> The cops have every right to remove someone disruptive from a private event like that.
Clinton was in the middle of a speech -- of a sentence! -- demanding that foreign governments allow their citizens the freedom of expression. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that, can you at least appreciate the irony? Did she mean expression should only be protected if it is not disruptive to anybody?
And in this case "disruptive" would have to be defined as standing silently (admittedly this is according to McGovern himself, though it is largely corroborated by the video as the mic had no problem picking up the noise once he started struggling with the police).
You find it suspicious that no one else at the event has publicly corroborated McGovern's story -- but it is also notable that no one else has contradicted it (including the camera).
I don't know what you mean when you say the police had 'every right', but if you mean legal right then I agree. But that is exactly the hypocrisy the whole fiasco makes apparent: when a public official speaks at a private university about the importance of protecting the freedom of expression, the police can and will repress peaceful protesters!
If you meant moral rights, I disagree (based on the facts as best as I can discern them) that the police had any right to remove McGovern the way they did.
Anyway, I think you have healthy skepticism and appreciate your desire not to jump to inaccurate conclusions. I just think the evidence is fairly convincing in this case... and it fits with my pre-conceived notion that governments are prone to hypocrisy