web analytics

CNN’s Jim Acosta reports

By Patty On January 11th, 2019

As Pete points out below, CNN did not rely on local reporters on the US southern border for news about the existing border wall.

Instead, CNN sent one of their brightest reporters, Jim Acosta, down to the border and as Jim stood next to a tall steel barrier wall, he reported back:

“no sign of the national emergency that the president has been talking about” and it was “tranquil” near him. He captioned the video, “I found some steel slats down on the border. But I don’t see anything resembling a national emergency situation.. at least not in the McAllen TX area of the border where Trump will be today.”

 

83 Responses to “CNN’s Jim Acosta reports”

  1. Fake News Acosta finds that all is tranquil .. where there’s a wall.

    His head will explode if someone explains it to him.

  2. There are some hilarious memes out there about this.

  3. I have a sneaking regard for Acosta. His self-unawareness is hugely admirable.

  4. I’m not a Trump fan as everyone here knows. But I think that on the wall Trump is right and his opponents are both wrong and hypocritical. Here is an intelligent endorsement of Trump’s case:

    “Everyone who can spell ‘Google’ knows that the Democrats, until November 7, 2016, supported robust border security and, indeed, a physical barrier — otherwise known as a wall — to retard the flow of illegal immigrants into this country. The election of Donald Trump was not something they had bargained for, so they promptly put politics before people and were happy to ‘shut down the government’ (actually, it never shuts down, and more’s the pity) in a partisan mud-slinging match with Donald Trump…

    In his brief speech — it was hardly more than 1,000 words — the President eloquently made the case for border security. Congress, the holder of the federal purse strings, oversees a budget of some $4.5 trillion. Don’t even try to imagine that number. It is beyond the ken of most mortals. Donald Trump has asked for $5.7 billion…

    A country without borders is not a country. The United States already has perhaps the most generous immigration policy in the world. My own predilection is to sharply limit immigration, and to favor those who 1. speak English and 2. have something to offer to the country — and I am not talking about people with exotic sexual tastes or a commitment to totalitarian ideologies of one shape or another. A decade or two ago this would have been taken as common sense. Now, of course, to articulate this view is to sin against the gods of identity politics.

    I believe that the American people, even that subset that supports the President, do not appreciate what this man is attempting to do for the country. In brief, he is attempting to roll back the forces of barbarism and dissolution. Will it work? Let’s see. But hark unto the President’s concluding remarks: ‘This is a choice between right and wrong,’ he said, ‘justice and Injustice.’ Either we secure our border and protect our people or we surrender to the progressive mob. That is the choice…”

    https://spectator.us/oval-office-address-protecting/

  5. “Everyone who can spell ‘Google’ knows that the Democrats, until November 7, 2016, supported robust border security and, indeed, a physical barrier — otherwise known as a wall — to retard the flow of illegal immigrants into this country.”

    Yes indeed. It’s a measure of their towering cynicism, and disregard for Americans, that they pull dare to pull such a volte-face simply because they lost an election.

  6. I like Kimball…. but every time I read his stuff I think of the fugitive.

  7. Peter, it is good that you can give Trump his due when the facts warrant it. Well played, sir!

  8. ” but every time I read his stuff I think of the fugitive.”

    Is that not Richard, rather than Roger?

  9. Peter – illegal crossing is at a historic low. The majority of drugs comes in through legal points of entry. And the choice is not Trump’s wall or nothing.

  10. I doubt that very much.

    It is down from the peak.

  11. I do take issue with how CNN promotes various talking heads in a cult of personality against Trump. That includes Acosta, Lemon, Cooper.

  12. Agree.

    Lemon is flat out stupid.

    Cooper is no MENSA section chief either.

  13. Phantom arrests for illegal crossing have not been as low for 46 years. Maybe there are factors also at play.

  14. I agree with that.

    And there is ( always ) a counter-flow, of people going back to say Mexico.

    In some cases, the same guy will be crossing back and forth repeatedly –not just someone who has been deported– which would mess up all the measurements

  15. Fear the trip won’t be worth it.

  16. Mahons

    Even if illegals are low numbers the state has a duty to protect the border, or there is no state. Even the Roman Empire understood that.

    What is the point of drugs prohibition? See Boardwalk Empire, The Wire or Breaking Bad. A total waste of treasure and massively socially destructive. It’s good to see states like Colorado legalise, regulate and tax the weed. I think Trump would like to do it on a federal level, but Fox-Limbaa-Evangelicals would shit themselves if he did.

  17. Peter – yes the state does. There is no indication that Trump’s plan is the only one or a sensible one.
    As for drug prohibition, I support it even if it will never be 100% successful.

  18. I have no opposition to pot legalization. But harder drugs I couldn’t support.

  19. In 2001, Portugal Legalized all drugs, including heroin and cocaine. It’ ended its war on drugs.

    Drug abuse, including of opioids Went down and has stayed down, as have arrests

    The US in 2001 continue its war on drugs. It continues to this day. With this period, Drug abuse of meth and legal and illegal opioids has sharply increased in the United States.

    I vote that we try the Portuguese approach. It is counterintuitive, but it has worked.

  20. What about “addictive” is so hard to understand? I think we have enough problems without legalizing heroin just because NPR or someone wrote an article about Portugal.

    Someday, you should read the history of modern China and the opium use that was widespread before Mao tse Tung came to power. One of the reasons that Mao was able to consolidate power was the immoral decadence and despair caused by opium and the desire of so many to see it end.

  21. The rate of drug use and addiction has gone down in Portugal, while our rate of addiction and deaths from overdose have exploded

    I hate drugs, but I think that we should take a good hard look at different approaches than those which have failed us so badly

  22. Portugal decriminalized small personal drug possession. They didn’t legalize drugs, and drug trafficking and sale is still a crime there.

  23. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html

    Well their radical approach has succeeded.It has done what it’s proponents claimed it would do

    And our approach to prescription and illegal drugs( bad policy on both over decades) has completely failed

  24. https://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-5/

  25. “They didn’t legalize drugs, and drug trafficking and sale is still a crime there.”

    Good to know.

    Phantom: Addictive drugs largely eliminate choice for the addict – hence, the word “addictive.” If a person is willing to sell their soul for a fix, legalization only makes their demise quicker and easier and general usage more prevalent.

  26. Call me a Fox-Limbaugh-Evangelical if you like but sometimes there just is no substitute for morality.
    Heroin addiction is not like a pool hall in The Music Man. (We got trouble. Right here in Rivercity. And it starts with “P” and it rhymes with “T” and that stands for trouble….)

    Legalizing immoral choices (recreational drug use for example) will not solve the problem.

  27. Yet look at the counterintuitive and successful example of Portugal

    Similar arguments were used against alcohol when Prohibition was implemented in the US – And those arguments weren’t without logic either

  28. Mr Limbaugh maybe in 2003 was arrested for abuse of prescription and illegal opioids including Oxycontin which he had his maid buy for him. He cut a deal with the state of Florida.

    He had become addicted And went to rehab

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/oct/11/usa.julianborger1

  29. You have to stop obsessing on Rush Limbaugh.

  30. I only mentioned him because you did

    And I don’t mock his addiction to opioids – he had a very painful ear condition, which led to the use of painkillers — but I don’t like the fact that he had a maid buy them illegally on his behalf. After his very many comments on the radio saying that druggies should go to prison.

    I don’t listen to him on a regular basis, I wonder if he has learned some empathy for those who fall into this.

    Cheers.

  31. I don’t listen to him on a regular basis, I wonder if he has learned some empathy for those who fall into this.

    he had to have, or he’d be using again.

  32. When it comes to dealing with the problem of drug use and addiction surely the best solution is to genuinely and openly investigate all options and implement the ones that prove to reduce the problems whatever they are. We should only say NO to ruling options out.

  33. “Legalizing immoral choices (recreational drug use for example) will not solve the problem.”

    Should we ban alcohol – the main recreational drug of use? Caffeine?

  34. The word immoral shouldn’t be used in any legal context. Immorality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

  35. Excuse me?

    But who’s Jim Acosta?

    He’s not a Jew by any chance?

    😏

  36. Acosta’s an idiot, but more concerning; he’s a willing stooge of the Liberal progressive agenda in America as well.

  37. Harri

    What is it with you constantly trying to ask if certain people in the public eye are Jews ?

  38. “He’s not a Jew by any chance?”

    Probably not. He’s of Cuban, Czech and Irish descent so he’s most likely Catholic.

  39. What is it with you constantly trying to ask if certain people in the public eye are Jews ?

    It’s because he’s not racist Colm.

  40. There are lots of things Harri is not. Informed, aware, logical, understandable,… I could go on 😉

  41. Like wise you Colm

    Telling us London is safe..

    More liberal bullshit.

  42. Aah come on Harri, I’m only tweaking your little….. brain 😉

  43. Suckers

    Jim Accosts is a Jew.

  44. A) It wouldn’t be an issue if he was Jewish. Outside of pondscum like yourself there is no one who believes that being Jewish is a problem.

    B) He is not Jewish.

  45. Well done Canada:

    “A Saudi teenager who fled her family and got stranded at a Bangkok airport has arrived in Canada after being granted asylum there. Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun, 18, had been trying to reach Australia via Bangkok but was initially told to return to Kuwait, where her family were waiting. She refused to fly back and barricaded herself into her airport hotel room, attracting international attention. She said she had renounced Islam, which is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46851723

  46. “Yet Trump has boxed himself in politically, and it is hard to see him coming out of the shutdown undamaged. As the shutdown continues, he will come under increasing pressure in the days and weeks ahead, via media interviews with hard-pressed workers and images of garbage piling up at national parks. But if he makes concessions, there is a good chance his base will slam him for it. Trump has well and truly screwed up. If the wall was so important to him, why has it taken him so long to build it? Why didn’t he come up with a proposed deal over his past two years in office, when his fellow Republicans were in the majority in both houses of Congress? Isn’t he supposed to be Mr ‘Art of the Deal’?

    A deal that would seem to make sense would be to grant permanent legal status for undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children, known as ‘Dreamers’, in exchange for more spending on border security. But Trump refuses to commit to such a deal. Meanwhile, Democrats are under pressure from their own base not to make any concessions to Trump. Instead of pursuing a deal, Trump has threatened to raise the constitutional stakes by declaring a national emergency in order to build his wall – something that would represent an abuse of presidential powers over the will of Congress (and would probably face significant legal opposition).”

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/01/08/the-shutdown-a-phoney-war-over-immigration/

  47. Compromise, ironically the major founding principle of the United States, has become a dirty word in American politics (and politics in most countries). As Voltaire put it “the best is the enemy of the good”.

    Trump was willing to keep the government open while pursuing a deal on the wall. Then Ann Coulter and the rest of the Klan went on tv and radio and bitched about him. And Trump shit himself.

    As such he is now backed himself into a corner where he wants everything and is unwilling to give anything (something his opponents have done also).

  48. Ann Coulter and the rest of the Klan

    Coulter is currently dating a black guy:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=ann+coulter+boyfriend&client=firefox-b&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=4N9ex4mshF6y6M%253A%252CdC6wcXQy7NRduM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kRTrMjlc6HljQy6L71Hk3ztCU3QAw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji2feUkOnfAhU9SBUIHYGyC5oQ9QEwCnoECAAQBA#imgrc=4N9ex4mshF6y6M:

  49. They have both denied.

    I’m also not actually suggesting that she is in the Klan. It was largely a dig at “The Base”.

  50. Seamus

    I think Trump will declare a national emergency. For him it would be a face saving win-win situation. He will declare an emergency, which will immediately be stayed by the courts. It will take 18 months to get to the Supreme Court. Trump goes to the base and says he’s done everything in his power to fulfill his promise, and looks to the future for a positive outcome.

    Thoughts?

  51. I think that is a possibility. It allows him to say he’s doing something, while also allowing him to attack the courts (which has always been something that he’s been a fan of). The problem with the action is that it likely paralyses the government. The Democrats simply won’t even sit across the table from him if he does that.

    If he loses then he’s powerless. And if he wins then he sets a dangerous precedent for future Presidents that any disagreement with Congress can be avoided by declaring a national emergency.

    There are also legal pitfalls. Firstly any emergency has to be declared, in detail. Trump has to detail specifically what the emergency is, and what steps he is doing to fix it. He must, by law, notify Congress of that. He simply can’t say it is an emergency and then act carte blanche.

    The President can’t use the military in this form. There was a law passed in 2006 (following Katrina) that allowed the President to use the military in an emergency situation. That law was repealed in 2008. So the President cannot use the military to engage in civilian law enforcement duties. So he likely can’t use the military to build his wall. Such would be using the military to fulfill the duties of civilian law enforcement (Border Patrol etc…).

    He also likely can’t get the land. Firstly an emergency will not allow the President to seize private land. The 3rd Amendment pretty much makes it impossible. So even if the courts back him on his ability to build a wall via national emergency they likely won’t back him on his ability to seize private land to do so.

    So declaring a national emergency will likely solve Trump’s immediate political problem. But it will likely cause him far more problems down the line.

  52. Seamus, That’s quite a complete answer, with some tidbits that I hadn’t thought about. Thank you!

  53. Trump now controls the Supreme Court. That will embolden him to go for broke.

  54. He doesn’t. The Chief Justice has shown a willingness to slap him down. Additionally several conservative justices on the Supreme Court would be loathe to set a precedent that allows Presidents to declare national emergencies in such a manner.

  55. “Seamus, That’s quite a complete answer, with some tidbits that I hadn’t thought about. Thank you!”

    Cheers Charles.

    I honestly think if there was no downside for Trump he would have done it ages ago. The fact that he hasn’t done it is an indication in and of itself.

  56. The fact that he hasn’t done it is an indication in and of itself.

    I think he’s getting very close, b/c he has said as much. This Friday past was the first day that federal workers missed a paycheck, including the Border Patrol. The situation can’t go on for much longer,IMO.

  57. It can’t. But that isn’t an emergency. The lack of pay for federal workers isn’t an emergency. It could be ended tomorrow by passing a clean CR.

  58. a couple of things to address in what you said Seamus this Law

    The National Emergencies Act (Pub.L. 94–412, 90 Stat. 1255, enacted September 14, 1976, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1601–1651) is a United States federal law passed to stop open-ended states of national emergency and formalize the power of Congress to provide certain checks and balances on the emergency powers of the President. The Act of Congress imposes certain procedural formalities on the President when invoking such powers. The perceived need for the law arose from the scope and number of laws granting special powers to the executive in times of national emergency.

    The legislation was signed by President Gerald Ford on September 14, 1976.[1] As of January 2019, the United States is under 31 continuing declared states of national emergency.[2][3]

    Is what the case will be based on, there are good arguments both for it and against it and has never been tested in the Courts, it would be fast tracked to the Supreme court.

    The President can use the Military to Secure the Borders. They could start the Wall with eminent domain which original purpose was Borders, and Railroads. This whole section:

    He also likely can’t get the land. Firstly an emergency will not allow the President to seize private land. The 3rd Amendment pretty much makes it impossible. So even if the courts back him on his ability to build a wall via national emergency they likely won’t back him on his ability to seize private land to do so.

    is wiped out be eminent domain.

    The eminent domain process can be stopped if the proposed taking does not meet the requirements for public necessity or public purpose. If these tests are met, the government cannot be stopped from taking your property, but the government cannot dictate the price it will pay, either.

    he can do one of two things park tanks and troops on the border in the disputed area’s where people want to dispute, or leave those areas wide open to no security while securing the other areas.

    In other words a wide open door for illegals and smugglers to pour through on the land of those involved in the opposition case. 🙂

    No court can interfere in either of those choices cause no civilian has standing to file.

    Congress has standing, but again no precedent. Securing the Border is NOT civilian law enforcement duties, it Federal. Border Patrol is Federal and he can supplement the Border Patrol with the Military and there is Precedent for that.

  59. several conservative justices on the Supreme Court would be loathe to set a precedent that allows Presidents to declare national emergencies in such a manner.

    But Trump can at least rely on his two picks (so far) to do his bidding. It would be astonishing if beer boy Kavanaugh ever ruled against a GOP president, given his declared allegiance to the party.

  60. “But Trump can at least rely on his two picks (so far) to do his bidding”

    Can he? A Supreme Court justice, once confirmed, can’t be relied on to do anything. Which is why several judges in the past have turned out to be much more conservative or much more liberal than the President who appointed them.

    David Souter, comfortably one of the most liberal judges on the court in recent times was nominated by Bush Snr. Sandra Day O’Connor, a key swing vote, was nominated by Reagan. John Paul Stevens, a key member of the liberal wing of the court, was nominated by Gerald Ford.

    “The President can use the Military to Secure the Borders.”

    Nonsense. Securing the border is a civilian law enforcement duty. Posse Commitatus means you are full of shit.

  61. “is wiped out be eminent domain.”

    Which would need to be funded, which this wouldn’t be. It would be tied up in the courts for decades.

  62. As of January 2019, the United States is under 31 continuing declared states of national emergency.[2][3]

    Patrick, How interesting! I’ve never heard of one being declared. I need to read up on the subject.

  63. The President already has that power or had it until the 1976 Law took it away the Law to take it away from him is the one that has not been tested by the court.

    The case comes down to can the congress restrict Presidential Emergency Powers and there is no precedent.

  64. Almost all of them are about controlling the ability of Americans to send money to foreign, hostile government.s

  65. “The case comes down to can the congress restrict Presidential Emergency Powers and there is no precedent.”

    There is also no precedent for the President to declare an emergency to help him avoid dealing with Congress. This would be the first move to a Presidential dictatorship.

  66. It’s not for nothing that the portrait of Andrew Jackson hangs in the Trump Oval Office. Jackson constantly fought with Congress and even defied the Supreme Court in the removal of Indians from the State of Georgia in the 1830ies.

  67. The President can declare an emergency on the basis of National Security because it involves protecting our borders from outside forces and Congress can’t do anything because it’s has no standing.

    It can cut funds after 90days that’s it.

  68. “Jackson constantly fought with Congress and even defied the Supreme Court in the removal of Indians from the State of Georgia in the 1830ies.”

    Though his defiance was a tad different. He didn’t per se act contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling. He just refused to enforce it. The State of Georgia were removing Indians from Georgia. The Supreme Court issued a ruling that it was unconstitutional. By federal law then it should have fallen with the President to enforce that ruling and force Georgia to stop. He didn’t, and they didn’t.

    It would be similar to the President refusing to execute federal law (something the likes of Patrick regularly accused Obama of doing). ie he isn’t breaking the law. He just isn’t enforcing it.

    It would be a different ball game should the President act contrary to the law.


  69. The President can declare an emergency on the basis of National Security because it involves protecting our borders from outside forces and Congress can’t do anything because it’s has no standing.”

    Just don’t gurn like a little bitch when the next Democratic President declares a national emergency to help deal with the national security problem of poor healthcare.

  70. exactly

  71. PVR and Charles

    Do you think that Trump will declare an emergency, and if he does would he be justified?

  72. the exactly was for the other comment……

  73. “the exactly was for the other comment……”

    I assumed so. My second comment was a little too barbed for agreement I guess.

  74. Just don’t gurn like a little bitch when the next Democratic President declares a national emergency to help deal with the national security problem of poor healthcare.

    That involves action AGAINST American Citizens the Border action does not.

  75. “That involves action AGAINST American Citizens the Border action does not.”

    It does. As the land is owned by American citizens. Thus any building of the wall will involve action against American citizens.

  76. Also most national emergencies involve actions against US citizens. Most of them are set up to prevent US citizens or corporations from sending money to hostile regimes.

  77. Peter, on January 12th, 2019 at 11:40 PM Said:
    PVR and Charles

    Do you think that Trump will declare an emergency, and if he does would he be justified?

    No and Yes

  78. Peter, I would have said that Trump would be justified yesterday, but the discussion with Seamus has given me pause to think. At this point, I would say no, he would not be justified, even though I support his aim and outcome.

    Our constitution has protected us from a Caesar so far. Maybe now is not the time to change that!

  79. Cheers guys. I think this one is going to be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court.

  80. I agree it has to.

  81. I think Trump’s decision to not issue a national emergency, at least at the moment, is because he isn’t 100% certain that he wins a Supreme Court challenge.

    Firstly the Chief Justice has massively taken Trump to town over some of the excesses of his administration. He has attacked Trump’s style, and has shown a willingness to rule against him on key issues.

    Interestingly, as the President has to inform Congress about why he is declaring the emergency – Neil Gorsuch joined the four liberal judges in a 5-4 decision last year over the issue of vagueness. He found that the law was unconstitutionally vague. So he has shown a willingness to take up Antonin Scalia’s mantle of striking down vague laws, even vague laws that he may otherwise supported. Would he strike down a vague national emergency? I don’t know. My inkling is no but I wouldn’t place a huge amount of money on it.

  82. Seamus

    I defer to your knowledge, but from my ignorance I’d say that Trump has the SCOTUS in his pocket. He just needs to take care with how he brings his case.

  83. The President has no means to control the court, other than his appointments. And that control is questionable. All he can do is put people who will agree with him (in principle) on the court.

    Trump has about as much control over the Supreme Court as Obama would have had Merrick Garland been confirmed ie he would have a majority who would agree with him more often than not.

    The intricacies of the Supreme Court are at their most interesting in finding the differences between the Justices who normally agree. Finding the differences between Kagan and Sotomayor. In your system there is no difference, when in fact there is substantial differences between the two. Not just in what they agree on but why? What are there reasoning. Despite public perceptions most judges are political hacks who just do what ever their side want. They are generally principled, intelligent people, who vote the way they do because of the tenets of the judicial philosophy they hold.

    So even though Sotomayor and Kagan agree on most cases their reasoning is often quite different. Scalia and Thomas agreed on most cases but their reasoning was different.

    Often reading the concurring opinions of judges can be fascinating in teasing out their judicial differences.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.