White House revokes Jim Acosta's press pass

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

9 minutes ago, channonc said:

It seems that Fox News will be filing an amicus brief in support of CNN per Axios.

Wow....FoxNews is OK when you agree with them?

[channonc 466]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

Wow....FoxNews is OK when you agree with them?

Just providing a fact for the thread. Notice I stated no opinion on the matter.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

3 minutes ago, channonc said:

Just providing a fact for the thread. Notice I stated no opinion on the matter.

True but I get a boat load of crap from some here for doing the same thing if it's from FoxNews

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Another reporter's opinion...."Acosta needs to realize he's there to ask questions not make accusations".......Michael Goodwin, NY Post

Good point.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

25 minutes ago, channonc said:

It seems that Fox News will be filing an amicus brief in support of CNN per Axios.

I'm actually not too surprised by this.  Fox, like other outlets, knows this is a bad precedent to set as it could be them in the future.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

23 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Wow....FoxNews is OK when you agree with them?

Or it could be seen as, "when even Fox News is agreeing with CNN against the Trump Administration, it's a pretty good indication Trump is in the wrong here."

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 hours ago, channonc said:

It seems that Fox News will be filing an amicus brief in support of CNN per Axios.

Are they using outside counsel? Just curious. Given the publicity of the issue, I expect dozens of amicus briefs will be filed for each party. As soon as they are filed, I will be sure to give a look 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Or it could be seen as, "when even Fox News is agreeing with CNN against the Trump Administration, it's a pretty good indication Trump is in the wrong here."

Haha its not uncommon for these networks to file amicus briefs in support of each other. Generally, they stick together in that aspect because most of the time their "journalistic interests" align once placed before an adjudicator. 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

9 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Haha its not uncommon for these networks to file amicus briefs in support of each other. Generally, they stick together in that aspect because most of the time their "journalistic interests" align once placed before an adjudicator. 

Fox also has every incentive to back Trump and stick it to CNN.  But they know this sets a bad precedent, which could be used against them the next time a Democrat is in office.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I'm actually not too surprised by this.  Fox, like other outlets, knows this is a bad precedent to set as it could be them in the future.

But again, what's the precedent that is trying to be avoided and what is the same that's trying to be achieved? I could be wrong, but I think Acosta will try to argue a want of due process. I think essential inquiries will have to include: (1) how much deference is owed the government's reasoning for suspending an already-granted press pass and (2) the balancing of legitimate governmental interests against legitimate interests of free press.

It has to be more than "they took my press pass away." I think the argument will hinge on establishing a want of due process and substantiating deference owed to the government. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Fox also has every incentive to back Trump and stick it to CNN.  But they know this sets a bad precedent, which could be used against them the next time a Democrat is in office.

The precedent it undoubtedly sets right now is: don't act like Jim Acosta did.

The precedent that that Fox might conceivably fear is this: If the White House suspends a press pass, a journalist is not entitled to rebut the reasons provided for said suspension. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

33 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

But again, what's the precedent that is trying to be avoided and what is the same that's trying to be achieved? I could be wrong, but I think Acosta will try to argue a want of due process. I think essential inquiries will have to include: (1) how much deference is owed the government's reasoning for suspending an already-granted press pass and (2) the balancing of legitimate governmental interests against legitimate interests of free press.

It has to be more than "they took my press pass away." I think the argument will hinge on establishing a want of due process and substantiating deference owed to the government. 

Sorry man, you're getting way too deep in the weeds here from a law POV (you do that a lot for obvious reasons ).  To me, the precedent we are trying to avoid is taking away press access to a government institution essentially on the basis of not liking how asks questions.  That's a problem.  I can't see a legitimate government reason for removing him the WH press corps, as a threat or anyone's security was never in made or in doubt.  Like I said, there's a reason Fox is joining CNN on this one.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

you're getting way too deep in the weeds here from a law POV

Sorry, not my intention.

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

To me, the precedent we are trying to avoid is taking away press access to a government institution essentially on the basis of not liking how asks questions.  That's a problem. 

Is that the basis the White House provided? Absent the interaction with the young lady, would the White House still have suspended the press pass? 

I certainly think his questions (including other encounters in the past) played a part, but I would still have invalidate the explicit reason given by the WH in its statement. Ya know?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Sorry, not my intention.

Is that the basis the White House provided? Absent the interaction with the young lady, would the White House still have suspended the press pass? 

I certainly think his questions (including other encounters in the past) played a part, but I would still have invalidate the explicit reason given by the WH in its statement. Ya know?

The mic situation was an excuse that was blown up to be the reason. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The mic situation was an excuse that was blown up to be the reason. 

Ok, that's fine. Now prove it. 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

21 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Ok, that's fine. Now prove it. 

The Trump Admin itself realized it’s exaggerated story about putting his hands  on a woman or the altered video clip making it look like something it wasn’t wouldn’t fly with a court. So they changed their tune and are now saying it’s about him being rude and monopolizing the questions from the rest of the press pool. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/13/white-house-is-changing-its-tune-why-it-yanked-jim-acostas-press-pass/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ae2376cebd4a

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Sorry, not my intention.

Is that the basis the White House provided? Absent the interaction with the young lady, would the White House still have suspended the press pass? 

I certainly think his questions (including other encounters in the past) played a part, but I would still have invalidate the explicit reason given by the WH in its statement. Ya know?

Titan stole my thunder.   Agree with him though.  Firmly believe the mic blow up was an excuse to remove someone the WH didn't like.

[homersapien 11,373]

6 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

But again, what's the precedent that is trying to be avoided and what is the same that's trying to be achieved? I could be wrong, but I think Acosta will try to argue a want of due process. I think essential inquiries will have to include: (1) how much deference is owed the government's reasoning for suspending an already-granted press pass and (2) the balancing of legitimate governmental interests against legitimate interests of free press.

It has to be more than "they took my press pass away." I think the argument will hinge on establishing a want of due process and substantiating deference owed to the government. 

I thought you said he had no possible case in the first place.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

14 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

The Trump Admin itself realized it’s exaggerated story about putting his hands  on a woman or the altered video clip making it look like something it wasn’t wouldn’t fly with a court. So they changed their tune and are now saying it’s about him being rude and monopolizing the questions from the rest of the press pool. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/13/white-house-is-changing-its-tune-why-it-yanked-jim-acostas-press-pass/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ae2376cebd4a

Per ABC:

Despite months of criticism launched at CNN and Acosta, “Until this point, [the administration] took no action,” U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly said in a question to CNN’s lawyer, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. “What triggered a content-based response here as opposed to all those other months?”

.....

The brief (of White House counsel) focused largely on Acosta’s “disrupt[tions]” during the press conference rather than a previous explanation by White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, which CNN promptly denied, that Acosta had placed his hands on an intern who tried to take away his microphone. The judge declined to characterize it as a "shift" in narrative.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

I thought you said he had no possible case in the first place.

I am not certain that he does, as the defense counsel is arguing. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/26173729/CABLE_NEWS_NETWORK,_INC_et_al_v_TRUMP_et_al

Case docket for those interested in what has been filed. Includes Amicus briefs.....

[DKW 86 7,423]

Yall know, I posted up the 'Worst of' Compilation that was in reality, really nothing worthy of anything. 

I also wonder what happened to decorum etc in Journalism. Apparently the Cartoonist Ramirez was wondering the same thing...

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Judge sounds like Acosta may establish a want of Due Process. 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

 

Quote

Judge orders White House to return Jim Acosta's press pass

(CNN) - Federal judge Timothy J. Kelly sided with CNN on Friday, ordering the White House to reinstate chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta's press pass.

The ruling was an initial victory for CNN in its lawsuit against President Trump and several top aides.

The lawsuit alleges that CNN and Acosta's First and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated by the suspension of Acosta's press pass.

Kelly did not rule on the underlying case on Friday. But he granted CNN's request for a temporary restraining order.

This result means that Acosta will have his access to the White House restored for at least a short period of time. The judge said while explaining his decision that he believes that CNN and Acosta are likely to prevail in the case overall.

Kelly made his ruling on the basis of CNN and Acosta's Fifth Amendment claims, saying the White House did not provide Acosta with the due process required to legally revoke his press pass.

He left open the possibility, however, that the White House could seek to revoke it again if it provided that due process, emphasizing the "very limited" nature of his ruling and saying he was not making a judgment on the First Amendment claims that CNN and Acosta have made.

Kelly was appointed to the bench by Trump last year, and confirmed with bipartisan support in the Senate.

Acosta spoke briefly outside the court and thanked his colleagues in the press who supported the lawsuit. "Let's get back to work," he said.

CNN has also asked for "permanent relief," meaning a declaration from the judge that Trump's revocation of Acosta's press pass was unconstitutional. This legal conclusion could protect other reporters from retaliation by the administration.

"The revocation of Acosta's credentials is only the beginning," CNN's lawsuit alleged, pointing out that Trump has threatened to strip others' press passes too.

That is one of the reasons why most of the country's major news organizations have backed CNN's lawsuit, turning this into an important test of press freedom.

But the judge will rule on all of that later. Further hearings are likely to take place in the next few weeks, according to CNN's lawyers.

The White House took the unprecedented step of suspending Acosta's access after he had a combative exchange with Trump at last week's post-midterms press conference. CNN privately sought a resolution for several days before filing suit on Tuesday.

The defendants include Trump, press secretary Sarah Sanders, and chief of staff John Kelly.

Kelly heard oral arguments from both sides on Wednesday afternoon.

Kelly, a Trump appointee who has been on the federal bench just more than a year now, was very inquisitive at Wednesday's hearing, asking tough questions of both sides, drilling particularly deep into some of CNN's arguments.

Then he said he would issue a ruling Thursday afternoon. He later postponed it until Friday morning, leaving both sides wondering about the reason for the delay.

In public, the White House continued to argue that Acosta deserves to be blacklisted because he was too aggressive at the press conference.

Speaking with Robert Costa at a Washington Post Live event on Thursday, White House communications official Mercedes Schlapp said press conferences have a "certain decorum," and suggested that Acosta violated that. "In that particular incident, we weren't going to tolerate the bad behavior of this one reporter," she said. Schlapp repeated the "bad behavior" claim several times.

When Costa asked if the White House is considering yanking other press passes. Schlapp said "I'm not going to get into any internal deliberations that are happening."

In court on Wednesday, Justice Department lawyer James Burnham argued that the Trump White House has the legal right to kick out any reporter at any time for any reason -- a position that is a dramatic break from decades of tradition.

While responding to a hypothetical from Kelly, Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's press pass if it didn't agree with their reporting. "As a matter of law... yes," he said.

The White House Correspondents' Association -- which represents reporters from scores of different outlets -- said the government's stance is "wrong" and "dangerous."

"Simply stated," the association's lawyers wrote in a brief on Thursday, "if the President were to have the absolute discretion to strip a correspondent of a hard pass, the chilling effect would be severe and the First Amendment protections afforded journalists to gather and report news on the activities on the President would be largely eviscerated."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/16/media/cnn-trump-lawsuit-hearing/index.html