4 ms·

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 jus

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.
    - humantiy 8y ago
      I think we can agree on 1 and I think we agree two wrongs don't make a right. But 2 is more so nuance and takes a little unpacking. From the article: "There's no evidence that the video was deliberately sped up — but the change in format, from a high-quality video to a low-quality GIF, turns the question of whether it was "doctored" into a semantic debate." I agree with that statement and like I said this conversation is a distraction from the event that took place and if we think this is acceptable behavior. My response to your response was "It isn't ok to fabricate evidence." Again I don't think this was fabricated in that it never happened. If we change the term to "doctored" if it is or isn't doesn't change to that event didn't happen. It would be foolish to intentionally create a doctored video given the amount of coverage this got, the amount of scrutiny around it, and it didn't look good in the first place. >The White House lied, accused him of assault This is the part that I don't think I agree with you or at least I'm not sure what you mean. I haven't seen trump or the sanders come out and call this assault. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. Now absolutely some in the media and trump supporters have called it that or used that wording and I don't agree. Trump even talked to the press today about this and said 'he was not nice to that young women. I don't hold him for that since it wasn't overly horrible'[1] and also called him unprofessional. I'm not sure what you mean by lied unless you're referring that to the video. >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. I've never said he committed a crime and said I'm not in the camp to call this assault. Some absolutely have and I don't agree with that. There is evidence though the he touched her without consent so again that's an argument of if it is or isn't assault and I wouldn't call it that. Its not as if we'll see charges pressed and if we did that would be ridiculous. > You can't accuse people of serious crimes without evidence I agreed that isn't right. Again there is a video showing there was contact so there is evidence something happened. I say again I don't think what he did was acceptable behavior and never accused him of a serious crime. >You seem genuinely fine with lying people if you think they're assholes. I'm ok with liers so long as I think they're aholes? I'm being civil here and enjoying the discussion. Please don't say I'm ok with this. [1]https://youtu.be/1jT8Ait1jEc?t=633 https://youtu.be/1jT8Ait1jEc?t=633

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.
  - humantiy 8y ago
    I think we can agree on 1 and I think we agree two wrongs don't make a right. But 2 is more so nuance and takes a little unpacking. From the article: "There's no evidence that the video was deliberately sped up — but the change in format, from a high-quality video to a low-quality GIF, turns the question of whether it was "doctored" into a semantic debate." I agree with that statement and like I said this conversation is a distraction from the event that took place and if we think this is acceptable behavior. My response to your response was "It isn't ok to fabricate evidence." Again I don't think this was fabricated in that it never happened. If we change the term to "doctored" if it is or isn't doesn't change to that event didn't happen. It would be foolish to intentionally create a doctored video given the amount of coverage this got, the amount of scrutiny around it, and it didn't look good in the first place. >The White House lied, accused him of assault This is the part that I don't think I agree with you or at least I'm not sure what you mean. I haven't seen trump or the sanders come out and call this assault. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. Now absolutely some in the media and trump supporters have called it that or used that wording and I don't agree. Trump even talked to the press today about this and said 'he was not nice to that young women. I don't hold him for that since it wasn't overly horrible'[1] and also called him unprofessional. I'm not sure what you mean by lied unless you're referring that to the video. >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. I've never said he committed a crime and said I'm not in the camp to call this assault. Some absolutely have and I don't agree with that. There is evidence though the he touched her without consent so again that's an argument of if it is or isn't assault and I wouldn't call it that. Its not as if we'll see charges pressed and if we did that would be ridiculous. > You can't accuse people of serious crimes without evidence I agreed that isn't right. Again there is a video showing there was contact so there is evidence something happened. I say again I don't think what he did was acceptable behavior and never accused him of a serious crime. >You seem genuinely fine with lying people if you think they're assholes. I'm ok with liers so long as I think they're aholes? I'm being civil here and enjoying the discussion. Please don't say I'm ok with this. [1]https://youtu.be/1jT8Ait1jEc?t=633 https://youtu.be/1jT8Ait1jEc?t=633