CNN sues the WH over Acosta ban

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 15, 2018 13:18:37 GMT -5 hurley1980 said:

I still have not received an answer about whey Trump continues to call on Acosta if he is so disruptive. Why doesn't he just ignore him? There are plenty of other journalist to call on.

I'll admit Mr. Acosta was disruptive, if you Trumpsters will admit Trump only called on Mr. Acosta because he knew it would cause a scene.

Pres. Trump isn't blameless, but he holds the office of US President, meaning he has the proper authority to direct the proceedings.

If the tables were turned, e.g. Mr. Acosta was delivering the keynote address at a symposium for journalists, with Pres. Trump in the audience, then Mr. Acosta would be the authority directing the proceedings. If Pres. Trump refused to comply with orders to stand down, then he (Pres. Trump) would be the one guilty of disruptive behaviour.

I can't speak to Pres. Trump's state of mind calling on Mr. Acosta. I know the two deeply resent each other. Anything beyond that is speculation.

Finally, not everybody who defends a position favourable to Pres. Trump in some issue du jour is a "Trumpster", unless you define "Trumpster" as "anybody who doesn't slam Trump's positions universally and unconditionally". Believe it or not, people exist who neither love everything nor hate everything the man does.

[hurley1980]

Oh good lord, he's a drama queen. Enough said!

[tallguy]

Nov 15, 2018 14:18:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 15, 2018 13:18:37 GMT -5 hurley1980 said:

I still have not received an answer about whey Trump continues to call on Acosta if he is so disruptive. Why doesn't he just ignore him? There are plenty of other journalist to call on.

I'll admit Mr. Acosta was disruptive, if you Trumpsters will admit Trump only called on Mr. Acosta because he knew it would cause a scene.

Pres. Trump isn't blameless, but he holds the office of US President, meaning he has the proper authority to direct the proceedings.

If the tables were turned, e.g. Mr. Acosta was delivering the keynote address at a symposium for journalists, with Pres. Trump in the audience, then Mr. Acosta would be the authority directing the proceedings. If Pres. Trump refused to comply with orders to stand down, then he (Pres. Trump) would be the one guilty of disruptive behaviour.

I can't speak to Pres. Trump's state of mind calling on Mr. Acosta. I know the two deeply resent each other. Anything beyond that is speculation.

Finally, not everybody who defends a position favourable to Pres. Trump in some issue du jour is a "Trumpster", unless you define "Trumpster" as "anybody who doesn't slam Trump's positions universally and unconditionally". Believe it or not, people exist who neither love everything nor hate everything the man does.

If you are saying that the president has the right not to call on a particular reporter, or the right to end the press briefing and walk out, I agree with you.  Beyond that, he is in error.  He created the situation and the environment, and he is responsible for it.  It is also his responsibility to suffer the slings and arrows arising from his actions.  He is incapable of doing that either.

[weltschmerz]

Nov 15, 2018 5:15:03 GMT -5 ednkris said:

Nov 15, 2018 0:10:06 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Sorry, but 1St and 5th Ammendment Rights are not “priviledges”.... And this isn’t about Acosta or CNN.  It’s about trump’s attacks on our democracy.   This is entirely on him.

The 1st Ammendment is not violated here. He didn't throw everyone out just an obnoxious, unrespectful, grandstanding, journalist. The 5th ammendment, personally i dont there is not much of a case here let's see where the cnn lawsuit goes. 

Again I'm not wrong it is a privilege to be covering the Whitehouse, it's not just open to all news agencies to come. Respect where your at and who your addressing. The questions can be tough but be reresctful of the position whether you like the person in that position or not.

The question was asked and answered. What the press, mainly the left leaning news hates is that this president called them out on their shady news reporting as fake news.They cannot stand it no one ever gave it back to them, and he is using his first ammendment rights to do it. Trump could cure cancer and these agencies would write Trump just put all oncologists out of business.

Perhaps everyone should wait for Trump to show them how it's done.

[Gardening Grandma]

Nov 15, 2018 12:57:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 15, 2018 11:52:32 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

There was no “disruptive behavior”. Legal precedent is on the side of the journalists, especially since the precedent cited violated Constitutional rights (not “privileges”)
You also don’t seem to understand American constitutional rights, which is understand@ble since you are Canadian. 

The right is to freedom of speech. Not "freedom of speech in any venue, at any time, under any circumstances". Protection under the 1st Amendment is not an issue with a one-size-fits-all solution. Ergo why courts are needed to adjudicate.

If you can't see that Mr. Acosta's behaviour is disruptive, I only hope that someday you'll be addressing a crowd at your pleasure, answering their questions; and some loud malcontent will refuse to shut up and let you speak; and reality will at last smack you in the face: Wow! This is pretty disruptive.

The same goes for anyone else who'd excuse Mr. Acosta's conduct.

Finally, there's no 'd' in 'privileges'. Ordinarily it wouldn't matter, but you're quoting ednkris and he doesn't misspell it.

I am fully aware that the 1st ammndment does not give one the freedom to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater; there are limits....

Howevere, Mr Acosta’s questioning does not fall under “disruptive”.  You really ought to watch the press conferences of earlier presidencies.  Then you’ll see just how  silly your assertion is.

I’ll be sure to fix my spelling error.

[Shooby]

Nov 14, 2018 21:00:50 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Nov 14, 2018 19:52:42 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Bills, is there any law or rule that states the President even has to hold press conferences,,

If he has something to announce,, he simply calls a less objectionable journalist into his office ,, make an announcement thru that journalist!

No, if he has something to announce, he tweets.

Yep.  He talks directly instead of having it filtered through the Fake News Network of CNN.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 15, 2018 14:37:27 GMT -5 tallguy said:

If you are saying that the president has the right not to call on a particular reporter, or the right to end the press briefing and walk out, I agree with you.  Beyond that, he is in error.

Agree to disagree.

He created the situation and the environment, and he is responsible for it. 

He wasn't responsible for the situation beyond giving Mr. Acosta an answer he didn't want to hear. Furthermore, to be responsible for a situation requires that one has some authority over it, and the only authority you appear to vest him with is a choice of whether to ignore Mr. Acosta or to run away from him. Again: agree to disagree.

As for his creating "the environment": if you're referring to the climate of hostility between himself and the press, on this point I agree with you, with the caveat that there's plenty of blame to go around on both sides. But a hostile environment doesn't obviate the need for order, or the authority of the office of the POTUS, or the need for reporters to respect this authority in the press room, hostile though it may be. If you disagree with this (and I'm sure you do): agree to disagree.

You get a 3-for-1 agree-to-disagree deal.

[weltschmerz]

Nov 15, 2018 19:13:26 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Nov 14, 2018 21:00:50 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

No, if he has something to announce, he tweets.

Yep.  He talks directly instead of having it filtered through the Fake News Network of CNN.

ROTFLMAO!
Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 15, 2018 16:19:15 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Nov 15, 2018 12:57:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The right is to freedom of speech. Not "freedom of speech in any venue, at any time, under any circumstances". Protection under the 1st Amendment is not an issue with a one-size-fits-all solution. Ergo why courts are needed to adjudicate.

If you can't see that Mr. Acosta's behaviour is disruptive, I only hope that someday you'll be addressing a crowd at your pleasure, answering their questions; and some loud malcontent will refuse to shut up and let you speak; and reality will at last smack you in the face: Wow! This is pretty disruptive.

The same goes for anyone else who'd excuse Mr. Acosta's conduct.

Finally, there's no 'd' in 'privileges'. Ordinarily it wouldn't matter, but you're quoting ednkris and he doesn't misspell it.

I am fully aware that the 1st ammndment does not give one the freedom to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater; there are limits....

Howevere, Mr Acosta’s questioning does not fall under “disruptive”.  You really ought to watch the press conferences of earlier presidencies.  Then you’ll see just how  silly your assertion is.

I’ll be sure to fix my spelling error.

If other presidents were willing to tolerate comparable behaviour (the like of which I've never seen in any press conference footage, BTW, hence it would help if you or anyone else would point me to a specific example), that was their prerogative. Pres. Trump obviously doesn't tolerate it, and he shouldn't have to.

Indeed no world leader should be relegated to ignoring a reporter, or screaming over the din, or running away, or answering a reporter's questions endlessly, or any of the 99 other things people here insist he should have done to rectify the situation.

[NastyWoman]

Nov 15, 2018 19:16:03 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Nov 15, 2018 19:13:26 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Yep.  He talks directly instead of having it filtered through the Fake News Network of CNN.

ROTFLMAO! ...

 especially since whenever CNN directly quotes or prints any of dt's tweets it is called Fake News. Never mind that there is an abundance of proof that he actually said or tweeted something. If CNN reported it was and is therefore, by definition, it is Fake News

[Gardening Grandma]

Nov 15, 2018 19:26:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 15, 2018 16:19:15 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

I am fully aware that the 1st ammndment does not give one the freedom to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater; there are limits....

Howevere, Mr Acosta’s questioning does not fall under “disruptive”.  You really ought to watch the press conferences of earlier presidencies.  Then you’ll see just how  silly your assertion is.

I’ll be sure to fix my spelling error.

If other presidents were willing to tolerate comparable behaviour (the like of which I've never seen in any press conference footage, BTW, hence it would help if you or anyone else would point me to a specific example), that was their prerogative. Pres. Trump obviously doesn't tolerate it, and he shouldn't have to.

Indeed no world leader should be relegated to ignoring a reporter, or screaming over the din, or running away, or answering a reporter's questions endlessly, or any of the 99 other things people here insist he should have done to rectify the situation.

I’ve watched Presidential briefings for years; if you haven’t, you can do your own research.

[ednkris]

Nov 15, 2018 7:15:48 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Nov 15, 2018 5:15:03 GMT -5 ednkris said:

The 1st Ammendment is not violated here. He didn't throw everyone out just an obnoxious, unrespectful, grandstanding, journalist. The 5th ammendment, personally i dont there is not much of a case here let's see where the cnn lawsuit goes. 

Again I'm not wrong it is a privilege to be covering the Whitehouse, it's not just open to all news agencies to come. Respect where your at and who your addressing. The questions can be tough but be reresctful of the position whether you like the person in that position or not.

The question was asked and answered. What the press, mainly the left leaning news hates is that this president called them out on their shady news reporting as fake news.They cannot stand it no one ever gave it back to them, and he is using his first ammendment rights to do it. Trump could cure cancer and these agencies would write Trump just put all oncologists out of business.

You clearly know nothing about our rights under the U.S. Constitution.  The rights under the constitution apply to individuals and groups. 

Ok take me to school please explain which rights of Acosta were violated and how the detail of the violation were to pertain to the constitution...

I don't mean 1st Ammendment violated....I want the actual violation and how the constitution will support it...

[Tennesseer]

Nov 15, 2018 21:20:18 GMT -5 ednkris said:

Nov 15, 2018 7:15:48 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

You clearly know nothing about our rights under the U.S. Constitution.  The rights under the constitution apply to individuals and groups. 

Ok take me to school please explain which rights of Acosta were violated and how the detail of the violation were to pertain to the constitution...

I don't mean 1st Ammendment violated....I want the actual violation and how the constitution will support it...

trump doen't like the man. Trump bans a member of the press because he doesn't like hard questions the man reporting the truth. trump is supressing the press from telling the truth.

Let the courts decide if Acosta's first amenedment rights have been stepped upon.

Additionally, you said only one person was banned not all the press so it can't be a violation of the first amendment. Or at least that is how your post read.

Suppression of first amendment rights, or any amendment of one person is the same as suppressing the rights of all.

[Tennesseer]

The media will occasionally bring First Amendment violation cases, typically when the lone reporter representing an outlet or the entire news organization itself is blocked.

That’s not true here: CNN still has multiple reporters covering the White House. But Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, called the lawsuit “entirely justified” and said CNN appears to have a strong case.

“It’s pretty clear from the factual record that the White House revoked Acosta’s access because of the content of his questions. At the end of the day, that’s enough to establish a First Amendment violation,” Jaffer said.

CNN is suing the White House over Jim Acosta’s press pass. Does the network have a case?

[Gardening Grandma]

Nov 15, 2018 21:20:18 GMT -5 ednkris said:

Nov 15, 2018 7:15:48 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

You clearly know nothing about our rights under the U.S. Constitution.  The rights under the constitution apply to individuals and groups. 

Ok take me to school please explain which rights of Acosta were violated and how the detail of the violation were to pertain to the constitution...

I don't mean 1st Ammendment violated....I want the actual violation and how the constitution will support it...

I’ve already cited the legal precedent - here it is again....

In the 1977 case, the court found that denial of White House credentials was a sufficiently grave infringement on the freedom of the press that it couldn’t just be done by fiat...

I know you wont bother reading the whole thing, but here is the link
www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/14/can-cnn-beat-white-house-court-look-case-years-ago-loner-journalist-named-robert-sherrill/?utm_term=.3882f42c1661

[Virgil Showlion]

Here's another question to mull over:

Suppose the WH reinstates Mr. Acosta's press pass but Pres. Trump makes a point of never calling on him to ask a question. Categorically. A 'soft' blacklisting. What then?

Should CNN keep him on the beat, hoping he can scream out a question every once in a while and that Pres. Trump will answer it (for some reason)? Perhaps Mr. Acosta can just be there as an agitator, to blurt out questions uninvited and hopefully provoke Pres. Trump into attacking him or saying something rash?

Honestly, if Pres. Trump is dedicated to shutting out Mr. Acosta, how do you see this working out well for CNN, the WH, and the American people?

If you think Mr. Acosta being a disruptive influence in the press gallery is going to endear him to your countrymen or make him a martyr, you've got another thing coming.

[Gardening Grandma]

Nov 15, 2018 22:00:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Here's another question to mull over:

Suppose the WH reinstates Mr. Acosta's press pass but Pres. Trump makes a point of never calling on him to ask a question. Categorically. A 'soft' blacklisting. What then?

Should CNN keep him on the beat, hoping he can scream out a question every once in a while and that Pres. Trump will answer it (for some reason)? Perhaps Mr. Acosta can just be there as an agitator, to blurt out questions uninvited and hopefully provoke Pres. Trump into attacking him or saying something rash?

Honestly, if Pres. Trump is dedicated to shutting out Mr. Acosta, how do you see this working out well for CNN, the WH, and the American people?

If you think Mr. Acosta being a disruptive influence in the press gallery is going to endear him to your countrymen or make him a martyr, you've got another thing coming.

Dubya did that with a reporter. I believe it was Helen Thomas after she called him “the wotst president ever”

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Honestly, if Pres. Trump is dedicated to shutting out Mr. Acosta, how do you see this working out well for CNN, the WH, and the American people?

Trump will continue being the liar he is. Mr. Acosta will report his answers. CNN will have other reporters asking questions. The WH will continue their useless briefings of Sarah repeating the lies. The American people get more opportunity to see a WH that doesn't care about them. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 15, 2018 22:13:50 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Nov 15, 2018 22:00:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Here's another question to mull over:

Suppose the WH reinstates Mr. Acosta's press pass but Pres. Trump makes a point of never calling on him to ask a question. Categorically. A 'soft' blacklisting. What then?

Should CNN keep him on the beat, hoping he can scream out a question every once in a while and that Pres. Trump will answer it (for some reason)? Perhaps Mr. Acosta can just be there as an agitator, to blurt out questions uninvited and hopefully provoke Pres. Trump into attacking him or saying something rash?

Honestly, if Pres. Trump is dedicated to shutting out Mr. Acosta, how do you see this working out well for CNN, the WH, and the American people?

If you think Mr. Acosta being a disruptive influence in the press gallery is going to endear him to your countrymen or make him a martyr, you've got another thing coming.

Dubya did that with a reporter. I believe it was Helen Thomas after she called him “the wotst president ever”

So... what then?

You have exactly the same effect on Mr. Acosta's interrogatory powers: they remain zilch.

But... he's sitting in the room with his press pass to keep him warm, so CNN and the American people win?

[tallguy]

Nov 15, 2018 22:00:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Here's another question to mull over:

Suppose the WH reinstates Mr. Acosta's press pass but Pres. Trump makes a point of never calling on him to ask a question. Categorically. A 'soft' blacklisting. What then?

Should CNN keep him on the beat, hoping he can scream out a question every once in a while and that Pres. Trump will answer it (for some reason)? Perhaps Mr. Acosta can just be there as an agitator, to blurt out questions uninvited and hopefully provoke Pres. Trump into attacking him or saying something rash?

Honestly, if Pres. Trump is dedicated to shutting out Mr. Acosta, how do you see this working out well for CNN, the WH, and the American people?

If you think Mr. Acosta being a disruptive influence in the press gallery is going to endear him to your countrymen or make him a martyr, you've got another thing coming.

Setting aside the more general theoretical question in favor of the more immediate and concrete, I think it would be a great benefit to the country if NO outlet covered THIS administration, either the president or his assorted mouthpieces.  Their intent is virtually never to tell the truth, but rather to appeal to the worst instincts of those they (hopefully wrongly) refer to as "the base."  What benefit to the country or its people is provided by letting them lie to us and sow division and hatred?

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 15, 2018 22:21:05 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

Honestly, if Pres. Trump is dedicated to shutting out Mr. Acosta, how do you see this working out well for CNN, the WH, and the American people?

Trump will continue being the liar he is. Mr. Acosta will report his answers. CNN will have other reporters asking questions. The WH will continue their useless briefings of Sarah repeating the lies. The American people get more opportunity to see a WH that doesn't care about them. 

And I thought I was cynical.

[OldCoyote]

Nov 15, 2018 22:21:05 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

Honestly, if Pres. Trump is dedicated to shutting out Mr. Acosta, how do you see this working out well for CNN, the WH, and the American people?

Trump will continue being the liar he is. Mr. Acosta will report his answers. CNN will have other reporters asking questions. The WH will continue their useless briefings of Sarah repeating the lies. The American people get more opportunity to see a WH that doesn't care about them. 

No problem,, only call on FOX Journalists!

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 15, 2018 22:32:54 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Nov 15, 2018 22:00:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Here's another question to mull over:

Suppose the WH reinstates Mr. Acosta's press pass but Pres. Trump makes a point of never calling on him to ask a question. Categorically. A 'soft' blacklisting. What then?

Should CNN keep him on the beat, hoping he can scream out a question every once in a while and that Pres. Trump will answer it (for some reason)? Perhaps Mr. Acosta can just be there as an agitator, to blurt out questions uninvited and hopefully provoke Pres. Trump into attacking him or saying something rash?

Honestly, if Pres. Trump is dedicated to shutting out Mr. Acosta, how do you see this working out well for CNN, the WH, and the American people?

If you think Mr. Acosta being a disruptive influence in the press gallery is going to endear him to your countrymen or make him a martyr, you've got another thing coming.

Setting aside the more general theoretical question in favor of the more immediate and concrete, I think it would be a great benefit to the country if NO outlet covered THIS administration, either the president or his assorted mouthpieces.  Their intent is virtually never to tell the truth, but rather to appeal to the worst instincts of those they (hopefully wrongly) refer to as "the base."  What benefit to the country or its people is provided by letting them lie to us and sow division and hatred?

I... see.

So we basically make the entire country one giant safe space. And hope the executive branch doesn't do anything too crazy while we're not looking.

Sounds like a winning strategy. You've got my vote.

I hope you can appreciate the irony in this suggestion coming from the man who's done more than almost any other member to call attention to, drag out, and otherwise magnify threads by the most divisive Republican posters on the board. In fact, if memory serves, your rationale for chasing every bone and biting every hook was that lies, distortions, and whatnot need to be loudly condemned by truth-loving citizens such as yourself so that no untruth shall go unchallenged.

Or... we can just ignore it all and report on skateboarding dogs. Either or.

[Tennesseer]

Even if trump allows Acosta back into the press room and never allows him to ask questions, Acosta will still have his sources within trump's administration where he can ferret out breaking stories.

[Tennesseer]

trump won't like that and it will eat him alive.

[tallguy]

Nov 15, 2018 23:01:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 15, 2018 22:32:54 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Setting aside the more general theoretical question in favor of the more immediate and concrete, I think it would be a great benefit to the country if NO outlet covered THIS administration, either the president or his assorted mouthpieces.  Their intent is virtually never to tell the truth, but rather to appeal to the worst instincts of those they (hopefully wrongly) refer to as "the base."  What benefit to the country or its people is provided by letting them lie to us and sow division and hatred?

I... see.

So we basically make the entire country one giant safe space. And hope the executive branch doesn't do anything too crazy while we're not looking.

Sounds like a winning strategy. You've got my vote.

I hope you can appreciate the irony in this suggestion coming from the man who's done more than almost any other member to call attention to, drag out, and otherwise magnify threads by the most divisive Republican posters on the board. In fact, if memory serves, your rationale for chasing every bone and biting every hook was that lies, distortions, and whatnot need to be loudly condemned by truth-loving citizens such as yourself so that no untruth shall go unchallenged.

Or... we can just ignore it all and report on skateboarding dogs. Either or.

To be fair, even if we accept that characterization, those lies are already out there so of course must be challenged, as people like Acosta are doing in real life.  And if people get called out or shamed often enough they may reconsider their tactics.  This would be about preventing the lie from being promulgated in the first place.  Kind of like when new board members on some boards have to have their posts moderated before they get posted.  You know, to prevent the trolls and crackpots from being allowed an audience in their attempts to corrupt the debate.  Trump is both troll and crackpot.  He should be banned.      

[ednkris]

Nov 15, 2018 21:28:38 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Nov 15, 2018 21:20:18 GMT -5 ednkris said:

Ok take me to school please explain which rights of Acosta were violated and how the detail of the violation were to pertain to the constitution...

I don't mean 1st Ammendment violated....I want the actual violation and how the constitution will support it...

trump doen't like the man. Trump bans a member of the press because he doesn't like hard questions the man reporting the truth. trump is supressing the press from telling the truth.

Let the courts decide if Acosta's first amenedment rights have been stepped upon.

Additionally, you said only one person was banned not all the press so it can't be a violation of the first amendment. Or at least that is how your post read.

Suppression of first amendment rights, or any amendment of one person is the same as suppressing the rights of all.

You lost in the first sentence. He was banned by the president because of his disruptive behavior. He was allowed to ask his question and was answered no 1st Ammendment right violated. If he didn't act like a child (like most people who dislike Trump) and handed over the microphone maybe Jimmy would still be allowed in to play. I'm all for letting the courts decide.

[ednkris]

Nov 15, 2018 21:43:00 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Nov 15, 2018 21:20:18 GMT -5 ednkris said:

Ok take me to school please explain which rights of Acosta were violated and how the detail of the violation were to pertain to the constitution...

I don't mean 1st Ammendment violated....I want the actual violation and how the constitution will support it...

I’ve already cited the legal precedent - here it is again....

In the 1977 case, the court found that denial of White House credentials was a sufficiently grave infringement on the freedom of the press that it couldn’t just be done by fiat...

I know you wont bother reading the whole thing, but here is the link
www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/14/can-cnn-beat-white-house-court-look-case-years-ago-loner-journalist-named-robert-sherrill/?utm_term=.3882f42c1661

Interesting read. The actual case is better than the story. Sorry not even close

[weltschmerz]

Nov 15, 2018 23:44:51 GMT -5 ednkris said:

Nov 15, 2018 21:28:38 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

trump doen't like the man. Trump bans a member of the press because he doesn't like hard questions the man reporting the truth. trump is supressing the press from telling the truth.

Let the courts decide if Acosta's first amenedment rights have been stepped upon.

Additionally, you said only one person was banned not all the press so it can't be a violation of the first amendment. Or at least that is how your post read.

Suppression of first amendment rights, or any amendment of one person is the same as suppressing the rights of all.

You lost in the first sentence. He was banned by the president because of his disruptive behavior. He was allowed to ask his question and was answered no 1st Ammendment right violated. If he didn't act like a child (like most people who dislike Trump) and handed over the microphone maybe Jimmy would still be allowed in to play. I'm all for letting the courts decide.

Lol!
One of the reasons people don't don't like Trump is because HE acts like a child. 
A giant, petulant, sulking and bad-tempered child who lies a lot.

[Tennesseer]

Nov 15, 2018 23:44:51 GMT -5 ednkris said:

Nov 15, 2018 21:28:38 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

trump doen't like the man. Trump bans a member of the press because he doesn't like hard questions the man reporting the truth. trump is supressing the press from telling the truth.

Let the courts decide if Acosta's first amenedment rights have been stepped upon.

Additionally, you said only one person was banned not all the press so it can't be a violation of the first amendment. Or at least that is how your post read.

Suppression of first amendment rights, or any amendment of one person is the same as suppressing the rights of all.

You lost in the first sentence. He was banned by the president because of his disruptive behavior. He was allowed to ask his question and was answered no 1st Ammendment right violated. If he didn't act like a child (like most people who dislike Trump) and handed over the microphone maybe Jimmy would still be allowed in to play. I'm all for letting the courts decide.

LOL. You lost in your first sentence. trump hated the guy before Acosta even asked the first question. trump has been insulting him for months.

Virgil Showlion-note endnkris misspelled the word 'amendment'.