Trump Staff Assaults Breitbart Reporter

[Shiranu]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/breitbart-s-michelle-fields-ben-shapiro-resign-over-trump-incident-n537711

Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields has resigned from the conservative news site over its response to her alleged assault by Donald Trump's campaign manager.

Three of her colleagues also resigned from Breitbart: editor-at-large Ben Shapiro, national security reporter Jordan Schachtel and Jarrett Stepman, an editor.

In his departing statement on Sunday, Shapiro said the site should be "ashamed" of "their treatment" of Fields, whose allegations of assault came amid escalating violence in and around Trump campaign events.

Schachtel and Stepman followed Monday.

Fields accused Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski of grabbing her arm so hard she bruised as she attempted to question the candidate at an event. She wrote an account of the incident, as did a Washington Post reporter who said he witnessed it. Politico also published an audio transcript that purportedly captures the interaction and moments immediately afterward.

The Trump campaign fought back hard against the allegations. Lewandowski called Fields "delusional" and an "attention seeker," while Trump accused the reporter of having "made up" the incident. Fields, meanwhile, filed a police report.

Despite my disdain for Breitbart as it pretends to be anything more than a tabloid, assaulting the reporters...from a legitimate source or not... is fucking unacceptable. The horror stories coming out from all sources, left, middle and right, is that the Trump campaign has been consistently violent and repressive towards them. However out of fear of losing access to the story, the media consistently puts the safety of it's employees and their own dignity on hold so they can keep close to Trump.

I don't buy into this, "We have to be scared of everything!" bullshit that is preached 24/7 in our culture, but Trump is definitely a symptom of a far greater problem. We as a society are allowing this hateful man to have his day in the limelight and there is a serious possibility that he might have four years more. And even if he loses... the people who worship him are still out there, and they will vote at the lower levels of government in likely higher turnouts than moderates and left-wingers who only get out come presidential elections (if that).

Also... stay classy, Breitbart.

However, the site ran a piece on its homepage Monday with the headline "Ben Shapiro betrays loyal Breitbart readers in pursuit of Fox News contributorship." The piece was later removed but can still be found online.

[The Atheist]

The media is getting desperate to bring down Trump. Shame on them.

Video of the alleged event proving that Michelle Fields is a lying sack of sh#t:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6NoMPxomjiw

[Shiranu]

She never said he threw her down. She said she nearly was brought down. And even from the very shitty quality of the video we can see he did appear to both initiate contact and bring her to a halt, which is what she claimed he did.

How unsurprising of a disciple of Trump to lean so heavily on personal attacks and grand conspiracies to avoid any responsibility of your candidate being one who has repetitively insulted, threatened and harassed the media... and indeed anyone who dares to not agree with him.

Reporters getting choke-slammed, reporters being manhandled, reporters being confined... funny, this only seems to happen at Trump rallies. I am sure there is no correlation between his inflammatory rhetoric and the violence committed towards the press though.

[Shiranu]

Btw, the actual transcript rather than clips that suit your agenda...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/03/transcript-corey-lewandowski-breitbart-reporter-attack-220589

Fields: “Mr. Trump, you went after the late Scalia for affirmative action, do you -- are you still against affirmative action?"
Voice (allegedly Corey Lewandowski): “Excuse me, thank you.”
A few moments later (noise of the room can be heard)...
Terris: “You OK?"
Fields: “Holy sh*t."
Terris: “Yea he just threw you."
Fields: “I can’t believe he just did that that was so hard. Was that Corey?"
Terris: “Yeah, like, what threat were you?"
Fields: "That was insane. You should have felt how hard he grabbed me. That's insane. I’ve never had anyone do that to me from a campaign."
Terris: “Can I put that in my story?"
Fields: “Yeah, go for it â€" that was really awful. That’s so unprofessional.”
Terris: “He really just almost threw you on the ground."
Fields: “He literally went like this and was grabbing me down. "I don’t even want to do what he just did to me. Oh my God, that really spooked me that someone would do that."
Terris: “What threat were you?"
Fields: “Nothing. I was asking about affirmative action."
Terris: “And he probably knows you, right?"
Fields: “Yeah, I don’t understand. That looks horrible. You’re going after a Breitbart reporter, the people who are nicest to you?"
Terris: “I know, I’m going to put it in my story."

Sorry, are the press NOT suppose to report when one of their own are assaulted?

[Baruch]

Reporters and other non-speakers, need to keep their physical distance.  I have no patience for physical crowding on a speaker, including when BLM does it.  If reporters did that crowding at a Presidential Press conference, with the President there, the Secret Service would start shooting.

Also, public speakers don't have to answer questions from reporters or the public ... most public speakers would be smart not to speak at all ;-)

That way we are spared all the dishonest responses from the speaker.

[Atheon]

Shouldn't they be on the same side? They're all right-wingers.

[TomFoolery]

Donald Trump, because no one beats up my people except for me!

[The Atheist]

Btw, the actual transcript rather than clips that suit your agenda...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/03/transcript-corey-lewandowski-breitbart-reporter-attack-220589

Sorry, are the press NOT suppose to report when one of their own are assaulted?

So you're going to believe a transcript talking about the event over actual footage? I don't get your thinking.

And you're blaming Trump because a SS agent tackled a reporter? And you're blaming Trump because a Trump supporter punched out an antagonizing protestor?

There's clearly a conspiracy between Michelle fields and her buddy to attack Trump. When I look at the video, it appears that she was in the way and the guy wanted her to move. But even if he had "nearly thrown her down" and "traumatized her," how is this Trump's fault? I don't follow.

Are we still blaming Bush for Obama's failures? Is it Bush's fault that Obama ordered drone strikes on villages and assassinated American citizens?

[Shiranu]

So you're going to believe a transcript talking about the event over actual footage? I don't get your thinking.

So the transcript is only believable when it is in a video with your agenda, but if it contradicts what you have to say then it suddenly is irrelevant. And again, the video shows the man likely laying hands on her, in the same place where she took pictures of the bruises she received. Do you refute that the man violently grabbed her, despite all indications of the video you posting showing that is exactly what happened? Or do you just think that is acceptable behaviour in a civilized society?

I unfortunately get your thinking all to well.

And you're blaming Trump because a SS agent tackled a reporter? And you're blaming Trump because a Trump supporter punched out an antagonizing protestor?

Yes and yes, because no other candidate treats the media like livestock in a pen to have a situation for the Secret Service to do such a thing. No other candidate actively panders to the racist, to the violent, to the unstable and encourages violence at his rallies and calls it "a beautiful thing". No other candidate is being supported by people who apparently think committing assault is acceptable because they were "antagonized".

[The Atheist]

So the transcript is only believable when it is in a video with your agenda, but if it contradicts what you have to say then it suddenly is irrelevant. And again, the video shows the man likely laying hands on her, in the same place where she took pictures of the bruises she received. Do you refute that the man violently grabbed her, despite all indications of the video you posting showing that is exactly what happened? Or do you just think that is acceptable behaviour in a civilized society?

I unfortunately get your thinking all to well.

Yes and yes, because no other candidate treats the media like livestock in a pen to have a situation for the Secret Service to do such a thing. No other candidate actively panders to the racist, to the violent, to the unstable and encourages violence at his rallies and calls it "a beautiful thing". No other candidate is being supported by people who apparently think committing assault is acceptable because they were "antagonized".

So you'll prefer Hillary's claim that she came under fire, regardless of the video showing otherwise? This is no different.

Does Trump truly pander to racists, or are you rehashing the left's talking points? Maybe all the Hispanics, Muslims and Asians (including me, a Japanese American) who support him didn't get the memo. Of course, you must understand racism better than I do, so please teach ignorant me. :(

Sarcasm aside, please provide evidence that Trump panders to racism. "Illegal immigrant" and "Muslim" aren't races.

[TomFoolery]

So you'll prefer Hillary's claim that she came under fire, regardless of the video showing otherwise? This is no different.

Nice deflection with the straw man argument, but this had nothing to do with Clinton. Stay on topic.

Does Trump truly pander to racists, or are you rehashing the left's talking points?

I think it's pretty evident that he does, whether intentionally or not when the KKK has tried to support him and there are numerous accounts of people being assaulted at his rallies based on the color of their skin. Sure, you might try to claim they were protesting and therefore "rabble-rousing," but blaming the victims for what happened to them doesn't do much to defend the actions of those who made them victims in the first place.

I find it absolutely fascinating that a Japanese American would support Trump, who has claimed he likely would have supported the detainment of Japanese Americans during World War II, despite the Constitution and just because they were Japanese.

Sarcasm aside, please provide evidence that Trump panders to racism. "Illegal immigrant" and "Muslim" aren't races.

It's becoming pretty clear any amount of evidence provided will just be rejected by you, so why bother? You're wanting to split hairs over the definition of racism rather than accept that Trump has, on multiple occasions, tried to induce his followers to fear and hate others based on religion and country of origin. 

[Hydra009]

Sarcasm aside, please provide evidence that Trump panders to racism. "Illegal immigrant" and "Muslim" aren't races.

Eh, there may a few slightly racist examples.

One curious thing is that when he talks about races or ethnicities, it's invariably preceded by "the".  The blacks.  The hispanics.  The japs.  If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...

[TomFoolery]

Eh, there may a few slightly racist examples.

One curious thing is that when he talks about races, it's invariably preceded by "the".  The Jews.  The blacks.  The hispanics.  The japs.  If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...

Yeah, let's not forget how two Boston men beat a homeless Latino man with a metal pipe, claiming "Donald Trump was right; all these illegals need to be deported." What did Donald Trump have to say about this crime committed in his name? "I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate."

So in reality, it doesn't matter whether or not Trump himself is actually a racist: his message is deeply resonating with racists and xenophobes around the country. You don't get to be a good leader by getting bad people to support you.

[TomFoolery]

In short, I laugh at people who support Donald Trump just like I laugh at the deeply religious, because to pretend like either Donald Trump or religion is good for people requires successively increasing feats of cherry-picking, ignoring mountains of evidence, and general logic-defying make-believe that I just can't swallow.

[widdershins]

So you'll prefer Hillary's claim that she came under fire, regardless of the video showing otherwise? This is no different.

Does Trump truly pander to racists, or are you rehashing the left's talking points? Maybe all the Hispanics, Muslims and Asians (including me, a Japanese American) who support him didn't get the memo. Of course, you must understand racism better than I do, so please teach ignorant me. :(

Sarcasm aside, please provide evidence that Trump panders to racism. "Illegal immigrant" and "Muslim" aren't races.

You are a little difficult to figure out.  I watched the video.  From 4 different sources.  I don't see anything in it.  There are a whole lot of people between the camera and the action and everything and everyone is moving.  As far as I can see there is no "proof" of anything in that video, for or against.

As for "illegal immigrants" and "Muslims" not being races, you are technically correct, but you have to delete all context in order to be technically correct.  It is, after all, illegal immigrants "from Mexico" that are being specifically addressed.  And it is Muslims "from Syria" who are the focus of attention.  You are an atheist, so I want to believe you are intelligent, but you have this right-wing "us vs them, if my guy does something wrong it's okay as long as I can prove their guy did something wrong" mentality that's just, if you'll pardon my frankness, retarded.  I don't care what "Hillary" may or may not have done when the conversation is about "Trump".  It is irrelevant.  Do I trust Hillary?  I'm not a moron.  I don't trust anyone interested in politics.  As far as I'm concerned for the most part it takes a special kind of slime ball to even want to get into politics, usually the same kind that wants to be a lawyer.  But that is irrelevant.  How I feel about Hillary, like, dislike or a little of each, is utterly irrelevant in a conversation about Trump.

It is plain as day that Trump has made outright racist statements.  It is plain as day that deporting "illegal immigrants" translate directly into "Get rid of all the Mexicans" (No, Mr. Garrison, we can not get rid of all the Mexicans.)  It is plain as day that when he says "Islam hates us" the "us" in that is Americans and the "Islam" in that is "not Americans".  I can think of only one other way to describe this besides racism, and that's xenophobia.  Are you saying he's not racist, he's xenophobic?  What trait would YOU say describes this vitriol?

As for playing the "race card", come on.  I thought that was something the right accused "liberals" of doing.  You don't automatically have a greater understanding of racism because you're Japanese.  I'm not saying you haven't faced racism.  I'm sure you have.  But I've faced racism against me, too, believe it or not.  Not much, not often, but I, a white guy, have been the victim of racism.  I can say from my firsthand knowledge of the subject, it sucked.  But "experience" and "understanding" are not the same.  I can have "understanding" of something I've never "experienced".  Likewise it is possible that I don't "understand" something I have "experienced".  And you and I may both "understand" a thing and still have completely different views on it.  I've never bought the right's "I have a black friend" defense, later changed to the "I have a gay friend" defense, and I'm not buying the "I'm not white so you can't speak to me about racism" excuse for how you KNOW that Trump isn't racist and I can't possibly argue against that.  It's a dishonest argument that does absolutely nothing to further a conversation and those has no place in intelligent discourse.