Time for a press boycott of White House press conferences

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Being invited to be a member of the press in the White House is a privilege.

Not a right.

Incorrect.

Being President is a privilege.
Living in a house owned by the taxpayers is a privilege.

Freedom of the press is a constitutional right.

Watch as the CNN case makes it way through the courts and conservative judges hand Trump his ass.

The press is still free.

Being in the White House is a privilege.

Show me otherwise.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

*sigh*

Hide and watch. Tomorrow at this time you'll be claiming Judge Kelly is biased because Trump appointed him.

TheRedneck

Tomorrow at this time you will not acknowledge I was correct.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Correct. Kelly will decline to issue a restraining order, so why would I?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Correct. Kelly will decline to issue a restraining order, so why would I?

TheRedneck

Kelly is member of the Federalist Society, was on the far rights special list of judges they wanted Trump to appoint, and was appointed by Trump himself just over a year ago.

You would think this would be a slam dunk for Trump.

But here is the thing, no judge wants to be over-ruled by the SCOTUS or higher courts in general.
Kelly is appointed for life. He is more concerned with his legacy now. He will do what the law and constitution demands.

Immediate temporary injunction because the WH has not demonstrated either legally justifiable cause or due process.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Wrong.

Asking questions IN the White House is a privilege.

Not a right.

a reply to: soberbacchus

He will do what the law and constitution demands.

Yes, he will.

You finally got something right. Congratulations?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: soberbacchus

Wrong.

Asking questions IN the White House is a privilege.

Not a right.

NOPE.

Not the way the constitution sees it.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: soberbacchus

Wrong.

Asking questions IN the White House is a privilege.

Not a right.

NOPE.

Not the way the constitution sees it.

Liar.

Prove me wrong.

SHOW ME in the Constitution where the press has a right to be in the White House and demand answers from a president.

SHOW ME!


PROVE IT OR GO HOME!

a reply to: DBCowboy

I can't believe the founding fathers ignored the constitutional right for a press room until Teddy Roosevelt. That's an outrage. Let's tear down their statues. Also, I will take your federal reserve notes with their portraits for proper disposal.

originally posted by: [post=23956019]DBCowboy

SHOW ME in the Constitution where the press has a right to be in the White House and demand answers from a president.

SHOW ME!


PROVE IT OR GO HOME!

Freedom of the Press.

Pssst....The White House is a National Park. Doesn't belong to the President. Lately the WH is like a zoo without cages where the animals attack and eat one another, but legally and literally, it is a National Park.

Like other National Parks, admittance can be restricted on given days or times to categories of people or all people, but it needs to be based on a criteria that can withstand legal scrutiny.

Examples of general prohibitions to entry to a national park: Park closes at sundown. Man eating bear on the loose. Habitat restoration.

In the case of the Whitehouse the most prominent general prohibition of entry is the Security of the President and to allow for the execution of his duties.

Examples of individuals being denied entry to a National Park: People that commit crimes there, vandalism, illegal drug use, arson. They can be banned from National Parks for legally sound reasons.

In the case of the White house Individual bans of people who have otherwise received clearance from the Secret Service to be there involve Security Threats that result in revoking the clearance. That was not done here.

Trump is behaving as if the WH is his personal property. It is not.

People (in general) can be and are prohibited from entering the WH Grounds for reasons like Security, Or for the benefit of the orderly performance of the duties of the executive branch (a defense sarah sanders has switched to after her "assault" claim failed reality) BUT they can not selectively be banned without due process and legally sound explanation.

Meaning if the WH has a Press Conference and 1000 reporters who have been vetted and approved by Secret Service for special access to the WH grounds and press quarters and conference rooms, the WH house cannot single out reporters and say (not you) and revoke that clearance just cuz they don't like their style.

Straight-up, Trump's best bet legally is to claim that Acosta interfered with the Executive Branch doing it's business by disrupting the press conference and interfering with the President's Q&A with other members of the press.

And that seems to be the strategy Sarah Sanders is now articulating (now they are being sued).

The rub there is that the courts are very lenient when it comes to the "behavior" of the press. They guard against the court system dictating a free press show deference to power as that is obviously a very slippery slope.

Could Acosta have been banned for striking someone or demonstrating a physical threat? Absolutely.

Not for asking questions aggressively though or even behaving like an ass.

Neither qualifies in the eyes of the court.

CNN can easily win this lawsuit.

a reply to: DBCowboy

PROVE IT OR GO HOME!

Let's simply assume that we're all home already, literally or not.

Liar.

Prove me wrong.

Attention whore.

Pipe the fck up and read a book? The Liar King maybe?

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: DBCowboy

I can't believe the founding fathers ignored the constitutional right for a press room until Teddy Roosevelt.

The Secret Service could cease to issue Press-Pass security clearances to the WH.
They would likely have to defend it in court and would likely lose without a good reason, but singling out reporters the WH doesn't like is a much more definite fail in court.

You are conflating specific discrimination of an individual or outlet that a Politician does not want to answer questions from with the general access of all reporters.

Once the WH holds a press conference on public property, they need to have a legal reason to selectively ban a reporter.

The reason that teen-age bloggers don't attend press conferences in the Brady Room is not because Trump says they can't, it is because they do not have a Secret Service Hard Press Pass that allows them to be there.

Now, the WH Press Office does forward applications, but only based on a criteria. They can't pick and choose based on what outlets they like or don't like. this is what the WH Press Office confirms before forwarding the application to the Secret Service.
That the applicant:
- obtained a pass for the House and Senate press galleries,
- resides in the Washington, D. C. area,
- and needs to report from the White House on a regular basis (the latter usually being verified by an editor of the publication for which the applicant is a correspondent),

*Again the RWNJ crowd around likes to shout down posters for sharing insights, but reality will support what I am saying because reality is where I got it from. Watch what happens today with a Trump Appointed Judge that is a member of the Federalist Society.

Court cases. Law. Links and citations.

“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...

If I were POTUS I would consider putting in place an Exec Order to ban the major news networks from using the word 'News' in their Company Title. It's all talk/opinions/spin at this point.

originally posted by: Guyfriday

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: DBCowboy

4D chess.

Trump wants them to boycott, and then there will be no opposition.

2D chess:
Many of the Press Corps have forgotten that they are journalists first, and not political mouth pieces for the opposition.

They didn't forget. They got jobs out of school. Then they found out, it is nothing like college. You just do what your boss tells you to ...or you get fired. With that college debt load...you get your mind right toot sweet.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: notsure1

This is the kind of comment that gets the most praise around here nowadays. Nothing insightful or thought provoking just childish finger pointing and name calling. Low effort, knee jerk posts that add absolutely nothing to any discussion whatsoever.

This is why many people consider ATS to be a shadow of its former self, it has turned into a complete joke.

This is the kind of content that is attracting new members, that's why one-liner insults are becoming more and more prevalent around here, because people see it is being rewarded.

Pat yourself on the back, you deserve it. Keep the unintelligent posts coming.

Oh, you're so sweet! Thanks for playing!

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: scrounger
a reply to: soberbacchus

the cold hard fact is the white house press briefing are at the sole choice of the president . (Not sure what you mean? the room?)
He can choose to do or not do them. (TRUE)
choose who can be in there. (FALSE)
How long the session lasts (TRUE)
even who he lets ask questions, how many and when their "time is up" (KINDA - It depends on who calls on - but there is now legal precedent/law around shouting questions or how long etc. That is usually handled by the WHCA and WH talking it out if there is a general disciplinary or behavior issue)

sigh
AGAIN were SPECIFICALLY does what you claim is in the constitution.

there is NO WORDING nor COURT CASE by the SUPREME COURT that states such.

the supreme court (not lower court so save the 1977 case often used) said CLEARLY the press DOES NOT HAVE ANY MORE RIGHTS/ACCESS than the general public.

did not say if had security clearance, did not say if it already has started and in fact had it been considered disruptive he could be removed by the Secret service or police.
the ONLY THING stated in court cases and recognized is SPECIFIC incidence of being banned for REPORTING/PUBLISHING negative things about him aka retribution.

Which as to be PROVEN IN COURT OF LAW and that standard is VERY HIGH.
In fact there has been no successful cases on this to date.

as for any references to hitler or a dictator that is PURE EMOTIONAL driven comments that are ONLY OPINION not fact

so if you or others can PROVIDE EXACT PROOF then your just ranting.

Scrounger

I defy anyone to show where in the constitution that makes the press answerable to no one, can do what they want when they want.

Freedom of the Press.
They answer to the Public, just like the President.
They do not answer to a President.
that would the territory of despots and dictators.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Correct. Kelly will decline to issue a restraining order, so why would I?

TheRedneck

Kelly is member of the Federalist Society, was on the far rights special list of judges they wanted Trump to appoint, and was appointed by Trump himself just over a year ago.

You would think this would be a slam dunk for Trump.

But here is the thing, no judge wants to be over-ruled by the SCOTUS or higher courts in general.
Kelly is appointed for life. He is more concerned with his legacy now. He will do what the law and constitution demands.

Immediate temporary injunction because the WH has not demonstrated either legally justifiable cause or due process.

no judge wants to be over ruled by the scotus or higher courts in general

wow even rod sterling could not make that ridiculous idea work as an episode for the twilight zone.

if that were the case no judge on the 9th circuit court of appeals would make the rulings the do and have the record of the most overturned rulings .

If (as you try to claim to support this point you are making) there is NO PRESENCE for this injunction.
In fact the supreme court HAS ALREADY ruled that the press has NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES not available to the general public.
the ONLY thing is if the press person has been banned in retribution for publishing unflattering things (note not protect if false) about the president.
He was banned due to his rude, uncivil and breaking the rules actions that (in the very definition of irony) was recorded for all to see BY THE PRESS.

the truth is he was a rude possibly assaultive (to the WH intern) and a general jack wagon . He got punished for HIS ACTIONS.
CNN can still send someone else and is not banned, all the other reporters (WITH ALOT ANTI TRUMP and/or wrote lots of negative be true or untrue things about him) still there, and press conferences still going to happen.
Add to that there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL requirement for him to even have them

dont like it...tough
facts and constitutional law dont care.

scrounger

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: loam
LOL.

What will we do without WH reporters???

Armageddon.

That's right who needs the press anyways, all they do is ask annoying questions and stuff...

There are plenty of other press who aren't part of the Corporate Media who would actually be journalists, not liberal propagandists and activists. Believe me, the press and the US would get along just fine without CNN or MSNBC.

a reply to: soberbacchus

you keep cherry picking individual cases and in this post ONE JUDGES ....OPINION

but IGNORE the fact the supreme court ALREADY HAS RULED.
already SET THE ONLY SITUATION THAT THEY CAN NOT LEGALLY BAN THEM.
already stated CLEARLY that the press HAS NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES NOT GRANTED TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.

PERIOD.

you can twist, cherry pick, stomp your feet, name call , and give YOUR OPINION untill the cows come home

WONT CHANGE ESTABLISHED FACTS.

BTW are you on the legal team for CNN?
or even have a law degree?

scrounger

double post