As usual is maddening how easy this is to understand and how much everyone refuses to understand it. There are two things happening here, and they aren't super hard to understand. There's the asshole administration and the asshole reporter.

The court said asshole administration revoked asshole Jim Acosta's press pass without due process. WH deemed him press, gave him a press pass, then they kicked him out without even being able to say who made the decision or on what grounds.
We want hostile, combative reporters. We **want** that. **You** want that. We want that because the press secretary of every single administration is a liar. Even the ones you like. Lying is their job. They show up to avoid answering, but give the appearance of being answerable.
It shouldn't be easy for government to just refuse to be answerable. It should be hard to dodge. Hard to kick people out. Hard to control the narrative. That shouldn't be easy for the gov't. Not even your most favoritest president.
You, the American citizen, want the truth. Reporters should be there to get it. That means asking questions doggedly, demanding answers. This is not an obscure idea. It should be obvious to anyone who's experienced having a president you didn't vote for. Super rare right?
There are a lot of reporters that do that, even biased reporters. April Ryan. Jake Tapper (when he was there.) Major Garrett. Jon Karl. Chip Reid, Cecilia Vega, Kevin Corke. Good reporters doing good reporter work.
But THEN there are the other people. The actors. They come in two flavors. One is that Gannon guy from the Bush administration, asking fawning, fake, softball questions to help the administration.
The other flavor is Jim Dam Acosta. He is NOT there to find out answers or the truth. He isn't even pursuing stories. He just isn't. Come on.
You know what he "asked" Trump once? He said "how can you be America First while rubbing elbows with all these bigwigs?" Because Trump was meeting with foreign heads of state and world economic leaders. Acosta asked that. Shouted it. Then tweeted that he did it!
That's not a real question, it's not even a real issue. What was he trying to uncover? Reveal? Learn about on our behalf? Nothing. He was trying to make the rhetorical point that "America first is stupid, you dick."

Most of his "questions" have nearly audible hashtags.
That's policy debate, and BAD, lame, lazy policy debate, at that. It's a verbal tweet, not a real question from a real reporter. And everybody knows it.
When people say that what Acosta does is a performance, or grandstanding, that's not just a snarky observation, it's an actual and important point. He is literally not doing the job of a reporter.
It's not merely being a biased liberal hack, which he is, its being a bad faith, dishonest, non-reporter taking up the time when the real press should be asking real things. It's well beyond fame-seeking, it's glory-seeking. He's smitten with himself and his perceived status.
It would be bad for the future, and bad for the First Amendment, to let the Trump administration get away with just kicking him out. And you can say that without moralizing about Acosta's sacred duty and trust. He ain't that guy.
So yeah, the press is right to stand together against bad action by this free press-hating, free speech-hating administration and the would-be tyrant over it. But spare me piously standing arms linked with that jackass who just ruined it for the rest of you. And we the people.
You know how a teacher might allow your whole 3rd grade class to have one cookie, and that one asshole kid kept taking too many, and then, because the teacher can't smack sense into the asshole kid, she has to take away everyone's cookies forever?
That's him. And now you have stupid rules to follow. Stupid, one-cookie rules with no follow-ups. Everyone loses. Because one asshole kid just couldn't stop taking all the fucking cookies.

More from Politics

1/ Imagine that as soon as the referendum result the EU announced that it was looking forward to the end of free movement of UK citizens in the EU


2/ Imagine if the EU said finally all those retired Brits in the EU27 could go home

3/ Imagine if the EU said finally all those Brits in the EU could stop driving down wages, taking jobs and stop sending benefits back to the UK

4/ Imagine if the EU said it was looking to use UK citizens as “bargaining chips” to get a better trade deal

5/ Imagine if the EU told UK citizens in the EU27 that they could no longer rely on established legal rights and they would have to apply for a new status which they have to pay for for less rights
Here we go. Tag 4 des Impeachments. Trumps Verteidigung.


Es wird argumentiert, dass Trump nur habe sicherstellen wollen, dass die Wahl fair abgelaufen sei. Die Verteidigung zeigt Clips einzelner Demokraten, die der Zertifizierung von Trumps Stimmen 2016 widersprechen. (Dass es 2016 keinen von Obama gesandten Mob aufs Kapitol gab?Egal!)

Die intellektuelle Unehrlichkeit ist so unfassbar, ich weiß kaum, wo ich hier überhaupt anfangen soll; so viele fucking Strohmänner auf einmal.

Die Verteidigung spielt random Clips, in denen Demokraten “fight” sagen, fast zehn Minuten lang. Weil Trump 20mal am 6. Januar “fight” gesagt hat. Dies ist kein Witz. Komisch, dass sonst die Folge nie war, dass ein Mob das Kapitol gestürmt hat und Pence hängen wollte


“Dieser Fall geht um politischen Hass” Ich mein, ja. “Die House Managers hassen Donald Trump.”

So close.

You May Also Like