• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNN sues Trump and White House Aides for banning Jim Acosta

HumblePi

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
26,280
Reaction score
18,773
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
CNN is in the process of suing Donald Trump and several White House aides, Sarah Sanders being one, and others claiming their First and Fifth Amendment are being violated.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/13/media/cnn-sues-trump/index.html


CNN sues President Trump and top White House aides for barring Jim Acosta


New York (CNN)CNN has filed a lawsuit against President Trump and several of his aides, seeking the immediate restoration of chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta's access to the White House.
The lawsuit is a response to the White House's suspension of Acosta's press pass, known as a Secret Service "hard pass," last week. The suit alleges that Acosta and CNN's First and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated by the ban.
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday morning.
Both CNN and Acosta are plaintiffs in the lawsuit. There are six defendants: Trump, chief of staff John Kelly, press secretary Sarah Sanders, deputy chief of staff for communications Bill Shine, Secret Service director Joseph Clancy, and the Secret Service officer who took Acosta's hard pass away last Wednesday. The officer is identified as John Doe in the suit, pending his identification.

The six defendants are all named because of their roles in enforcing and announcing Acosta's suspension.
 
Should be interesting to see if a court believes the secret service pass must be issued to all people. There are only so many available, but I guess 300 million+ should be allowed.

I expect mine next week.
 
I think my 1st and 5th amendment rights are being violated because I would never be issued a hard pass to begin with. Sign me up.
 
Glad to hear it. It's more than apparent if D. Trump doesn't care for what someone says or asks, they'll be castigated. It begins a precedent that can never/ should never be in the country.
 
It would be an interesting case.

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.

So Trump lied, stating that he wouldn't kick out reporters and then did. Which isn't too much of a surprise. But there is already precedent for this as well, and that seems to go with CNN.
 
Im normally bored by POTUS politics, but the last few years have been very entertaining. :popcorn2:
 
Im normally bored by POTUS politics, but the last few years have been very entertaining. :popcorn2:

Congratulations; you are living in interesting times.
 
Im normally bored by POTUS politics, but the last few years have been very entertaining. :popcorn2:

I'm glad we could help you pass the time.
 
You know, sadly, my first reaction on who might win this case is, who appointed the judge?
 
Is CNN currently unrepresented in the WH Press Corp or is there someone from CNN filling the role?
 
Is CNN currently unrepresented in the WH Press Corp or is there someone from CNN filling the role?

Good question. I don't think CNN has appointed a replacement for Acosta. That would ruin the narrative.
 
You know, sadly, my first reaction on who might win this case is, who appointed the judge?

Wouldnt it be cool if it makes it all the way to SCOTUS and Kavanagh will be the deciding vote? ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.

Show us where the president has hit someone.
I would like for you to post it.

Acosta got his press badge pulled because he shoved an intern.
 
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.
That's Trump! :doh
 
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.

Him shoving an intern is.
 
No one voted for Jim Acosta to be in that WH. Spare me.

Say, did James Rosen sue Obama?


For what? For being investigated in connection with leaks of classified information? Something else?

The AP sued the Obama administration. I don't know about Rosen.

There was much ground to complain against the Obama administration, and legal cases were made.

I don't know how the cases turned out.


Do you have specific details to refresh us with?
 
I have no idea of the case law on this one! But it should be interesting.
 
Him shoving an intern is.

Except he didn't do that.

And he wasn't the only one that day who resisted when the intern tried to grapple the microphone away from them. But Trump singled him out.
 
Back
Top Bottom