White House shares doctored video to support punishment of journalist Jim Acosta (Washington Post)

[BigTruck]

What makes anyone think Acosta is supposed to be able to ask countless questions after the President is clearly ready to move on?

It was time for him to give up the microphone.

He should have given it up.

You don't make rhe rules and neither does Donald Trump. Our founders did that in rhe First Amendment. The reporter was following his obligation and duty as specified in the First Amendment.

He was allowed to do his job and then it was time to let someone else do theirs.

He did not feel his job was complete and that his questions were being answered. Trump did not have the knowledge, skill or temperament to diplomatically or professionally to end the questioning. Instead, he got caught being unable to answer those questions and denying a reporter's First Amendment right. An "assault" charge is just a deflection away from what should be rhe main story. Denial of First Amendment Free Press is the real story.

Acosta’s opinion is irrelevant.

It was time for him to give up the microphone, whether he liked it or not.

The President clearly was done with him, so he should have given someone else the opportunity to ask questions.

In my opinion, you are ignoring, or purring little importance on the First Amendment issue of Free Press. Reporters have a right to ask questions and pressure politicians for answers to those questions. If politicians are allowed to simply evade answering questions they are denying a reporters right to ask the questions. A politician only has a right to refuse a question if he plainly states he or she refuses or chooses to evade answering the question. Attacking the reporter or taking away the mike is a form of depriving a reporter's right to free press.

The reporter was allowed to ask questions.

The President is not required to answer those questions.

Once it was clear the President was done with him, Acosta should have given someone else a chance.

 

[Camp]

You don't make rhe rules and neither does Donald Trump. Our founders did that in rhe First Amendment. The reporter was following his obligation and duty as specified in the First Amendment.

He was allowed to do his job and then it was time to let someone else do theirs.

He did not feel his job was complete and that his questions were being answered. Trump did not have the knowledge, skill or temperament to diplomatically or professionally to end the questioning. Instead, he got caught being unable to answer those questions and denying a reporter's First Amendment right. An "assault" charge is just a deflection away from what should be rhe main story. Denial of First Amendment Free Press is the real story.

Acosta’s opinion is irrelevant.

It was time for him to give up the microphone, whether he liked it or not.

The President clearly was done with him, so he should have given someone else the opportunity to ask questions.

In my opinion, you are ignoring, or purring little importance on the First Amendment issue of Free Press. Reporters have a right to ask questions and pressure politicians for answers to those questions. If politicians are allowed to simply evade answering questions they are denying a reporters right to ask the questions. A politician only has a right to refuse a question if he plainly states he or she refuses or chooses to evade answering the question. Attacking the reporter or taking away the mike is a form of depriving a reporter's right to free press.

The reporter was allowed to ask questions.

The President is not required to answer those questions.

Once it was clear the President was done with him, Acosta should have given someone else a chance.

You are making a subjective partisan opinion. My opinion is based on Constitutional law.

 

[BigTruck]

He was allowed to do his job and then it was time to let someone else do theirs.

He did not feel his job was complete and that his questions were being answered. Trump did not have the knowledge, skill or temperament to diplomatically or professionally to end the questioning. Instead, he got caught being unable to answer those questions and denying a reporter's First Amendment right. An "assault" charge is just a deflection away from what should be rhe main story. Denial of First Amendment Free Press is the real story.

Acosta’s opinion is irrelevant.

It was time for him to give up the microphone, whether he liked it or not.

The President clearly was done with him, so he should have given someone else the opportunity to ask questions.

In my opinion, you are ignoring, or purring little importance on the First Amendment issue of Free Press. Reporters have a right to ask questions and pressure politicians for answers to those questions. If politicians are allowed to simply evade answering questions they are denying a reporters right to ask the questions. A politician only has a right to refuse a question if he plainly states he or she refuses or chooses to evade answering the question. Attacking the reporter or taking away the mike is a form of depriving a reporter's right to free press.

The reporter was allowed to ask questions.

The President is not required to answer those questions.

Once it was clear the President was done with him, Acosta should have given someone else a chance.

You are making a subjective partisan opinion. My opinion is based on Constitutional law.

No it’s not based on Constitutional law.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the President is required to answer questions.

You’re the one making a subjective partisan opinion. Libs are better at that than any conservative could hope to be.

 

[jon_berzerk]

WH Photogr's ASSOC pens letter, 'SLAMS WH spokesperson for sharin MANIPULATED video of CNN's Acosta/

who cares what they think

they are a bunch of leftists propagandists

 

[jon_berzerk]

If it is doctored, and the WH KNOWINGLY shared a doctored video, then this is something that we as Americans absolutely cannot tolerate.
Heads need to roll on this one.

wow you mean like how CNN doctored zimmermanns police video

by lightening his skin to make him appear "white"

to jive with the false narrative they passed along

like that you mean

 

[dudmuck]

A right wing conspiracy theorist increased the speed of Jim Acosta’s arm movement, to make it seem he was violent against a White House aide as opposed to struggling for the microphone..
Additionally, Acosta’s “Pardon me, ma’am“ utterance was removed from the doctor video:

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders on Wednesday night shared a video of CNN reporter Jim Acosta that appeared to have been altered to make his actions at a news conference look more aggressive toward a White House intern.

The edited video looks authentic: Acosta appeared to swiftly chop down on the arm of an aide as he held onto a microphone while questioning President Trump. But in the original video, Acosta’s arm appears to move only as a response to a tussle for the microphone. His statement, “Pardon me, ma’am,” is not included in the video Sanders shared.

Critics said that video — which sped up the movement of Acosta’s arms in a way that dramatically changed the journalist’s response — was deceptively edited to score political points. That edited videowas first shared by Paul Joseph Watson, known for his conspiracy-theory videos on the far-right website Infowars.

Sarah Sanders' dishonesty problem just got a little worse.

White House shares doctored video to support punishment of journalist Jim Acosta

Jim Acosta had no right to get aggressive with a young lady who was a White House intern. Acosta is a stupid arrogant prick. Looks like Democrats are already going stupid. Enjoy your short lived control of House. You think a majority of Americans agree with Acosta and his actions? You dickheads help the conservatives.

but grabbing pussy ok.

 

[Pogo]

I watch Acosta assault her live on TV as it happened.

He deliberately with force struck her left arm with his right hand. ...

I get it. Like the old "the accused continued to repeatedly punch the officer in the hand with his face".

 

[cnm]

He did more than just TRY to drive her arm down. He did just that - about a good 10 inches,

What bullshit.


The White House’s Acosta Video Looks Different From the Original. Does That Mean It’s “Doctored”?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They got it from INFOWARS. I mean that's a fucking cliche. They know no one less scummy they could have approached to DOCTOR THEIR FILM? They used INFOWARs? FOX wouldn't do it for them?

Chrisst, Do these people do ANYTHING honest? Anything? They are SCUM top to bottom. And if they aren't hired because they are SCUM, they become SCUM. .

White House photography association slams Sarah Sanders for sharing ‘manipulated’ video of Acosta’s interaction with intern

NOOR AL-SIBAI
08 NOV 2018 AT 15:48 ET

Sarah Sanders appears on Fox News (screen grab)



The White House News Photographers Association on Thursday slammed press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders for sharing what appears to be a manipulated video of CNN’s Jim Acosta allegedly mistreating a female intern.


“The White House News Photographers Association is appalled to learn that the White House spokesperson may have shared a manipulated video of CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s interaction with a White House intern during a news conference,” Whitney Shefte, the organization’s president, wrote in a statement.


“As visual journalists, we know that manipulating images is manipulating truth,” the statement continued. “It’s deceptive, dangerous and unethical.”

“Knowingly sharing manipulated images is equally problematic, particularly when the person sharing them is a representative of our country’s highest office with vast influence over public opinion,” the statement concluded.

View image on Twitter





Zoe Daniel
✔@zdaniel
Statement from @whnpa on White House use of doctored video of @Acosta incident

3:14 PM - Nov 8, 2018
Former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa noted after Sanders shared the video on Twitter that it appears to have come from InfoWars.


White House photography association slams Sarah Sanders for sharing 'manipulated' video of Acosta's interaction with intern

This is perfectly consistent with a dishonest misadministration which does nothing but lie.

 

[Care4all]

Too late. We all saw what happened. The white house photographers can stick up for their butt boy as much as possible. We saw it.

Dig it.
I saw it live and Acosta tried to drive the interns arm down from the mic by putting his hand in the V of her inner arm.

His arm WAS THERE, extended, and she reached under his arm for the mic in her other hand....

Sarah's video didn't even show him saying, pardon me mam,

It was a manipulated video from Sarah, and THAT ALONE is very unethical for the white House Press core.

but everyone knows with ears to hear and eyes to see, they are all scummy and crooked in this white house, so nothing is really new on that....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You don't make rhe rules and neither does Donald Trump. Our founders did that in rhe First Amendment. The reporter was following his obligation and duty as specified in the First Amendment.

He was allowed to do his job and then it was time to let someone else do theirs.

He did not feel his job was complete and that his questions were being answered. Trump did not have the knowledge, skill or temperament to diplomatically or professionally to end the questioning. Instead, he got caught being unable to answer those questions and denying a reporter's First Amendment right. An "assault" charge is just a deflection away from what should be rhe main story. Denial of First Amendment Free Press is the real story.

Acosta’s opinion is irrelevant.

It was time for him to give up the microphone, whether he liked it or not.

The President clearly was done with him, so he should have given someone else the opportunity to ask questions.

In my opinion, you are ignoring, or purring little importance on the First Amendment issue of Free Press. Reporters have a right to ask questions and pressure politicians for answers to those questions. If politicians are allowed to simply evade answering questions they are denying a reporters right to ask the questions. A politician only has a right to refuse a question if he plainly states he or she refuses or chooses to evade answering the question. Attacking the reporter or taking away the mike is a form of depriving a reporter's right to free press.

The reporter was allowed to ask questions.

The President is not required to answer those questions.

Once it was clear the President was done with him, Acosta should have given someone else a chance.

Wrong.

There is nothing compelling a journalist to stop asking questions of a president unwilling to answer perfectly appropriate, on-point questions.

Indeed, it would be wrong for a journalist to stop asking questions just because of a president’s unwarranted hostility toward that reporter.

And the notion of giving others ‘a chance’ is naïve and sophomoric.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

He did not feel his job was complete and that his questions were being answered. Trump did not have the knowledge, skill or temperament to diplomatically or professionally to end the questioning. Instead, he got caught being unable to answer those questions and denying a reporter's First Amendment right. An "assault" charge is just a deflection away from what should be rhe main story. Denial of First Amendment Free Press is the real story.

Acosta’s opinion is irrelevant.

It was time for him to give up the microphone, whether he liked it or not.

The President clearly was done with him, so he should have given someone else the opportunity to ask questions.

In my opinion, you are ignoring, or purring little importance on the First Amendment issue of Free Press. Reporters have a right to ask questions and pressure politicians for answers to those questions. If politicians are allowed to simply evade answering questions they are denying a reporters right to ask the questions. A politician only has a right to refuse a question if he plainly states he or she refuses or chooses to evade answering the question. Attacking the reporter or taking away the mike is a form of depriving a reporter's right to free press.

The reporter was allowed to ask questions.

The President is not required to answer those questions.

Once it was clear the President was done with him, Acosta should have given someone else a chance.

You are making a subjective partisan opinion. My opinion is based on Constitutional law.

No it’s not based on Constitutional law.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the President is required to answer questions.

You’re the one making a subjective partisan opinion. Libs are better at that than any conservative could hope to be.

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

The First Amendment concerns solely the relationship between government and a free press, prohibiting government from interfering with the role and responsibility of a free press to keep the people informed and hold elected officials accountable.

The Constitution protects the right of a journalist to ask as many questions of any president as the journalist so desires.

That Trump is in fact ridiculous and foolish because he’s uninformed and ill-prepared is solely the fault of Trump, not of the journalists asking questions.

As a partisan rightist you’re hostile toward a free press because a Republican president proved himself to be unfit the consequence of his incompetence and dishonesty when asked appropriate questions.

 

[BigTruck]

Acosta’s opinion is irrelevant.

It was time for him to give up the microphone, whether he liked it or not.

The President clearly was done with him, so he should have given someone else the opportunity to ask questions.

In my opinion, you are ignoring, or purring little importance on the First Amendment issue of Free Press. Reporters have a right to ask questions and pressure politicians for answers to those questions. If politicians are allowed to simply evade answering questions they are denying a reporters right to ask the questions. A politician only has a right to refuse a question if he plainly states he or she refuses or chooses to evade answering the question. Attacking the reporter or taking away the mike is a form of depriving a reporter's right to free press.

The reporter was allowed to ask questions.

The President is not required to answer those questions.

Once it was clear the President was done with him, Acosta should have given someone else a chance.

You are making a subjective partisan opinion. My opinion is based on Constitutional law.

No it’s not based on Constitutional law.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the President is required to answer questions.

You’re the one making a subjective partisan opinion. Libs are better at that than any conservative could hope to be.

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

The First Amendment concerns solely the relationship between government and a free press, prohibiting government from interfering with the role and responsibility of a free press to keep the people informed and hold elected officials accountable.

The Constitution protects the right of a journalist to ask as many questions of any president as the journalist so desires.

That Trump is in fact ridiculous and foolish because he’s uninformed and ill-prepared is solely the fault of Trump, not of the journalists asking questions.

As a partisan rightist you’re hostile toward a free press because a Republican president proved himself to be unfit the consequence of his incompetence and dishonesty when asked appropriate questions.

You’re all kinds of stupid, aren’t you?

 

[BULLDOG]

Both videos show Acosta making physical contact with the intern.

He may not have intended to be physically rude, but he was being rude in attitude by not surrendering the microphone as he should have.

Then the WH would be fine saying that. Instead, they doctored a video to make it look like he pushed her away. Trump's lies never stop.

 

[Camp]

Both videos show Acosta making physical contact with the intern.

He may not have intended to be physically rude, but he was being rude in attitude by not surrendering the microphone as he should have.

Then the WH would be fine saying that. Instead, they doctored a video to make it look like he pushed her away. Trump's lies never stop.

Rare is a White House story or Trump statement that is absent a significant portion of lies and misinformation. Trump runs his Presidency with lies. Lying actually defines his Presidency and legacy.

 

[BigTruck]

Both videos show Acosta making physical contact with the intern.

He may not have intended to be physically rude, but he was being rude in attitude by not surrendering the microphone as he should have.

Then the WH would be fine saying that. Instead, they doctored a video to make it look like he pushed her away. Trump's lies never stop.

I wish the President would not engage in this kind of behavior, but that doesn’t excuse Acosta from his rudeness.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

It all comes down to if the video was doctored, and if WH staffers knew it was and presented it to the public knowing it was.

If it was Sarah, or anyone else, they MUST go.

If they honestly didn't realize the video was altered, then that should be forgiven, but they must check these things like this out in the future.

Someone of Sanders stature is supposed to check

The link to InfoWars should be the first clue

I wouldn't have used that link, but that being said there's little or no difference in the videos.

It still all comes down to whether they believed they were presenting a doctored video.

 

[Bush92]

A right wing conspiracy theorist increased the speed of Jim Acosta’s arm movement, to make it seem he was violent against a White House aide as opposed to struggling for the microphone..
Additionally, Acosta’s “Pardon me, ma’am“ utterance was removed from the doctor video:

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders on Wednesday night shared a video of CNN reporter Jim Acosta that appeared to have been altered to make his actions at a news conference look more aggressive toward a White House intern.

The edited video looks authentic: Acosta appeared to swiftly chop down on the arm of an aide as he held onto a microphone while questioning President Trump. But in the original video, Acosta’s arm appears to move only as a response to a tussle for the microphone. His statement, “Pardon me, ma’am,” is not included in the video Sanders shared.

Critics said that video — which sped up the movement of Acosta’s arms in a way that dramatically changed the journalist’s response — was deceptively edited to score political points. That edited videowas first shared by Paul Joseph Watson, known for his conspiracy-theory videos on the far-right website Infowars.

Sarah Sanders' dishonesty problem just got a little worse.

White House shares doctored video to support punishment of journalist Jim Acosta

Jim Acosta had no right to get aggressive with a young lady who was a White House intern. Acosta is a stupid arrogant prick. Looks like Democrats are already going stupid. Enjoy your short lived control of House. You think a majority of Americans agree with Acosta and his actions? You dickheads help the conservatives.

but grabbing pussy ok.

What’s that have to do with Acosta’s actions?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Acosta should lose his credentials for refusing to allow any other reporters to ask questions.

Acosta should lose his credentials because he is clearly not a journalist.

 

[dannyboys]

The original C Span video clearly shows Acosta's arm coming down on the female intern's arm.
Acosta (perfect name for him BTW) will never be inside the press briefing room for the next six years.
He'll be jerking off behind a tree on the White house lawn instead.