quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Later in the afternoon, Acosta joined reporters in the Rose Garden for a joint statement with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But when he looked for his seat, his placard that had been placed in the White House front row of the press section earlier in the afternoon appeared to be missing and some of CNN’s equipment had been moved.

Acosta spoke with White House press aides, returned with a CNN placard, and sat in a seat in the front row that was left empty.

After President Trump and Prime Minister Modi finished speaking, Acosta shouted questions at the president

Message sent - you are here by revocable invitation - and ignored. I suspect it was too subtle for someone willing to work for CNN.

Obama's numbers were cooked by his cronies at the labor department. I highly doubt any jobs were added under his administration and the real unemployment rate was likely 20%+ and not 4.9%. A few weeks after Trump takes office and drains the swamp at the labor department the new figure sits at 4.8%. I don't know what Trump did in such a short amount of time to bring the number down from a double-digit figure to 4.8% but that type of job growth in under a month is miraculous.

quote:

Originally posted by 2012BOSS302:
Supreme Court Starts Unanimous Rebuke to Judges on the Travel Ban

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL - The Supreme Court on Monday began the process of rebuking lower courts for usurping the political branches on national security. The entire Court, even the four liberals, agreed to hear the Trump Administration’s appeal of appellate-court rulings blocking its immigration travel ban, and the Justices allowed nearly all of the 90-day ban to proceed in the meantime.

This is a victory for the White House, though it is more important for the Constitution’s separation of powers. President Trump’s ban is neither wise nor necessary, but that is not an invitation for judges to become back-seat Commanders in Chief. Yet that is precisely what liberal majorities on both the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal did in blocking the travel bans, and the Supreme Court is saying those rulings will not be the last judicial word. The Court’s unsigned per curiam opinion set the case for an early hearing on the legal merits in the next term that begins in October.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, wrote a concurrence arguing that the Court should have lifted the lower-court injunctions in toto. He also added a cheeky aside that “I agree with the Court’s implicit conclusion that the Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits—that is, that the judgments below will be reversed.”

Some Justices might not agree with that, but it’s notable that Chief Justice John Roberts managed to corral a unanimous Court for lifting nearly all of the injunctions. That means even the liberals understand that injunctions need to be issued with care, especially on national security where judges lack the knowledge and electoral accountability of the executive and Congress.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2017...ke-judges-travel-ban

I argued earlier in this thread that separation of powers is the biggest issue in the entry pause EO litigation. This is a matter of how our basic constitutional government is set up. Each of the three branches have a role.

The judiciary is not equipped to make policy and security decisions about entry into the United States. The policy and national security balancing should be done by Congress and the president, not the judiciary.

The judicial branch in some fiefdom of a select District Court should not set national immigration and security policy. When a single judge in a shopped district elevates to himself the role of remaking national security and immigration policy, that judge steps out of his limited judicial role to become an impermissible super executive.

quote:

“We’ve largely been just blackballed during these briefings,” he asserted. “We’re just not getting questions to the White House press secretary …

And??? You've earned it, so deal with it.

quote:

...that would not have happened in previous administrations.”

I wonder why? You've outed yourself for exactly who and what you are and 'this' president is calling you on it. 'Consequences', they are a bitch, aren't they.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
When a single judge in a shopped district elevates to himself the role of remaking national security and immigration policy, that judge steps out of his limited judicial role to become an impermissible super executive.

But it did get them exactly what they were looking for. It garnered them national, if not international, notoriety and respect from those on the left who think like them. Being reversed by SCOTUS comes with no negative consequences, so they opt to swing for the Golden Liberal ring.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
When a single judge in a shopped district elevates to himself the role of remaking national security and immigration policy, that judge steps out of his limited judicial role to become an impermissible super executive.

But it did get them exactly what they were looking for. It garnered them national, if not international, notoriety and respect from those on the left who think like them. Being reversed by SCOTUS comes with no negative consequences, so they opt to swing for the Golden Liberal ring.

That is partly why I hope the DOJ presses the appeal over any potential mootness objection.

The United States Supreme Court uses a principle at times known as "capable of repetition yet evading review" to issue an opinion over a mootness claim.

I hope something like that is argued so the Supreme Court issues a ruling that puts District Court judges in their place by explaining to them how they have gone afield.

The executive needs to be able to act immediately without some group shopping for a judge to simply delay an action that may be needed to protect the country.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:


The executive needs to be able to act immediately without some group shopping for a judge to simply delay an action that may be needed to protect the country.

Before December, 1941, there was an enthusiastic, good sized and fairly powerful pacificist sentiment in the US.

Can you imagine if some of these had trooped down to the Federal Court in Podunk to challenge the Declaration of War on December 10, essentially on the same grounds that the 9th and 4th Circuits went with?

Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told the White House Press Corps on Tuesday that CNN was “a disgrace to journalism.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...disgrace-journalism/

damn, offense feels good doesn't it

that "subtle wind change" may not be so subtle any more

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told the White House Press Corps on Tuesday that CNN was “a disgrace to journalism.”

Al-right!

From the linked article:

quote:

A reporter in the back complained that Sanders was “inflaming everybody right here, right now, with those words.”

Here ya go- for inflamed assholes. Maximum strength is what you need:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:


The executive needs to be able to act immediately without some group shopping for a judge to simply delay an action that may be needed to protect the country.

Before December, 1941, there was an enthusiastic, good sized and fairly powerful pacificist sentiment in the US.

Can you imagine if some of these had trooped down to the Federal Court in Podunk to challenge the Declaration of War on December 10, essentially on the same grounds that the 9th and 4th Circuits went with?

Well. It would have not been the first time virtually everyone ignored the federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court.

The truth is that the courts have no power whatsoever without cooperation. At the federal level, Congress makes the laws and the president executes the laws.

It tests the system when courts issue rulings that majorities do not like. But, we share in a system that finds a balance so long as each branch stays in its lane.

Even the United States Supreme Court has been ignored and chastised by the other branches and the people on such things as slavery and segregation. Earlier iterations saw other courts ignored in Shays Rebellion and in heartless foreclosures on family farms.

There is a workable genius in what we have but it takes judicial self restraint to maintain judicial credibility and cooperation.

That President Trump chides the judicial branch is nothing new. He is entitled to complain when the courts overreach and start stepping into the lane reserved for him.

If it's that easy, why didn't they ignore the orders this time?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
If it's that easy, why didn't they ignore the orders this time?

To do so creates a constitutional crisis and discredits the rule of law. President Trump says that he is a law and order president. The country was left having to wait until the SCOTUS weighed in.

In the meantime, a lot of what the president wanted could be accomplished through extreme vetting. That sieve could have been very tight and still complied with the various orders - or so it seems.

Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court and Congress so much in his time that they called him King Andrew the First.

I actually rather hope SCOTUS comes down on the side of Trump and he simply says "we're done here, I just wanted the ruling I knew I should have gotten". I mean at that point the temporary travel restriction will have run its course anyway.

a very nice job by Sarah Sanders at the press conference. worth a watch.

every question was a trap to embarrass the administration

https://youtu.be/mQ2ZZoA80BM

from:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...disgrace-journalism/

http://nypost.com/2017/06/27/c...tory-they-got-fired/

The specter of a $100 million libel suit scared CNN into retracting a poorly reported story that slimed an ally of President Trump’s — and forcing out the staffers responsible for it, The Post has learned.

The cable network’s coverage of Trump transition-team member Anthony Scaramucci came amid federal scrutiny of corporate parent Time Warner’s pending purchase by AT&T — and the widespread belief among media execs that CNN President Jeff Zucker can’t survive a merger.

“What is interesting is that the AT&T execs who will decide who goes and who stays are [AT&T CEO] Randall Stephenson and [AT&T Entertainment Group CEO] John Stankey — who have a very good relationship with the current administration .”

Sources also said the three journalists responsible for the retracted story — reporter Tom Frank, editor Eric Lichtblau and Lex Haris, who headed the CNN Investigates unit — were urged to resign.

“They called them in and said they’d pay out their contracts, but they should leave immediately,” one source said.

Zucker was afraid of facing a high-profile suit from Scaramucci while the US Justice Department weighs the proposed $85.4 billion media merger.

Meanwhile, a CNN insider said staffers are furious at “having lost the moral high ground because of this story.” Sources said Zucker tried to rally his staff during a Tuesday morning conference call.

now that's funny. CNN losing the high moral ground

At last week’s Cannes Lions festival in France — where Zucker boasted that viewers trust CNN “more than ever” — rumors were rife that he’d be out of a job if the AT&T deal goes through.

Sources said Scaramucci, a frequent guest on CNN to defend the president, was treated like a star at Saturday’s wedding of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Louise Linton in Washington, DC.
“Everyone at the White House has been high-fiving each other over Anthony’s success in embarrassing CNN,” one attendee said.

“Trump is thoroughly enjoying this, and Anthony got endless slaps on the back at Steve’s wedding.”

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
From the linked article:

quote:

A reporter in the back complained that Sanders was “inflaming everybody right here, right now, with those words.”

Here ya go- for inflamed assholes. Maximum strength is what you need:

Your image is quite appropriate. The "reporter" defending CNN was actually from Playboy

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...hite-house-briefing/

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told the White House Press Corps on Tuesday that CNN was “a disgrace to journalism.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...disgrace-journalism/

damn, offense feels good doesn't it

that "subtle wind change" may not be so subtle any more

I watched that video tonight and my hat's off to Ms. Huckabee. She took that attack in hand, turned it around, and body slammed the snot out of that weasel. This is 'exactly' how these posers should be handled. Well done Ms. Huckabee, well done.

Posted for my friend ersatzknarf who is stuck behind enemy lines at his workplace which bans Sig forum!

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06...ssia-coverage-video/

Video released Tuesday by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas shows a CNN producer speaking candidly about the network’s coverage of President Trump and Russia.
In the hidden camera video, John Bonifield, a supervising producer at CNN Health, talks about how CNN uses the Trump-Russia allegations to boost ratings and how directions to focus on it have come from CNN’s CEO Jeff Zucker.
When asked by the Project Veritas reporter, “But honestly, you think the whole Russia shit is just like, bullshit?” Bonifield replies, “Could be bullshit. I mean, it’s mostly bullshit right now. Like we, don’t have any big giant proof.”

“I just feel like they don’t really have it but they want to keep digging. And so I think the president is probably right to say, like, look, you are witch hunting me. Like, you have no smoking gun, you have no real proof,” he adds. (RELATED: Here Are Five Fake Stories CNN Pushed)
Bonifield also reveals that CNN’s CEO, Jeff Zucker was giving directions on coverage, encouraging CNN to focus on the Russia story.
b
“Just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the climate accords and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords. And the CEO of CNN (Jeff Zucker) said in our internal meeting, he said good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we’re done with that, let’s get back to Russia.”
At another point, the Project Veritas journalist asks, “Then why is CNN constantly like, Russia this, Russia that?”
“Because it’s ratings,” Bonifield answers.
“It’s a business, people are like the media has an ethical phssssss…All the nice cutesy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school you’re just like, that’s adorable. That’s adorable. This is a business,” Bonifield also says.
“Trump is good for business right now.”
This Project Veritas report comes after CNN saw three employees resign for helping to push a story that a member of Trump’s transition team was under investigation, which was later debunked. (RELATED: Three CNN Employees Resign Over Botched Trump-Russia Story)

CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta tweets:

"Does this feel like America? Where the White House takes [questions] from conservatives, then openly trashes the news media in the briefing room."

answer: Does now Jimbo

http://www.washingtonexaminer....rica/article/2627253

quote:

"Does this feel like America? Where the White House takes [questions] from conservatives, then openly trashes the news media in the briefing room."

Turnabout is fair play.
It's what the Leftist "news" media has done to conservatives for the last 30 years or more.