# Judge to hold hearing Wednesday into CNN's White House lawsuit



## Attacker3 (Nov 14, 2018)

Link



> A U.S. federal judge says he will hold a hearing Wednesday on CNN's lawsuit against the Trump administration seeking the speedy reinstatement of press credentials for White House correspondent Jim Acosta, a frequent target of President Donald Trump.
> 
> In its lawsuit filed on Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Washington, the cable news network said the White House violated the First Amendment right to free speech as well as the due process clause of the Constitution providing fair treatment through judicial process.
> 
> ...



What do you guys think? I find it hilarious that this is going to go to court, just because of the implications. If this is somehow found in violation of the 1st Amendment, then it opens up the floodgate for anyone and everyone to get a press pass. They'll have to give any YouTuber, anyone at all a press pass if this is a right to go to one of these.

CNN is making a mistake. "Alt-Tech" is on the rise, and this will empower them more. Content creators like Styxhexxenhammer666 and any other independent creators will now have the same rights and CNN and other big guys. While I don't agree that this is a 1st Amendment violation, I 100% support this lawsuit, just based on how beneficial it will be for independent news sources and Alt-Tech.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 14, 2018)

The big news media outlets need to get a grip. They don't get their way and cry about it "violating their rights". Yet, they'll twist stories to fit an agenda and cover up real issues and neglect the good in the world. I hope they get laughed out of court. This shouldn't be happening.


----------



## Attacker3 (Nov 14, 2018)

Memoir said:


> The big news media outlets need to get a grip. They don't get their way and cry about it "violating their rights". Yet, they'll twist stories to fit an agenda and cover up real issues and neglect the good in the world. I hope they get laughed out of court. This shouldn't be happening.



Especially when CNN could just send another reporter.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 14, 2018)

CNN, what a bunch of whiny bitching crybabies. 

Get over it already, CNN, grow up


----------



## Attacker3 (Nov 14, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> CNN, what a bunch of whiny bitching crybabies.
> 
> Get over it already, CNN, grow up



This most likely isn't them just being sad that they got kicked out, it's a strategic move to get more attention onto themselves, and thus more viewers on their channel. I don't know if that's worse or better than being sad that their reporter got banned for refusing to listen to White House rules.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 14, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> This most likely isn't them just being sad that they got kicked out, it's a strategic move to get more attention onto themselves, and thus more viewers on their channel. I don't know if that's worse or better than being sad that their reporter got banned for refusing to listen to White House rules.



So they're attention whores, them and every other mainstream media outlet. Time for them to grow a pair.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 14, 2018)

I saw the video, I saw the discussions of the video, I looked into his past conduct, I looked into the nature of the event in question, I considered the nature of the press event in general.

From where I sit the press event is a nice perk, however given the recent rulings on similar matters for twitter and the rationales and arguments given I am not sure we would have the same interpretation. Still I would say denying someone individually access is no big deal under the law. Denying some press member access to a council meeting would be a very different matter -- one is a fundamental part of government, the other (the press event) I would consider a perk.
Furthermore if they wanted to spare some aggravation then "we don't like this guy, maybe send another" would have done absolutely fine.

Video wise. That would be a physical block from what I saw. Video wise someone maybe needs to learn how video works better or move to the modern world where such things at not really an issue but doctored such that it tells a different narrative... not so much. Nothing the law would need to get involved with or any normal person would want to be traumatised by but at same time not conduct I would expect in such a situation, and could see a revocation of privileges as a result.

Conduct in the past. Muckraker is a proud tradition in journalism, as is asking hard hitting questions. He seems to be aiming for but doing poorly at both. Being shit at your job is not grounds for dismissal but it makes it harder.


----------



## xskibbles (Nov 14, 2018)

I’m guessing many people didn’t actually read what’s going on and why . On topic, guessing Fox is supporting CNN due to not wanting the same outcome once the next president is elected (assuming trump isn’t voted in again )


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 14, 2018)

xskibbles said:


> I’m guessing many people didn’t actually read what’s going on and why . On topic, guessing Fox is supporting CNN due to not wanting the same outcome once the next president is elected (assuming trump isn’t voted in again )



Talk about stooping low.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Nov 14, 2018)

His access should be reinstated or at the very least not be lost over something this dumb.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 14, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> His access should be reinstated or at the very least not be lost over something this dumb.



Maybe if CNN weren't such whiny litigious jackasses about it, it'd be reinstated.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 14, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> His access should be reinstated or at the very least not be lost over something this dumb.



Something.. Our country is turning into a massive meme.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Nov 14, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Maybe if CNN weren't such whiny litigious jackasses about it, it'd be reinstated.



Ok, so I don't like Jim or CNN at all. They are full of shit. However, there are better reasons for taking away Jim's access. ( he is a hack)


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 14, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Ok, so I don't like Jim or CNN at all. They are full of shit. However, there are better reasons for taking away Jim's access. ( he is a hack)



Right, but the mainstream media is full of shit.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Nov 14, 2018)

Memoir said:


> Something.. Our country is turning into a massive meme.



Too much of the me vs them mentality, which Trump just loves.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 14, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Too much of the me vs them mentality, which Trump just loves.



The mainstream media aren't exactly innocent, either, they're full of it.


----------



## Eddypikachu (Nov 14, 2018)

CNN actually has a good foot in court right now since the there is already precedent from a 1977 court decision that the White House must follow a specific process to deny press passes (which the white house didn't follow)
https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight
"White House press facilities having been made publicly available ... the protection afforded news gathering under the first amendment... requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons."


----------



## CallmeBerto (Nov 14, 2018)

Eddypikachu said:


> CNN actually has a good foot in court right now since the there is already precedent from a 1997 court decision that the White House must follow a specific process to deny press passes (which the white house didn't follow)
> https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight
> "White House press facilities having been made publicly available ... the protection afforded news gathering under the first amendment... requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons."




Interesting, I guess the question becomes then, was Jim's loss of access a compelling reason? My money is on no.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 14, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> The mainstream media aren't exactly innocent, either, they're full of it.


Yeah, but Trump fueled that fire like nobody's business.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 14, 2018)

Memoir said:


> Yeah, but Trump fueled that fire like nobody's business.



Perhaps, *shrug* the entire media is one toxic pile of garbage.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 14, 2018)

Eddypikachu said:


> CNN actually has a good foot in court right now since the there is already precedent from a 1977 court decision that the White House must follow a specific process to deny press passes (which the white house didn't follow)
> https://openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight
> "White House press facilities having been made publicly available ... the protection afforded news gathering under the first amendment... requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons."




That case is about a denial of an application for a press pass, based on a Secret Service recommendation that it not be issued for reasons not disclosed to the applicant. The Acosta situation involves a revocation of an existing pass, for specific conduct witnessed by the public and during a Presidential press conference. These are easily distinguished factual situations. CNN wasn't banned. One poorly behaved reporter was.


----------



## Eddypikachu (Nov 14, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> That case is about a denial of an application for a press pass, based on a Secret Service recommendation that it not be issued for reasons not disclosed to the applicant. The Acosta situation involves a revocation of an existing pass, for specific conduct witnessed by the public and during a Presidential press conference. These are easily distinguished factual situations. CNN wasn't banned. One poorly behaved reporter was.


They can't ban individual reporters either. The precedent that Sherrill v Knight set forth explicitly states "...and that individual newsmen not be arbitrarily excluded from sources of information."


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Nov 14, 2018)

What I fear is what happens after Trump is in office. These corporations have already shown they're bias and are willing to silence anyone, suppress the facts, and engage in violence to see their agenda fit. Trump is not going to be here after 2024 (if he wins reelection) but the people that use these tactics as attacks still will be. This goes way beyond what side of party you're on because they will even turn on their own if they get in the way.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 15, 2018)

Eddypikachu said:


> They can't ban individual reporters either. The precedent that Sherrill v Knight set forth explicitly states "...and that individual newsmen not be arbitrarily excluded from sources of information."




But Acosta's not being arbitrarily excluded. He fucked up.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 15, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> But Acosta's not being arbitrarily excluded. He fucked up.



So maybe he should've grown a pair and been less of a douche canoe.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 15, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> So maybe he should've grown a pair and been less of a douche canoe.




He's been testing the edges of professional conduct for a long time, but this obstinate refusal to let the next reporter have their turn and then the physical block with the intern over the microphone crossed the line. Nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Is @Eddypikachu suggesting there's no circumstance, no behavior that can justify banning an individual reporter from Presidential press conferences? That's absurd.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 15, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> He's been testing the edges of professional conduct for a long time, but this obstinate refusal to let the next reporter have their turn and then the physical block with the intern over the microphone crossed the line. Nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Is @Eddypikachu suggesting there's no circumstance, no behavior that can justify banning an individual reporter from Presidential press conferences? That's absurd.



Which goes back to my saying that the mainstream media is nothing but subhuman trash.


----------



## Captain_N (Nov 15, 2018)

The CNN reporter was way out of line. When the presendent of the USA says stop talking you listen. These jack asses dont respect the office of the president of the USA just because trump is presedent. He has to right to ban your disrespectful ass. They need to remember that trump does not sit their and take others shit. He will troll the shit out of you.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 15, 2018)

Captain_N said:


> The CNN reporter was way out of line. When the presendent of the USA says stop talking you listen. These jack asses dont respect the office of the president of the USA just because trump is presedent. He has to right to ban your disrespectful ass. They need to remember that trump does not sit their and take others shit. He will troll the shit out of you.


I am going to disagree quite heavily there. I have long seen "the office of" thing be floated and it means next to nothing from where I sit and what vestiges remained in the US were swept away in the late 70s with the whole Frost-Nixon thing.

I would respect the reporter more if he was actually doing something than chatting utter bollocks and with a long history of said same but the idea one should be respectful of the president because they are the president... nah.


----------



## CORE (Nov 16, 2018)

Mr President oh oh Mr President mr mr Mr President.  Will You F***UP! What a Clown


----------



## Eddypikachu (Nov 16, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> He's been testing the edges of professional conduct for a long time, but this obstinate refusal to let the next reporter have their turn and then the physical block with the intern over the microphone crossed the line. Nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Is @Eddypikachu suggesting there's no circumstance, no behavior that can justify banning an individual reporter from Presidential press conferences? That's absurd.


Per my first comment on this post, the White House Must follow a specific process to revoke/deny press passes set by the precedent of Sherrill V Knight (If you haven't noticed, this is the third time around I'm bringing up this case, maybe you should read the entirety of it this time ), where it states "We further conclude that notice, opportunity to rebut, and a written decision are required because the denial of a pass potentially infringes upon First Amendment guarantees," they continue to say "Such impairment of this interest cannot be permitted to occur in the absence of adequate procedural due process." The White House is supposed to follow this due process feature when revoking/denying a press pass, which they did not.


----------



## CORE (Nov 16, 2018)

You also cant abuse your Pass like an idiot there is more than one reporter. Reporters are there to report News not Twist it. Fake News!

Hilarious too the way they try to use the very things they want to get rid off use the First Amendment when it suits them damn joke.

He asked Trump a Question Trump Answered next. From what I have seen this is not the first occurrence of this behavior.

Well I have already said enough on this nonsense.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 16, 2018)

Eddypikachu said:


> Per my first comment on this post, the White House Must follow a specific process to revoke/deny press passes set by the precedent of Sherrill V Knight (If you haven't noticed, this is the third time around I'm bringing up this case, maybe you should read the entirety of it this time ), where it states "We further conclude that notice, opportunity to rebut, and a written decision are required because the denial of a pass potentially infringes upon First Amendment guarantees," they continue to say "Such impairment of this interest cannot be permitted to occur in the absence of adequate procedural due process." The White House is supposed to follow this due process feature when revoking/denying a press pass, which they did not.




You are equating revoking an issued pass to denying a pass application. They are very distinguishable. Sherrill is narrowly limited: "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." Sherrill only applies to how one gets a pass, not to when the White House or Secret Service can declare a reporter's conduct violates the privilege. Maybe the judge deliberating this now will issue an opinion that orders standards for when an existing pass can be revoked, but there was no standard before this and Sherrill doesn't apply except for comparative reference.

Should Acosta be provided an opportunity to rebut (i.e. due process)? Sure. And since he's got a Federal judge weighing it, I'd say he got that opportunity. Also there was no lack of notice - it was almost immediate - and there _was_ a published statement on why he got booted, so I don't know where you got the idea those requirements weren't met.

BTW, this isn't the first time this has happened. Bill Clinton did it too. It just didn't get any play on ABCCBSNBCCNN because it wasn't one of their boys.

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dsp/specialReports_pc_carden_detail.htm?reportID={DBE6AC6A-5664-43F1-AE7C-F979CD0503C6}


----------



## Eddypikachu (Nov 16, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> You are equating revoking an issued pass to denying a pass application. They are very distinguishable. Sherrill is narrowly limited: "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." Sherrill only applies to how one gets a pass, not to when the White House or Secret Service can declare a reporter's conduct violates the privilege. Maybe the judge deliberating this now will issue an opinion that orders standards for when an existing pass can be revoked, but there was no standard before this and Sherrill doesn't apply except for comparative reference.
> 
> Should Acosta be provided an opportunity to rebut (i.e. due process)? Sure. And since he's got a Federal judge weighing it, I'd say he got that opportunity. Also there was no lack of notice - it was almost immediate - and there _was_ a published statement on why he got booted, so I don't know where you got the idea those requirements weren't met.
> 
> ...


Revoking a pass leads to the denial of said pass it is not that hard to understand.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 16, 2018)

Eddypikachu said:


> Revoking a pass leads to the denial of said pass it is not that hard to understand.



The lack of due process in Sherrill is because his application was denied, they didn't tell him it was denied, and when he found out they wouldn't tell him why it was denied. Nothing like that has happened here.

Sherrill isn't about denial of an existing pass -- it's about a denial to be issued a pass in the first place. Two different processes going on here.

Say, for example, we were talking about driver's licenses ... you go to the DMV, take the tests, and they say "we'll get back to you," without ever saying whether you passed or failed. Then after months of you trying to find out and them not returning your calls, you finally are informed you didn't pass but they won't tell you why, and if you re-apply they'll fail you before you even take the tests. And they won't tell you why they're being dicks about it either. That's Sherrill.

Now, instead of that, imagine you already have a driver's license but you've gotten 5 speeding tickets and a reckless driving in the last year, and on top of that you're out driving drunk on a Friday night. You plow into the rear end of the vehicle in front of you at a red light and get arrested for DUI. In criminal court, you're presumed innocent until proven guilty, and you have a right to a trial, etc. But your driving privileges aren't subject to criminal procedure - the DMV can and will revoke your license immediately when they get notice of your arrest. You don't get to continue being a public menace while its sorted out. That's Acosta.


Acosta has been told why his pass was pulled, there was a published statement regarding it, and he has a venue in which to speedily bring his rebuttal against the decision. I don't see a problem with it.


----------



## Eddypikachu (Nov 16, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> The lack of due process in Sherrill is because his application was denied, they didn't tell him it was denied, and when he found out they wouldn't tell him why it was denied. Nothing like that has happened here.
> 
> Sherrill isn't about denial of an existing pass -- it's about a denial to be issued a pass in the first place. Two different processes going on here.
> 
> ...


When talking about court cases it's the ruling that's derived from the dispute that allows it to be used it to be used as precedent for any other court case no matter the beginning circumstances of the court case your using it for. For example when using a precedent from a case such as Brown v the Board of Education which set the precedent that separate was not equal, any other court case that wants to use this precedent for their decision does not need their court case to be exactly as the one as where the precedent came from i.e. it doesn't have to be based off a father suing a board of education, what matters is what the precedent says and how it applies to the topic at hand in that court case.
In the same matter, just because the Sherril case started off because a reporter was denied a press pass, does not mean that the precedent cannot be used in a court case where a reporter gets their passed revoked because again, it's what precedent was set forward that matters and how that precedent applies to the topic in this court case. And that precedent does directly apply to this because the revocation of a press pass leads to the denial of said press pass and needs to follow the due process that was ruled in the Sherill case.


----------



## Viri (Nov 16, 2018)

I haven't really been paying attention to this, but I have a feeling I already know which guy they banned. And he pretty much deserved it, from what I seen in the past. CNN should just send someone else, the WH didn't ban the entire company.

Also, I'm kinda curious. What if the hearing goes in CNN's favor, and the WH still tells them to "fuck off"? What would happen?


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 16, 2018)

Eddypikachu said:


> When talking about court cases it's the ruling that's derived from the dispute that allows it to be used it to be used as precedent for any other court case no matter the beginning circumstances of the court case your using it for. For example when using a precedent from a case such as Brown v the Board of Education which set the precedent that separate was not equal, any other court case that wants to use this precedent for their decision does not need their court case to be exactly as the one as where the precedent came from i.e. it doesn't have to be based off a father suing a board of education, what matters is what the precedent says and how it applies to the topic at hand in that court case.
> In the same matter, just because the Sherril case started off because a reporter was denied a press pass, does not mean that the precedent cannot be used in a court case where a reporter gets their passed revoked because again, it's what precedent was set forward that matters and how that precedent applies to the topic in this court case. And that precedent does directly apply to this because the revocation of a press pass leads to the denial of said press pass and needs to follow the due process that was ruled in the Sherill case.




Ok sure if you say so, F. Lee Bailey. Carry on.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 16, 2018)

Well the judge granted CNN their temporary injunction pending later proceedings. I read the article at CNN about the hearing, and I don't know what they were thinking but I think the DOJ took the wrong position on this. If I read it correctly, they argued the White House could ban/revoke any reporter, at any time, for any reason. The lawyer representing DOJ also told the judge that as a matter of law it would be perfectly fine for the White House to ban a lawyer based on the actual content of his reporting. I think both of those positions are so wrong it's enough to wonder if their was intent to throw the fight. The govt's focus needed to be on Acosta's conduct and the security of the President. Even though as I explained above, the revocation of Acosta's pass was not arbitrary but based on a specific incident of conduct -- if the govt. is going to take this 'we can do anything we like' position, that is indeed arbitrary. So I think if the case were argued differently maybe there could have been a different outcome, but if that's the government's argument, then this IS the correct outcome.

@Eddypikachu, I yield the floor.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 17, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Well the judge granted CNN their temporary injunction pending later proceedings. I read the article at CNN about the hearing, and I don't know what they were thinking but I think the DOJ took the wrong position on this. If I read it correctly, they argued the White House could ban/revoke any reporter, at any time, for any reason.



I would say that was the right position if I was going to be setting the rules. I would say it is not a vital function of government* but a perk provided by them as at least at one time it was a useful thing to be able to have a known location to publicise things, if they have a stream/recording of events made available beforehand or in short order then so much the better, have the ability to ask questions via some form of live communication and even better still. If that was the case then you could deem it a private event of sorts with all the attendant rights that go with that. As a matter of law with the previous precedent you were discussing with the other poster then it seems the courts already said it is a public event of sorts** so it might have been a bad argument from that perspective (if you have to overturn a precedent from an appeals court to really even get started... yeah)... there is however something to be said for playing the long game and establishing an argument this far back into it all though.

*start banning reporters from council meetings and legislation making type setups and that gets you places that are not great to be for a "free" country.

**to say nothing of the twitter stuff the other month and the rationales given there.

Probably still awfully bad optics to ban/revoke for no reason or spurious ones, and you could still try to hold yourself to various ideals beyond that (right now we are having a massive discussion about free speech in private companies -- while it is only a law concerning the government it is still an ideal you can strive for outside it, same idea).


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 17, 2018)

I found an interesting perspective on this yesterday, from Univ of Wisconsin Law Professor Ann Althouse. She's about as close to politically objective in her thinking as you're likely to find anymore, and she seems to think this was Trump's intended outcome. 

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



> 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 must 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.


----------

