During his presidential campaign, Trump told CNN that, if elected, he would not kick reporters out of the White House. But since moving into the White House, he has mused privately about taking away credentials, CNN reported earlier this year. He brought it up publicly on Twitter in May, tweeting "take away credentials?" as a question.
And he said it again on Friday, two days after blacklisting Acosta. "It could be others also," he said, suggesting he may strip press passes from other reporters. Unprompted, he then named and insulted April Ryan, a CNN analyst and veteran radio correspondent.
Trump's threats fly in the face of decades of tradition and precedent. Republican and Democratic administrations alike have had a permissive approach toward press passes, erring on the side of greater access, even for obscure, partisan or fringe outlets.
That is one of the reasons why First Amendment attorneys say CNN and Acosta have a strong case.
As the prospect of a lawsuit loomed on Sunday, attorney Floyd Abrams, one of the country's most respected First Amendment lawyers, said the relevant precedent is a 1977 ruling in favor of Robert Sherrill, a muckraking journalist who was denied access to the White House in 1966.
Eleven years later, a D.C. Court of Appeals judge ruled that the Secret Service had to establish "narrow and specific" standards for judging applicants. In practice, the key question is whether the applicant would pose a threat to the president.
Im normally bored by POTUS politics, but the last few years have been very entertaining.opcorn2:
Congratulations; you are living in interesting times.
Im normally bored by POTUS politics, but the last few years have been very entertaining.opcorn2:
Is CNN currently unrepresented in the WH Press Corp or is there someone from CNN filling the role?
You know, sadly, my first reaction on who might win this case is, who appointed the judge?
Good question. I don't think CNN has appointed a replacement for Acosta. That would ruin the narrative.
What precedent would it be if the White House got to tell news outlets which journalists they're allowed to send out on the job, without compelling reason for a ban?
Jim Acosta getting the president's goat is not a compelling reason for a ban.
Of course it wouldn't be a good reason, but persistent disrespect and hostility, lack of professionalism and total abandonment of news reporting certainly is.
Persistent disrespect, hostility, and lack of professionalism defines the Trump administration to a T.
No one voted for Jim Acosta to be in that WH. Spare me.
Say, did James Rosen sue Obama?
Did he have his Press credentials removed?
Trump supporters crying over disrespectful behavior is laughable at best. They endorse bad, disrespectful behavior through continued support of Trump's rhetoric. So I won't be spared because if you're going to defend the stuff Trump says, who is elected to the highest office of land and that does demand a high level of decorum, then there's no leg to stand on because Acosta aggressively questioned the President about things he didn't want questions on. There's court precedent on this as well.
That's Trump! :dohOf course it wouldn't be a good reason, but persistent disrespect and hostility, lack of professionalism and total abandonment of news reporting certainly is.
What precedent would it be if the White House got to tell news outlets which journalists they're allowed to send out on the job, without compelling reason for a ban?
Jim Acosta getting the president's goat is not a compelling reason for a ban.
No one voted for Jim Acosta to be in that WH. Spare me.
Say, did James Rosen sue Obama?
Him shoving an intern is.
I have no idea of the case law on this one! But it should be interesting.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?