Patterico's Pontifications

2/28/2012

EXCLUSIVE: Transcript of Nadia Naffe’s Testimony Against James O’Keefe

Filed under: General,Nadia Naffe — Patterico @ 12:16 am

I don’t believe this transcript has been released anywhere else. The linked transcript is from a probable cause hearing* in a New Jersey criminal court, in which Nadia Neffe alleged “harassment” by James O’Keefe.

What I find interesting (if not surprising) is how badly these allegations have been blown out of proportion by Keith Olbermann and David Shuster. Even if you accept the allegations as true — and keep in mind that they are only allegations, and that O’Keefe almost certainly disputes them — they do not even come close to establishing a “rape allegation” as alleged on the Current web site, or an “alleged sex assault plan” as claimed by Shuster on his Twitter feed last night.

Instead, we learn from the transcript that the increasingly infamous incident at the “barn” (a makeshift office with a furnished bed, bathroom, and kitchen) was not even the subject of Naffe’s harassment complaint. Instead, she complained essentially that O’Keefe said disparaging things about her after the fact. We learn as we read the transcript that Olbermann and Shuster completely distorted the allegations testified to by Ms. Naffe, twisting the allegations into a virtual rape — when Ms. Naffe did not claim at the time to have been touched, threatened, drugged, or harassed in any way that night.

Let’s first look at how Olbermann and Shuster characterized what happened — and then look at Naffe’s actual allegations:

On December 22, Keith Olbermann characterized the incident this way:

After refusing to be involved with O’Keefe’s upcoming hidden-camera sting about Occupy Wall Street called — or part of his “To Catch A Journalist” series, Naffe asked to be brought to the nearest train station. O’Keefe refused, instead urging her to stay overnight in a barn on his parent’s property. That’s when she threatened to call the police.

She recounted in testimony that, at one point during the night, “I found it hard to move and control my muscles,” saying, “It was his intent to persuade me to spend the night in the barn.”

Finally relenting to her requests, O’Keefe and a friend piled her into the car, where she passed out, before eventually arriving at Pennsylvania Station to board a train to Boston. Naffe says she later discovered that a wireless mouse and underpants had been stolen from her luggage.

Naffe turned down an offer of money from O’Keefe, she says, several days later.

Which is when, she says, he began a consistently brutal campaign of emotional harassment.

Shuster portrays the incident similarly, claiming to see “great irony” in Breitbart’s criticism of rapes at Occupy sites while saying nothing about Naffe’s allegations — implying that Naffe had claimed to have been raped. Like Olbermann, Shuster implies that O’Keefe held Naffe at a barn on his parents’ property while O’Keefe was present; possibly drugged her; and refused to drive her back until she threatened to call police.

But when you read the actual transcript, it turns out that the allegations are quite different from the portrayal by Olbermann and Shuster. According to the transcript, we learn that after O’Keefe had left, Naffe decided she wanted to leave, and insisted that O’Keefe return to the barn. She claimed to be feeling sick, which she suspected was from the alcohol she had drunk: “I thought the alcohol had made me sick.” Apparently not suspecting O’Keefe of having done anything wrong, she tried to get him to come back to the barn. He initially refused:

But he refused to come back to the barn. He said that all he cared about was his project. He insisted that I spend the night there and that we take the matter up in the morning. He wanted to go shoot videos the next day.

Here is a screenshot from the transcript:

Maybe not the most gentlemanly behavior, if the allegations are true — but not the behavior of a sex fiend.

Finally, Naffe got O’Keefe’s attention when she threatened to destroy O’Keefe’s computers (as well as call the police):

[A]s the evening went on, there were phone calls and texts and things like that. At which point, I finally threatened James that I was going to call the police and even destroy his Macs, his computers, if he did not come back to the barn and get me back to the train station. It was at that point that he agreed to come back to the barn.

Here is another screenshot from the transcript:

Why O’Keefe would drug a woman and drive away leaving her alone, Shuster and Olbermann never explain — because they imply O’Keefe was there with her all along, trying to rape her.

As you can see from the above screenshot, Naffe testified that O’Keefe eventually arrived with another man, and unsuccessfully tried to persuade her to stay. Olbermann and Shuster make the effort to persuade her to stay sound like an overture for sex, which she never said it was, and which would have been unlikely with another man present. She refused, and passed out in the car — perhaps because she had had too much to drink.

When she awoke, she noticed items missing from her suitcase — not “stolen from her luggage” as Olbermann claims, but simply “missing” . . . perhaps because she had had too much to drink:

I, I went back home. I, I returned home to Boston. At which point I realized that there were items missing from my luggage; my wireless mouse, my, my USB connector and my scarf and my panties. I didn’t have any of those items.

In court, Naffe repeatedly told the judge that she was not claiming that what happened at the barn was harassment — much less a “rape allegation” or an “alleged sex assault plan.” The court repeatedly said that he could not find anything in her certification that sounded like harassment, and she confirmed that she had not been threatened or touched:

COURT: In reviewing your certification, it’s clear that there was nothing that set forth there [sic] regarding any striking, shoving, touching or any other threat to do so; is that correct?

NAFFE: That’s correct.

COURT: . . . I didn’t discern any course of alarming conduct in this statement. . . . I’m just trying to determine — it appeared to me from your statement that you voluntarily met with Mr. O’Keefe and voluntarily came to Westwood. At some point it appears that there was a dispute between you and Mr. O’Keefe, and Mr. O’Keefe left the area where you had been, and then you were calling him and texting him to come back and take you to some form of transportation.

NAFFE: That’s correct, sir.

COURT: That in and of itself doesn’t show me that there was any harassment. So I need to know if there was anything — see, your statement doesn’t, doesn’t make out a case for harassment.

Here is another screenshot from the transcript, setting forth the judge’s view that Naffe’s allegations of the events at the barn did not describe harassing behavior:

At page 15 Naffe says that it was on a different day, October 23rd, that “the harassments started.” The court clarifies that nothing that happened when she was at the barn is part of her complaint for harassment. At page 16:

COURT: Is it your allegation that the incident of harassment happened after you left Westwood and went back to Boston?

NAFFE: Yes, sir.

. . . .

COURT: . . . The harassment happened after you left Westwood [the location of the barn/office]?

NAFFE: That is correct, sir. . . .

Shuster twists quite a few other facts. He says that after that night, O’Keefe offered Naffe money “to stay silent.” The transcript shows this to be an utter fabrication by Shuster, as Naffe explicitly said she didn’t know what the money was for:

On October 23rd James contacted me and offered to pay me money, I’m not exactly sure what for, but he offered to pay me some money.

If money was offered, could it have been reimbursement for travel expenses? Nothing in her testimony contradicts that possibility. Yet Shuster, with no basis in fact, describes her as calling it hush money.

Shuster claims that the judge dismissed the complaint on a jurisdictional ruling, saying there was insufficient evidence that the “harassment” occurred in O’Keefe’s town. Not quite, Davey. Virtually everything that happened the night that Shuster wants to portray as an attempted rape happened within the court’s jurisdiction. That is beyond dispute. But the court didn’t see what happened that night as harassment, and Naffe agreed with the court. It was only when O’Keefe allegedly said several mean things about Naffe later — the things that Naffe said had constituted the only harassment — that the judge said she had failed to establish that those mean things were said within the court’s jurisdiction. Naffe had not been present when O’Keefe had allegedly said these things. She had returned to Boston, and heard about them second-hand.

Shuster then claims that the judge “urged” Naffe to pursue her claims in civil court. Not hardly. He simply noted that the claims could be pursued there if she wished:

. . . I don’t find that there is a course of alarming conduct or repeatedly committed acts directed to you. You made a case that sounded perhaps that would have tones of slander, but those are civil matters and not quasi criminal matters and not cognizable in this court. . . . So I am making a ruling that I am not finding probable cause for the issuance of the harassment complaint.

In what world is that a judge “urging” the complainant to pursue civil relief? In David Shuster’s dream world. That’s where.

Nowhere else.

Shuster’s accuracy deficiencies run so deep, he even claims that O’Keefe and Naffe were planning to target Occupy Wall Street, while the transcript shows the plot was part of O’Keefe’s “To Catch a Journalist” series, having nothing to do with OWS. Hey, whatever makes a better story, right, Dave? And to hell with the facts.

If these allegations are true — and they are merely allegations, I repeat yet again — then the behavior described is boorish, at a minimum. That does not give Shuster and Olbermann license to totally distort the allegations and portray them as something they are not.

When you add this to Shuster’s and Olbermann’s false characterization of O’Keefe as a convicted felon, and their refusal to retract that blatantly false claim, you can see why they appear headed for some big, big legal trouble in civil court.

And you know what?

It couldn’t happen to a nicer pair of guys.

119 Responses to “EXCLUSIVE: Transcript of Nadia Naffe’s Testimony Against James O’Keefe”

  1. *Apparently in New Jersey, the complaining victim provides a statement or “certification” of their allegations against the suspect. The judge then hears testimony from the alleged victim, and asks questions to determine whether there is probable cause for the issuance of a criminal complaint. At this hearing, the suspect has no right to cross examine the complaining victim.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  2. Good job Patterico. I really hope both Shuster and Olby get sued. Something needs to happen. If not it’s just too depressing to think about.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  3. I am in favor of O’Keefe suing until such time that he retains Gloria Alred as council… Then I’m gonna have to side with Olby, and that is gonna make me eat a bullet…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  4. I really hope both Shuster and Olby get sued. Something needs to happen. If not it’s just too depressing to think about.

    I’m feelin’ pretty good about it, Noodles.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  5. Okay, I read the actual transcript. It sounds like she got drunk and they had a falling out. It sounds like they were friends. Her husband is one of his buddies/partners. All I read on Twitter today was rape/barn/drugged. Disgusting.

    Now, maybe he libeled her in that YT video or something, idk. Have to go look that up.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  6. I couldn’t find the video on quick inspections and don’t feel like watching them right now.

    My take on the money being offered was because she had in fact done some work for him and he was paying her for it.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  7. the world will be a better place if these two nitwits take it in the shorts over this guavno.

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  8. Do you think this could be ruse/sting by O’keefe?

    Time will tell, but it would be brilliant if it was.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  9. I think it’s a ruse. Her Tweets seem strange.

    I am no lawyer and I have no idea how a probable cause hearing works or what kind of trouble one could get into for “pranking” them or whatever.

    My guess is that everything she said is true but we are missing the context.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  10. They were working on “To Catch a Journalist”. As Patterico would say “I’m feeling better about the theory with each passing second.”.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  11. Nicely done. I knew they were lying, having read her claims. She never accused him of any type of assault. I hope O’Keefe sues them, and Current.

    sarainitaly (6fd66f)

  12. This Naffe lady goes not appear to be “rowing with both oars in the water”.

    Colonel Haiku (0da124)

  13. Somehow ditching a drunken ditz at the train station seems ungentlemanly.

    OTOH, spending another hour with this offal would be intolerable. She likely had no cash for a cab so I get the abandonment angle.

    gary gulrud(MN#6, Anabaptist) (d88477)

  14. I gotta admit, I really like Noodles’s theory that it was a ruse. I agree with noodle that the hearing might take this beyond what folks can get away with, and it probably won’t turn out to be that cool, but it’s a great idea.

    Using O’Keefe as bait to show how the media manipulates stories? That would catch some fish.

    It sounds like she got drunk and they had a falling out. It sounds like they were friends. Her husband is one of his buddies/partners.

    That would be a sad way to end a friendship.

    All I read on Twitter today was rape/barn/drugged.

    But that just takes it to another level.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  15. Read this tweet of hers with a break in it

    Would not expect public condemnation of O’keefe by @AndrewBreitbart.

    Admitting your wrong isn’t good for business. @DavidShuster #agitprop

    Noodles (3681c4)

  16. Also, she describes the *barn* as his office, with a bed, and kitchen in it. Hardly the impression Shuster and Olby leave you with.

    sarainitaly (6fd66f)

  17. This was the last one I’d read from Naffe:

    “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”

    What has changed, sara?

    Colonel Haiku (0da124)

  18. But theorizing aside, this is a very effective post. It does a great job showing just where Shuster (and I think Naffe on twitter last night) takes a hint of something and runs wild with it.

    I’ve come into more and more of these types of stories where I will initially see someone called a wife beater, and it turns out they grabbed some car keys the wrong way. Or that someone is called racist, and it turns out they simply opposed some speech codes. In the information age, the truth doesn’t have a fighting chance.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  19. I would be interested to see if Leviticus wanted to revise and extends his prior remarks after reading Patterico’s update, with transcript.

    JD (318f81)

  20. Also, she describes the *barn* as his office, with a bed, and kitchen in it. Hardly the impression Shuster and Olby leave you with.

    Comment by sarainitaly

    Yeah, the impression you get is some dark shack with hay in it. She was describing the architecture of an office and studio apartment? That was not very upfront.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  21. Yeah, either way Shuster and Olby look like they always do. Partisan and incompetent.

    I used to read Olbermann Watch all the time. They never ran out of material to call him out on.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  22. Comment by Colonel Haiku — 2/28/2012 @ 3:40 am

    the court transcript differs from her tweet that now makes it sound like she thought the unknown man was there to assault her, “or worse”.

    “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”

    Her testimony doesn’t suggest she felt she was in danger of being assaulted, or that O’Keefe had rape on the brain. He left. She called him to come back, and insisted on him driving her to the station, and threatened him with destroying his computer.

    If she really felt in danger, she could have called the police, not O’Keefe, and told him to drive her somewhere. She was alone, in the office/barn. She was planning on staying the night, somewhere, she had her luggage. She tweeted the other day, that she called Breitbart. She said in the transcript she made a bunch of phone calls and texts. Doesn’t sound like someone who thought they were in danger of being assaulted, or that they had been drugged. She also didn’t say anything to that affect in the court documents. The guy startled her… ok. She didn’t see him, and he spooked her. He didn’t do anything, but drive her to the station.

    Sounds to me like James had the guy come with him, because he wanted him to drive. Perhaps James was afraid to drive, since they had to leave NJ, which I believe is against his probation. Especially, I would imagine, if he had been drinking.

    sarainitaly (6fd66f)

  23. i probably would have had some sympathy for her, had she not now changed her story, and is a tool being used by the two biggest tools in the media.

    her tweets do not support the statements she made in the court documents.

    and neither support the lies told by Olby and Shuster.

    sarainitaly (6fd66f)

  24. O’Keefe was very wise not to return alone to that barn, but to bring along at least one other witness.

    jim2 (6482d8)

  25. First of all, how does this become a court case, second how is threatening to destroy all his equipment a rational response, third who fed the story to Current,

    narciso (87e966)

  26. I hope they have clean underroos on, because they’re about to get their pants sued off.

    If that isn’t lying with malice and intent to destroy, I don’t know what is.

    Ghost (525593)

  27. O’Keefe was very wise not to return alone to that barn, but to bring along at least one other witness.

    Comment by jim2

    So true.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  28. They have been trawling this, in the garden of the ‘free range’ crazy for a while now;

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Sex-Drugs-and-Videotape–by-Gustav-Wynn-111227-357.html

    narciso (87e966)

  29. Reading that transcript was just bizarre. The whole Idea that she was essentially being “held captive” in a barn in the middle of nowhere is laughable. It’s the suburbs. And there’s a commuter train line in the center of town that runs into New York City, so this must have occurred in the middle of the night. So, really, who in their right mind would be eager to humor a drunk/half asleep woman who wants to camp out alone in Penn Station overnight so she can take a train to Boston in the morning?

    Abe Froman (bb8554)

  30. So there were no RAPES or DEATHS at OCCUPOOOOOP??

    Gus (36e9a7)

  31. All of this simply illustrates the result when you give microphones to idiots, and require no actual “journalism” to take place.

    The level of distortion here is unbelievable.

    Shuster seemed careful in his televised comments to repeatedly refer to the “alleged” conduct of O’Keefe with respect to Naffe, and relied on her testimony in his copy.

    But his comments are so far from what she actually testified to that I think he’s got real problems even trying to make that defense stick.

    O’Keefe should not let this drop. There is a chance here to do some real damage to Olby and company because defamation torts don’t get much better than false allegations of criminal conduct, and when the alleged conduct includes allegations of attempted rape or sexual assault, well that’s pretty much Three Cherries on the pay line.

    shipwreckedcrew (2e6c61)

  32. So there were no RAPES or DEATHS at OCCUPOOOOOP??

    Comment by Gus

    Actually, I suspect this is about that criticism.

    Often, when there is a criticism the far left can’t handle, they just spin it around and say both sides do it.

    For example, the shameless fight against Voter ID means the GOP is accused of diebolding elections.

    That Breitbart has called for accountability for actual rapes, I think the response is to say Breitbart is failing to be accountable for O’Keefe’s (mythical) rape (plan). Just a guess.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  33. You are correct Dustin. I’ve been way way way way way ahead of the curve on LIBTARDS. As a former Democrat myself, I saw the LIBTARD party spiraling out of control and over run by emotionally disturbed freaks. Let me give you a small example. Carter, Clinton, Rodham, Holder, Kerry, Obama, Gore.

    Which one of those people isn’t a psycho?? Seriously. Which one of my list of Libtards is ALMOST a normal person.

    Guess!!

    Gus (36e9a7)

  34. Shipwrecked. Shuster and Olbermann are irrelevant LOSERS. They are like GEEKS at a side show. They are like high school sophomores dying their hair pink, so that someone will look at them. O’Keefe would be well advised to move along and do his thing.

    Gus (36e9a7)

  35. Which one of my list of Libtards is ALMOST a normal person.

    I’d probably say Bill Clinton is the least abnormal. And he was a megalomaniac.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  36. You are wise Dustin.

    Gus (36e9a7)

  37. the court transcript differs from her tweet that now makes it sound like she thought the unknown man was there to assault her, “or worse”.

    Yep. She seems to be a little erratic, to say the least.

    Colonel Haiku (0da124)

  38. Erratic “or worse”. And drinking alcohol.

    Gus (36e9a7)

  39. It didn’t occur to the stupid twit to call a cab?

    sablegsd (8cf2dc)

  40. @40- nope. She was drunk. And acting like an ass, at least it appears so, by even her testimony.

    I don’t even see O’Keefe’s reaction as being “ungentlemanly”- here is a drunk woman acting, well, drunk- and therefore highly irrational, and he’s telling her she needs to sleep it off. He’s even giving her a place to do so, away from him and whatever other people were with them that night.

    Only someone truly bent on not taking responsibility for her own drinking would blame someone else for these events.

    Book (672658)

  41. you lie down with dogs like Olbermann and Shuster, don’t act surprised when you come down with fleas & tics.

    Colonel Haiku (0da124)

  42. looks like the lefties at OEN (OP-ED News) have linked to you, Patterico, apparently in the belief that it strengthens the Olbermann/Shuster hand.

    Colonel Haiku (0da124)

  43. Just a point: on the way out the the house, O’Keefe stopped and bought some liquor. When they get there, he and Naffe commence to drinking said liquor and talking about their plans.

    When she starts badgering O’Keefe to take her to the train station, he probably didn’t feel that it would be *cough* prudent for him to operate a motor vehicle.

    So, he finds some neighbor who can drive them into town. And that’s what happens.

    This isn’t that mysterious.

    Pious Agnostic (40011c)

  44. I linked them, in order to show the ‘den of scum and villainy’ this originated at, sorry;

    narciso (87e966)

  45. That makes sense, Pious.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  46. #44, Pious, your point needs a little sharpening, according to the transcript (page 11) Naffe says: that after O’Keefe picked her up at the NY/NJ train station, he

    picked up dinner at a Chipotle Grille. He then went to a liquor store and purchased beer. He then brought me to the barn…”

    which is where the argument subsequently took place.

    ropelight (fd39cd)

  47. @23 Comment by sarainitaly — 2/28/2012 @ 5:10 am

    Sounds to me like James had the guy come with him, because he wanted him to drive…Especially, I would imagine, if he had been drinking.

    Sounds very possible, although he may have been with him anyway. But he may have been driving anyway, unless he left without driving or in m somebody else picked him up. The answer is probably not in the transcript.

    I haven’t been able to read the transcript yet. It’s not plain text. In one place, I wound up getting tiny pictures printed out and when I was live I didn’t notice anything. On another computer it keeps jumping. I can read a sentence or two and then it’s gone. I saw the word parole in it. And probation.

    I think I can figure out a way to see it later, (try the second link, and try saving he whole thing and looking at it later in Adobe Acrobat – I think it is a PDF file. I wish somebody would just type this out, or scan and correct and make the transcript plain text)

    But so far I can only go by so far what has appeared on Patterico here.

    Sammy Finkelman (f59e9e)

  48. 23 cont’d

    Perhaps James was afraid to drive, since they had to leave NJ, which I believe is against his probation.

    Here I can correct an error. No, they wouldn’t have to leave New jersey and they never did.

    There is a Penn Station in Newark just as there is in New York. Not only New Jersey Transit runs there (and I think Amtrak) but also the PATH trains which connect to the other Penn Station in New York near Madison Square Garden, and also, separately, to the World Trade Center location in Lower Manhattan. I remember actually you get trains – I think Erie Lackawanna – not at Newark Penn Station, but at another PATH station in New Jersey – I think Hoboken. Ther are other trains at Newark Penn Station besides Amtrak. You can go Newark Airport. There are also lots of buses that connect to Newark Penn Station. They go some distance away. They stop running late at night, or not so late, but trains I think run all night.
    There is also a Newark subway somewhere nearby.

    There are a few other PATH train stops both in New jersey and in New York City (in New York City only on he midtown line that goes to 33rd St) PATH stands for Port Authority Trans Hudson. They used to be known long long ago as he Hudson tubes I think.

    There are also many buses that run out of the Port Authority bus terminal at 42 St directly into New Jersey, and there is also a bus terminal at about 175 St, near the George Washingon Bridge.

    But she didn’t know her way around, or the schedules, and it probably ever dawned on her to call some kind of a cab, and if it had she wouldn’t know the number or maybe not had the money (although many are now starting to take credit cards – at least official New York City yellow cabs are now supposed to)

    Sammy Finkelman (f59e9e)

  49. “Here I can correct an error. No, they wouldn’t have to leave New jersey and they never did.

    There is a Penn Station in Newark just as there is in New York”

    From Transcript:

    “No, he drove me back to the train station in New York City. He drove me to Penn Station.”

    They drove to NYC.

    sarainitaly (6fd66f)

  50. “I haven’t been able to read the transcript yet.”

    You should read it, first. It explains a lot.

    sarainitaly (6fd66f)

  51. “But she didn’t know her way around, or the schedules, and it probably ever dawned on her to call some kind of a cab, and if it had she wouldn’t know the number or maybe not had the money (although many are now starting to take credit cards – at least official New York City yellow cabs are now supposed to)”

    Sammy – According to Nadia’s sworn testimony in court, she was too messed up to even attempt to make it down a flight of stairs in the barn unassisted. She could leave any time, but she’s too effed up. So that’s a great time and condition in which to demand to be put on public transportation.

    No report on whether she barfed all over the train.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  52. Someone wrote that she is married and her husband works with O’Keefe?

    Just speculation here, but that could have much to do with the allegations she made at the start. You see this kind of thing in the military and on campus: After 2 people of the opposite sex have gotten together and had too much alcohol and an awkward situation is involved, the next day one of them gets carried away trying to — explain the situation to their significant other…

    “I got drunk and was acting like a jackass” doesn’t sound too good.

    More than a few people have had their reputations trashed when someone regretted their own actions and started dominoes falling by making up a story to appease a boyfriend/husband.

    usinkorea (a8a03c)

  53. I just listened to the tape. There are a lot of distortions here. For instance he said that O’Keefe returned after Naffe threatened to call the police. According to her testimony that is not when he returned. She did threaten to call the police and he ignored her. He finally returned after she threatened to destroy his computers.

    What we have here is somebody deliberately distorting the truth to fit a narrative.

    He also, almost in so many words, called Nadia Naffe a rape victim (or at least somebody who claimed to be a rape victim, although his recital of the alleged facts didn’t bear that out)

    He said Republicans as well as Democrats thought Breitbart was – what – a hypocrite, I think.

    And he talks about selectively editing the facts!.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  54. Comment by sarainitaly — 3/1/2012 @ 9:57 am

    SF: “I haven’t been able to read the transcript yet.”

    You should read it, first. It explains a lot

    I forgot to try to get it today. Maybe I can get it now on this computer.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  55. @ 53 I think you might have gotten that distortion from me. It was Hannah’s husband that was mentioned in the transcript.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  56. I can’t print it or anything.

    ” A script on this page is causing Internet Explorer to run slowly”

    I’m saving teh web page. maybe taht will help.

    Could somebody upload the transcript in an easily accessible way? There’s no copyright here.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  57. She tried to leave the barn by herself but she couldn’t keep her balance and felt she was eseentially strannded there..

    She had the argument, apparently, because she wanted him to put her up at a hotel in New York, but he claimed it was too expensive, but this barn of his had a bathroom and a kitchen and was furnished and was a perfectly good place. She didn’t want to stay there for days.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  58. Sammy, the transcripts are scanned images. Idk if anyone has the text online.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  59. The argument had nothing to do with what you claim, Sammy. Nothing.

    JD (ddebbb)

  60. You know at this point, I don’t even believe her on the trancript

    narciso (87e966)

  61. Damn straight, Narciso.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  62. “She didn’t want to stay there for days.”

    Overnight

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  63. james o keefe he had a barn

    e i e i o!

    with a rape rape here and a rape rape there

    here a rape there a rape

    everywhere a rape rape

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  64. Judging from her comments about the “love boat”, saying he accused her of doing to him something he had done to someone else, and the fact that she made sure the judge knew her panties were missing…he’s obviously accusing her of trying to pull a seduction sting on him.
    I don’t know what happened, but that seems to be at the heart of his complaint about her.

    MayBee (081489)

  65. Comment by daleyrocks — 3/1/2012 @ 5:24 pm

    SF: “She didn’t want to stay there for days.”

    Overnight

    She didn’t EVEN want to stay there overnight, when she saw the accommodations.

    It seems like that, previously, O’Keefe had told her that he couldn’t put her up at a hotel in New York. She had probably agreed to stay there in New Jersey, but didn’t like what she saw when she got there. Had she done followed the original plan, she would have been there for days.

    I could only glance at a piece of the transcript, but that sounds like that was what the argument was principally about. I still don’t know why it was called a barn. In a barn, you can smell the remnants of the horses even 60 years after the last horse was there.

    Sammy Finkelman (bbe5c1)

  66. She didn’t EVEN want to stay there overnight, when she saw the accommodations.

    No, the transcript does not indicate the fight was about that.
    It simply says they fought, she turned her back on him and started talking on the phone, he stormed out. After he left, she wanted to leave.

    MayBee (081489)

  67. They fought, she said she didn’t want to work on the project anymore, she turned her back on him….etc

    MayBee (081489)

  68. Sorry. Ignore 68.
    She told him she didn’t want to work on the project after he left the barn.
    They talked about the project, fought, she turned her back on him and started talking on the phone, he left, he called and yelled at her, she said she didn’t want to work on the project. She told him she wanted to go home. She said she felt sick and disoriented from the alcohol. He didn’t want to come back to the barn….and so on.
    She in no way indicates they fought over where she was staying, or that she didn’t want to stay there for days.

    MayBee (081489)

  69. She didn’t EVEN want to stay there overnight, when she saw the accommodations.

    It seems like that, previously, O’Keefe had told her that he couldn’t put her up at a hotel in New York. She had probably agreed to stay there in New Jersey, but didn’t like what she saw when she got there. Had she done followed the original plan, she would have been there for days.

    I could only glance at a piece of the transcript, but that sounds like that was what the argument was principally about. I still don’t know why it was called a barn. In a barn, you can smell the remnants of the horses even 60 years after the last horse was there.

    Maybe try reading it before making statements that are completely not supported by then transcript. The argument was not about staying in the rapebarn, no matter how many times you claim it to be. They argued about the project.

    JD (318f81)

  70. So…the thing that happened at #rapebarn happened.
    Fast forward, she’s on the phone and she finds out the fact that she left her panties (and whatever else) at his place has been been reported to a Politico reporter. She gets upset at this. She finds out he’s saying she tried to do the “loveboat” thing to him. She’s more upset. She says he’s making her sound like a tramp. Then he tells another friend that she’s “filthy” and she files charges for harassment.
    She goes to court and gives her side of the barn story in much more detail than the judge wants, but fails to mention what her panties were doing out of the suitcase. She barely gets around to explaining what the harassment was.
    She obviously wanted her side of the story on record.

    MayBee (081489)

  71. it’s always best practice to keep your panties on I think, except for in certain highly specific situations discussed in the appendix

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  72. I always keep a spare pair of panties in my pocket, just in case.

    JD (318f81)

  73. “Had she done followed the original plan, she would have been there for days.”

    Sammy – Is this anywhere in evidence? Seriously, stop trying to spin the story beyond what is there.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  74. If I owned a rapebarn, I would keep it fully stocked with an assortment of extra panties.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  75. You know, it’s sad how O’Keefe could bring video from multiple locations proving corruption, offer the uncut audio to prove its veracity, and the MSM isn’t satisfied.

    But Nadia Naffe retweets a charge that is contradicted by her own prior comments, while in various ways showing a lack of credibility, and that’s more than enough for some to act like O’Keefe is guilty. They were even asking why Breitbart wouldn’t condemn. They just kept pushing this crap day after day for years. Nadia is merely the latest example.

    Why would we even take the transcript seriously?

    The left said O’Keefe’s evidence against Acorn was insufficient, but I’m not going to ask for that much. Just show me something. Is there *any* evidence whatsoever regarding a drugging, a rape, a theft of underwear? Has Nadia even fulfilled her promise to explain her story in a blog post? She had intended to do so by now.

    Analyzing the transcript is probably giving Nadia too much credit.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  76. She is a hysterical liar. Much like GennetteC.

    JD (318f81)

  77. “Analyzing the transcript is probably giving Nadia too much credit.”

    Dustin – She was under oath in court. Is she going to admit she either perjured herself or gave incomplete testimony?

    I don’t understand Sammy’s need to expound on something he claims not to have read. What does that add to our understanding?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  78. Maybe Nadia asked Breitbart to hold back the sex sting video with John Boyd because she didn’t look as good as Hannah Giles.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  79. @ Dustin,

    You know, it’s sad how O’Keefe could bring video from multiple locations proving corruption, offer the uncut audio to prove its veracity, and the MSM isn’t satisfied.

    But Nadia Naffe retweets a charge that is contradicted by her own prior comments, while in various ways showing a lack of credibility, and that’s more than enough for some to act like O’Keefe is guilty. They were even asking why Breitbart wouldn’t condemn. They just kept pushing this crap day after day for years. Nadia is merely the latest example.

    Which just confirms truth is not what matters to the MSM. How to shape it, mold it, and finesse it into what it *needs* to be to further the narrative at the moment, that’s what matters.

    Patent dishonesty on all levels.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  80. That is such a great observation, Dustin (and Dana).

    MayBee (081489)

  81. …yet not to the left, narcisco. Their anger and hate gives them purpose and perverse meaning to their lives.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  82. I guess Part II is the The Barn Incident.

    The only thing that kept James and Breitbart from driving a stake through Waters heart was the backlash from a selectively edited video of former USDA employee Shirley Sherrod.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  83. This does not appear to be the barn story.

    I can’t wait to read the barn story, and see how it interfaces with her testimony. And her tweets. And the insinuations about the barn story in Part 1.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  84. She is a lying liar what tells lying lies.

    JD (318f81)

  85. A plea deal, is not a conviction, is that hard to ascertain,

    narciso (b483e4)

  86. She basically says they have the goods on Waters (there is only a promo tape for that sting). It’s all very interesting.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  87. “The only thing that kept James and Breitbart from driving a stake through Waters heart was the backlash from a selectively edited video of former USDA employee Shirley Sherrod.”

    Heh. The backlash was based on distorted media reporting of what Breitbart published, not an own goal.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  88. I’ve read her account about five times. I think this is going to be a huge story.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  89. Like Nicole Wallace, facts seem to be no bar to her, the ‘Louisiana Purchase’ doesn’t seem to come up, speaking of context.

    narciso (b483e4)

  90. Asking if Maxine Waters is corrupt is rhetorical question.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  91. True, but what if there is a recording of her talking “extortion, kidnapping, bribery, or violence against the person”?

    Noodles (3681c4)

  92. Understand this. Nadia Naffe is fundamentally dishonest. GennetteC kind of dishonest.

    JD (318f81)

  93. Notice her @NicoleGennette on her tweet? Not the real one but the troll one.

    I think she’s being honest. From what I have read so far, she has said they got the goods on Waters and she felt guilty about it. Even Ace felt a little guilty after Weiner’s demise. It’s a human reaction.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  94. A plea deal, is not a conviction, is that hard to ascertain,

    It is, actually. O’Keefe is a convicted criminal. That much is accurate.

    He’s also far more than that. But she’s not inaccurate with that description.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  95. What is she lying about here? She pretty much lays out Andrew’s Occupy argument. Lays out the alleged corruption of Waters. And says there was an intent to wiretap.

    She could be lying about Waters. Maybe about the backlash? She could be lying about the wire tap but how would any of us know that?

    Oh well, seems she has “greased the skids” for part 2.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  96. I’m kind of surprised there aren’t more comments on this (I guess it’s not a post and has been pushed down, but still).

    Even if you think Nadia is untrustworthy and are not reading into things, isn’t it kind of big news that James and Breitbart look to have the goods on Waters?

    The only thing that kept James and Breitbart from driving a stake through Waters heart was the backlash from a selectively edited video of former USDA employee Shirley Sherrod. The Sherrod videos stopped them? I don’t believe that. It maybe made them hold off but I cannot imagine the whole thing was just shelved.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  97. Tommy Christopher on Nadia Naffe’s story.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/james-okeefe-accomplice-nadia-naffe-to-tell-all/

    Noodles (3681c4)

  98. A lying liar telling a story to a fellow lying liar. SHOCKA

    Random (0e9826)

  99. From Nadia’s Twitter on the story “This will be far reaching”.

    I wonder what that means? lol

    Noodles (3681c4)

  100. She will smear everyone she can, Noodles. No doubt. She already smeared Breitbart. She will just cast the net as far as she can.

    JD (0e9826)

  101. Tommy Christopher, could it be anymore apropos?

    Noodles (3681c4)

  102. Patterico ‏ @Patterico
    @tommyxtopher Free advice: vet @NadiaNaffe a little more thoroughly than you vetted Nikki Reid.

    I think it’s too late.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  103. While Ms. Naffe is a “grad student at Harvard”, I think that a Harvard student in ANY field of study ought to know the difference between you’re and your and between their and they’re or there, even in tweets. I would expect more from a graduate student at any university, but excellence would be especially desired from students at such a lauded institution as Harvard.

    bteacher99 (502270)

  104. Comment by bteacher99 — 3/17/2012 @ 6:24 am

    But…but…there is no room, or time, for proper grammar in our 24/7 Twitter World.

    First math (Math is hard!), and now grammar.
    Our next attainment in the advance of civilization will be a return to grunting.

    AD-RtR/OS! (c5fcab)

  105. When your court transcript, varies from your subsequent statements, I cry BS, but Nadia’s new
    friends whitewashed a terrorist, so what else won’t
    they cover up.

    narciso (c5b8e3)

  106. OK, I just read it. Now I get it. 

    Holy God. 

    So he refused to head back to some drunk chick who couldn’t even keep track of her panties and drive her to some train station so she could pass out there? Instead, he wanted her safe and sound at a well-equipped room at his parents’ place while he got some work done? The kind of work he’s known to be passionate for, that she bailed out on, preferring instead to lose her panties, alone, at his folks’ place?

    Ha ha. I’d have done the same thing to the drunken souse. He probably brought a frriend back with him just so she wouldn’t accuse him of rape and, if so, good call. 

    Then she brings forth the weakest harassment case in the history of harassment cases against him in the wrong jurisdiction?

    Ha ha ha. What a skank. 

    Keith Olbermann and David Shuster lost the minimal respect I might have had for them for their blatant lying slanderous distortions against O’Keefe. I hope they get they get their asses sued and their reputations ruined. More.

    All this and this stalwart conservative blogger, Nadia Naffe, is hanging with “Anonymous” and Occuopy Wall Street?

    Yeah I’m sure she was legit. No Moby there. 

    Now on to the video: in context, it wouldn’t be as bad as I thought. Still pretty stupid, but at the same time … stupid FUNNY!

    If O’Keefe (or his mom or dad) later found her panties laying around, with her wireless mouse, no doubt both a little recently wetted and dried during whatever conversation she had chatting with whomever guy she just met or knew online in between begging O’Keefe to come back to her and threatning to break his computers when he resisted her demands, initially thinking better of it … I hope they were both picked up with with tongs or rubber gloves, and quickly sealed in a Ziploc bag before being thrown away so they didn’t catch anything, and also to protect themselves from the general “ickiness” of the remnants of such a girl!

    Random (aa39e9)

  107. I can’t wait to read the barn story, and see how it interfaces with her testimony. And her tweets. And the insinuations about the barn story in Part 1.

    Comment by Patterico

    She’s been promising this story for ages now. The reason she’s taking forever is because it’s not going to be easy to make all the lies line up with the other lies.

    In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if she just keeps promising the story indefinitely.

    It seems her real goal is to claim she’s an accomplice to someone she wants to make clear is horrible. But all she’s admitting is that she was a criminal wire tapper. I don’t know that O’Keefe was, after all… just that Nadia wanted to be one.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  108. I know for a fact that Anon slimeball @OccupyRebellion (obsessed w taking ‘Breitbots’ down) was raided this week by the FBI. He’s followed me for a very good while. I had no clue who he was until reading LC’s blog around 6 this AM, ironically. I then spent about an hour or more reading his TL & found out he twit-networks with @NadiaNaffe. If that isn’t proof of Naffe being in w Anons, I don’t know what is.

    A few minutes later I logon to Twitter & a link by @RBPundit sends me here. I feel awful that @OccupyRebellion could have been using my acct to spy on #TeamBreitbart. Ugg, makes me feel sick! Stupid POS. I’m one of Breitbart’s most ardent & loyal supporters. The entire team means the world to me.

    If there is anything at all, large or small that I can do to help, please let me know. Also, do you think it’s too late to follow him back, now that he’s been busted? Or should I go ahead & do it anyway. He’s made a few posts from friend’s systems since the raid, or so he says…

    BoldFreshJew (baf88d)

  109. @112

    I know for a fact that Anon slimeball @OccupyRebellion (obsessed w taking ‘Breitbots’ down) was raided this week by the FBI.

    I’d like to know more about that. How do you know that for a fact? Thanks

    Noodles (3681c4)

  110. I was reading LC’s blog, clicked on a link to @OccupyRebellion’s page. Kinda freaked out when I saw, ‘FOLLOWS YOU’ up in the corner! I would have blocked the fuck-nut long ago if his profile had said then what it says now!

    Anyway, though rather horrified & pissed off, I just started reading his tweets. It’s all there in black & white.

    I’ve read back to March 1st so far … dude’s mentally deranged. I blocked him a couple hours ago (even tho it’s probably too late since the feds have his systems, but should I unblock & follow just in case?

    If he doesn’t read this blog (or if no one tips him off) he’ll have no idea I’m onto him now.

    Thoughts?

    BoldFreshJew (baf88d)

  111. If people who keep making allegations about Obama’s birth certificate are called Birthers, can we start calling Nadia Neffe a Barner?

    Because she’s trying to do the same thing, lots of allegations with no probably cause to back them up.

    tammy (e8972a)

  112. BoldFreshJew:

    For one thing, it’s a she, not a he.

    For another, I don’t know how anyone without FBI contacts can know that she was actually raided, vs. merely claiming she was.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  113. “…finally threatened James that I was going to call the police and even destroy his Macs, his computers…”

    Sounds like she’s copping to making terroristic threats under New Jersey statutory law. That happens to be a felony offense, btw. She might be able to beat the rap by claiming that she wasn’t threatening to destroy his computers in a violent way…but, I don’t think I’d care to make that argument in court.

    Making statements like that, is probably not the smartest thing to do, especially when you’re filing bogus criminal complaints in front of a judge in New Jersey.

    Aside from being a lowlife, I don’t think she’s the sharpest pencil in the box. But, you would think her attorney would have told her to tone it down.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  114. Is there any better transcript than at the scribd page? At least a PDF file? Can somebody make one?

    I was able to rea d some more of this. I see now:

    1) James O’Keefe called it a barn according to Nadia Naffe – that’s where the word coms=es from – although he also called it an office.

    2) She was going to stay there during filming, or he wanted her to – and that means for days.

    3) She claims she got scared – screamed – when she saw the second person for the first time when O’Keefe came back.

    4) I can’t understand the issue with the credit card, or the money that night. What was the money needed for?

    5) She says she was indeed driven to Penn Station in New York and she doesn’t give the name of the Newark train station – which was probably also called Penn Station. Maybe somebody got confused as to where to take her.

    6) She thinks that when somebody is on probation, they are on parole. She used the word parole twice. But also probation.

    7) She claimed his movements were limited to Westwood, but that may have been for legal reasons, so she would have a claim. I think the limitation was the state of New Jersey and if it was Westwood, then he would have been breaking “parole” to pick her from the train station which was in Newark. She says the original intention when O’Keefe came with another man probably was to try to talk her into staying the night – there weer no plans to take her somewhere where she could go back to Boston. That was imrprovised she thought – it had not been discussed between O’Keefe and the other man before

    8) She says she started ignoring him and called somebody unspecified on the phone and then he stormed out. She does not get into the substance of the argument at all except that it was when they were discussing the project.

    9) In addition to the wireless mouse and the panties, a USB connector and a scarf were also missing, but James only offered to return the wireless mouse. Later, he offered money, she claims not to know for what and why.

    10) She claims that James started accusing her later of maybe trying to pull a sting on him and posted something to warn people about her, which he took down later. That maligning of her is the harassment she is complaining about.

    Sammy Finkelman (c74eb9)

  115. I’ve got to remember how 8 followed by ) come out here.

    Sammy Finkelman (dfa011)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5264 secs.