U.S. judge to hold hearing on CNN White House lawsuit

By David Shepardson and Doina Chiacu

 

FILE PHOTO: A White House staff member reaches for the microphone held by CNN's Jim Acosta as he questions U.S. President Donald Trump during a news conference following Tuesday's midterm U.S. congressional elections at the White House in Washington, U.S., November 7, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge said he would hold a hearing on Wednesday on CNN's lawsuit against the Trump administration seeking the speedy reinstatement of press credentials for White House correspondent Jim Acosta, a frequent target of President Donald Trump.

 

In its lawsuit filed on Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Washington, the cable news network said the White House violated the First Amendment right to free speech as well as the due process clause of the Constitution providing fair treatment through judicial process.

 

The network asked for a temporary restraining order.

 

Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, dismissed the action as "just more grandstanding from CNN, and we will vigorously defend against this lawsuit."

 

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly on Tuesday ordered the Trump administration to respond to the lawsuit by 11 a.m. (1600 GMT) on Wednesday and he set a hearing for 3:30 p.m. (2030 GMT) that day on the request for a restraining order. Kelly, a former lawyer for the Senate Judiciary Committee, was nominated to the bench by Trump last year.

 

The White House revoked Acosta's credentials last week in an escalation of the Republican president's attacks on the news media, which he has dubbed the "enemy of the people."

 

Trump has intensified his criticism of the reporters who cover him, making personal jabs in response to questions he does not like, including those about Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe of whether his campaign worked with Russia to sway the 2016 presidential election. Trump denies any collusion took place.

 

CNN, and Acosta in particular, have been regular targets of the president.

 

The day after the Nov. 6 congressional elections, Trump erupted into anger during a news conference when Acosta questioned him about the Russia probe and a migrant caravan travelling through Mexico.

 

"That's enough, that's enough," Trump told Acosta last Wednesday, as a White House intern attempted to take the microphone away from the correspondent. "You are a rude, terrible person."

 

The White House suspended his credentials later that day, with Sanders alleging that Acosta had put his hands on the intern who was trying to take the microphone from him. Videos of the encounter show Acosta pulling back as the intern moved to take the microphone.

 

'COULD HAVE HAPPENED TO ANYONE'

"While the suit is specific to CNN and Acosta, this could have happened to anyone," CNN said in a statement. "If left unchallenged, the actions of the White House would create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials."

 

The lawsuit noted that Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday there "could be others also."

 

Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for CNN and Acosta, said the White House was punishing Acosta for the contents of his reporting. "The White House cannot be permitted to cast out and punish reporters with whom it disagrees," CNN said in its court filing.

 

The White House Correspondents Association said revoking Acosta's credentials was a disproportionate reaction to what happened at the news conference.

 

"The President of the United States should not be in the business of arbitrarily picking the men and women who cover him," it said.

 

U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler, who is likely to become the Democratic chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee in January, supported the CNN lawsuit.

 

"@CNN is right to fight back against the cynical, unfair, and authoritarian treatment of @Acosta for doing his job," he said in a Twitter post.

 

(Reporting by David Shepardson and Doina Chiacu; Additional reporting by Jeff Mason and Roberta Rampton; Editing by Bernadette Baum and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-11-14

There is a precedent for CNN's suit from the 70s but that was largely procedural. His rights were not infringed. He has no constitutional right to be allowed at a press conference.

Personally I would let him attend but seat him right at the back and not ever give him the microphone.

10 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

There is a precedent for CNN's suit from the 70s but that was largely procedural. His rights were not infringed. He has no constitutional right to be allowed at a press conference.

 

So did you attend Law School as well?

 

You do realize that the difference between U.S. Code and the Constitution?

 

Without accepted published rules and associated punishments, we'll devolve into some banana-republic-y country, obeying the whims of the ruler and his sycophants.

 

What did he do, exactly, which required the Secret Service to revoke his pass? Why were similar, general and vague, threats made against other journalists?

 

At least the "Discovery" process will be interesting.

 

 

2 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

You do realize that the difference between U.S. Code and the Constitution?

CNN are arguing that his 1st and 5th were impinged upon.

45 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

CNN are arguing that his 1st and 5th were impinged upon.

 

Great question!  

 

CNN has put the text of the actual filed complaint on the Internet, which I have linked below.

 

Scroll down to the lower part of the complaint.  There you can read the causes of action, of which there are three.  As you have stated, CNN alleges that their First and Fifth Amendment rights were violated, which are the first two causes of action, respectively.  

 

However, the third stated cause of action cites a US Code section, viz., 5 USC sec. 706.  That's not part of the Constitution, but it is a federal statute.  That's a law passed by the US Congress.  

 

50 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

You do realize that the difference between U.S. Code and the Constitution?

 

PS, for whatever it means to us, the third cause of action states that it is against all defendants except Trump.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/13/media/cnn-sues-trump-full-complaint/index.html

Edited November 14, 20187 yr by helpisgood
typo and added PS

34 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

So did you attend Law School as well?

 

You do realize that the difference between U.S. Code and the Constitution?

 

Without accepted published rules and associated punishments, we'll devolve into some banana-republic-y country, obeying the whims of the ruler and his sycophants.

 

What did he do, exactly, which required the Secret Service to revoke his pass? Why were similar, general and vague, threats made against other journalists?

 

At least the "Discovery" process will be interesting.

 

 

Clearly you never went to law school, nor do you know what your talking about. 

8 minutes ago, Penicillin said:

Clearly you never went to law school

 

I never said, or implied, that I did.

 

 

 

On the plus side, Trump didn't ring up MbS and have the reporter "dissolved".

 

 

1 hour ago, DoctorG said:

There is a precedent for CNN's suit from the 70s but that was largely procedural. His rights were not infringed. He has no constitutional right to be allowed at a press conference.

Seems someone who definitively went to law school disagrees with you:

 

https://www.wsls.com/news/politics/lawyer-cnn-should-sue-the-white-house-over-acosta-access

Solution is to put CNN in charge of handing out credentials, enough of the Secret Service handling that task.

4 minutes ago, Becker said:

Seems someone who definitively went to law school disagrees with you:

 

https://www.wsls.com/news/politics/lawyer-cnn-should-sue-the-white-house-over-acosta-access

If it is OK with you, I will wait to see what the court says as I can easily find a lawyer who will say the opposite to yours as quoted.

3 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

If it is OK with you, I will wait to see what the court says as I can easily find a lawyer who will say the opposite to yours as quoted.

It's OK with me - go ahead.

48 minutes ago, helpisgood said:

PS, for whatever it means to us, the third cause of action states that it is against all defendants except Trump.

 

The President is, more or less, "above the law" while in office.

 

All others, maybe save the VP, are subject to the laws of the land, for now anyway.

How is it possible that the White House can't take away press passes to the White House? 

Accosta (the accoster) is rude and totally disrespectful and represents a dying new organization. I am sure there are thousands of journalists that would gladly take his spot.

Edited November 14, 20187 yr by canuckamuck

Just Donald trying to avoid answering questions and intimidate the rest of the press just another attack on our constitution you know the one he swore to uphold what did you expect he is a pathological liar

26 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

How is it possible that the White House can't take away press passes to the White House? 

 

That appears to be the crux of the matter.

 

Assuming there are rules, and remedies and redresses, then perhaps they can.

 

However, the capriciousness of revocation of the "hard pass" (not a press pass per se), and the various/sundry "reasons" (Bill Shine, Sarah Sanders, Kellyanne Conway) publicly given, and "doctored" videos re-tweeted, would support that this was not a rational, well-thought-out act. Additionally, there is some talk that there was some pre-planning to lure Acosta into a situation. That of course, will come out in hearings.

 

I think most Americans, with a tad of common sense, can see that depriving anyone of gainful employment in the position of their choice is, without appeal, well, un-American.

 

 

28 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

I think most Americans, with a tad of common sense, can see that depriving anyone of gainful employment in the position of their choice is, without appeal, well, un-American.

 

 

I would think that very few people would consider access to the President on a regular basis to be a right, but rather a privilege.

9 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I would think that very few people would consider access to the President on a regular basis to be a right, but rather a privilege.

 

Of course, it is an "individual" privilege, and not a "right", you don't have to be a genius to figure that out.

 

The underlying "rights" apply broadly re: the First and Fifth Amendments.

 

The question remains, how is a "privilege" revoked, within the scope of the law.

 

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5095849/cnn- acosta-trump-complaint.pdf

 

 

I can see a temporary injunction, allowing Mr. Acosta to return to work, and the "government" pursuing the case, or dropping it.

 

This seems like a silly waste of time but suspect the president is feeling very scared right now, so staff have to throw him a bone or two to keep him from completely losing it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

How is it possible that the White House can't take away press passes to the White House? 

Accosta (the accoster) is rude and totally disrespectful and represents a dying new organization. I am sure there are thousands of journalists that would gladly take his spot.

Accosta (the accoster) is rude and totally disrespectful.

 

Following the 'example' set by Trump?

10 minutes ago, freebyrd said:

Accosta (the accoster) is rude and totally disrespectful.

 

Following the 'example' set by Trump?

 

I suspect canuckamuck doesn't play "irony"?

 

I can do anything I want, just start kissing them and grab them by the microphone.

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

I suspect canuckamuck doesn't play "irony"?

 

I can do anything I want, just start kissing them and grab them by the microphone.

 

 

 

 

Addressing any world leader should be accompanied by a certain level of decorum. Obama was shown respect by the very few journalist that represent the right.

10 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Addressing any world leader should be accompanied by a certain level of decorum. Obama was shown respect by the very few journalist that represent the right.

Decorum, like respect, is earned. You don’t give it, you don’t get it. Duh.

 

I was particularly intrigued by the “decorum” shown by 45 on his visit with HRH QE.

Edited November 14, 20187 yr by mikebike

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

How is it possible that the White House can't take away press passes to the White House? 

They can... following a reasonable process, as has been outlined in the complaint.

 

no reasonable process was followed, ergo the complaint against A45

 

The lack of a reasonable process... or transparent process. (Or lack of use of the process, over unilateral or ad hoc actions).. should be of concern to all Americans, regardless of personal opinion of Jim Acosta or CNN.

 

More MAGA embarrassment on its way.... ????????????

3 hours ago, DoctorG said:

There is a precedent for CNN's suit from the 70s but that was largely procedural.

The importance of this case is understated to the current denial of a press credential.

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.

https://www.nbc26.com/news/national/cnn-sues-trump-administration-seeking-restoration-of-jim-acostas-hard-press-pass

This precedent is why the CNN lawsuit is alleging a violation of the Fifth Amendment right to due process.

4 hours ago, DoctorG said:

There is a precedent for CNN's suit from the 70s but that was largely procedural. His rights were not infringed. He has no constitutional right to be allowed at a press conference.

Personally I would let him attend but seat him right at the back and not ever give him the microphone.

I think  acosta must apology  to the reporters, staffer and the POTUS for acting  unethical and ill mannered  .During that briefing 99.5 % of the participates in that press briefing all handed the mic over to the staffer without pulling away. asked questions when called on and didn't act physical!

Unfortunately these activist outburst will get worst and force what I hope to see  administered   signed waver's by all the networks to adhere to WH press decorum policy's during briefings or force the WH to have more press gaggles which only hurts the public knowledge of current events.

American's long for the news and not debates and personnel opinions directed at the President and his secretary by activist pretending to be reporters,who hog the spotlight!Just google,msm ratings plummet. Save those opinions of the accounts of the briefings for their background broadcasts back to their networks!!!!!!!!!

 

Most people don't realize that these reporters are mimicking their  liberal corporate owners views in real time! This isn't the first time a administration has forced a  news network to adhere to their reporting policy's. The press has always been a force to reckon with,and the current President is the only President in modern times to expose them and fight back, by bypassing  them through tweets and calling them out for intentional mis reporting and unethical attacks such as  in one instance, bull horning questions during  private meetings with foreign dignitary's! 

https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/09/magazine/the-president-and-the-press-corps.html

Edited November 14, 20187 yr by riclag

The White House seems to be changing their story - shocker - moving away from "he touched her inappropriately", "he was rude", to "he held the mic hostage".

 

Presumably, the idiot who handed him the mic, and the idiot who called on him, will be sacked?

4 hours ago, DoctorG said:

There is a precedent for CNN's suit from the 70s but that was largely procedural. His rights were not infringed. He has no constitutional right to be allowed at a press conference.

Personally I would let him attend but seat him right at the back and not ever give him the microphone.

Once he put his hand on that woman, he was done. He's lucky he wasn't physically removed.

10 minutes ago, Longcut said:

Once he put his hand on that woman, he was done.

 

What do you mean?

 

He was elected President.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Longcut said:

Once he put his hand on that woman

It was a doctored video, fake news ... SOP for Trump's administration.

White House press secretary uses fake Infowars video to justify banning CNN reporter

Looking back at the video, it does not in fact show Acosta “placing his hands” on the woman.

But about 90 minutes after she posted her string of tweets, Infowars editor Paul Joseph Watson tweeted out a video of the incident that was doctored to make it look like Acosta chopped the woman’s arm with his hand.

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/8/18074966/sarah-sanders-infowars-cnn-jim-acosta-banned

Edited November 14, 20187 yr by Srikcir
add italics

16 minutes ago, Longcut said:

Once he put his hand on that woman, he was done. He's lucky he wasn't physically removed.

 

You did see the doctored tape released by Sarah Huck and  the corresponding explanation as to how it was doctored didn't you?    And going by memory, did he put his "hand" on the woman?

3 hours ago, farcanell said:

If you were liberal.... maybe you would think to fact check your facts....I don’t know, but I’m thinking your post is “fake news”

 

btw... I only fact checked the glaringly obvious, and extrapolated outwards, perhaps erroneously concluding your other points were as inaccurate as the bulk of your post

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/not-real-news-a-look-at-what-didnt-happen-this-week/2018/11/09/c05a21da-e45b-11e8-ba30-a7ded04d8fac_story.html

Usually, it's so easy to refute Trumpist fake news that it nearly takes the fun out of it. ????