RE: Federal Judge Orders White House To Temporarily Restore Press Access To Jim Acosta
November 18, 2018 at 6:50 am
(This post was last modified: November 18, 2018 at 7:10 am by John V.)
(November 17, 2018 at 4:37 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Even assuming the worst, and accepting the doctored infowars video that the administration tried to fob off...they still have a binding duty to the 5th amendment.
The context of the fifth amendment is "capital, or otherwise infamous crime... criminal case... due process of law." I don't see how that applies in this situation.
(November 17, 2018 at 6:27 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: That's something that's always mystified me. Who thinks that we should be stingy rather than generous... when it comes to what the government can't do to us with all of the terrible power of the state at it's disposal? Wouldn't most of us side with the little man, if..for no other reason, than to make it harder for big gov to shank us while we aren't looking?
Maybe part of the different interpretations is that I see the intern as the "little man" in this situation, and Acosta as the person with the power (which is apparently how Acosta saw it too). I don't see her as big government trying to shank a defenseless Acosta.
(November 17, 2018 at 10:38 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I'm not a lawyer nor a judge, so in this case I am deferring to the authority and expertise of the judge in this matter that there exists a clear constitutional issue involved.
If that's the case - and that seems to be Khem's main angle too - then why bother discussing it further? Isn't it a settled issue for you?
OTOH, if you do want to discuss the issues, then why just fall back on this one judge's ruling?
(November 17, 2018 at 11:44 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: What is the law in this case, for due process under law? If there is one, the administrations lawyers failed to present it.
I doubt that Congress, or any government agency, wrote laws or regulations regarding access. Until now, why would they?
It's my understanding that the White House is now going to draw up official policy regarding such. I doubt that it will favor the Acostas of the world. So, it's probably going to end up that CNN won a battle, but lost a war.
In a way it makes me think of this new forum. The rules aresimple - behave like you're in a job interview. Hopefully, people will voluntarily respect that, so why bother writing rules in greater detail? But, if someone (Acosta by analogy) insists on pushing the envelope, then more detailed rules could unfortunately be required.
