Talking heads like CNN’s Jim Acosta are in maximum meltdown mode over President Donald Trump’s tweets calling the “fake news” published by the liberal mainstream media “enemies of the people.”
Acosta (pictured above) demanded on Thursday  that White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders disavow her boss’s comment, then tweeted this: “I walked out of the end of that briefing because I am totally saddened by what just happened. Sarah Sanders was repeatedly given a chance to say the press is not the enemy and she wouldn’t do it. Shameful.”
Acosta has previously complained  that “people are developing their impressions of us by watching ‘Hannity’ and so on, and I say, ‘Hey, you know, give us a chance. Watch us, and then make up your mind.'”
OK, Jim, speaking as somebody who has proudly made his living as a journalist since 1985, I’m taking you up on your invitation, but there is one string:
You first have to ask special counsel Robert Mueller the following three questions, and then, when he or his flack give evasive responses, press in with the second, third, fourth and succeeding follow-up questions.
Note that these questions are based on citations gleaned from such notable right-wing internet conspiracy sites as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Business Insider, Huffington Post, and Perkins Coie.
I look forward to seeing you in your finest hours as a journalist in pursuing answers to these questions:
1.) Did Hillary Clinton collude with Russians in 2016? Here are two undisputed facts, Jim, that make this the most important unasked question of the Russia collusion scandal:
- It was Clinton, not Donald Trump, who paid for opposition research dirt  obtained from Russian interests and compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele in a dossier peddled to the Department of Justice, FBI and news media.
- It was Clinton, not Donald Trump, who paid for that information via three cutouts, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party defense firm  Perkins Coie, and the opposition research firm Fusion GPS.
- It was Clinton, not Donald Trump, with a long-standing relationship with a second super-secret opposition research firm  that appears to have played an indirect role in the FBI’s anti-Trump activities.
2.) This is equal justice? Why does Hillary Clinton get a pass — via anti-Trump obsessive FBI agent Peter Strzok’s artful editing  — on multiple violations of the Espionage Act with her home-brew email server, while Donald Trump gets a special counsel who, after more than a year, has yet to produce any evidence the president colluded with Russians as she did?
- There’s also the fact Clinton lied to the nation and to the families of the four men murdered by radical Islamic terrorists in the Benghazi attack by claiming the attack was a protest against an obscure anti-Muslim documentary — despite telling her daughter Chelsea  during the assault that it was mounted by terrorists.
- And there’s little doubt that Clinton’s family foundation received millions of dollars  in contributions and her husband was paid a huge speaker’s fee by Russian interests after she did nothing to stop the Uranium One deal, which put 20 percent of America’s uranium reserves under Russian control.
3.) Was Fusion GPS an unwitting Russian tool? The relationship among Fusion GPS, Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, Christopher Steele, and the Russian intelligence community looks suspiciously like a Russian influence operation running a honey pot scam on the Trump campaign.
- Veselnitskaya has misrepresented  her connections to the Russian government, which should raise serious doubts about her account of the genesis of the Trump Tower meeting during the 2016 campaign. She claimed it was proposed to provide dirt on Clinton, but in the actual meeting she talked almost entirely about U.S. sanctions against Russian oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin and his barring Americans from adopting Russian children in retaliation.
- Veselnitskaya met with Fusion GPS co-founder Glen Simpson immediately before and after  the Trump Tower meeting. Simpson told Congress those meetings were about unrelated matters. If you accept that explanation at face value, I am from the Pulitzer committee and would like to know if you want one or two of our prizes.
Please feel free to contact me for additional backgrounding on these questions, as what is provided above barely even skims the surface of the available evidence.
One more thing, Jim: Your grandstanding in the daily news briefing at the White House has made you, for better or worse, a symbol of the profession that I treasure and honor — and that hundreds of our former colleagues over the years have died  to advance.
You owe them, buddy.