He never answered the question on his definition of invasion or whatever it was. Trump just called him fake news and told him he should be ashamed of himself and Acosta just wanted an answer.
CNN Sues Trump and White House Aides For Banning Acosta
- Thread starter h-hawk
- Start date
He never answered the question on his definition of invasion or whatever it was. Trump just called him fake news and told him he should be ashamed of himself and Acosta just wanted an answer.
This isn't hard, and calling me names isn't going to change anything. For you, this is about democrats and republicans and your hate for Trump. For me, it's very simply. A guy did something he shouldn't have, though minor in the grand scheme. There are consequences that are equally minor, and that's fine.
The network filed the suit in a Washington, D.C., district court, according to the statement, saying they have asked for "an immediate restraining order requiring the pass be returned" to Acosta.
A press release announcing the briefing cites a 1977 federal appeals court decision, Sherrill v. Knight, in which the Nation sued for denial of a press pass. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in that case that arbitrary or content-based criteria for issuing press passes is barred under the First Amendment.
That was a whole company plus Jim can come every day to the White House and apply for a day pass and CNN can send anyone else.
That was a whole company plus Jim can come every day to the White House and apply for a day pass and CNN can send anyone else.
Purposeful as he pulled back the microphone, held it with both hands and brushed her arm away.
His actions were appropriate when he was asked to give up the microphone?
Last edited:
He doesn't own the MIC so his actions were not appropriate if it was a CNN Microphone then his actions would have been fine. He holds up press conferences and makes them all about him it's time for him to spend to go in the corner for a little time out. CNN can send another person anyone they want heck they can send VAN JONES!
Lost in all things Trump: He applauded, publicly, a politician literally attacking a journalist.
And now this.
And now this.
You do understand the problem with this argument right?
Acosta's WH pass was one of about 50 that CNN has been given. It isn't as if the network is being shut out.
I'm not sure the suit is going to fail. At first glance it seems like it should; obviously, the WH has to limit reporters, and just as obviously misconduct is a reason to deny participation to somebody. Acosta hogged the microphone and cost other reporters their access. He had asked two questions and Trump had responded to both of them. Moreover, this is standard procedure for Acosta, not a one-time performance. From everything I've heard and read, the rest of the press corps think he's a POS.
However, there are a couple of precedents where the conduct of the reporter wasn't so egregious but the principle could be argued to be the same.
Assuming the courts rule for CNN, my suggestion for Trump (in case he's reading this thread) would be to call on Acosta as usual, respond to one question, then go to the next.......and say that unless he agrees to share the microphone, the news conference is over.
Not really,... I think it's entirely reasonable that a particular individual could be tagged as unacceptable in this regard, due to their own actions,... Doesn't mean that their employer should be penalized....
Still amazes me how incredibly ignorant (really just partisan, biased and not caring about the truth) some people are with their definitions, like of "assault."
Well when you target a guy because you dont like him or asking tough questions, but then sit there and say well you can send a lesser reporter, it is a restriction on free press.
It's just a way to justify it.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 94,079
- 190,340
- 113
- Jurisprudence
CNN Will Win Its Lawsuit to Have Jim Acosta’s White House Press Pass Restored
By David R. Lurie
Nov 12, 20187:00 PM
On Tuesday morning, CNN announced it has filed suit against the Trump administration, arguing that the revocation of Jim Acosta’s White House credentials “violates CNN and Acosta’s First Amendment rights of freedom of the press, and their Fifth Amendment rights to due process.” The piece below, which was written before the suit had been filed, explains why CNN should win that suit.
CNN is considering suing the Secret Service to restore the White House press pass the government pulled from reporter Jim Acosta at President Donald Trump’s behest. CNN should bring suit. As leading First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams stated, CNN has a strong case: An appellate court precedent all but mandates a ruling in the broadcaster’s favor. In addition, a suit is necessary to vindicate foundational First Amendment principles. The president is trying to intimidate other journalists by threatening to withdraw additional press credentials from reporters whose stories he dislikes.
It is plain that Trump ordered Acosta’s credentials stripped in retaliation for the content of his speech. The entire incident that led to Acosta’s credentials being revoked—including the president’s direction that an intern seize the microphone—was the product of the president’s effort to silence Acosta after he had the temerity to ask questions about two topics Trump was intent upon avoiding: the veracity of Trump’s unsupported assertions during the campaign about an immigrant “caravan” that remains hundreds of miles from the U.S. border, and whether Robert Mueller is about to issue new indictments. In the terminology of First Amendment law, the president engaged in viewpoint discrimination.
The White House contends Acosta was barred because he is a security risk. This claim is grounded on the absurd suggestion that the correspondent assaulted, or otherwise engaged in improper physical contact with, a White House intern. The intern tried, at the president’s behest, to rip a microphone out of Acosta’s hands mid-question during a post-election press conference on Wednesday, and Acosta inadvertently touched her arm in the process. The only “evidence” for the assault assertion is a manipulated video that White House press secretary Sarah Sanders obtained from a website maintained by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
The president’s own words undermined the White House’s efforts to manufacture a constitutionally permissible rationale for Trump’s action. During the press conference, Trump repeatedly railed against CNN and Acosta, challenging Acosta’s qualifications as a journalist, as well as his personal qualities, and calling him a “rude, terrible person” who “should not be working for CNN.” Trump also volunteered that an NBC correspondent who had the temerity to vouch for Costa was “not the best.”
Trump also admitted on Friday that Acosta’s press pass was pulled because he does not “treat the presidency with respect” and threatened to withdraw passes from other journalists he considers belligerent questioners. He went on to hurl insults at another reporter, April Ryan, a respected veteran White House reporter who is black and whom he had refused to allow even to pose a question during Wednesday’s press conference. On Friday, Trump also verbally abused another black journalist, Abby Phillip (also of CNN), calling her entirely reasonable question about the new acting attorney general and the Mueller investigation “stupid.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded nearly 41 years ago that the Secret Service cannot deny a journalist White House press credentials absent a compelling purpose—and certainly cannot do so because the president is not a fan of a journalist’s reporting. As Scott Nover reported, the appellate decision concerned Robert Sherrill, a reporter for the Nation magazine who was notorious for challenging both Republican and Democratic politicians, including and especially regarding the Vietnam War. When Sherrill applied for a White House press pass in 1966 (during the Johnson presidency) the Secret Service denied his request, and also denied his renewed application in 1972 during the Nixon administration. When pressed, the government vaguely asserted that he posed a security risk (presumably relying upon some physical altercations and charges in Merrill’s past). The American Civil Liberties Union ultimately brought suit on Sherrill’s behalf, and he prevailed before the appellate court in 1977.
The D.C. Circuit reasoned that the White House’s press facilities have long been made “publicly available” to journalists “as a source of information for newsmen,” and stated that such access is essential to press coverage of the White House and the president. Accordingly, the appellate court reasoned that the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press bars the denial of a White House press pass to an individual journalist arbitrarily or for “less than compelling reasons.” Other courts have reached the same conclusion regarding similar governmental attempts to selectively exclude the press, reasoning that the “[e]xclusion of an individual reporter … carries with it ‘the danger that granting favorable treatment to certain members of the media allows the government to influence the type of substantive media coverage that public events will receive,’ which effectively harms the public.” Furthermore, viewpoint-based exclusions of reporters, as Acosta experienced, have repeatedly been rejected as almost categorically unconstitutional because they strike at the heart of the First Amendment.
The Sherrill decision concluded that constitutional due process standards require the Secret Service to explain the standards for press pass denials, give a journalist facing a denial the right to respond, and, if the government stands on its denial decision, mandate that it state the final reasons in writing. The government failed to follow those mandatory procedures before pulling Acosta’s credentials. Even if this procedural misconduct is remedied, it is difficult to imagine the Secret Service successfully defending Trump’s pulling of Acosta’s credentials given both the president’s admission of his improper purpose and the White House’s reliance on manipulated evidence in support of its ex post facto rationalization.
Some have convincingly argued that Trump calculates his attacks on the press to distract from other embarrassing or disturbing events, most recently including his potentially illegal installation of an acting attorney general and the routing of many GOP candidates in the recent election. While the press should do its best to prevent the president from succeeding in making his abuse of journalists the center of attention, square attacks upon the newsgathering process—like that visited on Acosta—must not go unanswered.
Don't send a lesser reporter, send a superior reporter who isn't an asshole,... Acosta wasn't just asking a pointed question, he started out his comments by saying that he "wanted to challenge" the president,... He's combative, ineffectual and disruptive,... If he win's this case and regains his hard pass Trump should treat him like he's invisible...
There is a reason Acosta has the white house beat at CNN. He is the best they have. They don't have a superior reporter or they would have the white house beat.
It's clear you don't understand this topic and think its fine for the white house to tell who can and can't cover things.
Venue must be appropriate and in accordance with the FRCP.
JFC. Filed in the DC Circuit because the activity at issue took place in DC. It’s a concept that a freshman in high school could grasp.
Acosta has this job because he's turned his personal feud with this president into a clown show that helps drive ratings for CNN....
But the right of Acosta, as a member of he press, is infringed. Unless you say freedom of the press only exists for corporations, which is idiotic. I’m not saying that every person who calls the self a member of the press gets access, I’m saying you can’t ban someone just because they print things you don’t like.
If anything she should be instructed to not physically be grabbing the mic away from reporters while they're asking questions.
Anybody who thinks Acosta is physical threat in there is a snowflake.
Even bigger than winning back the press pass would be to expose the lies and cover up that Trump and Sanders tried to sell to the American people. If they want to fight it in court, then let's air all of the dirty laundry.
Like who approved using the doctored the tape that Sanders tweeted out as justification? And, what discussions occurred about this behind the scenes?
Like who approved using the doctored the tape that Sanders tweeted out as justification? And, what discussions occurred about this behind the scenes?
Most in this thread are just as childish as Cheeto in Charge. Acosta is a Knucklehead, Cheeto should just cancel the briefings.
The law defines assault and battery as an unwanted touching that is done in a rude or angry manner. It can be as simple as shoving someone, blocking their way, spitting on them, grabbing someone's arm, throwing something (liquid or otherwise) at them, or even grabbing something out of their hand.
https://www.taylorlawco.com/blog/domestic-assault-and-battery--it-does-not-take-much.cfm
Who initiated the assault?
https://www.taylorlawco.com/blog/domestic-assault-and-battery--it-does-not-take-much.cfm
Who initiated the assault?
Completely agree she should be instructed differently. Doesn't excuse his action though. He was in the wrong. Simple.
Jim Acosta and CNN are free to go write and publish whatever news or fake news they want . They are protected by the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment does not protect access to daily press conferences for media or opinion pieces. If it does then I assume you are ok with Infowars and Alex Jones having a press pass and access?
Either that or this: https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight
Curbside Constitutionalists are working overtime on this one . . . First Amendment scholars coming out of the woodwork.
Discovery in this matter would be an absolute blast.
There was no assault Jim was rude an tried to take over the Press Conference he is being put in timeout for a while.
So curious as to how the originality that sit on a majority on the court will evade or disregard the 1st amendment. How a government can seek to censor a member of the press, something the founders were explicitly trying to avoid.
