Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Court orders White House to restore Jim Acosta’s press pass

Court orders White House to restore Jim Acosta’s press pass

Grants Temporary Restraining Order, ruling the Acosta was not afforded due process in the revocation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BZ8ck_7cqk

Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, has just ruled on the motion of Jim Acosta and CNN for a temporary restraining order restoring Acosta’s White House “hard pass”.

Based on reports from reporters in the media room, it appears that the Judge ruled that while the White House doesn’t have to allow any reporters into the White House, by setting up a credentialing process it owes people like Acosta due process, and that it confers a First Amendment interest entitled to protection. The Court appears to have ruled that Acosta’s First Amendment rights supercede the White House interest in orderly press conferences, and that Acosta was not given due process in the revocation process.

Quick Assessment: This is a bad decision which effectively gives an individual reporter control over the White House press briefing process. It the White House can’t revoke the credentials of someone who disrupts a press conference in the way Acosta did, including refusing to turn over the microphone, then press conferences will turn into even more of a circus than they already are. Clearly, the lack of any formal process for revocation of press credentials influenced the court. Trump still appears to have the right not to call on Acosta. But what it Acosta refuses to stay silent, shouts, injects himself into the conference, and otherwise disrupts proceedings when he is not called on? The White House better set up, if it doesn’t have it already, a speedy but “due” process to revoke the credentials.

Until there is a transcript, we have to rely on media reports of the Judge’s oral ruling.

For background, see these prior posts:

Based on reporting from the media room, the Judge ruled:

UPDATES:

This NYT Editor seems to have it right. It’s a temporary victory for Acosta, but once the White House gets procedures in place, it’s a loss for the press overall:

Here’s the Court docket entry:

11/16/2018 Minute Entry and Order for proceedings held before Judge Timothy J. Kelly: Motion Hearing continued and held on 11/16/2018. Oral Ruling GRANTING 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, for the reasons stated on the record in open court. Order forthcoming. (Court Reporter: Timothy Miller) (kh) (Entered: 11/16/2018)

https://twitter.com/esaagar/status/1063471379423596546

https://twitter.com/esaagar/status/1063489194356588544

https://twitter.com/esaagar/status/1063485551821684736

Acosta won, the press lost. Trump is having the White House draft press conduct rules:

In an interview with Chris Wallace for Fox News Sunday, Trump brushed off Judge Timothy Kelly’s Friday ruling that CNN’s Jim Acosta have his Secret Service pass to the White House grounds be reinstated. Despite the ruling being a interim rejection of The White House argument that the president has “broad” discretion in which credentialed members of the press are allowed access to attend official briefings, Trump said, “It’s not a big deal,” and that his team is already working on “rules” for reporter conduct.

“We’re doing that, we’re going to write them up right now,” Trump told Wallace. “It’s not a big deal and if he misbehaves we’ll throw him out or we’ll stop the news conference.”

Pushing for specifics, Wallace asked if certain things are going to be considered “over the line” and Trump reiterated that these new rules are being written now, but that they will cover “decorum” and outline that reporters “can’t keep asking questions.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

If the White House calls on Acosta or CNN ever again they deserve whatever they get.

    thalesofmiletus in reply to kenoshamarge. | November 16, 2018 at 10:42 am

    CNN will sue, and a judge will make Bad Orange Man call on them.

    I’m going to dissent on the majority opinion. Forget about Trump and forget about Acosta.

    This action can come back to bite us when the future Obama or Clinton has the oval office. They will use Trump’s precedence to ban actual reporters from the press.

    I’m hopeful that someday we may have someone in the press who “gasp” is a real journalist and will question the likes of Obama the way he ought to have been questioned. I really don’t want the office or the press further degrading.

      thalesofmiletus in reply to Andy. | November 16, 2018 at 12:43 pm

      You seem to think the Left is somehow playing by “rules”. They aren’t. The Left routinely gets away with acts that would otherwise have the hammer drop.

      Remember, Antifa can come to your home in the middle of the night, batter your door, threaten your family, and the cops will walk away. Proud Boys wouldn’t even try that because they’d all be arrested, tried and given the maximum sentence the law allows.

        So do you want POTUS picking which media sycophants get passes?

        Hell no. I want a very adversarial relationship between the press and the government.

        The lack of talent in the media has meant we’ve had sycophant stenographers during dem’s reign (Mr Obama, what intrigues you?) and activist egos too stupid to ask real questions.

        Just because I love Trump’s results doesn’t mean I don’t want the press doing what they ought to be doing.

        Trump’s a big boy, he can put on his big boy pants and deal with a d-hole like Accosta in the press room. Given the collective low IQ in the room, it really shouldn’t be that tough.

        oh- you’re right, we should be a nation without laws, rules, or due process.

      Olinser in reply to Andy. | November 16, 2018 at 1:41 pm

      Fuck off, Obama tried to ban an ENTIRE NETWORK. Trump tried to ban a disruptive asshole.

    I suspect that if Acosta is not called upon, he will just stand up and continue shouting until recognized. Or, another journalist will be called upon and then pass the mic to Acosta.

    Sanders should call on Acosta again and again and not let another journalist not get a question or lecture opportunity. Let’s see how they like it.

    And the White House should turn off the camera, at least the one looking out at the press room. Keep the camera on Sarah Sanders.

The junior judge is gonna learn about Sovereign Immunity.

wonder it the judge was a former gymnast.

    fscarn in reply to ronk. | November 16, 2018 at 11:10 am

    What we need is a little of ol’ Judge Roy Bean.*

    Give Accosta a due process hearing, then take away the press pass.

    *”First we have the fair trial, then we hang him” i

Once again, a judge has overstepped their authority…..

    I think this is a knee-jerk reaction to the headlines of “Accosta wins…”. He won on a very minor point that is irrelevant to the larger point, that Trump has no obligation to call on any particular “hard pass” holder or to even stage these pressers.

    I don’t know about everyone else but I see this as a victory. Now Trump can just sit back and wait for the media to start complaining that their so-called 1st rights are being violated because Trump decides not to participate in their conversation under their conditions. When they inevitably complain that they have been denied opportunity to ask questions, all Trump has to do is tweet “What’s your question?”

    Pressers were not constitutionally mandatory before this judge’s decision and his decision reconfirmed that. No more pressers. Ball in media’s court. Trump wins.

Okay then. Since the media cannot be trusted to behave with civility like mature adults, we will need explicit rules. Ball in media’s court. Until then, no more pressers. Now everyone go to your rooms and think about what you just did.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | November 16, 2018 at 10:42 am

That’s B.S. (Baloney Stuff).

This is a privilege not a right.

    Maybe a junk ruling but the general gist was to reaffirm the president’s right to decide whether to have these pressers at all and who he can call. I see this ruling as a defeat for the media. Now THEY can be forced to negotiate rules to govern their behavior. Then they will be violating THEIR rules. President wins.

    Maybe they can form a “PTA” to do the negotiating since the media is not mature enough to handle it.

      stablesort in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 16, 2018 at 11:24 am

      I also have freedom of the press and therefore have every right to participate as a full partner in these negotiations.

        ??????????????? Did you even read my comment? Your comment is so irrelevant to what I said.

          stablesort in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 16, 2018 at 12:03 pm

          “Now THEY can be forced to negotiate rules to govern their behavior”

          Terrible, terrible thing to put a leash on the White House so the press maintains control. No, the White House dictates period; no negotiations.

          Excuse me but you are completely missing how this works. It’s the media that wants to have these ambush sessions. How exactly are they “in control”? Trump still decides whether to have them at all and when he does, who he calls on.

          Go ahead and have your emotional tantrum. Go past the headline and think about what it means. Trump won by losing on an insignificant point. This cleared the way for Trump to no longer have these pressers.

          I don’t know how to make that more clear. Your position makes no sense whatsoever.

          stablesort in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 16, 2018 at 12:33 pm

          The White House has to surrender its power to dictate the rules if it is going to negotiate anything with the press.

          Good grief. Okay, you win. I’m sure readers can see the illogic of what you are saying.

rule by judiciary… death to democracy

    Close The Fed in reply to jmt9455. | November 16, 2018 at 11:29 am

    Yep, our judicial oligarchy has struck again.

    To hell with our republic. The rest of us might as well disappear, because judges make all the decisions.

    Congress, REMOVE THE COURTS’ JURISDICTION OVER EVERYTHING BUT PARKING TICKETS, OR ELIMINATE THE LOWER DISTRICT COURTS.

CCTV with a mic that the reporters walk up to rather than having it delivered to them. Then, the reporters can fight at will and the WH can just end the feed/conference if it gets disorderly. Move on.

    No, the President (regardless of party) wants the press room there to be as comfortable as possible with talking to each other. Making a reporter sprint to a microphone to ask a question is not conductive to said comfort for anybody. Plus there will be inevitable spilled coffee and microphone wrestling fits.

Hence forth, press briefings may be conducted as webinars and none of the media have need to leave their Mom’s basement.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | November 16, 2018 at 10:44 am

Wish the WH staffer would file felony assault charges.

have the lady in question get a protective order banning Accoster from her w*rk place, or at least 200 feet from her, then have her at every press event.

#ProblemSolved

    puhiawa in reply to redc1c4. | November 16, 2018 at 12:35 pm

    Given the “questionable accuracy” assertion by the court, it appears the DOJ did not even attach an affidavit of the intern to the memo in opp.

Bwahaha! Republicans are such pussies. Break his jaw, break his arm. And when his jaw is finally unwired, break it again.

Where does he live? Do the reporters use the south entrance to the WH grounds?

Classic analysis, if the tweets are accurate: Once the government establishes a procedure, it becomes an entitlement.

So, WH can issue a set of Acosta rules, which will be abused when a less-forthcoming administration comes into office. The latter is the real, underlying problem, even if it doesn’t mature immediately.

Simply ignore the order. The hack can’t enforce it.

    stablesort in reply to CDR D. | November 16, 2018 at 12:30 pm

    There are many, many legislators that are all too willing to enforce the court’s orders, in fact they are drooling for a chance to enforce the courts orders.

Not surprising. Just like DACA and the “Muslim travel ban” a Federal judge has invented something out of thin air to justify his goofball opinion.

Keep in mind the judge is a Trump appointee. I am aware that it is impossible to completely vet every nominee, but how many other sleazebags like this one has the GOPe managed to force on Trump?

So if I invite only reporters into my home, and then kick Jim Acosta out I now have to afford him due process before I can do that??

Utter BS. And Trump should ignore this unconstitutional order, period.

change the rules so that getting a WH press credential requires a full TC/SCI clearance…

and the media has to pay for it.

those things take forever to get, and they dig through your entire life: i doubt the MFM would be up for that.

No more pressers until this decree is overturned.

    thalesofmiletus in reply to stablesort. | November 16, 2018 at 10:55 am

    This. The Lockstep Media will have no choice but to enthusiastically embrace this in solidarity with Acosta. Problem solved.

    It shouldn’t take a few attorneys more than a day or two to write up a code of conduct for WH pressers. A code of conduct that will get Acosta expelled for good the next time he acts up.

Judge agrees with the White House that there is no first amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. HOWEVER once they do open up WH grounds to reporters but denies others, first amendment comes into play.

Kick them all out.
Press conferences will be done by written questions to PDJT. He will choose which ones to answer and do so via tape. The tape will be distributed to all outlets for broadcast.

    oldgoat36 in reply to 4fun. | November 16, 2018 at 12:41 pm

    I’m sorry, but the judge is off in loony land with that convoluted reasoning. Acosta is not being denied any 1A rights by not being allowed into the briefings on WH grounds. He isn’t being muzzled from reporting or rather giving his opinions and spewing propaganda of the DNC. There is nothing in the 1A that guarantees a reporter access, or guarantees that once some reporters are allowed in then others have to be?

    How do you then discriminate against small organizations over the networks?

    The judge was down right stupid with this decision, and it will have long lasting negative impact on all briefings unless this stupidity is overturned by a higher court.

    God help this country. Though it is probably too late to save it anymore.

Twitter, twitter uber alles!

I am 70 years old and I can tell you that LIVING IN A FAILED NATION was NOT on my bucket list !

    Arminius in reply to Lewfarge. | November 16, 2018 at 11:30 am

    I’m past middle age myself. Here’s the bad news. We won’t live in a failed state. We’ll just die in one. Now we have to figure out how best to do it, and hopefully take as many with us as possible.

Unbelievable

No more live pressers

Please tell me this will be fought

Please tell me assault charges are pending

This is beyond insane

Another point that bugs me about this ruling is the idea that journalists are a protected class. But the 1st Amendment does not protect the rights of a guild, but instead it protects an act. Thus we are all journalists. Those who carry the title are not anything special.

buckeyeminuteman | November 16, 2018 at 11:03 am

Time to stop all press conferences for at least a month. WH should issue out public statements via its website or something. Taking your toys and going home is perfectly acceptable when a non-related adult tells a child they must play with somebody else whom they do not want to.

By this rationale, no changes can be initiated by the WH regarding the press pool without their consent. Like the idea early on to move press briefings and the reporters across the street. Evidently the court has given the WH press a free pass.. a say in the process.

So now, they are saying, you can’t kick one of us out without following a process… one that doesn’t exist, but should… and a process we could appeal or sue over. Because Orange Man Bad.

    thalesofmiletus in reply to RobM. | November 16, 2018 at 1:26 pm

    Due process for a process that doesn’t exist to exercise a non-existent right enforced against an agency that’s not an agent.

Bucky Barkingham | November 16, 2018 at 11:05 am

Hopefully the WH counsel is appealing this decision. In the meantime as noted Trump can refuse to call on Acosta. If Acosta acts as predicted have him removed from the room for being disruptive. Let the media take that decision to court also.

Question: If Acosta hogs the mic is he denying others press people their 1st Amendment rights?

Simple answer – put an end to White House press conferences. Problem solved. Just make certain everyone knows it was the result of Little Jimmy and CNN.

Cancel all press passes and press conferences, then. Or put a 30 day moratorium on them. Everyone in the WH-based media should suffer equally for Acosta’s consistently inappropriate behavior. Next time the media tries to pull this crap, the moratorium becomes 60 days. Then 90. These idiots will learn who’s in charge, whether they want to or not.

“HOWEVER once they do open up WH grounds to reporters but denies others, first amendment comes into play.”

So now a “reporters” free speech rights are more important than everyone else’s.

This is a ridiculous decision. Due process is supposed to be for those that commited crimes. I would institute a demerit system and post the Rules of Decorum for GUESTS on a big sign in the press room.

1 Demerit = Warning*
2 Demerits = 1 week suspension*
3 Demerits = 1 week suspension*
4+ Demerits = indefinite/permanent suspension*

*at the discretion of the President.

Rules of Decorum and Demerits

1: No speaking unless you have been called on. Speaking out of turn will earn one (1) Demerit per occurrence.

2: Reporters will be granted one (1) question when called upon. Attempting to ask additional questions will earn one (1) Demerit per occurrence.

3: Guests will be polite and use a moderate tone. Yelling, raising voice, and/or using impolite phrasing or tone will earn one (1) Demerit per occurrence.

4. ALL Guests will follow the instructions of the President, presenter, or staff. Failing to follow directions will earn from One (1) to four (4) Demerits per occurrence. (“Severity” is at the complete discretion of the administration.)

5. Issuance of Demerits is at the complete discretion of the Administration. Demerits are permanent and once issued will remain.

6. All other regulations and requirements to be a Guest still apply.

There that gives you a very public process for once the pass has been granted.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | November 16, 2018 at 11:17 am

    Oh, change anywhere I used the word “President” or “Staff” to “administration”.

    MarkSmith in reply to Gremlin1974. | November 16, 2018 at 11:40 am

    Gremlin 1974, man that was a nasty car. Just like my friends pinto hatchback.

    Due Process is a foundation for so much civil law relating to school grade and other BS thus to keep us PC. Not going to get much traction from the lawyers on that one, they love the Due Process approach.

    We all this is a BS case. Sounds like the WH attorneys have screwed this one up. It was slam dunk. Can you tell me that a judge would allow a disruptive person in their court room Due Process. Give me a break. If just says due process, I say, ok, he has it but does not get his access into the white house until it is done.

    As for due process, I say the process is WH staff review report actions, allow for comment, then make things final.

    I would also make anyone entering the WH sign an agreement accepting this process or they don’t come in.

So many fallible human beings making so many stupid decisions. So many crooked Democrat politicians stealing so many elections. Makes one distrust law and government in their entirety.

If I were the WH press secretary, I’d occasionally schedule press briefings. And then have no one from the WH show up.

Oh, even better than my Demerits idea.

1: Grant Acosta his pass back.
2: Immediately inform Acosta that his pass/passes are under review for revocation for inappropriate behavior and laying hand on administration staff. This review may take up to 10 business days.
3: While under review ALL of Acostas Passes are suspended pending outcome of review.
4: After a few days announce that Acostas passes have been revoked for above reasons.

There due process.

    MarkSmith in reply to Gremlin1974. | November 16, 2018 at 11:45 am

    Sorry I pretty much said the same thing in response to your previous post before I said this. Should have read the whole thread first.

Process of White House Credentialing.

Two words: ‘slow walk.’

‘Yes, Sir, Judge. We’re complying with the process of your order to process the credentialing process in accord with the White House credentialing process which requires thorough processing…

I guess Judge Kelly has figured out that he’s reached his level of incompetence (The Peter Principle) and realizes that he’ll never get promoted again, except by a Democrat.

unbelievable–cannot imagine that our elected president, our chief executive, can be held hostage by such a blatant drama queen and a piss-ant judge–would simply refuse to restore acosta’s pass–just no

either potus runs our nation or a piss-ant judge–enough of this nonsense–we elected trump to run the country–he should just do his job and say no–end of story

Require a security clearance with detailed FBI investigation for all “Hard Passes” on White House grounds – should be done anyway. Watch heads explode. Consequences for playing with the big dog.

I wish I could see the actual “Pass” or the agreement. As I recall passes given to visit most Government properties came with a “surrender on demand notification.
Still there is a solution which fulfills the courts ruling. Pull all press passes and begin a prosses of reissuing credentials with a eye toward better access to the smaller and newer news carriers.

This ruling should disabuse anyone who thought that Trump was going to magically restore sanity to the federal courts. As Professor Jacobson said, there is now a greater constitutional right to disrupt a presidential news conference than there is to hold one in an orderly fashion. And even if Trump does not call on Acosta, Acosta now has a constitutional right to scream and shout, and apparently grab the microphone. In addition to that, though, we have the continuing separation of powers problem of one co-equal branch of government telling another co-equal branch of government how to conduct its internal affairs.

I note the usual “hair-on-fire” blithering here.

All the judge ruled was that there was some due process owing before a “hard pass” is revoked. The administration didn’t show any.

So, they step back, consider, and go through the steps. Acosta’s is revoked. End of story.

Nobody said 1) the administration CAN’T revoke a “hard pass”, OR 2) that any cretin has a free-hold on one if they are first issued one.

    barnesto in reply to Ragspierre. | November 16, 2018 at 12:48 pm

    I can’t believe I’m about to type this, but here it goes…

    I completely agree with Rags on this one.

    Due process is what the court says is needed. If the WH didn’t immediately call in Acosta for his due process, then they deserve everything this is about to fester.

    They don’t currently have a process in place? So many smart lawyers at they WH and they couldn’t have seen this as a possible outcome and already have come up with one? Again, that is on them.

    Actually, this is all the WH. They’ve let Acosta run rough shod over every event he’s attended. Still they kept calling on him – for what? Did they think he wasn’t going to keep being confrontational?

    We live in the absolute weirdest timeline – not sure how it veered so far left, but here we are. smh

      Gremlin1974 in reply to barnesto. | November 16, 2018 at 4:03 pm

      “Actually, this is all the WH. They’ve let Acosta run rough shod over every event he’s attended. Still they kept calling on him”

      This ^^

      “They don’t currently have a process in place? So many smart lawyers at they WH and they couldn’t have seen this as a possible outcome and already have come up with one? Again, that is on them.”

      Translation: by expecting the same laws, courtesies, etc. to apply to a Republican President as a Democrat one, the White House deserved it.

      No one came up with a procedure because ordinary politeness and the legal precedent that no reporter had a First Amendment right to attend press conferences meant one wasn’t needed.

This is a horrendous decision by the judge. I hope Trump shuts down all briefings and goes to only written briefs. Do it for a month or two.

Our court system is so screwed up by leftist judges, and I guarantee you Trump Hate played some role in the decision, regardless of who the judge is.

Due process? The POS Acosta made repeated actions against the decorum and behavioral norms of these briefings. And now he is rewarded for boorish behavior.

Trump should never allow Acosta to ask another question.

Even a lay person can see this is a poor decision, and the legal team of the President were not smart with their arguments either.

We are a country that is acting more and more third world level thanks to the leftists.

This is not simply a bad decision it is based solely upon an insane argument.

The reported basis for the judge’s issuance of the injunction is that, because there is a pre-vetting procedure in place for members of the press, that this makes this a 1st Amendment issue which requires some type of due process to revoke issued credentials. However, it totally ignores three very important things.

The first is that the situation does NOT meet the legal criteria for the issuance of a temporary injunction. Temporary injunctions are issued in order to limit damage to the plaintiffs, until a full hearing, on the matter, can be heard. In this case, there is NO evidence that either CNN or Jim Acosta will suffer ANY real damages due to the revocation of Acosta’s hard pass, until such time as a full hearing on the matter can be conducted. CNN still has a presence in the press briefings and there has been no evidence presented that the loss of the pass has affected Acosta’s financial standing in any manner. Also, it is far from clear that there is any likelihood that the plaintiffs would prevail at trial. For this reason alone, the injunctive easement should have been denied.

The Second is that access is not universally available to all members of the press. Only to a select few. If the 1st Amendment actually applied, then the WH would not be able to bar ANY accredited reporter, or any reporter, for that matter. Yet the fact that the judge acknowledged that the WH COULD actively discriminate against members of the press guts this argument that the 1st Amendment applies here. And, this reduces the likelihood that the plaintiffs would prevail in a trial.

The third is the fact that there is no procedure in place for the revocation of a hard pass. This means that the WH, ultimately the President, is free to change the entry status of any reporter for any reason without following a set procedure. In practice, the reporter is free to appeal the action revoking his hard pass to the President, through normal contact channels. And, the President would have the ultimate authority to support or rescind the revocation action. So, the WH, in rescinding Acosta’s pass, violated no standing procedures. And, even such a procedure did exist, it would still most likely allow for the immediate suspension of the pass, pending the holder’s appeal of the decision to rescind.

In other words, the judge built an opinion to attempt to support a decision which he wished to render. It is both factually and legal deficient and is nothing more than a political decision loosely wrapped in judicial “reasoning”.

The obvious question then becomes, why would a judge issue an injunction on such obviously contrived grounds? Incompetence? A desire to create a crisis? Political concerns? Blackmail? I’ll leave that speculation to others.

Just to calm people down, consider that you were thrown a deceptive headline and just about everyone went for it. Clicks exploding across the web.

Now imagine a more accurate headline:

“Judge Reaffirms Presidential Authority Concerning Scheduling Press Meetings”

Now imagine a few pertinent quotes:

…also reaffirms president discretion over who gets to ask questions…”

…issues TEMPORARY injunction ordering president to re-instate press pass for Jim Acosta…”

Everybody feel better? It all boils down to who wants these presser more. Trump doesn’t need them. If the media create a set of rules that Trump doesn’t approve, no pressers. If Trump approves of the rules but press doesn’t enforce them, no pressers. If media complain about lack of access, Trump tweets “What is your question?”

So who just won?

    You are missing the point here, Phil. The point is that there were no LEGAL grounds for the issuance of the TRO. As neither of the plaintiff can be shown to suffer ANY damages, or even hardships, by the continued revocation of Acosta’s hard pass, until such time as full hearing can be held on the matter AND that the WH violated any procedures in place for the revocation of the hard pass, there is no legitimate reason for the TRO to be issued in the first place. The only one who violated any due process procedures here is the judge.

    It will be veerrryy interesting to read the decision and see exactly what the judicial reasoning in this decision. I suspect it will reach new heights of judicial sleight-of-hand.

      No, I am not missing the point. These pressers have gone on for over a century on the implicit understanding that those participating could be trusted to show respect to each other, to the office of president and generally behave with the civility that polite society had come to expect.

      Today, if every little detail isn’t explicitly defined, it’s anything goes. This goes to the very crux of why only a moral citizenry can be trusted to defend personal liberty. Only a moral citizenry can be trusted to do the right thing because it IS the right thing to do, not because it is the law. We are free because we don’t need to the laws for us to be civil and civilized. We choose to be civilized. Not anymore.

      Today, the very people who are supposed to set the standard for how civilized people are supposed to behave, are the most rude, childish, boorish and offensive of all. So now every detail of life has to be refereed. We are DEMANDING to be treated like children.

      But by magnifying a very minor although topical detail rather than the big overriding issue of presidential authority, we fall prey to those who mischaracterize true meaning of the judge’s ruling. We’re like cats who go into a frenzy every time someone dangles a string in front of our faces.

      And now, Trump has announced that he will lay down rules rather than simply putting on the media to take responsibility for their own behavior by coming up with acceptable rules that they assure will be enforced.

      It’s a perfect companion piece to how Trump absolutely refuses to use his power and influence to get the border under control at the same time he agrees to empty the prisons. Looks to me like the entire US is now CA.

        Still missing the point, Phil.

        There are judicial rules governing the issuance of a Temporary [or Emergency] Restraining Order. Those rules require that, in order to justify the issuance of the restraining order, the action being restrained has to be immediately harmful to the plaintiff, such that allowing it to continue until a full hearing is concluded would cause irrevocable damage, and that there is a strong likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail at trial. In this case, neither of these standards is met. There is NO evidence that the lack of a hard pass, for Acosta, will cause any damage to either CNN or Jim Acosta ans certainly no evidence that either will suffer any immediate damage. Also, there is no evidence to suggest that the plaintiffs are likely to be successful at trial. Now, the plaintiffs are free to continue their suit and present their case formally to a court of law. But, there were insufficient legal grounds to grant the issuance of a TRO.

      One more observation. It appears to me that the restraining order was temporary because there was no formal policy to rule on. So now Trump is going to create rules. Will that satisfy the judge about Trump’s authority to revoke passes in the future by reason of uncivil behavior?

      Anything Trump produces will be attacked and ridiculed. That is why he should put it to the media to propose rules. If they are acceptable but not enforced, there is no one to blame but themselves. I expect that would satisfy the judge’s concerns.

      Maybe Trump is doing the right thing anyway.

First thing you do is remove all cameras and recording devices. Just like the courts do. No more grand standing.

    amatuerwrangler in reply to puhiawa. | November 16, 2018 at 1:50 pm

    Not so fast there…. If the cameras are removed how is the public going to get accurate information. I know you do not trust the resident correspondents to provide a true, un-spun rendition of what is given them from the press officer or President.

      Simple. Provide a transcript. As it is now, CNN and NBC, especially Maddow, only show snippets that often are a lie in and of themselves via editing.

Just out of curiosity what is D.C.s statute of limmitation on assult. Let the intern fill charges and have Acosta arrested. Then suspend Acosta’s access until the criminal charges have been resolved. That fulfills the 5th amendment problem.

Due process? Brett Kavanaugh was entitled to due process when accused of misconduct some 30 years ago, and now Acosta is entitled to due process in revoking a privilege for bad behavior? This judge was not raised by my parents. No more WH press conferences. At least not until Acosta complains and judge rules Acosta has a constitutional right to shout questions at the President.

First thought: the White House is under no obligation to tolerate behavior that a judge would not tolerate in his/her courtroom. My only experiences in a court have been as 1) expert witness and 2) juror. But it was my understanding and observation that you pretty much did as the judge told you to do. If the judge said, “stop talking”, you stopped talking.

Given that the executive and judicial branches of government are co-equal, I’m wondering how it is that a) the White House is somehow not allowed to set reasonable rules of behavior for a press conference and enforce those rules at its discretion b) how a judge could tell a president to tolerate behavior that a judge would never tolerate in court.

Second thought: lightning may strike me for this, but I agree with Rags, above — if the judge is saying that the whole problem here is that the White House needs to follow a process to ban a reporter, fine. Go back to the White House, follow the process, and ban the reporter. Make sure that the process and the following of it is beyond reproach. Problem solved.

    “I’m wondering how it is that … a judge could tell a president to tolerate behavior that a judge would never tolerate in court.”

    Amen!

Punk is a Dan Rather wannabe.

The White House has released a statement after a federal judge ordered the White House to temporarily return CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta’s press pass in an initial victory for the news network’s lawsuit against the Trump administration.

“Today, the court made clear that there is no absolute First Amendment right to access the White House. In response to the court, we will temporarily reinstate the reporter’s hard pass. We will also further develop rules and processes to ensure fair and orderly press conferences in the future.”

“There must be decorum at the White House,” press secretary Sarah Sanders said.

Federal Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, on Friday granted CNN’s request for a temporary restraining order restoring Acosta’s “hard pass” — which permits access to the White House grounds — after CNN had argued Acosta’s First and Fifth Amendment rights had been violated by the suspension of his press pass.

Kelly did not rule on CNN’s underlying case. He did say that CNN and Acosta are likely to win their case with the argument that their Fifth Amendment rights to due process were violated by the White House.

“Indeed whatever process occurred within the government is still so shrouded in mystery that the government could not tell me at oral argument who made the initial decision to revoke Mr. Acosta’s press pass,” Kelly said. Though the White House provided written reasons for revoking Acosta’s pass after the fact, Kelly ruled that “these belated efforts were hardly sufficient to satisfy due process.”

He described his ruling as “very limited” and left open an avenue to remove Acosta’s pass with due process.
–ConservativeReview

Supporting what I said, above.

    All this pres release does it to continue the Administration’s policy to abide by judicial fiats, no matter how ridiculous, and pursue other avenues to obtain their desired results. Remember, this was not a full hearing on the merits of the case. It was simply a hearing issue an order suspending the WH action to rescind Acota’s hard pass and return to the status quo present before that action was taken. And, whether a plaintiff MIGHT prevail at trial is one of the measures by which to justify the issuance of a TRO, it is by no means the only, or the most important, one.

      Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | November 16, 2018 at 1:22 pm

      “And, whether a plaintiff MIGHT prevail at trial is one of the measures by which to justify the issuance of a TRO, it is by no means the only, or the most important, one.”

      You don’t know what you’re talking about. Again.

Do a lottery for each press conference. Five reporters allowed, two questions each. 2nd, make them get their own damn airline ticket. Its ridiculous that we taxpayers pay for all these fools to fly on airforce one.

    Ragspierre in reply to stl. | November 16, 2018 at 1:13 pm

    Please…!!!

    T-rump NEEDS the press. HE invites them on the trip. HE invites them into the press room. HE pauses on the way to wherever he’s headed and takes questions. HE calls on Acosta. He lives for that shit.

      Well, he does live for “that shit,” but name a president who didn’t. To be fair, there’s not been a president who didn’t need the press (including before radio and then television), invite them on trips, cater to them, and even, at times, embarrassingly grovel to them. It’s that history that today’s press clings to, but times they are a’changin’ and Trump doesn’t need these daily press briefings. He can get a zillion hours of press with a single tweet or by calling in to some network show or holding a rally.

      Acosta and CNN’s overreach may just end up shutting down, in effect and maybe in fact, the White House-media pipeline. Obama’s dearest dream was to banish the press from the White House, and he tried numerous ways over the years to accomplish this, but they all failed. He ended up with his own press office and press photographer and just sent out press releases and photos most of the time (along with WH talking points made famous by Mika on MSNBC). These were gobbled up and regurgitated by a grovelling media Obama clearly disdained. Trump may just accomplish what Obama could not: the end of the daily WH press briefing. How much that matters is open for debate.

        So long as the media insists on abusing their WH privileges by substituting street mob protests for what used to be journalistic professionalism, then these pressers serve no purpose other than providing for another takeover by the mobs of what used to be our “hallowed halls”.

        We just recently witnessed Pelosi allowing a street mob protest in her office led by not-yet-sitting newly-elected congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez.

        Just before that, we witnessed the Senate Minority Leader Schumer issuing passes to organized professional protesters to stage their obnoxious protests with the full participation of several Democrat Senator Judicial Committee members!

        We are one step away from Bastille. What we really need is for the POTUS to not only declare 2020 as the Year of the Constitution but be ready to dedicate the year to educating the public about WHY our country is the greatest country in history. It’s a miracle that we even exist.

        I predict that if he does, there will be massive protests focusing on the separation of church and state since there is no way to have a discussion on the US Constitution without establishing where our freedoms come from. Dare I say it? God?

        So let’s have that discussion. If we can’t have an open discussion about our very founding document, where are we? Everything is lost already! Let the American “Reign of Terror” begin.

This why legal stuff is so mysterious, not to mention frustrating.

what it Acosta refuses to stay silent, shouts, injects himself into the conference, and otherwise disrupts proceedings when he is not called on?

I would say immediately end the press briefing, and make sure everyone knows he is the reason..

I am really disappointed in Judge Timothy Kelly.

It seems to me that the judge had no room to maneuver until he ruled the laying hands on the female staffer was of “questionable accuracy”. We all saw it wrong – it never happened. Proceed to the ‘kicked out for being disruptive’ argument.

The judge acting like it’s a kerfuffle for want of written rules of civility is quite amusing. They won’t follow such rules. It goes against the principles of the Acostas and Ryans of the world.

    Mac45 in reply to JBourque. | November 16, 2018 at 4:40 pm

    “It seems to me that the judge had no room to maneuver until he ruled the laying hands on the female staffer was of “questionable accuracy”. We all saw it wrong – it never happened. Proceed to the ‘kicked out for being disruptive’ argument.”

    Whether Acosta “laid hands on the aide” is accurate or not, it should have little or no bearing upon the issuance of TRO. The purpose of the TRO hearing is not to establish that the action taken was legal, illegal, appropriate, inappropriate justified or unjustified. Its only purpose it to determine if the plaintiff has a reasonable chance of prevailing in his suit against the application of the action in question AND, more importantly, that continuation of the action, and its result, will lead to immediate and irreparable harm to the plaintiff, if it is not immediately reversed pending a formal hearing on the merits of the case. In this case there is NO evidence that the continued rewvocation of Acosta’s hard pass will cause any harm, let alone immediate and irreparable harm to the plaintiffs.

      MarkSmith in reply to Mac45. | November 16, 2018 at 8:12 pm

      BS, if Acosta actions created a hostile environment, TRO should not apply. If WH would have filed a counter TRO to keep Acosta away from WH staff, that might have played out better.

    Elzorro in reply to JBourque. | November 17, 2018 at 6:36 am

    Assange shoud sue for a pass.

Occasional Thinker | November 16, 2018 at 1:29 pm

Can the executive branch now issue a blanket pardon for all contempt of court convictions resulting from disrupting court proceedings on the basis that 1st amendment rights are more important than running an orderly court room? Or at least force the judge to show due process and stop the trial being disrupted to give the protesters a hearing. There seems to be some equivalence. (If there is doubt, this is sarcasm.)

This one is so easy…no more press conferences!

Kindergarten Rule!

Judge now saying that the whole thing about @Acosta “placing hands” on intern was of “questionable accuracy”
________________

That’s ridiculous. The video of Acosta using his arms to block the intern’s attempt to retrieve the mike from him was put online mere moments after the event happened, and Acosta was very clearly in the wrong. The fact that the judge refused to acknowledge this simple fact speaks volumes.

    Apparently there will have to be some kind of system where the person “mildly” manhandled writes a statement and leaves a paper trail that could be examined by a court should a press pass be revoked over the issue. That said, I have no idea what the judge decided was “evidence” re: deeming the physical contact to be likely untrue and the evidence from a questionable source (i.e. Infowars). The DoJ has as much access to the raw footage as Infowars. I do not know “what gives”, but apparently we are expected to believe CNN’s lawyers and not our lying eyes.

    Close The Fed in reply to Observer. | November 16, 2018 at 6:46 pm

    It should not make one damn bit of difference if Acosta touched her or didn’t.

    If the staff at the White House thinks he did, that’s enough.

    Impeach the judge. Trump appointee? Well, we all make mistakes.

    Edward in reply to Observer. | November 17, 2018 at 12:55 am

    The Judge apparently believed Acosta didn’t lay a hand on the young woman. It was an arm so “hand(s)” isn’t true.

So, three phases to this I see:
1) Establish written rules of behavior for reporters that they have to *agree* to follow before they can get a pass.
2) Don’t call on Acosta during the next news conference.
3) When he raises a fuss during the conference, he’s broken one of the rules that he *demanded* be written, and is stripped of his pass again.

Optional:
4) CNN sues and get swatted with a rolled-up newspaper: “Look, it says right there no standing up in the press pool and trying to shout over the official giving the conference. And right here is your signature. You’re an idiot. Go away. Case dismissed.”

    Bucky Barkingham in reply to georgfelis. | November 16, 2018 at 2:35 pm

    I agree with your approach but I also think that as soon as rules are presented to the media CNN will say they infringe 1st Amendment and will seek another TRO. We need a SCOTUS ruling on this issue.

    If SCOTUS sides with CNN then no more formal pressers at the White House.

      I think the last thing we need is to give any more credence to illegitimate court actions. POTUS is NOT subordinate to SCOTUS, much less a district judge, and he should break with his own precedent and say so.

    Here’s the one step process.

    (1) Cancel every hard pass.

    Change the policy so nobody gets hard pass. This course of action moots Acosta’s claim, ends special treatment for “journalists” from large networks, and will make life more miserable (very much deserved) for the press corps.

The answer is simple. End all press conferences.

Why cant they just disband the entire thing and do away with all hard passes for the press and make them file for permission every day like the rest of the world does.

This is a bad decision because it recognizes that reporters are special, and that’s a bad principle. If I were running this at the White House I’d immediately send every pass-holder a notice of “changes in terms and conditions” the way credit cards do, clarifying that “Press briefings at the White House are by invitation only. This pass and your invitation to attend briefings is a favor granted to you by President Trump at his sole discretion, and revocable at any time at his sole discretion. While you are in the White House remember that you are the President’s guest, and comport yourself accordingly.”

Then I’d write to this judge telling him “There is no ‘credentialling system’, therefore your injunction to let Acosta back into that system has no object and will be ignored.”

    A written code of decorum will be a lot like that, endorsed by the judge but surely to be rejected by Acosta and April Ryan and the like.

    Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | November 16, 2018 at 4:16 pm

    You’re completely wrong.

    The “hard pass” already sets out a special class. The court’s decision did nothing to establish what was already established.

    All it did is note (correctly) that you can’t arbitrarily or maliciously revoke a privilege once one is granted. There have to be standards and due process.

    Now there will be. This was a good, even wise decision, and the administration is already moving to conform.

    All good, and none of the “bad law” the Prof. was rightly worrying about.

      stevewhitemd in reply to Ragspierre. | November 16, 2018 at 6:06 pm

      Yes, there has to be a process for the revocation of a hard pass. The state isn’t required to give me a driving license, but once it does it has to follow a process to take it away.

      It need not be onerous. A press pass at the White House is not a driving license, let alone a CCW. Seems to me that a requirement of the pass can be that the pass-holder agrees to a simple set of rules about decorum, and that violation of that decorum, at the discretion and pleasure of the Press Secretary, is enough to revoke the pass.

      This is not hard.

      should this apply to Twitter and Facebook which revoke accounts most arbitrarily on a daily basis?

      Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2018 at 7:18 pm

      The “hard pass” already sets out a special class. The court’s decision did nothing to establish what was already established.

      I don’t see it that way. The pass merely means the person is a frequent invitee to the White House. Suppose the President were having an affair, and therefore ordered that his girlfriend be given just such a pass, so she could visit him whenever he liked. Then he decides to break it off and orders her pass revoked. Would you argue that she is now part of a special class and her membership cannot be arbitrarily revoked?! If the judge thinks there was a system, announce that it’s now abolished and passes are now issued on a whim and revocable on a whim.

      All it did is note (correctly) that you can’t arbitrarily or maliciously revoke a privilege once one is granted. There have to be standards and due process.

      That’s true of agency actions pursuant to some law or formal rule. But privileges that were granted in the first place on a whim, especially when they were granted not by some agency but by the president himself, are surely revocable on a whim.

      Stevewhitemd:

      The state isn’t required to give me a driving license, but once it does it has to follow a process to take it away.

      Actually the state’s executive is required by state law to give you a drivers’ license, if you fit the criteria set out by that law, and can only revoke it under the terms of that law. The state legislature didn’t have to make such a law, but it did, so it binds the executive. But suppose the state had no law governing drivers’ licensing. Well, the DMV could set up a formal procedure, and then it would be bound by it and could not arbitrarily change it. But suppose drivers’ licenses were handed out by the governor at his discretion; do you still think he could not revoke them at his discretion?

        txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | November 18, 2018 at 12:02 am

        Suppose the President were having an affair, and therefore ordered that his girlfriend be given just such a pass, so she could visit him whenever he liked.

        Why bring JFK into this? I’m sure the rules have changed since then.

        Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | November 18, 2018 at 9:05 am

        Milhouse, you’re straining at crap-covered gnats here.

        A “hard pass” is a Secret Service thing.

        There’s not a “whim” involved. You’re talking out your ass.

    Judge Kelly revealed himself to be anti-Trump throughout his ruling.

      Milhouse in reply to Dave. | November 17, 2018 at 7:21 pm

      Can you cite the language that shows him to be anti-Trump rather than a fair judge setting out the law as he (erroneously, in my opinion) understands it? Do you think a judge ought to take into account who the president happens to be? Do you think he would not have made the same decision if 0bama or Clinton were president?

        MarkS in reply to Milhouse. | November 17, 2018 at 9:17 pm

        The entire ruling is a farce to embarrass Trump. There is no due process needed to be afforded Acosta as he is not facing a legal proceeding. he’s being removed for being a boorish miscreant and is due no more consideration than a rowdy drunk being removed from a bar

          Ragspierre in reply to MarkS. | November 18, 2018 at 10:16 am

          Why don’t you explain to all of us why a T-rump appointed and Federalist Society endorsed judge would go out of his way to “embarrass” Duh Donald.

          THEN you can explain why and how there isn’t a legal proceeding here.

Having watched the Watergate era White House press meetings… the Press determined what the President could say… one time Nixon was answering a question and Helen Thomas cut him off and called an end to the press conference leaving Nixon hanging.

Fine… but this action by CNN/Acosta was not permitted with Obama but MUST be demanded of any future Democrat president… good luck with that.

Unruly reporters? Have two (or three) mics. Shouting questions without a mic warrants the revocation of that reporter’s press pass.

Once a reporter’s question has been answered, turn off his/her mic. Go to next reporter with different mic.

If all three mics are retained (reporters refuse to relinquish them), then press conference is over.

It’s final. The judge ruled that there were no established rules and so, no “process” for revoking passes. Trump accepted the decision, restored Acosta’s pass and make it clear that the WH will create rules which will be enforced. In the future, if any reporter (not just Acosta) acts up, Trump will quickly thank everyone for coming and leave. Beautiful.

So how is this (per Breitbart’s Joshua Kaplan e.g.) a “stunning blow to the WH”? Trump wins hand down. A clear cut unequivocal victory. End of story.

    This is a stunning legal blow, period. I can only reiterate that the court’s decision was totally lacking in the elements necessary to justify issuing the TRO, to begin with. Under existing legal guidelines, Judge Kelly should have refused to issue the TRO and allowed the case to continue on to a formal hearing. He did not. Instead, he issued a wholly political order based upon faulty legal logic. Whenever these types of arbitrary legal actions are allowed to stand, it undermines legal precedent, which is the foundation of lower court rulings. Now, it is legally permissible to issue a TRO simply because the judge feels like it, regardless of necessity. Politics do not belong in the judiciary. That is how we got Roe v Wade and similar decisions.

      Fine. Be angry then. Find a room and scream your head off.

      The judge essentially laid out the path for Trump to get this behind him quickly. No getting bogged down in court process for months to come. It’s over.

      Trump then produces (tomorrow?) a quick list of rules establishing the foundation for a very simple process. No approval needed from anyone.

      Trump also made it clear that he is temporarily re-instating Acosta’s hard pass after which the first incident of acting out will result in his ending the meeting by thanking everyone and walking out. I suspect Acosta might force the issue and Trump will again revoke his pass except this time, after “due process”.

      Acosta’s peers are already throwing shade at him:

      https://www.mediaite.com/online/major-garrett-throws-shade-on-jim-acosta-when-president-says-its-not-your-turn-you-give-up-the-mic/

      Get it now? No? Then keep screaming in rage until you get an aneurysm. That should fix something. The media got their headline and Trump got his legal remedy. Those of us who get it can move on. It’s over. We won.

      Yeah, “what a stunning legal blow”.

        “Fine. Be angry then. Find a room and scream your head off.”

        Where in Mac’s post does he emote anger? That’s a cheap debate tactic meant to dismiss your opponent as emotional. You should retract and apologize.

        And where do you get off adjudicating who has a right to be angry in the first place.

        “Losing the House is actually a win for the GOP because-”

        Uh huh. Sod off.

        Let me give you a little insight in human nature.

        when human being do something which is illegal, against the rules or inappropriate and they get away with it, this merely emboldens them to do it again. It also establishes the idea that such action is now. legal or appropriate. The requirements for the issuance of a TRO [or Emergency Restraining Order as it used to be called] are clearly established. And the number one rule is that the petitioner must show that he will suffer, or is likely to suffer, immediate and irreparable harm if the action, which he seeks to contest, continues until the case is heard under normal procedures. What this judge did in the Acosta case was to ignore that requirement entirely. There is absolutely NO evidence that either Jim Acosta or CNN would suffer any immediate harm and certainly no irreparable harm should the hard pass revocation stand until a formal hearing can be conducted. And, the judiciary should not be allowed to change the rules to suit themselves anymore than the Executive or Legislative branches are.

        If the nation simply shuts up and accepts improper judicial rulings, then they become more and more common, until they become a viable precedent.

      Olinser in reply to Mac45. | November 16, 2018 at 6:44 pm

      Trump should appeal the decision and bluntly announcing he will not hold a single press conference until the issue is resolved.

      This judge is just praying that Trump will cave and not actually take it to the next level. Which is not usually a good bet against Trump.

      Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | November 16, 2018 at 8:50 pm

      Again, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

      Some more.

      Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | November 16, 2018 at 10:19 pm

      Here’s a question, Mac.22…

      Globally, what is a TRO for?

      Was there a “formal hearing?

        Here is the relevant portion of the definition of a TRO from Cornel University”

        “Temporary restraining orders (TRO) are short-term pre-trial temporary injunctions. To obtain a TRO, a party must convince the judge that he or she will suffer immediate irreparable injury unless the order is issued. If the judge is convinced that a temporary restraining order is necessary, he or she may issue the order immediately, without informing the other parties and without holding a hearing. These orders are intended to be stop-gap measures, and only last until the court holds a hearing on whether or not to grant a preliminary injunction. Judges’ decisions on whether or not to issue a TRO may not be appealed.” – https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/temporary_restraining_order

        Note the part about immediate irreparable injury. That is the defined purpose of a TRO and does not exist in this case.

        Now, being an attorney, you are doubtless aware that a hearing for injunctive relief can take months and usually takes weeks to be heard. This was a hearing for oral arguments to determine if there was sufficient grounds to issue an TRO, not to make a determination of whether the WH acted within the scope of its authority and under the Constitution. In fact, the judge never clearly stated that the WH violated the 5th Amendment. To make matters worse, the judge even qualified his order by stating that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail at TRIAL. This court did not even issue a preliminary injunction, only a TRO.

        So, to answer your question, yes, this was a formal hearing, but it was only to determine of the requirements for the issue of a TRO existed. And, as there was no evidence of immediate and irreparable harm to the petitioners, those requirements were not met. The TRO should NOT have been issued and the case should have gone to a hearing for the issuance of a preliminary or permanent injunction.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2018 at 4:37 pm

        I asked two questions.

        You failed to attempt to answer the second, and blathered a lot about bullshit, admitting that you lied previously about a “formal hearing”.

        You are wrong. The judge heard evidence from both sides, and EXPRESSLY found that Acosta’s interests would be harmed by failing to grant a TRO.

        Now, try again; what is a TRO supposed to do?

I am largely bored. You can clearly see the Accoster “karate chop” in the second of the two pics the prof has posted.

Is this how the GOP wants to go forward? Because I’m not inclined to vote for the submissive in a BDSM porn film.

Accost ya is a Eurocrat.

Trump should say that Acosta was afforded due process but the standards of behavior are proprietary and secret, just like Facebook’s.

I still don’t think Acosta should be affords due process. Something is really messed up with the system. I was watching the presser when it happened and what he did was so wrong. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who justify his actions needs to be kicked in the a$$.

There are many cases that deserve due process and this is not one. I am boiling mad over this. The metro-sexual men in the room really shows their turn talents. Does anyone have balls to put Acosta in his place?

Judge is a dumba$$ to discount Acosta’s aggressive behavior. As a WH worker, I would feel threaten by his actions. Wished she would have slapped him.

    I can almost understand the people who say, no physical contact happened, it’s a vile lie. But the people who say, “The contact has been overblown… it’s just a little touch.. he didn’t karate chop her arm…”

    You, do not, touch female staff in an unwanted manner in a professional environment. You do not fight with them. You do not win through the use of “little” touches just because you’re a man. What was once just a matter of being a gentleman is now taken far more seriously, and whatever the courts say in the end, Trump would have been wrong to just stand by and allow abuse of his employees without attempting to stand up for them.

“if any reporter (not just Acosta) acts up, Trump will quickly thank everyone for coming and leave.”

Trump ALWAYS had the power to walk out, this cast didn’t suddenly grant it

By your logic, any reporter can now hold the press briefing hostage – they can force Trump to retreat and end his own press briefing.

Where I come from that is called “losing”.

    That and they’ll yell “MR. PRESIDENT (or MS. SECRETARY), WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF!?!!”

    Hub in reply to Fen. | November 17, 2018 at 6:50 am

    He does have the option to split the room in half with an imaginary line down the middle indicated by his hand. One half is adjourned the other half retained. Of course, the abuser is part of the half that is adjourned. It has the advantage of ticking off half the journalists who are punished at the same time as the abuser.

I sincerely doubt the fifth amendment was meant to cover anything except rights of people who are objects of prosecution. Would prefer Trump said mind your own business. Second best would be, write some rules, kick him out again.

    Milhouse in reply to jlronning. | November 17, 2018 at 7:47 pm

    I sincerely doubt the fifth amendment was meant to cover anything except rights of people who are objects of prosecution.

    Have you ever read the fifth amendment? It’s not possible for someone who has read it to come away with the opinion you just expressed.

WH needs to kick them all out. Spoiled little brats. It is going to get worst real soon. Bezo is building HQ2 just across the river. It is a direct attack on the US Government.

New rules:
1. All press passes are hereby revoked. Access to a press conference will entail a security check as conducted by TSA at every airport.
2. Inside the press conference room, a member of the press may not speak unless called on by the President, Secretary, or speaker, and subsequently handed a microphone. Failure to remain silent results in immediate expulsion from the conference room.
3. Press must ask a question based on who, what, when, where, and why for a given topic. There are to be no statements, just questions. The question is to be 25 words or less. If the question is deemed by the person conducting the meeting to be biased or based on a political Party’s talking points, the question will be dismissed and the questioner will be banned from the press conferences for a minimum of three months.
4. Once a question is posed, but before answered, the questioner will surrender the microphone. The questioner will not utter another word. Failure to follow these rules will result in the questioner being banned from press conferences for a minimum of six months.
5. Admission and seating in the conference room will be determined by the White House staff prior to the meeting.

    Ragspierre in reply to Max17. | November 16, 2018 at 10:13 pm

    In North Korea…

    maybe.

      Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | November 17, 2018 at 7:53 pm

      Are you saying there’s something dictatorial or tyrannical about making such rules? The reporters aren’t entitled to anything; anything they get is by the president’s favor.

      The real reason Max17’s rules wouldn’t fly is that the reporters wouldn’t put up with it. They’d decide that if those are the conditions for attending a WH briefing then they won’t bother. And the truth is the WH wants them there. The only reason these things ever existed in the first place is because the WH wanted them.

      That’s a core point that many people miss; the WH doesn’t hold briefings because it has to, but because it wants to. A long line of presidents have craved the publicity a press briefing provides. Now that Trump has Twitter maybe he has no more use for them, in which case he should stop having them.

        Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | November 18, 2018 at 9:00 am

        “Are you saying there’s something dictatorial or tyrannical about making such rules?”

        Yeeeeeup. The American people would not put up with that crap.

        Would YOU…???

The Prof. observed…

“Acosta won, the press lost.”

I respectfully disagree. Acosta won a very Pyrrhic, very temporary round in a fight.

I think this was a win-win for both the White House press and the administration. Going forward, there will be a new, much more clear, set of guidelines.

Acosta will get his…right in the end.

The establisment of rules is going to happen. The enforcement by the White House can be highly subjective. Seems to me S.Sanders now has a shock collar to use for her own personal amusement.

The best way to handle this is call on Acost-her early and often. Listen intently to his speech. Ponder for about 2 minutes, then ask him to repeat his question. Give a lengthy non-sequitur for an answer, take follow up from Acost-her, give long answers. Do this every press conference, having Acost-her use up about 85% of the time, not letting time for anyone but Acost-her. The media will eat their own.

    I like this better than my lotto solution – every reporter gets a number and Sarah/PDT draws numbers from a ball machine.

    Of course, Acosta’s balls are removed.

Quick thought experiment. Is the power of the federal courts to hold someone in contempt of court and have them locked up a judicial doctrine or is there a statutory basis for this?

If just a judicial doctrine why couldn’t the President as a co-equal branch of government establish a Presidential doctrine to hold someone like Jim Acosta in contempt of the President and order him taken away to Whitehouse jail until he apologizes or otherwise purges the contempt.

Why does the judiciary have the power to lock up misbehaving attendees in a courtroom but the President or Congress not be able to claim the same power for someone misbehaving in the President’s house or in the Capital building as co-equal branches of government.

    Ragspierre in reply to garybritt. | November 17, 2018 at 12:08 am

    In a contempt of court proceeding (which derives from ancient English law) you’ll find that there is due process in any durable contempt holding. If there isn’t, anyone accused and penalized on contempt without due process is afforded habeas corpus, and the matter is heard by another judge. It has been codified in Texas, as well as many other states.

    The Congress can jail a person found in contempt, and there is a set of cells for that purpose in the Capitol, though it is not used in recent history.

    The President has no such power to find in contempt, historically. If any such power existed, it would, like all contempt, be subject to due process and habeas corpus. Rather, the POTUS has the full resources of the executive.

    I thought you were supposed to be a lawyer…

Why we have to draft rules for everything

1) Acosta
2) Rags

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | November 17, 2018 at 10:55 am

    I have my own rules.

    They don’t include advocating the breaking of bones or the hanging of political opponents’ children from bridges, as do you, Little Bill.

    So much big talk; so little action…

    Craven coward.

      More lies from the Acosta of Legal Innsurrection.

      (Funny how the admins keep removing this post but not yours)

        Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | November 17, 2018 at 6:11 pm

        You’re the one who was told to give back the mic, sit down, and act with some iota of decorum.

        And you’re the one refusing to do any of that.

        Purrrr prima donna…!!!

The future of this is now obvious.The White House comes up with rules that reporters must adhere to in order to maintain their hard pass, Acosta, acts up again, Acosta is thrown out and his hard pass revoked, and then Acosta sues claiming that his behavior did not meet the norms required. Now come the endless lawsuits about Trump being unfair; the rules for press briefing behavior being to harsh, undefined, or whatever; Acosta did not meet the criteria defined in the rules, etc. This will all turn into another avenue to attack Trump.
>
So then Trump does the obvious and cancels all press gatherings. Now Acosta and others will sue to reinstate the press gathering s for any number of contrived reasons.
>
The bottom line is clear. Judges and the ceaseless litigation of everything is turning America into a disgusting place to live any more as judges are realizing how they can mold the country into any image they want and they do not have to contend with voters, law promulgation, or any of the other messy stuff that elected officials must contend with. Screw the House, he Senate, and the Presidency, we are now living under the tyranny of the judicial branch who is far more equal than anyone else.

DouglasJBender | November 17, 2018 at 7:29 am

Send Acosta to a corner of the room, and never let the mic anywhere near his grubby little hands.

Federal judges have been ruling, since the beginning of his administration, that Trump cannot do what a president can legally do. Starting with the novel idea that President Trump cannot rescind the executive order from a previous president and now that a boorish miscreant cannot be denied access to the White House without due process as if Acosta is facing a legal proceeding of some sort. It’s time for Trump to grow a pair and tell these judges, who enter into territory that is not within their purview, to GFY and proceed as he may!

Professor’s update:

“This NYT Editor seems to have it right. It’s a temporary victory for Acosta, but once the White House gets procedures in place, it’s a loss for the press overall:”

It’s a loss for the press because they “lost”, or tossed away, a privilege that existed at the discretion of the WH.

I spent a little time yesterday researching the history of press briefings and they began as informal “gentlemen’s sit-downs” with FDR mostly to discuss things in private and off-record. They were never opportunities for the press to cross-examine nor nail the president to the wall. The press was much more respectful back then about what to report and avoided sensationalism (FDR’s infirmity, JFK’s many pecadillos, e.g.) and used the informal access for background. It was a privilege.

So what the press “lost” was a very valuable tradition because they were too abusive and obnoxious to use that privilege wisely. The judge didn’t rule on the basis of first amendment but on process. So the WH can announce formal rules and then kick Acosta out again.

The only thing I can see as having been lost here is a privilege that was being grossly abused for purposes having nothing to do with the “public’s right to know” and everything to do with media arrogance. So they lost a privilege. The press lost because they tried to establish a right to stage political protests in the WH. Let’s not confuse that with a something important like erosion of the First Amendment. There will continue to be discussions on background for journalists who earn access by being responsible with information they are not entitled to but help them report accurately without divulging too much.

Acosta “won” a pyrrhic victory in his petty battle to get his access pass back. The press lost a privilege than had become a WH tradition. The won the “war”. Good job Acosta and friends.

One final observation and I’m done. During the Acosta incident when Trump was pinning Acosta’s ears back, I heard another reporter stand up to defend Acosta by personally vouching for his dedication to journalistic principle. Trump responded by something like “I’m not happy with you either.” It seems to me that this exchange captured the essence of the problem: the lack of journalistic principles.

In the midst of an obnoxious drama queen tantrum by Acosta, a fellow “journalist” defends his dedication to journalism? How tone deaf was that? What was he thinking? I laughed when I heard Trump’s response. So did others in the room so maybe the responsible journalists in the room got it too. Acosta was blowing it for them. Let’s see if any of them dare to speak out in support of Trump. Getting Acosta tossed is a blessing to their careers.

The WH should never call on another CNN reporter or take a question from a CNN reporter until Acosta leaves the WH press pool. Freeze them out the way Obama froze out Fox News for years.

I don’t understand why any process is “due” to Acosta. Was it promised when press passes were issued? A president has the same rights as any citizen to speak to anyone he likes or not and to associate with anyone he likes or not. It is the president’s rights that have been abused. Of course, there is a simple work-around and Trump chooses wisely to take that path.

The WH should revoke all the press corps’ passess. Then reissue them in the form of Trumpy bears.

https://ourcomfyhq.com/products/fearless-super-plush-american-donald-teddy-grizzly-trumpy-bear?variant=12925803724863&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=Google%20Shopping&msclkid=fb0ef3e107901c7163fba8112e1eedf0&utm_term=4585513246189850&utm_content=Ad%20group%20%231

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m as much looking forward to the Trumpy bear lawsuit as I am the Alexandria Occasional-Cortex global warming drum circle.

This is a ridiculous ruling. Unless/Until the WH appeals, what this is saying is that every journalist across the US (at least) has the absolute right to get, keep and use a WH press pass. And if denied for anything but a security reason, they can sue. The judge says so.

    Ragspierre in reply to clayusmcret. | November 17, 2018 at 11:33 am

    You’ll want to read the ruling MUCH more carefully.

    All the court ruled is that there is a due process burden that must be met.

    The administration has recognized this, and is in process of meeting it.

    There won’t be an appeal. Remember, this is a TEMPORARY restraining order. It isn’t the end of the matter. It isn’t a final judgment in the lawsuit.

    Again, I’ll ask what a TRO is intended to do?

I dunno why the WH uses a handheld wireless mic – use a boom mic and operator with a couple of rules. 1) Questions only; 2) Touch the mic, boom or operator get evicted.

Also, it wouldn’t hurt to line the walls and ceiling with sound-absorbent material to muffle the din.

http://www.aussiespeedshop.com. If you think I have forgotten my Digger and Kiwi brethren you are greatly mistaken. I snuck an Aussie army O into a ROK briefing claiming that the only difference he talked different from me was his Boston accent.

I believe all statutes of limitations apply.

LOL you’ve deleted that post 6 times now.

Why?

Reporters like Acosta have a monopoly on specific seats!!?!?!!??. The WH should create a policy that rotates the thousands of reporters available on a weekly basis. Let Acosta sit outside that way along with many of the other idiots in the corps.

Seriously? The solution requires developing,implementing, and enforcing Standards. When is the last time you remember the Left supporting Standards unless they advance their Statist agenda?

President Trump’s standards will last as long as his completely legal exercises of Executive Authority (unlike Obama’s) in Immigration, the environment,et al. lasted before they encountered a frivolous Leftist lawsuit (but I repeat myself) before a federal judge in Hawaii, California, or – take your pick.

Resist We Much!

It’s impossible to comment on whether the judge was correct or incorrect or even just confused without a transcript.

Be that as it may, it’s not a bad idea to revoke ALL press passes to the White House subject to their being reissued upon signature under oath stating that: the holder understands and agrees that all such passes are issued at the pleasure of the president, that issuance of the pass grants no license or privilege, and that such passes may be summarily revoked temporarily or permanently at any time with or without reason therefore at the pleasure of the president or his duly authorized agent.

That should be the only “rule”. That way there is nothing to argue about in the future.

Done.

DieJustAsHappy | November 18, 2018 at 7:50 am

All this brouhaha over behavior of adults during a press conference just goes to reenforce, at least to me, the notion that human nature changes very little.

    Sayre’s Law:

    “In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake.”

    That is why academia is such a war zone. Apparently it also applies whenever lawyers are involved in hypothetical discussions. Fierce battles break out over minutiae. Like rabbis arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a pin.

      DieJustAsHappy in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 18, 2018 at 9:00 am

      For those professors who, at times, got long in a lecture, it was a known tactic by students to ask about a passionate issue. They’d get wound up, sometimes for the remaining of the class time.

      Later on, when PC-ness was worming its way into academia, one could really get some of the Lefties really cranked, although care needed to be exercised in the phrasing of any questions/remarks. Otherwise, one might be “red-flagged,” called a “Nazis,” or even called to the prof’s office.

      “Like rabbis arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a pin.” Rabbis? Wasn’t Medieval Scholasticism the origin of this intellectual exercise?

        Not picking on rabbis nor scholasticism. Just observing that so many of these discussions deteriorate into legal arguments between our resident pedants where the general point, context and proportion of the discussions get lost.

        In this case, people are conflating issues that the judge kept separate and clear and digressing into minutiae to “win” bogus arguments. The judge made clear the ruling had nothing to do with the 1st amendment. He also made clear the president has no obligation to even have these pressers nor to call on anyone. He ruled solely on the basis of process, or lack of. Yet read the thread. WTF?

        The judge issued a TRO laying out a path for Trump to exercise his powers moving forward. So Acosta gets a pyrrhic “victory” getting the headlines while Trump is handed the remedy. Yet many of our “lawyers” see this as a “crushing defeat” for the WH? That is insane.

        There was no important precedent set opening the floodgates to anything. Rather, it tidied up a very minor detail empowering Trump to exercise his legal discretion. If the media wants to keep a privilege that no longer serves any useful purpose (other than allowing the mobs (formerly known as journalists) to stage protests in the WH), they will have to provide reliable assurances that they can be trusted to behave with proper respect and decorum as has been part of the tradition.

          DieJustAsHappy in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 18, 2018 at 10:12 am

          Good points and ones, at least to my thinking, that ought not even have a reason to be raised in a civil society. Didn’t comprehend the rabbi comment as a “picking on.” Rather, didn’t know whether there was a discussion of this preceding the one I cited.

          Maybe, once the behavior of persons at press briefings is dealt with we could move on to more important issues, say behavior at the southern border!

          NOW you’re talking! It’s the border!

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend