Judge orders Trump administration to restore CNN reporter Jim Acosta's White Hou

[SF1900]

I've seen very limited video of Churchill speeches but have seen a lot of his quotes.  I was responding to the article Primemuscle posted about Obama being a great speaker.

I know, I was just asking for your general opinion, broskie!

[Princess L]

According to Judge Timothy Kelly, who was appointed by Trump, a failure of due process (5th Amendment) in the decision to strip Acosta’s press pass, as well as the use of a doctored video to justify the action against Acosta were the basis for the temporary reinstatement. It has since been fully restored and CNN has dropped their lawsuit against the White House.

Whether or not it was an issue of freedom of the press is a matter of perspective.

They can say or write anything they want.  Where is it written they can have privileged access inside the White House?

[Al Doggity]

They can say or write anything they want.  Where is it written they can have privileged access inside the White House?

Once a reporter has an official security clearance, it can't just be arbitrarily suspended or revoked. You're right about one thing. This isn't an issue of freedom of the press. All of the examples that chaos posted on the previous page unwittingly prove that. Every administration has an adversarial relationship with some portion of the press, to some degree. This is an issue of due process. Just like a dmv clerk can't take away your license because you have an attitude, a gov't clearance can't be revoked arbitrarily. The white house never gave an official reason for why Acosta's pass should be revoked which was the basis for the lawsuit.

[Humble Narcissist]

They didn't even have these press conferences or press passes until the Kennedy administration and that was when the press acted like adults and not liberal hacks.  If I were Trump or any Republican I would just stop having them and let them print whatever they want which is what freedom of the press really covers.

[chaos]

Once a reporter has an official security clearance, it can't just be arbitrarily suspended or revoked. You're right about one thing. This isn't an issue of freedom of the press. All of the examples that chaos posted on the previous page unwittingly prove that. Every administration has an adversarial relationship with some portion of the press, to some degree. This is an issue of due process. Just like a dmv clerk can't take away your license because you have an attitude, a gov't clearance can't be revoked arbitrarily. The white house never gave an official reason for why Acosta's pass should be revoked which was the basis for the lawsuit.

I think if they would have waited and suspended his pass temporarily while they did an investigation, allowing due process to take place, there would have been no chance for cnn to sue.

[pellius]

Once a reporter has an official security clearance, it can't just be arbitrarily suspended or revoked. You're right about one thing. This isn't an issue of freedom of the press. All of the examples that chaos posted on the previous page unwittingly prove that. Every administration has an adversarial relationship with some portion of the press, to some degree. This is an issue of due process. Just like a dmv clerk can't take away your license because you have an attitude, a gov't clearance can't be revoked arbitrarily. The white house never gave an official reason for why Acosta's pass should be revoked which was the basis for the lawsuit.

I don't think those are valid analogies. A DMV clerk has no administrative authority to make that call. And to get a license you have to pass a test, pay a fee, and follow the law.  A government clearance can be revoked at any time and for any reason. I've had it done to me several times. I've had clearances for special projects when I was with the DOD taken away because they just didn't think I should have it anymore. It's just like an employer can, in real-world practice, fire you for any reason they want. Maybe they just don't want to pay you any more or they just don't like you. You can make a case if you can prove it was for sexual or gender discrimination but that's going to tough to prove since you were hired initially.

The President doesn't even have to have press conferences. Or he can give a conference, a speech, with no reporters at all. Acosta is continually disruptive and has no special right to be there.

[Al Doggity]

I don't think those are valid analogies. A DMV clerk has no administrative authority to make that call. And to get a license you have to pass a test, pay a fee, and follow the law.  A government clearance can be revoked at any time and for any reason. I've had it done to me several times. I've had clearances for special projects when I was with the DOD taken away because they just didn't think I should have it anymore. It's just like an employer can, in real-world practice, fire you for any reason they want. Maybe they just don't want to pay you any more or they just don't like you. You can make a case if you can prove it was for sexual or gender discrimination but that's going to tough to prove since you were hired initially.

The President doesn't even have to have press conferences. Or he can give a conference, a speech, with no reporters at all. Acosta is continually disruptive and has no special right to be there.

Almost everything about this is wrong. I don't even know where to start. Firstly, here is one passage directly from the code of federal regulations that addresses this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/409.1
In granting or denying a request for a security clearance made in response to an application for a White House press pass, officials of the Secret Service will be guided solely by the principle of whether the applicant presents a potential source of physical danger to the President and/or the family of the President so serious as to justify his or her exclusion from White House press privileges.

This is one of the regulations the judge addressed in his ruling. Not only are you wrong, but for some reason you are arguing against reality. Even if you don't know the reasons, you must be aware of how the lawsuit turned out. So what are you arguing the basis of the ruling was?

Yes, Trump can choose not to do press conferences or ignore any reporter he likes. He does that often.  Kinda makes you wonder why he engages with Acosta , doesn't it ? It's almost like he wanted to  goad Acosta into "violating" a rule and then accused him of the first thing that came close to looking like a violation ( even though the judge in the case acknowledged that it was complete bullshit  ).

[pellius]

Almost everything about this is wrong. I don't even know where to start. Firstly, here is one passage directly from the code of federal regulations that addresses this:

This is one of the regulations the judge addressed in his ruling. Not only are you wrong, but for some reason you are arguing against reality. Even if you don't know the reasons, you must be aware of how the lawsuit turned out. So what are you arguing the basis of the ruling was?

Yes, Trump can choose not to do press conferences or ignore any reporter he likes. He does that often.  Kinda makes you wonder why he engages with Acosta , doesn't it ? It's almost like he wanted to  goad Acosta into "violating" a rule and then accused him of the first thing that came close to looking like a violation ( even though the judge in the case acknowledged that it was complete bullshit  ).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/409.1
In granting or denying a request for a security clearance made in response to an application for a White House press pass, officials of the Secret Service will be guided solely by the principle of whether the applicant presents a potential source of physical danger to the President and/or the family of the President so serious as to justify his or her exclusion from White House press privileges.

Taking that statement without context seems to imply that everybody has the right to a press pass as long as you don't present a danger to the president. But I would ask that getting a security clearance from the Secret Service for a press pass does not necessarily mean you have a right to that pass. Is it the Secret Service that determines who gets to attend press conferences? Just like I may qualify for a security clearance to work on a specific project but that doesn't mean I will be hired or authorized to work on that project. This has happened to me as well. Getting a clearance to work in a specific lab was not an issue as it entailed the same criteria as the other projects I worked on. I was simply not chosen for the assignment and it was given to someone else.

[Disgusted]

Almost everything about this is wrong. I don't even know where to start. Firstly, here is one passage directly from the code of federal regulations that addresses this:

This is one of the regulations the judge addressed in his ruling. Not only are you wrong, but for some reason you are arguing against reality. Even if you don't know the reasons, you must be aware of how the lawsuit turned out. So what are you arguing the basis of the ruling was?

Yes, Trump can choose not to do press conferences or ignore any reporter he likes. He does that often.  Kinda makes you wonder why he engages with Acosta , doesn't it ? It's almost like he wanted to  goad Acosta into "violating" a rule and then accused him of the first thing that came close to looking like a violation ( even though the judge in the case acknowledged that it was complete bullshit  ).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/409.1
In granting or denying a request for a security clearance made in response to an application for a White House press pass, officials of the Secret Service will be guided solely by the principle of whether the applicant presents a potential source of physical danger to the President and/or the family of the President so serious as to justify his or her exclusion from White House press privileges.


This does not apply. The reporter was not applying for an application as he already had one. He was being disruptive and told to sit down. In fact it could be argued that he was being combative. I've seen people thrown out of town hall meetings for less. This is a voluntary press confidence where the reporters got to ask questions, this is not a debate. This guy wouldn't not shut up and was being disruptive and by all accounts should have been removed earlier than he was. I don't care who the President is like him or not you never saw this kind of stuff years ago.   

[Al Doggity]

This does not apply. The reporter was not applying for an application as he already had one. He was being disruptive and told to sit down. In fact it could be argued that he was being combative. I've seen people thrown out of town hall meetings for less. This is a voluntary press confidence where the reporters got to ask questions, this is not a debate. This guy wouldn't not shut up and was being disruptive and by all accounts should have been removed earlier than he was. I don't care who the President is like him or not you never saw this kind of stuff years ago.   

Then why do you suppose the trump administration didn't argue that? Why do you suppose Acosta's pass was temporarily reinstated and the White House backed down rather than continue with the lawsuit?

[Darren Avey]

I will never get bored of Trump owning liberal bitch minds.

[dr.chimps]

Then why do you suppose the trump administration didn't argue that? Why do you suppose Acosta's pass was temporarily reinstated and the White House backed down rather than continue with the lawsuit?

Our mod is a White, Oklahoman Mom:ffOR:White Hot Idiot TrumISM.

[chaos]

Then why do you suppose the trump administration didn't argue that? Why do you suppose Acosta's pass was temporarily reinstated and the White House backed down rather than continue with the lawsuit?

I did read a story saying that the white house was going to pursue this after it gathered the facts and went about it the right way.

[Primemuscle]

I will never get bored of Trump owning liberal bitch minds.

We liberals never get bored of Trump making a fool of himself.

[thelamefalsehood]

We liberals never get bored of Trump making a fool of himself.

And we conservatives never get tired of the sweet taste of liberal tears

[Humble Narcissist]

And we conservatives never get tired of the sweet taste of liberal tears

X2

[Al Doggity]

And we conservatives never get tired of the sweet taste of liberal tears

Hmm  ? Trump being legally forced to accept a "terrible person" back into  his home counts as owning liberals? Why is this thread filled with conservatives complaining about the outcome then? With standards this low, no wonder idiots think trump is a great president.

[chaos]

Hmm  ? Trump being legally forced to accept a "terrible person" back into  his home counts as owning liberals? Why is this thread filled with conservatives complaining about the outcome then? With standards this low, no wonder idiots think trump is a great president.

I suppose you would expect us to take to the streets and riot? Maybe strip naked and scream ay the sky? Perhaps stalk some people in their homes and threaten them?
Oh wait, that's liberals.

[thelamefalsehood]

Hmm  ? Trump being legally forced to accept a "terrible person" back into  his home counts as owning liberals? Why is this thread filled with conservatives complaining about the outcome then? With standards this low, no wonder idiots think trump is a great president.

I was replying to the old hippy lib Primemuscle. The next time I need advice on what Cheetos or Doritos are best I'll ask you

[Disgusted]

Then why do you suppose the trump administration didn't argue that? Why do you suppose Acosta's pass was temporarily reinstated and the White House backed down rather than continue with the lawsuit?

Not enough info. Was Acosta banned or CNN? Was it temporary or permanent? I would assume anyone who is disrupting a press hearing could be asked to leave. I have know idea how a supreme court judge could ever be involved in this type of matter.

[pellius]

Our mod is a White, Oklahoman Mom:ffOR:White Hot Idiot TrumISM.

Just another angry bitter response from an angry bitter old man.

[Al Doggity]

Not enough info. Was Acosta banned or CNN? Was it temporary or permanent? I would assume anyone who is disrupting a press hearing could be asked to leave. I have know idea how a supreme court judge could ever be involved in this type of matter.

Yet that lack of info didn't stop you from complaining about the unfair outcome and weighing in on what legal tactics could and shouldn't be used. The reason Acosta's pass was reinstated and trump's white house backed down is not a secret or a mystery. Like I said, like the judge in the case said, like every article that covered this said, it was a matter of failing to follow due process. Anyone who is interested in getting around the lack of info could do so with a few mouse clicks.

I was replying to the old hippy lib Primemuscle. The next time I need advice on what Cheetos or Doritos are best I'll ask you

And he was responding to someone who claimed a loss was somehow a win. Which is a recurring theme on this board. Somehow trumptards convince themselves that when he melts down, he's actually trolling or when he makes a fool of himself, he's owning minds. If you weren't in agreement with the point that preceded yours, then my bad.  Feel free to dm for advice or  requests. I cannot guarantee i'll respond in a timely manner.

I suppose you would expect us to take to the streets and riot? Maybe strip naked and scream ay the sky? Perhaps stalk some people in their homes and threaten them?
Oh wait, that's liberals.

Why would people who are "winning" and "owning minds" and "trolling" be expected to do any of these things? That was the point of the post.

[Powerlift66]

I suppose you would expect us to take to the streets and riot? Maybe strip naked and scream ay the sky? Perhaps stalk some people in their homes and threaten them?
Oh wait, that's liberals.

Yup, the modern day libtards are entertaining arent they? Not talking old-school Dem's now, Im talking modern/progressive/aggressive/pussyish modern day coward libtards.
A joke the whole world can laugh at.

[chaos]

Just another angry bitter response from an angry bitter old man.

Yeah, he's become quite the nasty old geezer.

[Primemuscle]

And we conservatives never get tired of the sweet taste of liberal tears

Do you see me crying?