Sped up or not, I think the missing perspective is “is it okay to walk up to someone and forcibly grab what they have in their hand?“ Given the context, him not wanting her to grab the microphone, I see nothing wrong with his reaction
But note that the complaint here isn't that it was sped up, it's that it was actually doctored; the motion of his arm, alone, was sped up to look like a "karate chop" while the rest of the video remains at normal speed. There is a superimposed version floating around on twitter that shows this trickery. It's... pretty scary.
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?
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.
...
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-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.
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.
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.
This is conservative anti-SJW fetish material right here. But because the victim was a supporter of your favorite politician...
>But because the victim was a supporter of your favorite politician... That's also the thing. He's not nor are any of them. We also don't know that the victim in this was a trump supporter. She works at the white house running the mic during the briefing. Her political affiliation doesn't matter either way. This is what strikes me as odd that to say how someone acted towards the president and staff requires there to be a political leaning to decide if it was ok or not. Not in my book, I didn't like it under previous administrations (joe wilson yelling 'you lie' during one of obama's address as an example) nor do I like it now.
Just to remind you what you wrote: "But because the victim was a supporter of your favorite politician..."
I used the word you used in my response so you understood we were talking about the same person.
> 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/grand...
I haven't seen Sarah Sanders' take on it, but I did a cursory review of the "doctoring", and I'm not convinced of any deliberate changes to the video, apart from format conversions (source -> gif -> mt2 -> mp4).
There is no constitutional issue here. He still has freedom of speech, as he can still say whatever he wants. He still has freedom of the press, as his employer (CNN) can still publish anything he submits, if they so wish.
Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee a platform, and freedom of the press doesn't guarantee unlimited access.
The behavior of the parties involved could be argued separately, but I still don't see any "constitutional crisis."
You have not changed my mind.
You changed the subject after I confronted you. "The constitution doesn't prevent the president from lying when not under oath" "Let's converse, maybe you'll change my mind..."
You've made up your mind.
But I stand by my statement. Your claim that "The constitutional issue is that the president lied about some caravan overtaking the US" is false, that's not a "constitutional" issue.
Case in point: the famous "Muhammad Ali Knockout vs Sonny Liston " shot was doctored up to sell magazines / newspapers (IIRC: A few more camera flashes in the background of the black-and-white version of the image). Doctoring images is... actually quite common. These changes aren't usually major and Newspapers generally take care to keep things "contextually correct", but its the personal decision of the editor for what counts and doesn't count as "changing the message" of photographs.
Anyway, the main issue is that the "doctored" video is being pushed by the White House Press Secretary.
We all know disinformation exists in today's age. But we generally expect the White House's mouthpiece to strictly report the facts. But this White House does not stick to the facts. This sort of thing is more expected to come from a sensationalist magazine, and not from the official communication channel of the highest-office in the land.
This is the office that tried to push "alternative facts" as a rationale for the disagreement between Trump's claims of the size of his inauguration crowd and the photographic evidence. I mean, you lived through the same election cycle as everyone else. We saw the crazy train coming from miles away and for some reason the American people decided to board it.
Not only should this sort of thing be expected, it's apparently the sort of thing people wanted.
I would counterpoint that it probably should be someone elses job to us force to get the mic back. I’m sure there are officers of some kind in that room.
I'd quite like to think that it shouldn't be anybodies job to use force to get a microphone back from a journalist in a press conference.
I mean, if we're going to throw norms to the wind and (literally!) push journalists around to control the questions being asked, then we probably don't want to have a press conference in the first place.
The solution is certainly not to have the secret service rough up Jim Acosta because Donald Trump doesn't like the question he asked.
He answered the question, but Jim didn't like the argument.
Why is this an invasion and not "a group of refugees and asylum seekers"? Why are you using specific, strong, and decisive language to demonize this group? What is illegal about seeking asylum, since presumably that's what this group would want to do in order to enter the country?
It is being pointedly obtuse to say that his answer would be considered satisfactory by anyone. That's not to say that the situation didn't get heated on both sides, but let's not pretend Trump was just being a super nice guy by staying off the golf course long enough to answer these assholes' questions and didn't deserve to get some serious questions answered after a midterm election.
Jim also answered the question for him when he asked by saying because it is not an invasion. He asked a question that he had the correct answer to it already, which is why trump said we have a difference of opinions.
>It is being pointedly obtuse to say that his answer would be considered satisfactory by anyone. He answered the question(s) no he doesn't feel he is demonizing immigrants and that he wants to come in legally and also says we need immigrants to fill the job growth we have. I don't see that as a poor answer.
Would it have been been better if the president said its an invasion because they've already broken through border fences to Mexico saying "Nobody is going to stop us."[1] and if they are seeking asylum they need to follow the process and go to a legal port of entry to file an asylum request not jump our walls in hopes to avoid capture?
[1] http://time.com/5429933/migrant-caravan-breaks-fence-guatema...
YES! Yes it would! That's the point I'm trying to make.
If you're in charge of making policy decisions, be able to defend them! Don't say "This new law is good because it's good" or "our enemy is our enemy because they're our enemy". If you're going to be the "Sorry I speak so directly it offends you" president, fucking own it and actually tell the truth or explain your thoughts.
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.
Yes, when that thing they won't let go of isn't their's to keep and they refuse to give it back.
The alt-right speaking point right now is that Acosta wasn't respecting the rules of Trump's house or something, that somehow Acosta has to defer to Trump, but that's the equation all backwards. We pay for the house, that's our auditor there demanding answers from our employee.
There are plenty other public goods entities that are also profitable - hospitals, for example, have to generate profit (though I disagree that this should be necessary). Energy companies. Airline companies. Etc.
In any case, CNN was there to ask questions on my behalf. I'm glad, too, because I like government transparency, and I for one don't trust any government to self-report without bias. Hence, auditors.
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.
"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."
Yes, there is no legal obligation, only optics.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
----
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.
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).
>“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 :
> 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/statem...
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.
You can argue that all day long, but calling it an "invasion" (which I don't really agree with btw), is a subjective statement based in opinion. The fact is that there are a lot of people travelling up through Mexico to the US border. How you characterize that is an opinion.
When the President lies, it's OK for a reporter to call him or her a liar.
It's not an invasion, and that's not a matter of politics, that's a statement of fact.
As an analogy, if Donald said that the sky is green, that's not a matter of politics, that's a lie. Calling him out on it doesn't turn the color of the sky into a matter of politics.
This is also at the heart of the argument that journalists aren't and shouldn't be stenographers -- if there's a lie out there, the people with the platform should be calling it one, not just reporting that it is merely a statement someone has made.
And from what I hear (I rarely watch the news anymore) Acosta is known for doing this both to the President and to the Press Secretary.
It's a matter of respect, we don't have to like the guy in the office, but we should respect the office.
In fact, it was argument without merit - it would be like me saying "you should eat an apple a day," as if the reason was self evident.