Fox News: Sources close to O’Keefe say it’s “not a case of wiretapping”

posted at 4:26 pm on January 27, 2010 by Allahpundit

Offered as atonement for my own sloppiness in describing what happened yesterday in Louisiana. Breitbart is right: The affidavit didn’t accuse the group of “wiretapping” but of “willfully and maliciously interfering” with a government phone system, which may mean something less sinister in practice (albeit possibly still in violation of the statute). Sorry for the error. If it’s any consolation, WaPo’s reporter made the same mistake — the same reporter, in fact, who famously made the mistake (later corrected) of claiming O’Keefe had a racial motive in targeting ACORN. Fancy that.

You’ll be pleased to know that ace reporter David Shuster is on his way to New Orleans to report on this story firsthand, although it’s not clear why: On Twitter yesterday, he pronounced O’Keefe guilty and sentenced him to prison. What’s left to report? Exit quotation from Frum: “I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict: the James O’Keefe/Landrieu phone interference case will be resolved with a very stern talking to by a judge, no criminal record, and 100 hours of community service each for the four arrested young people.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Harry the fact that you ignore the vote buying in Congress suggests that you are ok with it.

nuff said

CWforFreedom on January 27, 2010 at 7:17 PM

But I’m not talking about Dems, I’m talking about people cheering this guy. What does anything this guy did have to do with the Dems? They were not involved in this.

Are you stupid?

harry on January 27, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Here’s the statute that they definitely violated, by the way:

18 U.S.C. § 1036: US Code – Section 1036: Entry by false pretenses to any real property, vessel, or aircraft of the United States or secure area of any airport

(a) Whoever, by any fraud or false pretense, enters or attempts to enter -
(1) any real property belonging in whole or in part to, or
leased by, the United States;
(2) any vessel or aircraft belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States; or
(3) any secure area of any airport, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is -
(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, if the offense is committed with the intent to commit a felony; or
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both, in any other case.

(c) As used in this section -
(1) the term “secure area” means an area access to which is
restricted by the airport authority or a public agency; and
(2) the term “airport” has the meaning given such term in
section 47102 of title 49.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Does that include the politicians who enter their offices every day by pretending to serve the public good?

pugwriter on January 27, 2010 at 7:26 PM

I’ll say again entering federal property under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony

So conservatives support suspected felons now?

harry on January 27, 2010 at 6:25 PM
Therefore, the burden of proof is up to the feds to prove that they intended to commit a felony, via the thought police. They may have to perform a Vulcan mind meld to prove this.

chewmeister on January 27, 2010 at 7:28 PM

Harry …good response. How did I know you cannot handle more than one idea at a time?

BTW:

Fox News’ Glenn Beck, who made O’Keefe’s ACORN expose a national phenomenon by championing the videos, said on his radio show that if the allegations against O’Keefe are true, the young man crossed the line.
“You don’t do anything illegal. That’s Watergate territory. You just don’t do that,” Beck said. “But besides that, I don’t even think you go dressed up. I mean, it’s a senator. For the love of Pete, it’s a senator.”

CWforFreedom on January 27, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Are you stupid?

harry on January 27, 2010 at 7:26 PM

You can always tell when someone is afraid of the truth.

CWforFreedom on January 27, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Harry …good response. How did I know you cannot handle more than one idea at a time?

BTW:

Fox News’ Glenn Beck, who made O’Keefe’s ACORN expose a national phenomenon by championing the videos, said on his radio show that if the allegations against O’Keefe are true, the young man crossed the line.
“You don’t do anything illegal. That’s Watergate territory. You just don’t do that,” Beck said. “But besides that, I don’t even think you go dressed up. I mean, it’s a senator. For the love of Pete, it’s a senator.”
CWforFreedom on January 27, 2010 at 7:29 PM

OK. So I agree with Glenn, what’s your point? As I said people on this thread are cheering on the guy, I happen to think breaking the law (if he did) is pretty serious and WRONG.

As of now he is a suspected felon.

Point out where I am incorrect.

harry on January 27, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Are you stupid?

harry on January 27, 2010 at 7:26 PM
You can always tell when someone is afraid of the truth.

CWforFreedom on January 27, 2010 at 7:30 PM

No really, you are stupid. You haven’t said anything, it’s what you do.

Truth:

1. He is a suspected felon.
2. Breaking the law is wrong

goto 1

harry on January 27, 2010 at 7:34 PM

Saw at Red State that David Shuster is on his way to NO. He’s already got him convicted for wiretapping. I only wish they had been this exuberant about checking out ACORN there. He did go to check them out, didn’t he?

silvernana on January 27, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Harry- you are just proving to everyone what an arse you are.

You are afraid of the truth regarding the buying of votes.

Please copy and paste where I said you were wrong about him being a suspected felon.

CWforFreedom on January 27, 2010 at 7:40 PM

OK. So I agree with Glenn, what’s your point? As I said people on this thread are cheering on the guy, I happen to think breaking the law (if he did) is pretty serious and WRONG.

As of now he is a suspected felon.

Point out where I am incorrect.

harry on January 27, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Hell … Martin Luther King was a “suspected felon”. Bill Ayers, close friend and confidant of “The One” … was, by his own admission – a “felon”. Obama nominated a TSA director that violated privacy rights of others. Obama nominated a Treasury Secretary who’s guilty of lying on this tax returns. Nancy Pelosi relies on Charlie Rangel (a suspected TAX CHEAT) to write tax law. Chris Dodd gets sweetheard mortgage deals and undervalues Irish property …

And James O’Keefe is suspected of “playing with a phone handset” and entering a federal building under “false pretenses”.

Hell yeah – I’ll cheer O’Keefe on! He’s a SAINT compared to the players on YOUR TEAM.

HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 7:40 PM

“I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict: the James O’Keefe/Landrieu phone interference case will be resolved with a very stern talking to by a judge, no criminal record, and 100 hours of community service each for the four arrested young people.”

Frum is out of his mind if he thinks federal court works this way.

So conservatives support suspected felons now?

Throwing tea into Boston Harbor, as well as any other act against Great Britain, was a “felony” too. I’m not saying I support what O’Keefe allegedly did, but let’s get all the facts before we condemn O’Keefe. Maybe he was trying to uncover something really important at Landrieu’s office?

bigbeas on January 27, 2010 at 7:40 PM

OK. So I agree with Glenn, what’s your point?

harry on January 27, 2010 at 7:33 P

Earlier you asked if cons supported such activity.

CWforFreedom on January 27, 2010 at 7:41 PM

He’s a SAINT compared to the players on YOUR TEAM.

HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 7:40 PM

Harry is just another lying angry hypocrite .

CWforFreedom on January 27, 2010 at 7:42 PM

I’m not saying I support what O’Keefe allegedly did, but let’s get all the facts before we condemn O’Keefe. Maybe he was trying to uncover something really important at Landrieu’s office?

bigbeas on January 27, 2010 at 7:40 PM

Well I support him if he did it to expose corruption! And I think that’s exactly what he was doing!

Can’t rely on the MSM to uncover corruption – otherwise Obama would have never won the election.

Can’t rely on the Justice Department to expose corruption – otherwise there’s two or three Black Panthers running free now that wouldn’t be.

Lesson the Democrats – when you isolate a big block of Americans and don’t listen to them – and shove laws down their throats that they don’t like …

You get stuff like James O’Keefe.

King George III learned that lesson in 1776 – now King Bams ZerObama will have to learn it in 2010.

HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Hmmmmm…….Phone interference??? Can hardly wait to see what the ‘real’ story is here

huskerdiva on January 27, 2010 at 5:24 PM

I agree. Unless O’Keefe got the big-head over his Acorn bust, he doesn’t seem the type to do something stupid.

Methinks he was about to blow a big whistle on Ma’am Senator Mary, and this call to the police from her office was a preemptive strike.

Like O’Keefe said–we ain’t heard it all yet.

Here’s how the leftards are reacting: http://gawker.com/5458240/teabuggers-day-2-lets-not-jump-to-conclusions-about-james-okeefes-own-admissions

davidk on January 27, 2010 at 7:47 PM

So conservatives support suspected felons now?

harry on January 27, 2010 at 6:25 PM

I can’t speak for other conservatives, Hairless, but I support the rule of law. If the fact-finder declares that O’Keefe broke the law, then he broke the law. If not, then bully for him.

pugwriter on January 27, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Khalid Sheikh Muhammad is an alleged terrorist. So is the Crotch Bomber.

Any number of pedophiles — including those caught on videotape — are “alleged child molesters/kidnappers/murders”.

Democrat Congresscritters caught by the FBI are “alleged corrupt elected officials”.

But a conservative is guiltyguiltyguilty from the moment of arrest — and an objective journalist” like Shuster will put that out in public while assigned to cover the story.

Speaks volume about the journalistic standards at his network. But then again, Shuster also thinks that Keith Olbermann is a journalist, so we probably shouldn’t take anything he tweeted seriously.

RhymesWithRight on January 27, 2010 at 7:50 PM

Careful now, crr6 is working up a case that the O’Keefe Four once had the intent to tear the mattress tags off the fainting couches in Landrieu’s office.

onlineanalyst on January 27, 2010 at 7:51 PM

BTW, AP, props for the retraction.

pugwriter on January 27, 2010 at 7:54 PM

I knew it wasn’t a case of wire-tapping… in so far as the affidavit doesn’t claim they were wire-tapping. They were only charged with “entering federal property under false pretense” (i.e.; claiming to be telephone repairmen.) And that’s only for two of the four… O’Keefe and the other dude were charged with aiding and abetting entering federal property under false pretense.

Enoxo on January 27, 2010 at 5:27 PM

It seems clear from reading the other O’Keefe threads that many ConcernCons didn’t read the actual affidavit. Knee jerk reactions abound when misleading thread titles fit their agenda.

They then go on record beating the same drum and when the truth comes out a short 24 hours later, to cover their embarrassment they dig in deeper accusing Breitbart of nuanced obfuscation.

At least Allah was man enough to admit Breitbart was right.

Geochelone on January 27, 2010 at 7:57 PM

I called Typhoid Mary’s NO office a few minutes ago. Straight to voicemail, no ringtone at all.

SagebrushPuppet on January 27, 2010 at 8:08 PM

I called Typhoid Mary’s NO office a few minutes ago. Straight to voicemail, no ringtone at all.

SagebrushPuppet on January 27, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Considering the deal she cut I bet her phone was going nuts. Not surprised OKEEFE took an interest. I just hope he did not do something stupid and illegal.

CWforFreedom on January 27, 2010 at 8:10 PM

Dedicated to Mary Landrieu: “She’ll Have to Go”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smlaq1ezQRM

onlineanalyst on January 27, 2010 at 8:11 PM

At least Allah was man enough to admit Breitbart was right.

Geochelone on January 27, 2010 at 7:57 PM

True – but I just wish he weren’t infected with “Conservative Blogger Guilt Syndrome”. He apparently believes the narrative from the left about conservatives – so he rushes too quickly to judgment on our folks without really considering what they’ve done for the cause in the past.

O’Keefe has done great work in exposing ACORN – more than any “blogger” has really ever done. He deserved for us to hold judgment, and even a little bit of support in this case.

I notice now that not too many people are crucifying him – as they did last night. And the reason is – they all realize now what I and others said last night – that O’Keefe is not a stupid dude – and there is more to this story.

HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Here’s the statute that they definitely violated, by the way:

18 U.S.C. § 1036: US Code – Section 1036: Entry by false pretenses to any real property, vessel, or aircraft of the United States or secure area of any airport

(a) Whoever, by any fraud or false pretense, enters or attempts to enter -
(1) any real property belonging in whole or in part to, or
leased by, the United States;
(2) any vessel or aircraft belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States; or
(3) any secure area of any airport, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is -
(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, if the offense is committed with the intent to commit a felony; or
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both, in any other case.

(c) As used in this section -
(1) the term “secure area” means an area access to which is
restricted by the airport authority or a public agency; and
(2) the term “airport” has the meaning given such term in
section 47102 of title 49.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 5:47 PM

So does this mean we can expect the Bawny Fwank sex ring case to be re-opened soon???

landlines on January 27, 2010 at 8:18 PM

So does this mean we can expect the Bawny Fwank sex ring case to be re-opened soon???

Yeth. Yeth, it doeth.

Good Lt on January 27, 2010 at 8:28 PM

Mary, Mary, Mary, take a tip from Petulia Clark and let those calls come through: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXuFdIuNyQA

onlineanalyst on January 27, 2010 at 8:37 PM

As of now he is a suspected felon.

Point out where I am incorrect.

harry on January 27, 2010 at 7:33 PM

He is not a suspected felon Harry. He is a person suspected of committing a felony.

Vince on January 27, 2010 at 8:43 PM

O’Reilly just gave out the Jawa Report’s theory re Mary Landrieu.

marybel on January 27, 2010 at 8:44 PM

HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 8:15 PM

I read the actual affidavit and the pastiche of circumstances was riddled in paradox taking wiretapping as a premised motive. Not much added up. Wiretapping was sloppily applied by those ready to slam conservatives and now some have to eat crow. I favor legal activism nonetheless.

Geochelone on January 27, 2010 at 9:08 PM

The story is he was trying to prove that the phones were not being answered on purpose. We who call our Democratic senators have sensed this is happening. Still a bit stupid even if it was done for a good reason.

amr on January 27, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Hell … Martin Luther King was a “suspected felon”. Bill Ayers, close friend and confidant of “The One” … was, by his own admission – a “felon”. Obama nominated a TSA director that violated privacy rights of others. Obama nominated a Treasury Secretary who’s guilty of lying on this tax returns. Nancy Pelosi relies on Charlie Rangel (a suspected TAX CHEAT) to write tax law. Chris Dodd gets sweetheard mortgage deals and undervalues Irish property …
And James O’Keefe is suspected of “playing with a phone handset” and entering a federal building under “false pretenses”.
Hell yeah – I’ll cheer O’Keefe on! He’s a SAINT compared to the players on YOUR TEAM.
HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 7:40 PM

Game…Set…Match!

MechEng5by5 on January 27, 2010 at 9:26 PM

OK. So I agree with Glenn, what’s your point? As I said people on this thread are cheering on the guy, I happen to think breaking the law (if he did) is pretty serious and WRONG.

As of now he is a suspected felon.

Point out where I am incorrect.

harry on January 27, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Agreed, these post over at Fox Nation were saying that what he did was right, he was wrong to get caught. So Saul Alinsky

Just awful that this is what we are reduced to – this kind of chicanery, to pose as a utilities worker to gain access to a Federal Building.

Sounds like something Saul Alinsky would have done.

AprilOrit on January 28, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Hell … Martin Luther King was a “suspected felon”. Bill Ayers, close friend and confidant of “The One” … was, by his own admission – a “felon”. Obama nominated a TSA director that violated privacy rights of others. Obama nominated a Treasury Secretary who’s guilty of lying on this tax returns. Nancy Pelosi relies on Charlie Rangel (a suspected TAX CHEAT) to write tax law. Chris Dodd gets sweetheard mortgage deals and undervalues Irish property …
And James O’Keefe is suspected of “playing with a phone handset” and entering a federal building under “false pretenses”.
Hell yeah – I’ll cheer O’Keefe on! He’s a SAINT compared to the players on YOUR TEAM.
HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 7:40 PM

Words of wisdom from the boss:

But for now, let it be a lesson to aspiring young conservatives interested in investigative journalism:

Know your limits. Know the law. Don’t get carried away. And don’t become what you are targeting.

AprilOrit on January 28, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Saw at Red State that David Shuster is on his way to NO. He’s already got him convicted for wiretapping. I only wish they had been this exuberant about checking out ACORN there. He did go to check them out, didn’t he?

silvernana on January 27, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Maybe while Shuster is down there he’ll stop by the ACORN office and do some reporting. But more likely he’ll give them a check for all the “great work” they’re doing on behalf of aspiring criminals across America.

hawksruleva on January 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM

True – but I just wish he weren’t infected with “Conservative Blogger Guilt Syndrome”. He apparently believes the narrative from the left about conservatives – so he rushes too quickly to judgment on our folks without really considering what they’ve done for the cause in the past.

HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 8:15 PM

What they’ve done in the past isn’t the relevant point here. You can be a hero and then commit a crime. But the right is bad about agreeing that people on our side are guilty, before the facts are established.

O’Keefe seems to have learned the George Allen lesson. Don’t apologize, because it allows your opponents to attack you even more. Good for him. It’s up to our writers to learn the KOS lesson. Defend your side, loudly, until he’s proven guilty. And then ignore the case.

hawksruleva on January 28, 2010 at 2:15 PM

NOLA.com has a pretty good update on this:

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/acorn_foe_james_okeefe_dialing.html

hawksruleva on January 28, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Stir-the-crap question:
What “false pretense”? Who says they weren’t telephone repair men offering to correct the problems the office has had – Anyone can offer telephone repair services, same as cable and satellite repair guys – unless they specifically stated they worked for Southern Bell (or whatever company is in N.O.), then false pretenses may be hard to prove – heck, I repair phones all the time!
Okeefe obviously wanted to get their reaction on tape after the offer to fix their phones by a couple of guys that were equipped to do it – where’s the felony? Where’s the false pretense? They really were offering to fix the phone lines.

redhead on January 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Stir-the-crap question:
What “false pretense”? Who says they weren’t telephone repair men offering to correct the problems the office has had – Anyone can offer telephone repair services, same as cable and satellite repair guys – unless they specifically stated they worked for Southern Bell (or whatever company is in N.O.), then false pretenses may be hard to prove – heck, I repair phones all the time!
Okeefe obviously wanted to get their reaction on tape after the offer to fix their phones by a couple of guys that were equipped to do it – where’s the felony? Where’s the false pretense? They really were offering to fix the phone lines.

redhead on January 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Well heck if we take your synopsis anyone can do anything.

Just ignore the laws, let’s live in a lawless society why don’t we.

How far out on the fringe does one have to go to make it all ok?

AprilOrit on January 28, 2010 at 8:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3