5 ms·

I don't think the microphone was Jim Acosta's personal property, and he was an invited guest on federal property, and an employee/intern of the federal governme

I don't think the microphone was Jim Acosta's personal property, and he was an invited guest on federal property, and an employee/intern of the federal government was given instruction to get government property back.

komali2 8y ago
Except, Jim Acosta is the 4th branch. His job is to find out, on the People's behalf, what the fed is up to, and the federal government (which we pay for) was trying to squirm out of it. That's not government property, that's our property. The very house is paid for by our taxes. If it were up to me, journalists would be with elected officials more than they aren't. I want transparency in government. Full transparency.
- assblaster 8y ago
  Jim Acosta turned question-asking into political opinion generation. Are reporters even supposed to render judgment at a Q&A?
  - BryantD 8y ago
    We have the transcript of the exchange. Can you clarify what you mean by "political opinion generation"? ---- Acosta: I wanted to challenge you on one of the statements that you made in the tail end of the campaign in the midterms that … Trump: Here we go. Acosta: Well, I — if you don’t mind, Mr. President … Trump: Let’s go. Let’s go. Come on. Acosta: … that this caravan was an invasion. As you know, Mr. President … Trump: I consider it to be an invasion. Acosta: As you know, Mr. President, the caravan was not an invasion. It’s a group of migrants moving up from Central America towards the border with the U.S. And … Trump: Thank you for telling me that. I appreciate it. Acosta: … why did you characterize it as such? Trump: Because I consider it an invasion. You and I have a difference of opinion. Acosta: But do you think that you demonized immigrants in this election to try to keep … Trump: Not at all. No, not at all. I want them to come into the country, but they have to come in legally. You know, they have to come in, Jim, through a process. I want it to be a process. And I want people to come in. And we need the people here … Acosta: Right. But your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on … Trump: Well, that’s true. … They weren’t actors. Acosta: They’re not going to be doing that. Trump: They weren’t actors. Well, no, it was true. Do you think they were actors? They weren’t actors. They didn’t come from Hollywood. … This was an actual — you know, it happened a few days ago and … Acosta: They’re hundreds of miles away, though. They’re hundreds and hundreds of miles away. Trump: You know what? Acosta: That’s not an invasion. Trump: I think you should — honestly — I think you should let me run the country, you run CNN. And if you did it well, your ratings would be much better. Acosta: But let me ask … if I may ask one other question … Trump: OK, that’s enough. Acosta: Mr. President, if I may … Trump: Peter, go ahead. Acosta: If I may ask one other question. Are you worried … Trump: That’s enough. That’s enough. Acosta: But, Mr. President, I — well … Trump: That’s enough. Acosta: I was going to ask one other … Trump: That’s enough. Acosta: The other folks have had … Trump: That’s enough. Acosta: Pardon me, ma’am. I’m — I’m — Mr. President … Trump: Excuse me, that’s enough. Acosta: Mr. President, I had one other question, if I may ask, on — on the Russia investigation. Are you concerned that — that you may have indictments … Trump: I’m not concerned about anything with the Russia investigation because it’s a hoax. Acosta: Are you … Trump: That’s enough. Put down the mic. Acosta: Mr. President, are you worried about indictments coming down in this investigation? Trump: I tell you what. CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN. Go ahead. Acosta: I — I think that’s unfair … Trump: You’re a very rude person. The way you treat Sarah Huckabee is horrible, and the way you treat other people are horrible. You shouldn’t treat people that way.
    - jki275 8y ago
      "Acosta: As you know, Mr. President, the caravan was not an invasion. It’s a group of migrants moving up from Central America towards the border with the U.S. And …" That's where he's rendering a political opinion. It would be quite different if he said something like "Congressman so and so said just yesterday that this is not an invasion and is merely whatever and could you comment" or "There is concern in some circles about your rhetoric in calling this an invasion..., could you address this concern or explain why you believe this is an invasion" or something like those -- but in taking the "as you know" line, he's directly calling the President a liar, taking a political position on the issue himself, and trying to bait the President into arguing with him (which of course the President did as he always does).
      - komali2 8y ago
        I disagree that this is a political opinion. I think this is one party (Acosta) challenging the other (the government employee) on objective fact, as per Acosta's job description. >“If someone says it’s raining & another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the fking window and find out which is true.” https://www.google.com/search?q=invasion https://www.google.com/search?q=invasion : > an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force. There are other definitions of "invasion" that can be applied, but why choose the word "invasion" when there are more accurate ones to choose that don't have the negative connotations? It is a bad faith use of the word "invasion" by the government to describe anything other than an actual armed invasion. How should they describe Russian troops landing on US soil if they've already used up the word "invasion" to describe impoverished asylum-seekers? >he's directly calling the President a liar. The president is a liar. He lies all the time. I'm glad the auditors are pushing my employee on this. He's lying about what he's using my money for and that infuriates me. https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/ https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statem...
        jki275 8y ago
        Again, you're missing the point. He's taking a political position, not being a journalist. It's not an objective fact as a significant portion of the US disagrees with you and Mr. Acosta. It's a matter of political discussion and has been for a while.
  - komali2 8y ago
    I didn't see judgement rendered, I saw questions asked. Can you share a video and link to a timestamp where you saw political opinion generated by Acosta, so I can better understand your perspective?
- chrisco255 8y ago
  Jim Acosta is the 4th branch? Jim Acosta is one dude. He's got no more right to highjack a Presidential press conference than Alex Jones. Seriously.
  - komali2 8y ago
    Oof, I had hoped nobody would take me on such bad faith as to claim I was saying that Jim Acosta, a single employee of a single news agency, represented the entirety of the 4th branch. This is disappointing. I'd be especially interested in a discussion with you of why you felt this was necessarily, offline via email if you'd like (in my profile is my email). To answer your question - the press conference is the one (rare) chance that I get to have my questions, as Trump's employer, answered. I don't find it acceptable that the man living in the house that I pay for is dodging questions that really aren't even that hard. It's not like Acosta was asking for Trump's birth certificates - he was asking Trump to explain his vitriolic language and spending of my resources sending troops to the border.
- kamaal 8y ago
  >>Jim Acosta is the 4th branch. Elected by who? Appointed by who? Accountable to who? Reports to who? And how does one in a democratic set up trust them to do the right thing. Don't tell us to take it all on good faith and judgement. >>His job is to find out, on the People's behalf, what the fed is up to, and the federal government (which we pay for) was trying to squirm out of it. Not it is not. Their job is to maximize profits for their firms. Anything less and they're very bad at their jobs.
  - komali2 8y ago
    >Elected by who? Appointed by who? Popular market. He gets good ratings. So, technically, democracy, except you vote with your eyeballs. >Accountable to who? Reports to who? Fox, abc, Reuters, etc. As well as us. I didn't say we have NO responsibility, after all, just that we sent someone in our place so we don't all have to drop everything and fly to DC for every press conference. >Their job is to maximize profits Why doesn't Jim just become an investment banker, then? His motivation lie beyond more than money and frankly I'm surprised I have to reiterate that to people on the internet so often. Are you completely money motivated? Really the system isn't that hard to understand, it's a system of checks and balances, with the agencies keeping each other honest. A cabal is somewhat impossible due to the existence of say Fox news or even international outlets with very different motivations.
Nican 8y ago
On what grounds would it be appropriate for the reporter not be allowed to finish their question? Can the White House just silence anyone that are asking difficult questions?
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  >Can the White House just silence anyone that are asking difficult questions? Yes, there is no legal obligation, only optics.
  - 24gttghh 8y ago
    There is this thing called the First Amendment which says otherwise.
- assblaster 8y ago
  Another journalist accused the president of being a white nationalist at this same Q&A. At what point do journalists become journalists again instead of political commentators?
  - rhcom2 8y ago
    The journalist asked a question. A question that seems very legitimate to me. "I asked President Trump what he thinks of people seeing his rhetoric as emboldening white nationalists and whether he was concerned that Republicans would be seen as supporting white nationalists. His response: "That's a racist question." https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1060235176545005568 https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1060235176545005568
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    Yeah and he spent like a full minute responding and talked about the difference between globalists and nationalists.
BryantD 8y ago
And we all get to decide whether or not we think that instruction was appropriate. Personally, I don't. The federal government answers to the people. If we, the people, are not well-informed about what the federal government is doing, we can't make good decisions about how we're going to vote.
conductr 8y ago
Doesn’t matter. He was in possession of it, she just walked over and reached. Maybe at some point force is warranted, but not like this and probably not by her (by police). She invaded his space and is arm nudge was essentially a reaction to her action. I feel like his was reasonable her action wasn’t.
- chrisco255 8y ago
  No, that's her job. The problem is, if this was a physically imposing dude rather than a woman, he would have given up the mic handily. But instead, he ignored her position to distribute the mic (as appointed by the President of the U.S.) and manhandled the mic away from her.
  - conductr 8y ago
    We’re purely speculating but I disagree. He wanted to ask his questions. He was already being non compliant. And he wouldn’t have handily given up the mic to anyone. I also doubt her job is to use force. Her job is to move the mic around when people give and take it compliantly.
  - leesec 8y ago
    At no point did he manhandle anyone.
pixelcloud 8y ago
In lots of countries any form of unwanted direct or indirect contact would be considered assault. So by trying to force the mic away, she could have been charged with assault! If the mic is someone else's property and he would not give it up, the police would have the right to make unwanted contact to get it back.

komali2 8y ago

Except, Jim Acosta is the 4th branch. His job is to find out, on the People's behalf, what the fed is up to, and the federal government (which we pay for) was trying to squirm out of it. That's not government property, that's our property. The very house is paid for by our taxes. If it were up to me, journalists would be with elected officials more than they aren't. I want transparency in government. Full transparency.

assblaster 8y ago
Jim Acosta turned question-asking into political opinion generation. Are reporters even supposed to render judgment at a Q&A?
- BryantD 8y ago
  We have the transcript of the exchange. Can you clarify what you mean by "political opinion generation"? ---- Acosta: I wanted to challenge you on one of the statements that you made in the tail end of the campaign in the midterms that … Trump: Here we go. Acosta: Well, I — if you don’t mind, Mr. President … Trump: Let’s go. Let’s go. Come on. Acosta: … that this caravan was an invasion. As you know, Mr. President … Trump: I consider it to be an invasion. Acosta: As you know, Mr. President, the caravan was not an invasion. It’s a group of migrants moving up from Central America towards the border with the U.S. And … Trump: Thank you for telling me that. I appreciate it. Acosta: … why did you characterize it as such? Trump: Because I consider it an invasion. You and I have a difference of opinion. Acosta: But do you think that you demonized immigrants in this election to try to keep … Trump: Not at all. No, not at all. I want them to come into the country, but they have to come in legally. You know, they have to come in, Jim, through a process. I want it to be a process. And I want people to come in. And we need the people here … Acosta: Right. But your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on … Trump: Well, that’s true. … They weren’t actors. Acosta: They’re not going to be doing that. Trump: They weren’t actors. Well, no, it was true. Do you think they were actors? They weren’t actors. They didn’t come from Hollywood. … This was an actual — you know, it happened a few days ago and … Acosta: They’re hundreds of miles away, though. They’re hundreds and hundreds of miles away. Trump: You know what? Acosta: That’s not an invasion. Trump: I think you should — honestly — I think you should let me run the country, you run CNN. And if you did it well, your ratings would be much better. Acosta: But let me ask … if I may ask one other question … Trump: OK, that’s enough. Acosta: Mr. President, if I may … Trump: Peter, go ahead. Acosta: If I may ask one other question. Are you worried … Trump: That’s enough. That’s enough. Acosta: But, Mr. President, I — well … Trump: That’s enough. Acosta: I was going to ask one other … Trump: That’s enough. Acosta: The other folks have had … Trump: That’s enough. Acosta: Pardon me, ma’am. I’m — I’m — Mr. President … Trump: Excuse me, that’s enough. Acosta: Mr. President, I had one other question, if I may ask, on — on the Russia investigation. Are you concerned that — that you may have indictments … Trump: I’m not concerned about anything with the Russia investigation because it’s a hoax. Acosta: Are you … Trump: That’s enough. Put down the mic. Acosta: Mr. President, are you worried about indictments coming down in this investigation? Trump: I tell you what. CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN. Go ahead. Acosta: I — I think that’s unfair … Trump: You’re a very rude person. The way you treat Sarah Huckabee is horrible, and the way you treat other people are horrible. You shouldn’t treat people that way.
  - jki275 8y ago
    "Acosta: As you know, Mr. President, the caravan was not an invasion. It’s a group of migrants moving up from Central America towards the border with the U.S. And …" That's where he's rendering a political opinion. It would be quite different if he said something like "Congressman so and so said just yesterday that this is not an invasion and is merely whatever and could you comment" or "There is concern in some circles about your rhetoric in calling this an invasion..., could you address this concern or explain why you believe this is an invasion" or something like those -- but in taking the "as you know" line, he's directly calling the President a liar, taking a political position on the issue himself, and trying to bait the President into arguing with him (which of course the President did as he always does).
    - komali2 8y ago
      I disagree that this is a political opinion. I think this is one party (Acosta) challenging the other (the government employee) on objective fact, as per Acosta's job description. >“If someone says it’s raining & another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the fking window and find out which is true.” https://www.google.com/search?q=invasion https://www.google.com/search?q=invasion : > an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force. There are other definitions of "invasion" that can be applied, but why choose the word "invasion" when there are more accurate ones to choose that don't have the negative connotations? It is a bad faith use of the word "invasion" by the government to describe anything other than an actual armed invasion. How should they describe Russian troops landing on US soil if they've already used up the word "invasion" to describe impoverished asylum-seekers? >he's directly calling the President a liar. The president is a liar. He lies all the time. I'm glad the auditors are pushing my employee on this. He's lying about what he's using my money for and that infuriates me. https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/ https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statem...
      - jki275 8y ago
        Again, you're missing the point. He's taking a political position, not being a journalist. It's not an objective fact as a significant portion of the US disagrees with you and Mr. Acosta. It's a matter of political discussion and has been for a while.
- komali2 8y ago
  I didn't see judgement rendered, I saw questions asked. Can you share a video and link to a timestamp where you saw political opinion generated by Acosta, so I can better understand your perspective?
chrisco255 8y ago
Jim Acosta is the 4th branch? Jim Acosta is one dude. He's got no more right to highjack a Presidential press conference than Alex Jones. Seriously.
- komali2 8y ago
  Oof, I had hoped nobody would take me on such bad faith as to claim I was saying that Jim Acosta, a single employee of a single news agency, represented the entirety of the 4th branch. This is disappointing. I'd be especially interested in a discussion with you of why you felt this was necessarily, offline via email if you'd like (in my profile is my email). To answer your question - the press conference is the one (rare) chance that I get to have my questions, as Trump's employer, answered. I don't find it acceptable that the man living in the house that I pay for is dodging questions that really aren't even that hard. It's not like Acosta was asking for Trump's birth certificates - he was asking Trump to explain his vitriolic language and spending of my resources sending troops to the border.
kamaal 8y ago
>>Jim Acosta is the 4th branch. Elected by who? Appointed by who? Accountable to who? Reports to who? And how does one in a democratic set up trust them to do the right thing. Don't tell us to take it all on good faith and judgement. >>His job is to find out, on the People's behalf, what the fed is up to, and the federal government (which we pay for) was trying to squirm out of it. Not it is not. Their job is to maximize profits for their firms. Anything less and they're very bad at their jobs.
- komali2 8y ago
  >Elected by who? Appointed by who? Popular market. He gets good ratings. So, technically, democracy, except you vote with your eyeballs. >Accountable to who? Reports to who? Fox, abc, Reuters, etc. As well as us. I didn't say we have NO responsibility, after all, just that we sent someone in our place so we don't all have to drop everything and fly to DC for every press conference. >Their job is to maximize profits Why doesn't Jim just become an investment banker, then? His motivation lie beyond more than money and frankly I'm surprised I have to reiterate that to people on the internet so often. Are you completely money motivated? Really the system isn't that hard to understand, it's a system of checks and balances, with the agencies keeping each other honest. A cabal is somewhat impossible due to the existence of say Fox news or even international outlets with very different motivations.

Nican 8y ago

On what grounds would it be appropriate for the reporter not be allowed to finish their question? Can the White House just silence anyone that are asking difficult questions?

creaghpatr 8y ago
>Can the White House just silence anyone that are asking difficult questions? Yes, there is no legal obligation, only optics.
- 24gttghh 8y ago
  There is this thing called the First Amendment which says otherwise.
assblaster 8y ago
Another journalist accused the president of being a white nationalist at this same Q&A. At what point do journalists become journalists again instead of political commentators?
- rhcom2 8y ago
  The journalist asked a question. A question that seems very legitimate to me. "I asked President Trump what he thinks of people seeing his rhetoric as emboldening white nationalists and whether he was concerned that Republicans would be seen as supporting white nationalists. His response: "That's a racist question." https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1060235176545005568 https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1060235176545005568
- chrisco255 8y ago
  Yeah and he spent like a full minute responding and talked about the difference between globalists and nationalists.

BryantD 8y ago

And we all get to decide whether or not we think that instruction was appropriate. Personally, I don't. The federal government answers to the people. If we, the people, are not well-informed about what the federal government is doing, we can't make good decisions about how we're going to vote.

conductr 8y ago

Doesn’t matter. He was in possession of it, she just walked over and reached. Maybe at some point force is warranted, but not like this and probably not by her (by police). She invaded his space and is arm nudge was essentially a reaction to her action. I feel like his was reasonable her action wasn’t.

chrisco255 8y ago
No, that's her job. The problem is, if this was a physically imposing dude rather than a woman, he would have given up the mic handily. But instead, he ignored her position to distribute the mic (as appointed by the President of the U.S.) and manhandled the mic away from her.
- conductr 8y ago
  We’re purely speculating but I disagree. He wanted to ask his questions. He was already being non compliant. And he wouldn’t have handily given up the mic to anyone. I also doubt her job is to use force. Her job is to move the mic around when people give and take it compliantly.
- leesec 8y ago
  At no point did he manhandle anyone.

pixelcloud 8y ago

In lots of countries any form of unwanted direct or indirect contact would be considered assault. So by trying to force the mic away, she could have been charged with assault! If the mic is someone else's property and he would not give it up, the police would have the right to make unwanted contact to get it back.