Something tells me an executive order is coming that bars certain reporters from the Pentagon Press Releases.
782
hackingdreams1 day ago
+263
Followed shortly by yet another judge suspending the executive order because it violates the reporters' first amendment rights.
And around and around we go.
263
Spire_Citron1 day ago
+157
That's the problem when there are no actual punishments for misusing your powers and all your commands must be followed until a court intervenes. You can just keep spamming the same tricks over and over.
157
onarainyafternoon1 day ago
+54
Because there is no law against *trying* to use Executive Orders for whatever you want. The problem here lies with congress giving up its power slowly over the last 80 years.
54
Spire_Citron1 day ago
+17
Legally there isn't, but I think that's part of the problem. There ought to be a standard where it is illegal to use your authority to take an action that you knew or should have known wasn't legal. You can't rely on Congress to police their own party. There's an inherent bias there.
17
mike_b_nimble1 day ago
+29
And that's where impeachment comes in. The reason there aren't hundreds of laws regulating presidential powers is because all you need is a single rule that says you will be removed from power if a majority of the legislature thinks you're abusing it. That strategy falls apart when all 3 branches are captured by partisans.
29
Spire_Citron1 day ago
+4
Problem is, that not exactly a rare occurrence.
4
TheRabidDeer1 day ago
+7
Bear in mind, these rules were made when we didn't have a party system in place and we were even warned about succumbing to a two party system by both George Washington and John Adams.
7
NoodledLily1 day ago
+3
Judges are starting to hold attorneys accountable. But they can go much further. Same with state bars.
They've lost deference.. which is insane. Like judges no longer take the justice department at their word that they arent flat out lying. Or that their client isnt lying (client being our governmtn)
3
Spire_Citron1 day ago
+1
Yeah, I do think a lot of things aren't as entirely without consequence as they treat them.
1
NoodledLily1 day ago
+1
they f****** deserve ^3 more than they're getting
problem is this will last beyond when we kick them out
and it hurts the rest of us
took 100 years to build. 10 months for a toddler to destroy. it's way harder to piece back together.
especially when toddler shit in every decision marker's mouth.
hard to forget that taste. pavlovian almost 💩😂
1
onarainyafternoon1 day ago
+2
Totally agree.
2
suzanious1 day ago
+1
Blatant bias 🤨, it's maddening.
1
clik_clak1 day ago
+8
This is the main problem with having a complicit, corrupt supreme court that made the president have essentially unlimited power. Biden was too much of a scared coward to do anything with the power that he was given, and now we have a president that made us the laughing stock of the world.
This shit couldn't even be made into a semi-believable movie, yet here we are with it happening in real life.
8
laplongejr1 day ago
+1
> Biden was too much of a scared coward to do anything with the power that he was given
He had no such power. SCOTUS has yet to decide on what is *not* an official act.
POTUS's power is unlimited only if SCOTUS agrees with them...
1
clik_clak1 day ago
+2
And they’ve done so much to stop him so far…
2
profstotch1 day ago
+2
Surprised we haven't had an EO that tries to say judges can't block EOs
2
SparkyMuffin1 day ago
+2
Missing the month or two they get what they want with no punishment.
They essentially just use EOs and the Speed of Law to get what they want and stall
2
suzanious1 day ago
+1
This is so insane! I never dreamed our country would turn out like this. But here we are and all the reasonable norms and diplomacy have been thrown clean out the window. 🤷♀️
1
FabianN1 day ago
+10
That was done, and then blocked, which lead to this latest move.
10
Krillin1131 day ago
+4
Nah they’ll just ignore it outright
4
skyysdalmt1 day ago
+4
For national security reasons of course. Reasons they can't disclose because of national security reasons.
4
LittleShrub1 day ago
+2646
The free speech absolutists are going to be offended!
2646
Neuromangoman1 day ago
+414
How dare the journalists abridge the government's right to free speech like that!
414
zuzg1 day ago
+139
Jeez they already put a *Journalist* at the head of the Pentagon what more do you people want?
139
swingadmin1 day ago
+63
Can we get a game show host as president?
63
PlatyPunch1 day ago
+24
With the current guy, there's nowhere to go but up.
24
CandidBee86951 day ago
+23
(The current guy was a game show host)
23
Cuddlesthemighy1 day ago
+17
Honestly I'm kind of jealous if they weren't aware of it.
17
stoopitmonkee1 day ago
+6
It’s even better (worse) when you say reality tv game show host.
6
CandidBee86951 day ago
+5
I guess. I don’t really delineate.
5
DetroitTabaxiFan1 day ago
+1
Only if it's Sam Reich.
1
DarthCaligula1 day ago
+4
> they already put a Journalist at the head of the Pentagon
Is he even a real journalist? Or just a co host of an entertainment "news" show? Honest question.
Edit: You have to go to school and get a degree to be a legit journalist. Or at least you used to.
4
HerbaciousTea1 day ago
+13
I am not joking when I say I have ACTUALLY heard that said unironically by republicans, that directly reporting what someone says is slander and a "free speech violation" for making them look bad.
They think free speech means they can say whatever they want and no one is allowed to react to them in a way they don't like.
13
Techn0281 day ago
+15
Don't you know we're in a WAR, can't have CNN leaking everything/s
15
FreeUsePolyDaddy1 day ago
+3
Pravda will tell us what we need to know. /s
3
Fallouttgrrl1 day ago
+7
Right? Currently Hegseth can say anything! You really want him to be restricted to answering *questions* and being *fact checked*
7
BWWFC1 day ago
+4
if money is free speech... and the GOV wants to start spit-bars my way, i'm down to listen ;-p
4
TheShipEliza1 day ago
+5
Taibbi in shambles
5
PurelyAnonymous1 day ago
+350
Cool, so what punishment will the Pentagon receive?
350
allanon11051 day ago
+94
A stern talking to and a hard glare. I’m sure they’ll get right on it.
94
No_Square2361 day ago
+14
Susan Collins might even be concerned. Look out.
14
Daft001 day ago
+3
No way they're getting a hard glare... Even the sternness of the "talking to" might be optimistic
3
tacobelmont1 day ago
+2
Chuck Schumer may wear his glasses extra low on his nose this time!
2
i_am_voldemort1 day ago
+24
Judge ordered them to obey his order and have an administration official sign an affidavit attesting to compliance
If they don't do that, or lie, the judge will likely have a show cause hearing.
He could jail someone or assign fines
The problem is POTUS could tell USMS not to arrest and jail the person for contempt... And now we get a Constitutional crisis between the Executive and Judicial Branches.
24
FreeUsePolyDaddy1 day ago
+15
Which we need to happen. Judges that avoid this, are simply complying in advance. They may as well have never bothered with their original ruling and just phoned in a statement of "whatever the govt says". It is way past time to make the dysfunction politically embarassing.
15
bp920091 day ago
+8
Then judges need to do what's in their legal rights and deputize someone to enact their rulings.
While judges certainly rely on the marshals in historical precedent, they only do so because it's expedient. They are under no legal requirements to do so.
Judges can pick... just about anyone, tell them that they are charged with enforcing the decisions of the court, with whatever force the judge deems prudent.
8
Thinking_persephone1 day ago
+4
Another constitutional crisis***
4
Lonely_Nebula_94381 day ago
+1
It’s not really a crisis we know exactly what happens, it’s happened before. The judicial branch doesn’t have the power to enforce its decisions, thays by design, enforcement is the executive’s power. It’s entirely a matter if Congress as the legislative branch wants to play referee and make one side back down.
1
InstructionPurple9111 day ago
+19
I'm betting the cut the budget for snow crab right out from under ol' Pentagon Petey
19
no_one_likes_u1 day ago
+7
Snow crab is for poors like the enlisted or taxpayers, not pentagon high up. They get king crab.
7
MeThinksYes1 day ago
that better than Dungeness?
0
r_z_n1 day ago
+8
Hegseth's complimentary 64oz morning growler will be downgraded to 48oz for a week.
8
hapnstat1 day ago
+2
That's just breakfast, though. Elevenses is still at 64oz.
2
showhorrorshow1 day ago
+7
Right. What's the point of rights if the govt can violate them with impunity?
7
ComradeJohnS1 day ago
+2
maybe they’ll continue to not do audits
2
El-Sueco1 day ago
+1
A bottle of whisky
1
ItsDokk1 day ago
+1
[This.](https://youtu.be/gBzoKIvvbI0) Maybe…
1
DrowningKrown1 day ago
+288
Man, if I told a Y2K republican that 25 years later they would be cheering on federal government citizen lists and tracking, press suppression, and anti-first amendment practices, their head would probably explode.
288
Greizen_bregen1 day ago
+135
It shows they had no moral or ethical compass in the first place. Instead of their convictions determining the direction of their political party, they just blindly adopted every single stance they were told to. This is what a lack of critical thinking looks like.
135
Umikaloo1 day ago
+4
I don't like to generalise, but I've noticed a similar phenomenon related to "cancel culture". Withdrawing support of someone after finding out new information is seen as hypocrisy rather than moral consistency.
It ties in to the *politics as spectator sport* tendency, where you're expected to support your home team no matter what. Even though in reality, your personal convictions should drive your allegiance, and not the other way around.
4
moosekin161 day ago
+79
Republicans in the 70s and 80s pushed *hard* for harsher drug offense laws, specifically to target minority groups and hippies. You can’t do that without maintaining a list to track who gets arrested.
Before that, the Red Scare encouraged people to report their neighbors if they harbored “communist” or “anti-American” sentiment. Again, that only works if you keep a list of “dissidents.”
Republicans have always wanted to list and track the “wrong” type of Americans.
79
DisillusionedPatriot1 day ago
+5
Knowing history, has never been more necessary and easy, yet so uncommon.
5
lunaticfridgeprime1 day ago
+29
It wouldn't when you tell them who is being targeted with these actions.
Republicans have never, ever had a moral code. They are just marginally more open now with their true goals.
29
4th-Estate1 day ago
+11
I remember y2k GOP being just fine with the Patriot Act.
11
kevlarbaboon1 day ago
+6
Well that's before they realized the grave threat trans people, immigrants, fair elections and Iran (???!!!!) are to our great Nation.
6
Gamiac1 day ago
+5
...are you talking about the same Bush-era Republicans that cheered on the Patriot Act, TSA and ICE?
5
FillFrontFloor1 day ago
+3
You may need to reeducate yourself about them because I can definitely tell you they'll be more than okay with it
3
brucemo1 day ago
+1
I'm all in on shitting on Republicans but I still think it's honestly true that Y2K Republicans were willing to do sketchy things.
Democrats too, unfortunately.
1
Li_liminal_spaces1 day ago
+1
The last election they were attacking Biden for requesting social media companies moderate Covid misinformation and when they were private citizens requesting naked pictures of Hunter Biden be removed. That apparently was a massive injustice against free speech.
1
mister_milkshake1 day ago
-2
Just imagine to then turn to a dem from that time and be like, “and you’re going to be the party that is obsessed with policing speech, and will align strongly with the trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry against “my body my choice.” It would be like the twin towers exploding and falling to the ground. And nobody else there will get that reference.
-2
Herkfixer1 day ago
+46
Until the Supremes tell them they can do what they want until they decide to take the case up in 2.75 years.
46
bimbo_baggins_1 day ago
+96
I’m sure they’ll be right on that.
96
subpoenaThis1 day ago
+13
can't be to brash in your actions, they'll need to put all the planning and consequence prediction resources that have been sitting idle to use. They might have a plan to restore access in an orderly fashion on a 4 year timescale.
13
aluke0001 day ago
+9
No surprise Pete Smegbreath sees himself above the law too.
9
A_Nonny_Muse1 day ago
+8
Is that before or after ICE deports them to gitmo?
8
Sedert18821 day ago
+4
Hegseth will keep on dodging the orders because there's no consequences for not properly abiding by them.
4
GravyVortex1 day ago
+17
Wild that we need a federal judge to remind the Pentagon “freedom of the press” is still a thing. Someone should livestream every briefing now, just to make the point.
After stating the Pentagon's position that the court had removed security and enforcement mechanisms, the court says, In short, this is nonsense. (Nice)
In a footnote about the Pentagon explaining the e***** simply had not been fully briefed, the court says, Really? (Hilarious)
5
deviltrombone1 day ago
+5
Meanwhile, as the wheels of justice slowly turned, the regime went off on numerous adventures, not that the press would have mattered even a little bit.
5
Indigoh1 day ago
+5
Again? This is, what, the 4th time a judge has made this ruling?
5
PM_ME_UR_VULVASAUR_1 day ago
+9
So, this will equate to about 10 billion extra on the defence budget?
9
EuphoricCrashOut1 day ago
+3
Now arrest anyone and everything that did the illegal thing. Just because it was 'temporary' and had to be overruled, or whatever, doesn't mean it wasn't illegal. MAKE ARRESTS FFS That's how you stop bad people from continuing to do bad things.
They'll just order it again xD
3
ohnohelpwhereamI1 day ago
+2
Wait, so the people banned for asking naughty questions are gonna be able to come back?
2
JesusWuta40oz1 day ago
+2
They won't. Nothing will happen.
2
TheVideogaming1011 day ago
+2
So when they don't comply then what?
2
008Zulu1 day ago
+1
Then they send a strongly worded letter of condemnation, and call it a day.
1
JWils4111 day ago
+2
I'm sure this regime, known for following laws, will get right on this.
/s
2
invalidpassword1 day ago
+2
Yeah, it's probably a good idea for us to know what our Dept. of "War" is doing these days. They do essentially have a blank check to destroy civilizations at will.
2
vizag1 day ago
+2
Ok this is good but what happens if the pentagon refuses to honor the order? What can the judge do?
2
blender4life1 day ago
+2
Wild how long this shit takes
2
Wolf94551 day ago
+1
Checks and balances baby!
1
Trifang4201 day ago
+1
Haha, that should work.
1
McRibs20241 day ago
+1
Pete Hegseth getting the beer sweats hearing this.
1
Additional_Rich_52491 day ago
+1
Yes. F them. Free press rules.
1
IEatBigWetBoogers1 day ago
+1
Hshahahaha!!!
Good one!
And someone once told me judges don’t have a sense of humor.
1
toomanymarbles831 day ago
+1
Good luck with that. We'll see kegsbreath before a grand jury before we see this have any effect.
1
guiltyas-sin1 day ago
+1
"Orders." How quaint. Like this admin gives a ripe shit, or for now, face any consequences.
1
dmisfit211 day ago
+1
I’m sure they’ll get right on this.
1
zer04ll1 day ago
+1
Too late they are owned by one company now for the most part
1
Shartin_luther_king1 day ago
+1
Didn’t you hear, freedom of the press is very unconditional!
1
I_am_not_JohnLeClair1 day ago
+1
At least they’re good at respecting a judge’s decision 🙄
1
CurlOfTheBurl111 day ago
+1
Good. Who's going to enforce the ruling though?
1
atreeismissing1 day ago
+1
6 months later.
That's why this administration *seems* like they get so much done. They act first then wait for a judge to tell them to stop doing something illegal which takes a long time. Judges need to stop them first, then let the lawsuit's play out.
1
coalitionofilling1 day ago
+1
Pentagon will restore press and then intentionally not call on any of them when they raise their hands to ask a question. You already see it in the Whitehouse with Trump. First thing he asks is "who are you with?" to see if it's some propaganda rag owned by one of his buds that's declared fealty.
1
fffan93911 day ago
+1
crazy how long it takes for these decisions to be reversed.
1
E_seven_201 day ago
+1
Sure...if the judge could enforce that, it might mean something.
...but, it will be ignored, and appealed, so that doesn't matter either.
1
1aysays11 day ago
+1
Okay, but are they actually going to enforce it? I think not.
1
wrathmont1 day ago
+1
Nature is healing, slowly but surely.
1
Jumpstart_4111 day ago
+1
Need arrests and put things back to some order. Time like this, I wonder if deputise by the courts is even possible. Enemies of the state is obviously causing social disorder to our society.
1
Tarvonae1 day ago
+1
About time they let the reporters back in to admire the architecture
1
Nicholas-Steel1 day ago
+1
He's already building a special area in the Whitehouse for him to restrict the press to that area and require e****** everywhere else.
1
Niceromancer1 day ago
-7
Time to remind everyone when Obama decided to restrict press access of fox news and their ilk due to them lying and trying to clip farm so God damn much other news organizations stood with them to get their press credentials back.
But none of those organizations stepped up to try to restore those who were removed from the current admin
-7
Maktaka1 day ago
+6
No press organization was left with access after the censorship policy was enacted, nobody remained to argue for the restoration of those purged. The only organization that agreed to Hegseth's policy was OANN, and they sure aren't in the business of being the press, they exist to be a mouthpiece of the regime. Everyone else pulled out, including Fox, and they all filed lawsuits such as the one from this article challenging the legality of what has once again been proven in a court of law to be an illegal order.
6
bkgn1 day ago
+3
Fox News got so scared of OANN and Newsmax stealing viewership from them after the 2020 election that they swung even harder into rightwing crazytown. Fox News has not left much room for anyone to swing even wilder to the right, but I guess OANN found one way.
3
jonsnowme1 day ago
+2
Fox News isn't and never was a news organization. They're an entertainment network. Hope this helps.
2
wjames03941 day ago
-15
Should be only Fox News.
-15
redoctobershtanding1 day ago
+2
Why? To shove completely biased, politically controlled information down our troops' throats?
119 Comments