The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: catfish1957 on November 16, 2018, 03:35:40 pm
-
Reference CNBC website via Drudge.....
Judge orders Trump administration to restore CNN reporter Jim Acosta's White House press pass -
A federal judge on Friday grants CNN's request for a court order that would temporarily reinstate network correspondent Jim Acosta's White House press pass.
CNN's legal challenge comes in response to the Trump administration's decision last week to yank Acosta's "hard pass," which gave him access to the White House grounds, after Acosta clashed with the president at a news conference earlier that day.
CNN's lawsuit underscores Trump's increasingly hostile relationship with many mainstream media outlets, which he regularly decries as "fake news" and "the enemy of the people."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/16/judge-orders-trump-administration-to-restore-cnn-reporter-jim-acostas-white-house-press-pass.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/16/judge-orders-trump-administration-to-restore-cnn-reporter-jim-acostas-white-house-press-pass.html)
-
Ridiculous.
Does anyone know how the judge linked this to the First Amendment? I'd love to hear it.
BTW Trump appointed him.
-
Although I'm not a fan of Trump, I would fully support his open defiance of this court order.
-
Not to worry. If necessary the WH will take this all the way to the Supremes. CNN will not prevail.
-
Ridiculous.
Does anyone know how the judge linked this to the First Amendment? I'd love to hear it.
Fully agree.
Easy fix though. (1) Give him his pass (2) Give him his seat. (3) Sanders/Trump never calls on him. (4) When he gets loud and disruptive, have security remove him and take his pass (5) Make Acosta go through court to re-secure it.
(Repeat 1-5)
Rinse-spin-repeat
-
Just make sure he gets a seat in the back row and ignore him. That will burn him even more.
-
“I’m not a fan of Trump...†:silly:
Some signalers just can’t adapt.
-
Shut down the whole WH press corp until CNN replaces Acosta.
-
Fully agree.
Easy fix though. (1) Give him his pass (2) Give him his seat. (3) Sanders/Trump never calls on him. (4) When he gets loud and disruptive, have security remove him and take his pass (5) Make Acosta go through court to re-secure it.
(Repeat 1-5)
Rinse-spin-repeat
According to Wiki (for what its worth) the judges order is temporary pending trial.
-
According to Wiki (for what its worth) the judges order is temporary pending trial.
Even better. Make Acosta and his attorney sit in an courtroom with his attorney 30 hours a week. Forever.
-
The ruling from Judge Timothy Kelly, who was appointed by Trump, was the first victory for CNN in the ongoing case.
Only the best, I can't believe this idiot judge does not allow the president and his staff to revoke (spell?) whomever they please.
-
Only the best, I can't believe this idiot judge does not allow the president and his staff to revoke (spell?) whomever they please.
Yes, if only the patriots who voted for Trump had listened to you, America would be a much better place. Yes, sarcasm.
-
****slapping Absurd ruling.
-
Let him in while this percolates through the courts. But never let him have the mic. If he just grabs it again, shut the mic off and declare the Presser over. That screws the whole Press gallery. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
-
Let him in while this percolates through the courts. But never let him have the mic. If he just grabs it again, shut the mic off and declare the Presser over. That screws the whole Press gallery. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
I like this one.
This would turn the press against Acosta
-
Let him in while this percolates through the courts. But never let him have the mic. If he just grabs it again, shut the mic off and declare the Presser over. That screws the whole Press gallery. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Great ideas!
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsI1z9dUUAI4phn.jpg)
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsI1z9dUUAI4phn.jpg)
Translated:
(1) You get your stinkin' pass back
(2) The Acosta rule will be written. (a) We will never call on your ass. (b) If you remotely disturb the presser, we'll haul your ass out.
-
Shut down the whole WH press corp until CNN replaces Acosta.
Exactly. The daily presser is NOT mandatory, or under any jurisdiction. Sanders could simply call in sick, and say that she just didn't feel like it. There is no imperative to have one every day. They could easily just shut the whole thing down. Then what will the Judge order? Will he 'order' a press conference be held every day? Will he 'order' that they must call on Acosta? What would the Judge do then? Interesting question.
I think the Judge was just covering his butt. He knows he can make this so called 'order' and save himself a lot of pain and grief from the Left. He also knows that it is meaningless and that it will result in nothing.
-
Yes, if only the patriots who voted for Trump had listened to you, America would be a much better place. Yes, sarcasm.
You forgot to show your III tattoo and say ‘Murica!’
Hey, this sarc thing is fun.
-
Although I'm not a fan of Trump, I would fully support his open defiance of this court order.
Yeah, I think this is the line in the sand. Does the judiciary make the rules or interpret the rules. Because if it is the latter, this ruling isn't legitimate.
-
Yeah, I think this is the line in the sand. Does the judiciary make the rules or interpret the rules. Because if it is the latter, this ruling isn't legitimate.
Does this judge also realize the precedent and can of worms he's unleashed on society in general?
Disruptors now have more rights in venues, meetings, hearings, etc., than sane bystanders.
-
Does this judge also realize the precedent and can of worms he's unleashed on society in general?
Disruptors now have more rights in venues, meetings, hearings, etc., than sane bystanders.
I don't know. They seem so impressed with their power and infallibility that they don't have to think much.
-
Ridiculous.
Does anyone know how the judge linked this to the First Amendment? I'd love to hear it.
BTW Trump appointed him.
@skeeter
I think it was due to a case back in 1977 setting a precedent.
https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight (https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight)
-
Fully agree.
Easy fix though. (1) Give him his pass (2) Give him his seat. (3) Sanders/Trump never calls on him. (4) When he gets loud and disruptive, have security remove him and take his pass (5) Make Acosta go through court to re-secure it.
(Repeat 1-5)
Rinse-spin-repeat
He could also do this 180 degrees different.
He could only call on Acosta, annoying the other members of the media, to the point that they police him themselves.
Wadya think?
-
Does this judge also realize the precedent and can of worms he's unleashed on society in general?
Disruptors now have more rights in venues, meetings, hearings, etc., than sane bystanders.
If Antifa puts out a newsletter now they will have an argument for full access to the WH.
If I were Trump I would just have Sanders pass out talking points memos in the room and walk out.
-
The government "gave" him the pass, a physical item.
To take it away, the court would argue that their should be a process to remove that pass, once granted.
I don't agree with this, but I think that is the position they are taking.
Think of it like being fired, with getting previous warnings, or write-ups, etc.
More like a labor board issue than a 1st amendment issue.
Again, I don't agree, because he hasn't lost his job, he was just "demoted" which happens in the real world, too.
-
If Antifa puts out a newsletter now they will have an argument for full access to the WH.
If I were Trump I would just have Sanders pass out talking points memos in the room and walk out.
Trump or Sanders would be fools if they ever call on Accostya again.
-
The government "gave" him the pass, a physical item.
To take it away, the court would argue that their should be a process to remove that pass, once granted.
I don't agree with this, but I think that is the position they are taking.
Think of it like being fired, with getting previous warnings, or write-ups, etc.
More like a labor board issue than a 1st amendment issue.
Again, I don't agree, because he hasn't lost his job, he was just "demoted" which happens in the real world, too.
It's the "once granted" part that's the problem. The Press Office should set up a system like those used by corporations to discipline disruptive employees. The court seems to have made this a "due-process" issue.
-
It's the "once granted" part that's the problem. The Press Office should set up a system like those used by corporations to discipline disruptive employees. The court seems to have made this a "due-process" issue.
I agree.
-
The case is Sherrill v. Knight, decided in 1977 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It’s still good law in the district where CNN filed its suit, to which the White House is supposed to respond by 11 a.m. Wednesday, according to an order from Timothy Kelly, a former attorney for the Senate Judiciary Committee who was named by Trump to the federal bench last year.
In the 1977 case, the court found that denial of White House credentials was a sufficiently grave infringement on the freedom of the press that it couldn’t just be done by fiat. It required, at the very least, “notice of the factual bases for denial, an opportunity for the applicant to respond†and “a final written statement of the reasons for denial.†Notably, the court prohibited “content-based criteria for press pass issuance.â€
The critical finding, according to Mark H. Lynch of Covington & Burling, who argued the case before the D.C. Circuit, was this: Given the “important First Amendment rights implicated by refusal to grant White House press passes to bona fide Washington journalists,†as the court held, “such refusal must be based on a compelling governmental interest.â€
From prior post:
Can CNN beat the White House in court? Look to the case of a loner journalist named Robert Sherrill.
« on: November 14, 2018, 09:19:58 PM »
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,340360.msg1845764.html#msg1845764 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,340360.msg1845764.html#msg1845764)
-
The case is Sherrill v. Knight, decided in 1977 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It’s still good law in the district where CNN filed its suit, to which the White House is supposed to respond by 11 a.m. Wednesday, according to an order from Timothy Kelly, a former attorney for the Senate Judiciary Committee who was named by Trump to the federal bench last year.
In the 1977 case, the court found that denial of White House credentials was a sufficiently grave infringement on the freedom of the press that it couldn’t just be done by fiat. It required, at the very least, “notice of the factual bases for denial, an opportunity for the applicant to respond†and “a final written statement of the reasons for denial.†Notably, the court prohibited “content-based criteria for press pass issuance.â€
The critical finding, according to Mark H. Lynch of Covington & Burling, who argued the case before the D.C. Circuit, was this: Given the “important First Amendment rights implicated by refusal to grant White House press passes to bona fide Washington journalists,†as the court held, “such refusal must be based on a compelling governmental interest.â€
From prior post:
Can CNN beat the White House in court? Look to the case of a loner journalist named Robert Sherrill.
« on: November 14, 2018, 09:19:58 PM »
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,340360.msg1845764.html#msg1845764 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,340360.msg1845764.html#msg1845764)
Keeping order in the Pressers is a compelling government interest, the White House just needs to document what they are doing.
-
If the POTUS does not have the authority to deternine who does and does not have a press pass, then the POTUS has no authority at all. The office offers illusory power at best.
-
My understanding is the federal judge emphasized in his ruling that the decision was based solely on grounds of denial of due process, 5th amendment issues, and NOT the denial of first amendment protections.
-
My understanding is the federal judge emphasized in his ruling that the decision was based solely on grounds of denial of due process, 5th amendment issues, and NOT the denial of first amendment protections.
A problem easily remedied. Just list all the times Accostya disrupted Pressers, then write him a nice letter. Problem solved. Meanwhile, make his presence irrelevant by refusing to acknowledge him.
-
If I were president this Judge would have already learned the meaning of the words "go pound sand"!
-
If I were president this Judge would have already learned the meaning of the words "go pound sand"!
It's a pity you aren't because the President we have appears to have caved. Let's see how Sanders deals with the little puke...
-
In retrospect, I think it was a bad move to revoke his pass. Instead, I think they should have given him a suspension - a time out, say for one or two weeks.
-
Let him in while this percolates through the courts. But never let him have the mic. If he just grabs it again, shut the mic off and declare the Presser over. That screws the whole Press gallery. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
That's how you do it. Say "this press conference is over" and walk away.
-
Ridiculous.
Does anyone know how the judge linked this to the First Amendment? I'd love to hear it.
BTW Trump appointed him.
It actually wasn't linked to the First Amendment - the Judge expressly declined to rule on that basis.
It was linked to the Fifth Amendment -- deprivation of a government issued press pass. The judge basically said "they may ultimately be able to deny him a press pass, but they have to follow a process for doing so."
-
In retrospect, I think it was a bad move to revoke his pass. Instead, I think they should have given him a suspension - a time out, say for one or two weeks.
I wouldn't call it a "bad move." It illustrates what a so-called reformer is up against.
The Judge has pointed the way to what needs to be done with Accostya, let's see what Sanders does with it. Give him a "process" and sack him again.
-
Keeping order in the Pressers is a compelling government interest, the White House just needs to document what they are doing.
They simply need clear rules, and to post them. If they had them, and booted Acosta for violating those rules, it wouldn't have been a problem.
Among other things, "refusing to relinquish the microphone when asked", "refusing to keep quiet in the pressroom when asked by the Secretary", etc..
-
They simply need clear rules, and to post them. If they had them, and booted Acosta for violating those rules, it wouldn't have been a problem.
Among other things, "refusing to relinquish the microphone when asked", "refusing to keep quiet in the pressroom when asked by the Secretary", etc..
Yup. Post clear rules and document infractions. When the documentation piles up, that person is gone (with a nice letter). That's how it's done in the corporate world.
-
I don't see why Trump can't just not call on Acosta.... ever. If Acosta can't act like a grownup, civil reporter.... then let him suffer those consequences and let it be a lesson to the other "journalists".
-
Yup. Post clear rules and document infractions. When the documentation piles up, that person is gone (with a nice letter). That's how it's done in the corporate world.
Then again... in the corporate world.... if you acted like a complete azz and disrespected the CEO of ANY corporation like Acosta did with Trump... you would be fired and escorted out of the door by security guards.
-
I don't see why Trump can't just not call on Acosta.... ever. If Acosta can't act like a grownup, civil reporter.... then let him suffer those consequences and let it be a lesson to the other "journalists".
Well, they can refuse to call on him. But it also makes sense to have published rules for when Acosta or anyone else gets out of line. Trump said that's exactly what they're going to do -- draft rules, post them, and hold journalists to them. Probably not something the press as a whole wants, but...they asked for it.
Fox News this afternoon aired an excerpt of President Donald Trump‘s big interview with Chris Wallace, in which POTUS reacted to a Federal judge’s ruling against the White House on Jim Acosta‘s press credential.
Trump told Wallace it’s “not a big deal,†saying, “What they said, though, is that we have to create rules and regulations for conduct… we’re doing that, we’re going to write them up right now. It’s not a big deal. And if he misbehaves, we’ll throw him out or we’ll stop the news conference.â€
Wallace asked him exactly what the rules are going to be.
Trump just said there are “rules of decorum†and reporters can’t keep asking questions.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-warns-acosta-after-judges-ruling-if-he-misbehaves-well-throw-him-out/ (https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-warns-acosta-after-judges-ruling-if-he-misbehaves-well-throw-him-out/)
-
Then again... in the corporate world.... if you acted like a complete azz and disrespected the CEO of ANY corporation like Acosta did with Trump... you would be fired and escorted out of the door by security guards.
You'd be surprised about that....
-
I don't see why Trump can't just not call on Acosta.... ever. If Acosta can't act like a grownup, civil reporter.... then let him suffer those consequences and let it be a lesson to the other "journalists".
If the President or Sanders calls on him again they're fools.
-
Well, they can refuse to call on him. But it also makes sense to have published rules for when Acosta or anyone else gets out of line. Trump said that's exactly what they're going to do -- draft rules, post them, and hold journalists to them. Probably not something the press as a whole wants, but...they asked for it.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-warns-acosta-after-judges-ruling-if-he-misbehaves-well-throw-him-out/ (https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-warns-acosta-after-judges-ruling-if-he-misbehaves-well-throw-him-out/)
From the linked article:
[Trump:] "I’ll say, ‘Thank you very much, everybody. I appreciate you coming.’ And I’ll leave. And those reporters will not be too friendly to whoever it is that’s acting up.â€
So far...so good.
-
Well, they can refuse to call on him. But it also makes sense to have published rules for when Acosta or anyone else gets out of line. Trump said that's exactly what they're going to do -- draft rules, post them, and hold journalists to them. Probably not something the press as a whole wants, but...they asked for it.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-warns-acosta-after-judges-ruling-if-he-misbehaves-well-throw-him-out/ (https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-warns-acosta-after-judges-ruling-if-he-misbehaves-well-throw-him-out/)
Exactly. And the other journalists.... the ones that did NOT act like complete jackazzes... know who to blame for these new rules/consequences. That's justice.
-
If the President or Sanders calls on him again they're fools.
I agree. But this isn't a perfect (my idea of one, anyway...lol) world.
-
Exactly. And the other journalists.... the ones that did NOT act like complete jackazzes... know who to blame for these new rules/consequences. That's justice.
The problem is that most of the journalists have explicitly backed Acosta. So, if he deserved to lose his press pass, they all should. It's just as well anyway. The press briefing is a waste of time at this point. Nobody gains anything from it, just a chance to harass the poor sap they throw out there.
-
Exactly. And the other journalists.... the ones that did NOT act like complete jackazzes... know who to blame for these new rules/consequences. That's justice.
We'll have to see about that. The vast majority in the gaggle where Accostya showed his ass think he's a god.
-
It is a ridiculous ruling, but I agree that if Acosta is in the room, just don't call on him. Before any press briefing, they should announce that anyone causing a disruption will be removed. So if Jimbo throws a tantrum because he's not getting called on, show him the door.
-
It is a ridiculous ruling, but I agree that if Acosta is in the room, just don't call on him. Before any press briefing, they should announce that anyone causing a disruption will be removed. So if Jimbo throws a tantrum because he's not getting called on, show him the door.
Trump and co. are writing a whole set of rules.
The Judge pretty much told them exactly what they need to be. I can see how this is going to go: Accostya will be there, and will start shouting at the top of his lungs without the mic. The rest of the gaggle will applaud him (he is their idol), for a while at least, all the while Sarah's people will be documenting him so next time the pull a Press Pass, it will stick.
Oh, and the President has already said in an interview he'll close the Presser and walk away. Let the gaggle suffer, so much the better.
-
Ah, good to hear. I think that's the right approach (I haven't had a chance yet to read the ruling or any coverage of it).
-
Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 Verified account @JackPosobiec
6h6 hours ago
Alex Jones should apply for a press pass today
:silly:
-
If Acosta can't act like a grownup ...
Then he's in good company with the President. :laugh:
Seriously, Acosta was way out of line. Since Watergate, many journalists have become quite self-important and have forgotten their role.
-
Then he's in good company with the President. :laugh:
Seriously, Acosta was way out of line. Since Watergate, many journalists have become quite self-important and have forgotten their role.
They have become lying, leftist propagandists..... ready and willing to do or say ANYTHING they deem necessary in order to promote their leftist agenda. The name Dan Rather comes immediately to mind.
-
Trump’s answer to Chris Wallace for this Sunday’s show on Fox was great. If he gets outta hand, Trump will just say Thank you everyone†and walk out. Self policing, as someone said earlier, is the best medicine.
-
I bet Sarah could bodyslam this toff. You know she has watched some WWE in her time.
-
The Senate needs to keep confirming judges and the WH needs to keep taking this kind of stuff to the SCOTUS as a matter of strategy against the Dems.
-
They have become lying, leftist propagandists..... ready and willing to do or say ANYTHING they deem necessary in order to promote their leftist agenda. The name Dan Rather comes immediately to mind.
The name "Cronkite" comes to my mind, but I think I'm older than you a bit.
-
He could also do this 180 degrees different.
He could only call on Acosta, annoying the other members of the media, to the point that they police him themselves.
Wadya think?
Too much media group think among the WH press corps for that to happen.
-
:silly:
Does anyone remember the Jeff Gannon fiasco?
-
Too much media group think among the WH press corps for that to happen.
Yeah, those little popcorn farts love Accostya too much.
-
@skeeter
I think it was due to a case back in 1977 setting a precedent.
https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight (https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight)
That’s the case I was trying to remember. Thanks for posting the link.
-
Although I'm not a fan of Trump, I would fully support his open defiance of this court order.
Yep. This deserves a prompt and vocal KMA.
-
It is a ridiculous ruling, but I agree that if Acosta is in the room, just don't call on him. Before any press briefing, they should announce that anyone causing a disruption will be removed. So if Jimbo throws a tantrum because he's not getting called on, show him the door.
With all due respect, it’s not ridiculous, and it’s based on long-standing precedent.
-
With all due respect, it’s not ridiculous, and it’s based on long-standing precedent.
FWIW, I agree with you on this.
-
Does anyone know how the judge linked this to the First Amendment? I'd love to hear it.
@skeeter
The judge's ruling ie based on Amendment V Due Process, not Amendment I. Which explains why it is temporary. All it says is that the Executive must have a process in place for revoking a press pass.
Since there is already precedent in place (Helen Thomas and the Obama Administration), it should not be difficult to match the actions of the previous administration in revoking the pass.
-
@skeeter
I think it was due to a case back in 1977 setting a precedent.
https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight (https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight)
Thanks. I see this is a process, not a free speech thing.
@Elderberry
@Hoodat
-
Thanks. I see this is a process, not a free speech thing.
@Elderberry
@Hoodat
Yes, and easy to rectify. Post some rules and you're golden.
-
The WH nor any other Federal Government enitity does not get to pick and chose who covers them under the US Constitution..
Why this question ever went to court is baffling.. :shrug:
-
The WH nor any other Federal Government enitity does not get to pick and chose who covers them under the US Constitution..
Why this question ever went to court is baffling.. :shrug:
If the court agreed with you, it would have found on the First Amendment. It did not, so one could say "This question never went to court."
-
With all due respect, it’s not ridiculous, and it’s based on long-standing precedent.
Precedent is just circular reasoning.
-
Precedent is just circular reasoning.
And occasionally... those citing "precedent" to make their case fail to include certain crucial details that might preclude or disqualify that "precedent" from applying.
-
The WH nor any other Federal Government enitity does not get to pick and chose who covers them under the US Constitution..
Why this question ever went to court is baffling.. :shrug:
Acosta can cover the president without being in the same room. Why should he be allowed to lecture and argue instead of asking a question? I hope he is never called on again. And when he grandstands and interrupts and tries to take the mic, with the new rules, he'll be escorted out and it will stick.
-
He really does think he's the star of the show.
Kyle Morris @RealKyleMorris
15h15 hours ago
CNN’s Jim Acosta actually walked up to reporters covering his return and asked, “Do you guys wanna ask a question or...?â€
See also Harlan Hill's tweet (https://twitter.com/Harlan/status/1063539363223666688)
-
He really does think he's the star of the show.See also Harlan Hill's tweet (https://twitter.com/Harlan/status/1063539363223666688)
He should enjoy his gloating while he can.
-
Kicking & Screaming: Journo Dragged From Near Air Force One
By CHRISTINA HOAG | Jul 16, 2009 at 9:26 PM
(https://media.nbclosangeles.com/images/671*367/052809+Obama+Brenda+Lee+Air+Force+One+HMV.jpg)
A reporter for a small newspaper was forcibly removed from a press area near Air Force One shortly before President Barack Obama arrived at Los Angeles International Airport to depart California early Thursday.
Airport security officers carried the woman away by the feet and arms as she protested her removal.
She later identified herself as Brenda Lee, a writer for the Georgia Informer in Macon and said she has White House press credentials. The newspaper's Web site says it is a monthly publication, and a Brenda Lee column is posted on it.
Calls to the newspaper and the White House press office were not immediately returned. . . .
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/archive/Reporter-Dragged-Kicking-and-Screaming-From-Near-Air-Force-One-.html (https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/archive/Reporter-Dragged-Kicking-and-Screaming-From-Near-Air-Force-One-.html)
My how the rules change when a Republican gets in the White House.
-
Kicking & Screaming: Journo Dragged From Near Air Force One
By CHRISTINA HOAG | Jul 16, 2009 at 9:26 PM
My how the rules change when a Republican gets in the White House.
I've always said, every time a Republican gets elected to office the press suddenly wakes up. They had an eight-year nap, so we can't be surprised they're a little stiff. They had to go through the same "morning coffee" when Bush stomped Gore.
-
In a letter to reporter Scott Powers last week, a spokeswoman for Vice President Joe Biden apologized to the Orlando Sentinel reporter for keeping him in a closet (or, as the spokeswoman described it, a "lack of a better hold room") during an event he was covering.
Powers, who was the designated pool reporter at a fundraiser for Biden and Florida Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), was told upon arrival at the event - hosted by philanthropist Alan Ginsburg at his home - that he would have to wait in a storage closet until the vice president arrived, according to an account by ABC News.
The vice president reportedly arrived about an hour later, at which point Powers was allowed to leave the closet and report on his and Nelson's comments. Afterward, he was escorted back into the closet until the motorcade had left the premises.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-team-apologizes-to-reporter-for-making-him-wait-in-a-closet/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-team-apologizes-to-reporter-for-making-him-wait-in-a-closet/)
-
... The New York Times gets it that Trump now has the upper hand in his battle with a media that wants to drive him from office: “This could backfire,†said William L. Youmans, a professor of media law at George Washington University. Mr. Acosta “gets his credential now, but it empowers the Trump administration to come up with conduct-based criteria.â€
“A ‘rudeness’ or ‘aggressive behavior’ policy would have a huge chilling effect, and would be much more damaging to the whole system,†Dr. Youmans added. “If it lowers the bar for pulling credentials, it’s a recipe for a more tepid press.â€
More at "Trump announces solution to Acosta problem and now the media are stuck" at American Thinker (https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/11/trump_announces_solution_to_acosta_problem_and_now_the_media_are_stuck_.html)
-
More at "Trump announces solution to Acosta problem and now the media are stuck" at American Thinker (https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/11/trump_announces_solution_to_acosta_problem_and_now_the_media_are_stuck_.html)
That's quite an admission on the part of NYT. "We are nothing if we're not allowed to be disruptive and rude."
-
I don't know. They seem so impressed with their power and infallibility that they don't have to think much.
As I understand it, the judge sided with Acosta on the grounds that 1st Amendment rights (and "due process stuff," perhaps) implicitly demand that the White House have written rules for proper behavior in the White House.
If that is his position, then the judge is a MORAL NINCOMPOOP, in my opinion. He is a self-righteous LEGALIST who falsely invokes the Constitution under the assumption that must misapply it to reign in a tyrannical POTUS. (Dear, dear.) But since the POTUS is not behaving as a tyrant, the judge is. The judge is snaky, not Solomonic.
The President's position may be distasteful, but it is necessary. The judge should have dismissed the case. The matter was clearly none of his snotty business. The President has the transcendental right to enforce even unwritten rules of decency and order in his own White House.
(I assume that Trump thought the guy he was appointing is a conservative; perhaps the guy himself thinks he is a conservative. But the judge is a actually the archenemy of true conservativism, i.e., the Constitutional kind. He is legislating from the bench by ordering more regs from the Executive Branch. That is not a conservative approach. It is part of the Creeping Destruction of our civil society. It is ultimately anti-Christian--which is why it is happening so much in our day of pervasive reprobation. And whether or not Trump is a genuine Christian, he is being mauled by MSM and by bad judges precisely because he identifies with Christians and presides accordingly. The poor judge has not the faintest idea what he is doing.)
***
At the bottom line, we have a lot of really bad conservatives in all branches of our government. To borrow prince Hal's line, "The first thing we need to do is kill all the lawyers."
-
As I understand it, the judge sided with Acosta on the grounds that 1st Amendment rights (and "due process stuff," perhaps) implicitly demand that the White House have written rules for proper behavior in the White House.
No, the First Amendment has nothing to do with due process. This was not decided on First Amendment grounds.
-
No, the First Amendment has nothing to do with due process. This was not decided on First Amendment grounds.
In fact, the Judge stated in his decision this is not a First Amendment issue, but a due process issue.
-
In fact, the Judge stated in his decision this is not a First Amendment issue, but a due process issue.
I don't care what the judge says.
If the plaintiff's special rights were not being violated by a process failure, then no special process was at issue, i.e. no tedious "process" was due.
.
The press pass did constitute a "right" for Acosta to be in the conference room. That might sound like a special right indeed, but it was a sovereignly granted right--not an innate right for Acosta in particular, not a sacred/protected right that was merely formalized by the pass. Unfortunately, the judge treated this "right" as a specially protected right precisely because Acosta was made a member of the White House PRESS corps. In short, the case was implicitly being handled as a 1st Amendment case even though the judge tried to say otherwise.
The judge wound up on the wrong side by snarling issues together and pretending that he was not snarling issues together. He's not a clear enough thinker to issue an unimpeachably honest ruling. His ruling is stupid. It is clearly not right for Trump not to summarily remove a disruptive jerk from the Press Corps. (Heck, it one wants to talk about "process," how about the White House "process" of patiently tolerating Acosta's inarguably bad behavior for way too long?)
(By the way, does the White House now have to draft written rules that also say that a reporter is not allowed to chew tobacco and spit on the conference room floor? Reductio ad absurdum.)
-
the judge treated this "right" as a specially protected right precisely because Acosta was made a member of the White House PRESS corps. In short, the case was implicitly being handled as a 1st Amendment case
Uh, no. There is nothing 'First Amendment' about a special pass being issued.
-
So, Accostya has a special right to lecture instead of question, shout down others in the press and at the Lectern, and act like an all-around jerk (above and beyond what we usually desire of "reporters").
I stand corrected.
-
Uh, no. There is nothing 'First Amendment' about a special pass being issued.
Yes it is, because pot-stirrers insist on interpreting it that way. With the state of Law as we know it, surely many others are making that exact tortured argument in order to muddy the waters. As for the Judge, he was very clear about how his ruling should be interpreted. Not a 1st Amendment issue.
-
Uh, no. There is nothing 'First Amendment' about a special pass being issued.
You're absolutely right about that. But the judge WAS treating the pass as SPECIAL--triggering due process requirements (his ruling, that is) that should not have been triggered.
Legal smoke and mirrors are common in our courts.
-
Yes it is, because pot-stirrers insist on interpreting it that way. With the state of Law as we know it, surely many others are making that exact tortured argument in order to muddy the waters. As for the Judge, he was very clear about how his ruling should be interpreted. Not a 1st Amendment issue.
See my posts above. If the judge was not treating it as a 1st Amendment issue--in spite of his denials--then Acosta had no special rights for due process to protect.
-
See my posts above. If the judge was not treating it as a 1st Amendment issue--in spite of his denials--then Acosta had no special rights for due process to protect.
https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight (https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight)
The District Court based its requirement of a written decision upon its determination that denial of a White House press pass to a bona fide journalist violates the first amendment unless it furthers a compelling governmental interest identified by narrowly and specifically drawn standards.
-
https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight (https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight)
The District Court based its requirement of a written decision upon its determination that denial of a White House press pass to a bona fide journalist violates the first amendment unless it furthers a compelling governmental interest identified by narrowly and specifically drawn standards.
Thanks for that. Sherrill was the precedent used by this court.
-
The District Court based its requirement of a written decision upon its determination that denial of a White House press pass to a bona fide journalist violates the first amendment unless it furthers a compelling governmental interest identified by narrowly and specifically drawn standards.
The First Amendment protects the people against one thing, and one thing only - an act of Congress. And since there is no act of Congress at play here, there is no way in hell that this is a First Amendment issue.
-
The First Amendment protects the people against one thing, and one thing only - an act of Congress. And since there is no act of Congress at play here, there is no way in hell that this is a First Amendment issue.
In that Sherrill ruling the Judge referred to a "bona fide journalist." Couldn't Trump just say that doesn't apply because Accostya is "fake news?"
-
I don't recall any 'due process' issues when they booted Helen Thomas from the White House Press Corps. Has the Constitution changed since Trump took office?
-
Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection Files Amicus Brief on Behalf of Reporters Committee in CNN v. Trump
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/news/georgetown-laws-institute-for-constitutional-advocacy-and-protection-files-amicus-brief-on-behalf-of-reporters-committee-in-cnn-v-trump/ (https://www.law.georgetown.edu/news/georgetown-laws-institute-for-constitutional-advocacy-and-protection-files-amicus-brief-on-behalf-of-reporters-committee-in-cnn-v-trump/)
On Friday, November 16, Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia did so.
“Today, a major precedent was set for the future of a free press,†Georgetown Law’s ICAP tweeted. “It’s a win for [one] reporter, but most importantly a win for the Constitution & the enduring freedoms it grants us all.â€
The amicus brief, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on November 13, asserted that the revocation of White House Correspondent Acosta’s press credentials violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press and that the move could have a chilling effect on other journalists.
“Questioning our elected representatives is at the heart of our Constitution’s First Amendment protections; the Amendment specifically guards ‘the freedom of speech [and] of the press,’†said Visiting Professor Joshua Geltzer, who serves as ICAP’s executive director. “Protecting and encouraging a wide range of views, including vigorously questioning and even criticizing the government, is what our founders expected when they wrote the Constitution. And courts have repeatedly stepped in to defend the rights of journalists to ask those questions in the course of their constitutionally protected newsgathering.â€
Bruce Brown, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — a nonprofit association of reporters and editors dedicated to defending the First Amendment and the newsgathering rights of the media — called the president’s revocation of Acosta’s credentials “out of line.â€
“It’s decidedly out of step with the traditions of freedom of speech and of the press enshrined in our Constitution, at the heart of our democracy, and long respected by presidential administrations of both parties, even in moments of great tension between the president and the press,†Brown said. He noted that the actions come against “a backdrop of crackdowns on press freedoms†occurring in countries including Austria, Hungary, Poland, and Turkey—“crackdowns characteristic of authoritarian governments that have contributed to degradations in democracy in the countries subjected to them.
More at link above.
-
I don't recall any 'due process' issues when they booted Helen Thomas from the White House Press Corps. Has the Constitution changed since Trump took office?
I don't think they took her "permanent press pass." I daresay Bush was a bit more...diplomatic about it. But Helen was just irritating, I thought. Accostya was a bit more...than that.
-
Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection Files Amicus Brief on Behalf of Reporters Committee in CNN v. Trump
I've heard if you pair up an amicus brief with a 5-dollar bill you can buy a black coffee at Starbucks.
Just about all the "news organizations" (including Fox) filed briefs to try to entangle this with 1st Amendment rights
-
I don't think they took her "permanent press pass." I daresay Bush was a bit more...diplomatic about it. But Helen was just irritating, I thought. Accostya was a bit more...than that.
They never revoked her press pass that I know of. She was forced to resign though.
-
Pulling Acosta's press pass was just a "test case".
How long will it be before there no longer is a White House Press Corps?
-
They never revoked her press pass that I know of. She was forced to resign though.
No, she was back in her front-row chair within the month.
-
Pulling Acosta's press pass was just a "test case".
How long will it be before there no longer is a White House Press Corps?
Is that a trick question?
-
Pulling Acosta's press pass was just a "test case".
How long will it be before there no longer is a White House Press Corps?
Not soon enough.
-
How long will it be before there no longer is a White House Press Corps?
Hopefully, before Christmas.
-
https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight (https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight)
The District Court based its requirement of a written decision upon its determination that denial of a White House press pass to a bona fide journalist violates the first amendment unless it furthers a compelling governmental interest identified by narrowly and specifically drawn standards.
What is a 'bona fide' journalist? Journalists are not licensed in the US. If you act in the capacity of a journalist then you are one.
-
What is a 'bona fide' journalist? Journalists are not licensed in the US. If you act in the capacity of a journalist then you are one.
"Bona fide" will likely never be defined. It's sort of like the NFL's vagueness about what they called "a football move." (Did they every wind up defining that?)
-
What is a 'bona fide' journalist? Journalists are not licensed in the US. If you act in the capacity of a journalist then you are one.
Therefore Alex Jones should have a pass. I'm good...anything to throw a handful of sand in the gears.
-
In case anyone is wondering, this judge is coloring WAY outside the lines here and I fervently wish the president would tell him so.
-
In case anyone is wondering, this judge is coloring WAY outside the lines here and I fervently wish the president would tell him so.
Don't they all color outside of the lines? I imagine all judges think of the lines as one big, empty canvas to emote to their heart's content.
This is why most Normals think the legal profession is gone beyond repair. Shakespeare was right.
-
Don't they all color outside of the lines? I imagine all judges think of the lines as one big, empty canvas to emote to their heart's content.
This is why most Normals think the legal profession is gone beyond repair. Shakespeare was right.
If no one is willing to stop their coloring outside the lines they will keep right on doing it. They've gotten away with it for so long they think they are entitled to do it.
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/VXmeBUZtdI8/hqdefault.jpg)
-
If no one is willing to stop their coloring outside the lines they will keep right on doing it. They've gotten away with it for so long they think they are entitled to do it.
That's why they call it the swamp. Nobody ever said it's going to be easy.
-
(http://leannebrownoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-28-at-9.40.08-PM.png)
-
Exactly. The daily presser is NOT mandatory, or under any jurisdiction. Sanders could simply call in sick, and say that she just didn't feel like it. There is no imperative to have one every day. They could easily just shut the whole thing down.
@240B
Uhhh,not really. These press conferences are how the WH spins the news to make themselves look good,or to try to influence votes in the House or Senate without having to issue and official proclamation.
It's a mutual benefit thing for both the press and the WH.
-
In other breaking news,President Trump has sent a personal message to the judge and to CNN that says "Go piss up a rope."
-
As I understand it, the judge sided with Acosta on the grounds that 1st Amendment rights (and "due process stuff," perhaps) implicitly demand that the White House have written rules for proper behavior in the White House.
If that is his position, then the judge is a MORAL NINCOMPOOP, in my opinion. He is a self-righteous LEGALIST who falsely invokes the Constitution under the assumption that must misapply it to reign in a tyrannical POTUS. (Dear, dear.) But since the POTUS is not behaving as a tyrant, the judge is. The judge is snaky, not Solomonic.
The President's position may be distasteful, but it is necessary. The judge should have dismissed the case. The matter was clearly none of his snotty business. The President has the transcendental right to enforce even unwritten rules of decency and order in his own White House.
(I assume that Trump thought the guy he was appointing is a conservative; perhaps the guy himself thinks he is a conservative. But the judge is a actually the archenemy of true conservativism, i.e., the Constitutional kind. He is legislating from the bench by ordering more regs from the Executive Branch. That is not a conservative approach. It is part of the Creeping Destruction of our civil society. It is ultimately anti-Christian--which is why it is happening so much in our day of pervasive reprobation. And whether or not Trump is a genuine Christian, he is being mauled by MSM and by bad judges precisely because he identifies with Christians and presides accordingly. The poor judge has not the faintest idea what he is doing.)
***
At the bottom line, we have a lot of really bad conservatives in all branches of our government. To borrow prince Hal's line, "The first thing we need to do is kill all the lawyers."
That was my first thought. Separation of Powers anyone? This isn't a court, and due process is not necessary, particularly since this wasn't an entire news organization, but one reporter.
Nonetheless, I think the sentiment that it might backfire on the media may just be right. They threw Trump in the briar patch.
-
@Cyber Liberty
@Hoodat
@Elderberry
I don't care what the judge says.
If the plaintiff's special rights were not being violated by a process failure, then no special process was at issue, i.e. no tedious "process" was due.
.
The press pass did constitute a "right" for Acosta to be in the conference room. That might sound like a special right indeed, but it was a sovereignly granted right--not an innate right for Acosta in particular, not a sacred/protected right that was merely formalized by the pass. Unfortunately, the judge treated this "right" as a specially protected right precisely because Acosta was made a member of the White House PRESS corps. In short, the case was implicitly being handled as a 1st Amendment case even though the judge tried to say otherwise.
The judge wound up on the wrong side by snarling issues together and pretending that he was not snarling issues together. He's not a clear enough thinker to issue an unimpeachably honest ruling. His ruling is stupid. It is clearly not right for Trump not to summarily remove a disruptive jerk from the Press Corps. (Heck, it one wants to talk about "process," how about the White House "process" of patiently tolerating Acosta's inarguably bad behavior for way too long?)
(By the way, does the White House now have to draft written rules that also say that a reporter is not allowed to chew tobacco and spit on the conference room floor? Reductio ad absurdum.)
I gather from Elderberry's post of the Schiller link (and case summary) that Judge Kelly actually followed the Schiller case's ruling in reaching his own decision in the Acosta case. But the crux of the Schiller case was the 1st Amendment itself. The Schiller case ruling found that press credentialing has to follow a clear protocol--not using seemingly capricious/political criteria for denying credentials.
Kelly evidently used the Schiller ruling to jump right past any argument as to whether the 1st Amendment applied in Acosta's case. Kelly started off with the position that the 1st Amendment definitely applies in cases like Acosta's case.
What could be more obvious (by the way)? The peculiar thing about this obvious legal presupposition is that it allows Kelly to claim that Acosta's case was "not a 1st Amendment case," whereas it necessarily was. (Again, what could be more obvious?)
Therefore, the judge's insistence that the Acosta case was not a 1st Amendment case is terribly misleading.
Worse still, the legal parsing gives Kelly cover for a lousy ruling ostensibly centering on due process, as though it is not a matter of due process centered on the 1st Amendment. Consider this: Acosta's refusal to yield the floor and hand back the microphone, followed by Acosta trying to grab it back (and also laying a hand on the WH intern during that struggle), should not be covered by "due process protocols." The only "process" that was Acosta's "due" was obviously a summary dismissal.
-
@Cyber Liberty
@Hoodat
@Elderberry
I gather from Elderberry's post of the Schiller link (and case summary) that Judge Kelly actually followed the Schiller case's ruling in reaching his own decision in the Acosta case. But the crux of the Schiller case was the 1st Amendment itself. The Schiller case ruling found that press credentialing has to follow a clear protocol--not using seemingly capricious/political criteria for denying credentials.
Kelly evidently used the Schiller ruling to jump right past any argument as to whether the 1st Amendment applied in Acosta's case. Kelly started off with the position that the 1st Amendment definitely applies in cases like Acosta's case.
What could be more obvious (by the way)? The peculiar thing about this obvious legal presupposition is that it allows Kelly to claim that Acosta's case was "not a 1st Amendment case," whereas it necessarily was. (Again, what could be more obvious?)
Therefore, the judge's insistence that the Acosta case was not a 1st Amendment case is terribly misleading.
Worse still, the legal parsing gives Kelly cover for a lousy ruling ostensibly centering on due process, as though it is not a matter of due process centered on the 1st Amendment. Consider this: Acosta's refusal to yield the floor and hand back the microphone, followed by Acosta trying to grab it back (and also laying a hand on the WH intern during that struggle), should not be covered by "due process protocols." The only "process" that was Acosta's "due" was obviously a summary dismissal.
A summary dismissal is what this judges order richly deserves and I fervently wish the president would do that.
-
If no one is willing to stop their coloring outside the lines they will keep right on doing it. They've gotten away with it for so long they think they are entitled to do it.
When the Chief Justice does it, there are no boundaries for lower life judges.
-
Not soon enough.
Would you feel that way if it was a Democrat President doing the same thing? :whistle:
-
I don't think they took her "permanent press pass." I daresay Bush was a bit more...diplomatic about it. But Helen was just irritating, I thought. Accostya was a bit more...than that.
@Cyber Liberty
Helen Thomas stayed in the WH Press Pool way longer than she should have been allowed because she was Helen Thomas.
She wasn't writing for a wire service...she didn't have a daily byline in a newspaper or a magazine and IIRC she wasn't in syndication anywhere at the time the Bush WH told her to step aside. She occupied the first chair in the room which meant she almost always got the chance to ask the first question in any presser...a spot that should have gone to a reporter with a regular beat.
She didn't deserve to be in the room anymore but everyone was scared to tell her.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Helen Thomas stayed in the WH Press Pool way longer than she should have been allowed because she was Helen Thomas.
She wasn't writing for a wire service...she didn't have a daily byline in a newspaper or a magazine and IIRC she wasn't in syndication anywhere at the time the Bush WH told her to step aside. She occupied the first chair in the room which meant she almost always got the chance to ask the first question in any presser...a spot that should have gone to a reporter with a regular beat.
She didn't deserve to be in the room anymore but everyone was scared to tell her.
She used to work for UPI, but I think that eventually collapsed after the Moonies takeover.
-
What is a 'bona fide' journalist? Journalists are not licensed in the US. If you act in the capacity of a journalist then you are one.
I remember an episode of Law & Order that dealt with exactly that subject. IIRC, it revolved around a biker bar where a college kid was killed over a jacket he shouldn't have been wearing. One of the potential witnesses, a self-described journalist who wrote in biker pubs, could not be forced to testify on what he found because it would damage his sources.
One would think that Acosta and Trump would be best buddies: they're both obnoxious, self-centered bullies. They use the same tactics and techniques to have attention focused on them.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Helen Thomas stayed in the WH Press Pool way longer than she should have been allowed because she was Helen Thomas.
She wasn't writing for a wire service...she didn't have a daily byline in a newspaper or a magazine and IIRC she wasn't in syndication anywhere at the time the Bush WH told her to step aside. She occupied the first chair in the room which meant she almost always got the chance to ask the first question in any presser...a spot that should have gone to a reporter with a regular beat.
She didn't deserve to be in the room anymore but everyone was scared to tell her.
@txradioguy
I would maybe send her a note to tell her to hit the road,but I'm not sure I would have the guts to look into that face and tell her to hit the road in person.
That was one gawdawful ugly woman. Scare the rattles off a rattlesnake as he tried to get quiet to escape.
-
@txradioguy
I would maybe send her a note to tell her to hit the road,but I'm not sure I would have the guts to look into that face and tell her to hit the road in person.
That was one gawdawful ugly woman. Scare the rattles off a rattlesnake as he tried to get quiet to escape.
She definitely was a modern day Medusa minus the snakes in her hair.
Tony Snow was a much braver man than I to have to call her into his office and tell her she no longer had a pass.