March 30, 2016

"To everyone who likes that Lewandowsky got charged: Will you agree that everyone who does nothing more than that should undergo criminal prosecution?"

"Are you willing to pay the taxes to cover that? Are you ready to find out that you've already done it and you're going to be needing to hire a lawyer? Oh, but it's so funny when it happens to somebody else, somebody you don't like. If that's what you think, please just admit to yourself that you are entirely morally corrupt."

Said I, talking over on Facebook.

221 comments:

1 – 200 of 221   Newer›   Newest»
PenguinBelly said...

Law is law. If there was nothing to it the judge or the jury can acquit him.

JCC said...

Well, this was much more than a simple battery. The reporter ended up resigning after she felt her employers failed to back her up, amid charges they were in the tank for Trump. Her editor also resigned. The witness was a WaPo reporter, presumably not exactly without some credibility. Meanwhile, the Trump people were accusing her of outright falsehood and delusional behavior, and even going back to older stories she wrote, claiming she has a history of lying. So now the NYPD is getting dragged into this, the other campaigns are taking sides, etc. And this is an incident that is the subject of national attention and several videos, so it's not like the prosecutor or cops can just ignore it.

Similar claims of simple battery are usually one-on-one, and resolved more easily without actually creating a court case, true, but this case is certainly something more. So, asking should all cliams of simple battery be settled with a prosecution is kind of inapplicable, isn't it?

And the correct response is quite obviously 'no.' Every claim of simple battery should not end up in court. And they don't.

readering said...

Thing to remember is that the only way the club security cameras were made public, exposing the multiple lies of the Trump campaign, was through the police investigation following the filing of a complaint with the police department and the prosecutor bringing charges. Of course it's not going to lead to a trial. But the police and prosecutors have discretion in these matters and I see some deterrent effect.

Curtiss said...

If there were nothing to it, he shouldn't have been arrested.

ligneus said...

As MF said, if they'd just apologized that would be an end to it but they didn't, they attacked her, called her a liar and worse and even with video evidence wouldn't back down.

Grackle said...

Sorry, but I already pay taxes for any amount of utter bullshit and am at risk of being charged with preposterous offenses at nearly any time. Let the henchman of the whiny "I'll sue" bitch suffer the system.

PenguinBelly said...

Besides which, the police get away with killing innocent civilians - especially minority - all the time, because they felt threatened by their own misperception (based on deep-seated bias) even though the civilians did nothing wrong. I am sure Coulter has never felt uneasy about that.

Bay Area Guy said...

The Courts would cease to function if they got bogged down with trivial items such as this. Her damages are de minimis (Latin for -- not worth a shit).

Chris Lopes said...

The Professor's point is that such a low level "crime" is being used to attack a candidate the "victim" doesn't like(neither do I). The law is being used for partisan purposes. As the Professor said, corruption.

Mary Beth said...

I can see where they both think they are telling the truth.

Her attention was on Trump. Someone grabbed her and almost knocked her off-balance. She didn't see it coming so it surprised her more than it would have otherwise and made it feel like more than it looks. It was noticeable to her because it was a singular event that happened to her.

His attention was also on Trump. How many crowds have they walked through together? How many times has he had to push or pull people away from Trump? His action wasn't violent, for him it was nothing more than firmly moving another unidentified person out of the way. Nothing happened to make it especially memorable to him.

Michael K said...

"The witness was a WaPo reporter, presumably not exactly without some credibility."

Yes and the prosecutor is also a Hillary supporter.

Way to go, Democrats. I'm mystified at her motives and the other guy's but maybe they see an opening for a big story elsewhere.

Like CNN, which is back to Clinton lies. Ronnie Earle where are you ?

Anglelyne said...

The video is available. OMG, scarifying!

If you think this is an issue, you have lost your perspective, your sanity, your manhood.

Probably your immortal soul.

Fritz said...

Way to go, Democrats. I'm mystified at her motives and the other guy's but maybe they see an opening for a big story elsewhere.

It's really not unknown for liberal journalists to take jobs in conservative media. It's a job in a crowded field where they can make a name. Shep Smith anyone?

Maybe she decided this was her shot to get back on the correct side.

rcocean said...

I'm shocked that the law is so broadly written that this can least to an "arrest". Or maybe, DA's are supposed to use good judgement and not waste the taxpayers money on cases they can't win and where no real harm was done.

rcocean said...

Democrat DA's have shown before that they are willing to waste taxpayers money if they can hurt Republicans.

Virgil Hilts said...

It was an absolutely brutal attack. Any one who denies this has not watched this video: https://youtu.be/1jS9gQrmAaw (hat tip: thegatewaypundit.com)

n.n said...

As if the abortion industry, mass exodus, and class diversity schemes was not enough, they are holding a progressive witch trial in an effort to further disenfranchise Americans.

Bob Boyd said...

Take every single person who can be recognized on any video of the incident that is presented as evidence, lock them in the stocks for three hours, fine them each a hundred bucks, then drop the whole thing. Peer pressure works wonders. So does rotten cabbage.
Do the same for the dreadlocks incident and the punch and pepper spray incident. Just keep punishing the petty whiny stuff and folks will get the message. Stop rewarding these jerks.

MayBee said...

I agree.

As a non-Trump supporter, I have been bothered by two things coming from other non-Trump supporting Republicans.

1- too much glee over this being charged as a crime, too much outrage over it in general on behalf of Michelle Fields
2- too many Republicans implying Trump brings the anti-Trump protestors on himself, and he invites their violence

These two things seem to me to be "any port in a storm" Anti-Trumpism, trying to take him down any way they can. But it seems people are losing their principles when they indulge in this.

jdniner said...

He was nifonged.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Apparently there are psychopaths or idiots who don't understand the unfortunate importance of prosecutorial discretion in a world where we've many times turned to Daddy to write laws against each last outrage. Think of all the named "Amber alert" "Brady bill" "Megan's law" ... the incentives to add good-sounding rules are unstoppable; nobody repeals anything.

WeRetort said...

The prosecutors have multiple eyewitnesses, video, audio, and bruises on the victim. That is more than enough to go to a jury.

John Henry said...

Michale K,

Why are you mystified at her motives? Before the incident nobody knew who she was. Anyone who did knew that she worked for Breitbart.

Now she is famous all over, she got assaulted personally by Donald trump himself!!! (Well, almost) She got forced to resign from Breitbart. (Well, almost) which gives her some street cred. If she cant spin this into a pretty good raise, she needs to go back to acting.

She is probably disappointed that when she grabbed Trump he didn't personally grab her arm and (possibly) cause the bruise.

that's why she did it. No mystery at all. She is just another presstitute trying to burnish her resume.

I understand that this is the third time that something similar has happened and each time she has filed a claim with the police. I know it is verboten! to blame the victim, but perhaps she is not really a "victim" here.

I do think Lewandowski could have handled it better. Perhaps said to her "Touch my candidate again and I will lay you out cold. Now you better go put some ice on that."

John Henry

MayBee said...

WeRetort- understood. But what do you think about what you see in the video. Do you see a crime worthy of a prosecution? Or do you see something that happened that was unpleasant, but doesn't need to be prosecuted?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

In football, he gets called for holding as she was going for the quarterback, and he grabbed her. In basketball, as she wasn't in a set defensive position and stepped in his way, so she gets called for the foul. It's basketball season, so the case should be dismissed.

DKWalser said...

Althouse -- Fields agrees that, in general, this kind of thing shouldn't be a matter for the police. She's said as much. After the incident, the Trump campaign asked for her cell phone number and she was told Lewandowski would call her. Fields thought his intent was to apologize. Instead of calling, the campaign publicly denied anything had happened and Lewandowski tweeted that Fields was delusional. Field's publisher originally supported her, asking for the campaign to apologize. After talking with the campaign, the publisher reversed course and backed Trump's version of events (that nothing happened). This prompted Fields and her editor to resign. Trump's campaign and his supporters continued to smear Fields as an unstable and untrustworthy individual who had a history of of making herself the center of stories she covered. It was at this point, according to Fields, that she chose to file a complaint. She needed the police report to combat Trump's attempt to ruin her reputation and her ability to earn a living.

So, should this kind of thing end up with criminal charges? Of course not! We'd not be here and Fields would still have her job had Lewandowski placed the promised phone call and apologized instead of trying to ruin Fields for having the temerity to complain over his rough treatment. While I don't think as a general rule this kind of thing should be a police matter, Field's alternative was a libel suit (is a tweet libel or slander?). Filing a complaint with the police will bring a quicker and less expensive (for all concerned, including taxpayers) resolution to the matter.

WeRetort said...

MayBee- I see a textbook case of battery (touching against a person's will), with actual injury to the victim (bruises). Do you think the bruises are fake?

Mountain Maven said...

It should be on the table, unless you think it's OK for stronger people to manhandle weaker ones without consequences. This kind of crime should be resolved privately, which Corey refused to do. Now he and Trump will pay.
Besides Ann you make a living trolling your followers so I don't expect more of you.

Catherine said...

Had he said right from the beginning that he might have moved a woman reporter who touched Trump, instead of denying everything and anything, he'd have my support. As it is, he lied terribly, and Trump is just protecting his own.

With his lying about the situation, not much else he says is believable. I'm sure others have touched Trump during questioning as well. L was too rough, most certainly. Whether this charge survives the judicial system, I don't know.

Mike said...

This is the sort of thing that is normally cleared up with an apology or some other social interaction. That the Trump campaign went after Fields and lied about it angered the judge. As I seem to keep saying, this is the sort of thing that should have been resolved in about ten seconds with a, "Sorry, didn't think I'd grabbed you that hard." Every normal person learns to do that, even when you think you didn't do anything wrong. it's how the clattering human engine functions.

MayBee said...

Does everyone here agree that it is right to charge someone criminally for an incident you were willing to simply accept an apology for?

MayBee said...

WeRetort- I don't think the bruises were fake, but I also don't think he grabbed her with intent to bruise her.

Birkel said...

rcocean:

You mentioned a Republican in this story. Strange.

MayBee said...

If someone tried to rape me, I wouldn't just accept an apology rather than press charges.
If someone tried to murder me, I wouldn't just accept an apology rather than press charges.
If someone stole something from me, I wouldn't just accept an apology rather than press charges.
If someone beat me up, I wouldn't just accept an apology rather than press charges.

I guess I don't get why a non-apology raises this to the level of a crime in her (or our) eyes. It's either a crime deserving of punishment or it isn't.

samanthasmom said...

Fields tried to use her "pretty privilege" to get near Trump. She's just not used to it not working for her. So now she's going for victim status. Her credibility as a reporter is at stake. Maybe she should start looking for a different career. I hear there's good pay in protesting at events. She could work hard and maybe get pepper sprayed. That might be worth a lawsuit or two.

DKWalser said...

MayBee -- I'd not press charges if I were willing to settle the matter with an apology -- unless the person who'd bruised me tried to ruin my reputation. Then, I'd use all lawful means at my disposal to protect my reputation. Wouldn't you (particularly if your reputation was critical to being able to pursue your profession)?

MayBee said...

DKWalser- no, because I like to think I'd protect my reputation before making a big public deal about it to begin with.

What if she'd not said anything publicly about this, had contacted the Trump campaign privately, and hadn't claimed she'd almost been pulled to the ground?
I think she'd still have her job, her reputation, and she may have gotten her apology (privately).

Bruce Hayden said...

The Courts would cease to function if they got bogged down with trivial items such as this. Her damages are de minimis (Latin for -- not worth a shit).

Let me repeat what Michael K pointed out above, and I have pointed out in other threads. Whether or not to file charges is completely within the discretion of the prosecutors. The prosecutor here is a Hillary backer and contributor. Yes, apparently, they have given money to Hillary during this election cycle. Does that matter? I think so. As MK above has pointed out, it is Lawfare, which is Lawfare is a recently coined word not yet appearing in the Oxford English Dictionary,[1] a portmanteau of the words law and warfare, said to describe a form of asymmetric warfare.[2] Lawfare is asserted by some[who?] to be the illegitimate use of domestic or international law with the intention of damaging an opponent, winning a public relations victory, financially crippling an opponent, or tying up the opponent's time so that they cannot pursue other ventures such as running for public office,[1][2] similar to a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) lawsuit. Some other recent examples of this are the bogus prosecutions of Rick Perry and Tom DeLay by the Travis CO (TX) DA. And, yes, over the last couple of days, this seems to have been the opening salvo in this fight. Anyone here think that the Hillary people aren't going to fight dirty?

MayBee said...

Remember, she over stated how harrowing the situation was. She put them on the defensive first. Now, I think they could have apologized, but she didn't exactly approach them with honesty.

Birkel said...

If you haven't personally been violently yanked, you might not understand what Fields believes about this event.

It is not so easy to imagine as many of you seem to believe.

Criminal charges are a bit much though.

MikeR said...

"I guess I don't get why a non-apology raises this to the level of a crime in her (or our) eyes. It's either a crime deserving of punishment or it isn't." This.

"MayBee -- I'd not press charges if I were willing to settle the matter with an apology -- unless the person who'd bruised me tried to ruin my reputation." The best thing would have been to ignore it - not to try to ruin his reputation.

MayBee said...

Bickel- I think we've all been in situations where someone was rougher with us than we wanted them to be.
I'm guessing embarrassment plays no small part in how upset she was that night. It would be embarrassing to be yanked away from a candidate in front of other people. Especially in front of a peer. Especially if you thought he might welcome your presence.

Brando said...

Criminal charges are going too far, and the Trump team's smear attempt was disgraceful. No heroes here.

eddie willers said...

Damn Ann, you sure dragged some losers from Facebook over here.

jr565 said...

JCC wrote:
tank for Trump. Her editor also resigned. The witness was a WaPo reporter, presumably not exactly without some credibility. Meanwhile, the Trump people were accusing her of outright falsehood and delusional behavior, and even going back to older stories she wrote, claiming she has a history of lying. So now the NYPD is getting dragged into this, the other campaigns are taking sides, etc. And this is an incident that is the subject of national attention and several videos, so it's not like the prosecutor or cops can just ignore it.

And as I said (repeatedly) the other day. If COrey had simply apologized and said it was inadvertant, she woudn't have pressed charges. Charges were filed because they basically impugned her reputation when she simply said it happened. Once she is called a liar she has to prove that she isn't. Because its now her reputation on the line.
So, it was REALLY stupid that Trump and Corey didnt' just capitulate.
Its a very minor battery though. Even if he gets charged and found guilty its not going to be anything serious. So then, why would you push that outcome when all you had to do was say SORRY?
Maybe I'm just overly polite. If I push someone out of the way and/or step on toes and I didn't mean to do it I immediately apologize. And it ususually resolves the issue.

Michael K said...

"this is the third time that something similar has happened and each time she has filed a claim with the police. "

Yes, I understand this is a pattern for her but I still wonder at her motives. Maybe she is just a SJW who was hiding out at Breitbart.

Shapiro, I understand, had hopes of a Fox job so he might have seen this as a sort of "offer" like a defector makes to an intelligence service of what he can deliver. Fox has been almost as hysterical against Trump as National Review which is lately unreadable.

I don't even like the guy and I see through all this !

I saw Gates interviewed at Fox today and I have seen his name as a possible alternate presidential candidate. Hard to believe he would take such a deal. He is not a SJW like that USSC nominee of Obama's.

AReasonableMan said...

For a while there I thought Trump might prevail against the GOPe and that they might be a bit gracious and essentially say 'it's your turn for once' to his supporters. The Kevin Williamson screed made it clear that this was never going to happen and the way the right wing press has jumped on this non-story has confirmed this feeling. For Trump to become president he had to run the table, defeat the GOPe, the Democrats and the press. It was always going to take a lot of luck and he has been lucky with the ineptitude of his opponents but the opposition within the GOP has steadily hardened to the point that I no longer think he can beat the GOPe.

eric said...

Blogger Virgil Hilts said...
It was an absolutely brutal attack. Any one who denies this has not watched this video: https://youtu.be/1jS9gQrmAaw (hat tip: thegatewaypundit.com)


Thanks Virgil, I needed that laugh.

Anyone who is standing in front of you and uses the language Ben Shapiro and Michelle Fields have used to describe this event and call it a crime should be laughed at, mocked and driven from society as dangerous.

Fabi said...

A legal question about her requested apology: couldn't that leave Lewandowsky, Trump, and/or the Trump campaign open to civil liability?

AReasonableMan said...

Birkel said...
If you haven't personally been violently yanked,


Sadly, I have looked at multiple videos now and I didn't see any violent yanking going on.

eric said...

Blogger Catherine said...
Had he said right from the beginning that he might have moved a woman reporter who touched Trump, instead of denying everything and anything, he'd have my support. As it is, he lied terribly, and Trump is just protecting his own.

With his lying about the situation, not much else he says is believable. I'm sure others have touched Trump during questioning as well. L was too rough, most certainly. Whether this charge survives the judicial system, I don't know.


The only liar here has been Michelle Fields. Did you watch that video posted by Virgil? The language they were using, "He threw my girlfriend to the ground!" and her own language made it seem like quite the incident happened.

Now, imagine you're Corey. And you're hearing you assaulted someone. Wouldn't you come out and say it was complete and utter BS and the person making these claims is deranged?

I would. Especially if I didn't know who the hell she was and didn't assault anyone.

Sebastian said...

"Will you agree that everyone who does nothing more than that should undergo criminal prosecution? . . . Oh, but it's so funny when it happens to somebody else, somebody you don't like. If that's what you think, please just admit to yourself that you are entirely morally corrupt." You are so sweet sometimes. If that's what you think? Please just admit? Entirely morally corrupt? Look, I am a conservative, and I assume everyone's fallible, and I hold no brief for Trump and his minions, and I don't think conservatives are free of double standards. But this whole will-you-agree and isn't-moral-corruption-awful shtick is entirely beside the point. Progs will do what they need to do to pursue power. The only ethics they have are situational. Any appeal to standards or consistency is irrelevant.

n.n said...

It looks like Lewandowsky brushed past Fields. The close contact was prompted by Fields not making room for his passage. Perhaps the unforgivable transgression occurred when he didn't ask her to excuse him. A minor traffic violation at best, which was enhanced by the local congestion.

MayBee said...

eric- that's one of the problems.

You can't put someone in the worst light possible and expect them to own it. If you want an apology, you have to give people an honest accounting of what you want an apology for.
Both sides handled this so incredibly poorly.

jr565 said...

It seems like the Trumpbots have this attitude like "it didnt hurt that bad. Stop whining" is that really how they'd act if they did that to someone? or if someone did that to their child?

I'm not saying its the equivalent of punching her in the face. But just because it isnt' it doesnt' excuse it as behavior. A person has a right to complain if someone yanks them really hard and/or pushes them out of the way. The complaint doesnt' mean that they are accusing the person of trying to kill them. They are simply saying YOU JUST GRABBED MY ARM AND YANKED ME OUT OF THE WAY AND IT WAS PAINFUL.
Its the exact amount of outrage required for the battery commited. No more no less.

The only sufficient response if you didnt' mean to do it is an apology. Anything else and YOU DESERVE TO GET CHARGED WITH A BATTERY.

Michael K said...

"The Kevin Williamson screed made it clear that this was never going to happen and the way the right wing press has jumped on this non-story has confirmed this feeling."

Is there a blue moon out tonight ? I agree with ARM completely again.

If someone talked Robert Gates into running and I thought he could be elected, I would be ecstatic.

He hated being Sec Def and did it out of duty. The last person to be president for reasons of duty was possibly Eisenhower.

I think it might have been Greenspan who described presidents as needing "The Fire in the Belly" and "Able to Ride the Horse."

Lots of people with the fire but few can ride the horse. He said the only president he had seen who could ride the horse and did not have the fire in the belly was Eisenhower.

Trump can blow up the status quo but may not get the chance. I think Kasich or Cruz means Hillary, with all her criminal behavior, wins.

And Robespierre is waiting in the wings. Trump is Danton.

traditionalguy said...

Cory made a good move on her arm that turns her away from Trump and she resisted it. They were both wrestling for position next to Trump as the group was walking along toward an exit where she would lose her shot at the prey. And she had no right to expect to violate the Secret Service perimeter of the moving group with no push back.

No harm was intended and I bet no harm was done. Unless the aggressive lady is extremely easy to bruise, then she made those marks on herself. That move would leave no marks on any normal person.

jr565 said...

n.n. wrote:
It looks like Lewandowsky brushed past Fields. The close contact was prompted by Fields not making room for his passage. Perhaps the unforgivable transgression occurred when he didn't ask her to excuse him. A minor traffic violation at best, which was enhanced by the local congestion.

Actually the overhead video does seem to show a pretty forceful yanking. Its hard to tell because its not really a video but a collection of photographs so you see movement in cuts as opposed to a smooth movement. But you see his arm outstretched, then in the next frame you see him caught up to her and her pushed back. That gesture could easily be construed as a hard yank.
Now, people dont know their own strength. I would certainly concede that he may not have thought he did pushed her that hard. he may not have even realized he did anything wrong. But that is not an excuse not to apologize. That is actually the very time you are supposed to apologize.

MayBee said...

The only sufficient response if you didnt' mean to do it is an apology. Anything else and YOU DESERVE TO GET CHARGED WITH A BATTERY.

So you think an apology can make something not a crime?

MayBee said...

or if someone did that to their child?

Their child? What do children have to do with this?

Bruce Hayden said...

Here is some more lawfare: Bernie Sanders May Be Off DC Ballot After Democratic Party Filing. Apparently, the DC Democratic party was a day late in filing registrations for both Sanders and Hillary. One person challenged the Sanders filing, but no one challenged the Hillary filing. The result is that she is apparently on the ballot, and he is not. Of course, given the demographics, she was going to win big anyway in DC, but still...

jr565 said...

traditional guy wrote:
No harm was intended and I bet no harm was done. Unless the aggressive lady is extremely easy to bruise, then she made those marks on herself. That move would leave no marks on any normal person.

Are you an expert on bruises on peoples arms? Can we go to you for your expertise at the trial? How do you know that the force required to leave those bruises, and how do you know that that much force wasn't in fact applied at that moment?
Five seconds after the incident occured she described the incident as a forceful yanking that was really hard? If it was a hard yanking it might have left a bruise. The Trump camp are now going to double down and say She bruised herself? They really want to go there? First they were saying it never happened at all. Now they are saying it happened but it was nothing. Prove that those bruises werent caused by the yanking motion on her arm.

jr565 said...

Maybee wrote:
So you think an apology can make something not a crime?

Yes, if someone doesn't press charges. She said something happened. She didnt' want to make a big deal out of it at the time. She said Breitbart was in contact with the Trump camp and Corey admitted he had done it but it was accidental. And all she wanted was for him to apologize about it. Instead they denied anything happened and said she was a liar. If thats the case she now has to defend her actions or be called a liar. If Trump had simply done what most other campaigns would do by default, there would be no charges brought. Becuase she said it wasn't that big a deal herself. Its the calling her a liar that triggered this.
The cops looked at the tape and they said indeed it could be a battery. So, if you have to choice of not having charges brought if you simply smooth over the waters, or cahrges brought if you dont, is it a good idea to belabor the point? Michelle is in the right. Corey yanked her on the arm.
If its a nothing, then there should be no issues simply apologizing about it.

MayBee said...

She didn't want to make a big deal out of it at the time

Come on.
She did make a big deal of it at the time.
Why wasn't him saying he did it and it was accidental enough?

eric said...

Blogger jr565 said...
Maybee wrote:
So you think an apology can make something not a crime?

Yes, if someone doesn't press charges. She said something happened. She didnt' want to make a big deal out of it at the time.


I'm sorry, but I don't buy this for a moment.

Nothing happened to her and it became a big deal. If nothing happens to you and it becomes a big deal, I'm pretty sure you wanted it to become a big deal.

Fabi said...

I just watched the latest video of this incident. It appears as if he very briefly touches her near her elbow, but the bruise in her photo is on her forearm. Is there a video showing him grabbing her forearm hard enough to cause said bruising?

I also watched Virgil's linked montage. Very interesting -- thanks!

jr565 said...

Maybee wrote:
or if someone did that to their child?

Their child? What do children have to do with this?

FIne, someones wife. Someone's mother. I have an example. I was walking with my mother. Some teenagers ran by and knocked my mom to the ground. They didnt do it intentionally, I think. As soon as they realized they knocked her to the ground they apologized and helped her back up and in turn I didn't knock them unconcious.
But, if they said "you're a liar. We didn't knock her down. Or said "she's just faking her injuries it didnt hurt that much" I would have knocked them out. Because I would have said "first you knock my mother to the ground. Then you call me a liar. Then you say my mother is making up her injuries. Those are fighting words. You are about to be knocked on your ass"
And I think a lot of people would not get into a fight in the first instance, but in the second instance, a lot would. It wouldn't be up to my mother to have to prove that the teenagers knocking her down really hurt her. Or that she has to be REALLY hurt before she can complain that some ahole knocked her on her ass. If they are going to be disrespectful on top of it, those are fighting words.

If it was you and your family, I imagine you'd have the same reaction.

traditionalguy said...

@jr565...Yes. I am an expert at bruises to arms from from that wrestling move. And there ain't any.

MayBee said...

If it was you and your family, I imagine you'd have the same reaction.

Obviously, this happened to a grown woman and not anyone in my family.
The way I would respond to someone in my family being touched is much more emotional than the way I would hope law enforcement would respond to another adult being touched.

But let's just keep this where it is. An adult woman and an adult man. Nobody in our families. I don't have any emotional attachment to either of these people, but I think we can acknowledge they both have three own emotional attachments to the situation.

MayBee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

eric wrote:

Nothing happened to her and it became a big deal. If nothing happens to you and it becomes a big deal, I'm pretty sure you wanted it to become a big deal.

Because the Trump Camp inexplicably decided to deny that ANYTHING took place and that she was a liar. Even though, according to her they had already acknowledged to Breitbart and her that they did do it and it was accidental. She said at the time, it wasnt' THAT big a deal.What turned it into one was them not offering the apology but instead calling her a liar.

Even after the tape shows she was yanked Donald says "Wouldn't you think she would have yelled out a scream if she had bruises on her arm?" Well she did yell out a few seconds after. But I dont know what the response if when you get your arm bruised. Some people yell and some don't. Is he minimizing that she has bruises on her arms because she didn't have the appropriate response, in his mind? How many people has he seen get their arm bruised? How is he an expert at waht is the appropriate reaction.
He then triples down with "How do we know those bruises werent there before" well how do we know those bruises werent there because of the yanking? I see that there was an incident involving a yanking. SHe has bruises. WHere is the evidence she didnt get those bruises from being yanked?

MayBee said...

and again JR565-if you think the kids didn't mean to do it and they wouldn't have apologized, would you have pressed charges?

How is this different than, as you say, the Trump camp saying it was an accident?

jr565 said...

Maybee wrote:
and again JR565-if you think the kids didn't mean to do it and they wouldn't have apologized, would you have pressed charges?

They might have pressed charges against ME, because I would have done my best to commit violence on their faces with my fists.

MayBee said...

. Even though, according to her they had already acknowledged to Breitbart and her that they did do it and it was accidental.

Why wasn't this enough? If she didn't want to press charges and she didn't want it to be a big deal. Why wasn't this enough?

MayBee said...

They might have pressed charges against ME, because I would have done my best to commit violence on their faces with my fists.

So you were really really angry and possibly even violent, even though you knew they didn't do anything on purpose.

jr565 said...

Maybee wrote: "-if you think the kids didn't mean to do it and they wouldn't have apologized, would you have pressed charges?

And what would give me the impression that they didnt' mean to do it? Wouldn't it be the apology? if they said No you're a liar, I certainly wouldn't think they didnt mean to do it, and if they said "it didn't hurt THAT bad" I certainly wouldn't construe that as a sign they didnt mean to do it.

WeRetort said...

MayBee- Contrition matters to prosecutors because someone who is sincerely contrite is less likely to reoffend. An unrepentant offender who goes unpunished will likely become more defiant.

coupe said...

When a country graduates more lawyers than any other skill, then lawyers become the breadbasket of society.

In order to make money, you need a lot of crime. The more things you make a crime, the richer the country.

jr565 said...

Maybee wrote:
So you were really really angry and possibly even violent, even though you knew they didn't do anything on purpose.

i didnt think they meant to do it becasue I saw them runing by and they weren't paying attention. Then when they saw they knocked her over they immediately said "oh sh*t" and stopped running. They didnt say I was a liar and they didnt say my mom was a cry baby. they owned up to the fact that they did it, and therefore I in turn de-escalated myself. Because it wasn't that bad.

MayBee said...

And what would give me the impression that they didnt' mean to do it? Wouldn't it be the apology?

No. You said you think they didn't mean to do it. People can give an insincere apology, or they can give no apology. If you saw it happen, you might have an impression about whether they meant to do it. What if they told you it was an accident, but didn't apologize?

JCC said...

@ Maybee -

It's way up the thread, but I'll try to answer.

Sure, it's OK to file charges when an apology could have settled this prior to the charges. I think that happens quite a bit these days, esepcially in domestic violence, but probably also in, say, bad check cases. As for intent, it is not a requirement for simple battery. All that's required as a touching which is unlawful. No intent to injure is needed. So, even someone trying to restrain, the exact opposite of intending to injure, as a claim of intending to prevent injury, could be a battery depending on the circumstances.

The guy got a little rough, the reporter was offended, and all that was needed was some reasoned discourse. Instead, the campaign decided to stonewall and malign her, and so now, it's in the courts. I think it's really just that simple. It's more about the attitude of the Trump campaign than about the actual force which was used. I do think there is some message there for what we can expect from a Trump administration. Unhappily so...

jr565 said...

(cont) my mom said "whatch where you're going" a few times and gave them a lecture about paying attention, and they in turn apologized profusely. Thats how such incidents are supposed to go. its how courtesy works.
Trump has no concept of courtesy. And neither apparently do a lot of Trumpbots.

MayBee said...

Ok, it wasn't that bad.
Your feelings were assuaged by the apology. But you saw they weren't paying attention. You know if you would have pressed charges, it would have been because of your anger, and not because of their action.

eric said...

Blogger Fabi said...
I just watched the latest video of this incident. It appears as if he very briefly touches her near her elbow, but the bruise in her photo is on her forearm. Is there a video showing him grabbing her forearm hard enough to cause said bruising?

I also watched Virgil's linked montage. Very interesting -- thanks!


Other than the video/still footage in the sky, is there another video showing him touching her? Because it's unclear from the still photographs if he grabs her elbow or her forearm.

MayBee said...

JCC- do you think the fact that she over stated what had happened to her played a role at all?

MayBee said...

WeRetort- that is one of the great Catch-22s of criminal prosecution, is it not?

If you are accused of something you don't think you did, and you don't apologize for it, you are not contrite enough.

jr565 said...

Maybee wrote:
People can give an insincere apology, or they can give no apology. If you saw it happen, you might have an impression about whether they meant to do it. What if they told you it was an accident, but didn't apologize?

Well an accident implies they they did something wrong ACCIDENTALLY. They are acknowledging the incident. Since it was accidental I dont see why an apology wouldn't be forthcoming. If it was ME, and I bumped into someone and I said "it was an accident" why should it be hard for me to apologize? I just said it was an accident.
But even there, at least they would say it was an accident. If not an apology, at least they aren't saying "It never happened, you're a liar"

Jim Nicholson said...

"Everyone who does this" is not who gets prosecuted. To get prosecuted, someone has to press charges, and a prosecutor has to agree to pursue them. So, yes, everyone who does what Lewadowsky does, whose accuser willing to press charges against, and who a prosecutor believes there is sufficient evidence to proceed against, should be prosecuted.

I assume that your phrasing of the question reflects your political ideology rather than your understanding of the legal process.

MayBee said...

jr- but you said Trump's people told Fields and Brietbart it was an accident. Why wasn't that enough?

Darleen said...

**What if they told you it was an accident, but didn't apologize?**

Common courtesy means the person who caused the accident DOES apologize.

What a crude and crass culture we have become.

jr565 said...

Maybee wrote:
Your feelings were assuaged by the apology. But you saw they weren't paying attention. You know if you would have pressed charges, it would have been because of your anger, and not because of their action.

So, if you bumped into someone and knocked them over, and you recognized that you did, would you a) say "I apologize" b) say "You're a liar. it never happened" or c) say "why are you crying. it didnt hurt you that much when you landed on your ass?"
Suppose you weren't aware that you knocked someone over. They said you did and you think its possible that it might have occured but you didnt intend to do it would you say a)I didnt realize it happened, but I apologize if someone was injured. b) say "they're a liar. they probably already had the bruises. And at any rate, I didn't hear them cry out so they must have been lying or c) "why are they crying so much. it didn't look like it hurt. You need to toughen up crybaby".

Now suppose the exact same issue occured where someone knocked you over. which of the three would you find to be an acceptable response? this shouldn't be hard? Unless you are a complete asshole. The jury is still out..

jr565 said...

"jr- but you said Trump's people told Fields and Brietbart it was an accident. Why wasn't that enough?"
Because they said they were going to do that, but then they went on the media and said it never happened and, essentially that Fields was a lying crybaby who was known to make up stories. It wasn't enough because IT NEVER HAPPENED.

MayBee said...

jr- you've already said the Trump team said it was an accident

MayBee said...

So basically this is a pissing contest and Fields wanted charges pressed because she didn't get a public apology, even though she knew it was an accident. But she had already made a big deal of it and needed a public climb down.

MayBee said...

Is this how you guys want the courts used? (Althouse's original question)

Everyone who feels they've been dissed or not respected gets their day in court?

MayBee said...

Friends: What if Michelle Fields had never publicly claimed (falsely) to have been practically knocked to the ground?
How would things be for her and Trump now?

jr565 said...

Maybee wrote: jr- you've already said the Trump team said it was an accident

they told her and her editor that Corey did do it but he thought she was a non Breitbart reporter who was asking an antagonistic question (as if yanking HER out of the way would have been better). So, they were all set to offer the apology. according to the staff that spoke to them. But did they in fact offer the apology and say it was an accident? No, his campaign then went to the media and said she was lying. Nothing happened. She's lying.

How is telling the media a compleltey different story "an apology"? that's the reason she pressed on with the story. Because now, they are actively calling her a liar. and not merely apologizing like they said they were going to.

Darleen said...

Usually, unintentional accidents are accompanied by an "excuse me" or "Oops, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do that!"

Unless one did intend to do harm and then doubles down with slander.

Someone should have told Lewandowski about the First Rule of Holes.

n.n said...

If it was just a brush with another person in a congested space, then there is no reason for someone to remember that contact. This would preclude a specific apology, but it would invite a general nod.

Then there is a question of the incongruencies that substantiate her claim to injury, which suggests a discovery of her other activities and acquaintances within the bruising period.

jr565 said...

Maybee wrote:
So basically this is a pissing contest and Fields wanted charges pressed because she didn't get a public apology, even though she knew it was an accident. But she had already made a big deal of it and needed a public climb down.

she didnt KNOW it was an accident. Corey SAID it was an accident, according to conversation she had with the Trump staff. All she knew was that someone, who turned out to be Corey, violently yanked her by the arm.
I am saying it may well have been an accident. That is MY interpretation of the event. I'm giving Corey the benefit of the doubt and assuming he's not a compplete jack ass and might have simply been a bit brusque, not realizing that he might have yanked her harder than he though. Such things happen. They occur from time to time. If you get in a fender bender for example, there might be potential for blame to go around. So you give your insurance information to one another.


But he would still be in the wrong because he DID in fact yank her arm. And therefore, an apology is due and warranted. Not a smear campaign calling her a liar for having the teremity to not want to get yanked violently.

That is MY interpretation. Not Michelle's. I dont think she, at this point believes it was accidental. And at any rate, even is she did think it might have been accidental, the besmirching of her reputation was certainly not.

MadisonMan said...

This is a very bizarro thing to be arguing over.

I think there would be quite a lot of reasonable doubt as to where the bruises came from if you're in a crowd being jostled. How do you connect bruises on a person's arm to a particular event in a crowd? Similarly, the videos I've never seen but have read endless discussions on, seem to show many different things that all can be interpreted one way or another. Again, lots of reasonable doubt.

With so much reasonable doubt, why would a DA take on this case?

Michael K said...

Wow ! This story is way beyond strange.

"she made those marks on herself. That move would leave no marks on any normal person."

I am an expert on bruises and nothing I saw in any video explains that. Maybe the boyfriend did it and I have seen stranger things.

This young lady is odd.

MayBee said...

I think we are all better observers of human nature than we are pretending to be here.

Something happens. One person is more forceful than they mean to be. The person who received the force is more embarrassed than she is used to being.
So the person who received the force makes a big deal out of it, over stating what really happened because she is trying to find a way to express how she feels, and she can only do that by enlarging the situation.
The person who did the action feels he is being over accused.. He is being accused of what the other person perceives, and not of what he actually did. He is being drawn into the drama of the accusation.
So he retreats into his corner. No way he'll apologize for an overblown charge.
Both sides dig in.

We all have lived through similar circumstances with different players, right?

jr565 said...

Maybee wrote:
Friends: What if Michelle Fields had never publicly claimed (falsely) to have been practically knocked to the ground?

How are you proving that statement is a falsehood? She didn't say she was knocked to the ground she says she was practically knocked to the ground. if you dont get knocked to the ground and you dont say you were its not a lie. But how are you judging "practically knocked to the ground" on a tape? If you feel like you momentarily lose your balance and are about to fall but then dont, your feeling that you were practically knocked to the ground is perfectly valid. And that can manifest itself in many ways. You might look like you're about teeter over and are on your tippy toes balancing yourself for a minutes before you finally right yourself OR you might get yanked down or back and feel like you are going to lose your balance. but then regain it. Have you ever stood up from time to time and felt dizzy for a second. How did that look to outside observers? they may not have even realized you had that internal feeling. It doesn't mean you didnt' just becuase you outwardly dont look like you are about to topple over

jr565 said...

Michael K wrote:
I am an expert on bruises and nothing I saw in any video explains that. Maybe the boyfriend did it and I have seen stranger things.

You are an expert on bruises. THat you see on a picture. And you can tell they didnt' come from yanking of her arm. Even though you saw nothing but a picture. You are not THAT much of an expert.

Chuck said...

1. I could not answer Professor Althouse's original question which kicks off this post any better than the post of JCC at 5:59 pm.

2. Someone suggested that this is essentially the third time that Michelle Fields has filed a phony police report in dubious circumstances. I believe that that assertion is false. Whoever wrote it, I challenge you to prove it.

A) The video of her encounter with NYPD officers in the Occupy demonstration where Michelle Fields was a working journalist shows that she was indeed shoved to the ground by police officers, from behind, while she was on camera with a microphone in her hand, doing nothing to deserve rough treatment. I am not aware that Michelle Fields made a police report in that case. If she did, I thnk she would have been justified in making the report. I am quite certain that neither Michelle nor Manhattan prosecutors pursued any charges.
B) I do not believe that Michelle Fields pressed any charges in the matter of the rumored sexual assault involving Allen West. If you know better, I invite you to prove me wrong.
C) I do not believe that Michell Fields pressed any charges in the matter of someone hacking her computer (possibly in relation to the Allen West story). I am not aware of Michelle Fields pursuing any other police reports or charges.

So again, I think this smear of Michelle Fields is mistaken but I don't want to take the time to prove a negative. Whoever tried to make this point should put up or shut up. I'm all ears, waiting for proof.

MayBee said...

If you feel like you momentarily lose your balance and are about to fall but then don't, your feeling that you were practically knocked to the ground is perfectly valid.

Fine.
But similarly, if you are in a crowd and you see someone touch the person you are used to protecting and you reach out and push thatarm away without thinking about it, your feeling that you didn't do anything and you didn't almost push someone to the ground is perfectly valid.

gadfly said...

Looks like a flat out case of hate crime to me. Donald Trump and his henchmen spew hate constantly - so lets get past the misdemeanor bull-crap stuff and file under the heavy-duty hate crime statute.

If Trump can act like this when he is seeking election and should be on his best behavior, what happens if he should acquire the full power of the Presidency?

MayBee said...

What I'm objecting to here is the idea that she didn't want this to be a big deal. She created the big deal.
Now you may think she's justified. But let's not pretend she didn't want this to be a public ordeal.

Terry said...

Who should I vote for if I think that Trump is silly and his critics are silly?
Trump is not a conservative and no great understanding of what it takes to govern the United States. I am not sure that he could point out by name the majority of the states on blank map. Trump's critics are just as bad. People who say that Trump's supporters are angry because the twenty-first century has left them behind are telling them that they are not going to do as well as their parents did and that their kids will have it worse yet. this is why Jimmy Carter was a one term president.

jr565 said...

Maybee wrote:
Something happens. One person is more forceful than they mean to be. The person who received the force is more embarrassed than she is used to being.
So the person who received the force makes a big deal out of it, over stating what really happened because she is trying to find a way to express how she feels, and she can only do that by enlarging the situation.

ok, first problem with this is that you are saying she is overstating what happened. I don't know how hard she was yanked. it may have been painful FOR HER. i would be really arrogant if I assumed the level of pain she is supposed to feel. Like if i see you get knocke on your butt, am I going to say "what a cry baby" if you get up and start groaning and rubbing your knee? how do I know how much that hurt you? Just because it looked like a minor fall doesn't mean you don't feel like it hurt a lot.
People only have access to their own feelings and reactions. With that in mind, suppose he was a bit more forceful than he needed to be. and suppose she was crying a bit more than I thought was necessary. Thats would be the time where the person who caused the injury said "look, I genuinely apologize. It was crowded. you were in front of me next to Trump and I needed to get to him. I moved you aside, but I didnt realize i had grabbed you in any way that would have injured you. I didn't have a response because I genuinely didn't realize anyting happened till after the fact. Sometimes we dont know our own strenghts. But if you were hurt, again, I apologize".
If corey had said THAT and it looked on the tape, like his story was credible, and then Michelle still charged him with assault/battery i would have said "The lady seems like a whackadoodle".
It requires the act of acknowledgement on Corey's part for me to get to that point though.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

Maybee wrote:
"Fine.
But similarly, if you are in a crowd and you see someone touch the person you are used to protecting and you reach out and push thatarm away without thinking about it, your feeling that you didn't do anything and you didn't almost push someone to the ground is perfectly valid." But at the end of the day you did push them. They, being pushed, are going to ask why you pushed them. You might have a reasonable explanation. If you present that explanation they might realize that both sides have a valid point.
But You did do something. you pushed the arms away, which may have hurt the person who you did that to.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I am entirely morally corrupt.

Not on this particular subject, but I'm sure on many others.

Fabi said...

@eric -- I couldn't be certain from the eye in the sky video, but my impression was that it was not her forearm. I wouldn't bet much on that take, but it also has me wondering what others have seen to render such absolute judgments. I'll post a link if I uncover a better video, although I assume a few million people have already looked and come up empty-handed. lol

Michael K said...

"I think this smear of Michelle Fields is mistaken but I don't want to take the time to prove a negative."

Of course not and it fits your narrative. Isn't it interesting that you had no trouble finding the stories ?

How many young women reporters have a history of such reports? Unless of course they attend U Va or Duke.

And publish in Rolling Stone.

LarsPorsena said...

If she was a he this incident would incite derisive laughter.
The same folks who are outraged by this 'assault' think women in the combat arms is no problem.

MayBee said...

People only have access to their own feelings and reactions.

But you seem not to accept that he, too, only has access to his own feelings and reactions.

If we think she may have thought she was almost yanked to the ground, then we should accept he thought he didn't yank anyone hard enough to create all this drama. We must accept that he felt aggrieved too, and perhaps even wanted an apology from her for her public accusation. You have to give them both equal agency.

The thing is, this was a misunderstanding played out in the press.
But I keep going back to whether this is where we want our courts to go? If this is what a crime looks like? And I say no.

Michael K said...

"Even though you saw nothing but a picture. You are not THAT much of an expert."

I have a bit of information for you, pal. Bruises are on the skin ! You tell about bruises by LOOKING at them !

Bruises don't occur postmortem and I have seen lots of dead people too. Some as they died.

Old people like me bruise easily, especially if we are taking Plavix or steroids.

Is she taking something that would affect bruising ? Do you know ?

If she is on steroids or Plavix, maybe she is telling the truth. If not, nothing I saw on all the videos will produce those bruises.

I'd be willing to match my hours in court testify in as an expert witness. In murder trials and malpractice trials.

How many hours have you spent in the coroner's office? How many autopsies have you done of seen ?

I'm sorry. My tolerance for stupidity is limited.

gadfly said...

MayBee - Time to get over what you judge to be the truth here. The Florida Statute says:

The crime of Simple Battery or Misdemeanor Battery is defined under Section 784.03, Florida Statutes. In Florida, the term battery means:

1. Any actual and intentional touching or striking of another person against that person’s will (non-consensual), or
2. The intentional causing of bodily harm to another person.

Intent is a required element of a simple battery charge. To constitute a crime, there must be “either a specific voluntary act or something that is substantially certain to result from the act.” C.B. v. State, 810 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). A defendant must intend to strike the person, or engage in conduct where he or she knows that a touch or strike “is substantially certain to result from his acts.” Id.

Thus, an accidental touching or a touching that is incidental to other conduct not aimed at making contact with another person, is insufficient to establish a battery. Beard v. State, 842 So.2d 174, 176-77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Whether the accused had the requisite intent is a question for the jury to resolve by examining the surrounding facts and circumstances of the incident.


Video evidence, an eyewitness and a deliberate act of grabbing Michelle is tough for the jury to ignore, unless Trump finds an OJ jury panel. Penalties are up to one year in jail or 12 months probation, and a $1,000 fine if convicted.

And all this in want of an apology.

MayBee said...

Yes. Purposeful touching of another person should always always be prosecuted in Florida.

That will make everything right.

jr565 said...

MayBee wrote:
But you seem not to accept that he, too, only has access to his own feelings and reactions.

If we think she may have thought she was almost yanked to the ground, then we should accept he thought he didn't yank anyone hard enough to create all this drama

I DO see that he may have thought it was nothing. I already said if he offered an apology or an explanation he could have shown it was a nothing story and defused this entire scenario. Becuase from his perspective it may have been nothing. But that doesnt mean he didnt in fact yank her arm which was painful to her.
So, in the inerest of defusing the situation and not making is seem like your staff manhandles reportersby choice, acknowledge that she was hurt, and that you had some fault in the situation. BUT because you didnt mean it there was no animosity on your part and it was just accidental and inadvertant. And accidents happen.

Birkel said...

The people pushing the idea that Fields bruised herself sound deranged.

We know she was touched. She says it was too rough. Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. Her contemporaneous comments, caught on tape by the WaPo reporter, seem to support her claim that she believed herself battered. The contemporaneous comments by the WaPo reporter - as witness to the events - support Fields impression.

There have been different attempts at denial by the Trump camp. This leaves the impression of dishonesty.

Criminal charges seem a bit too much. But please stop with the conspiracy theories.

Beldar said...

"If that's what you think, please just admit to yourself that you are entirely morally corrupt."

This is a powerful formulation, a passionate one. But it assumes the conclusion, rather than proving it.

I actually reject the premise here, which is that there has been some sort of law enforcement action taken in this case that is in any way unusual for other comparable cases in which a private party has made this sort of police report. No more or less has been committed in prosecutorial resources, for example, on this complaint than any other at the same stage (before the defendant has even entered a plea).

In fact, this is the way the system can work, and sometimes does work. It's true that not very many battery complaints like this get filed, but that doesn't mean that every potential battery incident must turn into a full-blown criminal complaint with the resulting due process.

Like every other complaint that makes it this far, this one could turn into many things. The complaining witness might request that it be dropped, which request is likely to be honored. Or there might be some plea arrangment -- something like a no-contest plea to a disturbing the peace misdemeanor, plus a trivial fine and 30-day probation.

So I hope our host will forgive me that I'm not, yet, admitting to myself that I'm entirely morally corrupt.

MayBee said...

I DO see that he may have thought it was nothing. I already said if he offered an apology or an explanation he could have shown it was a nothing story and defused this entire scenario\

You have already said the Trump camp indicated privately it was an accident. They already offered an explanation.
But because she had already made it public, she wanted a public apology.
And lacking that, she called the cops into it.

MayBee said...

It's true that not very many battery complaints like this get filed,

The lede.

DKWalser said...

Remember, she over stated how harrowing the situation was. She put them on the defensive first. Now, I think they could have apologized, but she didn't exactly approach them with honesty.

None of us know how "harrowing" she found being grabbed. I think many of us are underestimating how she may have honestly felt based on a low resolution video. She was walking forward and was pulled back hard enough to not only stop her forward progress, but make her step back. Try that amongst yourselves and see how much force it takes for someone to arrest your forward movement and cause you to take a step backwards. It's not the nothing-burger many seem to think it is. Understand also that Fields was wearing heels at the time, which most likely explains why she felt she was liable to loose her balance.

Listen to what she said immediately after she was grabbed. It's obvious that she felt she'd been wronged and was shocked by how unprofessionally she'd been treated. The Washington Post reporter saw what had happened and he, too, was shocked by what had transpired.

Given all of that, I think it's not just unfair but manifestly so to blame her for Trump's trashing of her character. Could she have kept quiet and pretended nothing happened? Of course she could. Her asking for an apology did NOT give Trump license to call her delusional, a liar, a stalker, and unfit for her job. What Trump did afterwards is the issue. He's the 500 lb gorilla in this situation. He's not a victim. He's a bully.

jr565 said...

Maybee, Not hurting THAT bad is not an excuse that gets you off if you yanked my arm. I can certainly accept if you didnt do it intentionally, or if you are contrite. But if you yank my arm and then are a dick about on top of it? I have NO problem charging you with assault and battery. Becuase you putting your hands on me is not something I have to accept. And the standard is not its ok to yank my arm so long as you dont break it.

Michael K said...

"This leaves the impression of dishonesty. "

Or innocence, depending on your thoughts about Trump. Those who hate him are eager to find any evidence to support their beliefs. Ronnie Earle thought Tom DeLay deserved to be behind bars. Maybe he was right but he used unethical means to do it.

The drunken DA in Austin hates Rick Perry. If you hate enough, especially if you are drunk, it doesn't take much to set you off on a crusade.

Obama shows us what that world looks like after a while . GO FOR IT ! Have fun ! Just don't regret anything. It will be too late.

Mark said...

Not everybody gets their career derailed because they tell a simple truth about being manhandled. It's a criminal case because of that, nothing more or less.

To Ann's point, if you presume the function of the criminal justice system is to protect the innocent from the criminal, then yeah, I'm fine with the cost expended here. I'll even contribute to defray the State of Florida's expenses.

jr565 said...

When it was the Mizzou teacher who told the photographer to leave and when he refused said "can we get some muscle in here" and they forcibly ejected the photographer, people demanded that she be fired. And i doubt the muscle she called over were quite as rough as Corey was with Michelle. If they left bruises on the photographers arm after yanking him out of the courtyard by force would anyone say "But he barely has bruises on his arm. How do we know he dindt have those bruises before. He's just milking the story. what a cry baby?"
I think not.
If they left bruises on his arm it would be even more reason to FIRE her.

gadfly said...

So Michael K is an expert witness on bruises that he has never examined. And medications like Plavix causes bruises in old people taking it. Yeah but, Ms Fields is 28 years old and she has a good complexion not apparently altered by heavy makeup. Could her boyfriend have clobbered her - maybe if she has one but that is a fact not in evidence at this time.

MayBee said...

So the answer from some people is that she is absolutely right to press charges. We can only surmise they answer Althouse's question that yes, this is the kind of crime we want our courts to be used for.

The kind of crimes where an apology would have not made them a crime.
Got it.

traditionalguy said...

The latest overhead video makes it obvious that there was not a grip placed on the arm that could cause the marks she displayed. There was only a fluid movement of Cory's arm redireting her arm thrusting a metal object at Trump. Cory's move lasted a half second at the most.

That is now known fact, we have to determine how she got those marks on her arm she displayed as to police as Proof?

Come on. When did someone attack her using sufficient leverage and force that made those marks? We now honestly know that Cory's swift blocking move did not do it. So was it her fiance working together to help her sell her book coming out next month.

MayBee said...

I didn't want the Mizzou professor prosecuted criminally, that's for sure.

Was she?

Writ Small said...

In fairness to the Trump camp, when the Washington Post reporter asked if he could report the manhandling, she immediately agreed. She had to know that in the context of accusations against Trump of doing to little to discourage violence among his supporters, that agreement was going to put her in the center of big story.

That decision alone proves there is some truth to the idea she is prone to drama.

That doesn't excuse team Trump's absolute mishandling of the situation. Truly amateur hour. Lewandowski lied in Twitter ("you are totally delusional. I never touched you. As a matter of fact, I have never even met you."), lied to Trump and caused Trump to repeat the lies, damaging credibility all around. That said, in the list of danger signs of abuse of power by Trump, this incident doesn't make the top twenty.

MayBee said...

She could have been bruised.

I take yoga and I have bruises all the time in places where I have no idea where I got them. She could have been bruised by a grip. It's hard to tell what makes people bruise.

Jason said...

Here's Mayor Rahm Emanuel physically shoving someone in a Target store.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUDuTeXjmBc

No jostling crowd. No security issues. No recent assaults on him to make the security folks nervous. And Rahm walked up to the guy. It's not even like the guy Rahm shoved was even remotely invading anybody's space.

Here we have a much more clear-cut case of battery than we ever had with Lewandowski/Fields. There's no "he said/she said." No fog of war. No reasonable doubt.

We also have it on tape, in a jurisdiction Democrats control lock, stock and barrel.

Did the DA file charges against Rahm?
Did it go to a grand jury?
Were any prominent libtards calling for his prosecution?
Were any prominent libtards calling for his resignation?
Were any prominent libtards calling for his impeachment?

None?

None at all?

I'll believe Democrats believe Lewandowski's actions were a problem when they themselves act like it's a problem.

Until Rahm is standing at an arraignment hearing entering a plea of guilty or not guilty, all libtards harping on Lewandowski can kiss. My. Ass.

Jason said...

This garbage is worse than World Cup Soccer.

jr565 said...

in answer to Althouse's question """To everyone who likes that Lewandowsky got charged: Will you agree that everyone who does nothing more than that should undergo criminal prosecution" I'd answer NO.
I'm not even sure that Corey SHOULD be charged. Because he might have a reasonable explanation as to why he did it. And if I heard that explanation and thought it was reasonable I might just side with him.
Saying She's a liar and a cry baby is not a reasonable explanation. if that is the explanation offered, then YES you should be charged with assault and/or battery.


Chuck said...

A Question for Professor Althouse:

I posed this hypothetical today in another setting:

It is the end of the First Year of law school, and we are going to give an examination to 1000 students who had just completed Criminal Law I. We show them the two or three best angles of the Lewandowski-Fields video. And put to the 1000 students, this question: "Did the events in question constitute a crime? If so, what was the crime and list the elements of that crime under common law."

I'd expect better than 950 out of 1000 first-year law students to correctly identify this as a simple battery. And I'd expect the vast majority of them would correctly recite the elements of common-law battery (understanding that battery is a statutory offense in almost all practical situations) as "the intentional or reckless application of force, directly or indirectly, to another person, so as to cause harm or offense, without legal justification." I'd expect the students to know the maxim from the LaFave hornbook, suggesting that "For A to strike B without justification is a battery, and it makes no difference to A's guilt of simple battery whether B is lightly sratched or seriously injured." And indeed if A is not even scratched, but merely offended, it may still be simple battery. From one of the very first cases in the Prosser casebook on Torts (mine is the Sixth Edition!), see Fisher v Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc. 424 SW2d 627 (1967), where the defendant's employee swatted a plate out of the hand of an African-American standing in a buffet line, saying that no negro would be served in that establishment. The employee didn't actually injure, or even touch, the African-American plaintiff. It was not a "hate crime;" it was alleged as common law civil battery. And yet it was still held up in plaintiff's favor, on the basis of "application of force" (indirectly) and "offense."

Birkel said...

Michael K:

Shifting stories do not improve credibility in this or any other case.

I cannot speak to Fields' motivations. I can speak to the conspiracy theories, which make the people espousing them look foolish.

Fabi said...

I'm certainly wondering about the bruise, Birkel, but not as a conspiracy. It takes a decent blow or a very hard and prolonged grip to cause a bruise -- I haven't seen any video that matches same. Quite a few people are certain that he caused the bruise and I'm curious what they're seeing that I'm not. Nothing more, nothing less.

readering said...

The significance of this incident is that Trump's campaign manager is being seriously mentioned as his chief of staff if Trump is elected. The guy is clearly in over his head and the two reinforce each other's worst tendencies. If, God forbid, Trump is nominated, he should follow reagan and immediately hire a rival's Baker equivalent.

Martha said...

For want of an "Ilove you" or at least a call in the morning, or perhaps an apology that it was not as good for her as it was for him
male students these days thanks to Title IX are summarily expelled from university for sexual battery—academic career derailed.
That is moral corruption.

Birkel said...

Fabi:

Losing ones balance would cause the force to be increased on the skin.

But I am agnostic on the whole thing.

DKWalser said...

What I'm objecting to here is the idea that she didn't want this to be a big deal. She created the big deal.
Now you may think she's justified. But let's not pretend she didn't want this to be a public ordeal.


I admit that I haven't read everything about this incident, but I don't get where you think "she created the big deal." She went through her editor to the Trump campaign with her complaint privately. She was to receive a private call from Lewandowski, which she assumed would be a private apology. She didn't make a public statement until after the Trump campaign publicly denied that anything had happened.

What happened in between the promise of a call and the campaign denying anything happened? Here are a couple of possibilities: 1) The Washington Post reporter witnessed the incident and may have asked the campaign for comment, which may have prompted the campaign to rethink apologizing. Since it was going to be written about, the campaign may have thought they are were better off claiming nothing happened than admitting anything. 2) Fields told her boyfriend what happened. The boyfriend, a reporter for another outlet, tweeted about what had happened. Again, the campaign thought that, since they could not kill the story by apologizing they were better off denying it.

In none of this do I see Fields trying to make a big deal out of this. Even if she had, it does not excuse the campaign's lying about what happened. Nor does it excuse the campaign doing its best to do its worst to this woman's reputation. It's the trashing of her that upsets me. It's cost her her job.

You obviously don't think the original yank was a big deal. Neither do I. Deserving of an apology? Yes, absolutely. Had the campaign been truthful -- saying Lewandowski had pulled on her arm, but he hadn't meant any harm and they saw no need to apologize for such a minor thing -- I'd say Fields was a loon if she tried to make a big deal of their failure to apologize. (My opinion of Trump and his team wouldn't be improved by the lack of apology, but it wouldn't have been harmed much.) But when they pulled a full Clinton -- denying any blame and falsely sliming their accuser -- that's a big deal.

MayBee said...

But when they pulled a full Clinton -- denying any blame and falsely sliming their accuser -- that's a big deal.

Great comment, and I agree with much of it.
But excuse my ignorance here- did they publicly deny blame before any of it had been made public?

PianoLessons said...

I so concur with Bay Area Guy who asserts "The Courts would cease to function if they got bogged down with trivial items such as this. Her damages are de minimis (Latin for -- not worth a shit)."

I so concur with Shakespeare's exact line ''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,'' was stated by Dick the Butcher in ''Henry VI,'' Part II, act IV, Scene II, Line 73.

Lawyers can change the world - for better or worse.

And you all know this kind of thing makes lawyers and the law seem corrupted by politics.



MayBee said...

This is what she wrote on Thursday about what happened Tuesday.

Did the Trump campaign make a comment publicly about it before Thursday?

Michael K said...

"Ms Fields is 28 years old and she has a good complexion not apparently altered by heavy makeup. Could her boyfriend have clobbered her - maybe if she has one but that is a fact not in evidence at this time."

So, she is NOT taking a medication that could produce bruises with minor injury. Thank you.

The boy friend has been quoted. By The Blaze, of all places, as saying, " saying that she was assaulted by the Trump guy.

The Daily Caller senior editor Jamie Weinstein confronted Donald Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson Friday over allegations that Trump’s campaign manager assaulted a reporter earlier this week. And it didn’t take long for things to get personal.

Weinstein was defending his girlfriend and Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields who claimed she was assaulted by Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski on Tuesday after she asked a question following a news conference in Florida.

Fields has filed a police report in Florida, TheBlaze confirmed with Jupiter police on Friday.


We can certainly trust the Blaze, since Glenn Beck would never lie and the boyfriend is totally trustworthy. Isn't he ?

Jesus ! You people are pathetic.

Lots of experts on bruises here, too.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

We answered this! Again.
This is the new standard. He broke the law. Sure, lots of people break that law all the time, but people usually don't press charges. Or didn't in the past.
That has changed. Now the rule is press charges. Always press charges!
What good is it to argue that this new standard will have bad consequences? It is the new standard, we have all adopted it and moved on.
Arguing against it makes you sound like anti-SSM people. Remember how you felt about them? The nation moved on from their beliefs and views, no one ought their way anymore, you didn't need to respect their points of view, it was just old outdated thinking. Standards change!
The new standard is charge everyone, always press charges. Adapt!

Darrell said...

Bruises near the wrist are odd, especially when the tapes show him grabbing her upper arm near her shoulder. And other pictures of her unbruised hand and arm down feature a mole like her bruised Twitpic does. Cory should admit to grabbing a boob and leave it at that. Allen West can testify.

Michael K said...

"The guy is clearly in over his head and the two reinforce each other's worst tendencies. If, God forbid, Trump is nominated, he should follow reagan and immediately hire a rival's Baker equivalent."

Yes, I'm sure he should ask you,. You seem to be an expert.

Blair said...

I'm appalled at some of the misogynistic comments here. I'm also bewildered, since perhaps there are different videos, and the video I saw may not be the same as what others have seen.

What I saw was a reporter pursuing Trump from behind with a recorder in her right hand, holding it towards him to ask him questions. I saw a man reach in front of another man as they were walking, forcefully grabbing her arm, yanking her back, and causing her to momentarily lose balance.

While the action, if done to a man, may not have caused physical damage, women bruise more easily than men, and it's entirely believable that the force of the grabbing that I saw would cause bruising.

It shouldn't be a big deal, but if you're not going to apologise for your actions, and instead you are going to smear the reputation of the woman, forcing her into an untenable position with her employer, then damn straight you should get the book thrown at you. Assault is assault at the end of the day.

Also do not forget that this is not some anti-Trump operative, but a BREITBART reporter. These scumbags are in the tank for Trump, so the idea that she is lying for some reason doesn't pass Ockham's Razor.

Eme Eses said...

It's battery, but any reasonable degree of prosecutorial discretion would militate against prosecuting it.

Mac McConnell said...

I wonder how Lewandowski treats his wife. He seems to think it's fine to leave bruises on women.

narciso said...

this is palm beach, where they used narcotics suppliers as witnesses against rush, instead of the reverse, where they tried to gin up a voter fraud against coulter, where jeffrey epstein got off,

now what would be her motive against trump, something personal,

http://gotnews.com/busted-michelle-fieldss-honduran-born-mother-pro-amnesty-activist/

eric said...

It was nice to see that John Hinderaker of Powerlineblog, who really doesn't like Trump and was a Rubio guy, be sensible about this.

I'm still sad though that people like Ben Shapiro and even Jr here have gone full SJW.

MayBee said...

I don't know.
I have yet to see any of the people saying she didn't want to make it public give any evidence that she wasn't the one who made it public.

Did Trump's campaign mention this publicly before she wrote about it?

eric said...

Blogger DKWalser said...
What I'm objecting to here is the idea that she didn't want this to be a big deal. She created the big deal.
Now you may think she's justified. But let's not pretend she didn't want this to be a public ordeal.

I admit that I haven't read everything about this incident, but I don't get where you think "she created the big deal." She went through her editor to the Trump campaign with her complaint privately. She was to receive a private call from Lewandowski, which she assumed would be a private apology. She didn't make a public statement until after the Trump campaign publicly denied that anything had happened.


Where are you getting this privately stuff? Have you listened to the audio? Right after it happens the WaPo writer asks permission to write about it, in the Washington Post, as a part of his story.

Her boyfriend was all over twitter yelling about how his girlfriend was assaulted by Corey.

There was no "privately" going on here.

eric said...

Blogger MayBee said...
I don't know.
I have yet to see any of the people saying she didn't want to make it public give any evidence that she wasn't the one who made it public.

Did Trump's campaign mention this publicly before she wrote about it?


Have you heard the audio?

She says, immediately after it happened, to the Washington Post guy who asks if he can write about it, "Yes."

She clearly wanted to make it public, she gave permission for it to go public seconds after it happened.

narciso said...

an interesting note, one of the signers, christina hoff summers, has been one of the leading critics against sjw mobs, yet she has behaved as one,

Guildofcannonballs said...

Was it, or was it not, Bill Buckley who said "I know my redeemer liveth" because that is one heck of a lot of quote.

That right there determines a lot.

And lil children that watched the Coen's "No Country For Old Men" feel they are able and capable because they watched that scene on youtube once.

eric said...

Here is the audio I'm referring to.

Terris: “You OK?”

Fields: “Holy sh*t.”

Terris: “Yea he just threw you down.”

Fields: “I can’t believe he just did that that was so hard. Was that Corey [Lewandowski]?”

Terris: “Yeah, like, what threat were you?”

Fields: “That was insane. You should have felt how hard he grabbed me. That’s insane. I’ve never had anyone do that to me from a campaign.”

Terris: “Can I put that in my story?”

Fields: “Yeah, go for it — that was really awful. That’s so unprofessional.”

Terris: “He really just almost threw you down on the ground.”

Fields: “He literally went like this and was grabbing me down. “I don’t even want to do what he just did to me. Oh my God, that really spooked me that someone would do that.”


Mom2Es said...

I've watched every video I can find of this thing multiple times, and I still don't see anything that looks as though he grabbed her on the part of her arm where she later sported bruises. He did something to her, obviously, but even in the overhead stills from the security camera, her arm moves up and over the way I'd expect it to if he had grabbed her upper arm to stop her forward progress. It does not look the way I expected it to look based on her initial story of someone yanking her downward causing loss of balance and inner forearm bruising.

This story is just weird all around.

Bruce Hayden said...

It's battery, but any reasonable degree of prosecutorial discretion would militate against prosecuting it.

Unless, of course, the prosecutor was a Clinton supporter and contributor (Lewandowski prosecutor outed as Hillary supporter). Michael K above called it - it is probably "lawfare".

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Every time you say a criminal charge is no big deal I lose a little more respect for your opinion, jr565.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

"Assault is assault at the end of the day."
There you have it. There is no arguing with that logic. It is correct!

Charge everyone who breaks the law. Everyone!

Fabi said...

Thanks, Birkel -- I've tried to be agnostic about this incident, but it won't go away.

Jason said...

Martha Coakley aide shoves a Weekly Standard reporter to the ground.

And shoves him down when he tries to get up again.

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2010/01/coakley-staffer-shoves-reporter/20359/

This is how Democrat campaigns treat reporters (at least when Biden's staff isn't locking them in closets).

Did any libtards call for her to fire her staffer?
Did any libtards call for her to step down?
Liberals control Massachusets. Martha Coakley herself was the Attorney General.

Did Coakley take any action to hold her staffer accountable?
I mean, she was standing right there.
Did Coakley fire her staffer?
Did any Democrat in the entire state press charges?

Did any liberal demand that the staffer be held accountable?

No?

Not a single living libtard hypocrite soul, eh?

Alright. The precedent is established.

Carry on.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

On such things do campaigns hinge! We are truly fucking doomed.
How're things in Libya these days, or Egypt, or Turkey, or Greece? Just kidding, no one cares. Nor should they. Push the columns over, tear it all down. The core is rotten and there is no one to defend the old structures anyway.

DKWalser said...

I've watched every video I can find of this thing multiple times, and I still don't see anything that looks as though he grabbed her on the part of her arm where she later sported bruises. He did something to her, obviously, but even in the overhead stills from the security camera, her arm moves up and over the way I'd expect it to if he had grabbed her upper arm to stop her forward progress....

When watching the video, you need to keep in mind that it's not shot in the standard 24 frames per second (fps). To save storage space, most security cameras are set to record only a few fps. Some only record 1 fps. I don't know what the fps rate was for the overhead video capturing the "action", but was obviously a fairly slow rate because the motion is so jerky. The jerkiness of the motion means we're not seeing everything that happened.

First, we see Lewandowski reach for Fields with his left hand, grabbing her upper left arm. Then, the next moment, he's already beside her and she's already turned towards him and has already taken a step backwards. All that movement took place between the frame showing him reaching for her upper arm and the next frame showing the two facing each as if they were dancing. The next frame and Lewandowski is gone. What happened in between frames? If there was enough time between frames for him to move a few feet, surely he could have dropped his hand from her upper arm to her lower arm.

Recall, also, that the police report says that Lewandowski grabbed her with his right hand, not his left hand. Some speculated that the police may have gotten this detail wrong because the video clearly shows him reaching for her with his left hand. Maybe the police got it right? Perhaps he stopped her with his left hand grasping her upper arm and then pulled her back with his right hand, pulling her lower arm down and back. With the low fps, we simply cannot tell all that happened. (The low fps may also explain why it does not appear she was in any danger of losing her balance.)

What we can tell from the video does not exonerate Lewandowski. He clearly grabbed her and then lied about it. The video simply isn't sufficient evidence for us to know for sure how severely he pulled her back, but we do know it was severe enough to cause her stop her forward motion and to take at least one step backwards. That's a pretty strong tug on the arm.

Bruce Hayden said...

One problem here for Fields' is that her bruises don't appear to match the video (and her statement, which also doesn't quite match). The assertion of a mismatch is not just from our resident surgeon (Michael K), but by some other doctors. And, that means that they will be challenged in court, should it go there (because I have little doubt that Trump will support his man here), and that will call into question her story. We shall see. There are also some allegations that she had bypassed multiple Secret Service agents, and then was trying to grab or touch Trump to get his attention. This sort of thing is just going to get worse and worse, as both Sanders and Clinton people seem to be catching on that this is great fun (not claiming that she is one of them, because she most likely is not).

Finally, Michelle Fields And Ben Shapiro Quit Breitbart over the way that the Daily Caller failed to support her. I feel a bit sorry for her - she had managed to get onto Fox News on a semi-routine basis (along with her Breitbart gig), and her career is maybe down the drain now. Still, Eric Bolling is still probably behind her, and that may get her a reprieve with Fox, plus Kelly seems somewhat supportive (or at least anti-Trump). The problem for her is that by filing charges, or at least going along with them being filed, she has made herself unemployable as a reporter following a Republican campaign. Trump's people aren't about to let her within 50 feet of their guy, and likely Cruz at least felt the same. Maybe also Kasich. As I understand it, one of the adages of good journalism is that the story should never be about the reporter, and this time it was. She should have accepted that when she is caught trying to sneak in to ask the candidate questions, that there are consequences, and one of them is that she may get accidentally roughed up a bit. Esp. with so much going on around Trump. Maybe she could get a job though following the Hillary campaign, where reporters are strictly monitored, and lose their press credentials if they sneeze at the wrong time in the presence of Herself.

Iapetus said...

There was an anonymously sourced report today that Trump's Secret Service detail told Michelle Fields not to approach Trump so closely, but she ignored the order and stepped between Trump and the SS agent(s) who were following closely behind as Trump exited. The first few frames of the video I watched today show her getting extremely close to Trump and touching him on his arm, possibly his forearm, although it was hard to tell. In the same frames Lewandowski can be seen standing behind Trump's moving phalanx, looking in the direction of both Trump and the overhead security camera. At the point when Fields appears to touch Trump, the expression on Lewandowski's face seems to change. I interpret it as an expression of concern, most likely regarding Trump's safety. From that point forward in the video clip, Lewandowski pushes his way closer to Trump and Fields. At the point when he is within arm's length of Trump and Fields, the video shows him reaching in front of and past a trailing SS agent to grab Fields' arm or elbow from behind, pulling her away from Trump. This is the scene everyone has focused on. Lewandowski's face can be seen clearly in those same frame(s). Again, I interpret his expression to be one of concern over Trump's safety. Others who watch the video clip may reach different conclusions. Bottom line for me: Michelle Fields appears to have ignored Secret Service instructions and, by physically touching Trump, been guilty of battery, an act that started the entire sequence of events shown in the video clip. Lewandowski's actions appear justified to me as an effort to ensure Trump's security when the Secret Service protection failed to do so.

DKWalser said...

@Bruce Hayden

...She should have accepted that when she is caught trying to sneak in to ask the candidate questions, that there are consequences, and one of them is that she may get accidentally roughed up a bit. ...

Bruce, you're usually fairer than this. The current allegations by the Trump team are that Fields snuck past the Secret Service to ask Trump questions after the press conference was over. At first, this same Trump team assured us that they had asked the Secret Service on the night of the incident and that the Secret Service agents had said that NOTHING had happened. The Secret Service agents, we were told, all said that Fields wasn't touched by anyone and she never got near Trump. That's 180 degrees from what Trump is now claiming. In today's truth, Fields is a stealthy psycho-stalker who sneaked past the Secret Service and, but for the vigilance of Lewandowski, could have stabbed Trump with her pen! Why should we believe this version of Trump's story when the 1st version was proven to be a lie?

The story the Trump campaign initially gave to Breitbart News, as reported by them, was Lewandowski didn't realize Fields was with Breitbart and thought she was a reporter from an unfriendly organization. (As if that made jerking her aside alright!) He wasn't trying to protect Trump's person; he was trying to protect him from unfiltered questions. There was nothing accidental about his grabbing her and pulling her aside. He may have not intended to hurt her, that may have been an accident. The rest, as with the slandering of her character, was purely intentional.

DKWalser said...

@lapetus

You're being awfully charitable to Lewandowski. He had a concerned look on his face -- one you believe was born out of a concern for Trump's safety? Good thing Lewandowski was there to do the job the Secret Service agents refused to do! (Secret Service agents are all Democrats.) Trump was surrounded by Secret Service agents, none of whom saw Fields as a threat. Yet, you ask us to believe that Lewandowski was motivated by fear for Trump's life to forcibly remove Fields? If we're to follow your lead, how do you explain that Lewandowski didn't try to have the Secret Service detain Fields? After all, she was holding a dangerous pen in her hand! If he thought her a threat, Lewandowski should have insisted she be arrested for endangering Trump. Also, how do you explain that, when asked about the incident, Lewandowski at first claimed he never touched Fields. You cannot use Trump's old line: It was just an everyday occurrence that was so innocuous it never registered on Lewandowski. No, in this version of events, Lewandowski is intervening on what he thinks may be an attempt on Trump's life. Surely he'd remember that, right? So, why did he say it never happened?

No, the most likely explanation of the concern you saw on Lewandowski's face had nothing to do with Trump's safety. It had to do with Lewandowski's day job -- managing Trump's campaign. He was concerned that a reporter was asking Trump questions. At least, according to Breitbart News, that's the explanation the campaign originally gave Breitbart as to why one its reporters was roughed up.

Fields was merely doing what all reporters try to do after a press conference -- ask a few more questions. It's what reporters do. It's their job. Candidates find it annoying. Some campaign managers take it upon themselves to enforce a little decorum on the members of the media.

rcommal said...

The reason that I have not bothered now commenting on this issue, here at Althouse, is that I remember how it was a number of years ago, when Althouse+Meade were doing documenting in real time and in real life in Madison, Wisconsin, at the Capitol there. They were insisting that they were doing the real journalism, and I remember Althouse being touchy about her personal space being breached, and even referencing the notion of law 'n' all. I think that, at the time, I called that out. I think that I might even have referenced the time I had spent as a reporter and that, had I worried about that,

....

Achilles said...

Fields grabbed Trump. She committed battery and was removed with proportional force. End of story. You don't get to rush candidates and grab them just because you are a girl. Saying she gets extra privileges or a right to assault people because she is a woman is wrong.

I know why progressives use these false accusations to attack and malign people they disagree with. That is old hat.

It is you Cruz supporters that are running with this that are a concern. The SJW's are going to come for Cruz. If Cruz and his supporters, of which I am still mostly one, makes common cause now with SJW's to hurt Trump you will lose me and you will be all alone when they come for you.

Xmas said...

I definitely think that black girl should go to jail over her battery of that jewish boy with dreadlocks. I would even say that was a case of unlawful restraint and attempted kidnapping.

Oh wait, we are talking about a different thing were people want to get nitpicky about the letter of the law.

I definitely think Hillary should go to jail over the classified information in her emails. It was her duty to report anything she thought may have been classified information that came through an unsecure email. She never reported a thing.

Achilles said...

Diamond and Silk have something to say about this:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/epic-rant-diamond-silk-explain-difference-touch-pop-video/

Not hard to figure out why Trump's support is so broad. He is going to actually bring Minorities into the GOP. The GOPe just wants amnesty. They don't really care about actually getting more voters.

11 MR said...

bảng giá răng sứ không kim loại

sdharms said...

you of all people Ann should know, LE just takes statements, investigates and files charges, the DA had to approve this, and a jury will sort it out. That is how it works. Trump illustrated his bad judgement. He and CL could have ended it without this but they went on the attack.

Achilles said...

sdharms said...
"you of all people Ann should know, LE just takes statements, investigates and files charges, the DA had to approve this, and a jury will sort it out. That is how it works. Trump illustrated his bad judgement. He and CL could have ended it without this but they went on the attack."

You people always assume Fields had good intentions. She has a pattern of filing baseless charges. Nothing is enough for them. No apology will suffice. The only option is to fight them.

Rick said...

JCC said...
Well, this was much more than a simple battery. The reporter ended up resigning after she felt her employers failed to back her up, amid charges they were in the tank for Trump. Her editor also resigned. The witness was a WaPo reporter, presumably not exactly without some credibility. Meanwhile, the Trump people were accusing her of outright falsehood and delusional behavior, and even going back to older stories she wrote, claiming she has a history of lying. So now the NYPD is getting dragged into this, the other campaigns are taking sides, etc. And this is an incident that is the subject of national attention and several videos, so it's not like the prosecutor or cops can just ignore it.

Similar claims of simple battery are usually one-on-one, and resolved more easily without actually creating a court case, true, but this case is certainly something more. So, asking should all cliams of simple battery be settled with a prosecution is kind of inapplicable, isn't it?


This explains why it's a news story when most batteries aren't. But it doesn't explain being charged at all since failures in journalism ethics aren't illegal. Your claim it's appropriate for Lewandowski to be charged because Trump called her a liar is bizarre.

Ann Althouse said...

"The reason that I have not bothered now commenting on this issue, here at Althouse, is that I remember how it was a number of years ago, when Althouse+Meade were doing documenting in real time and in real life in Madison, Wisconsin, at the Capitol there. They were insisting that they were doing the real journalism, and I remember Althouse being touchy about her personal space being breached, and even referencing the notion of law 'n' all. I think that, at the time, I called that out. I think that I might even have referenced the time I had spent as a reporter and that, had I worried about that..."

The issue isn't personal protectiveness and awareness of who's touching you, but when should a person be prosecuted.

When I was literally physically attacked by a man, the police were right there, and I was interviewed by them. You can hear me, on camera, telling the police that I do not want the man arrested. http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/08/capitol-altercation-involves-solidarity.html

You need to tighten up your cutesy phrase "even referencing the notion of law 'n' all." What are you trying to say?

There were times when I (and Meade) talked about getting touched as a way to get someone to back off. That's very different from going to the police and asking for someone to be arrested.

There are many touchings that are crimes but are not prosecuted. There's some selectivity.

This is a post about wanting equal treatment and not political motives behind the use of the criminal law.

Also "They were insisting that they were doing the real journalism" is not an accurate portrayal of the way we talked about what we are doing. But I don't see the relevance of "real journalism" to the question of what constitutes a crime and how the authorities should go about determining who should be charged with a crime.

MaxedOutMama said...

This doesn't seem to me to have been a crime at all, but rather pushing and shoving in a crowd interaction, and the reporter was initiating the push/shove bit.

I'm kind of with MayBee, because A) a particular act is either a violation of law or it isn't, and B) the apology thing could not be done once she so overstated what had occurred. I didn't have an opinion on this until I watched some of the video and then caught up with what the reporter had said.

So the reporter lied, and very publicly, about what had happened. She stated that he grabbed her and almost threw her to the ground, which, from what I can see from the videos, absolutely did not happen. To apologize after that would lend legitimacy to the lie.

I don't think the courts should be misused in this way.

I also, now having watched the video, utterly disbelieve that the bruises she reported to the police resulted from anything the accused did. I will never trust anything that reporter says or writes again, just like I won't ever trust the VTech liar/reporter.

Controversy journalism tends to destroy its own practicioners, and it should.

Shops Villa said...

Shop here for amazing deals and products. Shop know: http://shopsvilla.blogspot.in

tim in vermont said...

I don't think the courts should be misused in this way.

Like how? To engage in political prosecution? What does Rick Perry think?

tim in vermont said...

Remember in Florida when they were going after Rush trying to get his right to medical privacy overturned? That wasn't political prosecution either? Or sending people to shut down other people's rallies? That's not acting like a brownshirt either.

We think that there are ways to abstract rules of behavior from the ways liberals act when in power, but that's a fools errand. The only way to know what is and isn't allowed is to ask a liberal directly. That's because they are so much smarter than us.

Peaceful warrior said...

I've heard that in Florida, the physical contact has to be without the person's consent in order to be criminal. To Ann's point in her post, does a reporter "consent" to this kind of jostling when they enter such a crowded place and try to ask a question of a security protected person after the allotted time for questions has past?

jr565 said...

Hoodlum I never said (I don't think) that criminal charges aren't a big deal.
the point I was making was not to say that you shouldn't charge assaults as assaults. But that not every touching is an assault. This one for example MAY not be an assault or a battery.
I don't actually like that he is being charged. But he is because trump is stupid. Simply because of how they handled this. He did grab her arm. She may have been hurt. Is it an assault? Not if he didn't mean to do it. It wasn't a serious assault. So then act contrite and work out a deal (which old amount to a simple acknowledgment and an apology) and no charges are brought. Then he goes on with his life.
And we aren't talking about this issue.

JCC said...

@ Rick -

Sorry, but you're missing the point. Unlawful touching is a crime. Whether to prosecute is discretionary, and often, the victim declines, as in Ann's post, when she told the police she did not wish to prosecute even though she was the victim. In other instances, authorities are able to refer the parties to counseling or to convince them not to resort to the criminal courts, as typical in many domestic situations. In this particular case, the ostensible victim waited for 2 (3? I don't know and don't care enough to look it up) days, then proceeded with prosecution. The decision to originally defer and then later proceed was hers, based on her mindset, and no one else's. A minor crime occurred, and the system waited until the victim decided whether to prosecute. See? The crime was always there. The only thing at issue was a decision whether to actually prosecute. An apology probably would have deferred or removed that prosecution, but the crime remained, even if never acted on by the victim. An apology would not have altered the fact set, only the consequences of the facts.

I think it unlikely that the reporter staged this, faked the bruises, etc, or that the audio is a fake either. She was being an aggressive reporter, a Trump person grabbed her and shoved her (grabbed, pushed, whatever), and she expected some concession from them that the behavior was over the top. Instead, they called her a liar, dishonest, which goes to her ability to make a living, her stock-in-trade if you will. So she's hitting back. And she's entitled to under the law.

And, again, no, not every case of simple battery should be prosecuted. But if the victim insists and there is both video evidence and at least one credible witness, in this case a WaPo reporter, what does anyone expect the prosecutor to do? Shrug this off? Please.

This has turned into some kind of gotcha or meme for the entire Trump thing. He's violent and encourages this. No, he's a victim of violent and dishonest protesters. None of which really applies. But the ego we're-never-wrong label may apply. Why not just settle this quietly before it got out of hand? it's all kind of stupid, frankly.

jr565 said...

I don't think this is in fact a political trial. Since Corey did grab her arm. But if you think it Has become a political trial, then it was even more important for the trump campaign NOT to go the direction they did.
Telling the press "she's a liar." "Then, "she didn't scream. Wouldn't a person scream if their arm was bruised" is the exact wrong way to minimize the damage.
There were two outcomes. One where Corey looks at the tape with Michelle and says "sorry. Wasn't my intent. But look, I didn't even realize there was a problem. How do we rectify this?" He wouldn't have been fired, no charges would be brought.
Which is worse?

JCC said...

@ Maybee -

It was always a crime. The decision is whether to prosecute. An apology might have/would have avoided the prosecution. Think of it like a traffic accident, where someone else runs into you. You can call the police, or you can settle bewteen yourselves to avoid reporting to the insurance companies and making everyone's rates go up. Either way, the other person is still at fault, but one way, he/she doesn't get a ticket. The traffic violation has occurred either way and is always there. But the other driver avoids a ticket and court if you agree to let them just fix your damages without calling the cops.

Similar to this. If the Trump people had fixed the damage with a little smoozing, no one would have called the cops I suspect.

JCC said...

To follow that analogy, I think everyone's rates are going up on this particular collision.

JCC said...

@ Peaceful Warrior -

No

JCC said...

@ AA -

"This is a post about wanting equal treatment and not political motives behind the use of the criminal law."

OK. In criminal prosecutions, the cases are always titled "State v John Doe" or similar, unlike civil cases which are styled "Me vs You". Generally, in more serious cases, at least theoretically, victims don't get to decide whether they want to prosecute. The government decides and victims are actually witnesses. In the real world, if the victims - essential to a prosecution - simply don't come to court, the case usually fails, although sometimes the government will go out and forcibly bring victims in to testify. And, of course, in, say, murder prosecutions, we never have to worry about the victim not showing. However, in minor crimes, like simple battery (and shoplifting, and bad checks, etc), the prosecution is discretionary and is usually up to the victim, who has to physically show up at the prosecutor's office, swear to the charges, come to court, etc.

So, if someone who has a political identity happens to violate a criminal statute and makes himself vulnerable to a discretionary criminal prosecution, that subsequent prosecution can't really be political unless the charges are not valid. We have seen that in some instances - John Doe investigation in Wisconsin, Rick Perry in Texas - but this particular case seems a little more substantive than those. There does seem to be a basis for a simple battery, if this occurred in a vacuum, but with the same evidence.

There is never going to be one set of absolute rules governing when misdemeanors are prosecuted. Your simple battery is a perfect example of that, since another person in your situation may have well insisted on prosecuting. They will always be discretion in minor crimes prosecutions, and where there is discretion, there will be disagreements about use and abuse of the discretion.

This thread is pretty obvious proof of that.

grackle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
grackle said...

Had he said right from the beginning that he might have moved a woman reporter who touched Trump, instead of denying everything and anything, he'd have my support. As it is, he lied terribly, and Trump is just protecting his own.

I think comments, mine among them, have been made that offer plausible explanations of how Lewandowski could have easily been merely mistaken about touching the reporter and may not have lied.

Do you think the bruises are fake?

I have questions.

Like, where was the photo taken? Was it taken in a MD’s examining room or in her boyfriend’s apartment? There’s a problem unless the answer is a doctor’s examining room.

When was the photo taken? Hours after? Days after? Months before? Is it even possible to establish when it was taken?

Are there any disinterested witnesses that actually saw the bruises after the incident. Boyfriends don’t qualify. A doctor would.

It should be on the table, unless you think it's OK for stronger people to manhandle weaker ones without consequences,

She was trying to stop Trump and his entourage in a crowd as Trump was leaving. She grabbed Trump herself. I for one would not like to see Trump shot by some crazy person in the crowd catching up with Trump while a silly, self-important reporter is stopping Trump from leaving in order to ask Trump an inane question. The reporters need to allow Trump to leave these events without physical hindrance. So, yes, in this case I’m perfectly fine with what happened.

If Corey had simply apologized and said it was inadvertent, she wouldn’t have pressed charges.

There seems to be a lot of mind readers and psychics with precognition among the Trump detractors. He didn’t and she did so now we’ll never know.

A legal question about her requested apology: couldn't that leave Lewandowski, Trump, and/or the Trump campaign open to civil liability?

A good point. Wish I had made it.

She didn’t' want to make a big deal out of it at the time.

Does telling a fellow reporter at a prominent newspaper to “go” with the story count as making a “big deal out of it?” I think it does and it was allegedly recorded immediately after the incident that according to the video evidence is a conversation that she and her fellow reporter didn’t have time enough to have. No, she DID make a “big deal” of it and she sure did NOT waste any time doing it.

I was walking with my mother. Some teenagers ran by and knocked my mom to the ground.

The main problem here is the fact that NOBODY was knocked to the ground.

… they told her and her editor that Corey did do it …

Here I’m thinking it doesn’t much matter what “they” said. Evidently she did not speak to Corey himself.

I'll believe Democrats believe Lewandowski's actions were a problem when they themselves act like it's a problem.

We have a Bingo! A shiny new General Electric crock pot for this lucky cardholder!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 221   Newer› Newest»