Sept. 24, 2026
Judge Orders Trump To Restore Press Passes To CNN, MSNOW & Politico
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed A federal judge has granted journalists a temporary restraining order forcing the White House to restore press credentials to CNN, MSNOW and Politico. The order requires the White House to “immediately return, reinstate, and restore” the credentials, after the judge rejected the DOJ’s argument that the ban was motivated by “national security concerns.” As Trump continues his all out war against reporting he doesn’t like, we end this episode with a very important reminder of the importance of a free press by a former President.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Thursday, September 24th. CNN, MSNOW, Politico, welcome back. Good to have you. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ, an episode that we could have recorded what? About a week ago, immediately after he kicked them out, we could have hopped on and recorded one that says a judge had Stop the ban. And that's exactly what's happened.
00:00:27
Speaker 3: Exactly.
00:00:28
Speaker 1: The media ban imposed by President Trump has been lifted by a federal judge.
00:00:35
Speaker 3: And that judge had a lot to say.
00:00:37
Speaker 1: We enjoyed what he had to say because he made it pretty clear what he thinks of the Department of Justice and the White House's reasoning behind revoking the credentials of said journalists.
00:00:49
Speaker 2: We read through it. It wasn't that long, what, eight, nine pages of his ruling robes. Did you see anything in there that kind of was a little bit of a... a win for the president where the judge said, okay, I see your point here.
00:01:01
Speaker 1: No.
00:01:02
Speaker 2: Not one.
00:01:02
Speaker 3: I didn't say anything, right? In fact, he kind of said, are you kidding me?
00:01:05
Speaker 1: Yeah. Like, you're actually going to try to invoke national security concerns?
00:01:11
Speaker 3: I ain't buying that. And by the way, nobody else is either.
00:01:14
Speaker 2: Yeah, this was a constitutional smackdown that we all knew was kind of coming, but they did try to make an argument. And I say they tried to make an argument, Robes. They went into court yesterday and went back and forth. They went at it. Lawyers for the media, lawyers for the Justice Department who went in there and justified this. They went in there. and said, yep, damn sure, yep, this is a privilege, not a right to come into the White House. They actually stood by this in their arguments.
00:01:37
Speaker 3: I have a question, though.
00:01:38
Speaker 1: Human to human, do you believe that these lawyers who are trained in the Constitution actually believed what they were saying? Or were they just doing what their boss told them to do for fear of losing their jobs if they didn't?
00:01:55
Speaker 2: You know what? I think this a lot of times we cover criminal cases, and I'm thinking... does the defense attorney actually believe what he's saying? Does he actually believe his client is innocent? Robes, they're doing the bidding. President says, go do this. And that's it. Jeanine Pirro, another good example with the reflecting pool. Every bit of evidence on planet earth told us that nobody was out there with a knife cutting it up. And what did she do? Brought charges.
00:02:19
Speaker 3: Yeah.
00:02:20
Speaker 1: But then when she actually tried to get said evidence of said knifing and tourist and i don't know who all was there deliberately damaging the pool when she couldn't find any evidence she had to publicly come out and say whoops uh we were wrong but.
00:02:37
Speaker 2: Up until that moment when they didn't have any other choice they yes they go out there and do this guy's bidding no matter what so sure enough they went in the court yesterday they had this out and made the arguments the judge didn't rule immediately after uh hearing the arguments but did issue a very late night ruling last night we'll get into some of those arguments but first robes a reminder here it was september 18th remind folks of the president's original post when this got all this started.
00:03:03
Speaker 1: You just gotta love his wording here too i am proud to announce that effective immediately i am banning fake news cnn ms now and politico from the white house as a result of their constant and he put reporting in air quotes or in quotes sorry in my mind he was doing air quotes.
00:03:22
Speaker 3: But quotes of reporting, fake news.
00:03:25
Speaker 1: 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. Other fake news media outlets to follow. So yes, he ended with a threat to other journalists.
00:03:43
Speaker 2: We never got that far, but as folks know at this point, CNN was supposed to serve as the pool camera while the president was in New York this week. He kicked them out. So is another pool camera going to come? The other network stood in solidarity with CNN and said, we're not going to replace them as pool coverage until you lift the ban. And so sure enough, the president, as this moment wrote, still does not have a pool camera, even though the ban has been lifted. Have you seen anywhere? And we have seen some reporting that some that we see it up on CNN now that some of their staff still not able to get into the White House. We don't know when he might have a pool camera. I haven't seen you seen anything. No.
00:04:20
Speaker 1: In fact, yes, CNN is reporting right now that their staff is unable to gain access to.
00:04:25
Speaker 3: The White House.
00:04:26
Speaker 1: That is an absolute defiance of this judge's ruling.
00:04:30
Speaker 2: I'm sure the computer system is still getting caught up, you know, getting their names back in.
00:04:34
Speaker 1: The judge ordered access to be immediately restored.
00:04:40
Speaker 2: I mean, what does immediately really mean?
00:04:42
Speaker 3: Right now.
00:04:43
Speaker 2: OK, well, the president followed that up. Yes, he already preemptively he put out another statement saying that he was already going to appeal this even before this judge ruled this. So he knew he likely was not going to win. But to get into what the judge did get into here, Robes, he actually said that the plaintiffs, the networks like you all actually have a difficult case to prove. And you proved it.
00:05:06
Speaker 3: Yeah. Actually, that was pretty interesting.
00:05:09
Speaker 1: He called it a high bar, right, to obtain a temporary restraining order.
00:05:13
Speaker 2: Think about that.
00:05:15
Speaker 3: These news outlets are asking for a temporary restraining order on the White House.
00:05:21
Speaker 1: I mean, I can't remember a time where legal action like this has ever been taken.
00:05:29
Speaker 2: Well, we need legal relief. We need actual relief from what the White House is doing to us. on constitutional grounds.
00:05:38
Speaker 1: I actually feel like this is precedent setting and hopefully it won't be required again, but this is what the judge said. To obtain a temporary restraining order, a plaintiff must show that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence.
00:05:55
Speaker 3: Of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities.
00:05:59
Speaker 1: Tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. This is a high bar, but plaintiffs have met it.
00:06:08
Speaker 2: There was a lot of plain speak in this thing. He talked about how this is precedent setting. It was Jim Acosta. They took his once before. This same judge was the one who reinstated Jim Acosta's all those years ago. But he said this is precedent setting and that the interest of a bona fide Washington correspondent in obtaining a White House press pass undoubtedly qualifies as a liberty and interest, which may not be denied without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Now, the judge says, yes, if you want to make an argument for kicking them out, that's fine. But the standard is you have to give them reasons. You have to give them notice. You have to give them a heads up and you have to give them due process. You can't just take it you get them to make an argument for why you shouldn't. They didn't get due process.
00:06:51
Speaker 3: Correct.
00:06:51
Speaker 1: And so, yes, the judge on due process said plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that their hard passes were revoked without constitutionally adequate due process. The general rule is that individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the government deprives them of a constitutionally protected interest. Yes, the reporter must receive fair notice, not only of the conduct that would subject him to punishment, but also of the magnitude of this sanction that the White House might impose. Defendants do not dispute that plaintiffs did not receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before their hard passes were revoked.
00:07:33
Speaker 3: Yes, that's just true. That's a fact.
00:07:36
Speaker 2: Robes, he put out a statement via social media and the folks were kicked out immediately. That was the heads up they got. The president just put out a social media post.
00:07:45
Speaker 3: You're banned.
00:07:46
Speaker 2: That's how they found out. Now, this next part here, Robes, I love when judges use plain speak. And this is a very good one. So we were asking, well, what did they do? He didn't like the reporting, but then they started adding other stuff, including Robes, that they just, you all are unprofessional.
00:08:15
Speaker 3: Yeah. And I do like how the judge reacted to that.
00:08:20
Speaker 1: One standard defendants appear to offer is so vague, it hardly does the trick. For example, your organization has exhibited behavior in violation of the standards of professionalism and decorum of expected of those given access to the white house complex i also find that funny when you've got the white house accusing journalists of lacking professionalism and decorum when you have a president who name calls belittles and humiliates and eviscerates specifically female journalists in front of the world But he is going to be the pot calling the kettle black?
00:09:02
Speaker 2: Bro, that's a bizarre. Yes, to your point. That has to be the first thing. And I go right back to calling that woman piggy. He just called Caitlin Collins a sleazebag. The things he says to folks from the Oval Office, from Air Force One, from the White House grounds, anywhere he wants to. Now, he's the president. Does he not have to have the same level of professionalism? Fine. But a suggestion that they are not meeting standards of professionalism.
00:09:28
Speaker 3: I have been impressed with their restraint.
00:09:30
Speaker 2: That's a very good call.
00:09:32
Speaker 1: With their ability to continue to ask the questions that they need to ask without reacting emotionally to being absolutely humiliated and verbally attacked by our president.
00:09:46
Speaker 2: Every one of them. Rachel Scott did this recently at ABC when he was attacking her on the tarmac. But then Caitlin Collins wrote at the UN. He's walking past this press gaggle. In the U.N., and of course she could be in there because of the U.N., And he yelled, you shouldn't be here. Thought you weren't going to cover. The U.N. let us in, sir, and went right to her next question. Didn't take him on, didn't anything. And just moved on.
00:10:09
Speaker 1: That's as professional as they come. I have not seen one reporter take the bait. Robes!
00:10:14
Speaker 2: That's professionalism. You are insulted by someone and you keep doing your job.
00:10:20
Speaker 1: They are, to me, examples of incredible professionalism in the face of someone who is the most unprofessional and has the least amount of decorum I have ever seen exhibited by a president or any politician, to be honest.
00:10:38
Speaker 2: Wow, that last part I had to think about, and I think that's fair. I think you're right. This other part we have to get to, and this was, he spent a significant amount of time on this, this idea, Robes, the president wants to make the argument that it's not just a matter of their decorum and their professionalism, and even the stories I don't like, that this is a matter of national security. The judge took some time with this one.
00:10:59
Speaker 3: Yes, and I do appreciate this.
00:11:02
Speaker 1: The judge wrote, indeed, some of the reporting identified by defendants in the letters to plaintiffs stretches back months or years. The sorts of stories defendants identify in the letters to plaintiffs are routine.
00:11:14
Speaker 3: I like this line.
00:11:15
Speaker 1: The court is skeptical, at least on this record, that defendants' interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation for the revocation of plaintiffs' hard passes.
00:11:27
Speaker 2: That's as close as I've heard a judge say, I call bullshit.
00:11:31
Speaker 3: And that's exactly what he's doing.
00:11:33
Speaker 1: Come on.
00:11:33
Speaker 3: Are you serious?
00:11:34
Speaker 1: You're claiming national security concerns because you don't like the reporting? He said, still on this record, defendants offer little to back up their asserted national security interests to justify revocation of plaintiff's hard passes. Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was banning plaintiffs from the White House. Instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of plaintiffs reporting.
00:12:03
Speaker 3: I love that. He used his own true social post against him.
00:12:06
Speaker 1: Boom.
00:12:07
Speaker 2: Your announcement said nothing of this, so now you want to add this stuff later? Robes, the judge is on social media.
00:12:14
Speaker 1: Yes, I mean, and it's right there for everyone to see. So the judge went on to say, or that national security will be endangered if the court orders their passes reinstated while this litigation proceeds. Defendants offer no declarations or other support, classified or unclassified, explaining how any of the reporting they identified in their letters to the plaintiffs damaged the national security.
00:12:49
Speaker 3: The declarations they do provide.
00:12:51
Speaker 1: Include general background about classified information, but the declarants are senior officials in the Department of Defense who have no direct knowledge of how reporters operate in the White House or about any of the facts at issue here.
00:13:06
Speaker 2: There's nothing to see here.
00:13:07
Speaker 3: You got nothing.
00:13:08
Speaker 2: They say even some of the things I identify that are problems go back months and years. So if it was a national security problem, what are we talking about here? We knew this was coming. Some of this reading is a little better than I thought it would be and a little more fun. I thought it was going to be very boring. So I appreciate this judge. But stay here. We're going to play something for you that's been making the rounds over the last couple of days. It is President Obama. at his final press conference before he left the White House. You will hear his message to the reporters that he was saying goodbye to, and, well, it might bring a tear to your eye. All right, we continue here on Amy and TJ, CNN, Politico, and MS Now. Still knock, knock, knocking on the door, waiting to be let in to the White House after the judge lifted the ban.
00:14:02
Speaker 1: It'll be curious to see how this goes, because the judge, what time did.
00:14:05
Speaker 3: His order come down? It was late last night. So maybe, maybe.
00:14:12
Speaker 1: The folks there in charge of letting journalists through, they were asleep, and then they didn't see the news this morning, so they haven't been made aware that, yeah, the judge's order is effective immediately. Journalists from CNN, MSNOW, and Politico are supposed to now be granted access into the White House. However, at least as of this recording, CNN says their folks ain't getting it.
00:14:37
Speaker 2: Rob, I just thought about this as you were saying it, and I wouldn't be surprised. What if they say they have to all go through the background checks again? What if they say, well, we have to do this to reinstate you? And that takes time. You know, just to be jerks about it.
00:14:53
Speaker 1: I wonder, though, if that will hold muster, though, with a judge.
00:14:56
Speaker 2: The judge would get involved again.
00:14:56
Speaker 1: Because obviously these folks are longtime White House correspondents and crew who have been granted access for months, even years, with their passes.
00:15:06
Speaker 2: Think TARP at the Kennedy Center. It's still up.
00:15:10
Speaker 1: They find ways to get around orders, judges' orders specifically.
00:15:15
Speaker 2: But listen, I don't know if I played this whole, I think I did play it for you yesterday. It's incredible.
00:15:20
Speaker 1: You know what?
00:15:20
Speaker 2: Simple as that. Listen to President Obama on his last day in which he was doing a press conference with members of the media who had been covering him at that point for eight years. But listen to the message he had for them.
00:15:37
Speaker 4: But I have enjoyed working with all of you. That does not, of course, mean that I've enjoyed every story that you have filed, but that's the point of this relationship. You're not supposed to be sycophants. You're supposed to be skeptics. You're supposed to ask me tough questions. You're not supposed to be complimentary, but you're supposed to cast a critical eye on folks who hold enormous power and make sure that we are accountable to the people who sent us here. And you have done that. And you've done it, for the most part, in ways that I could appreciate for fairness, even if I didn't always agree with your conclusions. And having you in this building has made this place work better. It keeps us honest. It makes us work harder. You have made us think about how we are doing what we do, and whether or not we're able to deliver on what's been requested by our constituents.
00:16:47
Speaker 2: Rose, I was kind of joking when I said it might bring a tear to your eye. It did.
00:16:51
Speaker 3: It did to me, too.
00:16:52
Speaker 1: Babe, I was just going to say the thing. I actually felt emotional. Look, we love what we do. We love, and journalism is the cornerstone, the foundation.
00:17:03
Speaker 3: For democracy.
00:17:04
Speaker 1: And it seems, not it seems, we have been called fake news for so many years now, and we have been discredited. We've been accused of all sorts of atrocities.
00:17:20
Speaker 3: And to hear.
00:17:21
Speaker 1: President Obama recognize the value of the press, whether you like what's being reported or not, yes, it made me emotional.
00:17:31
Speaker 2: Um, it's just a reminder of that's the, I mean, how things should work. I know if you're a huge Trump supporter and that's fine. Maybe you see this and have no problem with it. I don't know how. It's just, this is not how our democracy works. It is not robes. Even if you don't like the coverage, that's the point. Even if you don't like it, you have a right to be there. You have to accept it. You have to take those hits at president because they're coming constantly. Just whoever plucked that and found that and posted that yesterday, I was like, Damn. So this isn't about politics and left and right and Democrat and Republican. George Bush got it. The first George Bush got it. Clinton got it. Bill Clinton got it. Everybody, you get that thing. And just, we miss having, I just wrote, we're so far removed from a president who speaks in that way.
00:18:17
Speaker 1: And you, unfortunately, you get desensitized to how outrageous it is, what he says, what he does, how he treats journalists. I remember years ago going to the Society of the Protection of Journalists.
00:18:32
Speaker 3: It was a big dinner they were having.
00:18:34
Speaker 1: Have you been to any of them where you hear about, and journalists from around the world come together and they're honored, many of whom are being honored posthumously because they've been killed by governments, think Mexico, think Russia, for reporting on atrocities that are happening within the government, maybe with cartels, et cetera, and that journalists die every day trying to make sure the truth comes out. And I remember saying, I don't want to ever take for granted the fact that I can say the most awful thing, even about the President of the United States, and I can sleep safely and soundly in my bed knowing that I'm protected as a journalist.
00:19:11
Speaker 3: And it just feels like, it doesn't.
00:19:14
Speaker 1: Feel like our integrity, credibility, and maybe even our safety has all been put at risk because of somebody who is acting like The free press is an enemy instead of the foundation of a democracy.
00:19:32
Speaker 2: And he's acting on it, Roe. He's not just saying it. He's acting on it. Folks, just wanted to give you that update. There will be some updates about this today. We'll keep an eye on it. But as always, we appreciate you spending a little time with us. I'm TJ. On behalf of my dear Amy Robach, we'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Thursday, September 24th. CNN, MSNOW, Politico, welcome back. Good to have you. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ, an episode that we could have recorded what? About a week ago, immediately after he kicked them out, we could have hopped on and recorded one that says a judge had Stop the ban. And that's exactly what's happened.
00:00:27
Speaker 3: Exactly.
00:00:28
Speaker 1: The media ban imposed by President Trump has been lifted by a federal judge.
00:00:35
Speaker 3: And that judge had a lot to say.
00:00:37
Speaker 1: We enjoyed what he had to say because he made it pretty clear what he thinks of the Department of Justice and the White House's reasoning behind revoking the credentials of said journalists.
00:00:49
Speaker 2: We read through it. It wasn't that long, what, eight, nine pages of his ruling robes. Did you see anything in there that kind of was a little bit of a... a win for the president where the judge said, okay, I see your point here.
00:01:01
Speaker 1: No.
00:01:02
Speaker 2: Not one.
00:01:02
Speaker 3: I didn't say anything, right? In fact, he kind of said, are you kidding me?
00:01:05
Speaker 1: Yeah. Like, you're actually going to try to invoke national security concerns?
00:01:11
Speaker 3: I ain't buying that. And by the way, nobody else is either.
00:01:14
Speaker 2: Yeah, this was a constitutional smackdown that we all knew was kind of coming, but they did try to make an argument. And I say they tried to make an argument, Robes. They went into court yesterday and went back and forth. They went at it. Lawyers for the media, lawyers for the Justice Department who went in there and justified this. They went in there. and said, yep, damn sure, yep, this is a privilege, not a right to come into the White House. They actually stood by this in their arguments.
00:01:37
Speaker 3: I have a question, though.
00:01:38
Speaker 1: Human to human, do you believe that these lawyers who are trained in the Constitution actually believed what they were saying? Or were they just doing what their boss told them to do for fear of losing their jobs if they didn't?
00:01:55
Speaker 2: You know what? I think this a lot of times we cover criminal cases, and I'm thinking... does the defense attorney actually believe what he's saying? Does he actually believe his client is innocent? Robes, they're doing the bidding. President says, go do this. And that's it. Jeanine Pirro, another good example with the reflecting pool. Every bit of evidence on planet earth told us that nobody was out there with a knife cutting it up. And what did she do? Brought charges.
00:02:19
Speaker 3: Yeah.
00:02:20
Speaker 1: But then when she actually tried to get said evidence of said knifing and tourist and i don't know who all was there deliberately damaging the pool when she couldn't find any evidence she had to publicly come out and say whoops uh we were wrong but.
00:02:37
Speaker 2: Up until that moment when they didn't have any other choice they yes they go out there and do this guy's bidding no matter what so sure enough they went in the court yesterday they had this out and made the arguments the judge didn't rule immediately after uh hearing the arguments but did issue a very late night ruling last night we'll get into some of those arguments but first robes a reminder here it was september 18th remind folks of the president's original post when this got all this started.
00:03:03
Speaker 1: You just gotta love his wording here too i am proud to announce that effective immediately i am banning fake news cnn ms now and politico from the white house as a result of their constant and he put reporting in air quotes or in quotes sorry in my mind he was doing air quotes.
00:03:22
Speaker 3: But quotes of reporting, fake news.
00:03:25
Speaker 1: 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. Other fake news media outlets to follow. So yes, he ended with a threat to other journalists.
00:03:43
Speaker 2: We never got that far, but as folks know at this point, CNN was supposed to serve as the pool camera while the president was in New York this week. He kicked them out. So is another pool camera going to come? The other network stood in solidarity with CNN and said, we're not going to replace them as pool coverage until you lift the ban. And so sure enough, the president, as this moment wrote, still does not have a pool camera, even though the ban has been lifted. Have you seen anywhere? And we have seen some reporting that some that we see it up on CNN now that some of their staff still not able to get into the White House. We don't know when he might have a pool camera. I haven't seen you seen anything. No.
00:04:20
Speaker 1: In fact, yes, CNN is reporting right now that their staff is unable to gain access to.
00:04:25
Speaker 3: The White House.
00:04:26
Speaker 1: That is an absolute defiance of this judge's ruling.
00:04:30
Speaker 2: I'm sure the computer system is still getting caught up, you know, getting their names back in.
00:04:34
Speaker 1: The judge ordered access to be immediately restored.
00:04:40
Speaker 2: I mean, what does immediately really mean?
00:04:42
Speaker 3: Right now.
00:04:43
Speaker 2: OK, well, the president followed that up. Yes, he already preemptively he put out another statement saying that he was already going to appeal this even before this judge ruled this. So he knew he likely was not going to win. But to get into what the judge did get into here, Robes, he actually said that the plaintiffs, the networks like you all actually have a difficult case to prove. And you proved it.
00:05:06
Speaker 3: Yeah. Actually, that was pretty interesting.
00:05:09
Speaker 1: He called it a high bar, right, to obtain a temporary restraining order.
00:05:13
Speaker 2: Think about that.
00:05:15
Speaker 3: These news outlets are asking for a temporary restraining order on the White House.
00:05:21
Speaker 1: I mean, I can't remember a time where legal action like this has ever been taken.
00:05:29
Speaker 2: Well, we need legal relief. We need actual relief from what the White House is doing to us. on constitutional grounds.
00:05:38
Speaker 1: I actually feel like this is precedent setting and hopefully it won't be required again, but this is what the judge said. To obtain a temporary restraining order, a plaintiff must show that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence.
00:05:55
Speaker 3: Of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities.
00:05:59
Speaker 1: Tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. This is a high bar, but plaintiffs have met it.
00:06:08
Speaker 2: There was a lot of plain speak in this thing. He talked about how this is precedent setting. It was Jim Acosta. They took his once before. This same judge was the one who reinstated Jim Acosta's all those years ago. But he said this is precedent setting and that the interest of a bona fide Washington correspondent in obtaining a White House press pass undoubtedly qualifies as a liberty and interest, which may not be denied without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Now, the judge says, yes, if you want to make an argument for kicking them out, that's fine. But the standard is you have to give them reasons. You have to give them notice. You have to give them a heads up and you have to give them due process. You can't just take it you get them to make an argument for why you shouldn't. They didn't get due process.
00:06:51
Speaker 3: Correct.
00:06:51
Speaker 1: And so, yes, the judge on due process said plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that their hard passes were revoked without constitutionally adequate due process. The general rule is that individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the government deprives them of a constitutionally protected interest. Yes, the reporter must receive fair notice, not only of the conduct that would subject him to punishment, but also of the magnitude of this sanction that the White House might impose. Defendants do not dispute that plaintiffs did not receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before their hard passes were revoked.
00:07:33
Speaker 3: Yes, that's just true. That's a fact.
00:07:36
Speaker 2: Robes, he put out a statement via social media and the folks were kicked out immediately. That was the heads up they got. The president just put out a social media post.
00:07:45
Speaker 3: You're banned.
00:07:46
Speaker 2: That's how they found out. Now, this next part here, Robes, I love when judges use plain speak. And this is a very good one. So we were asking, well, what did they do? He didn't like the reporting, but then they started adding other stuff, including Robes, that they just, you all are unprofessional.
00:08:15
Speaker 3: Yeah. And I do like how the judge reacted to that.
00:08:20
Speaker 1: One standard defendants appear to offer is so vague, it hardly does the trick. For example, your organization has exhibited behavior in violation of the standards of professionalism and decorum of expected of those given access to the white house complex i also find that funny when you've got the white house accusing journalists of lacking professionalism and decorum when you have a president who name calls belittles and humiliates and eviscerates specifically female journalists in front of the world But he is going to be the pot calling the kettle black?
00:09:02
Speaker 2: Bro, that's a bizarre. Yes, to your point. That has to be the first thing. And I go right back to calling that woman piggy. He just called Caitlin Collins a sleazebag. The things he says to folks from the Oval Office, from Air Force One, from the White House grounds, anywhere he wants to. Now, he's the president. Does he not have to have the same level of professionalism? Fine. But a suggestion that they are not meeting standards of professionalism.
00:09:28
Speaker 3: I have been impressed with their restraint.
00:09:30
Speaker 2: That's a very good call.
00:09:32
Speaker 1: With their ability to continue to ask the questions that they need to ask without reacting emotionally to being absolutely humiliated and verbally attacked by our president.
00:09:46
Speaker 2: Every one of them. Rachel Scott did this recently at ABC when he was attacking her on the tarmac. But then Caitlin Collins wrote at the UN. He's walking past this press gaggle. In the U.N., and of course she could be in there because of the U.N., And he yelled, you shouldn't be here. Thought you weren't going to cover. The U.N. let us in, sir, and went right to her next question. Didn't take him on, didn't anything. And just moved on.
00:10:09
Speaker 1: That's as professional as they come. I have not seen one reporter take the bait. Robes!
00:10:14
Speaker 2: That's professionalism. You are insulted by someone and you keep doing your job.
00:10:20
Speaker 1: They are, to me, examples of incredible professionalism in the face of someone who is the most unprofessional and has the least amount of decorum I have ever seen exhibited by a president or any politician, to be honest.
00:10:38
Speaker 2: Wow, that last part I had to think about, and I think that's fair. I think you're right. This other part we have to get to, and this was, he spent a significant amount of time on this, this idea, Robes, the president wants to make the argument that it's not just a matter of their decorum and their professionalism, and even the stories I don't like, that this is a matter of national security. The judge took some time with this one.
00:10:59
Speaker 3: Yes, and I do appreciate this.
00:11:02
Speaker 1: The judge wrote, indeed, some of the reporting identified by defendants in the letters to plaintiffs stretches back months or years. The sorts of stories defendants identify in the letters to plaintiffs are routine.
00:11:14
Speaker 3: I like this line.
00:11:15
Speaker 1: The court is skeptical, at least on this record, that defendants' interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation for the revocation of plaintiffs' hard passes.
00:11:27
Speaker 2: That's as close as I've heard a judge say, I call bullshit.
00:11:31
Speaker 3: And that's exactly what he's doing.
00:11:33
Speaker 1: Come on.
00:11:33
Speaker 3: Are you serious?
00:11:34
Speaker 1: You're claiming national security concerns because you don't like the reporting? He said, still on this record, defendants offer little to back up their asserted national security interests to justify revocation of plaintiff's hard passes. Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was banning plaintiffs from the White House. Instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of plaintiffs reporting.
00:12:03
Speaker 3: I love that. He used his own true social post against him.
00:12:06
Speaker 1: Boom.
00:12:07
Speaker 2: Your announcement said nothing of this, so now you want to add this stuff later? Robes, the judge is on social media.
00:12:14
Speaker 1: Yes, I mean, and it's right there for everyone to see. So the judge went on to say, or that national security will be endangered if the court orders their passes reinstated while this litigation proceeds. Defendants offer no declarations or other support, classified or unclassified, explaining how any of the reporting they identified in their letters to the plaintiffs damaged the national security.
00:12:49
Speaker 3: The declarations they do provide.
00:12:51
Speaker 1: Include general background about classified information, but the declarants are senior officials in the Department of Defense who have no direct knowledge of how reporters operate in the White House or about any of the facts at issue here.
00:13:06
Speaker 2: There's nothing to see here.
00:13:07
Speaker 3: You got nothing.
00:13:08
Speaker 2: They say even some of the things I identify that are problems go back months and years. So if it was a national security problem, what are we talking about here? We knew this was coming. Some of this reading is a little better than I thought it would be and a little more fun. I thought it was going to be very boring. So I appreciate this judge. But stay here. We're going to play something for you that's been making the rounds over the last couple of days. It is President Obama. at his final press conference before he left the White House. You will hear his message to the reporters that he was saying goodbye to, and, well, it might bring a tear to your eye. All right, we continue here on Amy and TJ, CNN, Politico, and MS Now. Still knock, knock, knocking on the door, waiting to be let in to the White House after the judge lifted the ban.
00:14:02
Speaker 1: It'll be curious to see how this goes, because the judge, what time did.
00:14:05
Speaker 3: His order come down? It was late last night. So maybe, maybe.
00:14:12
Speaker 1: The folks there in charge of letting journalists through, they were asleep, and then they didn't see the news this morning, so they haven't been made aware that, yeah, the judge's order is effective immediately. Journalists from CNN, MSNOW, and Politico are supposed to now be granted access into the White House. However, at least as of this recording, CNN says their folks ain't getting it.
00:14:37
Speaker 2: Rob, I just thought about this as you were saying it, and I wouldn't be surprised. What if they say they have to all go through the background checks again? What if they say, well, we have to do this to reinstate you? And that takes time. You know, just to be jerks about it.
00:14:53
Speaker 1: I wonder, though, if that will hold muster, though, with a judge.
00:14:56
Speaker 2: The judge would get involved again.
00:14:56
Speaker 1: Because obviously these folks are longtime White House correspondents and crew who have been granted access for months, even years, with their passes.
00:15:06
Speaker 2: Think TARP at the Kennedy Center. It's still up.
00:15:10
Speaker 1: They find ways to get around orders, judges' orders specifically.
00:15:15
Speaker 2: But listen, I don't know if I played this whole, I think I did play it for you yesterday. It's incredible.
00:15:20
Speaker 1: You know what?
00:15:20
Speaker 2: Simple as that. Listen to President Obama on his last day in which he was doing a press conference with members of the media who had been covering him at that point for eight years. But listen to the message he had for them.
00:15:37
Speaker 4: But I have enjoyed working with all of you. That does not, of course, mean that I've enjoyed every story that you have filed, but that's the point of this relationship. You're not supposed to be sycophants. You're supposed to be skeptics. You're supposed to ask me tough questions. You're not supposed to be complimentary, but you're supposed to cast a critical eye on folks who hold enormous power and make sure that we are accountable to the people who sent us here. And you have done that. And you've done it, for the most part, in ways that I could appreciate for fairness, even if I didn't always agree with your conclusions. And having you in this building has made this place work better. It keeps us honest. It makes us work harder. You have made us think about how we are doing what we do, and whether or not we're able to deliver on what's been requested by our constituents.
00:16:47
Speaker 2: Rose, I was kind of joking when I said it might bring a tear to your eye. It did.
00:16:51
Speaker 3: It did to me, too.
00:16:52
Speaker 1: Babe, I was just going to say the thing. I actually felt emotional. Look, we love what we do. We love, and journalism is the cornerstone, the foundation.
00:17:03
Speaker 3: For democracy.
00:17:04
Speaker 1: And it seems, not it seems, we have been called fake news for so many years now, and we have been discredited. We've been accused of all sorts of atrocities.
00:17:20
Speaker 3: And to hear.
00:17:21
Speaker 1: President Obama recognize the value of the press, whether you like what's being reported or not, yes, it made me emotional.
00:17:31
Speaker 2: Um, it's just a reminder of that's the, I mean, how things should work. I know if you're a huge Trump supporter and that's fine. Maybe you see this and have no problem with it. I don't know how. It's just, this is not how our democracy works. It is not robes. Even if you don't like the coverage, that's the point. Even if you don't like it, you have a right to be there. You have to accept it. You have to take those hits at president because they're coming constantly. Just whoever plucked that and found that and posted that yesterday, I was like, Damn. So this isn't about politics and left and right and Democrat and Republican. George Bush got it. The first George Bush got it. Clinton got it. Bill Clinton got it. Everybody, you get that thing. And just, we miss having, I just wrote, we're so far removed from a president who speaks in that way.
00:18:17
Speaker 1: And you, unfortunately, you get desensitized to how outrageous it is, what he says, what he does, how he treats journalists. I remember years ago going to the Society of the Protection of Journalists.
00:18:32
Speaker 3: It was a big dinner they were having.
00:18:34
Speaker 1: Have you been to any of them where you hear about, and journalists from around the world come together and they're honored, many of whom are being honored posthumously because they've been killed by governments, think Mexico, think Russia, for reporting on atrocities that are happening within the government, maybe with cartels, et cetera, and that journalists die every day trying to make sure the truth comes out. And I remember saying, I don't want to ever take for granted the fact that I can say the most awful thing, even about the President of the United States, and I can sleep safely and soundly in my bed knowing that I'm protected as a journalist.
00:19:11
Speaker 3: And it just feels like, it doesn't.
00:19:14
Speaker 1: Feel like our integrity, credibility, and maybe even our safety has all been put at risk because of somebody who is acting like The free press is an enemy instead of the foundation of a democracy.
00:19:32
Speaker 2: And he's acting on it, Roe. He's not just saying it. He's acting on it. Folks, just wanted to give you that update. There will be some updates about this today. We'll keep an eye on it. But as always, we appreciate you spending a little time with us. I'm TJ. On behalf of my dear Amy Robach, we'll talk soon.