You belong to a party that condones sending children out to lie and attack congressmen for a reaction so they can distort the truth? So you can get a candidate elected?
This makes me so want to
return to the Republican party.

__________________
regarding the Civil War, Lee said: I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.
When asked what to do with an old battle flag he said: 'Fold it up and put it away.'

Anyone?


Why have 2 cameras?


And no one can seem to find the students that tried to do this interview....Ms. Elmers' relatives, perhaps?

__________________



"Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace." ~Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha)

Excerpt from a News Busters article:

__________________
regarding the Civil War, Lee said: I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.
When asked what to do with an old battle flag he said: 'Fold it up and put it away.'

There it is again, attacking the victims. These students had every legal right to do what they did and you support the criminal actions of the Congressman for no other reason than because he's a Dem. No one has shown ANY connection between these students and the lady running against Etheridge, yet you'll try to create one out of thin air. The students didn't lie, they asked a question (which the congresscritter was unwilling to answer) and got assaulted for it. Your support of this is sickening.

Why not have two cameras?? Anyone with more than two connected neurons knows that whenever possible you have backups. It's a simple commonsense thing that most likely escaped you because you're looking for ways to make the victims the criminal and the criminal the victim because of their politics and nothing else. If this was a Rep. congresscritter and a couple of liberal students, you'd be screaming for the congresscritter's blood.

Why does this congressman feel it's within his rights to know who these people are but it's not within the rights of Arizona law enforcement to know who's in their state; legally or illegally?

- - - - -

Two cameras?
I believe we saw why two cameras were necessary.

- - - - -

Blurred face?
He's a student (possibly under age) & the congressman "hugged" him --- might be a case of inappropriate touching of a minor.

- - - - -

Interesting that someone would claim; as an apparent excuse; that the folks with the cameras were there to provoke.
We get cries of the need for anger management when Tony Stewart pushes a camera out of his face after he wrecks his car & the interviewer wants to know how he feels.
Or, Tommy Lee shoves a cameraman for putting a camera in his face while he's out with his wife & more cries for anger management can be heard from coast to coast.
Yet a congressman, who should be held to a higher standard than rock-n-roll drummer or a race car driver, is given a pass because he was "provoked."
Just incredible.

In your opinion, were Congressman Etheridge's actions criminal in nature or not???

Here's a little background info for you:
Criminal Law: The Elements of Simple Assault in Washington, DC | Koehler Law

Thanks for the link Saltwn. I'll tell you what. Seeing as you're not opposed to investigating even right wing sites, such as Newsbusters, in your pursuit of truth involving the background of this story I think I can help you out.

The story first appeared on BigGovernment.com. A BG.c contributor explains how the process works.

MSM Reporting of Congressman Etheridge Video Shows Much About Media Bias - Big Journalism

The vid was sent to an editor at BigGovernment. He decided to post it.

In the interview below Right Wight wing commentator Sean Hannity talks with what appears to be the editor who approved the video for BigGovernment's use.

1)Yes, I believe we did see the reason. The students were planning to provoke and hoped the congressperson would perhaps push the camera out of his face. Turns out the students got a more negative than they could have hoped for. They anticipated how the provocation might turn out - hence 2 cameras. *disclaimer - all of this is merely my own supposition and I might be wrong, and we may not ever know the whole story or who these students really were or their motives.

2)As for the blurred face - did the congressperson ask the face to be blurred? Or was the "unedited" video blurred by the video-takers?

3)They did provoke...and the congressman responded with very bad behavior.

4)Not giving him a pass. He should think about talking to a professional. At least he did apologize.

__________________



"Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace." ~Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha)