DOCSLIB.ORG

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 4 Filed 11/13/18 Page 1 of 3 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC. and ABILIO JAMES ACOSTA, Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official capacity as Chief of Staff to the President of the United States; WILLIAM SHINE, in his official capacity as Deputy Chief of Staff to the Case No. President of the United States; SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, in her official capacity as Press Secretary to the President of the United States; the UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; RANDOLPH ALLES, in his official capacity as Director of the United States Secret Service; and JOHN DOE, Secret Service Agent, in his official capacity, Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiffs Cable News Network, Inc. (“CNN”) and Abilio James (“Jim”) Acosta hereby request, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a) and Local Rule 65.1, that this Court issue a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to rescind the revocation of Acosta’s White House credentials and restore Acosta’s credentials to him. Alternatively, Plaintiffs request that this Court, at a minimum, issue a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to restore Acosta’s credentials pending due process, including but not limited to a formal written explanation of Defendants’ justification for the revocation and an opportunity for Acosta to respond to those justifications, in advance of any revocation. Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 4 Filed 11/13/18 Page 2 of 3 A preliminary injunction is warranted here. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, Plaintiffs’ rights under the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. The law is clear: As the D.C. Circuit has held, “the protection afforded newsgathering under the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that this access [to White House press facilities] not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.” Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124, 129 (D.C. Cir. 1977). And “notice . of the factual bases for denial [of access to White House press facilities] with an opportunity to rebut is a minimum prerequisite for ensuring that the denial is . [not] based on arbitrary or less than compelling reasons.” Id. at 131. The government complied with none of these safeguards here, stripping Acosta of his credentials and White House access with no process whatsoever, in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause. The harm is immediate and ongoing. Due to the exigency of the circumstances and the irreparable nature of the injury the temporary restraining order would prevent, Plaintiffs request a hearing on their motion for a preliminary injunction on Tuesday, November 13, 2018, and no later than Wednesday, November 14, 2018. The Defendants continue to violate Plaintiffs’ rights. For example, on the Sunday after Defendants revoked Acosta’s credentials, the Defendants denied him access to cover the “open” press event during the President’s trip to France on the one hundredth anniversary of the end of World War One even though Acosta was present and had a French government-issued press pass. Every day that passes without Acosta regaining his press credentials is a concrete injury. See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (plurality opinion) (“The loss of First Amendment ‘freedoms’ . unquestionably constitutes irreparable 2 Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 4 Filed 11/13/18 Page 3 of 3 injury.”); Pursuing Am.’s Greatness v. Fed. Elec. Comm’n, 831 F.3d 500, 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (First Amendment violations “for even minimal periods of time” constitute irreparably injury). This Court should issue a preliminary injunction to preserve the rights of the parties pending a resolution of this matter on the merits. As explained at greater length in the accompanying memorandum, the balance of the equities and the public interest favor granting an injunction. Plaintiffs therefore request that this Court issue an injunction requiring Defendants to rescind the revocation of Acosta’s credentials and restore them to him, or, at a minimum, to restore Acosta’s credentials until Defendants afford him appropriate process. Dated: November 13, 2018 Respectfully submitted, _______________________________ Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., (D.C. Bar No. 420440) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Ave., Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel: (213) 229-7804 [email protected] Theodore B. Olson (D.C. Bar No. 367456) Joshua S. Lipshutz (D.C. Bar No. 1033391) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 955-8688 [email protected] [email protected] Anne Champion (pro hac vice forthcoming) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166-0193 Tel: (212) 351-5361 [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs Cable News Network, Inc., and Abilio James Acosta 3 Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 4-1 Filed 11/13/18 Page 1 of 29 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC. and ABILIO JAMES ACOSTA, Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official capacity as Chief of Staff to the President of the United States; WILLIAM SHINE, in his official capacity as Deputy Chief of Staff to the Case No. President of the United States; SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, in her official capacity as Press Secretary to the President of the United States; the UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; RANDOLPH ALLES, in his official capacity as Director of the United States Secret Service; and JOHN DOE, Secret Service Agent, in his official capacity, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION i Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 4-1 Filed 11/13/18 Page 2 of 29 CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 3 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 8 I. Plaintiffs’ First Amendment and Due Process Claims Are Likely To Succeed. ................ 9 A. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed in Demonstrating that the Revocation of Acosta’s Credentials Violated the First Amendment. ..................................................... 9 B. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed in Demonstrating that Defendants Violated the Due Process Clause. ...................................................................................................... 15 II. Plaintiffs Will Be Irreparably Injured Absent Injunctive Relief. .................................... 19 III. The Balance of Equities and the Public’s Interest Strongly Favor Injunctive Relief Here. ................................................................................................................... 21 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 23 ii Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 4-1 Filed 11/13/18 Page 3 of 29 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases *Am. Broad. Cos. v. Cuomo, 570 F.2d 1080 (2d Cir. 1977)...............................................................................................9, 20 *Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1986) ........................................................................................................10 *Borreca v. Fasi, 369 F. Supp. 906 (D. Haw. 1974) ............................................................................................10 Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) ...................................................................................................................9 *Cable News Network, Inc. v. Am. Broad. Cos., 518 F. Supp. 1238 (N.D. Ga. 1981) ................................................................................. passim Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) .................................................................................................................11 Consol. Edison Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 530 (1980) .................................................................................................................11 DeGuiseppe v. Vill. of Bellwood, 68 F.3d 187 (7th Cir. 1995) .....................................................................................................19 *Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (plurality opinion) .................................................................................19 Freeman v. F.D.I.C., 56 F.3d 1394 (D.C. Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................18 Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) .................................................................................................................10 Hassay v. Mayor, 955 F. Supp. 2d 505 (D. Md. 2013) .........................................................................................21 Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) ...................................................................................................................13 Knight First Amend.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cnn Debate Live Stream
    Cnn debate live stream Continue Cutting cable is not too difficult if you are watching sports, in which case it is a nightmare. Huh989 over at Hackerspace wants to know: how do you stream sports, and sports packages are there worth it? Cable TV is insanely expensive, and with all the cheapest video services out there, it's easy to cut... MorePhoto Ed Yourdon.I have two things that, until recently, combined to reduce the quality of my life. These two things More Today is the final Republican debate before Super Tuesday-day a whopping twelve states and one U.S. territory will have either a primary or caucus. That's how to stream it online without cable. Before the general election, each state has its own primaries and caucuses, and today's Iowa caucuses ... Read more in the debate of the other five Republican presidential candidates: Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich. This is the last debate for Super Tuesday next week. On Tuesday, March 1, twelve states (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia) and one U.S. territory (American Samoa) will hold either primary or caucuses. If you live in any of these areas, this is your last chance to watch the debate before it's time to help choose your candidate. The debate begins at 8:30 p.m. ET / 5:30 p.m. PT. Here's how you can stream it online: If you're a satellite radio subscriber, you can listen on SiriusXM Channel 115.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of the Department of Homeland Security's Missions And
    A Review of the Department of Homeland Security’s Missions and Performance Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. January 2015 A Review of the Department of Homeland Security’s Missions and Performance A Report by Senator Tom Coburn Ranking Member Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs U.S. Senate 113th Congress January 2015 1 January 3, 2015 Dear Taxpayer, We Americans are and always have been suspicious—rightfully so—of government infringement on our rights which we hold are inalienable and not derived from the government. Rather, we believe governments are instituted to secure these rights. Yet, there is and always will be a perpetual struggle between security and liberty in a free society. Liberty requires security, but too much security can result in a loss of liberty. And the erosion of freedoms is rarely restored. We should never have to give up our rights to preserve them, and our Constitution which specifies the rights of the people and the limitations of the government does not even allow for such an exchange. This balancing act has become increasingly complicated. The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks claimed the lives of thousands, changed the lives of millions, and forever altered how we viewed the world. Every American, no matter what part of the country or the world we live in, could be a possible target of terrorism. But our enemies are not always obvious. They do not wear the uniform of a foreign army. Their weapons are not tanks and bullets. Their tactics are unconventional. Their victims are civilians.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Bully Pulpit: Presidential Speech in the Courts
    SHAW.TOPRINTER (DO NOT DELETE) 11/15/2017 3:32 AM Beyond the Bully Pulpit: Presidential Speech in the Courts Katherine Shaw* Abstract The President’s words play a unique role in American public life. No other figure speaks with the reach, range, or authority of the President. The President speaks to the entire population, about the full range of domestic and international issues we collectively confront, and on behalf of the country to the rest of the world. Speech is also a key tool of presidential governance: For at least a century, Presidents have used the bully pulpit to augment their existing constitutional and statutory authorities. But what sort of impact, if any, should presidential speech have in court, if that speech is plausibly related to the subject matter of a pending case? Curiously, neither judges nor scholars have grappled with that question in any sustained way, though citations to presidential speech appear with some frequency in judicial opinions. Some of the time, these citations are no more than passing references. Other times, presidential statements play a significant role in judicial assessments of the meaning, lawfulness, or constitutionality of either legislation or executive action. This Article is the first systematic examination of presidential speech in the courts. Drawing on a number of cases in both the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, I first identify the primary modes of judicial reliance on presidential speech. I next ask what light the law of evidence, principles of deference, and internal executive branch dynamics can shed on judicial treatment of presidential speech.
    [Show full text]
  • How White Supremacy Returned to Mainstream Politics
    GETTY CORUM IMAGES/SAMUEL How White Supremacy Returned to Mainstream Politics By Simon Clark July 2020 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG How White Supremacy Returned to Mainstream Politics By Simon Clark July 2020 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 4 Tracing the origins of white supremacist ideas 13 How did this start, and how can it end? 16 Conclusion 17 About the author and acknowledgments 18 Endnotes Introduction and summary The United States is living through a moment of profound and positive change in attitudes toward race, with a large majority of citizens1 coming to grips with the deeply embedded historical legacy of racist structures and ideas. The recent protests and public reaction to George Floyd’s murder are a testament to many individu- als’ deep commitment to renewing the founding ideals of the republic. But there is another, more dangerous, side to this debate—one that seeks to rehabilitate toxic political notions of racial superiority, stokes fear of immigrants and minorities to inflame grievances for political ends, and attempts to build a notion of an embat- tled white majority which has to defend its power by any means necessary. These notions, once the preserve of fringe white nationalist groups, have increasingly infiltrated the mainstream of American political and cultural discussion, with poi- sonous results. For a starting point, one must look no further than President Donald Trump’s senior adviser for policy and chief speechwriter, Stephen Miller. In December 2019, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch published a cache of more than 900 emails2 Miller wrote to his contacts at Breitbart News before the 2016 presidential election.
    [Show full text]
  • Read a Transcript of Our Interview with Rick Klein
    It’s All Journalism www.itsalljournalism.com 1 Rick Klein, Political Director, ABC News Megan Cloherty, Producer, It’s All Journalism Welcome to It's all Journalism. I'm Megan Cloherty joined by co-producers Anna Miars, Julie O'Donoghue and Michael O'Connell. And today we have Rick Klein with us. Rick is political director at ABC News. He is currently senior Washington editor for World News Tonight with Diane Sawyer. He also co-hosts Top Line, a political webcast, that is daily isn't it? Rick Klein, Political Director, ABC News It's weekly now. But we'll go back to that. Megan Cloherty We'll go back to that. It's weekly! He's a regular guest on Fox News and NPR. A graduate of Princeton, Rick spent his early career at the Dallas Morning News and the Boston Globe. Thanks for being here. Rick Klein My pleasure. Michael O'Connell, Producer, It’s All Journalism And you just came from ABC, you were doing a show. Rick Klein Yeah, we just did This Week roundtable, actually my maiden appearance on that roundtable, so that was fun. Megan Cloherty What was the topic of conversation? Rick Klein A little bit about the Obama health care law and the ramifications of that delay. Big story this week. Immigration, which of course, is consuming Washington for much of the summer. And then just wrapping President Obama's trip to Africa and the unique joint appearance with President Bush over in Tanzania. Megan Cloherty So lets start with -- and we're going to back track big time here -- how your career got started.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom of Information Act Activity for the Weeks of December 29, 2016-January 4, 2017 Privacy Office January 10, 2017 Weekly Freedom of Information Act Report
    Freedom of Information Act Activity for the Weeks of December 29, 2016-January 4, 2017 Privacy Office January 10, 2017 Weekly Freedom of Information Act Report I. Efficiency and Transparency—Steps taken to increase transparency and make forms and processes used by the general public more user-friendly, particularly web- based and Freedom of Information Act related items: • NSTR II. On Freedom of Information Act Requests • On December 30, 2016, Bradley Moss, a representative with the James Madison Project in Washington D.C, requested from Department of Homeland Security (DI-IS) Secret Service records, including cross-references, memorializing written communications — including USSS documentation summarizing verbal communications —between USSS and the transition campaign staff, corporate staff, or private staff of President-Elect Donald J. Trump. (Case Number HQ 2017-HQF0-00202.) • On December 30, 2016, Justin McCarthy, a representative with Judicial Watch in Washington, D.C., requested from United States Secret Service (USSS) records concerning the use of U.S. Government funds to provide security for President Obama's November 2016 trip to Florida. (Case Number USSS 20170407.) • On January 3,2017, Justin McCarthy, a representative with Judicial Watch in Washington, DE, requested from United States Secret Service (USSS) records concerning, regarding, or relating to security expenses for President Barack °ham's residence in Chicago, Illinois from January 20, 2009 to January 3,2017. (Case Number USSS 20170417.) • On January 3,2017, Justin McCarthy, a representative with Judicial Watch in Washington, D.C., requested from United States Secret Service (USSS) records concerning, regarding. or relating to security expenses for President-Elect Donald Trump and Trump Tower in New York, New York from November 9,2016 to January 3,2017.
    [Show full text]
  • FAKE NEWS!”: President Trump’S Campaign Against the Media on @Realdonaldtrump and Reactions to It on Twitter
    “FAKE NEWS!”: President Trump’s Campaign Against the Media on @realdonaldtrump and Reactions To It on Twitter A PEORIA Project White Paper Michael Cornfield GWU Graduate School of Political Management [email protected] April 10, 2019 This report was made possible by a generous grant from William Madway. SUMMARY: This white paper examines President Trump’s campaign to fan distrust of the news media (Fox News excepted) through his tweeting of the phrase “Fake News (Media).” The report identifies and illustrates eight delegitimation techniques found in the twenty-five most retweeted Trump tweets containing that phrase between January 1, 2017 and August 31, 2018. The report also looks at direct responses and public reactions to those tweets, as found respectively on the comment thread at @realdonaldtrump and in random samples (N = 2500) of US computer-based tweets containing the term on the days in that time period of his most retweeted “Fake News” tweets. Along with the high percentage of retweets built into this search, the sample exhibits techniques and patterns of response which are identified and illustrated. The main findings: ● The term “fake news” emerged in public usage in October 2016 to describe hoaxes, rumors, and false alarms, primarily in connection with the Trump-Clinton presidential contest and its electoral result. ● President-elect Trump adopted the term, intensified it into “Fake News,” and directed it at “Fake News Media” starting in December 2016-January 2017. 1 ● Subsequently, the term has been used on Twitter largely in relation to Trump tweets that deploy it. In other words, “Fake News” rarely appears on Twitter referring to something other than what Trump is tweeting about.
    [Show full text]
  • Roman Popadiuk
    White House Interview Program DATE: November 2, 1999 INTERVIEWEE: ROMAN POPADIUK INTERVIEWER: Martha Kumar [Disc 1 of 1] MK: It’s on the record except where you want to go on background or off the record. Ultimately, it will end up in the library. RP: This library? MK: Yes. You get a choice of what library it goes into so I’m assuming it will be in this library. The project is trying to develop an institutional memory for seven White House offices, and Press [Office] is one of them. It’s a group of presidency scholars that are working on the project. George Edwards is one of them. We will come out in March or April with a group of standards of a successful start, which are some elements that are common to successful transitions. Then the offices’ material will be made available; some of it will probably be made available at the time the transition teams are put together. The full text of interviews will not be released until after a new president comes in. RP: Okay. Sounds good. MK: Starting off, can you talk about how you got into the White House, and how long you were? Let’s start with that, and how you got in. RP: How I actually got in to the White House? MK: Yes. RP: Well, it was back in February of 1985, but I didn’t start in the Press Office. I’ll give you a long story here. Prior to that I was in the operations [center] over at the State Department, one of the watch officers/editors I guess we were called, if I recall correctly.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
    THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC. and ABILIO JAMES ACOSTA, Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official capacity as Chief of Staff to the President of the United States; WILLIAM SHINE, in his official capacity as Deputy Chief of Staff to the Case No. President of the United States; SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, in her official capacity as Press Secretary to the President of the United States; the UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; RANDOLPH D. ALLES, in his official capacity as Director of the United States Secret Service; and JOHN DOE, Secret Service Agent, Defendants. DECLARATION OF THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I, THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR., hereby declare under penalty of perjury the following: 1. My name is Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. I am a partner with the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and a member of the bar of this Court. I represent Plaintiffs Cable News Network, Inc. (“CNN”) and Abilio James Acosta (“Jim Acosta”) in the above-captioned action. By virtue of my direct involvement in this matter, I have personal knowledge of the content of this declaration, and I could and would competently testify to the truth of the matters stated herein. 2. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of an article by Brian Stelter of CNN entitled “Donald Trump: I won’t kick reporters out of White House press briefing room,” dated June 14, 2016, available at https://money.cnn.com/2016/06/14/media/donald-trump-press- credentials-access/index.html.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC. and ABILIO JAMES ACOSTA, Plaintiffs, V
    Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 6-1 Filed 11/13/18 Page 1 of 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC. and ABILIO JAMES ACOSTA, Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; JOHN F. KELLY, in his official capacity as Chief of Staff to the President of the United States; WILLIAM SHINE, in his official capacity as Deputy Chief Case No. 1:18-cv-02610-TJK of Staff to the President of the United States; SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, in her official capacity as Press Secretary to the President of the United States; the UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; RANDOLPH ALLES, in his official capacity as Director of the United States Secret Service; and JOHN DOE, Secret Service Agent, in his official capacity, Defendants. BRIEF OF THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case 1:18-cv-02610-TJK Document 6-1 Filed 11/13/18 Page 2 of 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Video Tapes Boxes 116 - 134
    Box Item Location Sub-series Description Video Tapes Series 13: Video Tapes Boxes 116 - 134 116 1 01-8-26- Senate Democratic Leadership Council Conference, Cleveland 08-06-0-1 - April 1981 - VHS. 2 KNBC-TV, Los Angeles - interview of John Glenn during his 1984 presidential campaign - November 27, 1983 - VHS. 3 John Glenn speech given at The Ohio State University during his 1984 presidential campaign - November 30, 1983 - VHS. 4 John Glenn speech on nuclear arms control at The Ohio State University during his 1984 presidential campaign - December 1983 - VHS. 5 "Believe in the Future Again" - 1984 presidential campaign video - circa 1983-1984 - VHS. 6 "Believe in the Future Again" - 1984 presidential campaign - circa 1983-1984 - VHS (copy 2). 7 "International Dateline" - panel discussions on U.S./Israeli relations with Senators John Glenn, Robert Dole, and Christopher Dodd, sponsored by the United Jewish Appeal - May 12 & 19, 1985 - VHS. 8 Statements by Senators Howard Metzenbaum and John Glenn taped for a Cable in the Classroom Workshop, sponsored by Cox Cable Systems - circa 1985 - VHS. 9 John Glenn’s taped statement to the National Technological University graduation ceremony - Cambridge, Ohio - November 19, 1986 – VHS 10 Give Kids the World Foundation promotional video narrated by Walter Cronkite, produced by Disney- MGM Studios - circa 1986 - VHS. 11 Public service announcement, International Aerospace Hall of Fame - June 12, 1987 -VHS. 12 Floor statement on the Persian Gulf - June 17, 1987; Democratic debate on "Firing Line" - July 1, 1987; and Trade Bill hearing - July 14, 1987 - VHS. 13 John Glenn’s floor statement on the Republican Campaign Committee’s strategy of portraying Howard Metzenbaum as a communist sympathizer - July 29, 1987 - VHS.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Brian Karem
    STATEMENT OF BRIAN KAREM I write to provide you with background about myself and to tell you my side of the story regarding what happened at the Social Media Summit on July 11, 2019. I have been a political reporter for almost 40 years. I have also covered crime and wars, and I have run community newspapers. I’ve been jailed, shot at, beaten, and threatened. I am currently Playboy’s senior White House correspondent and a political analyst for CNN. I am president of the Maryland, Delaware, and District of Columbia Press Association. In 1990, I was jailed for contempt of court after refusing to disclose the name of confidential sources who helped me arrange a telephone interview with a jailed murder suspect, after which I was awarded the National Press Club’s Freedom of the Press award. I went on to work as executive editor of The Sentinel Newspapers in Maryland and as producer and television correspondent for America’s Most Wanted. I have also authored seven books. I have covered six White Houses. While I have held my current hard pass since last year, in the past I also held hard passes. My experience in the White House is important because I can tell you, point blank, that the behavior of the press corps today is tame by comparison. The first time I walked into the White House I was 25. It was 1986 and Ronald Reagan was president. The first person I met was Helen Thomas, who covered the White House under ten Presidents, and who, as it turns out, knew my great grandfather from Lebanon.
    [Show full text]