Patterico's Pontifications


O’Keefe to Appear on Hannity on Monday

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:33 pm

The only video I have seen to confirm this is courtesy of the morons at Media Matters. So be it:

I’m not sure one way or the other whether this is a wise move legally. But I admit to being curious as all hell. There’s some questions I’d love answered, which may or may not be:

  • Did they have tools, like wire cutters?
  • When can we see the tape?
  • Did they really ask to see the phone closet?
  • If so, what was their purpose?
  • Did they only go into the publicly accessible areas of Landrieu’s offices?
  • Etc. etc. etc.

Set your TiVos now.

48 Responses to “O’Keefe to Appear on Hannity on Monday”

  1. even if he isn’t that bright, which i don’t believe for a second, he seems smart enough to listen to his lawyers….. i doubt he’d be doing this without a good strategery.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  2. Imagine some nobody pulling a prank at a Senator’s office. Would it get maybe 15-30 seconds on the air or a few paragraphs in print? Possibly.

    The coverage is about five or six times longer than normally warranted – and from the same people who wanted to bury the ACORN story permanently.

    Mr. O’Keefe sure has made himself some determined enemies. Wowie.

    no one you know (196ed7)

  3. The rest of the media will report that he’s violating a gag order. LOL.
    As for breaking the law, the false pretenses trespass statute, 18 USC 1036, says, “enters or attempts to enter”. My point being that whether or not they obtained access is not important to the outcome. Asking to see or enter the phone closet is enough, IMO, to create the possibility of the offense.
    I don’t think publicity affects their stake with the prosecutor or judge.

    cboldt (60ea4a)

  4. And maybe he will answer the question that i-must-deny-whatever won’t STFU about: Did Breitbart ‘order’ or pay him to do it?

    Icy Texan (08fd70)

  5. “And maybe he will answer the question that i-must-deny-whatever won’t STFU about: Did Breitbart ‘order’ or pay him to do it?”

    Breitbart said something about having some sort of “life rights” to O’keefe’s work. I don’t understand how these deals go, but it sounds like Breitbart would be paying a salary to o’keefe and would have the rights to the video from this prank.

    imdw (00bfab)

  6. Is this just some weird form of interpetive performance art, iamadickwad?

    JD (7d2b58)

  7. On net, I think O’Keefe’s pranks are more harmful than helpful to the conservative movement. I know I wouldn’t want him or his team sniffing around _my_ office.

    gp (72be5d)

  8. I’m still trying to find information on exactly how O’Keefe was arrested.

    Did the staff call the police or Feds? Did they call internal security? DId security call the Feds after they had let them enter?

    Who arrested them? Security that turned them over to the locals or the Feds or were the Feds there for the arrest?

    I’m curious to whether O’Keefe was already under surveillance by the Feds.

    JayCee (00f5a1)

  9. I’d like to know if the 4 guys went into Landrieu’s office together, as a group, or if the 2 guys in phone repairman’s outfits were ostensibly separate from O’Keefe and the 4th guy.

    The answer would open several lines of inquiry.

    ropelight (0cfa03)

  10. The manner of the arrest would speak volumes.

    Is having a phone repairman’s outfit on in a Federal Building a felony?

    What if the Village People were to enter a Federal Building?

    If they had any tools at all, how would they get through security? Unless security fouled up and embarrassingly so.

    I could dress up in a $2500 suit, grease my hair back, get a manicure, and pass for an annoying, metrosexual ACLU attorney.

    Would that be a felony?

    JayCee (00f5a1)

  11. In your case: Absolutely!

    AD - RtR/OS! (90486b)

  12. Did they have tools, like wire cutters

    In Louisiana, the tools are elected.

    Vermont Neighbor (1a9eb2)

  13. I don’t think Jimmy three-sticks truly understands what he’s gotten himself into and who he’s dealing with. That kid’s got a screw loose; I can only imagine what his father’s reaction to all of this must be. The conversations I’d most like to see are the ones between the elder O’Keefe and his spawn, in which dad tries to tell son to sit down, shut up, and think about what he’s doing.

    Jimmy O’Keefe performed his actions in a federal office building and directed them against a sitting United States senator. There is a federal felong complaint against him, and the U.S. attorney will likely be taking this to a grand jury. The coverage fairly leads one to believe that they’ve got Jimmy and his friends dead to rights on the charge.

    This isn’t some county mountie somewhere. This is the federal government. They don’t always win, but when they go after you, it’s a big deal. It boggles my mind that Jimmy would be on Breitbart’s blog and soon on Hannity. He is waving a red flag in front of a very large bull.

    This isn’t going to end well for Jimmy and his friends. Notice that Jimmy’s the only one who’s squawking in public. The others seem to have gotten some religion, and are keeping their mouths shut. I’ll lay odds that one or more of them are laying it all out for the feds.

    Jimmy’s attempt to intimidate them by going public would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad.

    Right Now (66858c)

  14. Yes, if he’s not careful, the full weight of parental displeasure is going to descend upon him.
    Why, he might have his allowance cut off…
    which will probably be the most severe penalty that he’s facing.

    Just another trollbot.

    AD - RtR/OS! (90486b)

  15. Does Right Now Wrong Always not realize that we can spot a HuffPo scribbler a mile away?

    Icy Texan (8da0db)

  16. I am not a “HuffPo scribbler,” son.

    Right Now (66858c)

  17. I’m still struggling with an arrest scenario that does not presume little ole’ Jimmy O’Keefe to be a prejudged, presumed, walking felony waiting to happen.

    He already admitted to poor judgement.

    But that could be that he underestimated how dumb a Federal Building’s receptionist could be.

    Or more likely, the enemies he’d made.

    I haven’t heard one fact, not any facts for that matter, where the average class clown wouldn’t be simply turned away with a “enough of the nonsense, move along”.

    JayCee (00f5a1)

  18. If Jimmy’s lucky, the feds will decide it’s a misdemeanor and slap his juvenile wrist. His “defense through offense” makes that less and less likely. There is always prosecutorial discretion, and to get the quid you generally have to give a quo, the quo involving the eating of some crow.

    That’s even true at the county-mountie level. At the federal level, it’s truer yet. I’m sure Jimmy’s father has tried to tell him the facts of life, but like many bratty children Jimmy is determined to learn them the hard way.

    [Amused As Hell/Equal Time/TruIndependent/Right Now, pick a single name and stick to it. Dishonest sockpuppeting is not allowed. Patterico or DRJ will decide whether you get to continue commenting here. Until then, further comments will be in moderation until someone approves them. –Stashiu]

    Right Now (66858c)

  19. “I am not a “HuffPo scribbler,” son.”

    Said Amused As Hell/Equal Time/TruIndependent/Right Now

    No, just another dishonest trollbot. Heh!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  20. TruIndependent. I called it after its very first comment, a lying mendoucheous Moby.

    JD (3b62be)

  21. OMG, wasn’t Amused as Hell the one who was not so amused by Sarah Palin last year, and in fact was dreadfully angry at her…although he could never quite articulate why, in spite of many opportunities given to enlighten us? It all makes sense now….

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  22. So true, Dana. But it is a TrueIndependent, dammit. I think it said Jimmy Choos are teh suck too.

    JD (de0c49)

  23. Isn’t affiliated with Breitbart’s wingnut welfare scheme? Why no disclosure and/or disclaimer?

    40-Year-Old Virgin (57a20f)

  24. Well, that’s an interesting attempt at a thread-jack.
    What brought that on? Did your inflatable girlfriend spring a leak?

    AD - RtR/OS! (90486b)

  25. Isn’t the Puffington Host the mouthpiece for the Wobblies?
    Why wasn’t that disclosed?

    AD - RtR/OS! (90486b)

  26. shhhhhh! R.A.M.P.E.R.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  27. O’Keefe will be far from the first or last law-breaker Hannity has on his program.

    bells bells (600f76)

  28. He may not be too bright, but the guy is full of surprises, I’ll give him that much.

    Assclown doodyheads (f0d390)

  29. And which previously banned sockpuppet is “bb”?
    They seem to be out in force today; wonder what the marching orders were?

    AD - RtR/OS! (90486b)

  30. They seem to be out in force today; wonder what the marching orders were?

    Comment by AD – RtR/OS! — 1/30/2010 @ 4:32 pm

    Marching are to fling shit and hope some sticks.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  31. I think it said Jimmy Choos are teh suck too.

    Okay. This is really crossing line.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  32. Oops, Marching orders!

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  33. Pull on those Jimmy Choos and get marching!

    AD - RtR/OS! (90486b)

  34. “…He may not be too bright…”

    …says Mr. Doody.

    Speaking of irony.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  35. But, does he do irony in Jimmy Choos?

    AD - RtR/OS! (90486b)

  36. should have it’s own dictionary, since he definitions here are strictly ideological.

    Take “threajacking.”

    It’s just fine to drop regurgitated porno themes, paranoid speculations on anonymity and recipes, as long as it’s from a right-wing point of view. But let a critic try to move the discussion a millimeter of its circular track and, oh no, it’s “threadjacking” that must be Orwelled out of the discussion…

    “Sock puppet?” “Moby” Ramper?? WTF.

    Seems like you guys are so desperate to grasp ant anything and everything to avoid actually having to defend your point of view…

    40-Year-Old Virgin (57a20f)

  37. 40-Year-Old Virgin – Keep fucking that chicken, homophobe.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  38. Comment by 40-Year-Old Virgin — 1/30/2010 @ 5:18 pm

    As opposed to someone who continues to return after multiple bannings? You’re just sad Hax.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  39. ^does that refer to our past infamous Hax Vocupalai, or something like that?

    And which previously banned sockpuppet is “bb”?

    If it’s not Hell’s Bells, I’d be surprised.

    Dmac (539341)

  40. Stashiu3, that was the not-missed Hax Vobiscum? Honestly? The guy has nothing better to do then to troll sites?

    These progressive folk must be awfully worried about the next few rounds of elections.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  41. He’s come back many times, usually on weekends. He’s also often caught so quickly that nobody even sees his drivel.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  42. These progressive folk must be awfully worried about the next few rounds of elections.

    Comment by Eric Blair — 1/30/2010 @ 5:48 pm

    A very rational point of view (for once), I might add.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  43. He’s come back many times, usually on weekends. He’s also often caught so quickly that nobody even sees his drivel.

    What a shame he is unable to just be himself, straight up, and discuss, debate and dialogue. With or without his Jimmy Choos.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  44. NY Post website still headlining 1/27 article on O’Keefe using the words “bug” and “alleged wiretap”.

    elissa (fa4a18)

  45. ad hominem & non sequiturs; the tools of the Left.

    Or is that “all that is left for the Tools to use”?

    Icy Texan (2d4b53)

  46. It’s just fine to drop regurgitated porno themes, paranoid speculations on anonymity and recipes…

    Yay, someone read my recipe in the SOTU thread? Glad some good could come out of that speech.

    (Although what makes a recipe have a “right wing point of view”, I’m not quite sure…I didn’t specify using only white meat chicken, and the whole slivered apricots and serrano pepper combination points to a nice multicultural fusion as well. Maybe it was the mayo? So drearily white-bread, mainstream American? Oh well…)

    rtrski (5c372f)

  47. NY Daily News, in the Sunday edition, repeats the wiretapping charge. A caption on page 29, announcing a column by Errol Louis on page 30, refers to O’Keefe’s “wiretapping” and adds the comment “Good” to his arrest.

    Louis, usually a fairly accurate reporter, also refers to O’Keefe’s wiretapping.

    So all of New York City’s major papers have printed incorect information on this story.

    I won’t hold my breath waiting for either an apology or an error correction. However, I have sent Errol Louis an Email pointing out his error.

    Longwalker (4e0dda)

  48. 27

    Hannity has had Charlie Rangel on a number of times. Point taken.

    EBJ (3cae6a)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4486 secs.