If that is the point he spent about 30 mins answering that question in detail less than a week ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksmkp5CwF_4 https://www.you

If that is the point he spent about 30 mins answering that question in detail less than a week ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksmkp5CwF_4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksmkp5CwF_4 Much of what I said above was previously said by trump in that brief. If jim acosta is cnn's chief white house correspondent I assume he was there or certainly knew of this and reviewed it. It is safe to say its his job and that he had the reasoning behind why he called it an invasion already. This is part of the problem many times he has already answered the question with detail or given a reason and its not fully reported on or the press just ask again thinking the answer will all of a sudden flip. I agree we can knock him for not always giving a lot of detail then you can also knock the media's coverage or how they ask their questions since they seem to have the same answer and not getting to the root of what they are looking for. You could say jim could have asked "can you elaborate on why you call it an invasion" vs the way he started by saying I'm going to challenge you and no its not an invasion and go around in circles with this. It doesn't matter though since whats done is done and its comes down to that's not how I would ask that question or how I would want that question answer. We're monday morning quarterbacking. you're not always going to get the answer you want and that is under every administration I've seen.