New O’Keefe video “punks” Hollywood enviros

posted at 9:21 am on May 21, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

For those who remember the controversy surrounding the financing of the anti-fracking Matt Damon film Promised Land, this new undercover video from James O’Keefe and Project Veritas will simply confirm suspicions. O’Keefe set himself up as an ersatz Middle Eastern oil baron in order to test the Hollywood environmental waters to see how welcome his supposed money would be in attacking American energy independence. The big names in this effort, Ed Begley Jr and Mariel Hemingway, will get the most notice but are in essence collateral damage. The real targets for this probe are Josh and Rebecca Tickell, award-winning producers who are all too keen to take Middle Eastern money to attack American natural-gas exploration:

“This latest investigation shows the dark side of Hollywood’s environmental movement. Hollywood is willing to take and conceal money from Middle Eastern oil interests in order to advance their cause of destroying American energy independence,” O’ Keefe said. He will be independently premiering “Expose: Hollywood’s War on US Energy” in Cannes, France Wednesday.

Within the video, actor Ed Begley Jr., an outspoken environmental activist and current Governor on the board of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science, Golden Globe and Oscar-nominated actress Mariel Hemingway, and liberal producer and director Josh Tickell are approached by an undercover reporter posing as a member of a Middle Eastern oil dynasty named “Muhammad” and his “ad executive” Steven Sanchton in the Beverly Hills Hotel located in Los Angeles, California. The pair offer $9 million in funding to American filmmakers to fund an anti-fracking movie.

“If Washington D.C. continues fracking, America will be energy independent and then they won’t need our oil anymore,” Muhammad states within the video. The “ad executive” accompanying him to the meeting later follows up, “Knowing where the money comes from..” At this point, he is interrupted by Hemmingway, who assures him none of the information regarding where the money is coming from to produce the movie will leave the table.

The Cannes launch got the attention of The Hollywood Reporter:

Muhammad, accompanied by a man pretending to be an ad executive, seemingly has the two actors agreeing to participate in the scheme, even after he acknowledges that his goal is to keep America from becoming energy independent. The meeting, which appears to have been secretly recorded, took place a few months ago at the Beverly Hills Hotel.

But the real target of the sting operation appears to be Josh and Rebecca Tickell, a husband and wife team known for their environmental movies, such as 2008′s Fuel, which won an award at Sundance and was later screened at the White House for members of President Obama‘s administration.

Begley tells THR that if it looks like he’s agreeing with faux Muhammad about anything, it’s because the Tickells asked him to be polite so that they’d get their funding for a movie they’re making called Fracked, a film that will argue a technique for extracting natural gas called fracking is bad for the environment. Also, Begley says that he is hard of hearing and couldn’t understand everything Muhammad was saying.

The video also includes some audio from phone conversations between the fake Muhammad’s representatives and the Tickells. “We’re confident that we can keep this zip-locked. You know, tight. Tight. Air-tight forever,” Josh Tickell is heard saying. “If we don’t protect who is kind of funding this thing … if we have to disclose that or that becomes a necessary part of it, the whole enterprise will not work.”

Rebecca Tickell adds: “Because if people think the film is funded by Middle Eastern oil it will, it will not have that credibility,” and Josh Tickell says, “It’s money, so in that sense we have no moral issue.”

Yeah, I suspect that last statement won’t be much of a surprise to anyone who’s worked in Hollywood, either.

The Tickells, Begley, and Hemingway are crying foul now. In comments to THR, they claim that O’Keefe’s editing made things look worse than they are, and are demanding the release of all the video. That didn’t do much to help ACORN, or for that matter, Planned Parenthood when dealing with Live Action’s exposés. The Tickells say that no deal was actually consummated, and that they would have done “due diligence” at that point, but O’Keefe wouldn’t have had $9 million anyway. The point of O’Keefe’s sting is to expose Hollywood enviro eagerness to accept oil-baron money from the Middle East to attack American energy production, and this video certainly does that much. Not that people couldn’t figure that much out from Promised Land‘s Abu Dhabi funding, if they wanted.

The Tickells have decided to keep trying to fund Fracked anyway:

Update: Late Tuesday, the Tickells created a video response that also serves as a pitch to raise $72,000 via an IndieGoGo crowdfunding campaign to make Fracked. “I’m about to tell you a story of the lengths that some people will go to discourage the transition to green energy,” Josh Tickell says in the video. “If it wasn’t so serious it might even be kind of funny. Recently, my wife and I were royally punked.”

Actually, the story is about how some Hollywood enviros will sell out to the worst offenders in order to build their soapboxes. And hey, why do they need to go on IndieGoGo anyway? Doesn’t Mark Ruffalo and Woody Harrelson have $72 grand between them?


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

While there’s no doubt Ed Begley Jr and Mariel Hemingway hate U.S. oil companies and fracking, the next question for the liberal environmentalist crowd out there is: Why do they hate Muslims? Specifically, the ones is Abu Dhabi who would now bear the brunt of the alleged horrors of oil drilling if Ed, Mariel and the Tickells were to succeed in banning fracking in the United States.

It sounds as if they’re all playing their own personal white privileged cards, and saying the lives of Muslims in the Middle East aren’t as important as the lives of celebrities in Cannes or Southern California.

jon1979 on May 21, 2014 at 9:28 AM

KUDOS Project Veritas!

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Altogether now:
“Fake”,”Selectively edited!!!”

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on May 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Expose these liars and expose the collusion between our enemies and these activists all the way to the White house.

“In his letter, Gov. Perry told the president: ”You are waging a war on coal, kicking the can down the road on the Keystone XL pipeline and creating obstacles to onshore and offshore oil and gas production.”

Perry outlined his concerns over three pages, with most of the heat directed at the EPA, an agency the governor says “behaves more like a den of activists than a repository of even-handed regulators.” He blamed EPA mandates for shuttering “more than 100 coal plants employing 15,000 Americans,” with proposed regulations “jeopardizing the reliability of our nation’s electrical grid and increasing energy costs for families.”

Perry also took aim at the State Department’s handling of the Keystone XL pipeline, including its decision last month to indefinitely delay a final review of whether the project is in the national interest, while a legal battle plays out in Nebraska.

“You’ve allowed politics to trump a common-sense decision to build the Keystone pipeline, a decision clearly in the best interests of our nation,” Perry charged.

And Perry made the case that the U.S. should move quickly to expand natural gas exports, through facilities to super chill the fossil fuel and transform it into a liquid. So far, the Energy Department has granted permits to six facilities to export liquefied natural gas to countries that don’t have free trade agreements with the United States, but two dozen other proposals are waiting for review.

Ultimately, Perry said Obama should look to Texas as a model of how energy production and environmental protection can go hand in hand. He noted that the Lone Star State is a national wind energy leader, despite its reputation as a hub of oil and gas production.

If adopted nationally, Perry said, “the Texas approach could create jobs, contribute billions of dollars to the economy, strengthen our energy security and make the United States a global nervy powerhouse today and for future generations.”

Copy of the letter at the link:

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/05/19/perry-blasts-obama-energy-policy/

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 9:32 AM

O’Keefe may again have legal problems.

California’s wiretapping law is a “two-party consent” law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to “confidential communications” — i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).

jim56 on May 21, 2014 at 9:33 AM

As far as I have seen Begley is an honest environmentalist. He isn’t a hypocrite.

crankyoldlady on May 21, 2014 at 9:35 AM

The only real journalist left in America is O’Keefe.

HotAirian on May 21, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Andrew Breitbart is smiling.

aunursa on May 21, 2014 at 9:37 AM

O’Keefe may again have legal problems.

California’s wiretapping law is a “two-party consent” law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to “confidential communications” — i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).

jim56 on May 21, 2014 at 9:33 AM

The conversation happened in Cannes, France.

Would this particular California statute apply to this conversation held overseas?

just wondering…cause I’m not a lawyer.

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 9:37 AM

Real scumbags, but I guess it’s not as evil as the things other Hollywood producers do.

forest on May 21, 2014 at 9:37 AM

But, then we already knew what they were, money grubbing fame seekers. If you were to ask the man on the street if they knew any of these actors, you’d get a blank stare. Oh, and forget about using their own money for a project.

Kissmygrits on May 21, 2014 at 9:37 AM

As far as I have seen Begley is an honest environmentalist. He isn’t a hypocrite.

crankyoldlady on May 21, 2014 at 9:35 AM

? not any more.

gracie on May 21, 2014 at 9:38 AM

I don’t see how any of them sleep at night. Just like the entire climate change movement…it’s simply a hoax.

Big Orange on May 21, 2014 at 9:38 AM

just wondering…cause I’m not a lawyer.

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 9:37 AM

pwned!

gracie on May 21, 2014 at 9:39 AM

The conversation happened in Cannes, France.

Would this particular California statute apply to this conversation held overseas?

just wondering…cause I’m not a lawyer.

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 9:37 AM

I think most of the tape came from the Beverly Hill Hotel. Legal argument will likely be that it’s a public place where there should be no expectation of privacy:

i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation

forest on May 21, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Nine million dollars should be pocket change for these peple. Why are they desperate to use someone elses dough?

I guess they would never “pledge their fortunes and sacred honor” for the cause.

FOWG1 on May 21, 2014 at 9:40 AM

As far as I have seen Begley is an honest environmentalist. He isn’t a hypocrite.

crankyoldlady on May 21, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Hard to watch that and say that now. He looks as phony as the rest.

Big Orange on May 21, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Hard of hearing…? LOL

d1carter on May 21, 2014 at 9:43 AM

$72K? Why, that’s one for every virgin…

Galtian on May 21, 2014 at 9:44 AM

an undercover reporter posing as a member of a Middle Eastern oil dynasty named “Muhammad” and his “ad executive”

Is that the Middle Eastern dialect of English?

corona79 on May 21, 2014 at 9:46 AM

As far as I have seen Begley is an honest environmentalist. He isn’t a hypocrite.

crankyoldlady on May 21, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Ed Begley is a product of decades of environmental hysteria.

While he may seem sincere…he is deluded.

His delusion allows him to rationalize and justify deception and coercion of the citizenry to achieve his pet causes.

In short he practices a Machiavellian approach to exploitative politics…and likely makes some good amount of cash from it….cause it aint’ from acting gigs.

These ideologues will go to great lengths to defend their delusion whilst pretending to be seeking and espousing truth out of concern for the general public…They are corrupted and corrupt the flow of information.

People like Ed Begley Jr. (In the scientific and academic community) have silenced critics and destroyed careers in their zealotry to keep the funding flowing.

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 9:47 AM

Also, Begley says that he is hard of hearing and couldn’t understand everything Muhammad was saying.

ROFL

Really? What does partial deafness have to do with understanding that the man before you is a mideast oil baron?

I love these people, they’re so full of their own crap it’s leaking from their pores.

Bishop on May 21, 2014 at 9:48 AM

just wondering…cause I’m not a lawyer.

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 9:37 AM

pwned!

gracie on May 21, 2014 at 9:39 AM

*shrug*

I think most of the tape came from the Beverly Hill Hotel. Legal argument will likely be that it’s a public place where there should be no expectation of privacy:

i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation

forest on May 21, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Hmmm…

Thanks

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Jim looks like the effing idiot….again. tool.

CW on May 21, 2014 at 9:51 AM

As far as I have seen Begley is an honest environmentalist. He isn’t a hypocrite.

crankyoldlady on May 21, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Dude uses a bicycle-powered toaster.

Ed may be on the low end of ecofreak hypocrites but he’s on the high end of possible insanity.

Bishop on May 21, 2014 at 9:52 AM

I love these people, they’re so full of their own crap it’s leaking from their pores.

Bishop on May 21, 2014 at 9:48 AM

Isn’t the Beverly Hills Hotel the one they are picketing cause…War on women or something….

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 9:53 AM

Jim wtf is your problem? Go es.

CW on May 21, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Dude uses a bicycle-powered toaster.

Ed may be on the low end of ecofreak hypocrites but he’s on the high end of possible insanity.

Bishop on May 21, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Yeah…

I don’t buy it.

After the concerned admirers and tourists leave his house…He plugs into the grid and sits on his couch watching old re-runs of himself while slurping’ Bud Light & token on the Hope Bong

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 9:55 AM

O’Keefe may again have legal problems.

California’s wiretapping law is a “two-party consent” law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to “confidential communications” — i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).

jim56 on May 21, 2014 at 9:33 AM

I see people jumping in above and dismissing your concerns for one reason or another. From what I saw, there are two groups of conversations. First, the luncheon–and most other in person–conversation seem okay. They’re in public places, and there are too many people present to consider them confidential. Second, the telephone calls seem like a problem. I didn’t notice whether the movie mentioned where the parties were when the calls took place. States vary on the issue. From the Donald Sterling fiasco, I think it was noted that California requires consent from both sides of the conversation for taping. Clearly, there was no consent. But where were the participants when the calls were made? O’Keefe seems to have learned some lessons along the way, so maybe the taping was kosher. We’ll see.

BuckeyeSam on May 21, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Isn’t the Beverly Hills Hotel the one they are picketing cause…War on women or something….

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 9:53 AM

Listen here, bigot, sometimes you have to get…uh…creative with your ethics and morals when film funding is on the line.

Read a biology book sometime, moran.

Bishop on May 21, 2014 at 10:01 AM

Dude uses a bicycle-powered toaster.

Ed may be on the low end of ecofreak hypocrites but he’s on the high end of possible insanity.

Bishop on May 21, 2014 at 9:52 AM

I didn’t say he was sensible. I just think he’s doing it real. Or the one who said it’s probably just for show could be right. Sad we’ve had to become skeptical of everyone’s motives.

crankyoldlady on May 21, 2014 at 10:01 AM

O’Keefe may again have legal problems. ….
jim56 on May 21, 2014 at 9:33 AM

O’Keefe previously had to make a payout involving a taping of an ACORN worker in San Diego for violating the state’s law, so there is precedent. But I’m not sure if either of the celebs here or the Tickells are going to want to make a major case out of this, given how hypocritical their environmental positions will come out looking in open court — i.e.; We can afford to lose a few low-level Muslim workers to oil-related pollution and safety issues, so it’s OK to take money from the big guys in the Middle East, as long as it helps make the U.S. fracking-free and improves our quality-of-life.

(You also have the sidebar issue of the PC Police in California currently wanting to overlook the state’s wiretapping laws when it comes to the secret conversations involving Donald Sterling that were released earlier this month. It would be hard for the liberal media to juggle both those SoCal balls at the same time, delighting in the exposure of Sterling via hidden recording devices while being outrageously outraged over Begley, Hemingway and the Tickells getting the same treatment.)

jon1979 on May 21, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Nine million dollars should be pocket change for these peple. Why are they desperate to use someone elses dough?

I guess they would never “pledge their fortunes and sacred honor” for the cause.

FOWG1 on May 21, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Not really. You think Mariel Hemingway who hasn’t been in a hit movie since….shoot, I can’t even think of any movie she’s been in recently. You think she can just cut a check for millions of dollars? Not unless she’s getting money from her grandpa Ernest’s estate.

Same with Ed Begley Jr. He’s had a successful career that’s spanned many decades. But that doesn’t mean he has the kind of net worth that allows him to cut a huge check to fund a movie.

Doughboy on May 21, 2014 at 10:04 AM

every time I think of Begley I for some reason think of this scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TQGqylkCKQ

MikeInBA on May 21, 2014 at 10:05 AM

jon1979 on May 21, 2014 at 10:02 AM

I thought the deal with Sterling is that he’d given her carte blanche to record him because he admitted he’s forgetful. I’m not asserting that that point is definitive. I just thought that’s how the problem was circumvented.

BuckeyeSam on May 21, 2014 at 10:05 AM

As far as I have seen Begley is an honest environmentalist. He isn’t a hypocrite.

crankyoldlady on May 21, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Yeah, I don’t care if enviro-nuts like Begley want to drink their own urine to “save the planet” but if they think everyone should do it, um, no.

Anti-fracking is affecting my energy costs, too. Get lost Hollywood nuts who believe they are insulated from the effects of their “high-minded” activism.

Fallon on May 21, 2014 at 10:07 AM

S.O.S. different day. Conservative (deniers) will be shocked and Lefties will condone any means possible.

Cindy Munford on May 21, 2014 at 10:07 AM

crankyoldlady on May 21, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Yeah, I thought he was nuts but he at least walked the walk. Too bad. Doubly too bad if he really couldn’t hear what was going on.

Cindy Munford on May 21, 2014 at 10:09 AM

The conversation happened in Cannes, France.

Would this particular California statute apply to this conversation held overseas?

just wondering…cause I’m not a lawyer.

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 9:37 AM

workingclass: i meant you pwned jim56 if it took place in France. good point.

gracie on May 21, 2014 at 10:09 AM

LeBron James is leading a boycott of all Hollywood movies.

faraway on May 21, 2014 at 10:15 AM

California’s wiretapping law is a “two-party consent” law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication,

jim56 on May 21, 2014 at 9:33 AM

You can hear the conversations of people at nearby restaurant tables. These conversations were not private or confidential.

faraway on May 21, 2014 at 10:19 AM

We need to have the guy who played Dr. Mark Craig on St. Elsewhere come in and browbeat some common sense into Begley Jr., who played Dr. Ehrlich. Dr. Craig was one of TV’s best characters: “Oh, for crying out loud, Ehrlich.”

BuckeyeSam on May 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM

You can hear the conversations of people at nearby restaurant tables. These conversations were not private or confidential.

faraway on May 21, 2014 at 10:19 AM

I agree. What do you think about the telephone calls?

BuckeyeSam on May 21, 2014 at 10:22 AM

jim56 on May 21, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Yeah, I don’t care. If he needs me to chip in for his fine, I’m game.

Cindy Munford on May 21, 2014 at 10:23 AM

I didn’t say he was sensible. I just think he’s doing it real. Or the one who said it’s probably just for show could be right. Sad we’ve had to become skeptical of everyone’s motives.

crankyoldlady on May 21, 2014 at 10:01 AM

I figure Ed lived the high-life for long enough to stash a nice sum away which would allow him to live his particular eco-lifestyle without having to really worry about foraging for grubs just to put dinner on the table.

It’s the same with so many of the limo lib set, they get to the point that their mansions are paid for and the yacht is refurbished, and so NOW it’s time to preach to the rest of us to cut back.

Bishop on May 21, 2014 at 10:27 AM

The Tickells, Begley, and Hemingway are crying foul now. In comments to THR, they claim that O’Keefe’s editing made things look worse than they are, and are demanding the release of all the video.

So, will these Hollywood producers be releasing all the unedited footage for the anti-energy movies they made?

Socratease on May 21, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Come on – you dangle $9 Million for what amounts to “product placement” in front of most film makers and they’re gonna react the same way.

You could do the same thing with any political issue: even a conservative issue.

Skipity on May 21, 2014 at 10:29 AM

What do you think about the telephone calls?

BuckeyeSam on May 21, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Hopefully, they were not in CA :)

faraway on May 21, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Where was I reading recently some well-established liberal journalist bemoaning the declining bent of American journalists to investigate or challenge authority? Bet they’ll all be O’Keefes come January 20, 2016.

catsmeow on May 21, 2014 at 10:30 AM

At 17:00 mark, they clearly say they are timing the film for the 2016 elections.

faraway on May 21, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Sure Skip.projection. You are panty waste.

CW on May 21, 2014 at 10:35 AM

The conversation happened in Cannes, France.

Would this particular California statute apply to this conversation held overseas?

just wondering…cause I’m not a lawyer.

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 9:37 AM

It could be worse in France:

The offences which relate to violations of privacy derive from the Act of Parliament of 17 July 1970; as amended in 1994, they now constitute articles 226-1 to 226-9 of the new Penal Code. Under article 226-1 of the Penal Code it is an offence, intentionally and by means of any process whatsoever, to infringe another’s privacy:
- 1. By receiving, recording or transmitting, without the consent of their author, words uttered in private or confidentially;

- 2. By taking, recording or transmitting, without his or her consent, the picture of a person who is in a private place.
In both cases, therefore, the offence requires the absence of the person’s consent, and such consent is presumed where the recording or the taking of the picture takes place in a meeting and openly and publicly. The purpose of article 226-1 is to curb the behavior of the paparazzi.
By virtue of article 226-1.2, privacy is not protected where the violation is committed in a public place.

We have to know more, though, as has been pointed out.

jim56 on May 21, 2014 at 10:36 AM

I hope candidates for seats in districts where fracking is a big concern are contacting O’Keefe for permission to run clips from that luncheon. When those POS filmmakers were talking about how they were trying to manipulate 2016 elections, my blood boiled.

You got some science? Provide it.

If all you got are a lot of liberal whining, go phuck yourself.

I love how these wealthy hypocrites jet everywhere, get driven in tanks, and heat and cool mansions, but they want to raise the price of fuel for the little guy.

BuckeyeSam on May 21, 2014 at 10:37 AM

Oh and skip even the nuts in the video disagree….did you even watch?

CW on May 21, 2014 at 10:37 AM

Jim looks like the effing idiot….again. tool.

CW on May 21, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Jim wtf is your problem? Go es.

CW on May 21, 2014 at 9:54 AM

WTF is your problem?

jim56 on May 21, 2014 at 10:38 AM

These Hollywood hypocrites are nothing but disgusting anti-American trash. The worst sort of hustlers. There is the Left folks, take a good look.

Whitey Ford on May 21, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Ok Jim you’re right… now try talking about the subject at hand.

CW on May 21, 2014 at 10:41 AM

“I’m about to tell you a story of the lengths that some people will go to discourage the transition to green energy,” Josh Tickell says in the video.

I don’t see how abetting American dependence on Middle East oil fosters the transition to green energy. Obviously, the Middle Eastern position is that America should continue to use their hydrocarbons, and developing green energy doesn’t interest them at all.

This is a clear demonstration of what the phrase useful idiots means. If this doesn’t properly describe them, then it certainly describes the sheep that flock to their propaganda.

Jay Bee on May 21, 2014 at 10:41 AM

So you think if you had $9 you couldn’t get the film makers to make a movie about an in person voter fraud ring?

Or a film about including a corrupt climate scientist who milks the system for millions?

Or a film that includes a woman lying about being raped so she can hav a 9 month abortion?

You really think you couldn’t get a bunch of Hollywood yesmen to tell you anything you want to hear to get those $9 Million?

Skipity on May 21, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Skip again you tiresome little twit…did you watch it?

CW on May 21, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Jim you’re a little boy.

CW on May 21, 2014 at 10:44 AM

In comments to THR, they claim that O’Keefe’s editing made things look worse than they are, and are demanding the release of all the video. That didn’t do much to help ACORN, or for that matter, Planned Parenthood when dealing with Live Action’s exposés.
– Ed

NOT true at all.
There’s a reason O’Keefe heavily edits his tapes. And it isn’t for clarity.
But maybe you think O’Keefe dressed up as a pimp in his PP ‘sting’.
There may be plenty embarrassing and revealing here –
but indeed let that be told by unedited tapes.

verbaluce on May 21, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Come on Jimmy talk about the subject of the post…we all know you’re so smart.

CW on May 21, 2014 at 10:48 AM

…what are the chances…this would have been a good topic…for the Sunday talk shows?

KOOLAID2 on May 21, 2014 at 10:53 AM

I detest Hollywood and its denizens.

neyney on May 21, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Verbal yes true. Nice try.

CW on May 21, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Doesn’t Mark Ruffalo and Woody Harrelson have $72 grand between them?

Why spend your own money to screw your country when you can do it on someone else’s dime?

trigon on May 21, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Isn’t the Beverly Hills Hotel the one they are picketing cause…War on women or something….

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 9:53 AM

Listen here, bigot, sometimes you have to get…uh…creative with your ethics and morals when film funding is on the line.

Read a biology book sometime, moran.

Bishop on May 21, 2014 at 10:01 AM

Bishop….I’m glad you’re back from your fishin’
trip.

: )

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Jumbo….what I expected. Nothing.

CW on May 21, 2014 at 11:06 AM

jim56 on May 21, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Thanks for the answer

btw…I don’t see anything wrong with pointing out legalities…but maybe some folks are kinda testy because of the Dinesh D’Souza thingy yesterday.

If I am pawned as suggested upthread…so be it.

Cozmo kicks me to the curb often enough.

*shrug*

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 11:08 AM

O’Keefe may again have legal problems.

California’s wiretapping law is a “two-party consent” law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to “confidential communications” — i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).

jim56 on May 21, 2014 at 9:33 AM

The conversation happened in Cannes, France.

Would this particular California statute apply to this conversation held overseas?

just wondering…cause I’m not a lawyer.

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 9:37 AM

Im not a lawyer either…how about we ask Donald sterling if its illegal.

jaywemm on May 21, 2014 at 11:09 AM

Verbal yes true. Nice try.

CW on May 21, 2014 at 10:54 AM

O’Keefe had to pay a 100k settlement to the guy in the Acorn video he edited to suggest was helping the silly human smuggling fiction. That guy in fact intermediately reported it to authorities. Because that ACORN employee was a smart and decent person and O’Keefe was…not.

He should be in jail for trying to bug a US Senator’s phone – but he pled that down to some fines and community service.

O’Keefe’s once loyal co-conspirator reported his insane porno-plot on a CNN reporter to that reporter. O’Keefe then went after his partner to the point of her having to charge him with harassment and getting 6 figure settlement from him.

Andrew Breitbart was as much a victim of O’Keefe as anyone.
So sure..prop up him up as a conservative hero if you want.
But those are some seriously low standards.

verbaluce on May 21, 2014 at 11:10 AM

Andrew does indeed smile down upon James.

Bmore on May 21, 2014 at 11:12 AM

jim56 on May 21, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Thanks for the answer

btw…I don’t see anything wrong with pointing out legalities…but maybe some folks are kinda testy because of the Dinesh D’Souza thingy yesterday.

If I am pawned as suggested upthread…so be it.

Cozmo kicks me to the curb often enough.

*shrug*

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Too bad we have some posters here who insult people because the posters can think of nothing of value to add.

jim56 on May 21, 2014 at 11:12 AM

Come on – you dangle $9 Million for what amounts to “product placement” in front of most film makers and they’re gonna react the same way.

You could do the same thing with any political issue: even a conservative issue.

Skipity on May 21, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Did you watch the video, Skippy? The Tickells both emphatically said that if an oil company came to them to produce a pro-fracking film, they would not do the project regardless of how much money was involved.

Grammar Nazi on May 21, 2014 at 11:13 AM

workingclass: i meant you pwned jim56 if it took place in France. good point.

gracie on May 21, 2014 at 10:09 AM

I need more coffee…obviously

Thanks Gracie.

Oh Brother…I embarrass myself.

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Im not a lawyer either…how about we ask Donald sterling if its illegal.

jaywemm on May 21, 2014 at 11:09 AM

Well there are some good legal eagles who comment regularly.

Maybe they’ll chime in.

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 11:18 AM

O’Keefe may again have

jim56 on May 21, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Meh. That’s nothing. Activists are always getting arrested.

Completely worth it to expose the fraud of these supposed environmental movies.

blink on May 21, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Martin Sheen gets dragged away in handcuffs on a regular basis, but I doubt the recycled (read: previously banned) troll thinks that in any way diminishes his position on the issues.

CurtZHP on May 21, 2014 at 11:21 AM

And the poor recycled troll’s mouse appears to be broken again.

CurtZHP on May 21, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Impressive, but O’Keefe needs new threads that don’t scream Vegas entertainer.

bhj on May 21, 2014 at 11:23 AM

The Tickells both emphatically said that if an oil company came to them to produce a pro-fracking film, they would not do the project regardless of how much money was involved.

Grammar Nazi on May 21, 2014 at 11:13 AM

A pro-fracking film? What would that even look like?

And an Oil Company putting up $9 M to make it? There isn’t a plausible situation where that could happen.

That denial is like saying “I would never have sex with an Extra-Terrestrial Hooker.”

The story of a Sheikh with silly money to throw around makes sense because we’ve seen it happen.

But if you actually had a PAC and $9 Million and wanted to get your voter fraud ring movie made – what do you think? That it wouldn’t happen?

Skipity on May 21, 2014 at 11:25 AM

I love these people, they’re so full of their own crap it’s leaking from their pores.

Bishop on May 21, 2014 at 9:48 AM

They don’t have anything else to do with their lives. What was the last movie they were in? Yup, exactly.

Cherokee on May 21, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Ed Begley Jr. lives a quarter mile from me here in LA. He has been building a new house in the same neighborhood. By looking at the project you can see he is taking all the right steps to make it a “green” house. What is also obvious is that he has other concerns since it’s been under construction for over 2 years! Follow the money. Nothing is done to that house unless it’s filmed and paid for by someone else. Materials are provided because they expect in kind exposure in some form. Don’t get me wrong, I would do the same thing given the chance. It’s the fact that these wealthy celebs preach from their soap boxes about living the green life while the average person could not afford to do so. They drive electric cars that are no more green than an efficient gas car. Where does the electricity come from? What about the batteries? What about the ozone created by the electric motors? Etc. Etc.
They just look down upon us simpletons from their Tesla’s and we should be thankful to be among them.

LeftCoastRight on May 21, 2014 at 11:51 AM

… Ed, Mariel and the Tickells …

Yeah, I heard they were gettin’ the band back together.

dissent555 on May 21, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Edited to make it sound worse than it really is?? Hollywood has NEVER done THAT!!!

Maxlugar on May 21, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Nine million dollars should be pocket change for these peple. Why are they desperate to use someone elses dough?

I guess they would never “pledge their fortunes and sacred honor” for the cause.

FOWG1 on May 21, 2014 at 9:40 AM

They are liberals. They love to spend other people’s money.

Conservative4Ever on May 21, 2014 at 12:07 PM

Here’s Ed Begley, Jr on “Honoring the Earth”:

http://celebrityscribe.com/2010/12/ed-begley-jr-honoring-the-earth/

So, what environmentalist would willingly take blood oil money from Saudi oil barons in order to make US less energy/oil independent?

Kokonut on May 21, 2014 at 12:08 PM

Josh and Rebecca Tickell? Did someone say Josh and Rebecca Tickell

Look at the monsters

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Josh_and_Rebecca_Tickell_at_AFI_Dallas.jpg

chuckh on May 21, 2014 at 12:09 PM

I think most of the tape came from the Beverly Hill Hotel. Legal argument will likely be that it’s a public place where there should be no expectation of privacy:

i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation
forest on May 21, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Also, knowing O’Keefe’s M.O., he probably consulted with some California attorneys first to get input on what he could and couldn’t do and remain within the law.

Ward Cleaver on May 21, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Hollyweed is full of hypocrites. Who knew?

GarandFan on May 21, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Also, knowing O’Keefe’s M.O., he probably consulted with some California attorneys first to get input on what he could and couldn’t do and remain within the law.

Ward Cleaver on May 21, 2014 at 12:10 PM

He apparently didn’t do that the first time in CA in the ACORN case and he also apparently didn’t do that in Louisiana.

jim56 on May 21, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Hiding money in non-profits isn’t in itself illegal? Think the justice department will look into their claims that they do this all the time?

Nah.

peacenprosperity on May 21, 2014 at 12:30 PM

The conversation happened in Cannes, France.

Would this particular California statute apply to this conversation held overseas?

just wondering…cause I’m not a lawyer.

workingclass artist on May 21, 2014 at 9:37 AM

Jimbo can consult with nonpartisan, our resident Harvard lawyer.

slickwillie2001 on May 21, 2014 at 12:33 PM

I understand the film, I just don’t see the big deal. Did anyone on earth before this really believe that Hollywood types were some sort of honest brokers? Their work is literally defined as pretending to be something they are not. Everyone I’ve ever met already thought Hollywood was a den of thieves and liars.

AngusMc on May 21, 2014 at 12:34 PM

It could be worse in France:

The offences which relate to violations of privacy derive from the Act of Parliament of 17 July 1970; as amended in 1994, they now constitute articles 226-1 to 226-9 of the new Penal Code. Under article 226-1 of the Penal Code it is an offence, intentionally and by means of any process whatsoever, to infringe another’s privacy:
- 1. By receiving, recording or transmitting, without the consent of their author, words uttered in private or confidentially;
- 2. By taking, recording or transmitting, without his or her consent, the picture of a person who is in a private place.
In both cases, therefore, the offence requires the absence of the person’s consent, and such consent is presumed where the recording or the taking of the picture takes place in a meeting and openly and publicly. The purpose of article 226-1 is to curb the behavior of the paparazzi.
By virtue of article 226-1.2, privacy is not protected where the violation is committed in a public place.

We have to know more, though, as has been pointed out.

jim56 on May 21, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Well, when the frogs give up Polanski, I guess that conversation can begin.

john1schn on May 21, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Funniest part — recent Oscar-winning “American Hustle” was based on
similar real story — Abscam!!!! Maybe O’Keefe’s full video should be called “Hollywood Hustle”!!!

You’d think Hollywood elites (who are, oh, so knowledgeable about all things in film) would recognize a reprise of the plot of last year’s hottest good flick, which was in production/post production and/or pre-release publicity while they were being scammed themselves!!

Elite AND DUMB!!!!

fred5678 on May 21, 2014 at 12:59 PM

As Rush Limbaugh always says, liberals MUST lie about who they really are, or the American people wouldn’t vote for them.

disa on May 21, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Their willingness to do this makes me think that they have already taken money from other big oil interests and they know it, even with probable walls of separation in the deal making. I think it was Shell who got exposed in climategate. New sources of oil is as big a threat to the non Arab established oil producers. They’ll feign interest initially to get their foot in the door where they can sabotage it. They have maxed profits and sitting on reserves they won’t drill so ask yourself why would they get involved with fracking.

Buddahpundit on May 21, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2