Patterico's Pontifications

5/27/2010

Brad Friedman: Press Release Confirming Well-Known Fact That O’Keefe Intended to Do Undercover Sting Vindicates Me, Somehow (Alternate Post Title: Brad Friedman Is a Huge Liar)

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:21 pm



Over at the blog of fabulist Brad Friedman, we see a post titled: FBI: O’Keefe DID Plan a ‘Wiretap Plot’ to Secretly Record Employees of U.S. Senator:

Remember the disingenuous snit fits that Rightwing con-man Andrew Breitbart and his Tea Bag Boyz were on about when the original reports broke of “a plot to wiretap Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office in the Hale Boggs Federal Building in downtown New Orleans” by Republican dirty trickster James O’Keefe and his band of co-conspirators?

They were outraged — outraged — that the “liberal media” had included the word “wiretap” in their reports about the felony arrests of the operatives, since the FBI’s arrest affidavit didn’t specifically mention an attempt to wiretap or bug the phones in her office. In a desperate attempt to distract from the actual story and find some way to support their friends’ charged with serious federal felonies, the Tea Bag Boyz demanded that a number of media outlets issue immediate retractions for the claim, and, of course, the “liberal media” outlets complied — as instructed — as usual.

The notion of calling the federal criminals “TeaBuggers” just drove Andy’s boys — particularly the shamelessly pseudonymous wingnut blogger & L.A. County Dep. District Attorney, Patrick “Patterico” Frey — to embarrassingly self-righteous (and inaccurate) distraction!

Friedman’s conclusion: we were all wrong, because O’Keefe really did engage in a “wiretap plot.” His proof? A new “FBI announcement” (actually a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office from the Eastern District of Louisiana) shows that O’Keefe intended to secretly record Landrieu’s employees in a video sting. You know: like he did at ACORN — which Brad claims violates “wiretap laws” and disingenuously labels “wiretapping.”

This is a fucking lie, and Brad Friedman is a fucking liar. A “wiretap” is defined as “a concealed listening or recording device connected to a communications circuit.” That definition does not apply to a simple undercover video sting — and Brad Friedman knows it.

We all knew O’Keefe intended to do an undercover sting and videotape it. This is not news. Calling that a “wiretap plot” is, in my view, defamatory.

As Larry O’Connor put it: “Who knew @aplusk [Ashton Kutcher] was WIRETAPPING all those people on Punk’d?” Kurt Schlichter identified the problem more directly: “Maybe I’m hypertechnical but doesn’t wiretapping traditionally involve wiretapping?”

No, Kurt, you’re not hypertechnical . . . you’re just honest. Unlike Brad Friedman.

I hope O’Keefe demands a correction. I hope Friedman refuses. And I hope O’Keefe sues him for it.

P.S. That press release has a rather curious and significant omission. Consider that a teaser. Full story in the morning.

P.P.S. Here is Brad tweeting Steve Cooley to try to get me in trouble with my job for calling him a liar.

TheBradBlog @SteveCooley4AG U cool w ur Dep DAs tweeting this 2 constnts/media? RT @Patterico @TheBradBlog that’s a fucking lie & u are a fucking liar.

Intimidation FAIL. Trying to intimidate me at my workplace didn’t work when Jeff Goldstein did it to me from the right, and it won’t work when Brad Friedman does it to me from the left.

My response:

@TheBradBlog I’m pretty sure @SteveCooley4AG is cool with me calling liars like you what they are. But thanks for asking! #intimidationFAIL

I don’t live my life cowering from turds like you, Friedman.

P.P.P.S. As a bit of comedy gold to punctuate the post, allow me to present to you the following caveat at the head of Brad Friedman’s Wikipedia entry:

This article may contain wording that promotes the subject through exaggeration of unnoteworthy facts. Please remove or replace such wording.

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

You know, I —

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

Sorry.

*wipes tears from eyes*

You know, I think that would be a good tagline for bradblog.com. What do you think?

(H/t @breitbartfan77.)

UPDATE: Friedman responds by claiming that I selectively quoted the definition of “wiretap.” He quotes one definition for the verb (actually, he used it as an attributive noun, but why quibble?) as follows: “To install a concealed listening or recording device or use it to monitor communications.”

Which, of course, also doesn’t apply. O’Keefe neither “installed” the device in Landrieu’s office, nor did he use it to “monitor” communications, but rather simply record conversations taking place in his presence.

Swing and a miss.

Friedman also links to this set of Penal Code sections, which he claims is the “California wiretap act,” to argue that undercover videos are somehow actually wiretaps. (I think it is actually known as the Invasion of Privacy Act, but don’t take my word for it; contrary to Friedman’s suggestions, I am not a wiretap violations prosecutor but a gang murder prosecutor, speaking in my private capacity as I always do on this blog.)

I have looked at these sections and I don’t see where they define what O’Keefe did as “wiretapping.” Indeed, I don’t see the word “wiretap” or any variant thereof in the law. If there is a section that defines in-person covert taping as “wiretapping” then I’d ask Friedman to kindly quote it for me.

In short: what “wire” did he “tap,” Friedman?

77 Responses to “Brad Friedman: Press Release Confirming Well-Known Fact That O’Keefe Intended to Do Undercover Sting Vindicates Me, Somehow (Alternate Post Title: Brad Friedman Is a Huge Liar)”

  1. What kind of an insecure rectum tries to get somebody in trouble at work for what they post on a blog unconnected to that work? ONE OF THE BIGGEST RECTUMS AND LIARS ON THE INTERNET – BRAD FRIEDMAN, that’s who.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  2. This post would aptly apply if Brad’s name were replaced by “Chris Hooten”.

    AD - RtR/OS! (fce032)

  3. This may very well be the most partisan person in the entire world.

    His main claim to fame is that he thinks Republicans are stealing all the elections (well, obviously it’s not a very sellable story now that Obama and the democrats won so handily recently, but Brad just thinks they won huge landslides that slightly overcame the GOP theft). He slanders good people all the time in his effort to intimidate Republicans from simply making sure elections follow the law and are free from chaotic bull. People whose entire mission is to make sure elections are smooth, lines and problems are documented clearly, and minimal opportunities are left for tampering… those people are villified.

    I can already tell you what tagline he’ll use this November: DIEBOLDED!!!! Rolling your eyes? Don’t. This crap has gotten enough press to scare people away from trusting our fair elections. If Brad was identifying actual crimes, this would be justified, but it’s always the same vague insinuation stunt, later hyperlinked or interviewed as though it was actual proof (very similar to how O’Keefe is treated, as though he wiretapped… yet the link goes to entering under false pretenses).

    I think that’s just about as far as a partisan can go… to deny any fair election if he didn’t get the result he wanted, and ignoring the real damage that does to our society.

    Attempting to intimidate bloggers you disagree with is just another day in the life of this absolute shill.
    The way he insisted things were cut from the ACORN tapes, that he never pointed to in the transcripts, was pathetic. The way he

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  4. Calling that a “wiretap plot” is, in my view, defamatory.

    IANAL, but it seems that way to me as well.

    Apogee (49749b)

  5. Is there a reason anybody pays attention to this person ? Did he invent a new form of energy, for example ? Does he do anything, when not blogging, that would justify his use of precious oxygen?

    Mike K (67e8ce)

  6. Is there a reason anybody pays attention to this person ? Did he invent a new form of energy, for example ? Does he do anything, when not blogging, that would justify his use of precious oxygen?

    It’s not his consumption of oxygen that offends so much as his output of carbon dioxide, which threatens our planet and our way of life.

    Oh, and his constant lies. Those offend as well.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  7. Hahahahahahaha.

    Friedman says I selectively quoted the definition of “wiretap,” which has as one definition for the verb (actually, he used it as an attributive noun, but why quibble?): “To install a concealed listening or recording device or use it to monitor communications.”

    Which, of course, also doesn’t apply.

    But that doesn’t stop him from feigning triumph.

    He also says I am supposed to be enforcing wiretap laws, once again demonstrating his deep familiarity with me, my assignment, and the workings of my office. Anyone want to explain to him why he’s wrong?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  8. Friedman also hilariously links to this set of Penal Code sections to argue that prank undercover videos are actually wiretaps.

    I just looked at it and I don’t see where it defines what O’Keefe did as wiretapping. Indeed, I don’t see the word “wiretap” or any variant thereof in the law.

    Apparently, his contention is that, because he has found a news article that appears to call California’s Invasion of Privacy law the “California wiretap act” (despite the fact that actual California Wiretap Act appears to relate to a different set of Penal Code sections), therefore any acts described by the Invasion of Privacy law, even acts that are clearly not wiretapping, are nevertheless wiretapping because . . . well, just because.

    In short, the guy is a blubbering moron — and that’s giving him too much credit.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  9. But then, putting to one side Friedman’s fantasy that I am some Great Wiretap Enforcer, I am actually a gang prosecutor. So take what I say with a grain of salt.

    And take what Friedman says with a mineful of salt. You know, because he’s a fucking liar.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  10. It is kinda amazing that Friedman is such a goof for this, but you are right, he does live for these kind of shrieking hysterics. The problem is, he is such a partisan hack, he can’t ever see that his progressive buddies are doing patently illegal things, or when he does, he excuses it with some variation of expediency/righting past wrongs.

    In some ways that is the most loathsome individual; the one who continuously excuses present bad behavior of one group with a reservoir of past actions from another. There is nothing so bad done by his favorites that can not be waved off with some action from the past.

    MunDane (54a83b)

  11. “Wingnut”

    To be, or not to be,
    is not really the question.
    For once upon a time, when people could think critically,
    truth and reason actually could get you far.
    But, despite the warnings of George O.,
    many swoon to hear Barach O.,
    and “wingnut” is what they say
    when the facts don’t support their way.

    The moral order of Judeo-Christian thought
    taught us to reason what is, not believe what is not,
    but when people prefer their own way
    just about anything is what they’ll say.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  12. Hmm. Bradblog’s down at the moment. Hope it’s because O’Keefe’s lawyer had a chat w/ him and he’s busily fixing all his libel. Heh.

    Or — you guys seem to know this guy — would this Friedman rather go to court than admit he’s wrong?

    no one you know (14208b)

  13. Friedman caught with pants around cankles… again.

    Film @ 11…

    GeneralMalaise (4e741b)

  14. Bradblog seems to be back up now. Hope O’Keefe sues the pants(on-fire) off him.

    no one you know (14208b)

  15. “would this Friedman rather go to court than admit he’s wrong?”

    I think he probably would. He loves playing the oppressed victim, and the actual facts, such as a legal ruling, simply mean nothing to him whatsoever. I bet he’s nearly tortproof (he doesn’t have much money), so yeah, I think he would take this to court happily. His corrupt financial backers might even make it worth his while.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  16. Didn’t Brad’s Blog get it’s first real start, passing along the premise that the electronic voting machines had “stolen” Ohio, unlike the actual stealing through ACORN back in 2008, throughthe 200,000 mismatches in the voter rolls

    ian cormac (9e7f6f)

  17. Not to jump in to the middle of a quality pissing match, but couldn’t it be reasonable, at least for a non-lawyer, to consider, er, call it “adversarial recording” wiretapping in light of things like these?

    Note: that guy is a bit of a color figure, but he documents this sort of thing well. Also, I’m pretty sure this will land in the spam bucket because of the links, so I’ll thank Stashiu in advance for his(?) trouble.

    Jamie (761662)

  18. Love your passion and plain-spoken style.

    I like calling a liar a liar, tho most judges seem uncomfortable when I do.

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    Ragspierre (914d09)

  19. Friedman lies, no surprise.

    Let ‘im flail.

    GeneralMalaise (4e741b)

  20. Pat, Friedman is not a f*cking liar, as you put it. Weenies like him don’t do the nasty. Grade A liar, yeah, but not f*cking liar.

    either orr (7cffdd)

  21. And this is the person that Chris Hooten wanted to send us to read.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  22. For all the umbrage over the recording of conversations in Sen. Landrieu’s office, just remember that LA is a “single party” state – you don’t need the other persons permission to record them.

    AD - RtR/OS! (58f7b4)

  23. But the fact that he pled guilty to a misdemeanor suggests otherwise. Clearly he was concerned that a jury might find him guilty of the felony, otherwise it would have been better to go to trial and be vindicated with a not-guilty finding. In my experience those who plea are concerned that they could likely be convicted. If there was no evidence of intent, why not go for a trial?

    Federale (ab13d0)

  24. Federale, no – often people plead to avoid the costs of defense as well. Especially when, as here, the fine and community service are trivial compared to the cost of defense.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  25. because, Federale, no matter what the facts, at a trial you might be convicted on that charge, or of something worse, or get a harsher sentence, either by a stupid jury, or a judge with a grudge.

    sometimes it’s better to take what you know than to gamble. who knows what a carefully picked New Orleans jury might be convinced to do?

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  26. I don’t have a bone to pick with either you or this brad guy but are you sure you’re an attorney? This article and comments seem like the rantings of a six year old. Had this O’Keefe fellow come into our office wearing a hardhat and claiming to be from the phone company, I would have asked to see his ID. If he didn’t have them, he should have been arrested (and he was). As a former telephone technician at Citizens Communications, we don’t wear traffic vests or hardhats into people’s offices. This O’Keefe guy sounds like a pathetic clown and your defense of him speaks volumes as to your character.

    RobertM (114708)

  27. You don’t have a bone to pick with me, you just say I have bad character and that you’re not sure I am really an attorney. Gotcha.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  28. your defense of him speaks volumes as to your character.

    as does your attack…. pot, meet kettle.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  29. RobertM, is there a coherent version of your comment for me to read?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  30. “#

    #

    But the fact that he pled guilty to a misdemeanor suggests otherwise. Clearly he was concerned that a jury might find him guilty of the felony, otherwise it would have been better to go to trial and be vindicated with a not-guilty finding. In my experience those who plea are concerned that they could likely be convicted. If there was no evidence of intent, why not go for a trial?

    Comment by Federale — 5/28/2010 @ 10:03 am

    Actually, most of those charged plea. I think it’s 80% of the time in my county.

    If you’re charged with a federal offense, you could be paying $100,000 in defense costs, even if you’re innocent. Pleading to a misdemeanor and a $1500 fine, when that’s the only way to avoid trial, is actually almost always a reasonable option.

    And you know, since you’re reading this blog, that O’Keefe was not getting a fair shake. His privileged communication was being leaked, the government was hiding stipulated points, their comments to the press were ridiculous in light of their stipulation that no tampering occurred. Even the evidence was ordered destroyed.

    I imagine they realized they were in for a tremendously unfair ordeal, and if you have a chance to end that with a plea to a very minor charge, you should take it.

    At no point in time did O’Keefe deny his undercover routine.
    The real dispute is the penalty he deserves for that. So I don’t understand why some are claiming him admitting he entered undercover is evidence of some worse thing.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  31. wiretap
    electronic surveillance

    Do the same laws pertain to both of these things?

    Chris Hooten (e4cd44)

  32. This is an interesting legal definition:

    wiretap legal definition
    n

    v

    1.The listening in of any wire or oral communication by use of electronic or mechanical means; generally illegal where both parties to the communication are unaware of the wiretap. Unauthorized use or possession of wiretap devices is prohibited under state and federal law.
    2.The act of placing an electronic device to listen in on oral communications. See also bugging, and pen register.
    Webster’s New World Law Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

    Apparently Brad is correct is stating that the word “wiretap” can be used in this way. Look where the definition was obtained.

    Definition here

    Chris Hooten (e4cd44)

  33. This site is hugely wonky today. Firefox and chrome are not behaving properly, especially with comments, only internet explorer works right.

    Chris Hooten (e4cd44)

  34. Apparently Brad is correct is stating that the word “wiretap” can be used in this way. Look where the definition was obtained.

    Bzzzzzzzzzt.

    O’Keefe was not listening via electronic means. He was there. He was RECORDING something that he was already there to listen to.

    Looks like Brad stepped on the rake again. Doesn’t he ever get tired of it?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  35. Still only seeing 16 comments right now.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  36. “Apparently Brad is correct is stating that the word “wiretap” can be used in this way.”

    GOOOONNNNGGGG!!!!!

    Chris – Seriously, try again. Think it through next time.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  37. Chris – What’s Braddy’s rationale for complaining to Patterico’s boss about what he writes? Isn’t that like a total douchebaggy loser thing to do? Is Braddy that insecure about losing an argument that he has to try to get his opponent disciplined or fired or something?

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  38. Is Braddy that insecure about losing an argument that he has to try to get his opponent disciplined or fired or something?

    The answer to that is pretty obvious, isn’t it?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  39. I can’t read all the effing comments here, except through the rss feed. It is horrible. Anyways, Patterico, that legal definition does not specify whether the “listening” is remotely done or not. It also does not specify what type of device is used for the “listening.” The claim that they were RECORDING and not listening is ludicrous. Telephone wiretaps RECORD communications. They don’t have people sitting there listening to telephone wiretaps all day. Also who RECORDS something, but then doesn’t listen to it later? That is some serious mental contortions one has to perform to avoid calling what happened in the office wiretapping when one reads the legal definition of wiretap.

    Chris Hooten (e4cd44)

  40. The Hootmeister sez:

    Patterico, that legal definition does not specify whether the “listening” is remotely done or not.

    Good Lord, Hooten. Look, here is what it says:

    The listening in of any wire or oral communication by use of electronic or mechanical means

    So for it to be wiretapping, you have to be “listening in” BY USE OF the electronic or mechanical means.

    Let me say that again: you have to be “listening in” BY USE OF the electronic or mechanical means.

    If you are listening to the conversation in person, you are “listening” BY USE OF your ears, dude.

    If you are bugging offices or tapping phones, you are “listening in” (not merely “listening”) BY USE OF the bug or wiretap.

    I’m saying this once and once only, and I am not going to waste any more of my precious life arguing with you about it. As no one you know said to you recently, I am embarrassed that I have to be explaining this to you.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  41. Chris- how do you define intellectual honesty?

    Brad- What color is the sky in your world?
    You need this:
    http://tinyurl.com/3yh6hhr

    Breitbartfan77 (6bd10f)

  42. I would add to the numbnuts embarrassment that federal wiretap laws don’t apply when one party is aware of the recording. They only apply when the two parties involved in the conversation are unaware that a 3rd party is recording them.

    Since he was charged by the feds, there was never the prospect of a “wiretap” charge unless there was proof they intended to record calls coming into and out of the Senator’s office involving the caller and the Senator’s staff. Simply recording themselves in conversations with the Senator’s staff is not a federal crime.

    shipwreckedcrew (dd1bdb)

  43. shipwreckedcrew:

    Check your e-mail.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  44. Where’s Hooten?

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  45. Hooten at #39:

    You are commenting from a position of ignorance.

    You can bet your last nickle that wiretaps are live-monitored 24/7. Each call has to be monitored to be determined whether it is “pertinent” to criminal activity before the recorder is turned on.

    Don’t take my word for it — go watch the movie Casino. THere is a scene there that shows how criminals try to “game” the “Minimization” rules that apply by having their girlfriends talk first — causing the cops to “minimize” the call and not record. They must then wait either 90 seconds or 2 minutes before listening again to see if the subject of the conversation changed. The criminals talk for less than 2 minutes while looking at a watch, then put the girlfriends back on the phone for when the cops check back. WIth the girls still talking, the cops “minimize” again and wait another 2 minutes — during which time the criminals go back to talking.

    So, yes, wiretaps are monitored live and not simply recorded for later review.

    shipwreckedcrew (dd1bdb)

  46. The fact remains that James OKeefe is now a convicted criminal, and as a result of his bad advice, so are his friends.

    It’s on their records, and nothing will change that.

    James falsely accused others of being criminal.

    In so doing, has already caused law-enforcement officials to waste so much time, energy and valuable resources with the verifiably bogus “evidence” purported on his ACORN tapes (while far more serious matters take a back-seat.)
    The same can be rightly said about his poorly conceived stunt in New Orleans (in fact, the same was said by Judge Duval.) He happily states that he plans to do so again. (BTW james, those ARE our tax dollars you are wasting with all this.)

    But at the end of the day, he and his friends are the only real, bona-fide and convicted criminals in this story.

    James still has to explain why he opted to edit his ACORN tapes the way he did, and why he used incomplete sound-bytes to make it sound like people were saying things which they, in fact, were not.

    I don’t expect a convicted criminal/borderline personality like James to ever be accountable for his own work, but that doesnt absolve him from the obligation to do so.

    He might come up with all sorts of paranoid and nonsensical reasons to avoid discussing his work with anyone but Fox News, but all that serves to reveal is someone deathly afraid to stand behind his own work, and field real questions.

    Nevertheless, the fact that this misdemeanor conviction is seen as some kind of victory by James and his followers is quite telling.
    Granted, James deserved much more, but if you really think that being convicted in a court of law as a misdemeanor criminal is a big step up, then you have sunk pretty darn low.

    James is a convict, there’s nothing that will change that.

    James Okeefe made himself a criminal, and forced his friends to become criminals as well.

    LuvyBuns (59694d)

  47. BTW, Chris Hooten is absolutely correct as to the actual legal definition of “wiretap”… It might hurt, but its just a simple, plain and easily verifiable fact.

    Those of you who have been following the Pilly lawsuit against James and hannah should already know that.

    LuvyBuns (59694d)

  48. “LuvyBuns” writes: The fact remains … and other than the notation of the conviction, the rest of “LuvyBuns” comment is not factual. The ACORN tapes had no “bogus” evidence. O’Keefe and his friends are not “bona fide” criminals but rather the subjects of politically motivated prosecutions by a US Attorney trying to aid a Democratic Senator politically.

    “LuvyBuns” continues the false claim that the editing of the ACORN tapes was deceptive – a claim that ought to be easy to establish since the unedited tapes exist and are available. Lets see the proof “LuvyBuns”. Because LuvyBuns ought to be accountable for LuvyBuns’ work.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  49. LuvyBuns, Hooten is not correct at all as has been shown above in great detail. Detail you ignore.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  50. BTW, Chris Hooten is absolutely correct about the legal definition of “wiretap”. Anyone who has been following the controversy over the ACORN tapes would know that.

    LuvyBuns (59694d)

  51. Chris Hooten is absolutely incorrect.

    What wire did he tap, “LuvyBuns” (if indeed that IS your real name!)?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  52. Patterico, you don’t think “LuvyBuns” is their real name? Don’t you think you’ve taken skepticism a bit too far?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  53. Looks like “LuvyBuns” was just another drive-by.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  54. LOL!!!!

    Its really something watching all of you defend a confessed and convicted criminal.

    If he were really innocent, he would have fought it out at trial… with those high-dollar lawyers that mysteriously appeared out of no where, one would think he would have had some kind of chance.

    But he opted for the plea.
    Why? Because he knows he is a criminal, as well as a liar.

    I guess he just didnt have the same kind of “exculpatory evidence” which he was so careful to edit out of his posted ACORN tapes.

    As for the false allegations of criminal beahvior represented by his ACORN tapes, believe me, one doesnt need the work by the California AG, the Brooklyn DA and however many other investigation to know how battered and unreliable OKeefe’s lame video “evidence” is.

    (you guys were so excited to have Brown do the investigation, but then became so angry when that investigation proved that that the “sting” was a big, fat hairy lie!!! lesson: Careful what you wish for!!!!)

    While those investigations DO make the point clear (that OKeefe lied and misrepresented in his videos), all you have to do is look at the unedited videos to see the truth.

    OKeefe lied… he lied to you as much as to anyone else… he’s both a proven liar AND a convicted criminal.

    Outside of the fact that he totally removed the most important backstory from his posted tapes, there are a number of other glaring, and very damaging inconsistencies…

    …and just like O’keefe did before, these will be provided in a media “drip”.

    As soon as OKeefe begins his next attempt at slandering others with false criminal allegations, that evidence will come floating to the surface, just to demonstrate how distorted his “evidence” is.

    More to come!!!

    Until then, enjoy your time with this convicted criminal and habitual liar, who not only ruined his own record, but also those of the people he called his friends.

    ****But one last thing… you are not helping him by encouraging this behavior. Youre cheering him down a very self-destructive spiral, but like him, you are too blinded by ideology to see that.

    When he bites the dust on bigger stakes (and he will), know that you helped bring him to that pathetic state.

    LuvyBuns (59694d)

  55. LuvyBuns, by spamming your comment across multiple threads, we can see that you are just a drive-by troll. Not least because you have failed to address the many posts Patterico made on your claims long ago.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  56. WIRETAP LEGAL DEFINITION

    n.

    v.

    1. The listening in of any wire or oral communication by use of electronic or mechanical means; generally illegal where both parties to the communication are unaware of the wiretap. Unauthorized use or possession of wiretap devices is prohibited under state and federal law.

    2. The act of placing an electronic device to listen in on oral communications. See also bugging, and pen register.

    Webster’s New World Law Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
    Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    LuvyBuns (59694d)

  57. Again, long ago addressed, LuvyBuns. That does not fit, and its why Brad’s claims and your sorry repetition of them are so pathetic.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  58. wiretap legal definition
    n

    v

    1. The listening in of any wire or oral communication by use of electronic or mechanical means; generally illegal where both parties to the communication are unaware of the wiretap. Unauthorized use or possession of wiretap devices is prohibited under state and federal law.

    2. The act of placing an electronic device to listen in on oral communications. See also bugging, and pen register.

    Webster’s New World Law Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
    Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    LuvyBuns (59694d)

  59. That does not fit, and its why Brad’s claims and your sorry repetition of them are so pathetic.

    But SPQR, LuvyBuns selectively uses bold-face. Surely that must impress you and make his/her argument all the more potent.

    JVW (36eb17)

  60. Yes, Spamming with Bold Face kung fu obviously defeats my inferior kung fu.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  61. SPQR

    LOL!!! Hey pal, if that makes you happy, fine by me.

    It doesnt change the fact that your hero is a confessed/convicted criminal, and a proven liar.

    BTW, you guys might want to SERIOUSLY re-consider your use of the word “criminal” in your rhetoric.

    It doesnt make much sense to claim that you are “exposing” (falsified) criminality when your star “journalist” is an admitted and convicted criminal.

    James can now brag that he’s a “con” in every sense of the word!

    Happy Memorial Day… remember that when James was lying about ACORN, his pals KBR and Haliburtaon were sucking up tax money while putting our soldiers through every conceivable unnecessary danger.
    They have been convicted for a number of crimes, and your “investigative journalist” completely turned a blind-eye. So much for fighgting corruption!

    -Bye…see ya, wouldnt want to be ya!

    LuvyBuns (59694d)

  62. LuvyBuns, you still have not even bothered to address the many posts that Patterico made here, over the past months, each of which already debunk in great detail each of your claims completely. You’ve failed to show any details to back up your own nonsense.

    You and your buddy Brad are the ones proven to be liars. You’ve failed to establish any lies by O’Keefe. Bringing up KBR and Halliburton only shows you to be another conspiracy nut.

    Get a clue, LuvyBuns, you are not living in reality.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  63. more to come!!!!

    LuvyBuns (59694d)

  64. LuvyBuns, if you had “more”, you’d go to the many threads Patterico already posted on your claims and refute his detailed work.

    But if all you had was more trolling and spamming with lame bold and eleventy!!!!, well then we’ve had enough of that.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  65. more to come!!!!

    Comment by LuvyBuns — 5/30/2010 @ 10:12 am

    Oh, I do hope so. LOL

    no one you know (14208b)

  66. Stopped by to see if the trolls are still out in force. Yup.

    Mike K (67e8ce)

  67. quick show of hands— who can tell me who Sonny is, and what role he played in OKeefe’s videos?

    LuvyBuns (59694d)

  68. Luvy – Can you detail some of O’Keefe’s lies you keep mentioning. Be specific and don’t just regurgitate some BS list from Media Matters. This is a test.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  69. LuvyBuns – Newsflash – O’Keefe was not listening in to any communication standing there in Landrieu’s office lobby, he was listening to one side of any telephonic conversation conducted by the receptionists. How does that fit the definitions you provided, DORKWAD.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  70. More to come.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  71. So no one has a thing to say about Sonny? Not a thing? And after all that hoopla?

    Hmmm… very telling.

    LuvyBuns (59694d)

  72. LuvyBuns, you’ve failed to provide any support for your long-ago debunked charges.

    You are a spamming troll.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  73. So no one has a thing to say about Sonny? Not a thing? And after all that hoopla?

    Hmmm… very telling.

    Comment by LuvyBuns — 5/31/2010 @ 10:14 am

    Merely four words, which will more than suffice: “two pimps, one boyfriend”

    Comment by SPQR — 5/31/2010 @ 10:16 am

    Indeed. Never seems to occur to trolls that everyone else around them could actually have more information than they do. Watching all the excited hopping up and down is, though, I must say, really amusing.

    no one you know (14208b)

  74. I would gladly pay $10k to not get a misdemeanor conviction. In any event all of that would have been covered by donations from supporters. Even worse is that he admitted guilt, which is political suicide. From now on he will be known as the convicted criminal. He will be a journalistic and political pariah. He should have gone to trial. I bet the USAO would have dropped charges rather than likely loose. No AUSA likes nor do USAs tolerate losses at trial, much less a high profile one like this would have been.

    Federale (a589e9)

  75. If “listening in of any wire or oral communication by use of electronic or mechanical means” is a valid definition of “wiretapping”, then everybody who uses a phone is wiretapping, and so is everyone who uses a hearing aid! That should be enough of a clue that the dictionary is wrong.

    Milhouse (b04e16)

  76. When a person continually threatens to sue someone else yet nothing comes of it, it makes that person seem ineffectual, weak and rather strident. Pat, follow through or bite the bullet and keep your powder dry.

    Histrionics like this are counterproductive and truthfully make you sound silly.

    You can do better, guy!

    jimmy sue (bf79c0)

  77. Did someone threaten to sue someone? I missed that.

    Patterico (c218bd)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.0191 secs.