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

originally posted by: seagull
Although, I have to ask, why would you feel it necessary to do that?

My anti-authoritarian side compels me to.

originally posted by: Arnie123
...most likely tasered at or on the nards, seared, not sucked.

Sign me up.

originally posted by: notsure1
That would make you a disrespectful little shi toddler like Acosta.

Well, if I ever run into Cheetolini again in NYC I'll make sure I put this theory to the test.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: notsure1
That would make you a disrespectful little shi toddler like Acosta.

Well, if I ever run into Cheetolini again in NYC I'll make sure I put this theory to the test.

Nah, you definitely won't. cool story though, bro'.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
Nah, you definitely won't. cool story though, bro'.

What? Say something crass to him? Yeah, that would really be completely out of character, what was I thinking.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Jonjonj
Nah, you definitely won't. cool story though, bro'.

What? Say something crass to him? Yeah, that would really be completely out of character, what was I thinking.

Have a star.

You won't tell the Prez to suck your bollocks though, no way.

That's beyond crass, they'd get you on threatening behaviour, you can't force a Prez to accept your nads, or even the thought of the nads, down his throat. Pretty sure on that.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

OK. That's what i suspected your reply would be. Since it appeals to my anti-authoritarian side, too...I'd be tempted, probably, to do the same--if told to STFU and sit down.

Tempted, yes. But I'd also realize that there are certain consequences to ones actions? I most certainly wouldn't fuss about it when those consequences came down on my foolish little head.

Actions come with consequences.

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Jonjonj
Nah, you definitely won't. cool story though, bro'.

What? Say something crass to him? Yeah, that would really be completely out of character, what was I thinking.

Have a star.

You won't tell the Prez to suck your bollocks though, no way.

That's beyond crass, they'd get you on threatening behaviour, you can't force a Prez to accept your nads, or even the thought of the nads, down his throat. Pretty sure on that.

Unless the POTUS is tranny loving OBAMA.

Tranny loving Obama? What do you mean?

I think I get it. You mean that any woman who has a crease in their pants or something, or looks manly (short hair etc) is a transexual therefore Obama must be transexual lover...I guess George Bush sr was a transexual lover too? Interesting theory. Does this apply only to presidents?

Talk about a Birth Certificate coverup...their two kids must obviously be fake. Wow!

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Jonjonj
Nah, you definitely won't. cool story though, bro'.

What? Say something crass to him? Yeah, that would really be completely out of character, what was I thinking.

Have a star.

You won't tell the Prez to suck your bollocks though, no way.

That's beyond crass, they'd get you on threatening behaviour, you can't force a Prez to accept your nads, or even the thought of the nads, down his throat. Pretty sure on that.

Unless the POTUS is tranny loving OBAMA.

Oh my GOD!!!

www.cnn.com...
"live" updated hearing link

Burnham said CNN had made an "odd First Amendment injury" claim and suggested that Acosta could do his job "just as effectively" watching the President's appearances piped into a studio on CNN. "The President never has to speak to Mr. Acosta again," Burnham said. "The President never has to give an interview to Mr. Acosta. And the President never has to call on Mr. Acosta at a press conference." "To be in a room where he has no right to speak... this seems to me like an odd First Amendment injury that we're talking about," Burnham said.
Boutrous, the CNN attorney, later cut back. "That's not how reporters break stories. It's simply a fundamental misconception of journalism," Boutrous said, adding how unscheduled gaggles and source meetings throughout the White House amounted to "invaluable access."

interesting back and forth

originally posted by: Jonjonj
That's beyond crass, they'd get you on threatening behaviour, you can't force a Prez to accept your nads, or even the thought of the nads, down his throat. Pretty sure on that.

Now, now, I didn't say I'd force myself on him, just suggest that he moisten me slightly. I'd of course make it optional.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
www.cnn.com...
"live" updated hearing link

Burnham said CNN had made an "odd First Amendment injury" claim and suggested that Acosta could do his job "just as effectively" watching the President's appearances piped into a studio on CNN. "The President never has to speak to Mr. Acosta again," Burnham said. "The President never has to give an interview to Mr. Acosta. And the President never has to call on Mr. Acosta at a press conference." "To be in a room where he has no right to speak... this seems to me like an odd First Amendment injury that we're talking about," Burnham said.
Boutrous, the CNN attorney, later cut back. "That's not how reporters break stories. It's simply a fundamental misconception of journalism," Boutrous said, adding how unscheduled gaggles and source meetings throughout the White House amounted to "invaluable access."

interesting back and forth

So essentially he wants to be free to cause trouble? He has every possible amenity and ability to continue his work BUT the one he wants, press access to the White House,

originally posted by: seagull
OK. That's what i suspected your reply would be. Since it appeals to my anti-authoritarian side, too...I'd be tempted, probably, to do the same--if told to STFU and sit down.

I tend to respect people who push back a little when being bossed around.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Jonjonj
That's beyond crass, they'd get you on threatening behaviour, you can't force a Prez to accept your nads, or even the thought of the nads, down his throat. Pretty sure on that.

Now, now, I didn't say I'd force myself on him, just suggest that he moisten me slightly. I'd of course make it optional.

Good luck making it optional with your DEMAND to suck 'em!

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Jonjonj
Nah, you definitely won't. cool story though, bro'.

What? Say something crass to him? Yeah, that would really be completely out of character, what was I thinking.

Have a star.

You won't tell the Prez to suck your bollocks though, no way.

Protestors shout that and worse to the President in DC, at his hotel, out front of the WH etc.

No one gets arrested.

Ditto with the gazillion middle fingers his motorcade receives.

Hell it's even like an instagram thing, people snapping pictures of themselves giving Trump the middle finger.

What makes you think you live in Iran where guys come and arrest you?

It's the USA and anyone can tell a POTUS to go eff himself anytime they like (except active military).

a reply to: notsure1

I thought at one point he had banned CNN from Whitehouse period? When did he start letting them back in and why. They are not a news agency any more the are an entertainment and opinion channel so why should they have a guy there does comedy central have a guy at Whitehouse press conferences too?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Gonna have to wait until AM for his ruling.

a reply to: soberbacchus

What makes you think you live in Iran where guys come and arrest you?

I live in the UK and we simply don't do that. Have a bit of bloody respect.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: shooterbrody

Gonna have to wait until AM for his ruling.

So much for the immediate and irreparable harm no restraining order issued today.
The ruling to be given 3pm est Thursday.