UPDATE: Apparently the video showing Acosta touching the aide was DOCTORED by the White House to make it look as if he gave the woman a hand chop. Here are the data; judge for yourself:
https://twitter.com/DanaSchwartzzz/status/1060400848474263552
and
1) Took @PressSec Sarah Sanders' video of briefing
2) Tinted red and made transparent over CSPAN video
3) Red motion is when they doctored video speed
4) Sped up to make Jim Acosta's motion look like a chop
5) I've edited video for 15+ years
6) The White House doctored it pic.twitter.com/q6arkYSx0V— raf (@rafaelshimunov) November 8, 2018
_______________
I watched “President” Trump’s press conference last night, and was appalled at his hostility, evasiveness, and narcissism. It was beneath even the bottom-of-the-barrel expectations I had of the man.
One of the “highlights” of that conference—if you can call it a highlight—was Trump’s confrontation with CNN’s Jim Acosta, who was reasonable but challenging, as a White House reporter should be. You surely know about this heated exchange, in which Trump treats a respected reporter as if the President was a grumpy father and the reporter a spoiled kid:
I thought Acosta’s behavior was proper for a reporter who wanted his questions answered, and his refusal to sit down courageous but also necessary. Trump piled invective on the hapless reporter, calling him a “rude, terrible person”. That was completely uncalled-for, and, as far as I know, completely untrue as well.
In response to Acosta’s persistent questioning, as CNN reports, Acosta’s press pass to the White House has been suspended. The reason? When a White House aide tried to remove the microphone from Acosta’s hands, he wouldn’t give it up. That enraged Trump, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders accused Acosta of “putting his hands on a young woman.” This, as you can see, shows that’s not true (he does touch her, but it wasn’t a hostile gesture [ADDENDUM by JAC: the video was apparently doctored by the White House; see the update at the top.]
BREAKING: White House aide grabs and tries to physically remove a microphone from CNN Correspondent Jim Acosta during a contentious exchange with President Trump at a news conference. pic.twitter.com/Ml1OvlXpa9
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) November 7, 2018
From CNN:
“President Trump believes in a free press and expects and welcomes tough questions of him and his Administration,” she said. “We will, however, never tolerate a reporter placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern. This conduct is absolutely unacceptable.”
CNN producer Allie Malloy responded to Sanders via Twitter: “This is a complete lie. The woman grabbed Jim’s arm repeatedly. He never once touched her. In fact at one point @Acosta tells her politely ‘pardon me, mam’ as she’s yanking on his arm.”
Acosta also tweeted that Sanders’ description of the incident was a “lie.”
Here are two tweets from Acosta, one showing the Secret Service removing his press pass:
I’ve just been denied entrance to the WH. Secret Service just informed me I cannot enter the WH grounds for my 8pm hit
— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) November 8, 2018
and:
The US Secret Service just asked for my credential to enter the WH. As I told the officer, I don’t blame him. I know he’s just doing his job. (Sorry this video is not rightside up) pic.twitter.com/juQeuj3B9R
— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) November 8, 2018
And some reactions:
Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondent for The New York Times, said on Twitter: “This is something I’ve never seen since I started covering the White House in 1996. Other presidents did not fear tough questioning.”
The White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA), which advocates for the press corps, issued a statement soon after Acosta was denied entry, calling the revocation of his access “unacceptable.”
“Journalists may use a range of approaches to carry out their jobs and the WHCA does not police the tone or frequency of the questions its members ask of powerful senior government officials, including the President,” the association said. “Such interactions, however uncomfortable they may appear to be, help define the strength of our national institutions. We urge the White House to immediately reverse this weak and misguided action.”
Elisabeth Bumiller, the Washington bureau chief for The New York Times, said that “the president should not pick and choose who covers him, and he should certainly not force out a representative of one of the country’s leading news organizations, one that tens of millions of Americans depend on for their news.”
The rude and terrible person here happens to be the President of the United States, yet I suspect that many of his supporters will see his behavior with respect to Acosta as a stern response to a bullying press that purveys fake news. Much of the Right hates the press, as does Trump.
In other news that I haven’t yet absorbed, attorney general Jeff Sessions, who had recused himself from supervising the Mueller investigation, was forced out and replaced by a “loyalist”, Sessions’ chief of staff, Matthew G. Whitaker, who has been critical of Mueller’s “Russia investigation” and will now supervise it. Whitaker could stop the investigation in its tracks or prevent Mueller from delivering a report to Congress. That, I think, would be Trump’s final undoing, for even Republicans have objected to Sessions’ firing.
From the NYT (click on screenshot):
This is eerily reminiscent of the 1973 “Saturday Night Massacre” under Nixon, when Nixon had to ditch two officials whom he had asked to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox, himself in charge of the Watergate investigation. Eliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus both refused to fire Cox, until Nixon got Robert Bork to do the dirty deed.
That wasn’t good “optics” for the President and helped bring him down. Likewise, this firing and its implications is terrible for Trump. If Trump uses this to try to dump Mueller, we truly will face a Constitutional crisis. And I can’t see how even those Trump-ites who supported his execrable treatment of Acosta could excuse that.
So it goes. I’m going to clear my head in Paris and forget about politics until this evening.
Trump-ites will excuse anything Trump does. That’s the nature of a cult.
Sadly, yes. They will excuse anything except tRump having a sustained attack of rationality.
cr
And the Left will excuse anything Acosta or his ilk does. This is the White House, not some pub. He got two questions, Trump called on the next reporter. The microphone doesn’t belong to CNN. Acosta was way out of line, horrendous behavior. It’s never about the news with this clown, it’s only about Acosta. CNN should fire him. Of course, it’s all Trump’s fault.
Thanks for the whataboutism that proved my point.
You’re beginning to reach for your whataboutism complaints.
Yo, if you’re auditioning for a job in the Trump White House, you’re gonna hafta figure out how to get these comments of yours on the tube (preferably “Fox and Friends,”; that’s the Donald’s fave), since Trump doesn’t read.
Hey, worked for Matt Whitaker, who went from relative obscurity to being the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, based on nothing but a couple tv spots defending Trump et fils.
I feel a Saturday Night Live skit coming our way.
“ilk”?
Do you mean reporters?
So you’re all about free speech when it comes to platforming some right wing/nationalist/white supremacist knucklehead like Steve Bannon, Steve Miller, or Milo Yiannopolis, but if it’s a credentialed White House reporter from CNN who’s doing his job, he should be fired?
This is not a free speech issue. The President does not even have to allow Acosta to ask questions, but he did. The President does not have to answer Acosta’s question, but he did. Acosta didn’t like the answer, so what? The protocol, the roolz if you wish, is to hand off the microphone to the next reporter so someone else can have a turn. Acosta doesn’t want to ask questions, he wants to give his opinion. Which he can do, later on CNN. Acosta doesn’t want to report news, he wants to be the news. Well, he got what he wanted.
When Acosta is at the CNN studio, he gets to set the rules for interviews, but not at the White House.
Right you are, mordacious1; this is a Free Press issue. Maybe you never noticed, but it has its very own clause in the First Amendment.
Also, not a free press issue either. What law was passed prohibiting Acosta from expressing himself on every network and in every paper in the country?? Even FoxNews would have him on, if he so chose. Or are you saying that if a reporter in the press room doesn’t get to wax on about their opinion, his/her Constitutional rights have been violated? Good grief.
Come on, mordacious, get a grip. CNN is the press. The White House is violating CNN’s right to cover government activities because Trump doesn’t like their reporter.
Just what is it you think the First Amendment’s Free Press Clause entails, mordacious1? Enlighten us.
Strictly based on tradition and custom, what sense would it make for a president to remove questioners? If he removes one he can remove two. Imagine a news conference with only a couple of reporters from Fox. A far as I can remember, all prior presidents have been able to handle aggressive questioning with a certain amount of poise and respect, or even humor. We have a right to expect DT to cooperate with tradition. Acosta is not at fault. It’s the guy with the yellow wig.
Trump’s supporters like it when he bullies someone, especially a member of the press/opposition.
There’s no substantive difference between Bannon/Yiannopoulis/etc being de-platformed and Acosta being banned from White House press conferences. The distinction is essentially non existent.
Neither Bannon nor Acosta have a right to speak in the respective venues from which they’ve been blacklisted, the only difference is you defend the censorship of one and criticise the censorship of the other.
+1
His credentials were temporarily suspended for acting like a jerk, he wasn’t banned. I recall Obama doing something similar (whataboutism again).
That makes no sense. Acosta has been banned from access to the president. Bannon was banned from access to his audience. The possibility that at some future date Trump might deign to allow Acosta to continue to do his job is utterly irrelevant. After all, the same might be true of the people who no-platformed Bannon. Either way it’s hypocrisy to oppose one but not the other.
And if you want to cite an example of Obama taking away a reporter’s hard pass and calling them a terrible human being because they repeatedly tried to get the president to answer the questions they had been allotted feel free my friend. I’ll read the link and we’ll see if your whataboutery holds.
By all means, continue spinning in your own moral universe where this kind of stuff is acceptable, but it’s depressing that you don’t just defend this thug of a leader, you metaphorically pat him on the back and polish his boots for him.
Barack Obama (who, unlike Trump, but like every other modern US president, held regular press conferences in the White House briefing room) at one point was avoiding calling on Fox News’s WH correspondent. The WH correspondents for the other news outlets took notice of this, brought it to the attention of the WH communications director, and Obama resumed regularly calling on the Fox News correspondent.
Is THAT what you’re talking about? (Because I’m unaware of any other such issue regarding Obama and the press.) And you think that situation is comparable to this one, how?
Not even Nixon removed the anyone’s pass. Obama? Why don’t you do some research.
What a ridiculous comment! Surely you realize that reporters in the WH press room have been trying to ask more questions than one since there was a press room. And as far as the “assault” is concerned, clearly it never occurred to the young woman in question that she had just been assaulted.
I have never seen a White House reporter refuse to give up the microphone when requested to do so. CNN should be embarrassed by this behavior, but they won’t be, they see themselves as heading up the resistance.
You can frame this as a civility issue until monkeys fly out of your butt, but it’s not like people here can’t read what you’ve written–about this, and other topics.
Uh oh. I think I’ve encroached on someone’s safe space.
Trump just posted this on his feed –
“very pleased to see great and very clever mordalicious, who is a big fan of mine, make failing WEIT(very overrated, not good, too many cats) commenter look bad. Low IQ Marta couldn’t handle my man Mordacious’s VERY CLEVER answer to her question. People saying he just came out with a boilerplate comeback and avoided addressing anything she said are simply jealous of me and my gold Rolls Royce, which Mordacious has been allowed to touch THREE TIMES by me, because I’m the most generous person in the world and I love my fans, especially when they are so very very loyal, believe me, everyone says it.
#trumpmordaciousbros4life #weregoingfishingnextweek #thenthanksgivingtogether
#maybedisneyland #thenwhoknows #paris #london #maybecopenhagen #noteveryoneschoicebutveryromanticapparently #didntmeanromantic #meantfunformenwhoarejustgoodfriends ”
…just kidding Mordacious. I got a bit bored and started typing. Love ya really.
Saul’s quote is FAKE NEWS !!!
How can you tell ???
Trump would NEVER say there are too many pussies, er, cats, here, nor anyplace else !!!
Maybe the path of least resistance would have been to give the mic to Acosta as a souvenir, since he liked hanging onto it so much.
I’d really like to tell you my opinion of your comments and what they tell me about the kind of person you are, but Da Roolz (#8) don’t allow it – just use your imagination.
Perhaps if Trump got in the habit of giving two answers, the two question thing would be respected.
Trump has seldom given any real answers. Most of his responses are defensive evasions. I can’t blame Acosta for wanting a followup. His frustration was palpable.
How well do you think he dealt with his frustration?
A good strategy might be for reporters to form a cabal of sorts. If one reporter can’t get the answer he wants, the next can ask the same question, and the next, and the next and . . . .
They do sometimes stand up for one another. In this instance, after Trump called Acosta rude, the next questioner prefaced his question with a defense. Something like – I’ve known Acosta for many years and he’s not a rude person.
I think it might fly against the media’s sense of independence if they were seen to be colluding.
The next questioner was Peter Alexander of MSNBC. I thought he came off as a real stand-up guy. We, and the press corps, could use more like him.
What is there that needs excusing in Acosta’s behaviour? Please tell me, because for the life of me I’ve looked at the incident from every angle and I’m struggling to see any version of if that demonstrates “horrendous behaviour” on Acosta’s part.
What I have seen is a White House try and bully a reporter, talk over his questions, and then send a young woman* over to snatch the microphone out of said reporter’s hands.
Subsequently the White House banned the reporter and used a _doctored_ video to lie about his conduct and portray him as some kind of woman-beating thug(amusingly/depressingly the first thing I heard about this incident was from an unhinged Trump supporter on Politico, who claimed that Jim Acosta had just ‘karate chopped a young woman’.).
You’re drifting further and further from earth in your apologetics.
*I’m also beginning to think they chose a small, young woman to be their Microphone Enforcer specifically so that they could frame contretemps like this in exactly this way.
They probably did not expect that the aid passing the microphone around would need to fight reporters for it.
Acosta has a long history of disrupting press conferences. He interrupts the speaker (not just Trump), and tends to make press conferences into “The Jim Acosta show”.
If he is not called upon, he shouts questions or accusations anyway.
The “video evidence” is pretty silly, but the constant disruptions are likely good enough reason to rescind the hard pass.
“Fight reporters for it”? Do you mean when the woman walked over to Acosta as he was halfway through a question that the president was refusing to answer, reached over to him and tried to snatch it out of his hands? That is the sum of what happened. How exactly is a reporter who is trying to do their job(and this shouldn’t need saying, but how smug or self-absorbed the reporter in question is is _completely irrelevant_) meant to respond when that happens?
If you can tell me the acceptable response to such an intrusion from a member of the WH staff I’d be interested to hear it.
But if we’re both being honest the preceding is irrelevant: nothing Acosta did in that press conference justified in any way him having his hard pass taken away. The right can spin it as much as they like, and switch the argument from ‘he karate chopped a young woman’ (which was their first highly comical approach) to he ‘makes it into the Jim Acosta show”, but we both know this was a frightened, petulant response from an endlessly appalling administration that resents any kind of oversight whatsoever.
The only reason Acosta’s been banned is because he asks question the president doesn’t like, and refuses to let the boorish oaf shout him down. They had to doctor a video in order to even attempt to justify it in any other way.
Also note that Trump’s style is to look for opportunities like this to create churn. In the mean time he’s busy, as are the GOP generally, of dismantling the welfare state. The republicans hope that it will be over before anyone notices it’s gone.
In which western democracy is it acceptable to fake evidence to get rid of a journalist?
It’s inexcusable and must bear serious consequences. I guess this answers the question “whether it can happen there?” because it did. The difference is only that a broad public connected with the internet for now make a difference.
Always with plausible deniability though. It seems likely they got it from InfoWars. Can we blame the WH if they were tricked by a fake video? (Yes.)
The rest of the White House Press Corps, should make their feelings known to this excuse for a human being, by asking harder questions and refusing to give up their Mic, its no use boycotting the briefings because the Oaf would love that, not having to face the Press.
…..The rest of the White House Press Corps should make their feelings known…..
thanking Mr Trump for being there, and leaving the room. “No more questions, Your Majesty”.
“The rest” SHOULD (practically impossible) include Republican-friendly media because of highly improper conduct, precisely since the President is concerned.
Noblesse oblige [it used to oblige].
.-
The Acosta horsecrap has at least finally emboldened some of the press enough to use the dreaded L word. They are finally calling blatant and obvious lies lies.
I hope so! I recently saw a WaPo article where the writer referred to the president’s “mistruths”. I then checked dictionary.com, but “mistruths” isn’t a proper word.
Trump has one fixed idea about politics: playing to his base is the way to success. He believes apparently that increasing polarization will result in his base becoming even more loyal to him. Thus, his attacking Acosta plays into this meme of the press as the “enemy of the people.” He also believes that the extent his efforts thwart the Mueller investigation will not hurt him with the base and may actually help him in 2020.
Trump’s strategy has actually a chance of success. In his usual insightful analysis of American politics, NYT columnist Tom Edsall, with the assistance of political scientists and other analysts, notes that in the election Democrats, in aggregate, won millions of more votes than Republicans in House and Senate contests, yet their victories were not commensurate with such big margins, particularly in the Senate races, due to the structural advantages the system afford Republicans. In the Senate, the smaller, rural red states have much more power than their numbers would indicate. The result is that the Democrats will have a hard time taking back the Senate in 2020. In other words, the American political system is growing increasingly more undemocratic. Although some of called for amending or replacing the Constitution, this event is extraordinarily unlikely to happen anytime soon. And, if it should happen, such amendments could easily be drafted by conservatives, making things work.
Although the Democratic victory in the House will mean that Trump legislation will be blocked and he will be the subject of many investigations, the polarization of the country will probably grow worse and the belief that a bridge can be built between the two Americas is likely a dream.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/midterms-results-polarization-congress.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
The US has always been badly split, even from the very beginning. We have even had a war after the south tried to leave the union. We will continue to bicker and disagree because of basic disagreements over the role of government.
It’s not just a structural advantage but also Republican’s long term strategy of voter suppression.
This is why Democrats (or sane independents) need to win governor seats. Democrats and independents need to repair the election systems.
Republicans have had a thirty year plan of controlling the political system from the ground up, knowing that having the right people in even small positions can tip the scale, especially if those people are rabid partisans who can manipulate the election system.
Republicans know the demographics are moving against them and their current methods will not work much longer.
I shudder to think of what new lows they will stoop to in order to keep power. I honestly don’t think there is anything they will not eventually do. Every new generation of Republicans appears to be more fanatic, and believes crazier things, and eventually they get into power.
While Democrats make an attempt to keep the crazies and loons out of positions of power, the right appears to be putting the extremists and nuts into power.
Independents frequently say they will vote for the person best suited (while stating the two parties are too partisan), they ignore the reality that Republicans generally act as in unison, that local and state Republican system supports the Republicans in the congress and senate. There may very well be good, honest sane Republicans, but they don’t control the party. Until Republicans get thoroughly trounced the party will continue to devolve.
I’m very concerned that things will get much worse before they get better.
If they get better.
Sorry for the rant.
In addition to gaining control of the House, Democrats flipped seven governorships, over 300 state legislative seats, and now hold the majority of state attorney generalships — all thanks to Donald Trump’s “yooge Republican victory” on Tuesday.
A very good start and I was delighted.
Unfortunately Republicans don’t believe the duly elected opposition is legitimate. I think their response to Obama demonstrated that very well. I recall one Democrat governor was elected in a red state and state Republicans changed the law to take away various long standing governor powers.
I believe the financial incentives are too screwed up and they are too deep in the echo chamber for Republicans to turn the party back to sanity. They have programmed their base too well.
I expect the right wing media parasites (Jones, Limbaugh, et al), tele-evangelists and Republican fund raisers will be telling the base that the end is coming, Democrats stole the seats and they all need to build bunkers, buy guns and various prepper supplies which they can find at Alex Jone’s web site.
Perhaps I’m being a little cynical in my old age.
I think you’re thinking of North Carolina. The Republican legislature there called a special session a week before the new Democratic governor was to be sworn in and passed a series of laws that stripped the governor of power, which the outgoing Republican governor signed as his last act in office.
That was the same Republican legislature that passed North Carolina’s gerrymandering and voter-suppression ID laws (which were later determined to be unconstitutional by federal courts). Hard to believe this is the 21st century, no?
Republicans here in Wisconsin are threatening to do just this now that we have a Democrat about to take office.
“Republicans know the demographics are moving against them…”- We may be witnessing the death throws of the GOP.
Not that it matters – throes. Hopefully you are correct, but I am skeptical.
Thanks for the correction. Throw…throes. Got it.
🙂 Minor compared to what this country faces with the Orange Draft Dodger.
Had he done some optional civilian service, would that have sufficed?
Yes. Jerry, I and thousands of others did exactly that
If he had done any service he would not be The Donald.
@Filippo:
It might well have if he would’ve stood up as a matter of principle and declared himself a conscientious objector.
He didn’t; he instead got a doctor to write a bogus letter claiming he had spurious bone-spurs in his foot, thereby securing a 4-F (physically unfit to serve) military deferment.
The Trumpublicans also have to deal with their shrinking demographic base. God ain’t makin’ white people like he usta.
Especially of the old, resentful, male variety.
The shrinking demographic base is precisely why these folks cling to Trump as their savior. The world of white, Christian, male hegemony is rapidly disappearing. They won’t go out without a fight to the end. They may bring the country to ruin in the process.
Sadly I know a fair amount of younger white folks who are avid Trumpublicans. And I would also say that every one is a racist.
Me too. They’re all uniformly appalling little shits who congregate online in order to be douchebags to women and minorities.
Has there been a debate about demography in recent US history?
It isn’t democratic already, including when the criticism to Gilens and Page (2014) is factored in. As they write in their study, ordinary citizens have next to no influence.
Apparently the video from Sarah Huckabee Sanders was doctored by someone else (not someone at the White House). Many people have noted that SHS tweeted it about two hours after Info Wars did, so it seems she/they got it from there.
If Sarah Huckabee Sanders had interest in doing the job of White House press secretary with any integrity whatsoever instead of kissing the fat orange ass of her boss, she (or the staff who passed it to her) would never have tweeted something from Infowars without checking its bona fides first.
This administration and everyone in it is a joke. And not the funny kind, either.
Trump appears to only orange-ify his face. I suspect his ass is pasty white.
oh, dear god, now I’m thinking about his orange face and his pasty white ass and there isn’t enough beer in the world to rinse that image away.
If either of us ever has to take a look to verify, I volunteer you to go first, DG. 🙂
Ken, Marta–a point on which we can all sympathize with Melania…
Aargh! Diane, that was wicked. Just the thought of it…..
🙁
cr
Hope she’s at least pullin’ combat pay.
Trump is deplorable, no question. But the spats between CNN and the White House are verging on the predictable. Which is why, I suspect – as a Brit – that Trump will not be damaged by this exchange.
Acosta’s focus on Trump’s use of the word ‘invasion’ to describe the refugees heading to the US Southern border was a cheap trick. Yes the noun is misguided, but it’s not racist, at least not in the context of febrile mid-term electioneering. A better question was obvious: could Trump guarantee that asylum seekers be judiciously processed, their cases sensitively considered, and their outcomes expedited and honoured?
That gets to the heart of the matter. Trump is the very epitome of inflammatory language. Journalists who tackle him on his rhetoric are playing in his arena, and they are diminished in the eyes of those who matter: the voting public.
In the UK there is an expression – “The Westminster Village” – and it ain’t flattering. It refers to the obsession of political correspondents with those things that obsess few others: departmental turf wars and infighting, tribal intrigue, political briefings and counter-briefings.
By sensationalising politics, some journalists peddle a form of narcissism they purportedly loathe in Trump himself. It will not end well.
I agree with that to a point but Trump thrives on controversy. The problem is he will create it if it doesn’t exist. He is very good at it. Doesn’t matter if journalist play in his arena. He will make up the arena even if it is not there.
I agree. The WH’s treatment of Acosta is deplorable but it has also been clear for the last two years that Acosta wants to be an opinionated pundit on CNN, not a WH press room reporter. Not only is there snark in his questions, he goes on CNN afterwards and adds his own analysis far more than other reporters. It is inappropriate for a reporter to ask snarky questions in the press room. They have to construct their questions to be probing but contain no opinion themselves. Acosta is not playing that game. If he wants to stay in the press room, he needs to be craftier.
I hope you’re speaking in a pragmatic sense; because Acosta’s done absolutely nothing wrong – having an ego, thinking you’re a big deal, giving your take on a press conference afterwards…all these things are irrelevant as to whether a reporter should be allowed to do their job. Now you might say he should be ‘craftier’ to stay in the room, but the issue shouldn’t be whether Jim Acosta’s thinks he’s Billy Big Bollocks, whether he’s full of himself – the issue
should be that Trump has taken to banning reporters who ask him tough questions.
Criticising Acosta for being insufficiently meek and unassuming is a bit too close to criticising a woman for wearing revealing clothes – the issue isn’t with him, and the fact that we’re even discussing whether it is is indicative of how Trump has normalised his idea that the press are hopelessly biased against him.
Like I said, I assume you’re speaking in a pragmatic sense. Surely you’re not actually saying Acosta brought it on himself?
What’s happened to him – completely and utterly regardless of whether he’s smug, or self-absorbed or whatever – is outrageous.
Let’s not be too naive here. This will end up being a boon for Acosta – both financially and career-wise.
Well that’s all right then.
??
Not what I meant. I have no tolerance for Trump or his idiocy. I’m just not feeling sorry for Jim Acosta. This incident will work out well for him. Let’s just hope it’s the opposite for Trump.
I don’t think the point is to feel sorry for Acosta at all. I know almost nothing about him, which is kind of the point. His personality or wealth or popularity is irrelevant: the point is that someone who asks difficult questions of a president who barely bothers to turn up for these kind of press conferences anymore anyway was censored under the flimsiest of pretexts.
Acosta might be the spawn of Satan but that’s besides the point. My outrage was completely unrelated to Jim Acosta as a human being.
How long was Acosta entitled to hang onto the mic?
He probably felt he had a duty to hang on to the mic until Trump gave him a strait answer to his questions.
Yes, absolutely.
Although that might have been rather a long time…
cr
Acosta focused on the word “invasion” because it feeds into the political campaign stunt pulled by Trump when he mobilized thousands of active duty military at a cost of up to 200 million dollars in “Operation Faithful Patriot” to counter a band of fleeing refugees still hundreds of miles away in Mexico. I don’t think this qualifies as the obscure obsession of a political journalist that fits “The Westminster Village.” I hope the Dems in the House of Representatives opens an investigation into it.
+1
“Acosta’s focus on Trump’s use of the word ‘invasion’ to describe the refugees heading to the US Southern border was a cheap trick. Yes the noun is misguided, but it’s not racist”
I think it’s pretty blatantly racist to describe the very, very eventual arrival of a few thousand people, into a country of more than a quarter of a billion, as “an invasion”. And the fact that it happened during midterm campaigning time is irrelevant. Things don’t become less racist just because you say them when you want to get votes.
Of course, some people think that unless a direct reference to skin colour is involved it’s technically incorrect to describe a phrase as ‘racist’. I think that’s naive.
Also, I don’t think the president of a country literally using the word ‘invasion’ about a relatively tiny group of knackered immigrants is ‘misguided’. I think it’s absolutely poisonous, and despicable. It could’ve been lifted from a Hitler speech and it’s extraordinarily dangerous to use words like that. ‘Misguided’ isn’t really sufficient.
Well said.
+2
“Things don’t become less racist just because you say them when you want to get votes.”
In fact it’s usually just the opposite. Electioneering is high time for dog whistling to your base.
Doctored videos to compliment the outright lies of the tRump administration… ain’t it funny how people who are stupid enough to believe conspiracy theories are the same ones who will attempt to perpetrate their own and think we won’t notice?! Not that it matters. Nothing matters so long as our politicians sit quietly on the sidelines. Not a spine in the republican senate.
It’s time for our great American Free Press to show solidarity by boycotting the White House press conferences, and the walk-by press “sprays” on the White House lawn, until Jim Acosta’s press credentials are restored.
And it’s time for US citizens to take it to the street, to protest the latest move by Donald Trump in his ongoing efforts to obstruct justice, by firing the Attorney General and then jumping over much more qualified people in the Justice Department chain-of-command to name as his replacement someone whose main qualification appears to be that he made a point of going on tv to criticize the special counsel investigation and to defend Donald Trump, Jr.’s June 2016 Russian-collusion meeting at Trump Tower. There are “Rapid Response” events scheduled around the country this evening, organized by the ACLU, Move-On, and Indivisible. Check with your local organizers. Nobody is above the law.
Only now do I see that I have written something similar to your first paragraph. My apologies for not having read it earlier. Mine was a comment to a previous post, now I’m surprised to find anyone else’s expression of such wishful thinking.
.-
Newsflash:
Another area of concern: Ruth Bader Ginsberg has been hospitalized after she fell and broke three ribs. She is 85 years old and it is questionable how long she can continue on the court.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-hospitalized.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Uh-oh.
At least she waited until after the midterms. LOL
Nearly as disgusting as Trump’s treatment of reporters at the presser yesterday was the way he called out the losing GOP candidates who had declined (in his words) “to embrace” him during their campaigns.
The people he name-checked are all staunch, loyal Republicans who voted with Trump’s legislative agenda upwards of 99% of the time, who never criticized Trump on the record, who never did anything to disparage him publicly. Their only transgression was to make the tactically sound decision that, since they were running in comparatively sane electoral jurisdictions, it wouldn’t be good for the home team to have Trump show up in their districts to hold one of his bat-shit crazy Nuremberg rallies. And for this, the day after they and their families suffered gut-wrenching electoral losses, Donald Trump humiliated them by name before a national television audience — like a school bully picking on weaker kids who didn’t show up for a meeting of his he-man caravan-hating club.
What kind of human being does that? The same kind who would tweet about Mika Brzezinski’s bleeding face-lift simply because she criticized him, who would take to the stage to mock Serge Kovaleski’s handicap, who would denigrate the service of a man who did 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, I reckon.
Our “president” has the personality of a petulant, malicious juvenile delinquent.
And we’re supposed to work harder to understand the half of the country that voted for him. I can’t do it.
I think I’m running out of effective adjectives to get across how much of an utter c u next Tuesday this man is. He’s a kind of uber-arsehole – language wasn’t built to deal with people as awful as this.
“Ineffable Asshole” has a nice near-assonance to it. 🙂
I can think of an ‘F’ word that would assonate well enough.
You forgot to mention impugning gold star parents…
Yeah, and an American-born federal judge of Mexican heritage …
So says Sarah Huckabee Sanders, press secretary to Donald Trump.
Let us recall that this is the same Donald Trump who stood 100% behind — until he didn’t, when it became inconvenient to do so, then he cut him loose, same as he does everyone else who’s no longer of use to him — his then-campaign manager, Corey Lewandowki, when Lewandowski was caught on tape, and later charged criminally, for jerking back the arm of a woman reporter (a reporter for, of all goddamn places, Breitbart News) because that reporter had had the effrontery to walk beside candidate Trump and ask him a relevant policy question.
Servile Republicans standing up to Trump? What ever he does I wouldn’t expect it.
I understand why Trump would be upset about the assault on the intern. Acosta did not grab her by the correct body part.
LOL…
FTW.
Sometimes they don’t just let you, even if you’re a big tv star, I guess.
I know. Women can be so unreasonable sometimes.
What is really going on here is not getting enough analysis or emphasis:
The US government is making policy on falsehoods, not facts.
This is very dangerous but it’s been going on for two years.
The video that the Press Secretory to the President of the United States put out for the world to see was doctored. That makes it fake, false, in essence, propaganda. But, the doctored video is then used to justify an action, the removal of Jim Acosta’s press pass.
But, the untruths that justify policy are rampant:
Central American “invasion.” Not true.
No policy to separate families. Not true.
Reason for arbitrary tariffs. Not true.
Reason for Muslim ban. Not true.
Reason to pull out of Iran accord. Not true.
Reason to pull out of Paris accord. Not true.
Reasons for deregulation. Not true.
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
Why evolution is true. Ha, too funny! It’s a just-so story.
Feynman said it best during the commission on the Challenger accident: You can’t fool Mother Nature. Eventually, policy based on lies, falsehoods, propaganda and myths will have a devastating effect on all of us.
Love the Feynman reference. In this context, I feel it gives me a QUASI-religous boost. tRUMP’s scalp is an example of a lame attempt at fooling Mother Nature.
Even in it’s doctored state, I had to look at the video a few times before I figured out what they were calling “assault” on Acosta’s part. The most “violent” move in the video to me is the young woman yanking his microphone down.
I agree…neither version to me would warrant the action of taking away his hard pass…especially the real version.
I think the WH is cynical enough to have used that young woman specifically in case something like this happened, and specifically so they could then frame it in terms of ‘gigantic brutish male reporter openly assaults delicate young flower in Trump’s administration’.
I don’t doubt this WH’s cynicism but this might border on conspiracy theory territory. If I were in charge of the WH press room, I would assign the microphone-transfer job to someone small, thin, and quick on her feet as the room is often crowded, making it hard for someone larger to navigate without “assaulting” members of the press.
It’s not a theory at all, it was a passing thought that struck me when I saw the WH roll out their bullshit deflection effort.
Besides, it’s too plausible to be a conspiracy theory.
I had the same thought, actually–until I remembered that a conspiracy would require planning and thought from one or more people in this administration. No one there is that bright.
Maybe not, but they have that reptile cunning that gets you to the top of the pile of bodies.
With that strategy in mind, maybe Trump will take to the lectern in the White House pressroom in blackface next time he wants to call PBS White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor a “racist” (as he did yesterday).
To employ a fatuous trope that the NY Times has more and more frequently used in its reporting during the last year or so: It is “unclear” whether the White House is cynical enough to have used that young woman specifically in case something like this happened.
Many have said that if the Mueller investigation is blocked then that will be the end of the Trump presidency since even the Republicans will not stand for that.
I now think that even that will not be the case. It seems to me that the Republicans in congress are so cowed by this president that they will seek earnestly to do nothing substantial about such an event.
I agree. There certainly must be a line beyond which Trump could not pass without a full reaction from the GOP. But, I’d have to spend too much psychic energy to want to construct such a scenario.
I see no evidence that such a line exists.
Based on Trump’s own words, we know the scenario is worse than killing someone on Park Ave.
Now to construct a more accurate lower bound.
Ah, who am kidding? It’ll be impossible to find.
-Ryan
And don’t forget his treatment of Yamiche Alcindor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bSMiSTdthE
That one was really weird.
She’s asking him about his use of the word “Nationalist” to describe himself and he tells her it’s a racist question.
It’s like a bizzaro world reading of Lee Atwater’s framing manual: a)don’t accept the premise of the question b)attack their strong points [i.e. swiftboat ’em] and c)flip the question back at the questioner.
Ominous.
+1
Just popped in to say that Trump’s behaviour makes that of Dubya, the fumbling bungling incompetent warmongering toddler, look positively angelic in comparison.
If ever there was a time to use the phrase “just sayin'” it is now.
Hell, Donald J. Trump makes Millard Fillmore seem like Pericles in the Golden Age of Athens.
There was an interesting editorial in The Economist recently that does a very believable job of explaining how Trump’s supporters feel about him and his opponents:
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/11/03/the-trump-cult
It is extremely saddening. If it is correct, no amount of reporting by the MSM will make a dent in it.
I read the article. Thanks for the link. The article in my opinion is correct. I have heard a lot of people say how much they hate Hillary and how happy they are that she is not president. And people that voted for Trump acknowledge his faults. They really do not like liberals. That is the split in the country that I mention from time to time. Others have mentioned a split also. It is mostly rural versus urban but it is also sections of the country.
I think the split will continue. As I say, our country has been split.
My guess that a big reason why regular folk in red states hate liberals so much is they’ve been listening for 30 years to Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the rest of the right-wing loonies on TV and radio. Trump does the same thing but from a higher office.
Could be. Except the split goes back to the 1700s.
Why do the people on the left disliked the ones on the right so much since then?
I can’t say how left and right felt about each other a century ago but I am sure there wasn’t the “liberals eat their children” drumbeat in the decades before Rush Limbaugh came along because I was there. And, even though the liberals do demonize the conservatives, it is generally based on policy rather than false conspiracy theories. To name but one example, there’s no equivalent to the birther conspiracy going the other direction.
Most days I am pretty confident about our future. Some days not so much. Not much I can do about it but study history and talk.
Which is what I enjoy doing.
When Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were getting things started in the U.S., the big split was between those who wanted to model government after the British form(aristocrats ran things), and those who were thinking about a more fundamentally democratic system. The split was bitter and at times lead to terrible acts of libel, rumor mongering, and shocking dishonesty(kind of like now). Jefferson’s seething rhetoric against Adams, figured in Adams loosing his bid for a second term. They were bitter rivals and enemies until later in life when they became great friends. Abigail Adams never forgave Jefferson. While parties were beginning to form, each had their own newspapers which amounted to their own fox news.
Apparently the Washington Post is running the doctored video where Acosta (sort of) hits the woman.
You mean running the story about the doctored video. I assume.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/08/white-house-shares-doctored-video-support-punishment-journalist-jim-acosta/?utm_term=.ba45e70e9d5a
Speaking of those on the right hating the press, To Chuck Todd on Meet the Press, ‘Half-jokingly, McCain said, “a fundamental part of that new world order was a free press. I hate the press. I hate you especially. But the fact is we need you.”‘ McCain followed by saying without a free press, “I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That’s how dictators get started.”
I don‘t know what‘s worse. That the White House would use faked evidence to justify dubious behaviour, or that they apparently listen to Joseph Paul Watson, and InfoWars.
The US is a great country with even greater ideals. It now must draw a serious line. No more whining, or complaining. Journalists and the public must demand consequences.
“The US is a great country with even greater ideals. It now must draw a serious line. No more whining, or complaining. Journalists and the public must demand consequences.”
That’d be possible if it was one unified country, but it doesn’t seem to be. It seems to be two sides who have entrenched themselves to an unprecedented extent, and the president has made it a _political tactic_ to entrench them further, and rouse bloodlust on both sides.
All his life he’s known that there’s a certain kind of person who won’t accept him: educated, liberal, etc. He’s not going to start bothering with them now. He has his fans on his side and if it means sundering the country in a civil war who really doubts that he’d do it?
He’s old enough that the future isn’t a massive concern to him too, and it’s not like there’s much evidence that his kids are of fundamental importance to him, except as masturbatory fantasies. That makes him even more dangerous. I don’t think he’s even vaguely interested in the state of the world ten to fifteen years from now. I don’t think he thinks he’s got that long left, and I think that affects his thinking in a way it wouldn’t if he was president at the age of forty or fifty.
Apologies for some of the imagery in the previous post. Must filter next time.
Please don’t on my account. Bottom line, no one should expect Trump to “grow into the job”, at least not in a good way.
To channel Don Rickles: “The U.S. is a great country. Just ask Amuricuns – they’ll tell you!”
Such sentiments have more credibility coming from other countries. As with individuals, so with countries – who enjoys hearing someone constantly brag on himself?
I am European.
Touché! 😉
Excellent. “Touché”! My point still firmly holds. I’ve never heard any non-U.S. country or citizen of that country brag on themselves like Amuricuns do. (I’m Amuricun. And such braggadocio is embarrassing to me.)
I think bragging comes from two sources. First is insecurity. Just look at Donald Trump. Shamed by his father, a classic narcissist who has convinced himself of his own significance.
Second, from youth and inexperience, and I think this is the American condition. From early on the U.S.A. has been a youthful, vibrant, culture, full of itself. Give us another hundred years to mature.
Why did he even hold a press conference if he didn’t expect some hard questions- He wasn’t talking to FoxNews, his propaganda support outlet. IMO he’s worse than no president at all.
If a reporter doesn’t get the answers he wants, apparently he’s entitled to commandeer the mic.
He is MUCH worse than no president at all.
Unhappily, whenever I think of him leaving office midterm, MikefuckingPence comes to mind and then I just want to go hang myself.
No, don’t hang yourself.
Hang tRump 😉
cr
Interesting opinion piece in the NYT today making the case that the appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting AG violates Article 2, section 2 of the US Constitution, written by former Solicitor General Neal Katyal and none other than George Conway. (Hope for George’s sake he’s got a comfortable couch, what with all the nights Kellyanne must have him sleeping on it).
In addition to the constitutional question addressed in that article, there appear to be issues regarding the appointment under both the Vacancy Reform Act the the Justice Department’s succession statute. In addition, the DoJ’s ethics’ office is likely to recommend Whitaker recuse himself (if it has not done so already) from overseeing the Mueller investigation based on Whitaker’s potential conflicts of interest owing to both his pre-appointment statements and his relationship with witness Sam Clovis.
If Whitaker ignores these issues and proceeds to make a move to limit or end the special counsel investigation anyway, he may well put himself in the cross-hairs of his own obstruction-of-justice criminal investigation.
Who has power to initiate said investigation?
How do you know when tRump is lying?
When its mouth opens and words come out.
Okay, it’s an oldie, but this is probably the first time it’s been literally true. Most politicians – almost all in fact – absolutely hate to be caught in a lie.
tRump just doesn’t care. For him words are just useful weapons to be used in whatever way suits him at that instant. There is no such thing as the truth or facts, there is just what suits him. (This is an eerie echo, I guess, of the regressive left’s idea of everything being a ‘social construct’ and feelz mattering more than reality).
I really can’t think of any other politician who was so openly contemptuous of the truth as tRump. Maybe Idi Amin? (My memory is dim and I may be doing Idi an injustice there).
cr
;D
Poor ol’ Idi, may he rest in peace…
Like having “Baghdad Bob” as US president.
Un-fuckin’-believable. (Him and the situation both.)
And you think Trump is going to give you that respite?
If and when Trump ever holds a press conference again, the press needs to stand up and walk out.
Trump’s behavior was that of a spoiled want to be dictator.
I think the media should stage a one-day boycott of reporting on anything having to do with Trump – not even mentioning his name. The one thing he hates wors than being criticized is being ignored – can you imagine how infuriated that would make him?
Agree! But I’m afraid it will be practically impossible to obtain the requiered solidarity.
.-
I suggest that they just sit there and say nothing. (Though their corporate ma$ter$ will have a problem with that.) No doubt tRump and Sander will somehow find fault with that.