• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

Remius said:
www.ctvnews.ca

New York Times, AP, Newsmax among news outlets who say they won’t sign new Pentagon rules

News organizations including The New York Times, The Associated Press and the conservative Newsmax television network said Monday they will not sign a U.S. Defense Department document about its new press rules, making it likely the Trump administration will evict their reporters from the Pentagon.
www.ctvnews.ca www.ctvnews.ca

So news orgs wont be going along…
Click to expand...
You can still have leaks without reporters in the building itself.

Now, if ALL reporters covering U.S. politics had to sign NDA's - but how likely is that, right? Not on my bingo card, but a lot of what's happened since inauguration weren't, either, so ... 🍿
 
The Bread Guy said:
You can still have leaks without reporters in the building itself.

Now, if ALL reporters covering U.S. politics had to sign NDA's - but how likely is that, right? Not on my bingo card, but a lot of what's happened since inauguration weren't, either, so ... 🍿
Click to expand...

I'm no expert but isn't a 'free press' hindered by signing NDAs?

I guess that's the idea though, of course...
 
daftandbarmy said:
I'm no expert but isn't a 'free press' hindered by signing NDAs?
Click to expand...
Me neither, but I agree. I think that's part of the point the Pentagon press saying "no, thanks" is trying to make.
daftandbarmy said:
I guess that's the idea though, of course...
Click to expand...
You can't blame people for thinking that when we see this kind of stuff, for sure.
 
Meh, I've seen JAG lawyers RTU'd from theatre due to performance - obviously not the same scale as the above. There are probably divided legal opinions on the subject conveniently omitted. CNN does negatively sensationalize everything the 47 administration does.
 
QV said:
Meh, I've seen JAG lawyers RTU'd from theatre due to performance - obviously not the same scale as the above. There are probably divided legal opinions on the subject conveniently omitted. CNN does negatively sensationalize everything the 47 administration does.
Click to expand...
So you are saying this is Fake News? Because it is critical of the current regime?
 
QV said:
Meh, I've seen JAG lawyers RTU'd from theatre due to performance - obviously not the same scale as the above. There are probably divided legal opinions on the subject conveniently omitted. CNN does negatively sensationalize everything the 47 administration does.
Click to expand...
Did you actually read the story, or just decide to chuck stones at a whole profession based on your isolated incidents? Lots of people get RTUd, and sometimes doing your job properly by giving an honest opinion makes you unpopular with operators.

They aren't taking their opinion and going another way (which is fine) they are straight up bypassing them and ignoring them, despite it being right in their wheelhouse as the lawyers that would actually have to defend any lawsuits.

Most US senior officers I've met have been very conservative people (with a small 'c'), and they are hardly the lone voice saying a lot of these things could be illegal and leave them open to lawsuits. Listening to them and maybe adjusting the approach could help actually do what they want, but all indications are that they want to stick with echo chamber syncophants. Works out great for Trump, when you see how many of his lawyers need lawyers and have gotten disbarred and sued into oblivion.
 
QV said:
Meh, I've seen JAG lawyers RTU'd from theatre due to performance - obviously not the same scale as the above. There are probably divided legal opinions on the subject conveniently omitted. CNN does negatively sensationalize everything the 47 administration does.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between American JAGs and Canadian ones. Canadian JAGs have statutory independence - firstly the JAG is independent of the chain of command (as are DMP and DDCS) but also Canadian legal officers are subject only to the command of the JAG with respect to legal matters.

American JAGs are seen as more part of the command chain of command as a specialist staff officer.

Regardless, it is the duty of the legal officer to provide candid and legally sound advice to the commander he supports but it is up to the commander to decide if he will accept that advice. Here in Canada that is the same. Any commander has the option to reject legal advice, however, it should be clear to him that the LegO will report that up through his own chain of command where his advice will be reviewed and if found correct and the line commander's action illegal will result in the legal superior to report the infraction to the next highest line commander and so on up to the CDS and even the MND.

I'd like to know which legal officer you saw RTU'd from theatre and the reason for it. I'm not aware of any and I was still in at the time, but who knows; it could have happened. However, there is a world of difference for a LegO not performing - whatever that means (drunkenness, laziness, bad legal advice?), and commanders firing JAG officers because their correct legal advice doesn't suit their cowboy style.

Here's the problem. MAGA is replete with lawyers who will give whatever advice the chain wants to hear. It's no secret that many laws are difficult to interpret and their can be genuine dispute as to what their effect is on a particular fine point situation. It's kind of like Kennedy - his nut ball medical views are challenged by the vast majority of the medical community but you'll always find some doctor to support it if you search hard enough.

That's what's happening here. Legal officers charged with the duty to provide the best legal advice to their commanders are being fired because that advice doesn't suit the current administration. They'll keep firing lawyers until they find one who will tug his forelock and say "Yas Suh. That's fine with me."

If you can't see the problem with that then you don't care for the US Constitution as you profess to do. This is a big deal. What's going on in the Justice Department is equally depraved.

🍻
 
The problem with legal advice from a lawyer is it often assumes the worst and goes the path of least legal risk. Having worked with DOJ lawyers that had decades of court experience and ones with a career pandering to the Ottawa headquarters, that advice can be night and day different in how risk is viewed. I had a couple of DOJ Lawyers, that I would kiss the ground they walked on as they could deftly handle the opposing side legal council. As for the other ones, I had to remind one of our lawyer that they gave advice, the decision is ours and not theirs. They got in a huff and created a stir, but our course of action was sound and worked. It did not help that our department legal reps changed frequently while were stick handling a major project. That caused a lot of problems and risk aversion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top