Trump appointee Tim Kelly gets the Politico/CNN/MS NOW case.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/white-house-tv-pool-to-suspend-coverage-of-trump-events

flown-the-coop said:

---

Bwahahahaha

Is "already established press" some sort of magical terminology granting one permanent inalienable rights to be within reach of POTUS and harass him of questions?

Honestly, I know have to go back and read the rest of you post after spitting out my coffee and typing this reply.

---

They already have press passes.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Erode trust in Republicans? By banning CNN?

Who in your mind would be influenced in such a way.

In fact, polling (assuming actual accurate polling) would almost certainly show that banning CNN and MSNOW from the WH pressers would INCREASE, perhaps dramatically, trust in both the executive and the press in general.

It's comical you think people have any remaining respect for those "news" organizations.

---

Erode trust in Republicans by banning all press other than 1 on 1 interviews. Reducing transparency that much would erode trust.

Rockdoc said:

---

Dude, they're not news reporters. They're dem activists. Hope this helps.

---

They have press passes. They are the press.

MidRatsAg said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Dude, they're not news reporters. They're dem activists. Hope this helps.

---

They have press passes. They are the press.

---

Then they can stand outside and scream at him.

Rockdoc said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Dude, they're not news reporters. They're dem activists. Hope this helps.

---

They have press passes. They are the press.

---

Then they can stand outside and scream at him.

---

They cannot have their right to access the government revoked once the government creates access points for the press based on the content of their speech. It is a First Amendment violation.

Fox News also boycotts Trump

The incoming truth social tantrum should be amazing.

infinity ag said:

---

Fox News also boycotts Trump

---

Was not expecting this one.

KillerAg21 said:

---

https://www.foxnews.com/media/white-house-tv-pool-to-suspend-coverage-of-trump-events

---

Live coverage will remain available on Truth Social.

For a fee you get Hugh definition.

For $100,000 subscription? You get to ask questions.

Appears not only did Trump fix another problem but will likely turn it into yet another yugely profitable business. Love it!

EFR said:

---

The incoming truth social tantrum should be amazing.

---

Dear sweet baby Jesus, may it be of epic proportion.

Sincerely,

The world.

infinity ag said:

---

Fox News also boycotts Trump

---

Like the DC Uniparty we have in Congress.

EFR said:

---

The incoming truth social tantrum should be amazing.

---

I wonder if we can take bets on how many AI memes he'll post of an army of robots hunting foxes or some weird ****

CNN, MSNOW, and Politico adherents might be "enranged" over this, but they were 100% going to vote democrat anyway.

No Spin Ag said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Fox News also boycotts Trump

---

Was not expecting this one.

---

Not that surprising really. CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS did it when Obama tried to ban FOX.

HTownAg98 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Fox News also boycotts Trump

---

Was not expecting this one.

---

Not that surprising really. CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS did it when Obama tried to ban FOX.

---

That's right. I forgot about that.

Any privilege granted can be revoked.

Hence why the term in the Constitution limits rights to those that are inalienable, they are not granted they are endowed by their creator.

Freedom of the press to report on their government is a right, a right that is not being infringed by the revocation of a privilege to sit in the WH briefing room.

You and others refuse this distinction ultimately at your own peril.

The reasonable take here is that Trump should be able to exclude attendees of WH briefing who have ceased being "the press" and have instead become political activists.

You act like it's up to someone else to determine who is and who is not a member of the press or who is an activist. The only person with bit the authority and capability to make that determination is POTUS. Not a Congress critter, not a judge, not the head of the WH Press Association.

Just POTUS. Don't like it? Impeach him or wait until Jan 21. 2029.

Those are your options.

MidRatsAg said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Dude, they're not news reporters. They're dem activists. Hope this helps.

---

They have press passes. They are the press.

---

Then they can stand outside and scream at him.

---

They cannot have their right to access the government revoked once the government creates access points for the press based on the content of their speech. It is a First Amendment violation.

---

Please stand behind the rope!

flown-the-coop said:

---

Any privilege granted can be revoked.

Hence why the term in the Constitution limits rights to those that are inalienable, they are not granted they are endowed by their creator.

Freedom of the press to report on their government is a right, a right that is not being infringed by the revocation of a privilege to sit in the WH briefing room.

You and others refuse this distinction ultimately at your own peril.

The reasonable take here is that Trump should be able to exclude attendees of WH briefing who have ceased being "the press" and have instead become political activists.

You act like it's up to someone else to determine who is and who is not a member of the press or who is an activist. The only person with bit the authority and capability to make that determination is POTUS. Not a Congress critter, not a judge, not the head of the WH Press Association.

Just POTUS. Don't like it? Impeach him or wait until Jan 21. 2029.

Those are your options.

---

Facts are not your friend I fear.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/sherrill-v-knight-d-c-cir/

flown-the-coop said:

---

Any privilege granted can be revoked.

---

It's not a privilege, it's a right guaranteed by the First Amendment, and cannot be revoked without due process per the Fifth Amendment.

Wouldn't the better play here be to let cnn and whoever into the room and simply never acknowledge them? You get the same result without all the performative nonsense litigation theater.

KillerAg21 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Any privilege granted can be revoked.

Hence why the term in the Constitution limits rights to those that are inalienable, they are not granted they are endowed by their creator.

Freedom of the press to report on their government is a right, a right that is not being infringed by the revocation of a privilege to sit in the WH briefing room.

You and others refuse this distinction ultimately at your own peril.

The reasonable take here is that Trump should be able to exclude attendees of WH briefing who have ceased being "the press" and have instead become political activists.

You act like it's up to someone else to determine who is and who is not a member of the press or who is an activist. The only person with bit the authority and capability to make that determination is POTUS. Not a Congress critter, not a judge, not the head of the WH Press Association.

Just POTUS. Don't like it? Impeach him or wait until Jan 21. 2029.

Those are your options.

---

Facts are not your friend I fear.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/sherrill-v-knight-d-c-cir/

---

A DC circuit is not the final arbtrar of the law in our country. And even SCOTUS gets it wrong, or maybe some feel like segregation should still be "the law of the land" based on "facts" and all.

And Trump does not have to follow even the decisions of SCOTUS. As your check on that is still limited to impeachment, conviction, and removal… or waiting until January 29, 2029 as i clearly, quite clearly, stated in my post.

Even crazier, it looks like Natalie Harp told him to do it.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Wouldn't the better play here be to let cnn and whoever into the room and simply never acknowledge them? You get the same result without all the performative nonsense litigation theater.

---

This is better.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Wouldn't the better play here be to let cnn and whoever into the room and simply never acknowledge them? You get the same result without all the performative nonsense litigation theater.

---

Yep. And when they start screaming and crying, just end the session.

DonHenley said:

---

This is a win for Trump. If no one covers him, all the stupid stuff he does will go unnoticed by the public. Trump's approval rating is 29%, total loser of a President.

---

Eleventeen-D Chess!

94chem said:

---

Even crazier, it looks like Natalie Harp told him to do it.

---

why would that be crazier? It's obvious she controls him in the bedroom and behind the Resolute Desk.

Because that's your insinuation here, right?

Thank you for proving my point.

KillerAg21 said:

---

Thank you for proving my point.

---

if you point was that you failed to fully read and comprehend d my posts, then undoubtedly I proved your point.

Thanks for playing. And congrats on being wrong.

flown-the-coop said:

---

KillerAg21 said:

---

Thank you for proving my point.

---

if you point was that you failed to fully read and comprehend d my posts, then undoubtedly I proved your point.

Thanks for playing. And congrats on being wrong.

---

Oh, we all read it. Reading comprehension isn't the issue here. Most people here can just see that your understanding of basic government is a bit off.

When you libs get back in the White House, and you will, you can do whatever you want.

Are we in a new era now where the world would be a better place without the "free press". I say yes. Individuals can make their case straight and unfiltered, untwisted to the people now.

The legacy media is the most damaging evil org on the planet.