Jim Acosta's actions at the Presidential press conference. Part II

[OrphanSlug]

I voted "Unacceptable. But not a major issue. Contact accidental. Apologize and move on" but why are we completely excluding Trump (and team?)

The question assumes Trump (and team) were completely in the right and also forgetting that Trump has been intentionally combative with the press, especially those he likes to call "Fake News" and "enemies of the people."

Even though I think Acostas went too far, what did everyone think would happen?

I am not forgiving anyone, just asking why Trump (and team) seemingly are.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I voted "Unacceptable. But not a major issue. Contact accidental. Apologize and move on" but why are we completely excluding Trump (and team?)

The question assumes Trump (and team) were completely in the right and also forgetting that Trump has been intentionally combative with the press, especially those he likes to call "Fake News" and "enemies of the people."

Even though I think Acostas went too far, what did everyone think would happen?

I am not forgiving anyone, just asking why Trump (and team) seemingly are.

Because in that interview, which is what is being talked about, Trump and team did nothing wrong. Trump answered Acosta's questions. Both of them. When told to give up the mic for the next reporter to ask their question Acosta forcefully kept the mic. Trump & Co did nothing wrong this time around.

 

[DiAnna]

Where is the "The aide touched him, not the only way around; fire the aide" option?

Also, where is the "Sarah Sanders deliberately lied to say Acostas "laid hands" on the aide, when clearly the aide committed a battery to the back of Acosta's left hand" option?

In conclusion, where is the "This is one of the stupidest polls in the history of DP" option?

Thank you, Mr. OP, and I shall return the microphone without violence, lest you revoke my posting privileges.

 

[Gaius46]

He didn't just "not agree" dude.... he had a temper tantrum and took the microphone after he was repeatedly asked to move on.... and in addition, decided to get physical when the microphone was starting to get taken away from him. That is not his place to do .... no reporter has behaved like that....

Give me one Fox News reporter that has acted like that to Obama at a press conference.... physically taking the mic after it was requested to switch.... and continue to yell at the president?
I do not remember ANY such occasion.

I watched the video. He didn’t press the President for answers any harder that any other journalist. The President didn’t want to answer his questions and Acosta insisted a couple of times. I’ve literally seen that same interaction dozens of times with other Presidents over the years. He was doing his job.

And calling that interaction getting physical is a huge stretch. There was incidental contact between the two. No worse than if someone accidentally brushed against you on a crowded street.

 

[Fledermaus]

Where is the "The aide touched him, not the only way around; fire the aide" option?

Also, where is the "Sarah Sanders deliberately lied to say Acostas "laid hands" on the aide, when clearly the aide committed a battery to the back of Acosta's left hand" option?

In conclusion, where is the "This is one of the stupidest polls in the history of DP" option?

Thank you, Mr. OP, and I shall return the microphone without violence, lest you revoke my posting privileges.

The aides job at that point was to move the microphone. Acosta physically resisted giving up the microphone he had no business holding on to.

If we fired people for doing their jobs the US would be in a mess....


BTW - Killer last line

 

[joko104]

OTHER: Permanently banned from the WH and press conferences.

 

[joko104]

The aides job at that point was to move the microphone. Acosta physically resisted giving up the microphone he had no business holding on to.

If we fired people for doing their jobs the US would be in a mess....


BTW - Killer last line

It has nothing to do with that, it has to do with his conduct otherwise. He tweeted an admission of what he saw his job as - doing a daily 8pm "hit" on the president. Yes, that is his job because that is what CNN does 24/7 - hit jobs on President Trump. So CNN won't fire him because he was just doing his daily hit job on the president for CNN.

 

[Myview]

Given: There was contact on the staffer (to quote the UCMJ: Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense).

Given: The contact was not forceful as it could have been.

What say you about Acosta?

If there was any contact it was incidental as seen in the real time videos. The video tweeted by the White house's Sarah Sanders was a sped up video sent to her by a info wars contact. That one gives anyone who looks at it a false
impression of what happened. Jim Acosta has been reporting presidential politics since at least 2007 without courting controversy until the Trump administration. Reporters are supposed to ask tough questions. This Presidents reaction to tough questions as well as the media in general is the problem. Not Jim Acosta whose worst fault may be grandstanding for his network.

 

[slick]

Acosta finally got what he deserved! It's almost like he wants to be put down. Everytime I have seen him on TV
he appears to be acting like a bug searching for a windshield!

 

[Fledermaus]

If there was any contact it was incidental as seen in the real time videos. The video tweeted by the White house's Sarah Sanders was a sped up video sent to her by a info wars contact. That one gives anyone who looks at it a false
impression of what happened. Jim Acosta has been reporting presidential politics since at least 2007 without courting controversy until the Trump administration. Reporters are supposed to ask tough questions. This Presidents reaction to tough questions as well as the media in general is the problem. Not Jim Acosta whose worst fault may be grandstanding for his network.

Both versions... He still makes contact.

 

[DiAnna]

Both versions... He still makes contact.

In both versions, they make contact with each other. But in the unedited version, Acosta clearly says, "Pardon me, ma'am"; in the edited version, those words have be edited out, along with the video tampering.

There is no way to spin this to make what the WH did right.

 

[Fledermaus]

In both versions, they make contact with each other. But in the unedited version, Acosta clearly says, "Pardon me, ma'am"; in the edited version, those words have be edited out, along with the video tampering.

There is no way to spin this to make what the WH did right.

I first saw the edited version with the sound off. I thought it was choppy but is still showed the movement of both.

I watched it again with the sound on after reading this...

Damn the White House ****ed up big time.

 

[DiAnna]

I first saw the edited version with the sound off. I thought it was choppy but is still showed the movement of both.

I watched it again with the sound on after reading this...

Damn the White House ****ed up big time.

Finally! I knew you'd eventually see what really happened. *hugs*

 

[Nap]

Given: There was contact on the staffer (to quote the UCMJ: Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense).

Given: The contact was not forceful as it could have been.

What say you about Acosta?

The contact was incidental and it is rather ridiculous to make a big deal about it.

However, his grandstanding and virtue signaling are quite annoying and, in one of those rare moments, Trump was absolutely correct in calling him out for being rude. I think Trump has such issues with Acosta because he is essentially looking in a mirror. I would have removed Acosta long ago and told CNN to replace him with someone that wants to report the news rather than be the news.

 

[Fledermaus]

Finally! I knew you'd eventually see what really happened. *hugs*

Reports of my senility are overrated....

Just hit 60 a couple of weeks ago.



Now, what were we talking about?

 

[AGENT J]

Given: There was contact on the staffer (to quote the UCMJ: Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense).

Given: The contact was not forceful as it could have been.

What say you about Acosta?

As i said before the white House can suspend his credentials for whatever reason they want :shrug:

with that they are also open to criticism and or praise for that action

in this case, criticism hence there hilarious exaggeration and promoting of doctoring video

There was no assault
There was no laws broken
theres no justification to fire him IMO that i know of

I don't have a "problem" with his actions.
The contact was inconsequential and no apology is "needed"
His trying to get Trump to answer the questions and not to interrupt doesnt bother me
Him not giving back the mic is probably a violation of rules i would guess but again doesnt bother me but if it is supports a suspension

Trumps triggered meltdown was classic, he became totally unhinged and lost all composure because he didnt like the questions, thats hilarious. He must be really upset the dems taking the house.

Quite a few media, news, political, entertainment people have stated they think the loss of the house is really gonna fire Trump up and if we think he has lacked total composure before that he is REALLY going to start breaking down. Man, I hope not, thats never god for a president

 

[Rogue Valley]

In both versions, they make contact with each other. But in the unedited version, Acosta clearly says, "Pardon me, ma'am"; in the edited version, those words have be edited out, along with the video tampering.

There is no way to spin this to make what the WH did right.

When you watch the Shuckabee/Infowars version frame-by-frame, the vids colors are a bit washed out and a frame (where they accidently touch) burps --- it immediately repeats so Acosta's arm movement looks more like a purposeful chop than an incidental brush. And yes, the sound from the mic Acosta is holding is edited out.

 

[Fledermaus]

I must say I enjoyed how this poll shook out...

Thank you for participating and especially for not derailing the conversation.