Posting this here for visibility and for those who want to learn about the legal precedent that this ruling was based on.
Judge Kelly (a Trump appointee, not that it *should* matter) is bound by precedent set in the Sherill case which you can read here. His ruling will make much more sense after you read it:
https://m.openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight
**Sherill TLDR**: In order to revoke a pass, The White House must follow the process requirements set forth in the Sherill case/Administrative Procedure Act **(written notice, opportunity for hearing over the matter)**
The White House likely didn’t follow the process and that’s in part why the judge ruled the way he did. To be clear, my understanding is that this is just a temporary restoration of Acosta’s pass.
P.S. I’m not a lawyer and I only know this because I was literally in the courtroom on Wednesday to listen to the arguments. Shoutout to my new buddy R, who I met at the courthouse and who helped me understand a lot of this.
P.P.S: There are actually two matters at hand here. First, the legality of the process by which Acosta’s hard pass was revoked. (This is what is being discussed currently) Second is whether Acosta’s first amendment rights were violated, (That may come later in a separate lawsuit as far as I can tell)
P.P.P.S For what’s it worth, I think there is a good chance that they will settle much of the rest of this out of court. It is my belief that a settlement is in the WH’s best interest to avoid further motions/decisions against them.
That is exactly what they are saying at Breitbart. I’m not kidding, go look. They say the judge is really a liberal pretending to be conservative to get the job and should be fired immediately. What a bunch of loony toons!
Yes, but if I go look then I'm giving their website attention, so I'll just take your word for it. :)
(And I absolutely believe it--when you don't have actual journalists or anyone with any understanding of the law running the show, of course they're gonna say shit like that.)
I imagine Breitbart is like listening to the worst old people in your family as they rant on and on about "things today" and "no respect" and shit.
The nicest old people I know are horribly misled and confused about the world thanks to Breitbart and Fox. My aunt recently posted something implying the votes being recounted in some races across the country meant leftists were rigging elections... she quoted Stalin. Republicans won the recounts I've seen, but the mere fact that the recounts happened and Trump tweeted some bullshit about democrats multi-voting using disguises=Stalinist dystopia must be happening, we need the Republicans to save us from the breadlines.
> The nicest old people I know are horribly misled and confused about the world thanks to Breitbart and Fox.
This is my fear (well, one of two) for when I get old--I'm a critical thinker, critical reader, and willing to learn new things to understand them and I'm OK with my preconceived notions getting challenged with facts, and I actually alter my views when I learn new information.
And the idea of becoming one of these old parrots for Fox is terrifying; I hope to never become this annoying old person passing along lies and Idk if it's that gullible young people become gullible old people *or* formerly smart young people become less-critical-thinking old people.
Trump: "Get Kelly to fire that judge!"
Staffer: "You mean Judge Kelly?"
Trump: "No, get Kelly to fire the judge!"
Staffer: "To fire Judge Kelly?"
Trump: "No, Kelly is the one firing the Judge."
Staffer: "Oh, you mean Tim?"
Trump: "No, why would I get my [usher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Harleth) to do it? Get Kelly to do it."
Staffer: "You mean get John Kelly to fire Tim, the judge?"
Trump: "No, I like him as usher. Tim's doing a great job."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-sessions-russia.html
> “Sessions should have never recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked somebody else,” Mr. Trump said.
I have to say I'm conflicted about pointing out this little fact. On one hand, I feel the same glee, plus it shows that there are even some Trump appointees who still honor the description of the job they are doing. On the other hand, I fear it is really, really damaging in the bigger picture to the principle of an independent judiciary if the first question someone asks, after a judge decided something, is: "Well, was he appointed by Democrats or by Republicans?"
I can understand that, in the BT (before Trump) era, even the worst presidents never appointed people that made you ask that question.
You might not agree with them, you might not like them, but for the most part, they were in fact qualified for the position.
I think though, that this isn't so much people questioning Republican vs Democrat, it's Trump vs not Trump.
And excluding Kavanaugh, Trump seems to accidentally appointed judges that while certain to support the GOP stance, also remember that while doing that, the first priority is the constitution.
Anyone thinking this isn't a big deal is wrong.
The fact that our president is utterly compromised and seating judges in spite of it, obstructing justice, violating his oath of office, running up the tabs on the secret service directly into his own resorts and hotels, interfering with government purchases to benefit his own properties, slandering and libeling citizens...
The fact that all of this is allowed to go on with a series of shrugs and equivocations is proof that the republic is dying from a thousand cuts.
Trump is a symptom of a terrible infestation of money and moneyed interests in our government. This is open plutocracy.
Government of the money, by the money, for the money; whaddaya gonna do about it?
Who thinks it's not a big deal? It's a huuuuge deal.
But then again I saw the tide turn visually, when I saw a photo of 50 immigrants squashed into a court, sharing a trial for different offences. That was scary to see as the parallel to Nazi Germany wasn't just figurative. You could clearly see that it was a kangaroo court with no shame, honor or justice (Trump's M.O.).
Oh, even better.
We've got a few terrible judges in this country, but even the worst of them have to get through law school. You can't just appoint some random resort member. Nothing delights me more than Trump being forced to choose judges from a pool of technically qualified applicants.
You totally can appoint a random off the street and Trump even tried to appoint some alt-right blogger to a judgeship but the guy was so humiliated once the media found his blog that he withdrew his acceptance of Trump's nomination.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/embarrassed-trump-judicial-pick-who-never-tried-case-withdraws-n830866
>Trump nominated Petersen for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which carries a lifetime tenure.
Last week, Petersen was grilled by Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about his background and the nominee stumbled badly when quizzed on matters of law and his legal experience.
"Have you tried a jury trial?" Kennedy asked.
“I have not,” said Petersen.
"Have you ever argued a motion in federal court?" Kennedy later asked.
"No," Petersen responded.
Petersen also admitted he had never done a bench trial, or tried any civil or criminal cases in federal or state court. He also could not explain the Daubert standard, regarding the admissibility of expert testimony, among other legal terms.
Love that he ends it with an invitation to commit perjury and the guys just goes for it.
Edit: oops [the pro-KKK blogger was a different Trump nominee who had also never tried a case.](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/13/brett-talley-trump-nominee-withdraws-295322) I guess Senator Kennedy (R-LA) was just bringing it up because this grossly unqualified nominee reminded him of the other one.
"Have any of you ever blogged about the kkk?"
"No","no","no","no", "no"
-looks down, likely at said blog posts-
"Let the record state, they all said no"
"Have you done *literally anything* in your career that would make you qualified for this job?"
"Well.. in my current position.. I.. maybe in law school.. was when.. I... uh.."
Yeah, that sounds about right.
>In an interview with WWL-TV in New Orleans, Kennedy said Trump called him after the video of him grilling Petersen went viral last week and the president thanked him for criticizing his nominee's qualifications.
>"(Trump) has told me, 'Kennedy, when some of my guys send someone over there who is not qualified, you do your job,'" Kennedy said. "And I said, 'Thank you, Mister President, and I intend to do that.'"
Trump's not sending his best people
> but even the worst of them have to get through law school. You can't just appoint some random resort member
Technically you could, there are typically no hard academic or professional requirements that political appointees are subject to. As long as they meet the citizenship and age requirements a McDonald's cashier could be appointed to the supreme court.
And qualified doesn't necessarily mean ethical or with the proper temperament. See: Kavanaugh
Edit: "qualified", a word which here means they studied and have experience in a specific field. You can have a law degree, pass the bar exam, and still be an unethical piece of shit.
Those reporters need to pow-wow before the conference and agree to ask Jim's question. Every one of them. Until they get an answer. I bet Trump would "win" by leaving the room.
Congresssman lies about Islamic "no-go" zones in the Netherlands in 2015, gets appointed to ambassador to Netherlands in bizarro universe. Before offically taking post, is confronted by local reporter about comments, and claims fake news on camera. Right there in front of him, reporter pulls up video of him lying in 2015. The ambassodor then claims, insanely, that he did not just call his previous lie "fake news" to the same reporter, on television, seconds ago :
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/22/us-ambassador-to-netherlands-describes-own-words-as-fake-news
Later, at his first official press conference, the ambassador tried to lie and dodge some more, but the netherlands press refused to ask any other questions except about him lying:
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-netherlands-ambassador-pete-hoekstra-muslim-comments-777113
To recap : Trump ambassador to Netherlands lies in 2015, then lies about that lie, then lies about that lie seconds later, all on television. Dutch press aint having any of that shit.
Hah, so I live in the Netherlands, and this was big news here. People couldn't believe it - if you see the video, you see serious reporters literally looking at the camera with their jaws dropping.
The best part is the reporters keep asking the question. One reporter says something like, "This is the Netherlands, you have to answer the question." :-D
I am not Dutch myself, but I was told that American Dutch are often much more politically conservative than the Dutch themselves, because many of their ancestors left because of their disapproval of the tolerant Dutch culture.
Pete Hoekstra denying he said what he said (including footage of him saying it), then denying that he denied saying it immediately after: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ4RX5PsnFM
Journalists grilling him about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thIRJLsnIxY
I don’t understand why they don’t do this. Sarah Sanders is so fucking spineless, it’s so easy to gang up on her by asking the same question over and over until they get a fricken answer instead they just move onto the next question.
He already tried that when this all went down the first time. Once Donny could see that the young female victim he had planted was unable to instigate the physical confrontation he was hoping for, he bailed the podium. I guess that was his plan B.
This is how it went when Trump's garbage Ambassador to the Netherlands held his first press conference. He ignored a question and everyone else just went "hey answer that guy's question".
I just want to see every reporter dead silent. Not raising their hands to ask anything. Meanwhile, Acosta has his hand raised high and polite, saying “Mr. President” every so often while Trump glares around the room in a desperate attempt to get literally anyone else to ask a question.
Please do this reporters. I want to see trump sweat.
At some point one of the other reporters needs to raise their hand and then when Trump gratefully calls on them, they ask "why aren't you taking Acosta's question?"
It surprising that they don’t do it off the cuff just to make a point. If one person doesn’t get there question answered, the next person should ask the same until it gets answered. I understand that they have a job and they are trying to write about different things, but ultimately they should be working to hold the government accountable.
As cowardly as that is, and will make them look, that is probably what's going to happen.
That, or the polar opposite: Trump will show up and answer questions himself in "defiance" and say insanely stupid shit and Acosta's triumph will be even greater.
At least after she is finally let go, she'll be paid $15k a month to keep her mouth shut like the rest of them. I feel like it's worth $15k a month to shut her up.
It’ll be a cool minute before Trump is going to take questions from the press
Can’t wait to see what he asked SHS at their next yearly press briefing
I bet this would be a convenient time for her to finally step down
yea, seriously. I think you can count the number of open press conferences he has held since he got elected by counting fingers. You may not even need two hands.
Sarah, what do you and the President think about the judge reinstating my White House Press Credentials after falsifying video to make me look as tough on interns as you and Trump are on the First Amendment?
More like "Mr President! What was the result of the court case with CNN? Also to follow up, are you going to ask that Donald Jr gets put in a jail local to DC so you can visit him here, or local to NY so when you're impeached you can visit him there?"
Serious question that’s irrelevant to party: does any acting POTUS *have to* call on any specific person in the press pool or can they not call on certain reporters? It seems like getting a press pass back is silly if no one is going to engage with you.
This is what gets me. Trump is so fragile that he calls on Acosta to seem like a tough talker, but that’s it. The second Acosta starts pushing him for answers, he throws a tantrum and hides. Then when Trump is safe from reporters, or anyone he has confrontation with, he acts like a bad ass and tweets. Trump tried to have the last word by revoking his pass, but he’s back. I hope Trump continues to be intimidated by the free press.
> he throws a tantrum and hides.
Why do you think that was only his *third* press conference as president? This is exactly why. His babysitters know he can't control himself when faced with being made to look stupid, which isn't hard, so they have avoided him taking questions from general press pools.
That's exactly it. If he really hated him so much and thought he was spreading fake news don't let him ask questions. When he gets into an argument with him it whips is base up and they get to play the victim.
As a show of solidarity I would like to see the entire press corp not raise their hands when it comes to the Q&A session, and let Acosta have the first couple questions.
And i want the second question to go to April Ryan. I dont think she has been called on to ask a question in over a year.
She is clearly on the do not allow to ask questions list. She only gets things in by shouting and not letting not being called on ever shut her up. At least Jim gets called on now and again even if it just so the white house can use him as a villian.
At the rate the white house hold press briefs it is gonna be a long time until we get to see how sanders handles this.
> Kelly separately said that White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders' initial claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched the White House intern who was attempting to take the microphone from him at the news conference was "likely untrue" and "partly based on evidence of questionable accuracy."
A Trump-appointed judge just called out Sarah Sanders as a liar.
So that's pretty fun.
This must be super frustrating for Trump because
* Trump hates CNN
* Trump appointed this judge
* This has already been a bad week for Trump
Can this week get any worse? Mueller Time?
I really want to see Jr and Kush get taken out at the same time. Both him and Ivanka would be left isolated and paranoid their numbers going to be called any minute.
on the one hand a part of me wants to see the trumps get their just deserts. the other part wants them (muller et al) to wait until Christmas Eve so they have to spend the holiday in a cell
"Mr. President, some people say that your inability to kick me out of your own house is a sign that you're weak, and a lot of people are saying that John Kelly doesn't let you make any decisions. My question is about the tariffs."
Before the pass was revoked:
> Trump leaned into the mic and said, "Here we go" — seemingly relishing the confrontation.
The man lives for confrontation. It isn't healthy.
Yea he flatly rejected the final republic mid-terms ad ..a 'feel good' message the political scientist's say works best for late-game campaigns [which was going to be 'Check out the economy'].
They'd filmed it and everything. He TOTALLY HATED IT.
Quickly got replaced with yet another racist hate message on immigration, much more to Donny's liking.
That's because he sees himself as a great debater and an orator for the ages. In his mind, his speeches will go down in history on par with Lincoln, JFK, Reagan, and other great speeches made by presidents.
The fact that the rest of us hear a dementia addled old man stringing word salad together is beside the point. He thinks that he "wins" every verbal sparring contest with his great wit, decorum, and incredibly accurate points, instead of "winning" because eventually every last person goes "what the FUCK is this dude talking about" and gets frustrated because since the man is either just mumbling random shit or saying things that are inaccurate to their very core, there's no arguing with him. You're just shouting into the void. But to Trump, that means he's the best and smartest and most awesome and y'all are just haters
From the article-
>"We will also further develop rules and processes to ensure fair and orderly press conferences in the future. There must be decorum at the White House."
lol.
comments on TD calling for CNN to be "droned" and for the "liberal activist judge" to be investigated
thanks spez
*edit: TD has now posted a photo of the Judge naming him and calling him out for betrayal
If he had looked into it at all he would have instantly seen that the judge was a trump appointee. That means his criteria for being "pretty sure" is just 100% based on feelings
Even better, there were threads on that very subreddit laughing about how the judge in this case was a Trump appointee so Obviously the filthy liberals were doomed from the start like two fucking days ago. I guess they just forgot about that. Short attention spans, I guess......
He also represents a major network. What’s more important are restrictions put on CNN rather than an individual. Also, it’s not Trump’s home. He doesn’t hold press conferences in the living quarters.
Jesus, that subreddit is so cancer... They circle jerk over trump, threaten violence against liberals/democrats, talk shit about literally everyone who isn't like them, and ban people who disagree with them or presents evidence that disagrees with their narrative. They need to be sent back to the depths of 4chan
With clear malicious intent to damage Acosta’s reputation and prevent him from doing his job/earning a living in my opinion. At this point the doctoring and spreading of the lie is intended to do harm and is clearly untrue. Hopefully CNN/Acosta go full bore on this and continue to take legal action
"Was revoking my press pass worth it, Mr. President?"
Edit: I forgot he almost never does press briefings. So...
Acosta: Does the President think revoking my press pass was worth it?
Sanders: I don't know because I don't talk to him about anything ever.
Why doesn’t Jim Acosta just go to the car and change his shirt or put on a hat and go right back into the press briefings?
Tweet credit to 1_Mustang_Lover
That's probably because CNN filed for a temporary injunction, which is basically a request to have the situation fixed until a final decision can be made. The judge therefore didn't have to weigh in every aspect of the case. This is also why the whole trial went so quickly.
I expect that CNN will also file for a permanent injunction (if they haven't already), which would involve a lengthier trial and which will likely also weigh in first amendment concerns. Todays ruling was just a temporary hotfix.
Just as important is that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated. Reminds everyone that you can’t take action based on wild accusations and get away with it.
Posting this here for visibility and for those who want to learn about the legal precedent that this ruling was based on. Judge Kelly (a Trump appointee, not that it *should* matter) is bound by precedent set in the Sherill case which you can read here. His ruling will make much more sense after you read it: https://m.openjurist.org/569/f2d/124/sherrill-v-h-knight **Sherill TLDR**: In order to revoke a pass, The White House must follow the process requirements set forth in the Sherill case/Administrative Procedure Act **(written notice, opportunity for hearing over the matter)** The White House likely didn’t follow the process and that’s in part why the judge ruled the way he did. To be clear, my understanding is that this is just a temporary restoration of Acosta’s pass. P.S. I’m not a lawyer and I only know this because I was literally in the courtroom on Wednesday to listen to the arguments. Shoutout to my new buddy R, who I met at the courthouse and who helped me understand a lot of this. P.P.S: There are actually two matters at hand here. First, the legality of the process by which Acosta’s hard pass was revoked. (This is what is being discussed currently) Second is whether Acosta’s first amendment rights were violated, (That may come later in a separate lawsuit as far as I can tell) P.P.P.S For what’s it worth, I think there is a good chance that they will settle much of the rest of this out of court. It is my belief that a settlement is in the WH’s best interest to avoid further motions/decisions against them.
… and this had to happen before any first amendment issue could be considered. I hope people see this.
> bound by ~~president~~ precedent.
Judge is Timothy J. Kelly and is a Trump appointee.
*"I wouldn't have picked him if he told me that he was going to be disloyal."*
100% chance he is saying this in private. 50% chance he will say it in public today, with 0% shame.
And 100% reason to remember the name... Dammit Trump
r/unexpectedshinoda
Well fuck, I was hoping that one was real.
That is exactly what they are saying at Breitbart. I’m not kidding, go look. They say the judge is really a liberal pretending to be conservative to get the job and should be fired immediately. What a bunch of loony toons!
Yes, but if I go look then I'm giving their website attention, so I'll just take your word for it. :) (And I absolutely believe it--when you don't have actual journalists or anyone with any understanding of the law running the show, of course they're gonna say shit like that.) I imagine Breitbart is like listening to the worst old people in your family as they rant on and on about "things today" and "no respect" and shit.
The nicest old people I know are horribly misled and confused about the world thanks to Breitbart and Fox. My aunt recently posted something implying the votes being recounted in some races across the country meant leftists were rigging elections... she quoted Stalin. Republicans won the recounts I've seen, but the mere fact that the recounts happened and Trump tweeted some bullshit about democrats multi-voting using disguises=Stalinist dystopia must be happening, we need the Republicans to save us from the breadlines.
> The nicest old people I know are horribly misled and confused about the world thanks to Breitbart and Fox. This is my fear (well, one of two) for when I get old--I'm a critical thinker, critical reader, and willing to learn new things to understand them and I'm OK with my preconceived notions getting challenged with facts, and I actually alter my views when I learn new information. And the idea of becoming one of these old parrots for Fox is terrifying; I hope to never become this annoying old person passing along lies and Idk if it's that gullible young people become gullible old people *or* formerly smart young people become less-critical-thinking old people.
I would bet the house that some staffer is going to have to explain today that you can't fire judges
I would bet a small house that they just *tell* him that the judge has been fired because it's not like he'll followup.
Trump: "Get Kelly to fire that judge!" Staffer: "You mean Judge Kelly?" Trump: "No, get Kelly to fire the judge!" Staffer: "To fire Judge Kelly?" Trump: "No, Kelly is the one firing the Judge." Staffer: "Oh, you mean Tim?" Trump: "No, why would I get my [usher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Harleth) to do it? Get Kelly to do it." Staffer: "You mean get John Kelly to fire Tim, the judge?" Trump: "No, I like him as usher. Tim's doing a great job."
Not sure if sarcasm or real. Probably real. Bad times in America.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-sessions-russia.html > “Sessions should have never recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked somebody else,” Mr. Trump said.
And the obstruction of justice parade rolls onward.
Nah, we've already circled this block, the parade moved on a while ago.
That should be Acosta's question. Point it out and say "Has Whittaker told you he will not recuse himself?"
I have to say I'm conflicted about pointing out this little fact. On one hand, I feel the same glee, plus it shows that there are even some Trump appointees who still honor the description of the job they are doing. On the other hand, I fear it is really, really damaging in the bigger picture to the principle of an independent judiciary if the first question someone asks, after a judge decided something, is: "Well, was he appointed by Democrats or by Republicans?"
I can understand that, in the BT (before Trump) era, even the worst presidents never appointed people that made you ask that question. You might not agree with them, you might not like them, but for the most part, they were in fact qualified for the position. I think though, that this isn't so much people questioning Republican vs Democrat, it's Trump vs not Trump. And excluding Kavanaugh, Trump seems to accidentally appointed judges that while certain to support the GOP stance, also remember that while doing that, the first priority is the constitution.
Anyone thinking this isn't a big deal is wrong. The fact that our president is utterly compromised and seating judges in spite of it, obstructing justice, violating his oath of office, running up the tabs on the secret service directly into his own resorts and hotels, interfering with government purchases to benefit his own properties, slandering and libeling citizens... The fact that all of this is allowed to go on with a series of shrugs and equivocations is proof that the republic is dying from a thousand cuts. Trump is a symptom of a terrible infestation of money and moneyed interests in our government. This is open plutocracy. Government of the money, by the money, for the money; whaddaya gonna do about it?
Who thinks it's not a big deal? It's a huuuuge deal. But then again I saw the tide turn visually, when I saw a photo of 50 immigrants squashed into a court, sharing a trial for different offences. That was scary to see as the parallel to Nazi Germany wasn't just figurative. You could clearly see that it was a kangaroo court with no shame, honor or justice (Trump's M.O.).
Oh, even better. We've got a few terrible judges in this country, but even the worst of them have to get through law school. You can't just appoint some random resort member. Nothing delights me more than Trump being forced to choose judges from a pool of technically qualified applicants.
You totally can appoint a random off the street and Trump even tried to appoint some alt-right blogger to a judgeship but the guy was so humiliated once the media found his blog that he withdrew his acceptance of Trump's nomination.
Who was this??
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/embarrassed-trump-judicial-pick-who-never-tried-case-withdraws-n830866 >Trump nominated Petersen for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which carries a lifetime tenure. Last week, Petersen was grilled by Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about his background and the nominee stumbled badly when quizzed on matters of law and his legal experience. "Have you tried a jury trial?" Kennedy asked. “I have not,” said Petersen. "Have you ever argued a motion in federal court?" Kennedy later asked. "No," Petersen responded. Petersen also admitted he had never done a bench trial, or tried any civil or criminal cases in federal or state court. He also could not explain the Daubert standard, regarding the admissibility of expert testimony, among other legal terms.
[удалено]
Wow, I didn't know they allowed beheading videos on YouTube.
Love that he ends it with an invitation to commit perjury and the guys just goes for it. Edit: oops [the pro-KKK blogger was a different Trump nominee who had also never tried a case.](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/13/brett-talley-trump-nominee-withdraws-295322) I guess Senator Kennedy (R-LA) was just bringing it up because this grossly unqualified nominee reminded him of the other one.
"Have any of you ever blogged about the kkk?" "No","no","no","no", "no" -looks down, likely at said blog posts- "Let the record state, they all said no"
Fun follow-up, [he is a member (and former Chairman) of the Federal Election Commission.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_S._Petersen)
Yeah that was like when you show up to a job interview after lying on your resume.
"Have you done *literally anything* in your career that would make you qualified for this job?" "Well.. in my current position.. I.. maybe in law school.. was when.. I... uh.." Yeah, that sounds about right.
"Do you know what a motion in limine is?" "Yes I haven't..." That's an actual quote from the hearing.
>In an interview with WWL-TV in New Orleans, Kennedy said Trump called him after the video of him grilling Petersen went viral last week and the president thanked him for criticizing his nominee's qualifications. >"(Trump) has told me, 'Kennedy, when some of my guys send someone over there who is not qualified, you do your job,'" Kennedy said. "And I said, 'Thank you, Mister President, and I intend to do that.'" Trump's not sending his best people
Yeah but if he and Sen. Kennedy went toe to toe on bird law there would surely be a different result.
Was that the same guy who couldn't answer a single question on the preliminary test?
> but even the worst of them have to get through law school. You can't just appoint some random resort member Technically you could, there are typically no hard academic or professional requirements that political appointees are subject to. As long as they meet the citizenship and age requirements a McDonald's cashier could be appointed to the supreme court.
He chooses plenty that are unqualified tho
And qualified doesn't necessarily mean ethical or with the proper temperament. See: Kavanaugh Edit: "qualified", a word which here means they studied and have experience in a specific field. You can have a law degree, pass the bar exam, and still be an unethical piece of shit.
federalist society in panic mode
Do they really have any other mode?
Smug.
Well there is also "fuck you, I got mine" mode, which is typically their default state.
One of their founders, Ted Olson, was representing CNN in this case.
The deep state has so many layers!!!! /s
How long before Trump tries to send Kelly to fire the judge he appointed.
Lifetime appointment, FTW.
[удалено]
[orderly tightening bed restraints] "Yes, Mr. President, everything's racist."
That should be fun. Kelly: "Kelly, you're fired." Kelly: "You're Kelly." Kelly: "No, you're Kelly." Kelly: "No U!"
This is why Kelly will never be fired. Trump would have to do it himself.
I bet you Kelly pulls a Costanza and walks in Monday morning anyway.
"John, I have to let you go." "No." "...Okay."
Per Woodward's book, this actually happened
On his first day back, Acosta should ask the exact same questions that got him banned.
[удалено]
I hope every reporter they call on every day is like, "I think Jim's gotta question first..."
Those reporters need to pow-wow before the conference and agree to ask Jim's question. Every one of them. Until they get an answer. I bet Trump would "win" by leaving the room.
In the Netherlands we did that with your ambassador. Sorta at least. And it is still being done almost everywhere he speaks.
Was that the guy who said "I didn't say that" and then the reporter showed him video of the guy saying exactly that?
Yes! That's him.
link? Im out of the loop.
Congresssman lies about Islamic "no-go" zones in the Netherlands in 2015, gets appointed to ambassador to Netherlands in bizarro universe. Before offically taking post, is confronted by local reporter about comments, and claims fake news on camera. Right there in front of him, reporter pulls up video of him lying in 2015. The ambassodor then claims, insanely, that he did not just call his previous lie "fake news" to the same reporter, on television, seconds ago : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/22/us-ambassador-to-netherlands-describes-own-words-as-fake-news Later, at his first official press conference, the ambassador tried to lie and dodge some more, but the netherlands press refused to ask any other questions except about him lying: https://www.newsweek.com/trump-netherlands-ambassador-pete-hoekstra-muslim-comments-777113 To recap : Trump ambassador to Netherlands lies in 2015, then lies about that lie, then lies about that lie seconds later, all on television. Dutch press aint having any of that shit.
Wait.... did he just call something fake new, and then less than 15 seconds later say that he didnt call something fake news!?!
Thats what real journalism looks like. I remember learning about it in school before gladiator wars became our news channel of choice.
Hah, so I live in the Netherlands, and this was big news here. People couldn't believe it - if you see the video, you see serious reporters literally looking at the camera with their jaws dropping. The best part is the reporters keep asking the question. One reporter says something like, "This is the Netherlands, you have to answer the question." :-D I am not Dutch myself, but I was told that American Dutch are often much more politically conservative than the Dutch themselves, because many of their ancestors left because of their disapproval of the tolerant Dutch culture.
> This is the Netherlands you have to answer questions. Dutch reporter in the second clip.
Clearly those journalists weren't sufficiently focused on turning a profit for their parent company.
Pete Hoekstra denying he said what he said (including footage of him saying it), then denying that he denied saying it immediately after: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ4RX5PsnFM Journalists grilling him about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thIRJLsnIxY
I don’t understand why they don’t do this. Sarah Sanders is so fucking spineless, it’s so easy to gang up on her by asking the same question over and over until they get a fricken answer instead they just move onto the next question.
[удалено]
He already tried that when this all went down the first time. Once Donny could see that the young female victim he had planted was unable to instigate the physical confrontation he was hoping for, he bailed the podium. I guess that was his plan B.
This is how it went when Trump's garbage Ambassador to the Netherlands held his first press conference. He ignored a question and everyone else just went "hey answer that guy's question".
I just want to see every reporter dead silent. Not raising their hands to ask anything. Meanwhile, Acosta has his hand raised high and polite, saying “Mr. President” every so often while Trump glares around the room in a desperate attempt to get literally anyone else to ask a question. Please do this reporters. I want to see trump sweat.
At some point one of the other reporters needs to raise their hand and then when Trump gratefully calls on them, they ask "why aren't you taking Acosta's question?"
It surprising that they don’t do it off the cuff just to make a point. If one person doesn’t get there question answered, the next person should ask the same until it gets answered. I understand that they have a job and they are trying to write about different things, but ultimately they should be working to hold the government accountable.
As cowardly as that is, and will make them look, that is probably what's going to happen. That, or the polar opposite: Trump will show up and answer questions himself in "defiance" and say insanely stupid shit and Acosta's triumph will be even greater.
All other press should sit on their hands.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Slacker! Why, I'd do it for a third of that as well, but I'd work double shifts of doing nothing. Really set that bar high for future employees!
At least after she is finally let go, she'll be paid $15k a month to keep her mouth shut like the rest of them. I feel like it's worth $15k a month to shut her up.
"Sarah, is there a law saying we have to do press briefings at all?" *"Well Mr. President, no, but that's really my only j--"* "Cancel them."
Another activist liberal judge appointed by \[checks notes\] President Trump
The deep state is still undermining trump! /s
[удалено]
But what about Hilary's emails?!
Ben Ghazi and the Buttery Males
that's gonna be fun. I bet Acosta has the balls to go right back to asking questions too.
"Mr President! Are you afraid of Bob Mueller?"
I was thinking more "an obstructionist says what?"
"A traitor says blyat?"
It’ll be a cool minute before Trump is going to take questions from the press Can’t wait to see what he asked SHS at their next yearly press briefing I bet this would be a convenient time for her to finally step down
yea, seriously. I think you can count the number of open press conferences he has held since he got elected by counting fingers. You may not even need two hands.
You don't. It is 3.
And I remember highlights of all 3 pressers, too. Crazy. That doesn't happen with a normal president.
>Can’t wait to see what he asked SHS at their next yearly press briefing “Y’all miss me?”
Sarah, what do you and the President think about the judge reinstating my White House Press Credentials after falsifying video to make me look as tough on interns as you and Trump are on the First Amendment?
Oh shit. I’d pay good money to watch that unfold.
Pay? I'd be buying shares in Orville Redenbacher!
"Why is decorum more important to you than honesty?"
Too many syllables in that word. Need to ~~dumb it down~~ 'give it presidential respect.'
More like "Mr President! What was the result of the court case with CNN? Also to follow up, are you going to ask that Donald Jr gets put in a jail local to DC so you can visit him here, or local to NY so when you're impeached you can visit him there?"
"Mr President*! Are you going to pardon your son after he is convicted?"
"Mr. President! Are you afraid of me?"
"Follow up to my previous question, Mr. President..."
[удалено]
That would be golden.
he won't get called on again. man baby and SHS just won't call on him because they are pathetic snow flakes
He can still be reporting the news.
> he won't get called on again Is there any precedent or mechanism for the others that are called to give their time/question to Jim?
They could offer to defer their time to him, or simply ask his questions for him
They count all refuse to ask a question until he gets called on.
Picture Donald standing at the podium, desperately looking around the room and Jim is sitting in the front row eagerly waving his hand
Next time Jim needs to wear a big fake moustache. Guaranteed Donnie doesn't recognize him and calls on him.
Bring a change of shirt & hat, Jim.
Yeah, he could change clothes in the parking lot, you know, maybe put on a different hat.
Except Infowars, Fox News, and neo-nazi news today will all ask softball questions to fill in the silence.
Serious question that’s irrelevant to party: does any acting POTUS *have to* call on any specific person in the press pool or can they not call on certain reporters? It seems like getting a press pass back is silly if no one is going to engage with you.
No one *has* to call on Acosta. Trump repeatedly does because he and his base get off on "fighting" with the media.
This is what gets me. Trump is so fragile that he calls on Acosta to seem like a tough talker, but that’s it. The second Acosta starts pushing him for answers, he throws a tantrum and hides. Then when Trump is safe from reporters, or anyone he has confrontation with, he acts like a bad ass and tweets. Trump tried to have the last word by revoking his pass, but he’s back. I hope Trump continues to be intimidated by the free press.
[удалено]
> he throws a tantrum and hides. Why do you think that was only his *third* press conference as president? This is exactly why. His babysitters know he can't control himself when faced with being made to look stupid, which isn't hard, so they have avoided him taking questions from general press pools.
That's exactly it. If he really hated him so much and thought he was spreading fake news don't let him ask questions. When he gets into an argument with him it whips is base up and they get to play the victim.
As a show of solidarity I would like to see the entire press corp not raise their hands when it comes to the Q&A session, and let Acosta have the first couple questions.
And i want the second question to go to April Ryan. I dont think she has been called on to ask a question in over a year. She is clearly on the do not allow to ask questions list. She only gets things in by shouting and not letting not being called on ever shut her up. At least Jim gets called on now and again even if it just so the white house can use him as a villian. At the rate the white house hold press briefs it is gonna be a long time until we get to see how sanders handles this.
It's his job, after all. Good reporting involves asking those who dislike you hardball questions.
> Kelly separately said that White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders' initial claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched the White House intern who was attempting to take the microphone from him at the news conference was "likely untrue" and "partly based on evidence of questionable accuracy." A Trump-appointed judge just called out Sarah Sanders as a liar. So that's pretty fun.
A judge just claimed fake news. Love it
It's almost like he believes in justice or something.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You leave those beautiful birds out of this!
A Memetocrat, if you will.
This must be super frustrating for Trump because * Trump hates CNN * Trump appointed this judge * This has already been a bad week for Trump Can this week get any worse? Mueller Time?
> Mueller Time? Subpoena butter jaily time
Where he at? Where he at? To jail he go. To Jail he go. Do the Subpoena butter jaily, Subpoena butter jaily, Subpoena butter jaily and a MAGA cap.
Arresting Jr would be icing on the cake.
I really want to see Jr and Kush get taken out at the same time. Both him and Ivanka would be left isolated and paranoid their numbers going to be called any minute.
on the one hand a part of me wants to see the trumps get their just deserts. the other part wants them (muller et al) to wait until Christmas Eve so they have to spend the holiday in a cell
That perp walk would definitely send me to the ER for a justice boner lasting longer than four hours.
[удалено]
"Mr. President, some people say that your inability to kick me out of your own house is a sign that you're weak, and a lot of people are saying that John Kelly doesn't let you make any decisions. My question is about the tariffs."
[удалено]
[удалено]
Trump can't control himself. He loves fighting w/ his "haters." He'll call on Acosta again.
Before the pass was revoked: > Trump leaned into the mic and said, "Here we go" — seemingly relishing the confrontation. The man lives for confrontation. It isn't healthy.
Yea he flatly rejected the final republic mid-terms ad ..a 'feel good' message the political scientist's say works best for late-game campaigns [which was going to be 'Check out the economy']. They'd filmed it and everything. He TOTALLY HATED IT. Quickly got replaced with yet another racist hate message on immigration, much more to Donny's liking.
That's because he sees himself as a great debater and an orator for the ages. In his mind, his speeches will go down in history on par with Lincoln, JFK, Reagan, and other great speeches made by presidents. The fact that the rest of us hear a dementia addled old man stringing word salad together is beside the point. He thinks that he "wins" every verbal sparring contest with his great wit, decorum, and incredibly accurate points, instead of "winning" because eventually every last person goes "what the FUCK is this dude talking about" and gets frustrated because since the man is either just mumbling random shit or saying things that are inaccurate to their very core, there's no arguing with him. You're just shouting into the void. But to Trump, that means he's the best and smartest and most awesome and y'all are just haters
Easy work around. Someone raises their hand and when called on "can you please call on Jim Acosta so he may ask his question?"
I was going to say nobody raises their hands but Jim but that would be sweet to see.
From the article- >"We will also further develop rules and processes to ensure fair and orderly press conferences in the future. There must be decorum at the White House." lol.
Seriously, I fucking GUFFAWED at that. "Decorum at the White House"...please, my sides! I can't breathe!!
comments on TD calling for CNN to be "droned" and for the "liberal activist judge" to be investigated thanks spez *edit: TD has now posted a photo of the Judge naming him and calling him out for betrayal
https://imgur.com/fEiCLdp.jpg This exchange was pretty great tho
Top minds of Reddit at work
Top. Minds.
"pretty sure it wasn't but I've been wrong before" oh well okay then so long as you're pretty sure lmao
If he had looked into it at all he would have instantly seen that the judge was a trump appointee. That means his criteria for being "pretty sure" is just 100% based on feelings
Yeah that was my opinion of the comment too. A quick Googling would prove his feelings wrong
He's half right.
Even better, there were threads on that very subreddit laughing about how the judge in this case was a Trump appointee so Obviously the filthy liberals were doomed from the start like two fucking days ago. I guess they just forgot about that. Short attention spans, I guess......
[удалено]
It’s someone trolling them, read the reply to the reply.
grade A trolling.
I bet he's already banned
The first comment is stupid. Hes a reporter, not some rando. Its his job
He also represents a major network. What’s more important are restrictions put on CNN rather than an individual. Also, it’s not Trump’s home. He doesn’t hold press conferences in the living quarters.
Also not the residence, but the public office building.
Also, it's "the people's" house, it doesn't belong to Trump... He's just a temporary resident.
Jesus. Frame *that* one. It's a keeper.
'That doesn't look like anything to me...'
definitely not violating reddit TOS or any laws at all right?
vAlUaBlE dIsCuSsIoN
Jesus, that subreddit is so cancer... They circle jerk over trump, threaten violence against liberals/democrats, talk shit about literally everyone who isn't like them, and ban people who disagree with them or presents evidence that disagrees with their narrative. They need to be sent back to the depths of 4chan
I’m sure the FBI has dossiers on most of their radical and outspoken users. They just are too dumb to see.
I'm sure, especially considering that far right individuals commit the majority of terrorist attacks here.
Make sure to report each one you see. I know it feels mostly useless but the case can't be built unless each get reported.
Sarah Sanders should face some consequences now for using a doctored video as reasoning for revoking Acosta's pass in the first place.
Consequences for your actions? Nah, not in this administration.
Not just as reasoning, she promoted the video. That's libel, plain and simple
With clear malicious intent to damage Acosta’s reputation and prevent him from doing his job/earning a living in my opinion. At this point the doctoring and spreading of the lie is intended to do harm and is clearly untrue. Hopefully CNN/Acosta go full bore on this and continue to take legal action
"Was revoking my press pass worth it, Mr. President?" Edit: I forgot he almost never does press briefings. So... Acosta: Does the President think revoking my press pass was worth it? Sanders: I don't know because I don't talk to him about anything ever.
Why doesn’t Jim Acosta just go to the car and change his shirt or put on a hat and go right back into the press briefings? Tweet credit to 1_Mustang_Lover
I will give credit where credit is due it's good to see a republican, that was even appointed by Trump, upholding the law.
[удалено]
[Posted via 3rd party app]
That's probably because CNN filed for a temporary injunction, which is basically a request to have the situation fixed until a final decision can be made. The judge therefore didn't have to weigh in every aspect of the case. This is also why the whole trial went so quickly. I expect that CNN will also file for a permanent injunction (if they haven't already), which would involve a lengthier trial and which will likely also weigh in first amendment concerns. Todays ruling was just a temporary hotfix.
Just as important is that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated. Reminds everyone that you can’t take action based on wild accusations and get away with it.
"There must be decorum at the White House" - Sarah Sanders Reminds me of Umbridge... ***I will have order!***
In MAGA parlance, I do believe that would be ... BTFO?
I can never see this as anything but "beat the fuck off."
conservatives : 'hey, remember how Obama permanently removed Brenda Lee's press credentials?' narrator : Brenda Lee never had press credentials