CNN and Abilio James Acosta v. Donald Trump, et. al., USDC-DC

[Reality Check]

Not sure if this is the right place but I will post the complaint and correct the title as documents become available.

CNN sues President Trump and top White House aides for barring Jim Acosta

Complaint

Thanks to NMgirl:
Plaintiffs Request for Hearing on TRO

[bob]

Complaint alleges violations of the First and Fifth Amendments, as well as the APA.

Gibson Dunn represents Acosta; although he didn't sign the complaint, Ted Olson is listed as a counsel.

[NMgirl]

A free source for other documents is as yet unavailable, at least to me. I just have this to contribute at the moment.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... Order.html
(TRO Emergency Hearing requested by plaintiffs.)

[Kendra]

Thanks for starting this thread. I was just going to ask if we should have one just so Foggy would have to move bunches of comments again

ACLU: "It is un-American and unlawful for the president to expel a reporter from the White House briefing room for doing his job. It shouldn’t take a lawsuit from CNN to remind the president of the First Amendment. The White House should reverse its decision immediately."

Since other WH staff are named like Sarah Succubus, who defends them? DOJ attorneys?

[fierceredpanda]

Trump ranting about how Ted Olson has the biggest conflict of interest anyone has ever seen because Trump wanted to hire him for his Russia team and Olson told him to kick rocks in 3, 2, 1...

[bob]

Yes, the DOJ will defend. (Just like it did when Klayman sued Clinton.)

[Reality Check]

CNN was granted a hearing tomorrow by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on their request for a TRO.

[Flatpointhigh]

Press Sec is now spinning the story that his credentials weren't pulled over the "assault" but for some other bullshit

[DZ Bill]

Good on CNN ...on the other hand they shouldn't be suing the Secret Service agent who took the pass, poor guy was just doing his job.

[Turtle]

Press Sec is now spinning the story that his credentials weren't pulled over the "assault" but for some other bullshit

Yeah she said he wouldn't let go of the mic

[bob]

Press Sec is now spinning the story that his credentials weren't pulled over the "assault" but for some other bullshit

WaPo:

After Mr. Acosta asked the President two questions — each of which the President answered — he physically refused to surrender a White House microphone to an intern, so that other reporters might ask their questions. This was not the first time this reporter has inappropriately refused to yield to other reporters.

The White House cannot run an orderly and fair press conference when a reporter acts this way, which is neither appropriate nor professional. The First Amendment is not served when a single reporter, of more than 150 present, attempts to monopolize the floor. If there is no check on this type of behavior it impedes the ability of the President, the White House staff, and members of the media to conduct business.”

The ole "failure to yield."

Due process, of course, is not very interested in post-hoc rationalizations.

Good on CNN ...on the other hand they shouldn't be suing the Secret Service agent who took the pass, poor guy was just doing his job.

He's being sued in his official capacity (meaning the DOJ will defend him). And he's a necessary party because he knows who gave him the order.

[CJ Roberts]

Press Sec is now spinning the story that his credentials weren't pulled over the "assault" but for some other bullshit

Yeah she said he wouldn't let go of the mic

Based on how crazed he got Trump, he should have dropped the mic.

[Kendra]

THREAD: What should we make of the CNN lawsuit against the Trump Administration for revoking @Acosta's credentials?

Edit: Formatting, to quote.

(Disclaimer: I'm a CNN Legal Analyst, but have no inside knowledge of the suit.)

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1062 ... 04227.html

Could be fun tomorrow, once again will Donny's hateful words come back to bite him? Will he when the judge appointed by him rule against him?

[Kendra]

New:: The AP; Bloomberg; First Look; Fox News; Gannett; National Press Club; NBC News; The New York Times; Politico; Press Freedom Defense Fund; E.W. Scripps; USA Today; and The Washington Post have filed joint friend-of-the-court briefs to support CNN’s and Jim Acosta’s lawsuit.

[Kendra]

White House response to CNN lawsuit:
Trump has “broad discretion” to regulate journalists' access:

• “No journalist has a First Amendment right to enter the White House.”

[Notorial Dissent]

I can see and understand why they filed the suit, and I have to say I don't blame them in the least. It is also pointless, legally I don't think they have a leg to stand on, but that may very well NOT be the main reason. The first real issue here is that they are facing a President, and a Vice President for that matter, Press Secretary, and White House that has precisely and exactly NO more respect for the First Amendment than it does for any other part of the Constitution, or the laws of this land in general.

I would hope and think that they, and more importantly their lawyers, are smart enough to know this will go precisely no where, but are instead using it for a stalking horse, I think is the term, to get it all out in front of the public. I don't know how much good it will do but you never know.

I wish them all luck for what good it may do.

[SLQ]

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/

[Kendra]

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?

[Dave at Sea]

I can see and understand why they filed the suit, and I have to say I don't blame them in the least. It is also pointless, legally I don't think they have a leg to stand on, but that may very well NOT be the main reason. The first real issue here is that they are facing a President, and a Vice President for that matter, Press Secretary, and White House that has precisely and exactly NO more respect for the First Amendment than it does for any other part of the Constitution, or the laws of this land in general.

I would hope and think that they, and more importantly their lawyers, are smart enough to know this will go precisely no where, but are instead using it for a stalking horse, I think is the term, to get it all out in front of the public. I don't know how much good it will do but you never know.

I wish them all luck for what good it may do.

Yes "Stalking horse" may well describe it... especially if you are Hunting fowl (foul) in the White House.

stalking horse
noun
noun: stalking horse; plural noun: stalking horses
1.
a person or thing that is used to conceal someone's real intentions.
"you have used me simply as a stalking horse for some of your more outrageous views"
a candidate in an election for the leadership of a political party who stands only in order to provoke the election and thus allow a stronger candidate to come forward.
modifier noun: stalking-horse
"a stalking-horse challenge"
2.
a screen traditionally made in the shape of a horse behind which a hunter may stay concealed when stalking prey.
Origin
early 16th century: from the former practice of using a horse trained to allow a fowler to hide behind it, or under its coverings, until within easy range of prey.

[bob]

I do think they have a significant leg to stand on.

The shell of the nut:

1. CNN (& Friends) argue that pressers are "limited public fora." That is, once the White House has decided to open the pressers to credentialed journalists, there is actually a First Amendment right to be there. (This is different, however, from the discretion regarding which journalist to call upon, to sit with for interviews, etc.)

2. As such, revoking a press credential carries a modicum of due process, i.e., a basis for the decision, and an opportunity to challenge it. The initial stated reason ("putting hands on an intern") was false; the courts do not look kindly on baseless government actions; ditto with post-hoc rationalizations. (Unless it is a power expressly delegated to the executive, i.e., immigration, national security, etc. -- then chaos may reign.)

[SLQ]

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 lead story on CNN.

“Many media law experts, unaffiliated with CNN, believe the network has a very strong case.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, the top legal analyst on Trump's favorite network, Fox News, said the same thing on Tuesday. "I think this will be resolved quickly," he said, adding "I think it will either be settled or CNN will prevail on motion." “

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/14/media/tr ... index.html

[Kendra]

Thanks SLQ

I think Brandi @ Courthouse News is going to keep us updated. https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS

[bob]

I think Brandi @ Courthouse News is going to keep us updated. https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS

The government's opposition to the TRO:

The stated rationale for the revocation of Mr. Acosta’s pass—that he was disrupting press proceedings—is evident from the video he has proffered, is entirely viewpoint- and content-neutral, and clears this limited bar.

[Kendra]

Asking questions at a press conference is disrupting?

[Dan1100]

Of course, every serious Freedom of the Press case is really just an opportunity for a "just ask your mom" pun joke.



https://twitter.com/AndyGilder/status/1 ... 8651092995

Jason Schwartz @JasonSchwartz
43m43 minutes ago

Acosta is at the CNN lawsuit hearing here at Washington District Court. Just walked into the courtroom. A guy in a blue jacket said to him, “Acosta, you should be lawfully hung.”

@AndyGilderReplying to @JasonSchwartz @worgztheowl

The appropriate response is "Sir, I am legally hung. Just ask your mother"
12:20 PM - 14 Nov 2018