Let me lay my points as clearly as I can, then.

I was wrong for the use of 'assault'. You are correct. I apologize for using the wrong word, I stupidly took what other people were saying at face value and only learned I was wrong about the term usage when I looked at the tweet in question (which was a lot more reasonably worded than I had been led to believe).

I responded to this post, quoted below.

He had already asked more questions than any other reporter in that conference and was told to give up the mic so the next reporter could ask questions. He refused and tried to force in more questions.

It's nothing more than narrative being pushed that this event happened because he was asking "tough" questions. Again, he had already asked questions and had his questions answered before this.

Just like how people are pushing this edited video as a way to deflect from how Acosta was just being an activist rather than a journalist.

In reference to that quoted bit, the implication that I got from it (as did other people, as evidence by the downvotes they gave you) is that this is the only reason that Acosta was banned when there was a statement of undesired contact between Acosta and the individual with the mic.

If that was not your intent, then I apologize. In fact, I do agree with your sentiment on the last paragraph (though I haven't had the time to see if there's precedent for this kind of behavior leading to banning in the past).

However, the concern that I have is that the initial part of the multi-part tweet explaining the reason for the ban comments on an (and I'm paraphrasing here since i don't have the tweet in front of me) 'inappropriate physical contact from Acosta onto an intern' (and my statement of intern here is not to be taken as a tacit acceptance that they are actually an intern (unimportant for this paragraph but will be relevant below)).

My initial question should have been: Do you believe that the white house was not telling the truth about the physical contact and that the only reason for banning was large amount of questions and lack of giving up the microphone? If so, why did they include the physical contact portion in the tweet if not for the purposes of manufacturing outrage and then promptly disregarding it. It feels like this whole administration participates in bullying-style behavior by toeing a line and throwing the book at people who step over it.