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

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been reported and removed. 

[ParadiseLost]

Was the WH tame hippopotamus' use of an altered video to slander Acosta not mentioned?

 

Will/can there be a slander suit?

Edited November 14, 2018 by ParadiseLost
Or is it libel?

[GroveHillWanderer]

8 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

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

 

They can, but only if they follow due process - which they didn't.

 

This was summed up in the 1977 case where a correspondent's press pass was revoked, as follows j

 

Quote

the interest of a bona fide Washington correspondent in obtaining a White House press pass is protected by the first amendment. This first amendment interest undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment. We think that notice to the unsuccessful applicant of the factual bases for denial with an opportunity to rebut is a minimum prerequisite for ensuring that the denial is indeed in furtherance of Presidential protection, rather than based on arbitrary or less than compelling reasons. 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

And to be clear, that quotation above was not just an opinion from one of the lawyers, or someone commenting on the case, that was part of the final ruling issued by a 3-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. So unless something very unusual happens, I would be amazed if the legal precedent set by that ruling, is not upheld in this case.

[freebyrd]

8 hours 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.

Indeed, when they behave like statesmen and not a moron.

[helpisgood]

1 hour ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

They can, but only if they follow due process - which they didn't.

 

This was summed up in the 1977 case where a correspondent's press pass was revoked, as follows j

 

 

 

Thanks for the great find!

 

For those more interested, the language comes from the court's opinion in the case of Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F. 2d 124 (DC).  It was decided by a D.C. Circuit Court; thus, the only court higher in its jurisdiction is the US Supreme Court.  

 

The Supreme Court could possibly overrule it, if the CNN case goes that high.  But, I am not sure if that would happen.  Otherwise, the conventional wisdom is that no other DC Circuit court will overrule it.  Yet still, the defendants in the CNN case will try, I think, to distinguish their case from the Sherrill case.  I am not sure how effective that may be though.  

 

Anyway, the Sherrill court's opinion is not that long and can be found at the following link:

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/569/124/35083/

Edited November 14, 2018 by helpisgood
added 3rd para.

[Chomper Higgot]

So a judge gets to look into the WH decision to remove Acosta’s press pass, to examine the WH claims and the WH statements on this matter.

 

And of course the WH claims wrt the doctored video.

 

 

What’s not to like.

[farcanell]

38 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

Why is easy, he's not a liberal 

Glad to see you engaged your critical thinking lobe.... although I suspect it’s malfunctioning.... perhaps a lobotomy might help with that.

 

edit in... lol... a late realization.... the lobotomy has already been performed whilst getting trumpified.

Edited November 14, 2018 by farcanell

[joecoolfrog]

9 hours 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.

Obama earned the respect he was shown. Trump is a typical bully , gives it out but can't take it.

[joecoolfrog]

47 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

Why is easy, he's not a liberal 

Oh stop deluding yourself , Trump is a pig and that is the reason he gets a bad press.

[Slip]

9 hours 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.

I posted a response to this showing how much nonsense you are talking but unfortunately it was deleted as being off topic.  For you to try to suggest that there are few right leaning journalists is as preposterous as trying to claim that Obama was treated with any respect whatsoever by the right wing press.

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, webfact said:

the cable news network said the White House violated the First Amendment right to free speech

LOL x a million.

It would only violate the right to free speech if the White House banned the network, and probably not even then, as long as other reporters were able to get info from the government.

I guess it's just good to generate viewers though.

BTW, CNN has to be one of the worst networks on the air, IMO. Al Jazeera is far and away superior in every way with it's standard of news reporting. Even RT is better.

 

 

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

 

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It would only violate the right to free speech if the White House banned the network, and probably not even then, as long as other reporters were able to get info from the government.

Which may explain why CNN isn't suing for violation of the First Amendment but rather for violation of the Fifth Amendment - right to due process. See my Post #23.

[DoctorG]

23 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Which may explain why CNN isn't suing for violation of the First Amendment but rather for violation of the Fifth Amendment - right to due process. See my Post #23.

This is directly from CNNs site -

The suit alleges that Acosta and CNN's First and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated by the ban.

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL x a million.

It would only violate the right to free speech if the White House banned the network, and probably not even then, as long as other reporters were able to get info from the government.

I guess it's just good to generate viewers though.

BTW, CNN has to be one of the worst networks on the air, IMO. Al Jazeera is far and away superior in every way with it's standard of news reporting. Even RT is better.

 

 

Wow! You don't like CNN. Given your harsh views of Donald Trump, who could ever have guessed that?

[Srikcir]

12 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

This is directly from CNNs site -

The suit alleges that Acosta and CNN's First and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated by the ban.

Works for me.

[mtls2005]

Fox News to file Amicus Brief in Support of CNN

 

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/fox-news-stands-with-cnn-passes-for-working-white-house-journalists-should-never-be-weaponized

 

Fox News announced on Wednesday that it supports CNN’s efforts to restore Jim Acosta’s White House credential after the network filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration.

 

“Fox News supports CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credential. We intend to file an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court. Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the president and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people,” Fox News President Jay Wallace said in a statement.

[Srikcir]

21 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Fox News announced on Wednesday that it supports CNN’s efforts to restore Jim Acosta’s White House credential after the network filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration.

Not the position solely by the "fake news" media.

More than a dozen news outlets -- from

• the Associated Press to USA Today, The Washington Post and Politico --
• The Associated Press, Bloomberg, First Look Media, Gannett, NBC News, The New York Times, Politico, USA Today, the National Press Club Journalism Institute, the Press Freedom Defense Fund, and the E.W. Scripps Company ---

are filing friend-of-the-court briefs to support CNN and Jim Acosta's lawsuit against President Trump and several top aides.

President of Fox News Jay Wallace said this case is about the free press.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/14/media/cnn-lawsuit-support/index.html

[mtls2005]

DoJ's response to the TRO...

 

On November 7, 2018, the White House revoked the “hard pass” of CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta—the pass that permitted him broad, on-demand access to the White House grounds—following an incident in which he disrupted the fair and orderly administration of a press conference during an exchange with the President. That discretionary decision was lawful. The President and White House possess the same broad discretion to regulate access to the White House for journalists (and other members of the public) that they possess to select which journalists receive interviews, or which journalists they acknowledge at press conferences. Plaintiffs deny that this broad discretion exists, but under even their curtailed view of the White House’s authority, revoking Mr. Acosta’s pass was permissible. That revocation was premised on stated reasons that are viewpoint- and content-neutral and are evident from the video of the November 7 press conference. Because the White House’s decision comports with the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause, and because Plaintiffs have fallen short of the high showing necessary for the extraordinary remedy of emergency relief, the motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied.

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5113295/11-14-18-US-Oppo-CNN-TRO-Motion.pdf

[Becker]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL x a million.

It would only violate the right to free speech if the White House banned the network, and probably not even then, as long as other reporters were able to get info from the government.

I guess it's just good to generate viewers though.

BTW, CNN has to be one of the worst networks on the air, IMO. Al Jazeera is far and away superior in every way with it's standard of news reporting. Even RT is better.

 

 

"LOL x a million." What are you, 8 years old? The whole issue is before a judge now, let's hear what he/she has to say.

 

BTW, I'm not surprised that a base man-child supporter would prefer RT to CNN. Just yet another example of how far gone you lot are.

Sad, really.

[GroveHillWanderer]

15 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It would only violate the right to free speech if the White House banned the network, and probably not even then, as long as other reporters were able to get info from the government.

So what part of the 1997 Court of Appeals judgement, where it said, "the interest of a bona fide Washington correspondent in obtaining a White House press pass is protected by the first amendment," did you not understand?

 

The clearly-established legal precedent contained in this ruling makes it evident that it is the individual reporter's rights that are being infringed, not the network's.

 

[Srikcir]

12 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

That revocation was premised on stated reasons that are viewpoint- and content-neutral and are evident from the video of the November 7 press conference.

The White House making a unilateral decision and carrying out the consequences is not Due Process under the Constitution.

"Look at the video" is not Due Process.

[stevenl]

9 hours ago, Srikcir said:

The White House making a unilateral decision and carrying out the consequences is not Due Process under the Constitution.

"Look at the video" is not Due Process.

Your post gives a totally incorrect impression of the post you quoted, since you omitted the first line 'DoJ response'.

Edited November 16, 2018 by stevenl

[Nyezhov]

My take:

 

1. Any administration has the right to ban individual reporters from entering the White House Press Room.

2. Any administration has no right to ban accredited News Orgs from the White House Press Room.

3. Acosta is a rude, boorish, egotistical, grandstanding, self promoting talking head who is nothing more than a commentator instead of a reporter.

4. President Trump is a rude, boorish, egotistical, grandstanding, self promoting politician who revels in controversy.

5. CNNs survival as the lowest rated cable news network depends on controversies like this.

6. President Trumps base loves controversies like this.

7. Acosta was out of line. The intern was only doing her job.

8. Acosta should have apologized for his behavior TOWARDS the intern, and upon that apology, his pass should have been returned.

9. But neither party will compromise for their own reasons (see 5 and 6 above). CNN now gets to present itself of the Champion of Press Freedom to its base in defending an a**hole, the Administration gets to demonstrate to tits base that they wont be pushed around by the purveyors of fake news.

10. Hard cases make bad law.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

My take:

 

1. Any administration has the right to ban individual reporters from entering the White House Press Room.

2. Any administration has no right to ban accredited News Orgs from the White House Press Room.

3. Acosta is a rude, boorish, egotistical, grandstanding, self promoting talking head who is nothing more than a commentator instead of a reporter.

4. President Trump is a rude, boorish, egotistical, grandstanding, self promoting politician who revels in controversy.

5. CNNs survival as the lowest rated cable news network depends on controversies like this.

6. President Trumps base loves controversies like this.

7. Acosta was out of line. The intern was only doing her job.

8. Acosta should have apologized for his behavior TOWARDS the intern, and upon that apology, his pass should have been returned.

9. But neither party will compromise for their own reasons (see 5 and 6 above). CNN now gets to present itself of the Champion of Press Freedom to its base in defending an a**hole, the Administration gets to demonstrate to tits base that they wont be pushed around by the purveyors of fake news.

10. Hard cases make bad law.

Virtually everything you wrote here is foolish but numbers 1 & 2 particularly so. If your postulates were correct,  It would in effect vitiate an important purpose the 2nd amendment.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎11‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 1:25 PM, Srikcir said:

Which may explain why CNN isn't suing for violation of the First Amendment but rather for violation of the Fifth Amendment - right to due process. See my Post #23.

IMO there is no constitutional grounds for banning any individual from the WH press briefings, given there is ( I assume, as there would have been no such activity back when they wrote the constitution ) no constitutional right to have the briefings in the first place.

As long as the government allows access to reporters, that is, IMO, all they are obliged to do. Otherwise, they would have to allow any ratbag reporter that is rude, obnoxious and given to distorting the information s/he was given to attend.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

So what part of the 1997 Court of Appeals judgement, where it said, "the interest of a bona fide Washington correspondent in obtaining a White House press pass is protected by the first amendment," did you not understand?

The appeals court can make any ruling it likes, but it is only the SCOTUS that can make definitive rulings. Was that case heard by the SCOTUS?

I do not see that the constitution guarantees any individual a right to attend any hearings of any organisation. That would infringe the rights of the other party as to whom they talk to, OR, are you saying there is no right to refuse to be reported on by an individual that one does not want to reported on by?

[mikebike]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The appeals court can make any ruling it likes, but it is only the SCOTUS that can make definitive rulings. Was that case heard by the SCOTUS?

I do not see that the constitution guarantees any individual a right to attend any hearings of any organisation. That would infringe the rights of the other party as to whom they talk to, OR, are you saying there is no right to refuse to be reported on by an individual that one does not want to reported on by?

You may misunderstand how the law works in the USA...

 

Until a case is brought to, and adjudicated by, the SCOTUS the appellate court decision IS considered the president to be followed.

 

Precedent, is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

 

You’re welcome.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

You may misunderstand how the law works in the USA...

 

Until a case is brought to, and adjudicated by, the SCOTUS the appellate court decision IS considered the president to be followed.

 

Precedent, is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

 

You’re welcome.

Fair enough, but did the SCOTUS hear that case?