O’Keefe claims vindication
posted at 12:15 pm on January 29, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
The investigative journalist who hammered ACORN but got arrested in a district office for a Democrat Senator claimed vindication at Big Hollywood today. James O’Keefe says that the government has “confirmed” that he and his partners in his latest operation did not intend to tap or sabotage the telephone system, but doesn’t provide a link to anything suggesting that law enforcement has dropped its inquiry:
The government has now confirmed what has always been clear: No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu’s office. Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines. Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false. …
I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill. When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.” I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken. In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.
There has been considerable overreach by some media outlets, to be sure. Some elements of the story have come directly from the report filed by the FBI,- detailing what the witnesses told them about the operation. That information remains to be tested in court, but the description therein doesn’t quite square with O’Keefe’s explanation. They wouldn’t have needed to get access to the telephone closet in order to observe people answering the phone, and attempting to access it under false pretenses (representing themselves as telephone-company technicians) strongly implies that they wanted access for other reasons.
If the FBI affadavit or the witness testimony is inaccurate, then that will come out in court. However, I doubt that the FBI got the description of their clothing wrong, and dressing up as telephone repairmen wouldn’t have been necessary at all to get undercover video of people answering the phone, or not answering it, as the case may be. If all O’Keefe and his people wanted was an admission that the phone system was working, then the disguise may have helped, but it still wouldn’t have been necessary to gain access to the phone closet.
O’Keefe seems to recognize that now:
On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building. The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator. We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I’m eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.
Even accepting O’Keefe’s explanation, his team still appears to have broken the law by gaining admission to a federal office under false pretenses and attempting to access the phone system, possibly with “willful and malicious” intent to interfere with it. Be sure to read Allahpundit’s analysis of the law and how it applies to this situation. If a judge winds up with this case, he will certainly take intent and purpose under consideration but it doesn’t change the fact that O’Keefe should have done his homework and reconsidered this very bad idea before engaging in it. And what for? To get on people on tape answering the phones? That’s not exactly a journalistic scoop.
I’d guess that the four will wind up pleading to a lesser charge and get unsupervised probation, at worst. Depending on how hot the local US Attorney is to pursue this case, it may wind up going nowhere.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Looks like the filthy lying coward highhopes doesn’t like to stick to the facts.
Anyway, I agree with Ed that he’ll probably just get a slap on the wrist, and that’s fine. He has no prior criminal record that I know of and his mens rea is really more “stupid” than “malicious”.
But his appeals to the pubic are pretty pathetic. You did something stupid. Take responsibility for it, and move on.
crr6 on January 29, 2010 at 1:08 PM
I did enjoy having Tom_Shipley instruct us all that a second-hand account of O’Keefe’s visit disproved the ACORN videotapes.
Chris_Balsz on January 29, 2010 at 1:08 PM
They’ll Plame-Liddy him if they can.
petefrt on January 29, 2010 at 1:10 PM
Watching this on Fox too. I hope they aren’t “charmed” by the One. He’s stuttering a bit…fun to watch.
yoda on January 29, 2010 at 1:10 PM
If this goes to trial, does that mean Mary’s office would be subject to any sort of investigation because of O’Keefe’s claims? And would she or the Dems want this to be out there in public because it did look like they were either jamming the phones or re-routing the calls?
It could go away because Holder would look like a moron for going after O’Keefe while bringing KSM to our soil, and not prosecuting the New/New Blank Panthers. You could add some revenge as well for the whole ACORN deal. This is not something the Dems need since we have “campaign fever”.
DITTOS- to President OneNote getting his butt handed to him via the House Republicans. For a moment I forget it was a for real political chat and instead I thought it was a skit from SNL! The man actually claimed he was “not an ideologue”. LMAO!
When is someone going to remind President Candyland that HE was part of the Democrat dominated Congress which voted for all the crap that gave us those unemployment numbers during Bush’s presidency?
freeus on January 29, 2010 at 1:11 PM
So when does O’bama get locked up?
Sorry, you made it too easy.
Del Dolemonte on January 29, 2010 at 1:12 PM
The local U.S. Attorney will obviously recuse himself.
There will be intense pressure put on the kids for someone to take some form of fall here — too much publicity to let it go with just a warning.
The left would claim that the “fix” was in and it would damage Holder in the eyes of the left.
The White House better have no public finger prints around on this one either! But don’t think they haven’t made inquiries, and possibly offered “advice” through Holder.
If there is one thing we know about Holder, it is that he is willing to take partisan political action, perhaps best exemplified by the strange conclusion of the voter intimidation case re: the “new” Panthers in Philadelphia.
And, he did not hesitate to
join right inlead the little “standing o” demonstration against the Supreme Court the other night during the SOTU.Trochilus on January 29, 2010 at 1:12 PM
He was talking about HotAir not being a Gov. site you farkin dipstick.
Good Lord, lack of brain cells is getting to you. Might wanna take your head ouot of Obama’s butt.
upinak on January 29, 2010 at 1:12 PM
Obama getting grilled live.
carbon_footprint on January 29, 2010 at 1:12 PM
Journalist? Give me a break! Where is the footage of Acorn employees calling the cops on him? Happened here in Philly and elsewhere. Why? Because it doesn’t fit his audiences(your) narrative.
Bill Blizzard on January 29, 2010 at 1:14 PM
hey carbon *hugs* can’t watch…. BANNED!
upinak on January 29, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 12:50 PM
What law did he break again? Last time I checked, an affidavit was submitted by the FBI, purporting to laws broken and I dont remember a trial…
Funny how that American Judicial system works, eh?
And for the record – the FBI affidavit, which led to every
–The affadavit says that they told two people that they were telephone company tehnicians or employees (paragraphs 5 and 8). And the affadavit, in paragraph 8, says that they told an employee that they needed access to the telephone closet to conduct repair work.
Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 1:16 PM
My guess is that depends on how high up pressure comes from, if this becomes a get even issue for ACORN, could it get ugly?
Speakup on January 29, 2010 at 1:17 PM
Hey uppy! Banned?
carbon_footprint on January 29, 2010 at 1:17 PM
What’s the weather like on your planet?
TheBigOldDog on January 29, 2010 at 1:17 PM
–Hell, if was that easy, everyone of them would be locked up for telling the public that “they’re here to help us”.
Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 1:18 PM
In your first “point” you said you didn’t have to say “allegedely broke the law”, then go onto say in “point” 2 – “I didnt say he broke the law”
Which one is it?
I also recommend hiring a 5th grader to read the affidavit “accused of trying to interfere with the phone lines”. “Attempting to enter a federal building under false pretenses” is the actual arrest, wiretapping (the FBI affidavit) is not a charge
And yes, he is free, also part of the American judicial process. Its that old “innocent until proven guilty” thingy.
A law school student would have this thrown out or reduced to a violation with a fine, maybe community service – in a heart beat.
Now ask yourself – why is O’Keefe the headline – when its the other 2 who entered the federal building dressed up like telephone repairmen…
Thats the rub – O’Keefe didnt dress up like anyone, nor did he have a bogus ID. Tough to prove his false pretenses, unless using a cell phone camera is a crime – but no where near the entering charge.
Heres another issue – based on the FBI affidavit – were all 4 mirandized and does their ommission, without a lawyer present, constitute legal statements? This issue has gotten far worse criminals off or cases thrown out.
Odie1941 on January 29, 2010 at 1:18 PM
Fox is reporting the Republican’s didn’t want to do this live but the White House insisted.
Another major faux pas by the White House.
Knucklehead on January 29, 2010 at 1:19 PM
Yeah, that would explain why all of your liberal news outlets are utter failures in the ratings and paid circulation, and some have to borrow money in many cases to stay afloat.
Del Dolemonte on January 29, 2010 at 1:19 PM
I caught just a few seconds of Olberdouche last night. He was in the middle of a rant about this.
Did DSNBC ever mention ACORN at all? I know he was not puffed up and blowing about them.
riverrat10k on January 29, 2010 at 1:19 PM
Like you and yours, including the media, did on ACORN, Obama in 2007/2008+, Edwards, and etc.
Thanks for the frequent smiles.
Schadenfreude on January 29, 2010 at 1:20 PM
Moron – Numerous ACORN employees were caught on tape offering to help him bring child prostitutes in the country. The co-founder of the organization embezzled millions of dollars. ACORN employees all across the USA have been charged with crimes. The “narrative” is that ACORN is a corrupt organization, one that assists others in doing illegal activity. He proved it. Get over it.
Narutoboy on January 29, 2010 at 1:21 PM
work
upinak on January 29, 2010 at 1:24 PM
Yes, let’s instead just make sh!t up.
That’s one person who tried and failed to do something illegal. Plenty of Code Pink people have gone to jail. As a whole, they have not been given a pass. It’s just that they’ve been stopped from doing the illegal thing they want to do.
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 1:26 PM
Lol, at the Fox Obama/Republican stream Jeb Hensarling was announced to have the last question. Obama said: “Oh, okay Jim, last question, good.” Jeb replied, “It is ‘Jeb’, Mr. President.”
Then after Jeb asks his question, Obama starts his answer off with… “Jim”.
Comedy gold.
carbon_footprint on January 29, 2010 at 1:27 PM
“They” are Bael and Dai, not O’Keefe.
Clearly there is a lot of info being thrown around – but I am using the FBI affidavit, arrest record – charges filed, etc – and see many glaring holes in this entire case, from who actually did what, who said what, what the charges really were/are.
Whatr I do kow is most media outlets initially misreported or jumped the gun on “wiretapping charges” – and the “entering a federal building under false pretenses” is murky at best – concerning O’Keefe – who never dressed up like anyone, though he admitted to agents his role in conducting the “stunt” or whatever you want to call it.
Admittance on an affidavit does not equate breaking the law, until a trial.
Considering he cooperated from the start – its not a mystery his name and fame are whats keeping the headlines and media outlets hyperventilating.
I mentioned in a previous thread – his admittance , without a lawyer present – may be “tricky”, to say the least.
I truly belive he and the other 3 will cop to a lesser crime, fine, community service, a public apology and maybe limited probation.
I have also said from day 1 “dumb move kids, easier ways to achieve this”.
Odie1941 on January 29, 2010 at 1:28 PM
Uh…really?
Jaibones on January 29, 2010 at 1:29 PM
You’re the one falling for BS. Of course ACORN claimed they called the cops on him. They did so before all the videos were out to prove them wrong.
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 1:29 PM
Ah, work..I remember when I had work. : (
carbon_footprint on January 29, 2010 at 1:30 PM
Both. I technically never said that he broke the law, but I still reserve the right to say he did.
Maybe you’re the one who needs the fifth grader (why so specific anyway?), cause I never accused him of wiretapping.
Too bad he’s only got an actual lawyer then. Guess he should have hired someone who can’t legally practice law.
Cause he’s the famous one. Obviously.
It might be tough to prove it if James hadn’t already admitted to it. So they don’t even need to prove that one. Nice try though.
So now you’re looking for technicalities. Who knows. Maybe he will get off on one, but that doesn’t mean he did the right thing.
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 1:34 PM
Then why’d you jump on me for saying the exact same thing?
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 1:36 PM
No one needs any pretense to get into a federal building. You go through security and you’re in. You don’t need to tell the guards why you’re there.
O’Keefe wanted to prove that Mary’s phones worked. Had he pulled it off we wouldn’t be questioning anything about it. We would have footage of silly looking phony telephone company guys checking out the phones in her office, and that’s about it.
Akzed on January 29, 2010 at 1:37 PM
Get off the computer now and get a clue. Click your heels 3 times or chant to a head of cabbage, but stop posting your inane nonsense.
They illegally entered a federal building under false pretenses – thats the “illegal” part, what they “intended to do” – could have been assault, battery etc. in addition to illegally entering a federal building under false pretenses
It is relevant to this case – because they have never been charged with the crime itself, got a pass – yet “10 years” is being thrown around everywhere concerning these 4, while never being uttered for Code Pink, Sheehan, etc.
Odie1941 on January 29, 2010 at 1:38 PM
Which really doesn’t sound worth it to me.
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 1:39 PM
As a former telephone tech I can attest to the fact that on some phone systems there is an LED that comes on when each phone is busy, blinks when calls are ringing in or blinks rapidly when forwarded. Maybe they were trying to determine if the phones were forwarded to a dead line like some people have said.
DL13 on January 29, 2010 at 1:40 PM
Looks like the filthy lying coward highhopes doesn’t like to stick to the facts.
crr6 on January 29, 2010 at 1:08 PM
————–
Spew without thinking much?
fossten on January 29, 2010 at 1:43 PM
You’re talking about James. I was talking about Code Pink people who were legally there to see Karl Rove.
But I forget. I’m the dumb one.
And yet, James hasn’t been sentenced yet. He might end up with the same slap on the wrist that Sheehan has received at least three times already (Sheehan who has also already spent time in jail).
So what’s your point?
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 1:43 PM
If it’s all been recorded by O’Keefe’s hidden video camera, that should get rid of the “bugging” allegations, but may just confirm the false (verbal) identification allegation. I don’t think he’s out of the woods.
RBMN on January 29, 2010 at 1:44 PM
I think gaining access to the phone closet makes perfect sense in the context of what they were trying to do. I’d bet they had no intention of actually doing anything in the closet; they just needed to LOOK like they were doing something, so the staffers would think they were legit.
I agree with the commenter who said the mens rea was stupid, not criminal.
At the same time, it’s a shame they weren’t merely trying to physically intimidate white voters; Holder would give them a Get Out of Jail Free card like RIGHT NOW.
Pavel on January 29, 2010 at 1:45 PM
DL13, would they be able to forward to a dead line by themselves, or would they have to specifically get somebody to do it for them?
Are there any ethics rules about not taking constituents’ communications?
I still think the bigger question is what citizens can do – if not what O’Keefe & Co tried to do – to make our elected officials listen to us and/or obey the rules/laws.
justincase on January 29, 2010 at 1:50 PM
Crr6 –
Yeah, there’s no way that the honest, moral and ethical Mary Landrieu could have had a staffer go into the phone closet and conveniently unplug a phone device, or two – not within the realm of possibility, of course. We all know Dems/Libs are always on the up and up, silly thought.
You are an ignorant buffoon if you are willing to give the loser Senator a pass and consider her moral and ethical after she pulled the Obamalinsky Care BS she pulled.
Dude, pull your head out of your butt.
ontheright on January 29, 2010 at 1:52 PM
She could have and should have been arrested for that. Instead, they just removed her from the building. Again, that isn’t justice.
O’Keefe, on the other hand, should be given a medal. He actually had a good reason for doing what he did, and more importantly, an objective. What did the Code Pink member hope to achieve by arresting Karl Rove? Not a thing, just media attention.
Narutoboy on January 29, 2010 at 1:54 PM
You don’t believe that they really believe he’s a war criminal? I have no problem believing they’re that crazy.
But intentions don’t change facts. If he broke the law, he’ll have to pay for that. It should only change the sentence.
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Exactly.
That is an important tenet of being a Conservative, you are a grown up and as a grown-up you take responsibility for what you did wrong, whereas Liberals blame everyone else except themselves.
Ed, thanks for your honest analysis, you never dissappoint us.
AprilOrit on January 29, 2010 at 1:56 PM
This is actually kind of funny. I think back on all the stupid things I did as a kid, like jumping off the garage roof onto a trampoline, and just have to chuckle…the laws of physics are not negotiable…
percysunshine on January 29, 2010 at 2:02 PM
Dr. Freud, call your office, stat!
Midas on January 29, 2010 at 2:04 PM
O’Keefe might have broken the law.B
ut the reason he has been arrested doesn’t have much to do with that. He probably drives over the speed limit as well.
The reason is Acorn, Obama, and Holder.He was going to be punished for something.
Just like in Russia.
notagool on January 29, 2010 at 2:05 PM
I do but there was no way she was actually going to arrest and put Karl Rove in jail. All she would’ve been able to do was put the hand cuffs on him, and I doubt she would have even been able to lift him out of his seat. So this was obviously just her attempt to show that he should be arrested.
I’m not arguing that what he did was legal. Personally, I don’t care. In a culture of corrupt people, sometimes you have to go outside of the law to expose them.
Narutoboy on January 29, 2010 at 2:07 PM
“Hurr hurr, he said pew-bic!”
…really now Midas…
Dark-Star on January 29, 2010 at 2:08 PM
Let me just clear up a few points of law for you.
(1) Entering a federal building under false pretenses is a crime in and of itself, albeit a misdemeanor. Entering a federal building under false pretenses with the intent to commit a felony simply enhances the entrance itself to a felony; thus if it holds he would be charged with 2 felonies: the entrance and the felony he committed while inside. Just like breaking and entering is a crime in and of itself, while breaking and entering into a dwelling place with the intent to commit a felony enhances the entrance itself to a felony (burglary).
(2) Even if O’Keefe was never dressed up, or never entered the building, or never made a false claim if he is convicted of aiding and abetting the others he will convicted of the same crimes they are. If you are an accessory to murder you’re not convicted of being an accessory to murder, you are convicted of murder. It you aide and abet there is no legal distinction between you and those who actually carried out the crime.
(3) While O’Keefe certainly had the right to not be questioned without counsel, he also had the right to waive the right. Unless the FBI coerced him or failed to properly follow arrest and interrogation procedures, once he started speaking to them he effectively waived his right to remain silent. Anything he said is an admission and admissible into evidence against him.
JaHerer22 on January 29, 2010 at 2:12 PM
Thanks for admitting it, but we knew that already.
Your President has spent his first year in office blaming his predecessor.
The previous Democrat President had his Justice Dept. successfully prosecute a female Federal employee for lying about sex under oath. When that Democrat President later did the exact same thing, the Democrats said he was above the law.
And his wife blamed his serial adultery in the workplace with a workplace subordinate on…his mother and his grandmother.
Thanks for playing.
Del Dolemonte on January 29, 2010 at 2:14 PM
“Whistleblowers” always get the raw end of the deal…unless they are a liberal.
Exposing someone doing something wrong, ironically, is not acceptable in our society. We are taught from an early age that “tattletales” are bad.
If you see someone cheating on a test, and you tell on that person, the “tattletale” is the one that is found guilty of a crime.
We are screwed up that way…one of our backward thinking moralities.
right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 2:21 PM
Here is a good example of proclaiming that finding the truth is worse then lying…
right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 2:23 PM
And here is an example of someone with the right priorities…to catch a pig, sometimes you need to get muddy…
right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM
It’s nice to see the trolls have a hobby now; fascination with these threads to the exclusion of most others.
Techie on January 29, 2010 at 2:27 PM
here we go again….talking about Clinton which has nothing to do with the story about James O’Keefe.
I think you are the liberal, they are notorious for pointing out other bad behavior to explain away the bad behavior at hand.
Thanks of playing and showing us your true ideology.
AprilOrit on January 29, 2010 at 2:30 PM
You liberals are always searching for that Justice For All, and always see everything as unfair.
AprilOrit on January 29, 2010 at 2:34 PM
Unless you’re an accomplice after the fact.
crr6 on January 29, 2010 at 2:34 PM
“
–He’s not a whistleblower. Whistleblowers are people who report illegal activities.
Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 2:44 PM
I’m not proclaiming anything, and I’m certainly not proclaiming what is right or wrong.
It seemed a substantial portion of this thread was devoted to commentors opining as to what they thought the law was or what they though the law should be. I thought clearing up a few legal misconceptions would allow the discussion to center more on what O’Keefe might actually facing. Is that too much to ask?
This is true, although I’ve seen no indication that that is the case here. I would think O’Keefe was the mastermind behind the operation, although that is nothing but speculation based on his past.
JaHerer22 on January 29, 2010 at 2:44 PM
DL13, would they be able to forward to a dead line by themselves, or would they have to specifically get somebody to do it for them?
Are there any ethics rules about not taking constituents’ communications?
I still think the bigger question is what citizens can do – if not what O’Keefe & Co tried to do – to make our elected officials listen to us and/or obey the rules/laws.
justincase on January 29, 2010 at 1:50 PM
==========================================================
Call forwarding is usually initiated from the user’s telephone or from a master console such as the Administrative Assistant.
By law, a telecom tech would be in deeeep trouble if they monitored or divulged any information they overheard while testing phone lines.
DL13 on January 29, 2010 at 2:48 PM
–I did a Google search. It looks like Code Pink tried to arrest Rove three or four times: once in San Francisco, once in NY and twice in Iowa. None of the places were governmental buildings. In the two situations in Iowa, they were arrested but released; in one of those situations, they were charged with tresspasing.
Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 2:53 PM
–I’m interested in finding out how much they told the Big Hollywood people in advance. My suspicion is that there was a fair amount of discussion.
Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 2:55 PM
Very likely, but I don’t discount the idea that she was deluded enough to think that if she’d done that the rest of the audience would have helped her frog march the man out of there.
However, I can’t imagine that even she thought it would go further than that. I can’t believe she ever thought she’d actually be able to arrest him or try him for treason. But I’m not convinced that she didn’t think what she was doing was somehow important. I think that’s the biggest delusion of the entire organization.
I don’t necessarily disagree with this (though, I’m not at all an “ends justify the means” person). Sometimes I’m sure that this is true. However, there’s no reason that should be anyone’s first option. And in this specific case, I believe James had several, legal options that would have exposed her without hurting him or his cause.
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 2:55 PM
Translation:
“Del busted me dead to rights, so I will go Alinsky on him and call him names”
BTW The first part of my post had absolutely nothing to say about Clinton. It was about our current President.
Del Dolemonte on January 29, 2010 at 2:56 PM
This is also an unfair characterization. Whistleblowers, as the term is commonly used, refers to those within a company or organization who report illegal activity within that organization to law enforcement. They are then protected by law against any attempt by the company to punish them for reporting this activity. While I guess you could make some argument that O’Keefe et. al are citizens reporting the activity of a Senator and should receive the same protection, this argument kind of falls apart when you consider there has been no allegation of illegal activity by the Senator and only one of those involved actually resides in LA. And of course you have report the activity to law enforcement; your company is free to fire you immediately it you just run off to the local news with your information.
Also, food for thought, both universities I attended had honor codes that had be written and signed on every test or assignment that was turned in. Both these codes included promises not only that you had not cheated, but also that you have not witnessed anyone else cheating.
JaHerer22 on January 29, 2010 at 2:56 PM
Was the O’Keefe crew filming in order to find evidence of a physical disabling of the phone system in Landrieu’s office?
The question remains: Who or what prevented calls to the Senator’s office from going through?
onlineanalyst on January 29, 2010 at 2:58 PM
That’s because they think they actually have a fighting chance on these threads. They know that they don’t on any of the others. And the O’Keefe threads are the only threads about a conservative running into trouble with the law. All of the other threads offer proof of how the people they support are trying to destroy our country.
Del Dolemonte on January 29, 2010 at 3:00 PM
Thanks.
I find that hard to believe. Even with ACORN, James went to them after he had the tapes, not before.
I just don’t think Andrew is stupid enough to have told James this was even a halfway decent idea. I’m not even convinced they spent much time planning it. All of them are from different places and might even have just met right before this.
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 3:01 PM
x
maverick muse on January 29, 2010 at 3:09 PM
The ACORN tapes are what initiated their business relationship. He blogs and works for them now Breitbart. I have a hard time believing Breitbart didn’t have knowledge of this.
I agree on this. Maybe O’Keefe came to him with the general idea of investigating the Senator…but I’d have a hard time agreeing Breitbart would agree to something this stupid.
Who knows? But if Breitbart provided any support at all (even just words of encouragement) he’s potentially guilty of the same substantive offense as O’Keefe.
Yeah, I agree. I was just pointing out the distinction. Good analysis overall.
crr6 on January 29, 2010 at 3:10 PM
No link attached, yet no show of comment.
In a nutshell, Steven Reyes, FBI Affiant, is at fault. He observed Flanagan and Basal’s entry, requesting to man the phones. And neither Reyes nor the Receptionist Witness 1 asked to see any credentials. THAT was a huge breech in security protocol. And they are mad as hell that O’Keefe caught them with their pants down; and the FBI is detaining the recording, all of which lends credence to O’Keefe’s statement.
maverick muse on January 29, 2010 at 3:15 PM
Whether it was what he went in to find or not, O’Keefe proved the lack of security in the Senate, as the FBI employees sit and stare like a toad on a log, while on duty acting like union members on break.
maverick muse on January 29, 2010 at 3:18 PM
So, he should take responsibility for things he didn’t do that the media is saying he did do? Talk about stupid, lol.
xblade on January 29, 2010 at 3:20 PM
For all we know (and don’t), Flanagan and Basal were hired by the Feds to entice O’Keefe into getting caught. And perhaps that’s why FBI Reyes, the Affiant, waited without responding to Flanagan’s and Basal’s ludicrous act–not wanting to blow their “cover”.
maverick muse on January 29, 2010 at 3:21 PM
He does in the sense that Andrew pays him but not in the sense that he’s given an assignment to work on. The man’s practically free lance and gets paid for what he brings in.
So at least we agree that he’s not culpable.
Or I guess we don’t. If it went down as you say, and James only explained that he wanted to research the situation, I don’t see how that makes Andrew guilty of anything. This could easily have been researched without breaking any laws, and it was a potentially interesting story.
I’m just not buying the idea that James runs his story ideas by anyone before bringing a half finished project.
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 3:27 PM
From what I have read, the O’Keefe Four never even got to the telephone closet.
onlineanalyst on January 29, 2010 at 3:28 PM
Landrieu’s staff is good at jumping to conclusions and making up “facts”
Kermit on January 29, 2010 at 3:38 PM
If Dan Rather had done this to a Rethuglican senator we would be talking Pulitzer vs. FBI investigation.
ClassicCon on January 29, 2010 at 3:38 PM
:lol Of course if O’Keefe has everything on tape downloaded
somewhere… he must have something big.
dec5 on January 29, 2010 at 3:40 PM
Have fun in the big house O’Qweef. You’re going to make your fellow inmates very happy with that Coulter-like frame of yours. Let’s hope your mouth is not as dirty as hers.
Good4Onan on January 29, 2010 at 3:41 PM
Liberals are big on the ‘move on’ but no so eager to take responsibility for their own stupid actions. I expect that you are no exception.
docdave on January 29, 2010 at 3:44 PM
James O’Keefe resembles Dylan Klebold.
The Race Card on January 29, 2010 at 3:46 PM
So childish it’s almost cute.
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 3:50 PM
You need glasses.
Narutoboy on January 29, 2010 at 3:50 PM
We’re behind you all the way James. Sorry you got caught. Don’t worry about the meaningless comments by @$$holes like Good4nothin or crr6, you won’t be going anywhere near a jail if we can help it. Keep up the good fight.
ronnyraygun on January 29, 2010 at 3:51 PM
Brilliant! If this does go to trial O’Keefe can use discovery to find out what the heck was going on with Mary Landeau’s phones. However, in the future you might want to put a lawyer on your team to make sure that you don’t get in to too much of a jam.
SC.Charlie on January 29, 2010 at 3:58 PM
The best tactics for Obama would be to just pardon O’Keefe preemptively, like Ford pardoned Nixon. That way he could seem magnanimous, cut off any avenues of the guy trying to explain himself and make it totally impossible for him to pull any more undercover tricks.
factoid on January 29, 2010 at 4:03 PM
In trying to see who that was (I’m surprised I’d forgotten), I came across this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/
It’s radically different from what I’d expected, and if this had been the narrative back then, it would have deprived Michael Moore of an asinine talking point.
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 4:06 PM
Don’t go giving him ideas for a comeback…
Chris_Balsz on January 29, 2010 at 4:15 PM
That was interesting as heck. Thanks for posting that link.
RushBaby on January 29, 2010 at 4:18 PM
I think there is still more that O’Keefe isn’t saying yet.
Flannagan, the son of the US Attorney for Western LA – well, his involvement IS NOT coincidental.
Why go in the phone closet? Well, one reason might be to see if the phone lines were intentionally cut – or grounded, or re-routed. Did Flannagan learn of something going on with her phones through his Dad and then tip off O’Keefe? If so, then there’s a whole galaxy of questions surrounding what the U.S. Attorney’s knew, how they knew it, and what, if anything, they planned to do with the information.
Is it possible that constiuent complaints about her phones caused someone in the Justice Department to make a preliminary look into what was happening? Did that person find out something? Did Flannagan then get ahold of that information and tell O’Keefe?
The most pressing question right now – is how does O’Keefe even know Flannagan in the fist place? Someone should have the answer to that.
Flanagan is not a coincidence.
HondaV65 on January 29, 2010 at 4:22 PM
You’re very welcome. I thought someone else might be interested.
I was a sophomore when it happened, and I was obsessed with it at the time. It was even creepier the next year when they suddenly made us wear our name tags (previously, we’d just have to carry them around like a driver’s license).
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 4:30 PM
Sorry to bust your bubble – but it’s always a GOOD THING when harmless people penetrate security. Sorry no one actually realizes this.
If there is a hole in security – and here there clearly was – then it can be exploited by a terrorist with grievous results.
But if a harmless individual brings the hole to light – then security officials can do something about it to ensure real terrorists don’t exploit it.
That’s why I never had a problem with the White House Party crashers. They were harmless. Slap ‘em on the wrist and be done with ‘em. When I was in the Navy we always looked at these as real-time learning drills. It’s fine if a harmless person penetrates your perimeter. You jack some people up – fire ‘em – rewrite the SOP and close the hole. Everyone goes to sleep that night.
It’s quite a different thing if a terrorist penetrates your perimeter.
People don’t go home that night.
HondaV65 on January 29, 2010 at 4:31 PM
Ahh, another troll sleeper cell.
Del Dolemonte on January 29, 2010 at 5:03 PM
Well if O’Keefe is telling the truth, which I assume he is, and the videotapes confirm his agenda There is no “willful and malicious” intent. So that leaves entering a federal building under false pretenses, which I believe is a misdemeanor. So at most they get a very small penalty. My guess – the charges will be dropped. How many other news organizations have sent undercover reporters into state and federal buildings to get a story over the years? I’d say quite a few. If the government presses forward O’Keefe’s attorney and the Brietbart Big sites will have a field day showing a discrepancy in treatment between other journalists and O’Keefe. They’ll play video after video of news outfits with hidden cam wandering into secure buildings with no repercussions. They’ll paint Landrieu and the DOJ as out to get them, and do so effectively. It will only shine a big ugly light on Landrieu, Holder, and Obama. Far smarter for them to drop the charges.
chicagojedi on January 29, 2010 at 5:03 PM
Facts first, opine later?
VerbumSap on January 29, 2010 at 5:04 PM
who cares about doofpundit’s “analysis” of the law?
TTheoLogan on January 29, 2010 at 5:11 PM
TTheoLogan
That’s just tacky.
maverick muse on January 29, 2010 at 5:19 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »