And so Trump's control of the media starts...

[Never mind that you will be on your knees while you are sucking on my goddamn balls]

And such a law would be unconstitutional. The only thing the constitution says the executive branch has to do is: "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union"

There is no requirement to talk to the media. Ever.

What will CNN do if the White House says it will now issue passes to any journalist in America and because there would be thousands who would ask for one the White House will now have to have a lottery system in place. If your number is picked you can be at the press briefing. If it's not picked you're not allowed to the briefing.

Or the White House decides that since so many people now have passes that they will move the press out of the White House and to a new location to fit the hundreds of press people in attendance. Is CNN going to sue and say that they have to be in the White House?

I kinda hope the judge stupidly grants Acosta a temporary injunction and I hope the Secret Service stops him right at the gate.

What is the judge actually going to do? Arrest the President for contempt? Whose going to enforce it?

The Whitehouse Press Corps didn’t always exist and I don’t necessarily think it needs to, but that’s not to say the press shouldn’t be granted to access the President and/or ask him/her questions or confront him/her.

I'm thinking you don't get the point.......

The government should talk to the press. There is just no rule it has to talk to a specific person in the press. Acosta and CNN are trying to force the judicial branch to tell the executive branch that it has to talk to Acosta.

Even what they are asking is limited. If you let every person who does something close to journalism access to the president it would be a clusterfuck. CNN and Acosta are not fighting for the press because they are only fighting for themselves. Given the massive nature of the press in the US you have to limit who has access. There is also some need to limit who is there to a certain amount of questions and time. Every president would get nothing done if they just answered press questions.

I completely agree that nothing here is limiting CNN and the press from doing investigative reporting and saying what they want. All the president is going to give is a statement anyway. The press should be more concerned with investigating those statements as to whether or not they are true. It is great CNN asked a question, but when they really do not do much to expose the lies of government and show what is being done they are missing half their job. They should be filing freedom of information acts and sitting through laws and data to bring us the meaningful bits. Acosta is not a journalist, or even a person who does interviews. He asks standard questions and gives us the canned answer of the president. Nothing is stopping him from doing real journalism aside from his access to the president. Now he might have to do real journalism.

Nothing is stopping him from investigating and finding us the truth about the president by being not allowed to ask a question the president is allowed to lie his ass off to.

Actually I do get it, but the leftists on the board act as if the first amendment has no limits, but the second amendment is archaic and should be abandoned due to current circumstances. Neither are true. Both amendments are allowed to have restrictions and there is precedent for both. They want to drive the narrative that because Acosta’s pass was revoked, that’s the end of the US. That’s not remotely true. It only means he has to go through security procedures that he normally wouldn’t have to. It’s hyperbole at it’s best. Also, SCOTUS would never hold that up.

No I don’t, and other liberals on this board have pointed out that free speech isn’t unrestrained. My example of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, for one.

The real info does not come from the limited questions they ask about the talking points they are given. Real investigators would be finding what is really going on and proving it with documents. Politicians do need the media to get their message out and the media should clam diwn on trump and deny him access until he opens up, but that will never happen. Acosta can go say whatever he can about the president tomorrow and if CNN does not give trump access to defend himself then he is fucked, but CNN would never play hardball like that.

You can yell fire in a theater. There is no law against it.

What you can't do is cause a panic. There are laws against that and they have nothing to do with the First Amendment.

I get that, but it's missing my point. I wasn't actually criticising Trump, I was responding to @The Flashlight's rather smug observation that Trump could ban CNN in their entirety. I was curious if he'd be quite so happy with the theory if the ideological positions were reversed.

Sorry, you hope the President starts acting as though the law doesn't apply to him?

You can't force the President to meet with a particular person.

You can't force the President to let people into the White House.

Separation of powers. The judicial branch has no right to order the head of the executive branch to act. Trump is under no obligation to allow Acosta on White House grounds or to even speak to him.

Not sure why this is so hard for you.

Sorry, I miss dim bulb's points because I have him on ignore.

It isn't, but what you are saying doesn't answer my question. It's the court's place to decide what is or isn't legally required of anyone on home soil. If someone disagrees with the finding of that court they can appeal to a higher one and the decision may well be overturned, however they can't just disregard it without themselves breaking the law, regardless of who they are. The POTUS has certain immunities from prosecution and his power comes from a different branch of government, but it doesn't alter one bit the fact that he would still be breaking the law in that instance.

That's what you were describing with your scenario, the POTUS defying a legal court decision rather than following due process. That's the very definition of dictator, a national leader who is outside of the law and you have said you hope it happens.

Judge orders Acosta's pass re-instated while the lawsuit is in progress

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46240975

Poor Donnie, continued to be bullied by CNN.

Good. Now Trump needs to bar Acosta from entering White House grounds.

fine - but Trump doesn't have to choose him to ask any questions. He can keep him totally on "ignore" so to speak.

They should have no press briefings. There is no right to these things.

This judge is wrong. Ridiculously wrong.

If Acosta has a right to be there than all 320 million Americans have a right to be there as the First Amendment doesn't apply to journalists but to all Americans.

we should all bum-rush the briefing room!

Worryingly, I actually agree with you on this, at least up to a point.

I would say CNN as an authorised news outlet should be ushered in, however the White House get to veto specific people (within reason).

I would expect there must be all sorts of checks, authorisations, perhaps even training sessions for each of these guys just to be allowed in those sections of the White House. Perhaps it's not just a matter of saying, send another guy instead.....

I'd love to see a party which refused to do press briefings try to win another term.

It's the vagueness of the above, and indeed the whole "accountability to the public" thing that worries me. If Trump can exclude specific journos, he can whittle the press corps down to a bunch of fucktards or yesmen who will only ask dumb or softball questions.

Hell, if you take it to Zombie's extreme, his only accountability is to "from time to time update Congress on the state of the nation". Once at the beginning of his term of office, once towards the end covers that. You've gotta nail this shit down, or a fucker like Trump WILL seize any loophole he's given. You may say the ultimate accountability is at the ballot box, but that isn't, nor should it ever be, the only means. Or we get virtual dictators for four years, if the Executive won't or can't stop them.

oops


The White House must return CNN reporter Jim Acosta's permanent press pass to him after a federal judge granted the journalist's request for a preliminary injunction.

Judge Timothy J Kelly — an appointee of President Donald Trump — granted the motion on Friday after hearing nearly two hours of oral arguments in the case earlier in the week, which was brought against the White House by Mr Acosta and his employer.

Standing outside of the DC courthouse, CNN lawyer Ted Boutrous described the temporary injunction as a victory for American press and speech freedoms.


"We're extremely pleased with the ruling today. This is a great day for the First Amendment and for journalism", Mr Boutrous said.

Mr Acosta, appearing pleased, was grateful for the support he received following the revocation of his credentials. After the hard pass was revoked, news organisations unified in condemning the Trump administrations decision, including organisations like The New York Timesand Fox News, which has rarely been critical of Mr Trump's presidency.

"I want to thank all of my colleagues in the press who supported me this week," Mr Acosta said outside of the courthouse, before thanking the judge for the ruling. "Let's get back to work".

poor Donnie... can't even get a stacked deck to work.

Yup, the government being accountable to the public is very much the basis of democracy. It underlies the very point of the whole exercise and supersedes any other political principle being discussed here, including the specifics of the constitution if there's a conflict, because everything in there follows from that underlying principle.

Happily the qualified judge entrusted with these matters understands that better than @Zombie

They don’t have to send another guy.

CNN has over a dozen people with hard passes already who are at these press briefings with Acosta. He’s just the most well known one because of his behavior.

Trump did not throw CNN out of the White House. He only tossed Acosta.

And the legal expert let him back in.

Jolly good, we've got all that clear.

Now we need to look up the words "precedent", "slippery" and "slope", they're all quite near each other in the dictionary so it shouldn't take too long.

No. A judge granted a temporary injunction. The case is still going on.

Yes, bodes well for your legal reading doesn't it?

Let's assume that this happens.

Does that stop all other journalists from reporting? No it does not.

Will that cause people to pay more attention to press briefings? No. People don't pay attention already except for the likes of us who are interested in these things. Would the media throw up it's hands and say, "well we've got to cover it"? No they wouldn't. They'd ignore it and with good reason.

If anything you should encourage this because it would be bad politically for Trump. This action would be legal but it would be stupid and result in political losses in the future.

Could any POTUS do that? Yes. Yes, it is extreme but it could be done.

Realistically of course no POTUS would do that because you want to engage the citizens in order to gather support for your ideas.

You guys on the left like to babble about slippery slope arguments being used by the right but you're the one whose pushing a slippery slope argument in this case.