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

a reply to: BlackJackal

It's funny that you are upset with Acosta for acting like a child but I haven't heard you have any problems with the Man child Trump's behavior?

What about a grown man tearing up official documents and throwing them on the ground?

Then you've not been paying attention. I've been critical of his behavior from just about day one. The fact that I don't post a thousand threads about it is quite beside the point.

a reply to: TheRedneck

That is a weird post.

Are you saying an employer suspending an employee is the same as the Whitehouse revoking a Reporters credentials arbitrarily?

I am confused.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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.

no it is not and the link you posted spells out as much in very plain english....if you could only be bothered to read it

originally posted by: Ahabstar
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.

Not sure what tyrant magazine you subscribe to? Is trump a centerfold or something?

It is always a weird vibe to see people get all lathered up imagining scenarios where Trump goes all 3rd world dictator.

a reply to: soberbacchus

So, it's OK to be rude, now?

I'm really very sorry that my opinion on the lack of civility on some idiot reporters side has offended you on some level.

See how easy that is?

Now then, why not be all up in arms about something like the congressional slush fund to help them silence claims made against congress critters...

Ah, I see, BFFT asks the same question.

I find many of you are getting upset because of the R behind the persons name. Very selective of you...

a reply to: soberbacchus

I'm reading, but I don't see where it is applicable. Your links concern arbitrary denials, not denials based on individual actions. Even this statement:

"White House press facilities having been made publicly available as a source of information for newsmen..."

denies that there is a right to enter the White House briefing room. A right cannot be bestowed (or removed) by a government; that is the definition.

No government bestowed upon me the ability to speak or write my mind, nor my right to do so.

No government bestowed upon me the ability or the right to believe in a religion as I choose.

No government bestowed upon me the right to be secure in my home.

The Constitution recognizes these rights; it does not bestow them. Anything a government bestows, it can remove... so that which is bestowed is not a right by definition. That is where your logic is failing. Acosta has no right to enter the White House... he had a privilege to do so, which he abused IMO.

TheRedneck

openjurist.org...
Cnn was stupid to base its case on this case

It is not contended that standards relating to the security of the President are the sole basis upon which members of the general public may be refused entry to the White House, or that members of the public must be afforded notice and hearing concerning such refusal. 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.18 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.

further

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

They tell you this is for application denials and does not deal with an already issued pass.
Who is cnns legal team? Dewy, Cheatem, and Howe?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: soberbacchus

So, it's OK to be rude, now?

Personally? I think Acosta was an ass. That is a different question than what the WH did and the courts don't care about rudeness in press conferences, nor should they.

Ponder for a moment why the eff FOX NEWS is signing on to the lawsuit on Acosta's behalf.
You think they like CNN or Acosta?

Rudeness is not what is being debated. He was rude. He was an ass. The other journalists don't like him much.
The reaction by the WH though is a whole different ballgame with consequences for all journalists.
Trump proudly preened that Acosta might not be the last Journalist he would ban.
See where this is going? Fast forward 4 years to the next administration? Or 8?

Now then, why not be all up in arms about something like the congressional slush fund to help them silence claims made against congress critters...

I have posted on that topic in the past? Am I not allowed to criticize gov about multiple things at once? I am confused by what you are suggesting.

I find many of you are getting upset because of the R behind the persons name. Very selective of you...

The last (D) Potus did not ever revoke a WH reporters credentials or kick a reporter out of a news conference.

I debunked BFFT's fake news claims in that regard.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Are you saying an employer suspending an employee is the same as the Whitehouse revoking a Reporters credentials arbitrarily?

Oh, no! Not the same... but you tell me which is worse...

Jim Acosta can still publish articles with CNN... Elise Labott cannot.

Jim Acosta is getting his day in court... Elise Labott did not.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: shooterbrody
openjurist.org...
Cnn was stupid to base its case on this case

...........
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
................

They tell you this is for application denials and does not deal with an already issued pass.
Who is cnns legal team? Dewy, Cheatem, and Howe?

Happy to see you reading the case now. It will be a topic after the Court rules today.

What you are missing is what I have been shouting for a couple days. That phrase right there...

...........
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
................

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Are you saying an employer suspending an employee is the same as the Whitehouse revoking a Reporters credentials arbitrarily?

Oh, no! Not the same... but you tell me which is worse...

Jim Acosta can still publish articles with CNN... Elise Labott cannot.

Jim Acosta is getting his day in court... Elise Labott did not.

TheRedneck

Soooo....

You are suggesting that Media outlets not be able to fire an employee?

Or that Acosta is an employee of Trump?

Still not getting it.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Are you saying an employer suspending an employee is the same as the Whitehouse revoking a Reporters credentials arbitrarily?

Oh, no! Not the same... but you tell me which is worse...

Jim Acosta can still publish articles with CNN... Elise Labott cannot.

Jim Acosta is getting his day in court... Elise Labott did not.

TheRedneck

Soooo....

You are suggesting that Media outlets not be able to fire an employee?

Or that Acosta is an employee of Trump?

Still not getting it.

Because you're being willfully dense.

a reply to: soberbacchus

So you admit the case deals with an application denial and not a revocation?
They why would stupid cnn attempt to use it as such?

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Are you saying an employer suspending an employee is the same as the Whitehouse revoking a Reporters credentials arbitrarily?

Oh, no! Not the same... but you tell me which is worse...

Jim Acosta can still publish articles with CNN... Elise Labott cannot.

Jim Acosta is getting his day in court... Elise Labott did not.

TheRedneck

Soooo....

You are suggesting that Media outlets not be able to fire an employee?

Or that Acosta is an employee of Trump?

Still not getting it.

Because you're being willfully dense.

I am being objectively logical.

Is that example suggesting that Media outlets not be able to fire an employee?

Or that Acosta is an employee of Trump?

easy questions.

a reply to: soberbacchus

I am suggesting that Elise Labott's right to freedom of the press was damaged much more severely than Jim Acosta's right to freedom of the press. I am also suggesting that it was CNN, the same CNN that is filing this frivolous lawsuit, who did it!

We call that "ironical" down here in the land of dumb ol' rednecks...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus

So you admit the case deals with an application denial and not a revocation?

I don't need to admit it? That is what the case deals with and I have never said otherwise.

They why would stupid cnn attempt to use it as such?

Because a revoking of credentials is a denial of credentials after granting.

So much so that the courts assumed the only occasion a reporters credentials would be revoked would be due to security purposes by the Secret Service...Like your excerpt articulates..WHICH UNTIL TODAY was true. From what I researched (1) woman got her press pass revoked for rifling through other journalists desks or WH staff desks and another got his credentials revoked for a drunken brawl (eventually restored).

Because a revoking of credentials is a denial of credentials after granting.

No it is not and the case itself thinks it is so important it actually lists this fact.

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

The court did not ASSUME anything, which is why it went out of its way to note such.
The court only was dealing with APPLICATION denials.
CNN used the wrong case and will lose because of such.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

Because a revoking of credentials is a denial of credentials after granting.

No it is not and the case itself thinks it is so important it actually lists this fact.

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

The court did not ASSUME anything, which is why it went out of its way to note such.
The court only was dealing with APPLICATION denials.
CNN used the wrong case and will lose because of such.

"FOR SECURITY REASONS"

Is it your assertion that Acosta's questions were a mortal threat to the snowflake potus? THAT is what they are going to sell in court?

THAT is what they tried first with the "assault" bit and then retreated to "Orderly administration" when the WH lawyers explained the "assault" claim was laughable and there was no security threat to cite.

They are so going to lose this case.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Also the white house brief did not list losing the security clearance as the reason for revoking the pass.
A stance the 1977 case actually supports.

CNN will get slapped down as they used a very poor and ineffective legal strategy.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Who is cnns legal team? Dewy, Cheatem, and Howe?

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

Notable cases; The firm's attorneys have argued more than 100 cases before the United States Supreme Court.[7] Some of the more notable cases include: The firm represented Apple, Inc. in its patent infringement suit against Samsung (Apple v. Samsung) relating to the Galaxy Nexus smartphone, and won an injunction in June 2012 blocking the sale of the Galaxy Nexus phone in the United States.[8] The injunction was vacated in October 2012 based on the results of the trial.[9][10] The firm is representing Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, in a $17 billion contract dispute with purported seed money financier Paul Ceglia.[11] The firm is representing Chevron in its long-running, $27 billion environmental dispute in Ecuador.[12][13] The firm is defending Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in the landmark $11 billion employment discrimination class action Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Partner Theodore Boutros, Jr. argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2011. In June 2011, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit's order certifying the plaintiff class.[14] The firm is representing the Dole Food Company in a multibillion-dollar toxic tort suit in Nicaragua involving allegations of farmworker sterility stemming from Dole's use of certain pesticides. After the firm uncovered substantial evidence of fraud and a conspiracy between the plaintiffs and Nicaraguan judges to extort Dole out of billions with manufactured claims, courts in the United States dismissed multiple related suits against Dole and refused to enforce several Nicaraguan judgments.[15] The firm is defending Intel against several multibillion-dollar antitrust lawsuits filed by AMD and the European Union.[16] In 2009, the firm represented NBC Universal in its contract dispute with Conan O'Brien.[17] The firm represented Viacom in its billion-dollar copyright infringement lawsuit against Google and YouTube in Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc..[18] After multiple rulings at the District Court and Appellate Court, the case was settled in 2014.[19] Governor Chris Christie hired Gibson, Dunn attorney Randy Mastro to conduct an internal investigation of the circumstances surrounding the Fort Lee lane closure scandal and representing the Governor in a later federal investigation.[20] The firm was later criticized by U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton for its methods of record keeping, and accused the firm of "opacity and gamesmanship."[21]

From Wiki