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.
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.
Yes, there is no legal obligation, only optics.
"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."
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.
----
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.
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.
When the President lies, it's OK for a reporter to call him or her a liar.
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.
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?
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.