|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:what's the legal ground for the suit? Violation of 1st amendment, 5th amendment, and the Administrative procedures act.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
Caros posted:Not to ever defend shucks of all people, but presumably he'd have to get driven back, which puts the drive time at 2:24. Unless I'm misreading and that is there and back. They almost certainly phrased it this way so that it becomes the point of debate and distracts the narrative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Violation of 1st amendment, 5th amendment, and the Administrative procedures act. Oh, I thought they'd go libel/defamation for the assault claim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Oh, I thought they'd go libel/defamation for the assault claim. Jim Acosta is a public figure, so the bar for proving that kind of thing is super high. Basically requires making "knowingly false" statements with "malicious" intent. I think the video, even though a "doctored" one was going around, leaves enough room in the public discourse for someone claiming that Jim Acosta assaulted that intern being protected speech. I can't remember the exact case law, but CNN's entire lawsuit is kind of frivolous to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 15:49
|
|
|
Not gonna lie, as bummed as I am that Abrams will most likely lose, it makes me giddy as gently caress to know that Handel is out for good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Oh, I thought they'd go libel/defamation for the assault claim. they do mention it at length in the complaint, but it's just basically used to support "this is all ridiculous bullshit meant to restrict the free press" rather than go any farther. which seems smart tbh
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
eke out posted:they do mention it at length in the complaint, but it's just basically used to support "this is all ridiculous bullshit meant to restrict the free press" rather than go any farther. which seems smart tbh If nothing else I would hope CNN has good lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:Wtf. French Wine is vastly superior in every way In every way? In what way, exactly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_wine_tasting
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:If nothing else I would hope CNN has good lawyers. One of the co-counsel is Ted Olson, former solicitor general of the US who argued for Bush in Bush v. Gore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:Jim Acosta is a public figure, so the bar for proving that kind of thing is super high. Yeah, it's hard to prove but if your goal is just maximum gently caress you, the use of a doctored video defended by people who were themselves witnesses to the event gives you at least a basis for the claim -- it's non-frivolous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
Your Taint posted:One of the co-counsel is Ted Olson, former solicitor general of the US who argued for Bush in Bush v. Gore. Well, he won that case, so he must be good 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
Your Taint posted:One of the co-counsel is Ted Olson, former solicitor general of the US who argued for Bush in Bush v. Gore. He also got California's Prop 8 against gay marriage overturned, and sits on the board of the Federalist Society. He's basically "briefly tempting" on the libertarian chart: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, it's hard to prove but if your goal is just maximum gently caress you, the use of a doctored video defended by people who were themselves witnesses to the event gives you at least a basis for the claim -- it's non-frivolous. I don't mean frivolous in the negative way, of course. I think in my mind though I don't see what kind of relief CNN is asking for that can be reasonably granted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:I don't mean frivolous in the negative way, of course. I think in my mind though I don't see what kind of relief CNN is asking for that can be reasonably granted. Is Acosta still barred? He can get his hard pass back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, it's hard to prove but if your goal is just maximum gently caress you, the use of a doctored video defended by people who were themselves witnesses to the event gives you at least a basis for the claim -- it's non-frivolous. I hope this gets to discovery and we get some sweet depositions of WH aides.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:He also got California's Prop 8 against gay marriage overturned, and sits on the board of the Federalist Society. He's basically "briefly tempting" on the libertarian chart: Um, excuse me sir, but that's out of date. The revised version is the only one that matters as its just everyone is Creepy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Is Acosta still barred? He can get his hard pass back. counterpoint: just for sake of argument, CNN can just send anyone not jim acosta.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:counterpoint: just for sake of argument, CNN can just send anyone not jim acosta. Yes Im sure this whole thing is just about Acosta and not trump being a whiny shitgibbon who wants to make sure he never gets asked hard questions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
duodenum posted:In every way? In what way, exactly? When you're comparing high end American wines with French wines, the differences will be less significant as you see in the Judgement of Paris for example. But, as I noted in my previous post, the regional Appellation system is built for consistency as much as quality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:counterpoint: just for sake of argument, CNN can just send anyone not jim acosta. Its almost as if CNN is trying to make a point by wanting to be able to send Jim Acosta back or something 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:counterpoint: just for sake of argument, CNN can just send anyone not jim acosta. Anyone else wouldn't have Acosta's experience and connections and institutional knowledge, and would also be subject to intimidation and prevented from asking questions ("If I ask tough questions they'll kick me out too just like they kicked out Jim"). Now that I've read the complaint I actually think it's quite a strong claim and CNN should win. Doesn't mean CNN will win because the White House obviously gets a lot of discretion on who gets let into the White House, but this situation seems about as strong a case as it's possible to mount (White House acting arbitrarily and capriciously and defending their actions with lies and doctored video).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
Do you think the WH signal boosting InfoWars hurt their case here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:Do you think the WH signal boosting InfoWars hurt their case here? "We had no idea the video was edited, a source came forward with a copy of the video showing Accosta assaulting our intern and we did the right thing in releasing it to the public"
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1062311785787744256?s=21 "Hey France, ever heard of a little thing called WW1 and WW2?" - 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
I'm definitely not supporting revoking Jim Acosta's press pass, I'm simply trying to say what the defense is going to assert in a lawsuit. They're going to say "White House press access is a priviledge, not a right, Jim Acosta acted unprofessionally, we're not banning CNN, send someone else." There is a long, long held precedent about not forcing parties to work together who are adverse to each other or the previous agreement. Courts are loath to enforce that kind of specific performance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:When you're comparing high end American wines with French wines, the differences will be less significant as you see in the Judgement of Paris for example. But, as I noted in my previous post, the regional Appellation system is built for consistency as much as quality. lol if you drink wine for the taste and not to black out this dark world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:Do you think the WH signal boosting InfoWars hurt their case here? The core argument is 1) Acosta has a right to be there to do reporting under the 1st amendment and so forth, and he's been there a long time under multiple presidents and it's his job and without the hard pass he literally can't do his job 2) Government can't bar him unless they have a good reason (turns out there's a Secret Service process for determining whether to grant or revoke passes, which wasn't followed) 3) Instead of the normal process, the government has given two different reasons for the revocation ((a)alleged assault, (b)insufficient respect); (a) is a bullshit tornado and (b) is arbitrary and invalid under the 1st. The fact that InfoWars is a source of the doctored video is a point mentioned under 3(a), yeah, along with a description of what InfoWars is and the fact it's been barred from most social media platforms. Kimsemus posted:I'm definitely not supporting revoking Jim Acosta's press pass, I'm simply trying to say what the defense is going to assert in a lawsuit. They're going to say "White House press access is a priviledge, not a right, Jim Acosta acted unprofessionally, we're not banning CNN, send someone else." Sure, but that's a really weak argument because the process Acosta's pass was revoked under was so arbitrary and capricious. Anyone else CNN sent would be subject to the same arbitrary revocation at any time for any reason Trump felt like, or just to add spectacle (because let's be honest: Trump went into that room that day planning on picking a fight with a reporter). From CNN's perspective as an institution, it's not that Trump ejected Acosta specifically, it's that Trump ejected Acosta for no reason and any future reporters they send would be subject to the same whims. Kimsemus posted:
Sure, and there's also lots of precedents giving the White House a lot of discretion as to who to let into proximity to the president, for a lot of reasons including national security. But if I were trying to draft a fact pattern for the strongest possible "courts order someone let into the white house who Trump doesn't want there," I'd have a hard time coming up with a better one than this set of facts. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Nov 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The core argument is I could see some standing if it's proven a secret service sop was not followed. I'm no lawyer but I do write sops from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:
Fine, but if CNN is going to make a Constitutional argument about it, then so will the defense: the Freedom of Association exists. Jim Acosta isn't required by CNN for specific performance. There was a lawsuit between MGM and Roy Scheider that dealt with a very similar issue, where Roy was being compelled to do something he didn't want to do (the WH in this case) and the court held that was stupid because Freedom of Association dictates you aren't FORCED to work with anyone or interact with anyone specifically you don't want to. Jim Acosta's presence isn't mandatory at press briefings. The argument just doesn't hold up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
Is it just me or have we all become used to Trump's bullshit so it doesn't have nearly the shock value it has before. If Trump had done his "I don't wanna visit the graves in the rain!" tantrums during early 2017 The Trump/USPOL threads would have been going "OH MY GOD YOU PIECE OF poo poo!" for weeks. Now we just snicker about how he doesn't want to get his pathetic combover wet/let his orange paint run and move on, talk about other stuff. It's the real life version of the episode where Bart became the "I didn't do it!" kid. The joke was funny/Trump's tweets were shocking at first but now...meh. Oh it's all horrible and dumb but we've seen this before. Meanwhile the midterms are generating so much drama because they're such a mess and it's a new drama. Also because poo poo like this: poo poo like this is legitimately awesome
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:I'm definitely not supporting revoking Jim Acosta's press pass, I'm simply trying to say what the defense is going to assert in a lawsuit. They're going to say "White House press access is a priviledge, not a right, Jim Acosta acted unprofessionally, we're not banning CNN, send someone else." You’re taking case law that relates to trying to force individuals to honor employment contracts and applying it to the government depriving an individual of something (access). I’m not smart or informed enough to argue this, but I can tell immediately that this particular take is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
duodenum posted:In every way? In what way, exactly? All wine tastes like bitter grapes, which is not a good taste. hth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
Trump's kindof a rolling test case scenario for weird rear end legal precedents because everything he does is arbitrary and capricious so what was previously an almost impossible standard to meet is now almost a presumptionKimsemus posted:
It's not so much about Jim Acosta specifically as that any CNN reporter is now subject to arbitrary ejectment if they displease the president and almost any competent reporter would displease the president because the President is a horrible whiny manchild. You're thinking about this as if it's an employment case about Acosta specifically. It isn't -- it's about CNN's ability to have a reporter in the White House doing a competent job. If the WH can put Acosta's head on a pike, they can put any reporter's head on a pike, and that intimidates and restricts press freedom generally for all reporters. I don't think the "White House has freedom of association" argument really flies either because we're talking about a granted right (the hard pass) which was granted according to an established protocol. That's not to say CNN wins -- they could get kicked out for a lot of reasons, separation of powers, national security discretion, etc. -- but they have a strong argument if it gets to the merits. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Nov 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:35
|
|
|
So WE aren't allowed to get close enough to the president to ask him a question, and now the people literally paid to be close enough to ask the president questions aren't allowed to ask the president questions he doesn't like, a category that is undefined and subject to the whims of trump and that changes from moment to moment? Cool cool. Cool cool cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Trump's kindof a rolling test case scenario for weird rear end legal precedents because everything he does is arbitrary and capricious so what was previously an almost impossible standard to meet is now almost a presumption Which also gives us the corollary of: “  is willing to jump this high and no higher” with every case.The problem with this case though is (and I don’t know for sure) hasn’t it always been an arbitrary WH call who gets a press pass in the first place? And maybe it shouldn’t be, but if it is then the administration at least has a tradition to point to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Trump's kindof a rolling test case scenario for weird rear end legal precedents because everything he does is arbitrary and capricious so what was previously an almost impossible standard to meet is now almost a presumption Yeah, I don't know about how it plays legally, but Trump has kind of had a running thing about attacking the media, and CNN in particular, hasn't he? Doesn't that make this look a whole lot worse?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Which also gives us the corollary of: “ According to the complaint, there's an established protocol. quote:26. Generally, the Secret Service may grant or deny a request for a security clearance https://cnnpressroom.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/2-complaint.pdf So, that's the thing: there's a protocol here, it wasn't followed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Which also gives us the corollary of: “ The answer is yes. News Agencies submit a list of people they want, they get approved by the WH (Sarah Sanders' outfit) and then vetted by the Secret Service. They can also deny people freely. Protocols are also INTERNAL guidance and not binding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:
In this instance it appears to be part of the CFR. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/part-409
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:In this instance it appears to be part of the CFR. woah that part is binding then
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:49
|
|