Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Someone else who isn't paying attention. Go head and keep those fantasies dancing in your head in the face of facts that contradict them. Or better yet, go back and read Sarah Sanders' ever-evolving spin on the incident. And then read the judge's ruling.
I know what I saw on C-SPAN. The fact that you're in denial has no effect on that. But, hey... go ahead and support the position that men should overpower women to get what they want. You're free to do so, as did countless Hollywood and other elite liberals who didn't expose Weinstein's abuse decades ago when they should have done so.
In order for the White House to succeed with this proposed action, Acosta will have needed to have violated existing procedures that existed prior to the press conference in question. There were no doubt procedures and standards in place, although it sounds that they probably need to be beefed up a bit.
As far as Acosta and CNN's new proposed injunction, no credible judge is going to rule for them on that. Of course Acosta and CNN want to claim the first amendment gives Acosta himself not only a "right" to a White House press pass, but that it exempts him from ANY behavioral requirements while there.
If the judge were to rule in Acosta and CNN's favor on first amendment grounds, this is going to the Supreme Court. Book it. And there it will be all but certainly overturned. The first amendment gives the right to freedom of speech, which CNN and Acosta have, and which nobody has attempted to curtail. It does not give them the right to interact with the President of the United States or the White House Secretary in literally any manner he chooses. The first amendment of the constitution does not pertain to that.
Anyway, the procedural requirements seem reasonable and clearly President Trump and the White House Communications Office agree. In fact, it appears that they are poised to apply the previously existing procedures - which would have existed under Obama as well - to toss Acosta out on the street, where he belongs.
And then everyone can explain to us how this is such a big win for Acosta, CNN or any other reporter who cannot control themselves in a professional manner in the White House.
Name calling does not protect our first amendment rights, it only takes advantage of those rights that CNN fought to keep so you could keep using your elementary language.
Sending a letter like the White House did on Friday does little to help their case - and probably hurts it. It telegraphs to the Judge that they view his order as a temporary procedural inconvenience rather than a substantive judicial decree with implications to be considered seriously. Honestly, this Administration is so pathetically transparent and ham-handed they cause more problems for themselves than anything else. It really wouldn't have been hard for them to set up Acosta in a manner where his access to the President was curtailed but they went about it so clumsily that they ended up shooting themselves in the foot.
I know what I saw on C-SPAN. The fact that you're in denial has no effect on that. But, hey... go ahead and support the position that men should overpower women to get what they want. You're free to do so, as did countless Hollywood and other elite liberals who didn't expose Weinstein's abuse decades ago when they should have done so.
Why didn't the WH file assault charges? Conveniently the "incident" was not mentioned again. That should tell you something. But you go ahead and believe those little stories in your head, lol.
“Your behavior at the November 7 press conference violated the basic standards governing such events, and is, in our preliminary judgment, sufficient factual basis to revoke your hard pass,” Sanders and Shine wrote in their letter to Acosta, which was included in the filing. The White House officials told Acosta they would “be pleased to consider any material you would like to submit in response to it.”
The letter from Sanders and Shine appears to be an attempt to address concerns highlighted by the judge in Acosta’s legal dispute with the White House. Kelly found that Acosta’s due process rights had been violated as the White House did not grant him a process to appeal its decision to revoke his hard pass, or provide him with notice of that decision. Acosta was given until Sunday evening to contest the White House’s decision to strip him of his press credential.
{More at the link}
So there apparently were standards already in place and Acosta appears to have violated them. It appears that the bolded part may be the key element that the White House neglected to communicate in the first revocation.
So now it appears that all the requirements of the judges stay have likely been satisfied.
Here is a better explanation of what this latest announcement of the revocation of Acosta's press pass:
So there apparently were standards already in place and Acosta appears to have violated them. It appears that the bolded part may be the key element that the White House neglected to communicate in the first revocation.
So now it appears that all the requirements of the judges stay have likely been satisfied.
It appears that the White House will need to establish to the judge's satisfaction what the "basic standards" were, and that there is a process that the White House follows in proving that those standards were violated, and that the journalist was notified of the violation and afforded an opportunity to remedy his behavior.
A journalist pursuing a question, and not yielding the mike is not particularly unusual. Journalists jostle one another and shout out questions, and do everything they can to be heard and to get their questions answered. It's part of what journalism is, doing whatever is necessary to get an answer. Journalists are after quotes. They are adversaries of the people they are questioning and of each other in trying to get the story first, trying to get the quote, trying to put the news out. Modern communication technology has made that competition even fiercer. And this President's demand for civility will likely not garner a kind response, given this President's problems with civility on his own part.
It appears that the White House will need to establish to the judge's satisfaction what the "basic standards" were, and that there is a process that the White House follows in proving that those standards were violated, and that the journalist was notified of the violation and afforded an opportunity to remedy his behavior.
That is what appears to be what is happening now. The White House has had decorum and behavior rules for journalists for a long time, but until Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in November 2016, it was not generally much of an issue.
The primary objection was that Acosta was not given an adequate opportunity to respond. Acosta is now being given that opportunity and he has until this Sunday to present whatever his response or his defense is. Which, together with the rules that were already in place, appears to satisfy the requirements of the judge.
Why didn't the WH file assault charges? Conveniently the "incident" was not mentioned again. That should tell you something. But you go ahead and believe those little stories in your head, lol.
The WH made the legally correct decision in revoking Acosta's credentials. Here's why... Acosta is a male who used physical force/intimidation tomake it impossible for a female intern to do her job. That's a violation of US Labor Laws. And if the WH hadn't yanked his credentials, they, as the intern's employer, could be legally held liable for the violation.
The Judge objected on only 5th Amendment grounds. That will be corrected, and when Acosta violates US Labor Law again (does anyone doubt he will? He's a misogynist), his credentials will be revoked, again, this time with legal standing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
