Assault on the First Amendment

[Big RR]

He was completely disrespectful to the presidential position, which should be respected even with Trump pretending to be president.

Have to disagree there; when the president acts like a thug and a bully, he should expect to get it right back at him. As for not following the rules of etiquette, that's a laugh.

[Joe Guy]

He was completely disrespectful to the presidential position, which should be respected even with Trump pretending to be president.

Have to disagree there; when the president acts like a thug and a bully, he should expect to get it right back at him. As for not following the rules of etiquette, that's a laugh.

Are you saying there should be no rules and any reporter should have the microphone and ask questions for as long as s/he likes? Maybe they should eliminate the roving intern and at the beginning of the press conference Trump should throw the microphone up in the air and let whichever reporter that grabs it ask questions until someone tackles and wrestles it from him or her.

[Lord Jim]

it looked to me like Jim Acosta was out of line and rude.

I think Joe has a valid point on that score; and it's not the first time for Acosta...

I recall specifically him pulling the same routine in another Trump press conference, right before Trump was inaugurated...


But I think a better case can be made that when Acosta makes himself the center of attention in this way, the greatest thing he is doing wrong is being rude and inconsiderate towards his fellow journalists, rather than some sort of disrespect being shown to Trump...

This:

He was completely disrespectful to the presidential position, which should be respected even with Trump pretending to be president.

is something I really struggle with...

All my life I have been a strong believer in the principle of "even if you don't respect the person, you should respect the office" as regards the Presidency, and as a general operating principle, I think that's the correct position to take...

However, we have never before had a President who himself was so completely bereft of even a single shred of respect for the office he holds...

No one has exhibited greater disrespect for the office of the President, and the dignity of the Presidency than Donald J. Trump...

No one...

Hardly a day goes by that he doesn't re-demonstrate his complete disregard for it...

Under these extreme and unique circumstances, a strong case can be made that the best way to demonstrate respect of the office of the President, is to not give the traditional level of respect to this occupant because to do so helps to treat as "normal" his deeply abnormal, perverse, and completely unacceptable comportment in office...

[Joe Guy]

But I think a better case can be made that when Acosta makes himself the center of attention in this way, the greatest thing he is doing wrong is being rude and inconsiderate towards his fellow journalists, rather than some sort of disrespect being shown to Trump...

I strongly agree with your point regarding Acosta's inconsideration toward fellow journalists and that was the first thing that occurred to me when I saw the video.

This:

He was completely disrespectful to the presidential position, which should be respected even with Trump pretending to be president.

is something I really struggle with...

I'm looking at the big picture. It is a 'presidential' press conference and there should be rules of order that are respected even if you don't respect the individuals involved.

........However, we have never before had a President who himself was so completely bereft of even a single shred of respect for the office he holds...

No one has exhibited greater disrespect for the office of the President, and the dignity of the Presidency than Donald J. Trump...

No one...

Yes indeed.

Hardly a day goes by that he doesn't re-demonstrate his complete disregard for it...

Under these extreme and unique circumstances, a strong case can be made that the best way to demonstrate respect of the office of the President, is to not give the traditional level of respect to this occupant because to do so helps to treat as "normal" his deeply abnormal, perverse, and completely unacceptable comportment in office...

I think the "traditional level of respect" can be disregarded in the form of the questions asked to Trump rather than hogging the microphone. Acosta crossed the line when he knew that Trump wasn't going to answer his questions and didn't give up the microphone. At that point he was arguing, not being a reporter.

[Burning Petard]

Rules of etiquette? What are the rules for this interaction between press media and a POTUS who says they are the enemies of the people, a president who seems ignorant of the basics of law and the constitution, who lies even about what he himself has said?

snailgate

[ex-khobar Andy]

The tradition is that a questioner, if called on, gets one question and a follow-up. But the tradition is also that the press secretary also makes at least an attempt to answer the questions: two questions, two answers. I agree that Jim Acosta can be, by my standards, a little bit of a showboater; but I have no clue how I would react if I were perennially lied to, called names, and not answered in any meaningful way.

Some have suggested that members of the press should refuse to show up to these soi disant pressers or turn their backs on the sainted Sarah. That gives them their win and we, the people, will get zero information. In a nutshell, I would rather that they lie to us than tell us nothing. At least a lie can be exposed.

[Joe Guy]

Rules of etiquette? What are the rules for this interaction between press media and a POTUS who says they are the enemies of the people, a president who seems ignorant of the basics of law and the constitution, who lies even about what he himself has said?

My thoughts on rules of etiquette are broader than this one situation. I don't believe the president or the reporters' language should be restricted but I do believe a fair and orderly Q & A process should be enforced.

[Big RR]

But I think a better case can be made that when Acosta makes himself the center of attention in this way, the greatest thing he is doing wrong is being rude and inconsiderate towards his fellow journalists, rather than some sort of disrespect being shown to Trump...

that is likely true and I cannot argue with it.

Are you saying there should be no rules and any reporter should have the microphone and ask questions for as long as s/he likes

No, and if it is an established rule to pass the microphone after a given time or number of questions and sub-questions, then he breached the rules; and h owed this duty to his fellow journalists. but the rules should be understood by the participants and should apply across the board

Under these extreme and unique circumstances, a strong case can be made that the best way to demonstrate respect of the office of the President, is to not give the traditional level of respect to this occupant because to do so helps to treat as "normal" his deeply abnormal, perverse, and completely unacceptable comportment in office...

no argument there.

Acosta crossed the line when he knew that Trump wasn't going to answer his questions and didn't give up the microphone. At that point he was arguing, not being a reporter.

while he may have been violating agreed upon or understood rules, I am not sure that insisting on an answer to a question is "not being a reporter."

[Joe Guy]

Acosta began with an argument. He said that the caravan is not an invasion and asked Trump why he characterized it that way. Trump responded by saying that it was because he does consider it an invasion and that "You and I have a difference of opinions".

Even if you accept that as a proper question, after Trump answered, Acosta asked Trump if he thought he "demonized" those who are coming. Trump responded to that and then Acosta harped on the fact that they caravan is hundreds of miles away. Acosta crossed a line, in my opinion. Especially when he kept talking when he no longer had the microphone.

Anyway, nobody other than me has said whether they think CNN's lawsuit is justified. I think CNN is "grandstanding". What about you?

[Big RR]

Grandstanding? Perhaps. Justified? I think it may well be, if only to keep the White House within the bounds of the law; if there are rules and procedures that must be filed to withdraw a press pass (and from what I have read, there are), then the president must be as subject to them as anyone else. The president cannot and should not be able to pull a press pass because he doesn't like a question or thinks the reporter isn't toadying up to him enough (not to mention offering up a poorly doctored tape to justify his action).

[Joe Guy]

It seems to me that the white house defense can be that Acosta was disruptive and has a history of it. Also, unless I missed something, it is a 'suspension' and not a permanent ban so couldn't the lawsuit be stopped, or at least become a waste of time if the white house simply puts a time limit on it? Then again, the lawsuit may just focus on process and maybe Trump & company didn't follow the rules. I haven't heard or read any details yet.

The president cannot and should not be able to pull a press pass because he doesn't like a question or thinks the reporter isn't toadying up to him enough (not to mention offering up a poorly doctored tape to justify his action).

That's where we see this differently. Although Trump obviously didn't like the question, he seemed much more put off by Acosta's insistence to voice his opinion and his refusal to pass on the microphone.

I haven't watched the talking heads yet so I will hopefully learn more about this tonight.

[Big RR]

That's where we see this differently. Although Trump obviously didn't like the question, he seemed much more put off by Acosta's insistence to voice his opinion and his refusal to pass on the microphone.

What I heard yesterday, apparently after Trump gave up the "doctored tape/laying of hands on the intern excuse", Trump stated it was done because it is important to show respect for the white house and the presidency, and that Acosta did not. That sounds a lot like "he didn't kiss my ass a lot".

Again, if Acosta violated established rules and the proper panel/tribunal/whatever decided to lift or suspend his press pass because of it, fine; but the president and his minions should be as subject to the law, rules, and procedures as anyone else. And that is what I see the lawsuit being about.

[ex-khobar Andy]

This sounds to me like one of those places where the kids' argument - "He started it!" - holds water. I regret Obama's verbal joshing of Trump at the WH Correspondents' Dinner in 2014 (?? too lazy to look it up) which I think might have laid some foundation for where we are now. Of course Obama was absolutely entitled to get some of his own back for the years of birtherism which Trump had pushed and pushed. I can't fault Obama in any way and it was funny; but with the benefit of hindsight - as always 20/20 - I wish he hadn't.

In the Trump - CNN spat of course Trump started it. Who can listen to being continually called fake news, with no evidence when after all integrity is your reason for existence? Acosta's frustration with Trump for not answering the question was obvious and most of us are smart enough to see that. Unfortunately one thing we have learned from the last two years is that although we had long fondly imagined that that 'most of us' was 90% or so, the reality is that it now hovers around 55%.

The laying of hands on the intern was, and is, of course, bogus. Even the WH has retreated from that, regardless of the doctored tape. It may be that someone pointed out to the sainted Sarah that this is a president who boasts about laying his hands on young women without asking for permission.

(Edited once to clarify a sentence.)

[Big RR]

I regret Obama's verbal joshing of Trump at the WH Correspondents' Dinner in 2014

Isn't that the point of the Dinner?

[Joe Guy]

CNN is claiming the White House violated Acosta's right to free speech and his right to due process (1st & 5th amendment rights). Although I think Acosta was rude, I guess it all comes down to whether or not he has the right to be rude at a White House press conference. We already know that Trump gets away with it so now it's for the courts to decide. I still believe that Trump did what most people in that situation would want to do, but now we're all going to find out whether or not it's legal.

And FOX is supporting CNN! - Link

[Big RR]

I have been trying to find when a president ever had the credentials of a reporter revoked and have come up empty--even for thin skinned SOBs like Nixon and LBJ. If it was done before, it was done pretty much behind closed doors. And I would bet the press was just as aggressive with Nixon and LBJ as it is with Trump--hell, they used to get LBJ's brother (who lived in the White House when he was president) drunk to see what was happening and report on that.

[BoSoxGal]

I don't think Jim Acosta has been rude or disrespectful of this administration or pResident Trump; he's been a fierce questioner and pursuer of truth, in the vein of Helen Thomas.

What is different in these times is the near total lack of morality of the administration's purveyors of propaganda in the White House pressroom, beginning with Spicer, taken up by Sanders, and peppered at times with contributions from Trump himself.

I agree with the sentiment that for the press to bite their tongues and play nicey-nice with this administration would be tantamount to normalizing the pattern of lying, which comes close to 6500 lies (probably more, it's been 15 days since the most recent update I could find and since then he's claimed election fraud in Florida and Arizona) told since Trump was sworn in 1.20.17.

Yes, all politicians twist the truth by clever use of certain facts while ignoring others, and make promises that they don't keep - that is par for the course. But Trump has taken this to levels beyond anything seen before in modern American politics, and he has iced this pattern with a disgusting ongoing attack on the press that is identical to Hitler's Lügenpresse campaign.

This despicable war against the press as 'enemy of the people' has continued full bore despite the horrific murder of American resident and WashPo columnist Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi, which Trump essentially did nothing about and barely acknowledged as an unacceptable act of a tyrannical government.

In this context, I think Jim Acosta's determined pursuit of answers from Trump is perfectly acceptable, and the White House staff's attempts to color him as an assaulter of young women by lying and doctoring video is beyond despicable. It is no surprise to me that when push comes to shove, even FOX is standing with CNN on the issue of Acosta's credentials being unjustly terminated - democracy dies in darkness, after all.

In 649 days, President
Trump has made 6,420
false or misleading claims
The Fact Checker’s ongoing database of the false or misleading claims made by President Trump since assuming office.
Updated Oct. 30, 2018

Bookmark this page: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... 853a7ffc78

[Econoline]

Stolen from da intertoobz: Why doesn’t Jim Acosta just go to the car and change his shirt or put on a hat and go right back into the press briefings?

[Lord Jim]

I don't think Jim Acosta has been rude or disrespectful of this administration or pResident Trump; he's been a fierce questioner and pursuer of truth, in the vein of Helen Thomas.

Well, I'm not sure if I were Acosta that Helen Thomas is really the person I'd want to be compared to...

Who was not only rude and disrespectful, (which she certainly was) but who also ended her career as an anti-semitic conspiracy crank:

Helen Thomas: Jews control White House, US Congress

In 'Playboy' interview, veteran US journalist stands behind anti-Israel comments that led to her resignation: "I knew exactly what I was doing."

Veteran US Journalist Helen Thomas said that Jews have "total control" over the White House and US Congress, telling Playboy magazine in an interview to be published in April, "Everybody is in the pocket of the Israeli lobbies."

Thomas, who covered the White House for more than six decades, was forced to resign from her position at Hearst Corp. last year, after saying in an interview that Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go home to Poland, Germany and the United States."

In this context, I think Jim Acosta's determined pursuit of answers from Trump is perfectly acceptable, and the White House staff's attempts to color him as an assaulter of young women by lying and doctoring video is beyond despicable.

I completely agree with the point about the bogus assault charge, but there also do need to be some sort of standards on how far it's acceptable for a single journalist to monopolize press conference time, even with a President who is conducting an unprecedented war on the independent press and the whole concept of objective truth...

Otherwise, taken to its logical extreme it becomes perfectly acceptable for one reporter to take the mike and keep it for themselves for the whole period of the press conference while they try over and over and over to get Trump to answer a question that he clearly is not going to answer...

(Trump might actually like that; it would mean he would have a lot fewer questions to avoid answering)

Clearly that would not serve the best interests of the public nor would it be at all fair to the other journalists participating in the process...

I agree with the sentiment that for the press to bite their tongues and play nicey-nice with this administration would be tantamount to normalizing the pattern of lying

I completely agree, but there are ways to accomplish this without having one reporter monopolize the available press conference time, or allowing themselves to be used by Trump as a diversion...

As Joe suggested, this can be accomplished through the kinds of questions that are asked. For example, it is completely appropriate to ask Trump questions that begin like this; "Mr. President, why do you insist on continuously lying about..."

Yes, all politicians twist the truth by clever use of certain facts while ignoring others, and make promises that they don't keep - that is par for the course. But Trump has taken this to levels beyond anything seen before in modern American politics, and he has iced this pattern with a disgusting ongoing attack on the press

Again I completely agree, and that is why, the other points I have made in this post notwithstanding, I completely support the CNN lawsuit...

Joe has talked about the "larger picture" and for me the larger picture is the context of the unprecedented situation of having a President who is waging a multi-front effort to discredit, intimidate and punish any journalist or news organization that dares to report honestly about him, his cronies, and his Administration...

With the clear goal in mind of having a chilling effect on the reporting of factual information that places him in a bad light...

When you have someone with this sort of unAmerican agenda in the most powerful office in the country, they need to find themselves thwarted and receiving brush back pitches on a regular basis, or they will become nothing but emboldened to further undermine the Constitutional provisions designed to keep their rapacious appetite for power and control in check.

I see this lawsuit as one such brush back pitch...

In addition to his general war against independent press coverage, Trump has made very clear that he is currently considering further White House press bans:

'There could be others': Trump poised to ban more journalists from White House

President Trump said that more journalists could be barred from the White House following the decision to rescind the credentials of CNN reporter Jim Acosta.

Speaking to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House before leaving for Europe, Trump said that "this is a very sacred place to be" and that journalists did not have a guaranteed right to work there. "You've got to treat the White House and the office of the presidency with respect," he said. [Donald Trump complaining about the White House and the presidency being treated with disrespect... ]
Trump singled out April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks, saying that "she's very nasty and she shouldn't be." He has often clashed with Ryan, a persistent Trump critic who last year became a CNN contributor, and was irked this week when she tried shouting out questions to him at his free-wheeling Wednesday press conference.

"Talk about somebody who’s a loser," Trump said outside the White House before a trip to Europe. "She doesn’t know what the hell she’s doing."

Ryan responded on CNN afterward, calling Trump's comments about her "terrible."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... hite-house

And Trump's lawyer for this lawsuit made quite clear in oral arguments this week that it is Trump's position that his authority to grant or revoke White House press privileges is absolute:

Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's credentials if it didn't agree with their reporting.

He made the assertion under questioning from Kelly, who asked him to state the administration's position in this hypothetical situation.

The judge asked if the White House could essentially tell any individual journalist, "we don't like your reporting, so we're pulling your hard pass." Burnham replied, "as a matter of law... yes."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/14/media/cn ... index.html

If his position is permitted to prevail, Trump will be able to pick and choose who gets to directly cover his Presidency...(because obviously you can't be a "White House Correspondent" if you're not even allowed on the White House grounds...)

This will empower him to ban any reporter whose questioning doesn't meet his approval, (which would be pretty much anyone who isn't propagandizing on his behalf) and intimidate those he doesn't get rid of into falling into line, lest he wreck their careers by making it impossible for them to function as White House correspondents...

And believe you me, if he thought he could get away with it this is something Trump would do in a New York second...

That is just completely unacceptable, no matter how imperfect a vehicle for a case like this Jim Acosta may be...

There should certainly be some sort of conduct standards for reporters at Presidential news conferences that will serve the best interests of the public and of fairness to all the journalists participating...

But that's something that can be worked out without giving this would be autocrat the authority to arbitrarily control who can and cannot have access to White House press privileges...

Donald Trump does not own the White House; the American people do...

[Guinevere]

This case is a giant trap that has nothing to do with Acosta’s behavior and everything to do with the content of his questions. The First Amendment requires that press may not be regulated based on content or viewpoint, and that’s what Trumplestiltskin wants to do. In addition, the First Amendment also protects the press from retaliation for exercise of their First Amendment rights (I.e., for speaking out).

In addition, the banning also violates the 5th Amendment, which guarantees due process. That hard pass is issued for a two-year period, after an application process and security review (it is distinctly different from a 1-time WH access press pass). It cannot be just revoked at the whim of the White House, but only after notice and the right to be heard by a fact finder (who is presumably someone unbiased and can review the matter on an even handed basis). In that hearing, the White House would have to present its reasons for revocation which have to be something more than “he pissed off Trumplestiltskin”. If indeed there is a code of coduct for WH reporters, then that code would have to be known and understood and capable of being complied with, and the discussion should be about how Acosta’s behavior deviated from that code. Failure to enforce the code evenhandedly against others is also something that could be considered by the fact finder. Finally, there would need to be an appeal process, to challenge any result. The WH does not get to make such decisions without any further review.

All of these issues are why we should all be appalled and concerned. And the title of my OP should really be assault on the Constitution - since more than the First Amendment is involved here.