Law CNN suing trump for Jim Acosta ban

[MikeMcMann]

It really paints a clear picture of many here, doesn't it? Look at how easy it was for many of them to take the general principle of not being able to arbitrarily ban a reporter without due process as the reason for opposition to Trump's actions, and change that into some sort of endorsement of Acosta's behaviour.

As if one's opinion of Acosta personally had anything at all to do with the central argument. I'm not even American and I understood immediately the argument being put forth by @MikeMcMann and I knew CNN would be successful in its lawsuit. It's just not that fucking hard to understand if you take your head out of Trump's arse for even a moment to think about it.

Maybe is it because we are not American and not partisan that we can see it.

I never had a single doubt the WH would lose that suit. I would have bet anything as it was a slam dunk win.

The other bet I will take is that if Trump and WH try to create new rules of 'decorum' for the WH that they think will allow them to kick guys like Acosta out, in the moment, they will LOSE in court over those too. And multiple News Agencies again will join CNN suing Trump's WH.


What these guys do not understand is this not about Trump or his WH. There is a reason the Press is not only ALLOWED but at times EXPECTED to be aggressive and rude and impertinent with a politician. Why?

The 'Why', is because the Founding Fathers foresaw a risk that at times the US might have gov'ts and maybe even a POTUS who would be able to subvert and control the other checks and balances within gov't. COntrol the Senate and Congress and judiciary and basically not be able to be held to account. And in that case the Press become the last rear guard for the US democracy. They are literally the VOICE to the citizens who are the only ones then who can fix things by voting that person out.

Some may read that last paragraph as dramatic but it is exactly why they ensured the Press was protected via the Constitution and why they specifically built in NO expectation of cordiality That the Press can give as good as they get if faced with a hostile, belligerent and aggressive Politician.

And that is why Trump and his WH will lose if they try to force the Press to be lapdogs toeing the line.

 

[cincymma79]

Or, you just follow due process like someone who believes in upholding the US Constitution. What the fuck is it with you people that are so gung ho on law and order, yet you're so ready to abandon your precious constitution whenever it suits your political interests?

Honest to fuck how dumb are you fucking people that this is ok as long as it favors Trump?

Edit: And another one:

What is the due process for removing someone from a room?

 

[trac209]

What is the due process for removing someone from a room?

I assume that would be gunfire...other than that it’s gonna take a court case

 

[Beastman09]

Honestly, you Trump supports are just idiots.

Anyone with common sense knew the WH would lose the lawsuit.A federal judge(appointed by Trump), rules against the WH, and you clowns still think t that the WH is right?

 

[Amerikuracana]

Or, you just follow due process like someone who believes in upholding the US Constitution. What the fuck is it with you people that are so gung ho on law and order, yet you're so ready to abandon your precious constitution whenever it suits your political interests?

Honest to fuck how dumb are you fucking people that this is ok as long as it favors Trump?

Edit: And another one:

There are no rules for due process regarding this type of event. In the absence of law, a court in a a case that panamaican posted created what could be seen as a temporary right to a due process in the application process; requiring the government to give reason for denial.

Everybody (one side) throwing around "due process" like they know what they are talking about. Like there is some universal due process that fits all situations. It may be required, but what "it" is needs,to be defined, and then screened for constitutionality if challenged.

Yes, some form of "due process" is likely appropriate, shpukd be required, and needs to be written into law. Let's see what they come up with. But if you think that "due process" means the President of the United States cannot remove an individual reporter from his presence for a period of time, you're delusional. In order to prevent abuse of the power the President should have, a hearing (the due process you are talking about, which doesn't exist until written into law) where sides show cause needs to take place. I'm wondering who will adjudicate the hearing, etc...

There is no federal agency that I can think of to write these laws, or adjudicate these hearings, but it of course needs to be done by lawyers. I wonder who is doing it?

 

[glenwo2]

I think they do.

In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Acosta NEVER gets his Press Pass back so long as Trump is POTUS.

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/11/16/opinions/judges-ruling-in-cnn-case-a-victory-for-free-press-honig/index.html?r=https://edition.cnn.com/search/?q=Acosta
So much for "going out on a limb".


But from my understanding(and what the Judge stated), the WH is going to have to draw up some rules of conduct or what-have-you so WHEN(not IF) Acosta acts like a bitch on her period again, they'll give him his due process before ousting him Properly and there won't be a damn thing that CNN can do.

WH and Trump may have lost this battle but they'll win the War here. Acosta is on Thin ice.

 

[MikeMcMann]

There are no rules for due process regarding this type of event. In the absence of law, a court in a a case that panamaican posted created what could be seen as a temporary right to a due process in the application process; requiring the government to give reason for denial.

Everybody (one side) throwing around "due process" like they know what they are talking about. Like there is some universal due process that fits all situations. It may be required, but what "it" is needs,to be defined, and then screened for constitutionality if challenged.

Yes, some form of "due process" is likely appropriate, shpukd be required, and needs to be written into law. Let's see what they come up with. But if you think that "due process" means the President of the United States cannot remove an individual reporter from his presence for a period of time, you're delusional. In order to prevent abuse of the power the President should have, a hearing (the due process you are talking about, which doesn't exist until written into law) where sides show cause needs to take place. I'm wondering who will adjudicate the hearing, etc...

There is no federal agency that I can think of to write these laws, or adjudicate these hearings, but it of course needs to be done by lawyers. I wonder who is doing it?

What people keep missing is that yes the WH can set rules but unless there is a fundamental re-writing of the press role at a Constitutional free speech level they won't be able to stop guys like Acosta.

What people keep missing is that IT IS the press role to be adversarial when necessary and that does not involve cordiality. There is NO expectation of cordiality in that room.

So while the POTUS can refuse to hold any Press Conferences and he can just get up and leave, what he cannot do is control the Press Conference in a way that he limits the challenges that he receives. If a politician is lying, aggressive, a bully and indignant, the Press have EVERY right to meet that fire with fire. And partisan like of dislike of the politician will not impact that.

 

[oldshadow]

ROFL
Judge Orders White House to Reinstate Press Credentials for CNN's Jim Acosta
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to immediately return the White House press credentials of CNN reporter Jim Acosta.

U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly, an appointee of President Donald Trump, announced his decision following a hearing in Washington. The judge said Acosta’s credentials would be returned immediately and reactivated to allow him access to the White House.

Let's see what happens when it goes up the Court levels all the to the supreme Court.

 

[oldshadow]

Also Trump can now just refuse to call on him or answer him.

 

[glenwo2]

Let's see what happens when it goes up the Court levels all the to the supreme Court.

 

[Amerikuracana]

What people keep missing is that yes the WH can set rules but unless there is a fundamental re-writing of the press role a Constitutional free speech level.

What people keep missing is that IT IS the press role to be adversarial when necessary and that does not involve cordiality. There is NO expectation of cordiality in that room.

So while the POTUS can refuse to hold any Press Conferences and he can just get up and leave, what he cannot do is control the Press Conference in a way that he limits the challenges that he receives. If a politician is lying, aggressive, a bully and indignant, the Press have EVERY right to meet that fire with fire. And partisan like of dislike of the politician will not impact that.

Um, I get where you're coming from. But I think you can expect a certain level of cordial behavior in that particular setting. The questions should not be censored, with exception to repetitiveness, disruptive for the same of disruptive, or in a manner that pushes a narrative as opposed to seeking an answer.

If Clinton won, and some stain continually asked about benghazi week after week, with only the same answer available, and after president Clinton gives her short answer she gave the week before, the "reporter" immediately starts making statements to push his own narrative, that would be junk and I would want it to stop.

In that case, so would you.

 

[Juventud]

Leftist do not criticize other leftist no matter what.

Right wingers wouldn't even criticize a Pedo or racist in Roy Moore & Joe Arpaio.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Um, I get where you're coming from. But I think you can expect a certain level of cordial behavior in that particular setting. The questions should not be censored, with exception to repetitiveness, disruptive for the same of disruptive, or in a manner that pushes a narrative as opposed to seeking an answer.

If Clinton won, and some stain continually asked about benghazi week after week, with only the same answer available, and after president Clinton gives her short answer she gave the week before, the "reporter" immediately starts making statements to push his own narrative, that would be junk and I would want it to stop.

In that case, so would you.

Context will always matter.

I invite you to watch the Trump, Abby exchange video I linked above which no Trumpbot wants to discuss.

If Trump says day after day that he wants to shut down, stop or otherwise disrupt the Muller Investigation and he hires a guy as AAG who has said he thinks the Muller Investigation should be shut down or otherwise creatively shut down then the Press has EVERY RIGHT to pursue that question to an answer no matter how much Trump tries to deflect.

Abby would have EVERY RIGHT to have replied to Trump 'no you are the stupid one and a liar' but she did not She remained polite. Trump was wrong. But no Trumpbots call him out. But had Abby responded in kind, as per her right, they would certainly call her out. You would have posters like Inga saying what Trump said or did was 'irrelevant' while trying to judge her actions in a bubble.

The way the Press deals with the POTUS is and WILL BE a direct reflection of how the POTUS deals with the Press. It is that way by NECESSITY. Otherwise you end up with Trump/Abby exchanges where the POUTS just walks all over the reporter denying her the ability to do her job.

 

[hillelslovak87]

A leftist or rightwing for that matter is someone who can’t see the wrong in it’s supporters actions. IE antifa shouting down people in restaurants or at their homes or blocking speakers at university’s,or right wing groups causing issues either ...although they tend to not chase people around and at their homes......I disagree with all forms of protests that interfere with people trying to live their lives,right or left you have that right.

Ok, so you can't actually what a leftist is, gotcha. Also, the very idea of protest is discomfort and shaking the status quo. If your sentiment about protesting at people's homes was heeded during the revolution, we would have never become a free nation.

 

[faustian]

Don't you already got some bets going?

My argument was about the 1st amendment. If there is a rule that the White House has to go through some sort of process in order to ban or suspend someone, and they didnt do that, then obviously they lose the case based on that.
But the 1st amendment argument is horse shit.

I actually agree with Bill Oreily on something here..

This isn't about freedom of the press or speech. Acosta is trying to debate Trump. His job is to ask questions and record the answers--not give lectures and his own opinions

For as bad a reputation as O'Reilly deservedly has, this does happen to be one topic he's very qualified to speak on. Problem is he doesn't address the legal issues presented in this case. Ethical/moral ideas of right/wrong don't always align with legal ideas of right/wrong

EDIT: Just saw the courts already ruled in favor of CNN. Lol I guess I should probably do better to keep up with the present

 

[Andy Capp]

Right wingers wouldn't even criticize a Pedo or racist in Roy Moore & Joe Arpaio.

Or Steve King, Iowa 4th district.

 

[Andy Capp]

What is the due process for removing someone from a room?

Kelly granted CNN's request for a temporary restraining order, ruling that the White House had violated Acosta's due process. He ordered both parties to file a joint status report next week on how to proceed in the case.

Please go away.

 

[cincymma79]

Kelly granted CNN's request for a temporary restraining order, ruling that the White House had violated Acosta's due process. He ordered both parties to file a joint status report next week on how to proceed in the case.

Please go away.

That’s the hard pass not kicking him out of the room
Don’t pick up the conversation at the end and then use this to disapprove the part I was talking about

 

[Andy Capp]

That’s the hard pass not kicking him out of the room
Don’t pick up the conversation at the end and then use this to disapprove the part I was talking about

Kicking him out of the room was never the issue to anyone but you, I'll wager, except as an extension of the same principle regarding yanking his pass. They're logically equivalent, as Mike has so effectively elucidated, and as any source you may wish to read on the judge's opinion will confirm. The reason the judge granted the injunction is because there was no due process. What else do you need to have your nose dragged through to get this straight?

 

[cincymma79]

Kicking him out of the room was never the issue to anyone but you, I'll wager, except as an extension of the same principle regarding yanking his pass. They're logically equivalent, as Mike has so effectively elucidated, and as any source you may wish to read on the judge's opinion will confirm. The reason the judge granted the injunction is because there was no due process. What else do you need to have your nose dragged through to get this straight?

So you agree with what my point but disagree with the part I never said

Got it