Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Court adjourns without yet granting Jim Acosta and CNN the emergency injunction they requested

Court adjourns without yet granting Jim Acosta and CNN the emergency injunction they requested

Judge adjourns to Thursday at 3 p.m. at which point he will render his decision on the request for a Temporary Restraining Order restoring Jim Acosta’s White House “hard pass”

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

UPDATE: The Judge has postponed the decision from 3 p.m. Thursday to 10 a.m. Friday.

A federal District Court Judge in D.C., Timothy Kelly, heard two hours of argument today on the motion for a temporary restraining order requested by CNN and Jim Acosta regarding his White House “hard pass”.

The hard pass was revoked after an incident on November 7, 2018, when Acosta refused to yield the microphone when Trump wanted to move on to other reporters. Acosta physically blocked a White House intern from retrieving the microphone.

For background, see these prior posts:

Also today, Fox News announced that it would file a brief supporting CNN:

We don’t have a transcript of the argument, but Erik Wemple of The Washington Post was in the courtroom, and tweeted the proceedings. His tweets, below, give a sense that the judge does not see this as a clear cut case for Acosta, and may accept the White House view that this is an issue of disruptive conduct, not protected speech or protected press actions.

Others in the courtroom came away with the same impression:

Even CNN is reporting that the Judge was skeptical of the CNN and Acosta positions:

Kelly expressed skepticism that this proves the Acosta ban is “content-based discrimination,” as CNN is alleging.

Kelly said there is some evidence that Acosta’s conduct — not his content — led the White House to suspend his press pass.

But Boutrous disputed that and said there “never will there be more evidence of facial discrimination and animus against an individual reporter” than in this case.

Kelly said “we’ve all seen the clip” of the White House press conference where Trump and Acosta had a combative exchange last week. Kelly said that Acosta “continued speaking after his time expired” and “wouldn’t give up his microphone” — points that the Trump administration made in its briefs earlier Wednesday.

Under questioning from the judge, Boutrous cited Trump’s words to Acosta from the press conference, and said, “‘Rudeness’ is really a code word for ‘I don’t like you being an aggressive reporter.'”

Kelly peppered CNN’s attorney with hypotheticals as he tried to determine what a lawful move by the White House, responding to Acosta’s actions, would look like.
“Could they let him keep the pass but tell him he couldn’t come to presidential press conferences?” Kelly asked.

Wemple Tweets

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Maybe it’s time to do press briefing access via lottery. All press having hard access, background checks are put into a lottery for the “Next” press conference. Would eliminate any one reporter from controlling the room and grant more reporters the chance to ask questions. If press can’t play fair, time to rewrite the rules.

    redc1c4 in reply to stl. | November 14, 2018 at 6:13 pm

    better yet: if a press pass is a 1st Amendment right, ALL citizens get to apply for one, and then people are randomly chosen from the pool for the week.

    if no one from the MFM gets drawn that week, too bad, so sad.

    and no, choosing not to show up that week doesn’t mean someone else gets my pass: after all, you cannot compel me to exercise my 1st Amendment rights, just acknowledge them.

    Connivin Caniff in reply to stl. | November 15, 2018 at 5:43 am

    It doesn’t even have to be a lottery. Just require all questions to be submitted one hour in advance, in writing. If I remember correctly. the National Press Club itself requires questions to be in writing. Then it would be so easy to weed out the wiseguys.

Also: “Asshattery…is not a viewpoint.”

Screw that court. Ignore whatever it says. It has no enforcement power, and to order the WH to do this or that is ultra vires.

Quit letting these hacks pretend they can get away with this crap.

Fox: https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/fox-news-stands-with-cnn-passes-for-working-white-house-journalists-should-never-be-weaponized

passes-for-working-white-house-journalists-should-never-be-weaponized

I think journalists should never be weaponized, and yet that seems to be the standard MO now a days..

Amicus brief? Where do I send an animus response?? Asking for a friend.

    redc1c4 in reply to amwick. | November 14, 2018 at 6:27 pm

    oh goody!

    not that i ever did, since i figure they are all lying to me, one way or another, but now i have a good reason to not watch Fox “news” either.

      Twice in 2 weeks … they called the House for the Dem’s 90 minutes before the polls on the west coast closed. That and supporting CNN/Acosta is rather turn-coat IMO.

a “hard pass” is basically a security pass to a restricted area, and those are “may issue”, not “shall issue”.

there is NO right to a security pass or clearance, and they can be revoked at any time.

Fox joined for appearance I’m guessing? It is a junk suit.

the judge does not see this as a clear cut case for Acosta, and may accept the White House view that this is an issue of disruptive conduct, not protected speech or protected press actions.

Well, that’s already a problem, because it means he takes seriously the frivolous and self-interested claim by CNN, Fox, and the rest of the reporting industry, that they have a privileged constitutional position, and are entitled, barring misconduct, to access that other people don’t get.

The hearing shouldn’t have taken longer than fifteen minutes, and should have mostly consisted of the plaintiffs’ lawyers explaining why they should not be hit with sanctions.

Nobody should be surprised at Fox standing by the interests of its trade, just as its colleagues stood by it when 0bama tried barring it. The Fox people are reporters after all, so they surely buy into their trade’s myths and boasts. If some privilege of the carpentry industry were at stake you would expect all carpenters to come to its defense.

    gospace in reply to Milhouse. | November 14, 2018 at 7:23 pm

    The hearing shouldn’t have taken longer than fifteen minutes, and should have mostly consisted of the plaintiffs’ lawyers explaining why they should not be hit with sanctions.

    Agree.

    counsel in reply to Milhouse. | November 15, 2018 at 7:07 am

    Fifteen minutes. It’s easy to feel that way. A non- activist Judge needs to be an active listener, who gives both sides time to present their arguments. That can take hours.

    Ruling should be framed on the narrowest of grounds, rather than reaching broad Constitutional Conclusions. That is the case particularly when the causes of action are claims of violations of Constitutional rights.

    The strategic ruling is to work within the Constitutional framework of the Plaintiffs – even if it is flawed. You find that at trial it will likely be shown that Acosta was disruptive both to the President and his colleagues and he received some form of due process. That narrows any ground for appeal.

      Milhouse in reply to counsel. | November 15, 2018 at 10:30 pm

      Well, what if I were to sue the President for my ninth-amendment right to a pony? Would I last five minutes before being sent off with a flea in my ear?

    puhiawa in reply to Milhouse. | November 15, 2018 at 12:21 pm

    ditto

Just stop the breifing in the White House. Send them email. It is a pathetic joke anyway.

Acosta is but a symptom. Revoking an entertainers press pass is just a side show. It’s been almost two years now and the WH press corps is still trying to come up with a question so clever that Trump can’t answer it. It’s like watching a kitten play with a toy mouse.

Uh-oh. The fact that this took longer than five minutes means that the judge is wandering around in “emanations of penumbras” territory, even if he’s having trouble finding something silly to hang a ridiculous decision on. So he’s given himself a day to make something up.

Acosta’s playbook is obvious enough. He’s a annoying carbuncle on a mediocre player in a dying industry, and his professional future looks grim, unless he can catapult himself to superstardom the way Dan Rather did when he annoyed Nixon. Fame and fortune awaits, but only if he can worm his way into the White House so that he can do the “truth to power” shtick.

And CNN makes its living (such as it is) by fake news, and if it has to generate some, that’s A-OK.

The D’rats are the real potential beneficiaries. If they can get a judge of the quality of the Florida Supreme Court to render a bullshit decision, then Trump can either kick it upstairs, or blow it off entirely by rejecting the authority of the courts in this matter. If the first, there’s not much the D’rats can do. If the second, they can start working the impeachment angle, due to the President’s “unconstitutional power-grab” or some such rot.

Is the Heckler’s Veto protected speech?

What if I show up with an air horn to express my contempt for WH press briefings?

And geez, the hypocrisy. Go to any CNN comment section and test how they censor criticism.

I disagree with Fox News’s decision to enter this on the side of Acosta. After all, it’s nice that some other news organizations stood with them when there was an attempt to exclude them. However, this is not an exclusion of CNN, but only of this one obnoxious CNN employee.

Acosta can either moderate his behavior or begin giving his commentary from the studio in Atlanta rather than the White House.

It’s a good reminder that the we have no friends in the media, not even FOX.

And we’re going to have to find a way to neuter the MSM if we are ever going to get our Republic back.

Its like having corrupt referees in the game. Half our narrative is either shot down or distorted before it even reaches the public.

I quit watching Fox when Krauthammer started throwing shade on Sarah Palin. Not only cancelled, but quit paying for them.

Jim Bob Acostas is a whiney, little twerp that fully displayed his true colors by disrespecting the office of the presidency as well as the intern. In the words of Eddie Murphy’s father, “Gus, this is my house, you don’t like it you can get the f**k out”. 🙂 Goony Goo Goo 😉

I am so pissed over this. If I was to treat one of my co-workers the way Acostas treated that women, I would have been fired on the spot. CNN should have done the right thing and fired him for the way he treated that women, but instead they think they should get special treatment. This is messed up and Fox is too stupid to see what they are doing. Fricken whores.

    They’re not only not apologizing… they’re not only not making Acosta apologize.. they’re adopting the April Ryan position: “We have done NOTHING.” Ergo, if the White House states a reason to refuse one of them privileged entry, that reason is a lie, a “code” in the words of the lawyer. Once you assume that every word out of the White House is a lie, the justice of CNN becomes obvious.

    Or so they seem to think.

Wait we are believing Eric Wemple of the famed Tucker Carlson trophy “The Eric Wemple Mug”?

Suspend all press briefs for a month. Any news the WH wants to send out, it can be done electronically.

Since when is boorish behavior acceptable, and that one reporter out of many who continually makes the story about them? Sure, there are times when they ask follow up questions, but not all the time, as Acosta does.

To me, if this turd is given back his access through court action, which is beyond me how this would pass the court, but these days insanity rules over everything, then Trump should turn it around and deny any access. It isn’t in the Constitution that the media is to be granted any audience with the President. While there is benefit, though with the contentiousness of this media toward Trump, and the propagandized version of the news the media gives most nights, I wonder if there is much benefit, there needs to be acceptable behavior from those who are privileged to be allowed to be there.

Don’t reward bad behavior. Acosta deserved to have his pass suspended for his own actions. It is past time when people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions again, and stop blaming others for their own short comings. Acosta acted the fool, let him suffer the consequences.

The prime question is this: Who gets to determine who is permitted into press conferences?

Answer: The person holding the press conference.

If the Court rules against the White House I suggest the following Press Briefing protocol:

1. Credential any U.S. Citizen who applies and undertakes bona fide communication via any media form about politics.
2. Randomly pick 100 of those for any press briefing.
3. Do not allow unescorted access to White House grounds by Reporters.

Call it the Acosta Briefing

After rethinking the event, the WH should get a restraining order against CNN and April Mud Slide for being disruptive to thie press conferences. The video shows that they can be violent and I bet that they can produce media incited riots.

    MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | November 15, 2018 at 8:15 am

    Better yet, show a cause and effort of their fake reporting. The WH has an interest in protecting the US people from fake news. People are getting killed by bad reporting. Hold them accountable for their actions.

If the Judge rules against Trump, then Trump should cancel ALL press conferences.

    No, dumb idea. Trump *wants* to get his message out.

    A proper response to a judge *ordering* Acosta to be given back his press credentials is to simply not call on him. Ever. No matter how much he screeches or waves his arms or anything. That by itself will pass along the message.

    In all probability, the judge will simply ‘tut-tut’ a few times, give CNN a mild brushing across the knuckles for being so rude, and turn the whole thing back over to the White House.

    tom_swift in reply to gmhunt. | November 15, 2018 at 12:55 pm

    If the Judge rules against Trump, then Trump should cancel ALL press conferences.

    This would give a judge, or any dickweed who files a suit, practical veto power over WH press conferences. Probably not a good move.

From Politico:

Burnham, arguing for the White House, acknowledged that the administration had dropped its initial argument against Acosta: That he had inappropriately touched a White House aide who tried to take a microphone away from him at the press conference.

Never should have given that point up. Things like that create a hostile work environment.

Trump needs to learn form the Master – Rumsfeld:

With Tim Russert:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InK2ChR8scs

Known Unknowns….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk

Example:

Q: Well, Mr. Secretary, in November of ’01, the president, according to several books that you haven’t disputed, said, “Start planning.” And —

SEC. RUMSFELD: Do you think I’m going to stand around reading your books and disputing things in them or validating or not validating?

Q: Well —

SEC. RUMSFELD: I’ve got a real daytime job.

Q: I know —

SEC. RUMSFELD: I mean, you’d do nothing else but that if you did that. The fact that I haven’t disputed something is — I mean, if I disputed all the mythology that comes out of this group and the books of the world, I wouldn’t have any time to do anything else.

Q: Yeah, but the record’s starting to emerge here in terms of the decision-making track, and we just wanted to ask you. One — November of ’01, you were asked by the president to start looking into updating plans and —

SEC. RUMSFELD: I don’t remember that myself, and I’d have to go back and look.

Q: Woodward —

SEC. RUMSFELD: But there’s — it is — oh, Woodward’s book is not the Bible.

Q: I know that. (Off mike.)

SEC. RUMSFELD: Some of you may not know that. (Subdued laughter.)

Q: The editors know that. (Laughter.)

SEC. RUMSFELD: (Chuckles.)

NO MORE TV COVERAGE OF THESE USELESS AND UNINFORMATIVE SIDESHOWS. NO CAMERAS = NO SHOWBOATING AND THEN, PERHAPS, A PRESS WILLING TO RETURN TO AT LEAST A MODICUM OF JOURNALISTIC DECORUM, RESPECTFULNESS AND RESPECTABILITY. I FIND THESE PRESSERS VIRTUALLY USELESS. I LEARN NOTHING FROM THE QUESTIONS AT ALL. A TOTAL WASTE.

Memo WH counsel to all employees:
Until the CNN lawsuit is resolved, All communication with CNN shall be by counsel ONLY. Do not discuss ANYTHING with anyone known oe suspected to be an employee or represenaptative of CNN. This office is making a determination of whether FOX or other amicus participants will be covered under this directive. This memo I has been approved by office of the POTUS.

Memo WH counsel to all employees:
Until the CNN lawsuit is resolved, All communication with CNN shall be by counsel ONLY. Do not discuss ANYTHING with anyone known oe suspected to be an employee or represenaptative of CNN. This office is making a determination of whether FOX or other amicus participants will be covered under this directive. This memo I has been approved by office of the POTUS.

Rescind all White House press passes and re-purpose the briefing room as break room for the security services

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend