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: 17
44
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus




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.

This portion was only for the temp injunction, there is still a long way to go.
As there is no transcript yet, what has been "reported" appears to be only the lack of "due process" saved acosta; a ruling which would be on firm ground for any legal proceeding.
Can anyone who has a pass now attend the briefing of their choice?




posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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).


Explain the difference between a temporary restored hard pass, and a soft pass that has to be renewed daily?

It seems to me that all this judge did was to say that Acosta can have a hard pass that is on a temporary status, which is all a soft pass is. Syntax is funny that way, we can say one thing and it is really something else, but since we said it one way we think it is that way when in reality it's the other way.

So with either a soft pass or this temporary restored hard pass, Acosta will still have to jump through hoops to get a full time hard pass. I still really don't think this judge did anything but kick the can down the road.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus

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


Kind of. There has to be standards and due process established for EVERYONE.
Then the WH could cite where Acosta violated those standards.
Then Acosta has the right to protest that notice AND/OR challenge the newly established standards in court on First Amendment grounds (which would likely be a class action for all journalists since all journalists would be subject to the new standards).



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Guyfriday

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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).


Explain the difference between a temporary restored hard pass, and a soft pass that has to be renewed daily?



One involves a higher criteria of qualification.
I have posted it a few times, but it is a thoroughly involved SS background check, having already received SS clearance to cover the Capitol Building and Congress, having actually reported on congress for two years with that pass, lives in DC etc.

VS.

A visiting foreign journalist form China (Soft Pass) or Niche topic reporter (Auto Weekly) for an auto industry gathering at the WH etc. (Temporary day pass)



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

So it will be no different than the outcome of the first suit in which the ss had to establish standards and notify those denied?

So this is still in no way an issue of the first amendment, but rather of acostas behavior and lack of paperwork notification of such from the whitehouse to acosta?



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus




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.

This portion was only for the temp injunction, there is still a long way to go.
As there is no transcript yet, what has been "reported" appears to be only the lack of "due process" saved acosta; a ruling which would be on firm ground for any legal proceeding.
Can anyone who has a pass now attend the briefing of their choice?


The ruling of lack of due process inherently acknowledges the revocation was a first amendment issue.

The whole Privilege vs. Right Argument.

No due process required for Privilege.

2nd Question..."Briefings of their choice"

The physical space afforded to the press in the WH. WH Press quarters and The Brady Room for conferences.

"Briefing" is a muddy word. The POTUS and WH staff still have the right to pick and choose 1 on 1 interviews or even selective sharing of info with a few reporters.

Go in front of the podium though and hold a conference?
Different animal.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus

So it will be no different than the outcome of the first suit in which the ss had to establish standards and notify those denied?


Correct. But that case was dropped/never proceeded after the court ruling.
The SS/WH never did establish official standards and due process as the court said they had to. They backed off the case instead. That is what I think the Trump WH will do as well. It preserves power. Any standards they establish will need to survive court challenges. Instead they will settle with Acosta, they reserve the option of doing this again and again without the court telling them their standards miss or fail constitutionally and establishing more case law around what they can boot a reporter for.




So this is still in no way an issue of the first amendment, but rather of acostas behavior and lack of paperwork notification of such from the whitehouse to acosta?



No.
First Amendment's involvement is what demands "Due Process"
Right vs. Privilege
Rights can not be denied without due process.
Privileges don't require that standard.

At least that is what Redneck convincingly explained in the other thread (albeit his interpretation of this case was incorrect)



edit on 16-11-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus




The ruling of lack of due process inherently acknowledges the revocation was a first amendment issue. The whole Privilege vs. Right Argument. No due process required for Privilege.

From what I have read, and with out an actual transcript it is hazy and slanted, had the white house given a better description of who, how, and why the due process may not have been an issue. It appears the judge was not happy with what was provided.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus




The ruling of lack of due process inherently acknowledges the revocation was a first amendment issue. The whole Privilege vs. Right Argument. No due process required for Privilege.

From what I have read, and with out an actual transcript it is hazy and slanted, had the white house given a better description of who, how, and why the due process may not have been an issue. It appears the judge was not happy with what was provided.


The judge essentially regurgitated the conclusion of Sherill (Not sure I spelled that right - the case we have been discussing)

The WH must establish clear standards that can be equally applied, then provide notice and have a mechanism for protest.

The courts need to have standards to review.

Otherwise it can't be arbitrary or selective.

That ruling also speaks to it being a "Rights" issue 1st (Freedom of press) followed by 5th (Due Process required for revocation of rights).

If it was a "Privilege" the WH could pull passes form anyone arbitrarily without "due process".
edit on 16-11-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: The GUT



This is gonna be sooooo good.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

You have a Judge chosen by the Federalist Society and appointed by Trump that is going to rule on an immediate temporary injunction in a few hours.

Watch what happens.



originally posted by: Arnie123
I'm watching your tears filling a Vat, what happened now?




originally posted by: Arnie123
Lol, you're so unhinged because you're losing the narrative and debate. Don't put all your eggs in one basket 😌


Hey Arnie, hows it going. Can you catch me up on how the judge ruled?



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

He ruled on due process. What else you need to know?



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus
Easy enough to fix. No press conferences until rules are written and all sign off on reading them to retain their passes[part of the process.]

Rules are one question with request for follow-up. If the followup is not granted and the "reporter" shouts over ANYONE, he/she has a 3 month ban. Anyone shouting questions over those who have been called on gets the same treatment.

My bet is that Abilio will be unable to control his lust for the limelight and do himself in.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Yeah, I would agree. ALL press conferences should cease immediately, citing a need to comply with the ruling by setting official standards. Trump can give out the information to the public via tweets and Oval Office announcements. That's the way it used to be done (except for the tweets). So much for wanting a "transparent" administration... this one was, but probably won't be so much after this.

I have a feeling those official standards are going to be damn tight after this, too. Kelly did not rule on how lax or tight the standards needed to be, only that standards must exist. So I would expect them to be so tight that this has no chance of ever happening again. I would also expect that if there are any more press conferences, no one, not Sanders, not Trump, ever calls on Jim Acosta again. He just gets to sit in his seat now and raise his hand futilely. So far as that goes, I wouldn't expect anyone from CNN to get a lot of questions in.

It's a lot like the damn fool who sued McDonalds because her hot coffee was hot. Now there's signs up all over the place for idiots ("hot coffee is served hot") and it's not as hot as it was before. All it takes in today's litigious society is one fool to louse things up for everyone. Jim Acosta is that one fool.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: soberbacchus

He ruled on due process. What else you need to know?


You can twist it it anyway you want, but to me, it seems like Trump just got schooled by CNN.

Ouch...



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: pteridine

Yeah, I would agree. ALL press conferences should cease immediately,


A man-baby's response, but not unexpected.

Maybe explore the rewind button? How wrong you were in your BS up to this point?

Ha ha, just kidding. Of course reflection or introspection is not possible for you. I can wish and hope that for you, but wishes and nuts and Christmas and such etc.


edit on 16-11-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: pteridine

I have a feeling those official standards are going to be damn tight after this,


Did I ever mention I own a cabin in Tennessee? Cordell.

There will be no standards because Trump is a man-baby-coward.

he will wait until he can bury the news to save face and he will give CNN full access.

He doesn't want to be shamed in court.

He is a disgrace to the constitution.





edit on 16-11-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus


There will be no standards because Trump is a man-baby-coward.

No, that would be the guy who threw a temper tantrum in the middle of the press conference and wouldn't relinquish the mic.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Make better use of second chances.

I could be wrong about that, or I might be right. You decide.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 10:28 PM
link   
So, who decides decorum? The President? (as usual). What about decorum for the President to answer all questions honestly?



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join