Destroyed by court order: The footage of a Landrieu staffer admitting the senator’s office had no problem with their phones

posted at 1:12 pm on May 29, 2010 by Patterico

I recently reported that the judge in James O’Keefe’s criminal case ordered the destruction of the footage of James O’Keefe’s entry into Senator Mary Landrieu’s offices. O’Keefe has confirmed on Twitter that the Government returned his recording equipment, but deleted the footage from inside Sen. Landrieu’s offices. The AP is now catching up to the story:

Conservative activist-videographer James O’Keefe said video he shot of conversations with staffers of U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu was deleted when his cell phone was returned after he and three others pleaded guilty to charges in a caper he orchestrated at the Democrat’s New Orleans office.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office said Saturday that U.S. Magistrate Daniel Knowles III ordered the footage removed. O’Keefe made the claim Friday in a posting on his Twitter social networking site.

What the AP overlooks, however, is what the destroyed footage would have revealed.

I recently published court documents in which the Government admitted that a member of Landrieu’s staff had told O’Keefe’s companions, on tape, that there had been no problem with Senator Landrieu’s phones:

One of Senator Landrieu’s staff members (WITNESS 1) told BASEL and FLANAGAN that she did not report any phone problems and that the office was not experiencing any issues with the phone system.

I’m interested in the First Amendment implications of a court ordering the destruction of a copyrighted work with possible political relevance — with no apparent statutory authority, plea agreement provision, or national security concern to justify it.

I know of no justification for the destruction of the taped footage. A defendant’s property can be forfeited under certain circumstances — if he commits a felony. O’Keefe pled to a misdemeanor. Surrendering the footage was not part of the plea agreement, which you can read here. Nor is there any national security issue in play; O’Keefe has confirmed to me that he and his companions accessed only the public reception area of Landrieu’s office.

In addition, the footage was potentially exculpatory evidence in O’Keefe’s criminal case, and as such should have been turned over immediately after his arrest. The Government has admitted, in court documents signed by the Government lawyer, that O’Keefe’s intent was “not to actually tamper with the phone system, or to commit any other felony” but rather “to orchestrate a conversation about phone calls to the Senator’s staff and capture the conversation on video.” This means that the tape recording made by O’Keefe was exculpatory evidence, which would have helped him prove the lack of intent that the Government eventually admitted.

The First Amendment would prohibit the judge from returning the footage to O’Keefe, and then ordering him not to publish it. Yet he managed to accomplish the same thing in ordering its destruction.

Now, the public will never learn what was on that footage, including what it revealed about the weakness of the Government’s charges against O’Keefe — and possibly about Sen. Landrieu’s having dissembled about the state of her “jammed” phone lines.

What possible justification is there for destroying such evidence?


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

Mary lied about the phones? Nahhh. Not possible.

Mr. Joe on May 29, 2010 at 1:15 PM

What possible justification is there for destroying such evidence? Politics.

Mr. Joe on May 29, 2010 at 1:15 PM

He should see if it can be recovered. He should’ve set it up so the video would be transferred to somewhere else automatically.

Narutoboy on May 29, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Judges running wild. Move along, nothing to see here.

chemman on May 29, 2010 at 1:17 PM

*Sings: Operator.. Information.. give me Jesus Landrieu.. on the line..

Oh wait…

GoodBoy on May 29, 2010 at 1:17 PM

What possible justification is there for destroying such evidence?

US magistrates are not appointed for life, like district court judges, appeals judges and SCOTUS.

Would the magistrate be up for re-appointment? Did Holder make a phone call?

Wethal on May 29, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Shut up. That’s why.

hillbillyjim on May 29, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Looks like “Top Kills” Oil plug failed.

I thought Obama “Plugged the damned hole”?

portlandon on May 29, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Just another example of “Don’t Ask. Don’t Tell.”

UnderstandingisPower on May 29, 2010 at 1:22 PM

What possible justification is there for destroying such evidence?

I’m gonna go with Landrieu’s office didn’t give permission to be filmed in a private building so the judge was protecting their rights. The government already admitted to what’s on the camera (that there was no attempt to tamper with the phones) and O’Keefe already plead guilty to trespassing (I believe) and received due punishment. So it wasn’t really needed as evidence for anything.

Was it politically motivated? The serious fiber side of me says, maybe but I have reasonable doubt, the sweet frosting side of me says abso-friggin-lutely. But then Democrats AG’s in AZ collude with Federal Democrats to overthrow state laws… I’m used to the vile hypocrisy…

Skywise on May 29, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Louisiana, please end the Landrieu Dynasty once and for all.

Christien on May 29, 2010 at 1:26 PM

It was based on how he gained entrance to the offices. If he had dressed as a Black Panther or SEIU thugs,he would’ve never been caught. Eric Holder would’ve let him in with a police escort.

volsense on May 29, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Excellent report!

I have a feeling that we haven’t heard the last of this latest episode of democraps acting as if they are above the law.

Zorro on May 29, 2010 at 1:26 PM

The ruling class: “Laws? We don’t need no stinkin laws.”

Daggett on May 29, 2010 at 1:28 PM

A ‘Not Guilty’ verdict would have been nice, but I guess ‘Mistrial’ will have to do.

James on May 29, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Just one more example in a long series of The Dishonorable Erik Holder, Grand Inquisitor for the Department of Injustice’s corruption and malfeasance. Nothing to see here, move along…

doriangrey on May 29, 2010 at 1:32 PM

He should see if it can be recovered. He should’ve set it up so the video would be transferred to somewhere else automatically.

Narutoboy on May 29, 2010 at 1:15 PM

If the physical HD exists… the data is still there.

I agree with trying to recover it.

tetriskid on May 29, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Democrats lie about everything all the time.

It’s who they are.

I wonder if enough people understand that.

No Democrats should ever be trusted with public office ever again.

petunia on May 29, 2010 at 1:33 PM

I’m gonna go with Landrieu’s office didn’t give permission to be filmed in a private building so the judge was protecting their rights. The government already admitted to what’s on the camera (that there was no attempt to tamper with the phones) and O’Keefe already plead guilty to trespassing (I believe) and received due punishment. So it wasn’t really needed as evidence for anything.

Was it politically motivated? The serious fiber side of me says, maybe but I have reasonable doubt, the sweet frosting side of me says abso-friggin-lutely. But then Democrats AG’s in AZ collude with Federal Democrats to overthrow state laws… I’m used to the vile hypocrisy…

Skywise on May 29, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Sorry, doesn’t fly, the reception area of a pulic office holder, is by definition a public space. That is where they “receive” the “public”.

Archimedes on May 29, 2010 at 1:37 PM

We absolutely have to clean out as many Dems as possible every time. petunia is correct that no Democrat can be trusted with any public office.

BetseyRoss on May 29, 2010 at 1:37 PM

How is it that we, as laypersons, understand the rules of criminal procedure better than a criminal court judge?

As one of those laypersons (with 30 years experience in and around criminal courts) I have serious reservations about the action taken and give a standing ovation to Patterico for pointing it out.

GoldenEagle4444 on May 29, 2010 at 1:38 PM

If the physical HD exists… the data is still there.

I agree with trying to recover it.

tetriskid on May 29, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Yep. In most cases, it can be recovered. After all, data really isn’t deleted, it’s just overwritten. Or so I’ve heard.

Narutoboy on May 29, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Now, the public will never learn what was on that footage, including what it revealed about the weakness of the Government’s charges against O’Keefe — and possibly about Sen. Landrieu’s having dissembled about the state of her “jammed” phone lines.

What possible justification is there for destroying such evidence?

It’s what and how Democrats function politically. The “justice system” to the Left is their “enforcement” arm FOR THEIR POLITICS by any means possible.

It leaves the rest of humanity having to further pursue legal remedies to ever try to correct the imbalances by the Left in their machinations using the courts and other applications of LE.

In other words, it’s Liberal Fascism.

They do what they want and how and then fill-in the blanks afterwards with various machinations about what, why, why not, JUST LIKE BOB BAUER IS DOING WITH THE CLINTON/EMANUEL/OBAMA/SESTAK issue.

Lourdes on May 29, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Have you asked O’Keefe that question? I understand if you dont want to bring him into the fray – but if asked, couldnt he at least provide the reason why he was ok with it?

O’Keefe comes across as a guy who is pretty fearless.

I imagine – due to the offer – he wants it all to go away.

Odie1941 on May 29, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Yep. In most cases, it can be recovered. After all, data really isn’t deleted, it’s just overwritten. Or so I’ve heard.

Narutoboy on May 29, 2010 at 1:39 PM

True.
Hard drives will reuse the most recently deleted chunk of space for new space (if there’s enough) then work its way out through older/larger chunks. So small files that you delete will get overwritten almost immediately but older, larger files may stay on forever.
USB memory sticks are a little different because flash memory has a finite lifetime for writes, so data will always get overwritten on the oldest free chnks if possible to maximize flash lifetime.
Even a software “shredder” on a hard drive isn’t 100% effective because with just one pass there can still be enough of a magnetic trace on the drive to reconstruct the data. (Which is why you can set them to overwrite multiple times)

Skywise on May 29, 2010 at 1:46 PM

What possible justification is there for destroying such evidence?

The judge is a liberal?

John on May 29, 2010 at 1:50 PM

If the physical HD exists… the data is still there.

I agree with trying to recover it.

tetriskid on May 29, 2010 at 1:33 PM

And when O’Keefe gets it restored by the computer wizards, it is going to be worth a considerable sum of money. More because of the Judge’s illegal act.

MikeA on May 29, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Shut up. That’s why.

hillbillyjim on May 29, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Probably closer than any other explaination.

MikeA on May 29, 2010 at 1:57 PM

I think it’s a safe assumption that O’Keefe will be looking into recovering the file.

Patterico on May 29, 2010 at 2:01 PM

So how do you say “Mary Landrieu is a bald-faced liar!” in Cajun?

pilamaye on May 29, 2010 at 2:02 PM

If the physical HD exists… the data is still there.

I agree with trying to recover it.

tetriskid on May 29, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Cell phones, to the best of my knowledge, do not use hard drives, they use non-volitional read-writable ram. Unlike a hard drive they do not store information by laying down a variable field strength magnetic strip of charged particles.

They store information as open or closed “and or” and “nand nor” gates, these gates are opened and closed to represent 1 and zero’s by varying the electrical current applied to them. Once those gates have had their state changed whatever information they were storing is irrevocably lost, there is no recovering it.

Unless of course O’keefe had the presence of mind to upload it somewhere before the Police got a hold of his phone, if that is the case then recovery is definitely possible.

doriangrey on May 29, 2010 at 2:03 PM

A nation of men and not laws…great.

jukin on May 29, 2010 at 2:05 PM

I submit that if the phone memory software is like any computer memory, the recording data is still in there. When a file is “deleted” only the file name is deleted, and the bits and bytes stuff is still there. Just ask Oliver North.

The recording might be retrievable.

Pelayo on May 29, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Mary Landrieu is one gal that has to go, we tried this past election to oust her out, only the “un-educated stupid” base she has keeps her in power. Vote buying in Louisiana is a huge problem down South Louisiana and it seems to work for her….I wish the people of Louisiana would Wake up and vote her out. This is one lying snake here and has lots of help from lying liberals. I tried to call her for weeks and the phone was always busy and I knew something was not right when it was busy 24/7 and yes Landrieu knows the phones were off the hook. She is a known liar and still wins. Wake Up Louisiana and let’s Vote Her OUT next election.

sharkman on May 29, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Doriangrey, I will defer to you.

Pelayo on May 29, 2010 at 2:10 PM

I would think the judge has the authority, but maybe legal minds think otherwise.

AnninCA on May 29, 2010 at 2:14 PM

I would think the judge has the authority, but maybe legal minds think otherwise.

AnninCA on May 29, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Wouldn’t”t be the first time a judge overstepped their authority… Just sayin…

doriangrey on May 29, 2010 at 2:16 PM

UNBELIEVABLE! What judge was this?? Who appointed them? Are there legal actions that can be pursued against the court for destruction of this property??

Is there a transcript of the tape anywhere? This REEKS of political CYA.

Jewels on May 29, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Does he not have a LAWYER? Where is he, not available for comment?

leftnomore on May 29, 2010 at 2:23 PM

My guess is that the judge did not want him profiting from this escapade. He got off with a slap on the hand, which is fine by me. But it shouldn’t be rewarded, either.

AnninCA on May 29, 2010 at 2:25 PM

My guess is that the judge did not want him profiting from this escapade. He got off with a slap on the hand, which is fine by me. But it shouldn’t be rewarded, either.

AnninCA on May 29, 2010 at 2:25 PM

I think the question is in regard to laws, not in regard to your feelings about profits from investigative journalism.

Kralizec on May 29, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Patterico is dead right. What was the legal justification for the destruction of private property? Not to mention the First Amendment questions.

Magistrate Knowles and the US Attorney’s office got some serious ‘splainin’ to do.

novaculus on May 29, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Cue ACLU and MSM’s outrage over a judge’s trampling of a political reporter’s First Amendment rights in 3…2….

29Victor on May 29, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Most ethical and transparent congress EVER! And that appearance must be maintained.

iurockhead on May 29, 2010 at 2:38 PM

What possible justification is there for destroying such evidence? Politics.

Mr. Joe on May 29, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Yippers.

GrannyDee on May 29, 2010 at 2:42 PM

Yep. In most cases, it can be recovered. After all, data really isn’t deleted, it’s just overwritten. Or so I’ve heard.

Narutoboy on May 29, 2010 at 1:39 PM

I can’t imagine that they would not have overwritten the entire drive for this very reason.

holygoat on May 29, 2010 at 2:51 PM

I’m thinking if the footage was NOT destroyed, there would have been no charges at all. The prosecution would not have got even a misdemeanor plea from O’Keefe. And they HAD to have something to show for all the hype.
Politics indeed.

mrt721 on May 29, 2010 at 2:56 PM

I think it’s a safe assumption that O’Keefe will be looking into recovering the file.

Patterico on May 29, 2010 at 2:01 PM

It’s been scrubbed 7 times…that’s what we do when we don’t wnat anything recovered…

This administration has actually done the horrible things that they accused the Bush admin of doing and Nixon had to leave office for less than this….If this doesn’t stop we are going to be living in a very unpleasant country pretty soon…

CCRWM on May 29, 2010 at 3:06 PM

destroyed evidence?

So it he had been found guilty, the evidence was destroyed and it would not give him a chance for a fair appeaL?

seven on May 29, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Patterico, who was the judge?

jaime on May 29, 2010 at 3:40 PM

U.S. Magistrate Daniel Knowles III

never mind.

jaime on May 29, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Soviet tactics.

Someone needs to ask “Judge” Knowles if Senator Landrieu offered him a higher paying job in the government for destroying evidence. Evidence which may indeed deprive, or has deprived, the defendant of a proper defense. Should be impeachment level activity for a judge. Even by Louisiana standards.

viking01 on May 29, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Maybe I’m splitting hairs, but I think there’s a difference between “the phones are jammed” and claiming there were problems with the phones. The first indicates, as a colloquialism, that they are getting so many calls that they can’t handle the volume. The second means there are actual, you know, problems with the phones themselves, or the lines coming in, or something like that. Therefore “admitting the senator’s office had no problem with their phones” does not negate in any way the the apparent claim that “the phones are jammed”. At least, not on the surface.

This is, of course, without directly witnessing the contents of the video, which you have quite rightly blasted the judge for erasing. So, there may be some subtleties to what was taped that do, in fact, apply more directly to the original claim. We’ll never know, unless a copy shows up somewhere.

Your larger point is completely valid. We have yet another demonstration of the increasingly authoritarian government under which we live. They heed neither the citizens, nor to the Constitution. All three branches listen only to themselves, and are bent solely on accumulating and holding onto more and more power. Not to serving and answering to the citizens. Rather to holding sway over us.

nukemhill on May 29, 2010 at 4:14 PM

mrt721 on May 29, 2010 at 2:56 PM

I agree with that assessment. Had evidence been preserved which would exonerate O’Keefe then all the posturing by the Feds, by Landrieu and by the Landrieu family’s (no doubt Moon-Daddy is involved here) lackey judge would have fallen apart faster than Bertha’s denials of what ACORN had been doing.

Knowles obviously is a kangaroo who hopped when his own tail was in danger of being caught.

viking01 on May 29, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Think that’s a problem? Australia has a Socialist prime minister who destroyed all the evidence of an enquiry into the gang rape of a child at a reform school.

The Thin Man Returns on May 29, 2010 at 4:45 PM

I thought Obama “Plugged the damned hole”?

portlandon on May 29, 2010 at 1:22 PM

He did. It was twofold, one to plug Michelle’s mouth, and two, to put a much needed pacifier into his own.

Schadenfreude on May 29, 2010 at 4:49 PM

All future citizen journalists should use audio/video that can encrypt the stream of data being recorded and send it out in real time to a server on the ‘net, to which some unspecified number of machines have connected to receive their own copies of that stream. The server should be located in a jurisdiction that doesn’t require the operator to maintain logs of the IPs of the connected machines, so that there is literally no way to trace who all has a copy of the data.

If the recording device is seized, nothing is lost.

For further fun and excitement, the server could be receiving a two additional data streams generated by other systems. Let the original stream be P and these other streams be R (a random stream) and S (which can actually be decrypted to produce a real A/V output of something perfectly legal in the US, but possibly controversial in, say, Iran or China). Combining via the venerable XOR operation, let A=PxR, B=PxRxS, and C=RxS. The connected machines then may hold a copy of A, B, C, or R, such that AxB and CxR each recover S, while AxR and BxC each recover P. The people holding onto any one piece of this mess would not have any way of reconstructing anything intelligible, while someone with both A and B, or C and R, would be able to show how it produces S. Only someone who knew which pieces to use would be able to reconstruct P, our original production.

If that seems complicated, it isn’t to a computer geek.

The Monster on May 29, 2010 at 5:01 PM

The most transparent administration evah!

Dopenstrange on May 29, 2010 at 5:02 PM

I thought stuff like this only happened in dictatorships. Can we safely say now, that Obama is a dictator, and judges are compliant with that?

capejasmine on May 29, 2010 at 5:41 PM

ANOTHER cover-up… When will the Dems learn?

Khun Joe on May 29, 2010 at 5:57 PM

I thought stuff like this only happened in dictatorships. Can we safely say now, that Obama is a dictator, and judges are compliant with that?

capejasmine on May 29, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Of course it only happens in dictatorships, and it’s been safe to say O is a dictator wannabe, but that freedom will soon be gone. Wake up and smell the coffee, folks, or we will have no freedom at all in this country.

jdawg on May 29, 2010 at 6:01 PM

This is life under a dictatorship. Welcome to the banana republic.

Mojave Mark on May 29, 2010 at 6:13 PM

The same reason that a dog licks his cojones: because he can…and because he can get away with it.

PD Quig on May 29, 2010 at 6:48 PM

I’d be interested to know what can be done about it. Can’t get damages, because of judicial immunity. Maybe a finding of judicial misconduct, though.

BCrago66 on May 29, 2010 at 7:18 PM

This ain’t nothing… They bulldozed Waco to save Bill and the rest. Dems are maggots.
-

RalphyBoy on May 29, 2010 at 7:20 PM

This ain’t nothing… They bulldozed Waco to save Bill and the rest. Dems are maggots.
-

RalphyBoy on May 29, 2010 at 7:20 PM

David Koresh tried to penetrate his 10 year old step daughter.

Please, conservatives, find a better example than a bunch of kooks down in Texas.

Narutoboy on May 29, 2010 at 7:26 PM

…democraps acting as if they are above the law.

Not correct – Democrats don’t “act as if” they are above the law. They are above the law. They get away with breaking the law, and they do it all the time.

It’s about time we called a spade an effing shovel and realized that our legal and political system has been corrupted by the Democrats for many years, and that corruption is sustained by the corruption they have institutionalized in the MSM.

drunyan8315 on May 29, 2010 at 8:04 PM

The Eastern Louisiana US District Court that appointed Knowles is mostly Clinton appointees–so expect both corruption and lawlessness. One of the judges–Porteus–is about to be impeached by Congress for being a crook.

Why would anyone think that a Court full of Democrats would behave any differently than to protect Democrats in power? Scratch a Democrat–find a gangster.

iconoclast on May 29, 2010 at 8:37 PM

I do not have any technical knowledge of how cellphone video memories work, but I believe that in general, digital memories do not automatically “erase” information when you delete it. It is much easier and quicker to simply “mark” information as deleted – that is how a file is deleted on your computer.

Having been marked as deleted, the area of the memory that contained the information is then available for re-use the next time information is to be recorded, but it will not necessarily be used if there is other free memory available.

It is unlikely that a prosecutor’s office would not be aware of these things, and therefore take the precaution of actually over-writing the information, not just “deleting” it. But if theyjust did the latter, the information is almost certainly still there, and retrievable.

drunyan8315 on May 29, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Put everything up on YouTube from now on. And find a video site outside U.S. jurisdiction and put everything up on that site as well.

Aitch748 on May 29, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Hopefully the evidence the judge destroyed can be restored though if the judge is willing to destroy evidence now he has probably done so in the past. Such is the danger of a corrupt criminal mindset endangering the courts. Practice makes perfect. Judge Knowles probably has lots of practice albeit likely against victims having no recourse or protection (read: financial and media assets) against judicial treachery.

viking01 on May 29, 2010 at 9:21 PM

What possible justification is there for destroying such evidence?

If you knew who THE JUDGE voted for in the last election, you would not ask that question.

GarandFan on May 30, 2010 at 12:27 AM

What possible justification is there for destroying such evidence?

Because we gots Barack Obama……………

dmann on May 30, 2010 at 12:56 AM

This is a transparent democrat administration ever. The filth, lying, and corruption has never been so easy to see.

Narutoboy on May 29, 2010 at 7:26 PM

I now know that David Koresh was innocent.

Slowburn on May 30, 2010 at 1:04 AM

I do not have any technical knowledge of how cellphone video memories work, but I believe that in general, digital memories do not automatically “erase”
drunyan8315 on May 29, 2010 at 8:59 PM

True, but, what would stop them from just taking his memory card and putting a new “empty card in it’s place?

Here’s a couple of programs, apparently there is a LOT of them that recover lost data.

Media Investigator File Recovery 5.2

A fast, professional, easy-to-use file recovery tool allowing you to find your lost, deleted and formatted files and photos. It will analyse all memory card types plus your hard drives and USB drives to recover all major digital image photos and movies along with several other file types like…

Recover My Files Data Recovery Software 3.98

Data Recovery Software is a powerful data recovery and file recovery utility. Recover deleted files, including DOC, XLS, JPG, digital camera photos, ZIP, RAR, DBX, PST, email, MP3, MPEG and more. The demo includes a FREE Preview of deleted files which allows you to see deleted…

DSchoen on May 30, 2010 at 4:15 AM

The Eastern Louisiana US District Court that appointed Knowles is mostly Clinton appointees–so expect both corruption and lawlessness. One of the judges–Porteus–is about to be impeached by Congress for being a crook.

Why would anyone think that a Court full of Democrats would behave any differently than to protect Democrats in power? Scratch a Democrat–find a gangster.

iconoclast on May 29, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Wonder if this Porteus guy is planning a run for congress after his impeachment ala Alcee Hastings? This just makes me sick.

Mini-14 on May 30, 2010 at 8:41 AM

If the Clintons weren’t held accountable for all or any of the $hit they pulled while in the White House, then you’ll not see a damned thing done for something as ‘little’ as this.
The Dems have shown they are above the law.
And they don’t care.

Badger40 on May 30, 2010 at 8:44 AM

Now you see the power of a politically motivated judge.

Who is going to stop him from doing that?

Nobody. And he’ll be on the bench next year…and the next.

Abuse is not uncommon in real life. I saw it all the time in my career.

archer52 on May 30, 2010 at 8:58 AM

Maybe I’m barking mad, but couldn’t the tapes show that Landrieu messed with her phone system, which could be a felony?

If someone in O’Keefe’s group called in to Landrieu’s office while O’Keefe was in there and taping things, and got a busy signal, despite the fact that the phones were quiet, it would show that Landrieu did something to her phones – not just that she was blowing off her constituents, but that she tampered with government property.

A possibility, sure, but the entire escapade, as well as the subsequent government cover-up, make more sense. I don’t think that the judge would care about erasing the video footage if it showed only a slight problem.

Roxeanne de Luca on May 30, 2010 at 1:30 PM

Pay for Data Recovery

- The Cat

MirCat on May 31, 2010 at 12:08 AM

This ain’t nothing… They bulldozed Waco to save Bill and the rest. Dems are maggots.
-
RalphyBoy on May 29, 2010 at 7:20 PM

David Koresh tried to penetrate his 10 year old step daughter.
Please, conservatives, find a better example than a bunch of kooks down in Texas.
Narutoboy on May 29, 2010 at 7:26 PM

This post was not about Koresh’s guilt or innocence.
-
The longer lasting problem in that case (Waco) is that there was insufficient time to examine the evidence at the scene for all the questions that those who thought that the government had acted in an overly aggressive manner, and either started the fire fight, or incited it needlessly.
-
No matter the actions of Koresh, 19 children died in that fire. Surely the government could have done things differently and in the end still had the same outcome, or not… but the bulldozing 2 months after the fire is what I am concerned about. There were lots of questions about the time line of events that day, especially as to ‘who fired first?’
-
Again… This post was not about Koresh’s guilt or innocence. Rather about how a cover up seems to have occurred in order to protect Reno, Clinton and the gang.
-
But while we’re at it, it sounds like you were all for ending operations at the rape rooms in Baghdad… At all cost…. Good on you.

RalphyBoy on May 31, 2010 at 9:16 AM

Okay, I’ll admit it. I didn’t read the entire post string on here.

But here’s a question that should be asked & answered: the judge who ordered the erasure of the tape – was he she or it a Republican or Democrat?

The answer to my question will be the answer to why the erasure was ordered. Think about it.

CatchAll on May 31, 2010 at 9:40 PM

What possible justification is there for destroying such evidence?

“I won”

joe_doufu on June 1, 2010 at 1:12 AM

Who the hell does this O’Keefe guy think he is? What gives him the right to gather evidence of the imperial office of Senator Landrieu blowing off constituent’s phone calls? The nerve of this guy!

olesparkie on June 1, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Name that Judge!

barnone on June 1, 2010 at 10:30 AM