Tomorrow, Thursday 11-15-18 at 3 p.m. US District Court Judge Timothy Kelly will issue a ruling.
Update 5:40 p.m. EST Nov. 14: The judge in the CNN lawsuit against President Donald Trump and other administration officials over banning reporter Jim Acosta from the White House said he’ll issue a ruling Thursday at 3 p.m., according to news outlets.
Jay Wallace, President of Fox: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized," Wallace said. "While we don't condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
https://www.wftv.com/news/breaking-news/cnn-sues-after-jim-acosta-banned-from-white-house/872004599
REMARK: They state the 5th amendment reference is for due process.
[Edited on 11/15/2018 by gina]
Fifth Amendment due process clause makes no mention of criminal charges:
"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Trump wants to muzzle the press like dogs then acts all shocked when they start acting like dogs. Power to them, someone's got to call out this charlatan. Vive le press libre!
For us laymen, one of the better paragraphs I found to understand the basis follows:
https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/cnn-sues-trump-acosta.php
"In addition, as veteran First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams told CNN, case law in the US has established that before a press pass is revoked or denied, “you have to have notice, you have to have a chance to respond, and you have to have a written opinion by the White House as to what it’s doing and why, so the courts can examine it.” None of those things occurred in this case, which is why the CNN lawsuit argues withdrawing Acosta’s pass is a breach of the Fifth Amendment."
Thanks for taking the time to provide that. No question about it being a 1st amendment issue & Abrams would've been a far better choice than Ted Olson to represent CNN. I read the complaint & Abrams in your link makes a more compelling argument than Olson does re 5th. Guess we'll wait until tomorrow.
Trump continues to win bigly. :P. Soon it will be Mueller time.
Judge: White House must return CNN's Jim Acosta's credential
For all of that rage from the right about “assault” they didn’t argue it in court.
They have to go by the rules of law in court. They can't use opinions and complain about it not being fair.
I think reporters need to frame their questions with decorum and ask what the President has to say about anything they bring up, or ask about future responses, plans, policy changes or enforcement but the 'you did this' interrogation type questioning can't continue.
I gave the example of the Paki reporters and Osama, regarding the bombing of the Khobar Towers one reporter said to him 'the Saudis think you did that, what do you have to say about it'? They did not ask did you do it? Or accuse him putting him in a defensive mode. They put it in a more gentler way and he responded "I did not do that, Iranian intelligence did that attack". I remember when the Afghan Islamic Press on 9-12-01 asked him about 9-11-01, they told him 'the Americans are saying you did this attack, what do you have to say about it?' and his answer was "I had nothing to do with that explosion". The point is even interviewing someone such as Osama, there are ways to do it.
Why can't reporters ask Trump questions without pissing him off? They ask a question and then do not let him sufficiently answer it before they start talking over him, or they refuse to accept his answer and keep hammering on the point they want to make. Reporters should not be making points on someone they are questioning, they should ask questions and allow the person to respond, not cutting them off and berating them. That is what interrogation is, and an interview is NOT an interrogation.
AN INTERVIEW IS NOT AN INTERROGATION, and cannot be conducted in the same way.
As to the revocation of the press credentials, that went too far, I think if Mr. Acosta pissed the President off enough he could have been asked to leave the briefing and then a private meeting could have been held with him to explain why he was ejected from the meeting.
Some of the press briefings were like a three ring circus witchhunt in the early days. That cannot be.
[Edited on 11/16/2018 by gina]
No big win. Certainly no victory for freedom of the press. Acosta got his pass back temporarily & judge didn't touch the 1st amendment arguments. He did the minimum & used the 5th amendment test set out in a precedent. Trump could, if he wanted to belabor the point, satisfy the requirements & revoke the pass again. My guess is that DJT will ignore Acosta in the future. As both sides pointed out, CNN didn't suffer any harm because they have 50 other WH reporters. Acosta didn't suffer any harm because he still has the same job w/no reduction in hours or pay. The public didn't suffer any harm because Acosta of CNN is not the sole news source in the world.
What I found interesting was that lots of other organizations "supported" CNN, but none actually filed an amicus brief as was expected (or at least they haven't been made available yet). Only the White House Correspondents Association filed in support of CNN.
This whole system of passes distributed by the Secret Service seems antiquated to me. Now, we have the judiciary ordering the executive branch to make rules of conduct for press conferences - a bit too much government interference for me. My guess is that DJT is going to make the rules as ordered & then stop holding conferences.
[Edited on 11/17/2018 by cyclone88]
I gave the example of the Paki reporters and Osama
First name basis, isn't that cozy.
Aloha snackbar. Hey mr. Taliban Tally me banana
Fifth Amendment due process clause makes no mention of criminal charges:
"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Trump wants to muzzle the press like dogs then acts all shocked when they start acting like dogs. Power to them, someone's got to call out this charlatan. Vive le press libre!
Judge Kavanaugh was denied the presumption of innocence and due process by the Democrats and the corrupt liberal media.
As it turns out all the allegations were lies.
Acosta is an a-hole and many members of the White House Press Corp. also want him out.
Oh well, now he will have to abide by standards of conduct and decorum.
.
Fifth Amendment due process clause makes no mention of criminal charges:
"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Trump wants to muzzle the press like dogs then acts all shocked when they start acting like dogs. Power to them, someone's got to call out this charlatan. Vive le press libre!
Judge Kavanaugh was denied the presumption of innocence and due process by the Democrats and the corrupt liberal media.
As it turns out all the allegations were lies.
Acosta is an a-hole and many members of the White House Press Corp. also want him out.
Oh well, now he will have to abide by standards of conduct and decorum.
.
There was no presumption of innocence because this was a job interview, not a trial. Nothing was proven either way because that was not the point of the proceedings.
If everyone feels that way about Acosta, why did all of the other news companies, including Fox News, file amicus briefs supporting him.
The standards of decorum are not legality binding for anything. And the Administration will also have to abide by them. That won’t last 10 minutes.
Now that you are back, I guess we have to live with your constant lies and imaginations of how the world works.
Acosta is an a-hole and many members of the White House Press Corp. also want him out.
If being an a-hole is grounds for dismissal then Trump and his goons should get packing.
Fifth Amendment due process clause makes no mention of criminal charges:
"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Trump wants to muzzle the press like dogs then acts all shocked when they start acting like dogs. Power to them, someone's got to call out this charlatan. Vive le press libre!
Judge Kavanaugh was denied the presumption of innocence and due process by the Democrats and the corrupt liberal media.
As it turns out all the allegations were lies.
Acosta is an a-hole and many members of the White House Press Corp. also want him out.
Oh well, now he will have to abide by standards of conduct and decorum.
.
There was no presumption of innocence because this was a job interview, not a trial. Nothing was proven either way because that was not the point of the proceedings.
If everyone feels that way about Acosta, why did all of the other news companies, including Fox News, file amicus briefs supporting him.
The standards of decorum are not legality binding for anything. And the Administration will also have to abide by them. That won’t last 10 minutes.
Now that you are back, I guess we have to live with your constant lies and imaginations of how the world works.
What Judge Kavanaugh was put through was not a "job interview", it was a confirmation hearing which he passed even though the Democrats tried to destroy him with lies. Every one of the false accusations were proven to be lies.
As per the judge that ruled Acosta be given his hard pass back he must also abide by the standards of conduct as written by the White House.
No one has a "right" to enter the White House grounds. That is a privilege extended by the Administration.
Many White House Press Corp. members have been complaining about Acosta's speech-making, asking endless questions and refusing to give up the microphone.
Now Acosta will be given a new set of rules of conduct, will have to sign for them and abide by them.
That's good. Glad to hear you think reinstating Acosta's press pass was the proper decision. I agree.
Fifth Amendment due process clause makes no mention of criminal charges:
"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Trump wants to muzzle the press like dogs then acts all shocked when they start acting like dogs. Power to them, someone's got to call out this charlatan. Vive le press libre!
Judge Kavanaugh was denied the presumption of innocence and due process by the Democrats and the corrupt liberal media.
As it turns out all the allegations were lies.
Acosta is an a-hole and many members of the White House Press Corp. also want him out.
Oh well, now he will have to abide by standards of conduct and decorum.
.
There was no presumption of innocence because this was a job interview, not a trial. Nothing was proven either way because that was not the point of the proceedings.
If everyone feels that way about Acosta, why did all of the other news companies, including Fox News, file amicus briefs supporting him.
The standards of decorum are not legality binding for anything. And the Administration will also have to abide by them. That won’t last 10 minutes.
Now that you are back, I guess we have to live with your constant lies and imaginations of how the world works.
What Judge Kavanaugh was put through was not a "job interview", it was a confirmation hearing which he passed even though the Democrats tried to destroy him with lies. Every one of the false accusations were proven to be lies.
As per the judge that ruled Acosta be given his hard pass back he must also abide by the standards of conduct as written by the White House.
No one has a "right" to enter the White House grounds. That is a privilege extended by the Administration.
Many White House Press Corp. members have been complaining about Acosta's speech-making, asking endless questions and refusing to give up the microphone.
Now Acosta will be given a new set of rules of conduct, will have to sign for them and abide by them.
Swing and a miss.
The Kavanaugh hearings were interviews to determine whether he was fit to be on the Supreme Court. Ergo, a job interview. Your point of being denied presumption of innocence, by your own remarks, does not exist in this case.
The judge did not say that. The judge said that the Administration denied Acosta's 1st and 5th Amendment rights. They have to establish rules of etiquette that both sides must adhere to. That includes Trump and Sarah Huckabee Sanders. That will work out well I'm sure.
Everyone has the right to enter the White House grounds. The WH belongs to the people, not Donald Trump.
Please show us a link to all of these complaints about Acosta. You won't because they don't exist.
As Acosta won the suit, he has to sign nothing. BTW, the judge said that SHS probably lied when she said Acosta put his hands on the woman. I know, someone in this Admin was found to be lying by a judge. That hasn't happened in at least 2 weeks.
The Kavanaugh hearings were interviews to determine whether he was fit to be on the Supreme Court. Ergo, a job interview. Your point of being denied presumption of innocence, by your own remarks, does not exist in this case.
- The Senate’s responsibility is to advise and consent. That “job interview” crap came from the Democrats and the corrupt liberal media.
The judge did not say that. The judge said that the Administration denied Acosta's 1st and 5th Amendment rights. They have to establish rules of etiquette that both sides must adhere to. That includes Trump and Sarah Huckabee Sanders. That will work out well I'm sure.
- “that both sides must adhere to. That includes Trump and Sarah Huckabee Sanders” does not appear in the judge’s ruling. You are a liar.
Everyone has the right to enter the White House grounds. The WH belongs to the people, not Donald Trump.
- Not even close son. Go ahead and try walking onto the grounds. The Secret Service will have you down on the ground crying.
Please show us a link to all of these complaints about Acosta. You won't because they don't exist.
- Widely reported by legitimate news. Get informed.
As Acosta won the suit, he has to sign nothing. BTW, the judge said that SHS probably lied when she said Acosta put his hands on the woman. I know, someone in this Admin was found to be lying by a judge. That hasn't happened in at least 2 weeks.
- Acoata will have to sing acknowledging receipt.
MAGA- Media Ain’t Going Away
“Widely reported”. But he can’t find a link. I’ll continue to discuss things with people who are not misanthropes. Others are not worth anyone’s time.
Swing and a miss.
The Kavanaugh hearings were interviews to determine whether he was fit to be on the Supreme Court. Ergo, a job interview. Your point of being denied presumption of innocence, by your own remarks, does not exist in this case.
The judge did not say that. The judge said that the Administration denied Acosta's 1st and 5th Amendment rights. They have to establish rules of etiquette that both sides must adhere to. That includes Trump and Sarah Huckabee Sanders. That will work out well I'm sure.
Everyone has the right to enter the White House grounds. The WH belongs to the people, not Donald Trump.
Please show us a link to all of these complaints about Acosta. You won't because they don't exist.
As Acosta won the suit, he has to sign nothing. BTW, the judge said that SHS probably lied when she said Acosta put his hands on the woman. I know, someone in this Admin was found to be lying by a judge. That hasn't happened in at least 2 weeks.
JK, I usually agree w/you, but having read both briefs and the judge's order, the judge himself said he didn't decide the merits of the case. He punted. He didn't say anyone's rights were violated. He said there were no clear conduct guidelines by which the press had to abide so until Acosta got them & violated them, he got his pass back. Assuming everyone behaves, it's ultimately the Secret Service's call who gets into the WH.
No one "won" anything. Acosta may be in the room, but I wonder how quickly DJT will call on him.
My guess is that DJT will ignore Acosta in the future.
More than likely the case.
Acosta ‘bout to get smacked around again:
CNN requests emergency briefing as White House looks to revoke Jim Acosta’s credential again
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cnn-requests-emergency-briefing-as-white-house-looks-to-revoke-jim-acostas-credential-again
Boring. Looks like the sitcommies need a new scriptwriter, their show is stale. No way they will last another season.
Boring. Looks like the sitcommies need a new scriptwriter, their show is stale. No way they will last another season.
Here's another Trump diversion.
Trump condemned William McRaven - the retired 4 start Navy Admiral & long time Seal who took down OSB. And why not? Trump tells us he knows more than the Generals, writes his own responses to Mueller...so it goes w/out saying with all of Trump's background & knowledge in foreign affairs, intelligence, and military operations that he should certainly question another American Military hero.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-criticizes-admiral-in-charge-of-bin-laden-raid
McRaven bad. Trump good.
That Fox interview was something. Why not go to Arlington? He was busy “making calls for the country” and for him to gripe so much about NFL players and the flag, his handling of that WW1 memorial was pitiful. Now he critizes the OSB take down. Regardless if it was a Bush or George Washington plan, Obama was a major part of that. And Trump hates it.
Acosta ‘bout to get smacked around again:
CNN requests emergency briefing as White House looks to revoke Jim Acosta’s credential again
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cnn-requests-emergency-briefing-as-white-house-looks-to-revoke-jim-acostas-credential-again
All the legal stuff, it should be unncessary. Trump said they would develop rules for the press conference. Why does common sense not prevail?
Acosta is clearly not one of the President's favorite reporters. There are things that could happen differently from both sides.
1. Acosta can ask a question, inform the President about something written, reported by any credible source or legitamite polling organization and then ask the President what he thinks about it, believes about it, thinks should happen in response to that.
2. The questions should be regarding responses or potential responses to certain situations/events/policies. example: asking the President if he thinks there needs to be a policy change on an issue, or if he plans to look into and/or implement one. That is a legitamite question.
3. Accusals, intimidation, interrogation are not okay because this is not a courtroom. Some reporters would be happier being lawyers or Senators or Congressman and arguing their points of view all day, a White House Press Conference is not the forum for that.
4. Reporters need to ask their questions, wait for the President to finish answering them, then if warranted ask a follow up question for clarification. Reporters should not interrupt the President when he is speaking or anyone else they may be interviewing for that matter. They may not agree with the President's point of view or opinion but they must let him have his point of view and speak it.
5. PUNISHMENT for transgressions or over stepping the bounds of proper conduct at a Press Conference.
Firstly, the President is the President, a head of state, you cannot treat him badly just because you do not like him or his opinions. Baseball players get suspended for a certain number of games for bad behavior, maybe reporters need to have that happen as well. If they cannot behave themselves, they get ejected from the conference and suspended for the next conference. If it keeps happening, then the network can send someone else to cover the conferences.
This legal grandstanding is unncessary, just eject them, let them come back next time when they are calm. The President should have a legal right to request or not have certain reporters who he feels are disruptive at his conferences. Yes there must be freedom of the press, if the reporters adhere to guidelines for good conduct they would not be ejected, but a reporter refusing to hand the microphone to another one when the President feels he has finished answering that reporter's question is NOT proper conduct. Maybe the reporter does not like the answer he received, but others also have a right to ask their questions and get answers. Reporters need to be aware of the other reporters who also have jobs to do.
If the reporter wants an in depth probe on an issue, invite the President to a one on one interview it is that simple.
In this instance if President Trump sincerely does not want Acosta at any of his briefings, then the network should send someone else and find other assignments for the reporter.
Acosta ‘bout to get smacked around again:
CNN requests emergency briefing as White House looks to revoke Jim Acosta’s credential again
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cnn-requests-emergency-briefing-as-white-house-looks-to-revoke-jim-acostas-credential-again
All the legal stuff, it should be unncessary. Trump said they would develop rules for the press conference. Why does common sense not prevail?
The "legal stuff" is unnecessary.There's no free speech issue here. It's a case of egos. When one egotistical reporter - Acosta - pushed his bad behavior until he got his hard pass revoked (but not his access to covering the WH or POTUS) by an egotistical POTUS, he & his employer put the matter in the hands of the court.
The courts don't want to deal w/this petty BS. I was surprised CNN's request for a TRO (issued in EMERGENCIES to prevent some imminent danger - often domestic violence) wasn't denied outright as Acosta being w/o a press pass hardly constitutes an emergency to anyone, including Acosta. However, the judge ordered rules of conduct be developed (for the 1st time in WH history) & Acosta got his pass back.
Instead of ignoring the WH letter that actually reiterates the court ruling - "we're going to have rules of conduct & you'd better mind them" - CNN & Acosta dashed back to court tattling that they got a letter. Like toddlers.
If they truly believed there was a real threat to constitutional rights, CNN & Acosta would file an actual lawsuit - not requests for the court to do some half-assed BS - calling for a decision to be made on the merits of the case with full briefs and arguments in front of a full panel of judges. And all that "support" CNN got from other media? Nowhere can I find that a brief was actually filed by any of these organizations; they made some noise but didn't act. Really, what U.S. citizen or media company is actually against Free Speech?
I'm a Democrat & far from a Donald Trump supporter. However, this piddling ego contest makes a mockery of the judicial system. DJT is going to ignore Acosta or quit doing press conferences. He's free to do both; there's no constitutional obligation for any POTUS to hold a press conference.
DJT is going to ignore Acosta
Is this not what most people do when constantly annoyed?
DJT is going to ignore Acosta
Is this not what most people do when constantly annoyed?
You response seems to support Trump.
Maybe Trump & Sanders should just quit doing press conferences because these pressers are nothing but egomaniac shows & lie fests to begin with. We can resume press conferences when there is a new administration & the occupant of the WH doesn't refer to fact checkers & the media as "enemy of the people".
You response seems to support Trump.
And what if it does?...Interpret that any way you choose. In this case as with most, I "side" with whomever I feel is "right". If ANY President feels as though he is being badgered by ANY representative of the media and chooses to ignore said person for whatever reason, whether I voted for them or not, more power to them. If you read this and ascertain I have disdain for the media, you are spot on.
You response seems to support Trump.
And what if it does?...Interpret that any way you choose. In this case as with most, I "side" with whomever I feel is "right". If ANY President feels as though he is being badgered by ANY representative of the media and chooses to ignore said person for whatever reason, whether I voted for them or not, more power to them. If you read this and ascertain I have disdain for the media, you are spot on.
You have every right to have disdain for the media even if they serve the purpose of doing checks & balances on a pathological liar of a president who speaks and attempts to act like an autocrat.
Maybe we should just clamp down the press because they don't show respect for an abusive zealot?
