CNN sues President Trump and top White House aides for barring Jim Acosta

Also don't forget that if you create standards then what is your basis for kicking Acosta out:

1. He assaulted an aide? This has been beatedn to death and video clearly shows their arms were crossed. No assault occurred or could hold up in any analysis. If she filed a complaint with the police they would throw it out immediatley because she grabbed the mic and all he did was deflect her arm.

2. He refused to give back the mic? really no hard fast rules on a reporter forced to give up the mic when he is talking and pulling credentials would be a punishment not fitting the crime.

3. He was rude? Well you would have to kick out the entire press corps because there have been assholes in conferences going back to the old dame sitting in the front row.

4. He is liberal?

You say courts should avoid political issues but courts respect precedent and many cases have political issues behind them. WH would lose if they set up some overnight due process and pulled his hard pass. 5th amendment does not just protect Acosta, it protects you as well. That is why FOX news stepped in and why the courts will not allow the WH to kick out a reporter for that incident.

You have to look at the big picture and stop obfucating it with hypotehticals about ISIS getting a hard pass or every tom dick and harry in their basement with a blog having the right to be there or the President not being told by courts that he has to bow down to a liberal media outlet. That is not the issue.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Interesting read here from the Obama era.

No punchline here other than it makes it clear that presidents of all persuasions have very, very wide leeway in defining the rules and theater of engagement.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/theo...-carney-robert-gibbs-press-briefings/2577745/
More...

I dont think the President should do it daily because he has better things to do with his time and that is why he has a spokesperson. Now they have official statements that can be released. every once in a while when they need to get a message out but daily? Who has time for that? Press spokesperson..that is who.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
Good point. Trump can just ignore him but he doesn't. Maybe they should get Stormy Daniels a press pass.
More...

Or simply say "no comment". After that either Acosta has made his point that the question was asked and the President failed to answer it/avoided it or move on to next question.

The problem really is this President says way too many unscripted outbursts that can become th eir own news cycle and cause problems because Trump likes to speak from the top of his head without thinking. If he is pulled from Twitter and sticks to his office's official statements, this 90% goes away.
 
El OchoCinco said:
This was not a 1st amendment issue, this was a 5th amendment issue. You guys need to put away the political bias and look at the legal issue.
More...
How is he being denied life, liberty, or property? His life is not threatened. If your argument is that he is being denied the right to make a living, then that is completely redefining the original meaning of the text. It also means that any journalist has a right to a press pass in order to make a living. It could also be taken that any person, applying for any job, has a constitutional right to be hired for said job.
His liberty is in no jeopardy, nor is his property. That press pass isn't his property. He doesn't own it.
This ruling is purely political in nature delivered by an obviously politically motivated judge.
 
Last edited:
El OchoCinco said:
Or simply say "no comment". After that either Acosta has made his point that the question was asked and the President failed to answer it/avoided it or move on to next question.

The problem really is this President says way too many unscripted outbursts that can become th eir own news cycle and cause problems because Trump likes to speak from the top of his head without thinking. If he is pulled from Twitter and sticks to his office's official statements, this 90% goes away.
More...
He truly his is own worst enemy.
 
CaptainObvious said:
How is he being denied life, liberty, or property? His life is not threatened. If your argument is that he is being denied the right to make a living, then that is completely redefining the original meaning of the text. It also means that any journalist has a right to a press pass in order to make a living. It could also be taken that any person, applying for any job, has a constitutional right to be hired for said job.
His liberty is in no jeopardy, nor is his property. That press pass isn't his property. He doesn't own it.
This ruling is purely political in nature delivered by an obviously politically motivated judge.
More...

The government of United States cannot deny anyone a right without due process. The White House is a public space and the press pass granted cannot be revokoed without due process. It does not matter if you don't like it, but it is settled Constitutional law going back over more than 100 years as well as well established Administrative Law.

Again, you confuse facts with precedent. The specific facts of a case do not make a right more or less favorable to you or your political bias. The right being defended here is the same right afforded everyone in the country and ensures due process is upheld.

As I said, it is not a political issue, it is a legal issue that has precedent going back way more than a silly election or media.
 
CaptainObvious said:
This ruling is purely political in nature delivered by an obviously politically motivated judge.
More...

"Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, ordered the White House to restore correspondent Jim Acosta's press credentials, something the White House said later it would do."

Really? What was a Trump appointee's political motivation? None because the Constitutional law issue here was well decided over the past 100 years and thousands of cases, this was a no brainer by the judge.
 
Last edited:
Here is my problem with the bullshit that spews from politicians:

"White House press secretary Sarah Sanders later said Acosta's credential would be restored and will create a more standardized set of rules.

"Today, the court made clear that there is no absolute First Amendment right to access the White House," Sanders said. "

This is a mistatement. The judge said:
"In explaining his decision, Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied." White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement after the ruling that “the court made clear that there is no absolute First Amendment right to access the White House,” although the judge actually said reporters have such rights once admitted.

The White House has been open since the day it first opened officially. So if they are going to accept reporters on the grounds then the 1st amendment then does apply and they cannot ban individual networks for political reasons. Only way out of this is to ban ALL reporters from the White House grounds.

Revoking a press pass for a specific person is more 5th Amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top