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.
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.
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.