Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

CNN sues Trump over suspension of Jim Acosta’s press pass after he got physical with White House intern

CNN sues Trump over suspension of Jim Acosta’s press pass after he got physical with White House intern

Wants Acosta’s “hard pass” restored to “allow him regular and unescorted access to the White House and White House briefings”

https://youtu.be/4BZ8ck_7cqk?t=85

On November 7, 2018, CNN’s Jim Acosta refused to relinquish a White House microphone, and physically prevented a White House intern from retrieving the microphone by blocking her with his arm.

The White House then suspended Acosta’s “hard pass,” the press pass that allowed him priority access to White House grounds.

https://youtu.be/4BZ8ck_7cqk?t=90

The media jumped to Acosta’s defense, claiming the video posted by Sarah Sanders showing Acosta getting physical with the intern was doctored. It was not. The video shows Acosta using his hand and arm to prevent the intern from getting the microphone, and the versions circulated showing the incident in slow motion, close up, and in portions speeded up, were the type of formatting commonly done and obvious to anyone watching.

Now CNN and Acosta have sued. The Complaint (pdf.)(full embed at bottom of post) names Trump, John F. Kelly, William Shine, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the
United States Secret Service, Randolph Alles, and John Doe (an unnamed Secret Service agent).

CNN issued this statement:

CNN filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration this morning in DC District Court. It demands the return of the White House credentials of CNN’s Chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta. The wrongful revocation of these credentials violates CNN and Acosta’s First Amendment rights of freedom of the press, and their Fifth Amendment rights to due process. We have asked this court for an immediate restraining order requiring the pass be returned to Jim, and will seek permanent relief as part of this process. While the suit is specific to CNN and Acosta, this could have happened to anyone. If left unchallenged, the actions of the White House would create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials.

CNN and Acosta attempt to portray the suspension as a reaction to the “content” of Acosta’s reporting:

2. But on November 7, 2018, Defendants revoked Acosta’s White House credentials because, in the President’s own words, Acosta failed to “treat the White House with respect” at a White House press briefing. This severe and unprecedented punishment is the culmination of years of hostility by President Trump against CNN and Acosta based on the contents of their reporting—an unabashed attempt to censor the press and exclude reporters from the White House
who challenge and dispute the President’s point of view.

That plainly is a false accusation. Acosta has been a showman and loudmouth for years at these press briefings. He only lost his pass when he got physical with an intern and refused to relinquish the microphone.

What Acosta is complaining about is the loss of his privileged access to the White House:

24. The hard pass is essential in large part because it allows immediate access to White House grounds and its press offices. A hard pass thus lets a reporter react to fast-developing, important news stories. Without a hard pass, a reporter may well miss the newsworthy events, particularly including the many notable events that occur with little notice. A hard pass is effectively required to be a White House correspondent for a national news organization such as CNN.

25. Without a hard pass, a reporter must ask for advance approval each time he wishes to enter the White House. Such access often needs to be requested at least 24 hours in advance. Since many White House news events, briefings, or appearances are frequently announced day-of, reporters without a hard pass are often effectively unable to cover these events. Further, the White House may decline to admit a reporter requesting daily access. Even if admitted, the reporter must wait in a security line with the general public and be screened before entering the White House and then be escorted by security around the press offices. Without a hard pass, a White House correspondent simply cannot do his job.

As of this initial posting, the court papers are not available on PACER, but CNN indicated in it’s announcement that it was seeking a restraining order.

In announcing the lawsuit, CNN’s Brian Stetler wrote:

As the prospect of a lawsuit loomed on Sunday, attorney Floyd Abrams, one of the country’s most respected First Amendment lawyers, said the relevant precedent is a 1977 ruling in favor of Robert Sherrill, a muckraking journalist who was denied access to the White House in 1966.

Eleven years later, a D.C. Court of Appeals judge ruled that the Secret Service had to establish “narrow and specific” standards for judging applicants. In practice, the key question is whether the applicant would pose a threat to the president.

The code of federal regulations states that “in granting or denying a request for a security clearance made in response to an application for a White House press pass, officials of the Secret Service will be guided solely by the principle of whether the applicant presents a potential source of physical danger to the President and/or the family of the President so serious as to justify his or her exclusion from White House press privileges.”

There are other guidelines as well. Abrams said the case law specifies that before a press pass is denied, “you have to have notice, you have to have a chance to respond, and you have to have a written opinion by the White House as to what it’s doing and why, so the courts can examine it.”

I discussed the case cited by Abrams (Sherrill v. Knight) and other factors just yesterday on the Jack Riccardi Show on KTSA San Antonio (direct audio link here):

Mark Levin posted this reaction:

I just read CNN’s lawsuit against the administration over Jim Acosta. It’s a very weak case, but if they get before an Obama or Clinton district judge, who knows. CNN hired Ted Olson’s firm, and he has signed onto the lawsuit. Olson was hired for a few reasons: 1. As a former Reagan official and lawyer for Bush in Bush-Gore, CNN hopes to make the PR case that this a bipartisan matter; 2. CNN hopes to make the PR case that it is upholding the Constitution against a rogue administration; and, 3. CNN has employed a top Supreme Court litigator.

Nonetheless, it is a ridiculous suit. CNN still has reporters at the White House and in the presidential press conferences; Acosta does not have a constitutional right to be physically present in the press room, anymore than the scores of media outlets that do not; Acosta can watch the press conference from outside the White House grounds as they are televised; the president cannot be compelled by any court to actually call on any particular reporter during a press conference; Acosta does not have a constitutional right to disrupt the press conference with his various antics anymore than any other reporter; and, a president is not constitutionally compelled to hold a presidential press conference. The courts should stay out of this on separation of powers grounds, among other things. No one is preventing Acosta from reporting or CNN from broadcasting.

MORE TO FOLLOW (POST UPDATED MULTIPLE TIMES)

UPDATES:

The case is assigned to Judge Timothy Kelly, who was appointed by Trump and confirmed without Democrat opposition. He previously ruled in favor of the Trump administration in the suit over who would head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, after an Obama holdover tried to prevent Mick Mulvaney from taking control.

The Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (pdf.)(full embed below) seeks an emergency hearing today or tomorrow.

AND

Additional Exhibits to the Motion for TRO (pdf.) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (pdf.) are now on PACER, and fully embedded at the bottom of this post.

AND

The Judge has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday afternoon:

11/13/2018 MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants shall file any response to Plaintiffs’ 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order by 11:00 a.m. on November 14, 2018. Defendants shall also file their opposition, if any, to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press’s 6 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by that time. It is further ORDERED that a hearing on Plaintiffs’ 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order will be held at 3:30 p.m. on November 14, 2018, in Courtroom 28A. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 11/13/2018. (lctjk3) (Entered: 11/13/2018)

——————————-

CNN and Acosta v. Trump – Complaint by Legal Insurrection on Scribd

——————————-

CNN and Acosta v. Trump – Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by Legal Insurrection on Scribd

——————————-

CNN and Acosta v. Trump – Motion for Temporary Restraining Order – Additional Exhibits by Legal Insurrection on Scribd

——————————–

CNN and Acosta v. Trump – Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Legal Insurrection on Scribd

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Violation of the First, Fifth Amendment and Administrative Procedures Act. Not sure a press pass entitles you to due process

    dystopia in reply to counsel. | November 13, 2018 at 10:11 am

    The Democrats and their apparatchiks in the press are engaged in LAWFARE. An organized effort to use friendly judges to disrupt the workings of government by lawsuit. Examples are:

    1. The Keystone Pipe Line Lawsuit
    2. The putative “Young Peoples Lawsuit” Re: Unites States et. al. that seeks to expand the powers of the judiciary to ban fossil fuels.
    3.The Lawsuit of the State of Maryland to block appointment of the Attorney General.
    4. The lawsuit of Stacey Abrams to make her Governor – well “Just because”

    One could go on and on.

    It is open LAWFARE

    alaskabob in reply to counsel. | November 13, 2018 at 10:54 am

    There are plenty of “go to” Prog judges to rule in CNN’s favor.

      userpen in reply to alaskabob. | November 13, 2018 at 11:28 am

      Even if Acosta is allowed to attend a White House press conference, it is certain he would never be called upon to ask a question ever again. Then he could sue for not being called on or maybe because they didn’t let him get in the front row. Or maybe the secret service could search him and “find” a weapon and then his career would be over.

Issue him a special press pass, with his name and the following identification: “Jim Acosta, Grade ‘A’ Jerk and Diva (CNN)”. Make him sign it, and make him read his full “press credentials” every time he wants to ask a question or make a comment.

CNN is doing this for ratings. Let them cover the White House from Lafayette Park

Starts 0:20

https://youtu.be/KOdrbf5sX_M

This is great. The White House can now use discover to obtain all of Acosta’s emails. Thanks Jim

My tweeted suggestion to CNN:

Since CNN is now a party to a lawsuit involving Acosta’s violation of press rules and subsequent removal from the credential list, it is only fair that they be excluded from future press conferences until this lawsuit is resolved.

I thought that the press conferences were a way for the President to communicate with the public, and as such were a privilege extended to certain members of the Press in order to effectively communicate with a larger number of people. Other than working for CNN, how is Acosta different than any other American in this regard? DJT could give me a press pass, but his messages would not reach that big of an audience. The purpose of issuing the hard passes is so that the word can get out to a large number of people in an efficient manner. It just hasn’t dawned on Acosta yet that he is no longer a cog in that machine. IF I were DJT, I would now extend this to all of CNN, and, to those who decide to vocally support Acosta. I am sure there is a waiting list for seats in that room, and that they will be quickly filled.

As I see it, this access has been granted for so long that the Press now see it as a right, actually, “their right,” because they are special. In my perfect world, what might actually come out of this is that they ALL are there at DJT’s invitation and while they may have a special pecking order within themselves as to where they get to sit, the reality of the situation is that none of them has an enumerated right to be there. Furthermore, I could see the White House assigning seats too, and those not in their assigned seat will be asked to move, or leave.

    Milhouse in reply to MajorWood. | November 13, 2018 at 10:51 am

    As I see it, this access has been granted for so long that the Press now see it as a right, actually, “their right,” because they are special.

    This is exactly it. The reporting trade have built up this myth that they are special, that the “Freedom of speech and of the press” refers to them and gives them some special constitutional role, that the president has to give them access, and they even have such hubris as to describe themselves as a “fourth estate”, most of them without having the slightest clue what an “estate” is or being able to name the first three.

      Alan McIntire in reply to Milhouse. | November 13, 2018 at 11:01 am

      As you stated, freedom of speech comes first, mentioned BEFORE the press in the first amendment. If ACOSTA has the RIGHT to a press pass, so does EVERY individual legally residing in the U.S.

        Alan McIntire, “freedom of speech” does not have priority over “freedom of the press”; they are not two separate freedoms, they are one, which we now usually call “freedom of expression”. “Speech and the press” simply means expressing oneself, whether in oral, published, or any other form.

        thalesofmiletus, in the US we don’t do estates. But full points for knowing what the three European estates were, which puts you one up on almost everyone who uses the term “fourth estate”.

      thalesofmiletus in reply to Milhouse. | November 13, 2018 at 1:23 pm

      The “4th estate” is a total lie. The press is the bullhorn of the modern 1st estate, the high priests being academicians. Harvard was founded to train Puritan ministers, and it never stopped.

    tom_swift in reply to MajorWood. | November 13, 2018 at 11:44 am

    IF I were DJT, I would now extend this to all of CNN, and, to those who decide to vocally support Acosta.

    No, that’d be a blunder I don’t think the White House will make.

    Acosta lost his pass because he’s physically abusive, not because he’s a grandstanding loudmouth and lying propagandist. But stupid ideas and abuse of the concept of “news” by any other CNN employees are not physical abuse. Banning Acosta supporters simply because they are Acosta supports cuts closer to a First Amendment violation than Acosta’s genuine crime.

    The White House might be able to justify such a ban, since the First doesn’t obviously guarantee just any random jerk unfettered access to any part of the White House. But that would be wandering far afield from the lesson here, which is that physical abuse of the interns is not permitted by anybody, press or not, and that’s non-negotiable.

The wrongful revocation of these credentials violates CNN and Acosta’s First Amendment rights of freedom of the press, and their Fifth Amendment rights to due process.

This is the most frivolous argument I’ve heard in a long time. If the courts had the guts to apply the sanctions available for frivolous filings, this would be a prime case for them.

Contrary to CNN’s claim, there is not a word in the first amendment entitling it or Acosta to anything that you or I don’t get. There is no such thing as “Freedom of the news media.” The first amendment protects “The freedom of speech and of the press”, which means the freedom of expression that each of us has equally. Acosta has the freedom to publish his opinions just as each of us do, nothing more.

Press passes are a favor the President does for certain people, at his sole discretion and whim. Nobody is ever entitled to one, just as nobody is entitled to a dinner invitation, or to sleep over at the White House. Even if it was withdrawn because of the content of Acosta’s reporting, rather than his appalling behavior and disrespect for the President, the President can do that, just as he can withdraw a dinner invitation.

    This is the most frivolous argument I’ve heard in a long time. If the courts had the guts to apply the sanctions available for frivolous filings, this would be a prime case for them.

    If I were on President Trump’s legal team, I would DEFINITELY be including the language for sanctions from the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(1 &3) (against CNN) and (2) (against the FIRM representing CNN), and 11(c)(1&2).

    Then I would file grievances against each and every member of the Firm that brought the case. Conduct of one attorney at a firm is imputed to each and every other member of the Firm (basic Lawfirm practice 101: You are RESPONSIBLE for everything every member of your FIRM does; If you don’t like that, your remedy is to QUIT).

    countrylaw in reply to Milhouse. | November 13, 2018 at 12:07 pm

    An excellent analysis. The First Amendment creates no “right” to a press pass.

Acosta fancies himself a Dan Rather in the days of Watergate. The Press Corps elite want to control the dialogue. Finding the truth is not the goal. Using present Leftist judicial think…as !ong as there is one reporter in the room 1A is not violated. Leaving CNN out improves the chance the truth is heard.

The Trump administration has banned one reporter, Jim Acosta. The Obama administration wanted to ban an entire network, Fox News.

Bucky Barkingham | November 13, 2018 at 11:01 am

IMHOI the case law cited isn’t directly applicable because in Acosta’s case his application wasn’t denied instead his pass was revoked for cause. Also aside from case law isn’t this an issue of Executive privilege? If a court rules in Acosta’s favor then what is to prevent 1000 or 10,000 journalists from demanding WH press credentials? The WH would have to build a huge auditorium just to accommodate them.

Another possibility is that Trump could just stop having formal press conferences at the WH.

    … Trump could just stop having formal press conferences at the WH.

    An excellent point. One of the reasons the MSM and the Left (but I repeat myself) so despises Trump is that he refuses to play their games.

    If I were him, I’d still give formal press conferences, but I’d do it at irregular intervals, from the road while campaigning, in small towns and town hall venues, primarily with local reporters (people who normally NEVER get to ask questions directly of the President!).

    If Jim Acosta or CNN want to be present, they have every right and freedom to do so. But they’ll have to spend their resources following the President around everywhere he goes on the off-chance there might be a press conference somewhere.

    The way I see it (and I’m sure the President agrees), the MSM has grown soft and comfortable. They have political access and freedom, and by parroting the Left’s scripts they can make a cushy living without having to put forth much effort. (The Left, of course, benefits by keeping a 24/7 propaganda machine on retainer.) This has metastasized into complacency and an expectation of additional “press privileges” to which lesser beings (a.k.a. private citizens) aren’t entitled.

    On the other hand, real investigative journalism is hard, ergo much of the MSM doesn’t do that anymore.

    Trump makes them (*gasp!*) work for their pay. No more freebies; your name recognition alone doesn’t guarantee crap. That’s an unforgivable sin to many in the media, but many of us appreciate the reality check. That he seems to delight in taunting them – and in doing so proving true every criticism he’s ever said about them – is just icing on the cake.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | November 13, 2018 at 11:03 am

Portraying Acosta as a First Amendment martyr for truth is a lame publicity stunt.

On a Friday night in 2017, CNN did not have a show in the top 25. More people watched “Ancient Aliens” than watched CNN.

https://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/daily-ratings/friday-cable-ratings-june-2-2017/

This is a frivolous, harassment lawsuit, nothing more. No individual has any right to enter or remain in the WH. It is doubtful if any organization has any right to enter or remain within the WH, without the approval of the President. And, CNN is still allowed to maintain a presence in the media pool. So, CNN has no real standing to sue, as they have suffered no actual damages from the revocation of Acosta’s hard pass. Accosta might have standing to sue if the action were wholly arbitrary and Acosta had not violated any rules of procedure or decorum. However, Acosya DID violate rules of decorum when he refused to obey the President’s direct order to turn over the microphone and sit down. This order was delivered three of four times. He further violated the rules of decorum when he physically stopped the WH intern from taking possession of the microphone. The microphone belongs to the US Government, not Jim Acosta, and the intern is an agent of the government.

If we lived in a time where common sense and sanity prevailed this lawsuit would be immediately dismissed, with prejudice.

    That’s similar to my thought. Acosta and CNN are suing over denial of various rights, because he lost his “hard pass”.

    OK, then….

    I contribute to a blog. That makes me a citizen journalist. If Acosta has a “right” to a WH press pass, then so do I. Where’s my pass?

    Specifically, where is my pass that grants me immediate, unescorted, unscreened access to the White House, arguably one of the most hardened facilities in the country? Where is yours? Where is Prof. Jacobson’s? (I’d love to see him at a WH press conference asking tough questions!)

    If a “hard pass” is guaranteed by the First and Fifth Amendments, then we are ALL entitled to one. That’s how the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights work.

    There is no “CNN employee” authorization clause for the First Amendment. Regardless of his vocation, Jim Acosta is a citizen with equal rights to you and me, not special access rights like he seems to believe.

      Milhouse in reply to Archer. | November 13, 2018 at 4:08 pm

      I contribute to a blog. That makes me a citizen journalist.

      You don’t even need that. The first amendment gives no privilege to either citizens or journalists. Every person who is physically present in the USA, even illegally, has the same first amendment rights as Jim Acosta.

        I’m aware I don’t need that. I state that only to point out that I’m just as much a “member of the press” as Jim Acosta.

        In an ideal world, where the courts strictly apply the plain wording of the Constitution to all matters, just being a citizen would afford full First Amendment rights. But because a comma delineates “freedom of speech, or of the press”, some courts reasoned that they are separate rights. Ergo, even though *I* agree they are the same rights for all citizens, it doesn’t hurt anything to state my “press credentials” for the naysayers as well, just to drive the argument home.

        Covering all bases, as it were. 🙂

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Mac45. | November 14, 2018 at 12:43 pm

    How about a lawsuit on behalf of the intern, seeking damages from CNN & Acosta, for several million?

Any judge that lets this lawsuit stand and not immediately throw it out is a judge that needs to be impeached and removed from the bench.

There is no violation of Acosta’s First Amendment rights here. He’s not restricted in anyway from reporting. He just won’t be doing it from the White House grounds.

There is no violation of CNN’s First Amendment rights. They are not restricted from reporting and I’m sure the White House has no problem with them sending a new reporter to take Acosta’s place.

There is no Fifth Amendment violation because there is no trial here.

This is absurd. CNN is basically asking the judicial branch to be superior to the executive branch and order it to do certain things.

    Milhouse in reply to Blueshot. | November 13, 2018 at 4:10 pm

    There is no Fifth Amendment violation because there is no trial here.

    The fifth amendment does not depend on there being a trial! It has nothing to do with trials.

      objection in reply to Milhouse. | November 13, 2018 at 8:43 pm

      The Due Process and Administrative Procedures claim are wholly dependent on the validity of Acosta’s First Amendment Claim. If he has no First Amendment right (or Statutory entitlement)to a press pass he has no due process claim for its removal.

        Milhouse in reply to objection. | November 14, 2018 at 12:35 am

        He claims to have some sort of “protected liberty and property interests” in the press pass. Which is nonsense, of course.

It is amazing how many people file lawsuits with the idea that they are going to win, and they never seem to consider the downside if they lose. I could envision a Branco cartoon of Acosta with a stick poking a big old tiger while proclaiming “I have the right to do this” while another character, the Press Corp, asks “are you sure you want to be doing this?” I think revocation just went from temporary to permanent, well, until 2032 at the earliest.

If the judge is not a twisted partisan judicial hacktivist legislating from the bench whenever he/she sees fit – that lawsuit will most definitely be tossed out on its ear…… just like Jim Acosta.

But ever since pathological liar Barack Hussein Obama and the rise of this flat out demonìc Democrat party with their servile Justice Dept minions rendering this America 2.0 we’ve all been forced into – literally anything is possible. ¯|_(ツ)_|¯

I want to see the intern sure Acosta and CNN for assault! Acosta for the actual act and CNN for sending him to cover the White House.

Just say Acosta was barred for assaulting the intern. The left is back to not caring how women are treated as long as it’s their comrades committing the transgression.

This is ridiculous

Hey, let’s get a bunch of folks together and sue CNN for suing the Trump Administration. That’ll have just as much validity.

I hate to sound stupid but wasn’t CNN an actual news organization at sometime in the distant past? Is this the same CNN?

Methinks that intern could accuse him of sexual assault; that hand was AWFULLY close to her breasts, and his arm almost certainly brushed them.

If that happens, Jim Acosta and CNN deserve “due process” and a “presumption of innocence” … and they should get every shred of “due process” and “presumption of innocence” they gave to then-SCOTUS-nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Except that this time there’s a room full of witnesses. And video evidence.

Since per CNN’s own statements an accusation of groping is just as valid as a first-degree rape conviction in a jury trial in criminal court, that “brush off” should justify revoking his “hard pass” for life … along with everyone else’s at the network until and unless they terminate this rapist’s employment.

The sauce for the goose is equally good on the gander.

The only time most people have ever seen Acosta is at White House press conferences. Relegating him to appearing only on CNN would be like putting him in the witness protection program.

The Daily Caller is reporting that CNN dropped the lawsuit

    MarkS in reply to MarkS. | November 13, 2018 at 12:48 pm

    My mistake or bad headline writing: “CNN Drops lawsuit on White House” which I interpreted to mean ending the effort, however The DC meant it as dropping a problem on the White House

    puhiawa in reply to MarkS. | November 13, 2018 at 1:11 pm

    I am guessing the headline writer is not the law reporter.

Judge in Hawaii will order the Executive branch to not only allow all media in, but Trump must stay until every debate with Acosta is over.

What a sad sorry excuse for a person and network … if somehow he managed to be re-admitted through the court(s), don’t call on / recognize him to speak or ask questions, ignore him if he interrupts and call on someone else, etc. If he persists, “are there any more questions? No? Thanks and goodbye”.

“in response to an application for a White House press pass, officials of the Secret Service will be guided solely by…”

In addition to all the good comments here, did anyone notice the bait-and-switch used with this quote? All of a sudden, we’re not discussing a hard pass, we’re discussing any pass. Unless I’m missing something on an epic level, Jim Acosta is still permitted onto WH grounds and to press briefings, he’s just not treated like nobility in the process. Every headline I see is “press pass revoked” and so on. Yet if Acosta shows up and stands and waits his turn, he’ll get in, won’t he?

I suppose it would damage his lawsuit chances were that to become widely known.

buckeyeminuteman | November 13, 2018 at 2:40 pm

No judge should be touching this. Judicial branch doesn’t get to decide who the Secret Service lets into the WH. That’s just baloney.

    Hmm, I’d say the judicial branch does get to decide whom the Secret Service lets into the WH; it doesn’t get to decide whom the President lets into the WH. The Secret Service is an agency; the President is not.

Reading through the complaint now:

an unabashed attempt to censor the press and exclude reporters from the White House who challenge and dispute the President’s point of view.

And? The president is entitled to exclude reporters from the White House who challenge and dispute the President’s point of view. Or for any other reason or none at all. But he’s not censoring anyone; Acosta and CNN remain free to publish whatever they like.

“the protection afforded newsgathering under the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that . . . access [to White House press facilities] not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.” Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124, 129 (D.C. Cir. 1977).

That court was wrong, and the President need not recognize or accept the authority of that case or of any decision based on it.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

No, it doesn’t, because this action doesn’t arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Without this credential, a daily White House correspondent like Acosta effectively cannot do his or her job.

Boo hoo. The president has no duty to enable Acosta to do his job, any more than he has one to enable me to do mine.

the unaltered video captured by C-SPAN shows what really occurred: Acosta was only attempting to hold onto the microphone as the staffer tried to grab it from him

And he had no right to do that. It’s not his mic.

Although the French government issued credentials to Acosta, the Secret Service refused to allow Acosta to attend an allegedly “open” press event whose attendees included journalists from around the world

Again, so what? Announcing an open event does not create an enforceable contract.

Defendants’ decision to revoke Acosta’s press credentials violates the First Amendment

Nonsense. He remains free to publish whatever he likes, just like anyone else.

Plaintiffs’ access to the White House, their coverage of the November 7, 2018 press conference, and Acosta’s questions to President Trump during that conference are and were all protected activities under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution

No, they are and were not. Nothing in the first amendment refers to news or the process of gathering it, or gives news reporters any special privilege. It protects CNN and Acosta only to the same extent as it does some teenager’s facebook page, or a trashy romance novel. It does not entitle anyone to ask the president questions, or compel him to answer them.

The sole justification for Defendants’ conduct is their dislike for Plaintiffs’ coverage of the administration and critique of the President.

Yep. And he can do that.

But that is insufficient to justify such a substantial restriction on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights

It is no such thing, therefore it is sufficient.

Plaintiffs have protected liberty and property interests in Acosta’s press credentials and the access it affords to the White House.

No, they don’t. Therefore this entire count fails.

Defendants’ revocation of Acosta’s press credentials constitutes a final agency decision by the Secret Service.

Nope, it had nothing to do with them. It’s the President’s decision, and he’s not an agency.

By revoking Acosta’s White House hard pass, Defendants acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and otherwise not in accordance with law, in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

Again, the president is not an agency, and in the handing out or revoking of press passes he’s not even acting in his official capacity but in his personal one, so 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) does not apply; he’s entitled to act in this matter arbitrarily, capriciously, and otherwise not in accordance with law.

In fact, since he’s acting in his personal capacity, no court has the authority to order him to issue or revoke a press pass, any more than it could give such an order to a private person. If I were to hold a press conference I could pick and choose who may attend, and no court could tell me otherwise; why should Donald Trump be any different?

Let jimmy back in. And then pull creds on all the rest except April Ryan. Problem solved.

It’s interesting how much of this comes down to the question, “Whose microphone is it?” It’s obvious that the intern is trying to take the microphone back from Acosta. When he won’t give it up, she looks helplessly at the president each time. In fact, Trump had already called on another reporter, and the intern was trying to pass him the microphone.

If this had been Acosta’s microphone, he could justify twisting away from her, pulling back, and — maybe — even pushing her arm away, as long as he didn’t use unreasonable force.

But it wasn’t his microphone, and he had no right to try to hold onto it. The rightful owner of the microphone was trying to pass it on to the next questioner according to normal press conference procedures.

Which means any physical contact with the intern trying to collect the microphone is his own fault, regardless of whether it was violent or not, hard or soft, or even unintentional.

Instead of admitting contact and arguing it was unplanned and incidental, he doubled down on the claim that he never touched her, and then accused the White House of lying. And when a video surfaced demonstrating that fact, they claimed the video was doctored.

You have to give CNN the credit here for proving that they really are “fake news.”

If Acosta wants to debate Trump, he should run for President in 2020.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend