The Latest:

There is another way to deal with Jim Acosta that doesn’t require a court decision: Ignore him

(National SentinelSidelined: No doubt CNN‘s White House correspondent Jim Acosta, the poster boy for why parents should never encourage their kids to go into journalism, is gloating after a federal judge appointed by POTUS Donald Trump ordered the administration to return his hard pass in a narrow ruling on Friday.

He shouldn’t. Because if we know this administration, the fight isn’t over.

According to some reports, Judge Timothy J. Kelly’s order does not take into account any First Amendment argument because revocation of Acosta’s hard pass is not limiting CNN‘s ability to cover the president or the White House since something like 50 other network correspondents also have hard passes.

But Kelly somehow found a Fifth Amendment violation which he said amounts to a denial of Acosta’s “due process” rights.

Really? Because the Fifth Amendment says (with the relevant passage highlighted):

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

White House hard passes are not Acosta’s property nor do they belong to CNN or any other news network.

Being denied access to POTUS Trump’s pressers does not deprive Acosta of his life.

Was his liberty taken away? If you believe that, then you must believe every single rule made by every single entity — public and private, to include the White House — is an unconstitutional denial of Americans’ liberty.

Question: What if the White House deemed Acosta a threat to the president? Would a federal judge get to decide that no, he isn’t a threat? The Judicial Branch was never supposed to decide these kinds of issues.

Nevertheless, constitutional questions aside, there is one way to address Acosta’s rudeness and inappropriate badgering of POTUS: Don’t call on him.

Just don’t call on him. In fact, that would not only tick Acosta off more than anything else, but it would also serve as a constant reminder that he isn’t in charge, he’s not as important as he thinks he is, and no, he doesn’t get to set press conference agendas.

No doubt this constitutional/legal question of whether the White House ‘has a right’ to revoke hard passes for lousy behavior from journalists is something that the administration must clear up, and unfortunately that will have to happen in federal court.

In the meantime, let Acosta have his hard pass back. Let him back into the White House for press conferences.

Then let him stand out as the most insignificant journalist in the room.

From the back.

Never miss a story! Sign up for our daily email newsletter — Click here!


3 Comments on There is another way to deal with Jim Acosta that doesn’t require a court decision: Ignore him

  1. Where is it written that an administration must have press events?

  2. Remember when Obama threw out fox reporters and no one said a damn word about it?

  3. Trump should tell the judge to stuff it, and ignore both the court’s “ruling” and CNN.

Have something to say?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: