The Dilemma & the Decision
Last Wednesday, CNN’s Jim Acosta was vociferously excoriated by President Trump for shamelessly grandstanding and showing gross disrespect for his hosts (President Trump and Sarah Huckabee-Sanders) as is his usual tact at White House briefings. After having had enough of Acosta’s continued challenging of his stance on whether or not the approaching thousands-strong horde of South American migrants should be termed a “caravan” or “an invasion,” the President scolded Acosta and told him to take his seat and allow other reporters a turn.
At that point and at the command of President Trump, a young female intern attempted to retrieve the mic, reaching across Acosta in an endeavor to secure it. Acosta refused, pulling the microphone away and pressing down against the intern’s arm with his own, managing to repel her efforts (video below). Sometime after this, and at the President’s behest, the secret service approached Acosta outside of the White House and relieved him of his credentials because of what Sarah Huckabee-Sanders characterized as Acosta’s “putting his hands” on the intern. To her credit, the intern hasn’t publicly complained about Acosta keeping her from doing her job the way he has expressly chided the President on national television about keeping him from doing his.
While many in the media and on the left scoffed at the accusation, it’s clear that with regard to the letter of the law, Acosta did indeed touch the intern without her consent. Whether the intent or result was menacing or not wasn’t the point from the White House’s perspective – the disrespectful nature of the incident was, though to be accurate, in some jurisdictions the simple unwanted touch of another is enough to constitute an assault. The ensuing claims by the liberal talking heads and the legacy media that it was the intern who actually assaulted Acosta is both irresponsible and willfully ignorant – especially in light of the #metoo movement and the lefts incessant claims that “all women must believed” without exception or evidence and that we should “believe survivors” without establishing first that there has been an act which must be survived. To her credit, the intern did not assert that she was assaulted.
It would seem the left and the legacy media really only cares about women when they are useful to their narrative, after all, have we heard anything from Christine Blasey Ford since the failed attempt at taking down Judge Brett Kavanaugh was thwarted? Queue the crickets…
The Associated Press reports today that U.S District Court Judge Timothy Kelly, a Donald Trump appointee, announced his decision to order the return of CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s press credentials and immediately reinstate his WH press privileges. He said that Mr. Acosta’s credentials must be reactivated to allow him access to the White House complex for press briefings and other events. He declined to rule on the original suit but found that CNN was likely to prevail on its Fifth Amendment claim – that Acosta hadn’t received sufficient notice or explanation before his credentials were revoked or been given sufficient opportunity to respond before they were.
Judge Kelly emphasized the “very limited nature” of his ruling and noted that he had not determined that the First Amendment had been violated. The Judge told attorneys to file additional documents in the case by Monday.
Facts Do Not Care About Feelings: The Editorializing Begins
This blogger disagrees entirely with the judges personal convictions that CNN would likely prevail in their Fifth Amendment claim as it is ridiculous on its face and had nothing to do whatsoever with a right to due process.
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
The Fifth Amendment doesn’t speak to this case in any way, shape or form and the claim from above that specifically is called upon to administer justice in this case – that “Acosta hadn’t received sufficient notice or explanation before his credentials were revoked or been given sufficient opportunity to respond before they were” – doesn’t even exist in the Fifth Amendment or any amendment, period. The closest thing to a claim that might be argued is as follows:
“…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
To deprive someone of life or liberty is a legal term for incarceration which is not applicable. To separate someone from their property is actually about the illegal seizure of such under Eminent Domain or Civil Asset Forfeiture, though to give Acosta and CNN the benefit of the doubt and to view it in the most liberal sense possible, one might construe it as being a legitimate claim if the credential was Acosta’s personal property, which it is not. It is a temporary pass issued by the owner – the White House – which can be revoked at anytime for any reason, if the owner so chooses – without cause or explanation.
Acosta wasn’t compelled to testify against himself, tried in double jeopardy, deprived of due process nor was his private property seized by any stretch of the imagination and therefore neither he nor CNN has legal standing to make the Fifth Amendment claim.
In closing, I would point out that Jim Acosta has not been deprived of a single one of his freedoms; in this case, the falsely claimed revocation of his freedom of speech or his freedom to lawfully assemble continue to be an exercise in futility as does any appeal to a due process violation. He has not been threatened with bodily harm, incarceration or frivolous law suits that endanger his personal treasure, property or effects. Jim Acosta is simply a Marxist aggressor taking plays from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals .
One final word on rights … the President of the United States of America also has them. They are not diminished by his position nor are they amplified by his office. Just as any other American, the President can choose to converse with a willing participant or refuse or deny to speak with anyone, at any time, for any reason because, like all Americans, he also has the right to free speech and the right to withhold that speech, if he so chooses.
(link: The Bill of Rights)
Help us continue to provide content with a charitable donation. If you enjoy our blog please consider a small contribution to the cause.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program already in progress.
Other Blog Posts: