Patterico's Pontifications

1/28/2010

Lawyer: O’Keefe & Co. Trying to Embarrass Landrieu Over Ignoring Calls Re Health Care

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:27 pm



I think we have the first official hint of the defense of any of the defendants arrested in the James O’Keefe case:

A lawyer for one of four conservative activists accused of tampering with a Louisiana senator’s phones says they hoped to embarrass her over claims her staff ignored calls critical of her stance on health care reform.

J. Garrison Jordan is an attorney for suspect Robert Flanagan. He denies the men sought to disable or wiretap the phones in Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office at a federal building in New Orleans.

Jordan said Thursday they were trying to document allegations that Landrieu’s staff has been ignoring phone calls about the Democratic senator’s health care position.

I said on Wednesday:

UPDATE x4: I don’t know why I’m linking this. Sometimes, we bloggers, we link things. That’s what we do.

“This” was a link to a story about Landrieu claiming her phone lines had been “jammed” because of calls to her office over health care.

And then I said yesterday morning:

What was he doing? I don’t know. You might look at UPDATE x4 to my initial post about this, and consider the story linked there. Which has to do with Landrieu’s phones being “jammed” over calls coming in regarding her position on health care:

“We were stunned to learn that so many phone calls to Sen. Landrieu have been unanswered and met with continuous busy signals,” Perkins said. “We asked them to call their senators. They could get through to Sen. Vitter, but not Sen. Landrieu.”

“Our lines have been jammed for weeks, and I apologize,” Landrieu said in interview after giving a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday. “But no amount of jamming is going to keep me from supporting a good work for Louisiana and the nation.”

Just sayin’.

Always trust content from Patterico.

47 Responses to “Lawyer: O’Keefe & Co. Trying to Embarrass Landrieu Over Ignoring Calls Re Health Care”

  1. Updating The James O’Keefe Story…

    Patterico writes, “CBS News and the L.A. Times Owe O’Keefe Corrections and Clarifications:”
    As I noted last night, the Washington Post yesterday retracted its claim that the feds are charging James O’Keefe with an attempt to bug Mary Landri…

    Ed Driscoll (a3d746)

  2. It will be interesting to see her response, especially if the Democrats try to end run the HCR bill via “side car” Senate bill.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  3. Here’s an AP story about the arrest:

    http://my.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20100128/970381cb-8a91-46a0-a3a4-99f9b7cda585

    It contains two factiods that I find fairly unnerving. First, the story says that “Investigators are aware of Jordan’s explanation, but are pressing ahead to see if that was indeed the men’s motive”. You’re a prosecutor, Patterico, is this how you investigate cases — go ahead with an indictment when the defendant gives you an alibi just to test the case, or do you hold your fire until you’ve completed your investigation?

    Second, this was Landreux’s reaction:”Attorneys are hired to spin for their clients… “Good luck.” Now, she was clearly the intended victim of whatever O’Keefe had up his sleeve, legal or not, so a fair amount of bitterness is understandable. But — seeing as how her staff is the only witness of an actual crime — isn’t this statement more notable for what it DOESN’T say than what it does?

    Sean P (334463)

  4. Whoever leaked that to Patterico did themselves a huge favor. Just about everyone had written O’Keefe and friends off as Watergate 2 before Patterico said he was going to put his neck out there.

    Trust is a hard thing to earn these days.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  5. I have a question… had they pulled this stunt anywhere else? Where they successful?

    yarrrrr (b8cd64)

  6. Good question! The Senator has four or five field offices in LA.

    AD - RtR/OS! (bb36fd)

  7. Were there other Senators that claimed their phones had been jammed on the Senate floor?

    JD (c15e93)

  8. Always trust content from Patterico.

    but do not trust the shover robot…..

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  9. This is Sen. Landrieu, from the NY Times: http://tinyurl.com/y9v9amf

    “Ms. Landrieu said at the time that her office had received a high volume of calls.

    “Our lines have been jammed for weeks, and I apologize,” she said in interview with The Advocate in December. In an interview on Thursday, Ms. Landrieu said she knew of no recent issues with her phone system or her staff’s response to callers, either in Louisiana or in Washington.

    “Our phone rings off the hook all day long, and we answer it and pick it up,” she said. “Like every Senate office I’m imagining does.”

    Ms. Landrieu said her staff was immediately skeptical of the men who came to the office on Monday dressed as repairmen, and walked them to the offices of the General Services Administration, which are on the same floor. The agency is in charge of the phone system at her New Orleans office, the senator said.

    “Thank goodness I have very good staffers,” Ms. Landrieu said.”

    1. Of course they would be ‘immediately skeptical’ if the phone crew were in “Hee Haw” costumes as Breitbart suggests. This would make it obviously a prank, and not something dangerous, so there should only be limited charges, or none, filed.

    2…… but wouldn’t is be sweet if Landrieu has to eat her words about her staff answering phones?…. I’m skeptical that it will happen, as I think O’Keefe didn’t do enough research on this one to make it a good stunt… but we’ll see…

    3. What are the odds O’keefe actually has good footage from any of this? Speculation? I’m doubtful… 1 in 10 chance he does.

    Steve (6bd10f)

  10. Oh, good. They only committed a crime in order to prove that Mary Landrieu is a very mean lady.

    Color me mollified.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  11. I hate it when people trespass on the people’s property, especially in reception areas and hallways.

    JD (c15e93)

  12. Well, when I say it’s bad, you should trust me. Because I’m a doctor. And a lawyer.

    /sarc (for the damn record)

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  13. Leviticus – They only committed a crime in order to prove that Mary Landrieu is a very mean lady.

    Or possibly attempt to prove that Mary Landrieu has intentionally subverted her sworn duty to represent her constituents.

    Our elected officials are ignoring the will of the people and the good of the country in favor of corrupt political gain. I’m always happy when a citizen exposes this fact.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  14. Apogee rocks. That is all.

    JD (c15e93)

  15. JD – back at ya. Thanks for manning the parapets and helping to keep this a great place to return.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  16. personally JD, i like the way Apogee rolls….

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  17. Even if that citizen has to resort to criminal means to expose that fact, Apogee?

    What if (and this is going to prompt a lot of whining) O’Keefe and his associates had kidnapped Landrieu and held her at gunpoint, in order to get her to admit her “corrupt political gain”?

    I will say this: O’Keefe and his associates are innocent until guilty, legally and in my own mind. I shouldn’t even have to say that, but a lot of people on the Left seem to be forgetting it. So there is that.

    But people are insinuating that Landrieu is guilty of crimes (?) that she hasn’t even been legally accused of, all because James O’Keefe (incompetently) attempted to assert that she had committed them. So what the heck’s going on there, anyway?

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  18. Basically, Apogee, what I’m saying is that O’Keefe didn’t “expose” anything. So what exactly are you happy about? That his lawyer says he tried to expose some government malfeasance?

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  19. Leviticus – For argument’s sake, he exposed Landrieu’s claims that the phones were jammed, when apparently they were not.

    JD (c15e93)

  20. Um. Leviticus. How do we know what O’Keefe was trying to prove until he says what he was trying to prove? People Schuster seemed to just know stuff, and even tweet about it. Whoops.

    O’Keefe is all about trying to embarrass foolish and arrogant politicians in power now.

    He might have bitten off more than he could chew in Southern Louisiana. But lots of people seem to “know” things that aren’t in any information that has been released thus far. And lots of 24 year olds get carried away with themselves. Sometimes, the price is high.

    We’ll know soon enough. Heck, we’ll even know how competent or incompetent this political theater was.

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  21. What if (and this is going to prompt a lot of whining) O’Keefe and his associates had kidnapped Landrieu and held her at gunpoint, in order to get her to admit her “corrupt political gain”?

    — What if Da Prez takes a dump on Air Force One, and Skittles come shooting out of the plane’s waste tube? Will Chrissie “i DON’T see black people” Matthews rush outside and open his mouth to “taste the rainbow”?

    Come on, Leviticus. Playing the “what might have happened, instead of what really happened” game is a losing proposition.

    Icy Texan (2dde99)

  22. “You’re a prosecutor, Patterico, is this how you investigate cases — go ahead with an indictment when the defendant gives you an alibi just to test the case, or do you hold your fire until you’ve completed your investigation?”

    Looks like O’keefe’s next moview will take on THE MAN.

    imdw (e66d8d)

  23. Wasn’t there a movie playing where YOU ‘took on the man’ when they arrested Pee Wee?

    Icy Texan (2dde99)

  24. Leviticus,

    You lefties make a first resort breaking the law to achieve your goals. You are hypocrisy first, and world, class.

    Now if the phones are disabled, then Landrieu’s staff committed a Federal Felony. Where are you on that Leviticus????

    As for imd-dumbass, that sad little entity will not be missed when God flushes him down the cosmic toilet.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  25. What if (and this is going to prompt a lot of whining) O’Keefe and his associates had kidnapped Landrieu and held her at gunpoint, in order to get her to admit her “corrupt political gain”?

    Whining? No. But this is akin to asking “What if O’Keefe were walking down the street and his butt fell off?”

    It didn’t happen, it clearly wasn’t O’Keefe’s intent to kidnap or harm anyone, so there’s no point in answering this question.

    Some chump (d97978)

  26. If this was 60 Minutes doing the same thing to a Republican’s office, there would have been a completely different response. ‘

    This is an example of why people turn to Fox, talk radio, blogs and Patterico.

    Alta Bob (e8af2b)

  27. They only committed a crime in order to prove that Mary Landrieu is a very mean lady.

    “They only committed a visit to the Senator’s offices in order to prove that Mary Landrieu is a cheap whore that would sell out her entire country in exchange for a few dollars under her mattress.”

    There, fixed that for you.

    Dmac (539341)

  28. DMAC, I know you mean well, but you are conceeding way too much to the other side. O’Keefe is charged with entering Landrieu’s office under false pretenses WITH INTENT to commit a felony. Did he intend to commit a felony, or just a non-criminal stunt? If it was the latter, these charges need to be dismissed. If it was the latter, but he decided to commit a felony (ie: interrupting the phone lines) only after entering the property and after Landreu’s office staff didn’t fall for his trap, then he would be guilty of a felony, but not the one he is being charged with.

    Sean P (334463)

  29. Landrieu: “The reason I’m ignoring my constituents’ outrage over my votes is that the dog in my office ate their letters to me.”

    O’Keefe just wanted a picture of the dog.

    Peter B (bf183d)

  30. Even if that citizen has to resort to criminal means to expose that fact, Apogee?

    Forty-five years ago they called it civil disobedience and folks like you were so much in love with the concept you’d have married it if you could.

    The mountainous level of hypocrisy displayed by folks like Leviticus is Himalayan in its proportions. And of course course imdimwit is just deliberately acting like a slug of a human being.

    What if (and this is going to prompt a lot of whining) O’Keefe and his associates had kidnapped Landrieu and held her at gunpoint, in order to get her to admit her “corrupt political gain”?

    What if (and this is going to prompt a lot of whining) O’Keefe and his associates had, say, broken into and occupied administrative or other buildings for a major taxpayer-funded state college in order to get the college administration to end practices they considered oppressive?

    Oh wait we don’t have to ask what if, that happened at dozens of colleges across the country and resulted in much property damage and other costs to the taxpayers. And those people who broke in? Today many of them occupy high positions either directly in the Democratic Party or in liberal political advocacy organizations.

    Or, say, what if O’Keefe and his associates had set off bombs across the country targeting American soldiers, officers of the courts and the law, and symbols of the American government? Oh wait we don’t have to ask that hypothetical either, that’s Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn we’re talking about. They got to be college professors, and the mentors and bosom buddies of the current president of the United States, living a life of bourgeoisie luxury in Chicago that some poor oppressed member of the Soviet proletariat would have been shot for aspiring to.

    I could go on and on and on of course; justifying malicious, usually violent law-breaking is one of the central tenets of leftist thought. But no one tell Leviticus, he’s too busy trying to impress upon us the horror of the crime of weaseling your way into a US Senator’s office in her home state to try to prove that she’s monkeying around with her phone lines.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  31. “Forty-five years ago they called it civil disobedience and folks like you were so much in love with the concept you’d have married it if you could.”

    – chaos

    Forty-five years ago my father had just been born… so it would’ve been kinda hard for me to be “so much in love with it”, since I wasn’t even close to born yet.

    “Oh wait we don’t have to ask what if, that happened at dozens of colleges across the country and resulted in much property damage and other costs to the taxpayers. And those people who broke in? Today many of them occupy high positions either directly in the Democratic Party or in liberal political advocacy organizations.”

    – chaos

    A lot of them also got arrested, and “folks like you” were huffing and puffing about how the treasonous little bastards should do hard time for defying every possible standard of human decency. So there’s just turnarounds happenin’ all over the place, huh?

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  32. “O’Keefe just wanted a picture of the dog.”

    Then all he had to do was take a pix of the Senator!

    AD - RtR/OS! (098720)

  33. I’m going to repeat this, because no one’s addressed it:

    “People are insinuating that Landrieu is guilty of crimes (?) that she hasn’t even been legally accused of, all because James O’Keefe (incompetently) attempted to assert that she had committed them. So what the heck’s going on there, anyway?”

    Everyone’s so whupped up that people in the media are unfairly assuming that O’Keefe committed crimes which aren’t even asserted by the FBI affidavit – but everyone’s simultaneously talking like Mary Landrieu is guilty of tampering with her own phones, when there’s no evidence (yet) to indicate that. Double standard?

    Leviticus (f0f166)

  34. I find it interesting that whevever the MSM writes about O’Keefe and group they are always referred to as “the conservative group.” When was the last time anyone read about a “liberal group” doing anything questionable?

    jwarner (0a2a75)

  35. Forty-five years ago my father had just been born… so it would’ve been kinda hard for me to be “so much in love with it”, since I wasn’t even close to born yet.

    That’s a stupid response. You understood what I meant, so either respond intelligently or don’t respond at all. Not interested in you being a petulant little baby trying to be witty in order to dodge the point I raised.

    A lot of them also got arrested,

    And? I never said O’Keefe shouldn’t have been arrested. He was entering federal property under false, if benign, pretenses.

    and “folks like you” were huffing and puffing about how the treasonous little bastards should do hard time for defying every possible standard of human decency.

    The point was that what they were doing was malicious, usually violent, and intended to be that way. They intended to damage or destroy property, they intended to get into violent confrontations with the police, they intended to usurp the authority of the proper people and organizations who had put in the time and the effort and the money to gain those positions of authority, they intended to do a whole host of things far more criminal and damaging to the life and limb of other human beings than anything James O’Keefe came anywhere close to attempting, especially considering O’Keefe did not intend to physically harm anyone at all (or in any way at all, save politically).

    So there’s just turnarounds happenin’ all over the place, huh?

    Sorry, but your lame charge of hypocrisy is a case of hilarious projection. I’ve never said O’Keefe should get off scot-free or do hard time. I do believe I’ve said several times that I think he will get some kind of fine, a stern talking-to, and some kind of community service. Hell, throw him in jail for a week or two. And that’s what I think he should get, to teach him a lesson that being a walking bag of testosterone flush with success and fame doesn’t mean you can push your particular talents into achieving any gotcha journalism scheme that pops into your head.

    Really Leviticus, please figure this out. When I put my mind to it, your typical bullshit just isn’t going to come anywhere close to making the grade.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    chaos (9c54c6)

  36. A U.S.Senator who extorted $100,000,000.00 from the taxpayers of this country, and she’s not guilty of something?
    Laugh of the Day!

    AD - RtR/OS! (098720)

  37. “When I put my mind to it, your typical bullshit just isn’t going to come anywhere close to making the grade.”

    – chaos

    Ha ha ha ha ha…

    Well, okay then. I’m so absolutely, positively cowed by your confident assertion of supreme mental dominance that I’m going to retire from the blog-commenting game altogether and spend several years contemplating your uber-awesome blog-star badassery. Lookout, gang: Sheriff Chaos is back in town!

    “I’ve never said O’Keefe should get off scot-free or do hard time.”

    – chaos

    Right. And I never expressed any desire to be joined to “civil disobedience” in holy matrimony. Or do you have a monopoly on the assignation of unstated preference?

    You don’t know anything about what I believe, about politics or morality or anything else. The fact of the matter is that I have never, as you claimed, been “so much in love with the concept [of civil disobedience] [that I’d] have married it if [I] could.” I’ve thought the civil disobedience, particularly of recent years, to be self-serving and (often) contemptible. So, yes, I understood what you meant – but what you meant was, in diplomatic parlance, misdirected. And retarded.

    You may assume that everyone you assume to be “a LIBERAL” has the exact same views on every possible political matter EVAH, but that does not make it so. And (regardless of your oh-so-intimidating intellectual prowess which you have single-handedly trumpeted for much of your brief tenure at this site), I don’t have to roll over and let you subscribe to me views I don’t actually hold.

    You of all people should remember that – you’re one of Goldstein’s little acolytes, right?

    Get over yourself, Sheriff.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Leviticus (f0f166)

  38. “Even if that citizen has to resort to criminal means to expose that fact, Apogee?

    Comment by Leviticus — 1/28/2010 @ 11:45 pm”

    There comes a point where that may be the appropriate response, yes.

    (See American History, years 1770-1780)

    Dan S (b5ccb6)

  39. Well, okay then. I’m so absolutely, positively cowed by your confident assertion of supreme mental dominance that I’m going to retire from the blog-commenting game altogether and spend several years contemplating your uber-awesome blog-star badassery. Lookout, gang: Sheriff Chaos is back in town!

    Or you could just stop being a little bitch and post honestly and intelligently instead of using little rhetorical games and other nonsense that anyone with more than three synapses firing can see through.

    You’ve insulted our intelligence with the way you’ve posted on this issue, not directly, but through the methods you’ve used to try to make your point, and it isn’t flying anymore.

    Right. And I never expressed any desire to be joined to “civil disobedience” in holy matrimony. Or do you have a monopoly on the assignation of unstated preference?

    Really? Well I guess then you’re just a boot-licking prole who deserves to get the boot on his face. Here I thought “civil disobedience” was a principle held just as high as any other in the annals of liberty, whether your intent springs from left-wing or right-wing or crazy-wing thought.

    Or maybe I’m making the mistake of attributing an opinion to you. Or maybe you’re just being the typical internet jackass who tries to word his comments in just such a way that he can try to weasel his way out of anything.

    You don’t know anything about what I believe, about politics or morality or anything else. The fact of the matter is that I have never, as you claimed, been “so much in love with the concept [of civil disobedience] [that I’d] have married it if [I] could.” I’ve thought the civil disobedience, particularly of recent years, to be self-serving and (often) contemptible. So, yes, I understood what you meant – but what you meant was, in diplomatic parlance, misdirected. And retarded.

    Oh, God, you really are stupid. You really thought I was referring to you specifically there, or even including you in some general lump of humanity? Reading comprehension classes, Leviticus. Quick. Before it’s too late.

    You may assume that everyone you assume to be “a LIBERAL” has the exact same views on every possible political matter EVAH, but that does not make it so. And (regardless of your oh-so-intimidating intellectual prowess which you have single-handedly trumpeted for much of your brief tenure at this site), I don’t have to roll over and let you subscribe to me views I don’t actually hold.

    Your manufactured self-righteous indignation is even more boring as it stems from your inability to comprehend written English. Really Leviticus, everything you’ve posted that I’ve ever read at this site has been an exercise in an amateur political prognosticator just discovering that there is more to English than what he learned in high school and you just can’t resist in trying out every amateurish flourish of rhetoric and bad debate tactic you’ve been able to pick up off of reading blogs.

    You of all people should remember that – you’re one of Goldstein’s little acolytes, right?

    Ahahahahaha. I’ve visited Goldstein’s site less than 30 times in my lifetime, that would be, either typing the address in and going, or clicking a link to there. How nice of you to talk about not knowing people then asking about Goldstein, not a particularly popular fellow around here, and trying to tie me to him. Of course, you could just search my comments and note the many times I’ve mocked the Jewish Gladiator, but hell, that’s too much effort for some dumb little brouhaha like this.

    Get over yourself, Sheriff.

    Don’t be so sensitive, little fool. You’re just mad because I showed you up and now you’re pulling yet another one of your tired internet cliches out – honestly, did you pick up some obscure book about discussions on the internet printed in 1997 or something and the only chapter that was still readable was “Mocking Internet Insults of Yesteryear”?

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    chaos (9c54c6)

  40. […] Patterico’s Pontifications has a number of well-researched posts on O’Keefe, his game plan, and the many falsehoods printed by media (and some of the retractions), including lots of news source links: Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and Lawyer: O’Keefe & Co. Trying to Embarrass Landrieu Over Ignoring Calls Re Health Care […]

    Journalist James O’Keefe: Looking More Innocent by the Day, to the Dismay of ACORN, Liberals, & the Media « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  41. […] position. A number of sources have said that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in […]

    Media Retracting ACORN Whistleblower tales | Orange Juice (c5dd40)

  42. […] Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and Lawyer: O’Keefe & Co. Trying to Embarrass Landrieu Over Ignoring Calls Re Health Care Nice Deb: Source Close To O’Keefe Tells Fox News: “They Were Not Attempting To Wiretap […]

    More Media Mayhem: David Shuster vs. Andrew Breitbart on the Media’s False Reporting of Facts in O’Keefe’s Arrest (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  43. […] and Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and Lawyer: O’Keefe & Co. Trying to Embarrass Landrieu Over Ignoring Calls Re Health Care Nice Deb: Video: Andrew Breitbart On MSM: These Decandent Bast**ds Are Going Down! and Source Close […]

    James O’Keefe’s Interview on His Arrest by FOX’s Sean Hannity (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  44. […] and Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and Lawyer: O’Keefe & Co. Trying to Embarrass Landrieu Over Ignoring Calls Re Health Care Nice Deb: Video: Andrew Breitbart On MSM: These Decandent Bast**ds Are Going Down! and Source Close […]

    James O’Keefe’s Interview on His Arrest by FOX’s Sean Hannity (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  45. […] and Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and Lawyer: O’Keefe & Co. Trying to Embarrass Landrieu Over Ignoring Calls Re Health Care Nice Deb: Video: Andrew Breitbart On MSM: These Decandent Bast**ds Are Going Down! and Source Close […]

    Alinsky Smear Tactic FAIL: Andrew Breitbart KO’s Leftist Max Blumenthal at CPAC (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  46. […] and Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and Lawyer: O’Keefe & Co. Trying to Embarrass Landrieu Over Ignoring Calls Re Health Care Nice Deb: Video: Andrew Breitbart On MSM: These Decandent Bast**ds Are Going Down! and Source Close […]

    Chuckle: Left-Wing Zealot Hack David Shuster in Boiling Hot Water with MSNBC for Shooting CNN Pilot Without Notifying His Bosses (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1087 secs.