Skip to content

The Michelle Fields Hoax

April 16, 2016

The anti-Trump campaign knows no limits on how low they will go.  Michelle Fields, the 20 something fraudulent hoaxster has inserted herself into the #neverTrump movement in a way that discredits conservatism and destroys her credibility as well as anyone who supports her.

Avatar “emncaity” at had this comment to address the lunacy of the editorial staff  right at townhall.  His worry, as is mine, is the so-called conservatives at Townhall (along with Ben Shapiro) are using the BS tactics of the left to promote their #neverTrump agenda.  This person has it right on the money… is his/her comment:

So the inevitable has happened, exactly as I said it would on the day the NTA was filed by the police (Lewandowski was _not_ “arrested,” despite what you and other breathless Stop Trumpers said): No criminal charges, no trial.

Too bad for you. I tried to warn you and others (notably you and Megyn Kelly) that in your Trump-hating bias, you had lost your perspective, your ability to see alternative motivations, your journalistic objectivity, and eventually a good bit of your reputation.

It’s a shame, too. Apart from being deadly gorgeous, you are also almost unfailingly on-the-money, policywise. Which makes it even harder to figure out how you lost your head on Trump. You failed to make the distinctions you needed to make. Trump is boorish; he uses the “anti-PC” thing as an excuse for rudeness and gutter talk; and he’s said some really awful things about women. That’s obvious. But talk is talk. A criminal charge of assault is something else. And regardless, journalistic objectivity and accuracy are supposed to be the operative mode.

So here’s what you missed:

1. Michelle Fields has a history of this sort of thing. Why didn’t that matter to you at all?

2. Fields and Ben Shapiro have made it clear that Cruz is their preferred guy, and therefore they would benefit from anything that would bring Trump down or add mud to his wall. How could that possibly not matter to an actual journalist? It took me no time at all to find this out, since they’re both published authors.

3. The “I never touched you” thing, which seems to be the specific element that sets you off the most (in combination with Lewandowski telling Fields she was “delusional”), is completely irrelevant to the charge of assault. Whether or not Lewandowski said he didn’t touch Fields has nothing to do with whether he actually assaulted her. He wasn’t making the statement under oath.

4. The “I never touched you” statement has other possible explanations besides “he lied,” which you and all other Stop Trumpers can’t seem to get off.

For one thing, it’s a natural reaction when somebody accuses you of some heinous physical assault that you know you didn’t commit. It may be hyperbolic in a literalistic, pencil-pushing academic sense, but in the world of real people, it’s something people will say: “I didn’t touch you,” as in “I didn’t do anything like what you just said.”

It’s also possible he simply _forgot_ that he’d “touched” anybody, since he and every other campaign staffer and security person has been doing this several times a day for eight or nine months now.

Sorry he didn’t remember you as being completely special, Michelle. But maybe he doesn’t remember it. Maybe he doesn’t remember “meeting you” either, since an encounter like this isn’t exactly “meeting” anybody. For any rational person, for anybody whose brain hasn’t been absolutely melted by Stop Trump obsession, the larger issue is that here is a woman who grotesquely misrepresented a fairly ordinary occurrence (which started with her doing something _she_ wasn’t supposed to be doing), has accused somebody of being abusive, and the guy looks back and says “Chrissakes, I never jerked somebody to the ground, or nearly to the ground, or whatever — this is a liar.”

This wasn’t some dude grabbing a woman on a bus for no particular reason. As the prosecutor said in the press conference, it’s common for campaign staff to direct people, contact them physically, etc., when they need to be directed out of the way or away from a candidate. Is there something about this that you people don’t get? It was obvious to the rest of us from the first minute it hit the airwaves.

5. There is no doubt whatsoever — because Fields herself said so — that at the time of the incident, she didn’t consider it significant enough to warrant a police report. Not until she got her feelings hurt by Lewandowski’s (and, I guess, Trump’s) dismissive treatment of her and her ridiculousness.

So this whole thing was a matter of Fields taking up public money and police-and-prosecutor resources to pursue a matter whose substance was not enough to motivate her to pursue _before_ the emotion was involved. And you’re OK with that?

In other words, there was nothing substantive enough about the actual event to prompt it. It was only the fact that she was brushed off and got no apology. But an apology for _what_? For pulling her away from a candidate she was not supposed to be impeding or contacting or even approaching at that moment? Like any other reporter in the history of reporting is subject to under those circumstances? Like thousands have actually been pulled away or redirected before? Where are all the other assault charges for all of them? So the apology is for her not being treated specially enough?

6. There is no doubt that Fields’ original version of the story is not what was on any of the videos. Why does this not bother you?

7. Get outside your Stop Trump irrationality for one second and answer this simple and obvious question:

Does this look like an “assault” to you?

Because I’m telling you, it doesn’t to anybody, and I mean _anybody_, outside the Stop Trump circle. Be honest.

8. When Fields first filed the police report, she listed “Hands, feet, fist, teeth” as the “weapons” involved in the assault. That is clearly not true, not even in the most delusional version of what happened in the videos. How did you account for that? Why does that “lie” not bother you at least as much as what you think Lewandowski was “lying” about?

So here’s what I want to know from you: Why does Lewandowski’s “I never touched you,” even if it _is_ a lie (and it certainly isn’t necessarily so), bother you so much more than Fields grotesquely overstating the matter, stating “weapons” that could not possibly have been used, and using public money in a police-and-DA investigation not because of the substance of the alleged “assault” itself, but because of the way she’d been brushed off by the people from whom she was trying to extract an apology?

With Lewandowski, even if your most hostile version is true, he’s a jerk and a liar. What’s the continuing damage to her? A bruise on the arm she (now) says resulted from a grab?

But with Fields, evidence shows she’s an oversensitive liar and a false accuser who endangered a person’s freedom and his entire career and reputation by filing a police report. So what would’ve been the continuing damage _here_? What did she try to make happen? A criminal conviction, for a grab of an arm to pull her away from where she wasn’t supposed to be.

And again: Why didn’t that distinction seem to bother you at all? Being offended at no apology, versus a criminal conviction?

Here’s the answer: Because in your Stop Trump obsession, in your blindness, no amount of retribution is too much.

Or do you think police and prosecutors should be routinely employed to enact revenge on people who have offended others by not apologizing?

This is nothing more than a case of sloppy fit-the-narrative journalism gone absolutely bat-sh$% crazy. You don’t like Trump? Push the “violent” and “anti-woman” narrative. Whatever you have to do to fit this complete non-event into it, do it. People will buy it. And some did, because there’s always a percentage of the irrational and stupid out here.

And in the end, who exactly comes out making women look bad in this whole debacle? Lewandowski? Trump? Or Fields, for making a huge deal out of something that happens to intrusive or obstructing reporters all the time in these scrums, and then filing ridiculous assault charges because she got her feelings hurt for being “disrespected”?

Truth is, Fields should be charged for false report. She should have to pay back every dime of public money spent on the investigation, for the simple reason that she herself stated her motive for the report, and it wasn’t a legitimate one. And she ought to be sued in civil court. Why? Because what she said initially, using her ability to get the word out to the public, was false. Because incontrovertibly there were two wrongful motives, suggesting malice: Revenge for no apology, and a predisposition to see Trump hurt as a candidate. Because, although she had a right to snap back at Lewandowski on Twitter in any free-speech way she wanted to, she didn’t have the right to accuse him publicly of an assault that simply does not appear on multiple video angles. Because, even though Lewandowski called her “delusional” (which could be said to be defamatory in its own way, if he had no reason to believe she was), it turns out there was a basis for that statement (because she was insistent on a version of events that simply did not happen).

Of course, neither Trump nor Lewandowski will sue anytime soon, because it would be seen as anti-woman and sue-happy. So Fields will get off with nothing. She’ll write a book and get paid for it. She’ll get paid for speeches to women’s groups. She’ll enjoy a reputation. And likely as not, nothing will ever come of it. The Democratic DA won’t prosecute for false report. Trump, if he’s smart, will consider it a battle to be avoided. Not to mention the fact that if he wins the nomination, he won’t be able to prove that it damaged him in any actionable way. Only Lewandowski himself might do anything eventually, and probably not then. So she’ll walk. Why doesn’t that bother you?

If this were some left-wing reporter and the candidate had been your guy, you cannot honestly say your reaction would be anything like it’s been. Your thinking, based on your history, would’ve been clear. You wouldn’t have tolerated this hypersensitivity, and you certainly wouldn’t have tolerated the use of public funds to carry out a mini-vendetta against somebody for the refusal to issue an apology.

My _God_, Katie. Back away from this situation for two days and figure out exactly why, and how drastically, you’re on the wrong side of it. Every day you don’t is another slip backwards in your credibility. For somebody who was worth liking and respecting, that really is a shame. I mean it.


From → Uncategorized

One Comment

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. The Dishonest | precisionanalog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: