Skip to main content

“Sit down ... you’re a terrible person”: Trump unloads on reporters during ugly news conference
Summary of Legal Issue

            Following the 2018 midterm elections, President Donald Trump held a press conference the next morning. Donald Trump started going off immediately as the press conference started. As per usual his comments were based in some alternate reality as he claimed the midterms were a win for Republicans, yet he still mocked those that did not win reelection. Trump also went on to lash out against reporters that questioned his decisions like it was not appropriate to hold himself accountable. He also blatantly declared war on Democrats in the house and senate, ordering them not to investigate him and saying that he will retaliate in whatever ways he chooses if he does not get what he wants. Aside from conceding absolutely nothing, one of the stand out moments was a clash with CNN reporter Jim Acosta. When it was his turn Jim Acosta proceeded to ask the president questions about the migrant caravan which Donald Trump has called an invasion with a follow up question about the Russia Investigation and following indictments. During the exchange Jim remained calm and respectful calling Trump “Mr. President” and even saying “excuse me ma’am” to the young woman who tried to rip the microphone away from him. The following statements are quotes that Trump made in front of everyone on national television to Jim Acosta.

            THE PRESIDENT: I think you should — honestly, I think you should let me run the country, you run CNN - and if you did it well, your ratings would be much better.
THE PRESIDENT: I’ll tell you what: CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN.

THE PRESIDENT: You’re a very rude person. The way you treat Sarah Huckabee is horrible. And the way you treat other people are horrible. You shouldn’t treat people that way.

THE PRESIDENT: No. When you report fake news, which CNN does a lot, you are the enemy of the people.

Taken from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-press-conference-midterm-elections/

While the discourse was going back and forth Jim was ousted as the “enemy of the people”, telling Jim that he should be ashamed, and that he treats people horribly and is very rude. Jim Acosta in no way provoked President Trump directly to receive these comments as he was doing his job reporting, which calls for him to be critical of the President. Following the press conference Jim lost his press pass for coming to the White House which could have meant the loss of his Job with CNN. Shortly after when the White House came to put out reasoning for the instance of Jim losing his pass, Sarah Huckabee Sanders shared a doctored video of the press conference insisting that Jim was overly aggressive with the intern that tried to take away the microphone from him. This was a poor excuse to try to cover up that Trump simply did not want Jim to come back for any more for anything whatever the issue may be.

Legal Question Raised

            Now Jim Acosta may not be able to sue President Donald Trump because of the privilege he maintains, but what if he did not have that freedom, could Jim potentially sue Trump for Libel. Libel is when someone is defamed through some sort of media and they are shown in a negative light by false facts. Immediately after Trump’s remarks, he was checked by Peter Alexander from NBC saying that Trump’s statements were not true and that Jim was a “diligent reporter”. If we look at the test for proving Libel starting with Publication, we can see that the statements were made during a nationally televised press conference which should pass for that. Second, Identification is made clear by singling Jim out where the statements were of and concerning his being. Third, the statements certainly cause injury to his reputation in saying that he reports fake news and that he is simply the “enemy of the people”. Fourth, actual malice can be proven with reckless disregard for the truth in saying that he mistreats Sarah Huckabee Sanders when day in and day out she comes out and lies on behalf of our administration. Fifth, the statements all together ring with falsity with the gist of the statements being not true if not entirely false. Lastly, Jim can certainly prove actual, punitive, and presumed damages by having his press pass being revoked for what seems to be a lie covered up by a doctored video, which can certainly lead to serious damage to his career and future.

Relevant Doctrine/Precedent

            The Plaintiff’s Case for Libel comes under the case of Defamation and Libel is loosely associated with Slander as well. The Plaintiff’s case has multiple parts that must all be proven. These include: Publication, Identification, Defamation, Fault, Falsity, and Damages. Publication is when statements are seen or heard by a third party and is usually assumed if seen in mass media. Identification would be of and concerning to the plaintiff which can be proven by having at least one person reasonably believe the material is about the plaintiff. Defamation is an injury to the plaintiff’s reputation and can be proven by having a substantial and respectable minority of the community think less of the plaintiff. Fault is seen as negligence or actual malice and can be as simple as making a mistake or reckless disregard for the truth. Falsity would be seen as having the gist of the statements being untrue and can be proven by assuming the statements were true and deciding whether or not the community would think less of the plaintiff because of them. Lastly Damages can be seen as Actual, Punitive, and Presumed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the previously stated scenario would not be likely to happen if not at all. Moreover, I think this is an excellent example at how Donald Trump gets away with things and has little to no knowledge for the law or how to behave for that matter. He consistently breaks stories wherein his actions are completely unprecedented as they flirt with being legal or illegal. These actions are in no way representative of how the President of the United states should act.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chapter 2 Topic Overview According to the Supreme Court the first amendment is not a hall pass to say whatever you want. This idea is fair under certain circumstances at least in the obvious protection of the greater good so they say, however this does cause problems with the firm trampling of rights. What has been woven in by the founders is the idea that there should be no punishment for any and all truthful criticisms of the government and all its branches. Since there is not a fixed definition to how rule over these issues the courts have avoided broad rulings in turn propagating the current state of media. Media and speech which is broadcasted for the general public is having a big impact on how to protect its speakers and the different types of speech as well. Government actions fall within the power being delegated while the court uses minimum scrutiny or rational review to view what is and is not constitutional about the issue. If laws continuously ha...
Post a Comment
Read more
Chapter 1 Topic Overview The Law of the Land comes about from a number of places throughout the country. These laws are here to define boundaries of acceptable behavior, establishing power and ranges of punishment, and dictating procedures for creating, applying, interpreting, and changing the Law. We can see statutes that are enacted either at the federal or state level and Congress as well as other smaller legislatures are the ones that draft them into being. Although the legislative branch does draft the bills that become laws, they also pass through the executive branch for approval and the judiciary branch for final review. Even though the Judiciary is often looked over it is one of the most powerful branches of government since it holds the ability of judicial review. This means that they ultimately get the final say on what can and cannot become law. Aside from the previously stated responsibility the courts also deal with all cases in either civil o...
Post a Comment
Read more
Topic Review During times of instability within the nation, speech and the freedom of expression in perhaps negative connotations towards the government has and will always be more susceptible of restraint and infringement of personal rights. During such cases where the courts had to come to challenging verdicts it was evident that delineating dangers of incitement versus angry and negative speech would prove challenging. However, protecting national security and stopping immanent violence have proven to be sufficient grounds that outweigh certain speech protections. From such events, we the courts have developed tests like the Brandenburg/Hess Test, which deals with incitement and speech that is more than likely to produce an immediate threat. On top of that courts also rarely find media liable since reasonable people should be able to foresee harm headed their way. Speech needs to become an overt act of threat or intimidation for it to be regulated and punished...
Post a Comment
Read more