Elon Musk’s Secret Weapon: the US Marshals Service
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Elon Musk appears to be using the US Marshal Service for politically motivated purposes. For starters, the US Marshals Service has deputized some members of Musk's private security detail. Apparently this is highly unusual because it is usually only done with individuals with a law enforcement background and for specific short-term purposes.
In addition, the Marshalls also appear to be doing Musk's bidding by serving as "muscle" when he wants things done like getting certain offices vacated or escorting US government employees who have been fired or even just put on leave out of buildings. “You have an extragovernmental agency assigning marshals to do something that’s questionable in the first place.” But the most chilling example of how they have been used is to lean on federal judges: In January, DOGE reached out to the Marshals Service to “express concern” that judges weren’t acting quickly enough to release Jan. 6 defendants. After that, the acting marshal in charge of security at the DC courthouse went to the chambers of at least four judges to check on the status of Jan. 6 cases. The incident “astonished and angered a number of judges. “We’ve never seen anything like this before—pressuring the court to issue a decision by a certain time,” the judge added. Ledogar, the former supervisory deputy marshal in New York, told me that USMS personnel are supposed to communicate with judges about courthouse security, “but as far as speaking about working faster, that is totally out of the normal.” https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/04/elon-musk-us-marshals-service-deputy-special-marshals-doge/ |
Anonymous
| Maybe there’s someone in the USMS with an inner-Luigi. |
Anonymous
|
MJ isn't exactly a neutral publication.
Deputizing private security is not uncommon. As for checking on status, was that within the USMS authority? If so, what's the issue? |
Anonymous
1. MJ isn't exactly a neutral publication. I knew it would take only a few minutes for a Trumpkin to say that. The piece is well-researched and well-sourced and contains the names of people it quotes. It is not an opinion piece. If you would take a moment to read it, you would see that. I lean left but I read articles in right-leaning publications. If they are well-sourced and well-researched, I do not immediately discount them, especially if they deal with demonstrable facts. 2. Deputizing private security is not uncommon. Correct. However, what is uncommon is to deputize people who do not serve in an LEO role, like local police officers, for example. "Even though federal policy allows the Marshals Service to deputize private actors, it’s rare for the agency to do so. The former USMS officers I spoke with had never witnessed it happening. “It’d be unusual to deputize someone who wasn’t a law enforcement officer or didn’t have the law enforcement experience required,” says James Meissner, who became a special deputy marshal while working with the US Coast Guard after September 11." 3. As for checking on status, was that within the USMS authority? If so, what's the issue? The OP said nothing about "checking on status." Where did you get that? They are being used as muscle by DOGE/Musk, not to investigate. |
Anonymous
|
The best portrayal of Musk yet.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DH_55LOCDxW/?igsh=MWdjM2dxMWpraWE3YQ== |
Anonymous
MJ is a left-wing publication. This has been discussed at length on DCUM. Do you know why they were deputized? Do you know who was deputized? What you consider to be "muscle", others would consider to be law enforcement duties. OP did say "the acting marshal in charge of security at the DC courthouse went to the chambers of at least four judges to check on the status of Jan. 6 cases." Do you know why they checked the status of those cases? |
Anonymous
Deputizing a person as a US Marshall is a not uncommon way for them to be authorized to carry firearms when their official duties otherwise would not typically involve such surgery. A federal prosecutor who received death threats might be deputized so that they could be armed for self-defense. Deputizing a non-governmental security detail as reportedly occurred would allow the detail members to be armed on government property and otherwise carry out their quasi-governmental function. |
Anonymous
| I wonder if he’s trying to do particularly awful stuff right now as no one is paying attention during the economic meltdown. |
Anonymous
| These people were pardoned by the President. The judges were trying to extend the prison terms. |
Anonymous
It’s not a real patron. It’s a Trump pardon. So it’s not valid. The judges were completely within their rights to make such rulings. |
Anonymous
|
I guess SCOTUS had better watch out.
Musk might come for them if they don't stop him. |
Anonymous
|
They sent armed marshals to the home of a DOJ lawyer they fired because she doesn't think Mel Gibson should be allowed to have a gun.
The marshals were scheduled to arrive between 9 and 10 pm AT HER HOME. Wtf?! The lawyer's teen child was home alone, and someone with a brain was persuaded to call them off so that the teen was not traumatized by armed men arriving at the house between 9 and 10 pm AT NIGHT. Trump is sick. Stephen Miller is sick. Musk is sick. |
Anonymous
And the team knew all of this from the beginning? Are armed law enforcement never allowed to knock on the door of a private residence? Do they have to make an appointment first? |
Anonymous
You should have added the context, which is worse. The reason for the visit was to deliver a letter warning her about potential consequences of her testifying as a whistleblower at a Congressional hearing the next day. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25881543-20250407-letter-to-deputy-attorney-general-blanche-oyer-2025-04-07-12-09-133/ letter from her attorney: The April 4 letter from one of your subordinates warns Ms. Oyer about the purported risks of testifying at a congressional hearing. At no point does the letter advise Ms. Oyer of the legal protections in place for whistleblowers, which protect current an dformer federal employees reporting violations of laws, rules, or regulations; gross mismanagement or waste of funds; abuse of authority; or a substantial danger to public health or safety. See 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A)(ii). Nor does your letter contain the limiting language that is statutorily required when the Department purports to prohibit disclosures by a whistleblower, such as Ms.Oyer. See id. § 2302(b)(13). On the contrary, your letter and the attempted manner of delivery appear calculated to deter Ms. Oyer from providing truthful testimony as a whistleblower, in further violation of these legal protections.Your tactics also appear to violate the Lloyd-LaFolette Act (5 U.S.C. § 7211), which provides that the right of employees “to petition Congress or a Member of Congress, or to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof,may not be interfered with or denied.” Executive branch employees are in fact required by federal regulation to “disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriatea uthorities,” which is precisely what Ms. Oyer seeks to do. Standards of Ethical Conductf or Federal Employees, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(11), available athttps://www.justice.gov/jmd/regulations-authorities-and-reference-materials.As to the alleged legal basis for the attempt to intimidate Ms. Oyer from testifying—that her testimony is barred by executive privilege—the argument is c ompletely without merit. The President has not asserted executive privilege over any matter at issue here, nor have you identified specific information potentially subject to such privilege. Moreover, executive privilege cannot be asserted to protect misconduct—as expressly noted in the OLC opinion cited in your letter. Assertion of Executive Privilege in Response to Congressional Demands for Law Enforcement Files, 6 Op. O.L.C. 31, 36 (1982)(“These principles will not be employed to shield documents which contain evidence of criminal or unethical conduct by agency officials from proper review.”) (cited in your Letter at 1 n.1); see also, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 746 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“[T]he privilege disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct occurred.”). |
Anonymous
| Best part of the this thread are the Musk defenders who just make him look even more insidious. |