Assault on the First Amendment

[Lord Jim]

[ex-khobar Andy]

I see that the judge has granted the temporary order and required the WH to return Acosta's pass. Of course Sanders can just not accept his questions at least for a while.

She is quoted as saying: "we will temporarily reinstate the reporter's hard pass." But she added, "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."

You have to laugh at that last sentence.

[Guinevere]

Judge Kelly's decision appears to be based on the 5th Amendment Due Process piece, which I discussed above. The mouthpiece also seemed to indicate that there is no established code or standard of conduct, which is going to make it very difficult for them to prevail at the end of the day.

Still to be decided, the 1st Amendment questions and the relative rights of the press via a vis the White House/any President. If the WH continues to take an absolute, unfettered discretion to cut off access to anyone at any time, position, I cannot imagine them prevailing.

[Joe Guy]

That little 5th amendment thingy seems to be a problem for Trump. Due Process is not something familiar to him. It seems that someone in the White House should have known that there is a process for suspending a hard pass. It seems very likely to me that Trump was told that he can't suspend Acosta's pass and he said to do it anyway. That's how his mind seems to work.

I still believe Acosta was every bit as rude as Trump. Now my question is: Can Trump simply not take any of Acosta's questions? Unless there is a rule that CNN or Acosta can cite, what would stop Trump from doing that?

[ex-khobar Andy]

I still believe Acosta was every bit as rude as Trump. Now my question is: Can Trump simply not take any of Acosta's questions? Unless there is a rule that CNN or Acosta can cite, what would stop Trump from doing that?

No way Acosta was as rude as Trump - Trump and his minions have repeatedly not answered questions (and they are no different from most politicians in that respect) but also upped the ante by calling CNN and other major news outlets "fake news." Of course Trump hijacked the term to mean news he didn't like but it cannot be much fun to be continually accused of lying by the president.

And I do think that Sanders will not find herself in eye contact with Acosta anytime soon; and that is a room of maybe 40 or so reporters (at least the ones I have watched) and maybe 10 get called on. She can possibly get away with that for a while but eventually it will be noted. But I don't think Acosta can claim any sort of First Amendment right to be recognized for a question.

[Big RR]

I agree Acosta likely has no right to be called on, but placing him in press conference Siberia could pretty much be seen as being equivalent to revoking his pass, especially since I'd bet Trump would crow about how Acosta would never ask another question in his white house. It would be interesting, however, to see what the court could do.

Failing this, I'd like to think the WH press corps would join together and find a way to be sure Acosta could get a question in--either by using their turn to ask a question to read one given them by Acosta, or not looking to be recognized until after Acosta asked a question.

[Guinevere]

I agree Acosta likely has no right to be called on, but placing him in press conference Siberia could pretty much be seen as being equivalent to revoking his pass, especially since I'd bet Trump would crow about how Acosta would never ask another question in his white house. It would be interesting, however, to see what the court could do.

Failing this, I'd like to think the WH press corps would join together and find a way to be sure Acosta could get a question in--either by using their turn to ask a question to read one given them by Acosta, or not looking to be recognized until after Acosta asked a question.

That's retaliatory, and retaliation for exercising ones First Amendment rights is a violation of civil rights laws, section 1983.

[Big RR]

Oh, I agree; but would a court issue an order telling the president he must take a question from Acosta once every some many questions? And if they did and the president ignored it (which I am sure he would), what would the court do--declare him in contempt and send the federal marshals (who work for him) to jail him. And what if he just ignored the order and instructed the marshals to ignore it? Absent impeachment by Congress, I would bet not much could happen, and, as much as I'd love to see it, I'm not all that sure a judge would choose to provoke a Constitutional crisis of this sort.

[RayThom]

Baring that Lord Dampnut does not do anything more controversially stupid in the next few hours I feel SNL has found their cold opening for tomorrow night's show.

[liberty]

The Constitution invests the power of the executive in the president. That gives the president control of the administration including the White House and everything that is in it. He has the right to control who can and who cannot enter the White House. He can conduct press conference any way he pleases. The president doesn’t even have to conduct press conferences; they are not mandated by law or the constitution it is just a tradition and not that old at that.

I know that a federal judge has ordered that the press pass be restored, but that means nothing the Democrat party like the NAZI party before them can have their judge’s order anything they want.

[Joe Guy]

I know that a federal judge has ordered that the press pass be restored, but that means nothing the Democrat party like the NAZI party before them can have their judge’s order anything they want.

It was Trump's judge that made the determination. Do you spend a lot of time at the infowars website?

[Bicycle Bill]

-"BB"-

[rubato]

Wow, that is really good. Best and most pithy political joke I have heard in years.



yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

The Constitution invests the power of the executive in the president. That gives the president control of the administration including the White House and everything that is in it. He has the right to control who can and who cannot enter the White House. He can conduct press conference any way he pleases. The president doesn’t even have to conduct press conferences; they are not mandated by law or the constitution it is just a tradition and not that old at that.

I know that a federal judge has ordered that the press pass be restored, but that means nothing the Democrat party like the NAZI party before them can have their judge’s order anything they want.

You are completely disconnected from reality.


yrs,
rubato

[ex-khobar Andy]

Judge Kelly's decision appears to be based on the 5th Amendment Due Process piece, which I discussed above. The mouthpiece also seemed to indicate that there is no established code or standard of conduct, which is going to make it very difficult for them to prevail at the end of the day.

Still to be decided, the 1st Amendment questions and the relative rights of the press via a vis the White House/any President. If the WH continues to take an absolute, unfettered discretion to cut off access to anyone at any time, position, I cannot imagine them prevailing.

I saw an interview with Corey Lewandowski where he was interpreting the judge's decision as meaning that the 1st amendment issue had failed to convince him; and therefore all the WH had to do was put in place some procedures - rules of decorum, policing those rules, means of appeal etc - and they would be done. I saw it differently: in order to get to a speedy temporary resolution, the 5th amendment issue was obvious and plenty all by itself. No need to even discuss the 1st amendment details - they can wait.

[Bicycle Bill]

I would love to see this blow up in Trumpelstiltskin's face, as follows:

Acosta is a reporter, right?  It is a reporter's job to report news and, back in the old days when newspapers and other news media were really news gatherers rather than just an echo board for whatever they were told "on the record", they would go out and dig up the details of the story themselves.

So, since our so-called POTUS has denied Acosta access to the most reliable source (the POTUS himself), that leaves Acosta free to get his information from other, confidential-but-reasonably-reliable sources elsewhere on Capitol Hill.  Bob Woodward had "Deep Throat"; surely Acosta can find someone close enough to Trump's inner circle to provide him with information on the down-low.  And if not, hell, he can write all the innuendoes, theories, hypotheses, and suppositions he wants, because after all he has been denied access to the one and only person who could legitimately and definitively refute them.

If Trump wants "fake news", I say go ahead and give it to him.  After all, he's been giving us fake facts ever since day one.

-"BB"-

[Scooter]

The White House knew it couldn't win and blinked.