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.


  1. “The White House”: It is a “house”. I have a house. Trump has that house. I can bar Acosta from coming one step onto my sidewalk or driveway and bar him from coming up to or “in” my house. If I invite twenty people in to my house I can still bar anyone I chose to stay the frig out. Trump does not have to have press conferences in his house but if he does he can keep any dork out that he wishes. That is all from here. Jeso. Pretty lame for a dumb judge to think otherwise. Or a smart judge. I am sending Acosta over to the judge’s house on Sunday morning. Knock, knock. Whose there? Jim. Jim who? The Jim that you let in.

  2. “I fail to see why this Admistrstion just stumbles into these fights and undermines its own case by failing to lay a proper foundation.”

    Your eyes must be closed, Turley. This is Donald Trump, narcissistic bully in chief, running the show. When it comes to “laying”, he has historically thought with the wrong head. He can lay eggs, too. I’ll give him that. But not foundations, not even his own foundation.

  3. Off topic:

    ‘Sad surprise’: Amazon fish contaminated by plastic particles
    Ian Sample
    2018 Nov 16
    The Guardian

    Soon plastic in a food dear to you.

  4. Well, the press had a big win today but lost the war. New WH rules for press conferences will guarantee Abilio never gets the spotlight again. Can you say Pyrrhic?

          1. The original orginators have been admitting to that for over fifteen years stating it was designed to get more research funding and they knowingly skewed the figures. No it’s yiou caught in a lie or guilty of not doing your due diligence.

          2. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-four citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after twenty-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on.


            Here you go. Don’t say I never gived you nuthin’

          3. Wow but you are all confused. That is not the weather report data which is messed up. The weather data data remains correct in the archive.

      1. 14 billion years ago, the earth was not even here.

        Oh, and it didn’t have any atmosphere or climate or weather.

        I hear it was pretty cold.

        The whole thing is constantly changing.

        What’s new?

        Certainly not change of any type.

    1. Anonymous – it is 73 degrees F here at 5:13 pm, We should start seeing the arrival of the early snowbirds. 🙂

      1. Wait. I just saw those guys about 6 weeks ago at the Central Coast Air Fest. They’re the “fast movers” from Moose Jaw.

    2. California was just devastated by wildfires partly related to Climate Change. But we’re supposed to believe that Global Warming is fake because Anonymous lives somewhere that ‘cold’ tonight..????

      1. Peter Hill – at least two of the fires were started by PG&E. Not sure where Climate Change comes in. You have not been trimming your trees or underbrush. The state actually cut out money do this.

        1. Paul, no one outside the right-wing media bubble is denying Climate Change. In fact, just about ‘all’ western countries have moved from this debate. Only in the United States is a major political party denying Climate Change. And ‘yes’, the Koch Brothers factor big in this denial.

          As leading donors of Republican politicians, the Koch Brothers have prohibited acknowledgement of Climate Change. Their reasons are simple. To acknowledge Climate Change would mean making plans and taking action. Which would put the federal government in an activist role; exactly what the Koch Brothers don’t want!

          1. PH:
            The problem isn’t the humans denying it; it’s the Earth denying it via the provable global warming hiatus from 1998 to 2003. If the Earth is warming from mankind’s relentless industrialized intervention why the hiatus? Riddle me that Batman and we’ll have a discussion. BTW there is contrary science to human imposed global warming so no it’s not just some flat earth types..

          2. Why did the predictions of the climate models fail? Mespo asked the important question which of course Peter can’t answer. The climate models made predictions and those predictions over the years have been found to be wrong. We can ignore the failure of climate modelers or we can do what scientists generally do and admit major mistakes and open up the science to those scientist that are skeptics and have been kept out of the discussion and kept from obtaining research grants. Below are just a few places Peter can start to look, but Peter’s interest is superficial and limited only to answers that confirm his.

            See Nature Feb 24 2016
            See Michaels and Knappenberger
            See statements by Christy in front of the House science committee.

        2. “One of the many media groups supporting ISIS operations online claimed that the deadly wildfires in northern and southern California are retribution for coalition bombings in Syria.”

          “The image circulated online by Al-Ansar Media uses a photo of a burning building and misspells the state “kalifornia.”

          “O america, This is the punishment of bombing Muslims in Syria,” states the text. “This is Allah’s punishment for you. And in shaa Allah, you will see more fires. Praise be to Allah.”

          – PJ Media

  5. Maybe Trump will decide to make a public statement once a week and screw the press. Or he could do what Obama did. Take one question and use 20 minutes to answer it.

    1. Independent Bob – Obama required all questions to be submitted and approved in advance.

      1. Paul, let’s see a mainstream media story confirming that assertion.

        You’re saying Obama always knew who’d be asking what? That sounds odd. Because so many questions at press conferences are follow-ups to other questions.

          1. Paul, The Washington Times story concerns a Rose Garden press conference with the Italian Prime Minister. It sounds like they wanted to give Italian journalists equal chance to ask questions. That’s not really a conventional press conference. It’s more like a Photo-Op with a few questions at the end.

            With regards to this woman in Phoenix, I don’t know when that was or what the details are. There’s nothing I can look at to make any kind of judgement.

              1. Tony – when you have the balls to use your own name and actually attack the argument rather than the messenger, then I will take what you have to say seriously. Until then, STFU.

  6. Once again I’m shocked at the Judaical overreach. Does ANY Federal judge EVER say ‘Its none of my business”?

    Why should the WH have to jump through hoops to please one out of 900 Federal Judges on an internal WH matter?

    Not only that. CNN is not barred from the WH Press Corps. Acosta is NOt barred from the WH. He only had his HARD PASS revoked. He can still apply for a daily pass.

    So what’s next? A Federal judge ordering Trump to answer certain questions or give interviews to certain journalist?

    With our flexible Constitution anything is possible

    1. Being allowed in is not the same as being allowed to wader freely or even be recognized to ask a question. We nee dmore from the unknowns anyway.;

      So if the judge says he must be recognized… do it last with 30 seconds left.

    2. Judicial. Judaical is a religious term most often used by anti-constitutional bigots. Speaking of which Kamela stepped on it again in the area of being a race traitor. Her name in arabic means the perfect one. Sounds Good? It was the name Ibrahim the Old Man of the Mountains leaders of the Alamut Assassin gave to his his slave mistress. Now those roots I can believe given Feinstein, Schumer and Pelosi. Looks like Harris is following the Slave Party’s history.

  7. Did Acosta lose a right so that he is entitled to due process or was a privilege revoked?

    If the former the judge was correct. If the latter the judge is wrong.

    Can anyone provide a legal answer to my question?

    1. The case law has been provided by more than one poster. Look it up.

      this is to “I gits lazy when I get into the wine on Fridays” allen / allan

      1. Mark M. you are an idiot. It’s not case law that I asked about in my question. Our local quack lawyer can’t seem to see the difference. Maybe he should take up stenography since he is not up to date.

          1. So? It doesn’t answer the question they are just evading and obstructing the porn should soon follow.

          2. Peter, I don’t care who the judge was, who appointed the judge, what politicians believe, nor what the news stations have to offer. I asked a question that to my mind remains unanswered. I will repeat what I said so you can reread it and understand that what you said doesn’t apply.

            “Did Acosta lose a right so that he is entitled to due process or was a privilege revoked?

            If the former the judge was correct. If the latter the judge is wrong.

            Can anyone provide a legal answer to my question?”

            1. Allan – they are both right, Since this is a TRO, this judge is giving Abilio his pass back because the Trump administration does not seem to have a written policy for taking away press passes. However, the judge is down for taking away press passes if they go against the written policy. Trump said today there would be a written policy in a couple of days. My guess is there will be no press conferences until the policy is plastered on the seats of the room and they all have to sign the damn thing. Abilio may still lose his. They just have to put it in writing what it is he has been doing that is over the line. He is a serial offender, so they probably have a team of typists working 24/7 putting together the particulars of Abilio’s offenses.

              1. PCS, what this judicial type did was usurp the power of the executive branch while the Constitution does not provide him any power to do so. This judge should have already been impeached and convicted. The CNN “reporter” should have simply suffered his fate. The President has the power and the press is free. This is welfare for the press. Why not? It is, after all, the American welfare state wherein the state guarantees that all fare well in every pursuit including parasitism.

                Discipline? We don’t need no stinking discipline.

              2. “Did Acosta lose a right so that he is entitled to due process or was a privilege revoked?”

                Paul, above is the essential question. Can you answer it?


                If it is a privilege what is the rational for not being able to revoke the privilege on the spot. Was there some sort of contract where the President defaulted on the contract?

                Consider this, you permit someone to enter your home and then want him to leave. Do you have a right to make him leave? Just because a judge decides something doesn’t make him right. I am not saying he is wrong rather I am trying to figure out what the judge was ruling on.

          1. Anonymous, you an idiot. Take notice of my question: “Can anyone provide a legal answer to my question?”

              1. As I said Anonymous you are an idiot. Your responses don’t reflect the prior statements made or the questions asked. But then again that is to be expected for you make things up and even post quotes that don’t pertain to the conversation.

      2. The NPC Marky Mark Mark runs the “Now I am a lawyer but too lazy to give you the case law myself” script. The non-lawyer programmer fails to realize the original case is not on point.

    2. There was no violation of free speech except by Acosta. CNN can send another reporter a real journalist.

    3. Allen:

      He’s got a legally recognized property interest in a granted press card. That said, taking it away by the government requires due process. I don’t necessarily agree that the card is a property right of the reporter as opposed to the network but some judge thought it was.

      1. Mespo, I think your answer is good but what was the consideration? Does the press card guarantee access? To me the whole thing is a bit foolish as the President has complete legal control over access to that room except possibly in the property interest you mention which I do not think applies specifically to Acosta.

  8. There must be some established rules to get white house press credentials. Is there no written code of conduct for the press? Without some formal guidance on press conduct, then anything goes…both ways. And we shouldn’t desire that. We should desire as much press access as possible, but with that privilege should come a definable code of conduct.

  9. I disagree this is a “bad case making bad law.” Clearly, through words, inflection, physical body actions and facial expressions, Acosta gives the middle finger to the WH and every employee therein. He moved his arm and hand in a way to physically prevent a female intern who he outweighs by 50 lbs, from retrieving the mic that is WH property. How on earth is this a “bad case?” What more must Acosta do, knock out an intern?

    This is the perfect case to bar jack arses like Acosta from the WH. Every single interaction between Acosta and the WH is solely about Acosta and lacks anything to do with the WH, the exact opposite of the purpose of all press/WH relationships. It’s supposed to have NOTHING to do with the press except the question which represents the public interest.

    1. All well and good for a dimwitted gullible rube, dupe, klan wannabee, pocket-traitor or grifter on the make, but you have forgotten that the day glo bozo (and his criminogenic minions) are not above the law. The First Amendment protects the press from arbitrary and capricious actions by the government. You don’t like freedom? So sorry for your loss.

      this is to “but that hannity feller is such s sweetums” cartoon princess

      1. Whoops who left the door open pun intended the National Socialists are invading. again with the Internationalists and Progressives close behind.

    1. “there must be decorum at the White House.” says the white house.

      That’s correct. The biggest mistake the press corps can make is to taint the proceedings with their own conduct. The purpose for the press is to give the People as much coverage of those in government, not those covering them. Based on what we’ve seen from Acosta, would you ever trust the results of a survey if he was the one asking the questions?

    2. You just made the case for us Comrade. See why I added International and Progessives to the list?

  10. The answer is simple: suspend the press briefings until completion of an indefinite policy and security review. Make any interim briefings spontaneous.

    1. Then invite selected journalists of which 95 plus percent must be new comers from media across the nation and the five percent could include what’s his face five percent of the time. That’s CNN’s share nation wide.


    “A federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to reinstate press credentials for Jim Acosta, CNN’s chief White House correspondent.

    U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who was appointed to the bench by President Trump, granted CNN’s request to restore the press pass for Acosta, giving him regular access to the White House grounds to cover events and press conferences.

    “I want to emphasize the very limited nature of this ruling,” Kelly said Friday in granting the temporary restraining order in favor of CNN.

    After the ruling the White House said it will abide by a federal judge’s order to restore CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s press pass, but insisted “there must be decorum at the White House.”
    Kelly did not rule on whether the administration violated CNN and Acosta’s First Amendment rights. The network and Acosta are arguing that the administration didn’t like the questions Acosta asked and therefore revoked the pass, committing what’s known as viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited by the First Amendment”.

    Edited from: “Judge Orders White House To Reinstate Acosta’s Press Credentials”

    THE HILL, 11/16/18

    NOTE: Professor Turley highlights Judge Kelly’s name so one can click onto biography which tells us that Kelly was appointed to the court in September of 2017 during Trump’s first year in office.

    1. Also, the Judge issuing the ruling was appointed by Trump. HIs orange head must be spinning, because he really doesn’t understand that just because he appointed a judge, that judge does not owe him a duty of loyalty or deference. The judge swore an oath of loyalty to the Constitution.

    2. CNN stepped in it with that statement both sides of their mouth at one time.

  12. *OFF TOPIC* There’s reports that the residents in Tijuana Mexico are having issues with the illegal caravan and want them to leave stating they are a security risk to the community, (like they won’t be a problem for us). Maybe we can get CNN’s grandstander to report on this now that his credentials have been reinstated. His question on the illegal caravan invasion is what got him into trouble in the first place.

  13. Really, Judge?

    What good did it do for the President to appoint this judge (i.e. Jeff Sessions)? Liberal judges engage in complete nonsense and corruption in faithful service to their democrat benefactors. Are there any loyal conservatives/republicans?

    I’m gonna take a wild guess and say that Judge Timothy J. Kelly and Jim Acosta have no executive power provided by the Constitution. By contrast, military forces take and stringently follow the orders of the President and Commander-in-Chief; no questions asked.

    Article II

    Section 1.

    The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected,…

    Article 2.

    The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states,…

  14. This was a simple case of a sanctimonious lout masquerading as a journalist who was highjacking the press conference.The President was more than justified in acting swiftly,firmly and judiciously by suspending Mr.Acosta.The process needed immediate and forceful protection.

    1. You are of course allowed your own opinion–no matter how ill-informed–but not your own facts. The fact is that the First Amendment protects the free press from the arbitrary and capricious actions of the government. Notwithstanding your dwindling ilk of gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make who still support the cretinish actions of the day glo bozo, he is not above the law. So sorry for your loss and your cognitively-challenged status.

      this is to “what’s a first amendment?” driftie

      1. The NPC Marky Mark Mark runs the klan wannabees script and misreads the decision by the judge. Not hard to do when you are an NPC.

  15. What everyone is overlooking is the welt or frog on the intern’s arm after the Costa “encounter.”

  16. What about just cutting the primary mic/mike and having a backup?

    If someone won’t shut up, cut the mic and give the alternate mic to the next person in line. In this day and age, it should be easy.

Comments are closed.