Saying he was deliberately provoked doesn’t in any way excuse assault, it just puts it in context.
David Cearley
11

He wasn’t “provoked.” He was asked questions by a reporter on a subject he had explicitly deferred to that day, and he snapped because he had no good answer to the questions.

To claim that a reporter who is asking questions of public officials on matters of tremendous public import is “provoking” assault is repugnant, and it’s inaccurate and dangerous to boot.

It is a sort of “justification” on your part. You claim you’re just putting it in “context,” but that is once again an example of using weasel words. You are saying the reporter had it coming, while attaching an effectively meaningless caveat. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

Again: how shameful. And how far the right has fallen. Pure degeneracy, and the right seems to revel in it now.

“Party of family values and personal responsibility” my hindquarters.

I don’t know how long it’s been since you’ve whipped out your pocket constitution, but you’ll see in the first amendment an explicit constitutional protection of both free speech and the press. Not “press I happen to like” or “press I agree with ideologically.” And the reporter wasn’t asking impertinent questions (eg, personal/family ones).

What I find so egregious about what has happened to the right is just how duplicitous and devoid of principles it has become — the double standard that now applies. If a democrat had done this to a reporter from Breitbart, you would have been absolutely outraged.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.