Acosta should sue the president, and Americans should shun Sanders - Jennifer Rubin

[DonViejo]

By Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
November 8 at 10:31 AM

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:

Link to tweet

President 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 protects the press’s 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.

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. 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 more obvious 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 chill the First Amendment rights of others.) The utility of filing a lawsuit (other than in annoying and embarrassing Trump and Sanders) would be a declaratory judgment ordering the White House to return Acosta’s credentials and barring the White House from taking such action in the future.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/11/08/acosta-should-sue-the-president-americans-should-shun-sanders/

[Cha]

1. Definitely!

[Gothmog]

2. From the Hoarse Whisperer

Link to tweet

[Quemado]

3. Acosta should sue SHS and the intern

SHS should be sued for circulating a doctored video.

The intern should be sued for assault.

[dalton99a]

4. Federal employees have absolute immunity

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/immunity/osborn.htm

The federal statute commonly known as the Westfall Act accords federal employees absolute immunity from tort claims arising out of acts undertaken in the course of their official duties, 28 U. S. C. §2679(b)(1), and empowers the Attorney General to certify that a federal employee sued for wrongful or negligent conduct "was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose," §2679(d)(1), (2). Upon such certification, the United States is substituted as defendant in place of the employee, and the action is thereafter governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act. If the action commenced in state court, the Westfall Act calls for its removal to a federal district court, and renders the Attorney General's certification "conclusiv[e] ... for purposes of removal." §2679(d)(2).