re: What Is There To “Win” For Progs In The Acosta Case?

quote:

---

CNN is obviously taking that same stance

---

Is CNN too stupid to realize they aren't banned from the White House?

Why do you keep avoiding this question?

quote:

---

Triggered much?

Constitutional scholars disagree with your assessment, enough to the point that a news network would have the balls to sue a sitting POTUS. Maybe they should have consulted with your internet badassery before filing.

---

WOuld these be the same scholars that argue that while Obama had the authority to create DACA by himself, Trump doesn't have the authority to get rid of it? The same scholars who argue that Trump is the one President in the last 50 years who doesn't have the authority to issue a travel ban from certain countries ? Are we talking about the same scholars who are now screaming that Trump doesn't have the authority to name an acting AG? Same scholars who last year argued that the person Trump fired had the authority to name the person who would replace him? LOL Get the frick out of here with that shite.

quote:

---

But on November 7, 2018, Defendants revoked Acosta’s White House credentials because, in the President’s own words, Acosta failed to “treat the White House with respect” at a White House press briefing.

---

LINK

BugAC, they didn't sue for show.
Secret Service is beholden to the Administrative Procedure Act (ACA). They can't go rogue without justification. CNN argues that Acosta's behavior hardly demonstrated a threat to the POTUS (see Sherrill).

quote:

---

Give examples

---

You serious? Think for yourself. POTUS shouldn't be allowed to expel all press except for Baghdad Bob & Pink Lady.

quote:

---

it simply allows that those denied a pass have a right to know why they were denied a pass.

---

Only that's not what it says. It says...

quote:

---

However, this standard for denial of a press pass has never been formally articulated or published. Merely informing individual rejected applicants that rejection was for "reasons of security" does not inform the public or other potential applicants of the basis for exclusion of journalists from White House press facilities. Moreover, we think that the phrase "reasons of security" is unnecessarily vague and subject to ambiguous interpretation.

---

quote:

---

victoire sécurisé

---

Maybe you should read the specifics of that case rather than take the talking points from facebook.

quote:

---

In 1966, plaintiff-appellee Robert Sherrill, who has been the Washington Correspondent for The Nation since 1965 and who has throughout this period had credentials for the House and Senate press galleries, applied for and was denied a White House press pass.1 The denial resulted solely from the determination of the Secret Service, after investigating Mr. Sherrill, that he not be issued the pass. A memorandum from the Secret Service to then White House Press Secretary Moyers requested that the background information obtained about Mr. Sherrill upon which this determination was based "not be disclosed to Mr. Sherrill or his employer."2

---

quote:

---

If the application is denied, the journalist is informed, orally or in writing, that the denial is "for reasons relating to the security of the President and/or the members of his immediate family."7 When Mr. Sherrill asked why he had been rejected, Secret Service personnel replied that "we can't tell you the reasons."8 According to affidavits of the Secret Service obtained during discovery below, Mr. Sherrill apparently reapplied for and was denied a press credential in January of 1972, again on the basis of the original Secret Service recommendation.9

---

quote:

---

Also in January 1972, the American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of Mr. Sherrill, requested Press Secretary Ziegler to state in writing whether Mr. Sherrill had in fact been denied a pass (Sherrill never having received written notice thereof) and, if so, the reasons for this denial. A letter drafted by White House Counsel John Dean and signed on February 11, 1972, by John Warner, Assistant to the Director of the Secret Service, stated that indeed Mr. Sherrill had been denied accreditation "for reasons of security"

---

quote:

---

After a subsequent refusal by Mr. Rossides to change his decision, appellee filed this action in District Court, alleging, inter alia, that the denial of a press pass under the foregoing circumstances violated the first and fifth amendments to the Constitution. Although appellee requested the District Court to order appellants to grant him a White House press pass, the District Court determined, correctly we believe, that it had no occasion to pass on the merits of the press pass denial. Rather, on cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court remanded the case to the Secret Service, which was instructed to "devise and publicize narrow and specific standards" for press pass denials, and to institute procedures whereby an applicant is given notice of the evidence upon which the Secret Service proposes to base its denial, the journalist is afforded an opportunity to rebut or explain this evidence, and the Secret Service issues a final written decision specifying the reasons for its refusal to grant a press pass.

---

quote:

---

Appellants argue that because the public has no right of access to the White House,15 and because the right of access due the press generally is no greater than that due the general public,16 denial of a White House press pass is violative of the first amendment only if it is based upon the content of the journalist's speech or otherwise discriminates against a class of protected speech. While we agree with appellants that arbitrary or content-based criteria for press pass issuance are prohibited under the first amendment,17 there exist additional first amendment considerations ignored by appellants' argument.

---

quote:

---

he current policy of the Secret Service is to deny a credential "for reasons relating to the security of the President and/or the members of his immediate family," Response to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories (Kelley), No. 27. Add. 22, Brief for Appellee. 18 U.S.C. § 3056 (Supp. VI 1976) authorizes the Secret Service to protect, inter alia, "the person of the President . . ., the members of his immediate family, the President-elect, the Vice President . . ., and the Vice President-elect." We see no reason to alter Secret Service policy as to whose protection is considered in denying White House press passes

---

And here is why putting his hands on that WH aide comes to bite ole Jimmy boy on his arse. If he's so free to assault a member of staff, could he be a danger to the President?

quote:

---

A related and perhaps equally compelling property interest may also be said to require the procedural protections of the fifth amendment. It is apparent that all parties to this case recognize the right of a journalist to a White House press pass if he has obtained House and Senate press credentials, resides in Washington, and has a need to report from the White House, unless he is a source of potential danger to the President or his family. There is no indication in the record that the Secret Service has ever denied press credentials for any other reason. Nor is the Secret Service authorized to deny credentials for non-security-related reasons. It could be argued, convincingly we believe, that in these circumstances, appellee has a justifiable expectation that the only basis for the government's refusal to grant a White House press pass is concern for the physical security of the President or his family.

---

quote:

---

We recognize that this appeal involves only one newsman and that appellee has not shown, either in the proceeding below or before this court, that there have been numerous other instances of press pass denial without articulation of adequate standards or employment of adequate procedures. But it has been conceded that the actions taken with respect to appellee are the result of well established policies of appellants which are applicable to all press pass denials. See pp. --- - --- of 186 U.S.App.D.C., pp. 127-128 of 569 F.2d supra. Thus, we see no equitable impediment to our disposition of this appeal, which in effect requires changes in appellants' policies and procedures with respect to all press pass denials.

---

And, for the millionth time, ACOSTA STILL HAS A PRESS PASS TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

quote:

---

Quit acting like this is some grand scheme to limit the access of the press

---

Even if it's not a grand scheme, it's worth a lawsuit to get the ruling into law, prevent a true tyrant from controlling speech with limiting access.

How many journalists need to have credentials revoked before it's a Grand Scheme?

quote:

---

it's worth a lawsuit to get the ruling into law

---

No it's not.

quote:

---

prevent a true tyrant from controlling speech with limiting access.

---

2 days ago the narrative was "stifling the election process", today it's "limiting access". We've seen your argument on facebook many times the past couple days. It's nothing new.

quote:

---

How many journalists need to have credentials revoked before it's a Grand Scheme?

---

His credentials were not revoked.

quote:

---

BugAC, they didn't sue for show.
Secret Service is beholden to the Administrative Procedure Act (ACA). They can't go rogue without justification. CNN argues that Acosta's behavior hardly demonstrated a threat to the POTUS (see Sherrill).

---

Why do you keep referencing a court case that has nothing to do with this nitwit? IN Sherril there was NO accusation that the reporter was a danger to anyone and that was the isssue, the reporter wasn't told why he was denied a pass. He was simply denied. See it wasn't a matter of "does the SS have the right to deny a pass" it was a matter of transparency "must the SS inform a person why they were denied" nowhere in that ruling does it say that the SS must demonstrate that anyone was a danger it simply says the SS must tell someone why they were denied a pass.

quote:

---

Only that's not what it says. It says...

---

That's exactly what it says you barely literate retard.

Yeah the Court bitched about the SS having free reign in deciding who gets a pass and who doesn't , but it it did not issue any orders restricting their ability to do so, because any one with even a half of a brain realizes that the Secret Service should never be second guessed when it comes to giving out passes to the White House.

Hell, even someone as stupid as you and tigerndc know this to be true, but you're such dishonest little piles of shite that you will put that aside to "get Trump"

I used to scoff at those who said we're probably going to end up in a Civil War, but the harsh reality is, we're gonna have to do something to remove liberals from all seats of power if this country is to survive. You people have lost your fricking minds.

Thanks for copying & pasting the link I provided for you.

It's being argued by attorneys who have successfully lobbied SCOTUS cases that the precedent established in that case bars POTUS from denial of a "hard pass", despite Acosta's actions.

These are facts. Why are you disputing them?

If you're arguing that Acosta "putting his hands on the aide" (LOL) constitutes a danger to the POTUS, this discussion has to end because you're beyond reason.

quote:

---

If you're arguing that Acosta "putting his hands on the aide" (LOL) constitutes a danger to the POTUS, this discussion has to end because you're beyond reason.

---

Yeah, I guess it's like believing Dr. Ford, right? Way beyond reason but hey, believe her...
Simple solution, put someone else in Acosta's place. Why is that so hard?

quote:

---

How many journalists need to have credentials revoked before it's a Grand Scheme?

---

Since so far that number is ZERO...