(11-16-2018, 08:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IDK. the fact that you can sue to obtain unfettered access to the White House, when POTUS and his staff don't want you to have it would concern me

(11-16-2018, 08:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Unfettered? Hardly.

(11-16-2018, 09:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What is the purpose of the hard pass that he sued to obtain? Because despite the narrative going around no one took away his ability to enter the White House and/or report on POTUS. 

(11-16-2018, 09:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Without a hard pass, a reporter must apply for a day pass to enter the White House, which may or may not be granted depending on the whims of the White House for the day. Also, during emergencies a hard pass is pretty much impossible to get, which means during some of the most critical times when press access is needed for the country to know what is going on, a hard pass is the only way to have access.

(11-16-2018, 09:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So having a hard pass greatly removes these restrictions required to enter the White House?

I wish I knew a word that could illustrate that:

unencumbered

unrestricted

allowed

lax

unconstrained

free

Damn, I really can't think of the right word.  

Quote:WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Donald Trump says the White House is “writing up rules and regulations” for reporters after a judge ordered the administration to restore credentials for CNN reporter Jim Acosta.


Trump told reporters Friday that “people have to behave.”


He added that if journalists “don’t listen to the rules and regulations, we will end up back in court and we will win.”


Asked what he meant by rules and regulations, Trump said: “Decorum. You can’t take three questions and four questions. And just stand up and not sit down.”

Trump said he wants “total freedom of the press,” but added “you have to act with respect.”



The White House said Friday that it would “temporarily reinstate” the credentials that were revoked after Acosta and Trump tangled during a press conference last week.

(11-16-2018, 09:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So having a hard pass greatly removes these restrictions required to enter the White House?

I wish I knew a word that could illustrate that:

unencumbered

unrestricted

allowed

lax

unconstrained

free

Damn, I really can't think of the right word.  

(11-16-2018, 10:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Except having a press pass, hard or not, doesn't allow one unconstrained, unrestricted, free, unfettered, whatever synonym you'd like access to the White House. There are only certain places you can be and only during certain times. You still have to be given permission to be in certain areas.

No one in the White House, save the POTUS and the highest level staffers, have unfettered access to the White House.

(11-16-2018, 08:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IDK. the fact that you can sue to obtain unfettered access to the White House, when POTUS and his staff don't want you to have it would concern me

(11-16-2018, 11:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm about as interested as playing the semantics game with you as I was playing the quotations game with Benton.

Access: Ability to enter. 

I can only assume both of you missed the point of comment or else your* just being petty.

Bottomline POTUS and the reporter had an interaction; one in which POTUS wanted his access (entrance) fettered (restricted) and the court has now said POTUS does not have that ability.

(11-16-2018, 08:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IDK. the fact that you can sue to obtain unfettered access to the White House, when POTUS and his staff don't want you to have it would concern me

(11-16-2018, 11:51 PM)Benton Wrote: The POTUS wanted him restricted from all areas, including those set aside for the press. Cnn sued so he would have access to the press areas.

You can talk semantics, but accosta isn't hanging out in the guest bedroom, walking around the kitchen making himself a sandwich or putting his feet up on the Nancy Reagan ottoman. He's as fettered as every journalist in that he restricted to some areas. Those areas have greater access to staff members, but not unfettered access.

It's not a grammar issue. Words are important. Using the wrong ones completely changes the Batman cheese sandwich.

(11-17-2018, 12:13 AM)Dill Wrote: It's not like the court gave Acosta unfettered access to someone's private home. The White "House" is the People's house, and the guy living there is supposed to inform the people of his activities.

It already concerns me that, in the face of critical questions, Trump has pushed attempts to discipline the press to this new level.

And it would greatly concern me if a Trump appointee had upheld Trump's arbitrary ban. Rule of law, right?

(11-17-2018, 01:07 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said: access=entrance. I did not say unfettered use. 

Also, as I said: You either don't understand the point as pointed out earlier or you're just being petty. 

(11-19-2018, 12:10 PM)jj22 Wrote: Because the WH is the peoples house. Not a place for a President to play Politics and allow who can cover it and who can't based off of who reports positive news about them etc. It's really that simple.

Folks would have slammed Obama for this and rightfully so. Not sure why they feel Trump is different.

(11-19-2018, 12:09 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It would seem to me that it's OK to remove someone's access to the WH as long as you allow a replacement.  I don't know why any one person has a constitutional right to cover the WH.  There are  obviously millions of journalists who don't have this hard pass.

(11-19-2018, 12:14 PM)hollodero Wrote: I wouldn't think it's the president's call which journalists gets access to the press room and which don't. Else, a president could just pick and choose, and that's not the purpose.

Of course, if there are valid reasons to remove a journalist, then there's no argument. But not liking a certain guy because he asks inconvenient questions is not a valid reason nor should it be.