6 ms·

The issue was he wasn't trying to ask a question but argue with the president and taking time away from other members of the press to ask legitimate questions.

The issue was he wasn't trying to ask a question but argue with the president and taking time away from other members of the press to ask legitimate questions. He disagreed with the president stating it was an invasion and the president answered him with he believed it was an invasion. Trying to go back and forth wasting time. There wasn't anything else to add which is why the worker came to grab the mic to provide it to the next person. This is common in these interviews since there isn't a lot of time and there are a lot of questions so they try and let everyone get a question in and they only have the one mic. To be honest this is being blown up more than it should but in watching the full video of the press conference Jim was trying to grand stand and was rude. I can understand why this happened. There were other press members there who pushed/challenged Trump on other topics but were respectful and did let go of the mic.

ajross 8y ago
So... your opinion (hell, I even share it) is that Acosta was in violation of the established norms of presidential journalism. And your conclusion is apparently that it's OK to fabricate evidence to accuse the guy of assault ("placing his hands on a young woman")? Do I take that right?
- humantiy 8y ago
  It isn't ok to fabricate evidence. Don't take this the wrong way but I'm not sure if you're saying fabrication to be disingenuous to this event happening or just that they are making it look more like a karate chop. I assume the latter and to me I don't really see much of a difference and isn't the point or is a distraction from the issue as to why they made the decision they did. You drop some frames and it looks more like a karate chop, but I watched the full press video on cbs and other various locations enough to say I don't think he chopped her hand away or anything too crazy. I don't think there is an argument that it didn't happen and that Jim wasn't trying to stop her from taking the mic away to pass to the next person and either on purpose or by reaction blocked and made contact with her at the elbow. I'm not in the camp to call it assault even though it might be technically. I don't know or don't care to debate legally if it is/isn't because I tend to think of assault as more provoked or violent than what this was. The reaction of the staffer was interesting though with her looking confused and unsure what to do as if that hasn't happened before. I do think he was out of line given how he acted not just with the staffer, but after his question on indictments in the Russian investigation which is a question he's asked a few times before and been given the same answer on. Then standing back up and talking over Peter who was called on next to say something about the media being the enemy of the people and something about the pipe bombs (couldn't hear it well due to him not being mic'ed). To me all of those things combined I can understand why they decided to revoke him. Other Press members asked questions that were far more challenging and critical of the administrations direction in this briefing and their creds weren't pulled which leaves me with the conclusion its because of how he acted.
  - ajross 8y ago
    > I'm not in the camp to call it assault even though it might be technically. ... So if someone reaches for your fork at lunch today and then accuses you of assault, that might be OK technically too?
    - eriken 8y ago
      If we only had one fork and everyone had to share it, but Jim insisted on taking his sweet ass time then I would go over to Jim and ask for the fork so all of us could eat. If Jim still insisted on hording the fork, well, then Jim would have a problem.
    - humantiy 8y ago
      > So if someone reaches for your fork at lunch today and then accuses you of assault, that might be OK technically too? Lets be clear with this analogy that the fork isn't mine but in fact the person taking it back in this situation. It was provided to me to use. It was the white house's mic given to him to ask his questions. If its their property can't they take it back when they so chose? The reason I say it might be technically is because some define assault as unwanted contact or battery (https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-battery-overview.html https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-ba...). Like I said I don't really want to go down that rabbit hole of an argument. If it is or isn't doesn't matter to me I just don't think it was appropriate.
      - ajross 8y ago
        I give up. We have two wrongdoings alleged: 1. Jim Acosta was an asshole. 2. The White House lied, accused him of assault, and used doctored evidence to prove that. I think #1 is probably true but don't care. I think #2 is a disaster for the free press and civil society, and so would you if this was anything but politics. You can't accuse people of serious crimes without evidence. And the fact that you won't even nod to this in the slightest tells me you aren't being serious here. You seem genuinely fine with lying people if you think they're assholes.
moate 8y ago
"The Press", has in general pretty much come out and said this was poor behavior by the president. Nobody seems to have their feelings hurt that their question didn't get asked because of this "grandstanding". None of them seem to be thrilled that the president, in his infinite wisdom, cut this man off from getting a real answer to his follow up questions.
- poulsbohemian 8y ago
  Given the transcript I saw, it didn't even sound like the guy was given the opportunity to ask a complete question without being cut off. So it's very difficult to remain an unbiased bystander here when you have a member of the press (who might be an asshole for all I know) who was cut off, not given the opportunity to express a question, then has the microphone grabbed by a member of the White House staff, then get slandered by the POTUS (it's very challenging for me to even call him that), but somehow we're supposed to be convinced that it was this member of the press that was causing the problem. It's revolting. If it happened in another country, there would be a member of our foreign service calling out the repression of the media. Here, apparently it is the new norm.
- humantiy 8y ago
  He was grandstanding[1] given that he stood back up after the mic was already passed to someone else to make more comments to jab the president. > Nobody seems to have their feelings hurt that their question How does anyone know that? I'll agree that its probably true but because they are professionals and don't take it personal as well as they understand that this is a privilege opportunity and time is limited. Many of the people who were called later expressed thanks for the opportunity to ask their question(s). > cut this man off from getting a real answer to his follow up questions. I'd argue none of his questions were looking for a 'real' answer because they were disingenuous, divisive, and really would only be happy with what Jim wanted as an answer. Jim has asked him on more than one occasion on indictment concerns with the Russian investigation and I can see how that would get old answer the same questions. Most of the press who asked questions had their questions cut off just to keep things moving so it wasn't just him. Not saying its right. The press can ask a question, but it doesn't mean they are going to get 'a real answer' or in their mind the answer they want to hear and I think that is part of the problem. Don't get me wrong I think the president could and should absolutely be more polite in these press briefs. I'm sure the press did come out and point the finger at the president being at fault. How often does the press take responsibility for their own misreporting or actions? If Trump is at fault he isn't alone in this one. I know the WHCA came out and objected the decision to pull Jim's security credentials to stop him from being in the briefings going forward. I would expect they would object and ask that it be reversed. I'm sure it will be once things calm down and use this time as a time out as a cool down period. 1.https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/grandstanding https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/grand...

ajross 8y ago

So... your opinion (hell, I even share it) is that Acosta was in violation of the established norms of presidential journalism. And your conclusion is apparently that it's OK to fabricate evidence to accuse the guy of assault ("placing his hands on a young woman")? Do I take that right?

humantiy 8y ago
It isn't ok to fabricate evidence. Don't take this the wrong way but I'm not sure if you're saying fabrication to be disingenuous to this event happening or just that they are making it look more like a karate chop. I assume the latter and to me I don't really see much of a difference and isn't the point or is a distraction from the issue as to why they made the decision they did. You drop some frames and it looks more like a karate chop, but I watched the full press video on cbs and other various locations enough to say I don't think he chopped her hand away or anything too crazy. I don't think there is an argument that it didn't happen and that Jim wasn't trying to stop her from taking the mic away to pass to the next person and either on purpose or by reaction blocked and made contact with her at the elbow. I'm not in the camp to call it assault even though it might be technically. I don't know or don't care to debate legally if it is/isn't because I tend to think of assault as more provoked or violent than what this was. The reaction of the staffer was interesting though with her looking confused and unsure what to do as if that hasn't happened before. I do think he was out of line given how he acted not just with the staffer, but after his question on indictments in the Russian investigation which is a question he's asked a few times before and been given the same answer on. Then standing back up and talking over Peter who was called on next to say something about the media being the enemy of the people and something about the pipe bombs (couldn't hear it well due to him not being mic'ed). To me all of those things combined I can understand why they decided to revoke him. Other Press members asked questions that were far more challenging and critical of the administrations direction in this briefing and their creds weren't pulled which leaves me with the conclusion its because of how he acted.
- ajross 8y ago
  > I'm not in the camp to call it assault even though it might be technically. ... So if someone reaches for your fork at lunch today and then accuses you of assault, that might be OK technically too?
  - eriken 8y ago
    If we only had one fork and everyone had to share it, but Jim insisted on taking his sweet ass time then I would go over to Jim and ask for the fork so all of us could eat. If Jim still insisted on hording the fork, well, then Jim would have a problem.
  - humantiy 8y ago
    > So if someone reaches for your fork at lunch today and then accuses you of assault, that might be OK technically too? Lets be clear with this analogy that the fork isn't mine but in fact the person taking it back in this situation. It was provided to me to use. It was the white house's mic given to him to ask his questions. If its their property can't they take it back when they so chose? The reason I say it might be technically is because some define assault as unwanted contact or battery (https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-battery-overview.html https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-ba...). Like I said I don't really want to go down that rabbit hole of an argument. If it is or isn't doesn't matter to me I just don't think it was appropriate.
    - ajross 8y ago
      I give up. We have two wrongdoings alleged: 1. Jim Acosta was an asshole. 2. The White House lied, accused him of assault, and used doctored evidence to prove that. I think #1 is probably true but don't care. I think #2 is a disaster for the free press and civil society, and so would you if this was anything but politics. You can't accuse people of serious crimes without evidence. And the fact that you won't even nod to this in the slightest tells me you aren't being serious here. You seem genuinely fine with lying people if you think they're assholes.

moate 8y ago

"The Press", has in general pretty much come out and said this was poor behavior by the president. Nobody seems to have their feelings hurt that their question didn't get asked because of this "grandstanding". None of them seem to be thrilled that the president, in his infinite wisdom, cut this man off from getting a real answer to his follow up questions.

poulsbohemian 8y ago
Given the transcript I saw, it didn't even sound like the guy was given the opportunity to ask a complete question without being cut off. So it's very difficult to remain an unbiased bystander here when you have a member of the press (who might be an asshole for all I know) who was cut off, not given the opportunity to express a question, then has the microphone grabbed by a member of the White House staff, then get slandered by the POTUS (it's very challenging for me to even call him that), but somehow we're supposed to be convinced that it was this member of the press that was causing the problem. It's revolting. If it happened in another country, there would be a member of our foreign service calling out the repression of the media. Here, apparently it is the new norm.
humantiy 8y ago
He was grandstanding[1] given that he stood back up after the mic was already passed to someone else to make more comments to jab the president. > Nobody seems to have their feelings hurt that their question How does anyone know that? I'll agree that its probably true but because they are professionals and don't take it personal as well as they understand that this is a privilege opportunity and time is limited. Many of the people who were called later expressed thanks for the opportunity to ask their question(s). > cut this man off from getting a real answer to his follow up questions. I'd argue none of his questions were looking for a 'real' answer because they were disingenuous, divisive, and really would only be happy with what Jim wanted as an answer. Jim has asked him on more than one occasion on indictment concerns with the Russian investigation and I can see how that would get old answer the same questions. Most of the press who asked questions had their questions cut off just to keep things moving so it wasn't just him. Not saying its right. The press can ask a question, but it doesn't mean they are going to get 'a real answer' or in their mind the answer they want to hear and I think that is part of the problem. Don't get me wrong I think the president could and should absolutely be more polite in these press briefs. I'm sure the press did come out and point the finger at the president being at fault. How often does the press take responsibility for their own misreporting or actions? If Trump is at fault he isn't alone in this one. I know the WHCA came out and objected the decision to pull Jim's security credentials to stop him from being in the briefings going forward. I would expect they would object and ask that it be reversed. I'm sure it will be once things calm down and use this time as a time out as a cool down period. 1.https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/grandstanding https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/grand...