Trump's White House press briefings and the WH Press corps, inter alia... *

a course refresher in "U.S. history and government 101"

_______________________________________

As so many Americans think so very little about their own political, legal and Constitutional history and seem to know even less about it, it's hardly surprising that a knee-jerk outrage, fueled by gross ignorance, has sprung up in reaction to Trump's decision to revoke the White House (WH) press credentials of CNN reporter (and chief White House correspondent-- for those who grew up watching CBS News White House correspondents and reporters in the late 1960s and through the 1970s, you just want to laugh to keep from crying!) Jim Acosta.

But, for the benefit of these poor souls, harken here:

Take a look at your Constitution and the laws of the Congress and decisions of the U.S. courts-- you'll discover something quite interesting:

It is the senior members of the Legislative branch who determine rules and conditions under which others are allowed the use of and the access to these government branches' bodies--the grounds, buildings, meeting-rooms, elected and appointed officials, etc.

Thus, the House and Senate draw up and publish the rules under which non-members, that is, public or private in character may enter their buildings, offices and grounds. Similarly, the Supreme Court's justices determine, at their discretion, who may come and go, when and where, in and around the Supreme Court and its grounds,

Guess what? (You may need to sit down and brace yourself) : the president has the ultimate authority--and always has had it--to determine who may enter the White House and its surrounding grounds. If he chose to, Trump could impose a rule by which no one could enter the grounds or the White House buildings unless he held an original authorization in Trump's own hand and signed and dated. It is not even clear that a U.S. Marshall, or agent of any other federal law enforcement body--Treasury, F.B.I., etc.-- could enter the WH grounds or the WH against the consent of the president, even in order to serve the president with a court order or to execute some other writ or act of a sitting federal judge. And when it comes to the several states of the United States, there isn't even a question about a U.S. state's lacking all jurisdiction concerning the White House. No state judge can hold the serving president of the U.S. to account, or send its law enforcement officers to enter the White House grounds against the consent of the president.

These circumstances may not cheer and warm the hearts of Trump Agonistes, but this is simply the way it is and the way it has been. The House and Senate formulate their own rules, enforce them and run their own administrative affairs. The Supreme Court (judiciary) and the White House do the same (executive). A credentialed member of the press is, in his relations with the White House, in a similar situation to a diplomat who is dispatched to some foreign capital as ambassador to that capital's government. These ambassadors are either granted recognition and admission to the host nation's government and territory or, at its discretion, that recognition can be refused, or, if once granted, later revoked upon review and a decision to no longer recognize the individual's credentials.

Acosta, by his own comportment, effectively made himself the press corps' equivalent of what, in diplomatic terms, is know as persona non grata: fancy diplomatic terms for "Officially no longer welcome"; this amounts to the effective revocation of one's credentials authorizing entry and audience in official places.

There is no Constitutional right which grants Acosta or any other person, professional press journalist or not, access to and audience in the White House or in any other official building of the U.S. government. The Supreme Court's own members can certainly be in no doubt about their own power to summarily dismiss, expel, Acosta or any other person they might see fit to expel from their buildings and grounds.

Time for some of Trump's most fevered opposition to get a grip and take a look at reality again. It is not necessary to like, approve or agree with Trump on anything in order to understand these things.

________________________________________

* RE: this post's appearing in "Pro & Con" :

This is posted here in the "Pro & Con" Group even though there really is no such thing in this case. There's no question about this--though, of course, it's theoretically conceivable that a federal judge could actually be so stupid as to rule in favor of CNN and Acosta--this question doesn't even admit of "two sides." In this case, however it may gall Trump's opponents, Trump is completely in his rights to have expelled Acosta and, if he wanted to, he could do likewise to any and all other members of the WH press corps. Nothing in law actually obliges him to even face reporters from inside the White House. Now, once outside his home, it's a different story. He can keep the press at bay but he can't forbid them from following him around and shouting questions from afar.

It looks like a federal judge at least thinks CNN's arguments are plausible since he granted a temporary restraining order giving Acosta back his credentials. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/judge-hands-cnn-victory-in-its-bi...

>2 jjwilson61:

Note that this order indicates nothing on the merits and that:

The judge, Trump appointee Timothy J. Kelly, said that Acosta was not afforded due process when his pass was revoked, a process he described as "shrouded in mystery."

He also agreed that Acosta has suffered "irreparable harm" by being deprived of his pass, which allows him to do his job as the network's chief White House correspondent.

And, he said that CNN has shown that it's likely to win the case, thus satisfying the standards necessary to win the emergency ruling.

But, Judge Kelly said he has not yet decided on the First Amendment nature of the case.

emphasis added; the boldfaced claims are ridiculous. There's no "irreparable harm" done here--and certainly none to Capital "J" JOURNALISM. Acosta can work from his office, for crying out loud. He's a blustering grand-stander who embarrasses real journalists.

On a full hearing of the merits, if the court upholds this bizarre stuff, you're going to get what you're asking for when the wheel of fortune turns and it's a Democrat in the White House and the reporter is from a Neo-Nazi community news weekly.

Pseudo-Liberal morons don't know what the hell they're doing in this case.

The federal judge didn't think the claims were ridiculous or he wouldn't have granted the injunction. And I would bet that he knows more about the constitution and the law than you do.

>4 jjwilson61: LOL!

Shows what you know about law and common practices on injunctions in federal practice. Look, there are handbooks on this stuff and nothing about it is new. If you wanted to, you could look up not only current federal court practice in dealing with pleadings seeking relief but, also, decades--if not centuries--of history.

The judge in this case could have and may have easily reasoned that

* as he's only relatively recently appointed (a Trump appointment), he has to bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of partiality in favor of the very president who appointed him--indeed, some judges in this circumstance would recuse themselves!

* so, rather than throw out the suit--as I'd have done-- he could act on the understanding that a grant of temporary relief pending fuller examination does not and need not imply that he, the judge, necessarily approves or agrees with the bases of the plaintiffs' arguments--not at all. He needn't even have personally accepted the claim that, without a stay, Acosta is liable to suffer "irreparable harm." (Is there anyone here who dares to set out a serious argument for that claim? Hmm? What the hell would this irreparable harm be--either to CNN, which obviously could immediately assign a substitute White House chief reporter, who'd certainly be granted immediate access to the press briefings from which Fool Acosta has been barred-- and, thus, still less to CNN itself as a (so-called) news and reporting organization--"irreparable harm" is a wildly exaggerated claim coming from second or third-rate lawyers who are apparently infected with the same virus that has fostered mass-hysteria at CNN. Please, you think this is a valid claim? Show us your brief on how and why there is "irreparable harm" being done by the ban: you can do that by stating here the details you'd include in the course of filling out these forms. Explain to us how, if Acosta had apologised for having breached common courtesy and press-room custom, he wouldn't have his access restored. (SEE "NOTES", below)

_______________________

I'll put my native judgment and my reasoning-skills up against those of this judge--if, that is, he proves to actually stick to these positions after the case is given a full hearing on the merits and he decides that, amazingly, a president cannot summarily expel temporarily or permanently from his White House any reporter--or any individual, for that matter--that he sees fit to have expelled. Sure, the judge has practice on the bench which I don't have. But that doesn't mean that it therefore necessarily follows that his own legal judgment and reasoning are inherently better than mine. And your retort there indicates that you haven't grasped that piece of logic. And, from the many posts of yours which I've read, that is so like you.

It doesn't--nor ought it--require a law degree or any practice on the federal court bench to have seen and understood the points above in >1 proximity1:. The effective executive members --according to their established rules of practice--of each of the three branches of the federal government, have wide authority to determine the conditions under which the unelected and unappointed members of the public, professionals or laymen, can enter their branches' buildings and grounds. And if the federal courts today cannot see this, things are even worse than I fear they are.

No one's Constitutional rights go so far as to entitle him to remain within the bounds of any federal reservation--any U.S. government building or land--against the expressed wishes of the highest elected or appointed authority over the branch of the government concerned. How this is even an open question baffles me. And I'm not particularly any great fan of Trump. It simply happens that sometimes he's actually correct--as in this case.

_________________________________________________________

NOTES: "Glossary
"Preliminary Injunction
"A provisional equitable remedy by which a court orders a litigant to perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act before the entry of final judgment. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo and the rights of the parties until the issuance of a final judgment in the case."
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/0-502-5651?originationContext=documen...

"Standards of Irreparable Harm

"Federal Court

"Irreparable harm has been defined in the District of New Jersey as “potential harm which cannot be redressed by a legal or an equitable remedy following a trial.”2 The harm “must be of a peculiar nature, so that compensation in money cannot atone for it.”3

“Establishing a risk of irreparable harm is not enough. A party seeking a preliminary injunction must make a clear showing of immediate irreparable injury.”4 “Mere speculation as to an injury that will result, in the absence of any facts supporting such a claim, is insufficient to demonstrate irreparable harm.”5"

"Personal Inconvenience

"Obtaining injunctive relief—and hence adequately demonstrating irreparable harm—based on personal inconvenience is an uphill battle in both forums.

"Federal Court

"As a general matter, personal inconvenience alone will not establish irreparable injury in federal court. For example, in Moteles v. University of Pennsylvania, the Third Circuit held:

"At most, the plaintiff’s complaint describes an inconvenience easily compensable by damages. In Fuller v. Highway Truck Drivers, 228 F. Supp. 287 (E.D. Pa. 1964), aff’d, 428 F.2d 503 (3d Cir. 1970), the plaintiffs complained of being subjected to less desirable work assignments requiring them to report for work earlier in the morning. The court determined that this inconvenience did not constitute irreparable harm and had “never been regarded as the type of damage immeasurable in dollars. Courts daily award damages for pain, suffering and far more serious inconveniences.” Id. at 290. In Oburn v. Shapp, 521 F.2d 142, 151 (3d Cir. 1975), this court found that the loss of benefits derived from state employment was not irreparable. See also Glasco v. Hills, 588 F.2d 179, 181 (3d Cir. 1977) (irreparable means more than merely serious or substantial).25"

https://www.blankrome.com/publications/seeking-injunctive-relief-how-irreparable...

________________________________________

P.S.

This factor is a bad sign,

"The judge, Trump appointee Timothy J. Kelly, said that Acosta was not afforded due process when his pass was revoked"...

the confusion over when, where and how "due process" applies is really very badly advanced if even a federal judge can make such claim. This is patently absurd. You have no right to any "due process" when there is no prior fundamental (non-contingent) legal, enforceable right invloved.

E.g. You're a party to a contract--say, for example, you have a lease on an apartment. Suppose that the landlord notifies you that he's terminating your lease without notice and effective immediately, despite that you have months remaining and the terms of the lease specify that the landlord may not terminate the lease without 60 days' prior notice by registered letter. Have your "due process" rights been violated in this scenario? No, they haven't. You have no due process rights here. Rather, you have contractual "rights"--legally-enforceable rights granted to you under the terms of the lease ( a contract). Contractual "rights" are not "due process" rights, you have to try your claims of breach of contract in a courtroom--and the outcome depends on the circumstances. IN a case of "due process" denied, there's no such arbitrary feature: the "due process" isn't something that is arguable, it is settled; "due process" is a clearly-defined set of procedural norms which have to be followed because doing otherwise is, by definition, a violation of one's rights--without resort to a court's opinion as to what would constitute a violation of terms in an agreement, etc.

P.P.S

READ Judge Timothy Kelly's employment history: (here: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SJQ_Tim%20Kelly.pdf )

2015 - present: Chief counsel to Sen, Charles Grassley

2013 -2015 : ditto, except in a different capacity as counsel to Sen. Grassley,

2013 - present: Republican staff director for Sen. Charles Grassley

2013-2014 Counsel to Sen. Charles Grassley.

2007 - 2013 Trial attorney, Criminal division, U.S. Dept. of Justice

2003-2007 Assistant U.S. Attorney, (District of Columbia)

1995-2003 Associate (or law clerk) at the law practice of Arnold and Porter, LLP.

2001- 2002 Law clerk to Senior U.S. District Court (PA. /Eastern div.) Ronald Lawrence Buckwalter

1999-2000 Attorney, Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia

1996 Summer associate at Arent, Fox, Kinter, Plotkin & Kahn

(other lesser employments follow; see link, above.)

Judge Kelly has had no prior experience serving as a judge on any federal or state court bench.

I bet you believe that Trump could revoke birthright citizenship with an executive order too!

>6 jjwilson61: "I bet you believe that Trump could revoke birthright citizenship with an executive order too!"


No, I don't believe that.

The conditions for U.S. citizenship are, after all, spelled out clearly in the main text (not the amendments) of the Constitution. So, legally, in order to effect such a change, a Constitutional amendment is required one way or another.

I don't simply ascribe (or deny) to Trump powers and authority as president merely on the basis of some bias--either negatively, as do so many of his Never-Trump opponents, or positively, as do some who are of the kind your comment suggests (wrongly) is true of me.

Got anything other than that pathetic dig at me?--one which is wholly off the mark.

Hilarious!

The U.S. district court Judge Kelly seems to rule that so-called CNN reporter, Jim Acosta's "due process" rights are, well, whatever procedure the White House sees fit to lay down. Therefore, as a matter of fact, in the plain absence of any such formal procedures, it would seem that the president --and those acting on his or her direct authority--can determine at their discretion when, where, and how a reporter's WH press pass is suspended or revoked--which is, uhm, yes, what the White House in fact had done in the first place.

They (i.e. the White House) thus recognized that now, all they have to do is set these things down formally in writing. And the next time grandstanding Acosta acts up, he can be afforded the same due process he'd already enjoyed --and then be ejected.

So FUCKING _WATCH_ _IT!_, jim.

>1 proximity1: "There is no Constitutional right which grants Acosta or any other person, professional press journalist or not, access to and audience in the White House or in any other official building of the U.S. government...It is not necessary to like, approve or agree with Trump on anything in order to understand these things."

Unfortunately, to dislike Trump is to be blind to all of this.

To borrow from Mark Steyn, you could be forgiven for thinking that the three branches of government were the special counsel, the Broward county election office, and the judge who gave Jim Acosta his pass back.

The US federal government has three branches:

The Judicial branch, which makes, interprets, and applies the law,

and

the Legislative and Executive branches, whose sole function is to appoint members of the judicial branch.

Some people think that the US system is supposed to involve quaint concepts like separation of powers, and checks and balances, but this is fringe view adhered to only by outmoded whackos.

>10 Carnophile:

As my Constitutional law professor* taught us, the "separation of powers" is more correctly seen as a shared and mutually-checking distribution of authority across the three branches of government.

The executive branch appoints judges (who serve in the judicial branch).

The judicial branch can review and, at its discretion, sanction or annul acts of the legislative and executive branches (provided that a plausible (LOL!) rationale is cooked up and presented (or, it can abstain from a ruling and simply allow a status quo (which it approves) to carry on --and it can do this without comment or explanation);

the legislative branches (Senate) has the capacity to review presidential court (and other) appointments and accept or reject them; while the House and Senate together can make any Constitutional law--including the establishment or the elimination of government bodies themselves and can, under certain circumstances, amend the Constitution. That power carries with it the ability to remake the government structure from scratch--if it's deemed necessary.

RE: "the Legislative and Executive branches, whose sole function is to appoint members of the judicial branch."

Hardly. The legislative branch is empowered to make all laws necessary and proper to the exercise of its authority--which is by far the most extensive of all the branches--as it ought to be since the members of this branch are (today, since the amendment of the Constitution) directly elected by the voting public.
_______________________

( * a former law-clerk to Justice Felix Frankfurter.)

>11 proximity1: "the Legislative and Executive branches, whose sole function is to appoint members of the judicial branch."

Hardly. The legislative branch is empowered to make all laws necessary and proper...

I know. I was satirizing the current rule by unelected judges system.

On a serious note, if we are going to have rule by judges, we should at least have a majority rules regime. Something like, all the judges get together and vote on any matter. The system we have now - where if even ONE judge "rules" that something is illegal, then it's illegal - is absurdist.

Or, let's be consistent: If even ONE Senator or member of the House of Reps says that something is illegal (abortion, birth control, affirmative action...) then it's illegal.

Well, whatever. One way or another, the current system will be overturned sooner or later.

>12 Carnophile:

Hardly. The legislative branch is empowered to make all laws necessary and proper...

"I know. I was satirizing the current rule by unelected judges system."

Oh. Sorry: I missed that.

There's so much rank ignorance today even about things that, well, once upon a time, more people seem to have better understood.

When I think of Americans' lack of legal, political and social understanding a picture comes to me:

A large group of people are gathered at a gourmet restaurant--a truly gifted chef runs the kitchen where imaginative things are done every day and he merits all his restaurant's stars and reviewers' praise. With great care and attention he prepares a five or six-course extravaganza for these dining guests. The tables are set and the place is warm and inviting. Attentive waiting staff bring the dishes out and serve them. There are mumbles from among the diners. Before very long, one of them stands and addresses the rest of his fellow diners. Why? He wants to suggest that they send all the food back to the kitchen with the request that it all be put through a food-processor and the resulting mush sent out to to McDonalds or Arby's to be refashioned into something they warm up and serve in a box with cheap paper napkins and plastic "sporks".

>13 proximity1: There's so much rank ignorance today even about things that, well, once upon a time, more people seem to have better understood.

Agreed. With perfect timing, here's the latest egregious example:

Ocasio-Cortez:
“all three chambers of Congress — uh, rather, all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate, and the House.”

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1064340509441720320

>14 Carnophile:

The thing is, if Trump had said that, the hordes out for his hide should have made all they could of the gaffe. Ocasio-Cortez actually holds numerous views I approve; so I'd really like her to succeed. I'd also like her to have known better than to have said such a foolish thing, like her to have had what I regard as the at least the minimum awareness of politics and government.

I'm not even sure that her political views are the result of an understanding on her part or simply accidents.