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

I am still mad that the Duke laX players got off scot free for not raping that poor college student.

Al Sharpton

TheSitRep on January 27, 2010 at 5:56 PM

Jeckle on January 27, 2010 at 5:48 PM

Sorry. I didn’t mean it as a shout out on HA.

Electrongod on January 27, 2010 at 5:56 PM

So I will finally ask. How do you get the block quote to work correctly?

azkenreid on January 27, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Anyone tried calling Landrieu’s office lately…?

Seven Percent Solution on January 27, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Bingo. That’s why some people think that Landrieu’s office will just let this one be quietly swept under the rug because, if O’Keefe et all go to trial, the office staff can be questioned about that and may be forced to plead the 5th.

teke184 on January 27, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Maybe James wants this to go to trial.

a capella on January 27, 2010 at 5:58 PM

So I will finally ask. How do you get the block quote to work correctly?

azkenreid on January 27, 2010 at 5:57 PM

hit quote
paste text
hit /quote

blatantblue on January 27, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Yeah no sh** sherlock. But as I said, attempt to run a stoplight isn’t.

crr6 on January 27, 2010 at 5:47 PM

LOL, that would explain all of those cameras that bust people trying to run stop lights.

That post was a mess, even for you.

F-

Del Dolemonte on January 27, 2010 at 5:58 PM

So I will finally ask. How do you get the block quote to work correctly?

Like this…

ninjapirate on January 27, 2010 at 5:59 PM

No matter what, O’Keefe and friends are not stupid, just gutsy. He may be young and impetuous but so far his capers have always uncovered the dirt. Awww, to be young and fearless. I LOVE this guy. I can’t wait to find out what they were up to!

texgal on January 27, 2010 at 5:59 PM

David Douchester

Are white males forbotten from visiting congress person offices? If they are imposters. where does that put Barry O?

seven on January 27, 2010 at 5:35 PM
Such pathetic spelling errors should be verboten.

The Race Card on January 27, 2010 at 5:44 PM
===========================================================
============================================================

Such pathetic spelling errors should be verboten.

————————————————————-canopfor on January 27, 2010 at 4:26 PM
Would you like to buy a vowel? Perhaps we can interest you in some handy punctuation marks.
=============================

canopfor on January 27, 2010 at 4:40 PM
————
You should copy and paste more often. You’re much more readable that way.

The Race Card on January 27, 2010 at 4:42 PM

The Race Card:Thank-you for your kind suggestions,copy and
pasting has always been a goal in life that I
always wanted to master!

canopfor on January 27, 2010 at 5:04 PM

===========================================================

Race Card,is having issues today!!!

canopfor on January 27, 2010 at 5:59 PM

I know where O’Keefe went wrong: his scheme didn’t involve Hannah Giles in a miniskirt. A pity for all of us.

rrpjr on January 27, 2010 at 5:59 PM

canopfor on January 27, 2010 at 5:59 PM

got more tunes up your sleeve for tonight?

cmsinaz on January 27, 2010 at 6:00 PM

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

hmmm
What did Brian Ross (and his team ) get for smuggling 15 pounds of depleted uranium into the US – twice ? I mean, they did not exactly label their load “depleted uranium”, did they ?

runner on January 27, 2010 at 6:00 PM

In many [most?] states “journalists” can get away with a lot if they are “working in the public interest”.

If O’Keefe was there to demonstrate that the Senator’s phones had been “turned off” and not to bug, this is no biggie.

toliver on January 27, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Err no. Read the entire thread moron..

I know, I meant that the crime of attempt to interfere with a government phone system exists, not that O’Keefe committed that crime.

crr6 on January 27, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Calling me names is an admission you lost the debate.

You say it’s a crime to attempt to interfere. It’s an alleged crime.

That post was a mess, even for you.

Del Dolemonte on January 27, 2010 at 6:02 PM

Anyone tried calling Landrieu’s office lately…?

Seven Percent Solution on January 27, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Seven Percent Solution: Good point!!!:)

canopfor on January 27, 2010 at 6:02 PM

I’m going out on a lamb.

Daggett on January 27, 2010 at 5:34 PM

Terrorist!

PaCadle on January 27, 2010 at 6:03 PM

I wish O’Keefe would do a sting on Shyster.

Iblis on January 27, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Anyone tried calling Landrieu’s office lately…?

Seven Percent Solution on January 27, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Yes. Straight to voicemail. Try yourself: (504) 589-2427

http://landrieu.senate.gov/services/offices.cfm

Joe Caps on January 27, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Hiya Del……..

hemmmmm

RealMc on January 27, 2010 at 6:03 PM

The Jawa Report’s speculation (O’Keefe was trying to find out why no one could call the office) is logical with the evidence found in the affidavit. And it fits in with O’Keefe’s style of journalism.

Enoxo on January 27, 2010 at 6:04 PM

I want to thank the MSM and the lefty blogosphere, though, for bringing ACORN’s corruption back to the forefront of people’s minds again. Their hysterical reaction to this story means that a few million more Americans woke up today connecting “ACORN” with “corruption.” That’s awesome. Oh, and a few million more Americans woke up today knowing that their democrat members of Congress turn the peoples phones off when the people are trying to reach their “representatives” and criticize them for taking bribes to vote yes on bills that will destroy the country. That’s awesome, too. So, thanks!

Rational Thought on January 27, 2010 at 5:49 PM

I hope people will type in O’Keefe in their search engines & be awakened to the anti-Irish sentiment of “Lucky Charms” too. That was genius.

batterup on January 27, 2010 at 6:04 PM

You say it’s a crime to attempt to interfere. It’s an alleged crime.

Del Dolemonte on January 27, 2010 at 6:02 PM

He’s differentiating between crimes on the books. He’s agreeing that O’Keefe’s crime is alleged. On this one, he’s cool.

RushBaby on January 27, 2010 at 6:05 PM

No matter what, O’Keefe and friends are not stupid, just gutsy. He may be young and impetuous but so far his capers have always uncovered the dirt. Awww, to be young and fearless. I LOVE this guy. I can’t wait to find out what they were up to!

texgal on January 27, 2010 at 5:59 PM

they clearly know something we don’t know.

uncalheels on January 27, 2010 at 6:05 PM

CRR I have a money making idea for ya.

Why don’t you post your name , address, and personal Facebook information. Then when someone slanders you it will be a great opportunity for a lawsuit. GO for it.

CWforFreedom on January 27, 2010 at 6:06 PM

Joe Caps what do you get when you call?

CWforFreedom on January 27, 2010 at 6:06 PM

100 hours of community service

To be served at the local ACORN office.

tjexcite on January 27, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Anyway, the question I haven’t seen anyone address is, if they weren’t attempting to tap the phone….what exactly were they trying to do? Fiddle around with it for giggles? Prank call someone?

crr6 on January 27, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Plenty of people have addressed it. There just isn’t a good answer yet. Allah speculated that they might be trying to prove how easy it is.

I’m guessing there’s more to it, but I have no idea.

My guess is that O’Keefe didn’t realize there was a difference in laws between a government office and a regular office building.

Jimbo3 on January 27, 2010 at 5:55 PM

Maybe. But you’d think the AG’s kid would have known.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 6:07 PM

If O’Keefe was there to demonstrate that the Senator’s phones had been “turned off” and not to bug, this is no biggie.

toliver on January 27, 2010 at 6:01 PM

I know that explanation has been suggested but has it been documented?

CWforFreedom on January 27, 2010 at 6:07 PM

So I will finally ask. How do you get the block quote to work correctly?

azkenreid on January 27, 2010 at 5:57 PM

hit quote
paste text
hit /quote

blatantblue on January 27, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Or you can type, then highlight the text you want quoted and hit the “quote” button.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 6:08 PM

I hope people will type in O’Keefe in their search engines & be awakened to the anti-Irish sentiment of “Lucky Charms” too. That was genius.

batterup on January 27, 2010 at 6:04 PM

Didn’t he also call a Planned Parenthood office to donate money for race based abortions ?

macncheez on January 27, 2010 at 6:08 PM

100 hours of community service

To be served at the local ACORN office.

tjexcite on January 27, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Too funny!!!!

RealMc on January 27, 2010 at 6:08 PM

To be served at the local ACORN office.

tjexcite on January 27, 2010 at 6:07 PM

He can be their videographer or head of procurement or both./

CWforFreedom on January 27, 2010 at 6:09 PM

In Louisiana, it is legal for one party to a communication to tape it, even without disclosing it. If you talk to someone, you’d better use some good ol’ southern manners and watch what you say and/or know your listener well.

If one-sided, undisclosed taping is the only issue and there was no actual tampering, my guess is the US Atty, Jim Letten, who’s a real, tough, essentially non-political law enforcement guy, may just decline to prosecute. The process will take a good while and everyone will forget about it in the meantime. However, if da Pimp broke a federal law, he’ll get justice, not “just us” from the prosecutors. Course, if Obaminable removes Letten and appoints a political hack, all bets are off.

Ay Uaxe on January 27, 2010 at 6:09 PM

Anyone tried calling Landrieu’s office lately…?

Seven Percent Solution on January 27, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Repeatedly. Couldn’t even get voicemail last time I tried. Had a nice chat with someone at Joseph Cao’s office though. And David Vitter’s. And Steve Scalise’s. Go figure. So if O’Keefe knew something about Landrieu willfully ducking her constituents by disabling her public phone lines or some such, and wanted to expose her for it, I applaud his motives but really… that was some crappy implementation. I’m really looking forward to court – so much so I will try to go in person.

Laura on January 27, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Read the affadavit at Patterico.

This is not going anywhere. There is no evidence that they meant to tamper with anything.

Look for a misdemeanor plea for jaywalking.

drjohn on January 27, 2010 at 6:12 PM

No matter what, O’Keefe and friends are not stupid, just gutsy. He may be young and impetuous but so far his capers have always uncovered the dirt. Awww, to be young and fearless. I LOVE this guy. I can’t wait to find out what they were up to!

texgal on January 27, 2010 at 5:59 PM

I think what they were up to was breaking the law. Does the conservative movement now support this?

harry on January 27, 2010 at 6:12 PM

canopfor on January 27, 2010 at 5:59 PM
got more tunes up your sleeve for tonight?

cmsinaz on January 27, 2010 at 6:00 PM

cmsinaz:I’m working on it!!:)

canopfor on January 27, 2010 at 6:13 PM

I maintain that The National Enquirer will get the truth out of this smelly story. I really do.

redwhiteblue on January 27, 2010 at 6:13 PM

I think what they were up to was breaking the law. Does the conservative movement now support this?

You mean like taking in $300 million from overseas contributors?

Does the left condone that?

drjohn on January 27, 2010 at 6:16 PM

canopfor on January 27, 2010 at 6:13 PM

rock on my friend!

cmsinaz on January 27, 2010 at 6:16 PM

so much so I will try to go in person.

Laura on January 27, 2010 at 6:11 PM

If you can, you’ll need to post pictures.

But that is an interesting turn of events. I don’t see how that exonerates him, but it is worth getting the public to pay attention to.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Damn, he was about to expose something huge.

True_King on January 27, 2010 at 6:16 PM

I think what they were up to was breaking the law. Does the conservative movement now support this?
You mean like taking in $300 million from overseas contributors?

Does the left condone that?

drjohn on January 27, 2010 at 6:16 PM

I have no idea what the left supports, I’m talking about this guy breaking the law. Do you support breaking the law?

harry on January 27, 2010 at 6:18 PM

I think what they were up to was breaking the law. Does the conservative movement now support this?

harry on January 27, 2010 at 6:12 PM

No, if you look at the HA threads on this subject yesterday, most of the commenters said that if this guy was doing what is alleged, he was breaking the law.

Unlike your side of the aisle, which still maintains that felony perjury isn’t felony perjury if it’s about sex.

F-

Del Dolemonte on January 27, 2010 at 6:18 PM

I think what they were up to was breaking the law. Does the conservative movement now support this?

harry on January 27, 2010 at 6:12 PM

We already know the Left does. Some even admit so air in encouraging voter fraud.

So are you asking if we’ve sunk to your level yet?

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 6:19 PM

Maybe
This is what happened :

Everytime these 4 kids dialed
1-900-2-BITE-ME, someone from Landrieu’s office answered
So they decided to check it out

macncheez on January 27, 2010 at 6:19 PM

I have no idea what the left supports,
harry on January 27, 2010 at 6:18 PM

Sure ya don’t . Far too funny.

If he broke the law he should receive fair punishment.

Tell us what you think of our Buddy nelson and Louisiana Mary and the Unions TAKING OUR MONEY to support the Dems healthcare plan? Don’t tell me about how it is legal either as legal and right or wrong are different things.

CWforFreedom on January 27, 2010 at 6:21 PM

I have no idea what the left supports

harry on January 27, 2010 at 6:18 PM

You’re an unusually good perjurer.

Del Dolemonte on January 27, 2010 at 6:21 PM

So I will finally ask. How do you get the block quote to work correctly?

Like this…

ninjapirate on January 27, 2010 at 5:59 PM

That was funny. Mean, but funny.
:)

Califemme on January 27, 2010 at 6:21 PM

You say it’s a crime to attempt to interfere. It’s an alleged crime.

Del Dolemonte on January 27, 2010 at 6:02 PM

No. It’s a crime in and of itself. Just like attempted murder is a crime. Read the statute.

crr6 on January 27, 2010 at 6:21 PM

Harry does your last name start with an R ?

Don’t you have better things to be doing?

CWforFreedom on January 27, 2010 at 6:23 PM

Hiya Del……..

hemmmmm

RealMc on January 27, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Thanks so much for sharing that.

Del Dolemonte on January 27, 2010 at 6:24 PM

LOL, that would explain all of those cameras that bust people trying to run stop lights.

Del Dolemonte on January 27, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Yeah, and no one is actually fined unless they actually run the stoplight. Again, there is no crime of “attempt to run a stoplight”. Get it?

Good lord this is tedious.

crr6 on January 27, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Ithink what they were up to was breaking the law. Does the conservative movement now support this?

harry on January 27, 2010 at 6:12 PM
We already know the Left does. Some even admit so air in encouraging voter fraud.

So are you asking if we’ve sunk to your level yet?

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 6:19 PM

The law they are charged with breaking that carries the big time in prison is:

entering federal property under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Why is everyone concentrating on the wiretap, it only matters that they commited some sort of felony and up the river they go. It doesn’t need to be wiretapping.

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

So conservatives support suspected felons now?

harry on January 27, 2010 at 6:25 PM

Now you are making crap up. No surprise there? Talk about tedious.

CWforFreedom on January 27, 2010 at 6:26 PM

I think what they were up to was breaking the law. Does the conservative movement now support this?

harry on January 27, 2010 at 6:12 PM

Did you ask this same question of your liberal friends when Acorn was taped breaking the law harry?

Rovin on January 27, 2010 at 6:27 PM

No. It’s a crime in and of itself. Just like attempted murder is a crime. Read the statute.

crr6 on January 27, 2010 at 6:21 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_light#Legal_implications

Del Dolemonte on January 27, 2010 at 6:27 PM

harry interesting you have no response to the question about payoffs for support for legislation . Instead you make up crap like your 625 post.

CWforFreedom on January 27, 2010 at 6:27 PM

So conservatives support suspected felons now?

harry on January 27, 2010 at 6:25 PM
Now you are making crap up. No surprise there? Talk about tedious.

CWforFreedom on January 27, 2010 at 6:26 PM

I’m not making crap up. Right now he is a suspected felon.

I was responding to this post:

No matter what, O’Keefe and friends are not stupid, just gutsy. He may be young and impetuous but so far his capers have always uncovered the dirt. Awww, to be young and fearless. I LOVE this guy. I can’t wait to find out what they were up to!

texgal on January 27, 2010 at 5:59

What it looks like they were up to was a felony.

harry on January 27, 2010 at 6:30 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_light#Legal_implications

Del Dolemonte on January 27, 2010 at 6:27 PM

I can’t decide which is funnier, that you responded to the wrong post, or that you looked up running a red light on wikipedia.

Regardless, it’s good to see you’re learning.

crr6 on January 27, 2010 at 6:30 PM

Good lord this is tedious.

crr6 on January 27, 2010 at 6:24 PM

You’re tedious……….

huskerdiva on January 27, 2010 at 6:30 PM

What it looks like they were up to was a felony.

harry on January 27, 2010 at 6:30 PM

So from one post you indict all cons? Nice real nice.

Again your thoughts on the vote buying in Congress?

CWforFreedom on January 27, 2010 at 6:33 PM

“willfully and maliciously interfering” with a government phone system,

From the initial reporting, they “looked” at switch relays. Is “looking” – interfering? What strong minds these Jedi have!

GarandFan on January 27, 2010 at 6:33 PM

One other thought: If there really is a crime called “attempting to interfere with a government phone system” could the person responsible for making all of Landrieu’s phones ring “busy” when they weren’t busy, be guilty of violating that statute?
jdp629 on January 27, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Excellent point!

Plus, could this backfire…in a good way? Since the lame stream media types have all gone postal-happy about “nabbing” James they have also in a backhanded way drawn much, much attention to The Louisiana Purchase Senator. Yeah, pass the popcorn and GO JAMES!

Branch Rickey on January 27, 2010 at 6:37 PM

I think what they were up to was breaking the law. Does the conservative movement now support this?

Harry, Harry, Harry! I don’t support breaking the law, I support undercover work that exposes law breakers!

texgal on January 27, 2010 at 6:38 PM

Damn, he was about to expose something huge.

True_King on January 27, 2010 at 6:16 PM
=========================================

This makes a good point: Why is it that these pols get away with so much corruption? Why is it that big time journalists are not going after these things with all their resources and connections??

georgealbert on January 27, 2010 at 6:38 PM

I’m not making crap up. Right now he is a suspected felon innocent until proven guilty.

FTFY

clearbluesky on January 27, 2010 at 6:38 PM

So does this mean we get no new vid of Hannah Giles in a miniskirt and high heels?????
if so….

FREE JAMES O”KEEFE

ted c on January 27, 2010 at 6:39 PM

From the initial reporting, they “looked” at switch relays. Is “looking” – interfering? What strong minds these Jedi have!

GarandFan on January 27, 2010 at 6:33 PM

If the FBI wants to arrest you, they will cite the statute(s) that most closely fit your circumstances. All the proving goes on in the courtroom later.

FBI might end up embarrassed over this one in the end.

RushBaby on January 27, 2010 at 6:40 PM

I’m not making crap up. Right now he is a suspected felon innocent until proven guilty.

FTFY

clearbluesky on January 27, 2010 at 6:38 PM

Umm you do know what suspected means right? I haven’t said they are guilty, they are suspected felons, it is that simple.

harry on January 27, 2010 at 6:43 PM

So conservatives support suspected felons now?

harry on January 27, 2010 at 6:25 PM

No more than liberals do.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Has everybody wildly speculated and devolved into into several flame wars yet?

daesleeper on January 27, 2010 at 6:45 PM

Something I keep wondering about with this story. Were there a group of bored FBI agents hanging out at the LA senator’s office? Or was O’Keefe already under observation / surveillance? Perhaps I missed this somewhere, but why was the FBI in a position to make this arrest on short notice?

hungrymongo on January 27, 2010 at 6:46 PM

The Race Card on January 27, 2010 at 5:44 PM

I wish they would just ban you already. You are nothing but a race-baiting waste of space. crr6 and growfins contribute more than you do. Heck, even simplesimon was less of idiot than you. You are worth less than a Retenmark from the Weimar Republic circa 1923. Do the HA community a favor and take your ball and go play on the 101 with a blindfold at rush hour.

Wolftech on January 27, 2010 at 6:47 PM

Wolftech on January 27, 2010 at 6:47 PM

concur.

daesleeper on January 27, 2010 at 6:48 PM

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Definitely – I’ll write it up for the Green Room. I haven’t been blogging there lately because I haven’t had much to say (and preoccupied with my daughter because my son in law was just mobilized to deploy to Iraq) but if this goes to trial and it’s open to the public, I’ll be there.

Laura on January 27, 2010 at 6:49 PM

My bet is that this will be decline to prosecute. Not all the elements of the crime have been met at least in the information released thus far. The FBI does have a bad habit of trying to fit the statue to the alledged crime before they know its a crime. In fact they can not arrest a criminal without warrant like local and state and some other federal agencies can.

Viking6 on January 27, 2010 at 6:51 PM

If he was trying to wiretap, all he would’ve picked up would be calls to a pizza or ribs place.

TXUS on January 27, 2010 at 6:52 PM

crr6 on January 27, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Actually, if a cop wanted to be a jerk about it, he could cite you if he sees you start to pull out and stop or even if you slam on your breaks late, even though you stop in time. They will just find another thing to charge you with because it makes money for them. Thus, since O’Keefe bloodied the lefties nose, the will use whatever they can to fight back.

Wolftech on January 27, 2010 at 6:52 PM

Here in New Orleans – another theory is crystallizing.

Robert Flannagan, one of the “perps” in this case – is the son of the acting U.S. Attorney in Shreveport. Coincidence?

Maybe – but not likely.

Theory being floated is that Flannagan’s Dad, who just got that job not too long ago, either knew of some wrongdoing – or the kid found something laying about his Dad’s office – or at home.

So he thought … “Who can I call?” … and logically he called James O’Keefe. This even becomes more plausible if what Flannagan saw had something to do with the ACORN corruption.

The theory explains why these otherwise good kids might go to the extreme of breaking the law to get something. It also explains why they don’t seem to be the least bit scared of going to jail for a long time.

HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 6:54 PM

Umm you do know what suspected means right?

Umm, yeah, apparently you don’t though based on your idiotic question “do conservatives support suspected felons”. You obviously think that he’s guilty or you wouldn’t have a problem with conservatives supporting someone who’s innocent until proven guilty.

clearbluesky on January 27, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Definitely – I’ll write it up for the Green Room. I haven’t been blogging there lately because I haven’t had much to say (and preoccupied with my daughter because my son in law was just mobilized to deploy to Iraq) but if this goes to trial and it’s open to the public, I’ll be there.

Laura on January 27, 2010 at 6:49 PM

That’s certainly something that would keep me preoccupied. I imagine she needs your support. Send along our thanks to him.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 6:57 PM

So conservatives support suspected felons now?

harry on January 27, 2010 at 6:25 PM

Liberals support Ted Kennedy – a coward who killed a woman and tried to cover it up – and that’s a fact.

O’Keefe is “suspected” of doing something. If you can give Kennedy a pass even after he was proven to have done wrong – least you can do is give O’Keefe et al the benefit of the doubt before you crucify them.

Am I being unreasonable?

HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 6:59 PM

Send along our thanks to him.

Esthier on January 27, 2010 at 6:57 PM

Will do, thanks! :-)

Laura on January 27, 2010 at 7:01 PM

So I will finally ask. How do you get the block quote to work correctly?

azkenreid on January 27, 2010 at 5:57 PM

hit quote
paste text
hit /quote

blatantblue on January 27, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Maybe this will work.

azkenreid on January 27, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Am I being unreasonable?

HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 6:59 PM

You forget. The liberal democrat worldview is the ‘normal’ or ‘acceptable’ view. You have a conservative worldview. You and your ideology are tolerated until something like this happens. Then the long knives come out and you and your ‘unnatural’ worldview are no longer tolerated. Your ‘unnatural’ worldview is dissected and ruminated over by those with the ‘normal’ worldview’. See you are lucky that liberal democrats even allow you to live with a modicum of liberty. You are anathema to them. They are waiting for that glorious day that your ideology is made wholly illegal and you can be done away with.

It has always been this way with the progressives.

daesleeper on January 27, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Anyway, the question I haven’t seen anyone address is, if they weren’t attempting to tap the phone….what exactly were they trying to do?

Read this. My money is on this.

You’re suffering from a failure of imagination. And of reading the affidavit.

Thanks for the rest of you who indulged that rambling and thought it through.

Five bucks or a Coke says this was their MO. They were obviously aware that wiretapping was illegal, because they weren’t charged with wiretapping.

Any takers? :-D

Good Lt on January 27, 2010 at 7:08 PM

azkenreid on January 27, 2010 at 7:03 PM

MAZEL TOV

angryed on January 27, 2010 at 7:08 PM

Here’s a way to test if what O’Keefe and Co. were doing is what I said:

Call Landrieu’s office tonight.

Did you get through?

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. :-)

Good Lt on January 27, 2010 at 7:11 PM

To anyone who even bothered to do some background checking on the 4 and the situation, it would have been clear that Landrieu’s office may have been up to some nefarious allegations.

Trust me when I tell you that I know that they are all on pins and needles right now. No one answered the phones at any of her 4 offices (Shreveport, Baton Rouge, New Orleans and DC) during the month of December. There have been lots of complaints filed and I mean LOTS!

Perhaps the quartet had already visited Shreveport, Baton Rouge and DC BEFORE New Orleans.

Kermit on January 27, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Liberals support Ted Kennedy – a coward who killed a woman and tried to cover it up – and that’s a fact.

O’Keefe is “suspected” of doing something. If you can give Kennedy a pass even after he was proven to have done wrong – least you can do is give O’Keefe et al the benefit of the doubt before you crucify them.

Am I being unreasonable?

HondaV65 on January 27, 2010 at 6:59 PM

I think you are being more than reasonable. I’m merely questioning those who are cheering him on and wondering what “wonderful” thing he is going to do next.

So far all I’ve seen is a two bit suspected felon. I have no reason to cheer him.

harry on January 27, 2010 at 7:12 PM

So far all I’ve seen is a two bit suspected felon. I have no reason to cheer him.

The Democrats cheered on and elected a drunken murderer to a US Senate seat for 40+ years. Over and over and over again.

They don’t get to lecture anyone on “cheering on” wrongdoers.

EVER AGAIN.

Good Lt on January 27, 2010 at 7:14 PM

Umm you do know what suspected means right? I haven’t said they are guilty, they are suspected felons, it is that simple.

harry

Do you? First you said “I think what they were up to was breaking the law”, now you claim you haven’t said they are guilty. Which is it? Apparently it isn’t that simple after all, for you anyway.

xblade on January 27, 2010 at 7:17 PM

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

Comment pages: 1 2 3