Sorry, you may be convinced that you have all of the “actual facts”, as opposed, I suppose to the “facts” that do not support your preferred narrative.
It’s not clear at all that it was the SS agent rather than Mr. Lewandowski made contact with the reporterette. She’s filed a police report, but since it’s a misdemeanor at best, that may not go anywhere. There’s an eyewitness, and he’s sticking by his story, and he’s fingering Lewandowski.
The fact that you don’t like that, or that you don’t like the eyewitness doesn’t make him a liar. He could be, and he could be wrong, but your preferred story line is not by any means proven at this point.
And I’m certainly not “anti Trump”, though I am rapidly becoming “anti-Trump-supporter” since last night. Odd, since I had expected my preferred candidate to lose, and be working this summer and fall with the long-time Trumpists for his election, and Hillary’s defeat.
Keep up the “Dear Leader” propaganda. You’ll lose the election for your guy.
I guess you didn't read what the reporter's employer has to say on the issue, or look at the photographs they published. Or do you think that the photos from the ABC video that Breitbart reviewed are fake?
Here's what Breitbart has to say on the matter: "Yet the available evidence from WPTV and ABC suggests that it was unlikely that Lewandowski was the person who caused her injuries."
Given the similarity in appearance between Lewandowski and the security official, and given the fact that Lewandowski was walking on the other side of Trump from where Fields was at the time, the possibility of mistaken identity cannot be ruled out. Indeed, given Lewandowski’s adamant denials (coupled with statements inappropriately impugning Fields’s character), it is the likeliest explanation."
"Fields relied in good faith on Terris’s confirmation, and later assertions, that the person who touched her was Lewandowski. But he cited no other source to prove his claim, neither at the time nor in the Washington Post."
He could be, and he could be wrong, but your preferred story line is not by any means proven at this point.
But at this point Breitbart has concluded that "the likeliest explanation" is that Ms. Fields was contacted by a Secret Service agent. So what you call my "preferred story line" is actually the only story line at this time, since it is what Breitbart is publishing regarding an event involving one of their own employees. Whatever you may think, its really just your story, and your story belongs in the fiction aisle.