The Daily Signal - #343: The White House vs. CNN's Acosta

Episode Date: November 20, 2018

President Barack Obama was no fan of Fox News--and he didn't hide that fact. And there's no requirement for the White House to call on every reporter with press credentials. But is it a good idea for the White House to fight with CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta? And how should the White House respond when reporters act in an arguably out-of-line way? The Daily Signal's editor in chief Rob Bluey and White House correspondent Fred Lucas join to discuss. Plus: The White House Correspondents Dinner will break with tradition next year and feature a historian instead of a comedian. We also cover these stories:--Fifteen House Democrats have signed a letter opposing Nancy Pelosi as House speaker.--Three Democratic senators are suing the administration over President --Trump’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general.Brenda Snipes, the Broward County Election supervisor who has been under fire during the Florida recounts, has announced her resignation.The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You and Santa? Best wrappers out there. But Reeses wants to know, what about the best unwrapping moment? Reese's peanut butter cups put your unwrapping skills to the test. And with three cups of creamy peanut butter and smooth chocolate per pack, you get your practice in. Experiencing that sweet and salty satisfaction again and again and again. Santa gets cookies. You get Rees.

Nothing else is Rees. This is the Daily Signal podcast for Tuesday, November 20th. I'm Kate Trinco. And I'm Daniel Davis. Well, Jim Acosta got his press credential back, but that's hardly the end of the story. We'll unpack the situation with two veteran journalists, our editor-in-chief Rob Bluey, and the Daily Signal's White House correspondent Fred Lucas. We'll also discuss the decision to make the White House correspondence dinner less comedic.

But first, we'll cover a few of the top headlines. Nancy Pelosi is facing real opposition. The House minority leader long expected to be the House Speaker again if Democrats won the House, as they did, has some resistance. And on Monday, 15 House Democrats and one Democrat candidate whose House race hasn't been called signed a letter stating, per Politico, our majority came on the backs of candidates who said that they would support new leadership because voters in hard-won districts and across the country want to see real change in Washington. We promise to change the status quo and we intend to deliver on that promise. One possible contender against Pelosi, Representative Marcia Fudge, Democrat of Ohio. Here's what she said about her possible bid in a video tweeted by the Hill.

I have been overwhelmed with people. It has been heartwarming and humbling to know how many people think that I should do this. It is something that people have been thinking about, I think, for some time. And I just am really, really pleased that they have the kind of confidence in me that they think that I'm the person that should be able to do this. Well, three Democratic senators are suing the administration over President Trump's appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general. Senators Richard Blumenthal, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Maisie Hirono filed a complaint in federal court

arguing that Trump's appointment of Whitaker is unconstitutional because Whitaker was never confirmed by the Senate in any capacity. Whitaker served as chief of staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was recently forced out by the president. Senator Blumenthal released a statement that included the following, quote, installing Matthew Whitaker so flagrantly defies constitutional law that any viewer of Schoolhouse Rock would recognize it. Americans prize a system of checks and balances, which President Trump's dictatorial appointment betrays. Bill McRaven, retired admiral, Navy SEAL, 37 years, former head of U.S. Special operations.

Special operations. Excuse me, Hillary Clinton fan. Who led the operations, commanded the operations, that took down Saddam Hussein, and they killed Osama bin Laden, says that your sentiment is the greatest threat to democracy in his lifetime. He's a Hillary Clinton backer, and an Obama. Obama backer. And frankly,

it was a Navy seal. Wouldn't it have been nice if we got Osama bin Laden a lot sooner than that? That was President Trump in an interview with Fox News's Chris Wallace that aired Sunday. And on Monday, the president doubled down in a tweet. Of course we should have captured Osama bin Laden long before we did. I pointed him out in my book just before the attack on the World Trade Center. President Clinton famously missed his shot. We paid Pakistan billions of dollars and they never told us he,

is living there. Fools. End quote. McRaven told CNN that he didn't support Hillary Clinton and quote, I stand by my comment that the president's attack on the media is the greatest threat to our democracy in my lifetime. When you undermine the people's right to a free press and freedom of speech and expression, then you threaten the Constitution in all for which it stands. Well, it's official. Republican Rick Scott will be the next U.S. Senator from Florida. The incumbent Senator Bill Nelson conceded the race on Monday after a statewide manual recount showed him losing by over 10,000 votes. Nelson served in the Senate for three terms. His loss marks the fourth seat that Republicans managed to flip in the Senate. Brenda Snipes, the Broward County Election

Supervisor, who has been under fire during the Florida recounts, is stepping down as of January 4th. Snipes wrote to Governor Rick Scott, although I have enjoyed this work tremendously over these many election cycles, both large and small, I am ready to pass the torch. A judge had found that Snipes destroyed ballots from the 2016 election before she was supposed to in a 2018 ruling, among other issues that had clouded Snipes during her tenure. Well, as devastating fires continue to engulf California, a major bright spot emerged this past weekend. A bus driver managed to save 22 school kids from the inferno that was devouring their school. As flames began to to encroach on the school, 41-year-old Kevin McKay rushed inside to evacuate the students,

ripping his t-shirt into rags and dipping it into water to help the kids breathe better. Once they made it onto the bus, McKay dodged fires on both sides of the road, which was packed with cars, and a car even slammed into the bus at one point. They eventually made it through the smoke, and all kids were reunited with their parents. Next up, we're going to discuss Jim Acosta, press passes, and the White House. Are you looking for quick conservative policy solutions to current issues? Sign up for Heritage's weekly newsletter, The Agenda. Each Tuesday in the Agenda, you will learn what issues Heritage Scholars on Capitol Hill are working on,

what position conservatives are taking, and links to our in-depth research. The agenda also provides information on important events happening here at Heritage that you can watch online, as well as media interviews from our experts. Sign up for the agenda on heritage.org today. In the ongoing battle between the White House and CNN, the latest spat has been overweathered Jim Acosta, who is the White House correspondent for CNN, has access to the White House after the Trump administration says he acted inappropriately in a recent press conference and took away his access. President Trump spoke about the issue Friday after a judge said Acosta must get his press pass back, at least temporarily. People have to behave and they have to do where writing up roles are.

regulations to make a position. I think you were treated very unfairly. Both of you, I think you were treated very unfairly because you have somebody interrupting you. If they don't listen to the rules and regulations, we'll end up back in court and we'll win. But more importantly, we'll just leave. And then you won't be very happy.

Because we do get good ratings. Mr. President, when you talk about rules and regulations? What do you use? Decorum. You can't take three questions. and four questions and just stand up and not sit down. Decorum, you have to practice decorum. You were there, you understood, and you understand.

We want total freedom in the press. That's very important to me. It's more important to me than anybody would believe. But you have to act with respect. You're in the White House, and when I see the way some of my people get treated at press conferences, it's terrible. So we're setting up a certain standard,

which is what the court is requesting, and always for you. in the press, always First Amendment, but that's the way it is. The White House was evaluating its long-term stance on Acosta Monday, but regardless of the immediate decision, this issue probably won't go anywhere and will stay in the courts. Joining us today to discuss is Fred Lucas, the White House correspondent for the Daily Signal, and Rob Lewy, our editor-in-chief. Fred, let's start with you.

What did the judge decide Friday about Acosta, and what was the scope of that decision? Well, the scope of the decision was pretty narrow. He didn't get into the First Amendment issue, which was part of CNN's complaint. It was to some degree due process in that the judge thought it was very arbitrary. But this was what he ruled on was for the duration of this lawsuit. They would have to give him his hard pass back immediately after that decision. Important to note, this is a district judge Timothy Kelly is a Trump appointee. So he didn't have an axe to grind in this case.

And Rob, what did you think? Do you think Jim Acosta should be able to get access to the White House? I do think it's important that reporters, including Jim Acosta, have the opportunity to access the White House. I feel the same way about our own Fred Lucas. I'd be very upset if a Democratic president or somebody who perhaps disagreed ideologically on some grounds was using an arbitrary way to kick him or her out. I think what Trump said in that clip is they failed to do. They failed to show due process in this case. So I tend to agree with the judge's decision on that ground.

At the same time, I don't think that any reporter, like in a cost of this is where I would run to draw a distinction between. I think that the White House needs to have clear rules. And if you break those rules, then you should get booted. But at the same time, Kate, I've been in situations myself as a journalist where government officials have tried to keep me out of meetings or keep me from gathering information. So I've seen it from the other side. But I think that Jim Acosta, as most of our listeners would probably agree, takes it to a little bit different level.

And I think that that's one of the things that makes this one a little bit harder. Well, and of course, the president said in that interview that they are writing up some new rules. So it'll be interesting to see what those are. And if there's any regulations that could avoid what happened. But I do wonder, you know, Jim Acosta is pretty upset about this. CNN was upset about it. Fox News joined in the lawsuit. So there's some front.

On CNN side. On CNN side, right, exactly. But it'd be interesting to see if this happens again, like the president threatened. CNN is now wanting an emergency court hearing about that. And I wonder, you know, there's a legal question. Is that valid, even though it's just a threat? But if this were to go back to court and there was an assessment of the constitutional question at hand, does the First Amendment require that the president allow such and such journalist into the White House,

I really wonder if the press is pushing its privilege in trying to cast its privilege as a right? Well, that's a big question, and that's where the judge didn't come down on yet. my guess is there might not be a constitutional right to a White House hard pass to be in there every day. Some people have even complained that there are reporters who to easily get a hard pass that have had it for years, I haven't worked for a news organization and so forth. CNN has 50, by the way, right? Right, right, right. There's no deprivation for CNN in this case.

But I think as far as the rules, and we talked about the due process issue and the arbitrariness of it, if there's a finite set of decorum, as the president talked about, I think a lot of reporters wouldn't have any kind of problem with that. other reporters don't want one individual sucking all the wind out of a press conference or press briefing and interrupting everybody else's chance of a question. On the other side of that, I would say that I would hope any rules are finite, well-defined, so that you can't just have really broad rules that you could cite almost anybody for violating and say, all right, out of here. Well, let me just add to that.

I think one of the things that I noticed in watching the press conferences are the theatrics that sometimes go on, let's face it, both sides. I think Trump likes to create, as he said in that clip, ratings. He knows what buttons to push to spur this kind of activity. At the same time, you know, Sarah Huckabee Sanders has made a proposal to remove some of the cameras from the front side of her podium so that the reporters themselves aren't appearing on camera. and perhaps putting on a show of their own. So I think that there are some steps that you could take, Fred, maybe to eliminate that. Every time I've seen you ask a question in the briefing room, you're very straight to the point. You ask your question.

You do your business. You're not coming back two or three times trying to interrupt others. And that's where I think some of these reporters just take it too far and try to become much more part of the story than they should be. And also, Fred, just to put you a little bit on the spot. But you, of course, have been a White House correspondent in administrations other than Trump. And, you know, one of the things that has struck me watching these White House press coverings is it seems to be there's a lot of things that the mainstream media thinks are enshrined in tradition and perhaps even law that actually aren't. I mean, I noticed, you know, certainly when President Obama was president and it seems largely still these days, certain outlets that are prominent, the TV networks, et cetera, get more called on. But as a historian, of course, Fred, you're aware that this wasn't always the case that there hasn't been, obviously CBS didn't even exist.

back in the day, et cetera. So, throwing a lot at you. But one, how would you say you were treated in the Obama years when you were covering the White House? And two, what's the big picture here on presidents and the media? Well, I wouldn't say I was treated great. And certainly in the early days of the Obama administration, Robert Gibbs could be a, I can probably say this now. He was sort of a belligerent press secretary, not just with me, but with a lot of people. But he was in some way the Donald Trump of press secretaries.

Sometimes he liked to mix it up and just get when it wasn't really necessary. You could almost ask the guy, how's your day going, and then he would come back with a combative answer. Jay Carney wasn't, he took things sort of personal on questions. Josh Ernest, he was everyone's favorite press secretary, almost regardless of what I'll let you. So during the Obama administration, he sort of seemed to make an effort to open it up to other reporters. But I would say in terms of presidential news conferences, it was very rare that you would see Obama call on Fox News. And over the weekend, we did see Major Garrett was in an interview in which he made a comment about how Barack Obama would routinely attack Fox News. and speeches and so forth.

And that's not really that much different than Trump going out there constantly, you know, bragging MSNBC and CNN in tweets and in speeches. And historically, I'd also say that, you know, Sam Donaldson had this contentious relationship with Ronald Reagan. I mean, this is hardly anything new where somebody who's on the other side has a somewhat combative, as you termed it, relationship with either the press secretary, or the president. And I think what's changed now is the scrutiny on Trump, given his comments about fake news and the press being, the fake news being the enemy of the people, I mean, that's just heightened the situation. And therefore, I think you have Jim Acosta going to court and us now waiting to see what happens in two weeks when the restraining order expires. And will we be back to this all over again?

Well, you both have lots of relationships in the world of journalism in D.C. what's your sense of where other journalists are on this? Obviously, CNN is making its move and sort of putting its name on the line. But in a sense, it does reflect for the American public. You know, it affects the public's view of the press at large. And so journalists, you know, must be thinking about that as well. What's your sense of how they, other journalists, are perceiving this Acosta episode? Well, I think the sense among most other White House reporters is that this is bigger than Jim Acosta.

And I think certainly among conservative reporters, liberal reporter, whatever. And yes, I mean, I think people have a perception of Jim Acosta out there. But it's this entire issue is, you know, if there is a president Elizabeth Warren, Warren down the road. You don't want her to just be picking and choosing what reporters are allowed to ask questions, what reporters are allowed to cover the White House. So it is a matter of do you want the president deciding what reporters cover him or her down the line. And I should also point out that when it comes to Congress, there's a different structure set up in terms of the credentialing process in which the Daily Signal does not have congressional press credentials. I

personally had them, and I believe Fred has had them in the past, in which a group of journalists controls the credentialing process as opposed to the Secret Service, which is the one that hands out the hard passes for the White House. I don't think that that's in any better situation, because I think what you have there is a club of people who are basically close-knit and decide who gets membership into that club, and if you don't fall into the criteria, then you don't get credentials. And I'm not sure that that's any better of a solution to what the White House is doing. I think that the underlying point of all of this is that reporters should be able to have access to government officials who are working on behalf of the public. So whether it's an open

meetings law, whether it's a freedom of information request, I think the more access that we have to do our job as journalists, the better. And we can advocate for something like that. We'll at the same time call out the bad actors like Jim Acosta if he crosses the line. Right. And that sort of goes back to my thought about it, which is that a lot of the coverage of this issue has been misleading, that it sort of implies like right or previously all reporters who were good got access. And the reality is even if you can get access to the White House or Congress, you're not guaranteed they'll call on you. And frankly, CNN has probably been called on a lot more by the Trump White House than a lot of conservative outlets. There is that situation. Yeah, definitely far more than most conservative outlets. And I'm not just talking about the daily signal, but any number that you would think, the daily caller, Breitbart, any number of CNS news has a reporter there. I think Donald Trump, of course, he likes confrontation.

He picks the reporters he calls on and he saw, he didn't have to call on Jim Acosta. He knew what he was getting in this case. and it became a fairly entertaining exchange, but the president made that choice to call Jim Acosta. He could have called on any other reporter in that room. Right, but my point is, you know, regarding the legal case. Right, right, right. You know, it's sort of interesting that the way it's being presented is legally, like Jim Acosta had this right and it was taken away. And actually, while this White House was very openly aggressive, I mean, you know, the Obama White House could just as you said, choose not to really call on Fox News.

There were ways without taking away the hard pass that they essentially denied access. And I think also a big picture point, not just in this case, but a big picture point about if you want to contrast the Obama White House and the Obama administration, rather more broadly, and the Trump administration towards the press. We saw things in the Obama administration of getting the phone records of the AP and James Rosen, making Jim Risen, making Jim Risen with the New York Times. a unadited co-conspirator and so forth, and the Obama administration, so far other than this, there hasn't been any actions, governmental actions by the Trump administration against the free press. Okay. Well, next up, we're going to discuss another surprising choice, I guess, made by the White House Correspondents Association. Want to get up to speed about the Supreme Court? Then subscribe to SCOTUS 101, a podcast about everything that's happening at the Supreme Court and what the justices are up to. Well, the White House correspondence dinner was once a standard institution in Washington.

Presidents would attend, tell some jokes, get roasted, and especially if they were a Democrat, received some extra long applause lines. Those days are clearly gone in the Trump era. Trump has not attended the dinner for the last two years, and especially last year, it devolved into kind of a mudslinging fest against the president and his staff. So this year, they're making some changes instead of a comedian. historian Ron Chernow will be the main speaker, and instead of roasting the president, he will give a defense of the First Amendment. Chirnau is author of six books, including a book about

Alexander Hamilton, which of course inspired the musical Hamilton. So, Rob, your thoughts about this change at the dinner? Well, I think Ron Chernow is a great choice. He's a wonderful author who's made some significant contributions with his books. As a fan of Hamilton, and myself. Having seen it twice this year, it excites me and I look forward to hopefully being able to attend as the Daily Signal has gone to the dinner the last two years. As far as it is an upgrade over a comedian, I welcome it. I mean, I'd much rather see Ron Chernell speak than I forget the woman's name. Michelle Wolf, who was there last year, who was just an embarrassment for the entire dinner. And frankly, I hope that Trump does show up this year. I

I think that the question is still out, right, Fred, whether he's going to show. But I hope that he does make it appearance. The question was out whether after the first one he didn't show and he indicated he might show up next year, but he didn't. So I'm not holding my breath for the president to show up. But, I mean, I concur with you. It would be a Trumpian thing to kind of surprise everyone. It would. It would be.

But, yeah, I concur, though. I mean, Ron Chernobyl being, I thought it was an excellent choice. I was excited to read about that this morning. And after we had such a train wreck with the last dinner with Michelle Wolf and telling bad jokes that weren't funny, this is something. I mean, Ron Chernobyl is going to have a very substantive talk on the First Amendment. He might be critical of Trump. I expect he probably will be. But it's going to be substantive.

Similar, I think the year Rob and I went, Woodward and Burns, Bob Woodward and Carl Burns. Bernstein spoke. And while they were in some ways critical of Donald Trump, but it was substantive. And it was not just, you know, ridiculous rantings from a entertainer. Well, I, yeah, and I have to say, I love comedy. So I'm a little bit sad. But I'd also, you know, I was at the White House Correspondence dinner last year. Thank you, Fred. And, you know, I was really horrified by what Michelle Wolf said. I mean, it was almost like a visceral. reaction. I mean, if someone who was very pro-life to hear the joke she made about abortion and the crudeness and callousness, I mean, it was just so inappropriate and I, you know, just so classless. But I think it also, I mean, it's sort of a side note. I was recently reading an interview with a comedian who's on Netflix, Kathleen Madigan, who I think is from the Midwest and goes around the country. And she mentioned that in the era of Trump, she felt it was the first time she couldn't really make political jokes. And she said sort of like the air goes out of the room.

Neither side can take it. And so I do think it's maybe a sad moment that we can't take comedy. But all that being said, the White House Correspondents Dinner was probably not the right place. Journalists are supposed to be objective. But I'd be curious as to what both of you think. Should this dinner still be happening? Is it appropriate for the media to have a big glitzy dinner where they celebrate themselves? Well, it's hardly the only dinner in Washington where the media is celebrating itself.

But don't they happen weekly almost it seems? No, I mean, maybe not that frequently. But no, I mean, I believe that this is partially a fundraiser for the association as well. Right, right. And much of the money goes to scholarships. Right. So there are some causes that I think come along with it. I mean, I don't personally have a problem with that.

Maybe in some cases I'd like to see them highlight certain journalists that, that probably haven't gotten the recognition that they deserve, Fred Lucas, from this group at the dinner. But, you know, for the most part, I think it's good. And, you know, I think the other thing, Kate, that I hope Ron Chernow, if he does talk about the First Amendment, I hope he brings this back to a historical context and talks about Alexander Hamilton and his relationship with the press and Ulysses S. Grant and some of the people who he's written books on, because I think that could be informative and really put it in a perspective that people today might not realize. that this is, as we talked about in the earlier segment, not anything new for a president in the press to have a combative relationship.

Yeah. I mean, yeah, that's definitely true. I mean, it was particularly true under Ulysses S. Grand, as you mentioned. I mean, he's, who's journal's last book. And because the press was constantly covering scandals and so forth that came out of the Grand administration. But another thing I would mention on this is that just from. conversations people were having directly after this Michelle Wolf debacle last year is that

people on the White House Correspondence Association Board is that the comedian in the past had been in part to balance out the president since the president's not coming anymore then you don't necessarily need a comedian. So you think you think if the president eventually goes back, they'll add the comedian. Possibly, possibly. I mean, this is the president and past presidents have always sort of given their own comic routine beforehand. Well, we should also remember that that was where President Barack Obama then called out Trump, who was in the audience.

And I've heard some people argue that that was where Trump decided to run. Yeah, right, right. I was there earlier, 2011. But yeah, this is something I think. Trump would really excel at in terms of giving a comic act. He's a good communicator. It'd give him this chance to just roast other journalists, which I think he'd probably love to do.

And he's actually, he's very funny. Yeah. I think he's got amazing timing. If you watch his rallies, he knows how to pull off. So, I mean, if someone could convince him, I think he would excel at it. Well, Fred, you're going to have to work on that. Yes. I'll talk him into it.

I'll bend his ear a little bit. You're such a big fan. would you pick for the comedian? You know, I have to say this is where it gets hard because almost all comedians are liberal. And even as a conservative who loves comedians, it's hard to think of any politically conservative. I mean, Greg Gutfield's funny, but not. Tim Allen. Tim Allen.

Yeah, I mean, honestly, like, hey, if you are conservative and you are funny, please do stand up. Please become big. I'd love to support you. That's right. Well, we're going to leave it there for today. Rob and Fred, thank you so much for being on the podcast. Thank you. And thank you for listening to the Daily Signal podcast, brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation.

Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes Google Play or SoundCloud, and please leave us a review or rating on iTunes to give us feedback. We'll see you again tomorrow. You've been listening to the Daily Signal podcast, executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis. Sound design by Michael Gooden, Lauren Evans, and Thelia Rampersad. For more information, visit DailySignal.com.