Monica Hesse lied

Consider the column:

2018-11-09-WP-Hesse-a-non-assault-taught-us-a-lot-about-the-white-houses-cynical-view-of-real-ones

A non-assault taught us a lot about the White House’s cynical view of real ones
by Monica Hesse,
Washington Post Style, Opinion, 2018-11-09

Let me, KHarbaugh, say, first, that I do agree with Ms. Hesse's evident primary point that to call what Acosta did to the White House intern an "assault" seems to be stretching the meaning of "assault". This is in effect "defining assault down".

However, Ms. Hesse has, I believe, misdescribed what actually happened.

First, let me quote two parts of Ms. Hesse's column:

So I did what everyone else was doing and
replayed the footage, Zapruder-style,
from the chaotic briefing earlier that day.
In it, a White House staffer reached for Acosta’s microphone.
Acosta’s gesticulating arm simultaneously descended.
Of course this wasn’t assault.
This was a forearm already on a downward trajectory;
this was Newton’s First Law.

...

On Wednesday, it seemed as if Sanders was vaguely aware that assaulting and harassing women is currently frowned upon, and that “believing women” is in vogue, and so she created a Mad Libs tweet that would evoke as many key triggers as possible.
She also shared a video of the encounter that had been doctored — sped up to make it look like the arm contact was intentional and eliminating Acosta’s “Pardon me, ma’am.”

Note, in Sanders’s statement, the use of “placing his hands,” which implies intentional, palms-down touching.
Note “intern,” which reinforces the idea of a power imbalance.
Note “trying to do her job,” which calls back to the thousands of women in the ­#MeToo movement who have shared stories about the times when their hard-fought careers were hindered by harassment.

End the quotes from Ms. Hesse's column.

Now let me cite a C-SPAN video, at YouTube, which shows their view of what happened:


Exchange between President Trump and CNN's Jim Acosta (C-SPAN)
C-SPAN
Published on Nov 7, 2018


I have watched this video numerous times, both at normal speed and after clicking on the YouTube gear wheel and slowing the speed to 0.25 speed.
The relevant events start at about 1:20 in the above video.

First, in terms of the interaction itself starting about 1:27 in the video, slowing the video to 0.25 speed makes it clear that the sequence of events is:
first, the female intern begins reaching for the microphone Acosta is holding in his right hand, moving her arm under Acosta's raised left arm.
THEN, only after the intern begins reaching for the mike, Acosta lowers his right arm, preventing the intern from taking his mike.
It is absolutely clear that Acosta realizes he has prevented the intern from doing what she set out to do.
(In particular, Acosta says “Pardon me, ma’am.”
Whey would he ask for her pardon?)
So, in particular, Hesse's claim that "This was a forearm already on a downward trajectory" is a lie,
if she had indeed "replayed the footage, Zapruder-style" as she claimed.

Second, in terms of rights, wrongs, and power relations,
Trump said, repeatedly to Acosta, starting at 1:26, "That's enough".
The intern was merely trying to execute what her boss, Trump, had requested, by taking his microphone.
Does the president, any president, have the right to move on the the next question, cutting off a reporter?
If not, that would seem to give reporters the right to, in effect, filibuster.

Finally, in terms of cheap shots and non sequiturs,
what is inaccurate or deceptive about referring the woman as an intern?
Do women refer to women as interns when it helps the points they want to make,
and criticize referring to women as interns when that doesn't?
Also, what is wrong with pointing out that the intern was “trying to do her job”?
That clearly was exactly what she was trying to do.
Again, are facts that hinder the feminist cause somehow misogynist?
Boy, let me tell you, I am really tired of the cheap shots and double standards that the feminists have so clearly employed.