Like I said, I didn’t expect it to do any good.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, but he CLEARLY didn’t touch her with his hand, so your summation of the video is incorrect.
His bone spurs in his left… or was it the right? leg prevented him from doing it himself. Not to mention his actual medical condition that earned him the 4F: he’s a spineless twit.
So I’m 100% clear: in the video, around the :06 second mark, you can see that he pulls his left arm down and withdraws it. As he does so, the edge of his hand near his pinky appears to brush against the arm that the intern has used to try to grab the microphone away from him. His hand is open and turned away from her, and he’s pulling it toward his body, and it may touch her inner elbow for about half a second as he withdraws his hand from the gesture.
That’s the half-second you’re characterizing as “putting his hand on a woman,” right?
Yep.
The issue is not ‘every person who wants a press pass should get one.’
The issue is that a legitimate news organization has a legitimate right to send the reporter of its choice to press conferences.
It’s nothing to do with ‘what Acosta wants.’ It’s nothing to do with ‘all Americans having a right to be at press conferences’ (there is no such right).
It’s about a legitimate news organization making legitimate choices, which do not include ‘sending someone who will ask questions the President likes.’
At the 4 second mark he is pointing at the President with his elbow bent. She goes in to grab the microphone and gets a hold of it. As she does so, she makes contact with his hand with the crook of her elbow. He immediately pushes down forcefully into the crook of her elbow to make her mike grab unsuccessful. That’s the way it appears to me.
Back when I read the New York Times magazine every Sunday, they had a contest to see who could coin a descriptive term for a common everyday event or thing or whatever that did not yet have one.
To wit: sheeple - people who are like sheep, in being docile, foolish, or easily led.
I’ve seen occasions in the past few years of someone making a statement online about something, who then links to a visual of some sort that clearly contradicts it.
I am of the opinion that we need such a word for people who can’t see that Jim Acosta did not put his hands on anyone. 
I don’t see it this way. I see it as, if a person receives a press credential, can the Government withdraw the credential on the basis that the reporter is asking questions that the Government does not like?
I’m not sure what the law says, but as a general question, I think it is an abuse to withdraw press credentials for that reason. The Government would be totally fine not calling on this reporter for questions, but I think withdrawing credentials based on asking questions is a bad thing.
And for the record, I think the questions that Acosta was asking at that moment were not good questions.
I think this is fair. And it’s not all that different from what I’d posted—I was trying to counter the frequently-seen right-wing arguments:
–‘the CNN lawsuit is ridiculous because it depends on the idea that every American has a right to a press pass’ (a false claim), and
–‘the CNN lawsuit is ridiculous because it depends on the idea that Acosta’s personal First-Amendment rights have been violated, and that’s not true because he can say anything he wants to when he’s out in public’ (or whatever–it’s another false claim.)
In other words, those arguing that CNN has no case are using false premises about what the CNN lawsuit is about. It’s not about protecting Jim Acosta’s personal right to speak his mind, and it’s not about a claim that all Americans have rights to press passes. Those are straw men that are easily knocked down, which is why some on the right are using those as anti-CNN-suit arguments.
What about the questions led you to feel they were not good?
He also hasn’t addressed his false claim:
despite the fact that the White House spokesperson said:
“We stand by our decision to revoke this individual’s hard pass. We will not tolerate the inappropriate behavior clearly documented in this video.”
This will teach Trump to not arm his interns with Billy clubs and body armor. The horror. A reporter accidently brushed her arm when she tried to forcibly take away his microphone.
The first question broke down to, “You called the migrants a bunch of invaders, but they aren’t. What’s up with that?”
I just think it’s a very poorly constructed question. Anything that has a basis of “you said X but it’s wrong” isn’t pinning anyone down or helping the audience learn something. It just feeds a circle of gratuitious assertions.
For some reason I’m blanking on hisnunrelated follow up question…
Yeah, it kinda bullshit grandstanding. From this summer:
Jim Acosta’s Dangerous Brand of Performance Journalism
The legal precedent mentioned above states the following takeaways:
Also,
I think that the precedent set in the 70s is going to play a major part in Acosta getting his credentials back.
Putting your hand/hands on a woman has certain connotations, usually taken as physical assault and sometimes sexual assault, wouldn’t you agree? This didn’t happen; neither Acosta or the woman did anything wrong. We’d all be in jail if this is all it took.
But given this much latitude of what some want to make of Acosta putting his hand on a woman, it would be easy for someone to spin it by saying the woman clearly went out of her way briskly walking over into his space, and noting she initiated the contact by grabbing his forefinger on his right hand while aggressively trying to jerk the microphone out of his hand.
He’s there to do a job, not lob softball type questions to the President. That’s Hannity’s job. Every president before him has went through the same.
What did you expect your post to do?
Reminds me of the old George Carlin anti-meme: “Do what you want to the girl but leave me alone!”
Not sure why I’m supposed to care whether he touched her or not. Trump says it’s okay to grab her by the pussy, so why do Republicans suddenly act like it matters?
And he’s back!
Doesn’t mean Trump needs to ever call on him, of course. Or in any way acknowledge him.