Lambert here: “May have” seems excessively cautious.
At least two DOGE employees, the filing reveals, were in touch with a political advocacy group that asked them to analyze data from state voter rolls as part of its effort to overturn election results.
One of the employees signed a “Voter Data Agreement” with the group, according to the filing. It’s unclear what the agreement entailed.
Lambert here: How is this allowed to be “unclear”? Can’t we get the DOGEbag to disgorge it?
There was no indication that either employee shared social security data with the group, the filing said.
Lambert here: But there wouldn’t be. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” as the late, great Donald Rumsfeld once said.
The Social Security Administration referred both employees for potential Hatch Act violations, per the filing.
Lambert here: It would be nice to have those referrals. Where are they?
Add new comment