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

a reply to: soberbacchus

So Trump is the Congress now? Because he banned an individual reporter?

a reply to: soberbacchus

Lmfao, I love how you tried to twist my post, courtesy of propaganda sites indoctrinating the ignorant. Not my problem, I showed you what, you kicked at the dirt and said "nuh uh", pitiful.

a reply to: soberbacchus

You don't seem capable of honest discourse.

Neither do you.

I asked this in another thread, and you sloughed it off... so since we're here talking about honest discussion, I'll ask it again: What qualifies Jim Acosta to have the special right of inalienable White House access? Does everyone employed at CNN have this special inalienable right? How about someone employed by Fox News? MSNBC?

How about someone employed by a local newspaper? Can they show up and demand this special hard pass that grants them an inalienable right? There's a non-profit, free weekly newspaper here that is run out of a guy's home... can he do so?

What if I want to print a newspaper and deliver it to 1000 homes for free? Can I then show up and demand a hard pass in the name of "Freedom of the Press"? It's my right if I am a reporter, assuming I am understanding you correctly. As far as that goes, I guess I am a news reporter already; I have posted several articles on here, a publicly accessible website, concerning news. Or is there some financial measure that is required? Must the "news organization" have a minimum net worth? A minimum number of employees?

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED A MEMBER OF THE PRESS?

More importantly...

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE ABLE TO ATTEND A WHITE HOUSE PRESS CONFERENCE?

You've been going on and on about this for at least two threads and untold pages now... how about an answer, O ye of the honest discussion?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
He won’t answer.

This legal action is a failure by cnn, Trump wins again.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soberbacchus

Here is Obama kicking reporters off the plane:
abcnews.go.com...

You mean Citizen/Candidate Obama? Not President? And his campaign plane with limited seating? Not even a press conference?

That's your example? A private citizen not having enough seats to give a couple of reporters a free plane ride?

DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT YOU POSTED?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: BlackJackal

It isn't indefensible any more than it was indefensible when Obama removed reporters from various white house events

A US Citizen (not even President) not giving reporters a free airplane ride doesn't qualify.

Do you have anything to support this claim that isn't BS?

a reply to: BlackJackal

WAPO link, hardcore leftist site used for twisting news. Its literally fake news.

So no, try again.

Even FOX is supporting this ridiculous lawsuit.

FOX News supports CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credential. We intend to file an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court. Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people.”

www.aol.com...

originally posted by: notsure1
Even FOX is supporting this ridiculous lawsuit.

...
FOX News supports CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credential. We intend to file an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court. Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people.”
...

FOX NEWS MUST BE A

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: BlackJackal

hardcore leftist site used for twisting news. Its literally fake news.

a reply to: soberbacchus

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

a reply to: soberbacchus

Amicus brief, in other words, some encourageing words, hardly "support" and it means little.

Fox news can be fake, at the very least, people watch them because they give the POTUS props, the others don't. That's really all there is to it. Try again.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

You don't seem capable of honest discourse.

Neither do you.

I asked this in another thread, and you sloughed it off... so since we're here talking about honest discussion, I'll ask it again: What qualifies Jim Acosta to have the special right of inalienable White House access? Does everyone employed at CNN have this special inalienable right? How about someone employed by Fox News? MSNBC?

How about someone employed by a local newspaper? Can they show up and demand this special hard pass that grants them an inalienable right? There's a non-profit, free weekly newspaper here that is run out of a guy's home... can he do so?

What if I want to print a newspaper and deliver it to 1000 homes for free? Can I then show up and demand a hard pass in the name of "Freedom of the Press"? It's my right if I am a reporter, assuming I am understanding you correctly. As far as that goes, I guess I am a news reporter already; I have posted several articles on here, a publicly accessible website, concerning news. Or is there some financial measure that is required? Must the "news organization" have a minimum net worth? A minimum number of employees?

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED A MEMBER OF THE PRESS?

More importantly...

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE ABLE TO ATTEND A WHITE HOUSE PRESS CONFERENCE?

You've been going on and on about this for at least two threads and untold pages now... how about an answer, O ye of the honest discussion?

TheRedneck

Acosta will probably lose this lawsuit because it is a privilege to be a White House reporter and not a right.

However, the fact that no one seems to want to admit is that his removal was not for a good cause. It was because Trump got angry at the questions he was being asked. Refusing to give up the mic is not new, it happens all the time. He didn't assault the intern like some have claimed (even the White House dropped that ridiculous claim). Attempting to ask additional questions happens every single press conference, it's not new and not a crime.

Trump can't stand criticism, so much so that anytime it happens he calls it fake news. The White House pulling Acosta's credentials is the work of a petulant wannabe dictator that didn't get the praise he thought he deserved.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

You don't seem capable of honest discourse.

Neither do you.

I asked this in another thread, and you sloughed it off... so since we're here talking about honest discussion, I'll ask it again: What qualifies Jim Acosta to have the special right of inalienable White House access? Does everyone employed at CNN have this special inalienable right? How about someone employed by Fox News? MSNBC?

I answered this in detail in the other thread, including multiple links and outlining the constitutional and procedural process complete with supporting court rulings.

If you were unwilling to read it there, I see no reason to cut and paste it here.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Butterfinger
Was he banned totally or does he just have to go through the manual background credentialing everyday?

I dont think its cool to ban a particular reporter, but if I was CNN I'd send another reporter.

The Acosta grand stand is old. Send in Wolf Blitzer

He can do the everyday thing. He just wants to grandstand some more. Sad that CNN is actually backing this stupidity. Makes them look that much worse.

Don't Fox news do that with Trump all the time? Doesn't that bother you?

a reply to: Breakthestreak

Oh, I haven't even mentioned yet the fact that a court, when granting an injunction, requires the defendant to show that they will be irreparably harmed if the injunction is not granted before the trial. That can be by physical harm, severe and irreparable loss of income or ability, or a host of other things, but the key word is "irreparable." That means the wrong cannot be reasonably repaired after the fact. I'm still trying to figure out how barring a single reporter out of 50 for a few months until the trial can be irreparable. Would it cause irreparable harm to CNN if Jim Acosta broke his leg and couldn't attend the briefings?

Unless CNN can show that, there will be no injunction. If they do, I'll start calling them the ANN... the "Acosta News Nonsense Network."

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED A MEMBER OF THE PRESS?

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.

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE ABLE TO ATTEND A WHITE HOUSE PRESS CONFERENCE?

I answered that in full detail in the other thread with supporting links.

You've been going on and on about this for at least two threads and untold pages now... how about an answer, O ye of the honest discussion?

TheRedneck

How about you be honest? Or read my responses to you in the other thread?

a reply to: TheRedneck

CNN has other white house credentialed reporters, how is this even a thing?

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: soberbacchus

So Trump is the Congress now? Because he banned an individual reporter?

Congress shall make no law.

Trump's ban was "unlawful" as without legal foundation.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: TheRedneck

CNN has other white house credentialed reporters, how is this even a thing?

It's not and that is why it'll fail, leading to more liberal tears and investigations by simpleton house dims.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

You don't seem capable of honest discourse.

Neither do you.

I asked this in another thread, and you sloughed it off... so since we're here talking about honest discussion, I'll ask it again: What qualifies Jim Acosta to have the special right of inalienable White House access? Does everyone employed at CNN have this special inalienable right? How about someone employed by Fox News? MSNBC?

How about someone employed by a local newspaper? Can they show up and demand this special hard pass that grants them an inalienable right? There's a non-profit, free weekly newspaper here that is run out of a guy's home... can he do so?

What if I want to print a newspaper and deliver it to 1000 homes for free? Can I then show up and demand a hard pass in the name of "Freedom of the Press"? It's my right if I am a reporter, assuming I am understanding you correctly. As far as that goes, I guess I am a news reporter already; I have posted several articles on here, a publicly accessible website, concerning news. Or is there some financial measure that is required? Must the "news organization" have a minimum net worth? A minimum number of employees?

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED A MEMBER OF THE PRESS?

More importantly...

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE ABLE TO ATTEND A WHITE HOUSE PRESS CONFERENCE?

You've been going on and on about this for at least two threads and untold pages now... how about an answer, O ye of the honest discussion?

TheRedneck

Acosta will probably lose this lawsuit because it is a privilege to be a White House reporter and not a right.

Except it isn't.

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: BlackJackal

WAPO link, hardcore leftist site used for twisting news. Its literally fake news.

So no, try again.

OMG you are dense as a freaking brick aren't you? What I quoted for you wasn't from the Washington Post it was a verbatim quote from Sarah freaking Sanders herself.

I guess you agree with me now that she is FAKE NEWS huh?

Well, here it is from a more PRO-right site.

We have been advised that CNN has filed a complaint challenging the suspension of Jim Acosta's hard pass. This is just more grandstanding from CNN, and we will vigorously defend against the lawsuit," said Sanders in the statement.

"Mr. Acosta is no more or less special than any other media outlet or reporter with respect to the First Amendment," Sanders continued, noting that CNN "has nearly 50 additional hard pass holders."

The press secretary explained that Acosta "inappropriately" refused to yield after he asked two questions that were answered by the president.

"After Mr. Acosta asked the President two questions -- each of which the President answered -- he physically refused to surrender a White House microphone to an intern so that other reporters might ask their questions. This was not the first time this reporter has inappropriately refused to yield to other reporters," the statement reads.

LINK