Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why Trump Loves Lewandowski
Donald Trump with campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.
In a year of floors falling away under one’s feet (such as the assumption that nearly all Americans demand a minimal level of civility in public life), the Corey Lewandowski story represents one more gob smack. That Donald Trump stands by the belligerent Lewandowski tells us more of what we already knew about Trump, and also hints at the coward beneath the blowhard.
First, the battery. The campaign manager – not a volunteer, not even a hired security guard – but the honest-to-goodness campaign manager, nearly shoved reporter Michelle Fields to the ground and inflicted bruises on her arm. When she protested, there was no apology. Instead, the campaign at first suggested that there was a mistake: Lewandowski mistook Fields (who worked at the time for the pro-Trump Breitbart.com) for a member of the mainstream media. Oh, so that makes shoving okay? But the campaign quickly reverted to outright lies. Hope Hicks, a Trump campaign spokesman, said that Fields’ account was “entirely false…. I did not witness any encounter … not a single camera or reporter of more than 100 in attendance captured the alleged incident.” Trump himself offered that “maybe she made it up.”
Except there was an eyewitness, Ben Terris, of the Washington Post, who confirmed Fields’ account that very day. And the following day there was an audio recording of the Terris/Field conversation immediately after the incident, which further confirmed her account. And then there were videos, one of which was enough to convince the police to bring battery charges.
Never mind. In the morality-free Trump zone, facts are optional. “You are totally delusional,” Lewandowski said of Fields. “I never touched you. As a matter of fact, I have never even met you.” Trumpkins disdain eyewitnesses, audio recordings, and videotape. You have your truth, as our friends on the left would say, and I have mine. Not even Bill Clinton was so brazen.
So the battery is an established fact shamelessly denied. And then there is the character assassination. Trump has suggested that Fields was an attention seeker, and sneered that she’s “not a baby, okay?” This is classic Trump – attacking those he has already wronged. Asked in an early debate about the people left holding the bag after his four bankruptcies, he dismissed them, saying they were “big boys and girls.” Actually, many were electricians, carpenters, and other working people who couldn’t afford his fancy lawyers.
Any number of Trump-enabling commentators have advised Michelle Fields to get over it, put on her “big boy pants,” and otherwise to suck it up.
Really? What about the big boy who’s running for president? Why is he so scared? Perhaps Trump’s fondness for Lewandowski is not in spite of his henchman’s willingness to get physical but because of it.
Trump seems more than usually frightened of protesters. To be sure, every candidate gets serious threats, and doubtless Trump has received some. But his threshold for feeling vulnerable seems unusually low. Before a rally in Iowa, he was told that some protesters might throw tomatoes at him. He was sufficiently alarmed to tell the crowd: “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them.” For tomatoes. Nor has he been shy about calling down violence even on those who merely attempted to disrupt his speeches (which, I hasten to add, they have no right to do), but which in no way justifies mob violence.
On another occasion, Lewandowski waded into the crowd and grabbed a protester by the collar. Trump approved of this maneuver too, explaining (if that’s the right word) to CNN’s Anderson Cooper that the man’s sign contained very bad words. Non sequitur.
The Trump campaign has changed its story several times about Michelle Fields. The latest, on CNN Tuesday night, featured Trump justifying Lewandowki’s manhandling of Fields because she approached the TV star armed with a pen “which is very dangerous.” Tomatoes, Bics, is there no end to the threats against Trump?
Donald Trump avoided the draft by claiming bone spurs in his heels – which somehow didn’t keep him off the ski slopes. Yet he had the gall to disparage the heroism of John McCain. His only real exposure to danger, his “personal Vietnam” he says, was sleeping around and risking STDs in the 1970s.
Trump is a physically large man with the courage of a mouse. Like many cowards, he loves tough talk, but he prefers to issue threats from the comfort of his private jet and to let bullyboys like Lewandowski actually get their hands dirty. Purely as a matter of national hygiene, Lewandowski should be fired. But more importantly, so should his boss.
Published in General
Nope. The evidence would not seem to indicate as much.
I’d like to think so because it would make me less pessimistic about human nature. The reality is less pleasant. This has gone way too far for an apology; Ms. Fields is far too invested in this now. Besides, an apology’s sincerity would be questionable at this point.
You’re wrong–the intent required is only to perform the act.
Did you happen to notice this:
Been there, done that too.
Read it again:
Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
You were wrong then too.
Are we going to skip the “or” part after (1)?
You are incorrect. Notice the word “or,”
(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
I appreciate the sentiment in how ladies should be treated.
In this case she is a professional journalist, pursuing a story, and I think this “rough and tumble” is part of the job description.
So Mona is being “childish”? I agree, but for different reasons. She’s also being unprofessional by not using the word allegedly, as there is not yet (and will likely not be) a conviction.
I think this incident is hurting this young lady’s future employment prospects.
I watched the latest video 12 times and have yet to see Corey push Michelle to the floor. Trump deserves a lot of criticism for many things, but this? And Trump not throwing his campaign manager under the bus to rid himself of a distraction is rather endearing in my opinion.
Sorry. I have to disagree. There is never an excuse. Michelle Fields is a small, slightly frail woman. Lewandowski is a large man. The disproportional difference in size completely precludes any excuses for the use of force. She is a reporter, not a soldier. Rough and tumble may be used in the metaphoric sense, but not physically. The simple size difference would be considered sufficient cause in another situation for Michelle to use deadly force to defend herself from someone Lewandowski’s size.
When I read Ms. Charen’s piece, I expected the “shoving” comment to be questioned. I agree that it’s too strong. Still, that doesn’t change the fact that there was very likely a battery (pending a plea or trial).
Trump does not apologize, he just filibusters the question with nonsense. If he is the nominee, I am preparing for a democratic super majority
I don’t know about you, but this is the last time I’m going to pull a suicidal friend out of traffic.
I’m sure you could offer life saving as an affirmative defense.
right…. who would hillary rather face? Who does she poll better against in the general? Who has the highest negative rating in presidential history. And if it was politically motivated, why not wait till trump had the nomination sewn up….
He is being charged with misdemeanor battery. And if the prosecutor peruses charges he is still innocent until proven guilty.
No, here it is again, the Florida definition of Simple Battery’ from Section 784.03, Florida Statues :
*
Note the “OR” between the two clauses. That means EITHER you meet the definition by performing act #1, OR you meet the definition by performing act #2. You do not have to do both.
The intent to cause harm is not required. As long as Corey Lewandowski “intentionally” touched her (which it’s pretty clear in the video that he did, because he is making a bee-line for her), then it fits the definition.
Personally, I think, and have always thought, that the whole thing is ridiculous. It’s obvious he grabbed her/shoved her. He should have apologized and got this over with. He should have done that because the Trump Campaign is bigger than Corey Lewandowski. And he should have done that in order to allow his boss to return to the substantive discussion of important issues that has been the hallmark of his campaign. Oh. Wait . . . .
Evidently, it is beneficial to the Trump campaign to keep this going, and to continue to inflame passions on both sides by taking one contradictory position after another. That’s the one (perhaps the only) thing Trump is really good at. Forget what I said before about substantive discussion. I was thinking of something else.
Perhaps Trump hopes that by doing this people will not pay any attention to the fact that Ted Cruz has taken a 10-point lead in the latest Wisconsin polls.
Watch out for further diversionary tactics, coming, between now and next Tuesday, to a 24-hour news channel near you.
Wait. They filed a police report? Not her? Really!
You will be amazed about people suing for just that very thing. Maybe a friend won’t. Also I think she pressed charges. If she refused to press them would the cops even have known or bothered?
Intent may be relevant?
You guys are quite correct. My mistake.
Part 1 is absurdly inclusive. If a person taps another’s shoulder to get his attention, that’s battery in Florida. I suppose the question turns on if it is against the will of the touched person. I don’t see how it can be determined to be “against the will of the other” unless explicit consent is given. So a shoulder tap would seem to be against the will of the other, hence battery in Florida.
There must be plenty of case law on this. Any Florida lawyers in the house?
Use physical force with impunity? Isn’t that just a bit of an exaggeration? He grabber her arm. How does that translate into Lewandowski thinking he can use force with impunity?
Also, what if there was no bruising? Would that still be battery? Maybe Fields bruises easily, who knows, but bruising is irrelevant to the definition you’re arguing.
Last, leaving aside your environment where it’s never ok to touch a woman without her permission, this kind of contact happens every night in bars across the world. Arms are grabbed, backs touched, shoulders tapped, legs brushed with other legs – much of it unwanted and unasked for and quite intentional. Are those all instances of battery too?
Not me, but you’re right. It doesn’t take much to commit battery. Two things will prevent minimal touching from being charged–testimony from the “touched” and prosecutorial discretion. In this case, the issues are what Fields says about “against the will,” and marks on her arm that limit discretion. The latter shouldn’t be overlooked, no matter how minor the contact seems. I wouldn’t argue that national visibility didn’t play a part in this, but it is a battery within the statute. I’d suspect that Fields could make it go away.
Not a required element of the crime but definitely could be a component of a defense.
As I wrote in this thread, irrespective of the legal outcomes, no one including the Trump campaign is offering a version of the story that doesn’t leave Corey Lewandowski a liar and part of an effort to smear Fields.
It’s remarkable and depressingly predictable that this seems to matter not at all to many Trump supporters. Happily, their preferred candidate seems to be flailing a bit and losing steam. Hopefully, that continues.
Isn’t this problematic, though? How can a person be sure if touching another is against the will of the touched person beforehand?
As a practical matter would a person be convicted of battery for minimal, albeit intentional, touching? Granted, in this case there were marks on her arm so it wasn’t minimal. But the law does not require injury. The standard seems so absurd to me that I’d expect case law to circumscribe the boundaries somewhat.
Where on God’s green earth would what we saw on that video ever justify Fields pulling out her gun and shooting Lewandowski? Not this situation but a different situation, you say? Then why bring it up? We’re not talking about a different situation – we’re talking about this one.
Since we’re on the subject, though, if a guy had grabbed her arm on a dance floor, are you really saying that would be sufficient for her to shoot him on the spot simply because of the size difference?
And that comment received four “likes” to date. Yikes! TDS indeed. This is where I’d like to know who’s liking which comments around here. You know, just so I can be sure to never make physical contact with them.