[ad_1]
Last Wednesday, shortly after Acosta was denied entry to the White House, Sanders defended this unprecedented step by claiming that he had behaved inappropriately at a presidential press conference. CNN and many journalists' advocacy groups have rejected this claim and said its pass should be reinstated.
On Friday, CNN sent a letter to the White House officially asking for the reinstatement of the Acosta pass and warning of a possible lawsuit, confirmed the network.
In a statement Tuesday morning, CNN said it was requesting a preliminary injunction as soon as possible so that Acosta could immediately return to the White House, as well as a court ruling preventing the House from Blanche to revoke her pass in the future.
"CNN filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration this morning in the DC District Court," the statement said. "He calls for the return of White House powers, Jim Acosta, CNN correspondent to the White House.The unjustified revocation of these powers is a violation of the rights of CNN and Acosta relating to freedom of the press, as well as their rights under the Fifth Amendment, has asked this court for an immediate restraining order requiring the pass to be returned to Jim and will require permanent relief as part of this process. "
The White House Correspondents' Association has stated that she "strongly supports CNN's goal of having its correspondent find a security credential from the US Secret Service that the White House is not going to be able to do anything." should not have withdrawn in the first place.
CNN also claimed that other news agencies could have been targeted in this way by the Trump administration and could be in the future.
"Although the lawsuit is specific to CNN and Acosta, it could have happened to anyone," the network said. "If nothing is done, the actions of the White House would create a dangerous cooling effect for any journalist covering our elected officials."
CNN Worldwide President Jeff Zucker repeated this in an internal memo to staff. "It's not a step we've made lightly, but the action of the White House is unprecedented," Zucker said.
And he repeated it Friday, two days after putting Acosta on the blacklist. "It could be other people too," he said, suggesting that he could pull out press cards from other reporters. Guest, he then named and insulted April Ryan, an analyst at CNN and correspondent on the radio.
Trump's threats go against decades of tradition and precedent. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have adopted a permissive approach to press passes, favoring wider access, even for obscure, partisan, or marginal opportunities.
This is one of the reasons why the First Amendment advocates claim that CNN and Acosta have a strong case.
The federal regulation code states that "by accepting or denying a security clearance application submitted in response to a request for a White House press card, Secret Service officials will be guided only the principle that the applicant has potential. " a source of physical danger for the president and / or the family of the president, serious enough to justify his exclusion from the privileges of the press at the White House. "
"We have not had any of those things here," Abrams said.
This is why the lawsuit alleges a violation of the right to a fair trial of the Fifth Amendment.
Acosta learned of his suspension when he went to the northwestern White House gate, as usual, for a live shot on Wednesday night. He is suddenly told to make his "pass difficult", which accelerates the entry and exit of the field.
"I was just told to do it," said the secret service officer.
Other CNN reporters and producers continue to work from the White House, but not at Acosta.
"According to the precedent, a journalist has a right to access the First Amendment to places closed to the public but generally open to the press.This includes press rooms and press conferences," said Jonathan. Peters, a professor of media law at the University of Georgia. CNN last week. "In these places, if access usually includes the press, access can not be refused arbitrarily or without compelling reasons, and the reasons given by the White House were quite unpersuasive and unconvincing. . "
Acosta continued to do some of his work, contact sources and file articles, but he was not able to attend White House events or ask questions in person , essential element of the role of a correspondent of the White House.
Acosta is on leave this week. He declined to comment on the trial.
On CNN's side, CNN Worldwide's chief counsel David Vigilante is joined by two well-known lawyers, Ted Boutrous and Theodore Olson. The two men are partners at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
Last week, before being retained by CNN, Boutrous tweeted that the action against Acosta "constitutes a flagrant violation of the First Amendment". He cited the Sherrill case.
"This kind of angry, irrational, false, arbitrary, capricious, content-based discrimination against a journalist against a White House reporter is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment." he wrote.
David McCraw, the chief advocate of the New York Times' newsroom, said the cases of press organizations suing a president in court are extremely rare.
Past examples are the New York Times v. US, the famous Supreme Court case involving the Pentagon Papers in 1971; and the case of CNN in 1981 against the White House and broadcast networks, when CNN sued for being part of the White House press pool.
Of course, Trump's antipathy for CNN and other media is at the heart of this new trial. He regularly makes fun of CNN journalists and the network as a whole.
But, according to Abrams, "this will happen again", which means that other journalists could also be banned.
"Whether it's going to sue CNN or the next company, someone's going to have to take legal action," he said. "And whoever succeeds will win unless for any reason."
Source link
