We should never believe her and he should never face any consequences? Does the constitution protect the right to become a Supreme Court justice? What about my right to be a Supreme Court justice? Why aren't I one?
Can you show me the video which supports that. I must have missed seeing that one. The one I saw showed Trump say, "here we go," and verbal argy-bargy broke out. Sorry, what wrestle? Was not Donald arguing as well? Was it not a verbal joust? Did Donald then retreat into, "You let me run the Government and you run CNN. Its ratings suck...blah blah." (Words to that effect.) When the next guy had the mic, Donald again attacked Ocosta, and also tried to be a sarcastic smart arse with comnents at that next journo. Is that the video you saw. Did you not see all that happen?
Based on the continuing questions going in circles, the fact that you chose to ignore obvious constitutional rights, and your lack of interest in arguing for a conclusion I have lost interest in discussing this any further.
So, here's the answer. The constitution doesn't cover that right. The president gets to nominate someone, and then congress gets to decide if they agree. That's it.
Well, look. The Earth is round, and trump is a horrible president. Now, mark sargent and tucker carleson, can give you all the justification and tenuous explanations you could ever want. Facts still remain facts. But, in both cases, you have to believe in wild conspiracy theories, and a few super biased sources of information. In both cases, a true believer finds plenty of justification, an objective observer finds almost none.
Acosta is the worst and should be banned from all WH briefings. CNN is fake news and more of an activist network. They colluded with Obama and the DNC to get Hillary elected. What a bunch of swines.
Really? That sounds like a repetitive litany of discredited RW Fever Swamp talking points. Anyway--Acosta was the victim of a BATTERY. I am sure that the lawyers will figure it out. Carry on.
I believe you. Regarding your "strange female" comment: Are proposing the idea that Acosta brought the microphone with him?
You don't know who she alleged as witnesses whose initial statements refuted her claim and the subsequent FBI investigation said none of them corroborrated her accusation. REALLY? And you are here trying to divert the thread with your claims about Kavanaugh? "Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Thursday there's no corroboration of sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in a supplementary FBI report submitted to the Senate. "I've now received a committee staff briefing on the FBI's supplement to Judge Kavanaugh's background investigation file. There's nothing in it that we didn't already know," Grassley said in a statement. "These uncorroborated accusations have been unequivocally and repeatedly rejected by Judge Kavanaugh, and neither the Judiciary Committee nor the FBI could locate any third parties who can attest to any of the allegations. There's also no contemporaneous evidence," he added. "This investigation found no hint of misconduct...I'll be voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh."" https://thenewstalkers.com/communit...-kavanaugh-accusers-allegations-in-fbi-report Now get back on topic.
Nope the young lady who works for the White House was attempting to retrieve White House property which he was refusing to hand over as instructed. Acosta caused the physical contact ad he wrestled with her.
There are ample sites that have the entire video. Acosta started out with his "I want to challenge" about the word "invasion" and Trump answered then tried to move to the next reported. Avowal refuse to give up the microphone and wrestled with the young lady who had authority to retrieve it. Just admit he was wrong.
Maybe we can go back to the old days, when we could have him wear a pointy hat and sit facing the corner of the room. Now that could be entertaining at future pressers....