Trump Campaign Manager Charged with Misdemeanor Battery

Corey Lewandowski has been charged with misdemeanor battery for allegedly grabbing and injuring former Breitbart News Network reporter, Michelle Fields. Washington Post reporter, Ben Terris, was an eyewitness to the altercation and confirmed that he saw Lewandowski grab Fields by the arm.

Lewandowski initially denied everything:  “You are totally delusional. I never touched you. As a matter of fact, I never even met you.”

Photographs and video provided circumstantial corroboration of Fields’ account. However, a new video appears to indicate that Lewandowski is the delusional one:

Watch Trump as he makes his way toward the right-hand corner of the video. Fields is to his right and appears to be asking him a question. You’ll then see Lewandowski grab and yank her away from Trump. Fields subsequently tweeted a picture of the bruises on her arm that she claims were the result of Lewandowski grabbing her. Whatever the legal outcome, Lewandowski’s initial denial is rather, shall we say, revisionist in the extreme.

Our own David Robertson posted a piece critical of Fields, yet it appears he did not mention the corroboration by Ben Terris. With confirmation coming from a liberal newspaper’s reporter, Breitbart should have stood by its reporter. Their decision to question her veracity is most regrettable.

The Religiosity of March Madness
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners March 25, 2016
  • Commander_Chico

    We know you’re a Cruz supporter, Scalia, but can you watch the video and call that worthy of criminal charges? Do you bring charges against people who brush against you in a crowd?

    This will help Trump – people are tired of special snowflakes, false “victims” and attention whores.

    • Scalia

      I did not say that Lewandowski committed a criminal act; I merely stated that he was charged with a criminal act. Recall I used the word allegedly.

      Lewandowski lied and said that he never touched Fields. In fact, he did more than touch her. Whether or not that is a criminal act will be determined by the legal process. If he merely brushed her, as you suggest, why did he lie about it? All he needed to say was, “I saw a stranger get too close to Trump, so I pulled her away.”

      • Commander_Chico

        Maybe it was so insignificant it was’nt remembered.

        On the other hand, Fields claimed to be knocked back and almost down.
        http://i0.wp.com/www.dangerandplay.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Michelle-Fields-hoax.jpg?zoom=2&resize=150%2C150

        • Scalia

          If he forgot, then he wouldn’t have issued such an adamant denial, nor would he have called her an attention seeker. He either yanks people on a regular basis (which would account for his memory lapse), or he rarely does so (which makes his denial very suspect because he would have remembered that the next day). If the former, his denial is not credible. If he routinely yanks people, he would have to acknowledge that the reporter’s account might be accurate. If the latter, such an event would definitely stick in a normal person’s memory.

          So long as we’re dealing with maybes, maybe he was jealous such a hot-looking babe wasn’t noticing him.

          • Commander_Chico
          • Scalia

            What has that to do with the fact that Lewandowski lied? Fields may have a history of lying, but she’s not lying that Lewandowski grabbed her, and her claim was confirmed by another reporter standing right behind her.

            Trump’s campaign manager is clearly fibbing, but you’re going to the mat to defend him for who-knows-what reason. Trump, via the video, clearly did not see what happened, so this bears no direct reflection on him (if that’s the reason why you’re defending the indefensible). If Bush had said he never “touched” a woman and a video emerged that he in fact touched her, wouldn’t Chico be one of the first to call him a liar?

          • “Truth” for Chicka-puta is demonstrably that which forwards the agenda(s) he supports.

          • Commander_Chico

            How are your Syrian rebels doing?

          • Why don’t you tell us oh soi disant CJCoS…

          • Jwb10001

            How’s your neo con Iraq invading candidate doing in Wi. these days?

          • Dropping like a rock…

          • Jwb10001

            Maybe if he’s just a little bit more immature and nasty he’ll do better.

          • Never go full chicka-puta…

          • Commander_Chico
          • Scalia

            Still non-responsive. Get back with me when you have something relevant to say.

          • Jwb10001

            That will be like,,,,, never.

          • Indeed, Stop feeding the troll.

          • Commander_Chico

            Aren’t you some kind of lawyer, Scalia? Even I know that prior false statements and a pattern of conduct are relevant at a trial.

          • Scalia

            It’s not relevant to the point that Lewandowski lied. Why does that have to be repeated over and over? For lying, he is morally obligated to apologize, regardless her character. The “she’s-a-bad-girl-too” is what we call a red herring. You’re trying to deflect, and it’s bizarre because there’s no need for you to go to the mat for Lewandowski.

          • Commander_Chico

            If Lewandowski “lied,” it’s because Fields went public with outrageous lies like “threw me down.”

            We know you like to set a narrow window for discussion, but the whole incident and Fields’s motivations are relevant in real world.

          • Scalia

            Chico, there are over 170 comments under my initial post. Those comments include all kinds of aspersions at Fields’ expense. That’s fine, and I’ve not objected to any of that. You stated that Lewandowski owes no apology, but you’re simply mistaken. If you lie, you own up to it. You don’t double down and trash the other person to excuse your lying. That’s Morality 101, and it’s a pity that has to be explained to you.

          • Commander_Chico

            It’s like this. You’re at a crowded bar with your wife and some guy comes up and touches her. You brush by him and pull his arm away from your wife’s hip.

            The next day you learn you are accused of beating him and he has posted pictures of himself with a black eye on the internet.

            You say “I never touched the guy” The video shows you made slight contact. Do you apologize?

          • Scalia

            You’re really in it deep, aren’t you? If I lied, of course I apologize! However, I would never say, “I never touched the guy; he’s delusional because I’ve never met him.” Why do you twist so much to deny the obvious?

          • Commander_Chico

            So this guy is spouting blatant lies himself and falsely prosecuting you but you’d apologize to him?

          • Scalia

            Like I told my children while raising them, you always own up to wrong that you’ve done. You do not apologize by insisting the other person apologize first. That’s not a genuine apology.

            The only “lie” I detect from Fields is her statement that Lewandowski practically pulled her to the floor. That’s simply not true, but he did grab and yank her. The notion that she represented some sort of security threat is laughable given the very close proximity of SSA’s. If she really were such a threat, they would have been on her before Lewandowski did anything.

          • The only “truth” for chicka-puta (and it’s leftard ilk) is that which moves the agenda forward. He keeps reverting to that mean here despite denying having done so.

    • yetanotherjohn

      There was a famous case in New York where a bus boy took a plate out of the hand of a patron at a hotel. He never touched her directly, just via the plate. That was held to be assault (the fear of an unwanted touching) and battery (unwanted touching).
      Battery is nothing more than unwanted touching. There is no level of force required.
      The incident could have been handled by a simple apology and Lewandowski buying Fields a drink. But Trump and Lewandowski went down the path of there was no touch at all. Trump supporters said it never happened and the lack of a police report proves it. She filed a police report. They got caught. Trump was playing the role of special snowflake saying that there was no touching, not fields. If he manned up and admitted a mistake, nothing would have happened beyond that.

      • Brucehenry

        He’s incapable of admitting a mistake, which is only one of the many reasons he is unqualified, temperamentally, to be president.

        • jim_m

          Wait, are we talking Chico, or Trump? It’s unclear, but both fit that description.

      • Jwb10001

        First it was she’s a liar it never happened, then when there was video it was, well it’s no big deal. Now it’s a criminal charge and it’s she touched Trump first so he’s going to file charges on her. But just like all his empty threats that’s just more BS. I don’t understand why anyone takes his bloviating seriously he’s all bluff.

      • Commander_Chico
    • Jwb10001

      So what if the prosecutor has contributed to Hillary, Roger Stone is pimping the Cruz story he’s tied to Trump doesn’t that guilt by association get the same level of distrust as a Hillary supporting prosecutor?

  • And yet he still has a job on the campaign of the puta’s choice.

    • Commander_Chico

      Because Trump is a man and has loyalty, not going to dump a friend over bogus charges.

      • Jwb10001

        Trump is a man, that’s why he over reacts to everything, he has the most fragile ego I’ve ever seen in a would be leader. Oh you said something I didn’t like I’m going to sue you, oh you’re stealing my delegates, I’m going to sue you. Oh Ted Cruz is so mean I might sue him. Damn little more than a whinny little dick if you ask me. I’ve see 15 year olds who are better at manning up than Trump.

        • jim_m

          “he has the most fragile ego I’ve ever seen in a would be leader other than 0bama.”

          FIFY

  • jim_m

    Sadly, this is a great demonstration of how politics has warped our justice system. The left believes that even running for President makes it legally impossible to charge someone with a crime, that candidates have blanket immunity.

    In this case we see that the reporter was indeed assaulted, and the response from the local Trump supporter, despite seeing the pictures and video that corroborate that misdemeanor assault did, indeed, occur, is to claim that it is all political and that the charges are invalid, not because they aren’t true, but because wanting to see justice in this instance is purely politically motivated.

    • Brucehenry

      So what does this have to do with “the left,” then, again??

      Oh never mind, I forgot EVERYTHING is the fault of “the left.”

      • jim_m

        Most of those defending Trump on this board are denizens of the left (Chico), and he specifically claims that despite evidence to the contrary that this is entirely made up and exclusively political.

        • Brucehenry

          Yeah like those other Wizbang lefties WW and RM and PBunyan and Hank. Pinkos.

          • jim_m

            I seem to have missed where they say that Trump’s campaign staff have blanket immunity for criminal actions. If you could point out those specific cases I would certainly correct my statement.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m pointing out that they are not “denizens of the left” but routinely act as Trump apologists and enablers here on Wizbang.

          • jim_m

            So there are two different issues. 1 is that people believe that political power means that the law does not apply to you, which is believed by you and Chico and the left in general. 2 is that people support Trump. My original statement spoke exclusively about #1.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh ok so that clears THAT up, lol.

        • Trump is not, and never has been, a creature of the right.

          • jim_m

            Truth

        • Commander_Chico
          • Jwb10001

            Because invading Iraq to steal their oil isn’t neo conish?

          • N0 0ne

            Good point. Which candidates opposed invading Iraq? Trump and Bernie.

          • Jwb10001

            Good point? First off Trump’s opposition to Iraq is like all hiss other positions, multifaceted to be kind. Second no matter what he said then he NOW says we should put boots on the ground to steal Iraq’s oil to pay for something or the other. Should anyone support a presidential candidate that wants to do that? What about a loud mouth that thinks torture is a good idea, or thinks he’s a dictator that can force the military to carry out illegal orders? This guy has made more disqualifying statements than any other candidate I can remember, and yet he still has die hard supporters. All the lies, changed positions, over the top pronouncements, insults and crass behavior has zero effect it seems.

          • N0 0ne

            You’re not serious, are you? All of that to say “Yes, Trump did oppose invading Iraq, but somehow, I can twist that into ‘he supported invading Iraq'” simply because you don’t like the guy? You have remarkable powers of self-delusion, sir. Meanwhile, back in the real world, every other presidential candidate supported the war in Iraq.

            Kasich, of course, wants to put troops back in Iraq, and invade both Syria and Libya. The undisputed neocon champ of the candidates, except for possibly Hillary. Cruz has consistently been more hawkish about neocon wars of choice than Trump, especially with respect to Syria and the Russian intervention.

            The waterboarding thing is your only valid point. Can’t get everything you want in a candidate. See, some of us are able to operate on a level of rational evaluation of options, rather than pure emotion.

          • Trump has been on every side of every issue at some point in his public declarations.

          • N0 0ne

            You will, of course, find it simple to cite a source for his alleged support for the Iraq invasion, then…

    • Hank_M

      Jim, maybe I’m just willfully blind, but where’s the assault?
      Looks more to me as if she was pulled back. After that I see her walking ahead
      and looking at her phone as she continues walking.

      • jim_m

        The legal definition of assault can be as simple as unwanted touching. In this case she alleges that she was grabbed forcibly and she claims that she was grabbed hard enough to cause bruising on her arm. Merely grabbing her would constitute assault.

        Others have pointed out that private security can do such things without being prosecuted. While it is true that they may not face charges through prosecutorial discretion, they can still be charged and are in some cases. Also, they can be sued in civil court as such assaults constitute an intentional tort.

        I agree that it is probably blow up out of proportion, but the Trumpists are idiots.

  • Wild_Willie

    In her own words, she asked who pushed her back. Another reporter said “I think is was Leb”. Grew from there. This is a nothing case. Trump knows it and most the electorate knows it. The more she squeals, the more she sends women’s advantages and acceptance in the workplace back a couple of years. Toughen up. I am sure in a crowd this size, bumping and pushing happen all the time. Get over yourself. ww

    • Scalia

      From the report:

      In the report the officer describes the action at question as this: ‘Lewandowski then grabbed Fields left arm with his right hand, causing her to turn and step back.’

      ‘This motion cleared a path for Lewandowski to walk past Fields, allowing him to “catch up” and get closer to Trump, who was walking during this entire incident,’ the report, signed by an officer Marc Bujnowski, continued.

      ‘Based on the above-described investigation probable cause exists to charge Corey Lewandowski …with one count of Simple Battery … in that he did intentionally touch Michelle Fields … against the will of Michelle Fields,’ the report concluded.

      This is more than “a nothing case.” Unless Lewandowski is part of Trump’s security detail, his defense becomes problematic. Secret Service agents were there but did not intervene. All Lewandowski needed to do was interpose his arm between Fields and Trump and firmly request that she keep her distance. He cannot legally grab her arm and yank her to the point of causing bruises on her arm unless he was acting in response to a legitimate security threat.

      • Commander_Chico

        “Bruises” are questionable. Location and whether there were bruises at all.

        March 29, 2016

        • Scalia

          Yes, it’s logically possible that Lewandowski did not cause those bruises. Like I said, I’m not asserting criminality at this point. It appears, however, that your discretion is rather selective. You demand irrefutable proof when defending somebody you like, but you jump to a conclusion when it’s somebody you don’t like. At least be consistent.

          • Jwb10001

            You noticed that all the dumpsters here have decided with NO evidence that Ted Cruz has had affairs with 5 women. They don’t concern themselves with the connections of the publisher to particular candidate or the only named source being linked directly to a particular candidate. They poo poo the notion that several other outlets turned the story away, must be all those neo con Cruz supporting outlets, couldn’t possibly be the story has zero credible evidence. No that story has to be true this one couldn’t possibly be. What ever, it’s like try to talk to a 2 year old about physics.

          • Scalia

            Yes, I noticed that. Innuendo is proof of guilt for their political enemies, but air-tight-beyond-sliver-of-doubt proof is needed when criticizing Trump or his minions.

    • Commander_Chico

      Correct, ww.

    • Commander_Chico
  • kasullie

    Ok. This whole Corey thing was released to distract from Cruz and his sex scandal. Cruz was feeling the heat and called in Carly Fiorina (!) to answer infidelity questions (the single most bizarre thing I’ve watched today). It was the hottest mess ever. Enter the Corey “assaults” Michelle story to divert attention away from THAT disaster.

    Now I would just like to address how this sort of nonsense is a waste of resources, money, time, etc. Think of the people involved in expediting this charge…and how they were not available for REAL crimes. The Trump haters on the “right” along with the left are exposed as the uniparty, EXPOSED. They are working tirelessly to preserve the destruction of America. Good luck with that.

    • jim_m

      Idiot. This broke long before the unproven and unsubstantiated allegations about Cruz. Were you paying any attention you would know that.

      • Jwb10001

        Did Trump tweet about it? If not they might have missed it.

      • Commander_Chico

        How come Cruz is not unambiguously denying, then? Only weasel words from him.

      • N0 0ne

        The general publicity about the Cuban Mistress Crisis is recent, but it’s been known for 3 to possibly 6 months in political/ media circles. Where do you get your news, network TV? What do you think Twitter hashtag #TheThing was? They knew it was going to come out.

        • Jwb10001

          Unproven non sense spread by a Trump thug, spread to a Trump supporting rag with near zero credibility. If this were turned around on Trump we’d get endless Twitter war fare and threats to sue. Its the worst kind of sleaze spread by political operatives, the very thing that I thought we opposed. But I’m sure there’s a different set of rules for Trump supporters.

          • N0 0ne

            Let me help you here. You are conflating two issues here: How long the allegations about Cruz’s multiple mistresses and sex with hookers have been known in the political/ media communities, and whether those allegations are true. The only one relevant to jim’s point (such as it is) is the former, which is indisputable– the allegations have been shopped around to various media outlets for months.

            Whether the Cuban Mistress Crisis allegations are true is a separate issue. I’ll merely note that an LA Times reporter recently admitted to being a Cruz mistress on Twitter, that Cruz has repeatedly refused to specifically deny the allegations, and weren’t those matching tattoos cute?

          • Jwb10001

            When/if I ever need your help I’ll be sure to let you know until then…. But let me help you, when something gets shopped around for months and no one is willing to pick it up, it may/probably means it’s bull shit. It doesn’t mean that it’s credible. Should I assume yuo

          • Jwb10001

            Pretty sure I don’t need your help. But let me offer you some, when a story is shopped around for months that’s generally not a good sign that it’s a credible story. Don’t know why that makes for any kind of argument for the truth of the story. Are you pushing this story because it offends you that a presidential candidate would have an affair? You know that Trump has had several actually admitted extramarital affairs? Does that bother you or is Cruz the only candidate not allowed to have affairs? Please do use your superior skills to splain that to me.

        • jim_m

          So you admit that the only specific charges came from Trump and only came AFTER the Lewandowski incident.

          Thanks for playing.

          • N0 0ne

            And you admit that the people that matter all knew about them months ago, and knew that they were bound to come out. Thanks for playing.

          • jim_m

            No. I admit that rumors existed as they do about all candidates and often they are never substantiated. You believe in bullshit coming from the fever swamps. The fact that the only real accusation came out after Lewandowski is revealing. There was nothing for Cruz to address or refute until Trump made his accusations. Did Cruz ever respond to those rumors before? Nope. Why? Because there was nothing to respond to.

            Once more: You are an idiot.

          • N0 0ne

            Multiple medial outlets were aware of evidence of Cruz’s infidelity involving multiple women, including prostitutes. Not just Breitbart. I’m sure you’re aware that a video was making the rounds.

            Once again: Why has Cruz refused to deny these allegations? Why is Heidi Cruz cancelling campaign appearances? And weren’t those matching tattoos cute?

          • No evidence of any such thing has been provided to date, only innuendo and slander.

          • Jwb10001

            Wow that is some damn impressive proof you’ve got there a tweet from someone no one knows claiming something not specific. I’m convinced. Besides none of that matters the problem child is still Trump, I could care less if Cruz has had 50 mistresses I still would never vote for Trump. All this deflection isn’t working, Trump is still a disaster no matter what dirt you dig up on Cruz.

    • Brucehenry

      How does one preserve destruction?

      • Jwb10001

        Trump becoming president might do it, what ever it is.

  • James

    Like I’ve been saying, Trump is popular more for his enemies than for himself. Michelle Fields is as phony as a balony can be.

    • Jwb10001

      What does that even mean? Are you suggesting she’s lying? I believe it was Trump and his campaign manager that were proven to have lied. Wouldn’t that make them the phonies?

      • James

        It means I believe this is all contrived to try to hurt Trump. I don’t care if Lewdowski grabbed the stupid bitch, or if he lied about it because he was too stupid to know not to lie. She was not hurt in any way inappropriate for anyone getting squirrely at a Presidential campaign event. Candidates have been attacked and even shot while campaigning before. Teddy Roosevelt was shot but he finished his speech because he said he didn’t think his lungs had been punctured. Federal Roosevelt was shot at and Mayor Cermak of Chicago was hit in his stead. And then there was George Wallace in 1972 who got paralyzed by a bullet. So I don’t have any sympathy for assholes who whine about security at political events.

        • jim_m

          Riiiight. And when your daughter’s boyfriend does the same to her you are going to tell your daughter to STFU and take it. Duly noted.

          And no one is whining about security here with the exception of Trump supporters who use it as an excuse for Lewandowski’s behavior.

          And finally, this isn’t really even about Trump at all. It is about Lewandowski and his poor judgement.

          • N0 0ne

            I think you’ve got your analogy wrong. Field is rumored to be the “girlfriend” of Cruz, not Trump. Of course, your assumption that a presidential candidate should get the same level of security as an average citizen is too puerile to need specific refutation.

          • jim_m

            Again you demonstrate your incapacity to read. My point was that James would say that if HIS daughter were assaulted. Your incapacity to read brands you as an idiot.

          • N0 0ne

            Your feeble analogy depends, not on James’ relationship with his putative daughter, but on this supposed daughter’s relationship with her supposed boyfriend. Try to understand the weaknesses of your own arguments, please…

          • jim_m

            The point is that if a person is assaulted it is a crime. Period. It doesn’t matter who they are or who assaults them. You apparently believe that whether or not it is a crime depends on wo they are and who assaults them. You believe that a Presidential candidate and their staff should have blanket immunity from the law. This is in fact not the case.

          • N0 0ne

            No. Assault is touching without consent. If you sneak by the security cordon around a presidential candidate, against their specific instructions, in a venue that candidate has rented, and touch that candidate (guess what?) without his consent, that’s a different issue. By deliberately disobeying instructions and ignoring the security in place, you have implicitly consented to being moved out of the way. The Secret Service adds some gravitas and an air of officialness to the whole procedure, but it’s not essential.

            Don’t believe me? Try to get by the security at any popular music concert; rock, hip-hop, whatever, and try to make physical contact with the star. Is security going to throw your ass out? You’d better believe it. Sure, if they break your leg or something, the legal system might listen to a complaint on the basis of excessive force, but if you go to the cops with a couple of questionable bruises, they’re going to say “Well, did you learn your lesson? Now get out of here.” Unless, of course, you have the whole controlled media pushing your BS story, in which case they’ll cave to avoid the trouble– Hmm, that’s kind of like what happened here…

          • jim_m

            So you admit that an officer of the law (i.e. a Secret Service agent) would have the right to restrain her. The is not Lewandowski. He is not an officer of the law. He is not private security either. He is not trained as they are to recognize and assess threats. He is not trained in the use of appropriate force. He broke the law. He is now charged appropriately. Even private security can be charged with assault.

            Once again you prove my point that you believe that candidates and their staff have blanket immunity from prosecution.

          • N0 0ne

            See second paragraph above.

          • jim_m

            Please supply a link to any state or federal law that give private security blanket immunity from prosecution for assault.

          • N0 0ne

            Hey, it’s your phrase, not the legal system’s. You made it up, you find it. Why don’t you want to try my experiment at a concert? I think you’ll find that security at major concert has “blanket immunity,” at least in the nonsensical way you define it.

          • jim_m

            Show me where private security cannot be prosecuted for assault. I can show you that they can.

            Show me that Lewandowski was employed as security for Trump. I can show you that he wasn’t.

          • jim_m

            Fine. Sovereign immunity.

          • N0 0ne

            Doesn’t apply, but at least that one’s a little interesting…

          • jim_m

            No it doesn’t apply but you are pretending that it does.

          • James

            You, jim, are an imbecile, but I think you know that.

          • jim_m

            OK. I see that you really do just let other men abuse women in your family.

          • James

            The women in my family know how to behave. They do not think they can do whatever they want and that some idiot will come and bail them out. The women in my family are not imbeciles, like you.

          • jim_m

            I see. So you know how to put women in their place.

            When did yo stop beating your wife?

          • James

            I think of women as adults, or as you would think of it, grown ups. I think women are capable of putting themselves in their own place and they don’t need me to put them there. If they do, then I do not consider them mature. And if my wife needs a beating, why shouldn’t I beat her? Are women exempt from moral consequences?

          • jim_m

            And if my wife needs a beating, why shouldn’t I beat her?

            ‘nuf said.

          • James

            Letting women run wild is the downfall of civilization. Do you care about what sort of world the children will grow up to live in? Wouldn’t the world be a better place if Kanye could beat some sense into Kim, for example?

          • Jwb10001

            Maybe a woman should beat a little sense into you. Tough guy, beatin on woman, damn.

          • Scalia

            James, this has gone too far. I don’t mind your defending Trump or Lewandowski, but advocating the beating of women is over the line. Please refrain from such comments in the future.

          • James

            I didn’t advocate anything, I merely stated a fictitious fact. I’m not married and I don’t have a girlfriend and I don’t want one. If I had a woman in my life I expect I would have to beat her regularly because women are bat excrement crazy wacko bird nut cases. All the women I know need a severe beating. All the men I know, too, so, now that I think about it, I suppose I hate everyone equally; I’m not a misogynist, I’m a misanthropist, which is a combination of misogyny and misandry.

          • Scalia

            Your definition of “advocate” is different from mine. As I said, enough talk about beating women. You are welcome otherwise to state on our boards whatever on-topic opinion you have.

          • James

            How can I argue with someone named, “Scalia.” Good thing your name isn’t “Thomas Scalia,” then I’d really be at a loss for words. And I do apologize for going troll on your board. I got carried away by what seemed like an excess of prissiness on the part of certain persons. It’s a reflex action, like when a dog sees a cat or a cat sees a mouse.

          • Scalia

            Thanks for your cooperation, James. I hope you continue to comment on our boards. I don’t like echo chambers; I appreciate different perspectives on the issues we discuss.

          • James

            I found your website by following a link from somewhere about the Michelle Fields fiasco. I hate people like Michelle Fields. I hate all phony balonies and all plastic bananas. I’m just a hating hater full of hate, and sometimes it comes out.

          • Jwb10001

            You know what a man that beats a woman is? A FUCKING COWARD. Nothing you say past that point is worth hearing.

          • James

            A man that will not stand up to a woman is the coward. Civilization is collapsing into a pile of rubble because of faggotty pussies like you.

          • Jwb10001

            I’m sorry but any neanderthal that thinks it’s ok to beat a woman is the problem not the women and the the people that point it out. And just like the keyboard tough guy you are you call me a pussy but I doubt very much that a stupid jack ass that has to beat women would dare stand in front of any man and call him anything but sir. So take your tough guy act and stuff it.

          • James

            How do you know I’m not a Muslim? If you knew that I was a Muslim you would not DARE to speak to me in such an insolent and impudent manner, because you are a cowardly pussy who does not want to suffer the wrath of Allah the merciful.

          • Jwb10001

            I would indeed dare to speak to you any way I please Muslim or no. I’m also not afraid of your or your stupid Allah. But now that you’ve shown us you are a freaking radical that answers all the questions. Enjoy your freak show of a life don’t let me catch you beating a woman in public. Of course you would never do that because anyone that beats on women is a true coward that would piss down his leg if a man dealt out a little beating some sense in to you pay back.

          • James

            You can’t stand up to a Muslim without killing or being killed, so, I don’t believe you.

          • Jwb10001

            So you’re suggesting all Muslims are killers? If that’s the case I guess you have an unreasonable bias against them just like you do women. Please tell us how you feel about Jews and Blacks, that should be entertaining.

          • James

            Not all Muslims are killers, but Islam does promote religious killing. It’s called “jihad.” Muslims are encouraged by the teachings of Islam as found in the Koran to subdue the world with force and violence. Even outright Satanism is not so obtuse and provocative. And you have to have noticed by now that Muslims do not get along with anybody, not even each other. Muslims are at odds with Buddhists, Hindus, Animists, Atheists, primitive pagans, you name ’em, Muslims are violently attacking them. It ain’t just Christians and Jews that are targeted by Islam. As a matter of Islamic fact, it happens to be the case that Christians and Jews are eligible for a sort of loophole, in that Christians and Jews do not have to be converted to Islam, but can be allowed to live, as long as they accept Muslim rule, and pay their jizya tax. All other non-Muslims are only allowed 2 options, convert to Islam or be killed. Did you know that? Probably not, because you are an ignoramus.

          • Language, Jwb10001…

          • Jwb10001

            Sorry but come on this guy is advocating beating women. I’m not sure my language was harsh enough.

          • I’m on the razors edge of blacklisting him, I’d prefer he not be able to point at other breaches…

          • jim_m

            We will be more creative with our invective.

          • pennywit

            I call for an inquiry. Hire an invective detective. Give him a mirror, so he’ll be a reflective invective detective. But make sure there’s no crack in the mirror. We don’t want a defective reflective invective detective.

          • Jwb10001

            No let him continue to spew his hatred, as we discovered it’s instructive. We’ve learned for example that Chico will align with the worst among us if that sub human is also a follower of the chosen one. If there was ever doubt as to his lack of decency, I guess we are now absolved of all doubt.

          • jim_m

            I see nothing wrong and agree that the language was mild under the circumstances.

        • Jwb10001

          Screw the stupid bitch? Wow you’re doing great at following your leader.

          • A true Trumpster, missing only the spittle.

          • James

            Yeah, she’s stupid, and she’s a bitch. Therefore, a stupid bitch. What’s it to ya? Is there no such thing as a stupid bitch?

          • Jwb10001

            How can you despise someone this much that you’ve never even met? What did she ever do to you? You sound unhinged.

          • James

            I despise Kim Kardashian and Smiley Virus, I mean, Miley Cyrus, and I’ve never met them. I never met Adolf Hitler and I despise him. We have writing now, so we can hate people across time and space, didn’t you know? I must say, you really are quite stupid, aren’t you?

          • Jwb10001

            Yes I’m so stupid I respect women and would never beat them, oh wait that’s exactly backward, you’re the stupid jack wit that thinks the way to control another human is to beat them. Hey there’s a religion you should look in to. The worst among them also live in the dark ages, you’ll fit right in.

          • James

            You don’t respect women, you patronize them in a condescending manner. If you respected women you would hold them to the same moral standards that you apply to men.

          • Jwb10001

            So you go around beating sense into men do you? I seriously doubt that.

          • James

            Obviously not, or else more men would have more sense. The world is hopelessly stupid and idiotic because I have failed to beat any sense into it yet.

        • jim_m

          Not to put too fine a point on it but Giuseppe “Joe” Zangara was put to death for the murder of Anton Cermak and Arthur Bremer served 35 years of a 53 year prison sentence for the attempted murder of George Wallace.

          So if I understand your argument, you are saying that Lewandowski should not have to suffer for his actions because Zangara and Bremer suffered for theirs. Or is it that you think that Zangara and Bremer should have been let go because their targets were real men and could handle it?

          Either way your examples point out the fact that people should be responsible for their actions. Lewandowski should be responsible for his.

          • N0 0ne

            So you’re saying that a presidential candidate is not allowed to have an effective security cordon? Does this rule apply to Hillary and Bernie as well? Just curious.

          • jim_m

            I said nothing of the sort. Reread James’ comment and then mine so you understand the context before making yourself look like an ass.

          • N0 0ne

            Not in so many words, but it’s implied when you maintain that people, or at least reasonably attractive female reporters, should be able to approach and make physical contact with a presidential contact, and no one should physically prevent them from doing so. Makes it kind of difficult to maintain an effective security cordon, doesn’t it?

          • jim_m

            You really are an idiot.

            James’ comment was that People had been shot and attempts on their lives had been made. The fact is that no credible threat existed here and none was being made. People trained to deal with these sorts of situations did not see reason to remove Fields or otherwise restrain her.

            You are claiming that an untrained political hack has superior judgement and should have blanket immunity to act in the place of the Secret Service. One would ask why Trump needs the Secret Service since you believe that they are not doing their job and Lewandowski has superior skills in detecting threats.

          • N0 0ne

            So you’re maintaining that Trump’s people are banned from protecting him? Tell me, do bars have bouncers? Do concerts have security? Are their interventions legally limited to saying “Please, sir, if you don’t mind, we’d like you to stop that and leave?” Yeah right

          • jim_m

            Not at all. I am saying that they are accountable to the law. He can be credibly charged and has been. You are claiming that he has blanket immunity. He does not.

          • N0 0ne

            Let’s test your theory. So if anyone other than the Secret Service uses any kind of physical force to protect a public figure, then they’re committing battery, because they don’t have “blanket immunity.”

            Let’s test your theory. Go to any kind of popular music concert, sneak past the security, and touch the star. Whine very loudly if the security people touch you at all physically, then start tweeting and calling your buddies in the media, then, after a week or so, take your whining to the police, and see how you do.

            I’m afraid this scenario is unlikely to work out well for you. Not because of any significant difference legally, but because: 1. You don’t have the contacts in the controlled media to promote your lies, 2. No one is going to see any political advantage to backing you, 3. You’re likely to sustain some actual injury during your escapade, and 4. Sorry, but I suspect you’re likely to get a lot fewer men than Fields white-knighting for you on the internet.

            Give it a shot. Let me know if you get any security guys charged with assault. Hey, if you’re successful, I’ll even admit you were right, OK? You’re on your own for any hospital bills, though…

          • jim_m

            You presume that Trump was being assaulted and that there was reason to believe he was under physical threat. Neither is the case. Lewandowski has been charged. The issue will not be about Trump, it wil be about Lewandowski. He was not employed as private security. The Secret Service was not acting. They have better training and judgement than he does.

          • N0 0ne

            Pay attention. I don’t “presume” anything. I noted that, contrary to the standard Fields Hoax narrative, she pushed her way past the security cordon, which already merits physical intervention.

            She then grabbed his arm, which also merits physical intervention. Your constant sperging out about the Secret Service is meaningless– are bouncers in bars across the country Secret Service? Security at concerts? Yet they enforce the house rules, physically if necessary. How’s that work?

            Guess what, if you attend an event at a facility, you agree to abide by their rules (or the rules of the entity renting the facility). They can enforce those rules themselves. They don’t have to get the Secret Service to do it.

          • jim_m

            Read the link I provided you, dumbass.

          • Hawk_TX

            Florida law states that “A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.” (776.012)

            By Fields own standard unwanted touching constitutes battery. She touched Trump’s arm. That means that Lewandowski can site Florida’s Justifiable use of force laws as an absolute defense. He merely took the action necessary to protect Trump from being battered by a reporter.

            Florida law also state that “A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

            In fact that means that Lewandowski should be considered criminally and civilly immune from prosecution since he was only using force in defense of another.

          • Scalia

            By Fields own standard unwanted touching constitutes battery. She touched Trump’s arm. That means that Lewandowski can site Florida’s Justifiable use of force laws as an absolute defense.

            Slight logical misstep Hawk. Fields’ standard of battery does not control Florida law. Battery has a legal definition and is not merely “unwanted touching.” Tapping somebody on the shoulder to ask for directions does not constitute battery. I think you’ve said that you are either an attorney or have legal training, so I’m not trying to patronize you.

            For others who may read this, the legal definition of battery, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, is:

            Any unlawful beating, or other wrongful physical violence or constraint, inflicted on a human being without his consent. [A] willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another…The slightest touching of another, or of his clothes or anything else attached to his person, if done in a rude, insolent, or angry manner.

            To repeat, I am not asserting criminality at this point. I merely reported that Lewandowski has been charged with battery and that he lied when he denied ever touching Fields. The legal process will play itself out. All this stuff about diverting attention away from this or that bears no relevance to whether somebody lied or whether a crime was committed.

          • Hawk_TX

            I was referring to the moral standard that Fields used to press charges. As you have pointed out the legal standard for battery is very minor. Most people would think it wrong to press charges against someone for brushing past them in a crowded room. By filing a criminal complaint against Lewandowski she has taken a moral stand that his touching her was criminal. I simply pointed out the hypocrisy that his touching was criminal but her touching that initiated the incident was fine. And how Florida Justifiable use of force laws could conceivably offer Lewandowski a defense against her charge.

          • Commander_Chico

            The common law standard of implied consent to being touched when you enter a crowded room applies.

            The floor level video tells the tale – this was nothing.

            At least Fields’s journalistic career is over – what politician would let her near him?

          • Your soi disant credentials continue to multiply.

          • Commander_Chico

            I know a lot of things, like Latin plurals and genders.

          • And your brucehemorrhoid adores you.

          • Jwb10001

            Chico you vote up this James guy? Have you read what he’s written here? Are you also in favor of beating some sense into women? Are you so committed to Trump that even potential women abusers are your friends if they defend Trump? You can’t possibly be that unhinged can you?

          • Fleas from the same mangey cur.

          • Commander_Chico

            I vote up comments, not commenters. Difficult to understand, I know.

          • Jwb10001

            Sorry that don’t cut it. It’s easy to understand you would lay down with the worst sort of our society because of your political views, that’s just despicable.

          • jim_m

            Chico upticked Mussolini because he made the trains run on time.

          • Commander_Chico

            I do agree trains should run on time.

          • Jwb10001

            OK you’ve shown your colors.

          • Commander_Chico

            You like dogs? Do you know who else liked dogs? Hitler!

          • That was redundant.

          • jim_m

            You already know the answers to those questions. Chico does indeed support what James says. All of it.

          • Scalia

            Most people would think it wrong to press charges against someone for brushing past them in a crowded room.

            Chico is correct in that there is implied consent when entering into a crowded area. Incidental touching is to be expected, so no issues of battery would normally arise.

            I simply pointed out the hypocrisy that his touching was criminal but her touching that initiated the incident was fine.

            I don’t see how the two are even remotely the same. A reporter asking a question of a candidate is far different from grabbing the same reporter and yanking her out of the way.

            I keep hearing the claim that he lied but I don’t see any evidence that he did.

            You will find that evidence in a myriad of places, one of which is Trump’s Evolving Explanation of the Alleged Lewandowski-Fields Incident:

            March 11: Lewandowski tweets he never met Fields and never touched her

            “@MichelleFields you are totally delusional. I never touched you. As a matter of fact, I have never met you,” Lewandowski wrote.

            It’s one thing to say that you don’t recall ever touching or meeting somebody; it’s another thing altogether to say that some person is delusional and that you never touched her. He did, in fact, touch her, and as I explained elsewhere in this discussion to Chico, claims of memory loss are not credible.

          • James

            Like I said, jim, you are an imbecile. You got it exactly backwards. The stupid bitch needed to be put in check because Presidential contenders, or President-elects, or Presidents, and even lowly Vice-Presidents, need to be protected. It is the stupid bitch who needs to be put in check. She can’t just run up to a someone in that position and not expect to get knocked on her ass really hard.

  • Jwb10001

    I guess Trump is just going to give up on getting any more than about 20% of the female vote in the general (should we be so unfortunate to have him running for president.) If I were so inclined I would almost think that he’s conspiring with Clinton to get her elected.

    • Commander_Chico

      I’m sure you speak for all women.

      • Jwb10001

        No I don’t but I can read and do know enough about math to know that polling in low 20% range doesn’t really show a great deal of support. Of course any one with a double digit IQ polling that low with a demographic might consider changing their tone. Sadly I doubt Drumph is up to it.

      • We know you speak for all sex tourists.

        • Commander_Chico

          Better a sex tourist than a cuck.

          • jim_m

            They aren’t mutually exclusive dumbass.

  • pennywit

    This would have been a nothing story if the Trump campaign had just apologized to Ms. Fields at the outset.

  • Mjolnir

    If Lewandowski represents the “best” people that Trump hires, to go with his campaign advisors who don’t know the Republican Party rules for nomination, and add in the low-class tweets and some of the things he’s put his name on, a thoughtful person just might pause to wonder about Trump’s judgment, and whether he should be given even more power with which to exercise his Obama-like poor judgment.

    • Commander_Chico

      Yet somehow Trump is winning with the people. Maybe the others, and you, should question their judgment.

      • Like Charlie Sheen was WINNING.

      • Mjolnir

        Are you saying that I’m not people? Or that the 60%+ of Republican primary/caucus voters are not people?
        Or are you saying he’s the “hope & change” candidate for 2016?
        Or are you saying he’s the “hope & change” candidate for 2016?

  • N0 0ne

    So let’s get this straight– the press conference was over, Michelle “Tawana” Fields pushed her way between the Secret Service agents, touched the candidate, was told to back off by Secret Service, ignored them, and was gently moved away from the candidate?

    Who would charge someone with battery for such an obviously BS case? Well:

    Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg is a former state senator, member of the Democratic party, a Trump critic, and is part of Clinton’s Florida “leadership council.” Well, waddaya know…

    • jim_m

      No evidence to support that the Secret Service had asked her to back off. It is not Lewandowski’s job to do the job of the Secret Service.

      • N0 0ne

        “[…] a member of Trump’s Secret Service detail told the Daily Mail on Tuesday that Fields touched Trump twice – and was warned by agents to stop – before Lewandowski pulled her away.

        “She crossed in between agents and our protectee after being told not to,” said the agent, who was present that night in Jupiter.[…] a member of Trump’s Secret Service detail told the Daily Mail on Tuesday that Fields touched Trump twice – and was warned by agents to stop – before Lewandowski pulled her away.

        ““She crossed in between agents and our protectee after being told not to,” said the agent, who was present that night in Jupiter.”
        Etc.

        • jim_m

          In what way does this mean that Lewandowski was needed to do the Secret Service’s job? Does their failure to remove her not substantiate that she in some way had either complied with their requests or at least her behavior had not risen to the level that they believed that she should be removed?

          The answer to that last question is “Yes”. Lewandowski is not a member of the Secret Service. He does not have their training and his judgment is not the same as theirs. Saying that they had asked her to back off is not a defense for Lewandowski to take inappropriate action.

          • N0 0ne

            He’s part of Trump’s team. Trump has his own security as well– the Secret Service is a relatively recent addition. Of course he’s used to protecting the candidate, and continues to do so instinctively. Not only that, but he certainly has a right to do so.

            So the Secret Service agents were lying when they told Fields to back off? Or just joking? You’re not making much sense here.

          • jim_m

            I believe that they asked her to back off. I believe that she must have or they would have removed her.

            You apparently believe that they made that request and then chose to do nothing despite her ignoring their demands. Why are you not accusing the Secret Service of failing to protect Trump? Because you know the whole argument is a pack of lies.

          • N0 0ne

            So grabbing the candidate’s arm is “backing off?” Hmm… Perhaps the Secret Service was used to more reasonable, less narcissistic and entitled reporters, who actually listened to verbal directions? Obviously, they should rope off the media in a separate enclosure in the future.

            It seems pretty clear that if she got by them and made physical contact with Trump, she wasn’t following their orders.

          • jim_m

            Then they should have removed her and not Lewandowski. Or are you still claiming that Lewandowski is a trained Secret Service agent?

          • N0 0ne

            See my argument below. Are you seriously maintaining that his own people aren’t allowed to protect him? Bars can’t have bouncers? Concerts and other events can’t have private security?

          • jim_m

            Now you are claiming that Lewandowski is Trump’s private security guard? When did that happen? Also, Private security is still under the law. You are claiming blanket immunity for Trump and all his campaign staff.

          • N0 0ne

            See above. He’s part of Trump’s team, in a venue that Trump rented. Failing to follow clearly defined rules is implied consent to physical enforcement of those rules.

            You love this term “blanket immunity.” It does not mean what you think it means. Do bars have “blanket immunity?” Stadiums? Concert halls? Yet they somehow manage to use physical force in enforcing the rules, often considerably more force than is used in brushing by someone. Must be protected by that “blanket immunity,” eh?

          • jim_m

            He is not security and your position remains that Trump and all his campaign staff have blanket immunity. It isn’t true. Even private security can be charged criminally with assault and can be sued civilly. You are ignorant of the law.

  • N0 0ne

    What’s the point of this? What did Fields expect to accomplish with such a transparent hoax? It looks like the goals are as follows:

    1. Bad publicity for Trump. The “Pants up! Don’t loot!” riots in Ferguson were based on a narrative that was lies from start to finish, yet the media was able to keep it going for months, simply by repeating the lies. The legacy media feel confident that they can do the same thing this time. The truth doesn’t matter to them.

    2. To distract attention from the Cuban Mistress Crisis.

    3. To distract Lewandowski and waste his time, thus hurting the campaign. I expect that they’ll keep delaying the case as long as they can, then drop it when they can’t drag it out any more. They don’t want to actually subject Fields or any of her co-conspirators to cross examination, obviously.

    4. To try to intimidate Trump, his people, and the Secret Service into being “nicer” (less effective) when it comes to the security of the candidate. This would make the job easier for the next guy who tries to jump on stage to attack him (or for any potential assassin, of course).

    5. To get publicity for Fields’ book (due out this month) and enhance her visibility to try to move up in the media world.

    6. All they need to pull it off is a DA who’s an amoral Clinton hack, and a controlled media that they can count on to push the approved false narrative. They’ve got both, so…

    • jim_m

      1) Field’s claims are backed up by video. Thus not a false narrative. The false narrative is from people like yourself claiming that the videos are all lies. I’m waiting for you to say that the videos are faked.

      2) This incident happened prior to Trump coming out with the false allegations of Cruz’s affairs. Note that the women Trump has accused are also saying tht the accusations are lies. There is nothing to support the accusations of the affairs other than Trump and his uninformed supporters.

      3) This would have been resolved in an instant if Lewandowski had simply apologized. Instead he attacked the integrity of Fields. Had he done that this whole thing would have been history. The only person wasting Lewandowski’s time is Lewandowski.

      4) The Secret Service is not accused in any way so claiming that this is an attempt to intimidate them is laughable. It demonstrates that you are an idiot.

      5) Finally an argument that makes sense, but since I was unaware that she has a book coming out and have never heard her promoting it and since I can find no evidence of her having a book coming out other than from Trump supporters claiming that this is publicity for her book, I call bullshit.

      6) So your claim is that a Breitbart reporter is in league with a far left dem DA. You really are an idiot.

      • N0 0ne

        1. You’re obviously looking at those videos, which clear Lewandowski completely, from a very biased perspective. That’s understandable; you seem to be a very emotionally-driven person, with all these random insults and everything. You just can’t control yourself– I understand.

        2. As I explained at length previously, the Cuban Mistress Crisis allegations have been well known in the political and media communities for months, and were shopped around to various media outlets by the Rubio people before the National Enquirer published them. It’s not clear whether the NE got them directly from the Rubio people, or from someone else. Interesting that Cruz has refused to specifically deny them isn’t it? Why do you think that Heidi Cruz cancelled multiple campaign appearances in NY and New Jersey? Is she worried about the Fields Hoax? Or the Cuban Mistress Crisis?

        3. Ah, the old leftist SJW technique– “Apologize! Because we say you should! It doesn’t matter what the facts are!” Well, actually, it does.

        4. If you are unable to see that abusing the Trump people for acting appropriately in assuring his security has potential detrimental effects on his security, then it is you whose cognitive abilities are called into question.

        5. Yes, she does have a book coming out. Google is your friend. Also, she has pulled this fake assault trick as an attention-seeking technique before, with Allen West and with the NYPD.

        6. Again, your cognitive capabilities seem to be strained by the attempt to comprehend how the Democratic candidate for president would benefit from having one of her minions file charges against the campaign manager for her likely opponent. Not too hard for most people to see, really.

        • jim_m

          1) you have no #1.demonstrating that you are an idiot and cannot count properly.

          2) As I have said, specific allegations only came from Trump and only came after this incident. Claiming that this is to distract from Cruz is a lie and only an idiot would believe it.

          3) Yes, I am an SJW. Just ask all the routine posters to this blog. I am well know as an SJW here.

          4) This was never about Trump. Only an idiot thinks that it is.

          5) I googled it already. I got page after page of idiots like you claiming that she has a book coming out. Not a single one can name the title of the book or its subject. No reputable media outlet has repeated that claim. If it were true I should be able to find something. If it were true that Fields was using this for publicity I would expect to see something from her, but I don’t. Only an idiot would believe this fabrication.

          6) This isn’t about Hillary. This is about your claim that a far right reporter is in league with a far left DA. You are incoherent.

          Pretty much you have made yourself look like an idiot. I can go on like this forever, because you are delivering unsubstantiated lies and incoherent arguments. In case you missed it (because you probably have) you are an idiot.

          • N0 0ne

            1. Glad to see you admit I’m right about the videos. There’s hope for you yet.

            2. Everyone important in media and politics knew about the Cuban Mistress Crisis allegations, and knew that the media would be asking Cruz about sex with hookers in the near future.

            3. Glad you’re able to man up and admit it. You may call yourself GOPe, but it’s the same thing when it comes to those kind of leftist, basically feminine, techniques.

            4. Yes, no one jumped onto the stage to attack Trump in Ohio, and he hasn’t received many, many death threats. What world do you live in? Because it’s not the same as the one the rest of us are in.

            5. Try harder. I have faith in you.

            6. Let’s try again: Again, your cognitive capabilities seem to be strained by the attempt to comprehend how the Democratic candidate for president would benefit from having one of her minions file charges against the campaign manager for her likely opponent. Not too hard for most people to see, really. You seriously don’t think this is a conflict of interest?

          • Commander_Chico

            You are an SJW, half the time you sound like a member of the Smith College Women’s Studies faculty.

          • And you are commissar chicka puta.

          • Hawk_TX

            5. Her book is called Barons of the Beltway. Here is an article where she is using the Lewandowski incident to promote her book. Every copy of her book comes with a photocopied note telling her account of the incident.

            http://www.washingtonian.com/2016/05/05/michelle-fields-donald-trump-new-book/

            Here is the Amazon page.
            http://www.amazon.com/Barons-Beltway-Washington-Elite-Overthrow/dp/0553447556/ref=zg_bsnr_11105_37

      • Hawk_TX

        1. Her claims are not backed up by video. The video released by the police doesn’t actually show what people claim it does.

        First it has a very slow frame rate giving a false impression of rapid or sudden motion.

        And second it does not actually show Lewandowski touch her at all. It merely shows him approach her and reach towards her. Then we cannot see what happened because our view is blocked by her body. He could of motioned for her to back off without touching her, he could of gently brushed by her, or he could of violently grabbed her. It almost looks like he grabbed her arm but it could of just of been her stopping and raising her arm in reaction to him. The frame rate prevents us from getting an accurate idea of the motion of her arm.

        The fact is the video doesn’t actually show what happened and people are reading into it what they want based on there preconceptions.

        The first video released weeks ago is much more informative to what happened.

        http://i2.wp.com/www.dangerandplay.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/7V5Yhmy-Imgur.gif?resize=718%2C404

        This video even with a slowed down frame rate shows that he just momentarily brushed past her. Hardly the impression of a violent jerk that the virtual stop motion police video gave. In addition her facial expressions do not look like that of a woman who was just attacked.

        • Scalia

          And second it does not actually show Lewandowski touch her at all. It merely shows him approach her and reach towards her. Then we cannot see what happened because our view is blocked by her body.

          With due respect, Hawk, I think you’re reaching with that one. Fields was walking alongside Trump. Her attention was focused on him because she was asking him a question. Lewandowski reaches for her and Fields suddenly stops her forward progress and the left side of her body turns in the same direction as Lewandowski’s arm appears to be pulling, and she goes back (away) from Trump.

          It’s one thing for you to dispute any criminality, but both videos show Fields’ forward progress coming to a sudden stop to turn in the direction of Lewandowski’s reach and moving backwards (away) from the direction she was walking. Her being grabbed was corroborated by the Washington Post reporter standing practically behind her. I can respect the view that Lewandowski was perhaps trying to protect Trump (although I think SSA’s would be in a better position to judge that), but to argue that he may not have touched her at all gives the appearance that you’re acting as a partisan.

          • Hawk_TX

            Acknowledging that none of the released videos actually shows them making physical contact is being impartial not partisan. I said that ” He could of motioned for her to back off without touching her, he could of gently brushed by her, or he could of violently grabbed her.” I never offered judgement on what happened I merely pointed out that the video evidence is suggestive but inconclusive.

          • Scalia

            I realize that, Hawk, but that type of suggestion is, as I’ve stated, a reach (IMO). Given what both videos show, I do not believe it is rational to suggest that Lewandowski may not have grabbed Fields. We not only have circumstantial evidence from the videos, we have an eyewitness account from a Washington Post reporter. To me, it is better to argue that Fields exaggerated (or lied) about how she was grabbed.

          • Shoudn’t that be “…partisan hack.”

  • pennywit

    The Trump/Trump supporter defense here seems to break into four layers:

    1. It didn’t happen.

    2. If it did happen, it wasn’t nearly as bad as she says it was.

    3. If it did happen and it was nearly as bad as she says it was, Donald Trump was legitimately afraid of assault by pen. And by the way, we need to do a better job enforcing existing pen-control laws.

    4. If it did happen and it was nearly as bad as she says it was and Donald Trump wasn’t afraid of her pen, then she’s just seeking attention.

    Like most political brouhahas, this little tempest is not about the precipitating incident. it’s about how Donald Trump and his people react when a Trump employee is accused of wrongdoing, and when others challenge the Trump organization’s version of those events.

    It’s all very illuminating.

    • James

      There’s reasons why people are not believing Michelle Fields.

  • thank you so much

  • Constitution First

    Really? Is this worthy of all the attention it’s getting?
    Or is this just a diversion by the establishment to ram their guy home?
    We have a walking security violation selling State Department favors for a personal slush fund in the 100’s of millions of dollars running for president, yet this isn’t worthy of discussing?

    • Currently neither party has a nominee. While it is likely that HRC will emerge as the Democratic nominee, it is by no means certain, and assuredly not my problem.

      My problem is to get a reliable Constitutional Conservative as the nominee of the Republican Part.

      HETL

    • jim_m

      What’s to discuss? She committed a crime. The left is content that she did it in the service of their agenda so they don’t give a damn. It doesn’t matter how many CIA agents she exposed or how many foreign assets lost their lives. Any price is worth staying in power for the people who vote democrat.

  • I criticized Michelle Fields for her insinuation that everything she says must be believed because she is the one who said it. The Breitbart management had cause to hesitate to accuse Corey Lewandowski of wrong-doing, because at the time there was no clear evidence that it was definitely Lewandowski who made physical contact with Fields. Breitbart simply could not say with certainty that Fields correctly identified who grabbed her.

    Fields could have waited until more evidence came out that corroborated her claim. Instead, she quit because she wanted her word to be the final authority on the matter.

    • Scalia

      Breitbart wasn’t merely hesitant; they concluded based on the then-current photographic evidence that it was unlikely that Lewandowski grabbed her. You’re still forgetting the fact that a Washington Post reporter corroborated her claim. Fields didn’t insist that her word alone should be accepted.

      • N0 0ne

        And a Washington Post photographer, Jabin Botsford, lied and said he wasn’t present at the event. When presented with copyright evidence (from his photos) proving he was there, he then changed his tune and said “I didn’t hear of or see any assaults at that event.” He was in an excellent position to observe/ photograph the alleged Fields Hoax event.

        Why did he lie initially, then move to the “I know nothing” position? Could it be that he didn’t want to get involved in the hoax, but also didn’t want to throw his co-worker under the bus?

        • Scalia

          Yes, I had seen that, and it’s possible the situation is as you say, but that’s speculation. I am responding to David’s insistence that Fields wanted Breitbart to accept her word without corroboration. If you read David’s original piece (linked in my lead post), and his reply here, he appears unaware that Terris corroborated her claim.