CNN's Jim Acosta has press pass suspended

Btw courtJester, who did you vote for in 2016?

 

He was invited there to ask a question not to have a debate and refuse to give up the microphone denying other reporters invited there time to ask there questions. Why can't you just admit he is an arse and he was in the wrong?

 

EXCLUSIVE: 'People who deny there are criminals in the caravan are naive - MS-13 are everywhere.' Ex-member of vicious gang says Trump is RIGHT and he knows nearly a dozen gangsters hiding among the migrants on way to US border
An 18-year-old who claims he is a former member of the vicious MS-13 gang says he knows of at least ten of his former cohorts who are hiding out in the mass of disheveled migrants marching north through Mexico
'I don't agree with anything Donald Trump stands for but on this occasion the President is right,' he told DailyMail.com
The teen, who goes by 'Pepito', said most of his former associates were trying to leave the gang life behind but MS-13 bosses treat deserters as enemies and will have people mingling with the crowds to try to spot them
He explained: 'My brother is still in MS-13 and he told me they have contacts looking for people right now in the caravan. They can come after you and they can take your life for this'
The migrant caravan formed in San Pedro Sula, Honduras on October 12, but the group of around 150 migrants swelled to 7,200 by the time they crossed into Mexico one week later
President Trump has maintained the convoy contains 'criminals and unknown Middle Easterners' that pose a terror threat and he plans to 'send as many troops as necessary' to the US border to dispel the migrants
On Thursday it was reported Trump was preparing an executive order to ban the caravan from entering the US, as his plan would block the migrants - who are still nearly a month away - from seeking asylum

 

Ok, so we agree. Without giant leaps of imagination, there is no reason to think she was lying, and even if she was, his behavior should have disqualified him anyway.

 

No, I think "next" or "enough" would also do.

 

I don't know what a kudo is or how long we would have to wait until you considered it soon.

What she sacrificed was the humiliation of a person with no interest in public life having to relive and lay bare the trauma in front of the entire world. And of being attacked from all angles for every possible thing by pundits, congressmen, and trolls.

Now, like most bad ideas from flat-earth to neo nazis, when you require a conspiracy of the thinnest possible thread of silly connections to make your theory, the chances of you being wrong are close enough to one that you should hang it up.

 

Those are minor details and not even bad memory, but normal memory. Lapses like this happen all the time. In fact, if there were none of the lapses, it would be more suspicious. Nobody who knows anything about how the mind works (of which she is one) have any problem with this. The only ones who do are people desperate to find a hole.

 

There is no reason to believe that she thought she would have nothing to gain by lying.

 

Ok, so, to think that this argument means anything is to desperately want to believe she was lying. Yes, there are wild convoluted threads of reasoning in which she might have been abusing the system here, none of which have any evidence behind them.

 

Sorry, but even the WH is admitting it now. Conway has admitted the footage they shared was sped up.

 

Sped up and doctored are not the same thing.

It was not doctored

 

If they've managed to brainwash people into believing that deceptive video editing isn't "doctored," the issue is petty sophism, nothing more.

 

Speeding up or down or zooming in or out is not doctoring.

Its still the same film

 

It is deceptive editing. Which is typically what "doctoring" means. If you don't like the word, fine. There's no need for it: the WH released deceptively edited video in order to justify their action.

 

No that is not what doctoring typically means.

Doctoring typically means. Doctoring typically means to alter a film itself not to simply zoom in or speed up or down.

The words as applied to this case is a foolish uneducated lie and it was not doctored.

They released a film which shows what they claimed whether or not it was sped up or slowed down.

 

How could you ever know what her motivations were? If the world remembers correctly she didn't come forward publicly, she came forward privately and was forced to the table because Feinsteins office leaked her information to the press after the confirmation hearings were concluded without her knowledge or consent. She didn't sacrifice anything, she was sacrificed by the Dems for their own political reasons.

The fact that she testified she was never informed she could be interviewed in California privately by the Senate instead of in DC with millions watching told us everything we already knew.

Maybe but how about nothing she claimed could be corroborated by anyone she stated as witnesses to include her own best friend?
1. Can't remember who dove her to the party but she went with her best fried
2. Can't remember who drove her home
3. Can't remember where it happened
4. Her 4 claimed witnesses have no idea what she is talking about and they weren't supposedly traumatized
5. Left the party alone and left her best friend behind at an attempted rape with drunk kids? Didn't warn her, just left her?
6. No phone call from the friend the next day asking why she disappeared?
7. Didn't know what year it happened?
8. Never told anyone

Thats not a few details, its the entire claim.

This statement in itself disqualifies everything you have written as credible. By your standard, Under the exact same circumstances and with no witnesses to cooperate my claim, I can claim you are a pedophile, contact your local law enforcement, have you arrested, jailed, and forced to register as a child molester thus destroying your life forever.

SO are you innocent until proven guilty or are you guilty by accusation. According to you I have made a credible allegation because I have nothing to gain.

Please enlighten us as to these many lies.

Name a single confirmation process that had a different time scale than Kavanaughs.

 

Deceptive editing is deceptive editing, whether you want to play sophist games about the specific term or not.

 

Wrong.

It is not sophist it is fact it was not deceptive and the same result is seen in many other films of the same event

 

Of course it was deceptive. What other reason was there to speed it up? In fact, the Infowars video was at normal speed EXCEPT for that part. Why only speed up that part? Please don't pretend you don't know. It successfully lead people to make false accusations of some kind of "karate chop," which isn't what it looked like at normal speed, so the deception was a success.

 

She sacrificed NOTHING. She was sacrificed by her own party when they leaked her letter to the media and forced her to testify. At that point it was either testify or be charged with making false allegations.

Wasn't it so amazing she testified that she was never informed the Senate would come to her in California and question her privately? That was the most telling part of her testimony.

 

It was not editing at all.

If it can be sped up it can just as easily be slowed down.

In the end some are over reacting calling it assault but Acosta was in the wrong the video proves it regardless of who zooms in or out or slows it down or speeds it up

 

I'm sorry, I can't bury my head that far into the sand.

. . . what?

Deceptively editing the video -- playing it at regular speed and then speeding up that part to make it look like a strike -- was part of why people are overreacting and calling it assault.

 

There was no evidence behind anything.

 

If in fact, the only reason she came out in public was that she was screwed over by the democrats, that only reinforces the fact that she wasn't lying.

No, there isn't a single thing there that is problematic for anyone (again particularly experts) other than those looking for ways to smear and undermine the testimony. It's a problem for motivated reasoning, but not for reality.

So, this right here, and all the arguments around should prove to you that people are desperate to come up with anything. It's pure fear-mongering. If, we were talking about sending him to prison for this, or even his loosing a job he already has, then maaaaaaaaaaybe there is some reason to worry about this. This is an interview for one of the most important jobs in the world, and he failed. He wouldn't have gone to jail, he would have gone back to one of the best jobs in the world. The fact that this nonsense slippery slope needs to be used means there is probably no reasonable defense.

"grew up in a city plagued by gun violence..."
"reference was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us…It was not related to sex.."
"refers to flatualnce..."
"Drinking game"
"weak stomach.."
"Never blacked out"
"refuted by people she says were there.."
memogate
detention and interrogation
Easy rider gag list

All of that under oath and during an interview to become a Supreme Court Justice.

Merrick Garland