To the Judge Who Deludes That He Decides Who Does or Does Not Get to Attend WH Press Briefings

[Gaius46]

Let me put it this way:



View attachment 67244435



And a JUDGE < the POTUS...by FAR.

The judge doesn't decide. The Constitution does. Specifically Amendment 1.

Do you seriously think this was just about Acosta? If so then why did virtually every major news outlet support the suit? Why did FOX submit an amicus brief?

And yes I realize that Acosta was temporarily given back his press pass based on a fifth amendment claim, however this case is at heart a first amendment one.

 

[Keridan]

The judge doesn't decide. The Constitution does. Specifically Amendment 1.

Do you seriously think this was just about Acosta? If so then why did virtually every major news outlet support the suit? Why did FOX submit an amicus brief?

And yes I realize that Acosta was temporarily given back his press pass based on a fifth amendment claim, however this case is at heart a first amendment one.

Amendment 1 isn't really in play. 5 is because he didn't get proper process before they took away his physical pass. He still enjoys full protection of freedom of press. He just doesn't get to keep his special privileges when he can't manage the decorum the other 49 reporters did. Bear in mind some 30+ of those regularly write negatively about Trump.

Knowing all this, I would be the first to jump on the bandwagon if I owned a media outlet. I would realize it has nothing to do with Acosta being right. I would just want to get the additional ratings and praise for pretending to support the source of the sensationalism.

 

[eohrnberger]

You want Acosta to shut up, but many of us don’t. Trump needs to be challenged. And for the record, Acosta was called on by Trump. The only error on Acosta’s part, IMHO, was that he didn’t relinquish the mic when told to do so.


I don’t believe there needs to be written rules governing “decorum” at press briefings. They are all adults (supposedly) and should not require a manners do’s and don’ts list.

It has nothing to do with challenging Trump, and has everything to do with Jim's bad, discourteous, rude, self aggrandizing and inappropriate behavior.

Jim' behavior would would be an example that at least some of the WH press corp need these rules of decorum.

Whatever comes out will certainly be as restrictive as the administration thinks it can get away with, which will likely bring more litigation.

Citing facts not in evidence. The rules haven't even been made public yet. You don't know anything about them and are just projecting.

As for setting a precedent, if a Dem takes over in ‘21, those rules will be tossed in the dumpster where they belong.

Meh. Whatever.

 

[eohrnberger]

It seems (hopefully) that the White House will have the last laugh.

By going to court, Acosta and his ilk have forced the White House to do something that has never been done before: instituting a code of conduct for those "journalists."

Other "reporters" should kick Little Jimmy's butt for bringing that lawsuit.

I do believe that other reporters may have expressed their scorn for "Little Jimmy's" behavior, and rightfully so. He was, and has been, most obnoxious.

 

[eohrnberger]

There is no inherent right to a WH press pass. CNN can send another reporter. It doesn't have to be Acosta.

It's been reported that CNN has over 50 journalists that have WH hard passes. Why they don't do a staff rotation to address Jim's bad behavior is beyond me, unless, of course, they agree and support Jim's bad behavior at WH press briefings, which seems to be supported as they brought the law suit.

 

[Manc Skipper]

It's been reported that CNN has over 50 journalists that have WH hard passes. Why they don't do a staff rotation to address Jim's bad behavior is beyond me, unless, of course, they agree and support Jim's bad behavior at WH press briefings, which seems to be supported as they brought the law suit.

Even Fox joined the law suit, with the rest of the media. It wasn't just CNN and is wasn't just about Acosta.

 

[eohrnberger]

Even Fox joined the law suit, with the rest of the media. It wasn't just CNN and is wasn't just about Acosta.

Just because Fox joined the law suit doesn't mean that it wasn't just about Jim's bad behavior.

From my view the judge's ruling is fair. If you are going to make a reporter's WH access contingent on their behavior, then those expectations needs to be written down.

What I think is most disappointing is that Jim hasn't figured out what appropriate behavior in that setting is, that he couldn't curb his behavior on his own using adult levels of judgment and self control. One would think he would know given that he is an adult, his behavior not withstanding, and his years as a WH correspondent.

 

[joko104]

What you're basically arguing is that the President should have the power to block out all press or specifically punish press that ask him critical questions he doesn't like. If Obama had been attacking Fox and other right wing journalists specifically, you'd be throwing a hissy fit.

Whether you like it or not, the press has an important role to play in our democracy and Donald doesn't have a right or the power to silence him. Constitutionality: not for everyone apparently.

Obama did exactly that including having The Dallas Morning News banned from Air Force One after they didn't endorse him. He also had reporters wiretapped, their computers seized, arrested and prosecuted. But that's ok because he is black and a Democrat.

So Acosta should be allowed back into the WH, but wiretapped and his computers seized as a fair compromise, don't you think?

 

[ecofarm]

Obama did exactly that including having The Dallas Morning News banned from Air Force One after they didn't endorse him.

That was as a candidate, not President; not Air Force One but a private plane. I hope your mistake here is not dishonest and is just an oversight.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6156794&page=1

But that's ok because he is black

No, it's okay because it didn't happen. You made it up. And then you claimed your invented BS was ignored because he's black? Do you generally do this to black people?

 

[AlbqOwl]

What you're basically arguing is that the President should have the power to block out all press or specifically punish press that ask him critical questions he doesn't like. If Obama had been attacking Fox and other right wing journalists specifically, you'd be throwing a hissy fit.

Whether you like it or not, the press has an important role to play in our democracy and Donald doesn't have a right or the power to silence him. Constitutionality: not for everyone apparently.

There is zero constitutional or any other legal requirement that the President give press conferences or that there be White House briefings. The President could just as easily submit press releases or not take questions at all. Even his State of the Union address could be issued in writing and skip the ceremony.

There is zero constitutional or any other legal prohibition for the President or his agent to set the rules for how press conferences or White House briefings will be conducted.

There is zero constitutional or any other legal justification for a snarky reporter to hog a microphone and ask or say whatever he wants as long as he wants at a press conference or White House briefing.

I think President Trump could have handled that better than he did, but he did absolutely nothing illegal. The judge is wrong in this case.

 

[Gaius46]

Amendment 1 isn't really in play. 5 is because he didn't get proper process before they took away his physical pass. He still enjoys full protection of freedom of press. He just doesn't get to keep his special privileges when he can't manage the decorum the other 49 reporters did. Bear in mind some 30+ of those regularly write negatively about Trump.

Knowing all this, I would be the first to jump on the bandwagon if I owned a media outlet. I would realize it has nothing to do with Acosta being right. I would just want to get the additional ratings and praise for pretending to support the source of the sensationalism.

The CNN suit cites both the first and fifth. The TRO required that the judge only rule on the 5th.

The 1A is important and not for sensationalist reasons. Acosta may be an ass but he's an accredited journalist and arbitrarily yanking his press pass implies that the WH can yank the press passes of every reported for an an outlet it disagrees with.

 

[Keridan]

The CNN suit cites both the first and fifth. The TRO required that the judge only rule on the 5th.

The 1A is important and not for sensationalist reasons. Acosta may be an ass but he's an accredited journalist and arbitrarily yanking his press pass implies that the WH can yank the press passes of every reported for an an outlet it disagrees with.

If it were a matter of disagreement with his articles, I'd have a huge problem with it. If he had shown the same self-control of the professionals in the room, I would have had a huge problem with this. Again, most of the writers in that room don't like and trash Trump on a regular basis. They do it in their writing, though, not in the room and not while all the other reporters are waiting through the 6th question/answer. There were also something like 20+ reporters there from CNN who didn't get their passes pulled.

I think the 1st amendment is HUGELY important and would defend it all day long. The sensationalism is that taking away a very special privilege based on poor behavior being called an infringement on that sacred amendment.

This is an invitation event in the white house that only fits so many people. It's not required by the constitution (though I can't imagine any president holding office for long without it). It's a hard room to get in and I promise a 1000 people would relish the awesome advantage to get in there and are just waiting till they can.

It's so very important to clarify that this is behavior based and not based on what he writes. They did not restrict his freedom of press or speech, but took away his free access to a professional room. CNN still has plenty of representation and can send someone else to fill that seat if they feel they need it.

It's also why the due process is actually important. Sadly, we now need to outline what professional behavior is and keep to that outline. It protects the 1st amendment by saying that if you are lucky enough to get the pass, you keep it as long as you behave. Anything on that board limiting what is written or what can be asked would be a 1A violation. Kicking out someone who has been granted access and did behave as outlined would also be a violation of 1A.

I think Acosta should kick rocks. I don't support or believe it will result in kicking out folks who adult in that room but write mean articles.

I do wish there was some way to make Trump follow the same rules, but that's a whole different story.

 

[eohrnberger]

Obama did exactly that including having The Dallas Morning News banned from Air Force One after they didn't endorse him. He also had reporters wiretapped, their computers seized, arrested and prosecuted. But that's ok because he is black and a Democrat.

So Acosta should be allowed back into the WH, but wiretapped and his computers seized as a fair compromise, don't you think?

That was as a candidate, not President; not Air Force One but a private plane. I hope your mistake here is not dishonest and is just an oversight.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6156794&page=1




No, it's okay because it didn't happen. You made it up. And then you claimed your invented BS was ignored because he's black? Do you generally do this to black people?

The point is still that the Obama administration didn't have any love lost towards Fox News, and did wiretapped and seize a journalist's computers, and also froze Fox News reporters out from being called on when fielding questions from the WH press pool. Yet, Obama was given a pass on it all, seemingly.

Would you care to address this inconsistency in standards?
Would you care to address this inconsistency in the context of either president being a threat to the free press?

 

[eohrnberger]

The CNN suit cites both the first and fifth. The TRO required that the judge only rule on the 5th.

Agreed.

The 1A is important and not for sensationalist reasons. Acosta may be an ass but he's an accredited journalist and arbitrarily yanking his press pass implies that the WH can yank the press passes of every reported for an an outlet it disagrees with.

But this isn't why Acosta had his hard pass withdrawn. He had his pass withdrawn because of his behavior, not because of the content of his reporting.

If the WH were to "yank the press passes of every reported for an an outlet it disagrees with", I think the WH press pool would look completely different than what it does now.

So, no, not yanked because of content the WH disagrees with, but a single misbehaving reporter's was withdrawn because of that single reporter's behavior.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Yeah Jim Acosta,you're a "rude, terrible person"

*chuckle*

 

[ecofarm]

The point is still that the Obama administration didn't have any love lost towards Fox News, and did wiretapped and seize a journalist's computers, and also froze Fox News reporters out from being called on when fielding questions from the WH press pool. Yet, Obama was given a pass on it all, seemingly.

Would you care to address this inconsistency in standards?
Would you care to address this inconsistency in the context of either president being a threat to the free press?

A blatant lie was told about Obama. We're not debating that. You know it happened on a private plane as a candidate and not as President on Air Force One. You understand that renders the comparison meaningless. Of course, you understand all that.

The lie was compounded by claiming race excused him from the made up misdoing.

So now we have fake crimes (so to speak) that are excused for fake reasons. And it's all about black. That's a ****ing problem. So I'm gonna stop right there and not address your whines until it's resolved.

 

[eohrnberger]

A blatant lie was told about Obama. We're not debating that. You know it happened on a private plane as a candidate and not as President on Air Force One. You understand that renders the comparison meaningless. Of course, you understand all that.

The lie was compounded by claiming race excused him from the made up misdoing.

So now we have fake crimes (so to speak) that are excused for fake reasons. And it's all about black. That's a ****ing problem. So I'm gonna stop right there and not address your whines until it's resolved.

Figures. Skips out on Obama's actions, in favor of defending him.

To be fair and honest, Obama was the darling of all media because of his leftist stance and policies.
That he was the first black president to boot, well, that was just additional gravy on top, right? How dare one criticize such a historic figure.
Problem is it unveils the lefts rampant racism, once again, all by their own accord, their own actions, and their own statements.

 

[ecofarm]

Figures. Skips out on Obama's actions, in favor of defending him.

To be fair and honest, Obama was the darling of all media because of his leftist stance and policies.
That he was the first black president to boot, well, that was just additional gravy on top, right? How dare one criticize such a historic figure.
Problem is it unveils the lefts rampant racism, once again, all by their own accord, their own actions, and their own statements.

You want me to respect what you have to say when you're running interference for a blatant lie and racist conclusion? How about you have a little concern for integrity. How about you have a little concern for facts and bigotry?

And you want me to address your whines about "things aren't fair"? Boo ****ing hoo.

Do you see the irony?

 

[eohrnberger]

You want me to respect what you have to say when you're running interference for a blatant lie and racist conclusion? How about you have a little concern for integrity. How about you have a little concern for facts and bigotry?

And you want me to address your whines about "things aren't fair"? Boo ****ing hoo.

Do you see the irony?

Sorry, but I'm citing facts. Granted, you may not like some of those facts, but facts don't care about your feelings.

 

[ecofarm]

Sorry, but I'm citing facts. Granted, you may not like some of those facts, but facts don't care about your feelings.

How do you quote me and not acknowledge what happened? You think you can plow his BS narrative forward and ignore the lie and racism?

No. You acknowledge the lie and racism first. Then maybe I'll address your "whoa is me, life isn't fair" whines.

 

[What if...?]

Let me put it this way:



View attachment 67244435



And a JUDGE < the POTUS...by FAR.

Bailiff=/=intern.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Let me put it this way:



View attachment 67244435



And a JUDGE < the POTUS...by FAR.

Wow. That's some industrial-level stupid that fat sack of crap is barfing out.

The two situations are not even remotely rationally comparable.

And what's fun is you don't why that actually is.

 

[eohrnberger]

How do you quote me and not acknowledge what happened? You think you can plow his BS narrative forward and ignore the lie and racism?

No. You acknowledge the lie and racism first. Then maybe I'll address your "whoa is me, life isn't fair" whines.

To pretend that the liberals didn't fall all over themselves that Obama was elected as the first black president is not factual, because they did.
It's a fact. It is neither racist, nor bigoted. It is simply a fact. It is as much of a fact that this was a historic moment as well, to be the first black president. There's no denying this either.

To deny fact that the left was fawning all over Obama, you might as well try and pretend that Obama wasn't the first black president, so good luck with that.

Further, the Obama administration did indeed conduct surveillance, wiretapping, and property seizures against a journalist, one who happened to be employed at Fox News at the time. Again. This is simply a fact.

Not sure why you are objecting to facts. I find this rather weird.

The topic or question under discussion is what actions have the Trump administration taken to threaten the press or its freedom, and how does that compare to the action that Obama's administration did take?

Even this topic is a bit of a straying from this threads topic, which is the judge's ruling on CNN's law suit they filed on behalf of Acasta.

As I posted, the ruling wasn't on any 1st amendment question (free speech and free press), it was on a 5th amendment (due process), in that if there are expectations of reporter's behavior while in the WH press corp in order to ensure continued access they need to be documented.

Also as posted, I say fair, and expressed the viewpoint that the administration carefully consider these rules, as they will have set a precedent for the future, and they should be wisely structured and worded.

Now you are all caught up.

 

[ecofarm]

As if.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

It has nothing to do with challenging Trump, and has everything to do with Jim's bad, discourteous, rude, self aggrandizing and inappropriate behavior.

You’re entitled to your wrong opinion about the need to challenge Trump. I do agree, however, that Acosta was out of line when he refused to relinquish the mic. As for “bad, discourteous, rude, self aggrandizing and inappropriate behavior” goes, no journalist comes anywhere near Trump’s dispicable behavior.

Citing facts not in evidence. The rules haven't even been made public yet. You don't know anything about them and are just projecting.

Wrong again. Predicting, based on Trump and his administration’s way of doing business. Just wait, when the new rules come out they will be restrictive and will likely be challenged in court.

Meh. Whatever.

“Meh. Whatever.” now, waaaaah!!! later. :thumbs: