4 ms·

Probably less a grand gag order and more a clearance choke point from the reorg, but in a hostile political climate even routine slowdowns look like censorship.

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
More likely, based on the evidence, is more lies by the administration on the pile of tens of thousands, and another example of actual censorship by the administration historically most famous for it. For an administration which claims that their primary goal is removing bureaucracy and making the government more efficient and effective, these whistleblower reports describing the exact opposite are pretty damning, and the objective is clear to all.
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  Could be, but whistleblower reports without documents are still thin evidence. Bureaucratic reshuffles often cause real slowdowns even without explicit orders. If a memo surfaces that shows politicals blocking publications, then it’s censorship. Until then it looks more like dysfunction weaponized by the broader political context.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    Maybe, but whistleblower reports are solid evidence on their own, multiple corroborating witness statements even moreso. That's even if they aren't going up against the administration most infamous for lying and censorship, which obviously strengthens the whistleblowers' cases. For an administration which claims that their primary goals are removing dysfunction and bureaucracy, and making the government more efficient and effective, these whistleblower reports describing the exact opposite are pretty damning, and the objective is clear to all. Unless we get evidence to the contrary, the most likely explanation is that the administration most infamous for censoring and lying is censoring and lying.
    - firesteelrain 1y ago
      Fair enough, I see where you’re coming from. Personally I’d want to see documents or journal confirmations before calling it outright censorship, but I agree the political track record makes it hard to dismiss the reports.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        Indeed, totally losing the benefit of the doubt when it comes to matters of censorship and lying, is one consequences of being the administration historically most infamous for censorship and lying. Normally that is motivation enough for people to choose not to become infamous for censorship and lying. If any evidentiary memos or documents are due, they are due from the administration (with credible independent verification, of course), since at the moment the whistleblowers are more credible based on their assertions alone, and so their claim currently prevails.
        mikeyouse 1y ago
        The Federal courts have reached this point too. There’s a “presumption of regularity” where the government has historically been seen as a mostly truthful arbiter that would make good faith efforts to follow court orders. So when a judge would ask, “Do you plan to deport these people tonight?” to a government lawyer, if the lawyer replied, “No”, the court wouldn’t intervene because government lawyers obviously wouldn’t just lie to a judge presiding over a lawsuit. Well it turns out that they’re continually lying and being rewarded for it (Emil Bove for one). So courts are now suspending that presumption and ordering explicit actions with strict timelines for updates for basically the first time in modern history. It’s astonishing at how little regard this administration has for the norms and structures that make up our government and how much damage they’re doing to the rule of law. https://www.justsecurity.org/120547/presumption-regularity-trump-administration-litigation/ https://www.justsecurity.org/120547/presumption-regularity-t...

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago

More likely, based on the evidence, is more lies by the administration on the pile of tens of thousands, and another example of actual censorship by the administration historically most famous for it. For an administration which claims that their primary goal is removing bureaucracy and making the government more efficient and effective, these whistleblower reports describing the exact opposite are pretty damning, and the objective is clear to all.

firesteelrain 1y ago
Could be, but whistleblower reports without documents are still thin evidence. Bureaucratic reshuffles often cause real slowdowns even without explicit orders. If a memo surfaces that shows politicals blocking publications, then it’s censorship. Until then it looks more like dysfunction weaponized by the broader political context.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  Maybe, but whistleblower reports are solid evidence on their own, multiple corroborating witness statements even moreso. That's even if they aren't going up against the administration most infamous for lying and censorship, which obviously strengthens the whistleblowers' cases. For an administration which claims that their primary goals are removing dysfunction and bureaucracy, and making the government more efficient and effective, these whistleblower reports describing the exact opposite are pretty damning, and the objective is clear to all. Unless we get evidence to the contrary, the most likely explanation is that the administration most infamous for censoring and lying is censoring and lying.
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    Fair enough, I see where you’re coming from. Personally I’d want to see documents or journal confirmations before calling it outright censorship, but I agree the political track record makes it hard to dismiss the reports.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      Indeed, totally losing the benefit of the doubt when it comes to matters of censorship and lying, is one consequences of being the administration historically most infamous for censorship and lying. Normally that is motivation enough for people to choose not to become infamous for censorship and lying. If any evidentiary memos or documents are due, they are due from the administration (with credible independent verification, of course), since at the moment the whistleblowers are more credible based on their assertions alone, and so their claim currently prevails.
      - mikeyouse 1y ago
        The Federal courts have reached this point too. There’s a “presumption of regularity” where the government has historically been seen as a mostly truthful arbiter that would make good faith efforts to follow court orders. So when a judge would ask, “Do you plan to deport these people tonight?” to a government lawyer, if the lawyer replied, “No”, the court wouldn’t intervene because government lawyers obviously wouldn’t just lie to a judge presiding over a lawsuit. Well it turns out that they’re continually lying and being rewarded for it (Emil Bove for one). So courts are now suspending that presumption and ordering explicit actions with strict timelines for updates for basically the first time in modern history. It’s astonishing at how little regard this administration has for the norms and structures that make up our government and how much damage they’re doing to the rule of law. https://www.justsecurity.org/120547/presumption-regularity-trump-administration-litigation/ https://www.justsecurity.org/120547/presumption-regularity-t...