It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CNN sues President Trump and top White House aides for barring Jim Acosta

page: 16
44
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2018 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: shooterbrody

It's usually a good indicator that there are no stronger cases supporting the claim. It's just grasping for straws legally in order to gain in other ways. See my post above.

TheRedneck


Or it could be an indicator you haven't thought it all the way through.




posted on Nov, 15 2018 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

I would expect the lawyers to have thought it all the way through, though, wouldn't you? If they could come up with a better case to support their claims, why wouldn't they?

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

If they could come up with a better case to support their claims, why wouldn't they?

TheRedneck


Always? Every Lawyer, everywhere, in any case, ever, in history said?

Your question is if there was a "better" case would they cite it?

Not sure how to answer that.

Is a $100 more than $95?

----

What I think you trying to say is that the case they cited is insufficient for their argument or not applicable.

That is where you are wrong.

The judge rules in 45 minutes.
He was selected by the Federalist Society and appointed by Trump.
Lets see what he came up with.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

I would expect the lawyers to have thought it all the way through, though, wouldn't you? If they could come up with a better case to support their claims, why wouldn't they?

TheRedneck


I dont think CNN thought this through if they lose the injunction he will never return to the white house. they would have done far better using social pressure and not taking this to court. That may have been a huge mistake this whole issue is about to disappear now that the migrants are at the border. Thats going to suck all the oxygen out the room.
edit on 11/16/18 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: shooterbrody

It's usually a good indicator that there are no stronger cases supporting the claim. It's just grasping for straws legally in order to gain in other ways. See my post above.

TheRedneck

I agree.
It is not like this is a hard to understand issue or the case sited was complex.
Why they used a case which sites presidential and white house discretion I will never understand.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

how much you wanna bet they win the case?



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

ah hahahahahahah ah ah hahahahahahahaha
Thats so funny. You act like you know something about him other than trump is scared to death of him and his questions.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Looks like the judge has ruled for the pass to be restored.
www.cnn.com...


Kelly did not rule on the underlying case on Friday. But he granted CNN's request for a temporary restraining order.


edit on 16/11/2018 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/11/2018 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)


legalinsurrection.com...


The Court appears to have ruled that Acosta’s First Amendment rights supercede the White House interest in orderly press conferences, and that Acosta was not given due process in the revocation process.


edit on 16/11/2018 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: notsure1

how much you wanna bet they win the case?


What would be the point we all know you wont pay up.
.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post]notsure1[/post]

originally posted by: [post]Sillyolme[/post]
a reply to: [post]notsure1[/post]

how much you wanna bet they win the case?


What would be the point we all know you wont pay up.
.


And you would have lost....
edit on 16-11-2018 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 09:36 AM
link   
CNN dodged a bullet there. Funny part is CNN needs to reconsider sending him back. Do you think he will ever be called on again? Im very sure he will never ask another question in that job and receive an answer. With that job you need the help from the administration to stay on top of things. He guaranteed he will be ostracized



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Looks like the judge has ruled for the pass to be restored.
www.cnn.com...


Kelly did not rule on the underlying case on Friday. But he granted CNN's request for a temporary restraining order.



legalinsurrection.com...


The Court appears to have ruled that Acosta’s First Amendment rights supercede the White House interest in orderly press conferences, and that Acosta was not given due process in the revocation process.




So Acosta is allowed a temp pass? He was allowed to have that anyways, it was his hard pass that got taken and not his rights to a soft pass. Sounds to me like this judge is just kicking the can down the road.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

The judge said he does not have to be called on again.
They can still pull his pass, they just have to notify him why for "due process".
I think we will see standards issued in the near future, and the press will have acosta to thank for such.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Guyfriday

I read it as acostas pass would be restored as this was a temporary injunction. The case will still move forward.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Guyfriday

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Looks like the judge has ruled for the pass to be restored.
www.cnn.com...


Kelly did not rule on the underlying case on Friday. But he granted CNN's request for a temporary restraining order.



legalinsurrection.com...


The Court appears to have ruled that Acosta’s First Amendment rights supercede the White House interest in orderly press conferences, and that Acosta was not given due process in the revocation process.




So Acosta is allowed a temp pass? He was allowed to have that anyway.


ATS would be better served if people didn't muddy waters with BS.

He was not given a temp pass. He did not have a temp pass. His hard pass was "restored" temporarily until the case is settled in court or the WH drops it (which is what I am predicting).



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: dragonridr

The judge said he does not have to be called on again.
They can still pull his pass, they just have to notify him why for "due process".
I think we will see standards issued in the near future, and the press will have acosta to thank for such.


I dont think people understand what the white house press pool does. The reason i said CNN may want to replace him is hes lost all ability to communicate with the white house. If a news agency has a question or needs clarification on something they can go to Sarah Sanders ask their question and get a written reply from the white house. They dont have to do this its just always been done for the white house press pool. So what do you think they will do with anything he requests? I'm betting hits the trash can before he leaves her office.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I would wager cnn loses its tradition placing at all future events.
Cause we all know how spiteful trump can be.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Again, we have thrown hard punches at one another and will again, but IMO you made a case equal to or maybe even slightly better than the WH attorneys. Not to say you were correct (you weren't), but you made better logical arguments for the position the WH took than their attorneys did.

Now for some self aggrandizement. I predicted this outcome days ago, including case they would cite and the arguments they would make. I endured a whole lot of RW ATS troll (not so much from yourself, but others) for simply sharing links and making a rational argument. A rational argument that a Trump appointed judge selected by the federalist society felt obligated to recognize as compelling enough to grant an immediate injunction.

My next prediction is that the WH will restore Acosta's pass permanently. They will do it on a big news cycle so that it gets lost fast and they can save face. Maybe time it around Mueller's next indictment(s).

Otherwise they will be forced to put a standards and "due process" in place that can be evaluated by the courts and challenged. It would be an erosion of WH power. They would rather leave it less formal, so they will work it out with Acosta and drop the issue vs. the requirement they implement a legally defensible due process and standards.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

So once acosta is given "due process" his pass can be revoked?



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I can't stand Acosta.

But this is a problem.

Its the whole "pay to play" deal in politics. If you want access yo uhave to be a good dog and come to heel. Its why hard hitting investigative journalism no longer happens. The 4th estate is a lapdog.




top topics



 
44
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join