April 9, 2016

"Oh my god, it’s like the Zapruder film—if nothing had happened."

Said Bill Maher about the Corey Lewandowski video.
“But everybody on the left had to say—and this is what I hate when liberals do, when they mimic the stupidity of the right—they had to get on team ‘he almost killed her.’ And this woman said, and she was talking about the whole event, she said, ‘This has to be, aside from my father’s death, the worst experience I’ve gone through,’ and I thought, ‘What a charmed, lucky, clueless white girl life you have lived if that’s the worst thing that happened to you.’ Do we have to politicize everything?”

“[Lewandowski] shouldn’t have been [arrested]! It’s not assault!” Maher exclaimed later, adding, “If you cut in line in a bathroom at a nightclub, would there be an assault charge? Nobody can take someone’s arm anymore in America? That’s assault?”

95 comments:

Tim said...

I just hate agreeing with Maher. Makes me feel assaulted.

cubanbob said...

Tim said...
I just hate agreeing with Maher. Makes me feel assaulted.

4/9/16, 1:38 PM"

Indeed, agreed. Maher is the most unusual of broken clocks, he is only right once a day.

chuck said...

The prosecutor is connected to the Hillary campaign, so of *course* it was assault. And, of course, Trump could have handled it better. The man doesn't seem to know the word "allie". Fields worked for the very pro Trump Breitbart News Network.

Hagar said...

Lewandoski's problem is not that he grabbed her arm, but that he then lied about it.

Ann Althouse said...

"Lewandoski's problem is not that he grabbed her arm, but that he then lied about it."

You don't know if he lied unless you know his state of mind. Also, the woman accused him of doing something much more than what we see in the video, so if he denied doing that, he was correct. I'm not sure what he said, but I'm not seeing the main accusation against him being that he lied, only that it's technically a crime, battery, and that he did it to a woman.

dbp said...

It is not as if "nothing happened". Whether yanking someone by the arm amounts to assault is a fair question, but let's not pretend that nothing happened. I am not a lawyer but have heard that intent is an important thing in law, so doesn't lying about the event indicate mens rea?

dbp said...

He claimed that he never touched her, so there can be little doubt of his intentional deceit.

pm317 said...

Heard Cruz's people were behind bringing the charges.

n.n said...

The traffic laws in a congested room must be enforced. So, who had the right of way?

Darleen said...

Jaysus, Mary and Joseph ...

Maher is upset that everything is politicized but then says "he shouldn't have been arrested" (as well as the usual racist nonsense)

Why are people so effing clueless about the judicial system?

1. Police took a report
2. Police forward report to DA
3. DA evaluates report, decides to file MISDEMEANOR charge
4. DA can either send an arraignment letter or issue a bench warrant - full discretion.
5. the defendant can now come to court on arraignment date & plea; if they get word of the bw, can go to (in person or through rep) court and enter a plea and get pre-trial date. Or go to LE agency, "surrender", and sign a promise-to-appear cite.

I'm sure the DA decided to issue a BW instead of setting an arraignment date a couple of months in the future because the guy wasn't a local resident and this would be the quickest way to get him into court.

The LE agency sent no one to go track him down and perp walk him back to the station.

:::sigh:::

He intentionally grabbed her with enough force to leave marks. Don't know where Maher got his legal training, but that's enough to qualify for misdemeanor battery (in CA it's PC242).

Curious George said...

I hate his politics and belief system. But often enough he does tell the truth....

Birkel said...

"...it's technically a crime..." -- Althouse

What other laws are "technically crimes" that you wish to treat this way?

If the answer is "repeal these laws that are malum prohibita and reintroduce mens rea where the legislatures have removed it", then I say well met and glad to have you along for the fight. If the answer is further that the federal government should remove itself from its over-expansive view of federal criminal law, then even better.

Now, if you could convince other Leftists...

coupe said...

Just before the Roman Empire fell, spitting on dirt became a felony.

Gusty Winds said...

The irony is that as a reporter, Michelle Fields is supposed to accurately report on what she observes. Her descriptions vs what is on video is crazy. She now has to hang on to this situation for dear life. She just destroyed her career as a reporter, and now has to figure out how to stay afloat as a pretend victim.

She better hope Trump becomes President or her 15 minutes of fame will end in 10 minutes.

Mary Beth said...

The man doesn't seem to know the word "allie".

Who's Allie and what does she have to do with this?

glenn said...

Sounds to me like Mr. Maher is starting to recognize the extent of his prior transgressions.

Big Mike said...

Indeed, agreed. Maher is the most unusual of broken clocks, he is only right once a day.

Less than that. Much more seldom than that.

Memo to campaign managers everywhere. You are not part of the security detail. Even so, Maher is right. This is a blown up kerfuffle targeted at embarrassing Donald Trump. However it is not clear that Trump is capable of being embarrassed so what's the point?

Jason said...

If it's "technically a crime" then "technically" Hillary should be looking at years over intentionally mishandling classified documents.

n.n said...

When Fields could not report a story, she became the story.

The press do not know how to behave in public. She should have been removed after multiple violations of social etiquette and invading the security zone of a presidential candidate.

petedrum said...

No, taking one's arm is battery.

mezzrow said...

I hate it when I agree with Maher.

That said, I agree with Maher.

eric said...

Maher is right about this. She is playing to the special snowflake crowd. She is having some success because Lewindowski isn't a sympathetic character.

But she lied. From the very beginning her boyfriend turned this into a terrible assault on twitter. Lewindowski probably "touched" dozens of people while at that rally. If he had done to Fields as her supporters, and later, she claimed? I'd have said the same thing. If never touched her.

This is the charm of the Trump camp that many don't understand. They speak in normaleese. Language we all use every day. Unlike politicians and lawyers, who want him to have said something more specific, he spoke like a normal human being. I never touched her, he said. And he was right.

Until you get the word police involved, anyway.

augustus said...

If Lewindowskin is guilty of battery on Fields, Fields is guilty of battery on Trump.

Unknown said...

Very sad when maher makes more sense than the writers at nro and weekly standard combined. When I posted "is that it" I was asked how I would like my wife to be assaulted at nro.

The one thing trump has shown me, is that both the right and the left will say and do anything to keep their snouts buried deep in the trough.
Pretty disgusting to realize the folks saying politicians are all alike, are correct. And then to find out the conservative media is also the same as the left really opens this 50 year republican straight party voters eyes.

I should have learned from the Perot takedown.

Hagar said...

Professor, he said he had never met her, did not know her, and had not touched her. That is "touched," never mind "grabbed."

Michael Fitzgerald said...

The jackass has it completely backward, as is usual with progressives. This is a rare case of the right mimicking t
What the left constantly does. This is just some war-on-women nonsense being appropriated in order to damage someone the GOP doesn't like. Don't sweat it, asshole- they'll give it back when they are done with it.

Big Mike said...

Anyway, it's called "lawfare." Democrat prosecutors apply prosecutorial discretion, often supplemented by fanciful interpretations of the not-quite-applicable laws, to harass Republicans and other organizations that do not share the Progressive mind meld (e.g., the Competitive Enterprise Institute). You'd think some of these prosecutors would be ashamed, but I understand that shame is surgically removed during the second year of law school. No doubt Professor Althouse can confirm this.

The Drill SGT said...

My test would be:

If the Secret Service had done this, and they do it a lot, would this be battery?

The Drill SGT said...

Big Mike said... You'd think some of these prosecutors would be ashamed, but I understand that shame is surgically removed during the second year of law school. No doubt Professor Althouse can confirm this.

When I was enlisted and a company grade officer, we used to talk about the Lobotomy done to field grade (Major and above officers). Is this the same thing?

Birkel said...

The Secret Service has protection under the law, The Drill SGT. Lewandowski does not.

The contemporaneous account of the WaPo reporter and Fields, caught on tape, should be believed much more than any other evidence. The "video" is incomplete and gives dangerously little perspective because it is frames and not continuous.

I have said before, and say again, that this should not have been charged as a crime. But the credibility people wish to betray on this issue, on all sides, is breathtaking.

boycat said...

I'm sure she'll be fine.

Big Mike said...

@Drill SGT, I spent nearly all of my service in the Pentagon. What I learned there is that (1) the phrase "commissioned officers and lieutenants" has a germ of truth; (2) in my experience, captains and majors were all right guys; and (3) light colonels usually got "stars in their eyes" and became insufferable. Colonels and Navy Captains (same rank) could be great guys -- if they were pretty sure that they were going to get one or more stars on their shoulders; or bitter, and stay out of their way.

AReasonableMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
WeRetort said...

MF exaggerated ("yanked me down").
CL lied ("I never touched you").
Neither one is being prosecuted for their inaccurate statements.
CL is being prosecuted because he grabbed MF hard enough to cause physical injury (bruises). The physical injury is what makes thus case strong enough to go to a jury.

traditionalguy said...

The overhead surveillance shows the Defendant inserted and removed his arm to fend her off Trump as a walked by her. There was time for a half second unseen grab as he passed her.

Her proof was red marks that had to be two hands applied hard or one hand grabbing and
Pulling her twice, which did not happen. So he did not make the marks, not that it matters to assholes out to destroy him in the name of the Law.

The Drill SGT said...

Big Mike said...
@Drill SGT, I spent nearly all of my service in the Pentagon. What I learned there is that (1) the phrase "commissioned officers and lieutenants"


LOL,

The last time I was in a Tank Battalion, we used to have football games between the Officers versus the LT's

The SGT Major was the Ref.

The Officers usually won. The Bn Cdr was a good QB and the Captains out massed the skinny LT's



cubanbob said...

If this nonsense is a crime that is jail-able then Hillary Clinton should be taking a ride on Ole Sparky.

rcocean said...

Here is Michelle Fields Lying about what happened:


"I wasn’t called upon to ask a question during the televised press conference, but afterwards Trump wandered around, stopping at every reporter to take their questions. When he approached me, I asked him about his view on an aspect of affirmative action.

Trump acknowledged the question, but before he could answer I was jolted backwards. Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down. I almost fell to the ground, but was able to maintain my balance. Nonetheless, I was shaken.

The Washington Post’s Ben Terris immediately remarked that it was Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who aggressively tried to pull me to the ground. I quickly turned around and saw Lewandowski and Trump exiting the building together. No apology. No explanation for why he did this."

rcocean said...

Really, I wonder why National Review and others are willing Lie about this. Its good that Maher told the truth.

Birkel said...

"AReasonableMan":

Your inability to make sense shall cause me zero nights of sleeplessness. If it were otherwise, I would suffer poor health and neuroses beyond diagnosis.

If only you were not so damned stupid. Alas and alack...

Birkel said...

rcocean:

Familiarize yourself with the contemporaneous recording made by the WaPo reporter.

Bruce Hayden said...

He intentionally grabbed her with enough force to leave marks. Don't know where Maher got his legal training, but that's enough to qualify for misdemeanor battery (in CA it's PC242).

Except that a number of doctors, including, I believe Michael K here, have asserted that the sort of touching, and even grabbing, alleged wouldn't have left those bruises. They apparently just don't match the type of bruises that she would have gotten if her story had been true.

Of course, we don't really know what happened there, since the video didn't show the sort of grabbing that she is alleging. And, yes, I agree with the previous poster about this probably being Lawfare.

Michael K said...

"Fields worked for the very pro Trump Breitbart News Network."

I have no idea why she has done this but I watched all the videos and I don't see anything that could cause those bruises. If he touched her at all it was near the elbow and those bruises are near the wrist. She and the other guy quit Breitbart and made a big deal of it. I suspect careers are involved.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Of course, I don't hate agreeing with Maher as his haters above, do - but that's because we're usually right. And in this case I'm glad he brought up something that I'd had my own nagging reservations about. Is it really assault? How stupid to suppose it is. But I asked a law student about an argument like this years ago, and she said it was any "unwanted" touching. I then asked her if someone you weren't fancying at the moment just reached out and took your hand to shake it and she told me I was ridiculous because such a gesture is common in our "culture." So now I guess America is a monoculture uses its own supposed norms to define its own laws. I guess we don't need legal definitions any more!

So Althouse is legally right. It's the male-female angle. But a stupid claim. If it actually caused physical injury I'd change my mind, which Darleen apparently says I should do on account of "leaving marks". I guess I should go the doctor the next time I see something on my body that I don't find visually or aesthetically pleasing and call it a damaging injury, demanding that he immediately treat it or else I'll sue him for malpractice. If I scrape a piece of skin I'll demand he uses stitches on it and concealer before I call my congressman and haul his ass off to jail for the night. Dontcha know? Damaging one's ego is distressful! I like the looks of my perfect, unblemished body.

I could just use this completely ludicrous "emotional distress" standard that we use to define almost all breaches of law nowadays. Emotional and social distress. As a woman, she felt that he embarrassed her. So no other remedy can be made short of castrating him and taking all his money and reputation, so that somehow only then will America finally feel restituted. Oh, the wonders of those original SJWs we know of as "the American legal industry".

jr565 said...

Ann Althouse wrote:
You don't know if he lied unless you know his state of mind. Also, the woman accused him of doing something much more than what we see in the video, so if he denied doing that, he was correct.

Did she though? She said he yanked her arm and almost knocked her to the ground. There can certainly be some degree of perspective on either side that's different. i.e. she thinks the yank is harder than he does becuase he yanked her arm, and not the other way around, but she might also think becuase she felt it very painfully that he did something more than yank her arm in a nondescript fashion.
Its rashomon. Both sides have their side of the story. However, he did yank her arm. She felt it. If it wasnt' that big a deal, then don't turn it into huge deal by calling the person who made the allegation a liar.

Also, when she says it was the worst thing that happened to her since her fathers death she wasn't just talking about her arm being yanked. it was the entirety of the event. Where she gets her arm yanked. Then when she complains she gets called a liar. Breitbart doesnt' stand with her. Eric Bolling's cashin' in stops using her. etc etc etc. Maher himself is engaged in hyperbole if he's saying that the arm pulling alone was what she was complaining about.

jr565 said...

Michael K wrote:
I have no idea why she has done this but I watched all the videos and I don't see anything that could cause those bruises

The yanking caused teh bruises. you are now saying she lied about the bruises, and made up the story. This is the exact problem with Trump and his supporters. It didn't have to be this way if Trump simply learned how to apologize for what he deems an accidental event.

But does he really think that? no. He cant' even commit the fact that perhaps Corey did yank her arm and bruises were left. so instead he suggests she made up the bruises.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM. Trump and his campaign do this over and over and over. When an ad comes out that puts his wife in a bad light he immediately slams Ted Cruz directly. And his proof is "it's just common sense" that's about as substantial as your argument about the bruises.
He did it again in his concession speech the other day when he slandered Ted Cruz and his campaign for commiting FRAUD.
http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/04/09/bill-kristol-wipes-floor-trump-mouthpiece-donalds-slandering-ted-cruz/

"BILL KRISTOL, EDITOR, “THE WEEKLY STANDARD”: Seems a little more incoherent than usual and that’s saying something for Donald Trump.

I think he’s rattled. I mean, that statement they put out last night, you lose a primary. You go on to the next one. You graciously accept defeat. He didn’t even show up in person to do that. You couldn’t quite make yourself do that. Fine. You put out a paper statement.

He puts out a — really a psychotic statement that accuses, Kellyanne here, people of breaking the law.

BURNETT: That Super PAC is coordinating with the Cruz campaign.

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOL: That’s a serious legal charge. Kevin knows more about this than I do, right? I mean, to say coordination, it’s a criminal charge basically, could be. And there’s no evidence — they ever even bother to back it up. They throw it out in their non-concession statement after losing Wisconsin. What kind of campaign is that?"

talking out of his ass is no way to show you are fit to be president. How many times are teh Trumpbots going to look past the fact that he smears recklessly?
If he didn't want this to be a big issue, then he should have done what every other campaign would do. Simply say "oops. didn't realize. But, I'm sorry". No Trumpbot can even bring themselves to suggest that he might have handled this wrong. They too need to double down on the fact that she is a liar. When a simple apology would have sufficed.

Ken B said...

Christ on a crutch what a shitty story to link to. I mean the writing in that article and on that site in general.

Ken B said...

I guess shitty slanted sites like that are written to appeal to jr565 and his ilk.

Sebastian said...

"Do we have to politicize everything?” We don't, but "we" do. If Prog prosecutor decides charges serve Prog purposes, they are fair and proper; otherwise, not. Equal Prog justice under law.

"I should have learned from the Perot takedown." The Perot takedown of Bush that gave us 8 years of Clinton? Is that part of what you "learned"?

Guildofcannonballs said...

"When a simple apology would have sufficed."

Boy, you're something else*.

Unless, and I don't think you do, you mean "simple" as in the Coen's great Blood Simple^.

Or "country stupid" redefined to suit your purposes which is awesome, and I thank and salute you for it.

*as the emcee said

^The DVD with the "remastered" "director's cut" bullshit is terrific. A weirdly named Mortimer Young gives a one minute introduction of "forever young" films or some shit, and then just bullshits through the entire film without a care of what's going on beyond the most facile insights like "the fly is a mechanical fly, The Directors are such great craftsmen they would never allow a live animal fly to interrupt the scene as they had envisioned in their minds" or something like that. Just all bullshit and the movie itself is too low to hear, so all you hear it this shit. I always figured it was a satire of directors thinking they can better explain their movie with a voiceover throughout instead of making a movie people want to watch, ya know, on it's own.

But it is really funny once you know the story cars and dog and big Texas gusto and just enjoy the bullshit narrated (vocally with total disregard through complete obstraction* of the actual, ya know, film).

I considered it, and still do, as a statement from true artists about art and commerce and just celebrating art-hating directors existing as being small douches instead of in on the whole "other people have interesting things of many to present" via God.

jr565 said...

ken B wrote:
I linked to a red state article. If you think red state is a website for "my ilk" I don't particularly mind considering it's not a bad site. It's currently very anti Trump, but that is not surprising considering it's a conservative website. If you are a lefty I can see why you wouldn't want to read anything from it. And if you are a trump supporter , I can see why as well. YOUR ILK probablgot your degree from Trump University, and gets all of your news from Andrea Tantarros and Ann Coulter. And would be the type that would forgive him if he shot someone in the street. The very rube he says he relies on to get elected.

At any rate, I linked to it because it was the place thst had the video and transcript that brought up what bill Kristol said. I only referenced that statement not what Red State said about the statement.
If there is another site that also has that bit of video that you'd prefer me to link to instead, let me know.

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

Guildofcannonballs wrote:
"When a simple apology would have sufficed."

Boy, you're something else*.

Unless, and I don't think you do, you mean "simple" as in the Coen's great Blood Simple^.

I mean if they had offered a simple apology instead of smearing her she wouldn't have brought the charges. The cops looked at the tape and determined there was a battery there. They could have looked at the tape and said nothing happened. But they didn't. So, you, and Bill obviously don't know what constitutes a battery.
Here's the timeline though - She was in the office with her editor and they spoke with the campaign and the campaign acknowledged that Corey did grab her, but he didnt realize she was from Breitbart That's her story about the conversation thst took place between Trumps campaign and her and her editor. There is no indication thst any of this is false..
At the time no Charges were brought. And wouldn't be brought. Because Corey was going to offer an apology, or an explanation. As would be assumed from any other campaign that doesn't have its head totally up its ass. At the time she was shaken by the "assault" but wasn't treating it like an assault.

So again, "a simple apology would have sufficed" she was told that that's what the trump campaign would do. If they stop this in its tracks by being civil she doesn't press charges. If she doesn't press charges cops don't look at the tape and determine there is a battery. And Corey doesn't get charged. And Bill Maher doesn't step in and opine about the issue.
However, what happened instead. Trump and his crew all started not only not apologizing but saying she made it up. That she had done it before. That she couldn't possibly be hurt. That it was a total fabrication. And Breitbart, which is in the tank for Trump took his side and led her out to dry. So, now she has to file a report because they are now calling her a liar and her reputation is on the line.
If you think this is the proper way for a campaign to deal with damage control, I guess I can't dissuade you otherwise. But people with a lick of sense would clearly understand that this was not the way to handle this issue. The trumpbots seem insistent on beating this dead horse though. So, I have no sympathy for Corey at this point.
Should have apologized. Now you're charged with battery. Maybe next time, don't act like an asshole.

jr565 said...

Hers Loyd Grovef the daily beast describing what happened:
breitbart initially said:
“It’s obviously unacceptable that someone crossed a line and made physical contact with our reporter,” said the Breitbart statement, issued under the name of Larry Solov, the outlet’s CEO and president. “What Michelle has told us directly is that someone ‘grabbed her arm’ and while she did not see who it was, Ben Terris of The Washington Post told her that it was Corey Lewandowski. If that’s the case, Corey owes Michelle an immediate apology.”

So, let's u pack this initial statement. What did she say? Thst someone grabbed her arm. Is this true or not? Apparently it is. She didn't. Initially know who did it but was corroborated by Ben Terris. So, either he is a liar too. Or it happened and has corroboration.
So let's assume it did happen. What does Breitbart think should happen?
An apology is required. HELLO! This is common sensical. Why are the trumbots on this site insisting that someone Corey could accost any member of the press and thst an apology wouldn't be required?
So my question is, why didn't Corey just offer the apology? Before denigrating Michelle fields further why not simply address the elephant in the room. An apology was warranted. The trump campaign, even just to stave off bad press, should have offered it. If now their guy is charged with assault, it's because he didn't do what Breitbart asked. Which should have been evident to anyone with a modicum of common sense. Which is why Breitbart said an apology was required.
As to Michelle Fields, I actually watched her on Cashin In on Fox. I can't say for sure thst she was a trump supporter. But she was no liberal. Considering she worked at Breitbart, who are in the tank for Trump I can't imagine she was overly hostile to Trump. She may have even been a trump supporter. So in addition to a potential battery the Trump camp couldn't even hold back from smearing a potential ally. Not smart.

jr565 said...

(Cont) if any leftists are saying he tried to kill her then they are clearly engaged in hyperbole. Because Michelle never stated anything other than that someone grabbed her hard. She didn't say he tried to kill her, or rape her. So we shouldn't overstate the charge and suggest Corey was engaged in a blatant assault. But let's not minimize it either. A misdemeanor battery should not be ignored simply because it's not a felony. Especially when no one is claiming it was a felony.
When this first happened Matthew Boyle of Breitbart tweeted Corey directly to get his side of the story. He said "hey dude, what happened with Michelle tonight. Is everything ok?"
Corey replies: Who?
Matthew: Michelle is our reporter we sent to Jupiter. It sounds like it was a misunderstanding. nothing bad"
Corey: Don't know her.
Matthew: Ok. I wanna make sure this doesn't turn into a big story. It sounds to me like it was a misunderstanding"

http://mediamatters.org/tags/matthew-boyle

Do you not see how Breitbart was already saying they thought it was a misunderstanding? And that by not acknowledging this it could turn into a bigger story? Breitbart literally gave the campaign an out. They could have said "it was a misunderstanding. Corey seems to not know what Mathtew is talking about.so, it very well may have been thst if he did grab her arm he may not have even realized he did so (or he's professing ignorance because he doesn't want to acknowledge it might be a problem).
There is a smart way to handle this, and a dumb way. Mathew gave them the smart way out. They instead took the dumb way out
And as Mathew warned it became a bigger story. I don't know how you can argue otherwise.

Corey was not well served by this because now he's on the hook for a battery. If maher thinks he shouldn't be charged with a battery, well, take it up with the the cops. But he should at least acknowledge thst this wouldn't be a story at all if the trump campaign weren't so stupid.

Chuck said...

I want to remind everyone here that "injurious" touching is not required, for a charge of simple battery. All of the debate about whether the bruising was really caused by Corey's grabbing is misplaced. It doesn't matter.

And it also is a strawman argument, to suggest that a charge in the Corey Lewandowski case means that any of us could be charged with battery for bumping into someone on an elevator, or tapping someone on the shoulder to get past them in a crowded hallway. No; that supposition also misses the mark.

A wide variety of battery case law from a wide variety of jurisdictions supports the general rule that if unwanted touching is either injurious, or intended to be injurious, or is objectively offensive to the victim, then a charge for battery (or a civil cause of action for tortious battery) will lie with the complainant/plaintiff.

I think this is a clear case where -- given additional factors -- a charge of simple battery can be properly laid. There was unwanted touching. It was injurious, according to the (apparent) witness statement of the victim, and it was offensive by an objective standard. The defendant (clearly, I'd say) publicly lied about the incident. I don't know what he might have said in any statement to investigators; that too might have been hurtful to his cause. If he lied to police officers, saying that he never touched her, and then the hotel surveillance video showed that he did, than that is pretty awful for avoiding a charge.

There's more. There's the Lloyd Grove story in which he says that sources disclosed that Lewandowski called the Washington editor of Breitbart and tried to smooth things over, saying that he (Lewandowski) mistook her for another media stringer; the understanding being that he would otherwise have let a Breitbart reporter have a little slack. (Defeating any possible excuse that Lewandowski was only seeing to protect his candidate's physical security.)

I am very, very surprised at Althouse's dismissive tone in this case. I expect loose talk and low-grade legal thinking from Bill Maher. I would never expect it from Althouse.

tim in vermont said...

Chuck proves with geometric logic, (that's a movie reference, Chuck ) that he has no understanding of normal human interaction.

Birkel said...

Chuck overestimated Althouse.

Lem said...

I believe Trump said there was no Cry For Help.

Michael K said...

you are now saying she lied about the bruises, and made up the story.

Yes, I am and I wonder at the hysterical reaction by Trump haters. Chuck included.

I want to remind everyone here that "injurious" touching is not required, for a charge of simple battery. All of the debate about whether the bruising was really caused by Corey's grabbing is misplaced. It doesn't matter.

Nothing matters in the world of feminism and victimhood culture.

Just hope you are never accused, Chuck. If you are, you are shit out of luck.

Howard said...

Mickael K: I am surprised that you of all people would claim that Lewandowski, the misogynist douche-bag, did not cause those bruises on Fields, the professional victim attention whore. As a surgeon, I would have assumed you had to have a very strong grip back in the day. If I grab someone and pull them back, there will be bruises because of the gripping action, which in this case is completely invisible from our viewing eyes.

I remember my mother, god bless her, had a vise-like grip from eons of baking without a power mixer. I still have bruises from her grabbing me for just a millisecond more than fifty years ago.

Then, you play the doctor card from the bottom of the deck to cover your obvious idiotic conclusion to support a narrative that you greedily sell like laetrile to Steve McQueen in TJ. If it walks like a duck and... Corey obviously had to grip Michelle hard to pull her back without his hand slipping off of her arm. Maybe you have never done this move (or had this done to you) playing football, basketball or in a fight or scrum.

Your slip is showing, Nancy.

Michael K said...

Then, you play the doctor card from the bottom of the deck to cover your obvious idiotic conclusion to support a narrative that you greedily sell like laetrile to Steve McQueen in TJ

Brilliant, Howard. Where did you acquire the x-ray vision that allowed you to see what was not in the videos ?

Steve McQueen did not go to TJ, asshole. It was Juarez, dipshit.

Howard said...

Chuck: you and your establishment returdlikins whom are agast at teh Dronald immediately bring this sketch to mind.

Upper-Class Twit of the Year

Howard said...

Physics Mike, simple physics. McQueen died in an OR in Juarez after he got laetrile treatments in TJ. It must be a mother-fucking bitch to keep relying on "trust me I'm a doctor" in the age of google.

Ebert Remembers Steve McQueen

PB said...

Will anyone ever look up the meaning of words, particularly when used in a legal context?

Assault means the threat of imminent violence. No touching required.

Theodore James said...

Oh for heaven's sake Ms Field's plaints are petty.

If she wants to scrum with the press clique she's going to get jostled.

There was a time when a journalist regarded such things as a mark of pride.

jr565 said...

Michael K wrote:
Yes, I am and I wonder at the hysterical reaction by Trump haters. Chuck included.

Prove it.

jr565 said...

Michael k wrote:
Nothing matters in the world of feminism and victimhood culture.

Just hope you are never accused, Chuck. If you are, you are shit out of luck.

I'm not a supporter of either feminism OR victimhood culture. Victimhood culture makes one a victim when no harm is actually done. (things like cultural appropriation or trigger warnings and micro aggressions) I totally agree with you on that.
A battery is literally a violent action. So, if you are the victim of a battery you ARE a victim. Now you might say, its not THAT bad.
People who are the victims of a misdemeanor battery do not have to hold their tongue because they aren't the victims of a felonious battery. You might as well say anyone who is the victim of a battery that doesn't involve you winding up in a hospital needs to shut up. No, how about the person who commits the battery not commit the battery?

If you want to get off of Trump for a second, lets instead talk about the woman who grabbed the white guy and tried telling him he can't wear dreadlocks. She literally grabbed him. he could charge her with battery. Now, he wasn't really hurt, so didn't do so, but he could have. But suppose she yanked his arm as he walked by to the point where it hurt and then started telling him he couldn't have dreadlocks. I would have no problem if he pressed charges against her. Because she accosted him, put her hands on him, and then injured him. I don't care if she didn't injure him THAT much. DOn't put your hands on people. Would you say that he would be a crybaby if he pressed charges? Or would you say he was a crybaby? Why would he have to suck it up and take it while the person who actually is grabbing people gets to walk away scott free, when she was the one who grabbed him? that would seem to incentivize grabbing people in the middle of arguments. since you are saying, essentially people can do it and shouldn't be charged.

Phil 3:14 said...

Michael,
I'm a doctor also. Yes it could have left a bruise. So let's move on, shall we...

jr565 said...

Corey, instead of just apologizing and then moving on said that Michelle lied about being knocked over by cops during occupy wall street protest.
heres a tweet showing the picture of her getting knocked over by the cops during the occupy wall street protest:

https://twitter.com/Jamie_Weinstein/status/708011074176552961
So, Corey apparently is lying about this too. And again, this is how Trump and corey wanted to handle this. Rather than simply acknowledge that maybe he did grab her and not mean to do it, no she's liar. Well, actually the liars appear to be the ones smearing people.

jr565 said...

actually that is a picture of her at the occupy wall street rally knocked off her feet. It does't prove that the cops knocked her off her feet, but it doesn't show she is a liar either. Here is her accounting of the story http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/17/daily-caller-reporter-videographer-assaulted-by-nypd-during-occupy-protests/

This could be the picture where the cop helps her back up. Point being though, that something happened at the protest where she was knocked off her feet. There is no indication she is lying about what happened.

Thirty minutes after smearing her about her incident with cops Corey then went on twitter and said she said Allan West had groped her but later went silent. So, in other words, she lies about getting groped. she's an attention whore.

only, she wasn't the one who made the claim. three separate people made the allegation that they saw Allan West grab her breast by an elevator. However, when asked about it she refused to comment on the record:

http://gotnews.com/breaking-exclusive-allen-west-has-sexually-harassed-at-least-two-women/

So, did Allen West grab her breast? Well, it kind of sounds like he might have. What proof is corey offering that he didn't and that she lied about it? considering she didn't go on record I'm not going to say Allen did or didn't. but it didn't stop Corey from accusing her of lying.

jr565 said...

since we are smearing people lets talk about Corey for a second. He seems to have anger management issues:

"Some of his most fiery clashes came with a female official who ran one of the states under Lewandowski’s control. The relationship ― and patience for Lewandowski within AFP ― reached a tipping point in October 2013. On the sidelines of a meeting of the group’s board in Manhattan, Lewandowski loudly berated the employee for challenging his authority, getting in her personal space and calling her a “c**t” in front of a group of AFP employees, including some senior officials, according to three sources who either witnessed the exchange or dealt with its aftermath.
"
So he yells at women and calls them cunts? Not very professional.

Michael K said...

More Trump hate.

"the woman who grabbed the white guy and tried telling him he can't wear dreadlocks. She literally grabbed him"

And the video showed it, didn't it.

You people are talking about an incident that DID NOT HAPPEN !

The bruises are another issue.

"Yes it could have left a bruise. So let's move on, shall we..."

So, you are content that, at worst, a brushing touch at her elbow could leave bruises at her wrist.

What are you, a psychiatrist ?

Darrell said...

a brushing touch at her elbow

Or shoulder, as the video shows. Lewandowski sheepdogged her to change her direction.

My guess is that this was a setup, with the WaPo reporter in on it--he was doing a story about the violence surrounding the Trump campaign, and trying to link a large part of that violence to Lewandowski. The WaPo reporter had a WaPo photographer shadowing Fields, but the guy didn't get any usable pictures--to the fake narrative. The photog lied and said he wasn't there, but some people re-posted pics he had sent from his Twitter acct showing his watermark/credit tag. Fields boyfriend was also shadowing the action. You can see the dork wearing a plaid shirt watching her, not Trump and the action. They were all set to stand around her and point it out--like the Occupy Wall Street people did by chanting "The whole world is watching." even though you can never see police touching her until she is on the ground and they offer her a hand to get up.

MayBee said...

If she got pushed to the ground for real during occupy wall street, why was being grabbed by Corey Lewandowsky worse?

Che Dolf said...

Darleen - He intentionally grabbed her with enough force to leave marks.

You don't know that. In the one video we have that shows actual contact, it looks like Lewandowski grabs her upper arm. Her bruise is closer to her wrist than her elbow.

Chuck said...


MayBee said...
If she got pushed to the ground for real during occupy wall street, why was being grabbed by Corey Lewandowsky worse?



1. The NYPD has a lot more legal justification to make physical contact with a person on the street, than does a private person like Corey Lewandowski.

2. The NYPD's rough treatment of Michelle Fields was, at least arguably, less "intentional" touching than was the case with Corey Lewandowski. The New York cops were dealing with dozens of uncooperative protesters lying on a public street. It was in fact a difficult public disturbance for the cops. Corey Lewnadowski, on the other hand, targeted Michelle Fields while she was walking with Trump and asking him a question.

3. The NYPD didn't immediately go on a public relations attack against Michelle Fields.


Chuck said...

Micahel K:

I am curious where exactly you think I have slipped into the mode of "hysterical" in the matter of Florida v. Lewandowski?

I've confessed more times than I can recall, my hatred of Donald Trump, and his candidacy, and even a great many of his supporters. I think he's a very poor general election candidate in a winnable year for Republicans. And it is partly personal; I think he's a stupid man who appeals to stupid people. But my recollection is that you really aren't a Trump supporter so it wouldn't include you in any event.

I thought that my argument here was based purely on the surveillance video, the standard law school definition of simple battery, and the record of Lewandowski's own actions in the aftermath of the event in question. What part is "hysterical"?

jr565 said...

Michael K wrote:
And the video showed it, didn't it.

You people are talking about an incident that DID NOT HAPPEN !

But he wasn't HURT by the grabbing. according to you, its not a crime if he's not howling in pain.
And the video does show that she was grabbed/yanked. Its hard to see it because its' not actually a video. Rather its a collection of photographs taken in quick succession made to look like a video.
But you can see it happen on the video. We then have audio two seconds after the video where she says OWW, and has corroborating testimony where the person saw it happen and let her know it wasnt' a security guard but Corey himself. (since she didnt' initially know). So, plesae stop pretending like it never happened.

Michael K said...

"But my recollection is that you really aren't a Trump supporter so it wouldn't include you in any event."

I am still mulling things over although I think he may be the only one the GOP can win with. I think the best course would be for Cruz to join him as VP nominee on the assumption that Trump is probably a one term president. That would avoid a destructive convention battle and allow the party to focus on the general election. It would also allow some other senior people, like Gingrich and others, to assume roles and help him govern.

I fear the hysteria among the Establishment is making that less likely.

"the standard law school definition of simple battery, and the record of Lewandowski's own actions in the aftermath of the event in question. "

I watched all the videos several times and did not see anything that approached what I would consider "battery." I am not a lawyer but have testified in court on criminal and civil matters probably 100 times.

Some of the stories are in my book.

I think I used the "hysteria" term for the GOPe. I think you are just a hater.

Michael K said...

"And the video does show that she was grabbed/yanked"

Maybe there is another video showing that. Please post a link.

jr565 said...

Che Dolf wrote:
"You don't know that. In the one video we have that shows actual contact, it looks like Lewandowski grabs her upper arm. Her bruise is closer to her wrist than her elbow."

So you should probably tell Michael K that the picture shows he does grab her. Because he's under the impression that it never happened. are you acknowledging it did?

jr565 said...

"Maybe there is another video showing that. Please post a link."
THIS video shows it. It's hard to see because the video is not really a video, but rather photographs taken a split second a part. so there are gaps in the picture. But you can see here get pushed back as he's walking by. It shows it.
There is also audio testimony where she says someone grabbed her seconds after the incident occured. And eyewitness testimony backs it up that it was Corey that yanked her arm.
So we have a video that shows her getting moved back, corroborated by testimony that she said she was grabbed, and eyewitness testimony that Corey was the one that did it. I dont know what more you think should be offered as proof.

jr565 said...

(cont) AND as I already stated, Corey and the Trump campaign had an out since they could have expressed ignorance of the event. Namely simply said" Oh, did we grab someone's arm? Sorry, didnt' even know it happened". That COULD be a legitimate argument.
Breitbart even called them and said "what happened with our reporter. We think it might have been an accident or a mistake". they were giving the campaign an out. I don't get the degree to which Trumpbots refuse to accept that this might have happened. But even more so, i dont' get why they can't simply acknowledge that this was handled wrong.
If, as Maher said "nothing happened" well then you have your answer as to handle it. "Sorry, didnt' realize it happened". Why can't Michael K and his ilk accept that this was the way to handle this issue?
Do you really think insinuating that she lied about getting her breast touched by Allen West (when she refused to comment) was the way to go? Just own up to it and say it was inadvertant.
Jesus Christ. Its a big issue, exactly as Breitbart said they didnt want it to be, precisely because Corey and the Trump campaign didnt do damage control.

jr565 said...

Michael K, here's the video again:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/mar/29/corey-lewandowski-video-allegedly-grabs-michelle-fields-trump-campaign-cctv-footage

Look at what Corey is doing PRIOR to grabbing Michelle. His arm is outretched as if he's trying to grab her. and he follows her for a second or two with his arm reaching for her. So, its quite clear that is intent it to grab her. Look specificially at :02-03. Tell me his arm is not reaching for her arm? Then look at :04. He's grabbed her arm. Look at :04 - :05. He's pushing her back. If you look at her place on the video she is moved backwards at least three feet. Its QUITE clear on the video. I'm seeing it on the video, and I'm even providing the seconds of the video that show it.
Don't tell me then that its not there.

jr565 said...

(cont)Now, AGAIN, I've already said that Corey could have an out. He says on the audio, "excuse me" So, he could have argued, "I was just trying to get to Trump and was moving through the crowd. I had no intention of hurting anybody and, if i yanked someone by the arm, i thought I was just moving past them. That's why I said "Excuse me". There was no intended assault and/or battery".
That's me saying Corey's story is not completely bogus. I dont think his intent was to commit a battery. it didn't HAVE to go the way it did.
but why did it? Because Trump and his campaign, instead of offering the explanation/apology I just laid out, instead tried to ruin her reputation by saying she was a liar, and tried to smear her by saying it (whatever IT was) never happened, but on top of that, she's a liar, and has lied before and here's where she lied repeatedly. Did you know she's a horrible person who has done this repeatedly.

The cops subsequently looked at the tape and THEY saw a misdemeanor battery. Because under the statute grabbing someone's arm that way could constitute one. Sorry, but I'll defer to their judgement on this. They could have looked at it and said "no its not a battery" However, this would be a moot point, as he would not have been charged in the first place, because she wouldn't have charged him, since all she and Breitbart wanted was an explanation and acknowledgement.
Which is why Breitbart told them "its probably a mistake. Lets not make this into a big issue". Should have listened.

jr565 said...

If you have a parking ticket, and the worst that will happen is that you pay a 150 dollar fine, but you persist in contesting it, and the way you do is to call the cop a racist, sexist who routinely issues tickets to people for bigoted reasons, we are going to want to look at the tape. To see if you are telling the truth or not. And if its shown that you did do what the cop issued you a ticket for (even if its minor), then arent' you an asshole for first commitiing the act, but then for impugning the cop? Why didnt' you just pay the ticket? Why did you think impugning the cop was a good idea? if you did pay it, would anyone even know?

In this case, until he was charged with a battery there wasn't even a ticket to pay. Thats' how stupid Trumps reaction to this was. There would have been no downside to just acknowledging that it occurred. and the opposition had already telegraphed that that's how they assumed it was anyway. They looked a gift horse in the mouth and decided to punch out the horse, Mongo style.

Michael K said...

I looked at your video link and it looks to me like he was putting out an arm to protect Trump. I did not see any GRABBING. He may have brushed her arm as she was pushing toward Trump.

Sorry, This is a molehill and I still don't understand her motivation. We may learn what it is later in the campaign season.

I did NOT see anything that would produce bruises.

Michael K said...

There is on frame where she turns toward him. That may be what you are calling grabbing.

I have now watched all of them many time.s

jr565 said...

"I looked at your video link and it looks to me like he was putting out an arm to protect Trump. I did not see any GRABBING. He may have brushed her arm as she was pushing toward Trump."
give me a break. His arm is reaching towards HER, not trump. You might argue that he was protecting Trump by grabbing her arm, (and that would again be a potentially legitimate reason why he might grab her arm) but that doesnt change the fact that he grabbed her by the arm.

jr565 said...

01 - 03 you see him moving towards her with his arm outstretched to grab her.NOT TRUMP. That is plain as day. :04. you see him get close then she moves back from what appears to be a pulling motion. This is at :04-05 . PUt your finger on the screen where she is at :04. And see where she is a millisecond later. you can see her LITERALLY get pulled back.
lewandowsky is behind both Michelle and Trump. He grabs her. She is then next to Lewandowsky and Trump is ahead. Why? Because he just dragged her back. you can see the motion of her body as she is yanked back.

jr565 said...

At :04 she is parallel to Trump and they are walking in tandem. You cant see corey's arm but its clear he has grabbed her at this point. since prior to this you see his arm reaching for her. Then at 04 her body shifts to the left and then she is pulled so she is now facing Corey. Who was actually a few steps back. Meaning she was yanked BACK and potentially down. Look where Trump is at 05 and where Michelle is at 05. And remember they were walking next to each other only a second ago.
i can't say that such a movement would or would not produce bruises. Because I'm not an expert on motion that will or will not cause bruises. Considering it was a hard yank though I can assume it would cause bruises, if she in fact shows bruises.
They denied that any such yank took place at all.

Michael K said...

I see that we will never agree on this, or much of anything.

Good luck with your theories.

Chuck said...

Michael the trouble I have with Trump-supporters in this matter is that I don't know what their theory is.

Is it claimed that Corey didn't touch her? Because I think it is clear that he did. And it is particularly bad, that Corey claimed in a Tweet that he didn't touch her, and had never met her. This notion isn't just a non-starter; it is a positive disaster for Corey, and for Trump, who once said that he thought perhaps it was all "made up."

Is it admitted that Corey grabbed her, but that he was somehow engaged in legitimate security operations? That notion is belied by the fact that he simply grabbed her and tossed her aside. His effort was focused on preventing her questioning the candidate, and not any check of her credentials, arresting her, turning her over to the Secret Service, etc.

Is the contention that he didn't grab her hard enough to hurt her? Because I've already dealt with that, and under the most basic understanding of the misdemeanor crime of simple battery, "injury" to the victim is not a required element of the crime.

Is the argument more along the lines of, "Sure, he grabbed her but it isn't the sort of thing that reasonable people would see as a crime..."? That's more of a line for a Bill Maher talk show than an argument in court, but let's give the argument its due. I might have agreed that no prosecution was needed to uphold civil order, if we had seen from Lewandowski and his employer some notion of "civil" responsibility and regret for the offensive contact. What we saw was the opposite. A phony denial, a false attack on the credibility of the accuser, and zero responsibility taken.

I want to add one other thing; I have been so circumspect about the notion of any injury to the complainant/victim so far. I have tried very sincerely to point out that it is not a requisite element of the crime as charged. But there is another angle; what if in fact those bruises shown in a photograph on Michelle Fields' arm were in fact caused by Lewandowski? That he really did injure her? I don't know, but it may be that she's been interviewed by a Jupiter detective, and she told him her story, and the detective looked at all of the video and concluded that indeed it looks as though her story is true? Naturally, she'd be a trial witness, and subject to cross-examination and a defense attorney could try to shake her story. But that's a matter for a trial; it does suffice all normal probable cause standards for arrest and charging. In the civil context, it would survive summary judgment.

So Michael K; since you were the guy who brought up our needing luck with our "theories;" I am really curious what is your theory and what sort of luck are you needing?

jr565 said...

Michael K wrote:
I see that we will never agree on this, or much of anything.

Good luck with your theories.

And good luck, Corey with his battery charge.