The President has thin skin, he can’t take some aggressive questioning, but he is wiling to talk smack about folks from his twitter. Sad!
4 Likes
Wait—you’re saying that orange outer layer is some kind of skin??
10 Likes
Underneath that, I feel confident in saying he is pure white.
1 Like
Trump has made it abundantly clear that he considers himself to be only the president of the people who voted for him, which frees me from having to be nice or respectful to him. He’s not my President – just the dangerous, nuclear-armed makeup-wearing buffoon with clown hair who inhabits the White House against my will.
4 Likes
Well, yes and no. That’s assuming that he could ever work for anybody other than himself.
1 Like
CNN sues Trump and WH aides … and there’s been no popcorn yet!?!?!
I’m almost disapp … nah. There’ll be some along soon.
Um, Trump isn’t Acosta’s boss OR CNN’s boss.
13 Likes
Good to see the usual Freeze Peach-ers are too busy chanting “lock him up!” to support a free press.
5 Likes
As ever, you can’t talk to someone who’s not living in the same reality as you.
2 Likes
Yes you can. You need only convince enough other voters to can him. Taht’s why we have elections.
Are you claiming isn’t adequate? If so, what do you propose? Would only your personal veto suffice?
Speak plainly here. “WHAT DO YOU WANT AND FEEL IS DUE YOU?”
I doubt if any president could remain in office if he chased all the press away. He’d be fired. No one would trust him. Also doubt anyone would trust a press core who pulled punches. They’d just fade away.
This entire episode is just personal. Sometimes people just can’t get along. That doesn’t mean Acosta the individual has any “rights” here. Beyond something manufactured by partisans. Trump owes Acosta NOTHING. He can even be unreasonably shitty to him.
Of course, when you constantly get into fights with everyone around you - people notice. And they may act accordingly.
It’s not a judge’s job to kiss Acosta’s booboo or indulge his every whine attack. If he’s not a big boy - he was wrong for the job anyway.
Another thing to remember? Nothing changes until someone “dies”. It may be necessary for many reporters to lose their press credentials like this. Once enough reporters lose their jobs - the spotlight will be squarely on Trump. He won’t be able to escape it. Too many bodies.
Given the turnover in that place - he’s already in trouble. Track records like this aren’t accidents. Trump is becoming more and more like an Andrew Jackson without the competence or principles. He can’t escape that any more than the Dems can escape their sins.
Look, comrade, it’s clear you have no idea how the impeachment process works here in America, if that’s what you’re talking about. If you mean replacing our President if we aren’t happy with him, sure, in two years most of the country plans on doing that. But there’s a huge difference between voting for a new president every four years and “firing him”.
Yes he fucking does. That’s what the First Amendment is all about. And he also has the right to not be slandered by the White House and accused of molestation.
Yes, it literally is a judge’s job to deal with an executive branch that’s overstepping its bounds. That’s what the judicial branch does.
27 Likes
Have you managed to not graduate high school?
You have basic civics in the US nearly backwards.
16 Likes
11 Likes
This is incoherent or inattentive or both.
Yet Trump just did that to a member of the press. Then released propaganda which libels Acosta, at our expense.
Are you not paying attention?
This strongly indicates you don’t understand the situation.
19 Likes
14 Likes
Article III covers the judiciary.
ETA: Freedom of the Press is covered in the 1st Amendment.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Acosta’s rights as an individual journalist were violated, and CNN’s as his publisher.
12 Likes
I always thought it was some kind of rotting ‘rind…’
13 Likes
Is there a law that says CNN has specific access rights? Or is there a law saying the top ___ media outlets (ie by viewers/readership) get access? I doubt either of these are correct, but there must be some grounds on which CNN is basing this.
On one hand, it doesnt seem right that a petulant prez gets to kick out someone he has a beef with.
On the other hand, why does CNN have specific rights? Does High Times get a pass? Mother Jones? Mad? Rolling Stone? Soldier of Fortune?
You’re right. Neither of them are correct although the second one gets closest.
And yes, there are grounds. The whole complaint is linked higher up and/or easily locatable with a brief bit of typing in the search engine of your choice.
Seriously, we live in an age where access to legal pleadings and court filings is so much easier than it has ever been. This is a case which specifically involves the media and which they are therefore going to report on like nobody’s business.
If you have genuine questions finding the answers for yourself is simple. About the only good thing Google has ever achieved is making it trivially easy to do so.
These are not philosophical discussion points. There is an actual (if vague) answer.
10 Likes
Despite an unfortunate amount of overlap, these are not the same sets of people.
1 Like
