Judge orders Trump administration to restore CNN reporter Jim Acosta's White House press pass

[ecofarm]

Your concern is fair but every president is given control to a certain extent. I dont see where trump went beyond the reasonable amount of lattitude that every potus is extended

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

We're talking President. There's no latitude, only precedent. This is an unacceptable precedent.

 

[SLC]

If only Fox speaks with the President, who watches second hand accounts elsewhere of breaking news hours after it breaks?

I can't believe how small minded some people are being about this. Anything to achieve hackdom, I guess.

How many times did Obama speak with Fox in 8 years and how many times did he speak with every one else.

 

[trouble13]

Who cares? Someone misbehaved! Git 'm! It's paper boys bickering. We don't jeopardize our Constitution because someone throws a fit in class.

The President is not the boss of the press. I bet I lean more executive than you. Certainly more than most people. But let's be serious... the admin does not control access.

If you missbehave (as you say) you run the risk of losing your seat. Plenty of other reporters would like to be given access. He is not entitled to his seat. They should give his place to someone who does not misbehave.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Keridan]

The actual issue at stake is the President controlling press access.

And political orcs pretending it's not.

So you are saying that there is no argument here. Press still has access and Acosta can still write what he wants, so this is a dead issue and no reason to be concerned. Glad we could both be reasonable here. It's nice when someone like yourself is willing to admit they were imitating chicken little.

That has never happened. I've never bashed Trump. I'm fiscally conservative and a hawk.

My concern is the President controlling access.

Thank goodness we aren't talking about normal access and unearned privileges. I would definitely have been concerned if we were dealing with an issue of press in general being given the same access. I personally find it very comforting that we are only talking about the kind of special access that 50 well-behaved reporters hold over the tens of thousands writing articles on a daily basis.

I have to admit that I'm terribly concerned that people whining so much about this imaginary threat to the constitution that we run a real risk of people ignoring the cries of wolf when a real one presents itself.

 

[ecofarm]

If you missbehave (as you say) you run the risk of losing your seat. Plenty of other reporters would like to be given access. He is not entitled to his seat. They should give his place to someone who does not misbehave.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

That's the Press Corps' job, not the feds'.

 

[trouble13]

We're talking President. There's no latitude, only precedent. This is an unacceptable precedent.

It was acceptable from my perspective. He threw out 1 unruly reporter

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[SLC]

I'd pay to see Hannity dragged kicking and screaming. But no. Press corps decides.

Fwiw, I lean executive. But no playing press boss.

Hannity is commentator not a reporter. That is why you get opinion from him. Acosta is a reporter not a commentator and as such he should just report facts without commentary.

 

[ecofarm]

It was acceptable from my perspective. He threw out 1 unruly reporter

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

For the day? Fine. But that's not his seat to decide who does or does not sit there. Not his job. Better never be his job, or we're in real trouble.

 

[trouble13]

That's the Press Corps' job, not the feds'.

Are you saying its the press corps job to determine who is allowed to be present at a conference?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

For the day? Fine. But that's not his seat to decide who does or does not sit there. Not his job. Better never be his job, or we're in real trouble.

So your issue isnt that he threw him out but that he threw him out for an undefined period of time?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[ecofarm]

Are you saying its the press corps job to determine who is allowed to be present at a conference?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

The press has always controlled entrants. Of course people must be vetted, that's procedural. The President has never and hopefully will never decide the reporters with access.

If an admin controls access, an admin controls the press. See Russia.

 

[ecofarm]

So your issue isnt that he threw him out but that he threw him out for an undefined period of time?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Throw him out for the day. I'd like to think if I was President I'd have had a code, like touching my nose, and secret service drags his ass out.

But it is not the President's job to decide if he can return. That's the job of a free press.

The President has a million ways to deal with a disruptive reporter. Becoming boss of the seats is not one of them.

 

[trouble13]

Throw him out for the day. I'd like to think if I was President I'd have had a code, like touching my nose, and secret service drags his ass out.

But it is not the President's job to decide if he can return. That's the job of a free press.

The President has a million ways to deal with a disruptive reporter. Becoming boss of the seats is not one of them.

I see both sides of the issue. I gt the importance of a free press and also see the danger of a hostile press. I think a happy median needs to be found. Imo trump is still in that inbetween area. I rather trump removed aalcosta than ended the conference, which he would of beeen in his rights to do.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[ecofarm]

I see both sides of the issue. I gt the importance of a free press and also see the danger of a hostile press. I think a happy median needs to be found. Imo trump is still in that inbetween area. I rather trump removed aalcosta than ended the conference, which he would of beeen in his rights to do.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

A median between free and hostile? You stumble through any more hoops to hand-wave seat bossing and I'll call babbling.

You know damn well what we're talking about. There ain't no median ****ing free. You can tell that to your kin. Mine ain't gonna hear no terrible **** like that.

Get a hold of yourself, man. Median free. wtf

 

[SLC]

If only Fox speaks with the President, who watches second hand accounts elsewhere of breaking news hours after it breaks?

I can't believe how small minded some people are being about this. Anything to achieve hackdom, I guess.

trump has given more interviews with non Fox media than Obama gave with Fox. You are whining about something your own hero did. That is hypocritical.

 

[ecofarm]

trump has given more interviews with non Fox media than Obama gave with Fox. You are whining about something your own hero did. That is hypocritical.

Boss of the seats - Not allowed, not his job. So says logic, reason and the court. Sorry, not every idea is great.

I'm a fiscal conservative and a hawk, not a hack.

 

[Anthony60]

Do you understand that an admin controlling who has access is an admin controlling the press?

I'm disappointed in all the so-called "Constitutionalists" and "defenders" of it.

Partisan hacks without a care for the Constitution. Every last one of them.

You are still not making sense, talking in circles.

 

[JustHanging]

More than Obama and his WH called on FOX.

Are you sure? I would have sworn Obama picked FOX when FOX was covering the huge scandal about Obama using Dijon mustard on his hamburgers. I mean, there's something of national import, something that needed to be gotten to the bottom of. Shame on Obama if he never answered questions on it. Poor Sean Hannity was having conniptions for weeks because of this.



And what about the Tan suit incident? Remember that? That was the other big scandal FOX unearthed, didn't Obama call on FOX news when they wanted more information on that? Christ, what a scandal!


EDIT: Sorry, I also forgot about the lapel flag pin scandal. Remember that one? I'm pretty sure that Hannity unearthed that one too (What a journalist! Pulitzer prize material!) Man, Dijon mustard, a tan suit, and appearing publicly without a lapel flag pin. What a crazy, scandal ridden presidency.

 

[SLC]

Throw him out for the day. I'd like to think if I was President I'd have had a code, like touching my nose, and secret service drags his ass out.

But it is not the President's job to decide if he can return. That's the job of a free press.

The President has a million ways to deal with a disruptive reporter. Becoming boss of the seats is not one of them.

I can see if now President Ecofarm gets a cold and a reporter gets his ass dragged out by the Secret Service :lol:

 

[Plus Ultra]

The judge referred to the First (freedon of the press) and Fifth (due process) Amendments, but his temporary order to restore Acosta's pass was premised on just the absence of due process in its revocation. I noted my interest in learning how the judge would apply the First Amendment, the application of the Fifth was readily apparent and now has been corrected, so we will never know how this judge would find freedom of the press impinged in this case. In my view this incident was about form or procedure, not substance. Acosta was answered, he disagreed with the answer he got and rephrased it, but still didn't get the answer he wanted, Trump wanted to move on and Acosta kept at it. This not proper form, the president doesn't have to give a satisfactory answer or even answer at all, he can skip the question and gesture for another reporter to ask a question, that is the procedure for a press conference, it has always been that way.

 

[SMTA]

Money has corrupted every aspect of American life because we have been cultivated to worship it above everything else. The press, the government, economic power, entertainment, education, etc. They're all controlled by the same tiny group of terrible human beings.

Agreed. Those nasty retards run everything.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

trump has given more interviews with non Fox media than Obama gave with Fox.

Now that is quite true.

However, it does have to be put into perspective and the easiest way to do that is to provide an example using made up numbers, so here goes:

1. There are a total of FIVE media sources.
2. ONE of those media sources is WOLF News.
3. Person A gives a total of FIVE interview to EACH of the FIVE media sources.
4. Person B gives a total of FIVE interviews THREE of them to WOLF News and TWO to other media sources.

Is it correct to say that "Person B gave more interviews to media sources other than WOLF News than Person A gave to WOLF News."?

Yes it is.

It's also an attempt to fob crappy thinking off as logic and persuasive point making with the intention to deceive.

 

[SLC]

Now that is quite true.

However, it does have to be put into perspective and the easiest way to do that is to provide an example using made up numbers, so here goes:

1. There are a total of FIVE media sources.
2. ONE of those media sources is WOLF News.
3. Person A gives a total of FIVE interview to EACH of the FIVE media sources.
4. Person B gives a total of FIVE interviews THREE of them to WOLF News and TWO to other media sources.

Is it correct to say that "Person B gave more interviews to media sources other than WOLF News than Person A gave to WOLF News."?

Yes it is.

It's also an attempt to fob crappy thinking off as logic and persuasive point making with the intention to deceive.

At least Trump hasn't investigated the Emails of reporters in the MSM like Obama did to James Rosen at FOX.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

At least Trump hasn't investigated the Emails of reporters in the MSM like Obama did to James Rosen at FOX.

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. All of the evidence isn't in yet so we shouldn't make judgments. However my gut tells me that he has and I trust my gut over any evidence.

Sound familiar.

PS - Did you know that your "response" is your 387th consecutive non-responsive evasion that you have posted? I didn't. But I have heard that some people are saying that your "response" is your 387th consecutive non-responsive evasion that you have posted. Now I'm not saying that it is true that your "response" is your 387th consecutive non-responsive evasion that you have posted but I have heard that some people are saying that your "response" is your 387th consecutive non-responsive evasion that you have posted. And, if some people are saying that your "response" is your 387th consecutive non-responsive evasion that you have posted, well then ... you know.