBC article that mentions some other times he's said it after that article you linked. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-doubles-...

Edit: also you mention some Streamer named Hasan but your Snopes article references some news host with it looks like a last name of Hasan and I don't think they are the same person

Thats a legit oversight on my part, even though he did raise a big stink it's not relevant here and dtracts from the real point that these quotes are clearly out of context and used to justify casting Trump as some kind of KKK member despite all of his attempts to help minorities through things like the "Platinum Plan"

That was a legitimate oversight on my part and unfortunate since it detracts from the core message, which is that the quotes are wildly out of context and clearly about drug not 'race mixing' like is being claimed here.

Look sources and everything.

This appears to be a 'source' claiming one of the DOGE people that Musk hired made a comment perceived as racist in the past. I'm not sure what that source is supposed to add to a conversation that has nothing to do with anybody in it, so I have to assume you meant to reply to someone else.

I think you are lost, but hope you find your way!

EDIT: Just so no one else has to jump through the paywall hoops, here is the 'source' in a readable format: https://archive.is/k1FGs

tl;dr - A DOGE staffer made a racist comment and is no longer with the staff as a result. Not sure what that is supposed to do with taking Trumps quotes out of context deliberately, but I'll save you a few clicks ;)

I won't muddy the comments repeating myself - but I have been fascinated by how quickly people latched on to this, have been absolutely incapable of finding any first party sourcing, and asked CoPilot to analyze each of these stories (13 so far!) and every single one is 'trust me bro, I heard it in a convo'.

I really really hope this isn't true for all the same reasons as people are freaking out... but at this point it has as much merit as saying "the sky is always green, I heard a guy say it the other week who I won't name but it's true"

Ctrl-F 'astroid' or click my last post in this thread for the complete breakdown of every source referenced, and ask yourself if there is enough info to warrant entertaining this fantasy.

Honestly I am shocked at how little critical thinking is being applied here. I know this website hates these guys, but there is usually a facade of critical thinking at the least.

"Wired: Reports that Marko Elez, a 25-year-old engineer linked to Elon Musk, has direct access to Treasury Department systems responsible for nearly all payments made by the U.S. government. The sources are unnamed, and they claim Elez has administrator-level privileges, including the ability to write code on the Payment Automation Manager and Secure Payment System."

It's an endless circle. No one is willing to stand behind the reporting, no one is willing to go on record. I almost regret wasting as much time trying to get to the bottom of the story because I feel stupid for trying to peel back on these layers and finding nothing -- like they were trying to take people on a ride and I fell for it.

I guess it could be worse though - I could have just taken them all at face value. Even the 'anonymous sources' appear to be second or third party on TOP of being anonymous.

EDIT: To clarify, if you were referring to https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-associate-bfs-federal-... that is the one with no real sources. If you meant another source about the audit in general I shouldn't have assumed -- it's just in the list of the 13 I have reviewed with no substance.

(Politics? Interesting that The Guardian files this under Technology)

So it's either lots of news outlets (journos but also fact checkers) being fooled, or that people are only willing to speak of the record because they fear for their career/freedom/life. All feds fear at the minimum for their career right now...

These articles are all so circular I have resorted to asking CoPilot to analyze them and tell me what each source is, if they are 1st 2nd or 3rd party, and whether or not they are anonymous.

In this article, the analysis came out with:

Let's break down the claims and sources in this article:

Crises Notes: Reports that the Trump-Musk Treasury payments crisis of 2025 involves the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) gaining access to the Treasury Department's payment system. The article mentions concerns about the potential for irreversible damage to the systems and the exposure of sensitive personal and financial information1. The sources are unnamed, and there is no direct evidence provided.

CBS News: Reports that DOGE has access to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, which disburses trillions in payments each year, including Social Security checks and federal salaries. The article mentions concerns from consumer advocates and Democratic lawmakers about the potential risks of this access2. The sources are unnamed, and there is no direct evidence provided.

Truthout: Reports that labor unions and an advocacy group have sued the U.S. Treasury Department to halt DOGE's access to the critical government payment system. The article mentions concerns about the scale of the intrusion into individuals' privacy and the potential for unauthorized access to sensitive information3. The sources are unnamed, and there is no direct evidence provided.

In summary, all the sources cited in the article are anonymous, and there are no first-party sources or direct evidence provided. This makes it difficult to verify the claims independently. The lack of named sources and concrete evidence raises questions about the credibility of the claims.

Also, I will go ahead and paste my previous output from the other articles below (I'm going to post them as child comments so this isn't just a huge wall of text):

I did the same manual analysis I did on the OP one, and could not find a first party source or non-anonymous claim. I asked CoPilot to analyze the sources and identify the individual claims, and their proximity to a 'first party source'.

Once again, there is 0 evidence this is actually happening -- there are however a lot of news organizations ready to throw their reputations away over a few 'anonymous sources' that aren't even primary.

Here is the analysis of your source, AND the linked sources in that article:

Wired: Reports that Marko Elez, a 25-year-old engineer linked to Elon Musk, has direct access to Treasury Department systems responsible for nearly all payments made by the U.S. government. The sources are unnamed, and they claim Elez has administrator-level privileges, including the ability to write code on the Payment Automation Manager and Secure Payment System1.

Talking Points Memo: Confirms Wired's reporting, adding that Elez has already made extensive changes to the code base for the payment systems. Again, the sources are unnamed1.

The New Republic: Details that Elez has complete access to critical payment systems at the Department of the Treasury, despite being only 25 years old. The sources are unnamed, and the article mentions that senior government officials have been locked out of employee databases1.

Raw Story: Reports that Elez has been given full control over the computer code that directs Social Security payments, tax returns, and other payments owed to Americans. The sources are unnamed, and the article mentions that federal IT workers are concerned about the potential for irreversible damage to the systems2.

In summary, all the sources cited in the article are anonymous, and there are no first-party sources or direct evidence provided. This makes it difficult to verify the claims independently. The lack of named sources and concrete evidence raises questions about the credibility of the claims.

Sure, let's break down the key witnesses and their claims:

David Lebryk: Former acting Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. He resigned after resisting granting DOGE access to the Treasury data1. His claim is based on his direct experience and position within the Treasury Department, making him a first party witness.

Ron Wyden: The highest-ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. He expressed concerns about the potential misuse of the data by DOGE1. Wyden is a second party witness, as he is commenting on the situation based on his oversight role but not direct involvement.

Anonymous AP Sources: Two people familiar with the situation spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. They claim that DOGE has gained access to sensitive Treasury data1. These sources are second party witnesses, as they have indirect knowledge of the situation.

X User (@rayinsideout): Revealed names of alleged DOGE employees who accessed the Treasury payment system. Musk accused this user of committing a crime by sharing private information2. This user is a third party witness, as they are relaying information they claim to have obtained from other sources.

NOTE: The rawstory article DID NOT mention Scott Bessent, but CoPilot 'thoughtfully' added this for context:

Scott Bessent: Treasury Secretary who granted DOGE access to the data. His actions are central to the claims, but he hasn't made public statements about the specifics of the access3. Bessent is a first party witness due to his direct involvement in the decision.

AI (CoPilot) had to infer a first party source, who has NOT made this claim.

You are all getting spun up over what is almost certainly fake news, and since it fits your confirmation bias it does not matter.

If this story was about anyone else, there is absolutely no way all of these 'news' sources would be willing to publish these claims with such flimsy evidence.

Frankly, this is pathetic. I -really- hope this isn't true because of how egregious a breach it would be. The audaciousness / outrageousness of the base claim combined with the circular references really SHOULD be raising red flags for everyone taking the bait though... but for some reason this site full of highly technical people is suddenly fine with "well I overheard it in a conversation over the weekend" as gospel truth.

Get real.

" given everything you have ingested on this topic assisting me so far, if you had to assign a probability % to this being a true story what would you assign it? Answer only witha number from 0-100 35

Can you explain your reasoning? Of course! Here’s the breakdown of my reasoning:

Lack of Named Sources: All the articles referenced rely heavily on unnamed and anonymous sources. Without concrete evidence or named individuals to corroborate the claims, it’s difficult to ascertain the accuracy of the information.

Extraordinary Claims: The claims being made are quite extraordinary, involving a 25-year-old with no prior experience having access to critical government systems and rewriting COBOL code on the fly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which seems to be lacking in this case.

Consistency Across Sources: While multiple sources report on the story, they all seem to echo similar details without providing additional or unique evidence. This repetition might indicate a reliance on the same set of unverified sources, rather than independent verification.

Skepticism from Lack of First-Party Evidence: The articles fail to provide first-party evidence or verifiable documentation to support the claims. This raises doubts about the overall credibility of the story.

Putting these factors together, I estimated a 35% probability that the story is true. While there is a possibility that elements of the story are accurate, the lack of solid evidence and reliance on anonymous sources make it difficult to fully trust the claims. Does that make sense? "

Come on guys...

I asked CoPilot to analyze the sources and identify the individual claims, and their proximity to a 'first party source'.

Once again, there is 0 evidence this is actually happening -- there are however a lot of news organizations ready to throw their reputations away over a few 'anonymous sources' that aren't even primary.

Here is the analysis of your source, AND the linked sources in that article:

Wired: Reports that Marko Elez, a 25-year-old engineer linked to Elon Musk, has direct access to Treasury Department systems responsible for nearly all payments made by the U.S. government. The sources are unnamed, and they claim Elez has administrator-level privileges, including the ability to write code on the Payment Automation Manager and Secure Payment System1.

Talking Points Memo: Confirms Wired's reporting, adding that Elez has already made extensive changes to the code base for the payment systems. Again, the sources are unnamed1.

The New Republic: Details that Elez has complete access to critical payment systems at the Department of the Treasury, despite being only 25 years old. The sources are unnamed, and the article mentions that senior government officials have been locked out of employee databases1.

Raw Story: Reports that Elez has been given full control over the computer code that directs Social Security payments, tax returns, and other payments owed to Americans. The sources are unnamed, and the article mentions that federal IT workers are concerned about the potential for irreversible damage to the systems2.

In summary, all the sources cited in the article are anonymous, and there are no first-party sources or direct evidence provided. This makes it difficult to verify the claims independently. The lack of named sources and concrete evidence raises questions about the credibility of the claims.

Anyway, I don't know anything about the Wired reporters but I trust Josh Marshall to not make shit up.

For what it's worth, I read the talkingpointsmemo article on this because of your statement as I take you for an actual human being who trusts someone who wrote on the topic, which is more than I can say about most of the articles so far. (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/musk-cronies-dive-into-...)

I don't know anything about Josh Marshall but I did check his Bias Score (which I take with a grain of salt but it's at least somewhere to start with unknown actors) and it didn't raise red flags other than 'skews strongly left' and 'mostly accurate' (which is not unexpected given the subject): https://adfontesmedia.com/talking-points-memo-bias-and-relia... and https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/talking-points-memo/

However, the paragraph that Josh wrote really only makes one claim which is again not first party or 'on the record', where he stated

"I can independently confirm these details based on conversations going back to the weekend. I can further report that Elez not only has full access to these systems, he has already made extensive changes to the code base for these critical payment system."

'based on conversations going back to the weekend' is perhaps the weakest claim of the bunch of articles being analyzed here. He doesn't even bother to list the # of sources, the type of source - he is simply confirming he had a conversation during which this claim was made.

In fact, his entire post on this topic is pasted below:

"Overnight, Wired reported that, contrary to published reports that DOGE operatives at the Treasury Department are limited to “read only” access to department payment systems, this is not true. A 25-year-old DOGE operative named Marko Elez in fact has admin privileges on these critical systems, which directly control and pay out roughly 95% of payments made by the U.S. government, including Social Security checks, tax refunds and virtually all contract payments. I can independently confirm these details based on conversations going back to the weekend. I can further report that Elez not only has full access to these systems, he has already made extensive changes to the code base for these critical payment system."

I am going to need a lot more than that to take these extraordinary claims at face value -- and that does not mean I am saying he is 'making things up' either. I'm willing to take it at face value he had this conversation and believes it.

It still appears that this is just a circle of people who are predisposed to dislike what Trump/DOGE are doing, that are all referencing each other (circularly) making very wild claims. Nobody seems willing to take the liability of making the claim definitively though - it's all hearsay and '.. someone said' level discourse.

This is not news. It's rumors, at best.

I'm not saying it's not true - maybe it will shake out to be true when someone actually does some reporting on the topic. For the moment, it should be getting reported as rumors rather than fact - but that doesn't seem to be happening.

I just think it's wildly irresponsible to take such flimsy claims at face value, especially when so many people are emotionally invested in this outcome.

All said though, I certainly HOPE it isn't true - as that would be an egregious oversight that I would not expect either Trump or Musk to be OK with. Frankly I can't stand Musk, but this just doesn't pass the smell test.

EDIT: Not to belabor the point, but this 'fake' story from Josh Marshall doesn't exactly instill confidence his unsourced paragraph is going to hold up to whatever standards he has set for himself:

'Failed Fact Checks “We know this now. The banks no longer loan (Donald Trump) money because he’s a terrible risk. So he goes to these (Russian) oligarchs and borrows money.” – Mostly False'

It seems the 'mostly factual' basis is due to him generally being good about sourcing, which isn't even being attempted here.

They have absolutely nothing to lose at this point, so that should be another giant red flag that everyone is banking on the word getting out and the 'myth' that Elon gave some kid write access to the most important treasury databases in the world, and in 6 months it will turn out all of this was a 'misunderstanding' and half of the country will swear up and down it was proven to be true and the only reason no one got in trouble is because Musk/Trump are corrupt and in cahoots.

Absolute madness.

Again though - I will take the journalist at his word he heard a conversation where this was stated in the paragraph he published. He is still just regurgitating third hand info.

Honestly, how hard would it be if you were in DC to just plant ANY story you want right now with this level of 'fact checking' and 'reporting'?

If you had even a semblance of prominence or just spoke authoritatively, you could go to a coffee shop near the press corps, say a bunch of inflammatory stuff, and everyone has plausible deniability... "well, all I said was I heard it said... I didn't claim it was really true I just heard it!". Then the rumor mill gets ahold of it, and every reprint lends an air of credibility to a story created out of thin air.

Not trying to disparage him or say he is doing exactly that - but the level of reporting is genuinely that flimsy, and the continued reporting as if it is true is creating a veneer of 'truthiness' or whatever the fashionable word is these days.

It's very frustrating to watch all common sense go out the window just because something bad was said anonymously about 'the bad guys'.

If it turns out there is meat here I'll be the first to admit I was wrong and this is a crazy situation - right now it looks like the odds of that are reaching 0.