CNN’s Jim Acosta struggles with White House aide to keep microphone during testy Trump exchange

[yuna628 9,528]

19 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

The judge apparently took pains to emphasize that this was NOT a First Amendment-related ruling.

-----

Does anyone not remember 0bummer's daily trashings of Fox News?  That, in contrast, was quite OK.

 

 

12 hours ago, missileman said:

Then, just exactly what IS the basis?????  I'm really scratching my head over this one.

It's somewhat correct to say that the judge emphasized his ruling was not on a First Amendment basis, but that's because he didn't need to consider it based on the prevailing Fifth Amendment. There was no ruling on a First Amendment violation because of an immediate Fifth Amendment issue.

 

As this piece from the Atlantic points out...

 

Quote

Still, Jim Windolf, media editor of The New York Times, was among those expressing caution after Judge Timothy J. Kelly granted a temporary restraining order blocking the White House’s revocation. “Subtext of the judge’s order: You can kick a reporter out of the White House, but there are procedures you have to follow,” Windolf tweeted. “So it wasn’t necessarily a victory for the First Amendment.”

In a hearing in D.C. federal court, Kelly ruled that the government violated Acosta’s Fifth Amendment right to due process when it rescinded his White House press credentials following Trump’s contentious news conference the day after the midterm elections. The ruling signals that Acosta is likely to prevail on the merits of his Fifth Amendment case, as the White House did not properly give notice, explanation, and an opportunity for rebuttal, as the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals had said was necessary in a similar case decided more than 40 years ago. Kelly explicitly did not rule on Acosta’s claim that his First Amendment rights had been violated.

Kelly ruled that efforts by the White House to afford Acosta due process were “belated” and “hardly sufficient.”

“Whatever process occurred within the government is still so shrouded in mystery that the government could not tell me at oral argument who made the initial decision to revoke Mr. Acosta’s press pass,” Kelly said from the bench.

{...}

“The granting or denial of a TRO is not a ruling on the merits, but key considerations include the likelihood of ultimate success of the plaintiff at trial, as well as the harm the plaintiff will suffer if interim relief is denied,” David Lurie, a New York–based attorney, told me Wednesday. Lurie emphasized that Sherrill v. Knight, the 1977 case decided in favor of a reporter denied White House credentials, was on the books in the D.C. Circuit and provided direct precedent for Acosta’s case.

Largely the biggest issue I see here is that in many of the cases the government has lost recently, they simply cannot make a decent argument in court. The WH lawyers could not explain the reasoning for doing what was done. It's hard to say how the judge would rule on a First Amendment basis alone, which is why Fifth Amendment context was also used in arguments. I honestly do not see the WH pushing this further. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/cnns-jim-acosta-has-press-pass-restored-temporarily/576049/ 

 

More about Sherrill v. Knight https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/legality-revoking-jim-acostas-press-pass/575479/ There's tons of other sources about this ruling, but that's all I'll provide for now without too much confusing depth. Been so busy today and don't have time..

[TBoneTX 43,057]

17 hours ago, Satisfied said:

What Obama did

Matters not in the real world

Ignore the past please

jg just creamed your

(admittedly basic) hai-

ku skills, see here man:

 

     I'm gonna apply

     for a press pass and when I'm

     denied I'll sue too.