PayPal

Friday, November 16, 2018

Turning Jim Acosta’s Press Privilege into a “Right,” Judge Orders Trump White House to Restore Democrat Hack’s “Hard Pass”

By Grand Rapids Anonymous
Friday, November 16, 2018 at 11:02:00 A.M. EST

ACOSTA (as expected) WINS COURT CASE,GETS PRESS PASS BACK

(CNBC) A lower court judge ruled in favor of Jim Acosta today in the dispute with the White House over press clearance.

The ruling from Judge Timothy Kelly, who was appointed by Trump, was the first victory for CNN in the ongoing case.

"I want to thank all of my colleagues in the press who supported us this week, and I want to thank the judge for the decision he made today," Acosta said outside U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

"Let's go back to work!" he added. (GRA: Trump and Sanders should ignore him in future pressers).

CNN's lawsuit, announced Tuesday, argues that Acosta's constitutional rights had been violated by Trump and five other members of his administration, as well as by the U.S. Secret Service. The other defendants include chief of staff John Kelly, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, deputy chief of staff Bill Shine and Secret Service Director Randolph Alles.

In a statement, CNN and Acosta said they "look forward to a full resolution in the coming days."


CNN Communications

@CNNPR
Statement from CNN and @Acosta on today’s ruling: “We are gratified with this result and we look forward to a full resolution in the coming days. Our sincere thanks to all who have supported not just CNN, but a free, strong and ponse [sic] to the Trump administration's decision last week to yank Acosta's "hard pass," which gave him access to the White House grounds, after Acosta clashed with the president at a news conference earlier that day. The suit underscored Trump's increasingly hostile relationship with many mainstream media outlets, which he regularly decries as "fake news" and "the enemy of the people." (GRA: Notice the slant of THIS story. Not reporting-editorializing).

The White House had no immediate comment on the decision, or the question of whether the administration will file an appeal of the ruling.

CNN argued that the White House infringed on Acosta's free press and due process rights under the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The network was asking for an order that would temporarily reverse the White House's suspension of Acosta's hard pass, until a final decision on the lawsuit was reached. CNN also wants "a declaration that the revocation of Acosta's press credentials was unconstitutional."

[N.S.: Ridic. No constitutional rights were violated.]

Kelly granted CNN's request for a temporary restraining order, ruling that the White House had violated Acosta's due process. He ordered both parties to file a joint status report next week on how to proceed in the case.

CNN asked the judge to quickly rule on the request for a temporary restraining order, arguing that "every day that passes without Acosta regaining his press credentials is a concrete injury."

Justice Department lawyers replied in a court filing that suspending the pass was "lawful" and that the White House held "broad discretion to regulate" journalists' access to the grounds.

N.S.: The White House should appeal this ridiculous decision. In the meantime, the President should refuse to hold any more press conferences for the foreseeable future. The President can hold his own briefings via Twitter. If he ever holds another press conference, and Acosta is present, he should refuse to call on him. Indeed, he should refuse to call on anyone from CNN… ever again.

Take a page out of the Giuliani playbook. During Giuliani’s eight years as mayor of New York City, he refused to permit black supremacist criminal Al Sharpton to ever darken City Hall’s doorway.

No judge can compel the President to hold press conferences, or to call on any particular reporter or organization. Should a judge be so full of hubris as to seek to force his will on the President, then the President should tell him to go to hell.


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I am not even sure how this is an issue for the courts anyhow?