Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Big Guy

White House revokes CNN's Jim Acosta's press credentials

Recommended Posts

You totally play grade school with a guy right?

 

" All right everybody! Tony it up for everyone! No more press conferences!"

 

 

Then watch the media turn on the guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Throwback Thursday.......

 

 

Notice how the press cheer Obama when he sticks up to a reporter acting rude. Much different than Peter Alexander sticking up for Accoster in this incident. Also, no wonder there is so much arrogance on the left. Its a big focking echo chamber in the biased media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Left believes our laws and rules do not apply to them.

In a nut shell.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge rules credentials must be returned to Acosta while lawsuit moves forward.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to put the toddler in the corner with a heavy dose of ignore

Have you ever tried to shut a toddler up? He will now be emboldened to be as petulant as he wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best case scenario.

 

:thumbsup:

 

Give that focking turd his credentials back and ignore the fock out of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge rules credentials must be returned to Acosta while lawsuit moves forward.

 

Hmmm......lemme guess, another Obama appointed judge. :mad:

 

 

Acosta's such a fockface btw! Somebody needs to show up at his door and punch him in front of his male lover and cats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hmmm......lemme guess, another Obama appointed judge. :mad:

 

 

Acosta's such a fockface btw! Somebody needs to show up at his door and punch him in front of his male lover and cats.

 

 

Judge Timothy J. Kelly

 

On June 7, 2017, President Trump nominated Kelly to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to the seat vacated by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, who took senior status on May 18, 2016.[3] A hearing on his nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee took place on June 28, 2017.[4] On July 13, 2017, his nomination was reported out of committee by voice vote.[5] On September 5, 2017, the United States Senate confirmed his nomination by a vote of 94–2.[6] He received his judicial commission on September 8, 2017.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont get why this is the main story everyone is talking about? Who gives AF about Jim Acosta really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont get why this is the main story everyone is talking about? Who gives AF about Jim Acosta really?

 

Boredom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Which makes this whole thing even crazier. :shocking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont get why this is the main story everyone is talking about? Who gives AF about Jim Acosta really?

 

---Probably because some people were saying Acosta assaulted an intern.

 

 

Not sure how you could doctor it and her reaction, he absolutely hit her. Don't think that is up for debate.

 

:dunno:

 

 

 

Yup, he hit her in both videos. Probably just a simple reflex but, it still happened.

 

:dunno:

 

 

 

Nah, I don't think so. Silly to claim he didn't get physical with her, he did.

 

:dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Absolutely, I can only hope that SJW-types cry foul, it really demonstrates the duality within....

the way you post cracks me up...the duality within. HA!!

 

Good thread schmoes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

---Probably because some people were saying Acosta assaulted an intern.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not sure why you are quoting me, he obviously got physical with her.

 

90's was clearly talking about the media and public in general though.

 

HTH

 

If you need help with anything else, let me know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was trump I'd call on Acosta and say no comment and have the biggest motherfucker in the Secret Service go the microphone and have him say...Wanna try that shiot with me boy? :bandana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comments on Breitbart are gold. The Trump appointed judge is a RINO and possible deep state plant. :doublethumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comments on Breitbart are gold. The Trump appointed judge is a RINO and possible deep state plant. :doublethumbsup:

 

Is this a possibility?

 

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should be good, the judge just gave him a free pass to do what ever he wants at the Press Confrences.

 

Trump on CNN’s Jim Acosta: ‘If he misbehaves, we’ll throw him out’

 

Get the popcorn!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was trump I'd call on Acosta and say no comment and have the biggest motherfucker in the Secret Service go the microphone and have him say...Wanna try that shiot with me boy? :bandana:

I bet your peniis is huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet your peniis is huge.

Ask your wife. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comments on Breitbart are gold. The Trump appointed judge is a RINO and possible deep state plant. :doublethumbsup:

Bigly conflicted and a loser.

 

And his sister went to a Dixie Chicks concert in 1998.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make him sit way in the back and never call on him to ask a question.

And also have him sit next to Alex Jones. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/give-alex-jones-press-credentials-and-sit-him-next-jim-acosta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see Trump try this on him

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Atlantic

 

The Legal Precedent That Could Protect Jim Acosta’s Credentials

A 1977 court ruling said that administrations cannot bar correspondents from the briefing room without “due process.”

 

Sherrill v. H Knight

 

This is for a denial of press pass application by Secret Service, not the revocation of one by the WH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is for a denial of press pass application by Secret Service, not the revocation of one by the WH.

 

You need to read the case history, the denial was found to be not credible and the real reason he wasn't given a pass was because LBJ and Nixon just didn't want him there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You need to read the case history, the denial was found to be not credible and the real reason he wasn't given a pass was because LBJ and Nixon just didn't want him there.

Still, the case was a denial of his application by the SS, not an existing revoked pass. And it clearly stated it was because the SS did not determine he was a threat to the President. So the SC has never come close to ruling on revocation.

 

How convenient you left off 23.

 

23 We have no occasion to consider what procedures must be employed in the revocation, for security reasons, of an already-issued White House press pass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, the case was a denial of his application by the SS, not an existing revoked pass. And it clearly stated it was because the SS did not determine he was a threat to the President. So the SC has never come close to ruling on revocation.

 

How convenient you left off 23.

 

23 We have no occasion to consider what procedures must be employed in the revocation, for security reasons, of an already-issued White House press pass

 

 

In the Acosta case, when presented to the court the other day, they did not say it was for security reasons(they took that out of the argument presented to the court) his pass was being revoked, but that the decision just came from Trump/Sanders. Not a matter of convenience, but a matter of relevance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Acosta case, when presented to the court the other day, they did not say it was for security reasons(they took that out of the argument presented to the court) his pass was being revoked, but that the decision just came from Trump/Sanders. Not a matter of convenience, but a matter of relevance.

Still, regardless of the reason, it's precedent that the SC has not reviewed revocation and this court case would be irrelevant precedent. It does, however, briefly explore the idea that press passes can be revoked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, are you all actually trying to argue that you want a President to be able to legally ban press that he considers too critical? Or is this just a Trump thing where you like him and don't like CNN and want to stick it to the left so you will support something you don't actually agree with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×