Patterico's Pontifications

11/16/2018

White House Ordered To Restore Jim Acosta’s Press Pass (UPDATE ADDED)

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:57 am



[guest post by Dana]

This morning, Judge Timothy Kelly ordered the White House to restore Jim Acosta’s press pass , which had been revoked after a heated exchange with President Trump at last week’s press conference. In granting CNN’s request, Kelly specifically focused on a lack of required due process:

A federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump White House to immediately restore the press pass of CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta as the case progresses after the network filed a lawsuit suit claiming that revoking it violated the First Amendment.

The judge repeatedly emphasized that his decision was based on the Fifth Amendment and that Acosta was denied his right to due process.

“If at some point after restoring the hard pass the government would like to move to vacate the restraining order on the grounds that it has fulfilled its due process obligations then it may, of course, do so and I will promptly address that and then the remaining basis of the (temporary restraining order),” U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly said.

Speaking after the ruling, Ted Boutros, an attorney for CNN said the news organization is “extremely pleased with the ruling today.”

“A great day for the First Amendment and journalism,” he said. “We’re very excited to have Mr. Acosta be able to go back and get his hard pass and report the news about the White House.”

Judge Kelly was nominated by President Trump, and confirmed by a 94-2 vote. By noting this, does it help lay to rest claims made by those on the left side of the aisle that Trump only appoints judges that will protect his interests? Or does it simply demonstrate that Kelly is a judge who recognizes his duty to not be politically motivated and to act as a neutral arbiter who applies the law to the facts?

As far as Jim Acosta’s return to the White House press conferences, I’m curious to know who actually controls these events? It appears as if there is no mechanism in place for the White House to give a reporter their due process at the time and revoke their pass. And if that is the case, by not having control (or a mechanism in place), the door has been left wide open for further grandstanding by Acosta (and maybe others). If he was able to dominate a presser like he did last week, by refusing to accept that his turn was over and sit down, then what recourse does the White House have at its disposal now? And given Acosta’s evidenced persistence, even if Trump didn’t call on him, what would stop him from acting out, or sidling up to a colleague and co-opting the microphone? Because clearly, he didn’t care that he was stepping on other reporters’ opportunities to question the President last week.

The White House has not issued a response to the judge’s ruling, nor has President Trump tweeted about it.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

UPDATE: President Trump spoke to reporters after today’s ruling was announced. He said that people have to behave, and as such, the administration is currently writing up rules and regulations to line up with that position. When asked specifically about what those rules and regs might look like, the President said that it was all about reporters practicing decorum. Further, he stated that while he believes in “total freedom of the press. It’s very important to me. It’s more important to me than anyone would believe,” it must exercised respectfully with regard to staffers. He also added that if the reporters don’t follow the rules and regulations, they would end up back in court, claiming that “we would win.” The President also pointed out that the White House retains the option of simply walking out of a press conference if proper decorum is not demonstrated.

As a reminder, this is the same president who recently said of the press:

“What a stupid question that is”
“I know you’re not thinking. You never do”
“You are a rude, terrible person”
“You’re creating violence by your question”
“That’s such a racist question”

156 Responses to “White House Ordered To Restore Jim Acosta’s Press Pass (UPDATE ADDED)”

  1. I see there is an article at the WSJ which asks whether there is a Constitutional right to a press pass. Unfortunately, it’s behind a paywall.

    Dana (023079)

  2. poor little judge doesn’t understand the first amender

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  3. He’s a Duke grad,

    Narciso (6a6352)

  4. White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders also called for “decorum” at the White House and said they would be developing “rules and processes to ensure fair and orderly press conferences in the future.”

    Another example of ready, fire, aim. They continue to shoot themselves in the foot by being fundamentally bad at basic tasks. Acosta is a dick, but what you don’t do is immediately react without thinking, take a couple of hours and figure out a good alternative.

    Of course, even losing a dumb fight is fine with Trump, he loses in court all the time, but the juvenile reaction is the point, winning isn’t the point, fighting is.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (7b1819)

  5. He’s following bad precedent.

    So much for separation of powers.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  6. We’ll eventually get someone who will apply the right law.

    Narciso (6a6352)

  7. Who controls ‘these events??’ The White House. They call the presser, they set the parameters. Revisit the history of same in past administrations. Wear a red dress, get called on; submit written questions, expect a response, etc., etc,.

    A sloppy presser = sloppy management.

    Two years in, ’bout time to tuck in that shirttail, Captain! And Acosta did not ‘dominate’ that presser; Trump did, as he always does.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  8. Well there a few worthwhile reporter ejeti of the daily caller for instance

    Don Surber: Trump everyone’s hard passes then
    https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2018/11/trump-everyones-hard-passes-then.html?spref=fb&fbclid=IwAR2m_tKuYUqT3yqzVzZXX3it7e_Ojuci7LZ1JHUR_AHH3zT7hPraWGY9yk8&m=1

    Narciso (6a6352)

  9. Happyfeet, did you even read the post?
    The judge ruled based on reasons of due process, and specifically avoided ruling for now on the First Amendment issues.

    The ruling basically said the WH can not arbitrarily revoke a press pass. Sander’s talk about developing rules suggests there are no rules now which can be used as a guide to when and how press passes can be revoked, meaning until they are, no press pass can be revoked without falling prey to the same problem.

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  10. @2. There’s a little ‘soviet’ hidden in every ‘conservative,’ Mr. Feet.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  11. By the way, that ad was prophetic. In that ad, President Trump showed illegal aliens overrunning barricades.

    The ad was a lie, but that part was not the lie.
    The lie was the implication that the whole “caravan” was a mass of criminals, and that any and all Central American migrants should be expected to turn out to be crazed copkillers.

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  12. No it’s not, but the press will deny there is anything untoward but they decided they couldn’t air it, even though they aired blatant lies 1,000 times last cycle.

    Narciso (6a6352)

  13. @2. There’s a little ‘soviet’ hidden in every ‘conservative,’ Mr. Feet.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/16/2018 @ 10:42 am

    That offends me. I’m done here and at The Jury.

    DRJ (15874d)

  14. I recall that the television game Jeopardy requires the answer to be given in the form of a question. It seems like an easy thing to do.

    AZ Bob (885937)

  15. Are we surprised he was on the Soviet side in the 70s and 80s, Nixon evil brezhnev misunderstood,

    Narciso (6a6352)

  16. @13. LOL, sorry you’re offended, DRJ, but it is simply a matter of fact: conservative.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  17. And the sponsoring operation comes of Venezuela with a Zelaya rep as frontman

    Narciso (6a6352)

  18. By the way, that ad was prophetic. In that ad, President Trump showed illegal aliens overrunning barricades.

    You seriously think most Central American migrants are violent criminals?
    Because that was what the ad was saying.
    I might add that ad was part of a propaganda campaign by Trump and the Breitbard echo chamber which was aimed at drumming up nativist votes, but which also catalyzed a white supremacist whacko to kill 11 people.

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  19. The obvious answer is to have fewer press conferences that involve clods like Acosta.

    David Longfellow (8cba7a)

  20. The obvious answer is to have fewer press conferences that involve clods like Acosta.

    They’re already down to few and far between, other than the “Get to the choppa” moments.

    Colonel Klink (744849)

  21. But an ad that accuses desantis of being a racist that can’t have a negative impression.

    Narciso (6a6352)

  22. @19. Just look at the number of accredited journalists w/WH passes at those pressers. Plenty would love to be called on but never are. The ‘obvious’ answer is to simply not call on Acosta. But Trump enjoys the foil and chaos; he revels in the controversy and the heat it generates. Light, not so much.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  23. Everything gets complicated when enough people stop being adults.

    Puggle (d78c43)

  24. But an ad that accuses desantis of being a racist that can’t have a negative impression.

    What ad was that? I don’t remember any ad like that (as opposed to claims that he was a racist…but those were reported as “people said he is a racist”, not as “he is a racist”).

    Only antiDeSantis ad I remember was the one about his votes and comments on the topic of health insurance.

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  25. Looks like ‘Orange’ is the new ‘blue’ in the House, too.

    CA’s OC is no longer ‘Reagan Country.’

    Amazing.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  26. DRJ at #13: this is sadly what happens when jerks are allowed to act like jerks. You need to choose the “party” you want to attend. Patterico has a party with a lot of unpleasant people. But he doesn’t like to ban or mute people, which is his choice. So folks get to choose staying at such a party or not.

    I know how you feel. But clearly, your opinion (and mine) is not the norm.

    And it is sad: I look at your contributions over many years: solid, thoughtful, polite, and kind. And then I look at the trolls. They get to urinate all over the comments section. Bit by bit, the thoughtful and polite posters are gone. More and more, the trolls—people with long, long histories of bizarre and dishonest commenting that anyone using the search function can find—predominate.

    There is a concept in my own field that applies: social cheating. It applies everywhere in biology, from large vertebrates and to microbes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_(biology)

    But here is the important quote: “…A cheater is an individual who does not cooperate (or cooperates less than their fair share) but can potentially gain the benefit from others cooperating. Cheaters are also those who selfishly use common resources to maximize their individual fitness at the expense of a group….

    I feel sorry for Patterico: if he slams people for being jerks, he gets criticized. If he lets people act like jerks, he gets criticized. And even when I point out that people should be polite out of respect for Patterico *paying* for this site, the trolls come back with clever comments like “Why are you so concerned with Patterico’s finances…what are you, his bookie?

    H8rs gotta H8. And it is far, far easier to destroy than to build.

    I for one appreciate your comments whenever I see them—whether or not I agree with you—and will hate to see them vanish. I guess it is another version of Gresham’s Law.

    Best wishes to you and yours.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  27. Well he made light of Texans troubles during Harvey but that doesn’t seem to matter, while they burn down this great country but let’s be civil about it, as if the Cavanaugh matter taught nothing,

    Narciso (6a6352)

  28. @26. That’s rude; now I’m offended! Particularly when the quote was ‘misquoted’ in the re-paste, by omitting the italicized letters. But if you can spell ‘conservative’ in English without using the letters s-o-v-i-e-t, have at it.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  29. yes i readed all the whole post Mr. kishnevi

    dirty cnn jake tapper fake news poofter jim acosta’s doing infringe on the first amendment rights of those members of the press who cannot participate in these press conferences he hijacks for #theresistance

    this is obvious to anyone who is willing to do the analysis

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  30. First of all, I have a hard time seeing as how he has a proprietary interest in a press pass sufficient to support a Due Process claim.

    Second, so how much process is due? The guy was a rude jerk who would not yield the mike to other members of the press. Do we need a whole section of the Code of Federal Regulations, and an administrative hearing, to relieve him of the pass?

    Bored Lawyer (8ea02a)

  31. Well, if you can spell pragmatist without p-i-g ….

    nk (dbc370)

  32. UPDATE: President Trump spoke to reporters after today’s ruling was announced. He said that people have to behave, and as such, the administration is currently writing up rules and regulations to line up with that position. When asked specifically about what those rules and regs might look like, the President said that it was all about reporters practicing decorum. Further, he stated that while he believes in “total freedom of the press. It’s very important to me. It’s more important to me than anyone would believe,” it must exercised respectfully with regard to staffers. He also added that if the reporters don’t follow the rules and regulations, they would end up back in court, claiming that “we would win.” The President also pointed out that the White House retains the option of simply walking out of a press conference if proper decorum is not demonstrated.

    As a reminder, this is the same president who recently said of the press:

    “What a stupid question that is”
    “I know you’re not thinking. You never do”
    “You are a rude, terrible person”
    “You’re creating violence by your question”
    “That’s such a racist question”

    Dana (023079)

  33. “fake news poofter jim acosta’s doing infringe on the first amendment rights of…”

    Here I thought the 1st amendment was a limitation on government actors….who would have thunk

    AJ_Liberty (3c84de)

  34. @32.Keep in mind, there’s a difference between the backroom ‘gaggles,’ the ‘daily press briefing’ and a full blown press conference in the East Room of the White House. What’s peculiar is these sort of parameters are usually penciled in place on ‘day one’ of an administration, not two years in.

    But “decorum,” eh, Dana. Remember, ‘Archie Bunker’ was from Queens, too.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  35. “Acosta is a dick, but what you don’t do is immediately react without thinking, take a couple of hours and figure out a good alternative.”
    Colonel Klink (Ret) (7b1819) — 11/16/2018 @ 10:20 am

    Stupid Trump didn’t realize every decision needs to be run through legal, with umpteen billable hours charged. Even FDR knew this.

    Munroe (9ff74e)

  36. “The guy was a rude jerk who would not yield the mike to other members of the press.”

    We call that guy President Trump.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  37. hello Mr. Liberty

    if President Trump lets a cnn fake news poofter hijack the press conference then he’s complicit

    and that’s not his way is it

    no

    President Trump stands up tall for the constitution!

    every single day

    rain or shine

    i get a little emotional when i think about it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  38. Reagan’s “decorum” during ‘chopper talk’ heading to Andrews was just to raise his hand to his ear and feign too much noise when Sam Donaldson barked questions at him; Trump’s decorum is to out shout the chopper wash and deliver zingers to reporters so he can watch their reactions on AF1 as in-flight entertainment.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  39. #13 and #26:
    DRJ, who is always respectful and IMHO almost always right about things, is one of the main reasons for reading this blog. Simon Jester says it better than I can, but please come back!

    Re the judge’s decision, you would think someone could get barred from a press conference for misconduct, sort of like a contempt of court committed in the presence of the judge, but if there are no formal standards for what constitutes misconduct then maybe Acosta had, technically, a legitimate argument. It’s a shame, though, that we have to have yet another set of written rules regarding how to behave. Kind of like it’s a shame that Patterico has to tell people not to engage in personal attacks when everyone should know better already.

    RL formerly in Glendale (40f5aa)

  40. “It’s a shame, though, that we have to have yet another set of written rules regarding how to behave.”
    RL formerly in Glendale (40f5aa) — 11/16/2018 @ 12:48 pm

    No shame if you’re a lawyer, or a judge. It’s called job security.

    Munroe (1eabc4)

  41. It strikes me as a little strange that people moaning about “Separation of Powers” seem to believe that the courts have any standing to rule on this.

    Hard passes into the White House are a privilege, not a right. There is no “Due Process” where privileges are concerned.

    Gryph (08c844)

  42. Oh, so there’s no analysis of HOW the 5th Amendment applies to a WH press corps getting his hard pass revoked?

    No analysis as whether the courts get to 2nd Guess internal Executive Branch matters?

    Is there anything the Judiciary could do that would overstepping its bounds according to lawyers? I guess not.

    Judges and Lawyers Uber alles.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  43. rcocean,

    To whom were you directing your comments?

    Dana (023079)

  44. Give the freakin’ hard token back to him and ignore him from that day on.

    That would be absolutely highlarious.

    Colonel Haiku (e37049)

  45. “Hard passes into the White House are a privilege, not a right. There is no “Due Process” where privileges are concerned.”

    You do not need to have a “right to a White House pass” in order to have a government official engage in viewpoint discrimination. If access to a White House briefing is based on neutral qualifications (like, work for some sort of news outlet that does not lobby the government and pass a secret service background check), then that government official is on thin ice if he unilaterally introduces some new criterion…especially when that criterion is somewhat nebulous…and seems to be a pretext for punishing the reporter for asking unfriendly questions….thereby chilling others from asking similarly tough questions. Again, it’s an open question as who should win, but I think it is wrong to say that Courts have no authority to weigh violations of the 1st or 5th amendments. I don’t see the point of trying to revisit Marbury after 215 years…one would think that ship has sailed…no?

    AJ_Liberty (3c84de)

  46. I read that the WH Pres Corps Association controls who sits where, etc. Maybe they will have Acosta host their next Nerd Prom after bringing them so much glory.

    Patricia (3363ec)

  47. 45. The 1st amendment specifically states:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    So which law did Congress pass that infringes upon any of Jim Acosta’s freedoms in this regard? I can not stress enough, I believe that the courts have no standing to weigh in on this matter precisely because it is not a 1st amendment issue.

    As I have stated numerous times, Acosta is free to report on the White House any way he wishes — including dishonestly — without fear of fine or imprisonment. As long as that’s the case, there is no “there” there.

    Gryph (5efbad)

  48. On a side note, has anyone seen an apology issued from Acosta to the intern whose arm he did not make contact with?

    Dana (023079)

  49. The WH press corps has always been peppered w/obstinate ‘jerks.’ Dan Rather comes to mind; Sam Donaldson as well. And Brit Hume. But they all have the same thing in common- they were ‘just doing their jobs.’

    Back in my college days, for the paper, lucked into an opportunity to be culled in w/t travelling WH press for an event w/President Ford as a small town prepped for a presidential visit. Long day. But great photo-op locale. Was all of 25 feet from the CIC [no way security would allow that kind of unaccredited access today.] Ford arrived, did a meet and greet then began addressing the crowd from the podium. But every other photo framed in my viewfinder kept getting blocked by some tall, lanky dude in front of me who kept swaying back and forth. Finally had to tapped him on the back and ask him to stop swaying or just move aside. It was Hume. His response: “I’m just doing my job.” My answer: “So am I; you see him every day, we don’t.” He nodded understandingly, but didn’t budge an inch. Was forced to ‘work around him.’ It was educational. Managed to get a great batch of images- the best of which was signed by Ford months later and still hangs in the den. From my POV at the time, Hume was a jerk- but he was absolutely right: he was ‘just doing his job.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  50. “I don’t see the point of trying to revisit Marbury after 215 years…one would think that ship has sailed…no?”
    AJ_Liberty (3c84de) — 11/16/2018 @ 2:54 pm

    Nobody is revisiting Marbury except those that seek to apply it in new and ridiculously novel ways.

    Munroe (472ec8)

  51. Trump has to ruin it for all the press to appease me.

    mg (ef2c8e)

  52. so the new drago is Romanian in the creed sequel,

    narciso (d1f714)

  53. “On a side note, has anyone seen an apology issued from Acosta to the intern whose arm he did not make contact with?”

    I just saw that clip again, in full and there’s no doubt that he did touch her and push the crook of her arm downward.

    And, no, there has been no apology.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  54. I am sure Acosta thinks that she owes him the apology.

    kishnevi (1faf84)

  55. So which law did Congress pass that infringes upon any of Jim Acosta’s freedoms in this regard? I can not stress enough, I believe that the courts have no standing to weigh in on this matter precisely because it is not a 1st amendment issue.
    Apparently you, like Happyfeet and Sarah Sanders, did not read what the judge wrote.
    He specifically said he was making no ruling on the 1A issues.
    It’s all due process. If the White House gives you a brigjt shiny thing, it can’t arbitrarily take it away.
    Especially when by its own admission (see Sanders’s press release) it has no rules in place, which means anytime it takes the bright shiny thing away, it is acting arbitrarily.

    Give the freakin’ hard token back to him and ignore him from that day on.

    That would be absolutely highlarious.
    The best solution I think.

    kishnevi (1faf84)

  56. 55. I get that this is a temporary injunction. I totally get that. But implied in the temporary injunction is that he will be making a ruling on whether pulling Acosta’s press pass is lawful. Just not yet. In case you hadn’t noticed, I’m proposing that the court shouldn’t be ruling on this at all. Ever. There is no due process when it comes to having a privilege suspended.

    Gryph (5efbad)

  57. DRJ at #13: this is sadly what happens when jerks are allowed to act like jerks. You need to choose the “party” you want to attend. Patterico has a party with a lot of unpleasant people. But he doesn’t like to ban or mute people, which is his choice. So folks get to choose staying at such a party or not.

    It appears DCSCDCSCSA was engaged in a bit of word play, as he later explained.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  58. Give the freakin’ hard token back to him and ignore him from that day on.

    That would be absolutely highlarious.

    Exactly what should happen, at least until Acosta issues a sincere apology for his behavior.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  59. 57. cOnSerVaTIvE

    For those among us who were offended along with DRJ, look really closely at the upper-case letters…

    Gryph (5efbad)

  60. 58. My only problem with that is that it won’t stop Acosta from behaving like a douchebag at press conferences. Acosta is utterly and wholly unworthy of setting foot in the people’s house.

    Gryph (5efbad)

  61. @60. There’s a lot of accredited journalists in those pressers hungry to ask any question of a president- and never get called on. The solution- if Trump truly wanted one- is just to simply not call on him. Or only talk to Fox. He never has to do another solo presser again.

    But he can’t resist. He needs the foil and loves the chaos of generating heat, but sheds little light. On deck is likely Peter Alexander.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  62. yeah he doesn’t have to have a press conference for while anyways unless we do war on saudi arabia over shoggy-doggy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  63. See what Trump has managed to do?! He’s cajoled Sam Donaldson out of his crypt on to CNN to pepper the airwaves w/fire and brimstone.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  64. @62. The CIA said this aftenoon they are certain the Saudi Crown Prince ordered the hit, Mr. Feet. But our Captain doesn’t believe them.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  65. lol the CIA can’t be trusted especially when an R’s in the white house cause they make crap up and work to destabilize the government

    they’re basically traitors

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  66. I don’t watch TV (yeah I’m one of those). If I did I wouldn’t watch CNN. have never seen Acosta but I gather he’s a blowhard. I did see a clip of Acosta playing mic keep away away with a handsy White House aide who kept looking back at her keepers like “am doin ok, boss?” Actually I saw 2 versions of this video. A regular version and then a doctored one shared by infowars and the White House. That’s called propaganda. Forgive me if I don’t listen to accusations of “fake news” from people who lie chronically and compulsively.

    JRH (f51cae)

  67. 61. The problem with comparing reporters badgering Trump to Trump, is that Trump was elected to run the show. And if Trump was to just say “no more pressers until this is resolved,” I’d be totally on board with that. Can you imagine how many of his fellow reporters would put Acosta on their s**tlists if he got them all banned from the White House for weeks while this business plays out?

    President Trump can not be accused of “viewpoint discrimination” baloney if he just quits recognizing hard passes altogether. I think the bosses at Fox News know this, and that’s why they sided with CNN.

    Gryph (5efbad)

  68. is tailor and in walks man

    man say i work for us government

    i want design for new uniform

    i want sea green pants

    i want emerald green coat with gold epaulets and gold sleeve bands

    i want chartreuse hat with turquoise brim and gold hat band and gold hat badge

    tailor say is for park service marching band

    no say man is for cia

    nk (dbc370)

  69. Just don’t do them

    mg (ef2c8e)

  70. Ever. There is no due process when it comes to having a privilege suspended.

    Driver’s licenses and passports are “privileges”.
    So if a bureaucrat revoked either your DL or your passport just because he didn’t like something you said or did, with no regulation to back him up, you would be cool with that and say he was acting within his lawful powers?

    kishnevi (1faf84)

  71. we have big fight in illinois with police and secretary of state jesse white

    police want keep drivers license when give ticket

    secretray of state jesse white say you cannot do that

    is not police drivers license is secretary of state drivers license

    police say okay

    we stop taking drivers license

    nk (dbc370)

  72. Has anyone gotten a transcript of the proceedings? No television cameras were apparently in use. Ironic.

    AZ Bob (885937)

  73. 70. Again a false comparison. Acosta’s pass was suspended for a gross lack of decorum. My driver’s license probably won’t be suspended out of the blue, but it can be suspended if I refuse an otherwise lawful order if I’m suspected of drunk driving. Besides which, driver licensing is done at the state level (as is proper). It’s never been a question addressed by federal courts, nor should it be.

    As for passports, there are plenty of examples of individuals suspected of crimes for which their passports are suspended before they are convicted.

    In Trump’s shoes, I’d simply say that there will be no more press events of any kind open to the White House press pool until the judge makes his final ruling. Then I would refuse to call on Acosta going forward.

    Gryph (5efbad)

  74. @67. He has only done a few full blown solo pressers. The bulk w/any kind of question peppering have been short burst Q&As at signing events, appointment announcements, joint pressers w/foreign leaders and limited questions or and at cabinet briefings. He riffs at rallies. The comfort zone is to control the messaging one way via Fox or bombard a topic via tweets.

    Really looking forward to that video one day of the President of the United States storming off the stage at some presser because he doesn’t like the question – or the questioner.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  75. Insurance companies should lobby for all vehicles to have blood alcohol devices installed to prevent illegal drunk crimaleins from driving

    mg (ef2c8e)

  76. For both DLs and passports, there are laws and rules.
    IOW due process. Judges order passports confiscated and accused can dispute that order.

    But both are privileges.
    IOW your claim that privileges are not subject to due process is wrong.

    kishnevi (1faf84)

  77. The judge had the discretion to keep Acosta without a pass, but order the White House to give him notice of the reasons for its suspension, within a reasonable time, and an opportunity to respond. That would have satisfied due process. I suspect that the reason he did not do that is that he thought that was something White House lawyers should have already known; maybe even that the White House lawyers advised it and the Trump toadies rejected it.

    nk (dbc370)

  78. P.S. Told you guys he might have a case.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  79. Of Budweiser?

    mg (a4facc)

  80. @78. Yep. You sure did. Thought of your post the instant of hearing the decision.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  81. might add that ad was part of a propaganda campaign by Trump and the Breitbard echo chamber which was aimed at drumming up nativist votes, but which also catalyzed a white supremacist whacko to kill 11 people.

    kishnevi (bb03e6) — 11/16/2018 @ 11:08 am

    Repulsive lie.

    NJRob (2f5f6d)

  82. Repulsive lie.

    Tone it down. Calling another commenter’s comment a lie violates my rules. Find another way to say it that is not a personal attack. EVEN — yes, even if you feel strongly. Maybe even especially then.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  83. Yes, the Trumpian propaganda about that caravan was a repulsive lie, barefaced nativist bigotry.
    And it motivated a white supremacist to go on a shooting spree.
    Trump didn’t intend for shooting sprees to happen…which is why I used the word catalyzed, and not the word caused. But drunk drivers don’t usually intend to commit vehicular homicide when they get behind the wheel, yet we understand they are responsible if someone dies…

    kishnevi (1faf84)


  84. Before the shooting, a new message was posted to the account: “HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

    https://6abc.com/pittsburgh-shooting-suspect-robert-bowers-what-we-know-/4565220/

    kishnevi (1faf84)

  85. And yet trump never addressed hias, now the examples of merah and nemmouche and the halimi suggests they maybe a little naive.

    Narciso (999af7)

  86. Merah shot up that Jewish school in Toulouse in 2012, nemmouche the Jewish museum in Brussels halimi was a case Hollande didn’t want to touch with a 10 foot pike, it happened in the middle of the last presidential election over there.

    Narciso (999af7)

  87. @85. Step back from all these differing incidents and tragedies and consider how Trump deals w/them. From visiting cemeteries to mourning shootings and comforting losses in natural disasters… the empathy is void. Personally, really believe he’s one of these people who just doesn’t ‘do death’ or loss very well. Some people are like that.

    So who’s going to play him in “Trump: The Movie” in 20 years or so Narciso– Ryan Gosling?!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  88. Trump trumpeted about the caravan. The neoNazis extended that to HIAS. Trump is not responsible for the extension. But he is responsible for the basic underlying falsehood.

    As for the rest, I have no idea what point you want to make.

    kishnevi (1faf84)

  89. Is that why he went there as soon as possible and was confronted with the freak show Israel haters by that sex club cult, as oppose to some ‘random Jews’ were killed,

    Narciso (999af7)

  90. Narciso, now I really have no idea of what you mean.

    kishnevi (1faf84)

  91. It’s clear this was not a spontaneous event, we know this comes through zelayas man and it tracks all the way to Caracas. Just like the Syrian invasion of four years wasnt spontaneous either nor was it a particularly noble exercise.

    Narciso (999af7)

  92. Using the process to fashion the punishment?

    “The judge framed it as a matter of process, which justifies Trump issuing a set of rules of decorum. I assume the rules will include a requirement that a reporter who has received a response (whether it’s to his liking or not) must relinquish the microphone, that there can be no physical interference with a staff member who reaches out to take the microphone, and that one much stop talking once the President (or press secretary) has moved on to the next questioner.

    Any complaints about these rules and the prescribed consequences of violating them can be met with pieties about adhering to the judge’s ruling. Things must be done in an orderly way — in the press room and in a system of due process. Any complaints premised on freedom of the press will be met with statements like “We want total freedom of the press” and we want perfect due process. So here you are, here’s notice of our rules of decorum. And that should be the end of the kind of questioning Acosta has become famous for. Trump wins.”

    https://althouse.blogspot.com/2018/11/how-trump-won-acosta-lawsuit.html

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  93. My favorite kind of blogging is “Hot Take: Trump Wins!” blogging.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  94. 93. That cedes the premise that the courts should have any say in setting this kind of policy. That is a premise that I and many presidents before Trump have firmly rejected.

    Gryph (08c844)

  95. 76. Due process in the 5th amendment specifically says that life, liberty, and property are not to be taken without due process. Since no one is talking about killing Jim Acosta, fining him, or putting him in prison, I’d say that “Due process” as understood by the framers of our constitution do not apply here.

    You’re welcome to convince me otherwise, but it will be a tough row to hoe to prove to my satisfaction that Acosta’s freedom to report on the White House as he sees fit is impinged simply because he can’tet foot there.

    Gryph (08c844)

  96. Nope. Fundamental due process is notice and an opportunity to conform one’s conduct to the requirements of the law.

    nk (dbc370)

  97. Time will tell. It’s all about the process. Whatever it turns out to be. Give him the hard token and ignore him from that point forward. Give him the token and give him every opportunity while ignoring the others from that point forward and wait for the others to set upon him like a wolf reporter pack.

    There’s a thousand ways to go.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  98. 97. That sounds like lawyerspeak. Lawyerly interpretation of the constitution has been a major contributing factor to the erosion of our freedoms. There is no law stating the conditions under which a press pass must be granted or can not be denied, and there will not be unless and until such time as Congress decides to attempt to pass such a law. You know, that pesky little “All legislative power shall be invested in a Congress…” clause? ALL. As in, none of it in the courts.

    Gryph (08c844)

  99. It is lawyerspeak and you may use it when you are arrested for the crime of using the word “lawyerspeak” on the internet.

    nk (dbc370)

  100. Ha! Do you like long walks on the beach too?

    Hey, Trump can give Acosta the token and ignore him from then on ormaybe give Acosta every opportunity to be the bag o’ douche he is, while he ignores all the other reporters. The last one would really be amusing as the betting opens on how long it would take before the others set upon the bag o’ douche and shred the preening top.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  101. 100. Sounds to me like this has descended to the level of the utterly absurd now. I should expect no less from the electorate that gave us Trump… Good night, everybody.

    Gryph (08c844)

  102. Make that fop

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  103. Hmm. I am having simultaneous arguments with one person who believes “if it hurts Trump it’s good” and with another who believes “if it hurts Trump it’s bad”.

    Look, guys I have my own problems, okay? So I download a piece of music that says that it’s supposed to be in concert F major, and is notated in G major. I look closer and it’s my fault, it’s for clarinet or trumpet (where you read G sharp and play G sharp and it comes out F flat). Then on the second stave, it’s not the Gs which are sharpened, it’s all the high Fs. Then all the following staves are G sharp again. I have no clue what else it could be other than a “typo”.

    Anyhow, here’s the music being played by somebody who knows how. Not me. You’ll like it.

    nk (dbc370)

  104. Sigh. I messed up the comment too. Total mess. Ignore it. Just enjoy the song.

    nk (dbc370)

  105. Law has a function, it is suppose to affirm dtructures and objectives in the last administration, it was in virtual lockstep, there Wes exceptions like judge hanens dissent but otherwise the executive got everything he wanted, no matter if it didn’t make any sense, and media went along and education went along. From fast and furious to the toppling of our Arab allies to coddling student hoodlums empowering star chanbers against innocent persons,

    Now someone comes along who tries to affirm the old ways
    that made sense and its like swimming through an acid bath surrounded by razor wire. Every vekakte day every hour every minute, congressmen are nearly blown away on a baseball field, and we must not dwell it at least dwell on something someone said years ago.

    narciso (d1f714)

  106. That was sublime, what was I ranting about?

    Narciso (0efe62)

  107. And I did, nk. Thanks.

    mg (ef2c8e)

  108. That was sublime

    “Gabriel’s Oboe”? It’s from “The Mission”, with Jeremy Irons and Robert DeNiro (1986). The movie shows Irons playing it on a baroque oboe which would be correct for 1750.

    nk (dbc370)

  109. Great movie.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  110. Thank you, mg.

    nk (dbc370)

  111. Tone it down. Calling another commenter’s comment a lie violates my rules. Find another way to say it that is not a personal attack. EVEN — yes, even if you feel strongly. Maybe even especially then.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 11/16/2018 @ 6:16 pm

    I attacked the words. Not the person. It is a lie. The evil murderer blamed Trump for being with the Jewish people that were murdered. Blaming Trump for this nut is absurd and the equivalent of Goebbels propaganda.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  112. To call it a lie carries the accusation of deliberate intent to mislead. But in this case it is not apparent that there was any intent to do that.

    TR (777004)

  113. @99: “There is no law stating the conditions under which a press pass must be granted or can not be denied”

    For a second of frivolity, let’s assume that there is no precedent that the executive and judicial branches are constrained by the 1A. There is still a 1A problem that ripples back in via the 5A which states “[No person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (there is no textualist argument that the President must not follow the 5A). Here, the liberty is the liberty to participate in an open White House press event where Acosta meets all of the stated qualifications. There was no fair notice that some sort of etiquette test would be arbitrarily applied to chill what questions might be asked and how they could be posed. Where this circles back to “Congress shall make no law” (you have this backwards) is that due process would be satisfied if Congress had initially made a law stating that arbitrarily rude behavior in a press conference is satisfactory grounds for removing a reporter from that event. However, Congress would then be open to charges that it is violating the 1A unless it can show good cause and clearly identifies what type of behavior is rude so that it could be neutrally applied….and not just arbitrarily applied to the political opponents to the President.

    In short the President or the Executive Branch is not authorized to arbitrarily limit speech. Where is this power stated in the Constitution? The President is authorized to make sure the laws are properly executed. The fact that there is no law governing the decorum of a press conference does not give the President or his staff the right to invent arbitrary rules that they can then apply to their political enemies. I hope this helps with your struggle to understand this matter…

    AJ_Liberty (165d19)

  114. Trump should give a press pass to ted nugent and have him sit next to Acosta

    mg (ef2c8e)

  115. Mg, you just get on with appointing the permanent AG, and keep Mr. Whitaker as press bouncer.

    urbanleftbehind (7b3112)

  116. Due process, paraphrasing Janis Joplin, means you got nothing left to lose.

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/11/the-week-in-pictures-due-process-edition.php

    Narciso (5098db)

  117. 115.

    In short the President or the Executive Branch is not authorized to arbitrarily limit speech.

    I agree. But Trump is not “arbitrarily” limiting anyone’s speech. He kicked Acosta out of the White House for being a jerk. Acosta is still free to report however he wants, including dishonestly, without fear of fine or imprisonment.

    You are starting from the premise that this is a first amendment issue. I am asserting that it is not. No one has a right to White House access, not even professional media figures. To assert that they do is placing the media above the rest of the citizenry in a way that has never been done before now.

    Gryph (08c844)

  118. The judge did not rule that it is a First Amendment issue. He ruled that it is a Fifth Amendment Due Process issue. And please do not tell me that there is not a liberty and a property interest in being allowed to do your job as a White House reporter, like the other White House reporters, or that the White House is not part of the government. I won’t believe you.

    nk (dbc370)

  119. 120. It’s not a fifth amendment either. The fifth amendment specifically protects the right to life, liberty, and property. Since no one is threatening Acosta with the death penalty and he is not being fined or imprisoned, there is no fifth amendment question here.

    And I’d be a little more apt to buy the “like every other White House reporter” if Acosta wasn’t behaving like he was the only CNN reporter reporting from the White House. Most media outlets reporting from the White House have multiple individuals with hard passes. Even without Acosta, CNN is still one of those outfits.

    Gryph (08c844)

  120. “I’m Jim Acoster, b*tch”

    — Jim Acoster

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  121. Dead man walkin’…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  122. “In short the President or the Executive Branch is not authorized to arbitrarily limit speech. Where is this power stated in the Constitution? The President is authorized to make sure the laws are properly executed. The fact that there is no law governing the decorum of a press conference does not give the President or his staff the right to invent arbitrary rules that they can then apply to their political enemies. I hope this helps with your struggle to understand this matter…”
    AJ_Liberty (165d19) — 11/17/2018 @ 6:42 am

    How lawyers have messed up this country, captured in one paragraph.

    And, if Sanders refuses to call on Acosta for the next ten briefings, as some here have suggested, this is not arbitrarily limiting speech? This is not arbitrarily enforcing decorum? If no, you’ve countered your own argument. If yes, then you’ve confirmed mine, stated above.

    Munroe (73facf)

  123. 124. I love how my definitive and simple reading of the constitution is derided as a “struggle to understand.” But I’m sure that’s not a personal attack….not personal at all.

    Gryph (08c844)

  124. Speaking of an actual enemy of the people, Julian Assange has been charged by US prosecutors of…something. This piece in The Atlantic bothers me. For one, there hasn’t been a “radical evolution” of Wikileaks. They’ve been consistently anti-American from Day One. For another, she soft-pedaled what happened in the Collateral Murder video. The after-action reports concluded that automatic weapons and RPGs were found next to the men who were killed, so they were combatants, not innocents, and the two journalists who were killed chose to embed with armed combatants. For another, the leaks by He/She/It Manning were irresponsibile because they named people who were helping American forces, thereby putting their lives at risk, not to mention other breaches of national security. For another, they served as a willing conduit for a Russian intelligence operation that was hostile to American interests. This actually is an example of a media organization that is an enemy of the American people, yet Trump praised them when he was a candidate because they undermined Hillary’s campaign, thus helping his.

    Paul Montagu (70fe18)

  125. Wikileaks’ crime is that they exposed collusion between the DNC and national journalists, rather than between Trump and the Russians. Until then, they were media darlings.

    Assange has denied that the Russians were the source. I guess we’re supposed to believe the MSM and not him.

    Munroe (fc0490)

  126. Acostanation

    mg (ef2c8e)

  127. Yes they were praised for compromising many nations internal communications then, and then there surveillance capacities like the Panama and paradise papers

    Narciso (7ed0f8)

  128. “It’s not a fifth amendment either. The fifth amendment specifically protects the right to life, liberty, and property. Since no one is threatening Acosta with the death penalty and he is not being fined or imprisoned, there is no fifth amendment question here.”

    You’ve conveniently not addressed the liberty aspects of the 5th amendment….but I think you know that.

    “And, if Sanders refuses to call on Acosta for the next ten briefings, as some here have suggested, this is not arbitrarily limiting speech?”

    Again, this is silly. Not every reporter is called on during a press conference. There is no expectation that every reporter will be called on….or would ever get called on for that matter. The interest here is to have access to the event…and have clear rules for denying access. You are just making stuff up because you lack an actual legal argument for the current set of facts. Are those goalposts getting heavy?

    “How lawyers have messed up this country”

    How many of the founding fathers were lawyers? What would they think of your lament? Why would the founding fathers insist on protecting a right to due process….especially here where the freedom of the press is being chilled?

    AJ_Liberty (165d19)

  129. And hence the times the post and the guardian loved Assange, in that instance, now it’s a double edged sword because it revealed many details the various services had kept to them selves like the name of the courier that Lee to abbottabad the two faced nature of the isi.

    Narciso (7ed0f8)

  130. 130. Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Indepence, 31 were not lawyers. Of the 55 framers of the constitution, 32 were lawyers but 14 of those lawyers were among the convention attendees who refused to sign it.

    And as for the “liberty” aspects of the 5th amendment, I stand by my assertion. The 5th amendment’s guarantee of due process has nothing to do with the President’s ability to issue, deny, or suspend press passes. To claim that it does is exactly the same kind of argument that pro abortion ghouls make in defending the non-existent right to kill an unborn baby.

    When Jim Acosta gets thrown in jail for his reporting, then you can talk to me about his liberty being infringed. Until then, he can report however he wants to without fear of imprisonment or fine — just not from within the White House.

    Gryph (08c844)

  131. “Again, this is silly. Not every reporter is called on during a press conference.”
    AJ_Liberty (165d19) — 11/17/2018 @ 1:20 pm

    Right, and not every reporter gets a WH press pass. You’re fixing the goalposts where no one, not CNN, not Fox, not anyone has any plans to keep them.

    “How many of the founding fathers were lawyers? What would they think of your lament?”

    You mean someone like Madison, or Jefferson? Those defendants in Marbury? Yeah, I guess they’d totally be on Acosta’s side. What did they intend the Constitution to mean, other than every decision by the executive should be run through legal first and reviewed by a judge?

    Munroe (f4cfed)

  132. 133. It takes a lawyer to read “2 + 2 = 4″ and interpret it to mean “2 + 2 =5″

    Gryph (08c844)

  133. so that ethics report against mark meadows, it’s not what the nets have reported, according to the lead complainant, allysia farah,

    narciso (d1f714)

  134. Right Pat, and Romney, Bush, Trump are Hitler. And Paul Ryan wants to through granny off a cliff.

    But fighting back using the same rhetoric. Buts that’s different because shutup.

    Jack (e5af45)

  135. Assange has denied that the Russians were the source.

    Assange is lying. Wikileaks received the hacks from Putin operatives, and a dozen GRU members are under indictment.

    Paul Montagu (70fe18)

  136. Yes that’s being disputed in court, but it’s based on second hand info:

    https://www.oann.com/pence-aide-comes-to-defense-of-n-c-representative-mark-meadows/

    Narciso (78c5dc)

  137. Mueller didn’t actually think he would have to try the case but they hired an attorney who has experience with the southern districts of New York and florida.

    Narciso (78c5dc)

  138. nk, clearly the solution is to subcontract out the running of the press office to a third party contractor (ideally one that’s part of the trump administration) and not include any due process rules in the contract.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  139. Thank you Justice Roberts!

    Ahem, to Down ‘n Dirty Donnie:

    Rebuking Trump, Chief Justice Roberts defends judiciary as ‘independent’ after president criticized judge who blocked asylum ban

    “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  140. Well, see, that’s why nobody takes Roberts very seriously. He lies a lot.

    nk (dbc370)

  141. Right, was it floor wax or dessert topping now.

    Narciso (03346d)

  142. Justice Roberts and his disgusting racist criticism of the president is everything that’s wrong with America

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  143. a tidbit on teh Russian Collusion… https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1064950348132032513

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  144. Fascinating coronello how is your holiday going.

    In a long piece about buzzard feed, they ignored the gubarev suit.

    Narciso (03346d)

  145. Just peachy, narciso. Hope yours is, as well.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  146. @145. Judgmental, eh, Mr. Feet?!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  147. Have you noticed that the last four CJs have been appointed by Republicans? And their predecessors appointed by FDR and Truman were there for hardly a dozen years combined.

    nk (dbc370)

  148. roberts is bent on ruining thanksgiving for everybody cause he’s just a hateful person

    but we’re not gonna let him

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  149. @151. Always thought NBC did that by hyping their TeeVee shows during the Macy’s parade, Mr. Feet!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  150. Chief Justice Roberts is a great American.

    Paul Montagu (70fe18)

  151. FDR promoted Harlan F. Stone in 1941, who had originally bene named to the supreme Court in 1925 by Calvin Coolidge. LBJ wanted to prmote Abe Fortas whom he had named in 1965 after persuading Arthur Goldberg to quit the court in order to become Ambassador to The United Nations.(a rather empty position although it involved him in all foreign policy)

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  152. 152.

    Re; NBC and the Thanskgiving Day Parade:

    Wasn’t it just then that Matt Lauer suddenly was removed?

    https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/matt-lauer-fired-revisit-last-day-on-today-thanksgiving-parade/

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  153. 70. This issue of revoking passports came up during the Eisenhower Adnministration, and the way it was settledin the end, is that basically it is not done. (except as a condition of bail and it is not revoked but impounded by the charging jurisdiction.)

    It would give too much power to an administration to allow it. I;m not sure about the legal grounds.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4769 secs.