PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on November 13, 2018, 08:37:30 AM
-
No merit.
https://www.scribd.com/document/393103464/CNN-lawsuit-against-Trump-over-Jim-Acosta#fullscreen&from_embed
-
Imagine what we, with America’s resources and intellectual treasure and exceptionalism, could accomplish for our country and our world if directed toward constructive goals rather than destructive ones.
-
It’s funny how democrats (communists) never remember their own behavior when attacking the rest of us...
-
I believe the WH has the right to issue passes, or NOT issue passes to anyone they want for whatever reason. Acosta acted in an overly aggressive manner to the WH staffer who attempted to get the Mic from him to pass along to the next "reporter" (propagandist). For that alone he possibly should have been prosecuted for assault.
-
I believe the WH has the right to issue passes, or NOT issue passes to anyone they want for whatever reason. Acosta acted in an overly aggressive manner to the WH staffer who attempted to get the Mic from him to pass along to the next "reporter" (propagandist). For that alone he possibly should have been prosecuted for assault.
The SS should have escorted him off the grounds. He has shown aggressive behavior and should be barred from being anywhere near the President.
CNN has a large pool of reporters. Acosta is not special. The merits of this lawsuit are none.
-
Now that the lawsuit has been filed, I wonder what the White House can find within CNN through the discovery process. CNN opened a door that they may wish they hadn't.
-
Now that the lawsuit has been filed, I wonder what the White House can find within CNN through the discovery process. CNN opened a door that they may wish they hadn't.
Yep.
They can start with asking for all emails, letters and memos to and from Acosta from other members of CNN news staff. They can also request all emails and letters, as well as notes from any government official to and from Acosta.
Should be fun.
-
Conservative Treehouse posts video of all pressers. I saw this presser, and saw this incident, before any cry of foul or doctoring of the video was mentioned. Acosta does put his hand on the intern.
Acosta doesn’t let Trump say ten words before he interrupts. Questions lead in with the narrative and then Acosta breaks in during the answer. “Mr. President, don’t you think it makes you look like a white nationalist to call the refugees an invasion?” When Acosta does let Trump answer, he then refuses to give up the attack or the mike.
I hope to hell this guy gets shredded like cheese in a legal grinder and his network along with him.
But he won’t.
-
Oh, and remember how the reporters listened in respectful adoring silence whilst Obama droned on and on for minutes, saying nothing meaningful?
A pox on them all.
-
Oh, and remember how the reporters listened in respectful adoring silence whilst Obama droned on and on for minutes, saying nothing meaningful?
A pox on them all.
The DOUBLE STANDARD and hypocrisy is a real problem.
-
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/11/13/mark-levin-weighs-in-on-cnns-lawsuit-against-the-white-house-n2535875
-
Visiting the White House is not a 'right' except in the juvenile minds of democrat (communists) bullies and cowards like the pathetic whiner, Acosta.
The lawsuit is a sideshow to further cement cnn as a laughingstock among everyone except idiots, communists, liars and whiners.
-
There is no individual right to access. CNN may appoint another reporter, hopefully one that behaves according to the accepted rules of behavior.
-
There is no individual right to access. CNN may appoint another reporter, hopefully one that behaves according to the accepted rules of behavior.
CNN has over 50 people with access to the WH. CNN as a network is not being denied access. Their liberal activist that disguises himself as a reporter and constantly disrupts press briefings has been (rightfully) denied further access.
-
I thought this was interesting. Of course, it doesn't mean Woodward sides with Trump. But he does put blame on the media:
Bob Woodward, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Watergate journalist whose recent book, "Fear," described chaotic infighting at the White House, on Tuesday criticized CNN for filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration and charged that too many media figures "have become emotionally unhinged."
(emphasis mine)
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bob-woodward-criticizes-cnns-acosta-lawsuit-says-medias-emotionally-unhinged-about-trump
-
95% or more of the Media is purely a propaganda arm of the Democrats. They also feel entitled, and emboldened as they are really not held accountable except by Trump. That is why they hate him so much. He calls them out on their B.S., circumvents them with tweets, and doesn't care what they say, or think. That is why they are so unhinged. Trump is NOT afraid of the Media like most other Republicans.
-
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7a6472c3204c9daa428ae9aa520b828e4ea146aaeb03c1ca443254329986c07c.jpg?w=800&h=500)
-
I wonder what the small print on the back of the press pass says and what the press has to sign to get one. Every company ID card I've had says something like "This card is property of X Company and can be revoked or suspended at any time for any reason." The form I signed to get the pass said the same thing. I would be surprised if a White House Press Pass didn't have similar wording.
-
I wonder what the small print on the back of the press pass says and what the press has to sign to get one. Every company ID card I've had says something like "This card is property of X Company and can be revoked or suspended at any time for any reason." The form I signed to get the pass said the same thing. I would be surprised if a White House Press Pass didn't have similar wording.
I secured a West Wing your for myself, my wife, and my daughter in June 2004. The same week that Reagan died. We dressed up. I had a suit on. The tour began around 8:00 pm because it only happens when business is done. I don’t recall the wording on the back of our pass, if any, but the message from the SS was loud and clear. Don’t fuck around. The tour was conducted by an energetic young WH staffer to Dick Cheney, and took over 2 hours. After we left every section, the SS shut things down behind us.
I’m fairly certain the Secret Service doesn’t need to answer to the press about who’s credentials are pulled.
I think this was an awesome move by the way.
-
So now we have a judge that says Acosta can have his pass back.
So if Trump or the press secretary ones that call on Acosta when he wants to ask a question, will CNN sue again saying Acosta's rights are being violated?
Where in the constitution does it state any one individual, or any select news organization has an exclusive right to have secured access to the White House? Also, where in the constitution does it state the President must submit to a press conference?
Hopefully this will be appealed to the SC.
-
Once again, I repeat. We are so fucked.
He should never be called on again.
-
Jesus Christ. Ok, Sarah Sanders should replace Acosta’s seat with a high chair. And then every time he pipes up, she should shush him like a mother telling a kid that adults are talking. No questions taken from Acosta, period.
-
Jesus Christ. Ok, Sarah Sanders should replace Acosta’s seat with a high chair. And then every time he pipes up, she should shush him like a mother telling a kid that adults are talking. No questions taken from Acosta, period.
Watch how CNN and Acosta will threaten new lawsuits if he's not called upon.
I think the WH should place SS in the room, and if that turd lays a hand on anyone, or gets belligerent then they should put him on the floor and take him out in cuffs, and press charges.
-
So now we have a judge that says Acosta can have his pass back.
So if Trump or the press secretary ones that call on Acosta when he wants to ask a question, will CNN sue again saying Acosta's rights are being violated?
Where in the constitution does it state any one individual, or any select news organization has an exclusive right to have secured access to the White House? Also, where in the constitution does it state the President must submit to a press conference?
Hopefully this will be appealed to the SC.
It's going to backfire on them. According to Sean yesterday (because I didn't read the ruling myself) the judge did not say he had a first amendment right to be there. He said he had not had "due process" before being removed and the White House didn't have rules by which to support that, so Trump said, "Very good! We are developing rules."
So now there will be clear guidelines about behavior or maybe limiting each reporter to one question and other constraints put on the press.
-
Watch, at the next press meeting if Acosta is not called upon, CNN will be crying "retaliation!".
I like the idea of removing cameras from the press briefings, as well as audio (network, WH keep audio for archive).
This would stop the grandstanding and networks from mining soundbites they can twist around. If they do report something from the press meeting that they try to "massage" then the WH can release the actual transcript.
-
Why should any "reporter" (leftist activists) be able to be extremely disruptive, and aggressive with a White House staffer who is trying to keep the press conference going? Why does the Left feel entitled to spread their brand of hate, and take over a Presidential press conference? They need to be smacked down, and Trump is doing that!
-
Why should any "reporter" (leftist activists) be able to be extremely disruptive, and aggressive with a White House staffer who is trying to keep the press conference going? Why does the Left feel entitled to spread their brand of hate, and take over a Presidential press conference? They need to be smacked down, and Trump is doing that!
Well, it comes from a very old, and very well recognized part of the Magna Carta. The right to petition for grievances. Back in the day, it went so far as to give remedy for those in power who chose to ignore those grievances, and included up to rebellion against the authority. BTW, this is the central theme of our own Declaration of Independence. We as colonists petitioned king George for a long list of transgressions. Which he ignored, and we invoked the clause in the Magna Carta that said we could rebel, and we did.
If I were CNN, I would have included the 1A right to petition along with their complaint. This civil right has been roundly ignored by the US govt(all branches), because unlike the Magna Carta we do not provide remedy such as insurrection, rebellion, etc. There is no effective punishment for ignoring any or all of the BOR.
Basically, if one is let into the house of govt, one has the civil right to petition for grievances. This is beyond the simple right to access. One could conceivably postulate that Acosta was no longer exercising his 5th A right, but was at the time petitioning for his grievance(there is no restriction or limitation on being in the press, or petitioning one branch of govt).
-
^^^^^^^^^^I think you are over thinking it. Acosta is not rebelling. He is being intentionally disruptive to deny the President the ability to articulate his message and substituting his own message in an aggressive manner. If Acosta wants to protest and rebel, he can do so on the air, on any street corner, or public square. This is the Presidents Press Briefing. It's his show. Not Acosta's, nor CNN. So I think your entire premise is BUNK.
-
Well, it comes from a very old, and very well recognized part of the Magna Carta. The right to petition for grievances. Back in the day, it went so far as to give remedy for those in power who chose to ignore those grievances, and included up to rebellion against the authority. BTW, this is the central theme of our own Declaration of Independence. We as colonists petitioned king George for a long list of transgressions. Which he ignored, and we invoked the clause in the Magna Carta that said we could rebel, and we did.
If I were CNN, I would have included the 1A right to petition along with their complaint. This civil right has been roundly ignored by the US govt(all branches), because unlike the Magna Carta we do not provide remedy such as insurrection, rebellion, etc. There is no effective punishment for ignoring any or all of the BOR.
Basically, if one is let into the house of govt, one has the civil right to petition for grievances. This is beyond the simple right to access. One could conceivably postulate that Acosta was no longer exercising his 5th A right, but was at the time petitioning for his grievance(there is no restriction or limitation on being in the press, or petitioning one branch of govt).
Sorry, this is nothing but a bunch of armchair Internet lawyering. A press briefing within the WH is not an “airing of greviences”.
Nice try, but just pure bullshit.
-
Well, it comes from a very old, and very well recognized part of the Magna Carta. The right to petition for grievances. Back in the day, it went so far as to give remedy for those in power who chose to ignore those grievances, and included up to rebellion against the authority. BTW, this is the central theme of our own Declaration of Independence. We as colonists petitioned king George for a long list of transgressions. Which he ignored, and we invoked the clause in the Magna Carta that said we could rebel, and we did.
If I were CNN, I would have included the 1A right to petition along with their complaint. This civil right has been roundly ignored by the US govt(all branches), because unlike the Magna Carta we do not provide remedy such as insurrection, rebellion, etc. There is no effective punishment for ignoring any or all of the BOR.
Basically, if one is let into the house of govt, one has the civil right to petition for grievances. This is beyond the simple right to access. One could conceivably postulate that Acosta was no longer exercising his 5th A right, but was at the time petitioning for his grievance(there is no restriction or limitation on being in the press, or petitioning one branch of govt).
Great history lesson, but I agree with Anthony and Lucifer.
BTW, I read the other day that one reason so many Dems go unpunished for so much astonishingly bad and even illegal behavior, up to and including and beyond HRC and her server, is because liberal judges are throwing out all charges because the accuser cannot prove “intent.” This apparently is a widespread problem and we see it everywhere ... even when intent can be clearly shown. The judge gets to decide, and uses word soup to dismiss it.
-
The judge in this did not even touch on the first amendment but chose to base it on the fifth stating lack of due process. A totally flimsy argument.
What we have in reality is a separation of powers problem. A federal judge cannot impose his wishes on the executive branch. Nor can he tell the Chief Executive how to run his place of business, the White House.
The President would be in the right to tell the judge to pound sand. Or maybe Trump could send an executive order to his court telling him how he wants it procedurally run. The judge would yell "separation of powers" and not comply.
But this actually sets people like Acosta up for failure. Now the WH will have procedures and rules for WH press hard card holders. And those holders will have to sign and agree to the ROC as well as acknowledge the penalties for not complying. Be careful what you wish for.
As I said before, Acosta is nothing more than an alt left progressive activist wanting to fight with the president.
-
https://therevolutionaryact.com/trump-appeal-acosta-ruling/
Contrary to Judge Kelly’s view, the White House press conference is an internal working of the executive branch done solely for a public relations and communications purpose and at the pleasure of the President of the United States. As such, and as reported previously by The Federalist Pages, when the Court interferes with how the President conducts his press conferences, it is essentially intruding into the rightful powers of the President of the United States, as Chief Executive, in conducting the internal dealings of the executive branch.
Seen from this angle, which is the dominant issue in this matter, it becomes clear that the President must zealously pursue this case for the sake of the preservation of the autonomy of the executive branch.
Let’s be clear. There is no finality to Friday’s ruling.
The judge’s order was the implementation of a temporary restraining order against the President until such time that the case actually goes to trial. Strategically, the President now has a couple of opportunities available to him.
-
The judge in this did not even touch on the first amendment but chose to base it on the fifth stating lack of due process. A totally flimsy argument.
...A federal judge cannot impose his wishes on the executive branch. Nor can he tell the Chief Executive how to run his place of business, the White House.
The argument is that the People's government must be executed by a set of know and predictable rules, not personal judgement. It's been this way for decades. That includes not punishing people for things without due process. In this case, the reason given was assault against a WH staffer. That is an allegation, not a legal fact and therefore there is no legal basis for the complaint.
Not saying it's right or wrong to do this - in fact I believe it's wrong and the WH messed up by not including disruption of the process for other journalists.
And keep this in mind when democrats do it.
Give Acosta some more rope.
-
^^^^^^^^^^I think you are over thinking it. Acosta is not rebelling. He is being intentionally disruptive to deny the President the ability to articulate his message and substituting his own message in an aggressive manner. If Acosta wants to protest and rebel, he can do so on the air, on any street corner, or public square. This is the Presidents Press Briefing. It's his show. Not Acosta's, nor CNN. So I think your entire premise is BUNK.
I think it's brilliant. What better place than the press briefing to go nuclear. The right to petition is not limited to place, person or office. Why do it on a street corner when the disruption is so much more effective in front of the prez, and all the press, and cameras in the center of power? In fact, you made it very plain, Acosta wants to deny the govt from it's message, and substitute his own in its place. Sounds like a petition of grievance to me. Potato, potahto.
-
you made it very plain, Acosta wants to deny the govt from it's message, and substitute his own in its place. Sounds like a petition of grievance to me. Potato, potahto.
CNN has ratings lower than Nickelodeon. Jeff Zucker needs ratings. So he runs 24/7 Trump bashing and uses an alt left radical named Acosta pretending to be a reporter so he can have content for his dying network.
Petition of grievance my ass.
-
I think it's brilliant. What better place than the press briefing to go nuclear. The right to petition is not limited to place, person or office. Why do it on a street corner when the disruption is so much more effective in front of the prez, and all the press, and cameras in the center of power? In fact, you made it very plain, Acosta wants to deny the govt from it's message, and substitute his own in its place. Sounds like a petition of grievance to me. Potato, potahto.
Except the message of the President is Freedom, and Liberty, and the message of Acosta is Oppression, and Tyranny. So now we have the forces of evil disrupting our freedom. But again, he has every venue known to man to protest and rebel, so don't use my time in which to do so.
-
Except the message of the President is Freedom, and Liberty, and the message of Acosta is Oppression, and Tyranny. So now we have the forces of evil disrupting our freedom. But again, he has every venue known to man to protest and rebel, so don't use my time in which to do so.
That's not the way half the country see it. All they see is Trump trying to be a dictator and Acosta as a righteous member of the fourth estate standing up to him.
-
Except the message of the President is Freedom, and Liberty, and the message of Acosta is Oppression, and Tyranny. So now we have the forces of evil disrupting our freedom. But again, he has every venue known to man to protest and rebel, so don't use my time in which to do so.
That's the difference between the US and most other nations. I don't like Acosta's message either but I'm not ready to silence him. Which is where I think the judge ruled on due process. I can't say I agree that Acosta has a due process right to argue with the prez inside the WH briefing room, but that's what the judge said.
To be fair, I would have closed the WH briefing room entirely, revoked everyone's pass, and told the press they could go to the visitor entrance and visit the people's house just like any other citizen. When they are on the visitor tour, they are welcome to make a scene and shout their commentary and express their 1A rights all they want. But - the only official announcements from the WH on policy will be published as the prez sees fit.
There is no constitutional requirement for the prez to have a press office. He is only required to report the state of the union once in a while. Let the idiots at FoxNews, ABC, NYT, and everyone else suffer the same as CNN. We all rail about the crap coming through the MSM, so just get rid of it in the WH. But - don't do it selectively, do the whole damn thing. Then, publish a policy statement that says: "Thank CNN reporter Acosta for the closing of the WH press office indefinitely. "You Won"".
-
I don't like Acosta's message either but I'm not ready to silence him.
You see, that's the difference between you and me. I was raised to know that a journalist silenced themselves and scrupulously made sure that their personal opinions never entered into their reporting.
Acosta is a disgrace to the profession of journalism. If he continues to behave as he does, then he will be done because nobody can trust him with facts.
-
That's not the way half the country see it. All they see is Trump trying to be a dictator and Acosta as a righteous member of the fourth estate standing up to him.
I understand that, but the job of the Media should not be to make activist speeches for one view only, and disrupt a press conference. I thought their job was to objectively REPORT what the President says during a press conference? Yes, ask pointed questions, but not make activist speeches to ONLY support one view point.
-
I understand that, but the job of the Media should not be to make activist speeches for one view only, and disrupt a press conference. I thought their job was to objectively REPORT what the President says during a press conference? Yes, ask pointed questions, but not make activist speeches to ONLY support one view point.
You are 100% right, of course,
but . . .
-
You see, that's the difference between you and me. I was raised to know that a journalist silenced themselves and scrupulously made sure that their personal opinions never entered into their reporting.
Acosta is a disgrace to the profession of journalism. If he continues to behave as he does, then he will be done because nobody can trust him with facts.
Not really, I know he was being an ass and a disgrace. So, like I already said, close the WH press office, and kick them all out. Acosta is just the worst of a bad lot. Even the FoxNews reps stood up for him, even thought they KNEW he was way outside the bounds of professional journalism. So, FoxNews, ABC, NTY, MSNBC, CNN, are all gone, gone, gone. They can all go have a group outrage meeting, and there's NOTHING else they can do about it.
-
ahem,,,
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cnn-objects-white-house-effort-140715937.html
Close the damn press office. Let them sit in a corridor in the East wing, and stew.
-
Chris Wallace Acosta’d the President last night in an “interview.” If President Trump didn’t tweet, we’d have no idea what is actually happening in the Administration. He isn’t allowed to say anything. I suppose he could deny all interviews? I’ve often thought he should use something like a weekly TV speech instead, so he actually gets to talk to us.
Read this morning that when bees detect an invader in the hive they group up and sting it to death. You can see the intent in our media today. But they are just lapdogs for their puppet masters.
-
Chris Wallace Acosta’d the President last night in an “interview.” If President Trump didn’t tweet, we’d have no idea what is actually happening in the Administration. He isn’t allowed to say anything. I suppose he could deny all interviews? I’ve often thought he should use something like a weekly TV speech instead, so he actually gets to talk to us.
Read this morning that when bees detect an invader in the hive they group up and sting it to death. You can see the intent in our media today. But they are just lapdogs for their puppet masters.
Chris Wallace, like his Dad, is a Far Left Progressive posing as an objective "journalist". Fox News is not immune to hiring these Leftists. They have many on their staff. Wallace is little better than the unhinged leftists on CNN, NBC, MSNBC, etc.
-
^^^^^^^^^^I think you are over thinking it. Acosta is not rebelling. He is being intentionally disruptive to deny the President the ability to articulate his message and substituting his own message in an aggressive manner. If Acosta wants to protest and rebel, he can do so on the air, on any street corner, or public square. This is the Presidents Press Briefing. It's his show. Not Acosta's, nor CNN. So I think your entire premise is BUNK.
I totally agree, which is why this lawsuit fails on First Amendment grounds. Acosta is demanding a right TO BE HEARD. That right doesn’t exist.
People falsely claim that the right of free speech is not absolute. Sorry, but it is. However, in doing so you must also accept the consequences to that speech, so the old canard about not being able to shout “Fire!” In a crowded theater doesn’t fail on limitations to the first amendment. It fails because the consequences of such action may lead to physical harm and disruption to others.
-
People falsely claim that the right of free speech is not absolute. Sorry, but it is.
It is only absolute in as much as the government can't silence you, and even then, certain non-disclosure agreements regarding classified information are enforceable.
I can also restrict the speech of my employees while they are on my payroll.
-
WH folds.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/19/white-house-backs-down-acosta-new-rules-reporters/
What a chickenshit way to go. I like the 2016 Trump with balls of steel. The 2018 Trump, not so much. The swamp is now up past his knees, and rising. There will be no draining.
-
WH folds.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/19/white-house-backs-down-acosta-new-rules-reporters/
What a chickenshit way to go. I like the 2016 Trump with balls of steel. The 2018 Trump, not so much. The swamp is now up past his knees, and rising. There will be no draining.
Right ::)
Now, let's look at this realistically. Had they revoked dumbass's hard pass it would have resulted in more lawsuits and more judges passing bullshit decisions.
The WH now has rules of conduct in place for reporters with hard passes. Each and everyone must now agree to comply, or have their hard pass revoked (process).
The WH has now given reporters like shithead Acosta the rope to hang himself. And he will, give it time.
And when he does, he and CNN will cry and launch a new lawsuit. And lose.
-
Right ::)
Now, let's look at this realistically. Had they revoked dumbass's hard pass it would have resulted in more lawsuits and more judges passing bullshit decisions.
The WH now has rules of conduct in place for reporters with hard passes. Each and everyone must now agree to comply, or have their hard pass revoked (process).
The WH has now given reporters like shithead Acosta the rope to hang himself. And he will, give it time.
And when he does, he and CNN will cry and launch a new lawsuit. And lose.
Quite a reversal from the first page of this thread, where you said the lawsuit had "no merit".
I did find interesting the details of the case (https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight) that provided the precedent in this lawsuit.
-
Quite a reversal from the first page of this thread, where you said the lawsuit had "no merit".
I did find interesting the details of the case (https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight) that provided the precedent in this lawsuit.
The lawsuit didn't have merit, in my opinion. The judge wouldn't touch the first amendment argument. Instead he focused on the fifth amendment argument by saying Acosta wasn't afforded due process, which is bogus and weak at best.
What we did see was a separation of powers issue. A federal judge cannot use his courtroom to dictate how the executive branch conducts it's business. This would be the same if the President issued an executive order telling the courts how they would conduct their business. A court wouldn't stand for that.
The WH could have ignored the judges order. However, politically it would have been a disaster.
Mark Levin had an excellent segment on this.
-
The lawsuit didn't have merit, in my opinion. The judge wouldn't touch the first amendment argument. Instead he focused on the fifth amendment argument by saying Acosta wasn't afforded due process, which is bogus and weak at best.
Given precedent, isn't due process also a fundamental factor in the First Amendment consideration?
These considerations can perhaps be best understood by first recognizing what this case does not involve. It is not contended that standards relating to the security of the President are the sole basis upon which members of the general public may be refused entry to the White House, or that members of the public must be afforded notice and hearing concerning such refusal. The first amendment's protection of a citizen's right to obtain information concerning "the way the country is being run" does not extend to every conceivable avenue a citizen may wish to employ in pursuing this right.18 Nor is the discretion of the President to grant interviews or briefings with selected journalists challenged. It would certainly be unreasonable to suggest that because the President allows interviews with some bona fide journalists, he must give this opportunity to all. Finally, appellee's first amendment claim is not premised upon the assertion that the White House must open its doors to the press, conduct press conferences, or operate press facilities.
13
Rather, we are presented with a situation where the White House has voluntarily decided to establish press facilities for correspondents who need to report therefrom. These press facilities are perceived as being open to all bona fide19 Washington-based journalists, whereas most of the White House itself, and press facilities in particular, have not been made available to the general public. White House press facilities having been made publicly available as a source of information for newsmen,20 the protection afforded newsgathering under the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, see Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681, 707, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 829-35, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974), requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons. See Southeastern Promotions v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 95 S.Ct. 1239, 43 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 58 S.Ct. 666, 82 L.Ed. 949 (1938).
[SNIP]
In our view, the procedural requirements of notice of the factual bases for denial, an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these, and a final written statement of the reasons for denial are compelled by the foregoing determination that the interest of a bona fide Washington correspondent in obtaining a White House press pass is protected by the first amendment. This first amendment interest undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment.22 The only further determination which this court must make is "what process is due," Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).23
-
Given precedent, isn't due process also a fundamental factor in the First Amendment consideration?
These considerations can perhaps be best understood by first recognizing what this case does not involve. It is not contended that standards relating to the security of the President are the sole basis upon which members of the general public may be refused entry to the White House, or that members of the public must be afforded notice and hearing concerning such refusal. The first amendment's protection of a citizen's right to obtain information concerning "the way the country is being run" does not extend to every conceivable avenue a citizen may wish to employ in pursuing this right.18 Nor is the discretion of the President to grant interviews or briefings with selected journalists challenged. It would certainly be unreasonable to suggest that because the President allows interviews with some bona fide journalists, he must give this opportunity to all. Finally, appellee's first amendment claim is not premised upon the assertion that the White House must open its doors to the press, conduct press conferences, or operate press facilities.
13
Rather, we are presented with a situation where the White House has voluntarily decided to establish press facilities for correspondents who need to report therefrom. These press facilities are perceived as being open to all bona fide19 Washington-based journalists, whereas most of the White House itself, and press facilities in particular, have not been made available to the general public. White House press facilities having been made publicly available as a source of information for newsmen,20 the protection afforded newsgathering under the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, see Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681, 707, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 829-35, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974), requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons. See Southeastern Promotions v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 95 S.Ct. 1239, 43 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 58 S.Ct. 666, 82 L.Ed. 949 (1938).
[SNIP]
In our view, the procedural requirements of notice of the factual bases for denial, an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these, and a final written statement of the reasons for denial are compelled by the foregoing determination that the interest of a bona fide Washington correspondent in obtaining a White House press pass is protected by the first amendment. This first amendment interest undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment.22 The only further determination which this court must make is "what process is due," Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).23
One thing a student learns in law school is "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit". And that's what this brief does. It's legal babble.
The judge recognized this as he stayed away from their first amendment argument, and focused on a very weak fifth amendment argument.
The main reason CNN dropped the lawsuit is they know moving forward to an appeal it wouldn't stand up. The WH has now provided the process, and a reasonable judge would throw this crap suit out.
Both Mark Levin and Alan Dershowitz waded in on this and weren't very kind to the arguments that the CNN attorneys tried to make. And they were spot on.
-
One thing a student learns in law school is "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit". And that's what this brief does. It's legal babble.
You didn't answer my question, but what brief? I have posted excerpts from the court case Sherrill v. H Knight.
-
You didn't answer my question, but what brief? I have posted excerpts from the court case Sherrill v. H Knight.
I was referring to the suit filed by CNN.
-
I was referring to the suit filed by CNN.
I read the suit. Its basis is the legal precedent set in the case I linked to. So I think you disagree with Sherrill v. H Knight. Would be interested to know the basis of your disagreement.
-
I read the suit. Its basis is the legal precedent set in the case I linked to. So I think you disagree with Sherrill v. H Knight. Would be interested to know the basis of your disagreement.
As I stated earlier, it's a separation of powers issue. The federal courts are not in a position to dictate how the executive branch runs it's administration. Could the President issue an executive order and establish court room procedure for the courts? Of course not.
-
As I stated earlier, it's a separation of powers issue. The federal courts are not in a position to dictate how the executive branch runs it's administration. Could the President issue an executive order and establish court room procedure for the courts? Of course not.
I don't see it. Precedent in this case is fairly simple. The federal courts are not dictating how the administration is run. They are enforcing constitutional rights within press facilities voluntarily established by the White House.
-
I don't see it. Precedent in this case is fairly simple. The federal courts are not dictating how the administration is run. They are enforcing constitutional rights within press facilities voluntarily established by the White House.
Sorry you don't see it. If CNN thought they had a strong case why drop it? Why didn't they push forward? Or did they fear this actually getting overturned in a higher court?
-
Sorry you don't see it. If CNN thought they had a strong case why drop it? Why didn't they push forward? Or did they fear this actually getting overturned in a higher court?
Because the WH reinstated Acosta's hard pass.
-
Because the WH reinstated Acosta's hard pass.
So? If their suit had merit, why didn't they push forward? Giving Acosta his pass back doesn't invalidate the premise of the lawsuit.
-
So? If their suit had merit, why didn't they push forward? Giving Acosta his pass back doesn't invalidate the premise of the lawsuit.
Sounds awfully expensive to pursue a suit based on a violation which is no longer occurring, just to RE-prove a point.
-
Our country is constipated with laws, lawyers, legal challenges, interpretations of laws, and lambasting of people like the President and Kavanaugh who want to uphold the greatest legal document of all time, our Constitution.
The law must not be used simply for one faction or another to grab power. It must be used for the benefit of American citizens.
If there is no law to prevent 10,000 people from storming our borders, we must have a law that does. Ironic, but who knew the globalists would go to such lengths to eliminate borders.
-
Sounds awfully expensive to pursue a suit based on a violation which is no longer occurring, just to RE-prove a point.
It's proving a point they want to insure they have. By dropping the suit the WH could have said, "OK, Acosta pass revoked". Then what? Refile and seek another injunction?
The reason the suit was dropped is really clear, they knew they were on shaky ground and they knew going forward may really backfire on them. This is clearly a case of "Do you feel lucky?"
Now the WH has gained the upper hand. They now have rules of conduct, and penalties for not complying. Acosta will hang himself, it's just a matter of time. He's way to much an alt left activist rather than a reporter. And he's all about himself. Look at the day he got his pass back, he was standing around the reporter pool asking other networks if they would like to interview him and run stories about him.
Look for Acosta/CNN to start complaining of first amendment violations if the press secretary doesn't call on him.
-
Socialist/globalists will go to any length to get what they do not deserve by merit. Lenin, Marx, Stalin killed millions along the way to the perfect socialist state. About 70 years of failure, two generations of north Asia suffered for their dream of utopia. The do-not-haves will always find a way to justify taking what is 'right' for themselves without contribution.
-
It's proving a point they want to insure they have. By dropping the suit the WH could have said, "OK, Acosta pass revoked". Then what? Refile and seek another injunction?
The reason the suit was dropped is really clear, they knew they were on shaky ground and they knew going forward may really backfire on them. This is clearly a case of "Do you feel lucky?"
Now the WH has gained the upper hand. They now have rules of conduct, and penalties for not complying. Acosta will hang himself, it's just a matter of time. He's way to much an alt left activist rather than a reporter. And he's all about himself. Look at the day he got his pass back, he was standing around the reporter pool asking other networks if they would like to interview him and run stories about him.
Look for Acosta/CNN to start complaining of first amendment violations if the press secretary doesn't call on him.
You've yet to describe why you think the suit was on "shaky ground" given clear precedent in support. The two cases are extraordinarily similar. If you believe CNN's case is without merit, then you believe Sherrill v. H Knight was without merit, and I'd like to hear why you believe so.
-
You've yet to describe why you think the suit was on "shaky ground" given clear precedent in support. The two cases are extraordinarily similar. If you believe CNN's case is without merit, then you believe Sherrill v. H Knight was without merit, and I'd like to hear why you believe so.
And I've told you several times now. Please go do some research on separation of powers.
-
-
WH folds.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/19/white-house-backs-down-acosta-new-rules-reporters/
What a chickenshit way to go. I like the 2016 Trump with balls of steel. The 2018 Trump, not so much. The swamp is now up past his knees, and rising. There will be no draining.
What’s chickenshit about it? The rules are pretty much what they should be.
You have to pick which hills you’re willing to die on. This wasn’t one of them. Swat away the fly and move on.
-
Quite a reversal from the first page of this thread, where you said the lawsuit had "no merit".
I did find interesting the details of the case (https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight) that provided the precedent in this lawsuit.
Not a reversal. The lawsuit did not have merit IMO. It was never ruled upon, except for the issuance of a TRO. As I said above, you have to pick the hills you are willing to die on.
-
You didn't answer my question, but what brief? I have posted excerpts from the court case Sherrill v. H Knight.
This precedent doesn’t give you a reason for their holdings, and that section starts with “in our opinion...”. I imagine the actual legal rationale might be gleaned from all the cases included in that opinion, but I have no time or inclination to look them up.
There is simply nothing in the written opinion to justify the holding, based on what you cut and pasted.
-
What’s chickenshit about it? The rules are pretty much what they should be.
You have to pick which hills you’re willing to die on. This wasn’t one of them. Swat away the fly and move on.
I gave my take already. Close the press office. Trump goes off regularly on the press being the enemy of the people, so stand up and do something rather than a slew of meaningless tweets. 2017 Trump moved the Israel embassy in the face of world-wide condemnation. All he does now is tweet like a whiny basement dwelling lib. I had some respect when he pulled the pass, and the press pretty much all condemned the pres and escalated it. Fine - you want escalation? Everyone is banned. Go to the visitor entrance just like the rest of the public, no one is stopping you from reporting, but there is no constitutional requirement that says the pres must have a press office. Let the press report the work of the admin from the street, no one will stop you. I doubt Washington, or Jefferson had a press office in the WH of the time.
-
I'm really surprised that Trump supporters here can't see what's going on. Trump implements a policy decision, and the ACLU or some other left wing org goes to any liberal fed judge in CA or HI or IL and gets an order reversing his stance. The first and worst mistake was his re-drafting of a perfectly valid order prohibiting people from certain nations from getting into the US. There was TONS of precedent for the prez doing that, including from the prev admin! But - he folded like a cheap suit. Now, it's a regular occurrence. Trump makes a policy decision, someone goes to a lib judge, decision reversed. Fuck that, why have a president? Just make the fed courts in charge of all intl policy.
-
I'm really surprised that Trump supporters here can't see what's going on. Trump implements a policy decision, and the ACLU or some other left wing org goes to any liberal fed judge in CA or HI or IL and gets an order reversing his stance. The first and worst mistake was his re-drafting of a perfectly valid order prohibiting people from certain nations from getting into the US. There was TONS of precedent for the prez doing that, including from the prev admin! But - he folded like a cheap suit. Now, it's a regular occurrence. Trump makes a policy decision, someone goes to a lib judge, decision reversed. Fuck that, why have a president? Just make the fed courts in charge of all intl policy.
So what are you looking for? You want others here to go off on inane rants like the ones you're known for?
-
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/stop-celebration-cnn-bad-news-acosta
For starters Judge Kelly said that The White House was within its rights to ignore Acosta from here on in, to never call on him and to grant him no interviews if it wants to.
In other words Acosta would be nothing more than a spectator.
“I want to emphasize the very limited nature of this ruling,” Judge Kelly said, The Hill reported.
It is limited because the decision is only temporary. Judge Kelly did not rule whether or not Acosta’s First and Fifth Amendment rights were violated.
-
You didn't answer my question, but what brief? I have posted excerpts from the court case Sherrill v. H Knight.
Helpful to provide a link; i.e.:
https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight (https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight)
I note that it was decided in 1977 and relies heavily on the undefined term "bona fide journalist." What, in the days of the Internet news-sites, twitter, blogs, vlogs, and such, is now considered bona fide journalists? Could the kids at the local high school newspaper qualify?
-
Helpful to provide a link; i.e.:
https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight (https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight)
I note that it was decided in 1977 and relies heavily on the undefined term "bona fide journalist." What, in the days of the Internet news-sites, twitter, blogs, vlogs, and such, is now considered bona fide journalists? Could the kids at the local high school newspaper qualify?
Thanks, but I posted that link in reply #49 (http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=3091.msg54795#msg54795), and have read the entire decision, including part two involving Thomas Forcade. Whether or not someone is a "bona fide" journalist does not seem to be the linchpin of the decision. Rather, after acknowledgement that the president has no obligation to cater to "every conceivable avenue" with which a citizen may want to gather information about the running of the FedGov, they note that the WH voluntarily created press facilities, and, thus, must make consideration of first/fifth/due process rights with respect to those facilities.
-
Thanks, but I posted that link in reply #49 (http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=3091.msg54795#msg54795), and have read the entire decision, including part two involving Thomas Forcade. Whether or not someone is a "bona fide" journalist does not seem to be the linchpin of the decision. Rather, after acknowledgement that the president has no obligation to cater to "every conceivable avenue" with which a citizen may want to gather information about the running of the FedGov, they note that the WH voluntarily created press facilities, and, thus, must make consideration of first/fifth/due process rights with respect to those facilities.
Seems I overlooked that part in the constitution. Can you show us where that is?
Thanks.
-
Thanks, but I posted that link in reply #49 (http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=3091.msg54795#msg54795), and have read the entire decision, including part two involving Thomas Forcade. Whether or not someone is a "bona fide" journalist does not seem to be the linchpin of the decision. Rather, after acknowledgement that the president has no obligation to cater to "every conceivable avenue" with which a citizen may want to gather information about the running of the FedGov, they note that the WH voluntarily created press facilities, and, thus, must make consideration of first/fifth/due process rights with respect to those facilities.
I read what you cited, but still see zero connection to the 1st and 5th. By voluntarily creating press facilities, the WH now can’t withdraw a credential? If my firm gives my underground parking space, of which it has a limited number, to a new employee, do I have a due process right to have them not take it away from me?
-
I read what you cited, but still see zero connection to the 1st and 5th. By voluntarily creating press facilities, the WH now can’t withdraw a credential? If my firm gives my underground parking space, of which it has a limited number, to a new employee, do I have a due process right to have them not take it away from me?
I cited a small portion of the decision. You may want to read the whole decision, which decidedly does NOT suggest the WH can't deny or revoke a hard pass. I'm also not sure what a parking space has to do with this.
-
Seems I overlooked that part in the constitution. Can you show us where that is?
Thanks.
Can you show us where the case providing precedent, and the precedent it relies upon, is not valid?
-
I cited a small portion of the decision. You may want to read the whole decision, which decidedly does NOT suggest the WH can't deny or revoke a hard pass. I'm also not sure what a parking space has to do with this.
It’s called an analogy. Since I can’t make the connection to the 1st and 5th, I’m trying to touch on the “voluntarily provided” language that you mentioned as apparently being critical to the holding. An employer can voluntarily provide prime parking spots to certain employees. It seems ridiculous that I would have due process rights it it was taken away.
-
It’s called an analogy. Since I can’t make the connection to the 1st and 5th, I’m trying to touch on the “voluntarily provided” language that you mentioned as apparently being critical to the holding. An employer can voluntarily provide prime parking spots to certain employees. It seems ridiculous that I would have due process rights it it was taken away.
Ok. The case in question has made for you the connection to the First, Fifth, and Due Process. Read it and indicate why you disagree with the opinion.
-
Can you show us where the case providing precedent, and the precedent it relies upon, is not valid?
You can cite any case as "precedent". Just because a case is cited as precedent doesn't stop the judicial process. Many cases used as precedent have been overturned in later legal cases.
You seem to be under the impression that once a case has been presented as precedent, it's over and the judge must rule and follow based upon that case alone. In many court cases lawyers will cite previous cases in order to strengthen their case, and many times they are resorting to "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance.....".
Again, in case you missed it, the judge in this CNN case didn't actually touch on the first and fifth, and only provided a brief relief. Ask yourself, "why?" The why is he new the case was shaky, and if it went to a higher court it more than likely would be overturned. Judges don't like having their decisions overturned. And they typically don't like flaky cases with big political exposure.
-
You can cite any case as "precedent". Just because a case is cited as precedent doesn't stop the judicial process. Many cases used as precedent have been overturned in later legal cases.
You seem to be under the impression that once a case has been presented as precedent, it's over and the judge must rule and follow based upon that case alone. In many court cases lawyers will cite previous cases in order to strengthen their case, and many times they are resorting to "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance.....".
You give stare decisis much less weight than it deserves, given that we have a hierarchical court system that is guided by, and in many cases bound by, legal precedent. I'm no legal beagle (I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night), but if I'm not mistaken, if the instant case is determined to be substantially similar to the previous case, Judge Kelly of the DC Circuit Court is bound by the legal precedent set by the case of Sherril v Knight, which was decided in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
Certainly, no one argues that legal precedent is a command that must be followed if a case is being heard at the right hierarchical level. And the Supreme Court is never completely bound by precedent, even its own (which is a good thing).
Again, in case you missed it, the judge in this CNN case didn't actually touch on the first and fifth, and only provided a brief relief. Ask yourself, "why?" The why is he new the case was shaky, and if it went to a higher court it more than likely would be overturned. Judges don't like having their decisions overturned. And they typically don't like flaky cases with big political exposure.
I'm sorry, you appear to be making a leap that is not supported by Judge Kelly's own words.
According to reports, Judge Kelly did note that Acosta's Fifth Amendment rights to Due Process were likely violated and thus the TRO was in order, and thus, he had no reason to yet consider whether Acosta's First Amendment rights were violated at that time. "I do hold that plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on their claim that adequate process was not provided to Mr. Acosta".
Judge Kelly is a Trump appointee and a member of the Federalist Society. I think he made the right decision (EDIT: and a decision which may actually be a favorable result for the Trump administration).
-
Bottom line, it was a shaky suit, at best.
There's a reason the judge did what he did, and there's a reason CNN dropped it.
But, in the end, this will backfire on CNN. Be careful what you wish for.