CNN Lawsuit Seeks To Show That Trump Can't Kick Reporters Out For Asking Tough Questions
from the but-what-about-the-flip-side? dept
As you've probably heard by now, last week there was a bit of a scuff up in which the President in his standard manner got irritable and annoyed when CNN's Jim Acosta kept asking questions the President didn't feel like answering. This has resulted in a bunch of nonsense involving everyone trying to justify their own side's talking points -- but the simple fact of the matter is that it's a journalist's job to ask tough questions of politicians. There was a made up controversy involving claims that Acosta "assaulted" an intern who sought to take away his microphone, and the White House supported it with video evidence that some have claimed was doctored, while others have noted just happened (coincidentally) to have been re-encoded in a way that made Acosta's hand motions look more menacing than they really were. Either way, the end result was that the White House removed Acosta's press pass, claiming it was because of what happened with the intern, when literally everyone knows it was because of his questioning (if you want to honestly argue that it was because of the intern, go away).
On Tuesday, CNN announced that it had filed a lawsuit against the White House over the removal of the press pass, arguing that it violated both 1st Amendment and 5th Amendment rights. CNN and Acosta are represented by Ted Boutrous and Ted Olson (along with some other Gibson, Dunn lawyers) which is some serious firepower as they're two of the most high profile lawyers out there. Olson, a former Solicitor General during the George W. Bush administration, was rumored earlier this year to be considering joining Trump's legal team, before declining. And now he's suing Trump's White House.
The filing is only 18 pages and makes for fairly quick reading. The 1st Amendment claims are basically this:
Defendants initially claimed that they revoked Acosta’s press pass because he “plac[ed] his hands” on an intern. That contention is not accurate. The President himself has stated that the Acosta’s conduct was not “overly horrible” and that Acosta’s credentials were actually suspended because he failed to “treat the White House with respect.”
Defendants’ justifications for impeding Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights are hollow and hardly sufficiently compelling to justify the indefinite revocation of Acosta’s White House credentials. Consequently, the only reasonable inference from Defendants’ conduct is that they have revoked Acosta’s credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for Plaintiffs’ exercise of protected First Amendment activity.
The sole justification for Defendants’ conduct is their dislike for Plaintiffs’ coverage of the administration and critique of the President. But that is insufficient to justify such a substantial restriction on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.
The 5th Amendment claims are basically a "due process" claim:
Plaintiffs have protected liberty and property interests in Acosta’s press credentials and the access it affords to the White House. The credentials allow Acosta access to his office in the White House and allow him to do his job effectively. Absent his credentials, he cannot serve as a White House correspondent.
Acosta received no direct notice from the White House that his credentials had been revoked, let alone any notice prior to the revocation. Instead, the White House announced the revocation itself via Twitter after Defendants already decided to effectively ban Acosta from the White House grounds.
Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs a written explanation, nor any explanation at all, before revoking Acosta’s press credentials. The only written explanation was a short statement posted on Twitter that Acosta was suspended because he “plac[ed] his hands” on a White House staffer. Even if this tweet were accurate—and it is not, as the reportedly doctored video Defendant Sanders posted would later show—it would not suffice to demonstrate prior notice of the revocation.
Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs an opportunity to be heard before revoking Acosta’s press credentials. Nor have they provided him any avenue to challenge or appeal the revocation of his credentials. Rather, Defendants have stated that they do not plan to ever rescind the revocation of Acosta’s credentials.
There are good reasons to think that CNN/Acosta may have a decent chance of prevailing. The key case, as many are pointing out, is the DC Circuit's ruling in Sherrill v. Knight, which more or less says that if the government opens up a briefing to the press, it can't arbitrarily deny a member of the press entrance. That ruling makes it clear that the President doesn't need to grant interviews to anyone who comes asking, but he can't arbitrarily bar a member of the press from an open press briefing. And the court also includes a due process requirement.
On the 1st Amendment claim in that case, the court noted that the White House needs to have a compelling interest in keeping a reporter out, and the details of the standards used by the White House need to be clear:
Given these important first amendment rights implicated by refusal to grant White House press passes to bona fide Washington journalists, such refusal must be based on a compelling governmental interest. Clearly, protection of the President is a compelling, "even an overwhelming," interest, Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707, 89 S.Ct. 1399, 22 L.Ed.2d 664 (1969), and we have no basis for rejecting the explicit finding of the District Court that the record in this case demonstrates that denial of a press pass to appellee proceeded solely from concern for "the physical security of the President." 416 F.Supp. at 1036 n.10. However, this standard for denial of a press pass has never been formally articulated or published. Merely informing individual rejected applicants that rejection was for "reasons of security" does not inform the public or other potential applicants of the basis for exclusion of journalists from White House press facilities. Moreover, we think that the phrase "reasons of security" is unnecessarily vague and subject to ambiguous interpretation.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that appellants must publish or otherwise make publicly known the actual standard employed in determining whether an otherwise eligible journalist will obtain a White House press pass. We do agree with appellants that the governmental interest here does not lend itself to detailed articulation of narrow and specific standards or precise identification of all the factors which may be taken into account in applying this standard. It is enough that the Secret Service be guided solely by the principle of whether the applicant presents a potential source of physical danger to the President and/or his immediate family so serious as to justify his exclusion. See A Quaker Action Group v. Morton, 170 U.S.App.D.C. 124, 516 F.2d 717 (1975). This standard is sufficiently circumspect so as to allow the Secret Service, exercising expert judgment which frequently must be subjective in nature, considerable leeway in denying press passes for security reasons. At the same time, the standard does specify in a meaningful way the basis upon which persons will be deemed security risks, and therefore will allow meaningful judicial review of decisions to deny press passes. We anticipate that reviewing courts will be appropriately deferential to the Secret Service's determination of what justifies the inference that an individual constitutes a potential risk to the physical security of the President or his family.
And it also notes a 5th Amendment issue:
In our view, the procedural requirements of notice of the factual bases for denial, an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these, and a final written statement of the reasons for denial are compelled by the foregoing determination that the interest of a bona fide Washington correspondent in obtaining a White House press pass is protected by the first amendment. This first amendment interest undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment. The only further determination which this court must make is "what process is due," Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).[23] We think that notice to the unsuccessful applicant of the factual bases for denial with an opportunity to rebut is a minimum prerequisite for ensuring that the denial is indeed in furtherance of Presidential protection, rather than based on arbitrary or less than compelling reasons. See Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 496-97, 79 S.Ct. 1400, 3 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1959); Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394, 34 S.Ct. 779, 58 L.Ed. 1363 (1914). The requirement of a final statement of denial and the reasons therefor is necessary in order to assure that the agency has neither taken additional, undisclosed information into account, nor responded irrationally to matters put forward by way of rebuttal or explanation.
That ruling is likely to make this a tough case for the Trump White House. For what it's worth, many are highlighting that the case in the district court has been assigned to Judge Timothy Kelly, who is a Trump appointee, though I wouldn't read very much into that. Kelly has already ordered the White House to file a response this morning, and there will be a hearing held this afternoon, so things are moving quickly.
I've seen some people, perhaps reasonably, arguing that CNN filing this lawsuit is a distraction -- and one that plays into Trump's claims that the press is out to get him. I'm not sure I buy that, as Trump's supporters already believe that, and this isn't likely to change anyone's mind. But more clearly establishing rules for the press to be declined press passes is an interesting question. Of course, it's also one where I wonder if many of the people cheering this on would be freaking out if things were in reverse. Imagine a Democratic President denying a press pass to Infowars and/or Breitbart -- and imagine how a CNN victory in this case might be used in such a scenario.
Frankly, I think the issue here should be rather straightforward: if the government is holding a press conference, it should have clearly defined content-neutral rules for who qualifies for a press pass. If the press pass is in any way contingent upon the type of coverage, that would be unconstitutional. But other rules that are more objective and apply across the board seem perfectly reasonable. Over the years we've had many stories on journalists from more alternative outlets being denied press passes for dubious reasons, and on the whole I think governments should be much more inclusive of media. But, at the very least, if the decisions are based on the content of their reporting, it would appear to be entirely unconstitutional. And here it is abundantly obvious that Acosta was removed for reasons related to his content, with the claims about contact with the intern being purely pretextual.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, 5th amendment, jim acosta, press credentials, press pass, white house, white house briefing, white house press corp.
Companies: cnn
Reader Comments
The First Word
“I gather we've got some Fox News viewers in this thread.
They may be interested in this story:
Fox News backs CNN’s lawsuit against Trump administration (warning: autoplay video)
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: so?
I think that there should be the ability to revoke passes from any reporter who doesn't act equitably, and disrupts the proceedings to grandstand and make the story themself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: so?
The ability to revoke passes b/c of perceived 'mean coverage' & HE grandstanded not the President who threw a temper tantrum... gotcha.
Or in the alternative, you avoid answering the question, you move on to someone else, and repeat his time is done without sending in an intern to attempt to rip the mic away...
You also might not want to runs for leader of the 'free' world if you can't handle someone in the media reporting what you said & not retracting it when you changed your mind 3 minutes later, then try to claim they made it all up as video of you saying it runs on the split screen.
You're not acting equitably... can we ban you from the internet before you try to grandstand and make it all about you and not about a reporter asking hard question of the leader of the country who stuck his fingers in his ears and went nyayayayaya I can't hear you while repeating, yet again, the false narrative of it is all fake news because it doesn't put him in the best light, it puts him in the cold light of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
"Or in the alternative, you avoid answering the question, you move on to someone else, and repeat his time is done without sending in an intern to attempt to rip the mic away."
Have you even seen the video? Everything you've said is exactly what they tried to do first. Perhaps Trump should have just said "Ok, you won't play nice, I'm calling an end to this session" and left. But then, no other reporter would get to ask their questions... either way Acosta gets to strut like a peacock. Acosta is just as big an asshole as Trump.
"You're not acting equitably..."
Ok, now you're just being an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
'
They did nither. Stop trying to justify Turmp's retaliation thought bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
I LEARNED FROM YOU DAD, I LEARNED FROM YOU!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
That is literally what you wrote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WH Press Passes
There is NO arbitrary selection process to pick the very few lucky reporters who get into that White House conference room?
What's lost here is that the vast majority of journalists can not & never will get into a WH news conference.
There is a complex formal filtering process by major media organization and the White House staff to "select" journalists.
That selection can be reversed at any time by those private & government "selectors",
CNN Acosta was not banned from the WH -- he simply lost his "Hard" WH Press Pass that permited him to come And go as he pleases.
Acosta still retains a regular WH Press Pass which gives him routine WH press access.
The Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with who ACTUALLY gets in to that news conference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WH Press Passes
Thank you for clearly marking your strawman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
You don't really expect the village idiot to understand that, do you? All he'll do is double down on stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: so?
In this instance, he was given a chance to ask a question, Trump gave his response, and Acosta refused to allow give up the microphone to allow the "next" to proceed; thus, Acosta was denying other reporters their first amendment rights for access.
Heh. That's not at all how 1st Amendment rights work. But nice rationalizing your incorrect position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
There's zero First Amendment violations here, unless you want to claim the reporters who couldn't speak because this dimwit wouldn't give up the mic.
The press are INVITED to these conferences. There's nothing, Constitutional or otherwise, preventing revocation of the privilege and expulsion.
No matter how many suits get filed.
When their filing gets tossed by the first judge to see it, expect it to be ignored by the press. At best, a "correction" on page 58 in 5pt type.
While I'm on a rant, where is the TECH in this? The site used to be terrific on TECH issues. Now it's turning into a left-wing bully pulpit where any perceived slight of a leftist person or organization can expect to have "FIRST AMENDMENT! FIRST AMENDMENT!" shouted repeatedly.
From "It's a clock!" through "Rebellious teenager petulant over being told 'NO' and does it anyway", the site is becoming nothing more than propaganda cheering on all things Left - usually under the guise of "How far can we stretch and rationalize the First Amendment?".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
Scroll up to the top of this site. What does the header say? Not the menu. The big white logo looking thing in the black bar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
Except, you know, the dozen legal citations provided in the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
Hmmm... so if I show up at a Pelosi rally as a "journalist", my First Amendment rights trump those of the venue, speaker, and everyone else involved?
That's a fancy strawman you've got there, totally unrelated to the issues being discussed. But you know that. No one's First Amendment rights are being stifled... except for the journalist being denied access solely for their questioning.
There's zero First Amendment violations here, unless you want to claim the reporters who couldn't speak because this dimwit wouldn't give up the mic.
We cited the cases that say you're wrong. Deliberately punishing a journalist based on their content is a quintessential 1st Amendment violation.
The press are INVITED to these conferences. There's nothing, Constitutional or otherwise, preventing revocation of the privilege and expulsion.
Every single court in the land says you're wrong. When the government creates an open forum it is well established law that it is unconstitutional to bar someone based on content. Again, this is First Amendment 101.
When their filing gets tossed by the first judge to see it, expect it to be ignored by the press. At best, a "correction" on page 58 in 5pt type.
You're dreaming. Both on it getting tossed and how people will treat it. The real press will cover this story no matter what happens.
While I'm on a rant, where is the TECH in this?
From the very beginning, this site has ALWAYS been about a variety of things: specifically anything that I am interested in, related to innovation and civil liberties, in part because I believe that civil liberties -- including the 1st and 5th amendment issues related to this case -- are key elements for building an innovative society.
When you become the editor or publisher of this site, then you can tell me what I can and cannot write about. Until then, your only other option is to go away.
The site used to be terrific on TECH issues.
We have always covered the intersection of a variety of issues, including free speech.
Now it's turning into a left-wing bully pulpit where any perceived slight of a leftist person or organization can expect to have "FIRST AMENDMENT! FIRST AMENDMENT!" shouted repeatedly.
Bullshit. We've covered these issues fairly no matter which side of the political aisle you're on (I'm not a "leftist" by any stretch of the imagination). We've supported Trump's 1st Amendment rights (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181015/18170340846/will-donald-trump-support-federal-anti-slapp -law-now-that-helped-him-win-stormy-daniels-defamation-suit.shtml) and just today we supported the NRA's 1st Amendment rights (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181111/01400041021/judge-lets-nras-1st-amendment-lawsuit-agains t-andrew-cuomo-move-forward.shtml) so fuck off with your bullshit claim about a partisan bias here.
The only bias we have is in favor of civil liberties and against mindless assholes like yourself who change your legal position based on who is involved.
If Obama had kicked out Fox News you would be the first one screaming about how it was a 1st Amendment violation and you know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
"There's zero First Amendment violations here, unless you want to claim the reporters who couldn't speak because this dimwit wouldn't give up the mic."
There was absolutely nothing preventing any other journalists from speaking.
"When their filing gets tossed by the first judge to see it, expect it to be ignored by the press. At best, a "correction" on page 58 in 5pt type."
And our expectation is that when it doesn't get tossed, and when CNN wins as most actual legal experts believe will happen, you will be deadly silent and unable to admit to yourself let alone us that you were quite wrong.
"The site used to be terrific on TECH issues. Now it's turning into a left-wing bully pulpit where any perceived slight of a leftist person or organization can expect to have "FIRST AMENDMENT! FIRST AMENDMENT!" shouted repeatedly."
Feel free to post links to any Techdirt articles actually doing that. "Left-wing bully pulpit" is a just another hilariously lame catchphrase thrown out by those who love to call others 'snowflakes' for being offended but whine hypocritically at any pushback.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
Tell me, who pays for the White House?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: so?
CNN has other people there. There's no RIGHT to be there in the first place. If that was the case, why shouldn't everyone else have that SAME RIGHT to go in there and ask our own questions or hear it in person. What makes THESE people so special? Do they have special rights above everyone else? I don't think so!!!! They are only reporters and anyone can be just as much of a reporter as that crowd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
Actual, no assault
Edited, made to look like assault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: so?
"He also assaulted the young inturn..."
If you think that's assault being in a crowded room must be an absolute horror for you.
"CNN has other people there."
This is a specious argument. The point is not that someone else can't replace Acosta, it's that the next journalist might hold back on the hard questions for fear of being booted out. And that's exactly the result they want. That chilling effect is what the First Amendment protects against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: so?
As if that is not considered to be editing - LOL.
It is getting more pathetic every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: so?
I saw a great comment on another site. Imagine this: "Kellyanne, Hillary Clinton has released a version of the video that is slowed down, and it appears to be nothing more than a gentle brush of the arm, not an assault. Would you accept that video as a correct record of the event?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: so?
If you want, someone copied the transcript below. Please copy and paste here where the answers were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: so?
What about her emails
What about Benghazi
What about bullshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: so?
Ya think? Since Obama never behaved himself like the imbecile Trump does all the time. D'uh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so?
Nope - neither has a prayer of working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Obama's solution to avoiding questions was to give one-on-one interviews to smaller players in smaller markets where he was pretty sure he'd get softball questions. Trump thrives on the contention, on getting publicity from the press, and creating a foil in the grandstanding idiot Acosta.
There was talk about getting rid of daily briefings at the start of the Trump administration. If Acosta is required to be admitted they may well wish they had that many if Trump's appetite for vengeance continues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Obama: (avg per year) 20.50
Trump: 2017 - 21
Your one-on-one statement is also not true. See link above.
Note: This does not go into length of conferences, numbers of questions asked, etc which according to multiple articles this year are significantly shorter in minutes under the Trump presidency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
*"The most likely result would be that the White House stops having these type of meetings altogether."
And at the moment that would be no great loss. SHS is one of the most disingenuous people to have ever had the position and the quality of the info provided is historically low. It's a shame the media still think it's a worthwhile effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except no.
What most don’t do is shout constantly over others, refuse to yield the floor, interrupt, and generally act more like a protestor in a suit than a reporter.
Right of free speech is not a right of free access. Accosta can say whatever he likes from the CNN offices, where people can choose to listen to him, or not, and it’s own mic he doesn’t have to give back.
But personally, I want to say “Fuck you, Mike”. I’ve follwed this site for ....decades? As long as you were around. I had you in my feed when RSS’s were still a thing. And you pretended to be “non partisan” then, but you weren’t, and now your politics have gotten NUTS. This isn’t about free speech, or law involving tech, this is just “Orange Man Bad” shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Except no.
If you believe this you:
A. Have not read any Techdirt in the last two years. they have always been about free speech and its inclusion into tech. At least as long as I have been reading them.
B. You may want to watch the actual video of the even instead of reading a biased description. He was not shouting, he was doing his job of getting a straight answer from a president who refused to give one.
But even if he did refuse to give the floor (he did not, but lets play this false game), so what? There is no "one question, one reporter" rule. This is arbitrarily adding conventions after the fact to justify removing a reporter he does not like. this is especially funny coming from an administration that outright flaunts that they abide by no normal convention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Except no.
You're joking. This is a clear 1st Amendment issue. And it's a law suit involving free speech and access to government, which are issues we've covered for years (indeed, we were incredibly critical of Obama's terrible record on transparency and access of the press -- but you weren't complaining then).
As for "Orange Man Bad" -- that's also bullshit. We supported Trump's anti-SLAPP argument against Stormy Daniels because it was the proper use of an anti-SLAPP law to protect his 1st Amendment rights.
So don't make up shit just because you don't like this one analysis. We are still non-partisan, mainly because I think all partisans (no matter which party) are ridiculous and foolish, in part because it makes them so deranged they post comments like yours where they interpret one story in which your side did something unconstitutional as evidence of some shift or bias, while ignoring all the times we've also criticized "the other side." I'm not a member of any party and I, frankly, can't stand anyone who is totally partisan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Except no. -- Hey, I'm not a partisan MORE than you!
Masnick's claim to not be a "partisan" is true in my view! He truly doesn't care whether "Republicans" or "Democrats" are "elected" so long as the corporate surveillance / police state is increased.
That's been exactly my ongoing thesis here for years. He's a CORPORATIST first, middle, last, and any parts missed too, just has a veneer of "social justice" because it's convenient cover for purpose -- as shown by that it's the prevailing front at Google, Facebook, and Twitter. So too do those corporations always claim to not be "partisan" even while they disadvantage and "deplatform" mainly "conservatives" -- plus maybe a few troublesome leftists as Ocasio-Cortez may become, if persons who actually believe what they say about promoting individuals, not "identity", and TAXING THE HELL OUT OF CORPORATIONS.
1) But trivially refuting on display right here is that ONLY the comments supporting Trump have been "hidden" as Techdirt euphemizes putting them behind a warning and click barrier. -- Which is editorializing in violation of Section 230, by the way.
2) Google, the prime element of surveillance capitalism "supports" Masnick. In turn, Masnick supports Google except for when a little carping has been okayed by New York Times. His last notable "criticism" of Google was to sadly regret that the company shut down some minor bit of social media.
3) Most importantly: Masnick is not visibly anti-war, for progressive income tax rates, pro-union, or any other position held by traditional Democrats (besides Ocasio-Cortez and myself!), NOR is he supporting 2nd Amendment and limited government like traditional Republicans (and myself). He has NO obvious "ideology". -- Masnick visibly supports nothing counter to interests of the corporatized state.
4) Oh, and so I don't get accused of "dog whistle anti-Semitism" (even though I support Palestinians who are actually Semites!), I add: Masnick also just happens to claim identity as member of a religious supremacist cult. So far as that tribe or he promotes corporatism and themselves as the true rulers of Earth as ordained by God, I'm against it. (As are many Jews! Many abhor the murderous apartheid state that Israel has become.) [Just for "Thad": NO, I have not verified your nasty little assertion. Buzz off, Ant Slayer.]
5) But still worse, Masnick claims to be an Ivy League indoctrinated "economist", a cold tribe indeed who put money and its use in shaping society above all else: he's actually a follower of Mammon.
All those are consistent with corporatist if not definitional.
So take Masnick as truthful in "not a partisan"! He's ABOVE that minor fray, it's only distraction for the proles, while behind the scenes he's promoting and being part of the inevitable CORPORATE STATE, done right this time, to last forever with automated TOTAL surveillance as in Google's experiment in Toronto.
MUCH WORSE THAN PARTISAN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Except no. -- Hey, I'm not a partisan MORE than you!
>1) But trivially refuting on display right here is that ONLY the comments supporting Trump have been "hidden" as Techdirt euphemizes putting them behind a warning and click barrier. -- Which is editorializing in violation of Section 230, by the way.
Nope. That's the users themselves. It's part of the flagging/downvote system. Enough users flag, the comment gets hidden. All of us visiting the site found the comments to be so stupid, we flag them for their stupidity. Like how I flagged your post for the abhorrent (and out of left field) anti-Semitic remarks.
Also...that's not how 230 works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Except no. -- Hey, I'm not a partisan MORE than you!
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: member when you promised to leave forever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Except no. -- Hey, I'm not a partisan MORE than you!
As for the partisan garbage, you were nowhere bitching about Obama (or Masnick's lack of it) while Obama was in office. Trump only matters to you because the Silicon Valley bogeymen in your head say they hate him, which is why you think spamming a thread half a year old qualifies as some sort of crowning achievement.
Sesta voted!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Except no.
Acosta's free speech is in no way under threat. He can say whatever he wants from CNN offices, or his mom's basement. He just doesn't get to show up at the white house and throw a temper tantrum. Neither do approximately 100% of the other 340 millions americans.
Free speech does not mean free access.
And yeah, my "fuck you" stands. You're being partisan as fuck. You have no legal grounds for this stance. Neither does anyone else. You just hate that Trump is (quite justly, imo) telling someone to fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Except no.
If you have never read the 1st amendment, or it has been so long you've forgotten what it says, maybe now would be a good time:
"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."
As you can see, it mentions more than just freedom of speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Except no.
I'm given to understand that "the press" in that sentence means "the printing press"; by that angle, "freedom of the press" means "freedom of access to the printing press", or more broadly, "freedom of access to the means of (mass) publication".
As far as I understand matters, "the press" as referring to people - much less to a certain class of people, or to people in a certain line of business - is a back-formation, derived entirely from the term having been used in that particular place. (Or at least from the equivalent metaphor.)
I don't think that the "of the press" detail of the First Amendment has any bearing on this situation, in either direction. Or at the very least, not because of Jim Acosta being a reporter.
That said, it's entirely possible that there are court precedents establishing otherwise, of which I am not aware. (Although I might, if shown such precedents and given time to consider them, decide that they were wrongly concluded.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Except no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Except no.
Actually on second thought. I’m not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Except no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Except no.
Sheesh. What are you, dreizehn? Try to state something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Except no. You promised to leave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While access of the press is important, the man they are covering lies repeatedly, and the press just smiles & nods about it.
If you wanted it to end faster, the press corp would have done the 1 thing Trump couldn't handle... Not show up.
Now he knows this gambit will work & at worst he gets a chiding about having done it, but reporters are aware they can and will be removed from reporting if he gets angry with their coverage.
Getting little to no coverage featuring him would drive him batty. Hell the lack of watching himself on the screen might leave him bored enough to consider running the country...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sucking the air out of the room
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The actual way to do it right is if Trump refuses to call on any CNN reporter, is to have the WHPC only ask questions on behalf of the CNN or defer their question to CNN.
That is how you show solidarity while also covering the essential news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fox News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He said, she said
Truth is not a game, exept to those who do not want the public to know of it. Truth is not a partisan viewpoint. It's not a weapon, or an opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Acosta is a hack
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Acosta is a hack
Everyone loves partisan weasels... But only their own partisan weasels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Acosta is a hack
He is not asking tough questions.
Damn straight! He should be asking the things the public wants to know, nay NEEDS to know...like "what's Trump's favorite color?", or "how great are North Korea's beaches really?"
Anything else is just grandstanding or partisan hacking. Let's ask the questions middle 'Murica is really concerned about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Acosta is a hack
Sanders: "Mr. Hannity, you are not a white house correspondant...how did you get in here?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Acosta is a hack
Doocy: "Mr. President... how awesome was your golf score yesterday? How many TRUE AMERICANS that morning praised your name when you passed them?"
--
Carlson: "Mr. President, the country needs to know....how many black people did you see committing crimes on the way to work today? Was it all of them? Were any also GYPSIES?"
--
O'Riley: "Am I still relevant?"
--
Cernovitch: "Mr. PResident...are you so smart and awesome because you take my gorilla brain pills every day?"
--
Jones: "ALIENS!"
Sanders "Mr. Jones...do you have a question?"
Jones: [Puts on tinfoil hat] "I have sent you a coded message, you may read it secretly to the President later"
Sandlers: "this is just an image of a whithered banana"
Jones: "THAT WAS PRIVATE, FOR THE PRESIDENTS EYES ONLY! I AM A VERY MANLY MAN!"
Hannity: "ME TOO! LOOK MR PRESIDENT I GOT YOUR NAME TATTOED ON ME!" [Hannity drops his pants]
Sanders: [sighs, pulls out a prepared card that reads "Read in case of manliness contest", starts reading in monotone voice] "Mr. President has the biggest penis in the world. I have seen it myself. It is incredible. It is huge in all caps. It is especially bigger than Obamas, who is a tiny child compared to Mr. Trump. Thank You."
Jones and Hannity [simultaneously]: I AGREE WITH TRUMP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Acosta is a hack
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Acosta is a hack
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Acosta is a hack
You mean the simple, dumb questions asked of Obama all the time?
If it truly was "all the time" I'm sure you could come up with a common example pretty easily...yet you don't cite a single one.
Care to provide an example, or are you just going to continue to whine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Acosta is a hack
He is not asking tough questions. He is a grandstanding idiot in love with his own voice. CNN should be embarrassed as well. I watched the video. Acosta is not a reporter he is a partisan weasel. Of course, the left loves partisan weasels, so he will have his defenders.
Even if everything you say is true, that still does not give the White House the right to remove his press pass over his coverage. Just as it would not give Obama the right to remove Fox News' press pass, when many would argue that they are partisan weasels as well.
Or are you okay if Obama had done the same thing to Fox? Admit it, you'd be screaming to high heaven for impeachment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Acosta is a hack
I thought that was the presidents role in these briefings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pot is a kettle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then never, ever follow-up with an actual lawsuit because all of his real legal team would tell him he would never win.
then never mention it again and pretend he never threatened the lawsuits when asked.
It is his MO for decades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump-Acosta
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump-Acosta
Please show me where, in the First Amendment or in the case law interpreting it, there is any legal distinction between those things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trump-Acosta
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trump-Acosta
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump-Acosta
I bet it sounded funnier in the original Aramaic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump-Acosta
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I leave better insults than this in the toilet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
unted9198 crashed shortly after takeoff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump-Acosta
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THE PRESIDENT: Here we go.
Q Well, if you don’t mind, Mr. President —
THE PRESIDENT: Let’s go. Let’s go. Come on.
Q That this caravan was an “invasion.” As you know, Mr. President —
THE PRESIDENT: I consider it to be an invasion.
Q As you know, Mr. President, the caravan was not an invasion. It’s a group of migrants moving up from Central America towards the border with the U.S.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for telling me that. I appreciate it.
Q Why did you characterize it as such? And —
THE PRESIDENT: Because I consider it an invasion. You and I have a difference of opinion.
Q But do you think that you demonized immigrants in this election —
THE PRESIDENT: Not at all. No, not at all.
Q — to try to keep —
THE PRESIDENT: I want them — I want them to come into the country, but they have to come in legally. You know, they have to come in, Jim, through a process. I want it to be a process.
And I want people to come in. And we need the people.
Q Right. But your campaign had — your campaign —
THE PRESIDENT: Wait. Wait. Wait. You know why we need the people, don’t you? Because we have hundreds of companies moving in. We need the people.
Q Right. But your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that’s true. They weren’t actors. They weren’t actors.
Q They’re not going to be doing that.
THE PRESIDENT: They weren’t actors. Well, no, it was true. Do you think they were actors? They weren’t actors. They didn’t come from Hollywood. These were — these were people — this was an actual — you know, it happened a few days ago. And —
Q They’re hundreds of miles of way though. They’re hundreds and hundreds of miles away.
THE PRESIDENT: You know what?
Q That’s not an invasion.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you should — honestly, I think you should let me run the country, you run CNN —
Q All right.
THE PRESIDENT: — and if you did it well, your ratings would be much better.
Q But let me ask, if I — if I may ask one other question —
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, that’s enough.
Q Mr. President, if I may — if I may ask one other question.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, Peter, go ahead.
Q Are you worried —
THE PRESIDENT: That’s enough. That’s enough. That’s enough.
Q Mr. President, I didn’t — well, I was going to ask one other. The other folks that had —
THE PRESIDENT: That’s enough. That’s enough.
Q Pardon me, ma’am, I’m — Mr. President —
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, that’s enough.
Q Mr. President, I had one other question if —
THE PRESIDENT: Peter. Let’s go.
Q — I may ask on the Russia investigation. Are you concerned that you may have indictments —
THE PRESIDENT: I’m not concerned about anything with the Russia investigation because it’s a hoax.
Q — that you may indictments coming down? Are you —
THE PRESIDENT: That’s enough. Put down the mic.
Q Mr. President, are you worried about indictments coming down in this investigation?
Q Mr. President —
THE PRESIDENT: I’ll tell you what: CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN.
Go ahead.
Q I think that’s unfair.
THE PRESIDENT: You’re a very rude person. The way you treat Sarah Huckabee is horrible. And the way you treat other people are horrible. You shouldn’t treat people that way.
Go ahead. Go ahead, Peter. Go ahead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Clue: It's not!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn't just contradiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Behave in a way that irritates the President, get kicked out. Fairly simple time honored concept.
Of course! The president doesn't answer to the people. We answer to him, amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Don't really think the 1st Amendment has anything to do with this."
Decades of jurisprudence says you're wrong, but feel free to explain why you know better.
"For better or worse, the White House is Trump's residence during his time in office. He can invite or not invite who ever he wants to his residence."
The WH Press Briefing Room, and most of the rest of the building, is not Trump's residence! It's part of the government and subject to the same constitution as all other parts of the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's how I see the reactions
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/9vyjlf/trump_supporters_be_all_like/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CNN is the enemy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CNN is the enemy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Between now and then, he forces his press secretary to hold her briefings again instead. But "no questions allowed until some press promise to be civil."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is no point in debating a Troll. Their entire existence is to be an asshole. Once they make it clear they are here to be a Troll and not debate, you make fun of them and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fairness, one “side” is working from a place of facts and realities, while the other “side” is working from a place of “fuck you, I’m right no matter what you or ‘the facts’ say”. Given the inclinations of our current POTUS, I hope you can guess which “side” is which.
I ask questions in good faith. Specifically, I tend to ask questions that start with how, what, and for what reason—open-ended questions that provide less of an opportunity for simple yes-or-no answers and more of an opportunity to create context and understanding. (I tend to avoid why, using for what reason in its place, to head off potential misunderstandings about “motives” [i.e., why people hold a certain opinion] and stick to the opinion/facts in play.)
Well, that is what our current POTUS does, so…
¯_(ツ)_/¯
The days of “just reporting facts without any slant” have never been here to begin with. Facts require context to make sense, and news outlets often have more facts on their hands than they can reasonably publish in a given day. Bias will always exist in journalism because (A) people are people and (B) someone must always decide what stories to print, what facts to check, what facts get into the stories that go to print, and what context those facts will be presented in. You can print only a raw transcript of Trump saying his typical bullshit and let everyone try to make sense of it themselves, or you can print parts of that transcript while providing the context of where he spoke, what (if anything) prompted him to speak, how his voice sounded and body language looked, and other such factors that could provide a (somewhat) better understanding of his bullshit.
Frankly, I think the best thing to do is ignore most of what he says—in person, on Twitter, whatever—and focus on both his direct actions and any speech/actions regarding Trump that are out of his control. If it comes from Trump, it is trolling; if something he says must be reported on, best to call him out on any lies (preferably by referring to them as “lies”) and provide proper facts/context to help readers understand why what he said is bullshit. “The caravan is an invasion!” sounds scary and makes the migrant caravan sound like an existential threat…until you learn that the caravan has a lot of women and children on it, was still hundreds of miles away from the border at the height of Trump’s “invasion” rhetoric, has only around 1,200 people on it, and was meant to give people who made plans for legal asylum requests a way to stick together and survive the trip. That is context; you can call it spin, but until you can provide a context based in fact (and not on Trump’s bullshit) that negates anything I have said here, that “spin” is based in a reality that Trump refuses to acknowledge because he is a racist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Trump Derangement Syndrome
The latest attempt by the alt-right to demonise anybody who thinks that maybe putting a reality TV star who's declared bankruptcy six times in charge of the country might not have been the best idea.
So what if Trump only told the complete truth throughout 4% of his campaign, and had to settle out of court for that fraud trial, and that he reacts like a spoilt brat on Twitter to any kind of criticism? Geez, you libtard SJW snowflakes just have accept democracy won and stop exercising your right to free speech! You're so negative with your Trump Derangement Syndrome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re showing signs of having no facts or citations with which you can refute my points of argument.
SHOW ME WHAT YOU GOT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or for the less sophisticated;
You cannot reason people out of something they were not reasoned into.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just wow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just wow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just wow!
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I gather we've got some Fox News viewers in this thread.
They may be interested in this story:
Fox News backs CNN’s lawsuit against Trump administration (warning: autoplay video)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, that is not what that would mean. As long as they came up with content neutral guidelines, they could still put limits on who is considered a journalist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Say whaaaaaaaaaaat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gotta love it when you can see in realtime when the latest propaganda program gets loaded, and they all say their manufactured lines lines of "Acosta was the asshole" or "the video wasn't edited." My favorite is the null-self-awareness "liberals are NPCs!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CNN will lose
Acosta can still cover the President, just not inside the Presidents home. So no rights are being violated. CNN has plenty of other employees to send.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CNN will lose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CNN will lose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CNN will lose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: CNN will lose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CNN will lose
Oh snap, it's Bizarro out_of_the_blue: somebody who doesn't understand the difference between government and private actions and therefore thinks it's not a First Amendment violation when the government silences somebody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CNN will lose
By that twisted logic, even if journalists are imprisoned they can still report, just not outside of their prison cells. So no rights would be being violated in that case either. Besides, there would still be other, more compliant, journalists to send to report. Huh?
I don't know if you have never read the First Amendment that you are commenting on, or if you just do not understand words like "abridged".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CNN will lose
harassing the President
Yeah, who the fuck is this Acosta to ask Trump questions and then have the nerve to continue when he gets the functional equivalent of "derp, derp" for an answer!
Who the hell are we to demand answers of the president? We answer to him, not the other way around, dammit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constitutional cite needed, please
Per my usual recalcitrance to take anyone's statements at face value when they reference some particular law, I have to interject here that there is no Constitutional requirement that the President (nor any other Federal office holder) must hold open press conferences. In fact, it was only 105 years ago (less than half of our country's age) that Woodrow Wilson held the first such. Sadly, the prevailing conventionally held wisdom that "open to one, open to all" is not a guaranteed right. The concept really hasn't even been enshrined in law, at least not directly. Indirectly, I can see that in several ways, but not directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Constitutional cite needed, please
No, but there's a constitutional requirement that if they do, they can't discriminate based on viewpoint.
Trump can choose not to hold press conferences at all. Or he can limit access to his press conferences based on some sort of neutral criteria -- first come first serve, you have to wear pants, etc. But he can't limit access to his press conferences based on a particular reporter's political viewpoint.
That's why they're trying to push this "he assaulted the intern" narrative: because it would be legal to bar a reporter for committing assault. It is not legal to bar a reporter for asking the president a question he didn't like.
You're mistaken. Indeed, that was the principal argument in the recent ruling that Trump can't block people on Twitter.
Here's some further reading that may be useful:
Public forum, Wikipedia
Public forum doctrine, First Amendment Encyclopedia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While you as a citizen are "free" to enter any government building or open place that conducts goverment business, there are good and sufficient reasons why you can't enter each and every one of them... security being the highlight of this day and age, but we certainly didn't start that just 17 years ago. Likewise, a newpaper or other outlet of news that holds itself out to the public as a source of information has no special "right" to enter a government structure that somehow negates the requirements placed on "normal" citizens.
Indeed, the only protections afforded to the Press are a freedom from government interference in what they print, and what spin they may impart to that information. The Founding Fathers may have intended that, in a polite society, members of the Press would be civil in their discourse with government personnel, and that was a failing, I'll admit. But nonetheless, we're stuck with what they gave us, and for the vast majority of the time, it's worked out quite well, in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have no idea what you're talking about. This is a civil suit.
Which would be relevant, if Acosta had had his press credentials revoked because he was considered a security risk.
Which is why any "normal" citizen can request a press pass to the White House press briefings, and the White House can choose who to issue a pass to based on neutral and objective criteria -- but, per the past forty years or so of First Amendment case law, not based on that particular person's political views.
LOLno.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a real journalist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a real journalist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Usually agree with you on almost every case.....
IMO:
1. Trump owes Acosta NOTHING.
2. Trump owes CNN NOTHING.
3. Trump can throw out anyone he wants at any time.
4. Citizens have a right to vote Trump out of office without cause. Our right.
There *is* bad blood between Trump and CNN. Things like this happen.
Let's not make a federal case out of it. Just move on.
CNN should not be sueing. They should just try to place an even bigger badass in Acosta's place. And kep a constantly replenished roster of badasses to send in. Each one tougher than the previous.
Their objective should be to make the president look bad. He keeps firing journalists.
Even Trump has a boss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Usually agree with you on almost every case.....
1 So?
2 So?
3 You are very, very wrong, in fact you are so wrong CNN filed a federal case about it.
4 So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Usually agree with you on almost every case.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Review the Video
Howzabout the actual assault and battery of Acosta initiated by the intern during her attempted snatch of the mike? File charges against her and see what the BOO (Boob in the Oval Office) has to say. Totally wacky, probably popcorn-worthy, high jinks to ensue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Review the Video
1. She's female and he's male.
2. She was working for dear leader.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as a politician he should politely respond skillfully! https://1v1-lol.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]