- Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:09 pm
#110536
"I wasn't aware the White House took Acosta's right to his free speech, when did that happen?"-RealTool
It DIDN'T happen, dummy. No one said it did. You made it up. (Or should I say your handlers made it up to get you suitably riled up at those 'evil' media.)
Again, read what they said. What they claim is that the wrongful revocation of these credentials violates CNN and Acosta's First Amendment rights of freedom of the press, and their Fifth Amendment rights to due process.
Try to stick to what they actually said instead of what you want to pretend they said.
You have a Constitutional right to free speech. CNN has a Constitutional right to freedom of the press. This is not debatable and it's not partisan. But for some reason you are trying to make it partisan. The question is, did the President violate their freedom of the press or not?
You don't get to simply change CNN's actual claims just to try to make them sound silly and to suit your partisan agenda.
"My understanding is that they revoked his White House pass because of his conduct."-RealTool
Yes, that's your understanding, which understanding has nothing to do with the Constitution. You may think Trump has the right to ban reporters for conduct. The question is, does the Supreme Court agree with you?
"I do agree if they told him he can no longer talk, that's wrong,..."-RealTool
But since no one ever said they did, you're arguing against something no one but you brought up in the first place.
Try to argue with things people actually say and not against figments of your imagination. You'll find more interesting discussions with people who aren't yourself. You're pretty tedious, in general.