17 Burst results for "Mr Kosten Cnn"

"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on 760 KFMB Radio

760 KFMB Radio

11:13 min | 2 years ago

"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on 760 KFMB Radio

"Let's take a look. We went through the the Olsen Boutros Boutros Boutros Ghali was at a very bad. Brief in my view. But who knows what the judge? But here's the response. I haven't read it to myself yet. I just thought so I'm going to read it to as I go through it. Here's their background their recitation of facts. Let's see if it's better than the the Boutros Olsen recitation, which was really quite misleading. Many reporters cover the White House for a range of local, national and international news outlets. A subset of those reporters have access to facilities within the White House complex access that requires certain credentials. After completing a secret service background check a reporter may then be approved by the White House for a so-called hard pass, which allows access to the White House complex and briefing room. So he just learned more you just learn more from that. Then you did at any other time. On November seven two thousand eighteen President Trump held a press conference to discuss the twenty eighteen midterm elections. One of the attendees was Jim Acosta chief White House correspondent for CNN who held a hard pass at that time. At that press conference as reported in a statement by press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, quote after Mr Casa asked the president to questions each of which the president answered he physically refused to surrender a White House microphone to an intern. So that other reporters might ask their questions, unquote. So true. Mr. Kossi quote held onto the microphone on quote after a White House staffer had put our hands on the microphone and attempted to. Reclaim it. Later that day press secretary Sanders announced that Mr Costa's heart pass had been suspended until further notice. She stated, quote, Mr Costa's conduct is absolutely unacceptable. There's also completely disrespectful to the reporters. Colleagues. Not to allow them an opportunity to ask a question following that action Mr. Kostas application for a day pass on November eight two thousand eighteen was rejected. He was not permitted access to the president's events during a trip to Paris the following day. Also, November eight CNN sent the White House say letter of Mr Costa's behalf responding to a suspension on conduct grounds. In that letter CNN asserted that quote, the nature and tone of Mr Costa's questions was appropriate and newsworthy. Wait a minute. So as tone was newsworthy following that the press secretary further explained the decision in a written statement released on November thirteen they quoted we don't need. Plaintiffs Mr. kosten CNN filed a complaint emotion for preliminary injunction and emotion for a temporary restraining order November thirteen twenty eighteen. This court is scheduled or argument on plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order for the afternoon of fourteen. Now, you have so-called legal experts who are not many of whom have never actually practice federal constitutional law or saying this is a slam dunk CNN will win what they're trying to do. Ladies and gentlemen, is influenced the outcome. That's what they're trying to do. So here's part of the argument. By the administration, the standard for issuance of the extraordinary and drastic remedy of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is very high. They're citing a court decisions. An interim injunction is never awarded as of right? And they go on and T R is very difficult to get. I mean, it really has to be mad as related to public safety and so forth. Plaintiffs are not likely to see a succeed on their first amendment claim. The president is broad discretion in granting White House access to journalists. The first amendment does not restrict the president's ability to determine the terms on which he does or does not engage with particular journalists as the DC circuit recognized in Cheryl versus night, citing the same case at Ted and Ted cited the principal case on which plaintiffs rely the president may, of course, grant interviews are briefings was selected journalists and deny that opportunity to others. Any other result would certainly be unreasonable. The president may choose the journalists. He calls on this. Is there a brief now at a press conference or which journalists he invites to an interview in the Oval Office or a press conference? Just a large form interview in the East Room that discretion extends as White House staff. The president is free to instruct White House officials to respond, positively to particular journalists requests for information interviews or or questions, and he's equally free to instruct White House officials to do the opposite by declining similar requests from a different journalist. If the rule were otherwise courts frequently would be caught these arguments we made here last night. Courts would frequently be called on to police the daily give and take between public officials and reporters and arena that is defined by discretion and where and let's see and where public officials routinely grant or deny interviews to specific reporters based on their judgment about how the reporters viewpoints, what color the interview, this is a fact which pointed out last night. That concern led the fourth circuit to uphold the governor of Maryland's decision to prohibit everyone in the executive department or agency sound quote from speaking to reporters from the Baltimore Sun. And reaching now, here's my question to you. If you're going to have people who call themselves legal experts on the subject on TV. Why haven't they cited? This information. And reaching that conclusion the court explained that providing relatively less information to one reporter was permissible even when done on account of that journalists reporting such decisions regarding the level of access. A journalist receives the public officials are a pervasive feature of journalism and of journalists interactions with government. More broadly. There is no first amendment right of access to the White House. Another point I- underscored. Last evening as the supreme court recognized decades ago, even though any restriction on a citizens access to the White House diminishes the citizens opportunities to gather information, he might find relevant to his opinion of the way the country's being run excuse me. That does not make entry into the White House a first amendment, right? That's a supreme court decision from nineteen sixty five. The president is generally free to open the White House doors to political allies in the hopes of furthering a particular agenda, and he is equally free to invite in only political foes in the hopes of convincing them of his position the first amendment. Simply does not regulate these decisions and the first amendment does not impose stricter requirements when journalists as a subset of the public are granted or denied access to the White House. The supreme court reinforced that the press does not receive special treatment for first amendment purposes in citizens United versus Federal Election Commission of two thousand ten. The court said we've consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers a rule that limits. The White House's discretion to grant or deny journalists hard passes with us requiring the White House to grant full access to any member of the public who would like to ask the president or his staff questions. See this is a grown-up brief. It's not a slapdash sloppy brief like Boutros and also been filed. Now, it may not matter depending on who the judges are and where their heads are at. But it matters to you and me because we own this country, not them. Plaintiffs argument to the contrary rest, primarily on the Cheryl case, the only DC circuit case, they cite regarding press access to the White House plaintiffs rely on Cheryl for the broad proposition that press access should not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons. But Cheryl is not so broad in. That case the soul question was whether the secret service had permissively denied a heart passed away journalist who the parties agreed was otherwise eligible to receive it for concerns over presidential security. The denial resulted solely from the determination of the secret service after investigating Mr. Cheryl that he not be issued the pass the court noted quote that all parties to this case recognize the right of a journalist while White House press pass assuming that the journalists satisfies some basic objective criteria, and it's not a source of potential danger. The president or it's family. The particular question. The court had to answer was thus what standards govern the secret services denial of a hard pass based on security reasons. In this case by contrast. It is not conceded that Mr. Kosta is an otherwise eligible journalists. The president has his designated in the White House press office. They've exercised their discretion not doing gauge with him and by extension to no longer grant him on demand access to the White House complex. So that he can attempt to interact with the president or White House officials. Unlike the situation and Cheryl. Well, only the secret service was objecting to the issuance of they passed to the reporter, the White House press office has saw objected and that's does not recognize the right of a journalist way. White House press pass in all cases, absent a demonstrated security threat put differently stick with me put differently defendants do not concede. And in fact, reject the premise that the White House press facilities are perceived as being open to all bona fide Washington-based journalists such a conclusion is untenable in light of the numerous discretionary determinations. The White House press office must make and allocating hard passes to a subset of bona fide Washington-based journalists, for example, the degree to which the request is beat requires reporting on the White House whether request or is a journalist they sufficiently broad audience, whether hard passes are fairly distributed between comparable, organizations, etc. Therefore, the premise on which the DC circuits opinion, and Cheryl depends doesn't exist here. And notice they've been waving it around on cable TV, I got this Gerald. And what did I tell you? That is a DC circuit decision of limited use. And that's all they've.

White House president reporter Olsen Boutros Boutros Boutros chief White House corresponden press secretary Mr. Cheryl Boutros Olsen Mr Costa CNN Sarah Huckabee Sanders Mr. kosten CNN Jim Acosta DC Maryland Mr. Kostas Mr. Kossi
"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on 600 WREC

600 WREC

11:21 min | 2 years ago

"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on 600 WREC

"We went through the the Olsen Boutros Boutros Boutros Ghali was at a very bad. Brief in my view. But who knows what the judge? But here's the response. I don't read it to myself yet. I just thought so I'm going to read it to you. As I go through it. Here's their background their recitation of facts. Let's see if it's better than the the Boutros Holson recitation, which was really quite misleading. Many reporters cover the White House free range of local, national and international news outlets. A subset of those reporters have access to facilities within the White House complex access that requires certain credentials. After completing a secret service background check a reporter may then be approved by the White House for a so-called hard pass, which allows access to the White House complex and briefing room. So he just learned more you just learn more from that. Then you did at any other time. On November seven two thousand eighteen President Trump held a press conference to discuss the twentieth. Eighteen midterm elections. One of the attendees was Jim Acosta chief White House correspondent for CNN who held a hard pass at that time. At that press conference as reported in a statement by press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, quote after Mr Casa asked the president to questions each of which the president answered he physically refused to surrender White House microphone to an intern. So that other reporters might ask their questions, unquote. So true. Mr Casa quote held onto the microphone unquote after a White House staffer had put her hands on the microphone and attempted to. Reclaim it. Later that day press secretary Sanders announced that Mr Costa's heart pass had been suspended until further notice. She stated, quote, Mr Costa's conduct is absolutely unacceptable. Does also completely disrespectful to the reporters. Colleagues. Not to allow them an opportunity to ask a question following that action Mr. Kostas application for a day pass on November twenty eighteen was rejected. He was not permitted access to the president's events during a trip to Paris the following day. Also, November eight CNN sent the White House say later, a Mr Costa's behalf responding to his suspension on conduct grounds in that letter CNN asserted that quote, the nature and tone of Mr Costa's questions was appropriate and newsworthy. Wait a minute. So as tone was newsworthy following that letter, the press secretary further explain the decision in a written statement released on November thirteen they quoted we don't need. Mr. kosten CNN filed a complaint emotion for preliminary injunction, an emotion for a temporary restraining order November thirteen two thousand eighteen this court is scheduled or argument on plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining owner for the afternoon of December fourteen. Now, you have so called legal experts who are not many of whom have never actually practice federal constitutional law. Whereas saying this is a slam dunk CNN will win, but they're trying to do, ladies and gentlemen is influenced the outcome. That's what they're trying to do. So here's part of the argument. By the administration, the standard for issuance of the extraordinary and drastic remedy of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is very high. They're citing a court decisions. And interim injunction is never awarded as of right? And they go on and R is very difficult to get. I mean, there really has to be mad as related to public safety and so forth. Plaintiffs are not likely to see a succeed on their first amendment claim the president is broad discretion in granting White House access to journalists. The first amendment does not restrict the president's ability to determine the terms on which he does or does not engage particular journalists as the D C circuit recognized in shallow versus night, citing the same case. At Ted and Ted cited the principal case on which plaintiffs rely the president may, of course, grant interviews or briefings was selected journalists and deny that opportunity to others. Any other result would certainly be unreasonable. The president may choose the journalists. He calls on this is their brief now at a press conference or which journalists he invites to an interview in the Oval Office or a press conference. Just a large form interview in the East Room that discretion extends to his White House staff. The president is free to instruct White House officials to respond, positively to particular journalists requests for information interviews or or questions, and he's equally free to instruct White House officials to do the opposite by declining similar requests from different journalist. If the rule were otherwise courts frequently would be these are arguments we made here last night. Courts would frequently be called on to police the daily give and take between public officials and reporters and arena that is defined by discretion and where and let's see and where public officials routinely grant or deny interviews to specific reporters based on their judgment about how the reporters viewpoints will color the interview. This is a fact which I pointed out last night that concern led the fourth circuit to uphold the governor of Maryland's decision to prohibit everyone quote in the executive department or agency unquote from speaking to reporters from the Baltimore Sun. In reaching. Now. Here's my question to you. If you're going to have people who call themselves legal experts on the subject on TV. Why haven't they cited? This information. In reaching that conclusion the court explained the providing relatively less information to one reporter was permissible even when done on account of that journalists reporting such decisions regarding the level of access. A journalist receives the public officials are a pervasive feature of journalism and of journalists interactions with government. More broadly. There is no first amendment right of access to the White House and other point underscored. Last evening as the supreme court recognized decades ago, even though any restriction on the citizens access to the White House diminishes the citizens opportunities to gather information, he might find relevant to his opinion of the way the country's being run excuse me. That does not make entry into the White House a first amendment, right? That's a supreme court decision from nineteen sixty five. The president is generally free to open the White House doors to political allies in the hopes of furthering particular agenda, and he is equally free to invite in only political foes in the hopes of convincing them of his position the first amendment. Simply does not regulate these decisions and the first amendment does not impose stricter requirements when journalists as a subset of the public are granted or denied access to the White House. The supreme court reinforce that. The press does not receive special treatment for first amendment purposes in citizens United versus Federal Election Commission of twenty ten. The court said we have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers a role that limits. The White House's discretion to grant or deny journalists hard passes with us requiring the White House to grant full access to any member of the public who would like to ask the president or his staff questions. You see this is a grown-up brief it's not a slapdash sloppy brief like Boutros and Olsen file it may not matter depending on who the judges are. And where their heads are at. But it matters to you and me because we own this country, not them. Plaintiffs argument to the contrary rest, primarily on the Cheryl case, the only DC circuit case, they cite regarding press access to the White House plaintiffs rely on Cheryl for the broad proposition that press access should not be denied arbitrarily are for less than compelling reasons. But Cheryl is not so broad in. That case the soul question was whether the secret service had permissively denied a heart passed away journalist who the parties agreed was otherwise eligible to receive it for concerns over presidential security. The denial resulted solely from the determination of the secret service after investigating Mr. Cheryl that he not be issued the pass the court noted quote that all parties to this case recognize the right of a journalist while White House press pass assuming that the journalists satisfies some basic objective criteria, and it's not a source of potential danger to the president or it's family. The particular question the court had the answer was thus what standards govern the secret services denial of a hard pass based on security reasons. In this case by contrast. It is not conceded that Mr. Kosta is an otherwise eligible journalists. The president has his designated in the White House press office, they've exercise their discretion not to engage with him and by extension to no longer grant him on demand access to the White House complex. So that he can attempt to interact with the president or White House officials. Unlike the situation and Cheryl. Only the secret service was objecting to the issuance of a pass to the reporter, the White House press office has so objected and thus does not recognize the right of a to a White House press pass in all cases, absent a demonstrated security threat put differently stick with me put differently defendants do not concede. And in fact, reject the premise that the White House press facilities are perceived as being open to all bona fide Washington-based journalists such a conclusion is untenable in light of the numerous discretionary determinations. The White House press office must make and allocating hard passes to a subset a bona fide Washington-based journalists, for example, the degree to which the request beat requires reporting on the White House whether request or is a journalist would they sufficiently broad audience, whether hard passes are fairly distributed between comparable, organizations, etc. Therefore, the premise on which the DC circuits opinion and shell depends doesn't exist here. And notice they've been waving it around on cable TV, Cheryl best session. And what did I tell you? That is a DC circuit decision of limited use. And that's all I've got right now. More when I return. Mm-hmm..

White House president reporter Olsen Boutros Boutros Boutros chief White House corresponden press secretary Mr Costa Boutros Holson Mr Casa Mr. Cheryl CNN Sarah Huckabee Sanders Mr. kosten CNN Jim Acosta DC Maryland Mr. Kostas
"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on KTRH

KTRH

11:24 min | 2 years ago

"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on KTRH

"Let's take a look. We went through the the Olsen Boutros Boutros Boutros Ghali was at a very bad. Brief in my view. But who knows what the judge? But here's the response. I haven't read it to myself yet. I thought so I'm going to read it to you. As I go through it. Here's their background their recitation of facts. Let's see if it's better than the the Boutros Holson recitation, which was really quite misleading. Many reporters cover the White House for a range of local, national and international news outlets. A subset of those reporters have access to facilities within the White House complex access that requires certain credentials. After completing a secret service background check a reporter may then be approved by the White House for a so-called hard pass, which allows access to the White House complex and briefing room. So he just learned more you just learn more from that. Then you did at any other time. On November seven twenty eight team. President Trump held a press conference to discuss the twentieth. Eighteen midterm elections. One of the attendees was Jim Acosta chief White House correspondent for CNN who held a hard pass at that time. At that press conference as reported in a statement by press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, quote after Mr Casa asked the president to questions each of which the president answered he physically refused to surrender a White House microphone to an intern. So that other reporters might ask their questions, unquote. So true. Mr Casa quote held onto the microphone on quote after a White House staffer had put our hands on the microphone and attempted to. Reclaim it. Later that day press secretary Sanders announced that Mr Costa's heart pass had been suspended until further notice. She stated, quote, Mr Costa's conduct is absolutely unacceptable. Does also completely disrespectful to the reporters. Colleagues. Not to allow them an opportunity to ask a question following that action Mr. Kostas application for a day pass on November twenty eighteen was rejected. He was not permitted access to the president's events during a trip to Paris the following day. Also, November eight CNN send the White House say lighter, a Mr Costa's behalf responding to his suspension on conduct grounds. In that letter seen and asserted that quote, the nature and tone of Mr Costa's questions was appropriate and newsworthy. Wait a minute. So as tone was newsworthy following that letter, the press secretary further explain the decision in a written statement released on November thirteen they quoted we don't need. Plaintiffs Mr. kosten CNN filed a complaint emotion for preliminary injunction, an emotion for a temporary restraining order November thirteen twenty eighteen. This court is scheduled argument on plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order for the afternoon of a number fourteen. Now, you have so-called legal experts who are not many of whom have never actually practice federal constitutional law. Whereas saying this is a slam dunk CNN will win, but they're trying to do, ladies and gentlemen is influenced the outcome. That's what they're trying to do. So here's part of the argument. By the administration, the standard for issuance of the extraordinary and drastic remedy of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is very high. They're citing a court decisions. And interim injunction is never awarded as of right? And they go on and very difficult to get. I mean, there really has to be mad as related to public safety and so forth. Plaintiffs are not likely to see a succeed on their first amendment claim the president has broad discretion in granting White House access to journalists. The first amendment does not restrict the president's ability to determine the terms on which he does or does not engage with particular journalists as the DC circuit recognized in Cheryl versus night, citing the same case. At Ted and Ted cited the principal case on which plaintiffs rely the president may, of course, grant interviews are briefings was selected journalists and deny that opportunity to to others any other result, which certainly be unreasonable. The president may choose the journalists. He calls on this is their brief now at a press conference or which journalists he invites to an interview in the Oval Office or a press conference. Just a large form interview in the East Room that discretion extends to his White House staff. The president is free to instruct White House officials to respond, positively to particular journalists requests for information interviews or or questions, and he's equally free to instruct White House officials to do the opposite by declining similar requests from a different journalist. If the rule were otherwise courts frequently would be caught these are arguments we made here last night. Courts would frequently be called on to police the daily give and take between public officials and reporters an arena that is defined by discretion. And where let's see and where public officials routinely grant or deny interviews to specific reporters based on their judgment about how the reporters viewpoints, what color the interview, this is a fact which I pointed out last night that concern led the fourth circuit to uphold the governor Maryland's decision to prohibit everyone in the executive department or agency tongue quote from speaking to reporters from the Baltimore Sun. In reaching. Now. Here's my question to you. If you're going to have people who call themselves legal experts on the subject on TV. Why haven't they cited? This information. In reaching that conclusion the court explained that providing relatively less information to one reporter was permissible even when done on account of that journalists reporting such decisions regarding the level of access. A journalist receives the public officials are a pervasive feature of journalism and journalists interactions with government. More broadly. There is no first amendment right of access to the White House. Another point I- underscored. Last evening as the supreme court recognized decades ago, even though any restriction on the citizens access to the White House diminishes the citizens opportunities to gather information, he might find relevant to his opinion of the way the country's being run excuse me. That does not make entry into the White House a first amendment, right? That's a supreme court decision from nineteen sixty five. The president is generally free to open the White House doors to political allies in the hopes of furthering particular agenda, and he is equally free to invite in only political foes in the hopes of convincing them of his position the first amendment. Simply does not regulate these decisions and the first amendment does not impose stricter requirements when journalists as a subset of the public are granted or denied access to the White House. The supreme court reinforce that. The press does not receive special treatment for first amendment purposes in citizens United versus Federal Election Commission of two thousand ten. The court said we've consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers a rule that limits. The White House's discretion to grant or deny journalists hard passes with us requiring the White House to grant full access to any member of the public who would like to ask the president or his staff questions. You see this is a grownup brief. It's not a slapdash sloppy brief like Boutros and Olsen file now. It may not matter depending on who the judges are. And where their heads are at. But it matters to you and me because we own this country, not them. Plaintiffs argument to the contrary rest, primarily on the Cheryl case, the only DC circuit case, they cite regarding press access to the White House plaintiffs rely on Cheryl for the broad proposition that press access should not be denied arbitrarily are for less than compelling reasons. But Cheryl is not so broad in. That case the soul question was whether the secret service had permissively denied a heart passed away journalist who the parties agreed was otherwise eligible to receive it for concerns over presidential security. The denial resulted solely from the determination of the secret service after investigating Mr. Cheryl that he not be issued the pass the court noted quote that all parties to this case recognize the right of a journalist while White House press pass assuming that the journalists satisfies some basic objective criteria, and it's not a source of potential danger to the president or it's family. The particular question. The court had to answer was thus what standards govern the secret services denial of a hard pass based on security reasons. In this case by contrast. It is not conceded that Mr. Kosta is an otherwise eligible journalists. The president has his designated in the White House press office. They've exercised their discretion not to engage with him and by extension to no longer grant him on demand access to the White House complex. So that he can attempt to interact with the president are White House officials. Unlike the situation in Cheryl. Where only the secret service was objecting to the issuance of a pass to the reporter, the White House press office has so objected and thus does not recognize the right of journalists to a White House press pass and all cases, absent a demonstrated security threat put differently stick with me put differently defendants do not concede. And in fact, reject the premise that the White House press facilities are perceived as being open to all bona fide Washington-based journalists such a conclusion is untenable in light of the numerous discretionary determinations. The White House press office must make and allocating hard passes to a subset a bona fide Washington-based journalists, for example, the degree to which the request is beat requires reporting on the White House whether request or is a journalist where they sufficiently brought audience whether hard passes are fairly distributed between comparable, organizations, etc. Therefore, the premise on which the DC circuits opinion, and Cheryl depends doesn't exist here. And notice they've been waving it around on cable TV Cheryl decision. And what did I tell you? That is a DC circuit decision of limited use. And that's all they've got right now. More when I return. Van. Mm-hmm..

White House president Mr. Cheryl reporter Olsen Boutros Boutros Boutros chief White House corresponden press secretary Mr Costa Boutros Holson Mr Casa President Trump CNN Sarah Huckabee Sanders Jim Acosta Mr. kosten CNN DC Maryland
"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

11:04 min | 2 years ago

"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"We went through the the Olsen Boutros Boutros Boutros Ghali was at a very bad. Brief in my view. But who knows what the judge? But here's the response. I haven't read it to myself yet. I just thought so I'm going to read it to you. As I go through it. Here's their background their recitation of facts. Let's see if it's better than the the tros Holson recitation, which was really quite misleading. Many reporters cover the White House for a range of local, national and international news outlets. A subset of those reporters have access to facilities within the White House complex access that requires certain credentials. After completing a secret service background check a reporter may then be approved by the White House for a so-called hard pass, which allows access to the White House complex and briefing room. So he just learned more you just learn more from that. Then you did at any other time. On November seven two thousand eighteen President Trump out a press conference to discuss the twenty eighteen midterm elections. One of the attendees was Jim Acosta chief White House correspondent for CNN who held a hard pass at that time. At that press conference as reported in a statement by press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, quote after Mr Casa asked the president to questions each of which the president answering. He physically refused to surrender a White House microphone to an intern. So that other reporters might ask their questions, unquote. So true. Mr Casa quote held onto the microphone on quote after a White House staffer had put our hands on the microphone and attempted to. Reclaim it. Later that day press secretary Sanders announced that Mr Costa's heart pass had been suspended until further notice. She stated, quote, Mr Costa's conduct is absolutely unacceptable. Does also completely disrespectful to the reporters. Colleagues. Not to allow them an opportunity to ask a question following that action Mr. Kostas application for a day pass on November eight twenty eighteen was rejected. He was not permitted access to the president's events during a trip to Paris the following day. Also, November eight CNN sent the White House say later, a Mr Costa's behalf responding to his suspension on conduct grounds in that letter CNN asserted that quote, the nature and tone of Mr Costa's questions was appropriate and newsworthy. Wait a minute. So as tone was newsworthy following that letter. The press secretary further explained the decision in a written statement released on November thirteen they quoted we don't need. Plaintiffs Mr. kosten CNN filed a complaint emotion for preliminary injunction, an emotion for a temporary restraining order November thirteen two thousand eighteen this court is scheduled oral argument plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order for the afternoon of December fourteen. Now, you have so-called legal experts who are not many of whom have never actually practice federal constitutional law where saying this is a slam dunk CNN will win, but they're trying to do, ladies and gentlemen is influenced the outcome. That's what they're trying to do. So here's part of the argument. By the administration, the standard for issuance of the extraordinary and drastic remedy of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is very high. They're citing a court decisions. An interim injunction is never awarded as of right? And they go on a great difficult to get. I mean, there really has to be matters related to public safety and so forth. Plaintiffs are not likely to see a succeed on their first amendment claim. The president is broad discretion in granting White House access to journalists. The first amendment does not restrict the president's ability to determine the terms on which he does or does not engage with particular journalists as the DC circuit recognized in Cheryl versus night, citing the same case at Ted and Ted cited the principal case on which plaintiffs rely the president may, of course, grant interviews briefings was selected journalists and deny that opportunity to others any other result, which certainly be unreasonable. The president may choose the journalists. He calls on this is their brief. Now edit press conference or which journalists he invites to an interview in the Oval Office or press conference, just a large form interview in the East Room that discretion extends to his White House staff. The president is free to instruct White House officials to respond, positively to particular journalists requests for information interviews or or questions, and he's equally free to instruct White House officials to do the opposite by declining similar requests from a different journalist. If the rule were otherwise courts frequently would be caught these are arguments we made here last night. Courts would frequently be called on to police the daily give and take between public officials and reporters and arena that is defined by discretion and where and let's see and where public officials routinely grant or deny interviews to specific reporters based on their judgment about how the reporters viewpoints, what color the interview, this is a fact which I pointed out last night. That concern led the fourth circuit to uphold the governor of Maryland's decision to prohibit everyone in the executive department or agency's unquote from speaking to reporters from the Baltimore Sun. In reaching. Now. Here's my question to you. If you're going to have people who call themselves legal experts on the subject on TV. Why haven't they cited? This information. In reaching that conclusion the court explained the providing relatively less information to one reporter was permissible even when done on account of that journalists reporting such decisions regarding the level of access. Journalists receives the public officials are a pervasive feature journalism and of journalists interactions with government. More broadly. There is no first amendment right of access to the White House and other point I under scored. Last evening as the supreme court recognized decades ago, even though any restriction on the citizens access to the White House diminishes the citizens opportunities to gather information, he might find relevant to his opinion of the way the country's being run. Excuse me. That does not make entry into the White House a first amendment, right? That's court decision from nineteen sixty five. The president is generally free to open the White House doors to political allies in the hopes of furthering, I've particular agenda, and he is equally free to invite in only political foes in the hopes of convincing them of his position the first amendment. Simply does not regulate these decisions and the first amendment does not impose stricter requirements when journalists as a subset of the public are granted or denied access to the White House. The supreme court reinforce that. The press does not receive special treatment for first amendment purposes in citizens United versus Federal Election Commission of twenty ten. The court said we've consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers a role that limits. The White House's discretion to grant deny journalists hard passes would thus requiring the White House to grant full access to any member of the public who would like to ask the president or his staff questions. You see this as a grownup brief? It's not a slapdash sloppy brief like Boutros and Olsen file it may not matter depending on who the judges are. And where their heads are at. But it matters to you and me because we own this country, not them. Plaintiffs argument to the contrary rest, primarily on the Cheryl case, the only DC circuit case, they cite regarding press access to the White House plaintiffs rely on Cheryl for the broad proposition that press access should not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons. But Cheryl is not so broad in. That case the soul question was whether the secret service had permissively denied a heart passed away journalist who the parties agreed was otherwise eligible to receive it for concerns over presidential security. The denial resulted solely from the determination of the secret service after investigating Mr. Cheryl that he not be issued the pass the court noted quote that all parties to this case recognize the right of a journalists who are White House press pass assuming that the journalists satisfies some basic objective criteria, and it's not a source of potential danger to the president or his family. The particular question. The court had to answer was thus what standards govern the secret services denial of a hard pass based on security reasons. In this case by contrast. It is not conceded that Mr. Kosta is an otherwise eligible journalists. The president has his designated in the White House press office. They've exercised their discretion not doing gauge with him and by extension to no longer grant him on demand access to the White House complex. So that he can attempt to interact with the president are White House officials. I'm like, the situation and Cheryl. Where only the secret service was objecting to the issuance of they passed to the reporter, the White House press office has so objected and thus does not recognize the right of a journalist way. White House press pass in all cases, absent a demonstrated security threat put differently stick with me put differently defendants do not concede. And in fact, reject the premise that the White House press facilities are perceived as being open to all bona fide Washington-based journalists such a conclusion is untenable in light of the numerous discretionary determinations. The White House press office must make in allocating heart passes to a subset a bona fide Washington-based journalists, for example, the degree to which the request beat requires reporting on the White House whether request or is a journalist where they sufficiently brought on whether hard passes are fairly distributed between comparable, organizations, etc. Therefore, the premise on which the DC circuits opinion, and Cheryl depends doesn't exist here and noticed they've been waving around on cable TV Gerald decision. And what did I tell you?.

White House president reporter chief White House corresponden press secretary Olsen Boutros Boutros Boutros Mr. Cheryl Mr Costa Mr Casa CNN Sarah Huckabee Sanders tros Holson Mr. kosten CNN Jim Acosta DC Maryland Mr. Kostas
"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM

WCBM 680 AM

11:41 min | 2 years ago

"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM

"Let's take a look. We went through the the Olsen Boutros Boutros Boutros Ghali was at a very bad. Brief in my view. But who knows what the judge? But here's the response. I haven't read it to myself yet. I just saw it. So I'm going to read it to as I go through it. Here's their background their recitation of facts. Let's see if it's better than the Boutros Olsen recitation, which was really quite misleading. Many reporters cover the White House for a range of local national international news outlets. A subset of those reporters have access to facilities within the White House complex access that requires certain credentials. After completing a secret service background check a reporter may then be approved by the White House for a so-called hard pass, which allows access to the White House complex briefing room. So he just learned more you just learn more from that. Then you did at any other time. On November seven two thousand eighteen President Trump held a press conference to discuss the two thousand eighteen midterm elections. One of the attendees was Jim Acosta chief White House correspondent for CNN who how hard pass at that time. At that press conference as reported in a statement by press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, quote after Mr Casa asked the president to questions each of which the president answered he physically refused to surrender a White House microphone to an intern. So that other reporters might ask their questions, unquote. So true. Mr. Kossi quote held onto the microphone on quote after a White House staffer had put her hands on the microphone and attempted to. Reclaim it. Later that day press secretary Sanders announced that Mr Costa's hard pass had been suspended until further notice. She stated, quote, Mr Costa's conduct is absolutely unacceptable. Does also completely disrespectful to the reporters. Colleagues. Not to allow them an opportunity to ask a question following that action Mr. Kostas application for a day pass on November two thousand eighteen was rejected. He was not permitted access to the president's events during a trip to Paris the following day. Also, November eight CNN send the White House say later, a Mr Costa's behalf responding to a suspension on conduct grounds in that letter CNN asserted that quote, the nature and tone of Mr Costa's questions was appropriate and newsworthy. Wait a minute. So it's tone was newsworthy following that letter. The press secretary further explained the decision in a written statement released on November thirteen they quoted we don't need. Plaintiffs Mr. kosten CNN filed a complaint emotion for preliminary injunction and emotion for a temporary restraining order November thirteen twenty eighteen. This court is scheduled or argument on plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining owner for the afternoon of a number fourteen. No, you have so-called legal experts who are not many of whom have never actually practice federal constitutional law where saying this is a slam dunk CNN will win what they're trying to do. Ladies and gentlemen, is influenced the outcome. That's what they're trying to do. So here's part of the argument. By the administration, the standard for issuance of the extraordinary and drastic remedy of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is very high. They're citing court decisions. An interim injunction is never awarded as of right? And they go on and tear is very difficult to get. I mean, it really has to be mad as related to public safety and so forth. Plaintiffs are not likely to see a succeed on their first amendment claim. The president is broad discretion in granting White House access to journalists. The first amendment does not restrict the president's ability to determine the terms on which he does or does not engage with particular journalists as the DC circuit recognized in Cheryl versus night, citing the same case at Ted and Ted cited the principal case on which plaintiffs rely the president may, of course, grant interviews are briefings was selected journalists and deny that opportunity to others. Any other result would certainly be unreasonable. The president may choose the journalists. He calls on this is their brief now at a press conference or which journalists he invites to an interview in the Oval Office or a press conference. Just a large form interview in the East Room that discretion extends to his White House staff. The president is free to instruct White House officials to respond, positively to particular journalists request for information interviews or or questions, and he's equally free to instruct White House officials to do the opposite by declining similar requests from different journalist. If the rule were otherwise courts frequently would be caught these are arguments we made here last night. Courts would frequently be called on to police the daily give and take between public officials and reporters an arena that is defined by discretion. And where let's see and where public officials routinely grant or deny interviews to specific reporters based on their judgment about how the reporters viewpoints, what color the interview, this is a fact which I pointed out last night that concern led the fourth circuit to uphold the governor of Maryland's decision to prohibit everyone in the executive department or agency quote from speaking to reporters from the Baltimore Sun. In reaching. Now. Here's my question to you. If you're going to have people who call themselves legal experts on the subject on TV. Why haven't they cited? This information. In reaching that conclusion the court explained that providing relatively lesson formation to one reporter was permissible even when done on account of that journalists reporting such decisions regarding the level of access. A journalist receives the public officials are a pervasive feature of journalism and journalists interactions with government. More broadly. There is no first amendment right of access to the White House. Another point I under scored. Last evening as the supreme court recognized decades ago, even though any restriction on a citizens access to the White House diminishes the citizens opportunities to gather information, he might find relevant to his opinion of the way the country's being run excuse me. That does not make entry into the White House a first amendment, right? That's a supreme court decision from nineteen sixty five. The president is generally free to open the White House doors to political allies in the hopes of furthering particular agenda, and he is equally free to invite in only political foes in the hopes of convincing them of his position the first amendment. Simply does not regulate these decisions and the first amendment does not impose stricter requirements when journalists as a subset of the public are granted or denied access to the White House. The supreme court reinforce that. The press does not receive special treatment for first amendment purposes in citizens United versus Federal Election Commission of twenty ten. The court said we've consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers a rule that limits. The White House's discretion to grant or deny journalists hard passes with us requiring the White House to grant full access to any member of the public who would like to ask the president or his staff questions. You see this is a grown-up brief it's not a slapdash sloppy brief like Boutros and Olsen file it may not matter depending on who the judges are. And where their heads are at. But it matters to you and me because we own this country, not them. Plaintiffs argument to the contrary rest, primarily on the Cheryl case, the only DC circuit case, they cite regarding press access to the White House plaintiffs rely on Cheryl for the broad proposition that press access should not be denied arbitrarily are for less than compelling reasons. But Cheryl is not so broad in. That case the soul question was whether the secret service had permissively denied a heart passed away journalist who the parties agreed was otherwise eligible to receive it for concerns over presidential security. The denial resulted solely from the determination of the secret service after investigating Mr. Cheryl that he not be issued to pass the court noted quote that all parties to this case recognize the right of a journalist White House press pass assuming that the journalists satisfies some basic objective criteria, and it's not a source of potential danger to the president or his family. The particular question. The court had to answer was thus what standards govern the secret services denial of a hard pass based on security reasons. In this case by contrast is not conceded that Mr. Kosta is an otherwise eligible journalists. The president has his designated in the White House press office, they've exercise their discretion not to engage with him and by extension to no longer grant him on demand access to the White House complex. So that he can attempt to interact with the president or White House officials. Unlike the situation in Cheryl. Well, only the secret service was objecting to the issuance of the past to the reporter, the White House press office has objected and that's does not recognize the right of a journalist to a White House press pass in all cases, absent a demonstrated security threat put differently stick with me put differently defendants do not concede. And in fact, reject the premise that the White House press facilities are perceived as being open to all bona fide Washington-based journalists such a conclusion is untenable in light of the numerous discretionary determinations. The White House press office must make in allocating hard passes to a subset of bona fide Washington-based journalists, for example, the degree to which the request beat requires reporting on the White House whether request or is a journalist where they sufficiently brought audience whether hard passes are fairly distributed between comparable, organizations, etc. Therefore, the premise on which the DC circuits at Cheryl depends doesn't exist here. And notice they've been waving it around on cable TV back Cheryl decision. And what did I tell you? That is a DC circuit decision of limited use. And that's all I've got right now. More when I return. The Mark Levin show on WCBS them. It's so nice now that the sleep cheers. We got the kids are house a stable income checking off all the boxes, but there's one box. We haven't checked off what's life insurance? We don't need to think about that..

White House president reporter Olsen Boutros Boutros Boutros chief White House corresponden press secretary Mr. Cheryl Mr Costa Boutros Olsen CNN Sarah Huckabee Sanders Mr. kosten CNN Jim Acosta DC Mark Levin Maryland Mr. Kostas Mr. Kossi
"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on News Radio 690 KTSM

News Radio 690 KTSM

11:24 min | 2 years ago

"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on News Radio 690 KTSM

"Let's take a look. We went through the the Olsen Boutros Boutros Boutros Ghali was at a very bad. Brief in my view. But who knows what the judge? But here's the response. I haven't read it to myself yet. I just thought so I'm going to read it to you. As I go through it. Here's their background their recitation of facts. Let's see if it's better than the the Boutros Olsen recitation, which was really quite misleading. Many reporters cover the White House for a range of local, national and international news outlets. A subset of those reporters have access to facilities within the White House complex access that require certain credentials. After completing a secret service background check a reporter may then be approved by the White House for a so-called hard pass, which allows access to the White House complex and briefing room. So he just learned more you just learn more from that. Then you did at any other time. On November seven two thousand eighteen President Trump held a press conference to discuss the thousand eighteen midterm elections. One of the attendees was Jim Acosta chief White House correspondent for CNN who held a hard pass at that time. At that press conference as reported in a statement by press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, quote after Mr Casa asked the president to questions each of which the president answered he physically refused to surrender a White House microphone to an intern. So that other reporters might ask their questions, unquote. So true. Mr Casa quote held onto the microphone on quote after a White House staffer had put her hands on the microphone and attempted to. Reclaim it. Later that day press secretary Sanders announced the Mr Costa's heart pass had been suspended until further notice. She stated, quote, Mr Costa's conduct is absolutely unacceptable. Does also completely disrespectful to the reporters. Colleagues. Not to allow them an opportunity to ask a question following that action Mr. Kostas application for a day pass on November eight two thousand eighteen was rejected. He was not permitted access to the president's events during a trip to Paris the following day. Also, November eight CNN sent the White House say later, a Mr Costa's behalf responding to his suspension on conduct grounds. In that letter seen and asserted that quote, the nature and tone of Mr Costa's questions was appropriate and newsworthy. Wait a minute. So as tone was newsworthy following that letter. The press secretary further explained the decision in a written statement released on November thirteen they quote it. We don't need. Plaintiffs Mr. kosten CNN filed a complaint emotion for preliminary injunction, an emotion for a temporary restraining order November thirteen two thousand eighteen this court is scheduled oral argument on plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order for the afternoon of a number fourteen. Now, you have so-called legal experts who are not many of whom have never actually practice federal constitutional law where saying this is a slam dunk CNN will win what they're trying to do. Ladies and gentlemen, is influenced the outcome. That's what they're trying to do. So here's part of the argument. By the administration, the standard for issuance of the extraordinary and drastic remedy of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is very high. They're citing a court decisions. An interim injunction is never awarded as of right? And they go on a is very difficult to get. I mean, it really has to be mad as related to public safety and so forth. Plaintiffs are not likely to see a succeed on their first amendment claim. The president has broad discretion in granting White House access to journalists. The first amendment does not restrict the president's ability to determine the terms on which he does or does not engage with particular journalists as the DC circuit recognized in Cheryl versus night, citing the same case that Ted and Ted cited the principal case on which plaintiffs rely the president may, of course, grant interviews briefings was selected journalists and deny that opportunity to others any other result, which certainly be unreasonable. The president may choose the journalists. He calls on this. Is there a brief now at a press conference or which journalists he invites to an interview in the Oval Office or a press conference? Just a large form interview in the East Room. That discretion extends to his White House staff. The president is free to instruct White House officials to respond, positively to particular journalists requests for information interviews or or questions, and he's equally free to instruct White House officials did do the opposite by declining similar requests from a different journalist. If the rule were otherwise courts frequently would be caught these are arguments we made here last night. Courts would frequently be called on to police the daily give and take between public officials and reporters and arena that is defined by discretion and where and let's see and where public officials routinely grant or deny interviews to specific reporters based on their judgment about how the reporters viewpoints will color the interview. This is a fact which I pointed out last night. That concern led the fourth circuit to uphold the governor Maryland's decision to prohibit everyone in the executive department agencies unquote from speaking to reporters from the Baltimore Sun. In reaching. Now. Here's my question to you. If you're going to have people who call themselves legal experts on the subject on TV. Why haven't they cited? This information. And reaching that conclusion the court explained that providing relatively less information to one reporter was permissible even when done on account of that journalists reporting such decisions regarding the level of access. A journalist receives the public officials are a pervasive feature of journalism and journalists interactions with government. More broadly. There is no first amendment right of access to the White House. Another point I- underscored. Last evening as the supreme court recognized decades ago, even though any restriction on a citizens access to the White House diminishes the citizens opportunities to gather information, he might find relevant to his opinion of the way the country's being run excuse me. That does not make entry into the White House a first amendment, right? That's a supreme court decision from nineteen sixty five. The president is generally free to open the White House doors to political allies in the hopes of furthering a particular agenda, and he is equally free to invite in only political foes in the hopes of convincing them of his position the first amendment. Simply does not regulate these decisions and the first amendment does not impose stricter requirements when journalists as a subset of the public are granted or denied access to the White House. The supreme court reinforce that. The press does not receive special treatment for first amendment purposes in citizens United versus Federal Election Commission of two thousand ten. The court said we've consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers a rule that limits. The White House's discretion to grant or deny journalists hard passes would thus requiring the White House to grant full access to any member of the public who would like to ask the president or his staff questions. You see this is a grown-up brief it's not a slapdash sloppy brief like Boutros and Olsen file it may not matter depending on who the judges are. And where their heads are at. But it matters to you and me because we own this country, not them. Plaintiffs argument to the contrary rest, primarily on the Cheryl case, the only DC circuit case, they cite regarding press access to the White House plaintiffs rely on Cheryl for the broad proposition that press access should not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons. But Cheryl is not so broad in. That case the soul question was whether the secret service had permissively denied a heart passed away journalist who the parties agreed was otherwise eligible to receive it for concerns over presidential security. The denial resulted solely from the determination of the secret service after investigating Mr. Cheryl that he not be issued the pass the court noted quote that all parties to this case recognize the right of a journalist White House press pass assuming that the journalists satisfies some basic objective criteria, and it's not a source of potential danger to the president or his family. The particular question. The court had to answer was thus what standards govern the secret services denial of a hard pass based on security reasons. In this case by contrast. It is not conceded that Mr. Kosta is an otherwise eligible journalists. The president has his designated in the White House press office. They've exercised their discretion not doing gauge with him and by extension to no longer grant him on demand access to the White House complex. So that he can attempt to interact with the president are White House officials. Unlike the situation and Cheryl. Where only the secret service was objecting to the issuance of they passed to the reporter, the White House press office has objected and that's does not recognize the right of a journalist to a White House press pass on all cases, absent a demonstrated security threat put differently stick with me put differently defendants do not concede. And in fact, reject the premise that the White House press facilities are perceived as being open to all bona fide Washington-based journalists such a conclusion is untenable in light of the numerous discretionary determinations. The White House press office must make in allocating hard passes to a subset a bona fide Washington-based journalists, for example, the degree to which the request beat requires reporting on the White House whether request or is a journalist were they sufficiently brought on whether hard passes are fairly distributed between comparable, organizations, etc. Therefore, the premise on which the DC circuits opinion, and Cheryl depends doesn't exist here. And noticed they've been waving it around on cable TV Cheryl decision. And what did I tell you? That is a DC circuit decision of limited use. And that's all they've got right now. More when I return. Mm-hmm..

White House president reporter Olsen Boutros Boutros Boutros Mr. Cheryl chief White House corresponden press secretary Boutros Olsen CNN Mr Casa Mr Costa Sarah Huckabee Sanders Jim Acosta Mr. kosten CNN DC Mr. Kostas Maryland
"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on KSFO-AM

KSFO-AM

11:16 min | 2 years ago

"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on KSFO-AM

"Let's take a look. We went through the the Olsen Boutros Boutros Boutros Ghali was very bad. Brief in my view. But who knows what the judge? But here's the response. I haven't read it to myself yet. I just thought so I'm going to read it to you. As I go through. Here's their background their recitation of facts. Let's see if it's better than the the Boutros Olsen recitation, which was really quite misleading. Many reporters cover the White House for a range of local, national and international news outlets. A subset of those reporters have access to facilities within the White House complex access that requires certain credentials. After completing a secret service background check a reporter may then be approved by the White House for a so-called hard pass, which allows access to the White House complex briefing room. So he just learned more you just learn more from that. Then you did at any other time. On November seven two thousand eighteen President Trump held a press conference to discuss the two thousand eighteen midterm elections. One of the attendees Jim Acosta chief White House correspondent for CNN who how hard pass at that time. At that press conference as reported in a statement by press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, quote after Mr Casa asked the president to questions each of which the president answering. He physically refused to surrender a White House microphone to an intern. So that other reporters might ask their questions, unquote. So true. Mr Casa quote held onto the microphone on quote after a White House staffer at put our hands on the microphone and attempted to reclaim it. Later that day press secretary Sanders announced that Mr Costa's heart pass had been suspended until further notice. She stated, quote, Mr Costa's conduct is absolutely unacceptable. Also completely disrespectful to the reporters. Colleagues. Not to allow them an opportunity to ask a question following that action Mr Costa's application for a day pass on November eight two thousand eighteen was rejected. He was not permitted access to the president's events during a trip to Paris the following day. Also, November eight CNN sent the White House. Say letter, a Mr Costa's behalf responding to his suspension on conduct grounds. In that letter CNN asserted that quote, the nature and tone of Mr Costa's questions was appropriate and newsworthy. Wait a minute. So as tone was newsworthy following that later, the press secretary further explain the decision in a written statement released on November thirteen they quoted we don't need. Mr. kosten CNN filed a complaint emotion for preliminary injunction, an emotion for a temporary restraining order November thirteen twenty eighteen. This court is scheduled oral argument on plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order for the afternoon of a number fourteen. Now, you have so-called legal experts who are not many of whom have never actually practice federal constitutional law where saying this is a slam dunk CNN will win what they're trying to do. Ladies and gentlemen, is influenced the outcome. That's what they're trying to do. So here's part of the argument. By the administration, the standard for issuance of the extraordinary and drastic remedy of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is very high. They're citing a court decisions. And interim injunction is never awarded as of right? And they go on and a T R is very difficult to get. I mean, it really has to be matters related to public safety and so forth. Plaintiffs are not likely to see a succeed on their first amendment claim. The president has broad discretion in granting White House access to journalists. The first amendment does not restrict the president's ability to determine the terms on which he does or does not engage with particular journalists as the DC circuit recognized in Cheryl versus night, citing the same case that Ted and Ted cited the principal case on which plaintiffs rely the president may, of course, grant interviews are briefings was selected journalists and deny that opportunity to others any other result. What certainly be unreasonable. The president may choose the journalists. He calls on this. Is there a brief now at a press conference or which journalists he invites to an interview in the Oval Office or a press conference? Just a large warm interview in the eastern that discretion extends to his White House staff. The president is free to instruct White House officials to respond, positively to particular journalists requests for information interviews or or questions, and he's equally free to instruct White House officials do the opposite by declining similar requests from a different journalist. If the rule were otherwise courts frequently would be caught these arguments we made here last night. Courts would frequently be called on to police the daily give and take between public officials and reporters and arena that is defined by discretion. And where let's see and where public officials routinely grant or deny interviews to specific reporters based on their judgment about how the reporters viewpoints, what color the interview, this is a fact which I pointed out last night that concern led the fourth circuit to uphold the governor of Maryland's decision to prohibit everyone in the executive department or agency unquote from speaking to reporters from the Baltimore Sun. In reaching. Now. Here's my question to you. If you're going to have people who call themselves legal experts on the subject on TV. Why haven't they cited? This information. In reaching that conclusion the court explained that providing relatively less information to one reporter was permissible even when done on account of that journalists reporting such decisions regarding the level of access. A journalist receives the public officials are a pervasive feature of journalism and of journalists interactions with government. More broadly. There is no first amendment right of access to the White House. Another point I- underscored. Last evening as the supreme court recognized decades ago, even though any restriction on a citizens access to the White House diminishes the citizens opportunities to gather information, he might find relevant to his opinion of the way the country's being run excuse me. That does not make entry into the White House a first amendment, right? That's a supreme court decision from nineteen sixty five. The president is generally free to open the White House doors to political allies in the hopes of furthering a particular agenda, and he is equally free to invite in only political foes in the hopes of convincing them of his position the first amendment. Simply does not regulate these decisions and the first amendment does not impose stricter requirements when journalists as a subset of the public are granted or denied access to the White House. The supreme court reinforced that the press does not receive special treatment for first amendment purposes in citizens United versus Federal Election Commission of two thousand ten. The court said we have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers a rule that limits. The White House's discretion to grant or deny journalists hard passes with us requiring the White House to grant full access to any member of the public who would like to ask the president or his staff questions. You see this is a grown-up brief it's not a slapdash sloppy brief like Boutros and Olsen file now. It may not matter depending on who the judges are and where their heads are at. But it matters to you and me because we own this country, not them. Plaintiffs argument to the contrary rest, primarily on the Cheryl case, the only DC circuit case, they cite regarding press access to the White House plaintiffs rely on Cheryl for the broad proposition that press access should not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons. But Cheryl is not so broad in. That case the soul question was whether the secret service had permissively denied a heart passed away journalist who the parties agreed was otherwise eligible to receive it for concerns over presidential security. Denial resulted solely from the determination of the secret service after investigating Mr. Cheryl that he not be issued to pass the court noted quote that all parties to this case recognize the right of journalists to a White House press pass assuming that the journalists satisfies some basic objective criteria, and it's not a source of potential danger to the president or it's family. The particular question. The court had to answer was thus what standards govern the secret services denial of a hard pass based on security reasons. In this case by contrast. It is not conceded that Mr. Kosta is an otherwise eligible journalists. The president has his designated in the White House press office. They've exercised their discretion not to engage with him and by extension to no longer grant him on demand access to the White House complex. So that he can attempt to interact with the president are White House officials. Unlike the situation and Cheryl. Where only the secret service was objecting to the issuance of they passed to the reporter, the White House press office has so objected and thus does not recognize the right of a journalist to a White House press pass in all cases, absent a demonstrated security threat put differently stick with me put differently defendants do not concede. And in fact, reject the premise that the White House press facilities are perceived as being open to all bona fide Washington-based journalists such a conclusion is untenable in light of the numerous discretionary determinations. The White House press office must make in allocating hard passes to a subset of bona fide Washington-based journalists, for example, the degree to which the request beat requires reporting on the White House whether request or is a journalist with a sufficiently broad audience, whether hard passes are fairly distributed between comparable, organizations, etc. Therefore, the premise on which the DC circuits opinion, and Cheryl depends doesn't exist here. And notice they've been waving it around on cable TV back Cheryl decision. And what did I tell you? That is a DC circuit decision of limited use. And that's all they've got right now. More when I return..

White House president Olsen Boutros Boutros Boutros chief White House corresponden press secretary Mr. Cheryl reporter Mr Costa CNN Boutros Olsen Mr Casa Sarah Huckabee Sanders Mr. kosten CNN Jim Acosta DC Maryland Oval Office
"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

11:15 min | 2 years ago

"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"Let's take a look. We went through the the Olsen Boutros Boutros Boutros Ghali was at a very bad. Brief in my view. But who knows what the judge? But here's the response. I haven't read it to myself yet. I just saw it. So I'm going to read it to you. As I go through it. Here's their background their recitation of facts. Let's see if it's better than the the Boutros Olsen recitation, which was really quite misleading. Many reporters cover the White House for a range of local, national and international news outlets. A subset of those reporters have access to facilities within the White House complex access that requires certain credentials. After completing a secret service background check a reporter may then be approved by the White House for a so-called hard pass, which allows access to the White House complex briefing room. He just learned more you just learn more from that. Then you did at any other time. On November seven twenty thousand eighteen President Trump held a press conference to discuss the twenty eighteen midterm elections. One of the attendees was Jim Acosta chief White House correspondent for CNN who they hard pass at that time. At that press conference as reported in a statement by press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, quote after Mr Casa asked the president to questions each of which the president answering. He physically refused to surrender a White House microphone to an intern. So that other reporters might ask their questions, unquote. So true. Mr. Kossi quote held onto the microphone on quote after a White House staffer had put her hands on the microphone and attempted to. Reclaim it. Later that day press secretary Sanders announced that Mr Costa's heart pass had been suspended until further notice. She stated, quote, Mr Costa's conduct is absolutely unacceptable. There's also completely disrespectful to the reporters. Colleagues. Not to allow them an opportunity to ask a question following that action Mr. Kostas application for a day pass on November twenty eighteen was rejected. He was not permitted access to the president's events during a trip to Paris the following day. Also, November eight CNN sent the White House. Say letter, a Mr Costa's behalf responding to the suspension on conduct grounds. In that letter seen and asserted that quote, the nature and tone of Mr Costa's questions was appropriate and newsworthy. Wait a minute. So it's tone was newsworthy following that letter. The press secretary further explained the decision in a written statement released on November thirteen they quoted we don't need to. Plaintiffs Mr. kosten CNN filed a complaint emotion for preliminary injunction and emotion for a temporary restraining order November thirteen twenty eighteen. This court is scheduled or argument on plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order for the afternoon of fourteen. Now, you have so-called legal experts who are not many of whom have never actually practice federal constitutional law. Whereas saying this is a slam dunk CNN will win what they're trying to do. Ladies and gentlemen, is influenced the outcome. That's what they're trying to do. So here's part of the argument. By the administration, the standard for issuance of the extraordinary and drastic remedy of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is very high. They're citing a court decisions. And interim injunction is never awarded as of right? And they go on T R is very difficult to get. I mean, there really has to be mad as related to public safety and so forth. Plaintiffs are not likely to see a succeed on their first amendment claim. The president has broad discretion in granting White House access to journalists. The first amendment does not restrict the president's ability to determine the terms on which he does or does not engage with particular journalists as the DC circuit recognized in Cheryl versus night, citing the same case that Ted and Ted cited the principal case on which plaintiffs rely the president may, of course, grant interviews are briefings was selected journalists and deny that opportunity to others. Any other result would certainly be unreasonable. The president may choose the journalists. He calls on this is their brief now at a press conference or which journalists he invites to an interview in the Oval Office or a press conference. Just a large form interview in the East Room. That discretion extends to his White House staff. The president is free to instruct White House officials to respond, positively to particular journalists requests for information interviews or questions, and he's equally free to instruct White House officials do the opposite by declining similar requests from a different journalist. If the rule were otherwise courts frequently would be these are we made here last night. Courts would frequently be called on to police the daily give and take between public officials and reporters and arena that is defined by discretion. And let's see and where public officials routinely grant or deny interviews to specific reporters based on their judgment about how the reporters viewpoints, what color the interview, this is a fact which I pointed out last night. That concern led the fourth circuit to uphold the governor of Maryland's decision to prohibit everyone in the executive department or agency song quote from speaking to reporters from the Baltimore Sun. In reaching. Now. Here's my question to you. If you're going to have people who call themselves legal experts on the subject on TV. Why haven't they cited? This information. And reaching that conclusion the court explained the providing relatively less information to one reporter was permissible even when done on account of that journalists reporting such decisions regarding the level of access. A journalist receives the public officials are a pervasive feature of journalism and of journalists interactions with government. More broadly. There is no first amendment right of access to the White House. Another point I under scored. Last evening as the supreme court recognized decades ago, even though any restriction on a citizens access to the White House diminishes the citizens opportunities to gather information, he might find relevant to his opinion of the way the country's being run excuse me. That does not make entry into the White House a first amendment, right? That's a supreme court decision from nineteen sixty five. The president is generally free to open the White House doors to political allies in the hopes of furthering a particular agenda, and he is equally free to invite in only political foes in the hopes of convincing them of his position the first amendment. Simply does not regulate these decisions and the first amendment does not impose stricter requirements when journalists as a subset of the public are granted or denied access to the White House. The supreme court reinforce that. The press does not receive special treatment for first amendment purposes in citizens United versus Federal Election Commission of twenty ten. The court said we have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers a rule that limits. The White House's discretion to grant or deny journalists hard passes would thus requiring the White House to grant full access to any member of the public who would like to ask the president or his staff questions. You see this is a grown-up brief. It's not a slapdash sloppy brief like Boutros and also filed now it may not matter depending on who the judges are and where their heads are at. But it matters to you and me because we own this country, not them. Plaintiffs argument to the contrary rest, primarily on the Cheryl case, the only DC circuit case, they cite regarding press access to the White House plaintiffs rely on Cheryl for the broad proposition that press access should not be denied arbitrarily are for less than compelling reasons. But Cheryl is not so broad in. That case the soul question was whether the secret service had permissively denied a hard pass to a journalist who the parties agreed was otherwise eligible to receive it for concerns over presidential security. The denial resulted solely from the determination of the secret service after investigating Mr. Cheryl that he not be issued the pass the court noted quote that all parties to this case recognize the right of a journalist White House press pass assuming that the journalists satisfies some basic objective criteria, and it's not a source of potential danger to the president's family. The particular question. The court had to answer was thus what standards govern the secret services denial of a hard pass based on security reasons. In this case by contrast. It is not conceded that Mr. Kosta is an otherwise eligible journalists. The president has his designated in the White House press office. They've exercised their discretion not doing gauge with him and by extension to no longer grant him on demand access to the White House complex. So that he can attempt to interact with the president or White House officials. Unlike the situation and Cheryl. Where only the secret service was objecting to the issuance of the past to the reporter, the White House press office has so objected and thus does not recognize the right of journalists to a White House press pass in all cases, absent a demonstrated security threat put differently stick with me put differently defendants do not concede. And in fact, reject the premise that the White House press facilities are perceived as being open to all bona fide Washington-based journalists such a conclusion is untenable in light of the numerous discretionary determinations. The White House press office must make and allocating hard passes to a subset of bona fide Washington-based journalists, for example, the degree to which the request beat requires reporting on the White House whether request or is a journalist would they sufficiently brought audience whether hard passes are fairly distributed between comparable, organizations, etc. Therefore, the premise on which the DC circuits opinion, and Cheryl depends doesn't exist here. And notice they've been waving it around on cable TV, Gerald. That's and what did I tell you? That is a DC circuit decision of limited use. And that's all they've got right now. More when I.

White House president Olsen Boutros Boutros Boutros chief White House corresponden press secretary reporter Mr. Cheryl Mr Costa Boutros Olsen CNN Sarah Huckabee Sanders Jim Acosta Mr. kosten CNN DC Mr. Kostas Maryland
"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

05:43 min | 3 years ago

"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"Thanks john roberts go ahead you know john roberts scott fake news i don't take questions from cnn cnn is fake news i don't take questions from seeing john roberts fox let's go to a real network we're real network to sir you're a network but sure an ideological network idiological network is very single conservative host well you know we're objective no you're not there are left wing hosts on fox like shep smith is clearly a winger and there others more liberal they're actually some are actual reporters they're very few on cnn cnn is remade itself over the years from a news operation to a msnbc wannabe operation but this isn't my point here that i want to continue for a moment john roberts took a lot of heat at fox because he followed up with a question but he didn't defend mr kosten cnn so he was trashed by people at cnn he was trashed by phonies like david fromm he was trash you know left and right did he didn't come to cnn's defense is it his obligation to come to cnn's defense is it his obligation oh it's not as obligation because the president is not attacking freedom of the press he's refusing to deal with an ideologue who's a provocateur and a self promoter but john roberts felt the need later on to do just that because he came under tremendous attack by the pseudo profession called the media cut three go out before we go something happened at the press conference that i think needs addressing the president called out one of my colleagues kristen welker nbc is is dishonest instead that nbc news was dishonest he also called at cnn is not a real network fake news well let me just i know kristen welker she's a friend of mine she is as honest as the day is long to call her dishonest is unfair i used to work at cnn they have five journalists air who brisk their lives to cover the news around the world and to say that they are not a real networker fake news is also unfair so just wanted to add that in there so he felt the need to and maybe legitimately to defend his former colleagues had cnn then he's talking about kristen welker kristen welker i understand it is a a reporter for nbc and here's how that went cut one go spent the week taking on nato allies criticizing prime minister may on her own soil i wonder if giving russian president vladimir putin the upper hand heading into your talks given that you are challenging these alliances that he seeks to break up and destroy see that's such dishonest reporting because of course it happens to be nbc which is possibly worse than cnn possibly possibly stop now how is this destroying freedom of the press start destroying freedom of the press in the least he's giving his opinion many of you agree with his opinion right that's enough now why am i going through this because they happen to be spending many many hours now late at night and on the weekends and they'll be many many more studying this issue the history of the media backbenchers will do one of two things they'll suddenly jump in and do some superficial research or have somebody do it for them or plagiarize but mostly over the weekend they're very busy doing other things now that said cnn has an obligation to reveal itself cnn has an obligation to reveal itself as a media outlet for the democrat party what's cnn is doing is poisoning the notion of a free press no press can be wholly objective or bipartisan or multi partisan because human beings don't conduct themselves that way nor do institutions but they can strive to be cnn says it strives to be but it doesn't cnn has has its purpose just listened to the various hosts they're almost a conga line that pretty much dances and sings the same way they acquire there they have as their purpose to demean degrade and undermine this president now that's perfectly fine but reveal yourself don't pretend you're news operation jake tapper you're not a reporter you can slap yourself on the back and pretend to be reported you're not a reporter jim acosta is a court chester he's not a reporter the democrats love jim acosta why the democrats love jake tapper even though now and then he pretends to be tim roster he's no tim russert tim russert was a.

cnn john roberts john roberts fox
"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on WTVN

WTVN

05:11 min | 3 years ago

"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on WTVN

"Go thank you john roberts go ahead you know john roberts go ahead cnn's fake news questions from cnn cnn is fake news i don't take questions from seeing john roberts fox let's go to a real network we're real network to sir you're a network but you're an ideological network you're an ideological network is very single conservative host on cnn you know we're objective no you're not there are left wing hosts on fox like shep smith is clearly a left winger and there are others who are more liberal there actually some are actual reporters they're very few on cnn cnn is remade itself over the years from a news operation to a msnbc wannabe operation but this isn't my point either i want to continue for a moment john roberts took a lot of heat at fox because he followed up with a question but he didn't defend mr kosten cnn so he was trashed by people at cnn he was trashed by phonies like david fromm he was trash you know left and right did eating come to cnn's defense is his obligation to come to cnn's defense is it his obligation now it's not as obligation because the president is not attacking freedom of the press he's refusing to deal with an ideologue who's a provocateur and a self promoter but john roberts felt the need later on to do just that because he came under tremendous attack by the pseudo profession called the media cut three go before we go something happened at the press conference that i think needs addressing the the president called out one of my colleagues kristen welker nbc is is dishonest and said that nbc news was dishonest he also called at cnn is not a real network fake news well let me just add that i know kristen welker she's a friend of mine she is as honest as the day is long to call her dishonest is unfair i used to work at cnn they have five journalists there who brisk their lives to cover the news around the world and to say that they are not a real networker fake news is also unfair so just wanted to add that in there so he felt the need to and maybe legitimately to defend his former colleagues at cnn then he's talking about kristen welker kristen welker hose i understand it is a pseudo reporter for nbc and here's how that went cut one go spent the week taking on nato allies criticizing prime minister may on her own soil i wonder if are you giving russian president putin the upper hand heading into your talks given that you are challenging these alliances that he seeks to break up and destroy that's such dishonest reporting because of course it happens to be nbc which is possibly worse than cnn possibly possibly stop now how is this destroying freedom of the press it's not destroying freedom of the press in the least in my view he's giving his opinion many of you agree with his opinion right that's enough now why am i going through this because they happen to be spending many many hours now late at night and on the weekends and they'll be many many more studying this issue the history of the media backbenchers will do one of two things they'll suddenly jump in and do some superficial research or have somebody do it for them or plagiarize but mostly over the weekend they're very busy doing other things now that said cnn has an obligation to reveal itself cnn has an obligation to reveal itself as a media outlet for the democrat party what's cnn is doing is poisoning the notion of a free press no press can be wholly objective or bipartisan or multi partisan because human beings don't conduct themselves that way and nor do institutions but they can strive to be cnn says it strives to be but it doesn't cnn has has its purpose just listen to the various hosts they're almost a conga line that pretty much dances and sings the same way they acquire there they have their purpose to demean degrade and undermined this president now that's.

john roberts cnn
"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on KTRH

KTRH

05:44 min | 3 years ago

"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on KTRH

"Cnn nbc and the others are abusing their sorry again i'm not saying they shouldn't have freedom of speech that's not my point a freedom of the press my point is what are they doing with it the president have to play along to the demise of his own administration let's begin at the beginning here is the president with jim acosta who has a well known mud ball thrower cut to go use can i ask you what john roberts go ahead you know john roberts ahead she didn't fake news cnn is fake news i don't take questions from ceo john roberts fox let's go to a real network we're real network you're a network but you're an ideological network nydia logical network is very single conservative host on cnn we you know we're objective no you're not there are left wing hosts on fox like chef smith is clearly leftwinger and there are others who are more liberal there are actually some are actual reporters they're very few on cnn cnn has remade itself over the years from a news operation to a msnbc wannabe operation but this isn't my point either i want to continue for a moment john roberts took a lot of heat at fox because he fought up with a question but he didn't defend mr kosten cnn so he was trashed by people at cnn he was trashed by founding like david fromm he was trash you know left and right did he didn't come to cnn's defense is it his obligation to come to cnn's defense is it his obligation now it's not as obligation because the president is not attacking freedom of the press he's refusing to deal with an ideologue who's a provocateur and a self promoter but john roberts felt the need later on to do just that because he came under tremendous attack by the pseudo profession called the media cut three go i wanted to ask before we go something happened at the press conference that i think needs addressing the president called out one of my colleagues chris walker nbc is is dishonest instead that nbc news was dishonest he also called that cnn is not a real network fake news well let me just add that i know kristen welker she's a friend of mine she is as honest as the day is long to call her dishonest is unfair i used to work at cnn they have five journalists there who risked their lives to cover the news around the world and to say that they are not a real networker fake news is also unfair so just wanted to add that in there so he felt the need to and maybe legitimately to defend his former colleagues at cnn then he's talking about kristen welker kristen welker hose i understand it is a pseudo reporter for nbc and here's how that went cut one go spent the week taking on nato allies criticizing prime minister may on her own soil i wonder if are you giving russian president vladimir putin the upper hand heading into your talks given that you are challenging these alliances that he seeks to break up and destroy see that's such dishonest reporting because of course it happens to be nbc which is possibly worse than cnn possibly possibly stop now how this destroying freedom of the press it's not destroying freedom of the press in the least am i he's giving his opinion many of you agree with his opinion at that's enough now why am i going through this because they happen to be spending many many hours now late at night and on the weekends and they'll be many many more studying this issue the history of the media backbenchers will do one of two things they'll suddenly jump in and do some superficial research or have somebody do it for them or plagiarize but mostly over the weekend they're very busy doing other things now that said cnn has an obligation to reveal itself cnn has an obligation to reveal itself as a media outlet for the democrat party what's cnn is doing is poisoning the notion of a free press no press can be wholly objective or bipartisan or multi partisan because human beings don't conduct themselves that way nor do institutions but they can strive to be cnn says it strives to be but it doesn't cnn has has its purpose just listen to the various hosts they're almost a conga line pretty much dances and sings the same way they acquire there they have as their purpose to demean degrade and undermine this president now that's.

nbc Cnn
"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

05:51 min | 3 years ago

"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"Beginning here is the president with jim acosta who is a well known mud ball thrower cut to go cnn john roberts go ahead no no john roberts cnn's fake news questions from cnn is fake news i don't take questions from saint john roberts fox let's go to a real network we're real network you're a network but you're an ideological network nydia logical network is very single conservative host on cnn we you know we're objective no you're not there are left wing hosts on fox like shep smith is clearly a left winger and there are others who are more liberal they're actually some are actual reporters they're very few on cnn cnn is remade itself over the years from a news operation to a msnbc wannabe operation but this isn't my point here that i want to continue for a moment john roberts took a lot of heat at fox because he followed up with a question but he didn't defend mr kosten cnn so he was trashed by people at cnn he was trashed by found like david from he was trash you know left and right did he didn't come to cnn's defense is it his obligation to come to cnn's defense is it his obligation now it's not as obligation because the president is not attacking freedom of the press he's refusing to deal with an ideologue who's a provocateur self promoter but john roberts felt the need later on to do just that because he came under tremendous attack by the pseudo profession called the media cut three go out before we go something happened at the press conference that i think needs addressing the president called out what am i call eggs kristen welker nbc is is dishonest and said that nbc news was dishonest he also called at cnn is not a real network fake news well let me just add that i know kristen welker she's a friend of mine she is as honest as the day is long to call her dishonest is unfair i used to work at cnn they have five journalists who risked their lives to cover the news around the world and to say that they are not a real networker fake news is also unfair so just wanted to add that in there so he felt the need to and maybe legitimately to defend his former colleagues at cnn then he's talking about kristen welker kristen welker i understand it is a pseudo reporter for nbc and here's how that went cut one go spent the week taking on nato allies criticizing prime minister may on her own soil i wonder if are you giving russian president vladimir putin the upper hand heading into your talks given that you are challenging these alliances that he seeks to break up and destroy that such dishonest reporting because of course it happens to be nbc which is possibly worse than cnn possibly possibly stop now how is this destroying freedom of the press it's not destroying freedom of the press in the least he's giving his opinion many of you agree with his opinion that's enough now why am i going through this because they happen to be spending many many hours now late at night and on the weekends in they'll be many many more studying this issue the history of the media backbenchers will do one of two things they'll suddenly jump in and do some superficial research or have somebody do it for them where plagiarized but mostly over the weekend they're very busy doing other things now that said cnn has an obligation to reveal itself cnn has an obligation to reveal itself as a media outlet for the democrat party let's cnn is doing is poisoning the notion of a free press no press can be wholly objective or bipartisan or multi partisan because human beings don't conduct themselves that way and nor do institutions but they can strive to be cnn says it strives to be but it doesn't cnn has has its purpose just listen to the various hosts they're almost a conga line that pretty much dances and sings the same way they acquire there they have as their purpose to demean degrade and undermine this president now that's perfectly fine but reveal yourself don't pretend you're news operation jake tapper you're not a reporter you can slap yourself on the back and pretend to be a reporter you're not a reporter jim acosta is a court jester he's not a reporter the democrats love jim acosta why the democrats love jake tapper even though now and then he pretends to.

president jim acosta john roberts cnn john roberts cnn
"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on KNST AM 790

KNST AM 790

05:39 min | 3 years ago

"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on KNST AM 790

"Heat at fox because he followed up with a question but he didn't defend mr kosten cnn so he was trashed by people at cnn he was trashed by phonies like david fromm he was trash you know left and right did he didn't come to cnn's defense is it his obligation to come cnn's defense is it his obligation now it's not as obligation because the president is not attacking freedom of the press he's refusing to deal with an ideologue who's a provocateur and a self promoter but john roberts felt the need later on to do just that because he came under tremendous attack by the pseudo profession called the media cut three go i want to ask before we go something happened at the press conference but i think needs addressing the president called out one of my colleagues kristen welker nbc is is dishonest and said that nbc news was dishonest he also called at cnn is not a real network fake news well let me just add i know kristen welker she's a friend of mine she is as honest as the day is long to call her dishonest is unfair i used to work at cnn they have five journalists who risked their lives to cover the news around the world and to say that they are not a real networker fake news is also unfair so just wanted to add that in there so he felt the need to and maybe legitimately to defend this former colleagues at cnn then he's talking about kristen welker kristen welker hose i understand it is a pseudo reporter for nbc and here's how that went cut one go spent the week taking on nato allies criticizing prime minister may on her own soil i wonder if are you giving russian president vladimir putin the upper hand heading to your talks given that you are challenging these alliances that he seeks to break up and destroy see that's such dishonest reporting because of course it happens to be nbc which is possibly worse than cnn possibly possibly stop now how's this destroying freedom of the press it's not destroying freedom of the press in the least he's giving his opinion many of you agree with his opinion all right that's enough now why am i going through this because they happen to be spending many many hours now late at night and on the weekends and they'll be many many more studying this issue the history of the media backbenchers will do one of two things they'll suddenly jump in and do some superficial research or have somebody do it for them where plagiarized but mostly over the weekend they're very busy doing other things now that said cnn has an obligation to reveal itself cnn has an obligation to reveal itself as a media outlet for the democrat party what cnn is doing is poisoning the notion of a free press no press can be wholly objective or bipartisan or multi partisan because human beings don't conduct themselves that way and nor do institutions but they can strive to be cnn says it strives to be but it doesn't cnn has has its purpose just listen to the various hosts there's they're almost a conga line that pretty much dances and sings the same way they have acquire there they have as their purpose to demean degrade and undermine this president now that's perfectly fine but reveal yourself don't pretend you're news operation jake tapper you're not a reporter you can slap yourself on the back and pretend to be a reporter you're not a reporter jim acosta is a court jester he's not a reporter the democrats love jim acosta why the democrats love jake tapper even though now and then he pretends to be tim russert he's no tim russert tim russert was a reporter one of a handful still in this country while he was alive tappers not tappers pedigree indicates that he's not but he's not the only one andrea mitchell andrea mitchell has spent decades trashing republicans decades now we all know this we're not stupid we are at least theoretically consumers of the news ms lsd aka msnbc aka nut jobs they pretty much reveal who they are they don't say they're for the democrat party but everybody knows you want to listen to the hard left kook she go to msnbc cnn has surrendered its news operation it's still pretends to be a news operation it can't go through a damn airport without cnn being on tv because they know they monopolize this as i've talked about over the years they monopolize it somehow someway.

fox cnn mr kosten cnn david fromm
"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM

WCBM 680 AM

05:51 min | 3 years ago

"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM

"Heat at fox because he followed up with a question but he didn't defend mr kosten cnn so he was trashed by people at cnn he was trashed by phonies like david fromm he was trash left and right did he didn't come to cnn's defense is it his obligation to come cnn's defense is it his obligation now it's not as obligation because the president is not attacking freedom of the press he's refusing to deal with an ideologue because provocateur self promoter but john roberts felt the need later on to do just that because he came under tremendous attack by the pseudo profession called the media cut three go out before we go something happened at the press conference that i think needs addressing the president called out one of my colleagues kristen welker nbc is dishonest and said that nbc news was dishonest he also called cnn is not a real network fake news well let me just that i know kristen welker she's a friend of mine she is as honest as the day is long to call her dishonest is unfair i used to work at cnn they have five journalists there who risked their lives to cover the news around the world and to say that they are not a real networker fake news is also unfair so just wanted to add that in there so he felt the need to and maybe legitimately to defend his former colleagues at cnn then he's talking about kristen welker kristen welker i understand it is a pseudo reporter for nbc and here's how that went cut one go spent the week taking on nato allies criticizing prime minister may on her own soil i wonder if are you giving russian president vladimir putin the upper hand heading into your talks given that you are challenging these alliances that he seeks to break up and destroy see that's such dishonest reporting because of course it happens to be nbc which is possibly worse than cnn possibly possibly stop now how's this destroying freedom of the press it's not destroying freedom of the press in the least in my view he's giving his opinion many of you agree with his opinion right that's enough now why am i going through this because they happen to be spending many many hours now late at night and on the weekends and they'll be many many more studying this issue the history of the media backbenchers will do one of two things they'll suddenly jump in and do some superficial research or have somebody do it for them or plagiarized but mostly over the weekend they're very busy doing other things now that said cnn has an obligation to reveal itself cnn has an obligation to reveal itself as a media outlet for the democrat party what cnn is doing is poisoning the notion of a free press no press can be wholly objective or bipartisan or multi partisan because human beings don't conduct themselves that way and nor do institutions but they can strive to be cnn says it strives to be but it doesn't cnn has has its purpose just listen to the various hosts they're almost a conga line that pretty much dances and sings the same way they have choir there they have as their purpose to demean degrade and undermine this president now that's perfectly fine but reveal yourself don't pretend you're news operation jake tapper you're not a reporter you can slap yourself on the back and pretend to be a reporter you're not a reporter jim acosta court jester he's not a reporter the democrats love jim acosta why the democrats love jake tapper even though now and then he pretends to be tim rustler he's no tim rosser tim russert was a reporter one of a handful still in this country while he was alive tappers not tappers pedigree indicates that he's not but he's not the only one andrew mitchell andrea mitchell has spent decades trashing republicans decades now we all know this we're not stupid we are at least theoretically consumers of the news ms lsd aka msnbc aka nut jobs they pretty much reveal who they are they don't say they're for the democrat party but everybody knows you want to listen to the hard left kook she go to msnbc cnn has surrendered its news operation it's still pretends to be a news operation it can't go through a damn airport without cnn being on tv because they know they monopolize this as i've talked about over the years they monopolize it somehow some way so the president of the united states this is one of the reasons i couldn't be happier with this president he's exposed it he's exposed.

fox cnn mr kosten cnn david fromm
"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on KDWN 720AM

KDWN 720AM

06:05 min | 3 years ago

"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on KDWN 720AM

"President with jim acosta who is a well known mud ball thrower cut to go use execute thanks john roberts go ahead john roberts cnn's fake news cnn is fake news i don't take questions from cnn john roberts fox let's go let's go to a real network we're real network to sir your network but you're an ideological network nydia logical network is very single conservative host on cnn you know we're objective now you're not there are left wing hosts on fox like chef smith is clearly leftwinger and there are others who are more liberal they're actually some are actual reporters they're very few on cnn cnn is remade itself over the years from a news operation to a msnbc wannabe operation but this isn't my point either i want to continue for a moment john roberts took a lot of heat at fox because he followed up with a question but he didn't defend mr kosten cnn so he was trashed by people at cnn he was trashed by phonies like david fromm he was trash left and right did he didn't come to cnn's defense is it his obligation to come to cnn's defense is it his obligation no it's not as obligation because the president is not attacking freedom of the press he's refusing to deal with an ideologue who's a provocateur a self promoter but john roberts felt the need later on to do just that because he came under tremendous attack by the pseudo profession called the media cut three go out before we go something happened at the press conference that i think needs addressing the the president called out what am i call leagues kristen welker nbc is dishonest and said that nbc news was dishonest he also called out cnn is not a real network fake news well let me just add that i know kristen welker she's a friend of mine she is as honest as the day is long to call her dishonest is unfair i used to work at cnn they have find journalists who risk their lives to cover the news around the world and to say that they are not a real networker fake news is also unfair so just wanted to add that in there so he felt the need to and maybe legitimately to defend his former colleagues had cnn then he's talking about kristen welker kristen welker hose i understand it is a pseudo reporter for nbc and here's how that went cut one go spends the week taking on nato allies criticizing prime minister may on her own soil i wonder if giving russian president vladimir putin the upper hand heading to your talks given that you are challenging these alliances that he seeks to break up and destroy that's such dishonest reporting because of course it happens to be nbc which is possibly worse than cnn possibly possibly stop now how is this destroying freedom of the press it's not destroying freedom of the press in the least in my view he's giving his opinion many of you agree with his opinion at that's enough now why am i going through this because they happened to be spending many many hours now late at night and on the weekends and they'll be many many more studying this issue the history of the media backbenchers will do one of two things they'll suddenly jump in some superficial research or have somebody do it for them or plagiarized but mostly over the weekend they're very busy doing other things now that said cnn has an obligation to reveal itself cnn has an obligation to reveal itself as a media outlet for the democrat party what's cnn is doing is poisoning the notion of a free press no press can be wholly objective or bipartisan or multi partisan because human beings don't conduct themselves that way and nor do institutions but they can strive to be cnn says it strives to be but it doesn't cnn has as its purpose just listen to the various hosts they're almost a conga line that pretty much dances and sings the same way they acquire there they have their purpose to demean degrade and undermine this president now that's perfectly fine reveal yourself don't pretend you're news jake tapper you're not a reporter you can slap yourself on the back and pretend to be a reporter you're not a reporter jim acosta court jester he's not a reporter the democrats love jim kosta why the democrats love jake tapper even though now and then he pretends to be tim russert he's tim russert tim russert was a reporter one of a handful still in this country while he was alive tappers not tappers pedigree indicates that he's not but he's not the only one android metro.

President jim acosta cnn john roberts john roberts cnn john roberts fox
"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on News Radio 690 KTSM

News Radio 690 KTSM

05:39 min | 3 years ago

"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on News Radio 690 KTSM

"Heat at fox because he followed up with a question but he didn't defend mr kosten cnn so he was trashed by people at cnn he was trashed by phonies like david fromm he was trash left and right did he didn't come to cnn's defense is it his obligation to come to cnn's defense is it his obligation no it's not as obligation because the president is not attacking freedom of the press he's refusing to deal with an ideologue who's a provocateur and a self promoter but john roberts felt the need later on to do just that because he came under tremendous attack by the pseudo profession called the media cut three go before we go something happened at the press conference that i think needs addressing the president called out one of my colleagues kristen welker nbc is is dishonest and said that nbc news was dishonest he also called at cnn is not a real network fake news well let me just add that i know kristen welker she's a friend of mine she is as honest as the day is long to call her dishonest is unfair i used to work at cnn they have find journalists there who risked their lives to cover the news around the world and to say that they are not a real networker fake news is also unfair so just wanted to add that in there so he felt the need to and maybe legitimately to defend his former colleagues at cnn then he's talking about kristen welker kristen welker hose i understand it is a pseudo reporter for nbc and here's how that went cut one go spent the week taking on nato allies criticizing prime minister may on her own soil i wonder if are you giving russian president putin the upper hand heading into your talks given that you are challenging these alliances that he seeks to break up and destroy that's such dishonest reporting because of course it happens to be nbc which is possibly worse than cnn possibly possibly stop now how is this destroying freedom of the press it's not destroying freedom of the press in the least in my view he's giving his opinion many of you agree with his opinion at that's enough now why am i going through this because they happened to be spending many many hours now late at night and on the weekends and they'll be many many more studying this issue the history of the media backbenchers will do one of two things they'll suddenly jump in and do some superficial research or have somebody do it for them or plagiarize but mostly over the weekend they're very busy doing other things now that said cnn has an obligation to reveal itself cnn has an obligation to reveal itself as a media outlet for the democrat party what's cnn is doing is poisoning the notion of a free press no press can be wholly objective or bipartisan or multi partisan because human beings don't conduct themselves that way and nor do institutions but they can strive to be cnn says it strives to be but it doesn't cnn has has its purpose just listen to the various hosts there's they're almost a conga line that pretty much dances and sings the same way they acquire there they have as their purpose to demean degrade and undermine this president now that's perfectly fine reveal yourself don't pretend you're news operation jake tapper you're not a reporter you can slap yourself on the back and pretend to be a reporter you're not a reporter jim acosta is a court jester he's not a reporter the democrats love jim acosta why the democrats love jake tapper even though now and then he pretends to be tim russert he's not russell tim russia was a reporter one of a handful still in this country while he was alive tappers not tappers pedigree indicates that he's not but he's not the only one andrea mitchell andrea mitchell has spent decades trashing republicans decades now we all know this we're not stupid we are at least theoretically consumers of the news ms lsd aka msnbc aka nut jobs they pretty much reveal who they are they don't say they're for the democrat party but everybody knows you wanna listen to the hard left kook she go to msnbc now cnn has surrendered its news operation it's still pretends to be a news operation it can't go through a damn airport without cnn being on tv because they know they monopolize this as i've talked about over the years they monopolize it somehow someway.

fox cnn mr kosten cnn david fromm
"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

05:13 min | 3 years ago

"mr kosten cnn" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"Thanks john roberts go ahead know john roberts go ahead cnn's fake news from cnn cnn is fake news i don't take questions from john roberts fox let's go to a real network we're real network you're network but you're an ideological network you're an ideological network is very single conservative host on cnn well you know we're objective no you're not there are left wing hosts on fox like chef smith is clearly a leftwinger and there are others for more liberal actually some are actual reporters they're very few on cnn cnn is remade itself over the years from a news operation to a msnbc wannabe operation but this isn't my point here i want to continue for moment john roberts took a lot of heat at fox because he fought up with a question but he didn't defend mr kosten cnn so he was trashed by people at cnn he was trashed by found like david fromm he was trash you know left and right did he didn't come to cnn's defense is it his obligation to come to cnn's defense is it his obligation alex not his obligation because the president is not attacking freedom of the press he's refusing to deal with an ideologue provocateur and a self promoter but john roberts felt the need later on to do just that because he came under tremendous attack by the pseudo profession called the media cut three go before we go something happened at the press conference but i think needs addressing the president called out one of my colleagues chris walker nbc is is dishonest and said that nbc news was dishonest he also called at cnn is not a real network fake news well let me just add that i know kristen welker she's a friend of mine she is as honest as the day is long to call her dishonest is unfair i used to work at cnn they have find journalists there who risked their lives to cover the news around the world and to say that they are not a real networker fake news is also unfair so just wanted to add that in there so he felt the need to and maybe legitimately to defend his former colleagues at cnn then he's talking about kristen welker kristen welker i understand it is a pseudo reporter for nbc and here's how that went cut one go spends the week taking on nato allies criticizing prime minister may on her own soil i wonder if are you giving russian president vladimir putin the upper hand heading into your talks given that you are challenging these alliances that he seeks to break up and destroy that's such dishonest reporting because of course it happens to be nbc which is possibly worse than cnn possibly possibly stop now how is this destroying freedom of the press start destroying freedom of the press in the least am i here he's giving his opinion many of you agree with his opinion at that's enough now why am i going through this because they happen to be spending many many hours now late at night and on the weekends and they'll be many many more studying this issue the history of the media backbenchers will do one of two things they'll suddenly jump in and do some superficial research or have somebody do it for them or plagiarize but mostly over the weekend they're very busy doing other things now that said cnn has an obligation to reveal itself cnn has an obligation to reveal itself as a media outlet for the democrat party what's cnn is doing is poisoning the notion of a free press no press can be wholly objective or bipartisan or multi partisan because human beings don't conduct themselves that way and nor do institutions but they can strive to be cnn says it's tribes to be but it doesn't cnn has has its purpose just listened to the various hosts there's they're almost a conga line that pretty much dances and sings the same way they have acquired there they have as their purpose to demean degrade and undermine this president that's perfectly fine but.

john roberts cnn john roberts fox