I didn't treat it as anything. It really doesn't even need to be proven as fact. The actual thing people were warning about was untrained and unqualified people having access to this data in the first place. I can't find a statement denying that this employee had that level of access.

If those people weren't granted unprecedented access to our data, there would be no whistle to blow. You can wait for the "investigation" to play out, the rest can see that obvious risks were ignored to benefit someone.

This coming from the same group of morons crying election fraud without an ounce of proof is amazing.

I suppose the data just ended up in their hands at no fault of their own, through complete random happenstance, unrelated to their previous employment with DOGE?

You're right. This administration has done nothing but sit on it's laurels the past 2 years.

I think given the performance of DOGE, the wars, the executive orders, the epstein files, we can make a SMALL logical stretch here and assume, FOR THE MOMENT, that this happened.

You can of course discuss whether a thing is good or bad, even before it has been proven a fact. As an example, you could discuss whether it would be good or bad if it turned out that Trump fucked a minor in the presence of Epstein. Doesn't have to be proved first. You can still discuss whether it's good or bad. You could even discuss things that are totally hypothetical: if we colonize the moon, should we make murder legal or illegal on the moon? We can answer that question even if it hasn't happened yet.

He is talking about explanation of potential situation. He never said it is proven fact.

Well, there was the previous whistleblower complaint that members of DOGE accessed and shared sensitive Social Security data without the awareness of agency officials, which the government denied...until this January when they were forced to admit in a court filing that it was true. [https://archive.is/efY6S]

That is to say, there is no reason to extend this administration or anything DOGE-related the benefit of the doubt.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I think it's fine for citizens to hold administrations up to their own standards.

Now, your turn to answer the question.

Maybe because the constant lying of the U.S. administration means that any kind of whistle-blowing should be treated as fact, especially when there's likely to be significant risks to the whistleblower. It seems very likely to be true.