Trump Raises the Stakes With CNN

Townhall.com ^ | November 16, 2018 | Pat Buchanan

[Kaslin]

Last week, the White House revoked the press pass of CNN's chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, and denied him access to the building.

CNN responded by filing suit in federal court against the president.

Acosta's First and Fifth Amendment rights had been violated, said CNN. The demand: Acosta's press pass must be returned immediately and his White House press privileges restored.

"If left unchallenged," CNN warned, "the actions of the White House would create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials." A dozen news organizations, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, are filing amicus briefs on CNN's behalf.

On Thursday, the Trump administration raised the stakes.

Justice Department lawyer James Burnham declared in court: "If the president wants to exclude all reporters from the White House grounds, he clearly has the authority to do that."

After all, whose house is it if not the "President's House," the home of Donald Trump as long as he serves in the office to which he was elected by the American people?

The West Wing contains the Oval Office and the offices of senior staff. As for the West Wing briefing room, it was built by President Richard Nixon in 1969, when White House passes were regarded as privileges.

When did they become press rights or press entitlements?

Is Trump obligated to provide access to whomever CNN chooses to represent the network in the West Wing, even if the individual assigned routinely baits the press secretary and bashes the president?

Whence comes this obligation on the president?

hite House aides can be fired, forced to surrender their passes and be escorted out of the building.

Whence comes the immunity of White House correspondents?

The First Amendment guarantees CNN reporters and anchors the right to say what they wish about Trump. It does not entitle Acosta to a front-row seat in the White House briefing room or the right to grill the president at East Room press conferences.

Why was he expelled from the White House?

Says press secretary Sarah Sanders, "The First Amendment is not served when a single reporter, of more than 150 present, attempts to monopolize the floor."

Acosta baits the president, argues, refuses to yield the floor, manifests a hostility to Trump and trashes him regularly on-air.

Such conduct has made him a champion to Trump haters. But to others, it makes him a biased witness to the Trump presidency who has no legal or constitutional claim to a chair in the West Wing briefing room.

When this writer entered the White House in January 1969, a reporter who had traveled in the 1968 campaign came by to explain that I had to understand that he was now part of "the adversary press."

What we had done to be declared an adversary, I do not know. I had assumed that the opposition party would become the adversaries of a Nixon White House.

But if the press declares itself an adversary of the White House and if it acts as an adversary -- as it has a First Amendment right to do -- such members of the media are no more entitled to the run of the West Wing than would be a member of Congress who regularly attacks the president.

Theodore White wrote in "The Making of the President 1972" that the real enemies of Nixon's White House were not Democrats such as Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and House Speaker John McCormack but CBS News, The Washington Post and The New York Times.

This holds true for Trump. If the media are not "the enemy of the people," the major media are certainly -- and proudly -- the enemy of Trump.

Trump's most visible and persistent adversaries are not Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. And it is Trump's attacks on CNN and "fake news" that bring his loyalists to their feet. With his use of Twitter, Trump has found a way around an overwhelmingly hostile media.

Former FBI Director Robert Mueller gets a favorable press, as he is seen by the media as the instrument of their deliverance from Trump.

But should the special counsel bring in a report that says, "Donald Trump did not collude with Russia in the 2016 election, and we could find no obstruction of justice in how he dealt with our investigation," Mueller's indulgent press would turn on him overnight.

CNN says that if Trump succeeds in pulling Acosta's press pass, it could have a "chilling" effect on other White House correspondents.

But if it has a chilling effect on journalists who relish confronting the president and reaping the cheers, publicity and benefits that go with being a leader of the adversary press, why is that a problem?

The White House should set down rules of conduct for reporters in the briefing room, and if reporters repeatedly violate them, that should cost them their chairs and, in cases like Acosta's, their credentials.

This confrontation is healthy, and the republic will survive if the press loses this fight, which the press itself picked.

[Vendome]

He does not own the pass. It issued by the White House and is their property as well, their prerogative to issue one or allow anyone on the grounds and restrict their movements

This was not an LEO action either so, 5th amendment does not have a thing to do with this

[fieldmarshaldj]

Pat’s right.

[NonValueAdded]

I’d love fir PDJT to say, “look, I’ve suffered that arrogant fool long enough. If he can’t keep it civil, if he feels it’s his right to lecture and take time away from you, the rest of the press, then you’re gone. All of you. Game over. And it’s going to be his doing. Act accordingly.”

[Mr Rogers]

Why not just end WH press briefings? Tell folks they will resume when Acosta is gone. Until then, they can gather in an empty room and tell Anti-Trump stories to each other.

[Hostage]

Go to a livestream with a non-Google video platform. Choose questions from a scrolling live comment pane.

Problem solved.

[DesertRhino]

So then does CNN have a right to have whoever they choose go into the Supreme court building? Take cameras into the courtroom and film the justices?

Or does only the president have to put up with that?

[jmacusa]

The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. It doesn’t protect you from the consequences of that free speech.

[dp0622]

A dozen news organizations, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, are filing amicus briefs on CNN’s behalf...

...spit...

[Soul of the South]

“The First Amendment guarantees CNN reporters and anchors the right to say what they wish about Trump. It does not entitle Acosta to a front-row seat in the White House briefing room or the right to grill the president at East Room press conferences.”

Actually the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; . . . “. In this case Congress has done nothing to abridge the freedom of speech or the press. CNN and Jim Acosta are able to say and print whatever they wish about the president, Congress, or any aspect of life in America or the world.

The first amendment does not even imply the Executive branch has an obligation to provide members of the press or news organizations with access to government buildings or officials. The wording of the Constitution places no limits on presidential authority to limit access of the press to officials of the executive department. A judicial ruling the president cannot restrict Acosta’s access to Executive branch meetings, officials, or buildings is a pure subjective reading into the constitution meaning that is not in the document.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

I like it.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

This is maddening! Evidently the White House/President won’t appeal this ridiculous decision?

[Tenacious 1]

I need a refresher. If I recall correctly, the Whitehouse gets to approve or disallow reporters in the Whitehouse correspondence.

Didn’t Obama refuse to let Brietbart or someone in to press briefings?

Why does the press get more privileged than me? Why can’t anyone attend it? Show me the law on that. The WH is not required to even have these conferences.

[KevinB]

This ruling is an absurd assault on separation of powers.

Correct. What if Trump just tells the judge to eff off? What is the judge going to do to him? He can't hold him in contempt.

[rockinqsranch]

Whose fault can we say it is that the “White House” is compelled to create a listing of rules of conduct for journalists in the briefing room of the West Wing?

What happened to the used-to-be that was America?

[Kaslin]

Excellent question(s)

[CopperTop]

".."the actions of the White House would create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials."

Welcome to the party, pal..

And just what kindof effect do they think they're PC/leftist BS has on the American public?

Kiss my grits, CNN.. d:^)

[adorno]

I've said since the beginning of this Acosta controversy, that he should be allowed into the press room, but that Sarah Sanders and the president should ignore him and not call him to ask any questions.

Now, I'd like to change that, just a bit. Allow him to ask a question (just one, and no follow up), and then, ignore him and the question, and more on to the next questioner for the next question. That will really anger Acosta and CNN to no end. What would follow would make for must see TV.

Another change... perhaps a better idea.

Issue press passes to every reporter and media that requests one. Then, have the president and/or Sarah hold pressers by invitation only and never invite Acosta nor any rep from CNN. Not every media person can fit into the press room, not can every media organization be represented in the room. By invitation only press briefings and presidential press conferences.