White House revokes Jim Acosta's press pass

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Nonsense.  I didn't mention the constitution.  You are making things up wholesale.

Here's my statement:

"Your willingness to support the POTUS in resisting questions from the press is very disturbing considering how a free press is a bedrock of our liberty.  Especially coming from a law student."

Please explain how that is a "constitutional appeal".

The concept of a free press rests on explicit Constitutional grounds. It is against that backdrop that you find my support disturbing, is it not?

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

15 hours ago, bigbird said:

To me it sounded more like, “pardon me ma’am” (get the eff off me) as opposed to “pardon me ma’am”(excuse me, I didn't me to bump you)

JMO. I couldn't care less about it.

I honestly don’t think he saw her. His eyes were on Trump. She reached for the mic and his arm bumped her. I’ve watched Acosta’s interactions with Trump supporters screaming at him at rallies. He always is a gentleman. 

[homersapien 11,373]

9 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The concept of a free press rests on explicit Constitutional grounds. It is against that backdrop that you find my support disturbing, is it not?

No. 

I consider respect for a free press to be an inherent requirement in a democracy regardless of whether or not it's mentioned in our constitution.  The significance and importance of a free press as the bedrock of a successful democracy would be the same even if the constitution didn't mention it.  It's inherently true regardless of the constitution.

Therefore, In my mind, your support of Trump attacking our press (enemy of the people) is disturbing as a matter of personal values, not that it violates the constitution which - ironically considering this argument - you claim it doesn't.

Simply because an important, general concept is mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean that any reference to it is necessarily a constitutional argument.  For example, I can argue that individual freedoms are important in a fair and effective government without tying it specifically to the US constitution.

Now, if I had been commenting on something specific, like governmental structure that would be different.  Such details are most definitely originated, determined and specified by the constitution.

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

12 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I honestly don’t think he saw her. His eyes were on Trump. She reached for the mic and his arm bumped her. I’ve watched Acosta’s interactions with Trump supporters screaming at him at rallies. He always is a gentleman. 

BS. The poor girl clearly reached for the mike and Acosta pulled it back. She was obviously surprised and kept looking to Trump with a "what should I do" look. I can't believe that you of all people would support Acosta here over a young lady intern just because you hate Trump.

You express an opinion that Acosta is ALWAYS  a gentleman. Back that up with evidence.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

28 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No. 

I consider respect for a free press to be an inherent requirement in a democracy regardless of whether or not it's mentioned in our constitution.  The significance and importance of a free press as the bedrock of a successful democracy would be the same even if the constitution didn't mention it.  It's inherently true regardless of the constitution.

Therefore, In my mind, your support of Trump attacking our press (enemy of the people) is disturbing as a matter of personal values, not that it violates the constitution which - ironically considering this argument - you claim it doesn't.

Simply because an important, general concept is mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean that any reference to it is necessarily a constitutional argument.  For example, I can argue that individual freedoms are important in a fair and effective government without tying it specifically to the US constitution.

Now, if I had been commenting on something specific, like governmental structure that would be different.  Such details are most definitely originated, determined and specified by the constitution.

 

Yeah, that’s totally bogus. Freedom of the press is established in our Constitution. Its validation, like the other enumerated protections, rest in the clause itself. Enumerated protections are not mere formalities. You don’t get to detach it by personal whim. 

Individual freedoms are tied to the Constitution - I.e., substantive due process. 

Again, your appeal rests on grounds you cannot, by whim, detach.

[homersapien 11,373]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/legality-revoking-jim-acostas-press-pass/575479/

The Legal Precedent That Could Protect Jim Acosta’s Credentials

A 1977 court ruling said that administrations cannot bar correspondents from the briefing room without “due process.”

 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Yeah, that’s totally bogus. Freedom of the press is established in our Constitution. Its validation, like the other enumerated protections, rest in the clause itself. Enumerated protections are not mere formalities. You don’t get to detach it by personal whim. 

Individual freedoms are tied to the Constitution - I.e., substantive due process. 

Again, your appeal rests on grounds you cannot, by whim, detach.

I can speak of a free press as the bedrock of our freedom without "attaching" it to the constitution, as I please.  I couldn't care less what a snot-nosed, wannabe lawyer thinks about it.  You don't get to dictate my meaning, my intent or where it's derived.  

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I can speak of a free press as the bedrock of our freedom without "attaching" it to the constitution, as I please.  I couldn't care less what a snot-nosed, wannabe lawyer thinks about it.  You don't get to dictate my meaning, my intent or where it's derived.  

 

You don't get to dictate the application of the Constitution in this context. Sorry Bud

 

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I couldn't care less what a snot-nosed, wannabe lawyer thinks about it.

Yes, I can tell you strive for calculated debate.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/legality-revoking-jim-acostas-press-pass/575479/

The Legal Precedent That Could Protect Jim Acosta’s Credentials

A 1977 court ruling said that administrations cannot bar correspondents from the briefing room without “due process.”

 

 

I seriously recommend reading the opinion before giving this article credence. The case is entirely distinguishable. If you do not feel the need to analyze the case for all to see, I am happy to do it for you - if you're worried that I may mischaracterize the case, you can check me against the written opinion issued by the judge.

Here is the case citation - Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124. 

[homersapien 11,373]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I seriously recommend reading the opinion before giving this article credence. The case is entirely distinguishable. If you do not feel the need to analyze the case for all to see, I am happy to do it for you - if you're worried that I may mischaracterize the case, you can check me against the written opinion issued by the judge.

Here is the case citation - Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124. 

please do

[homersapien 11,373]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You don't get to dictate the application of the Constitution in this context. Sorry Bud

 

I am not "dictating the application of the Constitution".

I was making a simple statement regarding your support of a POTUS who clearly has contempt for a free press.   Get it right, Kid.

[homersapien 11,373]

9 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Yes, I can tell you strive for calculated debate.

This is the smack talk forum kid.  Please try to keep up. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

please do

First off, can you to stay open minded? In reality, irregardless of whether you are inclined to agree with the author, you did not initiate the assertion that the case is "precedent," or even argue for the potentiality of precedent. You merely shared an article. Moreover, I will stipulate that it is unreasonable to expect readers to go dig up an old case, as opposed to merely taking the author's word for it. 

I am not putting you on blast. 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

16 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

First off, can you to stay open minded? In reality, irregardless of whether you are inclined to agree with the author, you did not initiate the assertion that the case is "precedent," or even argue for the potentiality of precedent. You merely shared an article. Moreover, I will stipulate that it is unreasonable to expect readers to go dig up an old case, as opposed to merely taking the author's word for it. 

I am not putting you on blast. 

 

Does that mean you are welching on your offer?

[jw 4 au 526]

19 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I'm arguing from the POV of a guy who has sat in newsrooms (including election night 2000), written articles, and has a degree in broadcast journalism.  For once, I'm trying to take my partisan hat off here.  I'm on the side of legitimate media, period.  If the Obama admin had done something similar to a Fox reporter, I'd have the same stance.  However I can't find information that the Obama admin revoked access to the White House grounds to anyone of a mainstream, legit news source.

Are Acosta's questions tough and sometimes contentious?  Yes.  But that's not a reason to take away his WH credentials.

He can ask whatever questions he wants, but he is not the only press person there. You are acting like Trump didn’t answer his first two questions about the caravan. Then he switched over to his standard Russia collusion stuff. He cannot dominate the room and take all the time. Yes, Trump does these a lot and stands there pontificating longer than any other president, but stop at a question plus follow up and let others speak. If it comes back around to you then ask away. Be professional and polite. How can you not agree that he is rude to the president (ask yourself if you would have put up with this with some no name guy from Fox and Obama), rude to every one around him (other reporters and staff), and a self narcissist (just like Trump). The guy goes in there to be an a**hole and try for this kind if story. Then multiply this by EVERY press conference for 3 years and you can see why Trump and others HATE the guy and want to pull his credentials. Hundreds of time at least.  

Who was the old lady who used to sit up front and was always allowed the first question? What political leanings was she?  Compare how she acted to this crap and you have your answer. It has nothing to do with asking tough questions. They are the same questions he shouts every time, and others ask, etc.  it has to do with protocol and decorum, he is still the president whether you like it or not. 

[Grumps 3,704]

On 11/8/2018 at 9:31 AM, TitanTiger said:

And yet you aren't citing where he was out of line.  He asked some tough, direct questions.  That is it.  Here's the exchange:

Acosta was one of the first reporters Trump called on. "Thank you, Mr. President," he said. "I want to challenge you on one of the statements that you made in the tail end of the campaign."

Trump leaned into the mic and said, "Here we go" — seemingly relishing the confrontation.

Acosta brought up the migrants traveling from Central America toward the US southern border, and the racist ad referring to them that the Trump campaign released last week.

"As you know, Mr. President, the caravan is not an invasion," Acosta said. "It's a group of migrants moving up from Central America towards the border with the US--"

Trump, sarcastically, replied, "Thank you for telling me that, I appreciate it."

Acosta: "Why did you characterize it as such?"

"Because I consider it an invasion. You and I have a difference of opinion."

"But do you think that you demonized immigrants?" 

"No, not at all. I want them to come into the country. But they have to come in legally."

That's what the migrants are trying to do — they say they intend to seek asylum.

Acosta called out the misleading ad and said: "They're hundreds of miles away, though. They're hundreds and hundreds of miles away. That's not an invasion."

"You know what? I think you should," Trump started to say, pointing at Acosta. "Honestly, I think you should let me run the country. You run CNN. And if you did it well, your ratings would be much better."

"Okay, that's enough," Trump said as Acosta tried to ask another question.

A White House staffer hurried over to grab the mic and carry it to the next reporter Trump chose, NBC's Peter Alexander. 

"If I may ask one other question, are you worried--" 

Acosta tried to point out that other reporters had also asked multiple questions.

"That's enough," Trump said.

The White House staffer tried to grab the mic from Acosta, but he held onto it.

"Pardon me, ma'am," he said, as she looked toward Trump, then ducked out of camera view.

"Peter, let's go," Trump said, trying to move on to Alexander.

"If I can ask, on the Russia investigation," Acosta said, "are you concerned that you may have indictments coming down--"

"I am not concerned about anything with the Russian investigation because it is a hoax," Trump said, "That is enough, put down the mic."

Trump backed away from the podium for a moment, signaling he was done, while Acosta asked the question again and then let go of the mic.

If I read the above interaction correctly, the blue text contains statements made by Acosta that were not questions. The red text is actual questions that he asked. Is it the opinion of this forum that Acosta did a good job of being a reporter during this exchange? 

It seems like Acosta tried to put Trump on the defensive by issuing a CHALLENGE. According to the quoted post, Acosta makes a mini speech. Acosta then says  AS YOU KNOW, and follows it with his opinion that he is quite sure that Trump disagrees with.

So, it is clear to me that Acosta was not simply trying to be a good reporter.  He has every right to be a lousy reporter. The White House has every right to withdraw his White House press pass.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

4 hours ago, jw 4 au said:

He can ask whatever questions he wants, but he is not the only press person there. You are acting like Trump didn’t answer his first two questions about the caravan. Then he switched over to his standard Russia collusion stuff. He cannot dominate the room and take all the time. Yes, Trump does these a lot and stands there pontificating longer than any other president, but stop at a question plus follow up and let others speak. If it comes back around to you then ask away. Be professional and polite. How can you not agree that he is rude to the president (ask yourself if you would have put up with this with some no name guy from Fox and Obama), rude to every one around him (other reporters and staff), and a self narcissist (just like Trump). The guy goes in there to be an a**hole and try for this kind if story. Then multiply this by EVERY press conference for 3 years and you can see why Trump and others HATE the guy and want to pull his credentials. Hundreds of time at least.  

Who was the old lady who used to sit up front and was always allowed the first question? What political leanings was she?  Compare how she acted to this crap and you have your answer. It has nothing to do with asking tough questions. They are the same questions he shouts every time, and others ask, etc.  it has to do with protocol and decorum, he is still the president whether you like it or not. 

One thing to point out about Acosta.  The very next reporter called defended Acosta's reputation as a journalist.  I think you may have mischaracterized how he acts towards other reporters, as I would argue they don't feel the same way about Acosta as you do.

As for the old lady that used to get called on first, she was from the AP.  It's not because of her decorum that she got called on first.  Tradition of the White House and the press corps was to let the AP get the first question.  I could be sitting in there and if I'm the rep from the AP, I get the first question.

Look, Trump and his staff can hate Acosta all he wants.  That's 100% ok.  But pulling his credentials was unwarranted here, especially for the the reason they gave which was accompanied by doctored video.  This reeks of Trump trying to take the indepence out of the press covering him, particularly when you couple it with threats made after the conference about potentially revoking more credentials, all from reporters he and his administration have sparred with.

You also mention that Trump does these a lot.  Actually, this is one the of the least accessible White House's in modern history for the media.  Daily press briefings have been severly curtailed (at one point they went 18 days without speaking to the media in a formal setting).  The press conference this week was POTUS's first full, open availabilty press conference in over a year.  For perspective, Trump held 1 press conference during his first year in office.  Obama held 11.  The one thing Trump does do is take a lot of impromptu shouted questions. But those often don't leave time for long form answers or allow for reporters to delve deep into topics that may be important outside of that day's headlines.  That's where a long form press conference helps, because reporters from all over the country and world ask a variety of questions on topics important to their readers/viewers (see ths Japanese reporter question about trade as an example from this week).

This is where I would ask you to look at it from the media perspective.  A reporter finally gets a chance to ask pointed questions of the President in an unedited, unfiltered situation.  Of course you want to ask all of the things you can.  The odds of getting called a second time are nil, especially for Acosta, because Trump views CNN poorly.  But you also aren't likely to get this opportunity again for quite a while.  I don't blame him in that regard for trying to get as many questions in as he could.

Listen, Acosta can be an ass.  I think he too often makes the story more about himself than it should be.  However, since before taking office, Trump has been yelling "Fake News" and cheering on chants of "CNN Sucks" at rallies around America.  Acosta has been there, being yelled at by random people who don't know a damn thing about journalism, every step of the way.  If you think that wouldn't add to his abrasiveness towards the president and his staff in his questioning, then you simply are denying human nature.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, Grumps said:

If I read the above interaction correctly, the blue text contains statements made by Acosta that were not questions. The red text is actual questions that he asked. Is it the opinion of this forum that Acosta did a good job of being a reporter during this exchange? 

It seems like Acosta tried to put Trump on the defensive by issuing a CHALLENGE. According to the quoted post, Acosta makes a mini speech. Acosta then says  AS YOU KNOW, and follows it with his opinion that he is quite sure that Trump disagrees with.

So, it is clear to me that Acosta was not simply trying to be a good reporter.  He has every right to be a lousy reporter. The White House has every right to withdraw his White House press pass.

Part of a reporters job is to challenge assertions made by the people they are covering.  You never, ever take someone at their word as a reporter.  Doing so would be career suicide.  Reporters are taught to have a healthy skepticism of everything they hear and see.  The challenge he's making was to come in the form of a question.  Trunp cut Acosta off with a "here we go" before he could even finish his thought.

For example, imagine the below exchange happened without the question being cut off.  Would you consider this a wrong way to ask a question?

* Saban claims Bama won the 2013 Iron Bowl because there was an illegal downfield pass on the TD pass late in the game.

Reporter:  Mr. Saban, I'd like to challenge your assetion that the QB was over the line of scrimmage when he passed the ball.  As you know, SEC video clearly illustrates he was in fact behind the line when the ball was released.  Why did you characterize it the way you did, despite having seen the video and heard the SEC's ruling?

[Grumps 3,704]

4 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Part of a reporters job is to challenge assertions made by the people they are covering.  You never, ever take someone at their word as a reporter.  Doing so would be career suicide.  Reporters are taught to have a healthy skepticism of everything they hear and see.  The challenge he's making was to come in the form of a question.  Trunp cut Acosta off with a "here we go" before he could even finish his thought.

For example, imagine the below exchange happened without the question being cut off.  Would you consider this a wrong way to ask a question?

* Saban claims Bama won the 2013 Iron Bowl because there was an illegal downfield pass on the TD pass late in the game.

Reporter:  Mr. Saban, I'd like to challenge your assetion that the QB was over the line of scrimmage when he passed the ball.  As you know, SEC video clearly illustrates he was in fact behind the line when the ball was released.  Why did you characterize it the way you did, despite having seen the video and heard the SEC's ruling?

What do you think Nick Saban would do if a reporter questioned him as follows:

"I want to challenge you on one of the statements that you made about the fourth quarter of last week's game."

There is a big difference in saying "I want to challenge you" and "I want to challenge your assertion." Do you agree?

Next, there is a clear difference in setting up a question with a statement and lecturing to the person you are questioning. I think that Acosta was lecturing when he said,  "They're hundreds of miles away, though. They're hundreds and hundreds of miles away. That's not an invasion." 

It would be different if he had said, "Does the fact that the caravan is still hundreds of miles away in any way negate your assertion that the caravan is an invasion?"

[Auburn85 432]

Jim Acosta would have gotten called for a block in the back if he was playing for Miss. State today.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

What do you think Nick Saban would do if a reporter questioned him as follows:

"I want to challenge you on one of the statements that you made about the fourth quarter of last week's game."

There is a big difference in saying "I want to challenge you" and "I want to challenge your assertion." Do you agree?

Next, there is a clear difference in setting up a question with a statement and lecturing to the person you are questioning. I think that Acosta was lecturing when he said,  "They're hundreds of miles away, though. They're hundreds and hundreds of miles away. That's not an invasion." 

It would be different if he had said, "Does the fact that the caravan is still hundreds of miles away in any way negate your assertion that the caravan is an invasion?"

Disagree on your challenge wording.  They read very similarly to me, especially when put into full context of the sentence they were used in.

As for the "lecturing", that came in response to what Trump had already said in the exchange.  Acosta's point of them being hundreds of miles away was not used to set up a question.  It was a push back against the subject over a demonstrably false claim.  However, I agree that your phrasing of the question at the end would have been better.

[AUDub 11,148]

12 minutes ago, Auburn85 said:

Jim Acosta would have gotten called for a block in the back if he was playing for Miss. State today.

"But dey never call dem for holding, Paaaaawl"

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 11/9/2018 at 7:41 PM, homersapien said:

Does that mean you are welching on your offer?

Nope. Just not going to waste my time with the "generosity" if you're going to be an ass

[homersapien 11,373]

12 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Nope. Just not going to waste my time with the "generosity" if you're going to be an ass

That sounds more like a "yes" to me.

I would sincerely like to know why that ruling doesn't apply to this case.  Next time don't offer to explain if you're not serious.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

That sounds more like a "yes" to me.

I would sincerely like to know why that ruling doesn't apply to this case.  Next time don't offer to explain if you're not serious.

By apply, you mean "why the case does not likely establish legal precedent should litigation ensue," correct?  Reason being, it's factually distinguishable and it was narrowed in its scope, as evidenced by the opinion and by the journalists' petition to the court. 

The case is factually distinguishable from the circumstances relevant to Acosta's suspension of his already granted press pass. In Sherrill, the journalists' application for a WH press pass was denied by the recommendation of the secret service on grounds of an assault conviction against the journalist. However, these grounds were not initially disclosed by SS. The journalist sought judicial relief, not in order to have his application approved, but instead to order the SS to construct "narrow and specific" standards by which the granting of applications were to be determined. On appeal, the court found that an opportunity to know the reasons for a denial and to rebut (Due Process) those reasons were guaranteed under the First Amendment. However, the court also found that a detailed explanation of such narrow and specific standards, or to list all the factors which were to be considered in applying the standard, would be impossible. Rather, the court modified its judgement so that the SS could continue to be guided solely on the grounds of whether the applicant presented potential physical danger to the President and/or his immediate family so serious as to justify denial of the application. 

To argue that this case serves as legal precedent establishing a want of due process for Acosta would be inaccurate. The case dealt with the journalists' want of Due Process relating to the denial of an application for a White House press pass, not the indefinite/temporary suspension of an already granted press pass. It does not stand for the proposition that a want of due process is established whenever a journalist has his press pass suspended, i.e., when denial of an application isn't even the issue at all. 

As the opening opinion states, "[t]his case involves a challenge to the system under which applications for White House press passes are acted upon. A journalist denied such a pass by reason of advert recommendation of the Secret Service filed a complaint in the District Court. The relief granted was not that a pass be issued to him but, rather, that the Service (1) formulate 'narrow and specific' standards by which applications are to be judged and (2) institute certain procedures to be followed in their handling...."

And later - "the procedural requirements of notice of the factual bases for denial [of an application], an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these, and final written statement of the reasons for denial [of the application] 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 does not mean Acosta cannot establish a want of due process. However, the case is factually distinguishable and can hardly be considered legal precedent should the current matter evolve into litigation. The opinion is tailored to an entirely different set of circumstances which are not present in the Acosta matter.