Other members of DOGE are getting dissected for past racist posts, but I personally think that's a lot less interesting and concerning than the historical leak allegations against this dude. DOGE will fire everybody except their own people. I think that double standard drives even more interest.
Educators have gotten pushed out for having attending a 2-day course on DEI in 2019 because of 'standards', I guess. But having a known leaker access to ALL the data is ok. Glad this administration is hiring people based purely on merit and qualifications <\s>.
I'd feel better about this effort if they just benched the kid and replaced him with someone else. DOGE of all people should know that people are replaceable. Why did they put him specifically, with all that baggage, inside a cybersecurity agency? This doesn't feel right.
I do agree that vetting would be a good idea - did they tho? We don't know. That's the thing. I guess DOGE is sorta like move fast and break things applied to gov? Hah :)
He wasn't interacting with them as a researcher does. He was working for them as an employee. And then they fired him and accused him of leaking, and publicly humiliated him.
No one even knows what this kid is doing inside CISA's network!!
I think you're getting confused based on the article which says he was interacting with "The Com", and working for Path Networks which he was fired from for leaking.
I think the difference is in the kind of positions the "second chance" people get hired to. They aren't put in positions where they could cause significant wide scale harm with no auditing or barriers.
The debate isn't whether he should go to jail. The debate is whether he should get a clearance for some of the most powerful access someone can possibly get. He's not suitable. Why can't Musk replace him? He's just a kid.
Because, like Trump, he values loyalty above all else? That's the reason why he reinstated that other guy who resigned after his extreme-right social media posts were unearthed (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/07/musk-doge-st...). That's also the reason why Trump pardoned all January 6 rioters, even those convicted of violent crimes. If it's his people vs. some random cops, he will always favor his people.
I think that in the cases you mention, the extreme-right social media posts appealed to Musk and Trump actively wants people to do violent crimes on behalf of his coup.
Neither case was them valuing loyalty over something else. They rewarded people who did exactly what they wanted.
"Suitable" depends on what the aim is. If this were a good faith effort to find "waste and fraud" then clearly not. But if the goal is to destroy the capacity of the government to place any restraints on enterprise (and in particular Musk's enterprises), and an assault on the rule of law in general, and the instantiation of a racist ideology, then he's ideal. The fact that they let him go in the first place was the surprising part as what he said was no worse than what many Trump appointees have done.
