What Does It Mean That CNN is Suing President Trump Over Jim Acosta’s Press Credentials?

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
November 14, 2018

CNN is officially suing President Trump over Jim Acosta’s press credentials being revoked.

Axios:

CNN is suing President Trump and “several of his aides” over the White House’s revocation of Jim Acosta’s press pass, per CNN.

Details: The lawsuit is being filed Tuesday morning, and alleges that CNN and Acosta’s First and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated. The defendants in the lawsuit include press secretary Sarah Sanders, chief of staff John Kelly, Secret Service director Joseph Clancy, deputy chief of staff for communications Bill Shine, President Trump, and the Secret Service officer who took Acosta’s pass last week.

I don’t understand what this means.

I have read several long articles about it, and none of them have made it clear to me what press credentials have to do with the First Amendment, or how it can be illegal for the White House to decide who is allowed in to talk to the President and his staff.

The First Amendment assures freedom of speech, not freedom of entry to the White House.

If any news person was allowed to have access to the White House, then I could demand a press pass. In fact, anyone with a website could. If there was some law that said people with a certain size audience were automatically allowed a press pass to the White House, that would be a very weird law. And one of these articles would say it.

Furthermore, it would mean that several YouTubers would be eligible for such passes. Alex Jones would be, as his audience was significantly bigger than that of a lot of other major news outlets before he was shut down.

Speaking of the First Amendment and CNN and Alex Jones – what did CNN publish when there was an organized conspiracy by the entire tech industry to shut down Alex Jones?

Huh.

CNN also played a lead role in claiming that Trump’s “rhetoric” caused that Filipino guy to send those fake bombs, and then said that “hate speech” caused the Gunfight at O.K. Synagogue.

They also argued for a system of monitoring everyone’s speech on the internet to determine if they were a true hater, and then sending the cops to their homes.

That is not technically an attack on people’s right to speak, exactly, but the clear purpose is to cause a chilling effect, where people are afraid to post on the internet for fear that the cops will show up at their door and accuse them of pre-crime.

They have been publishing at least one article a day about hate speech as of late, and this one was posted 11 hours ago, which would be approximately the exact same time that they publicly announced their lawsuit against Donald Trump.

Also Tuesday on CNN, in an article written by two women who appear to be Jewish, CNN directly suggested that my freedom of speech would lead to people being murdered.

There was a TV segment as well, though it did not make the outrageous and chilling claim that my words would cause violence that was made in the print version.

(I don’t know if this indicates the blockade on coverage of this site is over – I do hope so. I am well-prepared for round three.)

CNN has a years-long history of agitating to have me personally silenced.

CNN’s lawyer says “journalists cannot be silenced, censored or intimidated.”

Well, I am a journalist, and all three of those things have been done to me – and CNN has been at the forefront of this campaign. Jim Acosta has had none of those things done to him – he had his privilege to access the White House revoked.

So not only am I having a very hard time grasping how exactly Jim Acosta’s press pass relates to freedom of speech, I am having an equally difficult time going along with the idea that CNN cares a whole lot about freedom of speech.

It’s a very weird situation.

I would not especially expect that CNN of all people would be interested, at this point in history, in having a large public discussion about the nature of freedom of speech on Donald Trump’s terms, which is the exact thing that they are asking for by pushing this issue.

It is blatantly obvious that there is nothing that they can gain from it materially. It’s not a suit they can win. The apparent goal is to agitate for the idea that Trump is against free speech, but they are in the midst of engaging in the biggest agitation against free speech in American history, as part of a media-wide conspiracy to crackdown on anyone who questions any aspect of the official narrative (yes, this has gone way beyond Jews now).

Trump doesn’t have to come out and say “oh and what did CNN say about Alex Jones?” He could come out and say that, but he doesn’t have to. Tucker Carlson and an entire chorus of people are going to be pointing out that CNN is decidedly against the First Amendment, yet is citing the First Amendment in a situation that has nothing at all to do with the First Amendment.

I think this is a bad move on their part. But Jews generally do not appear to be acting rationally these days.

Top Comments

  1. The integrity of the Jewish filter on information shall not be infringed

  2. TRUMP HAS NO RIGHT TO TEASE CNNS BIGGEST PUSSY

  3. iAmBob says:

    I struggle with the concept. The White House has the right to issue or deny passes as it sees fit.

    If they’re determined to make this a 1st Amendment issue, it’s hard to imagine worse circumstances than these current ones for making that argument. One person from one news organization is being denied access. His ability to practice journalism (if that’s what we’re calling it now) is in no way inhibited by being denied a press pass nor is his organization’s. To my knowledge, the revocation of Acosta’s pass affects Acosta alone.

    They’re running to the kritarchy to solve their problems. It’s an instinctive move for any kike. And even for a lot of non-kikes these days. But I don’t think it will work in this case.

  4. This idea that Trump isn’t “allowed” to do anything they don’t like, but they can basically do anything short of spit in his face, is psychological warfare to make it seem he is not really President, that he’s not legitimate and not in power. As far as the Left-wing kikes are concerned, he’s not a legitimate President.

    The absurdity of their mass censorship scheme being couched in terms “protecting the free press” is an Orwellian slap in the face from these psychopathic rat creatures.

  5. This lawsuit makes it clear that Jews actually believe that “hate speech” is a legally valid concept, and not just a clever ruse they used expediently to shut down political/racial opponents. This belief in its legal validity has to derive from a combination of the moral validity that they themselves have given the concept through their own power to control the Western episteme and its diffusion into the Western mass consciousness, a cultural saturation which gives the concept tremendous psychological power (and “might makes right” in Jewish eyes).

    At this stage, it is apparent that the Jews do not appear capable of understanding the letter of the law as it is understood by gentiles. This irreconcilable difference in interpretation of the laws which underpin the USA was always going to lead to a show-down eventually, but it looks like it is the Jews themselves who want to set the day and time of this gun-battle. Unfortunately for them, their bullets are made of bluster, emotive word-play and salt.

  6. Are amicus briefs allowed at the lower court level?

    (Legal briefs from parties not involved with the case but who have a vested interest in the outcome, as the decision will impact their own Rights somehow.)

    If I were you, AA, I’d file one with the court hearing CNN’s arguments. If YOUR letter led to them losing the case, I’m sure there’d be quite a bit of attention devoted to it. :wink:

Join the discussion TGKBBS

84 more replies

Participants