Posted on 11/16/2018 2:03:15 PM PST by Kaslin
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
Pat’s right.
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.”
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.
Go to a livestream with a non-Google video platform. Choose questions from a scrolling live comment pane.
Problem solved.
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?
The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. It doesn’t protect you from the consequences of that free speech.
A dozen news organizations, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, are filing amicus briefs on CNN’s behalf...
...spit...
“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.
I like it.
This is maddening! Evidently the White House/President won’t appeal this ridiculous decision?
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.
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.
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?
Excellent question(s)
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:^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.