Law CNN suing trump for Jim Acosta ban

Sorry but you say there are ways to ask the questions without being combative and get the answers.

please cite examples of that with Trump or GTFOH with that.

Trump is always combative and lying and lazy in his answers particularly when dealing with a reporter he feels he can bully or walk over.

I don't know your posting to call you a Trump bot or not but you are certainly a Trump apologist here. You have no issue tearing apart Abby for asking proper and rightful questions and you do not say a WORD about Trumps reply. Nice. You belong with Inga saying what Trump says or does ie irrelevant.
We've interacted in the Mayberry. We've usually been in agreement there. Haven't interacted much in the War Room, but we're usually in agreement here from what i've read of your stuff.
But, yea, this? I think people are being too partisan on this issue, and focusing more on Trump's personality.
Trump is an asshole. But the media is not doing a good job.

I haven't read Inga's exact statement, but it's not that I think Trump says is completely irrelevant. Clearly, he is the cause of the more hostile environment that we're seeing between the media and the White House. But the media should be "untriggerable".
The media is supposed to be impartial. They aren't supposed to get into fights. They are supposed to ask questions and get answers. Information is all they should care about. Let the commentators and opinionists do their thing on their shows, but the guys at the press conferences should be sticking to the facts.

You're looking for some tit-for-tat, or equivalency where I don't think it's really relevant. It shouldn't exist, imo. I don't like Trump's behavior. I'm not a "Trump apologist". I said he's unpresidential, and a disgrace to the office. But that doesn't mean I think that the media should try to match his unprofessionalism. It isn't even effective if they're actually looking for answers. It just gets them some headlines, and that's it.
I see the president as a man, and the media as an institution. In a democracy, we aren't always going to like or agree with the elected leaders, but the press shouldn't change because of them.


And do you really think there isn't a more effective way of these reporters to ask their questions?
Abby was basically asking Trump if he was going to get his new AG to do some shady shit to get Mueller to back off. I mean, really? "Are you going to tell him to reign in Mueller"? That's a shit question. It could have been worded in a better way that wouldn't have gotten Trump to answer the way he did.
AGAIN, I'm not defending Trump--but, the media isn't doing anything to help the situation by asking these poor ass questions.
 
Jesus man, get off your high horse. Your response to this can be summed up in, the president acts shitty so the press can act shitty. Newsflash, they’ve been acting shitty and foolish his entire presidency. Do you know how many major stories they’ve had to retract because they’ve been wrong? Again, you can’t seem to bring yourself to hold the press to any kind of decency standard because you don’t like the way the president acts. You’re as partisan as they come.
This just makes me laugh.

What about your high horse? Yes, in fact if the President does act shitty they can give shitty back. Watch the Abby video above and YES, 100% she had every right to be shitty back. And Newsflash Trump has been acting shitty his entire presidency and even before he took the office. Do you know how many major stories he has lied about and then had to retract or walk back or ignore his own lie because he was wrong. Again you can't seem to bring yourself to hold the POTUS to any decent standard because you don't like the way they REPLY to this POTUS.

And I am not partisan dude. I am Canadian first. I was super critical of Obama when in. Almost all my time in the War room prior was fighting with Jack Savage and Trotsky. I am super critical or Trump. I am super critical of Trudeau in Canada and was of Harper prior (Liberal and Conservative). So if your definition of partisan is that I call out a leader of any stripe then, sure, I am partisan but that is one weird definition.

And Lastly, YES a POTUS does set the stage for how the media WILL and SHOULD deal with him. If the POTUS is aggressive, ignorant, lying and combative, then YES the media will have elements RIGHTLY who blast back. I am FINE with Trump acting the way he does as long as he is willing to TAKE as good as he gives. It is you, who are crying about one side (media) while ignoring the other (Trump) when he is the instigator of this behavior. You want a situation where he can dish it but to reserve the right o cry when he gets it.
 
We've interacted in the Mayberry. We've usually been in agreement there. Haven't interacted much in the War Room, but we're usually in agreement here from what i've read of your stuff.
But, yea, this? I think people are being too partisan on this issue, and focusing more on Trump's personality.
Trump is an asshole. But the media is not doing a good job.

I haven't read Inga's exact statement, but it's not that I think Trump says is completely irrelevant. Clearly, he is the cause of the more hostile environment that we're seeing between the media and the White House. But the media should be "untriggerable".
The media is supposed to be impartial. They aren't supposed to get into fights. They are supposed to ask questions and get answers. Information is all they should care about. Let the commentators and opinionists do their thing on their shows, but the guys at the press conferences should be sticking to the facts.

You're looking for some tit-for-tat, or equivalency where I don't think it's really relevant. It shouldn't exist, imo. I don't like Trump's behavior. I'm not a "Trump apologist". I said he's unpresidential, and a disgrace to the office. But that doesn't mean I think that the media should try to match his unprofessionalism. It isn't even effective if they're actually looking for answers. It just gets them some headlines, and that's it.
I see the president as a man, and the media as an institution. In a democracy, we aren't always going to like or agree with the elected leaders, but the press shouldn't change because of them.


And do you really think there isn't a more effective way of these reporters to ask their questions?
Abby was basically asking Trump if he was going to get his new AG to do some shady shit to get Mueller to back off. I mean, really? "Are you going to tell him to reign in Mueller"? That's a shit question. It could have been worded in a better way that wouldn't have gotten Trump to answer the way he did.
AGAIN, I'm not defending Trump--but, the media isn't doing anything to help the situation by asking these poor ass questions.

Well again I struggle with anyone who watches that Trump/Abby exchange and comes back to solely criticize Abby role in it with not a word of what Trump did wrong.

on this forum we have a running joke of people saying stuff like "I am a GSP but..' before tearing the fighter apart and there is nothing in their post history but hate towards that fighter.

And while the media is not SUPPOSED to fight with a POTUS, the media is in NO WAY required or supposed to back away from a fight with a POTUS if he is combative, avoiding and conflicting. It is actually their JOB to rise up to whatever challenge he poses to get information from even if that means fighting.

And i am NOT looking for tit-far-tat in terms of payback. I could care less about that. What I think is that this Press needs to have the tools to deal with this TYPE of president. He is absolutely a bully with anything he knows he can get away with and not get push back on. And worse emboldened if he knows he can attack (such as he did Abby) and the citizens will NOT ONLY expect her not to attack back but will criticize her regardless, even when she does not. What a HORRIBLE stage you set for this POTUS.

And you are defending Trump, sorry. You are exactly doing the equivalent of "I don't like Trump but...' lol,

Again you end with a criticism of Abby for perfectly legit and finely worded questions. Yes I absolutely think that is a fair question if you have heard what both Trump and his new AAG have stated publicly. Maybe you have just not heard what they have said so you think it shocking. But there is NO NEED for her to sugar coat her questions and she is absolutely in line asking him very DIRECT questions based on their own words so they KNOW that exactly what they said prior is going to come back at them. I see NOTHING shit in the question you highlight given the CONTEXT of what Trump and his AAG have said prior.
 
This just makes me laugh.

What about your high horse? Yes, in fact if the President does act shitty they can give shitty back. Watch the Abby video above and YES, 100% she had every right to be shitty back. And Newsflash Trump has been acting shitty his entire presidency and even before he took the office. Do you know how many major stories he has lied about and then had to retract or walk back or ignore his own lie because he was wrong. Again you can't seem to bring yourself to hold the POTUS to any decent standard because you don't like the way they REPLY to this POTUS.

And I am not partisan dude. I am Canadian first. I was super critical of Obama when in. Almost all my time in the War room prior was fighting with Jack Savage and Trotsky. I am super critical or Trump. I am super critical of Trudeau in Canada and was of Harper prior (Liberal and Conservative). So if your definition of partisan is that I call out a leader of any stripe then, sure, I am partisan but that is one weird definition.

And Lastly, YES a POTUS does set the stage for how the media WILL and SHOULD deal with him. If the POTUS is aggressive, ignorant, lying and combative, then YES the media will have elements RIGHTLY who blast back. I am FINE with Trump acting the way he does as long as he is willing to TAKE as good as he gives. It is you, who are crying about one side (media) while ignoring the other (Trump) when he is the instigator of this behavior. You want a situation where he can dish it but to reserve the right o cry when he gets it.
I haven’t ignored the other side. Trumps acting like a fucking idiot, the media’s acting like fucking idiots. I don’t know why you can’t bring yourself to say this?
 
I haven’t ignored the other side. Trumps acting like a fucking idiot, the media’s acting like fucking idiots. I don’t know why you can’t bring yourself to say this?
Ya except you are a complete liar here.

I have never denied the Media acting like Trump AND IN FACT have said OVER AND OVER that not only do they, but they SHOULD. My position has BEEN that it is necessary for SOME, not all, elements of the media to be able to fight fire with fire. If everyone is like Abby in the video above Trump just walks over and bullies them and the media is stifled. That is NOT the media's role. The media as the 4th Estate NEEDS to be able to do their job regardless of the hostility of the POTUS.
 
Ya except you are a complete liar here.

I have never denied the Media acting like Trump AND IN FACT have said OVER AND OVER that not only do they, but they SHOULD. My position has BEEN that it is necessary for SOME, not all, elements of the media to be able to fight fire with fire. If everyone is like Abby in the video above Trump just walks over and bullies them and the media is stifled. That is NOT the media's role. The media as the 4th Estate NEEDS to be able to do their job regardless of the hostility of the POTUS.
so what question was trump trying to dodge during the acosta exchange?
 
so what question was trump trying to dodge during the acosta exchange?
He didn’t even answer his 14th question after getting his first three answered
This shows trump is scared of him
 
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/11/16/opinions/judges-ruling-in-cnn-case-a-victory-for-free-press-honig/index.html?r=https://edition.cnn.com/search/?q=Acosta
So much for "going out on a limb". <6>


But from my understanding(and what the Judge stated), the WH is going to have to draw up some rules of conduct or what-have-you so WHEN(not IF) Acosta acts like a bitch on her period again, they'll give him his due process before ousting him Properly and there won't be a damn thing that CNN can do.

WH and Trump may have lost this battle but they'll win the War here. Acosta is on Thin ice.


AND I WAS RIGHT :

White House returns CNN reporter’s press pass, issues new rules

The White House will not seek to again revoke CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta’s hard pass, as first reported on Monday by Fox News' John Roberts.

“Today the White House fully restored Jim Acosta's press pass. As a result, our lawsuit is no longer necessary. We look forward to continuing to cover the White House,” CNN said in a statement.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders also implemented a series of rules that will govern White House press conferences going forward.

According to Sanders, the new rules are:

  • A journalist called upon to ask a question will ask a single question and then will yield the floor to other journalists.
  • At the discretion of the President or other White House official taking questions, a follow-up question or questions may be permitted; and where a follow up has been allowed and asked, the questioner will then yield the floor.
  • Yielding the floor” includes, when applicable, physically surrendering the microphone to White House staff for use by the next questioner.
  • Failure to abide by any of rules may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist’s hard pass.
“We are mindful that a more elaborate and comprehensive set of rules might need to be devised," Sanders said.


 
Smart move, they didn't want a formal ruling against them.
 
AND I WAS RIGHT :

White House returns CNN reporter’s press pass, issues new rules

The White House will not seek to again revoke CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta’s hard pass, as first reported on Monday by Fox News' John Roberts.

“Today the White House fully restored Jim Acosta's press pass. As a result, our lawsuit is no longer necessary. We look forward to continuing to cover the White House,” CNN said in a statement.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders also implemented a series of rules that will govern White House press conferences going forward.

According to Sanders, the new rules are:

  • A journalist called upon to ask a question will ask a single question and then will yield the floor to other journalists.
  • At the discretion of the President or other White House official taking questions, a follow-up question or questions may be permitted; and where a follow up has been allowed and asked, the questioner will then yield the floor.
  • Yielding the floor” includes, when applicable, physically surrendering the microphone to White House staff for use by the next questioner.
  • Failure to abide by any of rules may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist’s hard pass.
“We are mindful that a more elaborate and comprehensive set of rules might need to be devised," Sanders said.

Should be interesting to see how long Acosta can go before making a complete jackass out of himself again.
 
AND I WAS RIGHT :

White House returns CNN reporter’s press pass, issues new rules

The White House will not seek to again revoke CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta’s hard pass, as first reported on Monday by Fox News' John Roberts.

“Today the White House fully restored Jim Acosta's press pass. As a result, our lawsuit is no longer necessary. We look forward to continuing to cover the White House,” CNN said in a statement.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders also implemented a series of rules that will govern White House press conferences going forward.

According to Sanders, the new rules are:

  • A journalist called upon to ask a question will ask a single question and then will yield the floor to other journalists.
  • At the discretion of the President or other White House official taking questions, a follow-up question or questions may be permitted; and where a follow up has been allowed and asked, the questioner will then yield the floor.
  • Yielding the floor” includes, when applicable, physically surrendering the microphone to White House staff for use by the next questioner.
  • Failure to abide by any of rules may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist’s hard pass.
“We are mindful that a more elaborate and comprehensive set of rules might need to be devised," Sanders said.

You predicted the WH would fold on the promised fight they said was coming post the temporary order to return Acosta's Press Pass?

And I will make another guarantee, like I did when I stated absolutely that CNN would sue, others would jon that suit (did not predict Fox joining though) and that the WH and Trump would lose. I also predicted the WH would probably input some blustery and meaningless rules to make it look like they won when they did not.

For my next amazing guarantee/prediction... it is that the Press will wait and see how the WH handles this new rule and if they actually try to apply it they do they will again be sued by CNN and Fox and others and again lose.

The Freedom of the Press will not be allowed to be hampered by creeping rules that in any way do hamper the Freedom of the Press. These rules will need to be applied minimally and in a way that does not hamper the press getting at the truth of issues. If this is, in any way seen as a way to simply control and subvert the press, by saying 'any Press that plays balls and complies is welcome but none of the ones who don't are', they WILL LOSE again, guaranteed.

And as much as the Trumpster fires hate that, this has nothing to do with Trump specifically. Any WH or POTUS who tries to set up a way to 'control' the Press, and just call on guys that are friendly and otherwise block out those who are not, will fail.
 
Should be interesting to see how long Acosta can go before making a complete jackass out of himself again.
I bet Trump does so first.

Oh wait, Trump just did re 'should have caught Osama quicker'. lol.
 
Should be interesting to see how long Acosta can go before making a complete jackass out of himself again.

Maybe there should be bets taken on how long it takes before he gets thrown out permanently.... <Lmaoo>
 
Good luck getting a straight answer; he didn't doge any questions, and we all know it.

serveimage
 
Good luck getting a straight answer; he didn't doge any questions, and we all know it.
i just don't get it, the guy has been all throughout this thread talking about this,(he even did a frame by frame analysis) acting like trump was trying to dodge a question...why can't the guy just explain to us what question he was trying to dodge? is it because the guy is a complete joke who has such a bad case of TDS that he watches a video and hears things that haven't even been said?

the funny thing is the guy is accusing trump of dodging acostas question, but he when i ask what question he was trying to dodge, he mikemcmann starts dodging MY question. he's a complete hypocrite. he does the same thing he wrongly accuses trump of doing
 
Good luck getting a straight answer; he didn't doge any questions, and we all know it.
it's not about specific one off questions and never has been for me. This is about the tone and tenure and over riding modus operandi Trump runs his WH with.

Trump has created an adversarial relationship where he walks over, bullies, lies to and about, anyone he can get away with it, with. You guys are trying to create safe spaces for Trump, where if he blasts someone like Abby above wrongly and in a complete uncalled for way, you say it is irrelevant. You will not get that. The courts will not allow him that. And sadly you will have to get used to him being aggressively tackled by reporters who he has trained to deal with him.

This will almost surely end up going to court again if Trump and the WH in any way try to limit Freedom of the Press. I will again offer to bet and I will offer odds because AGAIN I will be right and AGAIN I will win.

i will await the crickets on the bet though.
 
Back
Top