Fogbow

Foggy wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:41 am

Why doesn't CNN just ask for a preliminary (or permanent) injunction that will continue in force after the TRO expires?

They did. That litigation is ongoing. The TRO was just the first motion in the case.

fierceredpanda wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:10 am

Several of his colleagues in the WH press pool have said exactly the same thing, that he is a bit of a self-promoter.

Reality Check wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:04 am

FRP, are you actually trying to compare Acosta to that lying piece of pig droppings? Really? Acosta's job is to ask hard questions. That's what he was doing.

So out of touch with the base. They need Trump Beer! And not that fancy craft beer. Something like Bud Light.

Here’s how CNN (from courtroom reporting where the judge read from his written ruling) addresses that issue: Kelly criticized last week's blacklisting of Acosta as "shrouded in mystery," noting that the Justice Department lawyer in the case couldn't even say who ordered the decision. But he also sai...

See the judge’s quote in Addie’s post below. I had seen that before it was posted, which is why I said what I did.

Mikedunford wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:39 pm

My understanding (from checking the docket) is that there's not a written ruling yet. (That's as of about 20 minutes ago.) Are we sure we know everything addressed by the court?

“Today, the court made clear that there is no absolute First Amendment right to access the White House . In response to the court, we will temporarily reinstate the reporter’s hard pass. We will also further develop rules and processes to ensure fair and orderly press conferences in the future,” pr...

I’m anxiously awaiting Trump’s tweet attacking his own “activist” judge and claiming he “doesn’t really have” a judge. And he’s disappointed that the judge wasn’t more loyal. “What kind of man does that?!”

TollandRCR wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:42 am

What is "due process" for revoking Acosta's hard pass? I doubt the White House wants to charge him with a crime.

Due process generally requires notice and an opportunity to be heard BEFORE taking property.

Yabbut, why would those staffers believe Trump woukd act with reason and thought to stress of any kind? Have they not been paying attention?

Well. Now I am pretty much done with a criminal defense attorney making assumptions of guilt. Sign me, Disappointed. :yeah: I tend to believe accusers (women or men). But I have had accusers and filers of protective orders agree to quash them when the facts could not be supported. Edit: And the goa...

She had ample ability to "keep her family together" while maintaining healthy boundaries for her and her children.

Perhaps Mr. Phister doesn’t know as much about Hillary as he thinks he does?

Well. Now I am pretty much done with a criminal defense attorney making assumptions of guilt. Sign me, Disappointed. :yeah: I tend to believe accusers (women or men). But I have had accusers and filers of protective orders agree to quash them when the facts could not be supported. Edit: And the goa...

From the long list upthread a page or so:

53. She didn’t divorce her husband.

I got this from my dad today while briefly discussing Hillary. He said she "enabled" Bill by not divorcing him. I said "there was a time when keeping your family together was a good thing." He didn't have a comeback.

RTH10260 wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:55 pm

SLQ wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:14 pm

BS. Everyone here in Washington knew what was on the ballot. It was very clearly worded.

Plus, what do they expect Trump to do about this state issue?

When he can intervene in state elections and vote counting, shirley he can annule the law by his E.O. power!

► Show Spoiler

LOL

FYI, the original article explains that it really is an appellate case, though it was initially dismissed due to a precedural error, so it went back to the district court, then back up to the DC circuit. There was an expedited briefing schedule, which required the witness’s opening brief very recent...

That could be sloppy reporting. Or both could be true. There could be an interlocutory appeal to the DC Circuit and Judge Howell is presiding at the trial court level.

BS. Everyone here in Washington knew what was on the ballot. It was very clearly worded.

Plus, what do they expect Trump to do about this state issue?

My dad had an interesting theory about Melania’s unprecedented move: he thinks it is more of a personal matter involving he-who-can’t-keep-his-pants-zipped and Mira.

fierceredpanda wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:40 pm

So brave, that Jeff Flake. You know, he could have done that before he was a lame duck. Or when SCOTUS nominations were up. But no. Because he's bipartisan, dontchaknow?

So brave ... after the blue wave and after Az elected a democratic senator.

I do think they have a significant leg to stand on. And those who have weighed in, including Judge Pirro , say CNN has a strong legal argument/ For realz, did I read that right? Yes. However, it was Judge Napalitano. Same difference. I’m on my phone and can’t link easily, but this is currently the ...

I do think they have a significant leg to stand on. And those who have weighed in, including Judge Pirro, say CNN has a strong legal argument/

I'm going with Kirstjen Nielsen this round.

I'm so happy about this. I mentioned in the "I voted" thread that my (grown) son and niece voted for the first time. My son lives in AZ and voted a straight democratic ticket. :kiss: :kiss: :kiss: ETA: I just told him that if he ever wonders if his vote counts, to just remember that he helped elect ...

Kendra wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:40 pm

Perhaps I'm dense (a likely possibility), but why is it so hard to just let a recount happen and accept the votes?

Because Trump "fights back" and "never admits defeat." Even when his actions make no sense whatsoever, because the state election law calls for a recount.