The Acosta ruling

[asaratis]

The only thing Acosta has won is making himself, once again, the lead story.
He is no journalist.

Oh, and also will never get called on to ask a question again.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

Treating others with respect is wrong. Civility is really evidence of white supremacy.

NYU Prof: Calls for 'Civility' Protect 'White Supremacy' | National Review

 

[OKTexas]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

This is all absolute bullshit. All due process provisions in the Constitution deal with protections in criminal proceedings or the takings clause. I don't think the founders ever foresaw it being applied to press passes for the White House. CNN has 50 people with hard passes to the White House, Acosta is not the only game in town.

This is the kind of political crap the courts should refuse to hear.

.

Not to worry! Little Jimmy has his seat back now.
.




.





.





.




.

He's have one in the far corner of the south lawn if it were up to me. He could watch the pressers on his phone.

.

 

[task0778]

Task: 4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process ... Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.
Billy: Explain your rationale. How does this event offend either amendment?


CNN cited Sherrill v. Knight – a 1977 U.S. Court of Appeals case that found White House reporter Robert Sherrill (from The Nation) – who had his credential request denied – deserved an opportunity to respond and that content-based criteria for press pass issuance would be prohibited.

Kelly’s ruling was quite narrow in scope. Specifically, as set forth in a recent article in Hot Air, Kelly was bound by the Sherill case, where the majority stated:

We are presented with a situation where the White House has voluntarily decided to establish press facilities for correspondents who need to report therefrom. These press facilities are perceived as being open to all bona fide Washington-based journalists, whereas most of the White House itself, and press facilities in particular, have not been made available to the general public. White House press facilities having been made publicly available as a source of information for newsmen, the protection afforded newsgathering under the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press … requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons….

Kelly said the White House’s decision-making was “so shrouded in mystery that the government could not tell me . . . who made the decision.” The White House’s later written arguments for banning Acosta were belated and weren’t sufficient to satisfy due process.

Most Americans hold the Bill of Rights to be almost inviolate, which includes the freedom of the press (1st Amendment) and the right to Due Process (5th Amendment), before the freedom of the press is infringed upon. There's no question that Acosta is a total asshole, but based on the current precedents his rights under the 1st Amendment should not be revoked without affording him proper and impartial Due Process. Which clearly did not happen.

My feeling is that the President should not be revoking somebody's WH press pass just because he doesn't like him or because he disagrees with what Acosta says or writes. And the problem is that since Acosta was denied Due Process, nobody can say for sure what the explicit reasons are for what the WH did. THAT is the issue here IMHO. To me, it's not unlike what the Dems did to Kavanaugh, they pronounced him guilty without any evidence to backup their decision. I think the same expectation should be applied to the WH; they don't have any rules or criteria to base a decision to remove somebody's WH press pass, and to me that is unacceptable. So lay out the rules of the road, this is okay and this isn't, and this what will happen to transgressors. And BTW they might want to stop televising those briefings until and unless things get more civil and less contentious in there.


DragonLady: There is already a very detailed and clear due process in place, and rules regarding the press conferences. It involves a warning, a notice of inapproriate behaviour, and a hearing. None of these were followed by the Trump Administration.


I am not aware of any such rules, and have seen no mention anywhere of that. You're telling me that the WH lawyers went before a federal judge without that? I've seen and read reports from past press secretaries, none of whom mentioned that.

I request you provide me with a link to such rules and due process please.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I don’t have a hard White House press pass. Are my first ammendment rights to speech being violated if I ask for one and am not granted?

Also, CNN can put Acosta on the air 24/7.

How is his free speech being violated?

 

[boedicca]

All Trump needs to do is to set upgraded standards of behavior for press conferences...i.e. one question per reporter. The process will be Acosta's punishment. And it will be very popcorn worthy!

 

[task0778]

I don’t have a hard White House press pass. Are my first ammendment rights to speech being violated if I ask for one and am not granted?

Also, CNN can put Acosta on the air 24/7.

How is his free speech being violated?

Freedom of the Press, not speech.

 

[cutter]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

I wouldn’t blane President Trump if he cancels all future press conferences and hands out printed statementsfor the next 6yrs. Let’s see a half assed judge try to order him to have live pressers. If he wants live pressers he should order his administration to just ignore these illegan rulings. Judges have no legal standing to prevent our President preforming his legal actions. I’d say fuck the judge but it’s the 9th circuit with their perverted sense of justice.

 

[Thinker101]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

I wouldn’t blane President Trump if he cancels all future press conferences and hands out printed statementsfor the next 6yrs. Let’s see a half assed judge try to order him to have live pressers. If he wants live pressers he should order his administration to just ignore these illegan rulings. Judges have no legal standing to prevent our President preforming his legal actions. I’d say fuck the judge but it’s the 9th circuit with their perverted sense of justice.

Printed statements? They can just read the tweets.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I don’t have a hard White House press pass. Are my first ammendment rights to speech being violated if I ask for one and am not granted?

Also, CNN can put Acosta on the air 24/7.

How is his free speech being violated?

Freedom of the Press, not speech.

Point conceded. Still 1st ammendment.

CNN had 4 other reporters in that room from what I understand.

Acosta was making a speech, not asking a question.


Where is the line drawn and who draws it? What if he wanted to go on a 30 minute diatribe and someone took the mic away? Was the freedom of the press violated?

 

[task0778]

I don’t have a hard White House press pass. Are my first ammendment rights to speech being violated if I ask for one and am not granted?

Also, CNN can put Acosta on the air 24/7.

How is his free speech being violated?

Freedom of the Press, not speech.

Point conceded. Still 1st ammendment.

CNN had 4 other reporters in that room from what I understand.

Acosta was making a speech, not asking a question.


Where is the line drawn and who draws it? What if he wanted to go on a 30 minute diatribe and someone took the mic away? Was the freedom of the press violated?

First, the President would draw the line, or approve the proposals from whoever drafts the lines and rules. One hopes it's clear enough to withstand judicial scrutiny.

Next, I would presume that the President or his representative could curtail the briefing at any point if somebody gets that far out of line. And I would also presume that even if Acosta is in the press room that doesn't mean he gets the mike to ask a question or go off on some tangential diatribe as you suggest. If he grabs the mike from another reporter, that could be grounds for revoking his press pass, or if he just starts shouting questions from wherever he is.

I do believe the President has the right and the authority to run his WH in any manner he sees fit. But he's gotta do it in an impartial way, according to whatever rules and procedures he approves. I think that's basically why the federal judge ruled against him, Trump could not show any guidelines for what constitutes unacceptable behavior or how a person gets to appeal an action taken against him or her.

 

[edward37]

we have a president not a king

 

[BlackFlag]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

um...acosta is certainly treating trump differently, as is CNN on the whole, because of HIS politics.

one way street the left keeps building keep fucking up traffic for all of us.

Maybe when republicans and Trump stop lying they'll get treated differently ..Gotta watch those perjury traps lol

oh - so obama never lied? NOR hillary? Hell they LOVED hillary and she was a lying machine.

you and your fucking one way streets dude. if you hate lying, then hate it when your side does it or shut the fuck up with the 3rd grade w/o a binky whining.

^ Claimed to hate lies under Obama, now loves lies

I was amused when Obama lied, and you ate it up. I was really amused, wben it was leaked that Obama relied on your ignorance to get obamacare approved and liberals actually defended it.

^thinks Mexico will pay for a wall and that Ted Cruz's dad killed JFK

 

[iceberg]

we have a president not a king

so no link. you, as usual, are just talk.

 

[jknowgood]

um...acosta is certainly treating trump differently, as is CNN on the whole, because of HIS politics.

one way street the left keeps building keep fucking up traffic for all of us.

Maybe when republicans and Trump stop lying they'll get treated differently ..Gotta watch those perjury traps lol

oh - so obama never lied? NOR hillary? Hell they LOVED hillary and she was a lying machine.

you and your fucking one way streets dude. if you hate lying, then hate it when your side does it or shut the fuck up with the 3rd grade w/o a binky whining.

^ Claimed to hate lies under Obama, now loves lies

I was amused when Obama lied, and you ate it up. I was really amused, wben it was leaked that Obama relied on your ignorance to get obamacare approved and liberals actually defended it.

^thinks Mexico will pay for a wall and that Ted Cruz's dad killed JFK

As long as the wall gets built, i don't care who pays for it. I don't know who killed JFK, it was before my time, but keep defending someone who thinks you're an idiot.

 

[Polishprince]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

The President is just as happy to have Acosta on the premises, IMHO. Mr. Acosta is a witless, clueless imbecile, our President has been diagnosed as a "very stable genius". Trump ripped Acosta a new one during previous confrontations, it makes our President look great. And now, CNN really can't replace him as part of their WH contingent. They spent millions for this ruling, and the ruling means that Acosta can't be denied even if CNN wants to remove him from the WH position.

 

[task0778]

Some things to consider:

1. Note that Judge Kelly was appointed by Trump. So much for the charge that his appointees would be little more than rubber stamps for the Trump administration. It is somewhat reassuring to me that at least some federal judges can be impartial.

2. Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied. There is a difference (according to him) between denying a pass to someone who never had one and taking away a pass from someone who did have one. There's that "Due Process" thing, you gotta be consistent in it's application.

3. Fox News supported CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credentials, and they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court on their behalf. And they released a statement that reads in part: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."
There are those who do not miss any opportunity to bash Fox News, but in this instance at least I think they are due some credit.

4. This is a temporary ruling, but I think it can and should be upheld if and when it moves through the appeals process. I also think this is a losing proposition for Trump and the WH, so I hope they drop the case. Being anti-1st and 5th Amendment isn't politically acceptable.

5. Now the President is faced with what I believe to be a reasonable court ruling by Judge Kelly. The bottom line derived from Judge Kelly’s order is that the White House needs to put into place formal rules governing proper behavior at press conferences so that the public can be assured that “journalists” and “reporters” attending these events are on notice regarding their required behavior. The public should be assured that the President is not comporting himself capriciously when he acts against Acosta or anyone else, that the decision to pull someone's press credentials is based not on whim but on a fair basis, pursuant to reasonable rules.

For most of us, we do not need such rules. You treat your parents with respect, people older than you with respect, hosts who invite you into their homes or offices with respect, your boss or other supervisor with respect, judges with respect. And, for goodness sakes, you treat the President of the United States with respect, at least the office if not the individual. When you walk into someone else’s domain, you recognize that you are a guest, and you conduct yourself with a modicum of decency. When your host, having given you a chance to speak, says “that’s enough,” you sit down. When lots of other people in the room also want to speak, you have to let them get their fair turn. When the host asks his assistant, whether male or female, to take back a microphone, you comply and do not fight to hold it.
But - you can't be treating anyone differently just because they don't like you or your politics if you are the POTUS. Define the rules and the due process that follows for those who transgress, and impose them in a fair and impartial manner. And one more thing - maybe they should not allow cameras in the press briefing anymore.

The President is just as happy to have Acosta on the premises, IMHO. Mr. Acosta is a witless, clueless imbecile, our President has been diagnosed as a "very stable genius". Trump ripped Acosta a new one during previous confrontations, it makes our President look great. And now, CNN really can't replace him as part of their WH contingent. They spent millions for this ruling, and the ruling means that Acosta can't be denied even if CNN wants to remove him from the WH position.

CNN is a business, and if they think that Acosta is costing them more than he's worth to them then they'll cut him loose from the WH position and into something else. I guess the free publicity they get from Trump must be worth something, but I don't know if it's worth the possible damage being done to their brand. Ain't saying it is or isn't, but it's one thing to be critical of the President when he deserves it and another thing to be constantly looking for something to bitch about. Plus, Acosta comes across to some as a prime example of TDS and a poor excuse for a journalist because rather than reporting the news he's trying to be the news. And that ain't his job, or shouldn't be.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

All Trump needs to do is to set upgraded standards of behavior for press conferences...i.e. one question per reporter. The process will be Acosta's punishment. And it will be very popcorn worthy!

That is already the process. One question per reporter with a follow up question by permission. That's why there is only one microphone that gets passed around.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no perjury trap when one tells the truth That's the fly in Trumps and Giulianies soup

That's total bullshit.

 

[Polishprince]

This is an interesting case, as it should really cause Americans to rethink the Jeff Gannon Decision, where Mr. Gannon was denied WH Press Credentials back in 2004 because of his sexual preferences.

Gannon was a top flight reporter, who was denied the Press Pass which is now a constitutional right.

He should reapply or sue to get it back.