In 1977, the D.C. Circuit decided a court case about journalists’ access to the White House that legally foreclosed everything the White House has tried over the past week or so to persecute in its attempt to permanently eject CNN White House Correspondent Jim Acosta from briefings. Is your head spinning yet? I know mine is.
Forty-plus years on from the decision that makes everything that follows this intro moot, here’s the 2018 timeline:
Nov. 7
During the White House press briefing following the midterm elections, Acosta attempted to ask a number of follow-up questions, none of which President Trump answered in a meaningful or even moderately responsive fashion. Acosta hung onto the mic despite an aide’s repeated violations of his physical space.
During a testy session with reporters after Tuesday’s midterm elections, Mr. Trump recognized Mr. Acosta for a question. Their exchange grew heated when Mr. Acosta repeatedly challenged the president’s characterization of a Central American migrant caravan as an invasion. Mr. Trump responded by lashing out at Mr. Acosta, saying, “Honestly, I think you should let me run the country — you run CNN.”
Mr. Acosta, who was in the front row just feet from the president, refused several times to sit down or to return a microphone to a White House intern who sought to retrieve it. When he finally did give up the microphone, Mr. Trump said that Mr. Acosta was “a rude, terrible person.”
“You shouldn’t be working for CNN,” the president said.
Sometime soon before 7:52 p.m. that evening, Acosta attempted to return to the White House for CNN. He was able to post this video of a member of the Secret Secret demanding his “hard pass,” or his press badge that allowed him access to the White House premises.
By 10:30 p.m., Sarah Huckabee Sanders posted a version of the video of Acosta’s effort to question Trump that was edited by Infowars’s Paul Joseph Watson in an effort to make Acosta look the aggressor.
CNN’s VP fired back at Sanders with the original footage fewer than 30 minutes later.
Nov. 13
CNN filed suit against the White House under the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment due process rights in an effort to get Acosta’s credentials reinstated and set meaningful precedent. Thanks to the 1977 case, things were looking up.
Nov. 16
Then came the Friday to Monday rollercoaster.
The White House initially conceded to “temporarily reinstate” Acosta’s credentials by 10:23 AM.
Sanders had plenty of words for any current and future prospective agitators (read: journalists).
Late Friday, in a letter that didn’t become public until Monday, Sanders and Bill Shine, deputy chief of communications, acknowledged that there were not formal rules for journalists at briefings. Their claim? Acosta had violated “basic, widely understood practices.” His offenses included “asking multiple questions and refusing to yield a microphone during the president’s news conference.”
Sanders & Co. planned to yank Acosta’s pass as soon as the judge’s order expired.
Nov. 18
By 5 p.m.—Sanders and Shine gave Acosta until 5 p.m. on Sunday to push back on their Friday letter, which wasn’t to be fully public until Monday—Acosta had formally held his ground.
In a response from lawyers, Acosta contested the decision, saying that despite the White House’s previous admission that there are no actual written rules for journalists participating in press conferences, Acosta is now being punished “based on a retroactive application of unwritten ‘practices’ among journalists covering the White House.”
Nov. 19
Come Monday, The White House produced a set of press briefing rules—either from thin air or a 1990s-era word processor—and declared Acosta’s pass is restored with the caveat that, “Should [Acosta] refuse to follow [new rules] in the future, [they] will take action” to re-eject him. Charmers.
Around 4 p.m., CNN decided the lawsuit would be unnecessary.
My take: CNN decided not that a lawsuit but that this particular lawsuit is unnecessary given that the White House has now given CNN a blueprint showing them how to win the next round in court.