Patterico's Pontifications

2/29/2012

James O’Keefe Sues Keith Olbermann, David Shuster, and Current TV

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:25 pm

Always trust content from Patterico.

Details here.

I will have further details regarding the precise allegations for you this evening.

193 Responses to “James O’Keefe Sues Keith Olbermann, David Shuster, and Current TV”

  1. I will note that the linked article says O’Keefe was not even charged with a felony. That is false. How hard is it to get basic facts right?

    Patterico (b2ce82)

  2. But, but, but, facts are changeable, the unicorn said so…

    Sue (40062f)

  3. Can’t wait!!

    Bill (7c6905)

  4. @patterico (cmmt 1) – thanks, you cleared up first question I had! the complaint says he was not changed with a felony, which I thought was wrong — link to complaint http://www.scribd.com/doc/83220716/O-Keefe-vs-Current

    No. 7 says “plaintiff was neither charged with nor convicted of a felony …”

    milowent (1b563e)

  5. The complaint under the libel “count” only lists “Defendants’ false statement that Plaintiff has been alleged to have raped a women” – felon stuff not even listed there? not sure why?

    milowent (1b563e)

  6. milowent, do you mean the “defamation” count?

    paragraph 11 stipulates re-alleging prior paragraphs to include paragraph 4, which notes the “convicted felon” aspect.

    I think it’s well written. I love how it’s to the point.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  7. Looks like he got the kind of lawyer I thought he would.

    nk (dec503)

  8. @dustin — yes, that’s what i mean. I see where it re-alleges the prior stuff now. its weird that the rape thing is mentioned there and not the felon statement specifically, but i guess that’s a legal thing.

    milowent (1b563e)

  9. i guess that’s a legal thing.

    I think the felon aspect is much easier and requires less discussion. He said it. It’s untrue.

    Looks like he got the kind of lawyer I thought he would.

    Ouch. What do you think would have made the complaint better?

    Dustin (401f3a)

  10. Maybe David Shitster thinks his words are like the CONSTITUTION. They are living breathing and evolving. Nothing means anything until libtards say so.

    Gus (36e9a7)

  11. You . . . MONSTERS!!!

    If Olbermann is forced to pay a big settlement, who — WHO, I ASK YOU??? — will step in to support all of Eliot Spitzer’s former hookers?

    Icy (57df98)

  12. Comment by Patterico — 2/29/2012 @ 12:27 pm

    I will note that the linked article says O’Keefe was not even charged with a felony. That is false. How hard is it to get basic facts right?

    Not so easy if you rely on secondary sources, but in that case you would know that it *could* be wrong, and once contradicted, you’d want to find out what the truth is.

    From the copmplaint:

    On December 22, 2011, during a broadcast of his “Countdown” program on Current TV, Olbermann claimed that O’Keefe was a “convicted felon” on “federal parole after he was charged with [a] felony for attempting to maliciously interfere with Senator [Mary] Landrieu’s office telephone system in New Orleans.” In fact, O’Keefe had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor of entering a federal building under false pretenses. The government stipulated that “further investigation did not uncover any evidence” that O’Keefe and his associates had intended “to actually tamper with the phone system, or to commit any other felony.” O’Keefe was not imprisoned and is not on parole.

    This could be chalked up to confusion, or being deliberately misled by a politically connected source whom he trusted.

    It was not a felony, but a misdemeanor (you’d assume somebopdy would know the difference) and it is not parole (which happens only after someone has been in jail) but probation.

    Interesting, the government had actually stipulated this was not a plea bargain down from a felony. It might be he was already being accused of this. And his only “interference” was attempted eavesdropping. (I am not clear what exactly he intended to eavesdrop on. If just himself why’d he need to install anything? He wanted to disprove some silly implausible claims being made by Senator Landrieu’s office)

    On February 24, 2011, Shuster–filling in for Olbermann–likewise claimed that O’Keefe is a “convicted felon.”

    This proves reliance ona third party. they didn’t both decide to lie – that must have been what their research told them. Of course Olbermann or someone else at Current TV might have deliberately created a lie.

    On the same December 22, 2011 broadcast referenced above, Olbermann reported that O’Keefe was facing a complaint by Nadia Naffe, who accused O’Keefe of harassment. Olberman and his guest noted that Naffe had made no accusations of physical contact or allegations of rape against O’Keefe. The complaint had been dismissed the day before, on December 21, 2011.

    Regardless, on the February 24, 2011 broadcast, Shuster claimed that there is a “rape allegation facing…conservative activist…James O’Keefe.”

    Interesting transformation.

    Another interesting question is:

    What do Olbermann and Shuster say now? Do they admit they were wrong on the facts??

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  13. It certainly is my memory that he was charged with a felony. If the complaint says otherwise then I had better check that…

    Patterico (b2ce82)

  14. Comment by Patterico — 2/29/2012 @ 1:20

    It certainly is my memory that he was charged with a felony. If the complaint says otherwise then I had better check that /i>

    He was charged with entering real property of the United States under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony. But that charge is, in itself, only a misdemeanor.

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/ap_charges_reduced_against_okeefe_in_landrieu_case.php

    (This website quotes the full DOJ press release)

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/filmmaker_who_broke_acorn_story_arrested_for_attem.php

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  15. I had better check that…

    Yes you better had, lessen you wanna git sude.

    GWBpresnit (44abf8)

  16. Which troll is that, Patterico?

    JD (0cdcee)

  17. Yes you better had, lessen you wanna git sude.

    Comment by GWBpresnit

    Not true.

    Shuster repeated a lie over and over and over and over after being corrected over and over and over and over. He didn’t just do this with one fact, but with a ton of them. Altogether, it’s hard to escape the conclusion he was hoping to defame O’Keefe. He was on a mission.

    Can this be proven in court? We’ll have to see. Personally, I’m convinced.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  18. Dustin – point and laugh. Mock and scorn.

    JD (0cdcee)

  19. And Sammy did a great job finding the facts here. He was charged with a misdemeanor that included entering with “intent to commit a felony” which was reduced to “under false pretenses”

    So actually, the misdemeanor is saying it’s wrong to enter a federal building under false pretenses. The government has a right to know our pretenses when we enter federal buildings to investigate what the government is doing.

    Frankly, it seems like even this was an overkill.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  20. Awe Yeah! This needed to be done. Win or lose these cretins need to be put on notice.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  21. Patrick — he was not “charged” with a felony.

    A criminal complaint in the federal system is not a “charging” document the way it is in many state courts. No plea is entered to a criminal complaint — the defendant is only asked if he understands the reason why he was arrested and may be held pending a formal charge being filed.

    The criminal complaint brings the defendant within the jurisdiction of the federal court through the issuance of a warrant for his arrest, and allows the court to determine whether bail pending a decision to charge is appropriate.

    Criminal complaints are filed by law enforcement agents, but they lack authority to charge people with crimes in the federal system — only two entities can file criminal charges, Grand Juries and DOJ Criminal Division Prosecutors (misdemeanors or when right to grand jury indictment is waived).

    The first time O’Keefe was “charged” was by way of Information filed by the US Attorney’s Office in Louisiana. That Information charged him with only misdemeanor offenses.

    So, it is correct to say he was never “charged” with a felony.

    shipwreckedcrew (bafbcb)

  22. Here’s how I would have investigated Landrieu. I would have simply entered the office as a plain clothes taxpayer constituent and asked to speak with someone other than an intern about policy issues. I would have glanced around the office to see if the intern and LC were actually overrun with phone calls.

    According to the court, this is a crime. Why?

    Dustin (401f3a)

  23. BUT! Didn’t Shuster just yell “psych!” on twitter? That counts, right?

    Book (672658)

  24. I Botched up the italics

    Here is the original FBI affidavit: (dated january 25, 2010)

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/01/affidavit-detailing-charges-against-james-okeefe-filmmaker-who-broke-acorn-story.php?page=1

    Paragrph 11 has the words “willfully and maliciously interfering with a telephone system”

    O’Keefe is mentioned at the very end. It is stated this is all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1036, 1362 and 2.

    Section 1036 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/47/1036

    is:

    Entry by false pretenses to any real property, vessel, or aircraft of the United States or secure area of any airport

    Section 1362 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/65/1362

    Injuring or destroying or interfering with the working or use of such a line, or delaying transmissions of radio, telephone etc systems controlled by the United States, or used in the defemse of the United States, and even conspitiring to do so, except for lawful strike activity that doesn’t involve any damage.

    This could be a felony, but that’s not what he wass guilty of. He was not going to interfere with their use of the system. he never got formally charged with this, though.

    Section 2 is: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/1/2

    A general accomplice count. If anyone aids,
    abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, they are punishable as a principal and wWhoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United
    States, is punishable as a principal.

    This was needed to reach O’Keefe.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  25. Section 1036 which is I think the only he was ultimately charged with, is not a felony. Section 1362 is, but it doesn’t really fit the facts of this case.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  26. I’m not sure what’s juysst in the press relase,and what’s in the law.

    Under false pretenses basically means they lied to get in.

    Sometimes that could be a prerequisite to committing a robbery or an act of terrorism.

    Other times no.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  27. O’Keefe wanted to secretly record what was happening.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  28. The criminal complaint alleged that he engaged in conduct that could have been a felony. It referenced both 18 USC Section 1036 — entereing a federal building under false pretense — and 18 USC Section 1362 — interference with means of communications.

    1036 is normally a misdemeanor, but can be a felony whether the additional element of “intent to commit a felony therein” is charged and proven.

    The reference to 1362 in the same sentence suggests that the agent believed the felony provision of 1036 was potentially at issue.

    But, as I noted above, Criminal Complaints do not charge anyone with a crime. They are the basis upon which arrests are made and matters are referred to federal prosecutors for further proceedings before the grand jury.

    shipwreckedcrew (bafbcb)

  29. There are no journalistic standards on many of these shows on Fox News, with the exception of a couple of news shows, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, they don’t even attempt to subscribe to the journalistic principles that were attempted throughout the MSNBC schedule.

    Shuster on journalistic standards.

    I don’t wear a ‘uniform.’ I wear shorts and the WRC/NBC t-shirt just like everybody else. There is one player on our team who wears softball pants. But he plays left field. I play center. And I’ve never EVER worn softball pants,

    […]

    Next time, if you want to write about the media softball league and can’t reach me by deadline, please call somebody/anybody on our team. It wouldn’t have taken more than a few minutes for you to realize that your reporting sources were bull sh*t.

    Shuster on how people need to get their facts right about Shuster’s softball team. He also demanded the source be named.

    That’s via mediaite.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  30. Under false pretenses basically means they lied to get in.

    Right. And I think I got the situation wrong… they said their phones didn’t work rather than saying they were tied up by calls.

    But if I said I wanted to talk to the office about issues, and I actually didn’t but actually wanted to see what they were up to… that would be false pretenses.

    I don’t think it’s outrageous to not disclose to our congress why we are keeping an eye on them.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  31. 1036 can be a felony — depends on whether there is an allegation included in the indictment that the entry was for the purpose of committing a felony inside the building.

    For example, someone enters a federal building posing as a plumber, but with an explosive device for the purpose of firebombing a government office.

    That would be entereing under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony therein. Under those circumstances, the entry would be a felony.

    shipwreckedcrew (bafbcb)

  32. @ 28 Thanks for that. You can’t make this stuff up.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  33. R.I.P. Davy Jones from The Monkees

    Icy (57df98)

  34. Has anyone read Nadia’s new tweets? Does it mean what I think it does?

    Noodles (3681c4)

  35. Do you have a link to tgeh tweets? What is her twitter handle?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  36. Noodles, yeah, it’s surreal.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  37. I don’t know these people, so I am trying to be fair to Nadia. Not out of chivalry, but because I think it’s possible for goons to push someone with a real grievance to go too far, which might serve smear ends and offer temporary satisfaction to the angry aggrieved, but actually winds up victimizing that person of their credibility. And then they are discarded and the goons have found another partner to do it again.

    Nadia has to be aware by now, and frankly before, who these people are, so it’s very hard to give her the benefit of the doubt on this.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  38. Naffe is one of them. She is pals with Neal and his clan.

    JD (0cdcee)

  39. I am reading it the other way Dustin. Like “oh boy, I hope Shuster doesn’t want my emails!” *wink wink* And then she points out the “convicted criminal” part. In my opinion she is telling them they have been had.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  40. JD, that part seems established.

    Sheridan and Neal are promoting hysterical stuff, and she’s retweeting it and even offering ‘bring it on’ fist bumps with Neal.

    Because of this, she now has no credibility.

    she has to know that Neal did this exact thing to defend Brett Kimberlin from “breitbart trolls”. She has to know that has included some vicious character assassination. Anyone reading Neal’s feed can see he’s unsavory.

    Neal_Rauhauser (@Neal_Rauhauser)
    2/28/12 4:34 PM
    @OccupyRebellion Breaking into their systems has stopped some of them. For the rest we must break into their minds.

    That’s just yesterday about the time Nadia was retweeting him.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  41. I am reading it the other way Dustin. Like “oh boy, I hope Shuster doesn’t want my emails!” *wink wink* And then she points out the “convicted criminal” part. In my opinion she is telling them they have been had.

    Comment by Noodles —

    Oh, well I admit I’m less creative than you on this. I would be pleased to know I have also been had, so to speak.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  42. I am convinced this is a ruse. Why in the world would she be doing the things she is doing if she was seriously going to sue? It makes no sense at all.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  43. It makes no sense at all.

    That sure is true. I have also had a hard time understanding her motivation. The way she’s handled this doesn’t help her.

    But as soon as Neal R shows up, it’s time to check your normal intuition about how people operate at the door.

    If she’s working with them, which is what I think, she is in fact doing herself damage for the purpose of a short term meme. In other words, she is being used.

    But if this is some kind of expose, wow. Hope that’s right. You get a lot of props for seeing it if that’s the case.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  44. She went to Harvard. My name is “Noodles”. If I was going to sue I surely wouldn’t be on Twitter talking with Neal about my situation. Unless, I was writing a story maybe?

    Noodles (3681c4)

  45. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. She is sketchy.

    JD (0cdcee)

  46. Read her tweets like they are tongue in cheek or just being coy or an inside joke. Take this one.

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

    She is saying she has been apologizing for making a scene (maybe a real one or maybe a play one).

    Noodles (3681c4)

  47. she’s been very naughty

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  48. She reminds me of GennetteC

    JD (0cdcee)

  49. #agitprop

    I was unfamiliar with this word. From what I get it means political theater or propaganda.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  50. I think you are going to see she is very different then Gen C. She is actually going to write her story.

    Neal is a sub-story. He was not the mark. He might have ended up sending her things he will regret though.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  51. I agree Neal is a substory in this context, except like Shuster he’s giddy to present things in an unfair fashion, and Nadia is retweeting it.

    Nadia has promised she’s writing her story. We will see what that means soon enough. I hope Noodles’s interesting theory is true and enjoy rereading Nadia’s comments through that lens, but man am I skeptical and pessimistic about people these days.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  52. Where will Nadia post her story? I say Big Journalism.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  53. “About 7yrs worth of his emails. I dare not delete anything now @DavidShuster could subpoena them as evidence.”

    Why would anyone that’s possibly involved Tweet this right after the news comes out? Where did that Rubio Tweet asking her even come from?

    Why does she put ‘rape plots’ in quotes?

    Okay, I am done for now. Sorry for thread jacking, but I felt comfortable enough that her Tweets were a signal to Shuster and Olby that they had been played.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  54. She could have corrected the record, at any time, re the ‘Felony’ charge, she knows who Rauhauser and co, are,

    narciso (87e966)

  55. Noodles- she is saying she’s been apologizing to people with whom she worked with O’Keefe to record.

    It could be a ruse, but that seems like it could hurt O’Keefe’s case.
    People do weird, inexplicable things on a fairly regular basis.

    MayBee (081489)

  56. “About 7yrs worth of his emails. I dare not delete anything now @DavidShuster could subpoena them as evidence.”

    One possibility is that she has some legitimate greivance, or that their private discussion of a project is a liability for O’Keefe, and she is noting this to signal that both sides pay a price in the lawsuit.

    Why does she put ‘rape plots’ in quotes?

    There are several good examples of that kind of interesting phrasing, as are many of the ways she will reference others in her comments, which can be read as a double entendre.

    Where will Nadia post her story? I say Big Journalism.

    I did ask her specifically where she would post her big story, and she did not reply. For whatever reason, she is not promoting where she’s going to lay this all out, which is contrary to how you’d expect someone in internet media to behave.

    But don’t get my hopes up.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  57. Massive outcry/temper tantrum from the sinestrosphere about how O’Keefe (and Breitbart) are evil incarnate coming in three, two. . .

    Current TV is named? I’m not sure of the point of that–I’m not sure that neatly folded tinfoil sent in by their dozens of viewers count as actual assets.

    M. Scott Eiland (003254)

  58. Maybee has a point, too. If this all is a stunt, with O’Keefe, that could cause problems in court.

    If O’Keefe has acted in bad faith with respect to some sting against the person he is asking for relief against, it could be a problem if he actually hopes the lawsuit to succeed. And if the lawsuit is just a step in the ruse, that too would bite him in the ass.

    But perhaps they have been careful about that somehow, or are willing to pay the price for the story.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  59. All I can think of is, crazy woman outside of Boston who has it in for Breitbart, huh?

    Where have we heard that before? And who else was involved?

    MayBee (081489)

  60. I am no lawyer, but I really don’t see what would be illegal about asking a court if something is illegal or whatever as long as you paid the fees and told the truth.

    What would she be apologizing for? For avoiding a “rape plot”? It doesn’t make sense in that context.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  61. She’s apologizing for being associated with O’Keefe at one point.

    MayBee (081489)

  62. About the ‘women from Boston.’

    I’ve spoken to the woman who told me she was Jennifer George on the phone for about 20-30 minutes.

    I’ve spoken to Nadia Naffe on the phone for more than an hour.

    They didn’t sound anything alike.

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

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

    Yes, but to whom? The people she recorded with? Like her husband or Hannah Geils? Again, for what? They are associated with him also.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  64. Noodles-
    is this what you are thinking?
    She filed false charges against O’Keefe in court so she could later point Shuster to the transcript and imply that he should cover it as a “rape”? So O’Keefe could turn around and file charges against Shuster?

    I don’t think I like that very much.

    MayBee (081489)

  65. My take was ‘apologizing to liberals for working with O’Keefe’

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  66. Thanks, Lee.

    MayBee (081489)

  67. She hasn’t filed charges. That’s a big part of the problem and a big part of Shuster’s problems. Facts.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  68. According the reporter from New Jersey who appeared on Olbermann, she went STRAIGHT to the police station after her hearing.

    Sounds like she filed what she could. Which isn’t much.

    But don’t forget the real target of Shuster’s attack – Breitbart.

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  69. I really don’t see what would be illegal about asking a court if something is illegal

    It’s not that it’s illegal. It’s that if you’re asking for relief and the person you’re asking for relief against can show you have unclean hands, that can be a problem.

    What would she be apologizing for

    Well, the apparent meaning was that she’s apologizing for helping O’Keefe record people.

    And don’t get me wrong, Noodles. I am not sure you’re wrong. In fact, I think such an expose of internet smearing would be an awesome idea and O’Keefe would be among those who could do it. And I’ve seen much more radical twists than you’re suggesting.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  70. She filed false charges against O’Keefe in court so she could later point Shuster to the transcript and imply that he should cover it as a “rape”? So O’Keefe could turn around and file charges against Shuster?

    I don’t think I like that very much.

    Comment by MayBee

    I agree that it’s very unlikely the sting would include something like this. She testified in court about this stuff. What she said in court… she better have been telling the truth. I realize she didn’t say anything about a rape plan or physical contact, but the stuff about refusing to work with O’Keefe on a project…

    Dustin (401f3a)

  71. I haven’t read a police report or any charges against James. If that is true, my theory is bunk. However, this story seems to be about reporting on rumors and hearsay etc. Maybe she did go there. Maybe she paid had other business at the police department.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  72. Not that I think these are the same people, but what are they putting in the water in Boston?

    Dustin (401f3a)

  73. *paid a fine or had other business

    Noodles (3681c4)

  74. OK, she filed a complaint and took up court time. That’s not a cute sting.

    MayBee (081489)

  75. Let’s not overthink this, what she testified to in the trascript, is a lightyear away from what Schuster and Rauhauser have done with it, and she could have corrected the narrative at any time,

    narciso (87e966)

  76. Yes, the major story doesn’t need any conspiracy for it to be huge.

    However, it doesn’t make sense/ring true to me on the surface.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  77. Yeah, as Narciso says, the Nadia we see on twitter, the Nadia who testified to a different set of facts than she’s retweeting rather than correcting, … that Nadia has no credibility now.

    Maybe there will be some explanation for it later, but still it would be that the Nadia we’re seeing right now is convoluting matters.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  78. GLORIA ALLRED IS THE ONLY FREAK MISSING FROM THIS STORY.

    So far……………..

    Gus (36e9a7)

  79. From the linked article:

    On February 24, 2011, Shuster–filling in for Olbermann–likewise claimed that O’Keefe is a “convicted felon.”

    I’ve seen this 2011 event sited in more than one place. But, wasn’t this just last week? Or is this referencing another event a year ago?

    Pious Agnostic (40011c)

  80. Does anyone know if the Twitter account is real? lol Nothing would surprise me at this point.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  81. Okeefe, has rid on the thin edge of the ‘danger zone’ on more than one occasion, but that does not excuse accusations of violent criminal conduct,

    narciso (87e966)

  82. Dustin, Naffe seems to be a weird chick.
    By the same token, I don’t think O’Keefe is doing what he does for altruistic reasons. It’s not about the messenger,when O’Keefe reveals the truth, he is not the victor, the public is.

    Gus (36e9a7)

  83. Well said, Gus.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  84. Narciso TOUCHE.

    What do the words Juanita Broderick mean to you?

    Gus (36e9a7)

  85. nadia is from boston? just like the alleged Jenny George? hmmmm. (just kidding.)

    interesting discussion on whether o’keefe was ever “charged” with a felony – if he was not, he certainly didn’t sue everyone that said he was. if shuster said ‘convicted criminal’ instead of ‘convicted felon,’ he would have been accurate. i wonder how much that kind of claim is worth?

    nadia’s story seems to have little to do with o’keefe’s lawsuit, but nadia’s ‘rape plot’ tweet is concerning, as if she thinks it was or could have been a rape plot. if she says it might have been, then the words “rape allegation” as in “attempted rape” might be seen differently by a court?

    milowent (1b563e)

  86. Does anyone know if the Twitter account is real? lol Nothing would surprise me at this point.

    Comment by Noodles

    It’s real. It goes back some time, and Lee noted it was actually supportive of Breitbart comments after the alleged phone call where he didn’t help her.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  87. he certainly didn’t sue everyone that said he was.

    Shuster went so far and above beyond simply getting a fact wrong. And since O’Keefe was charged with a misdemeanor that included the term “with intent to commit felony” (this was dropped because it’s baseless), I think it was just too difficult to show the ‘charged with’ error was malicious.

    It takes a lot to so flagrantly lie about a public figure that these suits make sense.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  88. After the fraud, that Random House perpetrated last fall, and the ‘political lynching’ of Cain, they have to reach a high bar to be credible.

    narciso (87e966)

  89. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s real but you are probably right. (And that is a real concern for legit reporting now)

    The funny thing about all this is we are literally doing what Shuster should have done in the comments here. Questioning the facts. He has an Emmy. I am known as Noodles. lol

    Noodles (3681c4)

  90. JD:

    She reminds me of GennetteC

    Ditto.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  91. Nadia re-tweeted this

    “@AndrewBreitbart @brooksbayne @NadiaNaffe @DavidShuster Never read about A, Boudrea and the sex party boat O’keefe had lying in wait?”

    Why? To show what to a future court? Someone on the internet believes!? Or is she showing everyone that people have been defamed?

    She had better be able to prove it or she is opening herself up to a lawsuit of her own. Of course I don’t believe that is what is going on here.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  92. Noodles…..SOMEONEis advising NAFFE.

    Gus (36e9a7)

  93. DRJ and JD, I know, right?

    MayBee (081489)

  94. Again, I am no lawyer, but who would advise someone with a potential lawsuit to re-tweet tweets like that? Or re-tweet things by Neal?

    Wouldn’t they tell her to zip it?

    When the lawsuits are over she would have unlimited platforms to post her story about it on.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  95. As I mentioned yesterday, Naffe is erratic. Today, I will add “extremely”…

    Colonel Haiku (8cf52c)

  96. R.I.P. Davy Jones from The Monkees

    Comment by Icy

    Another memory of early years spent in what was at that time, paradise, aka Orange County, Southern California…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qtW1jAwZgU&feature=fvst

    Colonel Haiku (8cf52c)

  97. Noodles, in my humble opinion, the NAFFE story was merely a canard set up by OLBERDOUCHE and Shustain to compare REAL RAPES with MADE UP RAPES.

    We are all playing directly into their hands here.

    There were REAL LIVE PEEPS that got RAPED at OBAMA-FEST aka OCCUPOOOOP. REAL PEOPLE REAL RAPES should be their MOTTO.

    Gus (36e9a7)

  98. Also, the re-tweets are all done by lefties. I have not seen one by Hannah or someone else in their “crew” showing support.

    Again, sorry if I have thread jacked I just have not seen anything to make me think this isn’t a ruse.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  99. Gus, you are absolutely correct. I just believe that there were strings pulled from above on Olby and Shuster.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  100. “The Leftist Media…

    We’ll report the truth. If under court order.”

    – Ace

    Colonel Haiku (8cf52c)

  101. Keep on point.

    OBAMA’S OCCUPOOOP MOVEMENT!!!
    Real Rapes by REAL LIBERALS!!!
    Coming to your town soon!!!

    Gus (36e9a7)

  102. Everything is a scam, and they are shameless about it;

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/29/harry-reid-to-promote-anti-fox-news-media-matters-book/

    narciso (87e966)

  103. I remember Sacramento’s A&G Radio show having Reid on during his last book tour, where he claimed that “that Martin Scorsese ‘Casino’ movie” was all about Reid’s anti-crime exploits. Left the radio audience in WTF stitches and the hosts barely able to control their laughter.

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    Colonel Haiku (8cf52c)

  104. narciso

    Yes, the shameless scam that is Fox.

    GWBpresnit (a997bc)

  105. The ironic thing, is that Breitbart took Nadia in, even after that brouhaha with the Florida GOP, and
    this is how gratitude is repaid, well she can go hang with Alex Wagner and Melissa Perry, that’s the bed she’s made.

    narciso (87e966)

  106. @NadiaNaffe 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.

    So she’s calling it a “crime”.

    We have a woman in Boston going to the police and speciously claiming someone has committed a crime against her. The target is Breitbart.
    I know Lee says the voices aren’t the same but it is so very deja vu.

    MayBee (081489)

  107. Oh! And responding on Twitter to people who have had accounts for a few months, tweeted just a few times, and then piped up to ask pertinent questions about this new case (the Marco Rubio guy- which, bonus! makes him look like a conservative).

    MayBee (081489)

  108. Comment by GWBpresnit — 2/29/2012 @ 6:00 pm

    Patterico told you that the next comment you made would answer his question “Morningafter” or it wouldn’t be published. Taking a new name is very bad form. Not an issue anymore, you’re done.

    Again. 😉

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  109. Painted Jaguar: If it can be a misdemeanor to attempt a felony, can it be a felony to attempt a misdemeanor? What is it if Miss Demeanor attempts a felony, or if Miss Demeanor in a fit of rude demeanor plans a misdemeanor but does a felony instead?
    Whatever the answers to those and other important questions, it should be a felony to willfully lie to the American public, or any public, for that matter (uh, MD, what’s a public?).

    And my mummy taught me how to deal with felons by the dark turbid waters of the Amazon.

    Painted Jaguar (dictated to MD in Philly) (3d3f72)

  110. Bye bye PRESNIT!!! We hardly knew ye!!!

    Gus (694db4)

  111. LEST WE FORGET. The O’Keefe MEME that is currently on the burner, is a SWITCHEROOOO by the LIBTARD mafia.

    REAL RAPES, REAL OFTEN, REAL LIBTARDS REAL GOOOOOOOOOOONIONS
    Barry Hussein Obamsters OCCUPOOOOOOOOOOOP Movement.

    OFF BROADWAY!!

    Gus (694db4)

  112. Stashiu lets loose the
    Abortifacients; troll
    Fails to implant!

    Icy (57df98)

  113. Twitter is interesting tonight. =]

    One other thing since I don’t think my posts are getting in anyone’s way. If she IS actually talking about people she set up in her stings when she says I’ve been the one apologizing, to people I recorded w/O’keefe since 2010. does that mean this whole deal changed her political beliefs and invalidates all her previous work? I don’t buy that.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  114. Maybee,

    100%, no doubt, swear on my children’s lives — the voices were totally different. Not close.

    As I said, Nadia and I spoke for over an hour — and months before the Weiner story.

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  115. does that mean this whole deal changed her political beliefs and invalidates all her previous work

    Do we know which projects Naffe recorded with O’Keefe? It would be interesting to know who she is saying she would apologize to (hence, saying whatever news was produced wasn’t worth the deception). Is this Occupy stuff? If so, perhaps that does indicate a change of politics.

    Anyway, you can go a long way towards explaining inconsistency by assuming bad faith.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  116. Lee??
    Who is this NADIA??

    Is she part of the B Hussein Obama, OCCUPOOOOOP movement.

    Y’know the one with REAL LIBTARDS RAPING REAL AMERICANS???

    Gus (694db4)

  117. She’s in this one I know.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS1-pIFigiE&feature=channel_video_title

    One United Bank and Maxine Waters

    Noodles (3681c4)

  118. Dustin, as I RECALL, this O’Keefe MEME/NON-ISSUE was enjoined as a retort by Breitbart, VIS A VIS,
    REAL LIFE LIBTARD RAPES AT OCCUPOOOOOOOOP!!

    Do you think that WE are spending more time talking about O’KEEFE, or that LIBTARDS are trying to defend
    OBAMA OCCUPOOOOOOOP RAPE FEST 2012.

    Gus (694db4)

  119. Gus, I do agree that this is a coordinated and dishonest response to Breitbart calling out (accurately) some of the problems with the Occupy movement (not that I think most Occupy people actually are pleased with those problems… nor does Breitbart I assume).

    We are spending a lot more time trying to unravel the fifty knots in our noose, I suppose.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  120. Lee- I believe you. It just feels the same in so many ways.

    MayBee (081489)

  121. Dustin, you are a smart guy, and your posts are intelligent and thoughtful.
    Nadia Naffe and James O’Keefe are not….RELEVANT, to anything, EXCEPT, as to how O’Keefe and Breitbart have SHINED a LIGHT ON LIBTARD COCK ROACHES.
    I think Breitbart is GREAT, BUT other than his WORK at DESTROYING THE LIBTARD LIE. I really don’t have much interest.

    Gus (694db4)

  122. Dustin, Whomever and whatever James O’Keefe is, as a man, has ZERO bearing on Barry Husseins OCCUPOOOOOP 2012 RAPE and DANCE PARTY!!!

    That is a real story of real corruption, crime and rape.

    We have been suckered into a diversion.

    Gus (694db4)

  123. Not trying to sound rude or anything Gus but how is us discussing O’keffe going to impede anything about Occupy or Breitbart or anything?

    I honestly never understand what people mean when they tell people in comment sections they are wasting their time.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  124. I assume bad faith.

    JD (0cdcee)

  125. Idk if that makes sense. What I am saying is if we weren’t discussing this I doubt we would be working on the cure for AIDS instead.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  126. I Googled “Cosmo and Wanda’s baby”.

    And the cure for AIDS is to quarantine all HIV carriers.

    nk (dec503)

  127. No offense intended Noodles. You are a fantastic poster on this blog.

    WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT O’KEEFE and NAFFE, and not on the OFFENSIVE vis a vis, the REASON O’KEEFE and NAFFE were even mentioned???

    Gus (694db4)

  128. @ 126 I took a break from this story and came to the same conclusion.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  129. Honestly I think we are both just jumping the gun on this story. I believe we all will be talking about those topics soon. Maybe later than sooner if people hush up for the law suit.

    Breitbart is on Twitter. Lee has a post up about just that.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  130. Thanks Noodles. You are pretty cool.

    Gus (694db4)

  131. Noodles, the law suit doesn’t benefit you nor me. It will be played out over a long time, and may never come to anything.

    The BARRY H’S “MIDNIGHT SPECIAL RAPE EDITION”
    Occcccupooooooooooo 2012.

    Needs to be drummmmed.

    Gus (694db4)

  132. I think JD’s figured this one out.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  133. Jd? Forgive me, I’m somewhat new.

    Gus (694db4)

  134. Gus, JD’s the commenter above. He simply thinks Naffe is dishonest.

    Breitbart is on Twitter. Lee has a post up about just that.

    Comment by Noodles

    Lee’s column on this is very convincing.

    As Gus has noticed, this is about Breitbart and about his criticism regarding OWS rape scandal. But it’s something to see Shuster set it up so transparently. Say what you will about his lack of diligence, but Shuster sure didn’t take his audience’s ability to connect dots for granted.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  135. Naffe is clearly, blatantly connected with the protect Occupy crowd.

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  136. Lee @ 135 is the first thing to come along to make me question a ruse. I will take that into consideration. =)

    You know this as fact or because of people in her re-tweets?

    Noodles (3681c4)

  137. Olbermann and Shuster are working to protect Occupy. That much is very clear.

    And as I mentioned on Twitter, Naffe’s comments about Breitbart are interesting because she knows for a fact that Breitbart had previously protected her identity on sex-related story involving an Obama ally.

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  138. Lee Stranahan, Olberdouche and Shitster are part of OBAMA INCORPORATED.

    Great stuff as always Lee.

    Gus (694db4)

  139. Lee, the fact that Naffe has a documented past with Breitbart, and a Sexual angle, tells me that Naffe understands the SEX angle vis a vis crying wolf.

    Gus (694db4)

  140. she knows for a fact that Breitbart had previously protected her identity on sex-related story involving an Obama ally

    I don’t know anything about that. Is there any links for that?

    Neal and all those other peeps would be sucking up to anyone who made an accusation about Breitbart that they felt they could exploit. I don’t think it necessarily means she is pro occupy.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  141. Lee – Thanks for the comments.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  142. Of course it is PRO-OCCUPY. It is PRO-OBAMA-PRO-STASTIST, PRO-PROGRESSIVE.

    I hate the term Progressive, but.

    THIS IS ABOUT STAMPING OUT A THREAT TO THE “MOVEMENT”.

    Gus (694db4)

  143. I have not seen one person from The Bigs reach out to her or say a bad thing about her. Does not compute with the allegations.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  144. The discussion on Lee’s twitter feed of Nadia blocking folks for no apparent reason… that reminds me of Neal’s other buds.

    Most of us saw Nadia’s tweet that she wouldn’t delete O’Keefe’s emails because Shuster might subpoena them. I didn’t realize she was replying to this:

    Rubio4President ‏ @ElectMarcoRubio

    @NadiaNaffe Do you still have all those emails from @jamesokeefeiii gmail acct downloaded on your computer?

    She included this (fake) Rubio in her reply, so it’s clear she was talking about these emails.

    Sweet watch. A little over the top, but I like it.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  145. Meh, I’m gonna stop commenting on this. I could be wrong but I don’t think so.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  146. You don’t know anything about the Obama ally because we didn’t go public with it.

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  147. Fair enough.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  148. Noodles, even if you’re wrong (which is my view, no offense), it was an interesting theory and it’s good to at least entertain that kind of thing.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  149. Noodles, the OBAMA movement, has BIGS and SMALLS.
    Olberdouche and Shitstain are USED TO BE’S.

    Useful idiots to this DAY, none the less.

    Each COMRADE does his/her part.

    There is no doubt.

    Gus (694db4)

  150. Noodles – what do you think you might be wrong about?

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  151. It won’t hurt my ego/feelings if I’m wrong.

    Something is just seriously not making sense to me. Obviously I understand I don’t know everything going on but with what is out there now, I don’t buy it.

    This kind of thing is IS very fun to me. =] (not what has or hasn’t happened to people but the puzzle of it all)

    Noodles (3681c4)

  152. I totally agree with you on the larger themes here Lee.

    I just think the Nadia/O’keffe thing is a ruse/sting or whatever you want to call it.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  153. Noodles is wondering if Nadia is basically undercover insofar as she appears to be working with Shuster or other Occupy defenders, and that her discussion of what actually happened will appear on Big Journalism to expose some wrongs they were willing to do.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  154. A sting of who by who?

    Or whom.

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  155. Noodles’ you are wise. You are bright.

    Nadia Naffe, is not a Conservative. And I’m not saying she’s a LIBTARD. I’m saying that she is NOT PRINCIPLED.

    Whether James’ O’Keefe is principled OR not, has no bearing on Naffe’s “OPPURTUNISM”.

    Gus (694db4)

  156. I think it’s a sting on Olby and Shuster and anyone else in the Media who ran with the “rape barn plot” theory.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  157. Noodles — from what I know (and that’s a fair bit) no way.

    I believe her rift with O’Keefe is of a personal nature.

    And I believe someone from the left ‘got to her; in the past few weeks to try to use it to bring Breitbart down.

    And given the very sexual nature of the aforementioned Obama ally with her, it’s going to blow up in the Left’s face.

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  158. Meant to write…

    And given the very sexual nature of the aforementioned Obama ally’s contact with her, it’s going to blow up in the Left’s face.

    As far as I know, Nadia did not reciprocate. But she didn’t go public with it, either.

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  159. See, now that post @ 155 added to the Obama ally thing does give me serious pause to the whole thing for me.

    If that is true, this Nadia is not the brightest star in the sky.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  160. “I have not seen one person from The Bigs reach out to her or say a bad thing about her.”

    Noodles – Breitbart blasted her on twitter.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  161. Oh, it;s very true.

    And the fact is that Breitbart is criticized for ‘whitewashing’ the O’Keefe ‘rape’ that never ever happened because he didn’t mention the thing that never happened.

    But in fact, we had a clean hit on major target on the LEFT — and we choose not to run it because we didn’t want to expose Nadia to the publicity.

    Now in light of what’s happened, however, I think that that episode is indicative of something about Nadia.

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  162. Maybe I missed that but I thought about the worst thing has said is “There is no rape plot”.

    I have to re-think this all now! lol

    The worst part of it is it makes it a lot more of a depressing story.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  163. Daley,

    Given everything AB knows, he did NOT blast her. He defended himself, a little tiny bit

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  164. I still have a hard time thinking that someone from Harvard would (even if she wanted to mess with Breirbart) do it in this fashion. And then (career wise) throw in with Neal and his ilk.

    Maybe bad faith will do that.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  165. Well, maybe the ruse theory was good for one thing. Lee cleared a few things up for us!

    Thanks Lee.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  166. Maybe bad faith will do that.

    Comment by Noodles —

    I think anger over some personal issue surely could.

    And her testimony suggests she is prone to going overboard when she’s angry. Yeah, she was intoxicated, but that only removed inhibitions. The Nadia that wanted to smash O’Keefe’s computers might be in there all the time.

    And you might be overestimating Harvard a little bit. See: Obama.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  167. @63. Comment by Noodles — 2/29/2012 @ 4:02 pm

    Nadia Naffe tweet http://twitter.com/#!/nadianaffe

    I’m not looking for an apology. I’ve been the one apologizing, to people I recorded w/O’keefe since 2010. @DavidShuster @andrewbreitbart”(Feb 27, in reply to David Schuster)

    Yes, but to whom? The people she recorded with? Like her husband or Hannah Geils? Again, for what? They are associated with him also.

    Not an apology to people I recorded with” but an apology to people I recorded.

    She did the recording with (or under the auspices of) James O’Keefe.

    She sounds like she’s about ready to do a David Brock. Later in the day,at 2:06 PM, she tweeted::

    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 @DavidShuster
    for business.

    Sammy Finkelman (f59e9e)

  168. I wonder if she’s rethinking the post, considering that O’Keefe sued.

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  169. I think this is the Shuster tweet she was responding to with the apology tweet:

    David Shuster ‏ @DavidShuster
    Hey @JamesokeefeIII apologize to @nadianaffe. And @AndrewBreitbart why wont u condemn his alleged sex assault plan? current.com/shows/countdow…

    Sent at 9:35 AM 27 Feb 12 via Twitter for iPhone.

    Besides the “no, I’m the one who should apologize – for recording people” tweet, there’s another tweet by Nadia Naffe at 12:38 that looks like a response to the David Shuster 9:35 AM tweet where she says she would not expect a public condemnation of O’Keefe by Andrew Breitbart because admitting you are wrong is not good

    Sammy Finkelman (f59e9e)

  170. Thanks Sammy. I get that. I have just been maybe reading this thing wrong. And to be totally honest it still seems wrong to me.

    We shall see. Lee’s new info does make it look like she is out to get Breitbart (with someone else helping probably).

    Noodles (3681c4)

  171. not good for business.

    Sammy Finkelman (f59e9e)

  172. “Given everything AB knows, he did NOT blast her. He defended himself, a little tiny bit”

    Lee – I see your point. He was defending himself, I agree, but also lashing out.

    AndrewBreitbart ‏ @AndrewBreitbart

    · Open

    There is no ‘rape plot’, you slanderous, libelous wannabe Media Matters smear junkie. @DavidShuster @jamesokeefeiii

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  173. AB means Shuster there — not Nadia

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  174. The above was from February 25 to Nadia.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  175. “AB means Shuster there — not Nadia”

    Lee – Now I’m confused. I thought you were disagreeing with my comment that AB blasted Nadia on twitter, suggesting that what he was really more defending himself, which I can see.

    The tweet I was referencing, which I supplied in #170, does include a few direct shots by AB at Nadia.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  176. I recall Andrew leaving that tweet and thought it was directed at Nadia (it shows up as a reply to her). But “smear junkie” sure does seem to refer to Shuster now that I think about it.

    I really like that expression.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  177. At the end of the February 24 show, Shuster actually suddenly turns around and drops his accusations against O’Keefe or at least says he shouldn’t declare them to be fact, but says Breitbart should do\should have done the same thing with regard to the Occupy Wall Street rapes. (But they were reported by more than one person, and clearly described as rapes. There was an organized effort by some women to protect women. They did happen.)

    SHUSTER: Andrew, let me be clear. Your silence in the O’Keefe/Naffe matter is actually appropriate. You didn’t witness anything. You weren’t involved and this matter may continue in the courts. This approach, though, towards O’Keefe — in light of that outburst about Occupy — underscores what Democrats and many Republicans have been saying about you for years. You are a hypocrite and a frequently unstable, publicity-seeking hack. Andrew, get some psychological help.

    By the way, the reference in the show to O’Keefe being a convicted felon (without saying for what he was convicted of) is meant to imply it was things not connected with his audio/video activities.

    I think you can say malice. Under oath? What was said under oath? Nothing like what they are talking about.

    Sammy Finkelman (f59e9e)

  178. Dustin – Except if you look at Nadia’s next tweet it is written in reply to AB, not Shuster.

    Smear junkie could apply to both since Nadia is referencing rape plots in her tweets.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  179. Yeah, i think it was sent to Nadia.

    Regardless, the point you’re making (that the Bigs have actually criticized Nadia) is true.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  180. Dustin – Maybe Lee’s point is the second sentence is intended for Shuster, who is copied on the tweet, rather than Nadia. That’s not the way I originally read it. Seems unusual.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  181. Side Note: After re-reading the report it was Hannah’s husband, not her’s (idk if she has one or not) and the video was posted on Nov. 17

    If it was on their YT channel it is now gone (if the dates were correct).

    Noodles (3681c4)

  182. David Shuster ‏ @DavidShuster
    Hey @JamesokeefeIII apologize to @nadianaffe. And @AndrewBreitbart why wont u condemn his alleged sex assault plan? current.com/shows/countdow…

    — So . . . Shuster is demanding that Breitbart condemn an allegation?

    But, instead of condemning Nadia for making this (completely unsubstantiated) allegation, or Shuster himself for repeating AND embellishing it, Shuster actually wants Breitbart to condemn the subject of this (again) completely unsubstantiated allegation?

    Ahem . . .

    David Shuster, why won’t you condemn Keith Olbermann’s alleged sex assault plan on underage goats? We await your response!

    Icy (7fc862)

  183. Nadia Naffe ‏ @NadiaNaffe

    I’m sad. Sad that @AndrewBreitbart spent his last days on earth defending someone who truly didn’t deserve it. @ElectMarcoRubio

    At first this statement made me very angry. But then…I am truly done commenting on this story for now.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  184. I hadn’t seen that, Noodles. That is absolutely outrageous. Breitbart took her in after her issues with the GOP.

    She takes this opportunity to lay in some more smear propaganda with that fake Marco Rubio Neal Rauhauser BS. This is simply disgusting.

    Let’s let Breitbart have the last work, via Daley’s quote.

    There is no ‘rape plot’, you slanderous, libelous wannabe Media Matters smear junkie.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  185. I told y’all she was not right.

    JD (318f81)

  186. Nadia Naffe ‏ @NadiaNaffe

    Can’t help wondering if @AndrewBreitbart would still be alive if he hadn’t exasperated himself fighting O’keefe’s battles. @ElectMarcoRubio

    It’s even worse. She just tweeted the above.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  187. “electmarcorubio” is one of those weird sockpuppets that someone (I assume Neal) put out there months ago. the idea is that a few people will go ahead and add him thinking he’s the actual Marco Rubio (or whoever), and then months later the smears will be able to troll more unsuspecting people.

    During the time Nadia was talking to Neal and cheering his comments with “bring em on”, Neal was explaining he had hacked systems and now was going to get into heads… and this is how.

    I cannot link these tweets because she has blocked me. For no reason except the limitations this places on responding.

    I totally believe Lee’s explanation that Nadia has some deep personal issue with O’Keefe, and this explains her promotion of smears that contradict Nadia’s own testimony. She has abandoned any credibility. I assume she is being paid (and indeed, another of Neal’s people stupidly offered that she was being paid a while back).

    I want to be fair to this person, and fair and square, this person is a ghoul.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  188. Wow, she just keeps digging, when Eric Boehlert
    makes you look even smaller, it’s time to stop.

    narciso (87e966)

  189. Another trait I see in Neal’s allies is cognitive dissonance so severe it is apparently deliberate. This is how they troll. I’ve seen it over and over.

    “respect the dead”, Nadia says, moments after saying Breitbart might still be alive if he hadn’t defended O’Keefe.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  190. This is the subject matter that Andrew Breitbart was tweeting about before he died.

    AndrewBreitbart AndrewBreitbart
    I think Borat got real politicians/personalities to act in real ways that we hold them to account for. O’Keefe is more serious. @CenLamar
    29 Feb

    Next one:

    AndrewBreitbart AndrewBreitbart @
    I think that it takes an undercover investigation to expose certain bad human behavior, indeed. You? @CenLamar
    29 Feb

    (Both at 11:51 PM Eastern time = 8:51 PM in Los Angeles)

    11:56 PM:

    AndrewBreitbart AndrewBreitbart @
    I compared @JamesOKeefeIII to Borat for the explicit purpose of explaining what his silly nothing misdemeanor was. @CenLamar @DavidShuster
    29 Feb

    AndrewBreitbart AndrewBreitbart @
    Yes, a misdemeanor. We get it. @CenLamar
    1 Mar
    (12:17 am)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  191. Sammy – Have you read Nadia’s court transcript yet?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  192. Anyway…glad to see that Olbermutt and Shuster are getting sued. I think O’Keefe has a pretty good case, and the Boobsey Twins definitely have it coming.

    Trying to stop left wing propagandists (aka journalists) from lying everytime they open their pieholes is a thankless and sisyphean task, but it’s high time someone started doing it.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.1896 secs.