Huh, the tweet must have been deleted. Might have been incorrect.
EDIT: Yep, it was wrong: https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1063483647498555392
When did you stop putting your hands on your wife?
Good call.
Dammit, wasted a good joke. 
Thanks for looking into that, eh. I see that the “Pteratorn” link in his post doesn’t work either.
That’s false.
“Putting hands on a woman” absolutely, unquestionably means to rough a woman up. It does not mean to inadvertently brush a woman with your finger. It does not mean to give her a high five. It does not mean anything except an act of deliberate physical violence. That is the only commonly understood meaning of that phrase, and has been for much longer than anyone in this thread has been alive. Every adult English speaking person understand that phrase to mean that one thing. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
He knows he’s playing dumb, we all know he’s playing dumb. Can we just let it go?
No, I want to see how it ends!
:D:D
nm
Are you referring to the fact that the judge in this case was a Trump appointee? 
Most of the other participants in this thread will insist that you are making an untrue statement, even after it has been shown to be false. Hmmm…
Regards,
Shodan
If you meant that in the sense that part of his hand might have incidentally/accidentally touched the woman who tried to forcefully pull the mic out of his grasp, how is that relevant to this discussion? He didn’t do anything wrong in his physical movement. He didn’t harm the woman in any way, nor could any of his movements possibly be interpreted as aggressive or violent. How is such incidental contact relevant at all to this discussion, in which the WH spread an altered video of Acosta, and falsely accused him of behaving in a violent or aggresive manner?
Watching the video it seems to me that even in the very literal sense he did not put his hand on her so much as she put her hand on him and moved her arm into him. As sports analogies go this was her foul.
Kudos to Fox for their amicus brief on this btw.
I doubt it. I think they’re desperately hoping you’re not being as irrelevantly pedantic as you’re being. I hold no such illusions.
If we are to say that “he put his hands on her”, and define that as any form of physical contact, then we also have to acknowledge that she was the one who initiated the contact. If we want to complain about slight physical contacts, then we need to realize that she was the instigator.
White House intern* assaults reporter! News at 11.
*yes I know that she’s not an intern.
You keep saying he put his hand on the intern.
That didn’t happen.
What the fuck?
You’re repeating again something that didn’t happen. Why would you do that? What process led you to make this statement of things that did not happen?
Loyalty to the Leader.
Also note his subtle shift from hands to hand. Sarah Sanders said Acosta put his handS on a woman, and that’s what Shodan came in here to defend in post 17.
However, in post 85 he shifted to hand and is now arguing that incidental contact between Acosta and the woman is the same as Acosta putting his hand on a woman.
He might have a nitpicky technical literal correct argument that Acosta put his hand on a woman.
However, that doesn’t change the fact that Sarah Sanders handS statement was false and his characterization of the event in post 17 was inaccurate.