Hegseth slammed Trump in 2016 over potentially illegal troop orders

[robosmith]

Not it's Hegseth giving ILLEGAL ORDERS

KFILE: Hegseth slammed Trump in 2016 over potentially illegal troop orders...

www.cnn.com › 2025/12/08 › video › ebof-kfile-hegset...

 

 

5:30

... Secretary Pete Hegseth taking direct aim at President Trump during his 2016 campaign, saying the military should not follow Trump's unlawful orders

CNN · 17 hours ago

 

[User]

OK… and?

Hegseth isn’t giving illegal orders. 

[Shady]

And he was a private citizen, unlike the Democrats that produced that absurd video.

[User]

4 minutes ago, Shady said:

And he was a private citizen, unlike the Democrats that produced that absurd video.

It’s worse than that.

the context was this was during the election, he wasn’t undermining Trump as the commander, it was also in regards to the stupid phony outrage at the time by the left that Trump was suggesting he would use the military in an illegal way, and Hegseth was asked about this in an interview and simply answered the question saying the military doesn’t follow unlawful orders. 
 

 

Edited December 9, 2025 by User

[John Stone]

People don't dislike Hegseth because he  supposedly violated the LOAC, they dislike him because he can't lead - he is all hat? 

In future when helpless U.S. combatants are machine gunned  they'll be quoting this incident. 

The event should never have happened,  it should have been covert ............ no,  belay that, it was stupid in every way imaginable.  

 

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Shady said:

And he was a private citizen, unlike the Democrats that produced that absurd video.

Being a host on FOS LIES is NOT a "private citizen." Very PUBLIC unfortunately, because it caught Trump's attention who gave him a job for which he is COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT.

[User]

31 minutes ago, John Stone said:

People don't dislike Hegseth because he  supposedly violated the LOAC, they dislike him because he can't lead - he is all hat? 

In future when helpless U.S. combatants are machine gunned  they'll be quoting this incident. 

The event should never have happened,  it should have been covert ............ no,  belay that, it was stupid in every way imaginable.  

Yeah… that isn’t what Democrats were crying about or why regarding Hegseth. 
 

Helpless combatants were not machine gunned down here.

People bent on doing bad things will come up with any excuse, and the US is not engaged in gunning down helpless people unlawfully.

 

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Being a host on FOS LIES is NOT a "private citizen." Very PUBLIC unfortunately, because it caught Trump's attention who gave him a job for which he is COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT.

Well, in this context yes, the difference is that he wasn’t a member of Congress making a public declaration to troops like Democrats did.

 

[Legato]

40 minutes ago, John Stone said:

People don't dislike Hegseth because he  supposedly violated the LOAC, they dislike him because he can't lead - he is all hat? 

In future when helpless U.S. combatants are machine gunned  they'll be quoting this incident. 

The event should never have happened,  it should have been covert ............ no,  belay that, it was stupid in every way imaginable.  

 

You talking about the armchair non-entities?

[Shady]

35 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Being a host on FOS LIES is NOT a "private citizen."

That's literally a private citizen.

[gatomontes99]

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

Not it's Hegseth giving ILLEGAL ORDERS

KFILE: Hegseth slammed Trump in 2016 over potentially illegal troop orders...

www.cnn.com › 2025/12/08 › video › ebof-kfile-hegset...

 

 

5:30

... Secretary Pete Hegseth taking direct aim at President Trump during his 2016 campaign, saying the military should not follow Trump's unlawful orders

CNN · 17 hours ago

 

So...what you are saying is that Trump has a way of working out differences with people that disagree with him. Hmmm...do you not like that? Is that a bad trait?

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Shady said:

That's literally a private citizen.

It is VERY PUBLIC, doofus.

Quote

The statement that media personalities are not private citizens is generally accurate under U.S. law, as they are considered public figures, who have a diminished expectation of privacy compared to private citizens. This status affects their legal protections, particularly in cases involving defamation or invasion of privacy. 

 

Public Figures vs. Private Citizens

The legal distinction between a public figure and a private citizen, established largely by the Supreme Court case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), hinges on the level of fame or notoriety an individual has achieved and whether they have voluntarily thrust themselves into the public eye. 

• Public Figures: These individuals, including media personalities, politicians, and celebrities, have attained pervasive fame or have voluntarily involved themselves in a public controversy. Because they invite attention and comment, they must tolerate a greater degree of scrutiny and criticism. In a defamation lawsuit, a public figure must prove that the media acted with "actual malice" (knowledge that the information was false or with reckless disregard for the truth) to win their case, a much higher standard than that required for private citizens.
• Private Citizens: These individuals have not voluntarily placed themselves in the public eye and, consequently, are generally entitled to a higher degree of privacy protection. The legal standard for a private citizen to win a defamation suit is lower, making it easier for them to protect their reputation

 

[Shady]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

It is VERY PUBLIC, doofus.

 

I don’t think you understand what a private citizen means.  It means they’re not government employed.  Like the Democrats are who made that absurd video.  As public officials they have a much better bigger responsibility than a private person giving an opinion.

[User]

1 minute ago, Shady said:

I don’t think you understand what a private citizen means.  It means they’re not government employed.  Like the Democrats are who made that absurd video.  As public officials they have a much better bigger responsibility than a private person giving an opinion.

He knows. He is being obtuse. 

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, Shady said:

I don’t think you understand what a private citizen means.  It means they’re not government employed.  Like the Democrats are who made that absurd video.  As public officials they have a much better bigger responsibility than a private person giving an opinion.

I KNOW you don't understand the LEGAL DEFINITION of PUBLIC.

[gatomontes99]

13 hours ago, User said:

He knows. He is being obtuse. 

I don't think he does.

[John Stone]

16 hours ago, Legato said:

You talking about the armchair non-entities?

More the pity, no