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

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎11‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 1:53 PM, bristolboy said:

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

I've hated CNN long before Trump became president. Probably as long as they have been broadcasting. Like the despised BBC, they think sport is news.

[mikebike]

27 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Fair enough, but did the SCOTUS hear that case?

It is my understanding from a cursory reading that H. Stuart KNIGHT, Director, United States Secret Service, et al., accepted the decision and did not pursue it any further.

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

Until a case is brought to, and adjudicated by, the SCOTUS

A case doesn't even have to be adjudicated by the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS can simply reject the case that has the effect of sustaining the Appeals ruling.

With regard to the Robert Sherrill v. H. Stuart Knight, Director, United States Secret Service, et
al., Appellants case (569 F.2d 124, 186 U.S.App.D.C. 293, 3 Media L. Rep. 1514) I find no SCOTUS reference of a case decision nor even a submittal of the case for appeal to SCOTUS.

Part of the District Appeals Court ruling :

• We agree with the District Court that both first and fifth amendment concerns are heavily implicated in this case.¹⁴ We conclude, however, that neither of these concerns requires the articulation of detailed criteria upon which the granting or denial of White House press passes is to be based.
• We further conclude that notice, opportunity to rebut, and a written decision are required because the denial of a pass potentially infringes upon first amendment guarantees. Such impairment of this interest cannot be permitted to occur in the absence of adequate procedural due process.III

Some of the logic for the District Appeals ruling:

• White House press facilities having been made publicly available as a source of information for newsmen,²⁰ the protection afforded newsgathering under the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, see Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681, 707, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 829-35, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974), requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.

https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight

[Berkshire]

On 11/15/2018 at 8:47 AM, mtls2005 said:

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. 

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

Note the boldface.  So essentially, this government agency, the DOJ, using my tax dollars, is now being made to lie on behalf of our Liar-in-Chief.  Pretty disgusting.   

[Nyezhov]

38 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Note the boldface.  So essentially, this government agency, the DOJ, using my tax dollars, is now being made to lie on behalf of our Liar-in-Chief.  Pretty disgusting.   

Of course, regardless, whether or not that statement is a "lie" depends on ones point of view. And the Government is correct that Sherill does not apply to this situation.

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

Absolutely clueless comment. So you're contending that the government has the right to judge which reporter "is rude, obnoxious and given to distorting the information s/he was given to attend"

You clearly don't have a clue about the First Amendment. If the First Amendment is about anything it's about making clear that the government has no right to act on such judgments.  But if it did, how would the White House justify giving Alex Jones access to Trump?

[Srikcir]

12 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Government is correct that Sherill does not apply to this situation

The Government only focused on the Government's right to control press passes.

Sherill did focus on such issue. Following Sherill, the Trump Government acted capriciously and arbitrarily.

Furthermore, the Government did not defend its right to deny Acosta Due Process of Law guaranteed under the fifth amendment.

The Government's response to CNN's lawsuit lacked sufficient legal and comprehensive foundation to the extent that the plaintiff is likely to prevail in trial. Given the potential precedent's with CNN's lawsuit, I believe the court will rule to accept the lawsuit for trial.

[Nyezhov]

11 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The Government only focused on the Government's right to control press passes.

Sherill did focus on such issue. Following Sherill, the Trump Government acted capriciously and arbitrarily.

Furthermore, the Government did not defend its right to deny Acosta Due Process of Law guaranteed under the fifth amendment.

The Government's response to CNN's lawsuit lacked sufficient legal and comprehensive foundation to the extent that the plaintiff is likely to prevail in trial. Given the potential precedent's with CNN's lawsuit, I believe the court will rule to accept the lawsuit for trial.

Please see Footnote 23 of the Sherril decision.

[mikebike]

7 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Please see Footnote 23 of the Sherril decision.

Why stop at 23? 24 is more on point...

 

"Thus, we see no equitable impediment to our disposition of this appeal, which in effect requires changes in appellants' policies and procedures with respect to all press pass denials."

 

Bottom line: courts will decide, not TV pundits.

 

(Hmmm... didn't require a link to reply either ????)

Edited November 16, 2018 by mikebike

[riclag]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

One American's opinion ,spoken in a Presidential way

" I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents".

 This topic is about  a so called journalist and his network defending him for temporarily losing his hard pass to the White House! I don't think as a journalist acosta meets what 95% his fellow journalist adhere to.  

His opinions ,debates and challengers have gone way beyond reporting the news at press briefings

 

Edited November 16, 2018 by riclag

[Nyezhov]

2 hours ago, mikebike said:

Why stop at 23? 24 is more on point...

 

"Thus, we see no equitable impediment to our disposition of this appeal, which in effect requires changes in appellants' policies and procedures with respect to all press pass denials."

 

Bottom line: courts will decide, not TV pundits.

 

(Hmmm... didn't require a link to reply either ????)

Nope. Refers back to the intitial issue on appeal, the denial ab initio.

 

I think the Press Secretary there was Bill Moyers by the way. Robert Sherrill wrote a great biography of Lyndon Johnson "the Accidental President"... 

[mikebike]

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

This topic is about  a so called journalist and his network defending him for temporarily losing his hard pass to the White House! I don't think as a journalist acosta meets what 95% his fellow journalist adhere to.

This topic is actually about the adjudication of a lawsuit. Your opinion of the journalist himself matters not. The court's opinion on the law and precident will decide. 

[mikebike]

2 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Nope. Refers back to the intitial issue on appeal, the denial ab initio.

I have no idea what this means.

[riclag]

31 minutes ago, mikebike said:

This topic is actually about the adjudication of a lawsuit. Your opinion of the journalist himself matters not. The court's opinion on the law and precident will decide. 

First paragraph in this story,I was responding to Thaibeachlovers comment

 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.

Edited November 16, 2018 by riclag

[mtls2005]

Seems like there might be a decision on the TRO Fri, 10 AM ET?

 

[Nyezhov]

23 minutes ago, mikebike said:

I have no idea what this means.

Read the case. 

[metisdead]

An off topic trolling post been removed. 

[Srikcir]

4 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Seems like there might be a decision on the TRO Fri, 10 AM ET?

 

Judge decides with CNN, Acosta's press pass must be restored.

https://www.firstpost.com/world/judge-sides-with-cnn-says-white-house-was-wrong-to-revoke-jim-acostas-press-credentials-5564611.html

Edited November 16, 2018 by Srikcir
invalid link

[Nyezhov]

26 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Judge decides with CNN, Acosta's press pass must be restored.

https://www.firstpost.com/world/judge-sides-with-cnn-says-white-house-was-wrong-to-revoke-jim-acostas-press-credentials-5564611.html

I dont understand why President Trump even calls on him.

 

Never mind I thought of a reason.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Nyezhov

[Srikcir]

2 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

I dont understand why President Trump even calls on him.

 

Never mind I thought of a reason.

Because Trump likes to bait his "enemies?"

[sirineou]

Judge just posted a ruling and ordered to reinstate Acosta's  press pass until such time as the case is resolved.  Acosta at a press conference offered the following short statement displaying a class that is sorely missing in the White house.

"I want to thank all of my colleagues in the press who supported us this week, and I want to thank the judge for the decision he made today, Let's go back to work!

PS: I am sure Trump will say : Fake Judgeee (I am using trump voice LOL)

[Cryingdick]

Fair enough give him  his pass. Some say park him in the back and don't call on him. I think Trump should put him front and center and call him first time back. Although Trump lays down the law and puts him in his place. Any outbursts toss him out. 

 

 

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

Fair enough give him  his pass. Some say park him in the back and don't call on him. I think Trump should put him front and center and call him first time back. Although Trump lays down the law and puts him in his place. Any outbursts toss him out. 

 

 

Trump is going to comply with the recent Court ruling reinstating CNN Acosta's press pass by setting up "a certain standard" for interacting with press reporters.

Trump - "We always have the option of just leaving [the press conference]."

It's not about laying down the law but respecting the law and the Constitution.

 

[Nyezhov]

8 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Because Trump likes to bait his "enemies?"

Act=react

React=act

 

Rule 13.6(A) of politics.

[Nyezhov]

1 minute ago, Srikcir said:

Trump is going to comply with the recent Court ruling reinstating CNN Acosta's press pass by setting up "a certain standard" for interacting with press reporters.

Trump - "We always have the option of just leaving [the press conference]."

It's not about laying down the law but respecting the law and the Constitution.

 

Nothing in the constitution precludes "rules". One question per Reporter? He never needs to recognize Acosta either.

 

Here are the stats about Press interactions. Perhaps Trump should move to a controlled setting like others have done, but I think he likes to keep the reporters and press busy.

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/380663227/Presidential-Interchanges-With-Reporters-FINAL-5-30-2018

 

 

[mtls2005]

"Decorum, we must have decorum in the White House."

 

So that means he won't be calling the black women "stupid", or accuse them of asking "racist questions"?

 

Let's see how long the "decorum" lasts.

 

 

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, mtls2005 said:

So that means he won't be calling the black women "stupid", or accuse them of asking "racist questions"?

Well if the shoe fits? Stupid IS stupid, or do black folks get a pass because they are black? And black folks can't be rascist?

 

President Trump is lewd, crass, boorish, rude, cranky and obnoxious. So? I am too. So are a lot of other folks. But he calls a spade a spade as we used to say before folks screamed dog whistle. Hes no orator or diplomat, but maybe some folks like honesty. I do. Watch some real politician answer a question with the usual pap, euphemisms, slogans and what not...blecch. If you think something sucks, tell me so and why.

 

Stalin put it best:

"Words are one thing -- deeds something entirely different. Fine words are a mask to cover shady deeds." http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/ESP13.html

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Well if the shoe fits? Stupid IS stupid, or do black folks get a pass because they are black? And black folks can't be rascist?

 

President Trump is lewd, crass, boorish, rude, cranky and obnoxious. So? I am too. So are a lot of other folks. But he calls a spade a spade as we used to say before folks screamed dog whistle. Hes no orator or diplomat, but maybe some folks like honesty. I do. Watch some real politician answer a question with the usual pap, euphemisms, slogans and what not...blecch. If you think something sucks, tell me so and why.

 

Stalin put it best:

"Words are one thing -- deeds something entirely different. Fine words are a mask to cover shady deeds." http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/ESP13.html

 

 

 

This is just ridiculous. It's based on the assumption that if someone's speech is nasty and offensive, it's also honest. Yet the fact is Trump is the most massively dishonest person in public life today. No one else comes close. You, like so many other dupes, are actually victims of "truthiness."

"Truthiness is the belief or assertion that a particular statement is true based on the intuition or perceptions of some individual or individuals, without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.^[1][2] Truthiness can range from ignorant assertions of falsehoods to deliberate duplicity or propaganda intended to sway opinions.^[3][4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

[Srikcir]

10 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Stalin put it best

Stalin is your standard for sincerity?

In 1934 Dictator Stalin launched the Great Purge in which about a million people perished. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

 

[helpisgood]

1 hour ago, mtls2005 said:

"Decorum, we must have decorum in the White House."

 

So that means he won't be calling the black women "stupid", or accuse them of asking "racist questions"?

 

Let's see how long the "decorum" lasts.

 

 

 

Don't worry.  Trump's a good judge of decorum (the man on the right is a reporter):

 

Edited November 17, 2018 by helpisgood
added info