President Trump, Mister Acosta, CNN discussed on Mark Levin
And Jim Acosta. Have hired a couple of top gun lawyers. We'll filed one of the most pathetic lawsuits have ever rent. This is not a freedom of the press case. CNN has reporters at the White House CNN has reporters at presidential press conferences. If anything the freedom of the press argument is on the White House's side how so. Because the purpose of a presidential press conference is to allows many reporters as possible to ask pertinent questions and for the president the answer them. In other words, they press conferences for the American people. One of the difficulties the other members of the press and the president are having communicating with each other including tough questions, so the president. And thereby informing the American people Jim Acosta. When Jim Acosta disrupts the press conference. Monopolize the time and basically gives his political opinions about a president who he constantly calls a liar. We learned nothing. We learn absolutely nothing. And I would tell the lawyers who filed this lawsuit you filed a very dishonest. Brief your recitation of the facts are not the facts. And we the people watch this press conference, you left out an awful lot of information that is harmful to your client. And I can tell you that when the Justice department defense against this. They actually might put the actual transcript in the brief to show the court. How you misled? And you're not standing up for the media in the country. You're not standing up for the press in the country, CNN and Jim Acosta. You're not in any way. There's one hundred and fifty reporters in that room. Jim Acosta is one. This isn't about freedom of the press. Know what this is about is an individual who provocative. Who wants to create drama? And not about news about him and CNN and CNN wanting to get their ratings up. Now, this could go in front of Obama court or Clinton court, but as a sixty yard pass they're hoping for the best. But in the end, it's nothing more than a press release. Short and simple. Now, let's take a look at this. Let's take a real look at this. We get Electr about what the framers of the constitution intended. I would remind my friend Ted Olson. Ted Olson, this is A Gibson Dunne lawsuit. Ted Olson was Ronald Reagan's lawyer Ted Olson represented parties in the same sex marriage case in California on the side of same sex marriage and Ted also now's taken up the cause of CNN and Jim Acosta, it's unfortunate. They talk about the framers of our constitution. First of all the Bill of rights. The first ten amendments were not originally part of the constitution where they. So the framers of the constitution in Philadelphia had nothing to do with the first amendment matter of fact, it was the states. That insisted. On various amendments to the constitution. And it was James Madison and John Adams among other who relented. During the debates in the states over ratification that when the first congress would meet. They would introduce amendments to rectify what some of these states thought were imperfections. That's how we got the Bill of rights from the states. Let's be totally clear about that wasn't the framers of the constitution. Was the attendees at the various ratification debates in the states. That's the first point. The second point is since we've had this first amendment. And I hope these supreme court justices are listening. We've had many great presidents and many lousy presidents. We had two out of three really great presidents. Who through journalists in prison? That's not why they were great. It's in spite of that the first being John Adams as discussed here repeatedly. John Adams was a brilliant, man. He wasn't crucially important founder. He was the second president of the United States. Any lost his seat in part? Due to the airline and sedition acts, which Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans rejected. They campaigned on that. And they won. The second president. There are others. But the second president, I'll mention is the great ABRAHAM LINCOLN sixteenth president. One two New York. Newspapers published a fake presidential proclamation during the course of the civil war. Lincoln was furious. And he ordered one of his generals to arrest the editors and the journalists. Who worked at those newspapers? Exactly what they did. He did more. He shut down those newspapers. And his surrogates. Shutdown almost three hundred newspapers during the course of the civil war. I don't see that mentioned in Ted Olson's brief I don't see John Adams mentioned in since brief why get that in a second. Then we have Woodrow Wilson one of the founding fathers of the progressive movement in this country. President of the United States in the earlier part. Of the last century a democrat. While he was kind of enthralled but Adams had done and they had an espionage act of nineteen seventeen and the Democrats in congress amended. To add what's called today, the nine hundred eighteen Sedition Act, and of course, Woodrow Wilson signed it. So addition of being a racist and a segregationist this leading progressive. He threw journalists in prison as well as political opponents. Now, not to bore you to death. Let's jump up Barack Mel house Benita Obama. He sought to throw journalists in prison to there's various leak investigations there were more investigations of journalists related to leak investigations during the Obama administration, then all his modern predecessors combined. He investigated in investigative reporter for the New York Times, he investigated investigative reporter for Fox News. He investigated twenty eight p reporters. And they used espionage surveillance. Never really pressed to tough by any of the people at CNN during presidential press conferences, as a matter of fact, Barack Obama had a little trick to press conferences. He do a press conference for thirty forty fifty minutes, and there be three four five questions tops because he would filibuster. I don't remember any reported jumping up and yelling at the president. I don't remember any reported jumping up and calling the president a liar. I don't remember any interference. With his rope. A dope. Except once. Neil Munro of the daily caller at the time. President was doing one of his things out there. The rose garden and the L one rodale dare to yell out a question out of turn. He wasn't accusing the president or anything heating. Call the president anything. He wasn't debating the president. He dared to yell at a question out of turn. While the president was conducting one of his filibusters and the media at the event turned on Neil Munro. Attacked him. Remember this? Attacked him. So that's a little historical background. That's all missing from this brief as you would expect, but they right on item. Five the framers of our constitution embraced a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited robust and wide open. And that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials near at times versus Sullivan, nobody's disputing that. We're talking about somebody disrupting a presidential press conference. You can't have street. Protesters dressed up as reporters interfering with the president presidential press conference. You see, ladies and gentlemen, I posted something early this morning, which has been regurgitated by the backbenchers all day on. I said, this is a ridiculous suit. As I say, they're I'm sure they're form shopping looking for an Obama judge or a Clinton judge. But no reporter has a constitutional right to be physically present in the press room anymore than the scores of reporters who are not so lucky as to get a hard pass to be there in the first place. You've got reporters all over the country local newspapers regional newspapers statewide newspapers national websites, people involved in national social media, and so forth and national newspapers they all don't get in there unless you're going to have a baseball stadium, and everybody's present. So a line does have to be drawn. Now, it's either drawn by the president or the supreme court. The supreme court has no business whatsoever in this none. It's called separation of powers, and I might add. That the supreme court which conducts itself in secret the supreme court, which does not hold press conferences, the supreme court in which justices like Ruth, Bader Ginsburg, go out and give interviews is in no position to be dictating policy to the president of the United States. This is not about freedom of the press. It's about an administrative policy that the White House's decided on because I got some kid in the back row who keeps up blowing up bubble gum and popping it in the back row and disrupting the class. That's pretty much. What's taking place? You understand that? There's nothing in the constitution that compels the president to hold a presidential press conference period. Watch the court order to hold one. I wrote this all up this morning. So you heard the back benches. I'm sure there's nothing in the constitution that compels the president to call on anyone from CNN, let alone Jim Acosta. Period. Kosta does not have a constitutional right to disrupt the press conference and CNN doesn't either. And CNN doesn't either. Ted Olson and Theodore Boutrous. Are doing grave damage to our constitution. We have made repeated requests for Ted Olson to come on this program. Unfortunately, he won't I've been a friend of his for years. Both served in the same administration. The Laura Bush versus gore, I still consider him a friend. I haven't seen him in a long time. But I still consider my friend. But I wanted him to come on. So we can have an honest debate about this, you know, to inform the public even though neither of us are government. That would be a nice free speech thing to do. But his office did not respond to multiple emails and phone calls. Didn't even reply. Because his colleague Mr. Boutros, apparently is only doing friendly and supportive media. He's welcome on this program to it's an open door to either Ted. Because I want to have this discussion. I want to have this discussion. And out of control. Provocateur? In the middle of a press conference time and time again with the president or with the president's spokeswoman. Is not a matter of freedom of the press. Jim Acosta is the Morton Downey junior of the media. I have nothing personal against the late Morton Downey junior. But I'm saying when he used to have that syndicated program late at night. That's Jim Acosta. The White House has to decide who gets a hard press pass. And who does not? And in this case, they had huge reasons and justifications to withdraw it for mister Acosta. And we don't need this law firm. The tell us what took plates in that room because we all saw it with our own two eyes. And we all turned it whether owned two years, which is exactly why when you get into their statement of the facts in the lawsuit they mislead the court. They mislead the court. When you read item twenty-seven item twenty eight and twenty nine. They leave out key aspects of what Mr. Kosta did and said. And in fact, they accused the young lady inter of reaching a cost his body and grabbing the microphone. She shouldn't have had to grab the microphone. It wasn't his in the first place. It's a news conference. Not the UFC. Seem like one did it then they go through a whole list of things that the president has said about CNN and about the Kosta all of his tweets. What does that have to do anything? They're trying to throw Chom out there for any left wing activists judge to grab onto you. See the issue isn't what the president has said about CNN Kosta. The issue isn't even wanting to Costas said about the president repeatedly on CNN calling Malar. The issue is what took place at that press conference. And what took place at that press conference? Actually undermined the ability of the media and the president to communicate with the American people. It was an attack on freedom of the press by Jim Acosta CNN and Time Warner I'll be right back..