CNN v. Trump

So I just want to touch upon a couple of more stories.

The ruling on CNN v. Trump has been released, or at least I've been able to find it.

And I got to tell you, it's a flawed ruling.

It's a flawed ruling.

And I think he should take it up the chain because I think this obviously biased judge missed it.

Or I guess the other possibility is that they didn't argue the case properly.

But On CNN v. Trump, of course, the judge said that, look, you have to allow CNN and all these other MSN, I think, and I forget the other ones, into the press conferences because you violated their due process rights.

Well, as you know, I say, no, he didn't.

Uh, and folks, we've got, uh, just a lot of stuff to go through, um, uh, and we're gonna start with press stuff because it's been one of those weeks.

Uh, so Molly, uh, we had a preliminary injunction hearing in CNN v. Trump, which is the case, uh, of the, uh, various news outlets that are, have been banned from the press pool.

Uh, that hearing, I believe the temp- temporary restraining order was, uh, uh, exp- was due to expire today, and there was a preliminary injunction hearing before Judge Kelly.

Uh, did it happen, and what happened there?

These are moral arguments because they're righteous sounding, yet are untethered from the actual legal arguments currently in play.

Those legal arguments can be found in Judge Kelly's recent ruling in the matter of CNN v. Trump.

If you search that order, you will not find a single instance of the word first that pertains to the First Amendment.

That's because this is not a First Amendment case.