Trump vows to appeal CNN’s White House victory — tells reporters they can stand outside

THE DAILY BS: HOW MUCH CAN YOU HANDLE?

SPARE ME THE BS (I’ve got things to do).

The White House says it will appeal a federal judge’s order protecting White House access for CNN, MS NOW and Politico.
The judge, a Trump appointee, found that the administration likely violated the outlets’ free speech and due process rights.
A White House official blasted the decision, saying the networks are perfectly capable of reporting from outside the building.

LAY IT ON ME (I’ve got time).

President Donald Trump isn’t ready to roll out the White House welcome mat for CNN, MS NOW and Politico. In fact, his administration has a rather straightforward suggestion for reporters from the three outlets: Try standing outside.

The White House confirmed Wednesday that it intends to appeal a federal judge’s ruling preventing the administration from enforcing Trump’s ban on journalists from the three news organizations.

And judging by the official response, nobody at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is planning a reconciliation luncheon.

“The Fake News has no place demanding a spot in the President’s Oval Office,” a senior White House official told CNN’s Brian Stelter.

“The lies they smear are a disservice to the American public and tear at the very fabric of our Democracy. They’re completely capable of reporting from directly outside. We intend to appeal this misguided decision.”

Well, there goes the complimentary coffee.

The appeal announcement follows a preliminary injunction issued Tuesday night by U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who ruled that CNN, MS NOW and Politico are likely to succeed in their constitutional challenge to Trump’s September 18 decision revoking their White House press credentials.

Here’s the twist: Kelly was nominated to the federal bench by Trump himself in 2017.

The judge found that the administration likely violated the outlets’ First Amendment protections against retaliation for their reporting, along with their Fifth Amendment right to due process.

Kelly concluded that Trump’s own public statements showed the ban was motivated by his dissatisfaction with the organizations’ coverage, rather than the national security concerns subsequently raised by government attorneys.

“Simply put, that is unlawful viewpoint discrimination,” Kelly wrote.

That’s a fairly direct assessment from a judge who owes his appointment to the president now challenging his decision.

Trump announced the original ban on September 18, accusing the outlets of spreading misinformation about his administration.

“Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

The three organizations sued, arguing that the government cannot punish journalists simply because the president dislikes their coverage.

The White House countered that press access is a privilege, not an unrestricted constitutional entitlement, and that presidents have historically exercised discretion over which journalists receive special access.

Government attorneys also cited national security concerns, including the publication of sensitive information.

Kelly wasn’t persuaded that those concerns explained the original ban. But he did include a qualification that deserves attention.

“No one should interpret the Court’s decision to suggest that President Trump’s concerns about accuracy and fairness in the media’s reporting are unfounded,” the judge wrote.

He also made clear that the government retains authority to protect national security when classified information is unlawfully disclosed.

In other words, the judge ruled against Trump’s method of excluding the outlets. He did not issue CNN a certificate of journalistic perfection.

That distinction might come as disappointing news to anyone hoping a federal judge had finally settled the question of whether cable news is always right.

The injunction protects the White House credentials of 78 journalists from the three organizations while the lawsuit proceeds. It replaces an earlier temporary restraining order and remains in effect unless modified or overturned.

The decision does not automatically guarantee the journalists access to every presidential event, the Oval Office or Air Force One. The White House has continued to exclude certain journalists from some smaller press-pool assignments, a separate issue the ruling does not fully resolve.

That means CNN may have won the right to enter the grounds without winning a guaranteed seat wherever Trump happens to be speaking.

CNN chairman and editor-in-chief Mark Thompson welcomed the decision, suggesting the dispute could eventually reach trial.

“It’s the judge saying that our complaint — that our fundamental rights to cover the president properly inside the White House and the rest of it, were violated, and that we’re likely to prevail in the final trial,” Thompson said Wednesday.

He described the decision as a victory for free speech and the public’s right to hear its leaders questioned by journalists.

Theodore Boutrous Jr., an attorney representing the three outlets, also celebrated the ruling, saying Trump’s ban had violated both due process and the First Amendment.

But the administration isn’t conceding anything.

Its promised appeal means the legal fight is far from finished, with the courts still weighing how much control a president has over access to the White House and where that discretion crosses into unconstitutional retaliation.

For now, CNN, MS NOW and Politico retain their court-protected credentials.

Trump retains his opinion of their reporting.