Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448 
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 14, 2018 13:02:19 GMT -5
If Mr Trump had simply answered the question, none of this would have happened. I’m glad to see at least one journalist who won’t be brushed off like an annoying gnat. Answering tough questions comes with the territory and if Mr Trump isn’t up to it, he should resign and let an adult do the job. You're making an impersonal issue into one that is personally about Pres. Trump. Imagine it's future Pres. Hillary Clinton on the podium. She's been grilled by the press for 30 minutes, answered more than 60 questions, and a Breitbart reporter looking to make a name for himself shouts out a charged question. She answers him. He immediately asks another question, trying to hamstring her. She answers again, but he won't be placated. They exchange words. Ultimately Pres. Clinton decides she's had enough of the standoff. She orders the enterprising Breitbart reporter to stand down so the briefing can continue. He refuses. She orders him again, and again he refuses, asserting that it is right to continue demanding questions until such a time as he's satisfied. A White House aide comes to confiscate his microphone and he refuses to give it to her. His contempt for the President and the Press Secretary is palpable. He's accomplishing nothing; Pres. Clinton isn't answering any more questions. He's certainly not doing the public any favours. The briefing is stalled. A video of the standoff is released. Online, Pres. Clinton's detractors cheer the brave Breitbart reporter, their champion of the Fourth Estate standing up to the corrupt Pres. Clinton, applauding his obstinacy in spite of its futility. After all, they claim, Pres. Clinton is accountable to the American people, and how can she be held accountable if she won't answer a fair question by a reporter doing his job? In years past, the White House had the recourse to revoke the reporter's press pass, but since the courts set a precedent in 2019, this option no longer exists. The Breitbart reporter is a fixture in the press pool. Irremovable. As often as he pleases, he can grandstand, obstruct, and show contempt for the President, with a hundred million Americans lauding his theatrics. Moreover, if he doesn't, somebody else will. Is this the future you want? Do you want members of the WH press pool to have this power to obstruct? Do you see any good coming from it? Do you see it leading to the American people being more informed about the governance of the country? Please, consider these questions. If your answers include "Trump" anywhere, rethink them. The greater issue has nothing to do with Pres. Trump. It has to do with respect for the Office of the US President and with standards that lead to order (as opposed to chaos) and free flow of information in the WH briefing room. Don't let your contempt for the man and his behaviour corrupt your judgment.
New white house briefing: Reporter A) Question... Trump: sit down, or I will throw you out, next question. Reporter B) Question... Trump: sit down or I will throw you out. Next question. Reporter C) Question Trump: sit down. This briefing is over, and if you shout out a question as I am leaving, I will throw you out. Maybe we should just go back to not having them, as he just rendered them useless reductio ad absurdum And again: the issue is bigger than Pres. Trump.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 14, 2018 13:04:12 GMT -5
This isn't about a reporter shouting questions and interrupting the president. It's about refusing to sit down and yield the floor after three demands by the man delivering the briefing. It most certainly is disrespectful, it's disruptive, and it simply isn't done. Even in parliamentary scrums, where speaking members are peers, a member who disregards the Speaker's directives to sit down and yield the floor is censured. I fully expect heated questions, loud voices, and a certain lack of decorum during a WH press briefing, but there are still lines, and Mr. Acosta crossed one. The bigger question is: Does his misbehaviour warrant revoking his WH press pass? As far as I'm concerned, absent action on his part to demonstrate he won't cross the line again, it does. We'll have to wait and see what the courts have to say about it. Even if they rule in his favour, I suspect it will be because the WH had no explicit standards of conduct laid out, and the WH will hasten to remedy that.
Here's the point - it is done, all the time.
You need to back and watch video from other press conferences with other presidents. You seem to think they're supposed to be orderly and polite, like a well run fifth grade classroom, when in fact, it's a scrum. It's always been a scrum. Reporters always shout out questions, press for answers, and are reluctant to give up the mike. Other presidents learn how to handle them better than Trump does. That's not the reporter's fault, and trying to ban reporters from pressers is a bad precedent.
If we start going down that path, we'll end up with a handful of reporters from Highlights, TV guide and Fox news, all sitting quietly while the president bloviates. At that point, what's the point of having press conferences at all? You'll have to show me any video where the President repeatedly orders a reporter to stand down, the reporter refuses, and isn't subject to censure. Because frankly, I don't believe you. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,405
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 14, 2018 13:34:35 GMT -5
... And again: the issue is bigger than Pres. Trump.  The issue is whether any President should have the power to decide who is allowed to be present at press briefings. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,661
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 14, 2018 13:41:52 GMT -5
Did you watch the same video the rest of us did? Acosta asked a question. Trump didn't like it and called Acosta rude. Then an intern was told to take Acosta's mic away. Newsflash, you're president and you're gonna get questions you don't like. The appropriate response by a professional reporter is to report, "When asked a question about the migrant caravan, Pres. Trump flatly refused to answer, instead moving on to...", and let the public be the judge. An honest reporter would include, per context, the fact that Pres. Trump had already answered nearly 70 questions over a period of half an hour, and only refused to answer Mr. Acosta's third question in a row. But whether Pres. Trump was stonewalling and/or Mr. Acosta was badgering him is irrelevant. When a world leader giving a press conference tells you to sit down and let him speak, you comply. I wouldn't tolerate the kind of belligerence demonstrated by Mr. Acosta if he'd been addressing a professor at a lecture or a CEO at a shareholder meeting, let alone the US President. And if he resisted an attempt to confiscate his microphone by the organizers, he'd be out on his can so fast it'd make his head spin. If the courts rule in his favour to reinstate his press pass, I expect at the very least they'll permit the WH to come up with an explicit set of guidelines that permit the ejection of anyone acting the way Mr. Acosta did during the briefing.
The D.C. Circuit Court basically did rule on the matter, in 1977. Robert Sherrill was denied White House credentials eleven years earlier. He was not told why, and when he asked was told by the Secret Service, "We can't tell you the reasons." He reapplied in 1972 and was again denied without explanation. When reasons were eventually given they were neither sufficient nor relevant to the denial of his accreditation. He eventually sued the Secret Service for violating his First and Fifth Amendment rights. The Court ruled in his favor in 1977, and while they did not require the Secret Service to issue him a pass, they did set forth a series of requirements regarding due process in the attempt to deny credentials. Those requirements include giving the reporter notice and a formal written decision, and guarantees the right to rebut that formal decision, all to ensure that no reporter's First Amendment rights are violated. While there may be no constitutional guarantee to access, there is a guarantee that reporters cannot be singled out for retaliation, as the current White House is doing to Acosta. |
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,673
|
Post by swamp on Nov 14, 2018 13:48:26 GMT -5
Here's the point - it is done, all the time.
You need to back and watch video from other press conferences with other presidents. You seem to think they're supposed to be orderly and polite, like a well run fifth grade classroom, when in fact, it's a scrum. It's always been a scrum. Reporters always shout out questions, press for answers, and are reluctant to give up the mike. Other presidents learn how to handle them better than Trump does. That's not the reporter's fault, and trying to ban reporters from pressers is a bad precedent.
If we start going down that path, we'll end up with a handful of reporters from Highlights, TV guide and Fox news, all sitting quietly while the president bloviates. At that point, what's the point of having press conferences at all? You'll have to show me any video where the President repeatedly orders a reporter to stand down, the reporter refuses, and isn't subject to censure. Because frankly, I don't believe you. Where did he tell him to stand down? He told him Acosta was rude because he didn't like the question he was asked. Trump doesn't have any authority to tell a reporter to stand down. |
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 14, 2018 13:54:40 GMT -5
Look at what happens when a reporter asks a single question instead of three. Trump just hates CNN, and he's made that very clear in the past. As Trump walked out of the White House residence to board the Marine One helicopter on Friday morning, he paused to answer questions from the press corps and snapped when CNN correspondent Abby Phillip asked whether he wanted Whitaker to rein in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. “What a stupid question that is,” Trump said. “What a stupid question. But I watch you a lot. You ask a lot of stupid questions.
www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/five-days-of-fury-inside-trump%E2%80%99s-paris-temper-election-woes-and-staff-upheaval/ar-BBPGakV?ocid=spartandhpAnd people want journalists to have respect for the Oval Office? Trump himself has no respect for anything or anyone. He admires Putin, who has journalists killed. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 14, 2018 14:26:11 GMT -5
... And again: the issue is bigger than Pres. Trump. The issue is whether any President should have the power to decide who is allowed to be present at press briefings. ...in these circumstances, i.e. given Mr. Acosta's specific conduct during the briefing. The appropriate response by a professional reporter is to report, "When asked a question about the migrant caravan, Pres. Trump flatly refused to answer, instead moving on to...", and let the public be the judge. An honest reporter would include, per context, the fact that Pres. Trump had already answered nearly 70 questions over a period of half an hour, and only refused to answer Mr. Acosta's third question in a row. But whether Pres. Trump was stonewalling and/or Mr. Acosta was badgering him is irrelevant. When a world leader giving a press conference tells you to sit down and let him speak, you comply. I wouldn't tolerate the kind of belligerence demonstrated by Mr. Acosta if he'd been addressing a professor at a lecture or a CEO at a shareholder meeting, let alone the US President. And if he resisted an attempt to confiscate his microphone by the organizers, he'd be out on his can so fast it'd make his head spin. If the courts rule in his favour to reinstate his press pass, I expect at the very least they'll permit the WH to come up with an explicit set of guidelines that permit the ejection of anyone acting the way Mr. Acosta did during the briefing.
The D.C. Circuit Court basically did rule on the matter, in 1977. Robert Sherrill was denied White House credentials eleven years earlier. He was not told why, and when he asked was told by the Secret Service, "We can't tell you the reasons." He reapplied in 1972 and was again denied without explanation. When reasons were eventually given they were neither sufficient nor relevant to the denial of his accreditation. He eventually sued the Secret Service for violating his First and Fifth Amendment rights. The Court ruled in his favor in 1977, and while they did not require the Secret Service to issue him a pass, they did set forth a series of requirements regarding due process in the attempt to deny credentials. Those requirements include giving the reporter notice and a formal written decision, and guarantees the right to rebut that formal decision, all to ensure that no reporter's First Amendment rights are violated. While there may be no constitutional guarantee to access, there is a guarantee that reporters cannot be singled out for retaliation, as the current White House is doing to Acosta. I'm aware of the precedent from earlier in the thread, and I agree the ruling is clear: no reporter can be summarily booted without due process. The White House obviously erred in how they handled revocation of the pass, although I'm sure they'll argue that Mr. Acosta posed some kind of physical threat to the aide trying to de-mic him, i.e. "exigent circumstances". Regardless, Mr. Acosta's pass should be reinstated until such time as the WH provides him with pro forma written notice, a hearing to appeal, etc., at which time, should he have failed to provide the court with guarantees that his misconduct (specifically, his refusal to stand down when asked, and refusal to relinquish his mic) would not be repeated, his pass should be revoked until he's willing to provide such guarantees. I suspect he'd agree long before the court case ever reached its conclusion, in which case it would be prudent for the WH to let him keep his credentials.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,272 
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Nov 14, 2018 14:31:21 GMT -5
|
|
PK Bucko
Junior Associate
Joined: Aug 29, 2011 9:06:37 GMT -5
Posts: 5,098
|
Post by PK Bucko on Nov 14, 2018 14:57:40 GMT -5
If I were Trump, I'd reinstate the moron's credentials then cancel all future press conferences. From that point forward granting exclusive interviews weekly with every network, with the exception of CNN...
He needs to get back to his reality tv roots! LOL
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,744
|
Post by happyhoix on Nov 14, 2018 16:01:02 GMT -5
Here's the point - it is done, all the time.
You need to back and watch video from other press conferences with other presidents. You seem to think they're supposed to be orderly and polite, like a well run fifth grade classroom, when in fact, it's a scrum. It's always been a scrum. Reporters always shout out questions, press for answers, and are reluctant to give up the mike. Other presidents learn how to handle them better than Trump does. That's not the reporter's fault, and trying to ban reporters from pressers is a bad precedent.
If we start going down that path, we'll end up with a handful of reporters from Highlights, TV guide and Fox news, all sitting quietly while the president bloviates. At that point, what's the point of having press conferences at all? You'll have to show me any video where the President repeatedly orders a reporter to stand down, the reporter refuses, and isn't subject to censure. Because frankly, I don't believe you. Other presidents don't 'order reporters to stand down.'
Other presidents answer the question, and if the reporter has follow up questions the president doesn't want to answer, he points to some other reporter in the room, and an intern quickly gets a different microphone in front of the new reporter. The new reporter starts talking and the president responds. The first reporter might be miffed that he didn't get all his questions answered, but things have moved on, the new reporter is talking. That's just how it works. Pull up any video clip you like, from any other president, and you'll see it in action.
Trump has to make every interaction a pissing contest. He's used to shouting and having everyone in the room cringe, and it infuriates him when reporters get aggressive back, but that's how reporters are, especially reporters who work that particular beat. They have to have skin like leather.
By the way, even Fox News is backing CNN's lawsuit against the Trump administration. thehill.com/homenews/media/416630-fox-news-backs-cnns-lawsuit-against-trump-administration
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 14, 2018 18:38:24 GMT -5
You'll have to show me any video where the President repeatedly orders a reporter to stand down, the reporter refuses, and isn't subject to censure. Because frankly, I don't believe you. Other presidents don't 'order reporters to stand down.'
Other presidents answer the question, and if the reporter has follow up questions the president doesn't want to answer, he points to some other reporter in the room, and an intern quickly gets a different microphone in front of the new reporter. The new reporter starts talking and the president responds. The first reporter might be miffed that he didn't get all his questions answered, but things have moved on, the new reporter is talking. That's just how it works. Pull up any video clip you like, from any other president, and you'll see it in action.
Trump has to make every interaction a pissing contest. He's used to shouting and having everyone in the room cringe, and it infuriates him when reporters get aggressive back, but that's how reporters are, especially reporters who work that particular beat. They have to have skin like leather.
By the way, even Fox News is backing CNN's lawsuit against the Trump administration. thehill.com/homenews/media/416630-fox-news-backs-cnns-lawsuit-against-trump-administration Even I'm backing the lawsuit against the administration--on the grounds I specified above. Mr. Acosta clearly wasn't afforded due process, which is unacceptable. But when the dust finally settles, I sincerely hope it's in a place where a reporter who conducts himself as Mr. Acosta did will face meaningful censure. No world leader should have to shout over the unceasing objections of a critic while delivering a briefing.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,828
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 14, 2018 18:45:19 GMT -5
Other presidents don't 'order reporters to stand down.'
Other presidents answer the question, and if the reporter has follow up questions the president doesn't want to answer, he points to some other reporter in the room, and an intern quickly gets a different microphone in front of the new reporter. The new reporter starts talking and the president responds. The first reporter might be miffed that he didn't get all his questions answered, but things have moved on, the new reporter is talking. That's just how it works. Pull up any video clip you like, from any other president, and you'll see it in action.
Trump has to make every interaction a pissing contest. He's used to shouting and having everyone in the room cringe, and it infuriates him when reporters get aggressive back, but that's how reporters are, especially reporters who work that particular beat. They have to have skin like leather.
By the way, even Fox News is backing CNN's lawsuit against the Trump administration. thehill.com/homenews/media/416630-fox-news-backs-cnns-lawsuit-against-trump-administration Even I'm backing the lawsuit against the administration--on the grounds I specified above. Mr. Acosta clearly wasn't afforded due process, which is unacceptable. But when the dust finally settles, I sincerely hope it's in a place where a reporter who conducts himself as Mr. Acosta did will face meaningful censure. No world leader should have to shout over the unceasing objections of a critic while delivering a briefing.
And no reporters should be publicly insulted by a world leader. Respect works both ways. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,405
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 14, 2018 18:46:47 GMT -5
... No world leader should have to shout over the unceasing objections of a critic while delivering a briefing. Everything I find says it was a press conference, not a briefing. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 14, 2018 19:02:44 GMT -5
Even I'm backing the lawsuit against the administration--on the grounds I specified above. Mr. Acosta clearly wasn't afforded due process, which is unacceptable. But when the dust finally settles, I sincerely hope it's in a place where a reporter who conducts himself as Mr. Acosta did will face meaningful censure. No world leader should have to shout over the unceasing objections of a critic while delivering a briefing.
And no reporters should be publicly insulted by a world leader. Respect works both ways. Indeed. Bearing in mind: i) two wrongs don't make a right (a leader's lack of decorum doesn't justify misbehaviour by his critics), and ii) in all but extreme cases, the leader is censured only by the pen and the ballot box. ETA: In summary, I'm saying that respect for the office of a world leader is imputed, not earned. Even in a democracy.
... No world leader should have to shout over the unceasing objections of a critic while delivering a briefing. Everything I find says it was a press conference, not a briefing. Either or.  |
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 14, 2018 19:05:08 GMT -5
"Indeed. Bearing in mind: i) two wrongs don't make a right (a leader's lack of decorum doesn't justify misbehaviour by his critics), and ii) in all but extreme cases, the leader is censured only by the pen and the ballot box.
"
No, but three lefts do.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 14, 2018 19:46:08 GMT -5
In a way this reminds me of a town hall meeting one of our Senators was holding,, Hostile crowd, angry people, and in the end the disruptive people we not even from his district!!! All they were trying to do is cause trouble. the result?? No more in person town meetings! Now we get telephone town meetings,,, So is that what next up for press conferences?? Another thing I will point out,, Trump is the President,, You don't like Trump,, But you should respect the office of the President,,, That most certainly includes reporters!! yes, the white house press room is just like a town hall meeting open to the public. Analogies aren't your strong suit. Ahhhh,yes, My point was, what if Presidential Press conferences go way of our Town hall meetings.
If the holder of that meeting does not take your phone call or just hangs up on you if they think your question is out of line!! Our Town Hall meetings appear to be gone.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 14, 2018 19:52:42 GMT -5
... And again: the issue is bigger than Pres. Trump. The issue is whether any President should have the power to decide who is allowed to be present at press briefings. Bills, is there any law or rule that states the President even has to hold press conferences,,
If he has something to announce,, he simply calls a less objectionable journalist into his office ,, make an announcement thru that journalist!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,405
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 14, 2018 19:59:19 GMT -5
...Bills, is there any law or rule that states the President even has to hold press conferences,, ... I am aware of no law or rule. |
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 14, 2018 20:00:57 GMT -5
...Bills, is there any law or rule that states the President even has to hold press conferences,, ... I am aware of no law or rule. Thanks, Bills |
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 14, 2018 21:00:50 GMT -5
The issue is whether any President should have the power to decide who is allowed to be present at press briefings. Bills, is there any law or rule that states the President even has to hold press conferences,,
If he has something to announce,, he simply calls a less objectionable journalist into his office ,, make an announcement thru that journalist!
No, if he has something to announce, he tweets. |
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 14, 2018 21:19:29 GMT -5
Bills, some day Trump may realize that it show more authority to use a good news media to announce something,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,maybe!
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Nov 14, 2018 22:00:01 GMT -5
First of all the president answered the question. It is Acosta that didnt like the answer. What video were you people watching. Acosta asked why are you calling the migrant caravan an invasion, the president replied because that is what it is. Asked and answered. Acosta didn't like his answer and kept talking. It is perfectly reasonable for the president to shut him down. So keep with all your illusions the truth is right here. It just shows all the bias. As far as Trump not be in able to order him to stop talking, the press don't have the right to be there it is a privilege, they are guests of the white house. All the people pissing and moaning need to grow up. You will get your chance in 2024 You seem to be confused about the role of a free press in a democracy. It most definitely is NOT a priviledge -it’s their JOB. It’s the fucking JOB of the press to be there and ask hard, difficult questions. Not to kiss his arse. And if he can’t do his effing job and answer the questions, he has no business being there. Again, Acosta is not the issue. The issue is trump’s attacks on the 1st and 5th ammendments. I'm not wrong. He meaning Acosta is doing his job asking questions hard or easy doesn't matter. The president answers the question you can like the answer or not, that doesn't matter. The president did answer the question there is no denying it. Now as you put it it's the f#$**& job of the press this you are correct, but it's a privilege to be in the press pool the white house does not have to have cnn reporters there. The president is not to blame, all the blame lies with Acosta he was told to move on he had his question it was answered. By yammering on he showed no respect for the privilege he has been given, no respect to the president, and no respect to his fellow peers in the room. Let alone the outright attack on the intern by refusing to give up the microphone. If that girl was a snowflake like all these protesters are she will need years of therapy. |
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Nov 15, 2018 0:10:06 GMT -5
You seem to be confused about the role of a free press in a democracy. It most definitely is NOT a priviledge -it’s their JOB. It’s the fucking JOB of the press to be there and ask hard, difficult questions. Not to kiss his arse. And if he can’t do his effing job and answer the questions, he has no business being there. Again, Acosta is not the issue. The issue is trump’s attacks on the 1st and 5th ammendments. I'm not wrong. He meaning Acosta is doing his job asking questions hard or easy doesn't matter. The president answers the question you can like the answer or not, that doesn't matter. The president did answer the question there is no denying it. Now as you put it it's the f#$**& job of the press this you are correct, but it's a privilege to be in the press pool the white house does not have to have cnn reporters there. The president is not to blame, all the blame lies with Acosta he was told to move on he had his question it was answered. By yammering on he showed no respect for the privilege he has been given, no respect to the president, and no respect to his fellow peers in the room. Let alone the outright attack on the intern by refusing to give up the microphone. If that girl was a snowflake like all these protesters are she will need years of therapy. Sorry, but 1St and 5th Ammendment Rights are not “priviledges”.... And this isn’t about Acosta or CNN. It’s about trump’s attacks on our democracy. This is entirely on him. |
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Nov 15, 2018 5:15:03 GMT -5
I'm not wrong. He meaning Acosta is doing his job asking questions hard or easy doesn't matter. The president answers the question you can like the answer or not, that doesn't matter. The president did answer the question there is no denying it. Now as you put it it's the f#$**& job of the press this you are correct, but it's a privilege to be in the press pool the white house does not have to have cnn reporters there. The president is not to blame, all the blame lies with Acosta he was told to move on he had his question it was answered. By yammering on he showed no respect for the privilege he has been given, no respect to the president, and no respect to his fellow peers in the room. Let alone the outright attack on the intern by refusing to give up the microphone. If that girl was a snowflake like all these protesters are she will need years of therapy. Sorry, but 1St and 5th Ammendment Rights are not “priviledges”.... And this isn’t about Acosta or CNN. It’s about trump’s attacks on our democracy. This is entirely on him. The 1st Ammendment is not violated here. He didn't throw everyone out just an obnoxious, unrespectful, grandstanding, journalist. The 5th ammendment, personally i dont there is not much of a case here let's see where the cnn lawsuit goes. Again I'm not wrong it is a privilege to be covering the Whitehouse, it's not just open to all news agencies to come. Respect where your at and who your addressing. The questions can be tough but be reresctful of the position whether you like the person in that position or not. The question was asked and answered. What the press, mainly the left leaning news hates is that this president called them out on their shady news reporting as fake news.They cannot stand it no one ever gave it back to them, and he is using his first ammendment rights to do it. Trump could cure cancer and these agencies would write Trump just put all oncologists out of business. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,828
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 15, 2018 7:15:48 GMT -5
Sorry, but 1St and 5th Ammendment Rights are not “priviledges”.... And this isn’t about Acosta or CNN. It’s about trump’s attacks on our democracy. This is entirely on him. The 5th ammendment, personally i dont there is not much of a case here let's see where the cnn lawsuit goes. Again I'm not wrong it is a privilege to be covering the Whitehouse, it's not just open to all news agencies to come. Respect where your at and who your addressing. The questions can be tough but be reresctful of the position whether you like the person in that position or not. The question was asked and answered. What the press, mainly the left leaning news hates is that this president called them out on their shady news reporting as fake news.They cannot stand it no one ever gave it back to them, and he is using his first ammendment rights to do it. Trump could cure cancer and these agencies would write Trump just put all oncologists out of business. You clearly know nothing about our rights under the U.S. Constitution. The rights under the constitution apply to individuals and groups. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 15, 2018 11:40:59 GMT -5
The 1st Ammendment is not violated here. He didn't throw everyone out just an obnoxious, unrespectful, grandstanding, journalist. The 5th ammendment, personally i dont there is not much of a case here let's see where the cnn lawsuit goes. Again I'm not wrong it is a privilege to be covering the Whitehouse, it's not just open to all news agencies to come. Respect where your at and who your addressing. The questions can be tough but be reresctful of the position whether you like the person in that position or not. The question was asked and answered. What the press, mainly the left leaning news hates is that this president called them out on their shady news reporting as fake news.They cannot stand it no one ever gave it back to them, and he is using his first ammendment rights to do it. Trump could cure cancer and these agencies would write Trump just put all oncologists out of business. You clearly know nothing about our rights under the U.S. Constitution. The rights under the constitution apply to individuals and groups. It's evidently a matter of extent, since relatively few kinds of disruptive behaviour are shielded by the 1st Amendment. If you don't believe me, pick any public gathering at random, show up refusing let the speaker(s) speak, and report back how many minutes it takes for security--or police--to haul you away. You can cry 1st Amendment all you like, it's going to be reasonably subordinate to maintaining order and keeping the peace in most cases. I'm not saying the courts will necessarily rule against Mr. Acosta, especially since he was denied due process, but with regards to what the Amendment does and doesn't cover, ednkris isn't the one who needs his knowledge checked.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Nov 15, 2018 11:52:32 GMT -5
You clearly know nothing about our rights under the U.S. Constitution. The rights under the constitution apply to individuals and groups. It's evidently a matter of extent, since relatively few kinds of disruptive behaviour are shielded by the 1st Amendment. If you don't believe me, pick any public gathering at random, show up refusing let the speaker(s) speak, and report back how many minutes it takes for security--or police--to haul you away. You can cry 1st Amendment all you like, it's going to be reasonably subordinate to maintaining order and keeping the peace in most cases. I'm not saying the courts will necessarily rule against Mr. Acosta, especially since he was denied due process, but with regards to what the Amendment does and doesn't cover, ednkris isn't the one who needs his knowledge checked.
There was no “disruptive behavior”. Legal precedent is on the side of the journalists, especially since the precedent cited violated Constitutional rights (not “privileges”) You also don’t seem to understand American constitutional rights, which is understand@ble since you are Canadian. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,828
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 15, 2018 12:05:46 GMT -5
You clearly know nothing about our rights under the U.S. Constitution. The rights under the constitution apply to individuals and groups. It's evidently a matter of extent, since relatively few kinds of disruptive behaviour are shielded by the 1st Amendment. If you don't believe me, pick any public gathering at random, show up refusing let the speaker(s) speak, and report back how many minutes it takes for security--or police--to haul you away. You can cry 1st Amendment all you like, it's going to be reasonably subordinate to maintaining order and keeping the peace in most cases. I'm not saying the courts will necessarily rule against Mr. Acosta, especially since he was denied due process, but with regards to what the Amendment does and doesn't cover, ednkris isn't the one who needs his knowledge checked.
My comment was about our rights in general. Individuals have rights under our Bill of Rights. ednkris is the one who needs his knowledge checked. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 15, 2018 12:57:56 GMT -5
It's evidently a matter of extent, since relatively few kinds of disruptive behaviour are shielded by the 1st Amendment. If you don't believe me, pick any public gathering at random, show up refusing let the speaker(s) speak, and report back how many minutes it takes for security--or police--to haul you away. You can cry 1st Amendment all you like, it's going to be reasonably subordinate to maintaining order and keeping the peace in most cases. I'm not saying the courts will necessarily rule against Mr. Acosta, especially since he was denied due process, but with regards to what the Amendment does and doesn't cover, ednkris isn't the one who needs his knowledge checked.
There was no “disruptive behavior”. Legal precedent is on the side of the journalists, especially since the precedent cited violated Constitutional rights (not “priviledges”) You also don’t seem to understand American constitutional rights, which is understand@ble since you are Canadian. The right is to freedom of speech. Not "freedom of speech in any venue, at any time, under any circumstances". Protection under the 1st Amendment is not an issue with a one-size-fits-all solution. Ergo why courts are needed to adjudicate.
If you can't see that Mr. Acosta's behaviour is disruptive, I only hope that someday you'll be addressing a crowd at your pleasure, answering their questions; and some loud malcontent will refuse to shut up and let you speak; and reality will at last smack you in the face: Wow! This is pretty disruptive. The same goes for anyone else who'd excuse Mr. Acosta's conduct.
Finally, there's no 'd' in 'privileges'. Ordinarily it wouldn't matter, but you're quoting ednkris and he doesn't misspell it.
|
|
hurley1980
Well-Known Member
I am all that is wrong with the world....don't get too close, I'm contagious.
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 17:35:06 GMT -5
Posts: 1,969
|
Post by hurley1980 on Nov 15, 2018 13:18:37 GMT -5
I still have not received an answer about whey Trump continues to call on Acosta if he is so disruptive. Why doesn't he just ignore him? There are plenty of other journalist to call on.
I'll admit Mr. Acosta was disruptive, if you Trumpsters will admit Trump only called on Mr. Acosta because he knew it would cause a scene. |
|
