Oh, and also will never get called on to ask a question again.The only thing Acosta has won is making himself, once again, the lead story.
He is no journalist.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh, and also will never get called on to ask a question again.The only thing Acosta has won is making himself, once again, the lead story.
He is no journalist.
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.
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.
.
.
.
.
.
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.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.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 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.
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?
^thinks Mexico will pay for a wall and that Ted Cruz's dad killed JFKI 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.^ Claimed to hate lies under Obama, now loves liesoh - so obama never lied? NOR hillary? Hell they LOVED hillary and she was a lying machine.Maybe when republicans and Trump stop lying they'll get treated differently ..Gotta watch those perjury traps lolSome 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.
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.
so no link. you, as usual, are just talk.we have a president not a king
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.^thinks Mexico will pay for a wall and that Ted Cruz's dad killed JFKI 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.^ Claimed to hate lies under Obama, now loves liesoh - so obama never lied? NOR hillary? Hell they LOVED hillary and she was a lying machine.Maybe when republicans and Trump stop lying they'll get treated differently ..Gotta watch those perjury traps lolum...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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's total bullshit.There is no perjury trap when one tells the truth That's the fly in Trumps and Giulianies soup