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: 9
44
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   
DP
edit on 14-11-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   
DP
edit on 14-11-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus


The courts generally keep it as liberal as possible and for good reason. Sharing relevant data with the public is the most minimal definition I could find. CNN Counts. Random Bloggers count.

So a random blogger may at any time demand access to the White House? Is that your position?



You are not reading what I post?

Apologies if I ignore you, but what is the point of responding if you are not actually reading?

A tonnage of repeated explanations, links, citations, court rulings.

And you just continue to claim I am saying something else.

What was right below what you excerpted?



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus


The pass is by Secret Service.

Who work for...?

(Hint: the correct answer is "the President.")


You must live in DC, Have received security clearances to cover the Capitol and House for a year and done so, have an editor of a news org that says you need to be there and pass an in depth background check by the secret service.

You just described a privilege, not a right. I realize your answer was not addressed to me, but then again it doesn't have to be. There's not one reality for me and one reality for others... if there were, I would be classified as "insane" (which I am not; I prefer "eccentric," thank you very much).

Now, is access to the White House a right as you have been claiming or a privilege as you just claimed in the referenced post?

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

What is humorous is the white house has excluded plenty of reporters in the past. They have changed seat assignments, not called on specific reporters, and even excluded news organizations from air force one coverage. Funny to me how many are willing to die on the Acosta hill.



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus


The pass is by Secret Service.

Who work for...?

(Hint: the correct answer is "the President.")


You must live in DC, Have received security clearances to cover the Capitol and House for a year and done so, have an editor of a news org that says you need to be there and pass an in depth background check by the secret service.

You just described a privilege, not a right.


Incorrect.

As the courts have ruled, if you have met that criteria, you may not be denied a pass without due process.
Due process as the courts describe it is a standard by which the court can examine the constitutionality and something that is equally applied, not selectively and where the person denied is given a written explanation by the secret service and the opportunity to contest it.



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus


You are not reading what I post?

Oh, I am, but you seem to be all over the place. You claim access to the White House is a right, but you also claim the Secret Service can revoke said right. Rights cannot be revoked without due process (and even then, technically, they are not revoked but are rather are restricted for the overall good of society, as in felons not being able to own firearms... they technically still have the right, but society restricts it). There is no due process, as in no court proceedings, when the Secret Service rejects an application for a clearance. They simply reject it.

Sorry, but I am just a redneck... maybe if you tried less links and more actual consistency?

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: TheRedneck

What is humorous is the white house has excluded plenty of reporters in the past. They have changed seat assignments, not called on specific reporters, and even excluded news organizations from air force one coverage.


Changing Seating assignments? No constitutional right to be in the front row.
Not called on Specific reporters? No Constitutional right the President must call on you.
Excluding reporters from AF1? No constitutional right to free plane rides.

This is where Court Precedence stands:
“White House press facilities having been made publicly available as a source of information for newsmen, the protection afforded news gathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons,” Judge Carl E. McGowan wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel.
www.nytimes.com...

The RWNJ Mob keeps posting an irrelevant case from 5 years earlier that not only is outdated, but doesn't apply.



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus


As the courts have ruled, if you have met that criteria, you may not be denied a pass without due process.

And yet, who sets "that criteria"? The Secret Service. Not the courts. So the only ruling the courts have made is that an individual may not be denied a pass for arbitrary reasons. Actions taken during a press conference are hardly arbitrary.

So again, we're back to a privilege. Not a right.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus


You are not reading what I post?

Oh, I am, but you seem to be all over the place. You claim access to the White House is a right, but you also claim the Secret Service can revoke said right. Rights cannot be revoked without due process


You are catching up.

Correct. Rights can not be revoked without due process. That is why the courts are going to slap down the Trump Admin.

The following is STANDNG CASE LAW.





In Sherrill v. Knight (D.C. Circuit 1997),
The Nation magazine sued after a journalist was denied a White House press pass.
In that decision, the Circuit Court and lower court both said that the White House can’t just deny credentials based upon what the journalists say. [n]“..[W]e agree with appellants that arbitrary or content-based criteria for press pass issuance are prohibited under the first amendment,” the D.C. court wrote in the decision.

openjurist.org...



For example, it would be okay for Trump to do a million exclusive interviews with Fox News, and never give one to ABC. However, when it comes to press conferences and briefings that are supposed to be open to the media, the rules are different.

lawandcrime.com...


according to a 1977 decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

“White House press facilities having been made publicly available as a source of information for newsmen, the protection afforded news gathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons,” Judge Carl E. McGowan wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel.

www.nytimes.com...



determination that denial of a White House press pass constitutes a deprivation of "liberty" without due process of law within the meaning of the fifth amendment because it interferes with the free exercise of the profession of journalism.

...

We further conclude that notice, opportunity to rebut, and a written decision are required because the denial of a pass potentially infringes upon first amendment guarantees. Such impairment of this interest cannot be permitted to occur in the absence of adequate procedural due process.

...

This first amendment interest undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment.

openjurist.org...

Mind you, I posted all of this on the last thread where you claimed I had not.
edit on 14-11-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus




Changing Seating assignments? No constitutional right to be in the front row. Not called on Specific reporters? No Constitutional right the President must call on you. Excluding reporters from AF1? No constitutional right to free plane rides.

and no right to be in the actual press conference
sorry
you are simply wrong, again

or has acosta NOT been on CNN recently?
www.dailymail.co.uk...
here is the brief the white house filed with the court



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus




Changing Seating assignments? No constitutional right to be in the front row. Not called on Specific reporters? No Constitutional right the President must call on you. Excluding reporters from AF1? No constitutional right to free plane rides.

and no right to be in the actual press conference
sorry
you are simply wrong, again



The law disagrees with you. The courts have ruled on this in the past.
It is considered a right under Freedom of The Press and can not be denied without due process.



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Read the WH Brief.

They are leaning on two principles "fair and orderly administration"..
Which is the premise that although the President doesn't own the "National Park" he occupies he can restrict access for either security purposes or to prevent "fair and orderly administration" of his duties.

I think this fails in the courts as the behavior of a reporter doesn't interfere with his ability to do his job, if it does he is incompetent and anyways the courts give reporters a lot of leeway and don't police behavior.

The other thing they are claiming which is definitely going to fail is that press conferences are equal in the eyes of the court as one-on-one interviews and the POTUS can choose who can attend.

case law (as cited above) definitely calls BS on that one.



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

I had to applaud you because that was the best laugh I had all day. You understand Trump has the power and authority to have the room cleared by saying “clear the room” and those that don’t move will be physically and forcefully removed. Fact is that they might have their freedom restricted by virtue of being arrested, possibly held without bail, on trespassing charges.

Trump can settle this very quickly by ending all future White House press conferences indefinitely. Simply put, the President is not required to entertain them at all. He only requirement of public policy is to address Congress from time to time on the State of the Union. And might even require them to be closed door addresses.

Personally, I wouldn’t have them unless I really had something to say. And questions would be none to very minimal, but probably none.



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

The case you site denied a pass; legally different than revoking a pass.
I thought for some reason you would be able to see the difference.
openjurist.org...


applied for and was denied a White House press pass.

also from the case you sited


Nor is the discretion of the President to grant interviews or briefings with selected journalists challenged


That last line alone sinks your argument as it is what the industry refers to as "legal precedent".
It means the president can give briefings with the journalists he wants.

Oh boy and this too from the same link


We have no occasion to consider what procedures must be employed in the revocation, for security reasons, of an already-issued White House press pass


game over

good try

edit on 14/11/2018 by shooterbrody because: yummy linky goodness



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Hey, I never claimed to not be slow... I am a redneck, right?

I'm confused... one of your links (sorry, I read slow so I haven't finished them all) says this:

The first amendment's protection of a citizen's right to obtain information concerning "the way the country is being run" does not extend to every conceivable avenue a citizen may wish to employ in pursuing this right. Nor is the discretion of the President to grant interviews or briefings with selected journalists challenged. It would certainly be unreasonable to suggest that because the President allows interviews with some bona fide journalists, he must give this opportunity to all. Finally, appellee's first amendment claim is not premised upon the assertion that the White House must open its doors to the press, conduct press conferences, or operate press facilities.


I can see how much you like bolding things, so I did too. You're welcome.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
They can have him get a psychological exam and wait 60 or so days to decide, then say no.

Lots of ways around the ass.




posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

What you excerpted is consistent with what I am saying.
The courts view one-on-one interviews as distinct from general press conferences.

You did read the rest of what I posted? (Links above in last post)


For example, it would be okay for Trump to do a million exclusive interviews with Fox News, and never give one to ABC. However, when it comes to press conferences and briefings that are supposed to be open to the media, the rules are different.




according to a 1977 decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

“White House press facilities having been made publicly available as a source of information for newsmen, the protection afforded news gathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons,” Judge Carl E. McGowan wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel.




edit on 14-11-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Oh, dear, oh dear, oh dear...


CNN, which employs Don Lemon, suspended a reporter for expressing sympathy toward refugees.

Seems the plaintiff in this case has actually restricted a reporter's first amendment rights for arbitrary reporting!


Acosta still gets to submit articles to CNN, but this poor reporter has been denied that right! And all because CNN didn't like what they wrote... and now CNN is upset because Trump just didn't let a reporter they like abuse his privilege? Did someone mention "arbitrary"?

Shame, shame, shame!

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus

The case you site denied a pass; legally different than revoking a pass.


Revoking a pass is denying a pass after it has already been granted, which is actually on much, much weaker legal grounds.




top topics



 
44
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join