Recommended Posts

The fake news media is continuing to report the lie that the footage of Acosta provided by Sanders is fake, "misleading," and "doctored," etc.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/media/sarah-sanders-jim-acosta-infowars-video/index.html

They are even implying that her statement that Acosta laid hands on the woman is false, and that everything else she said about it is false as well, because she relied on a video that was recorded by evil people (which therefore must have been doctored), and therefore nothing is true about any of it.

Leftist late night "comedians" have joined in on the lie, and have expressed the opinion that Sanders is a nasty bitch for having posted the alleged "doctored" video, and that she should be fired for having done so.

The conspiracy theory mindset looks quite a bit different on lefties than it does on righties.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/14/bob-woodward-is-right-the-press-is-emoti

Bob Woodward Is Right: The Press Is 'Emotionally Unhinged' About Trump

The legendary newsman calls for more reporting rather than more outrage or puffery.

BOB WOODWARD at Global Financial Leadership Conference in Naples, Fla., shortly after CNN sues White House over @Acosta :: "In the news media there has been an emotional reaction to Trump ... too many people for Trump or against Trump have become emotionally unhinged about this."

 

In subsequent tweets, NBC's Dylan Byers adds:

WOODWARD on CNN lawsuit: "This is a negative ... Trump is sitting around saying, 'This is great.'"... "When we engage in [Trump's strategy] we're taking his bait."...

+ WOODWARD: "The remedy [isn't a lawsuit], it's more serious reporting about what he's doing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buzzfeed News reports, "Judge Orders White House To Reinstate Jim Acosta’s Press Pass."

 

Edited by william.scherk
ADDED Sassy Trump with Acosta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Wow. I've never seen a judge so blatantly just make stuff up, and interpret things to mean what they don't mean.

Jonathan,

It ain't over till it's over.

As with everything President Trump does, the anti-Trumpers go to the courts. I think if they heard him fart, they would go to the courts.

And as a Trump supporter, I can assure you this pattern is getting old. I, personally, am at a point where I don't take anything anti-Trumpers do or say seriously anymore. They don't give a damn about people like me, people who voted for President Trump. His election was one of the dirtiest in American history and the dirt came from them. The dirt is still coming, including gaming the system through the courts.

I now oppose everything coming from them by default--on principle. Even should I agree with them on something, I will no longer stand with them.

The courts don't have any constitutional power to make laws, although they have been doing that for far too long. I think the long-term result of anti-Trumpers (including the left) overplaying their hand is that they are putting a spotlight on this problem. What's worse, they are letting people know this is how they expect to impose their will and eventually take permanent power, voters be damned. All they want is guaranteed power for themselves. That's the alpha and omega of their drive.

But President Trump knows this is an ugly fight--a fight for freedom always is--and he is David against a corrupt loathsome Goliath (the globalist crony elitists). He's wicked smart and cunning and knows his way around a sling, so in the end, I expect him to be able to say, "Your fired," and the person he fired leaves for good. Even a friggin' globalist crony elitist, like that idiot reporter's company..

This court order is a pain in the ass that will ultimately get removed. A flash in the pan for the anti-Trump media to crow over. Nothing more. It's certainly not a defeat. It's the equivalent of a taunt.

 Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Washington Examiner's Eddie Scarry, "Judge who backed CNN against White House is a Trump appointee and former top GOP aide in Senate."

Fake!

Quote

[...] Kelly, 49, was a top staffer to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, from 2013 to 2017 and is a member of the conservative Federalist Society. He has also worked in private practice and as a federal prosecutor. He once spent a year representing low-income residents of Washington, D.C., in cases involving public benefits, landlord-tenant, and family law.[...]

A core part of Kelly's decision was the White House's inability in a hearing Wednesday to say who first made the decision to suspend the pass. "Whatever process occurred is still shrouded in mystery," Kelly said.

Justice Department lawyer James Burnham, representing the White House, had argued in the hearing this week that Acosta was afforded due process when Trump, during a press conference after the midterm elections, told him directly that he was ready to move on to a different questioner, even as Acosta refused to relinquish the shared microphone.

But Kelly said that the admonishment did not satisfy the requirement for a more formal process wherein Acosta could appeal any decision the White House made to limit his access.

The ruling is limited and only grants Acosta his pass while the lawsuit continues. Kelly asked that the White House and CNN both file reports to move forward by Monday.

Kelly made clear that he was not yet ruling on any larger merits of the case, in particular, whether CNN and Acosta's First Amendment rights had been violated.

He said only that Acosta had been denied due process and had been cause irreparable harm by having his reporting capabilities limited for several days by the White House.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

You're making this a political gotcha and implying the parties are politically motivated only.

When I go into identify correctly to evaluate correctly mode, I see something completely different.

Facts and context...

The Trump people screwed up trying to say in court that Acosta accosted the White House aide when that was a huge stretch. Just look at the video.

I bet that weighed heavily in the judge's attitude. If the judge ruled in Trump's favor, he would have to embrace an exaggeration that bordered on a lie. What then of his own reputation and integrity?

That's the danger of fighting sleaze with sleaze.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I questioned the American court system when that lady sued MacDonald’s for burning her withered old snatch from a cup of coffee which sheeee negligently put on her dash and drove away thereby spilling it on her hadn’t been used in 40 yrs nether regions and won.  Coffee is supposed to be hot isn’t it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Fake in what way?

31 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

He said only that Acosta had been denied due process and had been cause irreparable harm by having his reporting capabilities limited for several days by the White House.

OMG, irreparable harm!

How was this alleged harm measured?

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Andrew Egger of the Weekly Standard:

Acosta Gets His Press Pass Back, But Trump Is the Real Winner

Quote

 Let’s be honest: The administration loves having CNN’s White House reporter in the spotlight.

Extra, extra, read all about it: CNN’s Jim Acosta has his press pass back. Last week, the Trump administration yanked the White House reporter’s credential following a silly spat with an intern over a microphone. CNN sued, arguing Acosta’s due process rights had been violated, and on Friday morning, a judge granted them a temporary restraining order, compelling the White House to return his credential. “I want to thank all of my colleagues in the press who supported us this week,” proclaimed a jubilant Acosta in a statement. “Let’s go back to work!”

And OK, look, this is good news. The administration’s legal argument that it had the right to revoke any reporter’s access at any time for any reason was laughable. The White House isn’t President Trump’s private palace; it’s the nerve center of one of our three branches of representative government. As such, if the White House wants to crack down on reportorial bad behavior, they should develop standards for what kind of offenses would cause reporters to lose access—not just revoke passes willy-nilly when they provoke the administration.

But make no mistake: The lawsuit may be a win for Acosta and CNN, but the story is a win for Donald Trump.

It would be the easiest thing in the world for the White House to turn Acosta into a non-entity, just another cable-news squawker tut-tutting the president’s decisions into a camera from the White House lawn. Call on him, give him bland answers to his silly questions, and move on. Or don’t call on him at all! Instead, time after time, Trump and press secretary Sarah Sanders have allowed Acosta to harrumph them into tiffs that become news stories in themselves. Last Friday’s foolishness, with Acosta white-knuckling the mic and Trump shouting and that poor intern visibly wishing she’d taken some other gig, was just the latest, greatest example.

Why? Because the White House loves it when Acosta is in the spotlight. He’s the perfect foil to Trump, the perfect face for the administration’s constant campaign against the “fake news media.” Acosta’s tedious furrowed-brow posturing and spotlight-hogging and his fixation on Trump’s meanness to the press are all catnip to a president who loves nothing more than to tell his fans that that’s what journalists are all about. Any time Acosta asks Trump a question, Trump gets to make a choice: Do I stay on whatever thorny subject I’m being asked about, or do I pivot to “Trump calls Jim Acosta names”? This president opts for the latter every time. [...]

"Are you a Trump supporter or a Trump hater? There are only two categories available at this time ..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A President is not obligated to talk to journalists. He doesn’t have to conduct press conferences or answer their questions or even allow them into the White House. We get it into our heads that he has to do these things, but if you check the Constituion you will find otherwise.

Accosta has no right to due process. He isn’t under criminal charge, nothing’s been confiscated from him, it simply doesn’t apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Accosta has no right to due process. He isn’t under criminal charge, nothing’s been confiscated from him, it simply doesn’t apply.

Jon,

I wouldn't worry about it too much because the law of unintended consequences can be a bitch.

CNN & Co. wanted to go the cutsie tootsie crony corporatist bully route. Well, they pulled it off in a first gesture.

But now look at the Pandora's box they opened up.

Laura is just one. What to those idiots who have been crowing think the Alt Media is going to do from now on? For example, I hope they like a motivated Infowars (as just one among many) breathing down their necks with lawsuits every time they want to talk about climate change, immigration, Roe v. Wade, SJW issues, and on and on in a government building and get disrupted by "the free press."

After all, government buildings come with a constitutional guarantee for all journalists. That's what CNN sued for and that's what the judge decided.

:evil:  :) 

It's case law time since the precedent has been set.

So get out your popcorn because this is going to be one hell of a show

:)

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The media aren't politically motivated, and they don't publish "fake news." That just a fact of reality. They're well-behaved, they do very careful research so as not to publish false information, and they do not have any sort of bias or political agenda. If you disagree, then you're a kookball fascist.

Oh, hey, did you see that Nazism is very popular in Wisconsin? Yeah, teens are openly advocating for it. It's terrifying. The real news said so! All sorts of real news outlets eagerly reported the carefully confirmed facts. It's disgusting, and the entire town of Baraboo should be deeply ashamed of its Nazism, and should be sent to sensitivity training. Make that the whole state. They should be forced to go to the holocaust museum, and then asked if they still think it's fucking funny. The pricks. And it's Trump's fault. This is his America. It's all on him and his supporters.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2018/11/17/bozell-graham-column-media-skip-farrakhan-hype-nazi-prom

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Oh, hey, did you see that Nazism is very popular in Wisconsin?

Jonathan,

Don't forget the KKK.

They want to gun down all minorities, especially blacks and Latinos, in the streets like dogs.

Like dogs...

All over Wisconsin, I tell ya'. All over...

:)

Michael

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2018 at 8:57 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It's case law time since the precedent has been set.

Well, only a smidgen of case law.

Amid the screaming and sanctimonious grandstanding by the fake news media, I didn't even realize the following.

Show to go ya', the fake news media screaming is not aimed at informing.

It's only aimed at keeping people from learning information it doesn't want to become evident in the mainstream.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Well, only a smidgen of case law.

Amid the screaming and sanctimonious grandstanding by the fake news media, I didn't even realize the following.

Show to go ya', the fake news media screaming is not aimed at informing.

It's only aimed at keeping people from learning information it doesn't want to become evident in the mainstream.

Michael

What would happen if he is denied entrance to the press conference? You know there will be cameras on phones all over the situation. A captain on a ship has more 'active, non political power" than the President. At times.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2018 at 1:16 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The Trump people screwed up trying to say in court that Acosta accosted the White House aide when that was a huge stretch. Just look at the video.

I bet that weighed heavily in the judge's attitude. If the judge ruled in Trump's favor, he would have to embrace an exaggeration that bordered on a lie. What then of his own reputation and integrity?

That's the danger of fighting sleaze with sleaze.

Now they're doing it right.

Finally.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Process. Law and order.

Then Gitmo!  Don't forget The Plan, man.

Q

On 11/19/2018 at 10:46 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
On 11/16/2018 at 11:16 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That's the danger of fighting sleaze with sleaze.

Now they're doing it right. 

Finally.

Michael 

 The moot White House letter:

mootLetterPg1.png

mootLetterPg2.png

The mootness comes from a subsequent White House decision that was reported a couple hours back by Fake 'n' Bake news:

White House will not seek to revoke CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s press pass

Quote

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.

Acosta was spotted at the White House moments after CNN issued its statement. It was widely believed earlier on Monday that the White House would again attempt to ban Acosta from the White House after legal threats were exchanged in a series of emails and court filings.

Acosta’s "hard pass," which provides expedited access to the White House grounds, was suspended earlier this month after he engaged in a contentious back-and-forth with Trump during a Nov. 7 press conference. Acosta then refused to pass the microphone to a female White House aide and there was brief contact between the two. His hard pass was revoked later that day and CNN argued that it violated the network and Acosta’s First and Fifth Amendment rights.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly temporarily restored Acosta’s credential. Later in the day, the White House sent the CNN reporter a letter informing him that a “preliminary decision” was made that his credential would be revoked, once again, after the temporary 14-day order expires.

The attorney for CNN and Acosta claimed in a Monday court filing that the White House was attempting to punish Acosta based on “retroactive” application of rules that aren’t written and requested a hearing for the week of Nov. 26. The request for an emergency hearing is now a moot point, as the White House will not seek to keep Acosta from covering President Trump.

[...]

Might this cause alter Mademoiselle Loomer to alter her trajectory, as surely Acosta will do, since the process going forward is starkly clear? 
I was going to moot her lawsuit threat (against U.S. District Judge Paul Byron in the case where her media credentials were removed after she hounded the defendant's family outside the courthouse). But I think she was bullshitting about a lawsuit. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

She is almost as indefatigable, self-exculpatory and grandstanding as Acosta on his own private Shoutfest. We all remember her most-famous brave outburst slash comic disruption ...

"I have a RIGHT to screech out of order from the back of a room during a hearing process. I am going to SUE your ASS, you satanic Hamas-loving Jihadi Las Vegas cover up false flagging whatever-I-am-on-about-today Beeyotches!"

Here she is on her best behaviour, after having been removed from that Congressional hearing:

And here she is getting Loomered! at some Winco somewhere.

Edited by william.scherk
Alter/alter corrected; "My new target is those bitches of the Hamas Caucus. I am also crying victory over Linda fucking Sarsour, who is getting clawed by the Women's March honchos, finally. I sure get escorted out of a lot of places. Hmmm. Oh, nevermind."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Might this alter Mademoiselle Loomer to alter her trajectory, as surely Acosta will do... 

William,

You are attributing Acosta with agency he doesn't bear.

The correct way to word it is "as surely Acosta will be forced to do..."

And what will happen if he doesn't do it? He will get his ass thrown out, this time for good.

In fact, that's what I'm expecting to happen.

The idea that President Trump spoke and Jim Acosta said to himself, "OK. I promise from now on I'll be good because respecting President Trump, Sara Huckabee Sanders, etc., is what I've always wanted to do deep down in my heart anyway," is too much of a stretch for anyone to believe. I certainly don't think CNN believes it. The more believable is, "OK, I got away with it this time. I'll wait for my chance to do it again and boy, will I nail their asses the next time." That is a better description of Jim Acosta's agency. The rest is simply reaction.

As to Laura, good luck putting that genie back in the bottle. The left normalized this shit with Antifa, race riots, piss-gate, "muh Russians," Kavanaugh hearings, Acosta, and on and on and on. Now they will just have to learn to live with some of the unintended consequences until they come up with their own solutions to reasserting the decorum they wish to be treated with.

Meanwhile, Laura is out there and so are a whole lot of others the left never expected to appear. So pass the popcorn, please. I'm enjoying the show. Don't ask me to stop them or even ask them to stop. I'm having too much fun.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2018 at 1:33 PM, Jon Letendre said:

It is plain for all to see that Acosta violated the young woman, the President of the United States and the American people.

He was a guest. He had no right of any sort to be there, but was present at the pleasure of the President.

He was told his turn was over. He was told multiple times to stop.

He used physical force on White House staff to defy the President.

He will be lucky if losing his credentials is the only consequence he faces.

The country is changing. Scum like Acosta will not be tolerated like in the past.

That reads like poetry. How about this?

The evening Tree Poem. - Quent Cordair

To the best that's within you,

To your lift and your try,

To your will to see dawn,

To your laugh while you cry,

To your hope through sorrow,

To your float over pain,

To your push through the dark,

To your dance in the rain,

To your rise from the ash,

To your straightening bend,

To your fire to the lie,

To your go till the end,

To your cutting the knot,

To your swearing anew,

To your mind of your own,

To your being you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correcting some bad prose ... [adding back in truncquoted line to finish the sentence]

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
21 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Might this cause alter Mademoiselle Loomer to alter her trajectory, as surely Acosta will do [, since the process going forward is starkly clear? ]

You are attributing Acosta with agency he doesn't bear.

I wrote a sentence with one too many alters.

Quote

The correct way to word it is "as surely Acosta will be forced to do..."

The correct way to discuss is to correct an interlocutor on anything -- small, large or picayune -- that seems to lead to misunderstanding or is quite likely wrong.

Quote

And what will happen if he doesn't do it? He will get his ass thrown out, this time for good.

In fact, that's what I'm expecting to happen.

The rules going forward are adapted/codified by Shine and Huckabee, I expect. Taking it from the mooted letter,

(1) a journalist called upon to answer a question will ask a single question and, having received a response, will yield the floor unless, at the discretion of the President or other White House official answering questions, a follow-up question or questions is permitted, after which follow up/s, the journalists will then yield the floor; and (2) when a journalist has had his or her question/s answered, the journalists is expected to yield the floor and, when applicable, physically surrender any microphone the journalist is using to White House staff for use by the next questioner.

The one question guideline will be so refreshing in the press room (but not in a swarm or gaggle on the lawn). Many more journalists will be able to pose a question. If they stupidly try to continue talking once the President (or official) has cut in before the question is finished being asked ... then, well I don't know what is likely to happen then.

As for Loomer, she styles herself an independent journalist. If she ever gets in the press room or on the grounds for a gaggle, or in the general 'press' vicinity of a President, I expect she would keep herself within common sense guidelines and not try to Loomer! the person in her sights.

The Acosta kerfuffle could piss off a few other reporters who hold hard passes and get a seat in the room for Sarah or the Prez. The new guidelines may sharply curtail the common practice of yammering on as if there was some right to an 'exchange' with whomever is at the podium.

Anyway, in the end, no US person is going to get Khashoggied.  Although there will be questions about Khashoggi (stupid questions) once the press theatre is reopened for business.

So we may see more of this kind of breach of 'decorous' behaviour going forward ...

Speaking of being Khashoggied, the Fake is peddling some story that the CIA has determined that the Crown Prince ordered the killing of Khashoggi. The Fake is going so far as to say that the Secretary of State was dispatched to Riyadh to prep the prince in how to 'get past' the fall-out from the killing by Saudi agents. To help him 'manage' the public brouhaha.

There is some Fake analysis that spells out the actual 'succession rules' traditionally followed in designating a future King. Unlike in Western monarchies from Sweden to Spain, succession is not a function of a line-of-succession following from the monarch's children. The decision on whom to anoint is predicated on a thorough sounding of opinion from the senior royal families (or royal clans).

Is it possible that internal dissension will lead to another prince taking the pole position?  Possible, yeah, but I think improbable. After all, the prince can simply direct more killings, detentions, 'trials,' and so on.

Thoughts, questions, concerns?

Edited by william.scherk
"Would you rather be Loomered! or Khashoggied?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...