Connect with us

Opinion

Trump Makes BOLD Claim As Acosta Drama Moves to Court

The media is missing the point here entirely, and the President is ready to prove it to them.

Published

on

Mainstream media

While CNN and others continue to harp on the suspension of Jim Acosta’s White House press credential over his accosting of a young intern in the East Room, a great many presidential precedents are being set.

Of course, this has been a White House unafraid of ruffling the feathers of the mainstream media, who they recognize as the entertainment-driven enterprises that they are.  (After all, before becoming President, Donald Trump was up to his elbows in the media for decades…let’s not pretend that he isn’t keenly aware of their inner workings).

Now, as CNN and Fox News team up to take the White House to court over the Acosta affair, President Trump is making some bold moves of his own.

Donald Trump sought Wednesday to land a massive blow in his long-fought battle against the news media, with administration lawyers asserting in court that the president could bar “all reporters” from the White House complex for any reason he sees fit.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The sweeping claim, which came in the first public hearing over CNN’s lawsuit to restore correspondent Jim Acosta’s White House credentials, could have a dramatic impact on news organizations’ access to government officials if it is upheld in court.

CNN argued in its lawsuit filed Tuesday that the White House infringed on Acosta’s First Amendment rights by revoking his access in response to a dispute over a press conference last week.

POTUS wasn’t having it.

But Trump’s lawyers replied Wednesday in a legal filing that he has “broad discretion” to police journalists’ access to the White House.

“If the president wants to exclude all reporters from the White House grounds, he has the authority to do that,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General James Burnham said during the hearing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “There’s no First Amendment right.”

And while all Americans should be in favor of a free and unimpeded press, that doesn’t mean that every single American is capable of being a journalist with access to the White House.

This ins’t about the press as a whole losing access to the White House, but rather about the inexcusable actions of Jim Acosta…and that’s the point that the media is missing.

News

‘RUST’ SHOOTING: Alec Baldwin Not Out of The Woods Yet, Says Santa Fe District Attorney

Baldwin has suggested that he won’t be charged, but the local DA has other ideas.

Published

on

The story surrounding the shooting death of cinematographer Halya Hutchins continues to grow stranger by the day, and a district attorney in New Mexico just dropped a major bombshell in the direction of Alec Baldwin.

Baldwin was rehearsing for a scene when the firearm he was holding discharged live ammunition, killing Hutchins and injuring others.  The gun somehow had a live round in it, despite there being a number of ethical and legal reasons why this should not have been possible.

To further confuse things, Baldwin has wildly suggested that he never pulled the trigger of the gun – something that experts are going to have to find a way to prove in order to clear Baldwin’s culpability.

Now, a local litigator has suggested that Baldwin should be prepared for the worst.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

On Friday, First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies clarified that it is still very possible for Alec Baldwin to be “criminally culpable” in Hutchins’ death depending on what the investigation yields.

“Certain individuals may be criminally culpable for his/her actions and/or inactions on the set of Rust,” Carmack-Altwies told Deadline.

Carmack-Altwies asserted that she will “exercise my prosecutorial discretion to its fullest, including filing charges that are supported by probable cause.”

The possibilities are numerous.

The district attorney further clarified that “everyone” handling firearms on the set of Rust had a duty to follow safety protocols.

“Everyone involved in the handling and use of firearms on the set had a duty to behave in a manner such that the safety of others was protected, and it appears that certain actions and inactions contributed to this outcome,” Carmack-Altwies the attorney said.

During the interview in which Baldwin suggested that he never pulled the trigger, he also insinuated that he’d spoken with the local sheriff’s department, and that there was some sort of understanding between he and them regarding the lack of charges to be brought.

The story surrounding the shooting death of cinematographer Halya Hutchins continues to grow stranger by the day, and a district attorney in New Mexico just dropped a major bombshell in the direction of Alec Baldwin. Baldwin was rehearsing for a scene when the firearm he was holding discharged live ammunition, killing Hutchins and injuring others.  The gun somehow had a live round in it, despite there being a number of ethical and legal reasons why this should not have been possible. To further confuse things, Baldwin has wildly suggested that he never pulled the trigger of the gun – something that experts are going to have to find a way to prove in order to clear Baldwin’s culpability. Now, a local litigator has suggested that Baldwin should be prepared for the worst. On Friday, First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies clarified that it is still very possible for Alec Baldwin to be “criminally culpable” in Hutchins’ death depending on what the investigation yields. “Certain individuals may be criminally culpable for his/her actions and/or inactions on the set of Rust,” Carmack-Altwies told Deadline. Carmack-Altwies asserted that she will “exercise my prosecutorial discretion to its fullest, including filing charges that are supported by probable cause.” The possibilities are numerous. The district attorney further clarified that “everyone” handling firearms on the set of Rust had a duty to follow safety protocols. “Everyone involved in the handling and use of firearms on the set had a duty to behave in a manner such that the safety of others was protected, and it appears that certain actions and inactions contributed to this outcome,” Carmack-Altwies the attorney said. During the interview in which Baldwin suggested that he never pulled the trigger, he also insinuated that he’d spoken with the local sheriff’s department, and that there was…

Continue Reading

Opinion

US State Pushes to Make Mask Mandates Permanent

The move is sure to have freedom advocates in the Beaver State enraged. 

Published

on

The American landscape is currently littered with a hodgepodge of coronavirus precautions, as each state, country, town, and business takes the COVID-19 pandemic at their own level of seriousness.

This has, of course, made it somewhat difficult for any individual to navigate their day in compliance to the ever-changing rigidity of the pandemic’s threat.  And, furthermore, it has led to some questionable decisions by local leaders looking to simplify the issue.

The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) assembled a Rules Advisory Committee (RAC) earlier this week to address a permanent indoor mask mandate in the state. Oregon is one of a few states that still retain one nearly two years into the pandemic.

The committee included several community stakeholders, including representatives from the hospitality industry, the business sector, and faith communities, according to local ABC affiliate KATU.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Local leaders attempted to downplay the “permanent” status of the mandate.

Dr. Paul Cieslak, the medical director for communicable diseases and immunizations with OHA, explained to KATU that OHA’s potential “permanent” indoor mask mandate is not necessarily permanent because it can be repealed.

“Permanent means indefinite. It doesn’t necessarily mean permanent,” Cieslak said. “We can repeal it as well, but we are only allowed to have a temporary rule for 180 days, and anything that goes beyond 180 days, we cannot extend it.”

The move is sure to have freedom advocates in the Beaver State enraged.

The American landscape is currently littered with a hodgepodge of coronavirus precautions, as each state, country, town, and business takes the COVID-19 pandemic at their own level of seriousness. This has, of course, made it somewhat difficult for any individual to navigate their day in compliance to the ever-changing rigidity of the pandemic’s threat.  And, furthermore, it has led to some questionable decisions by local leaders looking to simplify the issue. The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) assembled a Rules Advisory Committee (RAC) earlier this week to address a permanent indoor mask mandate in the state. Oregon is one of a few states that still retain one nearly two years into the pandemic. The committee included several community stakeholders, including representatives from the hospitality industry, the business sector, and faith communities, according to local ABC affiliate KATU. Local leaders attempted to downplay the “permanent” status of the mandate. Dr. Paul Cieslak, the medical director for communicable diseases and immunizations with OHA, explained to KATU that OHA’s potential “permanent” indoor mask mandate is not necessarily permanent because it can be repealed. “Permanent means indefinite. It doesn’t necessarily mean permanent,” Cieslak said. “We can repeal it as well, but we are only allowed to have a temporary rule for 180 days, and anything that goes beyond 180 days, we cannot extend it.” The move is sure to have freedom advocates in the Beaver State enraged.

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week