O’Keefe Prosecutor Recuses Himself
[Guest post by DRJ]
Fox News reports U.S. Attorney Jim Letten of the Eastern District of Louisiana, the prosecutor in the O’Keefe criminal matter, recused himself on the same day Andrew Breitbart claimed O’Keefe was jailed without counsel for over a day:
“The same day the man who first published James O’Keefe’s explosive videos exposing wrongdoing at community organizer ACORN came to his defense Monday, claiming the conservative filmmaker “sat in jail for 28 hours without access to an attorney” while the prosecutor made his case to the media, the U.S. attorney involved stepped down.”
The article added that O’Keefe “declined to talk about Breitbart’s allegations on Fox News [presumably in his Hannity interview] Monday night” but he was “pleased with the way the U.S. attorney was handling the case.” Breitbart claimed the Justice Department was using O’Keefe to get even because of the ACORN scandal:
“Breitbart said he though the U.S. attorney’s effort was part of a payback scheme against O’Keefe, who posed as a pimp and prostitute with another citizen journalist to enter ACORN offices around the country and get advice on how to apply for federal housing grants for a brothel.
“It’s tied to the Justice Department. And we’ve been very aggressive in asking (Attorney General) Eric Holder to investigate what’s seen on these ACORN tapes and he’s ignored it,” Breitbart said of the media ploy.”
FWIW, I don’t think Letten’s recusal has anything to do with Breitbart, his claims, or even O’Keefe. Letten recused himself, not his office, and the first assistant Jan Maselli Mann will take over the prosecution. My guess is Letten’s recusal is related to the fact that one of the suspects is the son of the U.S. Attorney in Shreveport, who is likely a Letten acquaintance and the basis for his recusal.
— DRJ
PS — Heh. Patterico posts on this at Hot Air.
28-hours without access to an attorney?????
AD - RtR/OS! (810a60) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:08 pmgood observation
voiceofreason2 (7118e3) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:15 pm1.28-hours without access to an attorney?????
Comment by AD – RtR/OS! — 2/1/2010 @ 7:08 pm
That is likely not true. Actually, I think it’s a lie. To tell the truth, I think it’s total bulls**t.
nk (db4a41) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:19 pmWhat is that based on, nk?
JD (61d2c1) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:20 pmnk, you’ve got to stop shrouding your feelings about things.
AD - RtR/OS! (810a60) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:21 pmTrue, but who are they going to get who doesn’t know Flanigan, I thought this story stunk to high
ian cormac (79614d) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:26 pmheaven, and I think I’m right to continue to think that
The incident started at about 11 A.M. on 25 Jan. On 26 Jan he was released on bond. 28 hours would push it to past 3 pm cst on the 26th
If he appeared in court for the bond hearing he must have had the opportunity to get an attorney.
the timeline doesn’t seem to match up with the claim about 28 hours.
voiceofreason2 (7118e3) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:28 pmnk, what reason would Breitbart have to make a claim that could be easily substantiated one way or the other? Big risk of credibility…
Dana (1e5ad4) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:28 pmEscobedo v. Illinois was a long time ago and I practiced before the judge who, at that time, was Escobedo’s lawyer and went from police station to police station, with a writ of habeas corpus, tracking down the cops who were transporting Escobedo from police station to police station to avoid the writ.
“No access to a lawyer” is a damned lie unless Louisiana has seceded from the Union again. Is O’Keefe also claiming that he did not get his reasonable number of telephone calls? Or is he stretching no court appointed free attorney until his court appearance on the next soonest court day?
nk (db4a41) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:31 pmDana
Problem with Breitbart is that, well, he’s Breitbart = people relying on the limelight to furninsh traffic which furnishes green, which furnishes ego’s sometimes – can push those same limits – that originally propelled them into the limelight in the first place
or the short version
hoisted on his own Petard
EricPWJohnson (7585b7) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:42 pm10+ YEARS FOR BREAKING INTO AND TAPPING A TOP SECRET PHONE SYSTEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JD (61d2c1) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:46 pmJans BTW the person who turned a minor bookkeeping error by David Duke’s campaign manager (who was not an accountant and had to deal with mostly cash donations because no one wanted to be seen writing a check to Duke) into a 15 month prison sentence
Dont be surprized if she adds on tons of charges – she’s been known to do that…
She doesnt lose cases either…
https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/radDocs/pubs/bull03_4.pdf
Her father was a quiet Republican in New Orleans
EricPWJohnson (7585b7) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:52 pmThis handout from the Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of Louisiana says a suspect first meets with a federal public defender at the initial appearance in court. If O’Keefe wasn’t taken to court until the afternoon following his arrest and if he didn’t have private counsel, then he might not have had access to counsel before 24-28 hours.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:52 pmJoe Maselli and Mayor Landrieu were close friends
http://books.google.com/books?id=c7TPhmIPYW4C&pg=PA126&lpg=PA126&dq=Joe+Maselli+Landrieu&source=bl&ots=jOXum__qsg&sig=9luvvL-TQfkIu3BgEZ06bG4nUA4&hl=en&ei=yaFnS8P-FsyGkAWK7tS9CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Joe%20Maselli%20Landrieu&f=false
We’re talking about two of New Orleans most powerful and respected families both being on one side of a case and Okeefe and his story on the other
……..
EricPWJohnson (7585b7) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:55 pmhoisted on his own Petard
Comment by EricPWJohnson
Say, is there something about Breitbart that you have a particular problem with? Not that I disagree with your general appraisal of him as a self promoter who is successful.
I do think he has spun this story brilliantly. Now, is the DOJ and the MSM on the defensive. I don’t know that the attacks on the DOJ at fair at all and would be shocked if they really denied this guy his lawyer, but we’ll probably find out. Someone did the wrong thing, and Breitbart has been scrupulous with the facts so far.
Indeed, he has hoisted the MSM on their own petard and made this story about how they are a pack of liars at worst at a sloppy set of fools at best.
If he’s wrong about the attorney claim he will look like a real jerk. I don’t think it’s inconceivable that he’s right. NK’s correct that it’s surprising, but I think it’s totally conceivable. People mess up like that sometimes. If O’Keefe asked for his lawyer and didn’t get it, that’s obviously a big problem. If Breitbart is exaggerating this I’ll be very annoyed with him.
Anyway, I still don’t think he’s harmed himself. He’s playing this story perfectly, elevating his profile and the profile of his websites, and has shrewdly placed many of this targets on the defensive. You seem to have distaste for his ambitions. I think people like that are a necessary part of the media ecosystem.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:56 pmDRJ
In matters of national security – they can hold for 72 hours
EricPWJohnson (7585b7) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:56 pmBreitbart thinks he can pass this kind of stuff by a TV generation who see TV suspects yelling at police TV “I want a lawyer”.
The fact is you can call your lawyer, or your daddy who will get you a lawyer, the minute the police have stopped bodysearching you and fingerprinting you. They don’t have to bring you a free lawyer unless they want to question you.
nk (db4a41) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:56 pmDustin
Brilliant is not what I would ascribe to Breitbart…
That would be the same as saying Glen Beck is a founding father instead of a wife beating, felon, high school drop out druggie with extremely powerful and wealthy parents
EricPWJohnson (7585b7) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:58 pmIs EricPWJohnson still filling his pants over this ? Sheesh.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:58 pmScuse me I mean college drop out…
EricPWJohnson (7585b7) — 2/1/2010 @ 7:58 pmWhat national security matters were involved? The top secret phone rack in the hallway? Great. We are going to go into lala land with EPWJ again.
JD (61d2c1) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:00 pmGlen Beck is a wife beating felon ? College drop outs get to run Barcky’s campaign.
JD (61d2c1) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:01 pmDustin,
you are taking the Dan Patrick if you protest against one thing you must be 100% liberal…
I wont respond to you anymore –
The MSM hoists their own Petard CONSTANTLY, CONTINUOUSLY and ANNOYLINGLY
this is not a new or unusual phenom
Breitbart claiming that he had no knowledge or that James wasnt then was then wasnt then was an employee is damaging his credibility
He should shut up – especially since wiretapping charges can still be filed
EricPWJohnson (7585b7) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:02 pmEric and nk,
I’m trying to link information that tells us how things work in the Eastern District of Louisiana. I learned a long time ago in law school and more recently in looking at the Perdigao case that things can be different in Louisiana.
PS – Eric, you really believe this is being handled as a matter of national security? I highly doubt it but, if so, then the U.S. Attorney not only should recuse himself, he has a lot of explaining to do.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:02 pmExcept he hasn’t been a felon, he had some problems with alcohol, which he reiterates with nauseating regularity, and his parents weren’t wealthy. This
ian cormac (79614d) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:03 pmis the same New Orleans that is ACORN central, where
the funds never reached the levies
JD
I cant respond to blantant stupidity = alright let me spell it out to you
There are agencies in that complex that are not EXACTLY listed on the directory in the lobby that use the same thing that those genius’ were caught lying to access by representing themselves with false statements to the GSA
In Landrieu’s office = that was okay – if not brilliant = in the GSA office = that was not brilliant
EricPWJohnson (7585b7) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:04 pmDRJ
Yes even tresspassing in that building is handled that way they were sent to the St Bernard detention center – not orleans
EricPWJohnson (7585b7) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:05 pmDRJ
Imagine an undercover reporter dressing up stooges trying to get into Langleys phone exchange
EricPWJohnson (7585b7) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:06 pmBreitbart could still get charged with wiretapping and so could O’Keefe !!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, good Allah.
JD (61d2c1) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:06 pmJD
Yep and they will
EricPWJohnson (7585b7) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:07 pmEric – Since you are the only person I have seen anywhere suggest that this is a national security issue, and that top secret phone exchanges were tampered or wiretapped, other than an asspull, is there any actual, you know, evidence to support this?
JD (61d2c1) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:08 pmSorry, DRJ, I did not see your comment #13 until after I posted my comment #17. That’s what I think Breitbart was stretching, too. But the truth can be stretched only so far before it becomes a lie. “no access to an attorney” is nowhere near the same as “no court appointed counsel”. It more than implies that an attorney was denied to him.
nk (db4a41) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:08 pmIts hilarious watching Eric fill his pants and act like O’Keefe and friends are more dangerous than Al Queda’s underwear bomber.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:08 pmYou already have a $1000 on that proposition, which is pretty remarkable that you do not want to walk back from that, since the law enforcement people Patterico quoted stated in no equivocal terms that they were not, in fact, doing so. Don’t let what is actually known get in the way of your fanciful raving though.
JD (61d2c1) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:11 pmJD
Asspulling I leave to you
Last I checked the charges were being dropped now Jan Maselli who takes no prisoners and makes Johnny Sutton look like a choir boy – whose family has generations of ties to the Landrieu’s who is looking to be the next senator from Louisiana – is taking the case
Unless this week the charges are dropped – she’s loading up the hammer
EricPWJohnson (7585b7) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:11 pmOh, now I remember.
That’s the building with the black helos hangared on the roof, right?
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:16 pmThen is the local fed prosecutor the right person to be handling this egregious breach of national security? How could this domestic terrorist ever be let out of prison? Why has this not been asserted anywhere other than your mind?
JD (61d2c1) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:18 pmYep and they will
Comment by EricPWJohnson
I think you are getting a bit ahead of yourself.
They might pursue it out of political motives but it will go nowhere.
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:23 pmThey were detained long enough to let the lies permeate through any likely jury pool. It’s James
ian cormac (79614d) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:24 pmO’Keefe, he pulls stunts, kind of something out of Animal House, they are not terrorists, and they knew that.
I don’t know about the any top secret helicopters except maybe for those waiting to deny the Colts a win next week.
voiceofreason2 (7118e3) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:38 pmBuidlings with communications and networks generally have the comm layout stacked in the same spot on each floor for ease of connectivity and security. The Secret Service has offices in the building (any other agencies I have no idea). This would mean they are very likely to have classified phones and LANS. If those LANS/Phone connections traverse the same space as unclassified connections (common design layout) the closet would be classified at some level.
Asking to see the closet would potentially mean asking to see a classified area. Even if the closet were not classified it is still a controlled area in most instances. Only difference is classified means national security and controlled but not classified is a limited access area.
I heard that Sen. Landrieu’s reception area doubles as a CIA black site where terrorists are tortured after normal business hours. National security was compromised in the most egregious of manners.
JD (61d2c1) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:38 pm“I cant respond to blantant stupidity”
EricPW – Maybe not, but you sure can write it.
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:39 pmvor – Fair enough, and I do not think that is really in dispute. He asserted previously that the phone cabinet was “top secret” and that this was a national security issue. It seems as though that might have been mentioned in the affidavit, were that to be the case, or that they would have been charged with some type of security count.
Freeney’s torn ligament is kind of fishy, if you ask me.
JD (61d2c1) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:43 pmI still don’t get why EPWJ is so relentlessly ugly to others. I’ve tried pretty hard to meet him halfway and be nice to him, and in reply I get “You must be 100% liberal. I won’t reply to one every again! You are so scary!”
I simply asked if you had some kind of reason for having your problem with Breitbart. I even admitted I think he’s self promoting. There’s no reason for you to be so defensive, except that someone is crossing your bridge.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:45 pmI am mean. I am not ugly, well, not totally ugly. But I am mean. I know this. It is a flaw.
JD (61d2c1) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:47 pmDo they use landlines for encrypted calls these days? I remember those 128 key encryption phones from 10 years ago you had to stick some kind of card in. I don’t think you can just tap a secure line like that.
Granted, it’s not like anyone seriously thinks that O’Keefe was going to tap a line at all, let alone try to get state secrets. I’d snark about the NYT, but even they don’t/can’t do that.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:48 pmJD,
Not sure where/why he is saying that but even if he really knew he shouldn’t be validating what the level of classification is. People with access get drilled over and over on how to protect it so I sort of doubt he does know.
Should be a good game though.
voiceofreason2 (7118e3) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:49 pmWould be a better game with Freeney healthy. That is going to be a big missing piece, even if he plays limited downs.
JD (61d2c1) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:51 pm“I am not ugly, well, not totally ugly.”
JD – You’ve got good legs. You need to wear a kilt more often. Shave those wheels when you do.
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:56 pm#40 voiceofreason2:
They don’t.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 2/1/2010 @ 8:57 pmI am more than a little concerned that you noticed, daley.
JD (61d2c1) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:00 pm#50 EW1(SG)
voiceofreason2 (7118e3) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:01 pmThey can and do. 30 years in comm and 12 in IA tell me I am right. Seen it and done it.
#52 voiceofreason2: 30 years in communications security tell me that isn’t the way its done.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:06 pmDana
Problem with Breitbart is that, well, he’s Breitbart = people relying on the limelight to furninsh traffic which furnishes green, which furnishes ego’s sometimes – can push those same limits – that originally propelled them into the limelight in the first place
or the short version
hoisted on his own Petard
EricPWJohnson,
I’m not sure why you are assuming the worst about Breitbart. And while I’m not clear why he would make the statement about the 28 hours without access to a lawyer, I’m willing to wait for the story to unfold, the facts to come out.
Perhaps he is exaggerating, perhaps he in engaging in a bit of sensationalism, or perhaps, even, he is telling the truth.
Dana (1e5ad4) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:08 pmPerhaps he is trying anything in his power to ward off the inevitable wiretapping charge that he is staring at, Dana.
JD (61d2c1) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:12 pmDana
I’m not assuming the worst – I am not anti Breitbart – but I’m not also letting ideology cloud completely my judgment – and a spade is a spade –
It doesnt matter if you or I think he’s telling the truth – he’s contradicted himself several times
EricPWJohnson (de707f) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:13 pmVOR2
There are other agencies with alot more clearance than the secret service in that building
just access to the room and wanting to video and publish it opens a whole list of new charges
Why Landrieu is allowed an office in that complex is another question – its a federal building – she is a politician her office technically shoudnt be allowed as her staff may not have clearance on a day to day basis to other parts of the building
EricPWJohnson (de707f) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:16 pm#53 EW – I see by your profile you are a vet and possibly out of the career field for awhile. Fiber has changed a lot of the old requirements.
voiceofreason2 (7118e3) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:18 pmOther than by you, can you point us to where this assertion is being made?
JD (61d2c1) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:18 pmEric,
voiceofreason2 (7118e3) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:21 pmI think you are walking a fine line between speculating and revealing things you probably shouldn’t.
VOR2
Yeah that would be a first for everyone here….
I just heard the interview on Hannity – James admits it was a misunderstanding (why on earth would he say that or his attorney allow him to say that) and now there is a 2nd camera in a helmet
if that is a hidden camera then – well even I dont want to speculate
Notice that I have posted transcripts, directory of the building, links to Maselli and other factual pieces of information
other people are just speculating wildly
Now everyone has this assumption that I think James is guilty – no I dont – but its up to a jury and if he keeps on giving speeches that he intended to do something then – its a wide open field
Something thats not being dwelled on is his speech within 48 hours that something big is going to happen – then again – this just doesnt help him in a legal sense
Me pointing these obvious things out makes me David Shusters cousin – which I’m not
EricPWJohnson (de707f) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:34 pmThe 28 hours is a NON-ISSUE, and they should stop talking about it.
Understand 2 things:
1. You have the right to have your attorney present if you are undergoing custodial questioning, and you do not affirmatively waive that right.
2. You have the right to have your attorney at your side when you make your initial appearance in court.
Other than that, you DO NOT have a right to contact your attorney at your first opportunity following your arrest. If you are not being questioned, and you have not been taken to court.
It is not unusual in federal court to have it take between 24 and 48 hours to make an initial appearance after being arrested. The rule says “without UNNECESSARY delay.” But appeals courts have interpreted that to mean that the trial courts can establish a routine schedule as long as they stick to it.
shipwreckedcrew (3d3fb8) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:38 pm59
Its in the INDICTMENT – they lied to the GSA and wanted access to the communication portal – said their ID’s were in the van….
Part 8 of the indictment – thats where they lied to a federal official and misrepresented their authority to access and film a top secret secure communications portal
Forget the senators office – this is where the hammer is getting loaded up
EricPWJohnson (de707f) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:39 pmEric,
voiceofreason2 (7118e3) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:40 pmI don’t care whether you are right or not about O’Keefe and the eventual outcome.
There are some levels of detail about classification levels and agencies you should leave out of it. Stick with classified area and unclassified area.
Sorry part 8 of the affidavit by the FBI agent
sorry…
EricPWJohnson (de707f) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:42 pmComment by shipwreckedcrew — 2/1/2010 @ 9:38 pm
Thank you for the clarification.
Dana (1e5ad4) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:43 pmVOR2
Yep –
EricPWJohnson (de707f) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:45 pmWhen was O’Keefe indicted?
JD (61d2c1) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:48 pmTop secret again? Could you point to exactly where in the “indictment” it says it was top secret?
JD (61d2c1) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:49 pmnk
last time I visited for a felony charge, first the phone was broken because someone pounded it on the wall.
then the gangbangers were busy getting commissary money built up on “their” phone so it was inconvenient for them to let me use it.
So I went to sleep and then it was the weekend and the advocate from the Public Defender office showed up behind the glass, told me no OR for you today, but got me access to a phone that worked… and at that point I called a bail bondsman rather than wait for monday when the judge was due to visit.
I read bail was $10K for O Keefe.
on those, take the 5th, make bail by putting 1K on your credit card and then call your lawyer the next working day after you walk home. It’s the cheapest way to go
As most of you know, having the right to an attorney and actually reaching one are two different things.
1. do you already have an attorney?
2. do you have the phone number memorized? (they have your wallet in a bag)
3. Do you have anyone’s number memorized? Cell phone is gone and anyway, will they accept what sounds like an automated collect call?
TV has the attorney magically showing up
SteveG (6fa662) — 2/1/2010 @ 10:06 pmEPWJ – it’s hoist by his/their own petard, you *twit* ! You don’t hoist your own petard, you get hoisted *by* your own petard ! (I know, I know, that’s just a miner detail … (grin))
Anyway, with all due respect to both vor2 and EPWJ, will you two please stop flopping your vienna sausages on the tabletop all the time insisting that yours is bigger than his !
Time will tell whethr O’Keefe bit off more than he can masticate – or not …
Until then, quit micturating into the wind – it just annoys the folk near you !
Alasdair (205079) — 2/1/2010 @ 10:15 pmThe most excellent EricPWJohnson, ESQ.: Brilliant is not what I would ascribe to Breitbart…
That would be the same as saying Glen Beck is a founding father instead of a wife beating, felon, college drop out druggie with extremely powerful and wealthy parents.
Hey Eric, You’re contributions are tremendous, sir, I think between you and I we’ve just about completely discredited Breitbart to an army of very angry and upset right-winger types who believe in righteous idiot elves who wander into the offices of U.S. Senators and slay dragons armed with bad costumes, hidden video camera’s deficient in educations and intellects and oh, that’s right, an exclusive contract with Breitbart and a mainline to “truth/veritas.”
Anyhow, well done. Also I figure so your credentials remain in good standing I should give a chance to insult me in unison with the usual silly regulars round about this way who regularly get spanked by a non-lawyer who’s handle is:
Assclown doodyheads (f0d390) — 2/1/2010 @ 11:41 pmepwj is an attorney, Assclown? I didn’t know that.
I don’t think the people arguing with you and EPWJ have been particularly unreasonable.
I guess, since your style of troll is to say something you know isn’t true, in order to guarantee and easy response, that you know that Breitbart has not been discredited… indeed, his handling of this crisis has been masterful and bolstered his argument that the MSM botches their news to the left.
So, we agree, even if you can’t admit it. that must drive you nuts. Breitbart is making more money and influencing more voters today than ever before. And it will be even more tomorrow.
I don’t know why you think that’s such an awful thing or why you think Breitbart is such an awful person. I’ve asked you and EPWJ to just explain it to me. You mention that Beck is a wife beater (which I never heard before), but that kinda reveals your secret: you don’t actually have a reason to hate Breitbart this much.
I suspect your style of argument is the kind Breitbart dreams everyone is exposed to. If anything you’re sandbagging to help his effort. Or just crazy.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/1/2010 @ 11:49 pmComment by voiceofreason2 — 2/1/2010 @ 9:21 pm
“Those that talk don’t know, and those that know don’t talk!”
AD - RtR/OS! (810a60) — 2/1/2010 @ 11:54 pmComment by Assclown doodyheads — 2/1/2010 @ 11:41 pm
They shall be known by their acolytes.
AD - RtR/OS! (810a60) — 2/1/2010 @ 11:58 pmIn surprising news, HuffPo continues to push the “wiretap” meme —
Here
And Here (emphasis mine):
On Monday night, conservative activist and alleged wiretapper James O’Keefe
…(snip)…
In a statement last week, O’Keefe made similar claims, calling the allegations that he and a team of accomplices attempted to bug and wiretap Landrieu’s office “inaccurate and false.”
Well, I’m certainly surprised by the endless repetitions couched in carefully “deniable” language. You?
Having gotten forced off the “Vietnam” meme by having a Dem PotUS, now they’re working with a “Watergate criminals” meme that has them all drooling.
I’m certain this will all lead back to (GASP!!!) Sarah Palin!
.
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 2/2/2010 @ 12:04 amLet’s see, VOR2 leaves a lot to be desired on a great many (but not all) occasions. EPWJ has proven to be rather vacuous on even more (but, again, not all) occasions. Buttmunch, whose value is somewhere less than spittle, praises EPWJ.
I need a larger scorecard. The number of superscripts and subtexts explaining the superscripts have gotten so that even I (who write tiny) can’t fit it all on my scorecard.
John Hitchcock (b082bd) — 2/2/2010 @ 12:06 amIgotBupkis, at this point, some on the left probably make the obnoxious argument that O’Keefe was alleged to have wiretapped. Sure, it’s a totally fabricated and debunked allegation that everyone knows is wrong. But some people alleged it, so technically, he is an alleged wiretapper.
It’s all about getting the language right so you don’t have to prove anything.
O’Keefe will be labeled with Watergate Jr in 50 years. What a circus.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/2/2010 @ 12:20 ami’ve been looking for an article i read awhile back about a problem utility crews have been having in the Washington DC area.
seems that they go to dig somewhere, and suddenly there are cables where the blueprints say there shouldn’t be any. this discovery is followed shortly by the appearance of unmarked SUV’s etc, and excited people in suits.
this puts dents in the allegations that everything is co-located, as does common sense.
there is a certain level of security in hiding your cable with the others, *IF* it looks the same, but that also means you have to have coverage on all those cables, all the time.
from a resource POV, it would seem more efficient to have the secure items in their own run, with their own security, and only have to observe access on those times when *they* needed to be handled, rather than having to oversee every single repair visit to the building.
but then again, i’m not a troll, so what do i know?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 2/2/2010 @ 1:06 amI don’t know if EricPWJohnson is an attorney or not, but if he is he certainly does NOT understand federal criminal law or criminal procedure.
I’ve cautioned here before to not put much reliance on what you read from him.
shipwreckedcrew (3d3fb8) — 2/2/2010 @ 1:49 amIf you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything. From the past few months’ reading, I’ve determined that, while EPWJ may be on the right side of the fence, he may be barely so. I have also determined he is a lilly-livered yellow-bellied sap-sucker who is all about “go along get along” instead of making any stands. It is my most studied opinion that EPWJ does not stand for something so he falls for anything (and everything) that sounds soft and fuzzy to him.
John Hitchcock (b082bd) — 2/2/2010 @ 2:02 amAnd when I’m being less charitable, I’ll tell you what I really think. 😉
John Hitchcock (b082bd) — 2/2/2010 @ 2:03 am““It’s tied to the Justice Department. And we’ve been very aggressive in asking (Attorney General) Eric Holder to investigate what’s seen on these ACORN tapes and he’s ignored it,” Breitbart said of the media ploy.””
Wow what a guy.
imdw (d8a0c2) — 2/2/2010 @ 4:49 am“This handout from the Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of Louisiana says a suspect first meets with a federal public defender at the initial appearance in court. If O’Keefe wasn’t taken to court until the afternoon following his arrest and if he didn’t have private counsel, then he might not have had access to counsel before 24-28 hours.”
And it’s only unfair DOJ tied persecution when it happens to important people. Otherwise it is just how the game is played.
imdw (e66d8d) — 2/2/2010 @ 4:57 amLet’s make it on point, if Yaser Hamdi, Louisiana born and bred but of Saudi background, had come to
ian cormac (79614d) — 2/2/2010 @ 5:06 amthat same building, had he not been detained in Afghanistan, any doubt that he would have given
the front door treatment. Yes he was detained but the Gitmo advocates lobby eventually forced him to
be released and sent back to Arabia
Perhaps O’Keefe’s intentions was not to expose the Senator’s office, but, instead expose the justice system in Louisiana? The ruse was a ruse. (just a thought)
Corwin (ea9428) — 2/2/2010 @ 5:15 am“Perhaps O’Keefe’s intentions was not to expose the Senator’s office, but, instead expose the justice system in Louisiana? The ruse was a ruse. (just a thought)”
Yes O’keefe and breitbart are going to be on the vanguard for the rights of criminal defendants in Louisiana. They’ve been reading their Alinsky, you know.
imdw (241c75) — 2/2/2010 @ 5:18 am“Yes…on…reading…Alinksky” – imdw
See how I can quote you?
Corwin (ea9428) — 2/2/2010 @ 5:29 amIndeed you almost act as if it would be preferable if nobody on the right read Alinsky.
imdw (72206b) — 2/2/2010 @ 5:40 am“… it would be preferable if nobody … read Alinsky.” – imdw
Yes we are in agreement.
Corwin (ea9428) — 2/2/2010 @ 5:46 amWLS
All I am cautioning that BreitBart and Okeefe really shouldnt be talking so much.
Also that part 8 of the FBI affidavit IMO – is more damaging than the stunt in Landrieu’s office
Also Marselli is a tough prosecutor – Her family and the Landrieus go back generations – anyone thinking Letten recusing himself was a positive thing could be seriously misinterpreting the situation.
EricPWJohnson (32c41e) — 2/2/2010 @ 6:02 am“Yes we are in agreement.”
You make a good point. If my aim really is to prevent right wingers from becoming radicalized, or wingnut radicals from becoming better political activists, I really should state my claims in right wing forums in the more universal way you prefer them to be.
imdw (f7b257) — 2/2/2010 @ 6:17 am“You make a good point. …my aim really is … right wing … the more universal way … to be.” – imdw
You are finally seeing the light.
Corwin (ea9428) — 2/2/2010 @ 6:29 am92, imd-dumbass, maybe you should stop trying to run other people’s lives as you have done such a miserable job with your own.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 2/2/2010 @ 6:29 amBut you’re right no one should listen to me – ask my kids…..
EricPWJohnson (32c41e) — 2/2/2010 @ 6:42 amWLS
Actually during the reading of the Ramos and Compean threads you said the opposite…
We will find out in two weeks whats up
EricPWJohnson (32c41e) — 2/2/2010 @ 6:50 amAnd your comment about not understanding arrest procedures
Seems like most here didnt understand it either…
EricPWJohnson (32c41e) — 2/2/2010 @ 6:50 amWhen were they indicted, Eric?
JD (24e83b) — 2/2/2010 @ 7:00 amSo if that is so, should Masielli recuse, that would seem an even more clear conflict of interest. The affidavit doesn’t explain how O’Keefe even got
ian cormac (79614d) — 2/2/2010 @ 7:25 amthere, much less what did he do to facilitate the operation
JD
No they were not – yet – not yet – I meant to mention the complaint
When I’m on the Phone with Dubai – I need to learn to be precise – I mean after all – most of the lawyers here didnt understand simple arrest procedures ….
I beg your forgiveness and endeavor to be at least as accurate as you most of the time 🙂
EricPWJohnson (32c41e) — 2/2/2010 @ 7:50 amHey Eric, You’re contributions are tremendous, sir,
Eric, if nothing else convinces you to stop your endless righteous bloviations, you’ve just received the ultimate reason.
You seem to harbor some kind of martrydom complex, where as long as you go against any perceived opinion posted here you’re as pure as the driven snow. You’re coming across as another version of Mulder in the X – Files (The Truth IS OUT THERE!), albeit a hell of a lot less entertaining. If you wish to go on tilting at imaginary windmills, may I suggest a few weeks over at Freepers?
Dmac (539341) — 2/2/2010 @ 7:52 amI don’t know anything about whether O’Keefe was in fact denied access to an attorney for 28 hours; but I wonder if this site is as concerned when people who are charged with more serious crimes, such as terrorism, are denied access to attorneys for much longer than 28 hours.
Skeptic (cadea1) — 2/2/2010 @ 7:54 amI prostrate myself before the all knowing lawyers and cry out for mercy 🙂
Goodness me…
EricPWJohnson (32c41e) — 2/2/2010 @ 7:55 amEricPWJohnson — not sure about what you are referring to in Ramos/Compean threads.
But, as far as your comments here go, I’ve noticed several that provided inaccurate information regarding the substance or procedure on federal criminal prosecutions — sometimes of very basic information such as the distinction between an indictment, complaint and affidavit.
As for Letten recusing himself, I’m pretty confident that is nothing more than a recognition that he and Flanagan’s father have many functions where they work together, and it would create both awkwardness and an appearance of impropriety if he were to remain responsible for overall decision-making on the case.
If the First Assistant has close connections to Landrieu, as you suggest, that person may end up recused as well for the same reason. Any relationship that might call your impartiality into question is a basis for recusal.
shipwreckedcrew (3d3fb8) — 2/2/2010 @ 7:58 amDmac
no, not true many in fact most of the time I agree with what is said here and when I agree there’s really nothing for me to add to the conversation so I dont add anything
Here is my concern
What the problem is that people are doing here (the collective here in the blogesphere) what the Union did (IMO) to Ramos and Compean – they gave them extremely bad pretrial advice and they put them at extreme risk when at most they would have had a suspended sentence.
I’m seeing the same pattern – people are so damn
sure of what he was doing and not reading a simple affidavit and missing part 8
Its not my fault – its not my doing
One word: Libby
EricPWJohnson (32c41e) — 2/2/2010 @ 8:04 amWLS
I meant the affidavit – I think it was pretty obvious
I just told you the background of the person who is taking ovver the case and posted factual government links and newspaper articles documenting her
I documented it sir and you accused me of spreading disinformation
Her father and Mayor Landrieu were lifelong friends and worked closely on many many matters of public interest. I also documented that
At least I try to be respectful with those I disagree with and send links
I respect your service and what you do
EricPWJohnson (32c41e) — 2/2/2010 @ 8:10 am[…] Blogger Patterico wrote: “Breitbart said he though the U.S. attorney’s effort was part of a payback scheme against O’Keefe, who posed as a pimp and prostitute with another citizen journalist to enter ACORN offices around the country and get advice on how to apply for federal housing grants for a brothel. […]
» The O’Keefe Affair: Obviously a Media Malfunction - Big Government (4556c3) — 2/2/2010 @ 8:18 amWLS
Maselli also serves on the of Ursiline academy with Shelley Landrieu
http://ursulineneworleans.org/about-ursuline/board-trustees/
EricPWJohnson (32c41e) — 2/2/2010 @ 8:20 amServes on the Board of the same Academy Ursuline – sorry = got to quit while I’m on the phone…
EricPWJohnson (32c41e) — 2/2/2010 @ 8:27 amI hate when that happens.
happyfeet (713679) — 2/2/2010 @ 8:34 amEric — its not your “factual information” that troubles me – its your statements about the process. If you have info about Landrieu and the prosecutor, that is good for the public to know.
But, your comments were mixing up things involving the procedure, and referring to documents that don’t yet exist, when you were actually commenting on other documents that do exist.
Its not simply a harmless mistake because what the indictment ultimately says will be very important. Mistaken references to it now are very misleading since there is no indictment at this time.
shipwreckedcrew (3d3fb8) — 2/2/2010 @ 8:35 amWLS
You can be troubled all you want, those tactics dont real well with me.
Please feel free to hold others here who actually passed the bar – to the same standard of contempt – that had no basic understanding of HB
I’m not going to rehash everything for you – be as troubled as you want
The facts are I documented Maselli, her father, Landrieus Father – You realize that Mary has 8 brothers and sisters? Many still in New Orleans? That some of her siblings, cousins were classmates of Maselli?
But of course not you are “worried” that I may said something in error – gee that never happens often in the blogesphere –
All I said is its not a good idea to give interview after interview after interview before you do see anb indictment or in fact at any point in an ongoing federal process
the fact that you apparently disagree with this – well – thats something for others to consider
EricPWJohnson (32c41e) — 2/2/2010 @ 8:55 amI’m seeing the same pattern – people are so damn
sure of what he was doing and not reading a simple affidavit and missing part 8
Its not my fault – its not my doing
Fair enough – but do you not see that what you’re accusing others of doing you’re guilty of propagating it yourself? Wide ranging statements of alleged “fact” without any tangible evidence to support it, other than your insistence on it’s veracity. Then when others question those allegations, you bascially call them idiots and assume the lofy perch of Solomon.
If you’re just speculating, then perhaps you should make that clear, instead of making statements that sound like concrete factual representations.
Dmac (539341) — 2/2/2010 @ 9:03 amThat is not even scratching the surface of what you asserted as fact. You repeatedly stated they had been indicted. You repeatedly stated that they will be indicted for wiretapping, to include Breitbart. You repeatedly asserted that this was some top secret phone closet, and that this was a national security issue.
JD (df4ec8) — 2/2/2010 @ 9:04 amI knew, before reading further, that that was the beginning of an inaccuracy. After reading further, my suspicions were supported.
John Hitchcock (96235a) — 2/2/2010 @ 9:07 am[…] Blogger Patterico wrote: “Breitbart said he though the U.S. attorney’s effort was part of a payback scheme against O’Keefe, who posed as a pimp and prostitute with another citizen journalist to enter ACORN offices around the country and get advice on how to apply for federal housing grants for a brothel. […]
IFC News The O’Keefe Affair: Obviously a Media Malfunction (788a54) — 2/2/2010 @ 9:11 amSo this makes most likely for a recusal right, you can’t have someone with such a stated bias right
ian cormac (79614d) — 2/2/2010 @ 10:21 am(sarc). What is the violent crime rate, down therethat they would even bother with this
Which Federal Prosecutor in Louisana is most likely to win the Mike Nifong award for prosecuting while being a blind partisan with an agenda?
PCD (1d8b6d) — 2/2/2010 @ 11:53 amErratic behavior whilst blogging….
EPWJ seems to have, over the course of years he has commented here, very wild swings in thought, mood, and attention to what is being said.
AD - RtR/OS! (eadee4) — 2/2/2010 @ 12:18 pmCould it be that his activity at this site is dependant on his chemical intake?
#58 voiceofreason2:
No, I am still quite active, although I should have been more specific.
The signal lines into and out of classified spaces do not carry classified signals. The signals themselves may carry classified information, but the signals, being subject to interception, are themselves unclassified.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 2/2/2010 @ 2:10 pmThe whole “top secret” thing was an obvious red herring. Sure, it is interesting to consider the implications of running phone lines through a federal building, and think about how the gov should deal with it.
Since O’Keefe and pals didn’t have any wiretapping ability, the topic has nothing to do with them.
But if you point out that Breitbart is winning the argument about liberal bias, the same few people will trot out some grandiose red herring, and this is a good example. Still don’t know if Breitbart ever did anything that justifies the anger a few folks have over him.
EPWJ did seem really unsettled on this. We’ll see if he welshes.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/2/2010 @ 2:35 pmDustin
Jans pissed
Is going to uphold the safety and “SECURITY” of our Federal Buildings….
I’m not against Okeefe – or Breibart – they most unwittingly took the stunt one step too far and barked up the wrong tree
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/fox-news-misrepresents-attorney-recusal-okeefe-case/
And read the other quotes – what did I sat – dont try the case in the press – dont try the case in the press
geez…. they all should have been there with their attorneys apologizing to the feds profusely and showing remorse and this thing would have been over
Now it could very well turn into a circus
EricPWJohnson (43d480) — 2/2/2010 @ 5:40 pmDid Breitbart imply he was trying to reach his employee?
Was this different from earlier statements that he didnt know where he was and what he was doing?
Do you see that all parties should really be quiet right now?
EricPWJohnson (43d480) — 2/2/2010 @ 5:47 pmSorry just got up its 4;48 am here
Are these people way way way underestimating Jan Maselli?
I wouldnt – I’d be real contrite
Breitbart is now saying that his complaints about Acorn led to James Arrest
*sigh*
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/breitbart_claim_jailed_okeefe_couldnt_access_attor.php
EricPWJohnson (43d480) — 2/2/2010 @ 5:57 pmI wouldn’t put it past law enforcement to leak stuff, but my bet’d be on the people in and around the Senator’s office… of course they are going to call the media.
This 28 hours without a lawyer thing is dumb.
I don’t know how it works for an industrial grade felony, but ever since they made everything a “felony”, they’ve dumbed down the system.
TV doesn’t help either.
Social nuisance grade felonies like stumbling into a bike cop and watching in horror as he tumbles over a planter and *gasp* begins to bleed from a scratch no worse than a paper cut… and oh my god, his bike has some broken spokes… combined with the fifth equal you getting ignored… they are not going to make the phone call for you…
This is a stupid pet trick “felony” and they did the kid a huge favor by ignoring him for 28 hours. It is like finding $100 bills in the ashtray and it gave him the Law and Order victim card
SteveG (909b57) — 2/2/2010 @ 6:36 pmIt is like finding $100 bills in the ashtray and it gave him the Law and Order victim card
O’Keefe has been squealing like a coward from the very beginning and now he and Breitbart (who finally seems to have realized that he better do something instead of run for the hills like sleazeball) are trying to turn this into being about the media, if not the media then of course it’s the government or Landreiu, but obviously O’Keefe thinks he’s done nothing wrong, it’s always about someone else.
I really wish he would man up and Breitbart would as well and have some pride, as I think this is all going to explode in their faces even worse than it would have already. Pretty soon they’re going to be awfully quiet, I bet…like they just got bitch slapped quiet and they’ll finally realize they need to stop talking. What about that simple concept are they incapable of understanding??
Assclown doodyheads (f0d390) — 2/3/2010 @ 1:31 amExcept he hasn’t.
Keep it up, though. Playing right into their hands, whether you mean to or not. They want America to believe that the MSM was effective at convincing lots of people about things like that.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2010 @ 2:06 amWhatever. What a load of Horsh*t. O’Keefe is a weasel and so is Andrew Breitbart and it doesn’t matter what they say about the MSM, at the end of the day the MSM has nothing to do with it.
The feds aren’t going to care about weasel theatrics.
Assclown doodyheads (f0d390) — 2/3/2010 @ 2:47 amNightline: “O’Keefe Justice Denied Movement moves into day 10 of the ordeal. Americans worried freedom on the line…”
In local news:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us/politics/03intel.html
voiceofreason2 (7118e3) — 2/3/2010 @ 2:50 amOh good the night shift showed up
🙂
EricPWJohnson (43d480) — 2/3/2010 @ 2:55 amhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584563,00.html
has the draft transcript of the interview.
voiceofreason2 (7118e3) — 2/3/2010 @ 3:14 amJan Maselli and Mary Landrieu were classmates at on the the most elite girls school in America
Ursuline Academy for girls
Mary was Class President (estimated class size 30)
Jan Maselli currently sits on the board with Michelle Landrieu
http://ursulineneworleans.org/alumnae/distinguished-alumnae/
EricPWJohnson (43d480) — 2/3/2010 @ 4:37 amJan Maselli and Mary Landrieu were classmates at one the the most elite girls school in America
EricPWJohnson (43d480) — 2/3/2010 @ 4:38 amIve decided to email my stuff to Justin and JD from now on – they can at least type…
Okay, now things get even more interesting: James O’Keefe’s race problem.
And here..
Oops.
(He should’ve gone to that White nationalists forum in his pimp outfit, that way no one would’ve recognized him. Being a master of disguises and all. Must be the MSM fault or ACORN’s, he was there right?)
Assclown doodyheads (f0d390) — 2/3/2010 @ 6:06 pmepwj, everyone makes typos. Don’t sweat that shit.
Assclown, Salon totally fails to prove that O’Keefe is a white supremacist. The worst they can do is show him photoshopped in a white jacket and say he spoke at an event that some other vague characters they say at racists spoke at.
It happens. O’Keefe is, and certainly was, very young. He probably will be in the room with bad people he disagrees with sometimes. This is LGF level stupid.
If O’Keefe’s speech had any racism in it, Salon’s source would have noted it. ACORN has been asked to justify their accusation (months ago) that O’Keefe is racist, and have failed to come up with anything. The entire MSM would LOVE to have something like that.
All they have is that he was at an event? This is what Palin would be labeled with if she went to CPAC. Somehow, it’s OK for total racists to be part of ANSWER and share space with democrats, but no matter how hard the right ostracized its nutjobs, every one of us is labeled as a racist.
The forum was about race. It was going to attract some ugliness. Race is a topic that requires some bravery to broach these days. Conservatives who talk about race are always labeled as racists, but labeling the forum as racist shows how deeply unserious the left can be about this stuff.
What did O’Keefe argue that is offensive? Nothing? He’s written a lot of stuff. You’ve got NOTHING?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2010 @ 6:23 pmConservatives who talk about race are always labeled as racists, but labeling the forum as racist shows how deeply unserious the left can be about this stuff.
He was there. The agenda was clear. The leadership Institute refused to take part.
Assclown doodyheads (f0d390) — 2/4/2010 @ 1:11 amWhat?
Your story has been thoroughly debunked.
He was there because he was a college kid and this was a debate at a college. The only offensive racist weirdo there has appeared on debates on Paula Zhan and Phil Donahue’s program.
The agenda was clear? Because Salon says so? the organizer of this debate wasn’t even white, you idiot. He’s Korean.
I think it’s telling that the photo was totally cropped. It’s some dude standing in a crowd of people from many different races watching a BLACK DUDE debate.
You are named assclown because you know your points will be easily dismissed and you want to pretend you are part of the joke. But really, you’re just flailing because you can’t come up with anything on O’Keefe. The guy is a prolific writer and produces a lot of material beyond writings. Find anything that suggests a preference for any race, ever. Since that’s the opposite of what he thinks, you can’t.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/4/2010 @ 1:15 amI mean, it’s a really really serious accusation against a person who is already being attacked.
Why did they crop the photo?
The only witness the blog relied on, the blog Salon quoted before exaggerating, that witness has said they were completely misquoted and there was no white supremacy intent. There’s absolutely no evidence of it, and the only photo of the event is cropped when all reports from people there say it had a lot of different races present.
I guess a picture of O’Keefe surrounded by different races wouldn’t fit the lie. They barely even fit his head in the crop. That says a lot.
Show me any unaltered evidence about this event. The full photo, the transcript of the debate, the name of the organizer, anything.
though it’s all a red herring. I’ve attended war protests when walking by in college. I wanted to know what their arguments were. I attended a socialist meeting because I wanted to learn about the organization, even though I had no agreement with them. Listening to someone talk, when you’re at college and they put on a discussion, doesn’t mean you agree with what they say.
And if you never listened to someone you disagreed with when you were at college, you probably aren’t as well rounded as O’Keefe.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/4/2010 @ 1:23 am