Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[~Rocktar~]

The judge shot Trump's revocation of Acosta's press pass down on the basis of the 5th Amendment's due process clause. Basically, he thought Trump's reasons were junk (which they were, even the WH backed off calling the interaction "assault"). Trump should be able to dismiss a disruptive reporter, but the issue is whether Acosta was legitimately disruptive or whether Trump just doesn't like him and should be able to revoke credentials based on that. The WH is a public institution and needs to make itself available to the press, and not just the reporters it likes.

Only one issue with that, Acosta the crybaby was not banned from the WH, he would simply have to go there and pass through a regular security check and get a temp badge like a lot of reporters instead of the express lane that he had. So that explanation doesn't hold water. This will be appealed, the full trial was not done and when it gets to the SCOTUS they will have to decide the degree of control allowable by the Judicial branch over the Executive branch. There is no crime or criminal liability here so due process is a red herring and there is no real limit to access so that is also a red herring. And if there is some argument about the inconvenience of going through a process to access the POTUS or exorcise rights, then I am pretty sure that I will enjoy ramming that shit down the throat of every Leftist that wants to register, ban or have waiting periods for the purchase of a firearm and a lot of other things. So yeah, this is going to end up being a non-issue and when Acosta the crybaby goes back in, I hope they sit him in a corner facing the wall and never call on him or CNN again. Ever. And when he does rise up, become disruptive and an ass because you know he will, then they ban him personally from the building as a security threat.

[Tgo01]

This is probably gonna get wrecked in SCOTUS or wherever it ends up. Trump isn't banning CNN, the organization that Acosta represents, from the White House, so I don't see how making a "freedom of the press" argument is going to hold up.

And if it does, then what's to stop every reporter in the universe from demanding WH access simply because they're "the press"?

This ruling really is baffling, as well as CNN's arguments. CNN argues that it's impossible for Acosta to do his job covering the White House unless he has the press pass. Well...assign Acosta to a different job. Since when does CNN get to dictate that since they want one of their employees to cover the White House then the White House MUST allow that person access to the White House. If CNN hired someone on the terrorist watch list who has made death threats to Trump before and said "Let's assign him to the White House", is the White House now supposed to bend over backwards to allow this guy access to the White House simply because CNN assigned him there? White House.

Also the judge's ruling doesn't make any sense either. Poor Acosta didn't get due process? Judges have thrown people in jail for contempt of court for coughing and making hand gestures in court before, there sure as shit ain't no due process there, but the White House has to give little butt hurt Jimmy due process before saying he's no longer welcome in the White House?

[Tgo01]

the issue is whether Acosta was legitimately disruptive

He was. My God, dude. I know you're drinking so much CNN kool aid that you won't even acknowledge the fact that Acosta touched the intern, but you're seriously that drunk on the kool aid that you don't even think his actions were disruptive?

The WH is a public institution and needs to make itself available to the press, and not just the reporters it likes.

Oh please. Did you see the gaggle of reporters in that room on the day in question? There are plenty of reporters there. Let's not act like it's just Fox News asking questions.

[Wrathbringer]

He was. My God, dude. I know you're drinking so much CNN kool aid that you won't even acknowledge the fact that Acosta touched the intern, but you're seriously that drunk on the kool aid that you don't even think his actions were disruptive?



Oh please. Did you see the gaggle of reporters in that room on the day in question? There are plenty of reporters there. Let's not act like it's just Fox News asking questions.

This is all correct.

[Methais]

The judge shot Trump's revocation of Acosta's press pass down on the basis of the 5th Amendment's due process clause. Basically, he thought Trump's reasons were junk (which they were, even the WH backed off calling the interaction "assault"). Trump should be able to dismiss a disruptive reporter, but the issue is whether Acosta was legitimately disruptive or whether Trump just doesn't like him and should be able to revoke credentials based on that. The WH is a public institution and needs to make itself available to the press, and not just the reporters it likes.

Do you believe Acosta was being disruptive at any point during all that?

[Parkbandit]

Do you believe Acosta was being disruptive at any point during all that?

Now, now.. I'm sure Briarfox looked at all the evidence and came to his conclusion in an unbiased and non-political way...

[Methais]

Now, now.. I'm sure Briarfox looked at all the evidence and came to his conclusion in an unbiased and non-political way...

It looks like he accidentally forgot to reply!

[Androidpk]

Decorum at the White House....

[Gelston]

[BriarFox]

Do you believe Acosta was being disruptive at any point during all that?

I think he was grandstanding. Acosta had a legitimate question, Trump didn't want to answer it, and Acosta pushed it further than he should have. That said, Trump was a complete asshole to use the structure of the press briefing and the safety of his podium to abuse Acosta.