Patterico's Pontifications

1/29/2010

James O’Keefe Issues Statement

Filed under: General — DRJ @ 3:45 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

As Patterico noted in an earlier post, James O’Keefe has issued a statement that is posted at Big Government.

— DRJ

9 Responses to “James O’Keefe Issues Statement”

  1. I hope this all gets sorted out and it ends up being much ado about nothing. The most interesting aspect to me is how the MSM couldn’t wait to jump on this story with both barrels blazing after virtually ignoring the ACORN scandal/criminal enterprise.

    GeneralMalaise (c34110)

  2. I very good example of what can happen when you turn a 20-something loose with a video camera and not enough “adult” supervision.

    What O’Keefe should learn from this is that its always a good idea to share plans for doing things like this with others, and ask “What do you think?” before going forward.

    Shipwreckedcrew (cb5f32)

  3. Yeah, that’s why no one at the White House has ever thought about “Plausible Deniability”.

    AD - RtR/OS! (098720)

  4. Can’t wait until AB posts his copy of the tape.

    AD - RtR/OS! (098720)

  5. My prediction is a generous plea bargain (no jail time) on 18 USC sec. 1036:

    (a) Whoever, by any fraud or false pretense, enters or attempts
    to enter . . . (1) any real property belonging in whole or in part to, or
    leased by, the United States . . .
    shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
    (b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this
    section is –
    (1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5
    years, or both, if the offense is committed with the intent to
    commit a felony; or
    (2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 6
    months, or both, in any other case.

    It’s kind of hard to argue a bunch of guys dressed up as phone repairmen and representing themselves as same in order to get access to a federal office didn’t enter under false pretenses.

    Aplomb (6e45ba)

  6. Until we hear the tape, we don’t know what they represented themselves to be.
    They could have just said simply that there had been reports of the phones being out of order, or that they were just checking to see if the phones worked, or both.
    If they never said they were from the phone company, they are not responsible for how others perceived them.

    AD - RtR/OS! (098720)

  7. “It’s kind of hard to argue a bunch of guys dressed up as phone repairmen and representing themselves as same in order to get access to a federal office didn’t enter under false pretenses.”

    But they didn’t dress as repairmen to gain access to the federal office (which is open to the public). O’keefe entered separately and without even having a pimp costume.

    Normally, my guess would be that they’d plead it done to a trivial complaint, such as causing a public nuisance. Except it’s New Orleans, and I’m pretty sure causing a public nuisance is actually encouraged there. So I’m guessing they’ll be off Scott-free before the ProBowl.

    Now if only they’d brought Hannah, they probably could have got some beads out of the deal too…

    Dumbledore (dff64a)

  8. O’keefe entered separately and without even having a pimp costume.
    My prediction is that all four will reach plea agreements on misdemeanor 1036 (the “access on false pretenses”) charges.
    The reason that sticks is that there was a request to access the telecom closet, accompanied by a hike down the hallway as though the “repairmen” were in fact going to attempt to access the space. If they had limited their activity to Landrieu’s office space, the 1036 would be a total non-starter, IMO.
    The “for purposes of committing a felony” is stated as being under 1362. This is an attempt or commission of disruption of military or civil defense communications facilities. I believe the prosecution is going to have to throw this one away.
    The two non-costumed fellows (O’Keefe being one of them) are swept in by the effect of 18 USC 2. He’s treated as a “principal” (in this case, might as well wear the uniform and ask to see the inside of the telephone closet) on his own admission of working with the actors who suited up and sought access.

    cboldt (60ea4a)

  9. Forget the Senators office – they lied to the GSA and asked for access to a secure Federal Communications Portal

    EricPWJohnson (c8e67e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2589 secs.