U.S. judge orders White House to restore press pass to CNN's Acosta

[rooster59]

U.S. judge orders White House to restore press pass to CNN's Acosta

By Jan Wolfe

 

CNN correspondent Jim Acosta makes his way past colleagues as he returns to the White House after the reinstatement of his White House press credential in Washington, U.S., November 16, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Friday ordered the White House to temporarily restore CNN correspondent Jim Acosta's press pass, which was revoked after a contentious press conference last week with President Donald Trump.

 

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

 

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who is hearing CNN's lawsuit challenging the revocation, said Acosta's credentials must be restored while the network's case is pending.

 

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement that Acosta's credentials would be temporarily restored.

 

"Let's go back to work," Acosta said to reporters after the hearing.

 

But Trump said that "people have to behave" and warned of future court action against reporters who do not.

 

"If they don't listen to the rules and regulations, we'll end up back in court and we'll win," Trump said on Friday. "But more importantly, we'll just leave. And then you won't be very happy, because we do get good ratings."

 

CNN said in a statement on Friday that it "looked forward to a full resolution in the coming days".

 

In its lawsuit filed on Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Washington, CNN 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.

 

Kelly, a Trump appointee, did not address the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech and the press, focussing instead on the due process provision.

 

"Whatever process occurred within the government is still so shrouded in mystery that the government at oral argument could not tell me who made the initial decision to revoke Mr. Acosta's press pass," Kelly said in his verbal ruling.

 

In court, U.S. government lawyers said there is no First Amendment right of access to the White House and that Acosta was penalized for acting rudely at the conference and not for his criticisms of the president.

 

The judge said White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders' initial statement that Acosta was penalized for touching a White House staffer attempting to remove his microphone was "likely untrue and at least partly based on evidence that was of questionable accuracy."

 

The day after the Nov. 6 congressional elections, Trump erupted into anger during the 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, as a White House staffer attempted to take the microphone away from the correspondent. "You are a rude, terrible person."

 

Sanders had accused Acosta of "placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern" and of preventing other reporters from asking questions at the news conference. She called his behaviour "absolutely unacceptable."

 

Videos of the encounter show Acosta pulling back as the staffer moved to take the microphone at the press conference.

 

On Friday, Sanders said the White House "will also further develop rules and processes to ensure fair and orderly press conferences in the future. There must be decorum at the White House."

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-11-17

 

[canuckamuck]

Obviously they need to redefine the rules for the press corp since they no longer have any respect. It should be similar to a court of law, where someone like Acosta could be shown to be in contempt. No legal charges for what he did, but removal and bans should be available. 

[candide]

34 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

"Whatever process occurred within the government is still so shrouded in mystery that the government at oral argument could not tell me who made the initial decision to revoke Mr. Acosta's press pass," Kelly said in his verbal ruling.

Well, some of us have a very precise idea of who made this decision! ????

Edited November 16, 2018 by candide

[Samui Bodoh]

36 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Obviously they need to redefine the rules for the press corp since they no longer have any respect. It should be similar to a court of law, where someone like Acosta could be shown to be in contempt. No legal charges for what he did, but removal and bans should be available. 

Respectfully, this is pure nonsense.

 

The right to have contempt for the President is in the First amendment of the US constitution. Further, the White House is the People's house and belongs to them, not the current occupant. Finally, freedom of the press is in the constitution; if you want the President to have the power to limit that, amend the constitution.

 

Notwithstanding the above, I do agree that some respect is needed. However, respect is a two-way street, and if one side refers to the press as "enemies of the people" in a flagrant attempt to discredit them, they should expect some push back; It isn't rocket science.

 

As the old adage goes, "You Reap What You Sow".

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2018 by Samui Bodoh

[sirineou]

31 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Obviously they need to redefine the rules for the press corp since they no longer have any respect. It should be similar to a court of law, where someone like Acosta could be shown to be in contempt. No legal charges for what he did, but removal and bans should be available. 

Respect is earned not given, Do you think Trump has earned respect?

You of course could correctly argue that it is not respect for Trump but for the office, which validates my opinion why among other things why Trump's presidency is so corrosive.

  He diminishes the institution of the presidency.       

[mtls2005]

Sarah Huckabee Sanders:

 

“Today, the court made clear that there is no absolute First Amendment right to access the White House,” Sanders said. “In response to the court, we will temporarily reinstate the reporter’s hard pass. We will also further develop rules and processes to ensure fair and orderly press conferences in the future.”

 

“There must be decorum at the White House,” she concluded.

 

/irony off

 

 

 

 

Trump learns new word: "decorum". Let's see if he can exhibit any? Or is that a "Stupid" question?

 

 

 

 

 

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Respectfully, this is pure nonsense.

 

The right to have contempt for the President is in the First amendment of the US constitution. Further, the White House is the People's house and belongs to them, not the current occupant. Finally, freedom of the press is in the constitution; if you want the President to have the power to limit that, amend the constitution.

 

Notwithstanding the above, I do agree that some respect is needed. However, respect is a two-way street, and if one side refers to the press as "enemies of the people" in a flagrant attempt to discredit them, they should expect some push back; It isn't rocket science.

 

As the old adage goes, "You Reap What You Sow".

 

 

 

For you and @sirineou My point is entirely about respecting the office of the president. Americans used to understand this concept. Something needs to be done to bring order to the interchange of press and White House. If this was Obama and it was a Fox reporter being as disruptive as Acosta, I would make the same point.

Edited November 17, 2018 by canuckamuck

[mtls2005]

5 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

My point is entirely about respecting the office of the president. Americans used to understand this concept.

 

Yes, definitely, certainly, absolutely. Except during 2008-2016. 

 

 

 

 

[Credo]

3 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

For you and @sirineou My point is entirely about respecting the office of the president. Americans used to understand this concept. Something needs to be done to bring order to the interchange of press and White House. If this was Obama and it was a Fox reporter being as disruptive as Acosta, I would make the same point.

Trump and his administration cannot talk about respect, following rules, or decorum.   If they want respect, then give respect.   They have none.   

Journalists ask questions.   Some of those are uncomfortable questions, but they need to be asked.   

 

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

For you and @sirineou My point is entirely about respecting the office of the president. Americans used to understand this concept. Something needs to be done to bring order to the interchange of press and White House. If this was Obama and it was a Fox reporter being as disruptive as Acosta, I would make the same point.

It's a fair point and one that I agree with, but as I, and others said respect is a two way street.

We don't disagree with your point , simply the cause. 

Obama did not have this problem, was it because Fox the home of the birther movement was more respectful or was it because Obama carried himself with dignity, that demanded respect?

   When I was young I came crying to my father because some older boys that i used to hung out and act up with, beat me up, my father said something that stayed with me all my life. He said "if you play grab ass don't come crying to me if someone grabs your ass" It took me a litle to understand it, but it stuck with me,

So the pusy graber should not cry when someone grabs him by the pusy.

  

 

[Chomper Higgot]

But Trump said that "people have to behave" and warned of future court action against reporters who do not.

 

Evidence presented in such court actions will include doctored video footage.

[DoctorG]

27 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But Trump said that "people have to behave" and warned of future court action against reporters who do not.

 

Evidence presented in such court actions will include doctored video footage.

Getting a bit tired of this "doctored video" crap. Yet to see any evidence.

This from Vice (a Left organisation) -

Despite speculation to the contrary, at least one forensic expert doesn’t believe the video was doctored. 

[Berkshire]

9 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

Getting a bit tired of this "doctored video" crap. Yet to see any evidence.

This from Vice (a Left organisation) -

Despite speculation to the contrary, at least one forensic expert doesn’t believe the video was doctored. 

Getting tired of Trumpets ignoring facts staring them in the face. I've seen the actual video and the doctored video. Indisputable.

[DoctorG]

3 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Getting tired of Trumpets ignoring facts staring them in the face. I've seen the actual video and the doctored video. Indisputable.

Well, if you are convinced I guess that is proof.

 

[wwest5829]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

For you and @sirineou My point is entirely about respecting the office of the president. Americans used to understand this concept. Something needs to be done to bring order to the interchange of press and White House. If this was Obama and it was a Fox reporter being as disruptive as Acosta, I would make the same point.

But, of course, your point is moot as President Obama would never have referred to the Press as the enemy of the people, nor brought such national and international distain to the office.

Edited November 17, 2018 by wwest5829

[Boon Mee]

Doesn't matter. Acosta will be thrown out of the briefing room again if he acts up. 

[bristolboy]

28 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

Getting a bit tired of this "doctored video" crap. Yet to see any evidence.

This from Vice (a Left organisation) -

Despite speculation to the contrary, at least one forensic expert doesn’t believe the video was doctored. 

And you have so much confidence in him that you don't bother to share a link or even a name.

[mtls2005]

32 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

at least one forensic expert doesn’t believe the video was doctored. 

 

Who? Quincy MD?

 

 

 

 

 

[DoctorG]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

And you have so much confidence in him that you don't bother to share a link or even a name.

Vice/Motherboard - your people, not mine. Don't be lazy.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, DoctorG said:

Vice/Motherboard - your people, not mine. Don't be lazy.

I've been through this before with other posters. Inevitably, when people like you take it too far, the mods say put up or shut up.

Intellectually honest people back up their claims.

Edited November 17, 2018 by bristolboy

[DoctorG]

2 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Who? Quincy MD?

 

 

 

 

 

The video is unavailable, so I cannot see your evidence.

Ask Vice who they referenced as the person(s) were not named.

[bristolboy]

Abba Shapiro, an independent video producer who examined the clip at the request of the Associated Press, detailed how whoever manipulated the video intentionally sped up parts of it and slowed down others to make it look like Acosta was physically aggressive with the intern.

From the AP:

The tweeted video also does not have any audio, which Shapiro said would make it easier to alter. It’s also unlikely the differences could be explained by technical glitches or by video compression — a reduction in a video’s size to enable it to play more smoothly on some sites — because the slowing of the video and the acceleration that followed are “too precise to be an accident,” said Shapiro, who trains instructors to use video editing software.

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/9/18079348/trump-doctored-acosta-video

[DoctorG]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I've been through this before with other posters. Inevitably, when people like you take it too far, the mods say put up or shut up.

Intellectually honest people back up their claims.

What do you mean "take it too far"? All I asked is that someone actually support the use of "doctored". So far nobody has. [Intellectually honest people back up their claims]

I have seen the original and a slow moed/zoomed version. I do not contend that he assaulted her, that is ridiculous, but he cannot say he did not touch her.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

What do you mean "take it too far"? All I asked is that someone actually support the use of "doctored". So far nobody has. [Intellectually honest people back up their claims]

I have seen the original and a slow moed/zoomed version. I do not contend that he assaulted her, that is ridiculous, but he cannot say he did not touch her.

I just cited evidence with a  that the video was doctored. You make an assertion to the contrary about contrary evidence but when questioned about the source tell me to look it up for myself. And you accuse me of being lazy! That's quite a low standard you hold yourself to.

Edited November 17, 2018 by bristolboy

[DoctorG]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Abba Shapiro, an independent video producer who examined the clip at the request of the Associated Press, detailed how whoever manipulated the video intentionally sped up parts of it and slowed down others to make it look like Acosta was physically aggressive with the intern.

From the AP:

The tweeted video also does not have any audio, which Shapiro said would make it easier to alter. It’s also unlikely the differences could be explained by technical glitches or by video compression — a reduction in a video’s size to enable it to play more smoothly on some sites — because the slowing of the video and the acceleration that followed are “too precise to be an accident,” said Shapiro, who trains instructors to use video editing software.

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/9/18079348/trump-doctored-acosta-video

Thank you. Paul Joseph Watson has done a youtube rebuttal of this which purports to show a speed bar not altering. I am not technical enough to know if this is correct or not.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, DoctorG said:

Thank you. Paul Joseph Watson has done a youtube rebuttal of this which purports to show a speed bar not altering. I am not technical enough to know if this is correct or not.

For those who might not know, Paul Joseph Watson is the editor-at-large of.......wait for it....Infowars. Infowars provided the doctored video.

 

[DoctorG]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

For those who might not know, Paul Joseph Watson is the editor-at-large of.......wait for it....Infowars. Infowars provided the doctored video.

 

Thought you might come back with that but guess you didn't feel the need to say that Vox is far left.

[mtls2005]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

For those who might not know, Paul Joseph Watson is the editor-at-large of.......wait for it....Infowars. Infowars provided the doctored video.

 

Yes, it always struck me as odd that Sarah Huckabilly Sanders had to source a video from Infowars. Surely the WH or CSPAN has video which is "unenhanced"?

 

 

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, DoctorG said:

Thought you might come back with that but guess you didn't feel the need to say that Vox is far left.

So you trust the person who doctored the video with his claim he didn't alter it, despite clear proof it was altered.

[neeray]

28 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

Doesn't matter. Acosta will be thrown out of the briefing room again if he acts up. 

Acosta was not "acting up". He was just doing his job, honestly, of getting at the facts on behalf of the honest network that he works for.

The Trump Whitehouse had to eat this one.