Patterico's Pontifications

3/22/2012

Questions About Nadia Naffe’s Story

Filed under: General,Nadia Naffe — Patterico @ 7:25 am

The big Nadia Naffe barn incident story is online. I don’t particularly feel like linking or quoting it; I’m sure you can find it if you want to. I don’t have a lot of time to discuss it, so I’ll just throw out a few quick questions to Nadia that I predict she and the partisan hacks writing about this story (hi Tommy Christopher!) will ignore:

  • Where is the evidence of a “rape plot”?
  • Where is the evidence that Andrew Breitbart ignored a “rape plot”?
  • If there was a “rape plot” then why did you testify that what happened that night was not harassment?
  • Why not call a cab? Why call Andrew Breitbart (who was all the way across the country) instead?
  • “James had downloaded and/or linked his Gmail account to my device.” What does “and/or” mean? Don’t you know which happened?
  • If someone accesses their Gmail from your phone or computer, and you are later able to re-enter their account, does that morally entitle you to access their account and download years’ worth of emails, as you insinuate you have done — or to publish all their emails online, as you have threatened to do?
  • Just how “remote” was this barn?
  • Why didn’t you mention your threat to destroy O’Keefe’s computers?
  • Is there anything missing from your republication of that email you sent to O’Keefe and his board of directors? If so, what does it say?
  • Why all the coziness with Anons and Internet thugs on Twitter?

The “and/or” thing is quite striking.

Countdown to Tommy Christopher uncritically repeating all this as if it’s a damning story with no holes in 5…4…3..

385 Responses to “Questions About Nadia Naffe’s Story”

  1. If you discuss this on Twitter, the preferred tag is #rapebarn.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  2. So where does Ed Harris’s character from ‘Beautiful Mind’ come into the picture,

    narciso (35ae48)

  3. as silly as this idiot seems whenever she opens her mouth, she should get her last name changed to “Naif”.

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  4. It’ interesting, how they think asking questions, is ‘innuendo’ lots of stays at the Holiday Inn express,

    narciso (35ae48)

  5. You call the rapist instead of a cab ’cause it’s dark.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  6. As I posted in an earlier thread here, he was very wise to return to the barn with a witness.

    jim2 (bff5e1)

  7. If someone accesses their Gmail from your phone or computer, and you are later able to re-enter their account, does that morally entitle you to access their account and download years’ worth of emails, as you insinuate you have done — or to publish all their emails online, as you have threatened to do?

    I don’t buy that this is what happened. I think she accessed his Gmail on his work computers.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  8. Is the story on her blog? She couldn’t even get HuffPo to post it?
    With her hanging out with all the anons, I’m not keen to give her my ISP by reading her blog.

    MayBee (081489)

  9. Well I read it and it was stupid.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  10. here is a cached page on bing MayBee

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  11. And they’ll print anything, RFK jr. Lysenko on vaccines, they are back to publishing Geoffrey Dunn
    (on non Trig Trutherism) tracts that wouldn’t be
    out of place on Al Jazeera,

    narciso (35ae48)

  12. I have to run out to the Apple store later to swap my overheating recent purchase.* I can always use one o their machines to copy paste here.

    * Some people’s dont’ get hot so I guess mine is a bad apple.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  13. Oh cache at the ready. At least I got to complain about my ipad.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  14. You’re my hero, happs.

    Ladies, if you think you’ve been roofied, the best thing you can do is file an unrelated criminal complaint and doink around on twitter about it for the next 6 months.

    MayBee (081489)

  15. “The police have advised me a situation such as this constitutes FALSE IMPRISONMENT, a felony in New Jersey. Bringing a third party to the barn to prevent me from notifying the police of a crime, confusing and intimidating me so that you could keep me in the barn constitutes TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS, a felony in New Jersey.”

    Unlocked building, working phone and internet access. Probably the phone couldn’t dial 911 though. It never got through to that cab company.

    " (b0e533)

  16. He knew I reviled racists people to the nth degree.

    I wish I knew more about Harvard students’ fancy writing skills when my son was writing his college app essays.

    MayBee (081489)

  17. Ladies, if you think you’ve been roofied, the best thing you can do is file an unrelated criminal complaint and doink around on twitter about it for the next 6 months.

    Comment by MayBee — 3/22/2012 @ 8:15 am

    That’s good advice for anyone. But “doink”? Is that some kind of CODE WORD?

    " (b0e533)

  18. Hey where’d my name go? (“) is me.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  19. 9. TLDR, puke puked by a puke. Big Tent malignancy.

    gary gulrud (1de2db)

  20. Stop calling her fat, Gary. (Big Tent – CODE) That would be racist.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  21. Plus, tampering with a witness through intimidation

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  22. I could not in good faith exploit the racial stereotypes you had convinced me those journalism professors held, once I recognized that you harbored racial insecurities, insensitivities and miscegenation beliefs about our friendship.

    #srsly?barn

    MayBee (081489)

  23. #miscegenationbarn

    MayBee (081489)

  24. questions above aside, are these settlement demand and settlement agreement docs legit? he paid some women $20,000 for a sexual harassment claim?

    milowent (009b1e)

  25. You would think “drugged” would be part of the complaint, even more so than the harassment part. False imprisonment without locks, chains, broken legs, and with access to a telephone? And when you’re super scared, you call a guy who is a little over 2000 miles away, and not the police?

    How can there be a rape plot when the would be rapist keeps leaving you unattended in an unlocked barn with a telephone?

    How can anyone, no matter how much of a white knight beta b***h Xtopher is, how can anyone believe that?

    Ghost (6f9de7)

  26. Milowent- I don’t know about the sexual harassment claim, but it’s often much easier to just settle than pay an attorney to fight such a claim.

    (I’m very biased about sexual harassment claims. I know sexual harassment exists, but every case I personally know about has been a sham)

    MayBee (081489)

  27. COME ON, Ghost. It was really chilly. That equals RAPE.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  28. @MayBee – I would agree $20,000 in attys’ fees could easily be spent (or doubled) defending even frivolous claims.

    Nadia’s post only alludes that James drugged her beer; likely there is no medical evidence at this point to support that claim. If she claimed he had, and she can’t prove it, maybe that would be defamation. Am surprised in fact, that this lawsuit O’Keefe filed doesn’t have a defamation claim against Naffe– seems like an obvious claim is Naffe is smearing him.

    milowent (009b1e)

  29. with names like turncoat, traiter

    #Harvardbarn

    MayBee (081489)

  30. 20. The fault lies with the cut of fabric. All nine yards.

    OT, and it’s probably nothing, but trouble with Uncle:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/21/inside-the-ring-436080940/

    gary gulrud (1de2db)

  31. Is she for real? This seems like a Junior High School Student writing an essay “sure to get an A” from a sympathetic teacher. Like, Wow.

    dfbaskwill (ca54bb)

  32. milowent- notice the claims have gotten more outrageous the further in time we’ve gotten from the incident, and the more encouraging of such things her audience gets.

    MayBee (081489)

  33. #Harvardbarn

    Hee hee hee

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  34. @MayBee – I don’t sense they’ve gotten worse. But maybe I haven’t been following closely enough. Its her side of the story, I can see how there would be two sides.

    Its only fitting that Naffe and O’Keefe, who worked so close together, would be using their same Project Veritas tactics on each other.

    milowent (009b1e)

  35. Milowent- you don’t think her amping it up to a rape plot is substantially worse than the quarrel she describes in letter?

    MayBee (081489)

  36. Why are these claims, not in the testimony, that’s
    the tell tale sign,

    narciso (35ae48)

  37. It really is repulsive that she claimed worry about her drama killed AB, but she didn’t even bother to explain how she involved him in this.

    MayBee (081489)

  38. I was never with you for the money. I’m not looking for a payoff. (ok then) Be a man and return my panties and scarf that were in the trunk of your car.(???) Do not keep my undergarments as a trophy or souvenir to show off to your friends. We have been friends for two years, do not have Ryan contact me to discuss our personal and private affairs. (That’s my prerogative)

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  39. Her letter and testimony crack me up. She goes to Harvard?!

    Is #rapebarn trending yet?

    JD (d6f57e)

  40. None of those questions will be asked. Were they asked, they would not be answered.

    JD (d6f57e)

  41. She WAS NOT RAPED.
    She was NOT ASSAULTED.
    She was NOT Held against her will.
    She WAS drinking.

    I wonder if she knows Sandy Fluck (sic)

    Gus (36e9a7)

  42. If this was a rape plot, O’Keefe would be the most inept rapist in world history.

    radar (3a664a)

  43. I have got to believe Tommy will be disappointed now that she’s gotten to tell her side of the story and this is all it is.
    The big take-away on Twitter seems to be the subject of the sting. A science journalist! How dare he?

    MayBee (081489)

  44. “questions above aside, are these settlement demand and settlement agreement docs legit? he paid some women $20,000 for a sexual harassment claim?”

    – milowent

    Shoosh, milowent. Such things will not be discussed. The moral fiber of James “Sexboat” O’Keefe is beyond reproach.

    As the eerily similar discomforts of Izzy Santa, Abbie Boudreau, and Nadia Naffe make perfectly clear.

    Who’s “Emma”, by the way?

    Leviticus (300e0a)

  45. The moral fiber of Nadia “Im a steel yur emales” Naffe is difficult to ascertain. She might could just be really stupid and really immature.

    She reminds me of Kesha.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  46. The big take-away on Twitter seems to be the subject of the sting.

    That is basically the only thing about this I’ve found relevant to the big picture.

    What a shame it would be if an important project regarding corruption exposure was thwarted over personal conflicts.

    I don’t buy that this is what happened. I think she accessed his Gmail on his work computers.
    Comment by Sarahw

    If that’s the case, it makes her threat to destroy the computers seem even worse. And it actually makes some sense.

    ts only fitting that Naffe and O’Keefe, who worked so close together, would be using their same Project Veritas tactics on each other.

    I think I saw this argument somewhere else, more or less saying that for O’Keefe to pretend to be a child prostitution pimp and gain accomplices at ACORN offices is as dishonest as suggesting a rape plot without any basis.

    I disagree with that, if this is what you meant. The folks at ACORN had a choice about whether or not to saddle up with the pimp. Whatever they did, the video and audio showed it. This isn’t really similar to having a fight with someone and then spinning it with no evidence basis.

    Dustin (330eed)

  47. except for of course Kesha is super smart, but the skank factor with this nadia is very high I mean

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  48. If this was a rape plot, O’Keefe would be the most inept rapist in world history.

    Comment by radar — 3/22/2012 @ 9:54 am

    If the definition of rape is now “there is a drunk girl on my couch that I don’t want to talk to because I’m working”, something has gone terribly wrong with the English language.

    Kaisersoze (298188)

  49. Milowent, I just realize you were actually referencing the CNN sexboat thing. My mistake. I’m focused on other stuff right now.

    A lot of people I respect say they find O’Keefe smarmy, I hope he works on that. Not because it’s fair for smarmy looking people to be smeared with baseless rape smears (And I realize you aren’t saying that it is OK). I do think his subsequent work has been much better and more on target.

    Even if some disapprove of his tactics in a few of these cases (or all of them), I think it’s pretty clear he’s being smeared.

    Dustin (330eed)

  50. Shoosh, milowent. Such things will not be discussed. The moral fiber of James “Sexboat” O’Keefe is beyond reproach.

    What do you mean they won’t be discussed? Maybe he sexually harasses women. But notice in her letter she claims O’Keefe is trying to do to her what is currently being done to Herman Cain.
    She herself recognizes that claims of sexual harassment can be used in a punitive way. So what do we make of that?

    The problem with Naffe’s narrative is she doesn’t really have one. He wanted to have sex with her. He was jealous. No, he drugged her. He wouldn’t bring her home. He was racist. No, he didn’t like it that her boyfriend had money. No, he wanted to rape her. She was drunk. There was another man in the room. Witness tampering! They told her to spend the night. She didn’t want to intrude on someone’s first amendment rights. Rape plot.

    MayBee (081489)

  51. O’Keefe is smarmy Mr. Dustin he’s certainly not commendable in proportion to nadia’s skankyness

    he got his start palling around with notorious skank Lila Rose

    he’s something of a skank magnet, our James

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  52. Maybee’s right. The basic problem here is how there is no coherent plot. They aren’t even trying to make sense.

    In fact, it’s so poor I worry this is just a pretense to provide a little moral smokescreen for the real attack (the emails being posted online).

    Dustin (330eed)

  53. It’s not Naffe’s narrative that makes me think so little of O’Keefe: it’s the Boudreau thing, and then the Izzy Santa thing on top of that. I didn’t realize that Santa’s settlement was for independet sexual harassment; I thought it was just for a non-disclosure agreement on the contents of the Boudreau “prank.” That’s the lens through which I view this situation, which makes it easy for me to believe that there remains some truth at the bottom of all of Naffe’s incompetent accusatory flailings.

    Leviticus (300e0a)

  54. the Herman Cain thing confuzzled me… he got petard-hoisted as much by the low caliber of the chippies he’d associated with as by associating with chippies at all

    Our friend nadia should study the Herman Cain case more closely for valuable lessons.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  55. Shoosh, milowent. Such things will not be discussed. The moral fiber of James “Sexboat” O’Keefe is beyond reproach.

    Complete and utter BS, Levi.

    JD (d6f57e)

  56. O’Keefe is smarmy Mr. Dustin he’s certainly not commendable in proportion to nadia’s skankyness

    I can’t say Leviticus’s criticisms are totally off base. At least in spirit, I think we all can see the PR mistakes O’Keefe has made.

    On the other hand, the guy is a bona fide journalist. He really should be at a major paper or network, working with professionals like producers. he’s got the talent and the backbone, but he doesn’t have the polish and the public relations down.

    I think the real problem here is that a young ambitious guy who wants to make a real difference in journalism won’t have a chance at the major papers or networks, and has to take incredible risks like striking out on your own and taking on very well funded attack machines. So he’s screwed up a couple of times. But he’s also accomplished a lot.

    I personally don’t think he intended anything with the Sex Boat beyond making the basic seduction point. It was an unprofessional choice… but I think it was just a human mistake.

    The professional journalists are folks like Tommy Christopher who do not really serve any function. They actually make our understanding of stories much worse. Consistently.

    Dustin (330eed)

  57. which makes it easy for me to believe that there remains some truth at the bottom of all of Naffe’s incompetent accusatory flailings.

    Comment by Leviticus —

    OK, you’re just admitting a personal bias that makes it easy to believe accusations. But contra that, Nadia’s flailings are just incompetent. They are contradictory. They are actually sounding like blackmail in some cases. I think those factors greatly outweigh that this is an unsympathetic defendant in your view.

    It does, however, show why being right is often not enough, and it’s important to keep PR in mind.

    Dustin (330eed)

  58. Most of Santa’s claim was based on events involving “love boat”, Levi. She also heard misogynistic language, and bad jokes.

    JD (d6f57e)

  59. I think he does interesting work Mr. Dustin, if not always helpful work

    he certainly doesn’t cast a particularly harsh light on the spendings or the more general unsustainability of this little country we call America

    He’s very high concept. Like Madonna.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  60. Let me synopsize for y’all.

    Bad Bad Jimmy O’Keefe OUTED LIBTARDS.

    He must be destroyed. You see, if Jimmy O’Keefe is a bad person, the ACORN isn’t bad anymore and Mary Landrieu isn’t a LIBTARD HACK!!!

    O’Keefe is the messenger, not the message. He must be destroyed.

    Gus (36e9a7)

  61. happyfeet #51:

    he got his start palling around with notorious skank Lila Rose

    Really? The Urban Dictionary definition of a skank. The Wiki article on Lila Rose. Compare and contrast, hf.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  62. lila rose is a courageous person, pikachu, PP has practically turned into a ‘for profit’ abbatoir,
    among it’s other failings,

    narciso (35ae48)

  63. Mary Landrieu has done more for the cause of off-shore drilling and the attendant jobs than any R you could name off hand I bet Mr. Gus.

    But yeah she also voted for the fascist masterstroke we call obamacare.

    I just like to give Lia Rose a hard time DRJ and narciso.

    Because she disgusts me.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  64. *Lila* I mean

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  65. he certainly doesn’t cast a particularly harsh light on the spendings or the more general unsustainability of this little country we call America

    He’s not that kind of pundit. He’s just a shoeleather sting operation guy like Chris Hansen, only he takes on truly corrupt institutions that the establishment press refuses to take on, and Mr Hansen’s work lately often leads to a ‘government needs to step in’ result.

    Dustin (330eed)

  66. here is the never not tedious tommy’s initial take

    I haven’t read it yet

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  67. ACORN is in part responsible for forcing banks into the scam that became the finanncial crisis, they
    are part of our bumble president’s CV, similarly with national soros radio, the shaper of the minds
    of ‘the deciders’

    narciso (35ae48)

  68. she suddenly and irrationally demanded to be taken to a train station stating she no longer wanted to work on the project. (O’Keefe) arranged for her to catch a train as soon as possible that evening.”

    “Shortly thereafter, it became apparent that Defendant had obtained personal, confidential and proprietary information that had been stored on Plaintiffs computer,” the suit continues. It makes no mention of Naffe’s specific allegations regarding the events that occurred in the barn.

    Tommy’s so blind he doesn’t see O’Keefe does, in fact, address Naffe’s specific allegations.

    MayBee (081489)

  69. Levi
    Have you read Naffe’s story? It’s all right there. The best she’s got is that he wouldn’t acquiesce to her drunk demands to drop everything and take her somewhere else.

    Ghost (6f9de7)

  70. Tommy’s creepy hackishness is displayed in the first paragraph where he links to an article about how Nadia’s lawsuit was dismissed as meritless, but he never says as much in his article.

    this is the reporting what readers at former MSNBC propaganda monkey Dan Abrams’ “mediaite.com” site are treated to today:

    Thursday morning, Naffe published the second part, which details her version of the events that led her to file a criminal harassment complaint against O’Keefe in November, and which includes documents related to a sexual harassment settlement between O’Keefe and “CNN Sex Boat Caper” whistleblower Izzy Santa.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  71. Good point, happs.

    At mediaite, I see sarainitaly points out that naffe added the “on the way out, he stopped in the kitchen where my beer was” to her narrative sometime after she wrote the letter detailing her version of events.

    So what we see is, she was talking on the phone and lucid when O’Keefe left. After that, whatever she was up to, she continued to drink while she was alone in the barn. If she wanted to leave, why did she keep drinking? Why didn’t she get to leaaving?

    MayBee (081489)

  72. You advised me to lye down in bed and that everything would be better in the morning.

    O’Keefe tried to corrosive her.

    MayBee (081489)

  73. You are all #rapebarn apologists.

    JD (d6f57e)

  74. MayBee – I like the sentences that aren’t really sentences.

    JD (d6f57e)

  75. 68. Ok then. He says she took the mails from his computer.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  76. #SOAPBARN

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  77. she continued to drink while she was alone in the barn. If she wanted to leave, why did she keep drinking?


    bingo

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  78. When I realized your deception, I tried to escape from the barn as quickly as I could. I tried to run away, but I didn’t know where I was. I felt disoriented after drinking the alcohol you purchased. It was pitch black outside and there were no lights. It was freezing cold inside the barn, there was no heat inside and I couldn’t see the steps leading downstairs. I called and texted you dozens of times that night, insisting that you return me to the train station or provide me with transportation out of the remote location which you brought me to. When I told you I felt sick, you didn’t seem surprised. You advised me to lye down in bed and that everything would be better in the morning.

    After hours of your continued refusal to transport me out of this remote area, I began calling several people I knew asking for help.

    that rules out rohypnol cause of there’s no way she would remember what she did for “hours of your continued refusal.”

    The amnesia part is a big reason why rohypnol is so beloved by date rapists and their ilk.

    Or at least that’s what they taught us in college.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  79. here is a helpful list and discussion of drugs you can use in your rapebarn adventures

    I’m a look and see if any match the symptoms our tormented friend the nafster suffered

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  80. Ok then. He says she took the mails from his computer.

    Comment by Sarahw

    Yeah, it looks like you were right.

    The amnesia part is a big reason why rohypnol is so beloved by date rapists and their ilk.

    I’ve noticed this as well. Some are saying it’s just not proven if there were roofies, but actually the story strongly indicates there weren’t any. Not just the memory, but also some of her conduct.

    This is *her* side of the story? Yeesh.

    Dustin (330eed)

  81. hmmm… amnesia seems to feature in all of your respectable date rape drugs… yet Nadia even recollects that O’Keefe and his friend ahad to help her into the car

    here’s crack reporter Tommy Christopher’s account of what nadia recollects

    Naffe also alleges that she began to feel physical disorientation, and was eventually unable to move under her own control, after sharing beer with O’Keefe. She said O’Keefe and a friend eventually drove her to Penn Station in New York and thatO’Keefe and his friend had to help her into the car, and that she passed out during the ride. She says she woke up at the train station, and later noticed items, including panties, missing from her luggage.

    That’s a LOT of rememberings for someone whose supposed to have been under the dark spell of rape potions.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  82. *who’s* I mean

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  83. In her testimony, she remembered more than that. She remembered he didn’t have the money to buy her a train ticket, and he didn’t have a car, and he had to bring the friend to drive, and they stopped at a friend’s house to get cash.
    She doesn’t remember what happened when she passed out in the car on the way to the train station.
    That sounds like the number 1 date rape drug, alcohol.

    MayBee (081489)

  84. That’s a LOT of rememberings for someone whose supposed to have been under the dark spell of rape potions.
    Comment by happyfeet — 3/22/2012 @ 11:50 am

    Also it sound a lot like someone with a blood AC of about 1.5%

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  85. Maybee, totally unfair to leave it out on the counter. Like bacon in a rat trap.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  86. so at least Nadia can stop beating herself up for keeping her back to Mr. James while he was in the kitchen where her beer was

    Maybe now she can start to heal.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  87. #healingbarn

    MayBee (081489)

  88. #healingbarn

    I can’t help but think if only Jennifer Love Hewitt wasn’t already committed CBS would have a huge hit on their hands

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  89. Y’all are being quite funny.

    Yhis is really messed up Making baseless rape drug accusations when there was no sex and there were no drugs beyond the alcohol voluntarily drunk and the ‘rapist’ actually drove you to the train station… that’s just evil. To actual rape victims. She didn’t even drop the Breitbart bashing when his family was grieving.

    There are some truly messed up folks out there.

    Dustin (330eed)

  90. She was drinking in a rapebarn in pursuit of her dreams
    when she got left to sleep it off in one of those crushing scenes

    Where was she to go
    what was she to do

    she’d lost track of her panties…

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  91. #trophypanties

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  92. She’s the lady in jep when everybody else is trying not to laugh

    the hacking girl from Harvard,
    The ninny named Naffe

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  93. Ninny is too mean. Oh well needs work

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  94. As I suspected would be the case, her “tell all” is devoid of substantial facts.

    And, she’s a lowlife little skank.

    However, as I said a few days ago, her lowlife skankiness was a matter of public record, long before this, and O’Keefe never should have had anything to do with her.

    He brought his trouble on himself by not checking her out before he got involved with her. You want to play at being an investigative journalist, you better get serious about doing some investigating.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  95. noob?

    naif?

    noodge?

    nazgul?

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  96. as I said a few days ago, her lowlife skankiness was a matter of public record, long before this

    Is this referring to the Florida GOP stuff, the John Boyd thing, or something else I’m not aware of?

    I kinda disagree anyway. People can earn a second chance so long as you make the effort to get to know them. This whole thing probably would have been fine had they never mixed alcohol and work, though.

    Dustin (330eed)

  97. Nazgul is nice.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  98. And unexpected!

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  99. It’s not Naffe’s narrative that makes me think so little of O’Keefe: it’s the Boudreau thing, and then the Izzy Santa thing on top of that. I didn’t realize that Santa’s settlement was for independet sexual harassment; I thought it was just for a non-disclosure agreement on the contents of the Boudreau “prank.” That’s the lens through which I view this situation, which makes it easy for me to believe that there remains some truth at the bottom of all of Naffe’s incompetent accusatory flailings.
    Comment by Leviticus — 3/22/2012 @ 10:26 am

    — So, questionable behavior regarding a plot that was never enacted leads you to question his behavior in a situation where a plot has been alleged but not proven. If the only evidence against OJ was the existence of a video showing him stabbing a female mannequin, would that prove anything?

    Icy (be57ab)

  100. “I didn’t realize that Santa’s settlement was for independet sexual harassment.”

    Well, the reason you didn’t realize that is because that’s not what the settlement proposal is about.

    It’s about her claiming that she wasn’t paid money she was due for services she performed, and the usual entitlement mentality drivel about wrongful termination, and a bunch of other leftard baloney.

    I’ve read the demand letter from her shyster, and the proposed settlement agreement, and it’s a bunch of hogwash. O’Keefe might go along with it, just because it’s cheaper to pay her off than to get involved in a legal battle, but her complaints are basically a bunch of nonsense.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  101. I just like to give Lia Rose a hard time DRJ and narciso.
    Because she disgusts me.
    Comment by happyfeet — 3/22/2012 @ 10:38 am

    — Well, she’s a girl, and they do allow her to go outside wearing shoes once in awhile. So there’s that.

    Icy (be57ab)

  102. “Is this referring to the Florida GOP stuff”

    Yup. And, some other things, like her habit of making insinuations of wrongdoing against people, without having a shred of hard evidence to back it up.

    She’s a doubledealing little backstabber who will turn on you in a heartbeat, and it was well known that that’s what she was a long, long time ago.

    You hook up with her, and you’re asking for it.

    I wouldn’t let the slut through my front door, much less do business with her.

    O’Keefe brought this on himself.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  103. Is #rapebarn still trending?

    JD (d6f57e)

  104. like her habit of making insinuations of wrongdoing against people, without having a shred of hard evidence to back it up.

    I think this is fair.

    She’s a doubledealing little backstabber who will turn on you in a heartbeat

    Hard to argue with this too. But that’s in hindsight. Regardless, Breitbart and O’Keefe’s trust in her was misplaced.

    Dustin (330eed)

  105. I haven’t checked yet, but you have to assume her merry little band of cretinous twit friends are loving this today.

    JD (d6f57e)

  106. #rapebarnists

    Icy (be57ab)

  107. “But that’s in hindsight.”

    Her antics have been all over the internet and newspapers for years.

    O’Keefe should have known that, investigative journalism being his avocation.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  108. “Why didn’t you mention your threat to destroy O’Keefe’s computers?”

    Probably because doing that really is a crime. In New Jersey, anyway.

    Of course, she’s already admitted to it in front of a New Jersey judge, so it’s too late to cover it up now.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  109. “…makes me think so little of O’Keefe…”

    Sure, he’s a kind of a scumbag. Muckrakers usually are. However, his scumbaggery resulted in making it harder for ACORN to use the government to steal my money, and rig elections, so I’ll excuse the keyhole peeping, and trickery he’s employed.

    Naffe, OTOH is a million times bigger of a scumbag (there aren’t many things lower than a lying, backstabbing traitor, or a snitch), and all her scumbaggery does is help thieving Democrats and their thieving pals, and, possibly herself, if one of her bogus lawsuits ever pay off.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  110. Her antics have been all over the internet and newspapers for years.

    The one you’re relying on was, true. They gave her a second chance. I think they knew all about it, actually. It’s not a matter of failing to investigate. It’s that they took a risk in trusting Ms Naffe and that turned out to be a bad call. I drink with professional friends all the time, but I also think there’s a common sense limit there that was crossed… perhaps O’Keefe did not actually agree to that, though.

    It’s a tough call. O’Keefe definitely has a big bullseye on him and any scandal will be highlighted and spun, so you’re probably right he should have been more cautious in who he partnered with.

    Dustin (330eed)

  111. there aren’t many things lower than a lying, backstabbing traitor

    She’s really twisting the knife too. Particularly with respect to Breitbart. It’s so over the top that a lot of folks don’t even think this twitter account is Nadia’s (though it’s apparent she has signed off on this stuff, at minimum). Terrible stuff.

    Dustin (330eed)

  112. Nadia is not a good person. And she hangs out with some pretty sucky people too.

    JD (d6f57e)

  113. GennetteC Redux, on steroids.

    JD (d6f57e)

  114. “They gave her a second chance.”

    More fools them, if that’s the case.

    Giving a dishonest, amoral backstabber a second chance is foolish. Giving a totally unrepentant dishonest, amoral backstabber a second chance is insanity.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  115. Waaaay off topic, but here’s my take on the Trayven Martin shooting.

    (click on my name)

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  116. I have claims as nazgul, which are technically the hooded riders on the shreaking dragons, Tommy’s more of a Nazgul, though, So did I miss the police report in this whole thing.

    narciso (35ae48)

  117. it’s time for Rick Santorum to quit the race pressure is building and I am adding my voice to those who say it is time to unite

    I are happyfeet and I approve this message

    very much

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  118. Tommy Christopher’s investigative reporting on this is about what one would expect based on his past history, isn’t it?

    elissa (5d3fa4)

  119. Goodness, u click one too many links and end up in this cesspool.

    Clearly two people that deserve each other.

    In the meantime it can be left up to the true believers to decide who is probably closer to the truth (i.e. who can better further their political aims).

    John P (dff68d)

  120. Well, the reason you didn’t realize that is because that’s not what the settlement proposal is about.

    It’s about her claiming that she wasn’t paid money she was due for services she performed, and the usual entitlement mentality drivel about wrongful termination, and a bunch of other leftard baloney.

    That’s how this non-attorney read it.

    I’m hoping the meida will sort all this out for me. lol

    Noodles (3681c4)

  121. John P eats boogerz

    JD (318f81)

  122. #RapeBarnsWithTowelRacks

    Noodles (3681c4)

  123. #John P istoodumbtoinsult

    JD (d6f57e)

  124. Wow, it takes a little too much intellectual firepower to come up with answers rivaling JD’s. Well played, sir!

    John P (dff68d)

  125. “Waaaay off topic, but here’s my take on the Trayven Martin shooting.”

    I’m surprised Pat hasn’t started a thread on that one. Seems like something he’d have a professional interest in.

    I’m currently being royally excoriated over at PJMedia for advancing the opinion that it looks like a case of murder, and that George Zimmerman ought to be indicted.

    Oh, well. Such is life, when you’re an opiniated contrarian.

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  126. does O’Keefe have goats
    they’ll eat anything could be
    the Panty Bandit

    Colonel Haiku (6794cb)

  127. “Goodness, u click one too many links and end up in this cesspool.”

    Yeah, it does tend to smell like crap here…every time a leftard accidently passes through.

    What a coincidence!

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  128. #rapeychangey

    Colonel Haiku (6794cb)

  129. “So, questionable behavior regarding a plot that was never enacted leads you to question his behavior in a situation where a plot has been alleged but not proven. If the only evidence against OJ was the existence of a video showing him stabbing a female mannequin, would that prove anything?”

    – Icy

    No. But it would certainly give me reason to think that there was something creepy and weird about OJ. Which is the only point I’ve been making about O’Keefe (I certainly don’t think there was anything resembling a “rape plot”, and all the suggestions to the contrary by people like Olbermann and Whatsisname strike me as highly disingenuous).

    My point is and has been that O’Keefe exudes creepy-vibes – nothing more or less. I don’t think he’s a criminal; but if I had a little sister, for instance, I wouldn’t want her hanging out with him.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  130. #udderlyridiculous

    #nosacredcow

    #

    Colonel Haiku (6794cb)

  131. If someone accesses their Gmail from your phone or computer, and you are later able to re-enter their account, does that morally entitle you to access their account and download years’ worth of emails, as you insinuate you have done — or to publish all their emails online, as you have threatened to do?

    I don’t buy that this is what happened. I think she accessed his Gmail on his work computers.

    Once again, there’s SarahW with the smart comment (no sarcasm).

    I agree, if for no other reason than downloading and permanently saving years worth of email on a smart phone would be a pain in the butt … and if he trusted her (stupidly) enough to use her smartphone to access his email, then he probably would have trusted her enough to give her access to his proper computers. He did leave her alone with them, after all.

    Fortunately, he came to his senses when she was acting all weird and, when he finally relented to her inane plane to drop her off at a train station drunk rather than safely sleep it off, alone, at his parents’ property — at least he brought a friend as a witness so he couldn’t get falsely accused of rape.

    Instead, he gets falsely smeared for an alleged rape plot … that consisted of him trying to get the heck away from her so he could do some work after she shirked work … and trying to stay away from her when she texted him repeatedly to come back.

    That sort of rape plot.

    Random (de9896)

  132. but if I had a little sister, for instance, I wouldn’t want her hanging out with him. she’d be my cousin.

    Comment by Leviticus

    FIFY

    Colonel Haiku (6794cb)

  133. But the point of the exercise was to excuse the criminal acts, that occurred all through out the Occupy camps, from Portland to NY.

    narciso (35ae48)

  134. How much do any of us really know about “the love boat” incident?

    It seems Izzy got paid a decent amount of money.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  135. How has this story moved on so quickly from people that say they know her saying they don’t think it’s her or that she can’t be vetted.

    I suppose because it has never made it there yet maybe?

    Noodles (3681c4)

  136. You stay classy, Haiku.

    It’s the one thing you’ve got going for you.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  137. Noodles, I think the reason the story hasn’t progressed is that there’s really no story. It’s just an embarrassing mess.

    Meanwhile, Breitbart.com is doing this stuff.

    Dustin (330eed)

  138. Comment by Colonel Haiku — 3/22/2012 @ 4:07 pm

    You are way out of line with that. Why be a jerk?

    Machinist (b6f7da)

  139. Machinist, he doesn’t need a reason.

    Dustin (330eed)

  140. And good to see you around, btw.

    Dustin (330eed)

  141. Thank you, Sir. You seem to be right.

    Machinist (b6f7da)

  142. Obviously, we all need to adjust our sense of good manners to accommodate Haiku’s (questionable) sense of humor. Wouldn’t want to be thought old-fashioned. Or something.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  143. It’s the one thing you’ve got going for you.

    Comment by Leviticus

    What… no seven hundred word diatribe? Lighten up, you’re no victim.

    Colonel Haiku (6794cb)

  144. I know, Leviticus. How dare folks just want to have a nice conversation! You’re so imposing!

    Dustin (330eed)

  145. Anyway, does anyone think more will come of the Waters aspect?

    Dustin (330eed)

  146. A few hundred words isn’t a whole lot, if you’ve got something to say. So… yeah. You probably expend more words on this blog than I do these days; you just dribble them out one pithy empty insult at a time.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  147. Now that is funny, Dustin. How do those new shoes feel?

    Colonel Haiku (6794cb)

  148. Okay, so there are 2 stories on Mediaite, one on Gawker, and a couple other places, but her friends are doubting it’s her?

    This is not a major red flag?

    Noodles (3681c4)

  149. Did we really need someone to take up Dohbiden’s mantle?

    Machinist (b6f7da)

  150. Nadia denies knowing someone who she has a comment and picture on Twitter linked to.

    Oh well, Tommy vetted her. LOL

    Noodles (3681c4)

  151. #John P istoodumbtoinsult was prescient.

    JD (7ac662)

  152. Noodles – Nadia Naffe is a liar.

    JD (7ac662)

  153. Maybe JD, but my point is there seems to be evidence suggesting she may not be who she says she is.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  154. “It seems Izzy got paid a decent amount of money.”

    Could be, but since nobody’s talking, it’s hard to say.

    It was reported that an out of court settlement was reached, but since there was also supposedly a non-disclosure clause, no reliable details are available.

    At least they weren’t until Naffe released a document puporting to be a proposed settlement agreement between Santa on one side and O’Keefe and Project Veritas on the other side.

    One of the clauses says:

    “Santa likewise agrees that she will keep the existence and terms of this Agreement confidential and that she will not disclose them to anyone, other than her attorney(s), tax advisor(s), and members of her immediate family.”

    …which raises the interesting question of how exactly Naffe came into possession of these documents?

    Assuming the purported communications are real, the demand for confidentiality almost certainly came from O’Keefe’s side of the fence, so it seems unlikely that he would give this document or the demand letter to anybody (especially someone like Naffe)…so, how did how did she get ahold of it?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  155. Colonel Haiku,

    I, too, think your comment to Leviticus is unacceptable. I hope you will apologize. If not, I hope your future comments are put in moderation.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  156. I would guess that James has confidentiality agreements with everyone he works with.

    It is interesting that Izzy’s documents are the ones shown.

    I wonder if she was paid to tell CNN about the love boat.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  157. “It was reported that an out of court settlement was reached, but since there was also supposedly a non-disclosure clause, no reliable details are available.”

    – Dave Surls

    A non-disclosure agreement, which Project Veritas purchased for $20,000. Why in the world would a little non-profit media watchdog shell out that kinda money? Gotta put a squeeze on the ole budget…

    Guess it was worth it, for some reason. Can’t imagine why.

    Anyway. Nothing to see here.

    Who’s this “Emma”, by the way?

    Leviticus (870be5)

  158. Sorry for the sarcasm. The last time I tried to make the outrageous claim that O’Keefe was kind of a creep, it was kind of an ordeal.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  159. “Why in the world would a little non-profit media watchdog shell out that kinda money?”

    For the same reason people pay off the mob. It ain’t worth the risk of standing up to them…and losing, even if you’re right.

    But, that’s not the issue I’m talking about.

    The issue is IF, IF, IF a settlement agreement was reached, and IF, IF, IF it’s the one Naffe links to, which contains a non-disclosure agreement, which also forbids passing on the document…how did Naffe get ahold of it?

    “Sorry for the sarcasm.”

    I’m a big boy. I can take it.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  160. if your sister is your cousin then that means your mom and dad are brother and sister too, which is probably illegal, but she’s still your sister and you shouldn’t let her hang out in a rape barn

    That is my opinion.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  161. Anyway. Nothing to see here.

    Who’s this “Emma”, by the way?

    Comment by Leviticus —

    I think Dave agrees with you that he’s a bit of a scumbag, though not like Naffe by any stretch.

    I don’t think I’d go that far, but that’s just my nature. It’s either tons of benefit of the doubt or I just flip to zero benefit of the doubt once someone’s shown they have a real problem.

    There’s obviously something smarmy about him, but I think he seeks the truth and just made some bad calls, rather than actually having a character problem.

    What happens with this problem is that Shuster and others exploit this weak spot/easy target in a vicious way, knowing it will get a lot of cheap points. They knew that calling him a felon was a nice sleazy way to push the envelope and be controversial, for example.

    Obviously you’re not giving them a license to do so, Leviticus. I think folks should learn some lessons from O’Keefe’s PR vulnerabilities. I still say that he’s done a lot of good.

    Dustin (330eed)

  162. “I’m a big boy. I can take it.”

    – Dave Surls

    I know. I meant the apology more generally. I don’t want to fall into commenting in an overly sarcastic mode, which I’ve been guilty of in the past.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  163. Why would anyone think James is creepy?

    I’ll tell you. It’s not from meeting him. It’s because they have read things journalists have alluded to but have never proved. All innuendo and rumor, no facts.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  164. Also, I think that Dave Surls’ question about how Naffe got a hold of the non-disclosure agreement is a good one. What comes to mind is that she was working with Project Veritas, and they have copies of that agreement. Doubt they’d just show it to her, though. Most likely she took it off of one of O’Keefe’s computers.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  165. Leviticus, I offer my sincere apologies… unreservedly. I offer a complete and utter retraction, the comment was totally without basis in fact and was admittedly motivated by pure malice. I regret any distress it may have caused you – or your family – and I will, in the future, refrain from any attempts at backwoods humor.

    Colonel Haiku (3e48cd)

  166. illegal in all 57 states, happyfeets.

    Colonel Haiku (3e48cd)

  167. I’ve never met Mr. James he’s pretty far down the list kind of around where that guy from The Spin Doctors and Mayim Bialik are

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  168. But Project Veritas has made its reputation being aggressive and fighting with MSM organizations. It seems weird that they’d just role over and preemptively admit defeat in this situation, where they had a chance to have a high profile fight, unless they thought it was going to cast them in a uniformly ugly light.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  169. so people like that would probably have to go to Canada then Mr. Colonel

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  170. I’m glad you issued an apology, Colonel, as I was coming in here getting ready to take you to task.

    There’s another issue you need to address, though. You made a nasty comment about Dustin’s heritage in one of the sockpuppet threads. I haven’t followed the back and forth on that, but you need to acknowledge having made the comment, and I think you should apologize for it. The comment was out of line.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  171. “Leviticus, I offer my sincere apologies… unreservedly. I offer a complete and utter retraction, the comment was totally without basis in fact and was admittedly motivated by pure malice. I regret any distress it may have caused you – or your family – and I will, in the future, refrain from any attempts at backwoods humor.”

    – Colonel Haiku

    Well thanks. Wasn’t gonna lose sleep over it.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  172. Maybe Project Veritas vetted the story.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  173. Good Lord, I hope Bill Clinton doesn’t find out!

    Nadia Naffe… “Blogger. Political Junkie. Cigar Aficionado. Frustrated Conservative.”

    Colonel Haiku (3e48cd)

  174. *and/or something

    Noodles (3681c4)

  175. In 168, I mean the Izzy Santa situation, not this Naffe situation. It doesn’t seem in-character for a pugilistic group like Project Veritas to role over in the face of Santa’s allegations unless there was some real substantive bite them.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  176. dammit, I mean *roll* over

    Leviticus (870be5)

  177. I’ll tell you. It’s not from meeting him. It’s because they have read things journalists have alluded to but have never proved. All innuendo and rumor, no facts.

    Comment by Noodles

    for the most part. I think he made a bad call with the CNN thing. I do not at all think he was actually going to do anything particularly heinous there, but it was still unprofessional and O’Keefe took responsibility for the error.

    But the thing is: everyone makes mistakes. O’Keefe’s mistakes are minor compared to, say, Olbermann’s. If they hold up the magnifying glass, find the weak spot, and then viciously take it to the umpteenth level, they can do this to you or me too.

    And does it matter? To large extent, it doesn’t. For example, O’Keefe wasn’t going to just give me his word and his ‘objective’ column describing the banking corruption with Rep Waters and her husband. He was going to somehow get some original evidence to document it. Maybe it would fail, but that is what O’Keefe sought in his best exposes. So I have something much stronger to rely on than just the word of a journalist, muckraker or not.

    I think that Dave Surls’ question about how Naffe got a hold of the non-disclosure agreement is a good one.

    Me too.

    How far fetched is it to wonder if she actually went in there intending to get confidential information, and then the threat to destroy the computers, the drunkenness, and the demand to leave ASAP was meant to deflect and evade what happened? Probably not the case, but it’s plausible, right?

    Dustin (330eed)

  178. Yeah, it’s plausible.

    If she were that devious, though, I would say she picked her mark well.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  179. happyfeet: Hi I’m happyfeet.

    Mayim Bialik: Hi happyfeet I’m Mayim Bialik. You may know me as Blossom from the tv show, Blossom.

    happyfeet: I hope you saved your money please tell me you saved your money. You know the reason they say lightning never strikes twice is cause of… you.

    Mayim Bialik: I didn’t know that.

    happyfeet: Yup.

    Mayim Bialik: You’re very handsome.

    happyfeet: It was sooooo nice to meet you!

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  180. Does anyone know who this “Emma” that Naffe’s post refers to is? Or what the back-story is there?

    Leviticus (870be5)

  181. I would never let Sacha Baron Cohen around my little sister.

    He’s a dictator for god’s sake!!!

    Noodles (3681c4)

  182. Sounded like an ex to me, levi

    JD (7ac662)

  183. So Leviticus–you seem very interested in this story. What’s your theory on the Nadia dealio?. What do you think happened that night and since then based on what you’ve seen printed and tweeted? (And based on your own social insights from personal experience living in modern day America?) Are there any heroes? Any victims?

    This is only if you care to comment, of course. I’m not grilling you.

    elissa (5d3fa4)

  184. that’s Dr. Blossom to you, pikachu

    Mayim Bialik (3c92a1)

  185. “Sounded like an ex to me, levi”

    – JD

    Yeah, that seems right.

    In that blog post, Naffe implies that O’Keefe taped “intimate moments” with this Emma in that barn, without her knowledge. Given Naffe’s demonstrated tolerance for dishonest representation, I don’t think too much sway can be put in an off-the-cuff allegation like that; but the allegation is certainly relevant.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  186. Interesting Youtube channel

    http://www.youtube.com/user/featherofsteel

    Noodles (3681c4)

  187. How far fetched is it to wonder if she actually went in there intending to get confidential information, and then the threat to destroy the computers, the drunkenness, and the demand to leave ASAP was meant to deflect and evade what happened? Probably not the case, but it’s plausible, right?

    I think every reasonably possible explanation for her series of misleading and/or nonsensical statements should be explored.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  188. That channel has videos pertaining to 2 of the mentioned women.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  189. I see the Emma video. What else?

    Patterico (feda6b)

  190. Interesting how this fellow, from the other thread, doesn’t attempt to ascertain the truth, hmm.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/james-okeefe-confronts-new-allegations/2012/03/22/gIQAuQi7TS_blog.html

    narciso (35ae48)

  191. You used to be truly precious to me, but those affectionate feelings I once felt for you are long past now.

    This makes me curious. Clearly speculative, but this is a very intimate and personal expression that seems to reveal there was something more than just a mutually respectful colleague relationship before it went south. What exactly was Nadia and O’Keefe’s relationship?

    Dana (4eca6e)

  192. Dana, I thought Nadia’s husband was some kind of associate of O’Keefe.

    That does suggest there’s something else going on. I am never good at this kind of speculation.

    Dustin (330eed)

  193. The Maureen Graduates one P.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  194. “you seem very interested in this story. What’s your theory on the Nadia dealio?. What do you think happened that night and since then based on what you’ve seen printed and tweeted? (And based on your own social insights from personal experience living in modern day America?) Are there any heroes? Any victims?”

    – elissa

    I’m more invested in it than I normally would be, because I spent so much time arguing the matter in that other knock-down drag-out thread.

    My first point was that there are good reasons to think that O’Keefe is a rather creepy character. My second point (eventually) was that that conclusion could be reached without buying into the utterly baseless spin on the Naffe situation proffered by Olbermann and Shuster, and (as an aside) that loudmouth pundits like Olbermann and Shuster are dishonest partisan assh*les.

    What I think probably happened with the Naffe dealio is that O’Keefe and Naffe had some interactions in a work setting, and O’Keefe became interested in her. Naffe didn’t realize it, so didn’t think anything of a proposal to do another project where she stayed at O’Keefe’s house. When it became clear to her that O’Keefe was interested in her for more than her journalistic capacities, she rebuffed him. He got mad and left. They probably argued. She was probably reasonably drunk. She wanted to go home, and he didn’t want to take her home. She made threats to destroy stuff, so he took her home(ish).

    I don’t think O’Keefe had any untoward plans regarding Naffe. I think he probably had romantic inclinations, but there’s nothing that would suggest that he was going to act on them once she rebuffed him. At this point, I seriously doubt she was drugged, although (speaking as someone who’s been very very drunk) it doesn’t seem like what she was experiencing would normally stem directly from alcohol on its own, whatever the amount. But it seems perfectly plausible to me that Naffe is playing up that angle to support a narrative at this point.

    What’s taken place since then has been a feeding-frenzy of spin from dishonest ProgPundits. I also think there’s been a measure of unreasonable wagon-circling on the part of conservatives regarding O’Keefe, dismissing probative past behavior that should not be so lightly dismissed.

    No heroes, certainly not. At this point, because of all the slander from the CurrentTV Gang, I would actually almost be willing to say that O’Keefe was something of a victim in this, with the proviso that I think he’s a creeper who’s compiled the record which would make allegations like this plausible to begin with. And, even in the most innocuous circumstances, I think O’Keefe handled the situation very badly. And the aftermath. Etc.

    I don’t know. I’m sure I haven’t addressed everything. Feel free to ask me to fill in a gapif I’ve missed something of particular concern.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  195. You forgot Nadia Naffe is a lying liar what tells lies, but other than that …

    JD (318f81)

  196. @192 Dustin

    It was Hannah Giles husband in the transcript. I thought she had a husband connected but I read it wrong the first time.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  197. She is now claiming that JOK has sexual entitlement issues and took secret photos of ex Emma doing a striptease and then sent the photos to all of his friends. Others claiming to turn him into IRS for violating tax code. Nadia making claims about racism in the workplace v Bush/Cheney. Rowhowswer and his nasties eating it up.

    JD (318f81)

  198. JD,

    I have no idea.

    I can see why she might want to deflect attention from her own story, as it has been received poorly by anyone with half a brain who is not a partisan hack (oh hi, Tommy Christopher!).

    I don’t know if this whole thing was a set-up, but I am certainly wondering whether this is all her setting up another lawsuit.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  199. Leviticus, how do you feel about at least 3 of her friends doubting that it is her behind the account?

    The account couldn’t answer questions she should have known. Also denies knowing one of her friends who she is linked to through a picture on Twitter.

    Kind of a “wheredja get your information from, huh?”.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  200. At this point, Graham Chapman’s martinet, steps into the picture, and says ‘this is very silly in deed’ the serious point, is this sort of fluff is what Cass Susstein has recommended as a tactic.

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    narciso (35ae48)

  201. @ Noodles,

    how do you feel about at least 3 of her friends doubting that it is her behind the account?

    The account couldn’t answer questions she should have known. Also denies knowing one of her friends who she is linked to through a picture on Twitter.

    Then why wouldn’t the real Nadia come forward to clear up any confusion and make it very clear that she is not behind the account?

    Dana (4eca6e)

  202. There’s no reason for her to say what she’s saying about ED unless she hates her, too.

    MayBee (081489)

  203. Noodles, I just read the transcript again. You’re right. That was a mistake on my part. Sorry, Dana.

    This stinks to high heaven. I think someone sent Nadia in there on a mission. I don’t know if it was a sex-boat thing (Nadia claims O’Keefe accused her of such a plot). She also makes a point of insisting she knows O’Keefe can’t leave Westwood Borough. I wonder if she was trying to get him to leave the area to show that he violated his probation.

    Dustin (330eed)

  204. As far as the set-up goes, in the Politico article and in her court transcript she definitely indicated he accused her of setting him up a la the Love Boat.

    MayBee (081489)

  205. She’s certainly upping the ante tonight,

    I am requesting you delete the tweet with Emma’s last name. I’m not releasing that poor girls pics. It could have been me.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  206. What set off the spam filter,

    narciso (35ae48)

  207. Dana, who knows. It sure is interesting though. A lot of people haven’t come forward yet, namely James himself.

    Dustin, I think it was kind of my fault for that misconception because I stated that in one of the early comment sections about this before I read it again.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  208. How would she get this video? How would she know whether he had permission?
    She doesn’t see this girl as a victim or she wouldn’t be giving the details she’s giving.

    MayBee (081489)

  209. I am requesting you delete the tweet with Emma’s last name. I’m not releasing that poor girls pics. It could have been me.

    Comment by Dana

    Ugh.

    And I agree with Maybee that this isn’t the kind of stuff you get from a gmail account.

    I think she copied his hard drive. I think she entered that place with the means to copy his hard drive, provided to her by some bad guys. I wonder if the reason she left without a few items, such as a usb mouse, was a scramble to hide the device. Alternatively, the USB mouse was plugged into the computer and had a keylogger installed, and this is how they got information (I know… this sounds so paranoid if you haven’t seen the stuff from one of Nadia’s friends).

    She may have threatened to destroy the computer to help hide what she did.

    Maybe the info was for leverage and blackmail. Maybe it was just for some people to use to learn the dirt on O’Keefe.

    She doesn’t see this girl as a victim or she wouldn’t be giving the details she’s giving.

    It’s pretty awful to do that.

    Dustin (330eed)

  210. She is a ghoul

    JD (318f81)

  211. Since publishing the first part of her tell-all,

    When I read Tommy’s piece today, this struck me as curious: Why is she rolling this out in parts? If such a terrible thing really did happen to her, I would think she would be compelled to tell the entire story at one time, leaving out no details so that the timeline of of events are revealed in their entirety. To do it piecemeal makes me think she (or whomever) needs more time to write the next chapter.

    Real events are their own narrative. Fiction requires creating them and then telling them. It takes time.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  212. She left the panties in the trunk (like extra clothes for an extended nights stay) not in a nightstand or wherever trophy panties might go.

    There is so much wrong with this story it’s hard to even comment on it.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  213. Nadia Naffe
    @NadiaNaffe
    I am requesting you delete the tweet with Emma’s last name. I’m not releasing that poor girls pics. It could have been me. @ElectMarcoRubio

    Nadia. You are a liar. And a ghoul. And a race-baiter. And GennetteC. And not nearly as smart as you believe yourself to be.

    JD (318f81)

  214. Dana – It is my impression that she thinks slow-playing it like AB would do makes it better for me. All it seems to do is make her look like more of a hack than we already believe her to be. And she has to work with her buddies on the story line.

    JD (318f81)

  215. What in the world will Nadia do with her oft mentioned Harvard degree? (reminds me of Andy Bernard)

    Who in the hell would trust her with anything? It is so bizarre that she would do this to herself voluntarily.

    Dustin (330eed)

  216. Dustin, I have wondered the same thing myself. You take your employers emails in a fit of pique and start publishing them?

    Either someone paid you to do it, or you are just totally oblivious to how such an action is going to look. Is there a third option I’m not seeing?

    Patterico (feda6b)

  217. I found the ‘help I’m an almost rape victim’ crap sick, given how baseless that is. I find the ‘look at this Emma I’m going to pose as another victim’ to cross into sociopath territory.

    She’s either desperate enough to claw at anything, or she just couldn’t care less what the consequences are.

    Dustin (330eed)

  218. Third option? Dumber than a 2×4

    JD (318f81)

  219. Third option? #WAR

    Noodles (3681c4)

  220. I sometimes wonder if she is ElectMarcoRubio. She retweets all of the stuff that account says that she might get in trouble for saying.
    Who knows?

    Oh, that’s right. The FBI will know because she retweets things so the FBI can catch the ISP.

    MayBee (081489)

  221. ElectMarcoRubio protected his Twitter account just last week.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  222. The FBI is investigating #rapebarn ?!?!?!

    It is like a really untalented writer from The Bold and the Beautiful is helping her out.

    JD (318f81)

  223. Wow. Unless I’m mistaken, there’s been an allegation that O’Keefe secretly taped an ex-girlfriend, in an “intimate” moment, in the same barn where all this sh*t happened, and the exclusive focus seems to be how Naffe is part of a conspiracy to frame the guy.

    What about that allegation? Dismissed out of hand?

    Leviticus (870be5)

  224. Either someone paid you to do it, or you are just totally oblivious to how such an action is going to look. Is there a third option I’m not seeing?

    Comment by Patterico

    A third option is that someone else is making a lot of these comments on her behalf, having played her for a fool into allowing them to ‘manage’ her online presence, and now she realizes she’s screwed but is not pulling the plug.

    Dustin (330eed)

  225. What about that allegation? Dismissed out of hand?

    Comment by Leviticus

    I dismiss it, yeah. Has the woman come forward? Is there any evidence of it?

    I don’t even understand how they would know it was a secret tape. Nor do I know that such a tape exists. I think it’s really messed up they have identified the person, too.

    Dustin (330eed)

  226. I would never have known about Emma and her sexy sexy strippings if Nadia hadn’t blared it all over the whole internet

    but it’s not clear that these were for reals “secret” pictures, but if they were then James shouldn’t be mailing them around like she was his personal Page Three kitten

    but I can’t get too excited about it cause I don’t really care about these people – they all seem like characters from a Whit Stillman movie

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  227. Wow. Unless I’m mistaken, there’s been an allegation that O’Keefe secretly taped an ex-girlfriend, in an “intimate” moment, in the same barn where all this sh*t happened, and the exclusive focus seems to be how Naffe is part of a conspiracy to frame the guy.

    What about that allegation? Dismissed out of hand?

    Yup. This woman makes a lot of allegations. I’m not taking her word on faith and anyone who does is acting like a fool.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  228. Either someone paid you to do it, or you are just totally oblivious to how such an action is going to look.
    Is there a third option I’m not seeing?

    It’s hard to imagine a Harvard grad wouldn’t have a clear understanding about how such an action would look, even a not too smart one. Being paid off seems the most logical explanation.

    The problem I have with the possibility of her having given management of her account to someone else is when she saw the direction the tweets were going and the company being kept, the reasonable action would be to come out in the open about it and make no bones about what was happening.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  229. It is all about the seriousness of the allegation!!!!!

    Coming on the stiletto heels of Nadia Naffe fabricating a rape plot, being drugged, and the whole rapebarn soap opera, I am fine with dismissing it. Especially since she has offered less than nothing by means of evidence, has no credibility, and it making shlt up as she goes along.

    On top of that, as MayBee alluded to above, if Nadia Naffe really though Emma a victim, she has not helped her, reported this in a very public manner that Emma had never done. This has nothing to do with Nadia, and it is presumptuous to the nth degree for her to you someone else barely alleged tragedy to further her soap opera.

    JD (318f81)

  230. Leviticus, Nadia is saying “James sent pics of this poor girl to at least 3 dozen people, bragged abt her oral abilities @carrieslight @electmarcorubio @keitholbermann”

    This is insane. The only person exposing Emma to this public humiliation is Nadia’s twitter feed. Exposing her to Keith Olbermann. And immediately after warning that she doesn’t actually want the girl to be named and she won’t release the pics (the only basis for the claim, conveniently) because ‘it could be her’.

    But Nadia’s testimony was like a completely different person. She was upset about what O’Keefe had (supposedly) said about her “making me out to be a tramp”.

    Dustin (330eed)

  231. Leviticus, you are asking us to trust the word of someone who’s own friends don’t believe is her.

    Maybe someone should find out if its really her before this story goes any further? Tommy says it checks out but I don’t know if that’s enough.

    Nah, playing O’Keefe is guilty is a lot more fun!!!

    Noodles (3681c4)

  232. she has not helped her, reported this in a very public manner that Emma had never done

    with secret tapings it’s all good fun until someone throws themself off a bridge

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  233. Tommy says it checks out

    Coconut water burns when it squirts out of your nose.

    JD (318f81)

  234. Tommy says it checks out but I don’t know if that’s enough.

    How dare you! Tommy vouched for Nikki Reid and that worked out great!

    Patterico (feda6b)

  235. Leviticus- I am wondering why a former employee is telling the world what went on in private between her former employer and his girlfriend, and what he said about her in private emails to her friends.

    You want to get all up in their business? Go ahead. Go lye with the people with bright futures.

    MayBee (081489)

  236. The problem I have with the possibility of her having given management of her account to someone else is when she saw the direction the tweets were going and the company being kept, the reasonable action would be to come out in the open about it and make no bones about what was happening.

    Comment by Dana

    Yeah, that would be the right move. Perhaps she wouldn’t make it because she can’t undo this damage to her reputation and is salvaging some kind of payoff hopes, but this is a hard to accept possibility.

    The problem is, no explanation really works.

    Dustin (330eed)

  237. ElectMarcoRubio protected his Twitter account just last week.

    It is protected now.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  238. Bottom line, if Tommy and Nadia wanted to make sure all doubts were removed, they would do more than just say trust us.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  239. Ha ha ha ha ha. I just remembered Nadia has sung the praises of Kim Kardashian, who will tell us the evils of secret sex tapes I suppose.

    MayBee (081489)

  240. Tommy says it checks out but I don’t know if that’s enough.

    When I saw it quoted I assumed it was Happyfeet. That’s how funny this is.

    playing O’Keefe is guilty is a lot more fun!!!

    They probably think so. After all they don’t like him. I hope I never have those folks for a jury.

    Dustin (330eed)

  241. I can only see EMR when Nadia retweets it, which is frequently.
    Before @EMR started tweeting Nadia, it had 3 old tweets.

    MayBee (081489)

  242. Patterico,

    He changed it last week to a protected account and it remains so – why would he do that?

    Dana (4eca6e)

  243. These people want this to be as messy as Weinertweets got.

    JD (318f81)

  244. Somebody started calling EMR on it’s BS recently. Coincidence!

    JD (318f81)

  245. Tommy reports from the White House!!! Some of your jokes were shameful.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  246. “I would never have known about Emma and her sexy sexy strippings if Nadia hadn’t blared it all over the whole internet.”

    – elissa

    Yeah. And nobody would’ve ever known the name “Monica Lewinsky” if Ken Starr and Matt Drudge hadn’t blared it all over everything ever. Those b*stards. If only framing poor innocent Bill Clinton hadn’t meant so much to them…

    What if this allegation is true?

    Leviticus (870be5)

  247. /sac off

    Tommy considers “vetting” a Sunday afternoon of driving around different car lots.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  248. If this allegation is true, it is Emma’s to make, not NN.

    If it is true, he is lower than the slime on the belly of a slug.

    JD (318f81)

  249. Leviticus- do you know anything about his girlfriends, his relationships, or his sex life?

    MayBee (081489)

  250. nd nobody would’ve ever known the name “Monica Lewinsky” if Ken Starr and Matt Drudge hadn’t blared it all over everything ever.

    She did seem emotionally angry with Ms Tripp for this reason.

    That is a real cost. Her privacy was really screwed there (particularly when Blumenthal led a campaign to call the kid a deranged weirdo).

    But that was the President of the United States and an allegation with a DNA basis. In Nadia’s case, it’s not like that at all.

    What if this allegation is true?

    Then O’Keefe should be prosecuted. And there is no basis to think this.

    Dustin (330eed)

  251. Leviticus- why do you think Nadia is telling the world what O’Keefe said about his former girlfriend?

    MayBee (081489)

  252. Why hasn’t she been on TV, Leviticus? You know, to get her story out.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  253. I keep trying, futilely, to have a discussion about how something like a $20,000 sexual harassment settlement with a non-disclosure agreement might influence our perception of this situation. But no one is interested in having that discussion.

    So. Yeah. I’m just gonna sit back and watch this play out.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  254. $20,000 sexual harassment settlement

    Where did you see that? I haven’t seen this.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  255. What if this allegation is true?

    what if ET never actually phoned home and he’s still living in Elliott’s closet to this day?

    creepy.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  256. Leviticus, unfortunately for Emma, she’s already known worldwide now for her “oral skills”, thanks to the sociopath behind Nadia’s tweets.

    She’s going to be confronted about these accusations. If they are true, why would she hold back? I think it’s fair to leave that to her. There’s no need to worry that this crime will go unnoticed, that’s for sure.

    But even if it’s true (again, no good reason to think it is right now), she was just humiliated. Nadia claims O’Keefe sent her pics to a handful of people, but Nadia sent a sexual description of them to the whole world.

    So Emma is indeed a victim in this, at least. I hope whatever the whole story is there, she gets some justice.

    Dustin (330eed)

  257. I’ll quote Dave Surls for you Leviticus

    Well, the reason you didn’t realize that is because that’s not what the settlement proposal is about.

    It’s about her claiming that she wasn’t paid money she was due for services she performed, and the usual entitlement mentality drivel about wrongful termination, and a bunch of other leftard baloney.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  258. “Leviticus- why do you think Nadia is telling the world what O’Keefe said about his former girlfriend?”

    – MayBee

    Probably because they’re basically at war with one another now. I’m sure Naffe doesn’t care if she messes up this Emma’s life if it helps her to paint O’Keefe as a creeper – a possibility which must surely sting everyone’s digital ears, I know, but which I (wet blanket that I am) feel deserves at least peripheral consideration. You know – just in case. So we look like we had a methodical approach to this.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  259. There is no $20,000 sexual harassment settlement.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  260. I keep trying, futilely, to have a discussion about how something like a $20,000 sexual harassment settlement with a non-disclosure agreement might influence our perception of this situation.

    OK, let me grant you have a point.

    That’s a valid basis to suspect O’Keefe is sleazy. The way I view it is as a great way to devise a tactic to victimize him.

    I have seen a few imperfect people targeted in this fashion. It ticks me off because it’s a form of bullying.

    Dustin (330eed)

  261. There is no $20,000 sexual harassment settlement.

    Comment by Noodles

    Can this be settled, please? It’s difficult keeping track of what we know.

    Dustin (330eed)

  262. When I search for info on the settlement I only get sources that aren’t reliable, like mediaite and gawker.

    Dustin (330eed)

  263. I can only say from my non-attorney reading of it, but I did not read that as any sort of sexual harassment anything.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  264. “If this allegation is true, it is Emma’s to make, not NN.

    If it is true, he is lower than the slime on the belly of a slug.”

    – JD

    Thank you, seriously. That’s a starting point. And if it’s not true, then Naffe is even lower.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  265. I keep trying, futilely, to have a discussion about how something like a $20,000 sexual harassment settlement with a non-disclosure agreement might influence our perception of this situation. But no one is interested in having that discussion.

    If such a thing exists, I guess it shows someone made an allegation and was given $20K to go away.

    And?

    Patterico (ab4317)

  266. Cross posted. Thanks, Noodles.

    Dustin (330eed)

  267. Probably because they’re basically at war with one another now. I’m sure Naffe doesn’t care if she messes up this Emma’s life if it helps her to paint O’Keefe as a creeper – a possibility which must surely sting everyone’s digital ears, I know, but which I (wet blanket that I am) feel deserves at least peripheral consideration. You know – just in case. So we look like we had a methodical approach to this.

    But one of them is not publicly “disclosing” the other’s dirty laundry.
    Now, you are saying she wants to expose O’Keefe as a creeper, but that’s tough to do when she is being a big huge creeper to do it.
    I mean, if saying something in an email is bad, saying it in public is worse.

    MayBee (081489)

  268. No matches found for “Sexual, sex, or harassment”.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  269. Leviticus – which one of the following allegations do you find offensive?
    Accompany her boss to adult bookstore to get pros for project that never happened?
    Forced to allow someone to bathe in her apartment?
    Exposed to provocative and potentially misogynistic comments?
    Shown a list of potential projects that she found offensive

    JD (318f81)

  270. If the allegation about Emma is true, that would be bad. I do not believe it simply because a sketchy person says so.

    Patterico (ab4317)

  271. OK, I read it and I think Dave Surls was right.

    It is very general, waiving a whole lot of anything. Could be a settlement for an employement dispute at Red Lobster.

    Dustin (330eed)

  272. Accompany her boss to adult bookstore to get props for project that never happened?

    hmmm… from my extensive readings on this topic I’ve never heard for sure that she went to the adult book store – only that she was asked to –

    has anyone read anything definitive?

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  273. As much as I hope the truth comes out in full detail regarding Nadia’s story, I hope the same for O’Keefe. No one should be exempt from having to face the consequences of their actions, especially if they are dishonest or illegal. And I don’t believe anyone here has a blind loyalty to O’Keefe because of their admiration of Breitbart.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  274. A settlement demand is not a settlement I’m pretty sure. On the phone and didn’t click both links.

    Patterico (ab4317)

  275. “That’s a valid basis to suspect O’Keefe is sleazy. The way I view it is as a great way to devise a tactic to victimize him.”

    – Dustin

    Maybe. What if you threw a valid (albeit horribly misguided, publicly offered) claim that O’Keefe had secretly taped a girlfriend into the mix, too? How would that influence our perspective?

    re: the $20,000 settlement – Izzy Santa’s attorney sent the Project Veritas people a letter demanding settlement, listing a bunch of sexual harassment type claims. This resulted in a $20,000 settlement with a non-disclosure agreement. I call that a sexual harassment settlement; it could also be a broad non-disclosure agreement designed to prevent Santa from disclosing work secrets, which only happened to prevent her from discussing her the factual basis of her sexual harassment allegations.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  276. that’s tough to do when she is being a big huge creeper to do it.
    I mean, if saying something in an email is bad, saying it in public is worse.

    Comment by MayBee

    Leviticus, I think this is a great point. If Nadia is doing this to win a PR war with O’Keefe, why is she doing so in a way that makes Nadia look even worse than O’Keefe?

    This kind of thing is why it’s almost as though someone is not only screwing Emma over to attack O’keefe (and breitbart), but also is screwing Nadia over too.

    Dustin (330eed)

  277. I read that dmand letter earlier. The above amount to the the extent of the “sexual harassment”. They also threw in claims that her job responsibilities were given to someone else, and was ultimately let get. The payout seems to represent that balance of what her salary would have been for the remainder of the year.

    This was all on the heels of the Abby Boudreaux #rapeboat

    JD (318f81)

  278. A settlement demand is not a settlement I’m pretty sure. On the phone and didn’t click both links.

    Comment by Patterico

    It’s a pdf of a Settlement Agreement. It’s mostly boilerplate. If you read this alone you would never get the impression the issue was sexual.

    Dustin (330eed)

  279. I hope the same for O’Keefe.

    I don’t know that i hope the same for O’Keefe beyond me just being curious… I think a lot of this might could just add up to him just being guilty of being not very mature for his age.

    This doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  280. “Leviticus – which one of the following allegations do you find offensive?
    [1]Accompany her boss to adult bookstore to get props for project that never happened?
    [2]Forced to allow someone to bathe in her apartment?
    [3]Exposed to provocative and potentially misogynistic comments?
    [4]a list of potential projects that she found offensive.”

    – JD

    1 and 2, maybe 3 depending on what was said. “Potentially misogynistic” is pretty flabby.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  281. Talking about my link, not Noodles.

    Dustin (330eed)

  282. “Now, you are saying she wants to expose O’Keefe as a creeper, but that’s tough to do when she is being a big huge creeper to do it.
    I mean, if saying something in an email is bad, saying it in public is worse.”

    – MayBee

    MayBee & Dustin,

    I disagree – if the allegation turns out to be true. If it’s false then that’s just insanely low. Either way, it’s not necessarily true that Naffe being a creeper makes it harder to show that O’Keefe is a creeper – if the allegations turn out to be true. I don’t think her means really affect her end; what matters is that the end is the right one.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  283. If there is a sex scene in a movie can the actress file sexual harassment?

    She did not have to do any of that. She knew what was going on.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  284. You don’t even know if they went, and you find it offensive? Maybe Chris Hansen should make his employes sign a sexual harassment waiver.

    How was she forced to allow someone to take a bath at her apartment? And how is that sexual?

    JD (318f81)

  285. Reading Noodle’s link, there’s a few claims:

    O’keefe has his employee, Izzy Santa, see a list of offensive projects and shop for female sex aids. This seems to be prep for the CNN love boat thing.

    There’s also a claim that O’Keefe took a bath at Izzy’s apartment and that O’Keefe made a lot of sexual and “potentially misogynist” comments.

    I’m not sure what to make of that. They don’t name the comments specifically. I can say that Leviticus may, in good faith, take this as reason to see O’keefe as sleazy. I don’t think it’s sufficient.

    Dustin (330eed)

  286. To be clear, my impression of the Santa settlment being a sexual harassment settlement is based on the language of the settlement demand, not the language of the actual settlement/non-disclosure agreement (which is very boilerplate, as Dustin said).

    Leviticus (870be5)

  287. They deleted the tweet wondering whether they should release the photos of the other girl.

    MayBee (081489)

  288. “If such a thing exists, I guess it shows someone made an allegation and was given $20K to go away.

    And?”

    – Patterico

    Okay.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  289. The bath thing is weird but we do not know the context. Maybe he had to dig a ditch and was filthy and asked to take a bath there? We don’t know.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  290. what matters is that the end is the right one.

    What is the right end?

    Of course it affects her argument that O’Keefe is a creeper if she is turning around and saying the same thing to a bigger audience. She obviously finds nothing wrong with saying such a thing about someone.

    MayBee (081489)

  291. I don’t think her means really affect her end; what matters is that the end is the right one.

    They teach you that in law school?

    JD (318f81)

  292. if she had to pay an attorney with that $20k she really didn’t get harassed very lucratively

    Fail.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  293. FYI Dustin, it looks like Ron has a post up about you and JD.

    I didn’t read it because I never read anything those guys post.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  294. Thanks for the heads up, Noodles.

    To be clear, my impression of the Santa settlment being a sexual harassment settlement is based on the language of the settlement demand, not the language of the actual settlement/non-disclosure agreement (which is very boilerplate, as Dustin said).

    Comment by Leviticus

    Yeah, we cross posted.

    Dustin (330eed)

  295. Thanks, noodles. She is all wrapped up with those really really really bad evil people.

    JD (318f81)

  296. So planning for an employee to go to an adult bookstore to buy props for a sting is creepy and worthy of a sexual harassment lawsuit.

    But saying to the world that a girl you claim has been victimized is good at oral sex is just a means to an end.

    See, I kind think those are flipped.

    MayBee (081489)

  297. Given what Project Veritas does, and what Ms Santa did to get dismissed from her position, 20k to keep silent about business, plans, etc … Does not seem unreasonable.

    JD (318f81)

  298. “I don’t think her means really affect her end; what matters is that the end is the right one.

    They teach you that in law school?”

    – JD

    Oh, I dunno – we don’t have Ethics until our 2L year, so… I’m just floating around like a little amoral butterfly, waiting for law school to teach me right from wrong.

    Seriously, though, what I said was “I don’t think her means affect her end.” Her end is to show that O’Keefe is a creeper; if she resorts to scrumbaggery to show that he is a creeper, it wouldn’t make him any less of one. It would just make her worse by comparison.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  299. This is fun to talk/read about but again, wouldn’t it be nice to know if the person doing all this is who she says she is?

    This is not conspiracy talk. Her friends have made this claim.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  300. “So planning for an employee to go to an adult bookstore to buy props for a sting is creepy and worthy of a sexual harassment lawsuit.

    But saying to the world that a girl you claim has been victimized is good at oral sex is just a means to an end.

    See, I kind think those are flipped.”

    – MayBee

    See, I kinda think you’re conveniently forgetting that it may have been O’Keefe who first starting spreading that information around. And that it may have been O’Keefe who videotaped the victimized girl in a sexual situation without her knowledge.

    So, I think that’s kinda “flipped.”

    Leviticus (870be5)

  301. But we are expected to believe her so we may be shown O’Keefe is a creeper.
    He wanted to miscegenate with her. So badly he drugged her.

    Her story is part of the proof. You don’t think her creepiness matters in her narrative?

    MayBee (081489)

  302. How come her real name is not out there? It is out there. O’Keefe’s name is certainly out there.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  303. If she resorts to scrumbaggery to show that he is a creeper, it wouldn’t make him any less of one.

    True.

    But her rather bizarre means are helpful to consider anyway, because they show why it is less likely she will actually show he’s a creeper.

    Dustin (330eed)

  304. “Given what Project Veritas does, and what Ms Santa did to get dismissed from her position, 20k to keep silent about business, plans, etc … Does not seem unreasonable.”

    – JD

    I think that’s true. I don’t think the other interpretation is unreasonable either, though, given the nature of Santa’s settlement demand.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  305. “But her rather bizarre means are helpful to consider anyway, because they show why it is less likely she will actually show he’s a creeper.”

    – Dustin

    True, true.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  306. No, I’m not forgetting that.
    I said if saying it in private is bad, saying it to the world is worse.
    That doesn’t seem like an absurd concept.

    MayBee (081489)

  307. if Mr. O is shown to be a creeper then that’s a Big Win for Nadia, who will have succeeded in damaging her former employer as opposed to taking a forward-looking approach to the next stage of her career

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  308. “I said if saying it in private is bad, saying it to the world is worse.
    That doesn’t seem like an absurd concept.”

    – MayBee

    I don’t dispute that. I just think it’s important to remember the first part, and not lose sight of it in lieu of the second.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  309. But all we know for a fact is the second.
    We don’t really know the first part, so remembering it isn’t a thing right now.

    MayBee (081489)

  310. Patterico is being full of win on Twitter again! =)

    Noodles (3681c4)

  311. hey you know that big creeper who tried to rape that girl he drugged in his barn?

    That was me!

    But I got the last laugh when I released all sorts of stuff I found out when I rifled through his email.

    So anyway about this job… how does the 401k match work here?

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  312. I just think it’s important to remember the first part, and not lose sight of it in lieu of the second.

    I think it is important to remember that she is a fabulist, and is making claims about an incident she was not a party to.

    JD (318f81)

  313. But all we know for a fact is the second.

    She is willing to do her reputation that kind of severe harm. And it appears to me this actual reputational damage cannot do more than just suggest O’Keefe is a creep.

    That only makes sense if Nadia has some truly epic reason to hate O’Keefe. Nadia could have communicated much of this stuff without going that far. She could have kept Emma anonymous, for example. She could have been more respectful to Breitbart, who can’t defend himself now.

    That she has been particularly reckless of her own reputation is not what you’ve expect.

    Dustin (330eed)

  314. I’m okay with waiting to see whether or not those claims turn out to be true, JD. Like it said, if it turns out that they’re false, it will be a case study in extreme malignancy.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  315. Just had a moment where it struck me how strange and sad it is that Breitbart is dead.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  316. Yes, Dustin, exactly.

    MayBee (081489)

  317. The other thing she said on the day he died was that, confirming what she suspected, all the harassment toward her stopped at his death.

    MayBee (081489)

  318. Nadia is buddies with Kneal Rowhowser, ronbrin, and GennetteC. That is all I need to know.

    JD (318f81)

  319. The other thing she said on the day he died was that, confirming what she suspected, all the harassment toward her stopped at his death.

    Comment by MayBee

    Of course, all of her critics were kinda focused on how Breitbart had just died. I guess that didn’t occur to her? This is giving her too little credit. These folks brainstorm how to spin everything into great lies. It’s amazing once you learn to watch for it.

    Dustin (330eed)

  320. She is linking Neal.

    My advice is never click anything to do with Neal or Ron. EVER.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  321. “This resulted in a $20,000 settlement with a non-disclosure agreement.”

    Possibly. Since it’s not signed, it’s hard to say. It might be a proposal put forth, that wasn’t accepted, or it might be completely fake.

    The real question is, and I hate to sound like a broken record, but…how did these legal papers come into the hands of this repugnant thing, Nadia Naffe?

    She has no business having either one of those documents…so, how does she come to have them?

    Did O’Keefe or his legal staff give them to her? Seems real, real unlikely. Did Santa? Also seems unlikely, if there really is a non-disclosure clause in a signed settlement document. That would invalidate the agreement (assuming that the clause is actually enforcable…have to ask a contract lawyer about that one)

    So, how did she get them?

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  322. No one cares if it really is Nadia Naffe. I doubt anyone cares if the documents are real.

    Just sayin.

    Noodles (3681c4)

  323. #68 – remote area…
    I know the town. It’s entirely a residential neighborhood. Nothing remote about it. Nothing. Maybe a patch of trees. But not “remote.”
    Houses on every side of one another, the “barn” is like a few blocks from a main drag.

    Remote? My ass.

    Liberty Chick (b021c6)

  324. She has no business having either one of those documents…so, how does she come to have them?

    She is making a show of her poor ethics here. Many of the private stuff seems to relate to O’Keefe but also some other third party Nadia has no alleged beef with.

    I wouldn’t trust her with a cash register at McDonalds now.

    Dustin (330eed)

  325. “She is willing to do her reputation that kind of severe harm.”

    Are you kidding me? She’s got every lefty halfwit on the planet, that knows about it, cheering her on.

    They’re talking about her at every leftoid blog-sewer in America from Kos to Crooks and Liars.

    She’s got more cred with the lefties than she ever would have had on this side of the spectrum.

    She’s like the second coming of Anita Hill.

    Sure, they were cursing her a few months back when she was making a bunch of unsubstantiated charges (well hints more than charges) against some Dem pol, but that was then, and this is now.

    No right winger with a semi-functioning brain will ever have anything to do with her again, but she’s got a guaranteed career for life in Leftyland. As long as she doesn’t double cross her new friends, that is.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  326. She’s got more cred with the lefties than she ever would have had on this side of the spectrum.

    She’s like the second coming of Anita Hill.

    I sure hope you’re wrong, Dave. But Shuster has a career and so does Tommy Christopher, so maybe you aren’t.

    Dustin (330eed)

  327. “But Shuster has a career…’

    His career is actually in jeopardy, methinks. He’s already been suspended twice from MSNBC (or so says wikipedia), and now he’s looking at a defamation lawsuit that has a real good chance of flying.

    I would imagine these are not good selling points in the media biz.

    I’m sure the boys at Current Media love the idea of slagging off righties, but I bet they aren’t too thrilled at getting sued.

    He’d better watch his step or he’s gonna get Dan Rathered.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  328. Well, I just read the request for an injunction against Naffe filed by O’Keefe’s lawyers.

    Made for interesting reading.

    Sounds like they’re claiming that during her brief visit to the “rape barn”, she accessed his computer, and did a little data dump, which explains how she got ahold of those legal documents, plus whatever else she has. Needless to say, they’re also saying that she didn’t have permission to do that.

    I think I’m pretty much inclined to believe what they’re saying.

    Might want to put a password on that bad boy, James.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  329. Agree with Dave. The clear import of the Prelim. Inj. and verified complaint is that Naif used some small storage device like a thumb drive to download O’Keefe’s emails from his Gmail account while she was alone in the barn after their disagreement.

    He had used her phone earlier to access that same account. Not sure how she would have gotten his password in that fashion, but it seems the only way to download a massive amount of emails like she claims to have would be onto a storage device from a laptop or desktop.

    If she has done that, she’s potentially on the hook for a massive lawsuit loss if she releases any additional private information.

    shipwreckedcrew (97754e)

  330. “Leviticus, I offer my sincere apologies… unreservedly. I offer a complete and utter retraction, the comment was totally without basis in fact and was admittedly motivated by pure malice. I regret any distress it may have caused you – or your family – and I will, in the future, refrain from any attempts at backwoods humor.”- Colonel Haiku

    — Leviticus, did you dangle Haiku out of a fifth-floor window?

    Icy (be57ab)

  331. I keep trying, futilely, to have a discussion about how something like a $20,000 sexual harassment settlement with a non-disclosure agreement might influence our perception of this situation. But no one is interested in having that discussion.

    — two words: Michael Irvin.

    Icy (be57ab)

  332. Leviticus: I don’t think her means really affect her end; what matters is that the end is the right one.

    They teach you that in law school?
    Comment by JD — 3/22/2012 @ 9:29 pm

    — THANK YOU!

    Icy (be57ab)

  333. Seriously, though, what I said was “I don’t think her means affect her end.” Her end is to show that O’Keefe is a creeper; if she resorts to scrumbaggery to show that he is a creeper, it wouldn’t make him any less of one. It would just make her worse by comparison.
    Comment by Leviticus — 3/22/2012 @ 9:34 pm

    — And there it is: O’Keefe is a scumbag because of the manner in which he conducted the ACORN sting. He’s icky.

    Icy (be57ab)

  334. “The clear import of the Prelim. Inj. and verified complaint is that Naif used some small storage device like a thumb drive to download O’Keefe’s emails…”

    Either that, or she’s got a memory like a herd of elephants.

    Raises the interesting moral question: if you steal someone’s computer files, is that really stealing? You’ve got them…but, they still have them as well.

    I think about stuff like that, when it’s way past my bedtime.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  335. ==if you steal someone’s computer files, is that really stealing? You’ve got them…but, they still have them as well–

    Dave, that’s an argument identity thieves and credit card number fraudsters the world over will certainly warm to and want to tell the judge.

    elissa (8a85cd)

  336. “illegal download,” Dave. Nitey-nite.

    Icy (be57ab)

  337. Yes, we’ve seen this trick, before, the Frank Bailey gambit, although Nadia has gone fully Brock.

    narciso (296d24)

  338. I would think she would be compelled to tell the entire story at one time, leaving out no details so that the timeline of of events are revealed in their entirety. To do it piecemeal makes me think she (or whomever) needs more time to write the next chapter.

    Yes, as you see a bit like “John Reid.” Half the anony fun is the creative writing.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  339. 217. Dustin, I have wondered the same thing myself. You take your employers emails in a fit of pique and start publishing them?

    Either someone paid you to do it, or you are just totally oblivious to how such an action is going to look. Is there a third option I’m not seeing?

    Comment by Patterico — 3/22/2012 @ 8:21 pm

    Insurance; Get a bad vibe? feel mad or thwarted? make sure you are locked and loaded In case you ever need some revenge.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  340. Tommy says it checks out

    Generally a sign that it does not check out.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  341. Leviticus: I don’t think her means really affect her end; what matters is that the end is the right one.

    Spoken like a Santorum supporter. Am I right?

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  342. Spoken like a Santorum supporter. Am I right?

    Nope. Not even close.

    JD (318f81)

  343. To be fair, Tommy is not saying it checks out. He’s just reporting it while ignoring all the reasons it doesn’t check out.

    Patterico (bb8f28)

  344. “Leviticus, did you dangle Haiku out of a fifth-floor window?”

    – Icy

    No. Patterico and DRJ did.

    Leviticus (c5a418)

  345. Sort of, anyway. DRJ speaks softly, but she carries a big ole Credibility Stick.

    Leviticus (c5a418)

  346. Patrick –

    It might be important to make that qualification.

    I am thinking however, more about Tommy vouching the Tweet account and its operator,
    He is happy to relate Nadia’s story, as “Nadia’s own story” (without vouching for its essential accuracy).

    He did vouch for an important aspect being questioned by some. When asked, He said that Nadia’s tweets have been “in person”, confirmed as belonging to Nadia. I am skeptical of and anxious to verify this one aspect. I asked him both WHO had seen her, met with her, and whether it was truly face to face. He declined to answer.

    We know his track record on that sort of thing, and it isn’t good. He not only vouched before on insufficient detail, he actively concealed his method of confirmation, so that others might let that confirmation rest in its proper place.

    His refusal to specify who saw her and by what meand, leaves open that someone simply told him there was a meeting with Nadia, and that Tommy did not meet with her himself, and/or that there has been some electronic contact and not face-to-face contact.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  347. correction or poorly edited post:

    When asked, Tommy said that Nadia’s authorship of Nadia’s tweets has been confirmed “in person”,

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  348. JD, Leviticus doesn’t support Santorum?

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  349. are you thinking cause of how Leviticus in the bible is a hotbed of homophobia that our Mr. Levi must be a Santorum wazzle?

    That is good logics but actually in real life this Leviticus person is sorta not particularly conservative at all.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  350. JD, Leviticus doesn’t support Santorum?

    Comment by Sarahw — 3/23/2012 @ 7:33 am

    I cannot think of any way that would ever happen.

    JD (318f81)

  351. I see thanks. I did kinda gloss over the bible chats.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  352. By the way, this has been sticking in my craw since I saw it: happyfeet, I don’t appreciate your using my bandwidth to call Lila Rose a “skank.” We can disagree on her work, which I consider a valuable exposé of an organization that is all too willing to undermine parents’ ability to raise their own children. But to call this woman a “skank” is beyond the pale and I ask you not to do it again.

    Patterico (bb8f28)

  353. using your bandwidth? really?

    fuck you

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  354. Was that really happyfeet?

    Uncalled for

    JD (318f81)

  355. happs? Noooooooo.

    MayBee (081489)

  356. James had downloaded and/or linked his Gmail account to my device.” What does “and/or” mean? Don’t you know which happened?

    This would be a claim that she doesn’t know why his GMail was accessible to her.

    The first method is accidental – the second one would be a deliberate decision on the part of James O’Keefe to give her access to his e-mail.

    Both are mentioned because while the second one puts her in a better legal position, it’s rather unlikely he would do it. And the first one is something that that shouldn’t have resulted in his password being memorized by her laptop or smartphone (she doesn’t say which)

    Her full statement on this point is:

    James gave me his iphone to use as an audio recorder and he kept my Google Android smartphone and laptop with him. When I returned from meeting with Seife, James had been using my equipment to make phone calls and send emails that afternoon. I later discovered that James had downloaded and/or linked his Gmail account to my device.

    Now almost all browsers do not memorize your passwords by default. They may sometimes memorize your user name but you have to check a box to get it to memorize you password.

    James O’Keefe apparently thinks (cf 331. 332.) that she actually got access to his GMail when she had access to his computers.

    Those computers he might have set up to make it unnecessary to enter the password when going to http://gmail.com

    This possibility could actually explain even:

    1) Her anxiety to get James O’Keefe to leave quickly – maybe it was not because she wanted to go to sleep, but because she wanted to spy on him – well maybe that she wanted to spy on him and get enough sleep that night. (because he was going to leave her alone anyway to sleep for some hours. But maybe they’d just be barely enough hours.)

    2) Her threat to smash his computers, which she leaves out of this account, but which was in her testimony. Maybe she actually wanted to smash them so he wouldn’t know his GMail account had been looked into (although GMail does report when you last logged in, but she might not have known this.) Maybe she had a general idea that maybe this would be revealed by something on his computer, like the Internet history, browser caches, or cookies, if he chose to look.

    If so, James’ decision to come back at that point made it impossible to destroy or damage his computer in such a way that his suspicions that she had read and stolen data would be not aroused.

    He’d attribute it to her anger. She maybe was careful not to make that threat until she was reasonably sure he would not return quickly.

    3) Her anxiety to leave – but maybe only after she had had unfettered access to his computers. This point bears checking. When exactly did she first ask to leave??? Before he left her alone, or only later?

    I’m not clear on this. She quotes a November 3 email where she says:

    When I realized your deception, I tried to escape from the barn as quickly as I could.

    Did she “realize [his] deception” during the time when she was calling him on the phone. Did she first call him to ascertain he wasn’t coming back, and only later, when she was finished, start up the whole thing about wanting to leave immediately?

    she also wrote:

    “It was pitch black outside and there were no lights. It was freezing cold inside the barn , there was no heat inside”

    How could it be freezing cold if she was supposed to sleep there? When did she first notice it was freezing cold? Of course that’s the November 3 email, which may not be too consistent with what she says now.

    She might have wanted to leave in order to get away before he discovered that his GMail account had been looked into, or maybe he noticed her something and asked her a question and maybe even retrieved the USB drive with the downloaded e-mail from her. She wasn’t so confident of her ability to plausibly lie to James O’Keefe, so maybe her thought was something could go wrong, so just get away.

    4) Her screaming when he came back. Maybe this was a surprise to her, and she was afraid something would be discovered – or maybe the screaming was calculated and she just wanted to delay his entrance by a bit.

    5) Her leaving behind a wireless mouse. She had maybe used that to access his computers, but he came back too soon. Maybe she wanted it back because it had been supplied to her by somebody else, and might be used to trace who had done that, if you had other information. She hoped, in that case, he wouldn’t record the make, model and serial number. It was evidence.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  357. Yeah, I would not support Santorum, as JD has pointed out. What SarahW may be keying in on is the comment I left defending Santorum’s decision to bring his dead son home to provide some closure for his children. But no – not a Santorum supporter, although the guy does seem to have a sincerity uncommon for a politician.

    Leviticus (9c986d)

  358. happyfeet, you’re probably my favorite commenter here and I like a lot of the folks here a lot. Walk it back, my friend.

    Dustin (330eed)

  359. One gets you five, it was iamadimwit sockpuppeting happy.

    nk (dec503)

  360. The one gets you five is that it was iamadimwit. No way it was happyfeet.

    nk (dec503)

  361. Dustin, I thought I was your favorite commenter. What else could those roses and chocolates have meant? Fickle, fickle, fickle!

    nk (dec503)

  362. Just for that, you two-timer: DRJ is my favorite commenter.

    nk (dec503)

  363. From the November 3 email:

    Perhaps, you believe by denigrating my personal character and using the same sexually suggestive tactics that are currently being used against Herman Cain, that my reputation will be ruined and so that yours can be spared.

    What is supposed to be similar to what happened to Herman Cain?

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  364. Dustin, I thought I was your favorite commenter. What else could those roses and chocolates have meant? Fickle, fickle, fickle!

    Comment by nk

    heh.

    You’re a lot harder on me when I say something stupid. I’m jilted.

    Dustin (330eed)

  365. Yeah, the Herman Cain analogy was weird, especially since that doofus is every bit the low-down lech that his conduct suggested.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  366. But hindsight notwithstanding, It boils down to “you are using my conduct suggestive of impropriety to justify claims of actual impropriety”

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  367. The “bandwidth” thing is a hackneyed expression you have to admit.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  368. Sarahw, youse sayin’ that Patterico was sockputted, too? Didn’t think that, but then, I am a naive farmboy.

    nk (dec503)

  369. I don’t know what’s real anymore.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  370. Real? We are microorganisms in the Petrie dish of a microbiologist who injected us with conceit.

    nk (dec503)

  371. 188 Comment by Patterico — 3/22/2012 @ 6:54 pm

    How far fetched is it to wonder if she actually went in there intending to get confidential information, and then the threat to destroy the computers, the drunkenness, and the demand to leave ASAP was meant to deflect and evade what happened? Probably not the case, but it’s plausible, right?

    Not very far fetched at all, but I wouldn’t want to put a percentage on it, but I’d say it’s at least 25%, and I wouldn’t call 25% far-feteched.

    We just don’t know, but far-fetched, no.

    Other things we hear could raise or lower the probability. Maybe some things don’t fit with that scenario – or maybe almost everything or in fact everything does (if almost everything maybe we are wrong about what we think doesn’t fit, or some other facts will help make sense of it.) Maybe this would explain a lot, or maybe some things contradict it.

    There are two very important things we don’t know:

    1) We don’t have James O’Keefe’s side of the story – only possibly conflicting versions from Nadia Nafee and perhaps, an assurance from Andrew Breitbart (who talked with James O’Keefe) that the rape story is a smear.

    We know her story doesn’t make too much sense. Without O’Keefe’s side it’s is hard to figure out what maybe really happened and if there is a reason to believe she was acting honestly that night, or a reason not to.

    One reason not to tell, is that some of what they discussed was of questionable legality or a “trade secret” but another reason is that when he knows he has a witness is fabricating things he might be advised to let her tell her story first before saying anything – she doesn’t know what he knows or remembers or can prove.

    2) We don’t know the back story as how she was recruited to come there.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  372. he might be advised to let her tell her story first before saying anything – she doesn’t know what he knows or remembers or can prove.

    I like that thought.

    Dustin (330eed)

  373. Comment by Sarahw — 3/23/2012 @ 9:46 am

    Yeah, the Herman Cain analogy was weird,

    Here again, we may have things we don’t know. What was James O’Keefe saying about her? (Things which, by the way, might very well have been true, and not false)

    Was he saying she committed adultery? We’re missing the communications between them in late October and what James O’Keefe might have said about her to get back at her.

    We have this from her Nov 3:

    Specifically, I am concerned that you are making statements that suggest I tried to tape you, entrap you or seduce you the weekend of October 2, 2011.

    Herman Cain was accused of trying to seduce women.

    especially since that doofus is every bit the low-down lech that his conduct suggested.

    But this was written on November 3. You’ve got to think back to November 3. But even so, she’s clearly not joining the Media Matters gang.

    This appeared in the New York Times on November 3:

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/the-blame-game-on-herman-cain/?scp=2&sq=%22herman+cain%22&st=nyt

    Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio host, blames the harassment reports on liberals and the news media who insist they “own” Hispanics and other minorities.

    Mention of the name of Cain is probably a genuine quote from an email she sent, which she might anyway not want to misquote since it was copied to a number of people, assuming the part about it being copied is true.

    This is also proven by the fact it doesn’t quite comport with what she’s saying now. A least anyway the part about it being freezing cold with no heat. That point is not mentioned anywhere else except in that Nov 3 email. What was the weather on the night of October 2 2011 in northern New Jersey?

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  374. Nadia Naffe, November 3, 2011:

    Joe began to chastise you about the way you have treated me and demanded that you return my clothing and undergarments, you stated, “Nadia tried to set me up and record me, just like on the love boat”. James, we both know these statements are patently false.

    They didn’t both know that maybe. Maybe at the time he said that. this was genuine guuess as to what she was up t.

    Perhaps what actually happened is that she made some motions like she was going to undress (also perhaps started talking with a male friend in a way most women would not want to be overheard by a third party – we don’t know what she said) in order to “chase” James O’Keefe out of the room.

    He didn’t want to stop talking to her, as soon he left, he called her on the phone:

    You called me on the phone moments later demanding to know why I was talking on the phone with someone else in your presence. You were furious. Your tone was hostile and bellicose. I will never forget the revolting, repulsive and disgusting words you used on the phone with me that night.

    So wait – she had call waiting on the cell phone, and took his call?

    The things he accused her of, was it then, and, if so, was there a basis for it in what he had just seen?

    Was she also maybe trying to “chase” him out of the barn? How was it divided?

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  375. Sammy, see also #369

    SarahW (b0e533)

  376. To be fair, Tommy is not saying it checks out. He’s just reporting it while ignoring all the reasons it doesn’t check out.
    Comment by Patterico — 3/23/2012 @ 7:04 am

    — Fact-checking is something that the print journalists are supposed to do. It’s not Tommy’s fault that he copied his test answers from the dumb kid!

    Icy (b60639)

  377. not a Santorum supporter, although the guy does seem to have a sincerity uncommon for a politician.

    — And, of course, it is because of WHAT he is sincere about that he is being attacked as “out of the mainstream” or “unelectable”.

    Icy (b60639)

  378. – Fact-checking is something that the print journalists are supposed to do. It’s not Tommy’s fault that he copied his test answers from the dumb kid!

    Comment by Icy

    You da funny mens!

    Colonel Haiku (df9857)

  379. To be fair, Tommy is not saying it checks out.

    I stand corrected on that point. Still, if he presented a weather report for sunshine I would start looking for my umbrella.

    Dustin (330eed)

  380. I don’t know what’s real anymore.
    Comment by Sarahw — 3/23/2012 @ 10:21 am

    — Ya know what’s real? The VAT. Booga booga!!!

    Icy (b60639)

  381. Yeah it’s coming.

    SarahW (b0e533)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.9872 secs.