Assault Is Wrong

 

Greg Gianforte.

The first question you have to wonder about concerning the assault and battery allegedly committed by Montana congressional candidate Greg Gianforte is: How could he possibly have put out a miserable, lying cover story when there were at least four witnesses in the room?  The second question is: Do you regret early voting yet?

Here’s the account from Greg Gianforte’s press aide Shane Scanlon:

Tonight, as Greg was giving a separate interview in a private office, The Guardian’s Ben Jacobs entered the office without permission, aggressively shoved a recorder in Greg’s face, and began asking badgering questions. Jacobs was asked to leave. After asking Jacobs to lower the recorder, Jacobs declined. Greg then attempted to grab the phone that was pushed in his face. Jacobs grabbed Greg’s wrist, and spun away from Greg, pushing them both to the ground. It’s unfortunate that this aggressive behavior from a liberal journalist created this scene at our campaign volunteer BBQ.

Whoa. I guess the “liberal journalist” had it coming. Sure enough, there were several Republican provocateurs ready to justify an unprovoked physical attack on a journalist. I’ll come to those, but first, consider that three Fox News journalists and a reporter for BuzzFeed were in the room and saw what happened. Fox’s Alicia Acuna released a statement within hours describing things a bit differently. She and her crew were setting up for a taped interview. Ben Jacobs of the Guardian newspaper entered the room, put a microphone near Gianforte’s face, and asked questions about the CBO report on the Republican health care plan. (Who knew that those were fighting words?) Acuna continued:

Gianforte told him to talk to his press guy, Shane Scanlon. At that point, Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him. Faith, Keith and I watched in disbelief as Gianforte then began punching the reporter. As Gianforte moved on top of Jacobs, he began yelling something to the effect of, ‘I’m sick and tired of this!’ Jacobs scrambled to his knees and said something about his glasses being broken. He asked Faith, Keith and myself for our names. In shock, we did not answer. Jacobs then said he wanted the police called and went to leave. Gianforte looked at the three of us and repeatedly apologized. At that point, I told him and Scanlon, who was now present, that we needed a moment. The men then left.

Jacobs’s cell phone recorded all of it. Alexis Levinson of BuzzFeed was apparently in the room as well. She tweeted “Ben walked into a room where a local tv crew was set up for an interview with Gianforte. All of a sudden I heard a giant crash and saw Ben’s feet fly in the air as he hit the floor.” Greg Gianforte appears to be guilty not just of the attack, but of attempting to smear his victim. Note that he apologized to the people he had not wronged, but not to the one he had.

In the ordinary course of politics, some overheated or criminal supporter of this or that candidate will do something felonious or (more often) tasteless and it falls to the candidate to condemn it and mouth platitudes about respect for civility, your right to say it, and the rule of law. For the candidate himself to be the (alleged) criminal is a little out of the ordinary.

But the age of Trump has corrupted a great many people and shattered norms. Those whose moral compass has long since been stashed in the bottom drawer defending the indefensible piled on to applaud Gianforte’s thuggishness. The Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell tweeted “Jacobs is an obnoxious, dishonest, first class jerk. I’m not surprised he got smacked.” (For the record, I’ve known Bozell for decades and hope this was a momentary lapse of judgment. We’ve all experienced the itchy Twitter finger.)

Laura Ingraham chose to impugn Jacobs’ manhood: “Politicians always need to keep their cool. But what would most Montana men do if ‘body slammed’ for no reason by another man?” She followed up with “Did anyone get his lunch money stolen today and then run to tell the recess monitor?”

Dinesh D’Souza struck the same tone, calling Jacobs a “crybaby,” and also implying that the story was a “scam” perpetrated by Jacobs to swing the election to the Democrat.

None of this is a gray area. You either uphold certain basic standards of decency or you don’t. Some who call themselves conservatives have shown that they are nothing of the kind. To be conservative is to be honorable. These are contemptible, partisan hacks. Let’s close with another Ingraham tweet whose cynicism passeth all understanding: “Loyalty…courage…valor…honor…truth…at risk of becoming lost virtues in Washington, DC.”

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 146 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    Mona Charen: Assault Is Wrong

    Also, motherhood and apple pie are good. Oh, and politicians lie. If only as many pixels were devoted to the lies, misrepresentations, and calumny perpetrated by the Left! But no, safer to pile on some nobody candidate for Congress in a special election. You’ll earn the approbation of the amen corner in the leftist media, or at least you won’t come under attack right away.

    Congrats, you’ll be among the last ones up against the wall after the Left takes over.

    • #1
  2. B. Hugh Mann Inactive
    B. Hugh Mann
    @BHughMann

    But the age of Trump has corrupted a great many people and shattered norms.

    What on earth is this?  Where were you during the Obama administration?  Moral compass!?  Oh my word. I have read your columns for years but I’m done.

    • #2
  3. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    However, Acuna retracted a major point of her “eyewitness” account in an interview with Laura Ingraham on her radio show:

    Ingraham: “One of you guys said last night that he put his hands around his neck. Which, as somebody who’s done a lot of taekwondo and self-defense, to me that seemed, that might not be exactly right.”

    Acuna: “You know, and I’m the one who said that. I saw both his hands go up, not around his neck in a strangling type of way, but more just on each side of his neck, just grabbed him and I guess it could’ve been on his clothes, I don’t know.”

    Ingraham asked Acuna if that meant she was changing her story.

    Ingraham: “Again, just to clarify, he didn’t grab him by the neck with both hands in the way that was initially described, that’s not quite accurate.”

    Acura: “​No, so it wasn’t like he grabbed him around the neck, he had one hand on each side of his neck.”

    In other words, you’re highlighting a description of an event that is no longer considered the truth. And that’s wrong, too.

    • #3
  4. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Whatever the facts of this event are, people’s responses to it sure are telling.

    • #4
  5. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    EJHill (View Comment):
    However, Acuna retracted a major point of her “eyewitness” account in an interview with Laura Ingraham on her radio show:

    Ingraham: “One of you guys said last night that he put his hands around his neck. Which, as somebody who’s done a lot of taekwondo and self-defense, to me that seemed, that might not be exactly right.”

    Acuna: “You know, and I’m the one who said that. I saw both his hands go up, not around his neck in a strangling type of way, but more just on each side of his neck, just grabbed him and I guess it could’ve been on his clothes, I don’t know.”

    Ingraham asked Acuna if that meant she was changing her story.

    Ingraham: “Again, just to clarify, he didn’t grab him by the neck with both hands in the way that was initially described, that’s not quite accurate.”

    Acura: “​No, so it wasn’t like he grabbed him around the neck, he had one hand on each side of his neck.”

    In other words, you’re highlighting a description of an event that is no longer considered the truth. And that’s wrong, too.

    A retraction  and a correction are two different things.  If the only change is well, his hands were by his neck, not around his neck, that is no retraction.

    • #5
  6. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Mona Charen: Assault Is Wrong

    Also, motherhood and apple pie are good. Oh, and politicians lie. If only as many pixels were devoted to the lies, misrepresentations, and calumny perpetrated by the Left! But no, safer to pile on some nobody candidate for Congress in a special election. You’ll earn the approbation of the amen corner in the leftist media, or at least you won’t come under attack right away.

    Congrats, you’ll be among the last ones up against the wall after the Left takes over.

    This is nonsense.  How much do you think Mona has written about the “calumny perpetrated by the left” over the years?  But, no, she wrote something you don’t like, so now she’s just a stooge for them?  Poppycock.

    • #6
  7. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    B. Hugh Mann (View Comment):
    But the age of Trump has corrupted a great many people and shattered norms.

    What on earth is this? Where were you during the Obama administration? Moral compass!? Oh my word. I have read your columns for years but I’m done.

    If you read her column for years, you know where she was during the Obama administration.

    • #7
  8. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    EJHill (View Comment):
    However, Acuna retracted a major point of her “eyewitness” account in an interview with Laura Ingraham on her radio show:

    Ingraham: “One of you guys said last night that he put his hands around his neck. Which, as somebody who’s done a lot of taekwondo and self-defense, to me that seemed, that might not be exactly right.”

    Acuna: “You know, and I’m the one who said that. I saw both his hands go up, not around his neck in a strangling type of way, but more just on each side of his neck, just grabbed him and I guess it could’ve been on his clothes, I don’t know.”

    Ingraham asked Acuna if that meant she was changing her story.

    Ingraham: “Again, just to clarify, he didn’t grab him by the neck with both hands in the way that was initially described, that’s not quite accurate.”

    Acura: “​No, so it wasn’t like he grabbed him around the neck, he had one hand on each side of his neck.”

    In other words, you’re highlighting a description of an event that is no longer considered the truth. And that’s wrong, too.

    This is very interesting to me. The plot thickens. When I first read this story over on the Member Feed, my first thought was to get mad at the reporters for not helping Jacobs. I hope if someone were ever strangling me that bystanders would stop the person doing it.

    I can’t help thinking if she is now changing her story, she is covering for her own shame in standing there watching this happen and not putting herself in between the guy getting beaten up and the candidate.

    More likely she was exaggerating the first time and she was lying to hurt the candidate. She completely overlooked the fact that if it happened the way she described, she was negligent. And a coward.

    This reporter’s attempt to manipulate public opinion is backfiring. As it should.

    Interesting. I wonder if we will ever know the truth.

    • #8
  9. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    MarciN (View Comment):
    So now either she was exaggerating the first time and she was lying to hurt the candidate, or she is feeling partly responsible that Jacobs suffered so and she did nothing to stop it.

    Or maybe the encounter shook her up, and she isn’t quite sure what she saw.  Again, to categorize a clarification between “hands around the neck” and “hands near the neck” is no retraction, no changing of the story, no backpedaling.  It’s a clarification.  And if that’s the only thing that is different between her initial statement and what she said the Ingraham, then the analysis stands.

    These liberal reporters are annoying, infuriating, almost always wrong.  But that doesn’t mean you get to grab them, throw them to the ground, the start punching them, does it?

    • #9
  10. Hypatia Member
    Hypatia
    @

    [Redacted] does this have to do with Trump?

    As usual :?

    • #10
  11. Flizzo Stizzo Member
    Flizzo Stizzo
    @FlizzoStizzo

    For what it’s worth, I don’t think the woman in the photo is Greg Gianforte’s wife.

    • #11
  12. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Speaking of Americans being beaten for exercising their First Amendment rights, where were you, Mona, when Trump supporters were getting beat up? Why should aggressive journalists be protected while exercising First Amendment rights if  ordinary Americans are not?:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K1wEgDdO64

     

     

    • #12
  13. rod Inactive
    rod
    @rod

    Spin (View Comment):

    B. Hugh Mann (View Comment):
    But the age of Trump has corrupted a great many people and shattered norms.

    What on earth is this? Where were you during the Obama administration? Moral compass!? Oh my word. I have read your columns for years but I’m done.

    If you read her column for years, you know where she was during the Obama administration.

    I’m not defending gianforte but mona is a little too high-minded for my taste. very few people measure up in her world.

    • #13
  14. rod Inactive
    rod
    @rod

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):
    Speaking of Americans being beaten for exercising their First Amendment rights, where were you, Mona, whe Trump supporters were getting beat up? Why should aggressive journalists enjoy be protecting for exercising First Amendment rights if ordinary Americans are not?:

    she won’t stand up for them because she loathes trump.

    • #14
  15. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Spin (View Comment):
    Or maybe the encounter shook her up, and she isn’t quite sure what she saw. Again, to categorize a clarification between “hands around the neck” and “hands near the neck” is no retraction, no changing of the story, no backpedaling. It’s a clarification. And if that’s the only thing that is different between her initial statement and what she said the Ingraham, then the analysis stands.

    I think there’s a big difference. You can put your hands on someone’s shoulders near his or her neck and push the person without strangling him or her. You can’t put your hands around someone’s neck without strangling that person.

    There’s a big difference in how she is describing this scene. One is forceful. The other is angry out-of-control violence. The scene she first described was pretty terrifying: the candidate put his hands around Jacobs’s neck and pushed him to the ground. That is very violent. I would not have stood by and let someone do that to another person. Why did she?

    • #15
  16. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    EJHill (View Comment):
    However, Acuna retracted a major point of her “eyewitness” account in an interview with Laura Ingraham on her radio show:

    Ingraham: “One of you guys said last night that he put his hands around his neck. Which, as somebody who’s done a lot of taekwondo and self-defense, to me that seemed, that might not be exactly right.”

    Acuna: “You know, and I’m the one who said that. I saw both his hands go up, not around his neck in a strangling type of way, but more just on each side of his neck, just grabbed him and I guess it could’ve been on his clothes, I don’t know.”

    Ingraham asked Acuna if that meant she was changing her story.

    Ingraham: “Again, just to clarify, he didn’t grab him by the neck with both hands in the way that was initially described, that’s not quite accurate.”

    Acura: “​No, so it wasn’t like he grabbed him around the neck, he had one hand on each side of his neck.”

    In other words, you’re highlighting a description of an event that is no longer considered the truth. And that’s wrong, too.

    But he still bodyslammed and punched the guy right? So it’s still assault and battery.

    • #16
  17. Arizona Patriot Member
    Arizona Patriot
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Assault is not assault if it is the justified use of force.

    I do not know the facts regarding this confrontation.  There seem to be several reports, somewhat inconsistent with each other.

    In at least one of these accounts, a reporter storms in to a private office, begins questioning the candidate with a recording device shoved into his face, and refuses to leave.  That is an aggressive act, and perhaps criminal trespass.  Imagine someone barging into your living room and doing this.

    Part of the problem is that aggressors think that they can occupy private property, refuse proper requests to leave, and even physically corner someone, without giving any justification for a violent response.  I think that a violent response is often justified in such circumstances, and would go a long way toward teaching the obnoxious aggressors to back off.

     

    I do not know whether a physical response was justified in the particular incident described in Mona’s OP.  I strongly disagree with Mona’s conclusion that a violent response could never be justified under something like the circumstances described.

    • #17
  18. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):
    Or maybe the encounter shook her up, and she isn’t quite sure what she saw. Again, to categorize a clarification between “hands around the neck” and “hands near the neck” is no retraction, no changing of the story, no backpedaling. It’s a clarification. And if that’s the only thing that is different between her initial statement and what she said the Ingraham, then the analysis stands.

    I think there’s a big difference. You can put your hands on someone’s shoulders near his or her neck and push the person without strangling him or her. You can’t put your hands around someone’s neck without strangling that person.

    There’s a big difference in how she is describing this scene. One is forceful. The other angry out-of-control violence. The scene she first described was pretty terrifying: the candidate put his hands around Jacobs’s neck and pushed him to the ground. That is very violent. I would not have stood by and let someone do that to another person. Why did she?

    Complete nonsense.

    A – It doesn’t really matter, she didn’t say he was strangling him, she said he threw him to the ground.

    B – “pretty terrifying” is likely why she didn’t do anything.  That and the fact that it probably happened pretty quickly.

    100% of the blame for this is on Gianforte, based on what we’ve seen so far.  Nothing to do with Trump, nothing to do with the Media.  Just a guy who got out of control and should be held accountable.

    • #18
  19. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    But he still bodyslammed and punched the guy right? So it’s still assault and battery.

    No, because Mona doesn’t like Trump, that’s why.

    • #19
  20. ModEcon Inactive
    ModEcon
    @ModEcon

    First off, I don’t know much more than what is written here. Second, I agree that Gianforte is most likely very wrong to have done what he did, according to the info I have got.

    But, the fact that Gianforte is in the wrong also doesn’t necessarily mean that the reporter was not also in the wrong.

    It sounds like the reporter was basically trespassing or harassing the candidate. I just want to point out how little difference this story has with a different version (alternate reality) in which a reporter gets pushed down for trespassing and harassing someone. I make no claim that this is what actually happened, perhaps I should wait 24 hours…

    But seriously, “But the age of Trump has corrupted a great many people and shattered norms.” Huh??? No! This age maybe, not Trump alone. Don’t blame this on him.

    • #20
  21. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):
    I do not know whether a physical response was justified in the particular incident described in Mona’s OP. I strongly disagree with Mona’s conclusion that a violent response could never be justified under something like the circumstances described.

    If someone came in your office, pushed a mic in your face, and refused to leave, would you grab him, throw him and down, and beat on him?  I’m with you in general:  sometimes you gotta beat a guy down.  Take Jamie for instance.  He won’t change his own toner so requires a beat down.

    But, seriously, imagine this is the situation, for you personally.  Would you grab him, throw him down, and start punching him?  Maybe you’d slap the recorder out of his hand, maybe push your way past to get to a security guard.  But grab him, throw him down, and start punching him?

    • #21
  22. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Spin (View Comment):
    At that point, Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him.

    This sounds like strangling to me:

    At that point, Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him.

    I agree with the rest of your point, however.

    • #22
  23. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    • #23
  24. ModEcon Inactive
    ModEcon
    @ModEcon

    Here is a transcipt with an link to an audio clip.

    article

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhoH4v8xYlU

    • #24
  25. Suspira Member
    Suspira
    @Suspira

    Mona Charen: The second question is: Do you regret early voting yet?

    Early voting is a bad idea whose time has gone, or so I hope.

    • #25
  26. ModEcon Inactive
    ModEcon
    @ModEcon

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):
    At that point, Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him.

    This sounds like strangling to me:

    At that point, Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him.

    I agree with the rest of your point, however.

    Doesn’t seem like enough time on the audio to be strangling.

    • #26
  27. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    I have to be clear here. I think the candidate was wrong to give in to his tiredness and anger and treat the reporter that way. Really wrong.

    That said, the reporter’s behavior is very strange too. I can’t figure out if she was exaggerating the first time or obfuscating the second time. Her two stories are too different.

    • #27
  28. Jon Gabriel, Ed. Contributor
    Jon Gabriel, Ed.
    @jon

    Flizzo Stizzo (View Comment):
    For what it’s worth, I don’t think the woman in the photo is Greg Gianforte’s wife.

    That was my editing error. Thanks for the correction!

    • #28
  29. Mike LaRoche Inactive
    Mike LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    Somewhere, Preston Brooks is smiling.

    • #29
  30. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    SpinAgain, to categorize a clarification between “hands around the neck” and “hands near the neck” is no retraction, no changing of the story, no backpedaling. It’s a clarification.

    You change your story then you’re retracting. A retraction is a clarification. You’re parsing it in a very lawyerly way. Depends what the meaning of “is” is.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.