re: CNN And Jim Acosta File Lawsuit Against Trump Administration

Well, the press does have a right to report, and that requires access.

Enemy of the people!!

quote:

---

In sure you know more than CNN’s attorneys. Bet you laughed when at hose who said Sanders released a doctored vid. Lol

---

If their attorneys insist on going through with this I do know more than they do. First off the evidence Trump's defense will give to the court won't be the Alex Jones video. It will be the raw feed of the CNN video which is unedited and fully supports the White House's claims. Second off there is no fundamental right to be part of the White House press corps in the First Amendment. If there was you would have to allow every pea brain with a blog on the internet into the press corps. CNN might have a case if Trump banned everyone that works at CNN from the press corp but that is not the case here. He is just saying "the guy you have given this position to is not following the established guidelines for WH press conferences. We are no longer allowing him to attend them. Feel free to send another employee to take his place as long as they follow the guidelines."

quote:

---

HHH, sometimes you seem bright, and sometimes you get a hold onto a wrong idea and hang onto it like a rat terrier with a chicken bone.

---

Bro I'm happy to compare curriculum vitae with you or anyone else on this board, at any time.

quote:

---

Yes, the WH owned the mic. Yes, they were entitled to possession of it, if they wanted it. But under the law of almost EVERY jurisdiction, they are NOT entitled to exercise self-help (assault) to get it back.

---

You are entirely wrong. You can in almost every jurisdiction forcible prevent someone from taking your possessions. Are you really arguing that if I walked up to you and snatched your car keys out of your hands and jumped into your car that you would be violating the law if you tried to prevent me from stealing your car? Come on man.

quote:

---

Ownership of the mic is an issue COMPLETELY distinct from the question of whether attempting to snatch it from someone else's grasp constitutes an "assault" or a battery.

---

No it is not because in every jurisdiction I know of you are allowed to defend your property . Again fighting over a fricking mic is taking things to extreme but so is claiming the woman assaulted JA in any way , shape , or form. And my only argument was that in a court of law , the woman actually had the right to the mic, not the other way around and when we make that argument we then must determine whether the owner of the mic has the legal right to touch someone while defending their property, and they do.

quote:

---

A less than perfect analogy. I have stolen YOUR car (ownership), and you see me three days later sitting in a parking lot. You are NOT legally entitled to shoot me thru the window (assault) to regain possession.

---

That is a terrible, useless , and unrelated analogy given that this woman did not go back 3 days later and try to take the mic.

quote:

---

entirely correct, as I have said approximately two dozen times.

---

And I never said you said differently lol

HHH, you may well be a certified super-genius with in IQ in the 4th SD, but I guarantee that you are not an attorney.

You do not want to learn. Enjoy your ignorance.

quote:

---

HHH, you may well be a certified super-genius with in IQ in the 4th SD, but I guarantee that you are not an attorney.

---

Newsflash, Hank: this board is chock full of attorneys. Get over yourself already.

quote:

---

Doesn't CNN have other reporters? No one is denying CNN access, just Acosta.

---

Never saw it stated anywhere that Accoster is banned from the WH. Only that Accoster had his hard pass revoked. He can enter through like any tourist/visitor.

Or that he's nothing of the sort. Those that proclaim the loudest, usually aren't.

you linked the case and used it to support your belief that the intern could be charged but don't want discuss your argument.
I provided a summary of the majority opinion and it states that this case was about a restaurant manager grabbing a plate from the hand of a black man and telling him he wasn't allowed to eat in the establishment and the court upheld the verdict because of the offense to his personal dignity.
I believe this would intimate that there be some aggravating action to apply and this ruling doesn't automatically mean all contact initiated against any object held by another is battery.