Acosta's white house pass removed ..

[NorrinRadd]

Amusing cartoon of the Acosta incident:

I realize there is no point in noting this fact which should be self-evident, but I will do so anyway:

Trump's dealing with Acost-her was not in the slightest way an attack on the First Amendment. There is no First Amendment requirement that POTUS hold press conferences. There is no requirement that POTUS allow reporters White House access. There is no requirement that POTUS answer questions from the press in any way. When POTUS makes the voluntary choice to answer questions, there is no requirement that he call on each reporter (or, in the case of some like Acost-her, pseudo-reporter opinionators) present. There is no requirement that POTUS answer every question from those persons he does choose. There is no requirement that POTUS respond at all to "challenges," let alone do so politely.

The First Amendment protects the right to ask questions in a general sense. It does not require POTUS or anyone to answer those questions, or to provide particular venues for asking those questions. It protects the right to publish any answers received, as well as opinions about those answers, and even advocacy based on those opinions. (Ideally, the media would distinguish among reportage, opinion, and advocacy. Clear-eyed people realize that Fox, e.g., does so; they admit most of their shows are largely opinion and analysis, with the actual "journalism" coming from people like Bret Baier, Chris Wallace, Catherine Herridge, and Shannon Bream.)

[NorrinRadd]

Oh brother!

Kind of like the usher in a theater being the "aggressor" by removing an obnoxious disruptive customer.

[rogue06]

What some here are ignoring is that it is her job to facilitate the movement of the mic from questioner to questioner. She is supposed to reach out for it, the reporter is supposed to hand it to her, and then she hands it to the next designated reporter. That is her job and how it works. It only broke down when the fame whore from CNN pushed her hand away because he had decided it was his mic.

[Tassman]

It only broke down when the fame whore from CNN pushed her hand away because he had decided it was his mic.

No, it only broke down when the "fame whore" in the WH refused to answer a legitimate question, which Acosta was trying to pursue.

[Mountain Man]

Many high-profile media members, including The NY Times’ Maggie Haberman and CNN executive Matt Dornic, have accused Sanders of using a doctored Infowars video speeding up Acosta’s arm motion, as evidence. I'm more inclined to believe them than the Trump WH with its history of lying and gas-lighting. Especially as Infowars editor Paul Joseph Watson is known for spreading conspiracy theories and is banned from most social media platforms,

I'm not talking about a supposedly "doctored" video. From an earlier post...

Did you watch the video? You can't deny what he did. It was captured on camera for everyone to see. No need to guess or rely on third-hand reports. You only have to trust your own eyes. For your convenience:

Go to the 1 minute 29 second mark.

Tell me, if that was your wife or daughter being treated in that manner, would you really be so ho-hum about it?

[Mountain Man]

Amusing cartoon of the Acosta incident:

"Amusing" only in the sense that it's a gross misrepresentation of what really happened.

[rogue06]

No, it only broke down when the "fame whore" in the WH refused to answer a legitimate question, which Acosta was trying to pursue.

Acosta wasn't asking a question legitimate or otherwise. He was leveling a series of accusations in question form. And it is not up to the reporter to decide when he is done. It is, and has always been, up to the president.

[rogue06]

I realize there is no point in noting this fact which should be self-evident, but I will do so anyway:

Trump's dealing with Acost-her was not in the slightest way an attack on the First Amendment. There is no First Amendment requirement that POTUS hold press conferences. There is no requirement that POTUS allow reporters White House access. There is no requirement that POTUS answer questions from the press in any way. When POTUS makes the voluntary choice to answer questions, there is no requirement that he call on each reporter (or, in the case of some like Acost-her, pseudo-reporter opinionators) present. There is no requirement that POTUS answer every question from those persons he does choose. There is no requirement that POTUS respond at all to "challenges," let alone do so politely.

You're just confusing someone who gets all his information from like-minded nut cases with facts. It's amusing to ask those who think that cartoon had a point exactly how was Trump attacking the First Amendment and then sit back and watch them expose how ignorant they are as they substitute righteous indignation and arrogance for informed knowledge.

[rogue06]

00000000000000ar1aa1b.jpg

[Tassman]

Acosta wasn't asking a question legitimate or otherwise. He was leveling a series of accusations in question form. And it is not up to the reporter to decide when he is done. It is, and has always been, up to the president.

It’s the role of the press to ask hard questions and level accusations if warranted. Trump is now considering new maneuvers to curtail any press that keeps peskily pointing out his lies, half-truths and hyperbole. He’s now moving beyond his scurrilous Lügenpresse (fake news) accusations to discredit critical media and is now actively attempting to ban reputable reporters altogether if they ask questions he construes to be critical. It is up to Trump to defend his actions but in fact he demands to be accountable to no one.

[oxmixmudd]

Kind of like the usher in a theater being the "aggressor" by removing an obnoxious disruptive customer.

That response was to these two ideas.

1) that Acosta's blocking arm movement constituted 'assault.
2) that defining such minor physical contact as assault derives from the right to defend ones personal space

In that context she is the agressor and his arm motion is purely defensive

The proper action would not to have tried to forcefully take the mike but to tell him to reinquish the mike and if he continued to refuse to bring security in who would have the necessary authority to use force to get the mike.

The whole thing has been made absurd beginning with Sandrers attempt to cast this as some sort of improper physical action on Acosta's part. Had they simply said Acosta was rude and disruptive they would have been telling the truth. But apparently they didn't feel 'rude and aggressive' was a good enough reason, so the invented a reason and then tried to sway public opinion in their favor with an altered video of the event.

Jim

[Roy]

Well, regardless of what we "think", people do not have the right to invade your space, especially to poke, grab, push or swat at you...it's called "Touch Assault" and IS indeed a crime. It's not enforced usually because it's a "he said, she said" type situation. But, with this video proof it would be enough to prosecute if someone wanted to.

But who are you going to prosecute? Who invaded who's space here?

[Mountain Man]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]32939[/ATTACH]

In many respects, Walter Cronkite wasn't much better.

[Littlejoe]

That response was to these two ideas.

1) that Acosta's blocking arm movement constituted 'assault.
2) that defining such minor physical contact as assault derives from the right to defend ones personal space

In that context she is the agressor and his arm motion is purely defensive

The proper action would not to have tried to forcefully take the mike but to tell him to reinquish the mike and if he continued to refuse to bring security in who would have the necessary authority to use force to get the mike.

The whole thing has been made absurd beginning with Sandrers attempt to cast this as some sort of improper physical action on Acosta's part. Had they simply said Acosta was rude and disruptive they would have been telling the truth. But apparently they didn't feel 'rude and aggressive' was a good enough reason, so the invented a reason and then tried to sway public opinion in their favor with an altered video of the event.

Jim

No, the intern's job is to move the microphone, she was hunkered down and not rudely trying to "back him down" or get in his face, there was no aggression on her part. She was just trying to get the microphone from him per Trump's moving on to another reporter. That happens done many, MANY times in a press conference. This was not an isolated incident, it was BAU (business as usual). Accosta, by swatting her hand away from the mic committed the touch assault. She was just trying to do her job.

And in the Lewandowski case, the grabber of the arm was also in the wrong.

[Littlejoe]

But who are you going to prosecute? Who invaded who's space here?

see my response to Oxmixmudd.