Patterico's Pontifications

2/27/2012

Lawsuit Day Approaching for Shuster and Olbermann? Sure Looks That Way!!!

Filed under: General,Nadia Naffe — Patterico @ 6:27 pm

After James O’Keefe demanded that David Shuster retract his defamatory characterization of James O’Keefe as a “convicted felon,” Shuster has taken to Twitter — but has he retracted? Mmmm . . . not so much. As a matter of fact, I think you could call this “doubling down”:

Hey @JamesokeefeIII apologize to @nadianaffe. And @AndrewBreitbart why wont u condemn his alleged sex assault plan? http://t.co/DcjK6XwN

I hear a distant rumbling sound . . . and it sounds like momentum for a libel suit building.

Rapidly.

Meanwhile, Andrew Breitbart has published several tweets corroborating my belief that a libel suit is likely forthcoming. For example:

What are Vegas odds that @DavidShuster & @KeithOlbermann get sued for libel this week?

I sure wouldn’t bet against it, I’ll tell you that.

By the way, I just took a look at the Current page that Shuster links yet again today. It says:

D.C. correspondent David Shuster calls right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart a hypocrite for his silence on the subject of the rape allegation facing his conservative activist protégé James O’Keefe . . .

I listened to Shuster’s description of the allegations made by Naffe, and I’m not hearing a “rape allegation.” Frankly, I’m not hearing an “alleged sex assault plan” either. What I’m hearing — and this is just if the allegations are true, which I do not assume — are allegations that O’Keefe and Naffe argued; that he refused to drive her to a station from a barn on his parents’ property after the argument; suggestions that Naffe experienced symptoms of incapacitation (which could be consistent with being drugged, or could be consistent with any number of any causes as well, including drinking too much); and that O’Keefe harassed Naffe after the fact (among other things). Listen for yourself:

Is that a “rape allegation”? A “sex assault plan”? I’m not hearing it in that description.

Are Shuster and Current trying to add counts to the defamation suit?

It sure seems that way.

Wow.

Stay tuned. I have a feeling this story is not going away.

UPDATE: I have new, exclusive, source material regarding the specifics of Naffe’s allegations — and how they were misrepresented by Shuster. This is worth a new post, which will probably go up in the morning. Stay tuned.

402 Comments

  1. Racists

    Comment by JD (448fa8) — 2/27/2012 @ 6:32 pm

  2. Do Shuster and Olbermann have so much faith in leftward lean that they show no hesitancy in continuing in this manner?

    Or are they just this stupid?

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (9080eb) — 2/27/2012 @ 6:33 pm

  3. Yes

    Comment by JD (448fa8) — 2/27/2012 @ 6:37 pm

  4. I don’t see how Shuster wants anyone to take his ‘rape’ allegation seriously if he can’t correct when fully aware he smeared a guy as a convicted felon when that charge was shown to be baseless.

    He must take his audience’s credulousness for granted.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 6:43 pm

  5. This Naffe lady is tweeting all over the place, accusing O’Keefe and some unseen accomplice of assault…

    “I still dont know the identity of the man O’keefe brought with him to the barn that night, to intimidate or worse, assault me”

    “O’keefe’s threat to sue @DavidShuster into silence is just like the one he used to bully me not to report crime to police.”

    “I’m not looking for an apology. I’ve been the one apologizing, to people I recorded w/O’keefe since 2010.”

    “Would not expect public condemnation of O’keefe by @AndrewBreitbart. Admitting your wrong isn’t good for business. @DavidShuster #agitprop”

    and here’s her latest: “Working on a post abt what happened at the barn in NJ, and my work as an accomplice to a “convicted criminal” O’keefe et al”

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (9080eb) — 2/27/2012 @ 6:44 pm

  6. As daley pointed out the other day (with a link), Naffe has filed lawsuits before:

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=nadia%20naffe&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEYQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.msn.com%2Fid%2F6065770%2Fns%2Fpolitics%2Ft%2Fgop-black-voters-shaky-courtship%2F&ei=Rj1MT7n3LuitiQKKqZGXDw&usg=AFQjCNHV22ekILwVV1zXvdfvl_yb07gGWA&cad=rja

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (9080eb) — 2/27/2012 @ 6:46 pm

  7. The fact she didn’t file a police report, unlike the circumstances at various occupy events,

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/27/2012 @ 6:57 pm

  8. And more interestingly, Naffe is tweeting with none other than Neal Rauhauser… strange days.

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 2/27/2012 @ 7:06 pm

  9. Oh crikey, stranded wind, or passing gas, yet that’s
    heartfelt.

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/27/2012 @ 7:10 pm

  10. I wonder if we have time to get a Tickle Me Breitbart doll to market by Christmas

    Comment by happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/27/2012 @ 7:15 pm

  11. That is interesting, Dana.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 7:18 pm

  12. This is just how LIBTARDS roll. Lying. It’s as natural as breathing to a LIBTARD.

    Comment by Gus (694db4) — 2/27/2012 @ 7:27 pm

  13. Is stupidity a prerequisite in Hollywood,

    http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2012/02/27/act-of-valor-parenthood-actor-walks-back-tweet-comparing-film-to-nazi-propagan

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/27/2012 @ 7:29 pm

  14. UPDATE: I have new, exclusive, source material regarding the specifics of Naffe’s allegations — and how they were misrepresented by Shuster. This is worth a new post, which will probably go up in the morning. Stay tuned.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/27/2012 @ 8:00 pm

  15. Nadia Naffe ‏ @NadiaNaffe

    I still dont know the identity of the man O’keefe brought with him to the barn that night, to intimidate or worse, assault me @DavidShuster
    Retweeted by David Shuster

    Another man was with O’Keefe? I must have missed that.

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 2/27/2012 @ 8:06 pm

  16. I don’t know when Schuster started on the path to Denebian slime devil, but he caught up in short time

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/27/2012 @ 8:17 pm

  17. Huh… this O’Keefe fellow sounds like a real assh*le.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/27/2012 @ 8:50 pm

  18. I knew that when I found out that he wore his grandmother’s chinchilla and carried a pimp cane only for the TV interviews, Leviticus.

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/27/2012 @ 8:57 pm

  19. What kind of prick would refuse to drive a lady from his sleazy little barn?

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/27/2012 @ 8:59 pm

  20. One of many reasons I consider Breitbart what you said.

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/27/2012 @ 8:59 pm

  21. That, I don’t know. Because I don’t know Naffe. Maybe his spidey-sense kicked in — that he was about to be rectumed by another rectum?

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/27/2012 @ 9:02 pm

  22. These guys, Breitbart and O’Keefe, are nobody to ride the river with.

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/27/2012 @ 9:06 pm

  23. Well, there you have it. I never watch Shuster or Olberman, my news sources are wingnuts, and I think both O’Keefe and Breitbart are opportunistic, self-seeking assholes.

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/27/2012 @ 9:12 pm

  24. What kind of prick would refuse to drive a lady from his sleazy little barn?

    Comment by Leviticus

    He did drive her from the barn or wherever to Penn Station. I guess the allegation is that he got angry with her for saying she wouldn’t help O’Keefe with one of his undercover videos. So far, she hasn’t claimed he tried anything sexual, but she does claim her underwear went missing from her luggage. I assume she brought luggage for a reason.

    I wonder if this “Barn” is really a barn, or rather was a guest home she had already planned to spend the night at? From the story as I’m reading it, O’Keefe may have been trying to talk her into doing the undercover work. I don’t know if she was drinking, but whatever reason she blacked out on the train… maybe it seemed she could be reasoned with better in the morning?

    She says she was drugged. That does happen.

    I don’t think explaining this situation on twitter makes any sense. If she wants to get her story out there, she should explain in detail what happened, and then post that entire account.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 9:13 pm

  25. You don’t have a lot of friends that want to hang out with you, do you Dustin?

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/27/2012 @ 9:27 pm

  26. What kind of prick would refuse to drive a lady from his sleazy little barn?

    Comment by Leviticus

    If it actually took a threat to call cops to get him to comply, yeah, that’s sleazy. Unless there’s some explanation (like he was worried she was too inebriated).

    I think both O’Keefe and Breitbart are opportunistic, self-seeking assholes.

    No doubt they are self promoters. I guess I just assume most pundits and ‘journalists’ in this culture will be. I don’t even care. They usually use evidence to convince me, though, so it makes everything pretty simple.

    I’m not going to jump and say I’m sure Ms Naffe is a liar just because she’s palling around with Neal R (though she shouldn’t touch him with a ten foot pole). I do think some of her comments are very strange and just give the impression that she’s either assuming the worst or trying to put things in the worst light.

    I still dont know the identity of the man O’keefe brought with him to the barn that night, to intimidate or worse, assault me

    Or maybe be a witness so that O’Keefe was protected if there was some kind of he said / she said? Why assume he was there to intimidate her or worse? If something intimidating happened, I assume she would have already explained this in court.

    I don’t know O’Keefe or Breitbart well enough (or at all) to just take their word that Naffe is a liar, but she isn’t doing a good job convincing me. Or even convincing me that she had been convinced.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 9:31 pm

  27. Turns out he wasn’t refusing to drive her away, while he was there with her, as the Shuster report implies. O’Keefe was already gone when she threatened to call the police and destroy his computers if he didn’t come back and get her. This is according to her own testimony to the court.

    My point is not to defend his alleged actions, or to opine on whether the allegations are true or false, but to criticize Shuster for getting even the allegations totally wrong.

    Exclusive transcript and analysis in the morning.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/27/2012 @ 9:41 pm

  28. it sounds like, on the surface, that Naffe is hoping to sell her story to naifs.

    Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 2/27/2012 @ 9:43 pm

  29. You don’t have a lot of friends that want to hang out with you, do you Dustin?

    Forever alone. :(

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 9:47 pm

  30. She was in the NYC area, so she probably could have called a cab. But I’m tired of speculating on cases where it’s clear the facts I’m getting are complete bullshit half the time.

    [note: released from moderation. --Stashiu]

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/27/2012 @ 9:48 pm

  31. Basically, O’Keefe is a creeper.

    I mean, when you pair this with the Abbie Boudreau thing… oh, and the pimp fantasy… I mean. A brick is not a wall, but it would seem that a creepy-ass pattern is emerging here.

    Look what the modern man reduces himself to.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 12:05 am

  32. Leviticus:

    My new post is up, with the transcript of Naffe’s actual allegations.

    You should end up feeling stupid for buying into the Shuster/Olbermann portrayal. They totally distorted the allegations. They are going to get ripped to shreds in court.

    Ripped to shreds.

    And when you’re done reading, keep in mind that this is merely HER SIDE. O’Keefe no doubt has a response to virtually all of it. I wouldn’t leap to believe her. Certainly without reading my post and the linked transcript.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 12:19 am

  33. lol @ Dustin 29

    Off topic, but sort of in line with your post. I love Reddit. It does swing left but it is a fun site. Have you noticed the blatant planting of stories there? I have. Raw Story ones a lot of the times. I swear a small group of people do a large amount of social engineering online.

    On Topic: I am holding out for more on this story (like P’s new post). Not sure why, I was already told he was a CONVICTED FELON!!

    Comment by Noodles (3681c4) — 2/28/2012 @ 12:25 am

  34. Well don’t just sit there! Read the new post!

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 12:32 am

  35. the only thing wrong with O’Keefe is that he routinely destroys left wing memes and makes the Democratic party out to be the lying scumbags they are.

    to some people, this is a bug. they are the ones who hate him and want these rumors to be true.

    the rest of us see this as a feature, recognize the source of the rumors and know professional liars when we see/hear them.

    Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:16 am

  36. Off topic, but sort of in line with your post. I love Reddit. It does swing left but it is a fun site. Have you noticed the blatant planting of stories there?

    I do enjoy sites like that, but you’re right… some folks are very good at getting their propaganda out there.

    The sad thing is, I rarely get irritated about it anymore. I just assume the worst of those guys and get mad at folks I expect more out of. That’s actually unfair.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:20 am

  37. Leviticus:

    My new post is up, with the transcript of Naffe’s actual allegations.

    You should end up feeling stupid for buying into the Shuster/Olbermann portrayal. They totally distorted the allegations. They are going to get ripped to shreds in court.

    yes, he should, but he’s now off to some fantasyland ruled by “robot overlords”…

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (0da124) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:23 am

  38. @ Dustin

    I was going to write a response to you about group think, propaganda, and impressionable minds, but it started hurting my brain! =]

    Comment by Noodles (3681c4) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:57 am

  39. It would be interesting to see if Leviticus still held the same opinions after reading her transcript.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:17 am

  40. I’m sure it will be a ‘Roseanne, Roseanne a danna’ moment.

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:08 am

  41. We are talking about two guys who basically have no careers, right? Breitbart and O’Keefe? Except to be nuisances?

    They might get a nuisance value settlement. I doubt that they will find a lawyer worth hiring who will take the case without a $100,000.00 retainer.

    Only an idiot would take a case like this on a contingency basis.

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:39 am

  42. I think that’s more accurate about Olbermann and Schuster at this point,

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:43 am

  43. Olberman and Shuster have insurance for this. They might be bothered to the extent of two phone calls and two snail-mails when the case starts. In two years or so, they might be called in for depositions. In seven years to attend the trial. No matter the outcome, they walk away like it never happened. The insurance company takes care of things.

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:50 am

  44. Even for intentional acts?

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:54 am

  45. Only an idiot would take a case like this on a contingency basis.

    Why? If you create a caricature of a person, it is then alright to be objectively dishonest about them?

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:56 am

  46. Bill Clinton and the ugly lady with the big nose that he asked a blowjob from? His insurance took care of him.

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:12 am

  47. Only an idiot would take a case like this on a contingency basis.

    Comment by nk —

    I hope you’re mistaken about that. It’s apparent to me that Shuster is repeatedly smearing this man.

    It’s one thing to express a negative opinion about someone, or criticize someone for something factual. What Shuster’s done is way beyond that.

    JD’s explaining this well. A variety of people have explained that Breitbart and O’Keefe are subhuman to the point where provable falsehoods are in line with the meme. To me, that makes the situation more outrageous rather than less.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:15 am

  48. nk,

    You don’t think O’Keefe will find a lawyer?

    You want to put money on that?

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:25 am

  49. Where did this story come from, note how much distortion is already in this account;

    http://www.occupyforaccountability.org/index.php?q=node/643

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:29 am

  50. The whole gang comes together, this isn’t a coincidence, this is coordinated;

    http://chieforganizer.org/2011/12/29/james-o%E2%80%99keefe-over-the-line-%E2%80%93-again/

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:44 am

  51. this isn’t a coincidence, this is coordinated;

    It certainly looks that way. I think in a single case, it might be someone trying to latch on in hopes he can pose as a martyr who fought Breitbart, when in reality he is a serious criminal.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:50 am

  52. Disgusting, narcisco. The lies in that one article are too numerous to count.

    Comment by JD (fa420e) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:54 am

  53. Lets remember who we’re talking about;

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1773

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:58 am

  54. There are any number of lawyers who take on quixotic causes (or any cause provided they are paid) so, no, I am not making an absolute statement that O’Keefe will not find a lawyer.

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:39 am

  55. “You should end up feeling stupid for buying into the Shuster/Olbermann portrayal. They totally distorted the allegations. They are going to get ripped to shreds in court.”

    - Patterico

    I’m not “buying into” their portrayal. Olbermann is an incredibly obnoxious, pampered, moronic douchebag who can go f*ck himself for all I care; and if Shuster is Olbermann’s lackey the same thing holds. Current TV is Fox News for self-styled progs, and I most definitely mean that as an insult. The legal consequences of this whole deal – for Olbermann, Shuster, O’Keefe, or Naffe – couldn’t concern me less.

    None of which gives me one iota of pause in suspecting that James O’Keefe is a skeevy little perv perplexingly elevated to the status of a Champion of Conservatism based on his (sole) demonstrated ability to force himself into the spotlight on a regular basis.

    Whether or not this was a legitimate “rape allegation” – which your laudably meticulously compiled post certainly indicates is not the case – is not the driving force in my assessment of this guy. I’m not jumping around calling him a rapist. I’m calling him a creeper. There’s a difference, and there’s a lot more support for the latter conclusion than the former. Three times, now, in his brief… “career,” O’Keefe has been involved in some scenario with creepy sexual overtones. The Acorn thing is obviously most excusable, but the Abbie Boudreau thing? Creeper. The journalistic significance of that particular “prank” eludes me. And now you’ve got him refusing to transport a suspiciously intoxicated girl from his parents’ creepy barn in the middle of the night. Creeper. Creepy creeper.

    This is the same point I made going back to the Duke lacrosse scandal. It wasn’t just about whether or not those creepers had been involved in a rape – it was about them being creepy creepers who talked about getting their rocks off skinning hookers, then brought some hookers over. So f*ck those guys, and, frankly, f*ck O’Keefe. And, just to reiterate this for your benefit, f*ck Olbermann and Shuster too.

    How hard does it have to be to behave as a decent man? That’s what offends me about O’Keefe – his demonstrated lack of honor. It’s got little to do with some assh*le pundit flagrantly mischaracterized dishonorable behavior as a “rape allegation” (for which he should certainly pay).

    Comment by Leviticus (300e0a) — 2/28/2012 @ 10:59 am

  56. So no, the short answer is I don’t feel stupid at all. Just perplexed at why you’d waste your valuable time propping up a little creeper like James O’Keefe.

    Comment by Leviticus (300e0a) — 2/28/2012 @ 11:01 am

  57. Leviticus. Have you ever watched FOX NEWS?
    To compare CURRENT TV to FOX is absurd.
    Otherwise I loved your comments.

    Comment by Gus (36e9a7) — 2/28/2012 @ 11:04 am

  58. Just perplexed at why you’d waste your valuable time propping up a little creeper like James O’Keefe.

    I think the way some of these people distort negative (or even merely potentially negative) information into massive lies is an important story I think Patterico has a lot of insight into.

    Most people do have something in their background that could be spun into something horrible. It’s important that the mechanism of this deception is exposed and recognized as we continue moving into a crowdsourced information age.

    Leviticus, you make some good points about how the victims of some smears are actually not folks we should lionize, but I think such people are worthy of being defended from outrageous lies anyway. I don’t think that is really propping them up. I think it’s just revealing the truth.

    Also, while I’ve criticized some of O’Keefe’s plans in the past, I am not confident anything he did in this case is dishonorable. If you’re assuming his goal was sex, or that she was drugged, or any number of assumptions, your argument works. I just don’t think those assumptions are justified.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 11:16 am

  59. Great post Dustin. There are people out there who do not have a clear sense of right and wrong. I mean for example. Comparing CURRENT TV to FOX.
    If you cannot see the difference, you have a problem.
    Shuster and Olbermann support EVIL.
    O’Keefe tries to EXPOSE EVIL.

    If Shuster and Olberman were on fire, I wouldn’t piss on them.
    I’d toss a bucket of water on O’Keefe.

    There is no comparison. I think O’Keefe is a little strange, and loves the limelight, but he isn’t evil. And my only criticism of Breitbart would be his grooming. Hell, he has the right to look like Ted Kascynski if he wants, but it doesn’t help with credibility.
    Olbermann and Shuster are dishonest and sick.
    O’Keefe and Breitbart ARE NOT.

    Comment by Gus (36e9a7) — 2/28/2012 @ 11:23 am

  60. Thanks, Gus.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 11:25 am

  61. btw, I think Leviticus is a smart guy who just has a different view. I think I detect his cynicism has increased recently, but mine has too.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 11:27 am

  62. Dustin,

    You are mostly right, which means I owe Patterico something of an apology for getting a little too carried away. O’Keefe does of course deserve to be defended from slander. The “convicted felon” thing was utterly ridiculous, and there does not look to anything remotely resembling a “rape allegation” in the transcript excerpts Patterico has posted.

    What I won’t walk back is my assessment of O’Keefe as a creeper, starting with the Abbie Boudreau thing and working it’s way up to this. It doesn’t look anything like rape, but it doesn’t look anything like honorable either.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 11:36 am

  63. the whoreses have already left the barn I think

    Comment by happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/28/2012 @ 11:39 am

  64. starting with the Abbie Boudreau thing

    At least on that part, I think you’re fair. I just don’t know yet what to make of this case. For my purposes, it doesn’t matter because it’s clear enough that Shuster et al are being dishonest. O’Keefe tends to provide evidence for claims instead of standing up and telling me, Scout’s Honor, that so and so happened, which keeps things simpler.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 11:39 am

  65. Whether or not this was a legitimate “rape allegation” – which your laudably meticulously compiled post certainly indicates is not the case – is not the driving force in my assessment of this guy.
    – And a good thing, too, since there has been NO RAPE ALLEGATION MADE; NONE WHATSOEVER!!!

    Three times, now, in his brief… “career,” O’Keefe has been involved in some scenario with creepy sexual overtones.
    – The ONLY “creepy sexual overtones” in this ‘scenario’ are those that have been erroneously attached to it by Shuster and Olbermann. [BTW, this is why Patterico thinks that O'Keefe has a case.]

    And now you’ve got him refusing to transport a suspiciously intoxicated girl from his parents’ creepy barn in the middle of the night.
    – What EXACTLY did she say that causes you to characterize her as “suspiciously intoxicated”? Was it the part where she admitted that she was, BY CHOICE, drinking that night?

    Comment by Icy (cfcee1) — 2/28/2012 @ 11:47 am

  66. the whoreses have already left the barn I think
    Comment by happyfeet — 2/28/2012 @ 11:39 am

    – feets!

    Comment by Icy (cfcee1) — 2/28/2012 @ 11:49 am

  67. re: 65… you are being ridiculously meticulous, Icy!

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (0da124) — 2/28/2012 @ 11:53 am

  68. Just giving Leviticus a preview of future law school classes.

    Comment by Icy (cfcee1) — 2/28/2012 @ 11:59 am

  69. “And now you’ve got him refusing to transport a suspiciously intoxicated girl from his parents’ creepy barn in the middle of the night. Creeper. Creepy creeper.”

    Leviticus – It’s been a while since I have been in Penn Station and I’m not 100% clear on the events of the evening, but I would argue it is not the most chivalrous thing to drop off a seriously intoxicated woman in a public train station in the middle of the night, but to strongly suggest she sleep it off instead. That was the way I was raised.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 12:02 pm

  70. “… is not the case – is not the driving force in my assessment of this guy.”

    call for Tony Stewart on the white courtesy phone…

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (0da124) — 2/28/2012 @ 12:03 pm

  71. “The ONLY “creepy sexual overtones” in this ‘scenario’ are those that have been erroneously attached to it by Shuster and Olbermann. [BTW, this is why Patterico thinks that O'Keefe has a case.]”

    - Icy Texan

    Read the full transcript then come back and tell me that. Or maybe we’ve got different standards for “creepy sexual overtones.” For whatever reason.

    daleyrocks,

    You’re right, much more honorable to hold her in a barn against her repeatedly expressed wishes. And no middle ground, either – DAMN. You’re so totally right.

    Guess it’s either false imprisonment or an unceremonious defenestration into a slavering pile of crack heads at Penn Station for you, Nadia. Can’t be bothered to stand around and wait for you to catch your train or anything… or to have my flunkie do it either. Or this other random menacing guy. I’ve got news to insert myself into, natch.

    Skank.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 12:15 pm

  72. I would not want anything to do with this skank, either, Leviticus. That was one thing O’Keefe did right. Not going near her alone.

    You read the transcript. Imagine what she could have said were there not a witness.

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/28/2012 @ 12:22 pm

  73. How in the world do you draw “skank” from that transcript, nk?

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 12:24 pm

  74. Hard for some to make judgement calls when they had no personal involvement… not so hard for others.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (0da124) — 2/28/2012 @ 12:25 pm

  75. skank? no. but, based on the evidence, she does appear to be somewhat erratic.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (0da124) — 2/28/2012 @ 12:27 pm

  76. To my knowledge, Nadia Naffe doesn’t have a habit of becoming embroiled in skeevy-creeper mishaps, Colonel. Which is more than I can say for O’Keefe. So, I’m inclined to draw a conclusion about O’Keefe that I’m not inclined to draw about Naffe. You know… cuz of his record.

    If there’s an instance of Naffe falsely crying “rape,” then that would make your point stronger.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 12:29 pm

  77. She does have a history of filing suits against those she feels have wronged her in some way.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (0da124) — 2/28/2012 @ 12:33 pm

  78. “So, I’m inclined to draw a conclusion about O’Keefe that I’m not inclined to draw about Naffe. You know… cuz of his record.”

    Leviticus – So drunk woman says she wants to leave, using impeccable reasoning abilities at the time, O’Keefe keeps suggesting she stay, drunk woman eventually using impeccable reasoning facilities eventually threatens to destroy property and call police instead of taxi. O’Keefe brings witness and transports seriously intoxicated woman to Penn Station in middle of night.

    Don’t know if one of them stayed until she boarded the train. Anyone?

    Still leaves her potentially blacked out for entire train ride back to Boston – great thinking on her part.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 12:36 pm

  79. Are you talking about this single instance, or some other instance that I’m not aware of?

    And either way, I was contesting a “skank” diagnosis for which you’ve admitted there’s no support. So there’s a difference.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 12:38 pm

  80. daley,

    So, substituting your judgment for hers. Nice. Even though she repeatedly says she wants to leave after an argument, you think she should stay, so she should.

    What would your thoughts be on, say, a political party that had that attitude (you know, just hypothetically)?

    …Setting aside the later dose of harassment and character assassination for the time being.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 12:43 pm

  81. “Don’t know if one of them stayed until she boarded the train. Anyone?”

    - daleyrocks

    Transcript just says that she passed out in the back seat of the car on the way, and that when she awoke she was at Penn Station. Doesn’t say one way or the other.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 12:48 pm

  82. How in the world do you draw “skank” from that transcript, nk?

    Comment by Leviticus — 2/28/2012 @ 12:24 pm

    She’s not the faux poule toujours from the Acorn sting?

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/28/2012 @ 1:00 pm

  83. You mean Hannah Giles? No. Naffe is someone O’Keefe brought in to work on some other project that I’m not entirely clear on; they argued and she said she didn’t want to work on the project anymore, and that she wanted to leave. He thought she should stay in the barn-office instead.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 1:03 pm

  84. She’s not the faux poule toujours from the Acorn sting?

    That was someone else.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 1:08 pm

  85. Thanks. I Googled her. Which I should have done before.

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/28/2012 @ 1:10 pm

  86. I think Olberdouche and Shitster were hiding in that barn. The other shoe is about to drop!!!

    Comment by Gus (36e9a7) — 2/28/2012 @ 1:36 pm

  87. I think it best to vilify James.

    The idea that he kept her there against her will is silly, especially considering the fact that he went into the main house. She could call and text, and didn’t call a cab? Isn’t she married? There are many running the creepy sexual assault plan, based on well, nothing.

    I suspect that this is not a barn in any true sense of the word. I guess it makes the story more interesting.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 1:47 pm

  88. “… passed out in the back seat of the car on the way, and that when she awoke she was at Penn Station.”

    You just gotta hate when that happens!

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (893374) — 2/28/2012 @ 1:48 pm

  89. So, substituting your judgment for hers. Nice. Even though she repeatedly says she wants to leave after an argument, you think she should stay, so she should.

    I think when friends are drunk to the point of almost passing out, belligerent, and making bad choices, it is a good think to substitute your judgement for theirs.
    Isn’t that what we would encourage if she wanted to drive, or leave a bar alone?

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 1:52 pm

  90. Men should stay away from drunk girls. Drunk girls are trouble in so many ways, and there are so many ways to get revenge if we think we’ve embarrassed ourselves.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 1:56 pm

  91. There are many running the creepy sexual assault plan, based on well, nothing.

    Nothing. There is no basis at all for it.

    Perhaps she sincerely thought there was something sexual going on, by some intuition or a misunderstanding, but no one is explaining it to me.

    Since I wasn’t there I don’t want to just straight up call her a liar… how could I know what happened? But someone who affiliated with Breitbart and thus aware of the peddlers of Breitbart/O’Keefe conspiracies and myths, why is she retweeting their untrue statements instead of correcting them and showing her credibility? Why is she practically bumping fists with Rauhauser? She can be expected to already know these people are only good for spreading smears, so what is she expecting them to do here?

    But her motivation here is difficult to understand. Maybe she has a sincere view that O’Keefe was being sleazy, but can’t prove it. Maybe there is something about the project she refused to participate in that has colored her view. It is odd that this project is still a secret, given the animosity between these people.

    Maybee has a point, too. By her own word, she was belligerent and about to pass out. I would probably ask a friend under that circumstance to sleep it off before going home (if home was 200 miles away).

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:06 pm

  92. The Left will stop at NOTHING to promote their cause. Criminality, ethics, morals do not enter into it.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (893374) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:08 pm

  93. Abbie. Boudreau.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:13 pm

  94. Stampeding. Penguins.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:16 pm

  95. “So, substituting your judgment for hers. Nice. Even though she repeatedly says she wants to leave after an argument, you think she should stay, so she should.”

    Leviticus – No substitution. I’m merely pointing out that she claimed to be dizzy, light headed, drunk, effed up or whatever. You decide whether her decision making was correct at the time. Seems very questionable to me.

    I’m surprised she wasn’t arrested at the train station or hauled of the train for public intoxication based on the way she described herself. YMMV, but of course her decisions must have been rational.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:17 pm

  96. WTF. Because a project once had sexual undertones, future unrelated unsubstantiated baseless charges must be viewed in a light most damaging to the accused?

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:17 pm

  97. Not that it really matters, but was he drinking too, or did he force her to get drunk by herself?

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:19 pm

  98. “What would your thoughts be on, say, a political party that had that attitude (you know, just hypothetically)?”

    Leviticus – I don’t understand your question or what relevance political affiliation has to do with handling a drunk.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:21 pm

  99. Abbie. Boudreau.

    Comment by Leviticus

    That was an unprofessional and misguided stunt. It is fair to criticize that, but:

    it is not similar to suggesting O’Keefe and his buddy were kidnapping Nadia and locking her in a barn for their “intimidation” or rape plan.

    A great deal of that view and its alternatives are proven untrue.

    I want to be fair to Nadia. I don’t see why she would just invent this claim. I don’t see how she benefits from making up a story that includes admitting she was intoxicated and being belligerent. Maybe there’s something to her claims. But that’s the best she’s got. A he said/she said with no evidence against him, and btw he’s being smeared and she’s retweeting it.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:25 pm

  100. Can’t be bothered to stand around and wait for you to catch your train or anything…

    Wait.
    So she is drunk and belligerent and wants to leave, he doesn’t think she should. He has a place for her to stay. She has a phone. So why should it be on him to stand around and wait at the train station she insisted on going to?

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:26 pm

  101. He is trying to point out how hypocritical it is to substitute your judgement for hers, even though she was apparently a belligerent about to pass out drunk, when you complain about leftists and the nanny state leviathan substituting their judgement for yours. Or something like that.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:26 pm

  102. Maybee – I have never had an argument with a drunk woman. They are never belligerant and always the epitome of sound reasoning and calmness. :)

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:27 pm

  103. MayBee – she was a helpless little flower.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:28 pm

  104. “So why should it be on him to stand around and wait at the train station she insisted on going to?”

    JD – After she threatened to trash his computers and call the police, my empathy meter might be on the low side, tempting me to say good riddance at that point.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:30 pm

  105. But what was allegedly planned for Boudreau never happened, leviticus. Please provide evidence of one lefty involved in (or with knowledge of) fraud, malfeasance, or other criminality who has come forward to expose what has happened/is happening/will soon happen re: voter registration fraud, criminal assault (e.g., SEIU), theft, misuse of public monies. This Santa lady apparently came forward. With Democrats, we always find out after the fact.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (893374) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:30 pm

  106. Though, to be fair, if one decides to wait for a woman to ever be calm and well reasoned, one could be waiting a very long time…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:31 pm

  107. Scott – Jimmy Choos coming your way in 3…2…1

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:33 pm

  108. racis sexist!

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (893374) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:33 pm

  109. Tony Stewart wouldn’t be caught waiting!

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (893374) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:35 pm

  110. “After she threatened to trash his computers and call the police…”

    I always find a dozen, long-stemmed roses and a delicious meal at a fine restaurant goes a long way.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (893374) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:38 pm

  111. Comment by Dana — 2/27/2012 @ 8:06 pm

    Another man was with O’Keefe? I must have missed that.

    When she forced him to return to his home by threatening to damage or destroy his Macs he came back with somebody else.. He didn’t listen when she just complained, and not when threatened to call the police.

    She wanted to be taken right back to the train station.

    Now I don’t know if some people who have now gotten close to her will prevail on her to distort the story.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:41 pm

  112. Just another reason to go PC, guys. Totally cheap enough to replace.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:42 pm

  113. Comment by Dustin — 2/27/2012 @ 9:13 pm

    I don’t think explaining this situation on twitter makes any sense. If she wants to get her story out there, she should explain in detail what happened, and then post that entire account.

    Now she says she is going to do that.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:44 pm

  114. “So she is drunk and belligerent and wants to leave, he doesn’t think she should. He has a place for her to stay. She has a phone. So why should it be on him to stand around and wait at the train station she insisted on going to?”

    - MayBee

    He has a place where she doesn’t want to stay, a place where he brought her (with her consent, certainly, but it’s been revoked at this point). I’m pointing out how ludicrous it is to argue that the honorable thing to do here was keep her in the barn/office when she’d expressed a repeated desire to leave. The honorable thing to do would have been to take her to the station as she requested, and if concerned for her safety at that point than to escort her to a place where she would be safe. Middle ground – you don’t have to leave her unsupervised and unsafe to allow her to leave the place she expressly doesn’t want to be.

    I mean, he drove her out there in the first place, right? He knew he was going to have to drive her back. So just drive her back now, ahead of schedule.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:47 pm

  115. Though, to be fair, if one decides to wait for a woman to ever be calm and well reasoned, one could be waiting a very long time…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 2/28/2012 @ 2:31 pm

    The rarest of all mythological creatures — a reasonable woman.

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:49 pm

  116. 96. Not that it really matters, but was he drinking too, or did he force her to get drunk by herself?

    The important thing, JD, is that even if he had been drinking, and now had a BAC over the legal limit or was in any way impaired, the gentlemanly thing according to Leviticus is to drive your car while drunk to get the intoxicated woman passed out in your car to a train station.

    Cuz that’s how Leviticus was raised, I guess.

    Comment by Steve (a5da00) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:49 pm

  117. In August, Nadia Naffe, a black former field director for the Republican Party, filed a federal lawsuit accusing the Florida GOP of racial discrimination, saying she was fired after complaining about being “race-matched,” or assigned to work only with black organizations.

    Naffe’s lawsuit alleges she was threatened by Republican Party officials and subjected to stereotypical comments by the staff. Florida GOP spokesman Joseph Agostini had no comment when contacted by MSNBC.com, but previously told Knight-Ridder Newspapers that “once the process takes its due course these allegations will prove to be without substance.”

    From the link from Haiku/daley.

    So, Leviticus, how does this fit into your rubric?
    O’Keefe has previously made an odd plan involving a woman. So he’s a creeper.
    And Naffe has previously sued, claiming to having been threatened by a supposed political friendly.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:52 pm

  118. Her story is at odds with the Court transcript, honestly how deep a hole do you want to keep digging,

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:53 pm

  119. Still, ain’t nothing else that makes a man glad to be a man as much as these sweet-smelling soft-skinned aliens.

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:54 pm

  120. “That was an unprofessional and misguided stunt. It is fair to criticize that, but:”

    - Dustin

    That was an unprofessional and misguided stunt indicating a certain skeevy-creeper mindset, which is the only point I’ve been making.

    I’m not claiming that O’Keefe is a criminal. I’ve claiming that he’s a creeper. I don’t think that’s a ludicrous conclusion to reach, at this point.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 2:56 pm

  121. “the gentlemanly thing according to Leviticus is to drive your car while drunk to get the intoxicated woman passed out in your car to a train station.”

    - Steve

    Since there were at least two other people there, and since they did actually drive her to the train station (after a bunch of creepy-ass wheedling), I’m not sure what point you’re making. The only point I was making was that they shouldn’t pretend that they had to make a choice between keeping her someplace she didn’t want to be against her will and dropping her off black-out drunk at Penn Station with no supervision. Kinda a false dichotomy there.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:07 pm

  122. That was an unprofessional and misguided stunt indicating a certain skeevy-creeper mindset

    Wasn’t the idea (he didn’t write the script that was given CNN) to turn the tables on the reporters that “seduce” sources into going on camera (only to use their appearance in a negative way)? So he was going to do a ridiculous “seduction”.
    I agree that it was over the top, but I’ve had friends involved in really big news stories who basically say the same thing. The reporters don’t always use sex appeal, but they will be your new best friend until they get the story and then…POW!

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:08 pm

  123. Her story is at odds with the Court transcript, honestly how deep a hole do you want to keep digging,

    Comment by narciso —

    I think that’s enough, actually.

    I’m not claiming that O’Keefe is a criminal. I’ve claiming that he’s a creeper.

    I understand that. I wouldn’t conclude as much from that one mistake, but your mileage may vary.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:08 pm

  124. I’m not claiming that O’Keefe is a criminal. I’ve claiming that he’s a creeper. I don’t think that’s a ludicrous conclusion to reach, at this point.

    that’s a leviticus conclusion.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (5cc8b6) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:08 pm

  125. “I’m pointing out how ludicrous it is to argue that the honorable thing to do here was keep her in the barn/office when she’d expressed a repeated desire to leave.”

    Leviticus – Not doing a great job of it. Your basic point is that it is always best to immediately comply with the wishes of a drunk person. Experience proves otherwise.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:10 pm

  126. Wasn’t the idea (he didn’t write the script that was given CNN) to turn the tables on the reporters that “seduce” sources into going on camera (only to use their appearance in a negative way)? So he was going to do a ridiculous “seduction”.

    That’s accurate. I also agree he was trying to discuss a real and interesting issue with journalism. I’m not here to bash the guy about the mistakes he made there, but it is what it is.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:11 pm

  127. an unprofessional and misguided stunt

    that was a close one!

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (5cc8b6) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:11 pm

  128. The only point I was making was that they shouldn’t pretend that they had to make a choice between keeping her someplace she didn’t want to be against her will and dropping her off black-out drunk at Penn Station with no supervision.

    I don’t’ think “they” are pretending that.
    But her having them get her out of there or her staying there is also her own false dichotomy. She could have called a cab.
    Because the way it stands now, it’s her being where she didn’t want to be (the guest house) vs. them being where they didn’t want to be (driving her to the train station).

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:12 pm

  129. Still, ain’t nothing else that makes a man glad to be a man as much as these sweet-smelling soft-skinned aliens.

    Comment by nk — 2/28/2012

    More interesting than gadfly drama scandal of the week.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:12 pm

  130. “Because the way it stands now, it’s her being where she didn’t want to be (the guest house rape room) vs. them being where they didn’t want to be (driving her to the train station).”

    Maybee – FTFY

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:14 pm

  131. By that standard, your basic point is that a woman’s consent is a trifling formality.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:22 pm

  132. Leviticus- what/who does your 3:22 address?

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:29 pm

  133. daleyrocks, MayBee. Not you at all. And it’s not a serious comment; he’s flagrantly misstated my position, so I’m just returning the favor to make a point.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:31 pm

  134. daleyrocks @ 124

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:31 pm

  135. (after a bunch of creepy-ass wheedling),

    BS. You have nothing to base that on.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:34 pm

  136. “By that standard, your basic point is that a woman’s consent is a trifling formality.”

    Leviticus – No, you’re just ignoring the available facts in making your ludicrous argument.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:39 pm

  137. Consent? Really? How old was she? She is in a Harvard post-grad program, and could not physically remove herself from a house where she was not being restrained, and had free and unfettered access to cell phones and computers? Good Allah, how you have infantilized her.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:40 pm

  138. “And it’s not a serious comment; he’s flagrantly misstated my position, so I’m just returning the favor to make a point.”

    Leviticus – Point out where.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:41 pm

  139. I agree with LEVITICUS. Obama’s OCCUPOOOP MOVEMENT, had numerous rapes and deaths, and various defecations and such!!! So let’s talk about JAMES O’KEEFE.

    Obama/Pelosi/GOOOOOOONIONS and various libtard orgs had NUMEROUS DOCUMENTED RAPES and DEATHS, many violent incidents and such.

    Let’s talk abou James O’Keefe, and not OBAMA’S OCCUPOOOOOOOP MOVEMENT.

    Comment by Gus (36e9a7) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:42 pm

  140. RELEASE THE DRUNK WOMAN OR ELSE!!!!!!!!

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:46 pm

  141. “[Leviticus'] basic point is that it is always best to immediately comply with the wishes of a drunk person.”

    - daleyrocks

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:48 pm

  142. “You have nothing to base that on.”

    - JD

    Sure I do. O’Keefe’s creepyness oozes off that transcript.

    But we’re not going to resolve this, and I wanna watch the Michigan State/Indiana game.

    Didn’t realize that the Hoosiers were ranked. That’s cool.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 3:54 pm

  143. Not doing what a belligerent drunk demands immediately is creepy skeezy creepers.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:04 pm

  144. Hoosiers suck rancid underage goat testicles.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:05 pm

  145. Perhaps – in retrospect – the local YWCA could have provided suitable accommodations for the evening?

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (5cc8b6) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:09 pm

  146. i can fly!

    Comment by happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:11 pm

  147. oh wait

    nevermind

    Comment by happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:11 pm

  148. Abbie Boudreau. Keep dodging that as the filter through which to view this guy.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:15 pm

  149. Yes, we take that into account, howabout Olbermann’s long track record of personal and professional malfeasance, including implied threats of violence,

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:17 pm

  150. Snot-nosed. Warthog. That is another filter.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:20 pm

  151. keep repeating that Boudreau mantra as you lash out while stumbling through the sewers of the Left.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (5cc8b6) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:20 pm

  152. Why do you choose to infantalize this woman, Leviticus?

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:22 pm

  153. Leviticus- you know O’Keefe was not going to really seduce Boudreau, right?

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:22 pm

  154. narciso,

    Have at Olbermann all you want. You won’t hear an objection from me.

    JD,

    How is it infantilization to think that O’Keefe should have respected Naffe’s wishes and driven her home, or to Penn State, or wherever, instead of repeatedly pressing her to stay overnight? He’d picked her up; why is it wrong to think that he or one of his buddies should have brought her back to wherever they picked her up?

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:26 pm

  155. David “I am convinced, in fact, that Karl Rove WILL be indicted” Schuster.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:26 pm

  156. “Leviticus- you know O’Keefe was not going to really seduce Boudreau, right?”

    - MayBee

    Yes. I don’t know if he knew it, though.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:27 pm

  157. Yes. I don’t know if he knew it, though.

    Well, there you go. You are making your own assumptions about O’Keefe then asking us to see him through the filter of your preconceived notion.
    He’s creety ->therefore he really thought he’d seduce Abbie Beaudreau ->that’s evidence he’s creepy->who knows what he’d to to another woman?

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:31 pm

  158. Guys hire a stripper ->that’s creepy->they deserve whatever accusation the stripper hurls at them.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:35 pm

  159. No. He planned a creepy, seduction-themed prank for Abbie Boudreau –> therefore, he’s creepy –> therefore, I’m inclined to view his skittish, “stay over baby” interaction (with an attempted-payoff/character-assassination chaser) through the same lense of creepiness –> therefore, my suspicions that O’Keefe is creepy are reinforced.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:37 pm

  160. He should have driven after drinking, and driven outside the State of NJ? And she was just helpless.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:38 pm

  161. His flunkies couldn’t do it?

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:39 pm

  162. I’m sorry. His buddies.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:40 pm

  163. his skittish, “stay over baby” interaction

    BS. You are choosing to view it that way, discarding the multitude of perfectly reasonable reasons people have offered.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:41 pm

  164. therefore, I’m inclined to view his skittish, “stay over baby” interaction (with an attempted-payoff/character-assassination chaser) through the same lense of creepiness

    Except he wasn’t even in the same place. She was the one calling him to get him to physically come back.
    You think he was waiting until she passed out so he could come back and rape her?

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:42 pm

  165. Do you have a driver at your disposal? How long would it take you to find someone willing to drive a belligerent passing out drunk lawsuit prone gal to another state?

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:43 pm

  166. re: 163… I think folks may be getting a sense of who is creepy here, though unintended it may have been.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (5cc8b6) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:44 pm

  167. If one of Colbert’s people set up someone with an over-the-top “seduction”, it would be a laugh riot.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:44 pm

  168. When skeezy creepy creepers get their perv on, it is almost always done while the skeezy creeper is at a different location than the intended victim. Duh.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:45 pm

  169. “Do you have a driver at your disposal? How long would it take you to find someone willing to drive a belligerent passing out drunk lawsuit prone gal to another state?”

    - JD

    According to the transcripts, Naffe wasn’t asking to be driven across state lines. She was asking to be driven to the NY-NJ train station where he’d picked her up. She ended up at Penn Station, but there’s no indication that that’s where she asked to be brought.

    Also, I live with two honorable roommates. So, about 30 seconds.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:50 pm

  170. maybe if he made her a mix tape to show he’s sorry – a little Adele, a little Haylee – buy her something she likes from Boone’s Farm, maybe take her to see Hunger Games

    you gotta give a little to get a little

    Comment by happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:50 pm

  171. This isn’t going anywhere, is it?

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:50 pm

  172. When skeezy creepy creepers get their perv on, it is almost always done while the skeezy creeper is at a different location than the intended victim. Duh.

    He imprisoned her in his rape barn.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:52 pm

  173. And blocked her cell phone so she could only call or text James.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:54 pm

  174. And there are no cabs in Jersey.

    Hell, even Snooki and The Situation know how to call a effin cab.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:56 pm

  175. In rejection of the premise that whoever has the last word wins, I’m going to stop posting now. Carry on.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:58 pm

  176. It would go somewhere if you would acknowledge that a woman who admits she was too drunk to walk down the stairs and calls a guy to insist he come back and drive her to the train station might not be in a good judgement state of mind.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:59 pm

  177. This is blog gold!!
    laughing me arse off.
    Thanks you all.

    Comment by sickofrinos (44de53) — 2/28/2012 @ 4:59 pm

  178. Leviticus- do you think O’Keefe was just waiting for her to pass out drunk so he could come back and rape her?
    You are the one who keeps bringing up his sexual creepiness. Say what you mean to say.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:00 pm

  179. Maybee – that is just silly talk. When Snookie shows more common sense than a Harvard post-grad, it is as though The Onion wrote all of this. It is clear that James was trying to imprison her in his rape-barn of racist propaganda.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:03 pm

  180. If one of Colbert’s people set up someone with an over-the-top “seduction”, it would be a laugh riot.

    Comment by MayBee

    Yeah. That’s right.

    And if the partisanship regarding ACORN were reversed, or if it had been a SOPA supporting Republican’s phone lines a liberal O’Keefe were investigating… that would be pulitzer stuff.

    It’s worth noting that O’Keefe is a legitimate journalist who has exposed some serious truth in his career already. If we’re going to assign great value to his history, I don’t think it’s fair to only consider the bad stuff.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:04 pm

  181. The cabs are here!

    Comment by Noodles (3681c4) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:05 pm

  182. For heaven’s sake. The woman was so drunk she couldn’t get down the stairs by herself, and when O’Keefe was helping her down the stairs she saw the other guy and started screaming. That’s when they tried again to get her to just stay the night.

    You can see that as sexual predatoring.
    Or you can see it as a drunkedy drunk girl who needs to sleep it off.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:07 pm

  183. Sorry – response to MayBee real quick:

    I DON’T THINK HE WAS TRYING TO RAPE HER. I’ve said this over and over. Olbermann and Shuster’s insinuations are prima facie bullsh*t.

    At the same time, I do think O’Keefe behaved in a dishonorable, creepy fashion. His conduct indicates that, in my opinion. Verbally abusing a woman indicates that. Repeatedly insisting she stay when she was repeatedly insisting that he have someone take her back to the train station where he’d picked her up indicates that. Smearing her character after the fact indicates that.

    “Attempted Rape” and “creepy conduct” are two different things. O’Keefe engaged in the latter, to my mind, but certainly not the former.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:08 pm

  184. I don’t think it’s Leviticus’s fault though. The universities these days are teaching guys that if a girl gets drunk in their presence, whatever she accuses him of later he’s pretty much guilty.

    Men are very very rapey.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:09 pm

  185. If you don’t do exactly what a drunk wants immediately you are a creepy skeezy creeper.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:12 pm

  186. Why does Nadia Naffe keep tweeting with Neal Rauhauser?

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:13 pm

  187. So it’s better to default to the position that all young women are lying little extortionists?

    Let me ask a very very simple question: what has Nadia Naffe ever done to convince literally everyone else on this thread that she’s not to be trusted? What did she do, for you all to assume that she’s lying, and that you know what happened better than she does?

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:13 pm

  188. Leviticus- seriously, what would you have done in his situation? You have a female friend at your house, and she is so drunk she can’t walk down the stairs. She says she feels sick. She freaks out when she sees your friend. You are really not going to try to convince her to just sleep it off at your house rather than get on a train to Boston?

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:13 pm

  189. hat has Nadia Naffe ever done to convince literally everyone else on this thread that she’s not to be trusted? What did she do, for you all to assume that she’s lying, and that you know what happened better than she does?

    She filed a lawsuit against someone who didn’t want to give her a ride somewhere when she was too drunk to have any sense.
    That’s what she did.
    I don’t know what happened better than she does. I’m reading the transcript of her own description.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:16 pm

  190. My 10 year old could have extricated herself from the rapebarn of horrors and dishonor in less than 10 minutes.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:16 pm

  191. Leviticus — she’s contradicted herself.

    Further, look at her Tweets from October 3rd on. She’s now claiming that she reached out to Breitbart for help in her hour of need on October 2. NOW, she’s pissed at him, it seems.

    But when did that start?

    Go check her tweets. Does she seem upset at Breitbart…or does she RT him a number of times, including adding the comment FACT to a tweet about Democrats using black people?

    Comment by Lee Stranahan (708cc3) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:18 pm

  192. UNLEASH THE BELLIGERENT STUMBLING DRUNK WOMAN ON THE WORLD!!!!!!!

    Have you no decency.

    It was what she wanted in her belligerent, stumbling, drunken state. Not to comply with her wishes or encourage her to do something else was to diminish her.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:18 pm

  193. Heathen disrespecters of drunken women!

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:20 pm

  194. MayBee – if she is repeatedly asking to be taken back to Boston, after we’ve had an argument (for whatever reason), and she’s so mad that she’s threatened to call the cops? And I’ve got two friends and a car with me?

    I’m taking her back to Boston myself, or (if I’m on probation for being a jack*ss) asking my other friend (who she’s not afraid of) to do so. You can believe me or not.

    But that’s been my position all along: this wasn’t an “either/or” situation. It wouldn’t have taken a whole lot of thinking for O’Keefe to come to this conclusion. If the will had been there.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:20 pm

  195. “I’m taking her back to Boston myself”

    Leviticus – Why, because she’s special? 12 hours RT. Would you do it for a guy?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:26 pm

  196. Because he wanted to keep her in the rapebarn for creepy skeezy reasons because he is a skeezy perv but not for rape or sexual assault. Just because he is skeezy.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:28 pm

  197. Just perplexed at why you’d waste your valuable time propping up a little creeper like James O’Keefe.

    As I understand your subsequent comments, you have taken back this comment, saving me the need to write an angry response. Am I right?

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:30 pm

  198. Probably not. I wouldn’t always open a door for a guy, either. Since we keep talking about how we were raised, I was raised to think that women deserved (basically) a higher showing of respect than men. I think “chivalry” was the word my parents used…

    You guys were the ones pointing out that it might be dangerous to put a drunk girl on a train. Would you feel the same way about putting a drunk guy on a trai?

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:31 pm

  199. And he wanted to do his creep skeezy pervy things while in a completely different building.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:31 pm

  200. Leviticus:

    I think someone else asked why she didn’t call a cab. I wonder that myself. Why is that a less viable option than threatening to destroy thousands of dollars’ worth of computer equipment?

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:32 pm

  201. I would tell her to sleep it off. I don’t want her throwing up in my friend’s car. I don’t want her pitching a fit while I’m driving. I certainly don’t know why I need to give up my work day the next day because my friend got too drunk to make sense.

    Don’t you see she was acting horribly?

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:32 pm

  202. I’m still trying to figure out how this becomes grounds for a lawsuit, of any kind,

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:32 pm

  203. Patterico – yes. Dustin immediately pointed out that O’Keefe deserved to be defended against slander just like anyone, and he was of course correct.

    I wrote that comment without thinking because I was pissed off that you conflated my dislike of O’Keefe with buying into the obviously false remarks of Shuster and Olbermann.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:34 pm

  204. Would you feel the same way about putting a drunk guy on a trai?

    Yes.
    I would try to get someone of either gender to sleep it off rather than wander off on his own.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:35 pm

  205. Snooki knows how to call a cab. My 10 year old knows how to if necessary. But a Hahvahd post-grad, well that is unthinkable. Did she call her husband?

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:36 pm

  206. I wrote that comment without thinking because I was pissed off that you conflated my dislike of O’Keefe with buying into the obviously false remarks of Shuster and Olbermann.

    You didn’t?

    Huh… this O’Keefe fellow sounds like a real assh*le.

    When you made that comment, it was based on . . . what?

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:37 pm

  207. “I think someone else asked why she didn’t call a cab.”

    - Patterico

    Setting aside the fact that it cost me $80 to take a cab 15 miles across the river, why should she have to? They picked her up from the train station. They had an argument. She felt uncomfortable with the situation. She asked to be taken back. They refused.

    Why should they refuse? It wasn’t an irrational request. It seems like they were just being assh*les, which their later character assassination confirms.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:38 pm

  208. Everything else has proven that he is a real as@hole, Patterico. Because of Stampeding. Penguins.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:40 pm

  209. suck it up cupcake is what someone should’ve told her

    Comment by happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:40 pm

  210. “Huh… This O’Keefe fellow sounds like a real assh*le.”

    - Patterico

    Abbie Boudreau, plus reading the damn transcripts. The ones that you linked.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:41 pm

  211. I would try to get someone of either gender to sleep it off rather than wander off on his own.

    Comment by MayBee

    This is easily the safest option. At least among friends.

    O’Keefe is probably very very very lucky that she declined. This story could be quite uglier if he had returned home the next morning.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:42 pm

  212. So, no, I didn’t, Pat. You know damn well how I feel about Olbermann and his ilk.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:42 pm

  213. Leviticus:

    How is it infantilization to think that O’Keefe should have respected Naffe’s wishes and driven her home, or to Penn State, or wherever, instead of repeatedly pressing her to stay overnight? He’d picked her up; why is it wrong to think that he or one of his buddies should have brought her back to wherever they picked her up?

    It’s not wrong to think this but it’s not right, either, because we don’t know many facts. What we know suggests the young lady had been drinking and was feeling sick, so setting off on a journey may not have been a good idea. It also strikes me that she might not have been the only one drinking. In that case, maybe the gentlemen were unwilling to drink and drive … especially if one was on probation.

    O’Keefe has done some foolish and illegal things but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong here. From the information Patterico presents, the young lady has done some foolish things, too, but that doesn’t means she’s wrong. So instead of deciding who’s right and who’s wrong before we’ve heard both sides, I think we should all remember that in real life (and especially in law), there’s usually good and bad on both sides of a dispute.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:42 pm

  214. Because I hadn’t posted the transcript when you made that comment. So it sounded like you were making a judgment about O’Keefe based on Shuster’s recitation of the facts.

    Please explain how you did not do that. Because it looks to me like you did.

    I might have been a bit harsh in my criticism of that, btw, for which I apologize.

    Comment by Patterico (11b938) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:42 pm

  215. “At least among friends.”

    - Dustin

    How bout among strangers?

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:43 pm

  216. Did you read the transcripts, Leviticus?

    She was acting completely irrationally.

    ISTM you have decided that you would have asked your friend to drive the drunk, sick, screaming girl to Boston and thus it was creepy and malicious to do otherwise.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:43 pm

  217. He is because he is. Leviticus has deemed it so. Rampaging. Koalas.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:44 pm

  218. Comments crossed. So your comment was based totally on the Boudreau story and not at all on the Shuster video?

    Really?

    Comment by Patterico (11b938) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:44 pm

  219. “So it sounded like you were making a judgment about O’Keefe based on Shuster’s recitation of the facts.

    Please explain how you did not do that. Because it looks to me like you did.”

    - Patterico

    I’m sorry. I thought we were talking about my posts in #55 and #56 of this post, and my general opinion of O’Keefe. Are you talking about my specific post on one of the earlier threads? The one where I said that “This O’Keefe looks like John Cleese with a hobo beard” and you said something along the lines of “I don’t think Leviticus is being serious” and I said “I’m not”? Because you were right to think that I was trolling in those threads…

    But when you posted these transcripts, I read them. And they make O’Keefe look like a skeeze to me. Which is why I’ve spent the past, like, SIX hours trying to defend that position. Which seems really stupid, at this point.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:48 pm

  220. How bout among strangers?

    That doesn’t matter in this case. She and O’Keefe weren’t strangers.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:49 pm

  221. When skeezy pervs want to get their skeezy perv on they almost always do so from a different building.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:51 pm

  222. “So your comment was based totally on the Boudreau story and not at all on the Shuster video?

    Really?”

    - Patterico

    My general opinion of O’Keefe is largely rooted in the Boudreau story. My opinion of O’Keefe in this case is based on the transcripts that you posted. I only watched part of the Shuster piece, because when I saw that it was a Current TV piece I had to leave the room or risk vomiting on my computer.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:52 pm

  223. Leviticus- is the really creepy behavior you think he exhibited that night simply that he wouldn’t bring her home when she was blackout drunk?
    You aren’t hinting at some underlying other creepy possibility that has to do with the Abby Beudreau filter?

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:52 pm

  224. And skeezy pervs almost always resist when the intended victim demands that the skeezy perv come back.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:53 pm

  225. How bout among strangers?

    Comment by Leviticus

    Well, they were somewhere in between friends and strangers. It’s worth noting that *she did bring luggage*. I think she intended to spend the night there. Someone correct me if this has been disclaimed somewhere.

    My point was that Maybee’s reaction to someone who had too much to drink (assumed for sake of argument) is perfectly normal. In fact, it’s probably one of the most reasonable options. And if that person already brought luggage, it’s even more reasonable.

    I don’t think if I were also a bit tipsy and she was a bit tipsy that I would load up the car… even if I had a friend available, and then set out on a 500 mile round trip adventure to serve the person who just threatened to smash my stuff.

    And let’s be realistic here. She came all the way down there. O’Keefe is not present at that moment. Hoping she can calm down and rediscuss this expose O’Keefe was planning is not a sign they were intending to hold her against her will. It makes sense they would try to argue for her not to leave yet. That is not kidnapping.

    That doesn’t mean Nadia isn’t convinced it was kidnapping and a rape plan. I can’t say what she’s thinking, but I hesitate to call her an outright total liar about this. I think she may not be clear on what happened, and perhaps what should have been a misunderstanding was handled so poorly that both sides are now at war. That’s just speculation, though.

    DRJ’s comment is the best one in the thread.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:54 pm

  226. MayBee – the Abbie Boudreau filter makes me inclined to trust Naffe’s discomfort with the vibe of the whole situation, which in turn makes the refusal to take her home and the repeated insistence that she stay the night seem suspect to me.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:55 pm

  227. I’ve gotta eat. I’ll be back in a bit, for reasons that currently elude me.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:58 pm

  228. Leviticus- she was, by her own account, so drunk she couldn’t walk down the stairs. In fact, she says she couldn’t take the bus home because she can’t even walk down the stairs.
    In your experience, when people are that drunk, how good is their judgement about the “vibe” of the situation? How good are people who are that drunk at accepting advice like “don’t drive”, “don’t fight”, or “sleep it off”?

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 5:59 pm

  229. My general opinion of O’Keefe is largely rooted in the Boudreau story. My opinion of O’Keefe in this case is based on the transcripts that you posted. I only watched part of the Shuster piece, because when I saw that it was a Current TV piece I had to leave the room or risk vomiting on my computer.

    What I am asking, again, was: what was the basis of your comment: “Huh… this O’Keefe fellow sounds like a real assh*le.”

    It seems likely that, in addition to your knowledge of the Boudreax story, the comment related to some degree to the Naffe story. And I repeat that your comment could not have been based on transcripts that I had not yet posted. I concluded that Shuster’s report formed the basis for your view of the Naffe story.

    If I am wrong please explain how.

    Comment by Patterico (11b938) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:02 pm

  230. In my experience, and this may just be me, people become less good at judging the situation the more drunk they get. And less amenable to good advice.
    YMMV

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:02 pm

  231. I was a little suspicious, because of the Boudreau
    incident, but this story is full of bupkis, but the purpose was to disguise the criminality and abberant
    behavior, common to the occupy movement, that’s why
    Media Matters, Raw Story, et al glommed on to it,

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:06 pm

  232. O’Keefe’s side of the Boudreau story (which I do not defend).

    Comment by Patterico (11b938) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:10 pm

  233. I work here is done says Olympia Snowe

    well yeah the Republican Party is a shambles and a socialist rapist has crawled on top of our poor little country to do his dirty bidness

    see you around sweet tits

    Comment by happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:11 pm

  234. So he is a skeezy creeper now because someone claimed he was going to be a skeezy creeper in the past in something that never actually, you know, happened.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:20 pm

  235. love for sale… appetizing, yummy love for sale…

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (5cc8b6) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:20 pm

  236. Well she’s not a scary lifeydoodle, and of course that makes her a fiscal conservative like Chaffee,
    Specter, oops lets forget that.

    Comment by narciso (87e966) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:20 pm

  237. meet you anytime you want limpy in our italian restaurant

    Comment by happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:22 pm

  238. I still caanot get my little pea-brain around the fact that Snookie knows how to call a cab, at 20 times the BAC, yet the Hahvahd woman simply cannot. Even to escape confinement from the north jersey rapebarn.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:22 pm

  239. One less stimulus-Luvin lobster pot hoochie ;-)

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:26 pm

  240. How is it infantilization to think that O’Keefe should have respected Naffe’s wishes and driven her home, or to Penn State, or wherever, instead of repeatedly pressing her to stay overnight?

    – Well, there’s your problem right there! She said “Penn State,” O’Keefe thought she said “Penn Station.” Simple misunderstanding; case closed.

    Comment by Icy (cfcee1) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:28 pm

  241. Maybe Leviticus has never had to deal with a belligerent irrational drunk.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:33 pm

  242. I’ve gotta eat. I’ll be back in a bit, for reasons that currently elude me.

    I hope it’s because you want to answer my questions.

    Comment by Patterico (0312e6) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:37 pm

  243. “It seems likely that, in addition to your knowledge of the Boudreax story, the comment related to some degree to the Naffe story. And I repeat that your comment could not have been based on transcripts that I had not yet posted. I concluded that Shuster’s report formed the basis for your view of the Naffe story.”

    - Patterico

    You’re not wrong. Looking back at that thread, my comment was based to some extent on the Naffe video you posted (plus the Boudreau lens). But that doesn’t mean that I bought into Olbermann or Shuster’s false allegations; it pissed me off that you assumed I had done so, and that you felt the need to add that I “should feel stupid about it,” particularly since you had posted transcripts at the point you made that remark, and I had read them and remained at the same conclusion.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:48 pm

  244. This pales in comparison to providing free rubbers for Georgetown Law students free rubbers. Because those poor impoverished children simply must get free rubbers and pills. $9 a month at Target is making them homeless.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:49 pm

  245. Maybe Leviticus has never had to deal with a belligerent irrational drunk.

    Ugh. I had to deal with that situation once in college. A girlfriend, with whom I was on the outs, showed up at my place drunk and argumentative late one night after having been out partying elsewhere. She had initially hoped to crash at my place (she attended a school 13 miles away), but she was kind of obnoxious and we had a big spat. Anyway, it was after 2:00 am and the only ways to get her back to her campus were (1) putting her on a 3:00 am bus which would have meant staying up and dealing with her for another hour, (2) borrowing a friend’s car and making the drive there and back late at night, or (3) having her take a cab which would have cost me probably $60 (lots of money for a college kid in those days) and meant that I would have to trust that the cab driver delivered her safely without any funny stuff. I ended up having to implore her to just crash in my bed (I slept elsewhere) and take a morning bus, but she made a huge production of it and I spent the whole night wondering if my act would be misconstrued.

    I know O’Keefe doesn’t come off as a perfect gentleman in this matter, but having been there I do have some sympathy for him.

    Comment by JVW (4d72aa) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:52 pm

  246. Maybe if law school students spent less time with their ankles in the air, they would have less time to determine that others are creepy skeezy creepers based on things they didn’t actually do.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:52 pm

  247. “I hope it’s because you want to answer my questions.”

    - Patterico

    Mmmmmm, like nothing else on Earth, Pat… you don’t even know.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:53 pm

  248. This pales in comparison to providing free rubbers for Georgetown Law students free rubbers. Because those poor impoverished children simply must get free rubbers and pills. $9 a month at Target is making them homeless.

    JD — Keep government out of my bedroom! Unless of course government wants to come along and provide a subsidy for what I do in the bedroom, or force someone else to provide the subsidy. In that case, come on in, government!

    Comment by JVW (4d72aa) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:54 pm

  249. “Maybe if law school students spent less time with their ankles in the air, they would have less time to determine that others are creepy skeezy creepers based on things they didn’t actually do.”

    - JD

    It’s nice to know that you’ve been able to keep the quality of your contributions to this blog constant over the years.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:54 pm

  250. Nothing like a constant to put one’s own growth in perspective.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:55 pm

  251. JVW – that is silly talk. He obviously wanted to get his perv on, while in another building.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:55 pm

  252. Listen up, college kids and Democrats: Just because I don’t want to pay for your contraceptives doesn’t mean I want you to reproduce.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (5cc8b6) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:57 pm

  253. Don’t dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back. You are still a judgey progg. ;-)

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:57 pm

  254. With no sense of humor, I neglected to add.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:58 pm

  255. a judgey prog who bends to the will of The State. And he wears knee-pads.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (5cc8b6) — 2/28/2012 @ 6:59 pm

  256. Leviticus,

    This is evidently a bad night to talk to you.

    Perhaps at some point in the future you can revisit the thread, actually pay attention to my comments and questions, and respond to them. You seem to be upset at me for making an assumption that I continue (absent an alternate explanation) to believe accurate.

    Comment by Patterico (0312e6) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:07 pm

  257. Sorry, JD. This thread has got me in a bad mood. Is it really so controversial for me to think that O’Keefe’s behavior in this situation wasn’t on the level?

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:07 pm

  258. I have responded to them. #242. What don’t you believe about my explanation in that comment?

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:09 pm

  259. If I bought into Olberschuster’s explanation of this, why would I be continuously disclaiming it?

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:11 pm

  260. No less controversial than thinking he did nothing skeezy creepy given the litany of possibilities as outlined by many.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:12 pm

  261. I missed that. Commenting and reading on an iPhone is difficult sometimes.

    Comment by Patterico (0312e6) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:12 pm

  262. Construct false narrative.
    Pass judgement
    Use existence of false narrative to discredit subject on future events.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:14 pm

  263. *yawn*

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:15 pm

  264. “I missed that.”

    - Patterico

    No worries.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:16 pm

  265. If you believe his actions were not on the level, what do you believe his intentions were?

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:18 pm

  266. You’re not wrong. Looking back at that thread, my comment was based to some extent on the Naffe video you posted (plus the Boudreau lens). But that doesn’t mean that I bought into Olbermann or Shuster’s false allegations; it pissed me off that you assumed I had done so, and that you felt the need to add that I “should feel stupid about it,” particularly since you had posted transcripts at the point you made that remark, and I had read them and remained at the same conclusion.

    How did you know which Shuster allegations were true and which were pablum?

    I am sincere when I say I hope you did not miss my apology for undue harshness. Using the phrase “you will feel stupid” or words to that effect was out of line.

    But you did obviously rely on Shuster’s recitation to opine on O’Keefe’s character, and I am at a loss as to how you divined which parts to believe and which to discount without a transcript or a crystal ball.

    Comment by Patterico (0312e6) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:19 pm

  267. “Construct false narrative.”

    - JD

    You mean like “Nadia Naffe is a drunk and disorderly woman whose discomfort was completely irrational and/or malicious and who is now unfairly besmirching a totally blameless man?”

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:20 pm

  268. “I am sincere when I say I hope you did not miss my apology for undue harshness.”

    - Patterico

    I did, actually. Where was that? I’m surprised I missed it…

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:23 pm

  269. Never said she is a drunk. She claimed she was drunk. She threatened to be disorderly, come back or I will destroy your Macs. Her discomfort seems to stem from what happened after, not anything that happened that night.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:24 pm

  270. Marauding. Marsupials.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:26 pm

  271. I will say, Leviticus, that Naffe’s apparent piqué has caused her to crawl into bed (metaphorically) with some people far creepier than O’Keefe — and to float suggestions supporting a narrative that seems at odds with her testimony to the court.

    I sense that your position is largely born of chivalry, which is admirable in the abstract. But you have not heard O’Keefe’s side, and Naffe’s sudden willingness to portray this as a possible assault in progress, in which Andrew Breitbart somehow bears responsibility while she bears none … this person may not be worthy of your chivalry.

    Comment by Patterico (0312e6) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:27 pm

  272. Is it really so controversial for me to think that O’Keefe’s behavior in this situation wasn’t on the level?

    What do you believe his intentions were?

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:29 pm

  273. 213.

    Comment by Patterico (0312e6) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:33 pm

  274. “But you did obviously rely on Shuster’s recitation to opine on O’Keefe’s character, and I am at a loss as to how you divined which parts to believe and which to discount without a transcript or a crystal ball.”

    -

    Patterico

    From the video clip you’ve posted, with Shuster narrating: from 1:01 to ~2:35, Shuster is reciting a list of Naffe’s allegations. Since he’s repeatedly quoting her, I took those statements at face value. After ~2:35, he departs from the recitation of allegations and begins editorializing about Breitbart.

    The list of allegations that Shuster recites are directly drawn from the transcripts you’ve posted, and do not substantially depart from them. Is it so hard to believe that I can tell the difference between a recitation of facts and editorializing? That I would need a “crystal ball” to do that?

    I have no reason to disbelieve Naffe. I have good reason to disbelieve people like O’Keefe and Olbermann (and Shuster by association with Olbermann).

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:35 pm

  275. From the video clip you’ve posted, with Shuster narrating: from 1:01 to ~2:35, Shuster is reciting a list of Naffe’s allegations. Since he’s repeatedly quoting her, I took those statements at face value.

    I spent a lot of time in the post proving that Shuster misrepresented her allegations. Could you do me a favor and read the post again with an open mind? I say this without sarcasm.

    Comment by Patterico (0312e6) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:38 pm

  276. “She claimed she was drunk.”

    - JD

    I don’t think she did. She claimed that she “thought the alcohol had made her sick.” There’s a difference.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:38 pm

  277. I have no reason to disbelieve Naffe.

    I just gave you some.

    Comment by Patterico (0312e6) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:39 pm

  278. Oh, she claimed she was drinking, and didn’t feel in control of her muscles. But she wasn’t drunk. Maybe he drugged her?

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:41 pm

  279. I am still curious as to what you believe his intentions were, Leviticus.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:43 pm

  280. I think you just confirmed my accusation, Leviticus: you took Shuster’s recitation of Naffe’s allegations at face value.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:45 pm

  281. Leviticus- she said she felt nauseated, disoriented, and didn’t have enough balance to go down the stairs. How do you read that?

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:45 pm

  282. I am still curious as to what you believe his intentions were, Leviticus.

    Comment by JD — 2/28/2012 @ 7:43 pm

    I am too. But let him re-read the post. He’s an honest sort. I think he’ll get it.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:47 pm

  283. One time, some fool slipped me six or seven beers and I felt nauseated, disoriented and lost my balance.

    I got over it, though.

    Comment by Ag80 (b0b671) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:48 pm

  284. You should have sued him, Ag.

    Comment by JD (d05df3) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:49 pm

  285. I know, but she was family and all.

    Comment by Ag80 (b0b671) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:50 pm

  286. Keep government out of my bedroom! Unless of course government wants to come along and provide a subsidy for what I do in the bedroom

    – JVW, would that be a farm subsidy?

    Comment by Icy (cfcee1) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:51 pm

  287. Leviticus,
    I try to act as if I was a gentleman with both men and women and I admit I find O’Keefe’s conduct perhaps less than chivalrous but in fairness he had very good reason to be reluctant to drive this woman alone to the bus station. Having dealt with some drunks I just don’t know that I would have been willing to do so.

    1)-What if she started either getting “friendly” with him or abusive during the drive, but the next morning “remembers” him coming on to her? I assure you that all of this is not only possible with a woman this drunk but I think not uncommon.

    2)- As I think has been pointed out, she was not in a safe state to put on a train, yet did not want to stay. O’Keefe was in a bind either way. Try to get her to sleep it off and he’s raping her, put her on the train as she insists and he’s abandoning her in an unsafe condition. I think perhaps he should have called the police to take charge of her but then that could hardly be called chivalrous. If she had been restrained or had not had access to her phone and computers then I would take a much harsher view but she was free to leave and had the means to call a cab, the police, or anyone else. Not giving a hostile drunk a ride is in no way the same as forcing her to stay.

    3)- The fact she passed out in the car and woke up on the train or at the station (I don’t remember the claim) does not mean she was unconscious the whole time. She may well have been walking, active, talking, shouting, swearing or combative, and not remembered it. This is also common and part of what makes dealing with a drunk so perilous,especially if she is hostile and looking to harm you.

    4)- I value my reputation and I don’t have the army of enemies he has. I would be very reluctant to do what he did. Remember the female cadet that got drunk, went into a sleeping male cadet’s room, crawled into bed with him and had sex with him. The next morning she went to the Commandant’s office and charged him with rape. She did not claim force and related the facts as stated but claimed he should have known she was drunk and resisted her. He was supposed to be more responsible than her and even our President and CiC.

    Just some thoughts in defense of O’Keefe. I am not well read on this but I do think he is being mischaracterized unfairly by some, and perhaps by you, though I think your motives are clean which many others can’t say.

    Comment by Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:51 pm

  288. By “the post” I mean my long one with the transcript quotes.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:52 pm

  289. “I spent a lot of time in the post proving that Shuster misrepresented her allegations. Could you do me a favor and read the post again with an open mind? I say this without sarcasm.”

    - Patterico.

    OK. Just finished. Shuster absolutely misrepresented her allegations, but not in that window I just pointed out, which is the stuff I’ve been operating off of (aside from saying that she was offered money “to stay silent.” I happen to believe that, based on the fact that the rejection of the offer was followed by allegations of character assassination, but that’s just me and the way Shuster frames it there is dishonest absent the context).

    The editorialization on either side of that window is typically dishonest. But, having read the transcripts, the content of that window seems directly drawn from them. And you have not given me any reason to distrust Naffe. What reason have you given me to distrust her? That Shuster manipulated something that she said? That she’s tweeting with Neil Rausomething? Born of chivalry or not, I have no reason to distrust her.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:52 pm

  290. Quickly, since everyone seems to be assuming that her intoxication was mere drunkenness: why on Earth would Naffe emphasize her intoxication the way she did in a probably cause hearing if she didn’t feel that it was in some way abnormal? How many beers do you think they had??

    And to Pat and JD, re: my thoughts on O’Keefe’s intentions at this point, based on Naffe’s allegation: I think O’Keefe had designs on Naffe that he would never have attempted to bring to fruition without her consent.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:56 pm

  291. I am assuming some things about O’Keefe, certainly – but everybody here seems to assuming so much more about Naffe while objecting to my assumptions about O’Keefe, which is very disturbing to me.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 7:58 pm

  292. how ironic… sh*t disturber is disturbed.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (5cc8b6) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:00 pm

  293. Leviticus- then why did O’Keefe leave her in the guest barn and go back to work?

    I have no idea what she had to drink. What do you mean “mere drunkenness”? As opposed to what?

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:00 pm

  294. So, you think she was drugged? Drinking, but not drunk? And you think he wanted her, but only in a consensual manner?

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:02 pm

  295. She was obviously disturbed about something, JD, which is the point you seem to be overlooking. WHY WOULD SHE BE DOING THIS IF SHE WEREN’T CONVINCED THAT SHE’D BEEN WRONGED? Why would she up and attack O’Keefe out of nowhere?

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:04 pm

  296. I don’t really think she was drugged. I think O’Keefe had designs on her that he did not and would not have pursued without her consent.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:04 pm

  297. Leviticus,
    You are right about assumptions but what I have seen seems to me to indicate that O’Keefe was worried about her welfare, to his credit. As for her being drunk I take that from her actions, her testimony, and the fact I have seen very few drunks that thought they were drunk. They insisted they were in full control and the falling down and vomiting were just food poisoning or something.

    Again, I don’t know how much experience you have with drunks but I found all this sounding very familiar. I don’t get drunk so I am often the one who must deal with them.

    Again, my respects. I mean you no insult or offense and would not have commented if this was not so.

    Comment by Machinist (b6f7da) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:06 pm

  298. but everybody here seems to assuming so much more about Naffe

    So you want us to assume that she brought up her drunkenness because she was drugged, but didn’t really want to bring that up directly in court? Rather than just the plain reading that she had too much to drink and acted drunk?
    Did she call an ambulance? Ask to be taken to a hospital?

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:06 pm

  299. I think, Leviticus, that some people may be saying that there’s always two sides to a story and sometimes some people may have a reason to tell a story in a particular way.

    O’Keefe may not be as pure as the driven snow, but there is a big problem with assuming someone is guilty by being male.

    Thus, courts. And thus, speculation on blog posts are not really that conclusive.

    If O’Keefe is proven guilty of the allegations, he should suffer.

    However, from what I’ve seen of O’Keefe, he doesn’t always follow the best judgment. Nonetheless, other than this allegation, I have never seen harassment of women as his modus.

    Comment by Ag80 (b0b671) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:06 pm

  300. From the video clip you’ve posted, with Shuster narrating: from 1:01 to ~2:35, Shuster is reciting a list of Naffe’s allegations. Since he’s repeatedly quoting her, I took those statements at face value. . . . [H]aving read the transcripts, the content of that window seems directly drawn from them.

    We have officially reached the point where I am too frustrated to continue this dialogue. If you can watch that segment, claim to just have read my post, and maintain that the Shuster recitation of the allegations is accurate, then I can’t talk to you. We are either watching two different videos or you are not paying attention to the points I made or bullheadedly refusing to let them sink in.

    I just re-watched the segment and identified so many misleading assertions I lost count. You watched the same clip and thought: “Yup, that’s pretty much what she said!”

    In any event, I learned a long time ago that you can’t persuade someone who is bound and determined not to be persuaded. It is my judgment that you fall into that category. I am not going to repeat every point I made in the post in comments, because I spent a long time making those points in the post, and evidently they failed to reach you. So I will have to bow out of this discussion with you at this particular point in time.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:06 pm

  301. Which would explain why they argued. And why O’Keefe refused to return to the barn (scorned). And why Naffe had to threaten to break his computer/call the cops to get him to return to the barn. And why O’Keefe was suddenly unwilling to transport her back to the train station. And why he wanted her to stay the night (feel different in the morning).

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:07 pm

  302. 193. MayBee – if she is repeatedly asking to be taken back to Boston, after we’ve had an argument (for whatever reason), and she’s so mad that she’s threatened to call the cops? And I’ve got two friends and a car with me?

    I’m taking her back to Boston myself, or (if I’m on probation for being a jack*ss) asking my other friend (who she’s not afraid of) to do so. You can believe me or not.

    You left out the part about threatening to vandalize thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of dollars worth of computer commitment if she didn’t get her way. Which I might add is always a sign of lucidity.

    Anyway, I believe you Leviticus when you say you’re driving her to Boston yourself. Me, I’m calling the cops myself. Suffice it to say I wouldn’t have taken her threat to call the police seriously at all.

    Let’s look at it in that light, Leviticus. What do you imagine would have happened if she had and the police showed up to sort things out. They witness a woman who (according to her own statement)is threatening to destroy felony levels of electronics (hopefully she texted that threat so there’s a record), can not walk down a flight of stairs unaided, screams at people who surprise her, and is demanding to be taken to a train station.

    I can’t guarantee what O’Keefe would have said, but my side of the story would have been that I don’t think it’s safe to put her on a train in her condition.

    What do you think they would have decided is the gentlemanly course of action?

    Comment by Steve (a5da00) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:11 pm

  303. We already know why they argued, she didn’t want to participate in the project. I guess it is easier to make up new possible reasons, but that doesn’t change the fact we know why they argued. I have never disputed she feels wronged, he said some mean things about her after the fact.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:13 pm

  304. We already know why they argued, she didn’t want to participate in the project.

    That was certainly her contention. If they had argued about how he wanted her, you might have thought she would have testified to that.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:15 pm

  305. It wouldn’t certainly have made her testimony more compelling.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:16 pm

  306. “In any event, I learned a long time ago that you can’t persuade someone who is bound and determined not to be persuaded. It is my judgment that you fall into that category. I am not going to repeat every point I made in the post in comments, because I spent a long time making those points in the post, and evidently they failed to reach you. So I will have to bow out of this discussion with you at this particular point in time.”

    - Patterico

    How about you do, and we can talk about them? Because I’ve spent the last EIGHT FUCKING HOURS trying my best to explain my position to about ten different people arguing at various levels of good faith. That’s a borderline-infuriating thing, when I think about. Perhaps you’ll forgive me if I’ve become a little tunnel-visioned at this point; and if you actually believe that I’m a good-faith type of person (which you’ve said) then maybe you’ll extend me the courtesy of an actual discourse. I would appreciate it if you would point out which of the allegations in the 1:01 t0 ~2:35 window we’re discussing substantially misrepresent the allegations made by Naffe in the transcript you’ve provided (aside from the idea that she was offered money to “stay silent”, which I’ve already admitted is misrepresentative).

    OR, alternatively, we could dispense with the video clip and go to the transcript itself, which is what I’ve been arguing off of for the last… eight… hours…. of my life. And then you can tell me how badly I’ve misjudged James O’Keefe, instead of trying to convince me that (*gasp*) Keith Olbermann and his lackey are a couple of dishonest hacks.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:16 pm

  307. You’re too frustrated to continue… imagine how I feel.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:17 pm

  308. “We already know why they argued, she didn’t want to participate in the project.”

    - JD

    That’s not right. They argued, then she later said she didn’t want to work on the project anymore.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:22 pm

  309. “he said some mean things about her after the fact.”

    - JD

    Like that she was “filthy” and “dirty” and that she tried to pull some sort of “Love Boat” thing on her.

    Irrelevant, I suppose.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:23 pm

  310. So Leviticus, if she wasn’t drugged, why was she woozy?

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:24 pm

  311. Because she’d been drinking, probably.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:26 pm

  312. Like that she was “filthy” and “dirty” and that she tried to pull some sort of “Love Boat” thing on her.

    This is proven how?

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:26 pm

  313. I’m gonna wait for (at least) a courtesy response from Patterico, now.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:27 pm

  314. She’s blaming Andrew Freaking Breitbart for not saving her and she didn’t even call a freaking cab.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:27 pm

  315. On the big topic.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:27 pm

  316. But why doesn’t the story as is make perfect sense? Leviticus is reading the “hitting on her” stuff because Shuster and Olbermann introduced it. But there’s no need for it.
    Someone drunk to the point of passing out is going to act a certain, unreasonable way. There’s no getting around that.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:28 pm

  317. hahahhahhahahahahhaha…

    This is like Twilight Zone sh*t.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:28 pm

  318. She retweeted someone who claimed she had been drugged.

    She never claimed to be drugged in her testimony.

    She is elaborating.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:28 pm

  319. On the big topic.

    What big topic is that?

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:29 pm

  320. MayBee,

    I’m reading petulant immaturity on O’Keefe’s part that points to a man scorned and discomfort on Naffe’s part that points to something more than a work dispute. And the Abbie Boudreau thing. And the repeated stay-the-night thing in light of repeatedly expressed wishes to the contrary.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:31 pm

  321. why on Earth would Naffe emphasize her intoxication the way she did in a probably cause hearing if she didn’t feel that it was in some way abnormal? How many beers do you think they had??

    Often people believe they have been drugged because they can’t believe that alcohol would cause them to act a certain way.

    Then you ask them how much they had to drink and they say “Five Long Island Iced Teas.”

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:32 pm

  322. “:I’m reading petulant immaturity on O’Keefe’s part that points to a man scorned and discomfort on Naffe’s part that points to something more than a work dispute.”

    He said all he cared about was the project.

    That’s what she said in the hearing.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:33 pm

  323. “She never claimed to be drugged in her testimony.”

    - Patterico

    In her cursory probable cause testimony where the judge (to my recollection) tells her not to go into an exhaustive retelling of the events that gave rise to her cause of action? That testimony?

    The big topic. The big topic of whether or not we can have a discussion about this, which we’re still doing despite our mutually expressed frustrations, so that’s probably moot.

    Is your problem with Shuster’s recitation of Naffe’s allegations his omission of the fact that O’Keefe left the barn and that Naffe had to threaten to destroy his stuff to get him back there?

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:35 pm

  324. This is like Twilight Zone sh*t.

    Whatcha mean?

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:35 pm

  325. I don’t understand what Breitbart was supposed to do for her, assuming he wasn’t anywhere near that state at the time, that she couldn’t do for herself. I guess Breitbart could have called her a cab.

    And Lee Stranahan’s point before about her not bringing this Breitbart angle up in a timely fashion also seems compelling.

    Why bring Breitbart into this? I mean, he wasn’t even there so he would be stuck where we are… trying to piece together a he said / she said involving one or more intoxicated people who are angry.

    Well, if someone is coordinating a politically motivated attack, then bringing Brietbart into it makes perfect sense. As does retweeting and apparently being friendly with folks anyone affiliated with Breitbart would recognize as peddlers of Breitbart hysterics.

    Her motive however… I don’t understand that part. There are simple explanations (like someone paid her) that don’t feel right to me.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:36 pm

  326. It is okay to substitute your judgement of the situation for hers, on the record? Really?

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:36 pm

  327. The big topic. The big topic of whether or not we can have a discussion about this, which we’re still doing despite our mutually expressed frustrations, so that’s probably moot.

    Yeah, I got over momentary frustration.

    Is your problem with Shuster’s recitation of Naffe’s allegations his omission of the fact that O’Keefe left the barn and that Naffe had to threaten to destroy his stuff to get him back there?

    My problem is the stuff I said in the post which I am not repeating all of it.

    But yeah, that’s a big part of it. Honest question, and I’d like an honest answer: when you saw Shuster’s video, did you not get the impression he was over there with her and trying to get her to stay while she was drunk or drugged and wanted to leave?

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:37 pm

  328. Well, if someone is coordinating a politically motivated attack, then bringing Brietbart into it makes perfect sense. As does retweeting and apparently being friendly with folks anyone affiliated with Breitbart would recognize as peddlers of Breitbart hysterics.

    Ding ding ding ding ding.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:38 pm

  329. She retweeted someone who claimed she had been drugged.

    She is now blaming Breitbart.

    She is palling around with Rauhater on twitter.

    This ain’t her first lawsuit.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:38 pm

  330. I can’t remember, and I won’t be able to watch it again objectively at this point because my mind is basically scrambled (hence the Twilight Zone remark). What I do honestly remember on first viewing is “that doesn’t sound like any kind of rape/assault to me, so much as just dickish creepy behavior.”

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:40 pm

  331. I’m willing to believe that she is engaged in all this behavior simply because she is made at O’Keefe. But twisting this now into something more than she portrayed it to the judge; blaming Breitbart all of a sudden; and yes, palling around with cretins . . . I find this all very suspicious, regardless of her motives.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:42 pm

  332. discomfort on Naffe’s part that points to something more than a work dispute.”

    People who are drunk make drama, Leviticus. You know the drunk crying girl at every party?
    You already know she was that drunk. She passed out. Why do you think she had any kind of good judgement at all?

    It seems you either kind of believe he drugged her, or you’ve never been around a really drunk person.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:42 pm

  333. But I’m sure I didn’t picture O’Keefe not allowing Naffe to leave from separate location. So yeah, the portrayal is deceptive. Which I’ve admitted. But I don’t think the dishonest portrayal has influenced my assessment of the situation, based on substantial adherence to the transcripts. Which is what I’ve been trying to get you to acknowledge. Because what I’d really like to talk about is why we all just assumed that this lady was lying from Jump Street.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:43 pm

  334. Part of what bothers me is that we seem to be taking her allegations as gospel, despite the fact that 1) our interpretation of them is colored by the misleading Olbermann/Shuster presentation; 2) nobody has heard O’Keefe’s side; and 3) there are reasons to question her credibility, as noted above.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:43 pm

  335. O’Keefe should have put drunken belligerent drama queen Naffe on a plane back to Boston because she wanted to go and if she was denied boarding because of her condition, O’Keefe should have chartered a plane for her, because she asked to leave and did not want to wait until morning.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:43 pm

  336. I guess what I, and many others, have a problem with is the dickish creepy behavior thingie. There are all sorts of ways that this could play out that are entirely innocent.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:44 pm

  337. But I’m sure I didn’t picture O’Keefe not allowing Naffe to leave from separate location. So yeah, the portrayal is deceptive. Which I’ve admitted. But I don’t think the dishonest portrayal has influenced my assessment of the situation, based on substantial adherence to the transcripts.

    I think it may have, because the dishonest portrayal screams “O’Keefe as sex fiend!” whereas I doubt you ever would have thought that if you had been simply confronted with the transcript.

    It never even occurred to the judge that O’Keefe had harassed her in any way that night. In fact, it does not seem to have occurred to her!

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:45 pm

  338. Yes. there are. I will admit that. I welcome O’Keefe’s side of the story. Do you think it is forthcoming?

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:46 pm

  339. I guess what I, and many others, have a problem with is the dickish creepy behavior thingie. There are all sorts of ways that this could play out that are entirely innocent.

    That’s largely if not totally a product of the Shuster/Olby portrayal, which is why it is so pernicious.

    For example: he tried to pay her to be silent, claims Shuster. Why could that not have been attempted payment for transportation expenses, for example? But when you hear attempted payment for silence, it makes him sound creepy.

    But Shuster MADE. THAT. UP.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:46 pm

  340. Pat, why is it so hard for you to believe that the Abbie Boudreau thing is coloring my perception of O’Keefe above and beyond Shuster’s dishonest portrayal?

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:47 pm

  341. Yes. there are. I will admit that. I welcome O’Keefe’s side of the story. Do you think it is forthcoming?

    Yeah, when they depose him, after he sues Shuster and Olbermann.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:48 pm

  342. Pat, why is it so hard for you to believe that the Abbie Boudreau thing is coloring my perception of O’Keefe above and beyond Shuster’s dishonest portrayal?

    It’s not! But I have a hard time believing the dishonest portrayal has nothing to do with how you interpret the facts, even after reading the transcript.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:48 pm

  343. This ain’t her first lawsuit.

    Yeah, that’s an interesting point. I don’t know that the lawsuit against the GOP was baseless, and I don’t want to assume too much.

    If it seems like I’m taking baby steps, that’s because I don’t know much about any of the players here and I have seen how assumptions about such stories (even ones that make sense at the time) can be build up to something very wrong in the end.

    But what is clear is that the claims against O’Keefe do not come with an actual basis.

    I also want to note, to Leviticus, that I’m aware of someone that someone else who was recently smeared. He has a background that would easily lead someone to say he is skeevy. That background was inflated, batted around, and then this person was smeared. And all along, the underlying convincing element for many of the suckers was that this person had some unsavory history. The truth is that his person was guilty mainly of trying to do the right thing in a way that harmed the interests of powerful and evil people.

    I say this because we all need to be less judgmental of people in the general sense. Especially when these people are being character assassinated right in front of us.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:49 pm

  344. Can I ask, since the Boudreau thing looms so large, whether you would be willing to perform this experiment?

    Tell me, from memory, without checking the Internet, what you remember about the Boudreau thing, and why that stays with you.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:49 pm

  345. Because that was some weird, creepy shit, whatever this was. There was absolutely no good reason for it, and Izzy Santa was obviously very uncomfortable with it, and O’Keefe’s explanation for it was super-weak… I mean. Why is it so hard to believe that that might be what’s got me unfairly misjudging the poor fellow?

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:50 pm

  346. Because what I’d really like to talk about is why we all just assumed that this lady was lying from Jump Street.

    I’m assuming in court she was retelling that night exactly as she saw it.
    I’m further assuming that because she was incapacitated from alcohol that her judgement was very very bad that night. And she did not like the way people were responding to her, even though what they were doing was very reasonable.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:51 pm

  347. Much ado about nothing. And I don’t mean it in the Shakesperian sense. No Whiskey, me go homne.

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:54 pm

  348. I remember that Boudreau was going to interview O’Keefe for some reason, and that O’Keefe and the Project Veritas gang decided that he was going to do the interview open-shirted & gold-chained on a boat littered with sex paraphernalia, and that he was going to try to seduce her as a joke “because that’s basically all she did was seduce interviewees hahaha”; I remember that Izzy Santa (who was a producer or something) got cold feet and told Boudreau what O’Keefe had in mind, at which point the interview fell through and O’Keefe issued a lame-ass explanation that it was all a big joke and that he certainly wasn’t going to do all that crazy stuff that had Izzy Santa bothered no sirree.

    Basically that’s my recollection. And how many more litmus tests am I going to be put through before bed time?

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:54 pm

  349. “Because what I’d really like to talk about is why we all just assumed that this lady was lying from Jump Street.”

    Leviticus – The post is about Olbermann and Shuster’s lies, not Naffe’s. What lies do you believe people are assuming Naffe has told? Not seeing them.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:55 pm

  350. And how many more litmus tests am I going to be put through before bed time?

    Three.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:56 pm

  351. It stays with me because it would take a very immature, very objectifying mindset to ever, ever think that such a “prank” was a good idea, even as such and nothing more. And that mindset, in a 25(?) year old guy, is the manifestation of “creepy” to me.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:56 pm

  352. Leviticus – The post is about Olbermann and Shuster’s lies, not Naffe’s. What lies do you believe people are assuming Naffe has told? Not seeing them.

    I agree. I am suspicious of her given her Twitter messages and accusations and new friendships. But the point of the post is how Olby and Shuster twisted what she HAD claimed into something she had NEVER claimed.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:57 pm

  353. You are all creepy skeezy perv enablers.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:58 pm

  354. “What lies do you believe people are assuming Naffe has told? Not seeing them.”

    - daleyrocks

    Oh. My bad. So, based on the transcripts, what do you think of the fact that O’Keefe went out of his way to besmirch Naffe’s reputation after she rejected his offer for payment, then, and does that color your take on what may or may not have transpired that evening?

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 8:58 pm

  355. Leviticus – I’ve only been focused on his skeevy creepy rape barn and Naffe escape from it. Let’s not move the goal posts yet. What lies are people assuming from that night? I’m not seeing something you apparently are. What is it?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:01 pm

  356. So? Abbie Boudreau? Is that a thing insufficient to instill a bias in me, given that recollection? I don’t remember why she was interviewing him, for instance. But does it matter? I remember everyone saying what I bad idea that whole thing was…

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:03 pm

  357. Skeevy pervy rape barn creep enablers.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:05 pm

  358. Drop it, Leviticus.

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:06 pm

  359. I remember that Boudreau was going to interview O’Keefe for some reason, and that O’Keefe and the Project Veritas gang decided that he was going to do the interview open-shirted & gold-chained on a boat littered with sex paraphernalia, and that he was going to try to seduce her as a joke “because that’s basically all she did was seduce interviewees hahaha”; I remember that Izzy Santa (who was a producer or something) got cold feet and told Boudreau what O’Keefe had in mind, at which point the interview fell through and O’Keefe issued a lame-ass explanation that it was all a big joke and that he certainly wasn’t going to do all that crazy stuff that had Izzy Santa bothered no sirree.

    So your view is that O’Keefe DID plan to do the interview open-shirted and gold-chained?

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:06 pm

  360. Lanie. L’Amour.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:06 pm

  361. So, daley thinks Naffe was telling the truth but suggests that I just ignore O’Keefe’s conduct after the dispute. So that I can perceive the dispute which occurred that night more objectively. Makes sense.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:07 pm

  362. Patterico – clearly that young lady was susceptible to being seduced by and open collared shirt gold chain wearing skeezy creeper.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:08 pm

  363. O’Keefe and Breitbart ain’t worth the trouble. And I need to go pipi in the Misssippi

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:09 pm

  364. “Drop it, Leviticus.”

    - nk

    Because I’m walking into a trap, or because it’s just not worth it? Because I tend to think that walking into traps in this context is healthy for me… but if you tell me that it’s just not worth it I might believe you.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:10 pm

  365. Leviticus, you also think O’Keefe actually thought he would be seducing Beaudreau, right? He didn’t see that as a prank, but an attempted seduction.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:11 pm

  366. Patterico – clearly that young lady was susceptible to being seduced by and open collared shirt gold chain wearing skeezy creeper.

    And clearly he was just about to accost her in said garb except that’s not what he was actually wearing.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:11 pm

  367. If you are going to hold his conduct, after the rapebarn, against him, would you nit also do the same to her? Retweets of claims of being drugged. Allusions to possible sexual assault. Palling around with Rauhater? Multiple lawsuits?

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:11 pm

  368. “So your view is that O’Keefe DID plan to do the interview open-shirted and gold-chained?”

    - Patterico

    Yes, despite his statement that he would never dream of doing such a thing.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:12 pm

  369. What he actually wears, and what it is claimed he was wearing, is up for debate.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:13 pm

  370. MayBee, no I don’t think that at all.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:13 pm

  371. In my younger days I definitely woke up in places I had no intention of waking up in the night before and if driving was glad to have friend wrestle car keys away from me. Motives are unclear on Westwood, NJ night in question, but if related to drinking, I am on board with not accommodating Naffe’s wishes until she threatened property damage.

    At some age the feeling that you are bulletproof and invisible disappears.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:14 pm

  372. So, did that interview actually take place after all Patterico? I thought the hubbub was about a planned interview that never came to fruition, and there were disputes as to what the plan actually was.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:14 pm

  373. “Patterico – clearly that young lady was susceptible to being seduced by and open collared shirt gold chain wearing skeezy creeper.”

    JD – Chicks dig that stuff – and kilts, or so I’m told.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:16 pm

  374. How does Leviticus know that O’Keefe planned to carry out the proposal when the one objective thing that would tell you whether he did (how he was dressed) was inconsistent with the proposal?

    I think the answer is that Leviticus WANTS to believe that’s what O’Keefe was doing. Because it allows him to feel superior.

    If I’m wrong, then where is the proof it was actually going to happen?

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:17 pm

  375. Two Suns in the Sunset. Pink Floyd.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:17 pm

  376. So, did that interview actually take place after all Patterico? I thought the hubbub was about a planned interview that never came to fruition, and there were disputes as to what the plan actually was.

    I’m going from recollection myself, but I think that, yes, Boudreau did see O’Keefe that day — but did not get on the boat.

    Now I’ll go check to see if I’m right.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:18 pm

  377. Such that “what he was actually wearing” is meaningless, because there never actually was an interview. Because his producer thought the plan was f*cked up enough to warn Boudreau about it beforehand.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:18 pm

  378. So, based on the transcripts, what do you think of the fact that O’Keefe went out of his way to besmirch Naffe’s reputation after she rejected his offer for payment,

    It sounds like he accused her of doing an Abby Beaudreau to him (she says something about the loveboat, and says he accused her of doing something he had done to someone else).
    So I don’t know if he is besmirching her, or if he saw something in her irrational behavior that night and told someone about it, and she considers it besmirching.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:18 pm

  379. You said that earlier!

    “Leviticus- you know O’Keefe was not going to really seduce Boudreau, right?”

    - MayBee

    Yes. I don’t know if he knew it, though.

    Comment by Leviticus — 2/28/2012 @ 4:27 pm

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:20 pm

  380. “How does Leviticus know that O’Keefe planned to carry out the proposal when the one objective thing that would tell you whether he did (how he was dressed) was inconsistent with the proposal?

    I think the answer is that Leviticus WANTS to believe that’s what O’Keefe was doing. Because it allows him to feel superior.”

    - Patterico

    And I think that nk was absolutely right.

    This was a waste of ten hours of my life.

    Good night.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:22 pm

  381. You got me, MayBee. You got me. Looks like Naffe is a liar after all.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:23 pm

  382. What?

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:23 pm

  383. This was a waste of ten hours of my life.

    Good night.

    OK, it may have been unfair to impute an ill motive to you. The question remains: where is the proof he actually intended to carry out the plan?

    You seem to rest a lot of your opinion of the guy on the plan. So how do you prove his explanation is false?

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:24 pm

  384. Some Nerd: In the Western world, agitprop has a negative connotation. In the United Kingdom during the 1980s, for example, socialist elements of the political scene were often accused of using agitprop to convey an extreme left-wing message via television programmes or theatre.

    Comment by Noodles (3681c4) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:25 pm

  385. Try to get this out of your head

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYW6C44zo24&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:26 pm

  386. Such that “what he was actually wearing” is meaningless, because there never actually was an interview.

    Here’s what I know: she showed up, O’Keefe came off the boat, she lectured him about how she had not agreed to be taped. O’Keefe claims he was dressed normally; she never claims otherwise that I can find.

    Isn’t that more consistent with his NOT planning to follow the script?

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:26 pm

  387. Or this …

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qYY06KD_Zg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:27 pm

  388. I am assuming some things about O’Keefe, certainly

    – Yeah. For instance, you are assuming that because O’Keefe chose to act as a pimp for underage prostitutes in his ACORN sting (which some of us like to think of as employing a powerful tactic in the service of exposing some REAL scumbags) this somehow reveals him to be a skeezy perv in real life. So, in other words, YOU GOT NUTHIN’.

    Comment by Icy (57df98) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:30 pm

  389. Why?

    And . . .

    Why?

    The first has 55 million views. The second? 22 million.

    Lord.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:30 pm

  390. Patterico – my 10 year old showed me those on YouTube while she was showing me how to find a cab with an iPhone.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:32 pm

  391. “So your view is that O’Keefe DID plan to do the interview open-shirted and gold-chained?”

    - Patterico

    Yes, despite his statement that he would never dream of doing such a thing.

    I think the evidence is to the contrary. As I noted above, Boudreau never said she saw him in the costume. He claims he was not. There is no indication he was tipped off that she had been tipped off. So the evidence runs against the supposition that he planned to follow that script.

    I give him the benefit of the doubt. Leviticus, you clearly do not. Instead of insulting you again by imagining your reasons, may I simply ask why not?

    What is your evidence that he intended to follow that script?

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:34 pm

  392. Thanks so much, JD

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:34 pm

  393. The first has 55 million views. The second? 22 million.

    Lord.

    Comment by Patterico —

    That’s a hell of a lot of adsense money.

    Comment by Dustin (401f3a) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:35 pm

  394. I guess we’ve lost Leviticus for a while. We both stormed off at times tonight, or threatened to, so I’m going to shrug it off. I understand why he got mad. I needled him a bit too much when he was going stir crazy over this argument. I’d take it back if I could.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:36 pm

  395. I am a giver, Dustin.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:36 pm

  396. That’s a hell of a lot of adsense money.

    Brb. I have to take some chapstick to the toilet . . .

    (You have to watch JD’s videos for that comment to make sense. But I don’t recommend that you watch JD’s videos.)

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:37 pm

  397. Goodnight, skeezy creepy perv enablers.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:39 pm

  398. I learned long ago not to watch JD’s videos.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:40 pm

  399. Goodnight JD.

    Comment by MayBee (081489) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:41 pm

  400. That’s “skeezy creepy perv enabling racist” to you, sir!

    Comment by Icy (57df98) — 2/28/2012 @ 9:54 pm

  401. Patterico,

    Alright. Sorry. After a good night’s sleep:

    I think there are two things worth saying regarding the Abbie Boudreau episode:

    1) I think there are other potential objective indicators (regarding O’Keefe’s intention to carry out the interview according to script) beyond his outfit on the day of whatever cursory interview took place:

    a) the fact that Boudreau met O’Keefe at the dock (whether or not she got on the boat); why meet there instead of a regular office? The boat has a place in the scripted interview, but no apparent purpose in an on-the-level interview. Boudreau was told she was meeting him at an office.

    b) the presence of any of the paraphernalia detailed in the script on the boat (though I’m not sure there’s a record on this point either way). Izzy Santa said there were “strawberries and champagne” on boat; O’Keefe’s explanation at Big Government denies the presence of any of the stuff in the script, and implies that the scripted plan was sent to him by a third party – but fails (somewhat deceptively, to my mind) to mention that the script was drafted by Ben Whetmore, who (from what I can tell) is one of his close associates.

    c) Izzy Santa was obviously worried that O’Keefe was going to go through with some plan that made her uncomfortable – worried enough to tip off Boudreau about the situation she was walking into.

    d) Project Veritas was worried enough about what Izzy Santa might say that they offered her five figures to sign a nondisclosure agreement. This might be unrelated, or it might not, but given the proximity of their falling-out to the Boudreau episode it doesn’t seem unreasonable to conclude that the two events are related.

    2) Isn’t it perfectly reasonable to think that having Izzy Santa march off to tell Boudreau what she thought was about to happen might have influenced O’Keefe’s subsequent behavior? Santa talked to Boudreau at the dock, right before the interview was about to take place (in whichever mode). The gig was up at that point; it’s not unreasonable to think that O’Keefe might have been planning to go through with the scripted interview until Santa tattled, at which point he buttoned up his shirt, threw on a blazer, and went out to do damage control on the dock.

    There was a lot of detail in that script, and it was written by O’Keefe’s close associate. Santa was uncomfortable enough with the build-up to break ranks moments before the interview was set to take place – on a boat, for reasons which elude me if I assume that O’Keefe intended to conduct a straight-laced interview. Beyond that, the pimp-suit interview seems to indicate to me that O’Keefe is willing to sacrifice good taste on the altar of theatricality. These things make me think that O’Keefe was going to go through with a stunt essentially similar (though perhaps not perfectly identical) to the plan detailed in Ben Whetmore’s script; and since I think that script was conceived in exceedingly poor taste, it lays the foundation for a low opinion of O’Keefe.

    Comment by Leviticus (870be5) — 2/29/2012 @ 8:56 pm

  402. Briefly, I figure O’Keefe planned to do a “seduction lite” version. Whatever he didn’t specifically deny in his piece, you can probably consider an admission. Total speculation on my part. But where he specifically denies wanting to execute certain aspects of the plan, I believe his denial.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 2/29/2012 @ 11:53 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7846 secs.