CNN Lawsuit Gets Jim Acosta Out Of Timeout

CNN Lawsuit Gets Jim Acosta Out Of Timeout

CNN Lawsuit Gets Jim Acosta Out Of Timeout

CNN made their case for their precious Jim Acosta’s White House “hard pass” access in front of a judge yesterday. Fox News filed an amicus curiae, proving the massive entitlement among the journalistic social caste.

After a day’s delay, the judge ruled this morning that Jim Acosta can get off his timeout chair because the White House didn’t count to three first.

Federal judge Timothy J. Kelly sided with CNN on Friday, ordering the White House to reinstate chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta’s press pass.

The ruling was an initial victory for CNN in its lawsuit against President Trump and several top aides.

The lawsuit alleges that CNN and Acosta’s First and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated by the suspension of Acosta’s press pass.

Kelly did not rule on the underlying case on Friday. But he granted CNN’s request for a temporary restraining order.

This result means that Acosta will have his access to the White House restored for at least a short period of time. The judge said while explaining his decision that he believes that CNN and Acosta are likely to prevail in the case overall.

Kelly made his ruling on the basis of CNN and Acosta’s Fifth Amendment claims, saying the White House did not provide Acosta with the due process required to legally revoke his press pass.

He left open the possibility, however, that the White House could seek to revoke it again if it provided that due process, emphasizing the “very limited” nature of his ruling and saying he was not making a judgment on the First Amendment claims that CNN and Acosta have made.

This, of course, is not the end of the story.

CNN has also asked for “permanent relief,” meaning a declaration from the judge that Trump’s revocation of Acosta’s press pass was unconstitutional. This legal conclusion could protect other reporters from retaliation by the administration.

“The revocation of Acosta’s credentials is only the beginning,” CNN’s lawsuit alleged, pointing out that Trump has threatened to strip others’ press passes too.

That is one of the reasons why most of the country’s major news organizations have backed CNN’s lawsuit, turning this into an important test of press freedom.
But the judge will rule on all of that later. Further hearings are likely to take place in the next few weeks, according to CNN’s lawyers.

Count me among those who just doesn’t think that Jim Acosta is that special as a “journalist” – and given his inclination to be a grandstanding jackass, he is a supremely lousy reporter – and his ego didn’t need the massaging. However, those in the upper caste of journalism (otherwise known as the “blue-checks” on right and left) disagree.

What really needs to happen next is a proper shunning, honestly.

Imagine the blow to Acosta’s ego if he just never got called on anymore. Imagine that Sarah Sanders said to herself, “Okay, I’m just going to continually call on a different CNN reporter from now on, when I decide to call on CNN.” We already know that those journalists who believe they breathe rarified air at the top of the pile get seriously annoyed when non-legacy media outlets get to ask questions. Imagine if the White House just decided that the daily press briefing would no longer be videotaped, only audiotaped. Imagine if no one saw Jim Acosta’s hair during a press conference?? The HORROR.

And if Jim Acosta did decide to start yelling out a question when not being called on, Sanders could simply smile and say, “Jim, that’s strike two.”

After all, if “due process” is the issue, simply count to three and then show him the door. It’s not like Acosta has a lot of support personally from his colleagues. If Jim Acosta continues being Jim Acosta, the White House will have more than enough documented evidence to remove him again.

Featured image: Jim Acosta on CNN (image via screenshot)

Written by

  • SFC D says:

    I blame Acosta’s parents. His tantrums worked on them, why shouldn’t they work now?

  • Nicki says:

    This was in no way discrimination. If that was the case, people like April Ryan and others who have challenged the president would have been booted out a long time ago.

    I agree Acosta will be more of an obnoxious twat than ever.

    If I were this administration, I’d simply stop having press conferences and pull EVERYONE’s hard pass. No one has the “right” to report from the White House grounds. Bye, assholes!

  • GWB says:

    CNN and Acosta are likely to prevail in the case overall
    If that’s the case, then you have to open the WH to every American (and, arguably, every non-American) all the time. Because the ability to control access to the WH is at basic issue here. If the Secret Service can’t revoke someone’s pass on a moment’s notice, then you have removed their ability to control access almost entirely.

    If I were the WH, I would refuse. Barring that, I would simply revoke ALL “hard” passes. Period.
    “Oh, you want in? Then you’ll have to apply the day before, for a specific press conference, so we can run a background check. And we’ll hand them out by lottery (no more guaranteed passes just because you’re an ‘important’ news organization) once the background investigations are complete.”

    the due process required to legally revoke his press pass
    If there is NOT a sentence somewhere on the paperwork for that card that says something like “This pass is the sole property of the WH SS, and must be surrendered immediately upon demand” then the SS really f*ed up. EVERY single pass I’ve ever held to access a building has had a similar phrase on it or the paperwork. Otherwise, when they fired me, I could demand due process for returning the badge, and come and go at my leisure, though my job has ended.

    an important test of press freedom
    Bullpucky. It’s a test of Big Press privilege. It’s another test case for eliminating Rule Of Law and replacing it with Rule Of Lawyers, backed by being on the side of Rightthink.

    Excellent news for the First Amendment.
    Not really, French. More like “Excellent news for Big Press.”

    folks like me have applauded Trump judicial picks is because vast majority are principled jurists
    If they’re the wrong principles, then I don’t see how it is a good thing.

    I’m not seeing how we’re winning on judges here.

  • Johnny says:

    Fine, but if now “Accoster” never gets called on, it’s just like he’s not there.
    What’s he going to do now? Wrestle the mic away from one of his colleagues?
    And even if he does, if President Trump ignores him, it’s still like he’s not there.
    What then – scream at the sky?
    Hold his breath ’til he turns blue?

    • GWB says:

      Wrestle the mic away from one of his colleagues?
      Please, from your lips to God’s ears. Because if he assaulted a fellow “journalist” the SS could simply tase him on the spot. They don’t even need any additional rules for that. And *THAT* video would be good journalism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner