You are the one arguing with the prosecutor, who said: “The full video recording shows Secret Service agents clearing the pathway ahead of Mr. Trump. Specifically it appears that Ms. Fields was directed to the back of the room along with other members of the media. After initially complying with the directive, Ms. Fields returned to the pathway area and walked directly along side Mr. Trump attempting to ask questions of him.”
It’s clear from the video that this is what occurred.
Sorry, but I know what I saw. That so-called ‘direction’ (assuming it was, and I make no assumptions where an assertion from you is concerned) happened two to three minutes BEFORE the incident, when Trump hadn’t even begun to move anywhere near where it occurred. She then moves over and talks to another reporter, Trump starts moving in that direction, and she and a number of other reporters move into the area. And the Secret Service does nothing, says nothing, in fact one of them is shaking hands with one of the reporters. And then Lewandowski grabs her well after the fact.
Don’t bother. I have the evidence of my own eyes. Reminds me of the guy who’s caught redhanded cheating by his wife who says no, you didn’t see that.
AFTER Lewandowski has already grabbed her and she’s going off-balance. Everything I described was BEFORE. Now go back and watch your own video.
Not after, concurrently.
I did, it clearly shows Fields being directed by Secret Service to leave the area, complying, and then returning to the are she has been told to leave, moving towards Trump and touching him. As the prosecutor explained in his statement.
Thanks for your clarification of this situation.
However, people have used this incident to blame Trump for something/anything/everything. SSDD. :rolleyes:
(post shortened)
Hahahaha. You’re arguing with the State Attorney’s reasons for not proceeding with this case. After they looked at all the evidence, not just the evidence some people on the internet have declared to be the only permissible evidence, have found that the reporter’s version of what happened just isn’t that believable when people chose to look at the other side’s statements.
Ahem… ‘not enough evidence to get a conviction’ does not mean ‘guilty’. Except in kangaroo courts or by some on the internet.
Yes, innocent until proven guilty is still the standard in this country. Except when it’s politically expedient. 
Really, what I decide based on the evidence has nothing to do with what some lawyer decides. We have different requirements. The fact that I agree that he wouldn’t get a conviction does not mean that I think he’s innocent in the face of clear evidence. See, I’m capable of making my own decisions.
Are you really that naïve or do you just enjoy debating that much?
So the reporter never touched Trump?
Would you? I mean, disturbing that orange thing on his head sounds about as imprudent as walking through the Australian countryside and poking random critters with a stick.
I’m reminded of Stephen King’s hick in Creepshow.
Well, to be consistent(and I know that’s asking a lot), doorhinge must admit that the reporter is innocent of
, since she was never convicted.
Based on reviewing all of the evidence, the SA dropped the charges. You’re free to ignore any or all of the evidence. What you can’t seem to do is prove that Lewandowski is guilty.
Your personal attack is unwarranted and unwelcome.
The SA disagrees with you.
Are you claiming that the reporter was charged by the police, or the SA, with apprehending/capturing/catching/clutching/collaring/putting her hands on/grasping/pinning/seizing/snagging/snatching Trump?
OTOH, Lewandowski has not been found guilty of apprehending/capturing/catching/clutching/collaring/putting her hands on/grasping/pinning/seizing/snagging/snatching what’s-her-name the reporter.
As usual, you omit something that actually makes a difference. Based on reviewing all the evidence and the likelihood of his defense attorney being able to come up with an argument for reasonable doubt, the DA did not send it to trial. Not even close to being the same thing.
Not that it matters, you’ll continue singing his innocence out regardless, based on your own myopic twisting of the evidence and your mistaken conception of the legal system and how it works.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Actually, watching the stills in this video shows that she touched or brushed Trumps arm, and Trump pulls his arm away. During that moment, two Secret Service agents react by reaching towards Fields, but then they stop. That is when Lewandowski reaches between the trailing SS agent and Trump to grab Fields arm, and then he pulls her off balance and away from Trump, while the SS agent walks around her without reacting. So two agents reacted to Trumps reaction, but then decide it does not qualify as a threat and resume ignoring Fields, but Lewandowski saw she was pestering Trump and not supposed to be there, so he grabs her and pulls her away.
Lewandowski is guilty of grabbing Fields by the arm and pulling her off balance. That is clearly shown in the video. Lewandowski is guilty of lying afterwards saying that he never touched her. Okay, maybe he’s right, it wasn’t significant enough for him to recall he touched her. Which makes me wonder just how often he has to grab reporters who are touching Trump.
Lewandowski, however, is not necessarily guilty of battery. He has a possible positive defense that she was not supposed to be that close to Trump. Given that, the prosecutor is appropriate to consider that a jury wouldn’t feel pulling her off balance counts as battery enough for conviction, and that the possible positive defense means it isn’t worth proceeding.
One of the articles says that a pre-trial negotiation was offered whereby an apology by Lewandowski would get Fields to not pursue the charges. However, apparently the SA decided to drop the charges on other grounds, meaning the negotiation wasn’t required.
An apology from Lewandowski up front for being rougher than he intended would have prevent all this mess, from Brietbart’s internal kerfluffle with staff about the issue and Fields feeling she needed to resign, to the need for the Trump campaign to first deny, then spin ridiculous stories (“she might have had a bomb”), then the police filing charges, and finally the SA having to evaluate video and consider whether to proceed with the case.