Trump Manager Charged, then not charged

[fuji]

Nope, you're wrong again. At 14:00 the DA says any contact Lewandowski made with Fields was accidental and not intentional. It requires intentional touching for it to qualify as battery under Florida law.

Starts at 14:00: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMYkuz3FzSI

Stop looking for straws to grasp at, you lost the debate. The question at 14:00 was whether DONALD TRUMP could charge Fields with assault for touching his arm, and the DA is saying no, simple battery doesn't apply to accidental touching like Fields touching Trump's arm.

Throughout the video they concur that Lewandowski intentionally and violently grabbed Fields. The only reason he isn't going to trial is the possibility he felt he needed to pull her back to protect Trump.

Her version of events is totally vindicated by the DA. They just don't think it adds up to a chargeable offence.

She told the truth. Lewandowski lied.

 

[AK-47]

She told the truth. Lewandowski lied

Lewandowski didnt lie but she did. She is the worst of liars. Just like you fuji.
You cannot see the truth if it hit you in the head with a sledgehammer.

Here is her statement again (in her own words): http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/03/10/3276486/

I was jolted backwards. Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down. I almost fell to the ground, but was able to maintain my balance. Nonetheless, I was shaken

Clearly she lies here. Nothing on the video shows even remotely anything like she describes.

Lewandowski said "I never touched you" because the event was so insignificant, he simply didnt remember touching anyone in the matter Michelle describes.

The DA refused to pursue any charges because it was a non-event.
You lost this one, fuji. Admit it!!

 

[Butler1000]

Arguing these details is moot. We have the analysis by Ellis stating that Field's version of events was accurate and provable in court.

She dropped the case because she felt Lewandowski could argue he was protecting Trump and take that arguments far enough to create at least a reasonable doubt.

In other words, Field's version was totally accepted by the DA but they didn't feel it added up to a conviction.

Yup. Continuing to make false allegations about it are a waste of time.

Like I said Lewendowski was legally within his right as an employee of Trump at a private event to act as an Agent of the Landlord to do what he did. That is the essence of what the D.A. Said.

She was wrong to approach Trump after twice being warned by the Secret Service not to crowd him. Everything done was legal. She was the one who stepped over the line and as a result was moved away.

Glad we sorted out I was right on the reasoning why he wouldn't be going to court as he had a valid defense.

Oh. And that Fuji was dead wrong.

 

[fuji]

Like I said Lewendowski was legally within his right as an employee of Trump at a private event to act as an Agent of the Landlord to do what he did.

This is pure unmitigated BULLSHIT. Trespass law had absolutely nothing to do with this case in any way whatsoever. And no one has said he was within his rights, what they have said is he could raise a reasonable doubt that he was criminal. There is a huge difference.

She was wrong to approach Trump after twice being warned by the Secret Service not to crowd him.

No she wasn't. The DA specifically commented on that and said she didn't do anything wrong.

Meanwhile we can see that Trump has surrounded himself with proven liars(Lewandowski blatantly lied) and we can see a pattern of violent behavior:

1. Inciting rally attendees to attack protesters

2. Using violence against a pesky reporter

3. Threatening riots if a contested convention doesn't go his way

Note that we have just established 2. The DA confirmed that violence was used.

 

[Butler1000]

This is pure unmitigated BULLSHIT. Trespass law had absolutely nothing to do with this case in any way whatsoever. And no one has said he was within his rights, what they have said is he could raise a reasonable doubt that he was criminal. There is a huge difference.



No she wasn't. The DA specifically commented on that and said she didn't do anything wrong.

Meanwhile we can see that Trump has surrounded himself with proven liars(Lewandowski blatantly lied) and we can see a pattern of violent behavior:

1. Inciting rally attendees to attack protesters

2. Using violence against a pesky reporter

3. Threatening riots if a contested convention doesn't go his way

Note that we have just established 2. The DA confirmed that violence was used.

You keep coming up with the hyperbole but in fact the DA said Lewendowski was acting within the law. And yes it would come under a similar act of law. It may have a different name but the same principle.

And that's why the charges were dropped so quickly. There was no case despite video and witness testimony. I mean how much more would someone need if a crime had actually been committed?

So no it isn't bullshit Fuji. It's the law working correctly to prevent a frivolous charge being laid on behalf of someone who was in the wrong and was properly moved aside.

The DA Is a Democrat. Hence the ambiguous language in dropping the charges. Still playing politics. But he knew he had no case, no grounds. Nothing.

I was right Fuji. You just have to accept it and go looking for the next thing that will surely sink that Evil Trump in the next Twenty Four Hour News Cycle.

I will carry on being fascinated by the whole shitshow without the need to fixate in the minutae like you are.

 

[fuji]

You keep coming up with the hyperbole but in fact the DA said Lewendowski was acting within the law.

Wrong. Again, you fail at understanding the gap between not guilty by virtue of a reasonable doubt, and acting within the law.

And yes it would come under a similar act of law. It may have a different name but the same principle.

Wrong. Trespass has NOTHING to do with this. Nothing. It didn't matter a god damned whose property they were on.

In any case the following has been confirmed:

1. Lewandowski is a blatant liar

2. Field's told the truth

3. The Trump campaign used violence against a pesky reporter

 

[Butler1000]

Wrong. Again, you fail at understanding the gap between not guilty by virtue of a reasonable doubt, and acting within the law.



Wrong. Trespass has NOTHING to do with this. Nothing. It didn't matter a god damned whose property they were on.

In any case the following has been confirmed:

1. Lewandowski is a blatant liar

2. Field's told the truth

3. The Trump campaign used violence against a pesky reporter

That's some real nice opinions you have there Fuji. Too bad they don't mean anything. Just as you sometimes put it.....all sputter, no content.

He has been cleared. Any accusations like the ones you are trying to pass off as fact obviously aren't worth the pixels to view them. Just you upset that you are proven wrong. That you couldn't and still can't accept the obvious.

Oh well.

 

[AK-47]

Wrong. Trespass has NOTHING to do with this. Nothing. It didn't matter a god damned whose property they were on

Actually, it does. You're allowed to use reasonable force on private property.
Its similar to a bouncer who works at a nightclub. He can use reasonable force to remove a troublemaker or a drunk.

From the videos I saw Lewandowski barely touched her (if at all). He certainly didnt throw her to the ground, or attempted to throw her to the ground. This is the part where Michelle Fields lied, and the DA knew it and thats why he didnt pursue the case

Field's told the truth

Sorry fuji, this is just not true. And you know its not true but you wanna keep arguing this case because you're the type of guy who can never admit he's wrong

The Trump campaign used violence against a pesky reporter

This is a blatant lie. You despise Trump, and your hatred for the man is causing you to be blind to the truth, which is no assault ever took place.

This thread has been very revealing about your character (or lack of it), fuji

 

[fuji]

That's some real nice opinions you have there Fuji. Too bad they don't mean anything. Just as you sometimes put it.....all sputter, no content.

He has been cleared. Any accusations like the ones you are trying to pass off as fact obviously aren't worth the pixels to view them. Just you upset that you are proven wrong. That you couldn't and still can't accept the obvious.

Oh well.

They are not opinions. We have the detailed comments from Ellis. Trespass had NOTHING to do with this case, and the specific reason for closing it was concern that he could raise a reasonable doubt that he thought he needed to protect Trump.

 

[fuji]

Actually, it does. You're allowed to use reasonable force on private property.
Its similar to a bouncer who works at a nightclub. He can use reasonable force to remove a troublemaker or a drunk.

Not relevant to this case.

From the videos I saw Lewandowski barely touched her (if at all).

The DA confirmed that he used violence.

He certainly didnt throw her to the ground, or attempted to throw her to the ground. This is the part where Michelle Fields lied,

The DA confirmed her story.

This is a blatant lie. You despise Trump, and your hatred for the man is causing you to be blind to the truth, which is no assault ever took place.

The DA confirmed that he grabbed her.

Lewandowski was exposed as a liar while the DA confirmed Field's account.

 

[Butler1000]

They are not opinions. We have the detailed comments from Ellis. Trespass had NOTHING to do with this case, and the specific reason for closing it was concern that he could raise a reasonable doubt that he thought he needed to protect Trump.

So this DA. He says that Lewendowski has a valid reason, dropped the charges.

Yup. Just like I said. The problem here fuji is you just are having difficulty fitting your square peg unicorn wishes into the round hole reality of the situation.

Just like when you said Trump was guilty of inciting violence. The Sheriff shot that that one down.

Just like when you said protesters had the right to be at the rallies and to disrupt them. The removal of same by law enforcement proved that wrong.

Just like when you said protesters could block the road in Arizona. And we're removed and arrested.

And now the this. He is guilty, the whole incident is an example of the Trump mentality......yada yada yada.

Law enforcement and DA offices continue to be discrediting you fuji. You might want to hang this one up....."for lack of evidence".

Or put another way, just like the DA.....

No way I can win this because Lewendowski was in the right.

 

[Smallcock]

It looks like he grabbed her by the jacket close to the bicep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMYkuz3FzSI
At 12:30 of the video the assistant DA states that the photos that Fields took that night show no bruising and do not look even remotely close to the photos she provided a few days later.

She's a real scumbag and ought to be fired from her job.

 

[Smallcock]

So this DA. He says that Lewendowski has a valid reason, dropped the charges.

Yup. Just like I said. The problem here fuji is you just are having difficulty fitting your square peg unicorn wishes into the round hole reality of the situation.

Just like when you said Trump was guilty of inciting violence. The Sheriff shot that that one down.

Just like when you said protesters had the right to be at the rallies and to disrupt them. The removal of same by law enforcement proved that wrong.

Just like when you said protesters could block the road in Arizona. And we're removed and arrested.

And now the this. He is guilty, the whole incident is an example of the Trump mentality......yada yada yada.

Law enforcement and DA offices continue to be discrediting you fuji. You might want to hang this one up....."for lack of evidence".

Or put another way, just like the DA.....

No way I can win this because Lewendowski was in the right.

When was the last time Fuji was right on an issue?

He was also wrong about Trump not being able to convert enthusiasm into actual votes.

He was also wrong about Trump being badly beaten in the first election (his love of hyperbole undermined himself again)

He was also wrong that Trump only attracts fringe voters when he actually attracts middle America of all shades

He was also wrong about the ill effects of illegal immigration and the lunacy of open borders and anchor baby policies

The list is virtually endless.

 

[AK-47]

The DA confirmed that he used violence

You might wanna look up the definition of violence, fuji.

The cops say you're wrong, the DA says you're wrong, this forum says you're wrong and I say you're wrong!! So you're all by yourself arguing this point, and making yourself look ridiculous (even more ridiculous then before if thats possible)

 

[AK-47]

When was the last time Fuji was right on an issue?

He was also wrong about Trump not being able to convert enthusiasm into actual votes.

He was also wrong about Trump being badly beaten in the first election (his love of hyperbole undermined himself again)

He was also wrong that Trump only attracts fringe voters when he actually attracts middle America of all shades

And he's gonna have a total meltdown if/when Trump gets elected.

Look fuji, this is what the wall will look like: eep:

 

[fuji]

So this DA. He says that Lewendowski has a valid reason, dropped the charges.

False. He said he couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't. That is FAR from an endorsement of the violence.

Just like when you said Trump was guilty of inciting violence. The Sheriff shot that that one down.

Nevertheless, he is pushing the envelope on what is legal in terms of blatant violence against political enemies.

Just like when you said protesters had the right to be at the rallies and to disrupt them. The removal of same by law enforcement proved that wrong.

I never said that. I said there was nothing illegal about their protests. There is also nothing illegal in them being asked to leave. You wrongly claimed the protests were illegal.

 

[Butler1000]

False. He said he couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't. That is FAR from an endorsement of the violence.




Nevertheless, he is pushing the envelope on what is legal in terms of blatant violence against political enemies.
I never said that. I said there was nothing illegal about their protests. There is also nothing illegal in them being asked to leave. You wrongly claimed the protests were illegal.

Of course he didn't endorse the incident. But he exonerated him on the basis of exactly what I said and you said was wrong. That his being an employee of Trump and acting on his behalf wasn't true. And wasn't a valid defense. He was and it is.

As to the protesters the fact that some were arrested in Arizona, some in Kansas city and many more escorted out solely on the basis of their actions does mean they were committing illegal acts. Minor ones granted. But still against the law.

Hey I saw Alan Dershawitz in CNN today discussing some of Sanders people from BLM, Occupy and MoveOn.org and how they are also attempting to shut down free speech at various rallies including Hillary's.

He is probably the premier person to discuss this. I don't want to see any candidate losing their right to control a private space for the purpose of expressing their platform.

Nor should their private space be invaded.

And that's what all this is about. People realizing that what they are calling free speech and freedom of the press isn't that. It's hardline anti democratic tactics and simply rude behavior because someone doesn't like the message.

 

[fuji]

Of course he didn't endorse the incident. But he exonerated him on the basis of exactly what I said and you said was wrong.

You need to be more careful with your words. All he said was that he might raise a reasonable doubt about trying to protect Trump. He did not state that the actions were legal.

That his being an employee of Trump and acting on his behalf wasn't true.

Now you are changing your story, previously you claimed it was related to trespass

As to the protesters the fact that some were arrested

The only people who have been arrested were those engaging in violence, property damage, or who refused to leave when asked to.

many more escorted out solely on the basis of their actions does mean they were committing illegal acts. Minor ones granted. But still against the law.

This is total bullshit and absolutely false. Those who protested at Trump rallies, who left peacefully when asked, broke no law of any kind whatsoever.

You are just flat wrong.

People have a right to protest and there is nothing whatever illegal about it. The venue also has a right to ask them to leave, and provided they do, and no one uses any violence, then no one on either side has done anything illegal.

If you invite somebody into your home and they insult you, that isn't illegal. It isn't illegal for you to ask them to leave, either, and if they leave when asked they still haven't done anything illegal. The ONLY way the law gets broken is if the property owner uses force WITHOUT asking the guest to leave, or if the guest refuses to leave after being asked.

 

[fuji]

You might wanna look up the definition of violence, fuji.

The cops say you're wrong, the DA says you're wrong, this forum says you're wrong and I say you're wrong!! So you're all by yourself arguing this point, and making yourself look ridiculous (even more ridiculous then before if thats possible)

Actually the DA confirmed their was violence and corroborated that it resulted in bruises.

 

[Butler1000]

You need to be more careful with your words. All he said was that he might raise a reasonable doubt about trying to protect Trump. He did not state that the actions were legal.



Now you are changing your story, previously you claimed it was related to trespass



The only people who have been arrested were those engaging in violence, property damage, or who refused to leave when asked to.



This is total bullshit and absolutely false. Those who protested at Trump rallies, who left peacefully when asked, broke no law of any kind whatsoever.

You are just flat wrong.

People have a right to protest and there is nothing whatever illegal about it. The venue also has a right to ask them to leave, and provided they do, and no one uses any violence, then no one on either side has done anything illegal.

If you invite somebody into your home and they insult you, that isn't illegal. It isn't illegal for you to ask them to leave, either, and if they leave when asked they still haven't done anything illegal. The ONLY way the law gets broken is if the property owner uses force WITHOUT asking the guest to leave, or if the guest refuses to leave after being asked.

Fuji. It is related to trespass. There is generally a section in any trespass acts involving what in Ontario they call "committing a prohibited act on the premises". This is a catch all which means anything the owner or lesser doesn't like.

In this case she was twice wanted not to approach him. When she did anyway she came under that type of section. And Lewendowski as an employee of Trump(an in Ontario say is also deemed an agent of the LandLord) had the legal right at that point to do what he did. That's what I stated and that's what the DA confirmed.

That's the way the law works. He did nothing wrong, she did do something wrong, and he gets exonerated as a result.

As for the ones who left peacefully you are incorrect. Technically they committed a prohibited act on the premises and all could have been issued tickets under what ever the act is called in the jurisdiction. But it's at the discretion of the city owner or the lease holder or renter.

Generally a warning is given first so as not to waste the courts time. But a ticket could be issued. Which means they were wrong but we're cut a break.

Again. That the way the law works.

Give it up. You are flailing now. Feel free to pound sand if you like but competent legal authority have proven via their decisions that you are wrong.