Hacker News Reader

Comment by poulsbohemian | Hacker News Reader

He's a credentialed member of the press asking a legitimate question. He has every right to have that microphone and to ask the question. The fact that it happened, that Sarah Sanders is spinning it as an attack on the intern, and that even my kids would be able to tell the video has been doctored should have every American - Republican or Democrat or Other - up in arms. Republicans love to talk about defending the Constitution... well, here's your chance!

View on HN

The issue was he wasn't trying to ask a question but argue with the president and taking time away from other members of the press to ask legitimate questions. He disagreed with the president stating it was an invasion and the president answered him with he believed it was an invasion. Trying to go back and forth wasting time. There wasn't anything else to add which is why the worker came to grab the mic to provide it to the next person. This is common in these interviews since there isn't a lot of time and there are a lot of questions so they try and let everyone get a question in and they only have the one mic. To be honest this is being blown up more than it should but in watching the full video of the press conference Jim was trying to grand stand and was rude. I can understand why this happened. There were other press members there who pushed/challenged Trump on other topics but were respectful and did let go of the mic.

So... your opinion (hell, I even share it) is that Acosta was in violation of the established norms of presidential journalism.

And your conclusion is apparently that it's OK to fabricate evidence to accuse the guy of assault ("placing his hands on a young woman")? Do I take that right?

It isn't ok to fabricate evidence. Don't take this the wrong way but I'm not sure if you're saying fabrication to be disingenuous to this event happening or just that they are making it look more like a karate chop. I assume the latter and to me I don't really see much of a difference and isn't the point or is a distraction from the issue as to why they made the decision they did. You drop some frames and it looks more like a karate chop, but I watched the full press video on cbs and other various locations enough to say I don't think he chopped her hand away or anything too crazy. I don't think there is an argument that it didn't happen and that Jim wasn't trying to stop her from taking the mic away to pass to the next person and either on purpose or by reaction blocked and made contact with her at the elbow.

I'm not in the camp to call it assault even though it might be technically. I don't know or don't care to debate legally if it is/isn't because I tend to think of assault as more provoked or violent than what this was. The reaction of the staffer was interesting though with her looking confused and unsure what to do as if that hasn't happened before.

I do think he was out of line given how he acted not just with the staffer, but after his question on indictments in the Russian investigation which is a question he's asked a few times before and been given the same answer on. Then standing back up and talking over Peter who was called on next to say something about the media being the enemy of the people and something about the pipe bombs (couldn't hear it well due to him not being mic'ed). To me all of those things combined I can understand why they decided to revoke him. Other Press members asked questions that were far more challenging and critical of the administrations direction in this briefing and their creds weren't pulled which leaves me with the conclusion its because of how he acted.

> I'm not in the camp to call it assault even though it might be technically.

...

So if someone reaches for your fork at lunch today and then accuses you of assault, that might be OK technically too?

> So if someone reaches for your fork at lunch today and then accuses you of assault, that might be OK technically too?

Lets be clear with this analogy that the fork isn't mine but in fact the person taking it back in this situation. It was provided to me to use. It was the white house's mic given to him to ask his questions. If its their property can't they take it back when they so chose?

The reason I say it might be technically is because some define assault as unwanted contact or battery (https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-ba...). Like I said I don't really want to go down that rabbit hole of an argument. If it is or isn't doesn't matter to me I just don't think it was appropriate.

I give up. We have two wrongdoings alleged:

1. Jim Acosta was an asshole.

2. The White House lied, accused him of assault, and used doctored evidence to prove that.

I think #1 is probably true but don't care. I think #2 is a disaster for the free press and civil society, and so would you if this was anything but politics. You can't accuse people of serious crimes without evidence. And the fact that you won't even nod to this in the slightest tells me you aren't being serious here. You seem genuinely fine with lying people if you think they're assholes.

I think we can agree on 1 and I think we agree two wrongs don't make a right. But 2 is more so nuance and takes a little unpacking. From the article: "There's no evidence that the video was deliberately sped up — but the change in format, from a high-quality video to a low-quality GIF, turns the question of whether it was "doctored" into a semantic debate."

I agree with that statement and like I said this conversation is a distraction from the event that took place and if we think this is acceptable behavior. My response to your response was "It isn't ok to fabricate evidence." Again I don't think this was fabricated in that it never happened. If we change the term to "doctored" if it is or isn't doesn't change to that event didn't happen. It would be foolish to intentionally create a doctored video given the amount of coverage this got, the amount of scrutiny around it, and it didn't look good in the first place.

>The White House lied, accused him of assault This is the part that I don't think I agree with you or at least I'm not sure what you mean. I haven't seen trump or the sanders come out and call this assault. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. Now absolutely some in the media and trump supporters have called it that or used that wording and I don't agree. Trump even talked to the press today about this and said 'he was not nice to that young women. I don't hold him for that since it wasn't overly horrible'[1] and also called him unprofessional. I'm not sure what you mean by lied unless you're referring that to the video.

>You can't accuse people of serious crimes without evidence. And the fact that you won't even nod to this in the slightest tells me you aren't being serious here.

I've never said he committed a crime and said I'm not in the camp to call this assault. Some absolutely have and I don't agree with that. There is evidence though the he touched her without consent so again that's an argument of if it is or isn't assault and I wouldn't call it that. Its not as if we'll see charges pressed and if we did that would be ridiculous.

> You can't accuse people of serious crimes without evidence I agreed that isn't right. Again there is a video showing there was contact so there is evidence something happened. I say again I don't think what he did was acceptable behavior and never accused him of a serious crime.

>You seem genuinely fine with lying people if you think they're assholes. I'm ok with liers so long as I think they're aholes? I'm being civil here and enjoying the discussion. Please don't say I'm ok with this.

[1]https://youtu.be/1jT8Ait1jEc?t=633

I'm sorry, but you're simply being disingenous here. If you saw this very same video about a non-political, plausibly right leaning guy whose arm got bumped by some woman trying to take away what was in his hand, you would freak the fuck out about the outrageous injustice of punishing him because he had "laid his hand on her".

This is conservative anti-SJW fetish material right here. But because the victim was a supporter of your favorite politician...

The thing is I wouldn't. There is nothing to freak out over this as I said I don't find the behavior acceptable and unprofessional. That is it. I'm not up in arms or that he should be fired or anything.

>But because the victim was a supporter of your favorite politician... That's also the thing. He's not nor are any of them. We also don't know that the victim in this was a trump supporter. She works at the white house running the mic during the briefing. Her political affiliation doesn't matter either way. This is what strikes me as odd that to say how someone acted towards the president and staff requires there to be a political leaning to decide if it was ok or not. Not in my book, I didn't like it under previous administrations (joe wilson yelling 'you lie' during one of obama's address as an example) nor do I like it now.

I love that you keep calling people out on hyperbolic language yet insist on calling this woman, who initiated the physical contact and got her arm bumped, a "victim".

> who initiated the physical contact and got her arm bumped, a "victim".

Just to remind you what you wrote: "But because the victim was a supporter of your favorite politician..."

I used the word you used in my response so you understood we were talking about the same person.

"The Press", has in general pretty much come out and said this was poor behavior by the president. Nobody seems to have their feelings hurt that their question didn't get asked because of this "grandstanding". None of them seem to be thrilled that the president, in his infinite wisdom, cut this man off from getting a real answer to his follow up questions.

Given the transcript I saw, it didn't even sound like the guy was given the opportunity to ask a complete question without being cut off. So it's very difficult to remain an unbiased bystander here when you have a member of the press (who might be an asshole for all I know) who was cut off, not given the opportunity to express a question, then has the microphone grabbed by a member of the White House staff, then get slandered by the POTUS (it's very challenging for me to even call him that), but somehow we're supposed to be convinced that it was this member of the press that was causing the problem. It's revolting. If it happened in another country, there would be a member of our foreign service calling out the repression of the media. Here, apparently it is the new norm.

He was grandstanding[1] given that he stood back up after the mic was already passed to someone else to make more comments to jab the president.

> Nobody seems to have their feelings hurt that their question How does anyone know that? I'll agree that its probably true but because they are professionals and don't take it personal as well as they understand that this is a privilege opportunity and time is limited. Many of the people who were called later expressed thanks for the opportunity to ask their question(s).

> cut this man off from getting a real answer to his follow up questions. I'd argue none of his questions were looking for a 'real' answer because they were disingenuous, divisive, and really would only be happy with what Jim wanted as an answer. Jim has asked him on more than one occasion on indictment concerns with the Russian investigation and I can see how that would get old answer the same questions.

Most of the press who asked questions had their questions cut off just to keep things moving so it wasn't just him. Not saying its right.

The press can ask a question, but it doesn't mean they are going to get 'a real answer' or in their mind the answer they want to hear and I think that is part of the problem.

Don't get me wrong I think the president could and should absolutely be more polite in these press briefs.

I'm sure the press did come out and point the finger at the president being at fault. How often does the press take responsibility for their own misreporting or actions? If Trump is at fault he isn't alone in this one. I know the WHCA came out and objected the decision to pull Jim's security credentials to stop him from being in the briefings going forward. I would expect they would object and ask that it be reversed. I'm sure it will be once things calm down and use this time as a time out as a cool down period.

1.https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/grand...

I actually disagree, I don't think he does have "every right" to have the microphone. He had his interaction with the president and someone else was being called on. He's being rude by preventing other members of the press from getting their chance to ask a question. I don't see a Constitutional issue here.

I haven't seen Sarah Sanders' take on it, but I did a cursory review of the "doctoring", and I'm not convinced of any deliberate changes to the video, apart from format conversions (source -> gif -> mt2 -> mp4).

To the downvoters: what do you disagree with? Let's converse, maybe you'll change my mind...

The constitutional issue is that the president lied about some caravan overtaking the US. Once the elections were over, he was asked about his chosen words. He didn’t like it and made it personal. He clearly walks away from the podium if you watch the interaction. Now the administration is using their position to ban a journalist from the White House. That’s not free speech. That’s a constitutionally crisis. And they are lying about it by pushing a manipulated video.

It's not a constitutional crisis. The constitution doesn't prevent the president from lying when not under oath, refusing to retract a statement, or banning journalists for petty personal reasons.

WHAT???

You changed the subject after I confronted you. "The constitution doesn't prevent the president from lying when not under oath" "Let's converse, maybe you'll change my mind..."

You've made up your mind.

Umm... I posted my comment three hours ago, and I edited it not long after that, adding "when not under oath" because I knew some pedant would probably bring that up. However, my edit didn't change the context of my comment at all. You apparently "confronted me" here, so I don't know what "changing the subject after you confronted me" even refers to, and I don't know who you're quoting at the end of your comment.

But I stand by my statement. Your claim that "The constitutional issue is that the president lied about some caravan overtaking the US" is false, that's not a "constitutional" issue.

Sorry, I thought you were user “64738”.

fair enough.

I'm the one you thought you were replying to, but krapp's not wrong.

There is no constitutional issue here. He still has freedom of speech, as he can still say whatever he wants. He still has freedom of the press, as his employer (CNN) can still publish anything he submits, if they so wish.

Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee a platform, and freedom of the press doesn't guarantee unlimited access.

The behavior of the parties involved could be argued separately, but I still don't see any "constitutional crisis."

You have not changed my mind.

"Let's converse, maybe I'll be able to make you waste your time..."

Such as your's? j/k, no maliciousness intended, though I admit I was slow coming back to the thread.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com