Press Secretary Sarah Sanders has disgraced herself and should be denied the normal presumption of good faith accorded to past White House press secretaries.
By Jennifer Rubin
The White House revoked the press pass of and defamed CNN’s Jim Acosta, falsely accusing him of putting his hands on an intern. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders accused Acosta of “placing his hands” on the intern. In fact, video shows conclusively that the woman tried to grab the microphone from his hands, and he held onto it.
President Donald Trump’s conduct (Sanders surely didn’t do this on her own) violates every democratic norm one can think of — and what’s more, is illegal.
The First Amendment protect the press’ right to report the news and the public’s right to receive that news. The government cannot punish or threaten the press or individuals based on the content of what is reported. In fact, in a public forum, which Twitter was deemed to be, a federal court already ordered Trump to unblock Twitter users who were critical of him.
We stand by our decision to revoke this individual’s hard pass. We will not tolerate the inappropriate behavior clearly documented in this video. pic.twitter.com/T8X1Ng912y
— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) November 8, 2018
There is actually a lawsuit pending alleging that Trump is violating the First Amendment of members of the press by using the powers of his office to curtail criticism.
Rubin: President Donald Trump’s conduct (Sarah Sanders surely didn’t do this on her own) violates every democratic norm one can think of — and what’s more, is illegal. (Jeff Roberson | Associated Press)
As I reported last month, “PEN’s lawsuit is not brought on behalf of those whom Trump threatened (e.g., The Post, Time Warner). Instead, it alleges: ‘Defendant’s use of the power and machinery of government to punish his media critics creates an atmosphere in which journalists must work under the threat of government retaliation. This environment, underscored by Defendant Trump’s campaign of intimidation against critical reporting, casts a chill on speech that – even if braved and overcome by diligent and courageous reporters – constitutes an ongoing First Amendment violation.'”
Acosta has an even stronger case because he is the one whose rights have been directly violated. (The current lawsuit could also be amended specifically to reference the Acosta incident as precisely the sort of action that would …read more
Source:: New Jersey Real-Time News