The Sack of Rome: Elon Musk's Digital Coup

Elon Musk and his Engineers, Having Captured Our Data, are Now More Powerful than any President

For a week, I’ve been savaged on X (which technologist Elon Musk, of course, co-owns), for urgently trying to warn people about what those few days in early February, 2025, when Elon Musk and five or six young engineers were alone with their devices plugged in to all our nation’s data, may represent. These few days represent a Rubicon that can never now be un-crossed, during which data and IP (intellectual property) captivation may have made Musk (and the people with whom he now allies) more powerful than any President, including more powerful than President Trump; more powerful than any nation-state, more powerful than the WEF and the WHO, more powerful than any prime minister, and more powerful than any other CEO or leader of any other set of corporations.

As thanks for my warnings, all with links and evidence, I’ve been called (on Musk’s X) a DNC shill, “controlled opposition”, “CIA,” a “libtard”, unpatriotic, and other epithets. I am not “controlled opposition”, “a DNC shill” or “CIA” and thankfully I am no longer a “libtard”; the former three claims are defamatory, while the latter is First- Amendment-protected speech. But since these are mostly bots and trolls (deployed by X’s algorithm), there is no one to sue.

Most genuine voices supportive of my efforts to warn the country, and Team Trump, I cannot see on X; an algorithm (controlled by Musk’s team) can do that - shadow-ban anyone, including anyone critical of Musk or of X.

So, like a weary would-be Paul Revere, though imagine him sans horse and almost sans a voice, I am taking to one of the last free speech platforms, to try to explain in non-techie language, for all US citizens; certainly for Team Trump — whose overall agenda I still support, if the coup by Silicon Valley can be un-f—-ed; for our elected representatives, and for the courts, none of whom speak the language of digital data — the layers of danger represented by the Sunday in February on which Musk and his engineers were alone with our records, with no real oversight and no secure firewalls.

You know me as a journalist and nonfiction writer and more recently, as an advocate against medical enslavement; but I am also CEO of a tech company, which I co-founded, called DailyClout.

It is successful. I worked with developers to build or improve three platforms, all based, like Musk’s DOGE targets, on government datasets: BillCam, which lets you see and share state and Federal bills; Communities, a surveillance- and censorship-free Facebook competitor; and Legisector.com, where you can access bills within your industry vertical.

I am not a coder. But from 13 years of working with our engineers and developers to build digital products based on government data, I understand the fundamentals of using government datasets, the protections around them, and the basics of IP and data security. I was also a political consultant to President Clinton’s team, and to Vice President Al Gore.

So, using both hats — digital and political — I see appalling red flags. I cannot believe that Team Trump understands these dangers fully, or even that the Republicans in Congress do; if they did, they would not make themselves, their base, and their donors, so vulnerable.

What Actually Happened on Sunday, Feb 2, 2025?

Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury, went into an interview after the Feb 2 breach, to assure Americans that their data were safe. He explained that Musk’s and the engineers’ access to six trillion dollars in Treasury data was “read only.” That interview reassured many people.

It did not reassure me.

“Read only” does not just mean a human being reading. It can also mean copying, and machine reading. The copied data may be stored in less secure locations or used for purposes that are not originally intended or authorized. That is why cybersecurity frameworks emphasize that access controls must be part of a larger set of controls (including monitoring, encryption, and endpoint security) to truly safeguard sensitive information.

So now, realize what Musk can have taken home.

More red flags involve who was with Musk, how he or she worked, and what is his or her expertise. News reports confirmed that with the Musk team was Tom Krause, CEO of Cloud Software Group. Krause is still CEO of that company, though he is also with DOGE.

As CEO of a cloud computing company, Krause’s allegiance is to maximize value for his shareholders. There is no way for a current CEO of a company to serve DOGE without an illegal conflict of interest.

Musk, for his part, is still CEO of six companies. Their investors can sue him if he does not use every opportunity, to enhance the value of the companies in which they have invested. We do not know what NDAs (non-disclosure agreements), non-competes (agreements that one will not use information accessed to compete), if any, Krause, Musk, or their engineers, have signed, or what conflict investigations they have undergone.

President Trump says there is no conflict:

“President Donald Trump said on Monday that the White House will ensure Musk does not go too far and that the White House has the ultimate say in decision-making. “Elon can’t do and won’t do anything without our approval, and we’ll give him the approval, where appropriate; where not appropriate, we won’t. But he reports in.” Trump explained.

“If there’s a conflict, then we won’t let him get near it,” he said.”’

But is this possible for President Trump to know? The data troves involved are so vast, and the obligations by Krause and Musk to their own investors in multiple companies so substantial and legally binding, that as a CEO myself, I do not understand how President Trump can know that there is no conflict.

Also — look at who accompanied Musk.

If Musk’s role were simply to read the datasets and to propose cuts to the President, — a reasonable, even productive role for an advisor with Musk’s skills - why did he need a cloud computing guy, and engineers, with him?

Cloud computing CEOs store things; they store vast numbers of things. That is their job. What can hold all of that data, our data, if it is copied?

It takes a “cloud” of one’s own.

Engineers build and change things.

Why did Musk not simply need a team of analysts, and a stenographer, if he were to lawfully propose cuts to the President?

With a secure human-only read, protected by NDAs, non-competes, background checks, ideally with recusals from their other companies as well, and the basic cybersecurity guardrails itemized above, these DOGE could have given President Trump the same wonderful headlines about ferreting out corruption and waste he is getting now — but without our risking anything; let alone, without our risking everything.

But Team Musk chose not to do it that way - the clean way.

Team Musk did it like this instead: they looked at everything; not all of them had top-level clearances; and, according to reports, some of the engineers plugged their own devices into the systems. One of them, a teenager, turned out to have leaked internal proprietary data, in his last role, an internship.

These are the kinds of horrific breaches of cybersecurity that makes cybersecurity experts turn white:

“Musk and his team of young, inexperienced engineers — at least one of whom is not a US citizen — have taken a number of publicly known steps that raise serious concerns among cybersecurity and privacy professionals.” This cybersecurity site went on to explain other hazards caused by Team Musk’s access. CSOonline.com is a site that is devoted to security and cybersecurity industry news. It is not partisan. And its evaluation of what Musk did, is horrified:

“These actions violate several fundamental security principles, experts contend, potentially exposing highly sensitive US government systems to malware while opening new possible avenues of attacks by cybercriminals and even nation-state adversaries. […] In addition, over the past week, workers at the Technology Transformation Services (TTS), housed within the General Services Administration (GSA), were summoned into meetings to discuss their code and projects with Musk’s team members. TTS helps develop the platforms and tools that underpin many government services, including analytics tools and API plugins that agencies can use to deploy tech faster. Thomas Shedd, who used to work for Musk’s Tesla, is now the head of TTS. Some DOGE workers had yet to receive a GSA laptop, indicating that some connected to government systems using their own devices.” [Italics mine].

In the world of digital technology, code is protected to the death. These workers could have been asked by Team Musk to demonstrate their coding skills. Or they could have been asked questions about how they built their code, or even been asked for the code itself, which valuable IP (intellectual property) we, the taxpayers, built and own.

If it was the latter, DOGE’s visits may turn out to have been a massive theft.

By scooping up platforms and code, Team Musk may have siphoned for unknown others, or for Musk’s other interests, the value of millions or billions of dollars of taxpayer money spent on developing the tech and IP that run our many government systems.

And what else was done digitally to our systems?

Treasury Secretary Bessent, having been told no doubt that the access of the DOGE team was “read only,” announced that to the public.

Wired later reported in a piece, sent to me by economist Catherine Austin Fitts, a former President George Bush I HUD official who had accomplished DOGE-style waste and fraud excision; who identified that only one actuary oversaw a $300 billion investment portfolio, and was later tasked by HUD with managing its $500 billion investment portfolio — that in fact the Musk team’s access had included “write” privileges.

So the DOGE team can have both copied and altered our datasets and records.

One reason I have been so worried about this issue of data theft or copying, is that when I read US bills for our work for DailyClout, many identify IP or code developed by US government funding — and hand this valuable property over to unnamed “stakeholders”, who are often, upon investigation, Silicon Valley VCs or tech entrepreneurs. Bills are long and technical, and the public does not usually read them in full; so this legal but also corrupt transfer of value is easily committed.

Why would a VC not try to achieve this shady, opaque IP transfer? Research and development, and the building of new code to accomplish new functionalities, are the greatest costs in digital technology businesses.

Musk identified, as DOGE targets, in his not-normally-moderated engagement with our data, government-built tax payments software, as well as a government-built iteration of AI.

Are these examples of wasteful spending? There is no evidence provided yet for that.

Or is the former, possibly, a useful code template for his own competitive purposes, in building a tax payment system? Is the latter possibly even a “catch and kill” to disrupt a direct AI competitor?

A day after I wrote this, news broke that Musk had made a $97.4 billion bid to buy technologist Sam Altman’s OpenAI, and indeed that a $14 million dollar marketing campaign was underway, launched on the Super Bowl, to make AI appealing to the American masses.

AI needs good data — endless amount of it. Imagine a huge robot fish endlessly devouring tiny real living fish.

You may hate the government. But wait for your private-owned AI-managed government. You don’t know what hate is.

If AI that is privately owned, is applied to the US government, there will be no more human-accountable US government, in the way that there has been til now. America, as an accountable system of government, will be done.

Veronyka Kyrylenko of The New American explains how Musk’s proposed “three reforms” for AI access to Treasury records, could result not in greater transparency, but in total control by Musk:

“If agencies ignore categorization, the problem isn’t missing labels — it’s why they leave those fields blank. Are agencies using outdated systems, avoiding scrutiny, or deliberately bypassing red tape? Simply forcing compliance won’t solve these problems — it will just pressure agencies to fill in something, accurate or not, to avoid penalties.

More concerning is Musk’s “AI-first approach,” which suggests that categorization won’t stop at documentation. If AI monitors payments, it will flag, delay, or deny transactions based on rigid, preset parameters. Once it categorizes spending, it can justify sweeping budget cuts, restrict funding to specific areas, and enforce efficiency models that ignore real-world complexities.”

She also points out that Musk sought to strengthen the “Do Not Pay” list. Kyrylenko rightly warns that this easily can be used as a kill switch, to turn anyone off, financially:

“The “Do-not-pay” List: Fraud Prevention or Financial Blacklisting?

The third element of the new reform focuses on strengthening and accelerating updates to the “Do-not-pay” list. The Treasury designed the list to block payments to fraudulent entities, deceased individuals, terrorist fronts, and recipients outside congressional appropriations. Musk claims officials ignore it and take up to a year to add bad actors — far too long to be effective. His proposal? Enforce the list rigorously and update it “at least weekly, if not daily.”

While faster fraud detection makes sense, a daily updated, AI-monitored blacklist raises concerns about overreach, false positives, and financial blacklisting without due process. If automation is used to flag and block payments in real time, legitimate recipients could be mistakenly denied funds. And so far, there is no clear path to appeal.

Who sets the criteria for who gets on the list? If AI-driven fraud detection flags payments based on patterns rather than clear evidence, could government contractors, charities, or political organizations find themselves blacklisted by mistake?

Strengthening the “Do-not-pay” list is logical, but it must prioritize accuracy, accountability, and due process — not just automation for the sake of “efficiency.” Without proper oversight, this reform could easily morph from a fraud-prevention tool into an AI-driven system of financial exclusion.”

When the bank accounts of hundreds of Canadian truckers were frozen by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2022, as punishment for the truckers’ protest against “lockdowns”, the government first had to look at where the truckers banked. With everyone’s financial records and million of government payments in the hands of what may be Musk’s cloud, or soon perhaps of Musk’s AI, anyone — including President Trump’s donors and supporters themselves, who are cheering now — can be “switched off” financially.

This insight raises a fascinating question. In this battle of Titans — one of whom, President Trump, may not yet realize that a battle is already underway, involving someone he now may see as a close ally and trusted employee — it looks as if President Trump had a brilliant but not technically fully informed vision of using Musk radically to weaken the Federal government, and to decapitate the “deep state” that railroaded Trump electorally in 2020; and that had perhaps even dropped proper security, in advance of at least one effort to kill him.

President Trump would, he may have assumed, decapitate the deep state through through using Musk, and through data.

But by doing so, President Trump may have opened a door, unknowingly, in his own ramparts, to admit a lethal Trojan Horse.

Photo by Tayla Kohler on Unsplash

Once Musk’s AI has all the government data, yes, President Trump is right, there will be no real need for Congress, and the bureaucrats will be disempowered.

But also — has Team Trump thought this through? — there will be little need for a US President either, and the US President will have relatively little power.

There will also be little need for real American citizens, and they too will have little or no power.

Do you hate talking to the lady at the Social Security office now, about why your check did not arrive? Wait til there is no lady, and you are answered by a chatbot, that can hang up on you after a certain number of exchanges. (Savings!)

Are you a dissident worried now about criticizing the government? Wait til AI can read your files, with a coding sequence that you can’t see or understand, for “dissident,” and you’ll be turned down for loans and mortgages, or even be placed last on a list for lifesaving surgery, and you will never even know why.

If your rights are violated by AI, there will be no one “guilty”, so no one to sue.

A Federal judge has for now blocked Musk’s access to Treasury department systems. This ruling suggests that the courts as well as the executive ranch, don’t fully understand digital technology. The decision calls for Musk to destroy any copies he made. If the data are already out the digital door - or with the 19-year-old DOGE engineer, Edward Costine, who was fired from an internship for leaking company secrets to a competitor, an act which would under normal cybersecurity assessments end a career rather than lead to a major promotion — it is already gone.

The internet is forever.

The judge’s ruling uses 20th century logic for a 21st century problem. You can’t just fix what could have been an historic security breach, by feeding some unauthorized xeroxes into a shredder. The data might all already be in a proprietary cloud, on the dark web, on servers in an enemy nation, or who knows where.

You can see even now, from the trouble that the Federal Judge who blocked DOGE access to Treasury data is having in understanding the issue, that humans do not understand AI well enough, and it is not accountable enough to anyone, for the third branch of government to be meaningful in rights cases related to the future use of AI in government activity.

Is DOGE really like that folktale Stone Soup — a fable about distraction? While a wandering soldier directs a hungry town’s attention to the “magic stone” in his pot of water, he asks the villagers to keep adding meat and vegetables to the pot, then announces that it is his magic stone that has produced the soup.

While we are all cheering the headlines generated by Musk finding newsworthy waste and corruption to eviscerate, we are enthralled; yet we are not noticing that five young adults and the teenager may be tiptoeing out the door right now, with all our earthly goods.

The “Everything App”: Big Brother?

Apart from the concern about a potential massive IP breach and a certain massive privacy breach, there is the worry about what it means for all of us that Musk can see, and thus combine, datasets from different agencies and then filter them together.

The last of the great protected digital spaces is in the hands of your government. I know, again, that you may hate the government; but our US government is pretty clean when it comes to how it handles our data, compared to countries in which the governments just hands over dissidents’ addresses to thugs or militias, or lift out their personal secrets for purposes of blackmail.

In America what you earn, what you pay on your tax records, your contracts if you do business with the government; your medical records within government programs such as Medicaid or the VA; where you live, who your family members are — are all confidential. Because of various regulations, and the Fourth Amendment, these are privacy-protected records. They are also housed separately within the government, which is very important for your liberty.

That is, the people who know where you live, the Bureau of the Census, cannot co-ordinate datasets with the people in Medicaid or the VA who know whether or not you are vaccinated, or if you have ever been treated for drug addiction, and they in turn cannot coordinate datasets with the people in the IRS who know whether or not you have a balloon mortgage that is about to rise sharply in cost, which can permit, in other nations, secret pressure on you, or on the lender.

But the person who can have access to all of those datasets can map and then filter those queries with the existing datasets of agency after agency, so that a “control grid” can be easily created.

When that happens, it will be an X-ray onto everyone’s vulnerabilities — including President Trump’s, his companies’, and his donors,’ and their companies’.

A major reason I am screaming abut these dangers is that I have experienced personally what can happen to a life when even a few of the tissue-thin protections of our Fourth Amendment, are breached, at the government and Broligarch levels working together.

One of the scariest moments in my life was when discovery records for Murthy v Missouri, the lawsuit against the Biden administration pressuring social media platforms for censoring dissidents, emerged. My lawyer Scott Street showed me my accurate 2021 tweet — the one warning of menstrual damage from the mRNA injection — that led Jack Dorsey’s Twitter to cancel me in 2021, and to seed identical negative stories about me, that still exist, in the world’s media.

Carol Crawford of the CDC was on the email chain pressuring social media companies and her own colleagues to censor tweets such as mine.

But also on the email exchange were personnel from the US Bureau of the Census.

Why? The only reason I could imagine would be that they know where I live; the CDC does not.

The second scariest moment was when, at the end of the Biden administration, the IRS kept not counting checks I sent in for taxes due, and thus kept escalating their demands to see my internal financial records.

I have no financial secrets; but I knew from Canada, that debanking me, or causing me the many other kinds of financial or legal mayhem that critics of the Biden regime have endured, begins with “fishing expeditions” such as those.

Musk may now have the records of where everyone banks, with whom they may have loans or mortgages; he can combine these with records of where everyone lives, and who their dependents are; he can combine all that with records of what medical treatments they have now and had in the past, and in turn combine that with contracts for their businesses (which contracts in many cases will reveal protected trade secrets, such as the vendors of software for digital companies); Musk can combine these in turn with government contract details. He can also make a map with X rays of all of his business competitors; this would be a crime, according to Fitts, if a government employee did it, as he or she is prevented from using government content to his or her own separate financial benefit.

The separation of agencies’ datasets, under normal circumstances, and past privacy safeguards, all meant that no one could create a social credit score with the US government’s data, let alone use to it to target dissidents and critics.

Now that protection is gone.

With these various filters on combined datasets, Elon Musk could out-compete any business — and also target any enemy. Musk does not even have to give the control grid to the government, which would be stopped by the courts, in any case, from using it.

Think about this. The President can’t use this theoretical control grid. But Elon Musk could.

Depending on where the data now live, which we don’t really know, Musk could keep this “everything app”, which he has promised to build, for his own purposes. Right now Musk describes the proposed “everything app” — which, interestingly, he announced at the end of last month — as combining payments and socials, just like the social credit system does in China.

His “everything app” could easily add, with these government datasets, medical records, vaccine records, mental health treatments, social networks, contracts, personal locations. A turnkey Big Brother social credit score.

Musk can do anything to anyone with little fear of reprisal — destroy any career, as Twitter did mine — because all future litigation will be a minefield; Musk will be able to see any future litigant’s income and tax returns. (President Trump just settled his class action lawsuit with Musk for Twitter’s censorship of him. I was a co-plaintiff along with President Trump and others. While I can‘t discuss the details of the case, you can imagine the impact on any plaintiff of realizing that Musk, the defendant, could in theory see the plaintiffs’ financial records during litigation.)

With his “everything app” loading up government datasets and filtering them, Musk would be able to wield powerful leverage against — even target — any Prime Minister, any donors, including the RNC’s; any company, any dissidents, and any party, including the Republican Party.

Indeed, he can target any President.

The Value of Government Data

President Trump and the MAGA team, whose leadership is almost all from the pre-internet generation, may not understand the financial value to Silicon Valley of Elon Musk having potentially breached these data already.

But the Broligarchs certainly do understand the value of this, a value so vast it almost cannot be described.

What Musk and his engineers accessed over their weekend alone with our data, is a government, of course, holding the records of the civic business of Americans; but in a digital era, evaluated inside of a digital economy, it is also an unimaginably valuable gold mine.

Imagine a gold mine filled with fully minted, priceless doubloons. It is not a gold mine to citizens, many of whom express their hatred and contempt for the government, including for its bureaucracies. But from the point of view of the Broligarchs it is an immeasurably valuable trove of the purest, most accurate, most pristine, least ambiguous, highest-quality data. Due to privacy restrictions and government firewalls, the Broligarchs have not been able to breach this treasure trove. They want it. They salivate for it.

Why do they want it so much? Why are they likely popping Champagne corks, that one of their own got the keys to this gold mine and sauntered right in, and may have unloaded, in effect, all of these priceless doubloons, intact, while the guards to the gold mine were (by government contract) not present, or overruled?

Here is why.

Silicon Valley has built and monetized almost everything that can live inside your computer or inside your phone. The technologists of Silicon Valley know the existing business models; and there are only so many video games and word processing or bookkeeping software tools, or home shopping networks and weight loss apps, that anyone wants.

The technology for everything that lives inside your computer, and the business models, are now well understood. The limits to growth are visible to the Broligarchs— that is, the limits to growth for products that live inside your computer or phone, or that can be compiled from the world of publicly available datasets.

That saturation is why they are lusting after new sites, mediums and matrices for digitization.

That saturation is why they long to build the Internet of Things, and harvest those data; that is why they want to put sensors everywhere in the built or physical environment.

That is why Columbia University has a data journalism scholarship at the School of Journalism, which includes teaching budding reporters about sensors.

Silicon Valley also lusts after creating technology that manifests in the actual environment; that is why projects such as Harvard University’s Keith Group, which houses Prof David Keith’s evil geoengineering experiments in blocking out the sun, are funded by Intellectual Ventures, one of Silicon Valley’s key venture capital firms. As a book on the Silicon Valley investment in solar radiation management notes, “Intellectual Ventures has developed a large portfolio of patents in this area: A number of other private and public entities have also filed patents in the field of geoengineering.”

The financial rewards of digitizing, harvesting data from new untamed fields, and thus of monetizing your sky and weather, your body and its processes, your brain and mood, your built environment, and yes, your protected government data sources, and privatizing its vast technological functionalities, is why there is so much excitement from investors for colonizing these not-fully-digitized and not-fully-monetized spaces.

This Wild West is why the Broligarchs wish to digitize your body; why they push “wearables” and digital tech inside the human body, so hard. This is why there was more excitement in biotech journals than in medical journals, about the mRNA technology and vaccines, in which Silicon Valley entrepreneurs such as Mark Zuckerberg, owned investments, and some VCs even patents. The immense investments already made by Silicon Valley investors, push policy demands for mrna to be bought and put into everything, even as the science around mrna collapses.

HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which protects your medical data, is an angel with a flaming sword now keeping the Tech Bros from accessing this most valuable and most continually refreshed of datasets, Americans’ constantly evolving personal medical records.

If implants in the body such as Elon Musk’s Neuralink, or digital processes in or around your body such as “wearables,” can be normalized, this — an app or device for which you give consent in the boring, no-one-really-reads-them “terms of service” for use of your medical data — allows entrepreneurs to bypass current HIPAA privacy protections around your medical data.

That breach then represents yet another new colony in the unvanquished Wild West of data.

Freshly minted national “Health Freedom” personalities, Calley and Casey Means, both own digital health companies that are based on data accumulation business models; Calley Means’ company Truemed sells apps for mental health tracking and for sleep tracking, as well as technologies that digitally analyze your gut microbiome (though, since my public criticisms, he seems to have removed from his website the device he had offered that tracks your actual brain activity).

When I sought to point out on X the data management aspect of his and his sister’s business models, Calley Means called my cautions “unhinged”.

Casey Means, the sister in this duo, is cofounder of Levels.com. That company’s business model involves securing your glucose levels and food tracking data. Casey Means has had an astonishing ride through the VC funding process, especially for a female founder, indeed for a founder with no track record at all in building and exiting successful digital companies listed in her bio. (Female founders receive less than 3% per cent of VC funding). Casey Means, unusually, secured a $12 million dollar round from some of the biggest VCs in Silicon Valley: “Levels recently raised $12M of seed funding from Andreessen Horowitz and angel investors including Marc Randolph (co-founder and first CEO of Netflix), Dick Costolo (former CEO of Twitter [italics mine]), Michael Arrington (founder of TechCrunch), and Matt Dellavedova (NBA player on Cleveland Cavaliers).”

Because I understood the data-harvesting value proposition of the Means siblings’ business models, I realized early on that their sudden self-representation as grassroots medical freedom activists was absurd. And when, within weeks, President Trump announced, standing alongside Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, a $500 billion joint venture in AI, “Stargate,” which would combine the forces of usually-competing entities Microsoft, OpenAI, Nvidia, Oracle and Softbank, I saw another warning sign.

I realized as I watched all this unfold, that while President Trump may believe that he has harnessed Silicon Valley, the real risk is that Silicon Valley has harnessed him.

The goal of the Broligarchs in suddenly out of nowhere embracing MAGA, was very clear. It was not just a predictable kowtowing to the new guy in charge; though that surely was an element. This embrace seemed mostly, to me, even before I learned of Musk’s time with our most precious data, what they call in VC land, “a data play.”

The Broligarchs were after the most valuable tranche of un-monetized data in the world -- that of the US Federal Government.

Elon Musk’s special alone time with our data may be a big part of that.

Does Team Trump fully understand all of this?

Again, Musk could have easily identified waste, fraud and abuse — and gotten the man for whom he works, all the same exciting headlines — legally and securely.

He made the decision not to do so.

This begs the question:

Why not?

####