Contempt Continued: Rubio, Bondi Attempt To Stonewall Court Inquiry With Bullshit ‘State Secrets’ Response

Legal Issues

from the clownshow dept

In Mike’s thorough post yesterday on the topic of the Trump administration’s naked contempt for judicial oversight, the main theme and takeaway from it was a simple one: this authoritarian regime would much rather waste everyone’s time trying to play procedural and semantic games with the courts than actually participate in honest deliberations with them. This is no small thing and it portends so much more about how this adminisration is going to behave across the government. Trump and his complicit cabinet, some members of which will inevitably be hung out to dry eventually when things go wrong enough, have no time for process. No time for rules. Or truth. Or honest dialogue. There is only the end goal that has been demanded by the mad king. Any norms or rules that get in the way of the goal are to be routed around in as contemptious a manner possible.

So it goes in the ongoing case before federal judge James Boasberg. This is the case in which the court ordered what the administration calls “deportations” — though since they are without any form of due process it’s more accurate to call them human trafficking — conducted as a result of Trump’s invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Boasberg issued verbal and written orders that the rendition flights be stopped and that any planes that hadn’t arrived at their destination, including those in the air, be returned until Boasberg could evaluate the legitimacy of the use of the centuries old law.

But some of the planes didn’t stop, and not all in the air were ordered to turn around. With no due process, there is no assurance that the government’s claim as to who the people on these planes are is accurate. Even as the judge demanded information on the timelines at play to determine if his orders were violated or ignored, administration officials as high up as the Secretary of State Marco Rubio jeered gleefully on social media sites with retweets and the like. Boasberg, a decidedly conservative judge, was falsely mocked as a “radical left lunatic.”

But the contempt doesn’t stop there. Several days ago, the court was adamant that it would determine whether its order was violated.

US District Judge James Boasberg vowed on Friday to find out whether officials in the Trump administration violated his orders temporarily blocking the use of an 1798 law for deportations by refusing to turn two flights around last weekend.

“I will get to the bottom of whether they violated my order – who ordered this and what the consequences will be,” Boasberg said near the end of an hourlong hearing over whether he should lift the pair of orders he issued last Saturday.

Rather than participate with a coequal branch of government, however, Marco Rubio, Kristi Noem, and Pam Bondi have instead decided to play more childish games. Transparently childish, too, by any honest reading of their response. As had been speculated in previous news on the case, the government has decided to attempt to invoke state secrets privilege over the information the court has demanded. Which, again, is solely information about the timing of the order for the takeoff and the eventual landing of deportation flights that the court had temporarily ordered to be ceased. And because this administration can’t help itself, it did so with the vocabulary of a teenager refusing to go to bed on time.

The Court has all of the facts it needs to address the compliance issues before it,” Attorney General Pam Bondi and other top DOJ officials wrote in a filing to US District Judge James Boasberg. “Further intrusions on the Executive Branch would present dangerous and wholly unwarranted separation-of-powers harms with respect to diplomatic and national security concerns that the Court lacks competence to address.”

“The information sought by the Court is subject to the state secrets privilege because disclosure would pose reasonable danger to national security and foreign affairs,” the officials wrote in the 10-page filing.

Among the questions Boasberg wanted the Justice Department to answer are ones concerning the exact timing of when the two planes took off from US soil and left US airspace that day, as well as the specific times individuals deported under Trump’s proclamation were transferred out of US custody that day.

Since the CNN post couldn’t be bothered to be so direct, allow me to: the Trump administration is full of shit. They know they’re full of shit. They know we know they’re full of shit. But they also are more than happy to wield what they think is a power card, believing they’ve found some procedural loophole. We just make this claim, they seem to think, and it lets us do whatever we want!

But that isn’t how asserting this privilege works at all. The judge will now have the opportunity to review whether the government’s assertion is warranted.

He told the government last week that it could submit the information under seal or invoke the privilege, though he said if DOJ decides to shield the information, he “is obligated to ‘determine whether the circumstances are appropriate for the claim of privilege.’”

The Trump administration appears to want it both ways. It wants to claim it has not violated any court order while also blocking the information to validate that it had not. There is nothing about what the government previously falsely called routine deportations that should have any play in state secrets. When did the planes take off, when did they land, and who did they contain? If those are state secrets, then anything can be a state secret.

And that’s the danger here. It’s the reason the administration must lose this game. If any judicial oversight can be routed around simply by putting a few complicit signatures on a piece of paper that says “state secrets,” then there simply is no judicial oversight.

And, in that negation of a coequal branch of government, you have the end of our Republic.

Filed Under: accountability, donald trump, el salvador, james boasberg, kristi noem, marco rubio, pam bondi, rendition, state secrets

The Presidential Toddler Theory Of Government

Politics

from the learn-to-take-responsibility dept

There comes a moment in every collapsing democracy when absurdity and menace fuse into something uniquely destabilizing—a phenomenon I’m tempted to call “malignant farce.” We’ve reached that moment. The President of the United States, after invoking a 1798 wartime law to mass-deport migrants to a third country, now claims he didn’t do it. “Other people handled it,” he told reporters, despite his signature appearing on the document.

This is not merely a lie—though it is certainly that—but something more fundamentally corrosive: the introduction of the Toddler Theory of Presidential Power. Like a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar insisting “I didn’t do it,” Trump has advanced the novel constitutional principle that presidential actions somehow occur without presidential agency. Documents bearing his signature, orders issued under his authority, and policies implemented by his administration apparently materialize through some mysterious process for which he bears no responsibility.

The obvious absurdity of this claim would be comedic if it weren’t deployed to evade accountability for using the Alien Enemies Act—a law intended for declared wars against nations, not immigration enforcement—to justify mass deportations that a federal judge has already ruled likely unconstitutional. We have now entered territory where the head of the executive branch simultaneously claims the power to ignore judicial rulings while denying responsibility for the very actions judges are ruling against.

This isn’t just a president lying—a common enough occurrence in any administration. This is a president who wishes to exercise power without accountability, who signs documents then disclaims knowledge of their contents, who demands obedience to his authority while disavowing his own actions. It is the logic of the autocrat who wishes to be unbound by any constraint while maintaining plausible deniability for the consequences.

The pathetic spectacle of a president who claims vast powers while shirking basic responsibility reveals the infantile core of authoritarianism. For all its pretensions to strength and decisiveness, the authoritarian personality cannot bear the weight of consequence, cannot accept that power entails responsibility, cannot face the fundamental reality that actions have effects for which one might be accountable.

Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And a president’s signature on an executive order means he ordered it. These are not complicated truths, yet their denial suggests something profoundly broken in our political system. When the most powerful person in the country can point to his own signature and say “I didn’t do that,” we’ve moved beyond normal political dishonesty into the realm of reality dissolution.

The Founders designed a system based on the assumption that those in power would at least acknowledge their own actions, even if they abused their authority. They never envisioned a president who would simultaneously claim unlimited power while disavowing the exercise of that very power—a constitutional Schrödinger’s cat, both authoritarian and abdicated, depending on which serves his interests in the moment.

This is the essence of despotism—not the iron fist, but the infantile will that demands absolute authority without corresponding responsibility. It is, as Hannah Arendt recognized, the banality of evil clothed in the childish refusal to acknowledge reality itself.

If there is any comfort to be taken from this spectacle, it is the realization that such profound dishonesty reveals not strength but weakness. A president secure in his authority and confident in his actions would not need to deny his own signature. He would not hide behind the claim that “other people handled it.” He would own his decisions, defend them on their merits, and accept the constitutional constraints that make a president a democratic leader rather than a petulant monarch.

But comfort is cold indeed when the lie is in service of violating human rights, defying court orders, and systematically dismantling constitutional governance. The Presidential Toddler Theory may be absurd, but its consequences are deadly serious. And recognizing the absurdity, while necessary, is no substitute for confronting the danger.

Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. Originally published at his Notes From the Circus.

Filed Under: accountability, alien enemies act, donald trump, due process, responsibility

FBI Shifts Resources From Tracking The Terrorists Trump Likes To Pitching In With Anti-Immigration Efforts

Legal Issues

from the federal-bureau-of-insurrectionists dept

Be the “deep state” you want to see in the world. That’s the new FBI under conspiracy theorist/Trump acolyte Kash Patel’s “leadership.” Instead of being the Federal Bureau of Investigation, it will become the Federal Bureau of Investigating People Trump Doesn’t Like. I wouldn’t be too surprised to hear journalists are getting their phone records seized again, something that happened the last time Trump was in charge of the country.

The latest twist in the ongoing enshittification of the federal government under Trump is this: the FBI won’t be spending nearly as much time investigating domestic terrorism, most likely because most domestic terrorists are the kind of people Trump will immediately pardon if they’re convicted. Here’s the latest bad news, reported by Andrew Goudsward and Sarah Lynch for Reuters.

The FBI has cut staffing in an office focused on domestic terrorism and has scrapped a tool used to track such investigations, in a shift that could undermine law enforcement’s ability to counter white supremacists and anti-government extremists, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The moves, sources said, are an indication that domestic terrorism investigations, which in recent years have largely involved violence fueled by right-wing ideologies, may be less of a priority under FBI Director Kash Patel, a prominent critic of the effort.

Well, you can strike the word “may” from that sentence and replace it with “will.” If Donald Trump thinks no one involved in the January 6, 2021 raid of the Capitol building should ever have been charged, much less jailed, it’s safe to assume he and Patel agree there’s no reason to go after terrorists who support Trump and his ideals.

Right now it’s a trickle, but it may become a flood if Trump and Patel can convince the rest of the FBI leadership that this is the way to go. (Or fire enough of the current leadership that there’s no longer any measurable objection.)

Two sources familiar with the changes said about 16 people had been reassigned from the section, which would have hundreds of employees if fully staffed. A different source said senior FBI officials have discussed disbanding it entirely, though a final decision has not yet been announced.

A department that was already likely understaffed (and definitely undermined by far too many Trump loyalists within the Bureau) is going to lose more resources. But those being reassigned have to go somewhere, so guess where they’re likely headed:

The Trump administration has separately directed the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which investigate domestic and international terrorist threats, to assist in President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, according to a memo seen by Reuters.

I guess having the DHS, ICE, CBP, Border Patrol, US National Guard, and dozens of overly compliant local law enforcement agencies focused on border security and mass expulsions just isn’t enough. From now on, the FBI will also be helping Trump achieve his goal of converting bigotry into nice round numbers that will ensure steady salivation from the frothiest of his followers.

But Trump and Patel may have pulled the trigger on domestic terrorism cuts a bit too soon. After all, there’s a new brand of domestic terrorism Trump is particularly hot and bothered about: a nationwide wave of disdain targeting Elon Musk, Tesla owners, and Tesla dealerships. While most of the activity has been non-violent (even when it crosses the line into harassment), some of it has not. If nothing else, there are probably a few vandalism and arson cases to be pursued, but that’s not the sort of thing that usually involves the FBI.

However, Trump considers these acts to be “domestic terrorism,” and wants the full force of the law applied against people who vandalize Tesla dealerships — going so far as to suggest these specific criminals should be rerouted to El Salvadorian prisons. With this “threat” still present, it might make a bit more sense to keep the domestic terrorism group intact. I mean, unless Trump really doesn’t believe his own heated rhetoric about Tesla and terrorism, which is just as likely an explanation as anything.

Either way, the FBI will no longer be investigating the sort of terrorism that routinely involves Trump supporters. Kash Patel and Trump have deliberately created a bug and are touting it as a feature. And for all their blowharding about “politicizing the FBI” when complaining about Biden and Obama, they seem perfectly fine with weaponizing federal agencies against their political and ideological enemies when they’re holding the keys to the government Cabinet.

Filed Under: domestic terrorism, donald trump, fbi, immigration, kash patel, white nationalists
Companies: tesla

Daily Deal: The Ultimate Python & Artificial Intelligence Bundle

Deals

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The Ultimate Python and Artificial Intelligence Bundle has 9 courses to help you take your Python and AI knowledge to the next level. You’ll learn about data pre-processing and visualization, artificial neural networks, how to use the Keras framework, and more. It’s on sale for $40.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

But Their Signal Chats: Trump Officials Share War Plans With Journalist

Failures

from the how-are-any-of-them-still-employed? dept

Look, I know you’ve probably already seen yesterday’s absolutely stunning story from Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic. The one where Trump administration officials somehow managed to add a journalist to their Signal group chat while planning out their bombing of the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The one that reads like a plot point rejected from VEEP for being too unrealistic.

But having spent 24 hours watching various hot takes and attempts to minimize just how catastrophically bad this security breach was, we need to talk about why this is even worse than most people realize.

First, just look at the casual way these officials discuss highly classified military operations. This isn’t just a quick “oops wrong number” text – this is an extended conversation about bombing plans happening on an unauthorized platform. And the deeper you read, the worse it gets:

At 8:05 a.m. on Friday, March 14, “Michael Waltz” texted the group: “Team, you should have a statement of conclusions with taskings per the Presidents guidance this morning in your high side inboxes.” (High side, in government parlance, refers to classified computer and communications systems.) “State and DOD, we developed suggested notification lists for regional Allies and partners. Joint Staff is sending this am a more specific sequence of events in the coming days and we will work w DOD to ensure COS, OVP and POTUS are briefed.”

At this point, a fascinating policy discussion commenced. The account labeled “JD Vance” responded at 8:16: “Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake.” (Vance was indeed in Michigan that day.) The Vance account goes on to state, “3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.”

The Vance account then goes on to make a noteworthy statement, considering that the vice president has not deviated publicly from Trump’s position on virtually any issue. “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”

A person identified in Signal as “Joe Kent” (Trump’s nominee to run the National Counterterrorism Center is named Joe Kent) wrote at 8:22, “There is nothing time sensitive driving the time line. We’ll have the exact same options in a month.”

Then, at 8:26 a.m., a message landed in my Signal app from the user “John Ratcliffe.” The message contained information that might be interpreted as related to actual and current intelligence operations.

At 8:27, a message arrived from the “Pete Hegseth” account. “VP: I understand your concerns – and fully support you raising w/ POTUS. Important considerations, most of which are tough to know how they play out (economy, Ukraine peace, Gaza, etc). I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what – nobody knows who the Houthis are – which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1) Biden failed & 2) Iran funded.”

The Hegseth message goes on to state, “Waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus. 2 immediate risks on waiting: 1) this leaks, and we look indecisive; 2) Israel takes an action first – or Gaza cease fire falls apart – and we don’t get to start this on our own terms. We can manage both. We are prepared to execute, and if I had final go or no go vote, I believe we should. This [is] not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered. But, we can easily pause. And if we do, I will do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC”—operations security. “I welcome other thoughts.”

100% OPSEC indeed. Remember, this is the Secretary of Defense (who we all knew was unqualified for the job) literally promising perfect operational security while inadvertently sharing war plans with a journalist over a non-governmental communications system.

And remember — this is just what Goldberg was comfortable sharing publicly. He notes that some messages were too sensitive to publish, containing operational details that “could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel.” Think about that for a moment: these top officials were casually texting information so sensitive that even after the fact, a journalist felt publishing it would endanger lives.

This isn’t just incompetence — though it certainly demonstrates how the rank amateurs Trump put into power are catastrophically unqualified for their jobs. This is criminal negligence with national security implications.

Under 18 USC 793, “gross negligence” in handling defense information carries up to ten years in prison. And this case goes way beyond mere negligence — they deliberately chose to conduct classified military planning on an unauthorized platform, then accidentally broadcast it to a journalist. That’s before we even get to the numerous other laws likely violated here.

While some members of Congress, including a few Republicans, are appropriately alarmed by this breach, the GOP leadership is desperately trying to minimize it. Take Rep. Don Bacon, an Armed Services Committee member and former Air Force brigadier general, who actually told Axios: “I’ve accidentally sent the wrong person a text. We all have.”

This kind of false equivalence is both dangerous and stupid. This wasn’t a misdirected happy birthday text, you dipshit. This was classified military planning conducted over a third-party messaging app. Yes, Signal’s encryption is excellent — but that’s completely beside the point. There’s a reason the government has specific secured communications systems, SCIFs, and strict protocols for handling classified information.

Even more concerning than Bacon’s clueless response is House Speaker Mike Johnson’s attempt to downplay this massive security breach: “They’re gonna track that down and make sure that doesn’t happen again…. Clearly, I think the administration has acknowledged it was a mistake and they’ll tighten up.”

This wasn’t some minor technical slip-up that just needs a policy reminder. This was top officials deliberately choosing to conduct classified military planning on unauthorized systems. The fact that they accidentally included a journalist just exposed what they were doing — but the underlying violation was using Signal in the first place.

And here’s what should really keep you up at night: we only know about this because they happened to add a journalist who went public about this single chat. How many other sensitive conversations are happening on Signal or other unauthorized platforms? How many other “accidental” additions might have gone unnoticed? How many foreign intelligence services are already exploiting this administration’s casual approach to operational security?

Let’s put this in perspective: this is the same Trump team that turned “but her emails” into a movement over Hillary Clinton’s private email server. We were critical of Clinton’s server too — it was a legitimately bad security practice. But what we’re seeing here makes Clinton’s server look like amateur hour.

Clinton used a private server for mostly unclassified State Department business, with a handful of retroactively classified emails found in the mix. These guys are literally planning military strikes over Signal, complete with operational details so sensitive that journalists won’t even publish them. And they’re doing it specifically to dodge both security protocols and federal records laws.

The private server versus Signal distinction matters too. Clinton’s setup, while improper, was at least a dedicated system. These officials are just using a consumer app, making it virtually impossible to properly archive communications as required by law. They’re not just mishandling classified info — they’re deliberately choosing tools that help them hide their tracks.

And, yes, pretty much all of the officials in the chat are on record screaming about supposed security failures during Democratic administrations. CNN put together an incredible supercut of a bunch of these dipshits screaming about security breaches from Democrats:

Though, my favorite may be this tweet from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard (a member of the group chat) from just ten days ago saying “any unauthorized release of classified information is a violation of the law and will be treated as such.”

Huh, maybe someone should get on responding to this lawbreaking that you were a part of then.

And then there’s Donald Trump’s telling response to this security nightmare. After first trying to dismiss the story by attacking The Atlantic (“a magazine that is going out of business”), Trump pivots to what he thinks is the only relevant point: “Well, it couldn’t have been very effective, because the attack was very effective.”

Think about that for a moment. The man who led “lock her up” chants over Clinton’s email server — who insisted the mere existence of a private server was disqualifying regardless of any actual harm — is now arguing that leaking classified military plans is fine as long as the operation still succeeded.

This is the same Trump who once claimed Clinton’s email practices were “bigger than Watergate.” The same Trump who said anyone mishandling classified information should be disqualified from public service. Now he’s shrugging off his own officials literally texting war plans to random journalists because hey, the bombing worked out okay in the end.

Some Trump defenders are trying to minimize this by claiming the published excerpts only show policy debate among senior officials. But Goldberg’s reporting makes clear just how dangerous this breach was:

At 11:44 a.m., the account labeled “Pete Hegseth” posted in Signal a “TEAM UPDATE.” I will not quote from this update, or from certain other subsequent texts. The information contained in them, if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command’s area of responsibility. What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.

Let that sink in. These weren’t just policy discussions — these were detailed military plans so sensitive that publishing them could endanger American lives. And they were being casually shared on Signal, where any “accidental” addition could have accessed them.

Remember Benghazi? Republicans spent years investigating Obama administration officials over that attack. They held endless hearings, demanded countless documents, and threw around accusations of criminal negligence and security failures. Now imagine if they’d discovered Obama officials were planning military operations over WhatsApp and accidentally adding journalists to the chat.

In any functioning administration, this would be a career-ending scandal. Multiple officials would be fired. Security protocols would be completely overhauled. Criminal investigations would be launched. Instead, we’re watching Republicans try to wave this away as a simple mistake — just an errant text, no big deal since the bombing worked out fine.

This isn’t just covering up incompetence anymore. This is actively endangering national security by normalizing absolutely reckless handling of classified military operations. Anyone claiming otherwise is either lying or has completely abandoned any pretense of caring about operational security when their team is in charge.

Filed Under: but her emails, houthis, jd vance, jeffrey goldberg, marco rubio, pete hegseth, security, security breach, war plans, yemen
Companies: signal

Even Traditional GOP Allies Are Urging The FCC To End Its Baseless Attack On CBS, 60 Minutes

Surprises

from the backlash-via-puppet dept

Last October, Trump sued CBS claiming (falsely) that a 60 Minutes interview of Kamala Harris had been “deceitfully edited” to her benefit (they simply shortened some of her answers for brevity, as news outlets often do). As Mike explored, the lawsuit was utterly baseless, and tramples the First Amendment, editorial discretion, and common sense.

CBS/Paramount is looking for regulatory approval for its $8 billion merger with Skydance (run by Larry Ellison’s kid David). Trump and his FCC boss Brendan Carr quickly zeroed on on this, and began using merger approval as leverage to bully CBS into even more feckless coverage of the administration.

As CBS explores its options, the company is being pressured to fold like a coward (like Meta, ABC, or Paul Weiss) by incoming new CEO Jeff Shell. At the same time, the FCC under Trump sycophant Brendan Carr has launched a flimsy probe into CBS over the 60 Minutes non-violation.

Academics and free speech experts were quick to point out that Carr was radically abusing government power in unprecedented ways, ironically after years of Carr hypocritically claiming that any FCC consumer protection actions against shitty telecom monopolies were “radical overreach.”

Carr is trying to claim that the minor edits done by CBS violate a longstanding “Broadcast News Distortion” policy that’s almost never enforced by the agency, which has largely given up on media regulations under both parties. The policy in question says violations must involve clear distortion of “a significant event and not merely a minor or incidental aspect of the news report.”

That means hard proof of something like a bribe by a company or politicians to change news coverage, and that clearly doesn’t apply here. Trumpism is just making baseless accusations against CBS, knowing that even if CBS isn’t actually found guilty of anything, it allows the vast GOP propaganda machine to generate entire news cycles suggesting that 60 Minutes did something nefarious.

But even Conservative groups have come out against Carr’s weaponization of government. Several groups traditionally allied with the GOP (and GOP loyal sectors like big telecom) including The Center for Individual Freedom, Americans for Tax Reform, and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance have collectively urged Carr to drop his sham inquiry, calling it “regulatory overreach”:

Many of these “taxpayer” nomenclature groups are traditionally used as lobbying tools by industry (and the GOP) to pretend there’s broad support for what are usually unpopular policies (like say approving a shitty merger, attacking community broadband, or killing net neutrality). Most of these groups receive donations from corporate giants (like AT&T) while pretending to be objectively independent.

In their letter, the organizations first prop up the bad faith Conservative pseudo-“censorship” victimization complex, but then suggest a better path would be to eliminate the (again, barely enforced) “Broadcast News Distortion” rule entirely. These orgs (alongside many other “free market libertarian think tank” brethren) generally like their captured regulators to be blindly feckless to corporate power without all the extra, unpredictable authoritarian zealotry.

A company like AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast is too chickenshit to criticize Trumpism directly (lest they have their merger approvals rejected or face new sham inquiries for not being racist enough), but the fact their policy puppet organizations are publicly complaining here is notable all the same.

Filed Under: 60 minutes, authoritarian, brendan carr, censorship, fcc, first amendment, media, sham investigations, taxpayers, telecom
Companies: cbs, paramount