Exactly. Reynolds deliberately lies about the what the prosecutor said in his first paragraph. The prosecutor did not state that the on-air violation was clear. What he said was that the device "meets the definition" of the statute.
Gregory was displaying the "device" during a newscast.
bran·dish
verb
gerund or present participle: brandishing
1.
wave or flourish (something, esp. a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.
Did he "brandish" the device? No. Reynolds knows that, but he decides to draw a false equivalence anyway.
Yeah, I sort of took poetic license with that one. I think the case could be made much more strongly if I was interacting directly with it, and if it indicated how I was supposed to do so.
Well somehow the press and everyone started reporting that Aaron "broke in" to the closet where the wires were gathered and I figured they were using a legal term of art.
If we can s/broke in/entered/ without changing the meaning, then this "breaking" use sounds like pure spin.
It's more subtle than that. Looking past the technical terms, the first formulation is very distilled, and cites a specific action. It's an elegant expression. The second one uses fluffery like "performed" instead of "did". And that's what sets off the BS detector.
I get the impression your own choice of phrase shows you believe this isn't direct incitement.
(What more is left to say? Incitement is a thing where substantial culpability falls on the speaker telling the hearer to do something. If it's the hearer's own idea, their inspiration, to break laws, the speaker is not culpable for that).
Gregory was displaying the "device" during a newscast.
bran·dish verb gerund or present participle: brandishing 1. wave or flourish (something, esp. a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.
Did he "brandish" the device? No. Reynolds knows that, but he decides to draw a false equivalence anyway.
reply