A Lawsuit Based on the Fifth and First Amendments That Has Nothing to Do with Either of Them

ANOTHER FEDERAL JUDGE DECIDES TO MAKE THE LAW. Instead of following the Constitution. • FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS TEMPORARY RETURN OF ACOSTA'S PRESS PASS. The Fox News report states : "A federal judge ruled in favor of CNN on Friday, allowing the network’s star reporter Jim Acosta to temporarily regain access to his White House press credential. 'I will grant the application for the temporary restraining order. I order the government reinstate the pass,' US District Judge Timothy J. Kelly ruled from Washington." Judge Kelly heard oral arguments earlier in the week about CNN’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The White House had suspended Acosta's "hard pass," which provided expedited access to the White House grounds. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders issued the following statement : “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. There must be decorum at the White House.” • Judge Kelly’s decision is temporary and further hearings will take place in the next few weeks to determine whether or not pulling the credential violated CNN's and Acosta’s First and Fifth Amendment rights. The temporary order lasts for 14 days and CNN can now petition the Court for a permanent injunction. In a statement, CNN said : “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." • Judge Kelly, a Trump appointee, declared that precedent had been set that the White House should have given Acosta due process before taking away his credential and that harm to the reporter had already occurred. He said that CNN is likely to succeed on Fifth Amendment grounds and that the harm to Acosta outweighs the government's need for an orderly press conference. Acosta said : “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. Let’s go back to work.” • Acosta's press pass to access the White House was suspended last week "until further notice" after he engaged in a contentious back-and-forth with President Trump during a press conference. Acosta refused to pass the microphone to a female White House aide and there was brief contact between the two. Later in the day, Acosta’s credential was revoked. CNN filed the federal lawsuit against the Trump administration on Tuesday demanding that the White House restore the press credential of the star reporter -- but Sanders called the move “more grandstanding from CNN.” The Trump administration countered the motion, saying Acosta “disrupted the fair and orderly administration of a press conference” when he refused to give up the microphone. Judge Kelly dismissed the Trump administration’s claim that CNN could simply send another reporter in Acosta’s place and told attorneys to file additional court papers in the case by Monday. • Trump said of the situation that : “You have to practice decorum. We want total freedom of the press, that’s very important to me...but you have to act with respect, you’re in the White House.” • In a move that surprised many conservatives viewers, earlier this week, Fox News announced that it would support CNN’s effort to restore Acosta’s White House credential and filed an amicus brief with the US District Court. Fox stated : “Fox News supports CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credential. We intend to file an amicus brief with the US District Court. Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people,” Fox News President Jay Wallace said in a statement. • Acosta has become a hero of the #Resistance after habitually shouting and interrupting when President Trump and members of his administration are available to the media. Acosta has also gotten into combative arguments with other members of the administration, including former Press Secretary Sean Spicer, Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney and Senior Policy Advisor Stephen Miller. • • • REACTION TO THE RULING. Judi McLeod of Canada Free Press wrote on Friday : "In a gone-upside-down world blowhard and bullying are in, decorum and showing respect for the office of the President of the United States are out. For any who might think that Acosta’s badgering of all those about him (including other reporters) at White House pressers, was over the top, think of what today’s win will do his already over inflated ego. Rude dudes like Acosta are bound to bring more media bullies to the fore. God help anyone who steps into his limelight when Acosta’s got the floor....CNN argued that the White House infringed on Acosta’s free press and due process rights under the First and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution. The network was asking for an order that would temporarily reverse the White House’s suspension of Acosta’s hard pass, until a final decision on the lawsuit was reached. CNN also wants 'a declaration that the revocation of Acosta’s press credentials was unconstitutional.'....The worst part of this ruling is that it opens the door for other ‘correspondents’/‘journalists’ who might adopt Acosta’s bully behavior at future White House press conferences. Other major media, including Fox News, backed the CNN lawsuit against the White House. They include to date : 'The Associated Press, Bloomberg, First Look Media, Gannett, the New York Times, Politico, EW Scripps, USA Today Network, Washington Post, Press Freedom Defense Fund, and National Press Club.' Meanwhile, it’s a dog-eat-dog world of which braying donkeys approve." • Mark Levin tweeted : " Another disgraceful court ruling... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/16/judge-orders- trump-administration-to-restore-cnn-reporter-jim-acostas-white-house-press-pass.html …" • Matthew Vadum, also of Canada Free Press, wrote : "Critics of President Trump say he has no right to decide which reporters cover him, which is, of course, beside the point. By taking away a hard pass Trump is not preventing Acosta from covering him -- merely making it more difficult for him to gain access to a government building he otherwise has no legal right to enter. Even if he were barred from the White House grounds, Acosta would still be free to report on the Trump administration to his heart’s content. As George W. Bush’s White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer explained in a November 13 tweet : 'Acosta has access to the White House, the same every other opinion writer or op-ed writer has. He remains a member of the press corps and he can apply for a daily WH press pass. The only thing he lost is a hard pass which clears him daily [without] need for a day pass." • The Department of Justice filed a 28-page brief in support of the President’s position, saying that “no journalist has a First Amendment right to enter the White House....The President is generally free to open the White House doors to political allies, in the hopes of furthering a particular agenda, and he is equally free to invite in only political foes, in the hopes of convincing them of his position. The First Amendment simply does not regulate these decisions.” The DOJ document states : “the lack of a hard pass does not prevent Mr. Acosta -- much less CNN -- from reporting on the White House. That revocation was premised on stated reasons that are viewpoint- and content-neutral and are evident from the video of the November 7 press conference.” • Matthew Vadum writes : "In other words, this vexatious lawsuit is much ado about nothing. It is a publicity stunt by the most dishonest of the cable TV news networks and nothing more. The lawsuit was filed by Ted Boutrous and Trump-hating Republican lawyer Ted Olson, of the law firm Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher. Olson was solicitor general in President George W. Bush’s administration. Although the media howled on those rare occasions when reporters barked questions at then-President Obama at White House pressers without being called upon, now some journalists are circling the wagons to protect the boorish Acosta. Olivier Knox, president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, said his group 'strongly supports CNN’s goal of seeing their correspondent regain a US Secret Service security credential that the White House should not have taken away in the first place.' Surprisingly, Fox News supports CNN’s lawsuit and said it would file a friend-of-the-court brief in the legal proceeding....One America News Network (OAN) took the opposite tack and criticized Fox News. CEO Robert Herring tweeted : "We are going to file in the CNN vs White House court an Amicus Brief in favor of the White House. Acosta’s actions are stopping our people from getting their questions answered, so that we can give our audience the real news direct from our President. Can’t believe Fox is on the other side, but they have direct communication to the President. We are lucky if we get a five minute interview once a quarter." • Vadum says : "CNN asserts the puzzling claim that the banishment of Acosta violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and due process, implying Acosta has a right to attend White House events no matter how outrageous, disruptive, or inappropriate his behavior....The courts are ill-equipped to deal with such a novel legal request. After all, no one has a constitutional right to attend a White House press conference or to be called upon by the President at one. The President isn’t actually required to hold press conferences or to answer questions at all, which makes CNN’s claims all the more dubious." • • • DEAR READERS, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders called the lawsuit “just more grandstanding from CNN.” Sanders said : "CNN, who has nearly 50 additional hard pass holders, and Mr. Acosta is no more or less special than any other media outlet or reporter with respect to the First Amendment. 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 as Acosta did on that day and on many other press conference occasions. His behavior was 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. After answering several badgering questions put by Acosta about whether the caravan heading to the US border is an "invasion" -- with Acosta trying to corner the President into misspeaking about the Mexico-US border situation; President Trump finally said : "“I think you should -- honestly, I think you should let me run the country, you run CNN...and if you did it well, your ratings would be much better.” • Why Fox News would associate itself with either Jim Acosta or CNN is puzzling -- especially since the CNN lawsuit claims Fifth and First Amendment rights that simply do not exist. President Trump could end White House news conferences and either communicate with the press by memos and statements released by the White House press secretary, and / or take random questions from the press corps that travels with him. He could conceivably simply not deal with the press -- that would present political problems for him but it would not violate anyone's Fifth or First Amendment rights. • The FIFTH Amendment : "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." • The FIRST Amendment : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." • Jim Acosta was not "deprived" his "life, liberty, or property" by having he press pass suspended. Jim Acosta was not the subject of a law by Congress that abridged his "freedom of speech," nor was his freedom "peaceably to assemble" or to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" interfered with. There is simply no basis either for the CNN Fake lawsuit or for the judge's decision to kowtow to the Progressive cabal trying to destroy President Trump. • It is indeed too bad Justice Scalia is no longer with us, on this as on so many other occasions. But, when Judge Kelly's order is final, if it re-instates Jim Acosta's White House press pass, the Trump administration must appeal this serious violation of constitutional rule of law.