I thought you watched the video? Why are so interested in talking about this incident but don’t seem interested in seeing the incident caught on camera?
Because he would be proven wrong.
And of course, that’s why he won’t listen to everything the prosecutor said.
Is that what you saw on the tape?
What did you see?
Do you mean the incident where the reporter left the group of reporters being escorted out, approached, and then grasped Trump? If Lewandowski should apologize for clasping the reporter, then the reporter should apologize to Trump for apprehending/capturing/catching/clutching/collaring/putting her hands on/grasping/pinning/seizing/snagging/snatching Trump.
Neither incident rises to a level where a prosecutor’s office would take either case before a jury.
I saw the prosecutor drop all charges because, after looking at all the evidence, there is insufficient evidence to proceed. The internet isn’t required to look at all of the evidence. They could be satisfied with only viewing one part of one video.
Of those eleven terms you used to describe what happened with regards to the reporter and Trump, which would you say is the most accurate?
Not precisely correct. There was insufficient evidence to get a conviction…a subtle but important distinction.
Didn’t the prosecutor say that the reporter touched Trump? That’s what it sounded like he said.
You, on the other hand, are not required to look at all the evidence before you chose to blame Trump for being touched by the reporter.
So you are going with “touched”. The reporter touched Trump.
o.k.
“Incidental contact”. As you well know since I quoted the prosecutor upthread.
As you well know, that was only the prosecutor’s opinion and not given under oath. The defense team might have disagreed with that opinion. A jury might not have been convinced by the prosecutor’s opinion of the first contact.
I reserve the right to use all of the synonyms I previously listed.
She moved towards him and next to him after being warned not to touch Trump, and after being ordered out of the area by Secret Service, which can be seen on video.
She was trespassing. As can be seen inthis picture, the two Secret Service agents next to Trump were grabbing Fields to keep her away from Trump at the Same moment that Lewandowski was.
She also has a history of putting herself into the middle of situations and then playing the victim after being touched.
Prove that the SS agent ordered her out of the area. No audio? Gee, sorry, disallowed.
An anonymous, unverified quote from someone with the Secret Service? In the Daily freaking Mail? Are you kidding me? Gee, sorry about that. Disallowed.
That picture doesn’t even begin to show he grabbed her. It would be difficult, since the view of his hand is blocked by her arm. Gee, sorry, disallowed.
At least try to come up with something reasonably approaching evidence. Get real.
So no one has blamed Trump for the incident. They have said he participated in the aftermath, but no one has blamed him for the incident.
This report came out on March 29th. Since then the exoneration, as well as the video showing the SS directing fields to leave the area, confirm the Daily Mail story.
I do not post on this board very much but I will say that in this country, at least, the law is innocent until proven guilty…
Several points here: since your boy is supposedly innocent (which he isn’t, by the way; ‘not enough evidence to get a conviction’ is NOT a finding of innocence, no matter how much you say it), who are you trying to convince?
She turned to talk to him; she spoke first, which likely (but not provably, just like all of your points are unproven) was asking him something like where to go; he pointed ‘over there;’ and she went ‘over there.’ Once again, without audio, your assertion doesn’t mean shit. Then after a couple of minutes Trump started walking that way, and there were a number of journalists around him and in the same area, all of whom had supposedly (according to your point of view) been shooed by the Secret Service…yet none of them were asked to move or directed by grabbing. And none of them touched Fields or anyone else…until Lewandowski grabbed her.
Give it up, buddy. Johnnie Cochran you ain’t. And the WSJ the Daily Mail ain’t. You’re not convincing me, only yourself.
Innocent is for a court of law. This is not a court of law, and in no world does ‘not enough evidence to get a conviction’ mean ‘innocent.’ At least not the real one.