Ex-Breitbart Reporter Michelle Fields Receives Chilling Death Threats (Audio)

The Wrap ^ | 5 April, 2016 | Brian Flood

[G Larry]

Ex-Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields, who alleges that Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski assaulted her, contacted authorities last week after an individual made death threats against her.

Audio at link

[20yearsofinternet]

It’s probably no coincidence that Cruz is flush with fresh millions in globalist Super PAC donations and gets a corresponding influx of new online supporters.

“Secret army” 2ndDivisionVet used to post daily about says more than he probably intended about how Cruz and pals are buying their support in this primary season.

[plewis1250]

Nonsense.

People don’t threaten you specifically, making specific demands like this.

[dforest]

No you are. She grabbed Trump. She is damn lucky he hasn’t pressed assault charges.

[plewis1250]

Hate to break it to you, but this IS his campaign’s fault.

Had they just apologized, there would not even have been a story.

Instead, you get the weeks of living up to the media’s narrative of being anti-women.

Terrible handling of the situation on the Trump campaign’s part.

[DCBryan1]

Probably some of her journalist friends trying to “help her cause”.

[plewis1250]

She said she was ALMOST pushed down, not that she was.

You can see she clearly is bent over from the force.

How dare you defend this situation... Trump’s campaign has blown the handling of this completely.

[Flick Lives]

Attention seeker may be using her own friends to do the act. Liar had a problem.

If she has gone to the police, as purported, and the police get the phone call log records from the phone company, it will show what cell or phone made the call at that time of the purported incident. This could explode on her if she actually had a friend phone in the threat. At that point, if this is the case, she would be into wire fraud and filing a false report.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Indeed!

[plewis1250]

What a joke.

He should if that happened. Where was his bruise?

Do you think the Secret Service is that incompetent they would let him be in danger?

Give me a break.

[mkjessup]

You’re for Trump, right? Fine. I’m not insulting or attacking you for your position. Just to be clear.

Your tagline insuating and inferring Jim Rob is also pro Tump (and anti-Cruz) is false and misleading. As I see it.

Jim Rob can speak for himself.

I maintain that the statement that Jim made on 4-1-2016 that I cite in my tagline is accurate, he has not taken down his comment and in fact I chose NOT to post his entire statement for the very reason that I did not want to create the impression that he was 'pro-Trump', but that he viewed Cruz' chances as a "tiny sliver".

See for yourself:

Trump has a great shot at winning with the majority. Cruz has a tiny sliver of a chance. He should step aside.

8 posted on 4/1/2016, 3:27:28 AM by Jim Robinson

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3416242/posts?page=8#8

It seems to me that knowing Jim's animus against the GOPe, against the establishment liars and manipulators that have in fact, rallied to the cause of Ted Cruz, that he can't be real enthused about what is being played out right now, which is the continued attempts to block the GOP front runner (Trump), and install another RINO candidate that will do as they're told by the powers-that-be, which is to LOSE to Hillary Rotten Criminal or whatever 'RAT is running in the Fall.

No one calling themselves a conservative can possibly abide the venomous embrace of Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, the 'Club for Growth' and the rest of the GOPe Cheap Labor Express, but those clowns are embracing Ted Cruz, whether it is just to block Trump, or to actually install Cruz as their candidate (unlikely), Cruz should never have chosen to play ball with those snakes.

And in my opinion, neither should we.

As you said, Jim can speak for himself when he has time, as he's running the FReep-a-Thon right now.


(SJB? Pinging you to this as thought it might interest you)

[ironman]

Why are you posting a day old story in breaking news?

[livius]

I’m sick of Trump and his ravings and the climate he creates around him. I’m not a Cruz fan, so it’s not like I have a dog in this race.

However, one of the most horrible things about this campaign is that it has revealed a ton of ugliness and hatred and violence in our fellow FReepers that I knew nothing about. It’s Trump’s fault, though; they were looking for an Obama style savior, Trump presented himself, they fell for it, and he’s the one who is responsible for the violence and ugliness.

[detective]

“There was VIDEO of him grabbing her...

ARE YOU SO BEHOLDEN TO TRUMP THAT YOU ARE YOU BLIND?”

The video did not show him assaulting her or nearly throwing her to the ground as she swore in her statement to the police.

And she accused the NYPD of assaulting her. She accused Alan West of sexually assaulting her and helped to cost him his seat in the House of Representatives.

I am not beholden to Trump in any way. Stop making up lies about me.

[JBW1949]

Are “chilling death threats” worse than just plain old everyday death threats???

[Gene Eric]

><> How many Trumpests will try to tell us this is fake, rather than denounce the death threats?

Cruzbot paternalism. How unusual.

[Kenton]

Wow. Why does this remind me of that old children's story "The Boy Who Cried Wolf?"

Oh yeah. Because it's Michelle Fields. She lies all the time. Her 15 minutes of undeserved fame are disappearing into the rear view mirror.

[mad_as_he$$]

Please show your work. Prove that any FReeper has been involved in violence or shut up.

[stratboy]

How many Trumpests will try to tell us this is fake, rather than denounce the death threats?

I will say it. I'm pretty sure it's fake. Read "the boy who cried wolf" and get back to us. She has a history of crying wolf about people "attacking" her. Oh, and by the way, what does denouncing the death threats have anything to do with Trump supporters?

[conservative98]

The two statements are accurate, but don’t contradict eachother is all I am saying. You can be happy with either one but still believe Cruz should step asisde.

Also read his more recent statements (and keep in mind Cruz didn’t get 88% of the Wi delegates)......

Insiders: Ted Cruz will capture Wisconsin - Democrats expect a Bernie Sanders victory.
4/1/2016, 7:37:48 PM · 112 of 194
Jim Robinson to 2ndDivisionVet
Great! He aces Wisconsin. Then he faces the same hurdle with the next state, and the next, etc, including NY, NJ, etc. It’s gonna be rougher than a cob getting 80% or better per state in the remaining states. Not a lot of room for error. But maybe Rove, Romney, RINO GOPe & Co. have it all chalked out for the Consistent Constitutional Conservative™ to take the GOP nomination. We can always trust in the RINO GOP to pave the way for grassroots conservatism.

Insiders: Ted Cruz will capture Wisconsin - Democrats expect a Bernie Sanders victory.
4/1/2016, 7:12:56 PM · 85 of 194
Jim Robinson to 2ndDivisionVet

If Cruz does not win 88% of the delegates in Wisconsin he’s toast. There’s no way he’s going to win 88%+ in the rest of the states. Trump is no shoo-in either, but he’s got a little more wiggle room.

Yes, but Cruz has Rove, Romney, Beck, Carly, Walker, Bush, Rubio, Perry, the entire GOPe, plus Obama, Hillary, Sanders and almost the entire Democrat party, +Fox News and 99% of the media pulling for him to steal it at the convention, so we’ll see.

I think they’re claiming God is on the Cruz bandwagon, too, so it’s going to be a rough one.

[Responsibility2nd]

I maintain that the statement that Jim made on 4-1-2016 that I cite in my tagline is accurate, he has not taken down his comment and in fact I chose NOT to post his entire statement for the very reason that I did not want to create the impression that he was 'pro-Trump', but that he viewed Cruz' chances as a "tiny sliver".

 

You're not fooling anyone with this double speak rhetoric. IF Jim or anyone believes that Cruz should step aside, then they by default DO NOT SUPPORT Ted Cruz. I've provided proof that Jim clarified his remarks and that he DOES SUPPORT Ted (as well as Donald) but you insist on being duplicitous.