- 2 days ago
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00You're watching The Legal Breakdown. Glenn, it looks like Pete Hegseth has just gotten some
00:03bad news at the hands of a federal judge in court. Can you explain what just happened?
00:08Yeah, Brian. So what happened was Pete Hegseth and the Department of Defense
00:12decided to try to pull to revoke some of the Pentagon press passes,
00:18specifically for some New York Times reporters, because, you know, Hegseth didn't like the way
00:23that this is better thing. Even in such a good position, you are in the government, you are doing
00:29all these bullshit things. They were reporting what was going on in the war against Iran,
00:36the decisions that were being made by military leadership. And there was also some reporting that
00:41Hegseth really didn't like the unflattering photos some of the journalists were taking of him.
00:47So he pulled those Pentagon press passes and the New York Times went to court and won a victory
00:54over Pete Hegseth and the Department of Defense, by extension, the Trump administration,
00:59saying it's unconstitutional to just summarily pull press passes and deny those reporters access to
01:08the reporting that lots of other reporters have access to. By extension, it is denying access to
01:14the American people of reporting by, for example, the New York Times. So it was a resounding victory.
01:21Damn, this is what it is happening. You see, American people, are you seeing all these things
01:28that is happening? Pete Hegseth, Pete Hegseth, damn, what are your thoughts on this man?
01:34Judge Friedman, a federal district judge in Washington, D.C., ordered that they rescind the new
01:41Pentagon press policy and basically put the old one back into place that doesn't violate the First
01:48Amendment, right of free press, right of its own viewpoint, which is a free speech protection.
01:55And so what did the Pentagon do? Instead of complying with Judge Friedman's order, they blatantly,
02:02even cavalierly violated it. And let me just read one short passage from the new ruling from Judge
02:11Friedman in which he was pretty hacked off that the Pentagon and Pete Hegseth were cavalierly violating
02:18his order to... Damn, they violated the judge's order. This is the biggest thing ever happened.
02:26What are the consequences of doing all this?
02:29...restore the press credentials of the New York Times reporters. Here is a little bit of what the
02:34judge said. Okay.
02:35In short, the Department of Defense has responded to the court's order, the court's express instruction
02:43to return the Pentagon press passes previously held by the Times journalists and restore the access to
02:51the Pentagon that came with those credentials, those press passes. They responded by instead
02:57cutting off that access for all journalists. All. The response flouts the court's explicit directives
03:06and disregards the Constitutional principles at the heart of this court's opinion. You know,
03:14it's pretty flippin' outrageous, Brian. Yeah, it is outrageous. That they respond to a court order
03:20directing that they stop violating the First Amendment protections of speech, of freedom of the press,
03:29of the New York Times reporters. They respond by expanding their unconstitutional conduct to take
03:36everybody's press passes and access away. And you can, you know, Judge Friedman expressly compared
03:43what Hegseth and DOD did to, quote, an autocracy.
03:48Oh, okay.
03:49Those are very strong words. And then we have to see whether Judge Friedman follows it up with very strong
03:56action.
04:00Can you talk about those words in particular? Because that was the most striking part
04:05of what I read in this decision. You know, to basically be a federal judge and accuse the federal
04:12government of acting autocratic, it doesn't feel like a small step for a judge to make. And if I'm,
04:18you know, you and I have done 700 episodes of Legal Breakdown. It's very, very, very rare,
04:24at least in my opinion, from my vantage, that we've heard federal judges or any judges speak
04:29about this administration in that way. Yeah, let me use the words that Judge Friedman used first,
04:35and then we can- Okay, Judge, you just sum up the words. That, that is what it is. Listen
04:41to these words.
04:43...pack them a little. He said, the protection of the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment
04:48is a fundamental principle of the American government. The First Amendment means that
04:54the government has no power to thwart the process of free discussion, to abridge the freedoms necessary
05:02to make that process work. The judge goes on to say, with the issuance of the interim policy, that is
05:09the
05:10new policy- Okay, the new interim policy- Basically expanded the unconstitutionality of what they were
05:18ordered, you know, to stop doing. With the issuance of that new policy, the Department of Defense has
05:25tried to achieve an unconstitutional result. The curtailment of First Amendment rights is dangerous at
05:32any time- Any time, yeah. Oh, they're saying amendment rights is dangerous at any time, and-
05:38And even more so in a time of war. Oh. Suppression of political speech is the mark of an autocracy,
05:45not a democracy. Yes, yes. As the framers recognized when they drafted the First Amendment.
05:52That is a pretty direct assertion that Pete Hegseth and company are acting as an autocracy,
05:59not a democracy. And by and now, we are awaiting next steps. This is- Let me tell you one
06:06thing. If you know
06:07what is autocracy, what is democracy? Autocracy, democracy. Both are totally, totally different
06:16things. This is bad.
06:18Oops. Just want to offer a quick note for everybody who's watching. If you'd like to stay on top of
06:23all
06:23legal news as it breaks, the best way to do that is to subscribe to both of our channels. I'm
06:28going
06:28to put those links in the post description of this video. Great way to support us. Great way to support
06:31independent media. And of course, it is and always will be 100% free. So if you're not yet subscribed,
06:36please do us a favor and subscribe. Glenn, on this point, does it look like this is adequate pushback
06:43against this White House being able to cherry pick whatever reporters can cover them, basically creating
06:50state media in effect by pushing out anybody who's going to offer critical coverage and only allowing
06:58people in who are going to heap onto them positive coverage? Is this adequate pushback? My answer would
07:05be not just no, but hell no, because all of the strongly worded legal opinions in the world will mean
07:13nothing to this runaway corrupt presidential administration.
07:23presidential administration. This is the world of the 2026 war of the year. Unless there is
07:30no accountability. Unless these people start to be held accountable by the courts. The courts have
07:37announced you're acting as an autocracy, not a democracy, to which I say, okay, judge, what the hell are you
07:43going to do about it? There are three words that summarize what courts should be doing next. Contempt,
07:50contempt and contempt. They have the power to enforce their court orders with contempt. Civil contempt, which can
07:58involve fines. Okay. Civil and criminal contempt, both of which can involve jailing. Oh, all right.
08:05officials are intentionally violating flouting court orders to stop acting unconstitutionally.
08:13You don't think if Pete Hegseth ended up in an orange jumpsuit sitting in a cell at the DC jail
08:18while,
08:19you know, he had every opportunity to purge the contempt. You know, when you lock somebody up
08:24and you try to compel compliance with a court order, you know what a judge is doing? Figuratively, that judge
08:30is
08:31handing the keys to the jail cell. This is the real news we are listening. We are seeing, we are
08:39watching
08:39right now. The old news that are BS talks and everything else that is not the news that are into
08:47their legs,
08:48into the fruits of the administration. Okay. This is the news. To the contemnor, to the person who is in
08:55contempt. And the
08:56judge is announcing, look, Hegseth, you can open the jail cell door and walk out at any time. All you
09:04have to do is purge the
09:05contempt and comply with my court orders. Brian, how we have not already seen countless executive branch officials sitting in
09:16jail cells to
09:17force the executive branch or co-equal branch of government to comply with the lawful orders of another
09:23co-equal branch that has the authority to issue those orders. It's beyond me. And I'll tell you,
09:30every time we get another strongly worded opinion, I first kind of, you know, silently applaud it. And then
09:36I become even more frustrated because it doesn't seem like the courts are willing to take it to the next
09:41step and actually compel compliance with those orders. This is, this is what it is. It makes me angry
09:49as well. I think every true patriotic American citizen feels angry while watching or listening or seeing
10:00this type of orders that are just not just not be constitutional true constitutionally right in the
10:08way. I'm thinking of two reasons why we might not see some, some stronger action by, by these courts.
10:18And let me know if you agree with either one of them. First is that they continue to offer up
10:23this
10:23presumption of regularity to the executive branch, like this, this assumption that, you know, because the
10:29federal government has, has, has been acting in good faith for decades preceding this administration,
10:35that they should continue to, uh, to heap good, heap deference onto this administration even now,
10:42even despite the fact that they don't deserve it. And the second is that, you know, there is a world
10:46where I think maybe some of these courts and some of these judges are afraid because they know what
10:51happens at the hands of an administration that is perfectly content to sick its supporters on courts,
10:57on prosecutors, on attorneys, on judges. And these people, sure, they, they, they wear robes and
11:03they're in these, these, um, you know, uh, impressive positions, but they're of the community.
11:08They've got families, they've got kids who go to schools, they've got, you know, wives and husbands
11:13who are at home, who have other jobs, they have, you know, phone numbers and addresses that are publicly
11:18available. And this is, this is what it is. This is the real truth, real truth. We are listening
11:24right here. No one, no one in the real media, the legacy public media that you talk about
11:30watching are talking like this real truth. Nobody don't want to subject themselves to, you know,
11:38a, a, a figurative, but also literal mob at the hands of a president who, you know, who is perfectly
11:45content, uh, to throw the entire book at anybody, uh, who he feels has wronged him. And that, that,
11:51that doesn't mean just judges. I mean, he's done it. If he's going to do it against Marjorie Taylor
11:54Greene, then, and Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly and Candace Owens, then clearly
12:01no judge is off limits. And so those are just my thoughts. I'm curious whether you agree with that.
12:06Yeah. Yeah. So first let me take on the presumption of regularity, which you accurately,
12:10you know, characterized that is because federal prosecutors, DOJ lawyers, you know, whether
12:16criminal or civil department of justice lawyers, we are talking about right here. Let's see. Let's
12:22see. Usually don't go about lying to the court and misrepresenting things to the court. So over time
12:27we, and I was a federal prosecutor for 30 years, we have built up the trust of the judges, the
12:33federal
12:33judiciary. So we enjoy a presumption of regularity when we go into court and say, your honor, here is the
12:39state of affairs with respect to the issue that's being litigated. Now, ultimately we're going to
12:44have to hold an evidentiary hearing and we're going to have to prove what we are proffering to the court.
12:49A proffer is just when you say what the evidence is and what you expect it to show in a
12:54future hearing.
12:54This is the explanation of the word proffer. So if you guys know from the legal background,
13:00this is hard for you to understand few of the words. Few of the words are already described in this
13:06video. If you're not getting few of the words, you can simply Google it and we get a presumption
13:12of regularity. The court accepts that as true and accurate. But those courts that have taken up
13:19that issue of the presumption of regularity in recent months, really during the entire first year
13:25of the second Trump term have said, no, presumption of regularity is done dead out the window,
13:32specifically up in New Jersey when they were litigating issues surrounding the unlawful and
13:37unconstitutional appointment of Elena Haba. That's in the federal district of New Jersey.
13:43A federal judge said, you know, this storied U.S. Attorney's Office, the New Jersey U.S. Attorney's
13:48Office has spent decades and generations building up the presumption of regularity. And you people,
13:54this is the Trump 30 DOJ lawyers that they're sending in the court, you people have destroyed it in a
14:00year. So I don't think the presumption of regularity carries the day. I would be surprised if any judges
14:06still apply the presumption of regularity to these DOJ lawyers who are going in and getting...
14:12This is what it is, guys. The rules, all of the amendments are not in the place right now,
14:21not in the place. They're just doing things by their own way, just the way they like it to happen,
14:29just the way they want to be done. ...caught in lies and misrepresentations.
14:35But so I don't think that's it. Let's shift to your second point. And I think it's an excellent one,
14:39which is there is a fear among the judiciary. Now, a fear of retaliation against them and their
14:46families personally? Yes. But I think there's another kind of, I would call it a concern,
14:52not necessarily a fear. The federal judiciary doesn't have an army. It doesn't have its own
14:59police force to enforce its court orders. And when they see the executive branch intentionally and
15:06repeatedly defying those court orders, I think judges get concerned that, for example, Judge Friedman
15:13can hold Pete Hegseth in contempt and ordered him jailed until he purges the contempt. This is,
15:20this is what be happening. Pete Hegseth can be serving the jail time, okay? And then complies
15:28with the court orders, but then you're going to need some, you know, armed law enforcement types to
15:35carry that out if Pete Hegseth kind of stands in the Pentagon with all of his, you know, military troops
15:42around him saying, yeah, make me come and get me. Judge Freeman ain't going to send his clerk out
15:48to go lock up. No one's clerk is going out to lock up Pete Hegseth. Pete Hegseth has military,
15:56police, top one commandos and everything. It is just what it is. If you're a powerful person,
16:03nobody, even though the Jeffrey Epstein case, if you are related in that, nobody is going to testify
16:10against you. So yes, the United States Marshal Service is the federal law enforcement agency
16:19that is tasked by law with, um, with enforcing federal court orders. So if they were, you know,
16:27taking their oath of loyalty to the constitution seriously, the U.S. Marshal Service generally does,
16:33in my experience, I worked with them for decades, they would go and they would take Pete Hegseth into
16:38custody and they would deliver him to the D.C. jail. One main thing is here, if this does not
16:43happen,
16:44if this does not happen, you understand we are not in a democracy at all. This is, you know what
16:52it is,
16:53you know. So that he could, you know, be held in contempt and jailed until he purged the contempt and
16:59complied with the court's order. But I do think there's a concern among the judiciary that, you know
17:04what, on the sort of power front, um, this is not really a fair fight because we may be a
17:11co-equal
17:11branch of government, but we don't have the kind of muscle that the executive branch, another co-equal
17:17branch of government has. They have to basically abide by our court orders and deliver themselves in
17:24essence because the Marshal Service is a component of the executive branch. They would have to deliver
17:29themselves to the jail cell. Do you think Pete Hegseth is the kind of guy who cares about legality
17:36or just the kind of guy who cares about lethality? I'm going to go with the latter.
17:42Yeah. Well, look, we will, of course, stay on top of any updates we get here as it relates to
17:47Pete
17:47Hegseth, as it relates to this press policy and being able to accurately cover what happens in our own
17:52federal government and, of course, what happens in the courts. So for those who are watching, to stay on top
17:56of all legal news, the best way to do that is to subscribe to both of our channels. I'm going
18:00to
18:00put those links right here on the screen and also in the post description. Again, 100% free to
18:04subscribe, but a great way to support us and independent media. I'm Brian Taylor Cohen. And I'm
18:08Glenn Kirchner. You're watching The Legal Breakdown. Thank you for watching, guys. This is what it is.
18:13I always love the individual journalist rather than the legacy media, okay? So always be with me,
18:21subscribe and follow me. Comment your thoughts.
Comments