FEDERAL COURT ISSUES ORDER FOR CNN’S JIM ACOSTA TO BE GIVEN ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE BUT . . .

In a victory for the media, Judge Timothy J. Kelly has ruled that CNN’s Jim Acosta must be given back his access to the White House.  However, it is not an entire victory.  As we discussed earlier, the court recognized some basic procedural protections and required the White House to state clearly the grounds for revoking the clearance.  The court expressly said that he has not found a violation of the First Amendment and has not determined that Acosta cannot be eventually barred from the White House.  He wants further information from the White House if it intends to continue to bar Acosta.

It is careful not to oversell this opinion.  Kelly said that this is “limited” ruling and offers only temporary relief.  This was a predictable ruling on the due process elements in forcing a more detailed explanation and notice on the action.  The court clearly did not view a tweet as notice and further noted that it was not even clear who made this decision. In other words, the White House failed to establish a proper foundation — a recurring problem with this Administration.

Thus, the White House could revoke again but take the time to lay a foundation and offer an objective standard. Once again, I fail to see why this Administration just stumbles into these fights and undermines its own case by failing to lay a proper foundation.  In the end, the court indicated that it would bear a burden under the first amendment in excluding individual journalists.  It is difficult to predict how the court would rule on a proper record since the White House failed to create one – much as it did in the first rendition of the travel ban.

I have repeatedly warned that this could be an example of a bad case making bad law if it goes to the merits.  On the media side, a ruling against CNN could radically curtail the rights of journalists vis-vis the White House.  Conversely, a ruling against the White House could significantly curtail the power to control access and conduct in the White House. Given those dangers, this would be a good stage to simply resolve the case with a stern warning and resumption of access for Acosta.

216 thoughts on “FEDERAL COURT ISSUES ORDER FOR CNN’S JIM ACOSTA TO BE GIVEN ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE BUT . . .”

  1. If you will notice, CNN is the only entity doing high fives and celebrating. This stunt has actually hurt press freedom. Prior to this, the press corp had petty wide latitude in questioning White House officials. Now they will be subject to strict rules as well as loss of their entry privileges.
    There will be one question each, there will be no follow up, they must give up the mic when told to do so. This will empower this Administration and all future ones,to be “consistent” another word for inflexible in their application of the policy.April Ryan and the other antagonists of this Administration will have to cease and desist their tirades or the White House will have “no option but to take action to assure the fair and consistent application of the new policy”.
    The press will come to rue the day Acosta was every allowed inside the briefing room.
    I think CNN was too clever by half and have inadvertently done the Administration’s bidding.

  2. If CNN were smart, they’d find somebody brighter and less dickish to be their White House Correspondent and let Jim Acosta go be the weekend anchor in Wichita or Chattanooga.

    But they’re not very smart over there.

          1. The reason i picked those three with Burns the number one choice is I don’t want Acosta to get off light. Burns is where we should move the capitol with only the one road in the middle of the SE Oregon high desert area. Only a third of Oregon has timber approx. the western third and some in the NW corner. Klamath Falls where there is still an open warrant for the arrest of Jane Fonda is like Idaho all potatoes.

  3. What’s your excuse for the failure of the media?

    In the news: A letter from ….. redacted ha ha ha. My sister.

    1. Apparently a wedding for multiple couples was held at the border in Tijuana — all males. Which answers the question why that part of the group wanted to leave their country. Interesting that it wasn’t part of our media’s ongoing report until now.

    2. People along the way are reporting they haven’t seen anyone walking either.

    3. Mexicans are throwing stones at the immigrants and holding signs saying they don’t want them in Tijuana. The mayor of Tijuana said he doesn’t want them there. Mexican citizens are shouting at the Mexican police that they should be ashamed of themselves and what would their mothers think because they are protecting the illegals. (I can see their point. What will happen to the jobs that legal green card holding Mexicans who cross the border for day jobs, etc. have been filling if thousands of people from another country cross Mexico’s border into southern Cal.? Already low in housing, water and other amenities of life in Tijuana they have to now carry water and food to these people who have invaded their country illegally. One has to wonder why no one stopped them at Mexico’s southern border.)

    4. And last but not least — suddenly the Dems and other snowflakes have gone quiet in the media as Mexicans are calling the immigrants immoral, disease carrying criminals. (Why aren’t the Dems just as angry with Mexicans who are rioting and throwing rocks as they have been with Americans who have been speaking out against this “caravan”? These are Mexicans who have stayed in their country to work at making their country and their lives better now worrying about their taxes going to pay for the care of these invaders. Why is no one in the Mexican or American government just putting they on buses and sending them back. Or is that to simple a solution?)

    So it comes into my mind — what if our fore fathers just cried and fled instead of fighting (twice) for our country? Why is this group of people not revolting and fighting for rights in their own country? Because they have been told “go to American and get free housing, food and health care”. So If they really walked (and I can’t see children walking across the divide) that far why are they not strong enough to stay and fight.

    One more point — What is the difference between leaving your children in a country that is so awful that you are fleeing from the treatment there and being separated at the border from your children? Answer — You are still abandoning your children but in America the children get fed, clothed and sheltered in a safe environment.

    My Conclusion: With the announcement that the Honduran ambassador is setting up a mobile office to get passports and birth certificates for a group of people fleeing their country it seems that these are people the Honduran government didn’t want either. What an easy answer for them to get rid of their own criminals and deadbeats. Free transportation and food provided by Snowflakes who have as usual backed the wrong cause and been used.

  4. A White House press pass is a privilege granted to various news media, not a Right. As such it can be with drawn at the Will of the White House.
    The court’s are wrong in this matter. Anything the Executive branch issues that is not required can be revolked . This includes press passes, security clearance, and presidential orders. To say he cannot undermines the constitution and laws that gives him that authority.
    I think Every press pass should be revoked and reissued via a lottery. What say you??

    1. I’m for a mandatory percentage being from small town papers and radio stations around the country. and with the biggies who never get to ask because of hogs sloppers like Acosta. Acosta? Even CNN doesn’t care about Acosta. They care about CNN and their very very low ratings and boobie toob watchers.

    1. If CNN doesn’t care about Acosta why should I. he can take his well deserved lumps elsewhere and so can the CNN propaganda factory. I cannot bring myself to care a whit about rude, crude, ego centric BS artists. Scratch the last. He is no artist. That’ s the best CNN can afford? Bankruptcy time.

  5. Worth revisiting:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/22/trump-told-lesley-stahl-he-bashes-press-to-discredit-negative-stories.html

    Excerpt:

    The CBS reporter was speaking to the audience along with PBS NewsHour host Judy Woodruff.

    Stahl said she and her boss met with Trump at his office in Trump Tower in Manhattan after the 2016 election in advance of a recorded sit-down interview for “60 Minutes.

    “At one point, he started to attack the press,” Stahl said. “There were no cameras in there.”

    “I said, ‘You know, this is getting tired. Why are you doing it over and over? It’s boring and it’s time to end that. You know, you’ve won … why do you keep hammering at this?'” Stahl recalled.

    “And he said: ‘You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.'” -End of excerpt

    1. Some people like to make things up, some people like to distort the news and some people choose to lie. One can pick any of these when they read comments that later become urban legends.

      Anonymous writes: “And he said: ‘You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.’”

      Some people might actually assume Trump said those exact words, but he didn’t. That was a rather Flip comment by Leslie Stahl remembering a conversation before an interview. She could have had him repeat what he said on tape, but there is no record of that. This is entirely a Leslie Stahl creation that can neither be proved nor disproved. That is the sign of a corrupt journalist who inserts her biases into her reporting.

      1. “Some people might actually assume Trump said those exact words, but he didn’t.” -Allanucklehead

        And Allan was there, I guess.

        1. Anonymous, I didn’t have to be there. The article you quoted along with other articles would tell you that you made a fool of yourself twice. Those were Leslie Stahl’s words and she stated when and where she was when she spoke to Trump off camera and never claimed the words to be a quote. She repeated in her own words what she wanted you to believe Trump said.

          “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” __ Abraham Lincoln

          For the purposes of this blog it seems Anonymous can be fooled all of the time.

                  1. You and your blog-buds first, Allan.

                    It must be hard for you when there’s no one here who will engage with you in one of your pointless exchanges.

                    Gotta run. Much better things to do. You get the last word, per usual.

                    1. Anonymous this blog is all about engagement so that is never lacking for anyone on the blog. Ufortunately, too much of it is pointless or deceptive like your posting above where it appears you didn’t even recognize where the quotes came from nor could you recognize how innaccurate they could be. They fulfilled what you wanted to believe not the truth.

                      Let’s hear you post something of value.

                    2. “Let’s hear you post something of value” Allan…again…

                      https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/22/trump-told-lesley-stahl-he-bashes-press-to-discredit-negative-stories.html

                      Excerpt:

                      The CBS reporter was speaking to the audience along with PBS NewsHour host Judy Woodruff.

                      Stahl said she and her boss met with Trump at his office in Trump Tower in Manhattan after the 2016 election in advance of a recorded sit-down interview for “60 Minutes.

                      “At one point, he started to attack the press,” Stahl said. “There were no cameras in there.”

                      “I said, ‘You know, this is getting tired. Why are you doing it over and over? It’s boring and it’s time to end that. You know, you’ve won … why do you keep hammering at this?’” Stahl recalled.

                      “And he said: ‘You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.’” -End of excerpt

                    3. Anonymous, I note the something of value you bring to the table is a quote from someone else without content and it is a repetitive quote that wasn’t necessary. I guess since there is no safe space to you on the net you hide yourself between ” and “. I guess one could do the same and start at page one of the Bible and consecutively quote pages until the book is finished. Then one could repeat it.

                      I’ll use a safe space as well in reply and repeat what I said earlier “…deceptive, like your posting above where it appears you didn’t even recognize where the quotes came from nor could you recognize how innaccurate they could be. They fulfilled what you wanted to believe not the truth.”

            1. “It was P.T. Barnum. what kind fof social promotion school did you not attend?”

              Most apparently not the type of school you seemed to have attended.

              There are questions as to whether or not PT Barnum said those words or similar ones but those words were first spoken by Abraham Lincoln.

              “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

                1. No Michael, if you want to deal in who wins and who loses you lose.The penalty is to down a bottle of beer in one gulp. 🙂

                  I provided a quote from a speech by Abraham Lincoln. I didn’t say he was the first or only one to say those words. Many quotes have been copied. However, you insisted it was P.T. Barnum rather than Lincoln who preceds Barnum. I don’t question whether or not Barnum made that statement. I quoted Lincoln.

                  1. You shoud have read the whole thing. With the URL reference. It’s french in origin Try the Korean recipe to help clear your mind.

                    1. Michael, if you were less interested in fighting and more interested in understanding you would recognize that I

                      1) didn’t say that Abraham Lincoln was the first to say those words.
                      2) I quoted Abraham Lincoln’s words
                      3) Lincoln precedes PT Barnum (and if PT Barnum ever said those words most likely they came from Lincoln).

                      I read the French quotes and they were in French but were translated into English. That has nothing to do with quoting those words and attributing them to a Lincoln speech.

                      Since you are so intent on winning or losing (despite claiming I was wrong and PT Barnum said those words), suck down hard and repeat the words ‘Michael Aarethun screwed up’ five times.

                    2. “I don’t cave to the left.”

                      OK MIchael, but I don’t know what that has to do with the discussion or me.

                    3. Of course you don’t too busy following the rules of The Party and The Collective as set down in See The Elephant.

                      But back to real business. I was wondering if the professor could do piece on the since 1909 and so far unsupported by any legislation abilities of single judges making edict rulings on their own instead of sending their findings from circuit to appellate or supreme court where it takes a number of judges to issue a formal ruling affecting the entire nation.

                      Surely this must have come up multiple times in ConLaw.

                      And don’t forget their rulings which contradict the rulings OF the Supreme Court. I fail completely to see where one individual can play the dictator at any time or in any circumstance or on any subject.

                      If it was that important the supporting body if, sufficient, would have got off their couch potato butts and filed for an amendment or even a member of congress put forth the same issue in the form of a bil under consideration.

                      Example is getting rid of the Electoral College system. Over 700 attempt in the congress, none from the nation at large, and zero success. So are we going to let a single back robed dictator make that decision. Where’s the two lightning strikes on their collar?

                      This lates insult to our country should have been put in the form of a recommendation to the the entire circuit or appellate system and then sent up to SCOTUS. The American Way. Not this travesty and parody of justice currenty practiced.

                    4. “Of course you don’t too busy following the rules of The Party and The Collective as set down”

                      Michael, are you crazy? Where do you get that idea?

                    5. “From you.”

                      Michael, obviously that is where it would come if it existed, but what in particular leads you to that conclusion? I am certainly not a collectivist and fit closer into the political sphere of a classical liberal.

                    6. A classic liberal is a progessive socialist. You just hung yourself. It’s an offspring of international socialism aka marxist lenism aka communism. The first major offspring of that fallacious application of Plato’s perfect society stripped of his final rejection

                      Give ’em enough rope they hang themselves.

                      In any case it has no place in a representative Constitutional Republic even considering the add on of the party system. To be one of that which you confessed to it requires a rejection of our form of government and the citizenship for same.

                      Ergo sum you are less legal and more undocumented than any other anti-American group including the non existent democracy you hide behind.

                      No turkey for you.

                    7. “A classic liberal is a progessive socialist.”

                      The term is classical liberal not classic. Do you not know the difference?

                      Learn what you are talking about. From Wikipedia, but if you wish I think you can find a better source. Milton Friedman frequently referred to himself as a classical liberal.

                      “Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to economic liberalism, it developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States.[1][2][3] Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Robert Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the classical economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations and on a belief in natural law,[5] utilitarianism,[6] and progress.[7] The term “classical liberalism” was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[8]”

                      LIfe, liberty and the pursuit of happiness comes from Locke.

                      “The economic ideas of the Jacksonian era were almost universally the ideas of classical liberalism.[40] Freedom was maximised when the government took a “hands off” attitude toward the economy.[41]”

                      I’ll give you time to read what you are talking about and then you can make your apologies.

                    8. I can’t help your ignorance. What do you think a classical liberal is? What have I said that doesn’t conform to the classical liberal and makes me a socialist? So far you have said absolutely nothing except to reveal ignorance when you said “classic liberal” instead of classical liberal.

                    9. Hiding behind any one of the dozen plus names doesn’t make a toad into a turnip it only makes you one who is indeed a follower fo the Elephant book and you are not very good at it.

                      Not to worry the next 9.99 edition will no doubt have a new set of reframing methods but more important serve to make the author of that manual a thrice time millionaire.

                      Hmmmm. I guess you thought 109 years was far enough back in history it was safe to start through the list again.

                      Thank you for a great Thanksgiving. Enjoy the beets and cabbage
                      .

                    10. Michael I already wrote a response to your earlier statement. That should suffice to make you question what you know and what you don’t know.

                      You say: “Hiding behind any one of the dozen plus names doesn’t make a toad into a turnip”

                      If you know your history and understand what the words actually mean then it becomes very clear where my ideology leans. Ignorance on your part is not an excuse for beomming insulting before you know what relatively commonplace terms mean.

                    11. I should have added that a classical liberal is no way like a Liberal / Progressive of today. A classical liberal can in some minds be considered akin to a libertarian.

  6. Paula S. You are exactly right. And John Kennedy asked Walter Cronkite for interview questions in advance back in 1960.

    1. IND. BOB,..
      Cronkite also complained about JFK requesting “do-overs” if he wasn’t satisfied with an answer or statement he’d already made in an interview.
      There’s a video of outtakes from a JFK interview conducted by Huntley and Brinkley shortly before JFK was assassinated.
      In it, Kennedy says that he wasn’t satisfied about the way he answered a question, and would they ask the question again to replace the earlier answer.
      Huntley and Brinkley agreed, and the “second answer” was the one that was replayed for broadcast.

Leave a Reply