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

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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.

False.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: TheRedneck

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

The WH does not get to pick and choose.

So much confusion around here.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: TheRedneck

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

The WH does not get to pick and choose.

So much confusion around here.

Oh really
then why the need for a pass?
When can I expect to attend a briefing and put it on a youtube channel?

a reply to: BlackJackal

Lol, you're so dense, I don't subscribe to your lefrist delusions SG.

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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.

False.

You have a Judge chosen by the Federalist Society and appointed by Trump that is going to rule on an immediate temporary injunction in a few hours.

Watch what happens.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: TheRedneck

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

The WH does not get to pick and choose.

So much confusion around here.

Yes they can, its the WHITE HOUSE 😁

Acosta is a crybaby? Please.. he is a journalist whose banning could set a precedent where ANY journalist could be banned by ANY politician, and it's a big deal. Ultimately all journalists are out to make a name for themselves - do you really think they want to get all the truth out there? They all want recognition and $$$.. same as pretty much any professional in any job.

The hard truth is that Trump doesn't like the candid and hard-hitting questions Acosta may ask, and so wants that removed. In pretty much the exact same way he labels ALL media sources who don't kiss his butt as "fake," and the rest are "real." Which is a huge laughable pile of manure.

Only the most dense of people could fail to see this - which means all his supporters are purposely ignoring this convenient exclusion of media that nano-thin skinned Trump can't handle. Trump is terrible at handling negative media of any kind, or any negative criticism. That is a FACT. Not up for debate. It's clearly and obviously the reason for the banning. And that should not be allowed to stand.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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.

False.

You have a Judge chosen by the Federalist Society and appointed by Trump that is going to rule on an immediate temporary injunction in a few hours.

Watch what happens.

I'm watching your tears filling a Vat, what happened now?

a reply to: soberbacchus

Kind of like when you said kavanaugh would NOT be seated?
That kind of "watch what happens"?

a reply to: fleabit

False.

a reply to: BlackJackal

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

Thank you. That is exactly my point.

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.

On this I disagree, and it's not because it was Acosta or Trump involved. I saw a reporter trying to monologue the presser, who refused to stop when Trump tried to call on another reporter (multiple times), who refused to surrender the mic to an intern, and who did use physical force to retain it. He didn't push her away, but he did clearly block her access to the mic with his arm.

My standard is, would I have felt justified had this been a press conference I was holding. My answer is yes, I would have actually barred Acosta from ever entering the premises again and had him escorted out by the police on the spot. I felt sorry for the intern; she was looking at Trump with that "what do I do now?" helpless look in her eyes. She was likely fearing for her job because she can't force the mic out of Acosta's hands and yet her job is to do just that.

That is uncivilized and completely out of line. I don't care if someone wants to call it "assault" or "uncooperative" or "playing the tuba." It's not right by any name.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus

Kind of like when you said kavanaugh would NOT be seated?
That kind of "watch what happens"?

I'm beginning to think these people binged watched some Cleo fortunes telling commercials.

a reply to: fleabit

You must not know who Acosta is then.
🙄

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: TheRedneck

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

The WH does not get to pick and choose.

So much confusion around here.

Oh really
then why the need for a pass?
When can I expect to attend a briefing and put it on a youtube channel?

The pass is by Secret Service.

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.

If you are denied a pass application by the Secret Service, the reasons can not be "arbitrary" but must follow a consistent and relevant criteria and you must be notified in writing why the pass was denied and have the right to contest it.

The courts have been clear about this.

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?

I suppose that would include me. I "blog" on here, and I am certainly random.

I thought, and forgive me if I am wrong, that you said earlier that there was some sort of screening procedure, though? Is that correct?

TheRedneck

a reply to: soberbacchus

Are you incapable of performing a Google search?

Obama, who campaigned on a promise to protect government whistle-blowers, made greater use of the Espionage Act to prosecute leakers and menace journalists than all other presidents combined.

Source

Whatever bubble you inhabit clearly lacks unbiased opinions. I suggest backing off the Twitter, Facebook, and or Reddit.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus

Kind of like when you said kavanaugh would NOT be seated?
That kind of "watch what happens"?

Yep. That was my bad. I thought the GOP cared about Mid-Terms.
Never underestimate the short sightedness of the GOP was my lesson.

...

In 2016, just 43 percent of white women voted for Democratic House candidates, while 55 percent voted for Republicans.
2018? 49 percent of white women voted for Democrats in House races, while another 49 percent voted for Republicans
www.vox.com...

Dems took 6% of white women away from GOP.
A big part of that was Kavenaugh.

This is the courts though, not the GOP idiots in congress.

a reply to: soberbacchus

www.nytimes.com...
They can change whatever they like and have in the past.
Acosta is not some unicorn.
He is still on CNN not watched by millions.
CNN still has access to the briefings.
Perhaps Acosta should have thought about the consequences of his actions prior to completing them.
There is precedent of the white house controlling who is admitted into the briefings, who sits where, and who gets to ask questions.
This "lawsuit" is poppycock.

a reply to: JAY1980

What does that have to do with the fake claim that Pres. Obama had reporters removed from press conferences?

a reply to: soberbacchus

Yeah and the gop kept the senate, particularly the seats that did not vote for kavanaugh.
And trumps loss of the house was not nearly the bloodbath barak experienced.

As to your comment about the courts, I wonder how mr kavanaugh feels about the msm right about now? That coverage wont come back to bite them in the ass will it?
Perhaps they should have researched the "gang rape" accusations prior to airing them in prime time?