White House Plans To Revoke CNN Reporter's Press Access - Again

Jim Acosta of CNN

On Friday, a federal judge ordered the return of CNN reporter Jim Acosta's press pass to the White House.

Now, the White House is asking CNN to make the case for Acosta's continued access. Based on the response they receive, the White House may attempt to revoke his press pass yet again.

According to Axios, CNN says, "The White House is continuing to violate the First and Fifth amendments of the Constitution. These actions threaten all journalists and news organizations. Jim Acosta and CNN will continue to report the news about the White House and the President."

But Sarah Huckabee Sanders told Fox News over the weekend, "If certain reporters like Jim Acosta can't be adults, then CNN needs to send somebody in there who can be."

Speaking to Fox News' Chris Wallace on Sunday, Donald Trump said: "If he misbehaves, we’ll throw him out or we’ll stop the news conference."

CNN is reportedly heading back to court to stop the hi-jinks.

The @WhiteHouse is continuing to violate the First and Fifth amendments of the Constitution. These actions threaten all journalists and news organizations. @Acosta and CNN will continue to report the news about the White House and @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/knr1NpyMVv

— CNN Communications (@CNNPR) November 19, 2018

Judge Orders Trump To Restore Press Pass To CNN's Jim Acosta

CNN reporter Jim Acosta

CNN and Jim Acosta won in court today in their lawsuit to restore Acosta's suspended press access to the White House as a Trump appointed judge ordered the return of his 'hard pass.'

From CNBC:

A federal judge on Friday granted CNN's request for a court order that would temporarily reinstate network correspondent Jim Acosta's White House press pass, which had been suspended indefinitely in the wake of a fiery exchange between the reporter and President Donald Trump a week earlier.

The ruling from Judge Timothy Kelly, who was appointed by Trump, gave CNN a victory in the ongoing case.

"I want to thank all of my colleagues in the press who supported us this week, and I want to thank the judge for the decision he made today," Acosta said outside U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

"Let's go back to work!" he added.

CNN's lawsuit, announced Tuesday, argues that Acosta's constitutional rights had been violated by Trump and five other members of his administration, as well as by the U.S. Secret Service. The other defendants include chief of staff John Kelly, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, deputy chief of staff Bill Shine and Secret Service Director Randolph Alles.

In a statement, CNN and Acosta said they "look forward to a full resolution in the coming days."

In his decision, Kelly ruled that Acosta’s First Amendment rights overruled the White House’s right to have orderly news conferences.

Over several days, the White House has changed its reasoning for suspending Acosta.

At first, Sarah Huckabee Sanders attempted to say Acosta had physically attacked a White House intern when she reached to take a microphone out of Acosta's hand as he was asking Donald Trump a question.

Then, the reasoning moved to Acosta being 'rude.'

Donald Trump and his staff have targeted Acosta since the beginning of the Trump administration for asking actual questions and holding them to answers.

The day a nation's leader shuts down a free press is a dark day for any country.

Statement from CNN and @Acosta on today’s ruling: “We are gratified with this result and we look forward to a full resolution in the coming days. Our sincere thanks to all who have supported not just CNN, but a free, strong and independent American press.”

— CNN Communications (@CNNPR) November 16, 2018

Here's what Trump-appointed Judge Kelly said about gov't case: "Whatever process occurred within the government is still so shrouded in mystery that the government could not tell me at oral argument who made the initial decision to revoke Mr. Acosta's press pass."

— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) November 16, 2018

Jim Acosta turning up at @PressSec’s next press briefing like pic.twitter.com/8iWua6pd18

— Randy Rainbow (@RandyRainbow) November 16, 2018

Trump Praises Violent 'Body-Slam' On Reporter

Donald Trump

At a campaign rally last night in Montana, Donald Trump praised the state's lone congressman, Rep. Greg Gianforte, for his now-infamous physical assault on journalist Ben Jacobs of The Guardian in the spring of 2017.

Via ABC News:

"Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!" Trump said to cheers.

"I was in Rome with leaders when I heard about it, and I heard that he body-slammed a reporter," Trump said.

Trump said he was afraid Gianforte would lose after the moment, but then recalled, "Wait a moment, I know Montana."

Gianforte pleaded guilty and was sentenced to community service for the incident. He apologized on the night of his election victory, saying, "When you make a mistake you have to own it."

Journalists everywhere were justified in their horror at an American president cheering on physical violence against a reporter.

This comes after Trump has spent days defending the Saudi Arabian government amid mounting evidence they were involved in the disappearance of Washington Post columnist, Jamal Khashoggi.

WATCH: During Montana rally, President Trump references Rep. Greg Gianforte's assault of reporter Ben Jacobs: "Any guy that can do a body slam ... he's my guy." pic.twitter.com/1bupNPtOzg

— NBC News (@NBCNews) October 19, 2018

The disturbing part of Trump’s jokes about Gianforte was the effect on the crowd. I saw one young man in the crowd making body slam gestures. He looked at me and ran his thumb across his throat. I talked to him after the rally was over. He couldn’t stop laughing.

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) October 19, 2018

Trump’s comments mark the first time the president has openly and directly praised a violent act against a journalist on American soil. https://t.co/z72ZgUeyNo

— Sheryl Gay Stolberg (@SherylNYT) October 19, 2018

Trump on Gianforte's assault of @Bencjacobs -- "I think it might help him, and it did."

Big cheers in crowd as Trump mentions a reporter getting assaulted. Wow.

— Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) October 19, 2018

Guardian US editor issues statement responding to Trump: “The President of the United States tonight applauded the assault on an American journalist who works for the Guardian.” pic.twitter.com/sSwUiBQo2J

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) October 19, 2018

White House Chief Of Staff: "We've Looked At" Changing First Amendment

Q: Is POTUS considering a constitutional amendment to change press laws?

PRIEBUS: "I think it's something that we've looked at." pic.twitter.com/fwZRMvsEjz

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) April 30, 2017

President Trump Plans To "Do Something" About Press Use Of Unnamed Sources

President Trump told the crowd at CPAC today he plans to "do something about" the media's use of unnamed sources.

Via Deadline:

“They shouldn’t be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody’s name,’ Trump told an enthusiastic crowd of conservatives at their annual gathering outside Washington, D.C.

“I want you all to know we are fighting the fake news. Phoney. Fake,” he said to roars of approval.

“I called the fake news the enemy of the people, and they are.. because they have no sources; they just make them up when there are none. They make up sources” he said.

“And they shouldn’t use ‘sources’,” he said, adding they should be required to put the names of everyone to whom they speak into their reports. The end result he explained, “you will see stories dry up like you’ve never been before.”

Considering we have the First Amendment, I don't think El Trumpo will be doing anything about how the free press utilizes named or unnamed sources.

You'll recall back in the day, the president liked to call NYC media and pretend to be "Donald Trump's publicist" to drop blind items about himself in the newspapers.

American Family Association: The First Amendment only applies to Christians

Hate group leader Bryan Fischer

Hate group leader Bryan Fischer is in a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of mood today.

He has single-handedly decided that the First Amendment's protection to religious liberties only applies to Christians.

From his blog post today on the American Family Association website:

"I have contended for years that the First Amendment, as given by the Founders, provides religious liberty protections for Christianity only. Most attorney types, befuddled by years of untethered Supreme Court activism, think it covers any and all religions you can name.

"The results of this expansive but badly misguided understanding of the First Amendment have not been too costly to this point. But with Islam growing in America like a noxious weed, some of the more troublesome aspects of this distorted view of religious liberty are becoming evident, when it comes to things like school curricula, halal food, and Christian evangelism at Muslim street fairs."

Halal food must be very troubling to Bryan Fischer.

Fischer goes on to say that the Founding Father's never, ever, ever, never meant to say that "religion" meant all religions when writing the First Amendment.

Except, they did.

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified unanimously and without debate by the US Senate in 1797 and signed by President Adama, reads as follows:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,- and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Bolding is mine. Clearly unequivocal in it's clarity. "The United States of America is not IN ANY SENSE founded on the Christian Religion."

Bryan Fischer, take a history class.  And stop misleading folks for your own purposes.

Freedom of speech at Tournatment of Roses Parade under attack by Karen Grube

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation third entry in the Tournament of Roses Parade will feature a same-sex wedding to take place atop a float themed "Love Is The Best Protection."


Some folks are attacking the couple's First Amendment rights to exchange their vows:

Karen Grube, of San Diego, said the Tournament of Roses should remove the AHF float from the parade. She has also called on corporate sponsors to remove their support of the parade if the wedding goes on as planned. And, she has set up a Facebook page seeking support for her cause.

“Gay marriage is illegal in over 30 states, why would they promote something that is blatantly illegal?” Grube said. “That’s just stupid.”

The 2014 Rose Parade is the first where gay marriage has been legal in California, following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that deemed Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

Grube also said she didn’t think the Tournament should be involved in a group’s “political agenda.”

“It used to be a family thing, to get up on New Year’s Day morning and watch the parade,” she said. “It no longer is.”

Michael E. Thornton, a retired disabled veteran, said he will not be watching due to religious beliefs.

“Celebrating this ungodly activity is repugnant to me spiritually and I will not support this practice financially by viewing the parade,” he wrote in an email to this newspaper.

To point out the obvious, same-sex marriage is legal in California where the Tournament of Roses Parade takes place.

It will be interesting to see how many Duck Dynasty "Free Speech" warriors defend this gay couple for wanting to express their love publicly. Because, you know, the Phil Robertson support was about 'free speech' rights and not, you know, 'the gay.'

(source)

Censorship - Duck Dynasty flap vs Happy Holidays

Clip description: "With the controversy over Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson' comments about homosexuality dominating cable news Thursday, Jon Stewart really had no choice but to offer the world his take on the issue. The Daily Show host took the opportunity to deliver a scathing take down of the "free speech absolutists" at Fox News.

"Look, I think what the guy said is ignorant," Stewart said, "but I also have an inclination to support a world where saying ignorant shit on television doesn't get you kicked off that medium." But does Fox News truly believe you shouldn't "pressure people to have to adhere to cultural norms of speech?"

"This led to an epic "War on Christmas" montage, after which Stewart explained that Fox's "belief in free speech doesn't extend to the holidays where the word Christmas is mandatory."

So, on one hand, the Teabaggers say Phil Robertson should be able to say what he wants with no repercussions.

BUT - folks during the holidays should be REQUIRED to use the word "Christmas" and not "Holidays" (i.e. "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays"). Isn't that censorship also? Don't people have a right to use the words "Happy Holidays" if they want without getting attacked?

Along the same lines, when Martin Bashir suggested someone should defecate in Sarah Palin's mouth (and subsequently had to resign from his position at MSNBC), why weren't the rignt wingers coming to HIS First Amendment defense?

Things that make you go "hmm..."