Patterico's Pontifications

8/26/2013

Disgraced Former U.S. Attorney Throws the Book at James O’Keefe

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:15 pm

Literally.

The headline just writes itself. This is comedy gold.

You have to watch the video, as descriptions don’t do it justice. Basically, the guy in charge of the U.S. Attorney’s Office that prosecuted O’Keefe for a B.S. petty violation screams at O’Keefe, calls him a “hobbit” and a “spud” (racism against the Irish?!) and an “asshole.” Then he grabs O’Keefe’s book from him just so he can throw it at O’Keefe.

My. It would be fine to have this guy in charge of your future, wouldn’t it?

Letten, it should be remembered, resigned in disgrace after his top assistants were caught sock-puppeting comments about a case they were prosecuting and lying to a judge about it. One of those sock-puppeting assistants had haughtily proclaimed about O’Keefe: “We don’t try cases in the press.”

Ha.

P.S. I have been dying to write this post ever since I first saw the video of Letten’s antics back in early July, and teased it on Twitter (note the dates of the tweets):

P.P.S. More exclusive information about Letten and O’Keefe in the morning. I have a feeling you’ll be interested.

119 Responses to “Disgraced Former U.S. Attorney Throws the Book at James O’Keefe”

  1. Wowsers.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. He missed it’s supposed to be a metaphor?

    narciso (3fec35)

  3. James O’Keefe is ‘da man !

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  4. Project Veritas makes me proud to be an American.

    mg (31009b)

  5. Ok, you don’t like Letten. I think O’Keefe is a dilletantish twerp.

    nk (875f57)

  6. Letten should feel the wrath of good folk everywhere… those who have an interest in the truth. This clown is a disgrace.

    Colonel Haiku (5afdfc)

  7. Letten has the composure of someone who had his ass pretty much handed to him and, instead of having the good sense to stay in the shadows, licking his wounds, he insists on repeating the experience.

    What a mook.

    Colonel Haiku (5afdfc)

  8. nk,

    You don’t know him.
    O’Keefe is wicked smart, and a great guy. He’s doing the investigative journalism work that the mainstream media refuses to do.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  9. nk, a sock puppet for Letten?

    pst314 (ae6bd1)

  10. 5. Ok, you don’t like Letten. I think O’Keefe is a dilletantish twerp.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 8/26/2013 @ 6:37 pm

    Is this an “either/or” proposition?

    Steve57 (713b70)

  11. http://theadvocate.com/news/neworleans/6520037-148/gonzo-journalist-charged-in-landrieu

    again, its all about context, Letten was angry over O’keefe badgering his wife at their home.

    O’keefe pled guilty, that’s all anyone needs to know and the prosecutors were lambasted for going easy on O’keefe, who should have known that all offices have answering services, and that was a receptionist for visitors with appointments and requests.

    EPWJ (6140f6)

  12. EPWJ, you have no grasp of the facts. And I’m being generous.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  13. I’m still wrapping my head around the notion, he’s a dean of a law school!!!

    narciso (3fec35)

  14. O’Keefe did not plead guilty to the crimes for which he was originally charged, but a related misdeameanor, (entering United States property under false pretences) which probably never would really have been prosecuted in most cases.

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  15. Well associate dean,

    narciso (3fec35)

  16. PeeWee… you’re a compass of sorts… one can let you stake a position out, then take the opposing view and feel secure in the knowledge that one is correct.

    Easy peasy…

    Colonel Haiku (5afdfc)

  17. steve57

    Yeah you want to go there?

    O’keefe ambushed his wife at his house then he and his crew trespassed at Tulane and again maybe are facing state, parish and federal charges.

    IF he was innocent, then he should have gone to trial, but he wasn’t now was he?

    EPWJ (6140f6)

  18. According to the news story, Letten had recused himself, at some point which should have meant but did not necessarily in his case really mean, that he had no responsibility for the prosecution.

    He was also a Republican, which also doesn’t mean anything.

    But that’s what his answer would have been if he’d given one to O’Keefe.

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  19. O’keefe ambushed his wife at his house then he and his crew trespassed at Tulane

    Comment by EPWJ (6140f6) — 8/26/2013 @ 7:05 pm

    I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

    aunursa (7014a8)

  20. Yes, let’s go there.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  21. Ambushed, is a liars way of describing what actually happened.

    mg (31009b)

  22. And Letten did not throw the book at O’Keefe, he tossed it back, and O’Keefe caught it like a girl.

    nk (875f57)

  23. EPWJ, so you are saying the video shows O’Keefe “badgering” Letten’s wife? You have a habit of asserting the things are true that never happened.

    Because you are a Moby concern troll.

    SPQR (768505)

  24. Letten did overstate. Possibly. I will let Mrs. Letten decide whether she was terrorized. But what business did O’Keefe have at her house other than to annoy?

    nk (875f57)

  25. Col like the one you did in the last election that Romney was the bomb, well you were right…

    Okeefe should learn his lesson that ambush journalism against former federal officials at their place of work or their residence is illegal and Tulane is a private campus, even more private as a Tulane student I was not allowed on the law campus without showing ID, even then.

    So good luck with all of that.

    He does a lot of good, but he undoes it with stupid stunts like this. Letten was sympathetic to O’keefe, his deputy who prosecuted him was a lifelong friend of the senator and was in a small class of a few dozen since kindergarten and they spent all 13 years at that girls school and sit together on the board, and her father had just spoke at Moon’s funeral the month before or so. So basically the deputy who prosecuted Okeefe was literally family…

    Okeefe’s timing was wrong, he didn’t know that was a secure building, he didn’t know how a senator’s office actually works, and didn’t know that he’s lucky the parish didn’t file charges as well.

    He needs to think these things through, those 3 years are gone and all he did was make Letten a sympathetic figure

    EPWJ (6140f6)

  26. nk- O’keefe was looking for acorns.

    mg (31009b)

  27. You know, prosecutors make a lot of bad guys mad at them. Mrs. Letten may not have known that O’Keefe is an uncaped crusader wielding his camera of petulance for truth, justice and the preppie way.

    nk (875f57)

  28. 24. Letten did overstate. Possibly. I will let Mrs. Letten decide whether she was terrorized. But what business did O’Keefe have at her house other than to annoy?

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 8/26/2013 @ 7:18 pm

    Too bad the people shot at Fort Hood don’t have the same privilege.

    Must be nice to be connected.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  29. SPQR

    if an opposing client came to talk to your wife – at your home – with a grouyp of men – about how you lost him some money or years – you tell me…

    idiot, your stupidity makes me wonder sometimes

    EPWJ (6140f6)

  30. Ambush journalism = terrorism.

    Getting shot by some yayhoo shouting “allahu akhbar” = workplace violence.

    What an amazing world we live in.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  31. Hey, you know what? Wanna know who the real terrorists are? Chrysler bondholders who try to assert their rights under US bankruptcy law as it existed before Barack Obama was elected.

    Now let’s work to free those MB members, who we all know are moderates and purely political prisoners.

    Unlike secured creditors.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  32. “Hold on, it’s not that easy. It’s not that easy”.
    “Am I being detained …?” “Yes, you are being detained.”

    Best part of the video.

    nk (875f57)

  33. Seriously, how lucky are we to have our own international rodeo clown?

    Icy (216b6b)

  34. 25. PeeWee, we’ve given you the extent of your desserts for calling the Romany defeat, your shot to the Polo Ground bleachers.

    My memory isn’t perfect but the more you play this stunning validation of a prediction the more I wrack my brain for another analogous proof that you have any sense at all.

    Can you help? I got nothing.

    No offense.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  35. what campus in the US does not permit a person to walk its grounds? To enter a building and ask for a meeting?

    jb (c29242)

  36. I think going to Letten’s house was a mistake.

    But I think the prosecution of O’Keefe was a far bigger mistake.

    Patterico (276f5a)

  37. This business of some key individual beinga Republican so that therefore this can’t be a dishonest partisan Democratic event is a common tactic when something really devious is beinmg cooked up.

    This idea of immunity from accusation because of party identification goes back a long time.

    The head of the IRS during most of the period of the Tea Party scandal was also a Republican.

    So was special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh who, just before the 1992 election, released an indictment of former Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger (which incidentally, but not so incidentally, characterized George Herbert Walker Bush as a liar, except that he wasn’t a liar.)

    Bush was supposed to be a liar because he had said was “out of the loop” in Iran contra. The only thing is, “out of the loop” in 1986, and until the Democrats changed the meaning of that phrase, meant out of the chain of comamnd, and NOT ignorant or out of contact.

    Weinbenger also had told the truth mostly in his Iran-contra testimony but had lied in his so called contemporaneous memoes submitted to the Library of Congress.

    He had Ronald Reagan approving the sale of arms to Iran on January 6, 1986, when in fact he rejected it that day, and only approved it on January 17, 1986! Go ahead and check the record, you’ll see. NOBODY SEEMS TO HAVE PAID ATTENTION TO HIS CONTRADICTION. The details of the plan were also changed in the interim and the arms no longer were to be sent by the Defense Department.
    (January 6, 1986 was also the date of the Presidential finding, which John Poindexter had prepared but had to tear up. He later claimed it wad prepared by mistake)

    Weinberger,in that supposedly contemporaneous memo, which was the basis of the indictment, also attributed the whole idea of selling arms to Iran to Israel, which was untrue.

    I read, but I can’t find, a reference to the fact that he was a friend of Prince Bandar and Prince Bandar had suggested he donate it.

    Later on, Forbes magazine, which Weinberger was running, commissioned a story about Vincent Foster which was nevber published but was leaked that had Vincent Foster being BOTH a spy for the Mossad, and killed by the Mossad!! Only Saudi Arabia could come up with a preposterous story like that, and Saudi Arabia would probably only want to had he been killed by a Saudi.

    It’s difficult to find some references now to the commissioned and then killed Forbes Magazine story, but here is one:

    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1995/10/02/206527/index.htm

    Forbes had planned to publish the piece, in which Norman detailed unattributed charges that Foster had been under Central Intelligence Agency surveillance for selling U.S. secrets to Israel and secreting the proceeds in a Swiss bank, in May. When the story arrived, Michaels–as any mainstream editor might–killed it. In a prepared statement, Forbes said Michaels had decided that “many of the story’s sources were not credible.”

    I don’t have here the idea he was also killed by the Mossad, but that was part of the accusation.

    I also found:

    http://williambowles.info/spysrus/norman_grabbe.html

    The theory promoted by James R. Norman and J. Orlin Grabbe, that Vince Foster was a spy for Israel, has all the earmarks of disinformation. Until August, [1995] Norman was a senior editor at Forbes magazine. Grabbe has a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard (1981), and has written articles about technical matters in international finance. In 1985, while teaching at the Wharton School, he co-founded a company, FX Systems Inc., that developed banking software. Both Norman and Grabbe have elucidated their theories on the Internet, in the newsgroup, from about March, 1995 to the present. [the present = Sept. 19, 1995] In early July Norman began signing his posts with his name; before then he was known to most on the newsgroup only as . Norman’s article titled “Fostergate” was published in August, 1995 in Media Bypass magazine (page 36-40), after it was rejected by Forbes. It was also posted on various newsgroups. Norman claims that Forbes had fact-checked the article, and just as it was ready to go, it was killed for political reasons.

    I suppose it was commonly acccepted by some that it never had been commissioned by Forbes at all, but there was probably too much indicating that that was true, and this fits with the in with the fact that Casper Weinberger was the publisher (1989-?) and Chairman (1993-?) of Forbes Magazine. He may have bene publisher emiretus at the time.

    In a nice twist, Casper Weinberger also gets accused of being on the take. (supposedly CIA hackers recover the money)

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  38. “idiot, your stupidity makes me wonder sometimes”

    Uncalled for. Enough of that.

    Patterico (276f5a)

  39. EPWJ, ROFL. Concern troll is concerned.

    When 60 Minutes does it, lefties ( and concern trolls ) think its brilliant journalism.

    SPQR (768505)

  40. Patterico, nah. Let it go. My cabal will look out for me. Bwaahaahaa

    SPQR (768505)

  41. “law school dean”?

    I’m still back working on “prosecutorial discretion”.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  42. I don’t check for typos and omitted words enough.

    It should be: Bush was supposed to be a liar because he had said [he] was “out of the loop” in Iran contra.

    Also, it shuld be NOBODY SEEMS TO HAVE PAID ATTENTION TO THIS CONTRADICTION. [I left out the T of THIS]

    (The contradiction was between the January 6, 1986 date for President Reagan approving the sale of arms to Iran that is in the supposedly contemporaeous Weinberger memo, and the date President Ronald Reagan wrote in his diary which was January 17, 1986.

    Reagan rejected the original proposal on January 6, 1986, to National Security Adviser John Poindexter’s surprise.)

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  43. Pup howls in SouthWest
    and his Robot Overlords
    maintain dominion

    Colonel Haiku (5afdfc)

  44. re: #25… We’d ALL be in a much better place, PeeWee, if the scales would’ve fallen from the eyes of more people.

    Colonel Haiku (5afdfc)

  45. Lets not ‘do the Timewarp’ and descend into the fever swamps,

    narciso (3fec35)

  46. Reality is so much more entertaining

    JD (f87acf)

  47. SPQR,

    So what exactly are you saying? Are you saying that O’Keefe could face possible prison time OR have another 2-3 yr. “in-house” time like before?

    Spell it out, SPQR. Or, is it possible that with all the publicity surrounding O’Keefe lately (book out, been on conservative shows etc) that since Letten is GOP he may not figure it’s worth all the effort to press any charges vs him?

    Spell it out.

    Kenneth Simmons (88736a)

  48. OT via Larwyn something to really get POed about:

    http://www.themorlockrevolt.com/2013/08/liberals-rename-all-32-nfl-teams.html

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  49. This story about Letten and O’Keefe is kind of obscure to me, even more so during this increasingly murky or dark time in US history since, as the saying goes, we have far bigger fish to fry. However, I do like O’Keefe, if only because professional PITAs like him are a nice change of pace. That’s because most activists out there are all too commonly, frequently on the left. So there’s the Rainbow Coalition, NOW, moveon.org, NAACP, Greenpeace, GLAAD, etc, and then there’s James O’Keefe.

    Mark (fd91da)

  50. Pat

    Then tell them to stop, apply the rules to everyone. I’m just fed up with the name calling the smearing this is a one sentence retaliation, well earned and deserved, correct and waay waay way overdue. No one in their right mind needs opposing parties to ambush their families in their homes and then have the punk to go with the knowledge that the guy is pissed to paparazzi style ambush himat work.

    I will stop you are tight we shouldn’t do that and they will continue to break the rules as we have had these discussions before since 2008, isn’t six years long enough for these guys to behave?

    O’keefe should not have been prosecuted, but in his interviews at the DA’s office – his attitude pretty much guaranteed it.

    Also, it was known that Letten had been looking to leave long before he resigned and your title is smearing someone who prosecuted a friend of yours correct?

    Not really fair, now is it. Letten recused himself, and he left the decisions up to his deputy who after interviewing filed felony charges.

    EPWJ (6140f6)

  51. Pat,

    I will be nice, direct and address the topics not personalities, too bad most of your commentators are not going to.

    Steve57

    Are you saying that Letten = Hassan?

    Missed your reply on that..

    EPWJ (6140f6)

  52. Note to the proprietor.

    Compare 47 and

    Comment by TimesDisliker (886a73) — 8/26/2013 @ 7:05 pm

    on the defund thread. We have an infuction.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  53. Kenneth – were you directing your comment to EPWJ, or SPQR?

    JD (f87acf)

  54. Mommeeee Make them stop!

    elissa (ae7d8d)

  55. 51. Oh come on. Your treatment of DRJ just the other day was vile.

    “You’ll be nice.” Wake up. You are not nice first and foremost because you are helpless when trading punches.

    There’s a fix for that. Don’t trade punches.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  56. Um, does Letten know that in Tolkein’s works the Hobbits are actually heroic figures? I mean even if he never read the books he must have seen the movies, right? They only grossed like $5 billion worldwide. Would this make Letten and his cohorts Orcs or Ringwraiths or something?

    JVW (bea3f2)

  57. Has anyone ever prosecuted 60 Minutes for doing the same stuff?

    AZ Bob (c99389)

  58. I was directing my question to EPWJ (based on his post at #25) he seems to be implying that O’Keefe could face possible charges/prison time stemming from what occurred last month during his New Orleans visit.

    EPWJ, would appreciate it if you would spell out what exactly you are stating.

    How bad exactly does it appear for O’Keefe? Or is it grey area, murky, does not arise to the level of, etc. etc.

    Spell it out.

    Kenneth Simmons (88736a)

  59. Thank you, Kenneth.

    JD (f87acf)

  60. No problem, but still awaiting the answer from EPWJ.

    Because it does appear on the face of it to be in the vague or grey area since no physical or threatening infraction occurred.

    Kenneth Simmons (88736a)

  61. OT via Larwyn something to really get POed about:

    It’s hard to laugh at such humor without also wincing a bit because every time I think the lunacy of political correctness can’t get even worse, it does. IOW, life has a way of imitating art.

    Morlock avoided going the cheap, blue-humor route with one listing. But I do admit to chuckling more at the comment of one of his forumers who said the San Francisco 49ers should be renamed “69ers,” as opposed to Morlock’s “10s,” referring to the year 2010 when Obamacare was signed into law.

    Mark (fd91da)

  62. Kenneth

    its Louisiana, you don’t harass public officials in Louisiana, the senator brother is the mayor, the DA’s office is full of her friends and associates, just not the smartest thing to do. There are strict laws on the books and he may have been told that he cannot contact these people – that Judge and a governors brother were murdered, they take it very seriously.

    But back to the stunt, all this for what?, they guy didn’t even prosecute okeefe, James should have gone after Jan and her husband who erased his recordings..

    But even that would not be advisable.

    Okeefe went to the house with a group of people, he was told to leave and he refused, not good.

    Not good at all….

    I mean in the current scheme of things there was nothing to be gained except showing that he is still embarrassed and humiliated by the ordeal, welcome to Louisiana…..

    EPWJ (6140f6)

  63. sorry my keyboard is acting up erasing phrases, typing over

    a judge was murdered followed by Marion Edwards Erwins brother, after that there was a sea change in contacting any former or current law enforcement and judiciary employees with grievances especially at their homes, just stepping on the lawn violated the law, its severe and he may face serious jail time.

    EPWJ (6140f6)

  64. EPWJ

    Thank you, that clears some of it. But one more question remains.

    So, bottom line. Are you saying that O’Keefe could be prosecuted? Because I’m still not sure exactly for what. He came with some witnesses, if it were to go to court he could state that as a private citizen he was just knocking on the door etc etc much like a stranger whose car broke down needing directions, etc.

    I’m just trying to see exactly what anyone has to gain by trying him on exactly……what?

    From his standpoint, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was also to help boost sales of his book. Lets not so quickly forget that his book was just released this summer. Usually there is a money angle somewhere to be found in things like this.

    I guess what I’m asking is, are you saying this would arise to the level of Mary Landrieu’s offices and what he was charged for there? That he received 3 yr probation.

    ALSO, I dont see how any felonies were technically committed. At best, it would appear to be misdemeanors if that.

    But not sure. Are you?

    Kenneth Simmons (88736a)

  65. Ok, that seems to clear some of that up with your post in right before mine. Hmm… Still though. It doesnt seem like any felonies were committed.

    Plus the publicity that would arise if they actually decided to go ahead and charge O’Keefe.

    Kenneth Simmons (88736a)

  66. If knocking on the door was a crime, then all the Jehovah’s Witnesses would be in jail.

    AZ Bob (c99389)

  67. I think we should all relax, take a deep breath, and after searching in vain for the laws of yet another State that EPWJ cites, we should count some Joooooooooooos.

    JD (5c1832)

  68. AZ, yeah, see that’s what I’m saying. But then I’m not from Louisiana. EPWJ, sounds like you’re basically saying that O’Keefe could still be charged with something. Guess all I was asking is, if what he’s done would rise about a misdemeanor?

    Mary Landrieu’s office by comparison was at a federal building so that of course would carry, I would suppose, the larger penalty as opposed to this.

    But then, I’m not from Louisiana.

    Kenneth Simmons (88736a)

  69. Maybe, as Patterico seemed to imply in his PPPS, this confusion will all clear up in the morning.

    Kenneth Simmons (88736a)

  70. PW… I call bullsh*t. No charges for O’Keefe and the court of public opinion solidly against the nitwit loudmouth “dean”.

    Colonel Haiku (7865e7)

  71. I accidentally set foot on someone’s lawn the other day.

    I’ll see you all after I get out of the pokey.

    Icy (b7138e)

  72. Quite simply, ambush journalists are annoying, but they aren’t going anywhere. The point of someone like O’Keefe is that he is going after the targets outside of the liberal comfort zone.

    OmegaPaladin (f4a293)

  73. California has a sort of imunity law for law enforcement personel where their addresses are hidden from the DMV. They can’t get a ticket. Maybe they could be arrested from a capital crime.

    This makes Cal a land of one set of laws for the most of us, another set for the people who enforce the law on us. Maybe they have the same thing in Louisiana?
    That would explain Letten’s quick jump into the “othering” language. Because by the law O’Keefe is a lesser being who only has the amount and quality of rights that Letten and his ilk allow him, at least in California.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  74. You must hate the girl scout cookie campaign, huh EPWJ.
    Did the grade school kids steal your lunch money all through high school?

    mg (31009b)

  75. Anyone who can look at the video and conclude O’Keefe is terrorizing Letten or his wife has disqualified himself from being taken seriously.

    Such a conclusion is so devoid of fairness or accuracy as to constitute deliberate obfuscation, it’s a blatant denial of the obvious facts which are clearly and unambiguously recorded for any and all to see. EPWJ is pushing pure malarkey, attempting to blame the messenger for exposing Letten’s shameful display of blustering and name calling under color of authority.

    Letten made an ugly blithering fool of himself and O’Keefe got it on tape. Now, EPWJ wants to define exposing the reality of Letten’s bullying as terrorism. Is it possible to be anymore wrongheaded? Just wait, it won’t take long.

    ropelight (57ee84)

  76. Pretty soon the word terrorism won’t have any meaning because of its overuse–like racism.

    rochf (f3fbb0)

  77. Kenneth

    O’keefe in Louisiana, broke the law, was asked to leave and didn’t. He did it twice in one day.

    Again, his fate is in the hands of the Lettens. In america, you do not have the right to go to anyone’s door and set foot on anyone’s property.

    It’s interesting that people will defend O’keefe breaking the law, also my pointing out he broke the law, is not an avocation that he be charged, just pointing out the situation that he has gotten himself in.

    EPWJ (6140f6)

  78. Yeah, terrify was the proper word, if that. Two things, please.

    When Girl Scouts or Jehovah’s Witnesses come to your door, they are there for at worst an innocuous purpose. Personally, I love Girl Scout cookies especially the Samoans. And they are familiar and non-threatening. O’Keefe’s motive for going to Letten’s house was nothing more than resentment for his prosecution, his purpose was to be “in your face”, and he and his friends were neither familiar nor clearly non-threatening to any reasonable woman alone at home — let alone the wife of a prosecutor.

    As for his “trespass” at Tulane, there is both an implied license for business with the University and a First Amendment right for a public purpose. O’Keefe had neither. Again, he was there out of petulance and to be in Tellen’s face.

    nk (875f57)

  79. ropelight

    most people didn’t see it that way, you did, Letten recused, everyone btw pled guilty including the son of the other US attorney in Louisiana.

    People don’t plead guilty when they are innocent
    , O’keefe is very lucky that young man was in his entourage that day or he would have served some serious time.

    EPWJ (6140f6)

  80. nk

    not at tulane, going onto the campus they have signs telling you this is a private campus and the first amendment doesn’t apply, for trespass purposes.

    Good grief!

    Hilarious!

    If Letten files a complaint, James is going to be a guest of the system there eventually.

    EPWJ (6140f6)

  81. Yes, it does, Eric. Maybe not to protest Bloomberg’s ban on sugary drinks, but to inform the Tulane student population on an issue you reasonably consider they might wish to hear about.

    nk (875f57)

  82. Or to unionize the faculty. Or to protest the practice of grinning at Persians on campus.

    nk (875f57)

  83. The First Amendment becomes implicated when you call on the government to enforce your individual rights. Think New York Times vs. Sullivan, but there are cases closer on point, in regard to both unions and campus protests.

    nk (875f57)

  84. It seems cooler heads prevailed;

    http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=5018

    narciso (3fec35)

  85. The earlier part explains why he couldn’t go to the office.

    narciso (3fec35)

  86. EPWJ #77,

    You claim that we don’t have the right to go to anyone’s door and set foot on their property in America. I concede we can’t trespass. Is that what you meant? I don’t think knocking on someone’s door is trespassing.

    Also, Mrs. Letten may have been concerned about men with cameras at her front door. I wouldn’t like that either. But that doesn’t make it illegal, does it?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  87. DRJ, yes. There was a recent Fourth Amendment case, the one with the dog?, where Scalia discusses the public’s license to walk up a walkway and knock on someone’s door if only to ask to use their phone because their car broke down.

    nk (875f57)

  88. If Tulane doesn’t want visitors to its campus, why does its website invite and welcome them?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  89. I mean, “yes, I agree with you”.

    nk (875f57)

  90. O’keefe in Louisiana, broke the law, was asked to leave and didn’t. He did it twice in one day.

    Lets try baby steps. Which specific Federal, State, and parish laws did he break by practicing journalism? Where is you evidence that be did not leave the home when asked?

    JD (5c1832)

  91. Is this the case you’re thinking of, nk?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  92. You have a good memory, nk.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  93. Why didn’t the wife just fire a couple of shotgun blasts through the door?

    Icy (b7138e)

  94. Tulane has a beautiful campus.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  95. Good one, Icy.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  96. Yes, it is, DRJ. The case. And you may remember a picture of me holding my daughter in the Garden District near the Tulane campus from what seems a very long time ago, 2005.

    Some of us have been to New Orleans too, Eric.

    nk (875f57)

  97. It worked for Rodney Peairs

    vor2 (395e00)

  98. Rodeo clown ^^^

    Icy (b7138e)

  99. vor2,

    I didn’t know about that case. How sad.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  100. The use of the term “Hobbit” as a derisive and hurtful term must be stopped.

    Halflings, take back the word “Hobbit” from the racist Big Folk! Draw it’s poison! Pluck it’s sting!

    You have nothing to lose but your mathoms.

    Pious Agnostic (c45233)

  101. the racist Big Folk

    You mean the Biggers!

    nk (875f57)

  102. 94. And nice surroundings of gated neighborhoods. We got off the trolley just to ogle the homes eating frequently around the St. Charles/Carrollton corner.

    Considering Katrina, it all looked completely restored to us.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  103. EPWJ is a total moron.
    We’re still awaiting his follow up “insider information” about how he was “informed” that Fox News is dropping Sean Hannity, and that Roger Ailes is quitting the channel.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  104. “People don’t plead guilty when they are innocent”

    EPWJ – That is going into the pantheon of most stupid comments I have seen you make on this blog. Congratulations!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  105. 104. And the outcome of their mischief: More proof that LA is still a Democrat plantation.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  106. the racist Big Folk

    You mean the Biggers!

    Spuds on the street call them Big’Uns.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  107. Isn’t throwing a missile at someone at least as serious a crime as entering a federal building under cover? Why doesn’t Letten’s former office prosecute him?

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  108. The head of the IRS during most of the period of the Tea Party scandal was also a Republican.

    Was he? I routinely question any such claim, when presented without a foundation. It may be true, but quite often it isn’t. Merely being appointed to an office by a Republican doesn’t mean one is one.

    So was special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh

    Again, was he? I don’t know, but I’m not taking anyone’s word for it.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  109. Patrick Fitzgerald. Nominated by the Senator Peter Fitzgerald (no relation), appointed by Bush, kept on by Bush with Durkin and Obama now Illinois’s Senators, kept on by Obama until end of 2012. These positions have blurred party lines.

    nk (875f57)

  110. Patrick Fitzgerald. Nominated by the Senator Peter Fitzgerald (no relation), appointed by Bush, kept on by Bush with Durkin and Obama now Illinois’s Senators, kept on by Obama until end of 2012. These positions have blurred party lines.

    These things have nothing to do with whether he is a Republican. That’s my point; to say that someone is a Republican, or a Democrat, one must have some evidence for that proposition. Who nominated or appointed him to what isn’t evidence at all.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  111. Walsh one of the top men, of the establishment, opposed to most of Nicon’s policies, but he was still pushed forward as a delegate to the Paris Peace Talks,

    narciso (3fec35)

  112. These things have nothing to do with whether he is a Republican. That’s my point; to say that someone is a Republican, or a Democrat, one must have some evidence for that proposition. Who nominated or appointed him to what isn’t evidence at all.

    Is being able to pronounce shibboleth enough of a test?

    nk (875f57)

  113. Naw, too Jewish.

    ropelight (462c4b)

  114. Too Jewish to be Republican? Hmm … you could be right.

    But let’s not speculate. Milhouse will tell us what makes a Republican, should he ever deign to stoop to condescend, to indiscriminate nincompoops such as we.

    nk (875f57)

  115. Are you drunk again, you antisemite? Do you even disagree with me on this, or are you just being disagreeable for its own sake? Are you actually asserting that being appointed by a president to some office is evidence of membership in that president’s party?! If you have a point, make it, and keep your feelings about Jews decently hidden.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  116. Go f*** yourself, Milhouse.

    nk (875f57)

  117. So you are drunk. That’s when your nastiness comes out. Let the record reflect that it was nk, and nk alone, who injected acrimony into a discussion that had no reason at all to turn nasty. He’s a f–ing antisemite.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  118. Bite me. This isn’t the first time you’ve resorted to calling me a drunk and anti-Semitic when I’ve called you out on your BS and know-it-allness. Take it to your mommy, she might believe you and wipe your nose and give you a great big hug and ice cream. But don’t expect that I won’t call you out again on your BS, or treat you otherwise than as a troll from here on.

    nk (875f57)

  119. And you continue. You are a drunk, and you are an antisemite. And anyone reading this thread can see that you are the one who injected insults and nastiness where it had not been there before. There was absolutely no call for you to do that. You did it only because you’re a hateful, horrible person.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.6250 secs.