Patterico's Pontifications

1/28/2010

Shuster vs Breitbart on O’Keefe (Updated)

Filed under: Media Bias,Politics — DRJ @ 1:47 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

From RealClearPolitics, “Andrew Breitbart gets MSNBC’s David Shuster to retract their story that James O’Keefe was trying to wiretap Sen. Landrieu’s office:”

SHUSTER: “Andrew, you want things to be framed on your terms …”

And Shuster doesn’t frame things? Shuster is reporting from New Orleans, Louisiana, obviously so he can cover the O’Keefe charges in depth and give them added emphasis. Did MSNBC do that for any of the ACORN stories?

In his introduction, Shuster reported O’Keefe said his motive was to investigate how Senator Landrieu handles her phone calls. A law enforcement source said “the four men were not attempting to wiretap Landrieu’s phones but instead wanted to see how her office would react to those phones not working, the shutdown of the system …”

H/T bookwomanblue.

— DRJ

UPDATE — Don’t miss Andrew Breitbart’s post at Big Journalism: “How David Shuster Lied to Get to Me to Appear on MSNBC” … including Shuster’s “neutral” tweets about O’Keefe.

H/T Dustin.

240 Responses to “Shuster vs Breitbart on O’Keefe (Updated)”

  1. Shuster is no worse than Obly, Maddow, Mathews and Screamin’ Ed. How’s that for faint praise?

    How do GE shareholders keep from going crazy when they watch that train wreck they call a news channel? I guess the only consolation is that they save money on writers since they only read the daily DNC press releases.

    MU789 (514c52)

  2. Aren’t they selling the network, along with Universal Studios, to Comcast?

    AD - RtR/OS! (bb36fd)

  3. I just called Landrieu’s New Orleans office and they picked up after 1 ring. I asked point blank if they had been rerouting incoming calls in the past. The man who answered said there was a federal investigation pending and he could not comment on the issue.

    They are apparently answering the phones there now!

    Brett (0247fc)

  4. I’ve never seen such a brilliant piece of evidence that the left, major corporations, and major journalist efforts, are out to taint the jury pool and public view of O’Keefe with lie after lie.

    They are called out and it’s proven, right in this video. Terrorists get the “alleged” treatment, but not O’Keefe, even for things that are now proven bullshit.

    ACORN’s child sex trade tax assistance exposure is labeled “not a crime” repeatedly by MSNBC’s supposed nonbiased Shuster. It’s something to behold.

    Democrats are out to get O’Keefe, and we really can’t trust what they are saying about him.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  5. Shuster is a poofter. That is all.

    Shuster’s mendoucheity about ACORN is breath-taking.

    Is he really reporting live from New Orleans? Did MSNBC send him to Baltimore, Philly, LA, San Diego to cover ACORN ?

    JD (c15e93)

  6. Aren’t they selling the network, along with Universal Studios, to Comcast?

    AD, they are selling and if I’m Comcast the first thing I would do is clean house and fumigate the studios before letting those clowns cash another paycheck.

    But from what I understand Comcast put no value on the NBC network and is really paying for all the non-broadcast assets. Presumably this includes MSNBC and their two dozen viewers. I just have a difficult time believing Olberman is more valuable than Brian Williams.

    MU789 (514c52)

  7. I’m going to catalogue here in the comments (unless DRJ wants to move them) what I see as blatant misstatements of fact, law, or procedure by Shuster in his reporting.

    First:

    OLBERMANN: Based on today‘s reporting, should we not expect further charges then? Are the outlines of the crimes complete in the prosecutor‘s mind at this point?

    SHUSTER: Well, Keith, a couple of things. First of all, there is a grand jury that is available to the prosecutor should the prosecutor develop new information.

    There is no indictment yet returned. The prosecutor has not yet gone to the GJ at all, and the case cannot begin until he/she does. If the prosecutor does not take the case to the GJ, the court will hold a preliminary hearing, where the prosecutor will have to make a showing of probable cause to a magistrate in open court.

    But, as a matter of practice, if the prosecutor choses to not go to the grand jury, he will dismiss the complaint.

    Shipwreckedcrew (dfa1f1)

  8. MSNBC is the television arm of Democratic Underground. It’s disturbing that any corporate entity pays money to these whack-jobs to spread their insanity on air.

    Subotai (bb0f92)

  9. David Schuster – “Wingnut who did that sting of ACORN has been arrested for trying to bug Senator Landrieu’s phone lines”.

    And liberals have the audacity to complain about Rush Limbaugh. Schuster, allegedly, is a “serious journalist”. But he makes Rush look like Walther Cronkite.

    Subotai (bb0f92)

  10. Subotai – I like the “tweet” where Poofter tells O’Keefe that his intent was to bug a phone.

    JD (c15e93)

  11. I love “objective” JournoLists with no horse in the race that use terms like wingnuts and teabaggers.

    JD (c15e93)

  12. Those tweets are damning.

    O’Keefe should print them out and hold them up if he ever is invited onto MSNBC after charges are dropped or some plea is reached that exonerates him of that charge.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  13. The Race of the Two Davids!

    Between Schuster and Gregory, it is a race to the bottom, and why I no longer watch Meet the Depressed.

    AD - RtR/OS! (bb36fd)

  14. The Race of the Two Davids! Between Schuster and Gregory, it is a race to the bottom …
    Different propaganda outlet, I know, but don’t forget that paragon of inanity, David Gergen.

    cboldt (60ea4a)

  15. Talk about “shovel ready”! MSNBC continues to dig a hole in the hole.

    Steve (e5c232)

  16. Yeah, but there’s got to be a pony in there somewhere.

    AD - RtR/OS! (bb36fd)

  17. and why I no longer watch Meet the Depressed.

    Heh.

    but don’t forget that paragon of inanity, David Gergen.

    I’ve loathed Dr. Giggles for quite some time now, and his recent beclowning at the debate in MA completes his defenestration at ever being considered a “Republican” voice. David Brooks, you’re next.

    Dmac (539341)

  18. Actually, we need to send Mr. Gergen a fruit basket. I think he helped Scott Brown win, by giving him a good tag line.

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  19. Although I give Shuster minimal credit for retracting the “wiretapping” term,

    still, isn’t the following contrast interesting (suggesting bias)?

    – Shuster currently has relocated himself in Louisiana, near the office involved in O’Keefe’s activities; yet

    – When O’Keefe’s tape after tape after tape of ACORN corruption, dead to rights, were coming out, did Shuster RELOCATE TO ANY OF THOSE CITIES and try to speak to ACORN associates?

    Did he find the twitter feed for anyone in ACORN and get into a twit-fight, as he did with O’Keefe? Very neutral and “journalistic,” Mr. Shuster. Cripes.

    Mitch (890cbf)

  20. isn’t the following contrast interesting (suggesting bias)?

    Given his “wingnut” remarks, I think we’re way past suggesting bias at this stage. There’s nothing he could do to make his bias any clearer.

    Subotai (bb0f92)

  21. Ahh…fair-weather friend, running for the hills Breitbart, taking it on the chin, for his employee.

    What a slimeball liar.

    Assclown doodyheads (f0d390)

  22. http://bigheaddc.com/2008/02/11/fox-news-fired-shuster/

    Shuster is, as JD said, a poofter. Olberman’s slick leg toy. Even Russert wanted to fire Shuster’s sorry ass.

    Matador (176445)

  23. Oh, Mr. Grown Up and Sophisticated Doodyheads…given your crush on this administration, you probably shouldn’t use expressions like “…taking it on the chin.”

    I’m just sayin’.

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  24. I see assclow has decided to continue to beclown himself.

    JD (769f99)

  25. Doody is indeed the authentic tea – bagger in this scenario.

    Dmac (539341)

  26. Dmac, check out the other thread. Do you smell sock lint?

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  27. You’d think that the TrollBot1000 could at least display a semblance of aptitude in his sock puppeting. This comment’s one of the funniest ones:

    You wingNazis have total and utter contempt for the Rule of Law, and that is exemplified by how you wingers are trying to excuse O’Pimp’s felonies in trying to wiretap or bug the telephone lines of a sitting US Senator.

    Uh, and NoBloodForOil! ChimpyMcSmirton’s budget was huge! I mean, twoof to plower! Wacists! I A

    Dmac (539341)

  28. Cut – off there, meant to end it with “I AM AN IDEPENDENT!” More like a dependent, it would appear. Mummy and Daddy’s little special guy, does our little boy needs some more moneys to spend on his collection of hash pipes and Mother Jones back issues?

    Dmac (539341)

  29. That was me, Dmac. I was mocking “TruIndependent” the f*cking lying Moby.

    JD (c15e93)

  30. How is Breitbart running for the hills?

    He appeared on MSNBC after they went way off the rails on this. He knew he was walking into an ambush. Running for the hills?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  31. Dustin – Mock and scorn. Point and laugh. That assbandit has claimed, just like Poofter, that O’Keefe is an employee, which simply is not the case. Independent contractor. Truth is the first casualty when the moonbats start prattling on and on and on.

    JD (c15e93)

  32. JD, absolutely. That’s the last thing these people want.

    It’s hard not to laugh at Assclown. Breitbart shows up and completely demolishes MSNBC… On MSNBC! He made them admit they had lied and were responsible for the idea this was another Wiretapping Watergate Jr. That’s why Assclown is so angry and “tru independent” want to see Breitbart in jail or something.

    Obama can’t stand laughter either.

    People here disagree on everything and most of us can take it because we haven’t tied our egos into our ideology. I just want O’Keefe to get a fair shake. I can’t imagine demanding Shuster go to jail or prove he isn’t responsible for things people do around him. I’m not a fucking idiot, though, which helps.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  33. I hear Andrew Breitbart has a couple of new “journalism” sites going up:

    IGotAbsolotulyNuthingToDoWithIt.Com

    and

    TooLittleTooLate.com

    and

    BigLiarLetsOtherPeopleTakeTheFallForHim.com

    Assclown doodyheads (f0d390)

  34. David Shuster is a lying, biased hack. There… I said it.

    My dear old grandmother was fond of saying many axioms, but one of her favorites stands out: “Never trust a man who resembles a dog eating peanut butter while he’s speaking to you.”

    GeneralMalaise (d94db1)

  35. Insane Assclown Posse… stop yer whining and man up.

    GeneralMalaise (d94db1)

  36. Hey, look who’s back? Mr. Doody, don’t you have quiz tomorrow? Or maybe your Kinko’s shift starts soon?

    Here is your website: ImWorriedAbout2010SoIActLikeATroll.com.

    Incidentally, does it trouble you at all that Breitbart, well, has a career, and makes more money than you (and me)? See, I’m happy for him. Bet you aren’t!

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  37. Actually, Mr. Doody’s website is:

    IContributeNothingButTrollComments.com.

    It’s linked to:

    TrustifarianWhoCan’tGetARealJob.com.

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  38. Assbandit’s bookmarks …

    IEatMyOwnPoop.com
    BarckyLurvsMe.com
    IBuggerGoats.com
    MidgetsOnShetlandPoniesLuvFestival.com
    ILikeToLie.com

    JD (c15e93)

  39. He walked right into that one, Eric and JD.

    Really funny.

    It’s not going to be a good year for poor assclown. Dude doesn’t seem to have a high opinion of himself, but his anger is so upfront he probably is just scared… like the raccoon I caught in my backyard last week. It’s freaking out, but it’s really just scared.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  40. And why not, Dustin? The kids bought into this “hope and change” nonsense and they got an inexperienced, arrogant, Chicago politician. They feel cheated, and stupid for voting that way.

    You can tell they wish that HRC had been the nominee. It burns them no end. And they have no one to blame but themselves.

    So they act out.

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  41. they wish that HRC had been the nominee.

    that’s a profound statement. And yeah, the party that let Hillary down by basically destroying their own democratic processes in their primary is now suffering because Obama is quite a bad leader.

    If Hillary were president she would have been able to take a little failure here and there and adjust. She would have been able to triangulate. She would have realized that rushing into health care reform at this point isn’t very smart.

    The Governors in NJ and VA would be democrats, as would Ted’s successor (Ted was one of the leaders of the party’s turn to Obama).

    Hillary 2012 is my mantra. I hope they try it. It would be good for the country for the democrats to see if they really like the road they are on.

    They had it made… they could have had power for a generation. They gave the reigns to a complete neophyte.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  42. How is Breitbart running for the hills?

    Official Statement, made before the ink affidavit was dry:

    “We [Breitbart.com & Co.] have no knowledge about or connection to any alleged acts and events involving James O’Keefe at Senator Mary Landrieu’s office. We only just learned about the alleged incident this afternoon. We have no information other than what has been reported publicly by the press. Accordingly, we simply are not in a position to make any further comment.”

    Oh, but, BTW he’s being paid a salary by Andrew Breitbart.

    Oops.

    Assclown doodyheads (f0d390)

  43. How is Breitbart running for the hills?

    Official Statement, made before the ink affidavit was dry:

    “We [Breitbart.com & Co.] have no knowledge about or connection to any alleged acts and events involving James O’Keefe at Senator Mary Landrieu’s office. We only just learned about the alleged incident this afternoon. We have no information other than what has been reported publicly by the press. Accordingly, we simply are not in a position to make any further comment.”

    Oh, but, BTW he’s being paid a salary by Andrew Breitbart.

    Oops.

    Assclown doodyheads (f0d390)

  44. Um. Hey Legal Expert Doody? You might want to, well, chat with, you know, lawyers about a term: independent contractor.

    We are still waiting for your insightful Constitutional Law summary. You know?

    Or are you…well…just being an assclown?

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  45. Q: Over each of their careers, who took more balls to the chin?

    a. Yogi Berra
    b. Pete Rose
    c. Rock Hudson
    d. Assclown doodywhatever

    A: Trick question… apples and oranges comparison between baseball and the performing arts.

    GeneralMalaise (c34110)

  46. assbandit lies lies lies again. How many times do people have to explain the difference between an employee and an independent contractor?

    JD (c15e93)

  47. Is the Goldman family going to start suing the NFL?

    Can the IRS go after Obama for ACORN’s IRS cheating?

    I don’t understand Assclown’s point, except that he thinks there is a vast right wing conspiracy to expose democrat crooks, so we should all go to Ayers’s concentration camp.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  48. I see that the latest iteration of “bored again” has shown up today. No doubt he’s still looking for those strategically-placed mirrors on Uranus to explain the moon landings.

    Mike LaRoche (8dcfe1)

  49. General – Add Liberace, Boy George, and Sen Foot Tap to that list, and Assbandit would still win, running away.

    JD (c15e93)

  50. Oh, Dustin, you know the point: Mr. Doody is a bitter clinger to his Hope and Change, and he is acting out.

    And remember: he is smarter than we are. Just ask him!

    Just more trollery.

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  51. Senor LaRoche – Do you miss Mike Leach yet?

    JD (c15e93)

  52. Hi Mike! Hope you are doing well!

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  53. I’m surprised Shuster actually gave in and retracted his wiretapping statement. I think he knew Breitbart wouldn’t budge further in the interview without that a retraction. Good for Breitbart for standing his ground.

    It is telling to see how unwilling Shuster was to admit his falsehood. Instead of having to be boxed into a corner, hence choking out a retraction, you’d think he’d be rushing to retract before having his hand forced….but then credibility and integrity seem to have very little to do with journalism anymore.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  54. Hi, JD. Yeah, I definitely miss Mike Leach. However, Tommy Tuberville seems to be off to a good start – he’s lost only one of Tech’s blue-chip recruits ahead of signing day on Feb. 3, which is a better situation than I expected.

    Mike LaRoche (8dcfe1)

  55. Assclown shithead reminds me of a poster from moonbatcentral that went by the name of dysentery, oops I mean dissenter.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  56. Hi, Eric! Yes, I’m doing well so far here in Lubbock. Very busy these past several months, hence the reduced amount of posting at my blog. How are you doing?

    Mike LaRoche (8dcfe1)

  57. I’m sorry, but Assclown doodhead, you make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Maybe it’s me, but I read and re-read your explanation of Breitbart supposedly running for the hills and, well, I don’t know – are you feeling well?

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  58. Eric, you’re never going to get anywhere with this interweb thing unless you use the Google:

    AB: I’ll…perhaps at another date, but he’s paid a fair salary.
    HH: Is he…so he is an employee?

    AB: I’m not sure that’s technically the thing, but yes, he’s paid for his life rights. And he’s, you know, he’s still…we reserve the right to say yes or no to any of the stories that he puts up on our site as we do to any other contributor who comes to the site.

    HH: Will it be a mischaracterization to say he was working for you when he went about this?

    AB: Well, I mean, no. He was not involved in anything that was related to Big Government, or Breitbart.com.

    HH: And I think that’s the key thing. Lots of people work for lots of corporations, and do dumb and sometimes illegal things that are not within the scope of their employment. And this was not within the scope of his employment.

    [Interesting that. Getting dressed up like a the dorkiest pimp ever was with the scope of his employment, and harassing people to talk to him about Child prostitution and so on and so forth, and then entrap them and ruin their lives, that was within his scope of employment. Breitbart had that garbage all over the place, gleefully, having obtained himself some footage of those bad ACORN-dark skinned and ethnic types humoring a moron and his idiot of a girlfriend who think it’s Halloween. I got your “scope” right here Breitbart. It starts with a C and ends with a y. and has these letters in the middle onspirac –A.Doodyheads]

    AB: Yes, absolutely. That is absolutely the case.

    [Oh thank God, I’m going to get this out about the same time this hits the news wires…]

    HH: Andrew Breitbart, thanks for checking in with us. I appreciate that.

    [HH thinks to himself: Well, I owed him one, so I did this phony baloney interview. He might as well write “I’m guilty,” on his forehead with a sharpie, But damn, it don’t matter, soon as O’Keefe & his buttboys begin getting a whiff of a Federal Grand Jury… this guy is toast. Better check in with the my lawyer and make sure I don’t get any of this shit on me, as well. –A.D.]

    [“AD” is just me having a little fun and not really part of the interview.]

    Assclown doodyheads (f0d390)

  59. And if I remember dmac used to refer to him as an assclown on that site. Could that be how he came up with his current moniker. Dysentery, are you still cyberstalking dmac?

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  60. Also, he was an easily proven dopy (oops, freudian slip—copy) & paste plagiarizer.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  61. To make the story interesting. the host banned dysentery and he came back as Scheisskopf.

    peedoffamerican (0a295f)

  62. Dana, you have college age kids, right? Though you raised them well, I’m sure, you have heard stories about the trustifarians who just plain know everything.

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  63. I have nothing to do with this. Really I don’t. I don’t even know who these people are. I haven’t even viewed this page. I’ve never posted on that site and don’t even have computer with which to make such a funny and hilarious satirical spoof of the Watergate Jr. affair. I’m don’t know how I typed this, I’ve never typed before in my life, except all those other times I’ve typed things, which wasn’t me, anyway…

    Assclown doodyheads (f0d390)

  64. You think you can get me to click on a link to that site? Sadly, no.

    JD (c15e93)

  65. Cf: http://hughhewitt.com/blog/g/3c0f68ec-ee51-42ae-b9ce-a170d352c202
    Comment by Assclown doodyheads1/28/2010@6:27pm

    I read the link and it reinforced Breitbart’s very first comment/reaction to this at his site: he still maintains a let’s-wait-and-see position. And that is to his credit. Journalists far too frequently jump the gun and make false accusations or inferences (see: David Shuster), but Breitbart resists and is instead being patient and deliberate in his response.

    How you see that as running for the hills still makes about as much sense as assuming you are attempting to make have an honest discussion.

    Eric Blair, one of my own darlings came out of the womb knowing everything and with a will of iron. Fortunately, now in his early-20’s, he always sheepishly grins when we remind of him of the many times he would begin his indignant self-defense when he got in trouble, with, “You are just wrong…” A challenging kid, a fabulous son.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  66. “The tears of an assclown
    when there’s no one around”

    – Smokey Robinson

    GeneralMalaise (c34110)

  67. SPQR, good link.

    That’s some rich irony: Shuster declaring he has no horse in the race, when, by default, his working for MSNBC makes it very clear he absolutely does have a horse in this race.

    And Shuster tweeting that O’Keefe “isn’t a journalist” is some more rich irony.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  68. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT7GC9oJ9xY&feature=related

    Assbandit made me think of this song.

    JD (c15e93)

  69. Comment by Assclown doodyheads — 1/28/2010 @ 6:27 pm

    Typical trollery…it links to a post that not only doesn’t support its’ contentions, but – for the most part – directly contradicts them.

    If this dooffus represents the future for America, I’m buying more ammo, because the zombies will be everywhere.

    AD - RtR/OS! (bb36fd)

  70. Yeah, Dana, the “you’re not a real journalist” thing from Shuster is really quite funny.

    Shuster’s biggest leads aren’t even true. The best he can do is nip at the heels of O’Keefe, whose already had a bigger scoop than the entire MSNBC network has ever had.

    Shuster keeps undercutting that story and trying to dehumanize O’Keefe because they both know whose actually made something of their journalist career. Shuster is jealous of a 24 year old newbie. One of these people will say anything to protect the power structure while the other is getting news out about the problems in this structure, no matter who it pisses off.

    Just about everything Assclown says can be summed up as “I hate you guys”. At least the other trolls pretend to have some kind of self control.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  71. Assclown is the other Ellie Light.

    highpockets (40ce09)

  72. JD…Great song, but far above Ivgotapantsload’s pay-grade.

    AD - RtR/OS! (bb36fd)

  73. Fox just reported that there are high-level discussions at the WH with DoJ over moving the KSM & Co trials out of NYC.
    Hey, they can hold the trial here at my house.
    It’ll only take a couple days, and I won’t charge them for the ammo used to break-up the attempted escape;
    but, they will have to supply the body-bags.
    And, I’ll give them the deep-discount: $55MM, all up!

    AD - RtR/OS! (bb36fd)

  74. Dustin, even more than just being jealous of a 24 year old – Shuster’s threatened by that 24 year old.

    And yet, he completely lacks any sense: Tweeting what he did about O’Keefe was remarkably stupid and irresponsible. That’s what one would expect from a 24 year old…non-journalist, not a 42 year old professional journalist!

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  75. Dana:

    “…Shuster declaring he has no horse in the race…”

    Actually, it’s more like one end of the horse…

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  76. 2 shay!

    AD - RtR/OS! (bb36fd)

  77. That video was amazing and kudos to Andrew for facing him down. It’s a shame Cathy isn’t here to see it.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  78. Breitbart is vulnerable if this thing turns out badly – he did decide to employ this guy and pay him a salary

    That being said – I think this is very very very very very very damaging to the Democrats – if this makes national theater that a group of people went in to prove that a key democrat senator was turning her phones off to avoid the public during arguably the biggest decision in over 40 years

    See most if not every single Democrat senator up for re-election lose

    this is something that has the capacity to go nuclear

    Okeefe was on target

    EricPWJohnson (1465de)

  79. he did decide to employ this guy and pay him a salary

    BBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT Wrong. He states that he most certainly is not an employee, but is an independent contractor. Not the same thing.

    JD (c15e93)

  80. This is a snippet from Hugh Hewitt’s interview with Breitbart linked above:

    HH: Is he…so he is an employee?

    AB: I’m not sure that’s technically the thing, but yes, he’s paid for his life rights. And he’s, you know, he’s still…we reserve the right to say yes or no to any of the stories that he puts up on our site as we do to any other contributor who comes to the site.

    HH: Will it be a mischaracterization to say he was working for you when he went about this?

    AB: Well, I mean, no. He was not involved in anything that was related to Big Government, or Breitbart.com.

    HH: And I think that’s the key thing. Lots of people work for lots of corporations, and do dumb and sometimes illegal things that are not within the scope of their employment. And this was not within the scope of his employment.

    AB: Yes, absolutely. That is absolutely the case.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  81. JD

    Under Louisiana and Federal law there is an agency of employment for legal purposes if a 1099 is involved

    EricPWJohnson (1465de)

  82. As a rule, I don’t think state laws hold an employer responsible for an employee’s illegal acts, unless the employer directs or allows the employee’s acts.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  83. DRJ – are there not situations in which constructive knowledge would apply?

    I’m not saying it would here. But in general.

    I mean, it seems to me that a lot of the law of sexual harassment presumes constructive knowledge.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  84. Agency of employment does not make him an employee, unless we now define people who are not, in fact, employees to be employees.

    JD (c15e93)

  85. aphrael,

    I assume an employer would be responsible for illegal conduct he knew about and condoned, but disputed cases typically involve conduct that the employer did not know about or that was out of the ordinary. In those cases, I think the test is whether the conduct is generally within the course and scope of the employment.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  86. He’s Breitbarts employee int he way the WSJ is my employee. In other words, I contracted with them for a service and they aren’t my employee.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  87. Some state laws blur the line between independent contractors and employees. It depends on how the employer treated the agent/employee and what the employer knew about their actions.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  88. aphrael,

    I’m hazy on sexual harassment law but my recollection is the more offensive and illegal the conduct, the more a claimant has to show the employer had knowledge of or a reason to believe the illegal act was occurring. Furthermore, aren’t those cases about the employer’s tort/civil liability? I don’t recall any cases where the employer would be criminally liable.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  89. Let’s try this again:

    HH: Is he…so he is an employee?

    AB: I’m not sure that’s technically the thing, but yes, he’s paid for his life rights. And he’s, you know, he’s still…we reserve the right to say yes or no to any of the stories that he puts up on our site as we do to any other contributor who comes to the site.

    So AB is not sure what the technical term is, but yes, he’s paid for his life rights.

    Assclown doodyheads (f0d390)

  90. You can try it a hundred times, and it will not make your lies true, asshat.

    JD (c15e93)

  91. So AB is not sure what the technical term is, but yes, he’s paid for his life rights.

    That could mean he is merely a 1099 contractor, not an employee.

    I pay my barber for a service, that doesn’t make him my employee.

    Some chump (d97978)

  92. Life Rights are based on a contractual agreement, meaning Breitbart has first shot at any footage or material O’Keefe produces.

    In regards to scope: O’Keefe has already established a precedent for using false pretense, including disguises, to supply Breitbart with footage. Especially if it is politically motivated to embarrass, undermine adversaries of the right-wing.

    So, Breitbart had first rights to the material and this was material of a nature he’d acquired from O’Keefe in the past.

    Assclown doodyheads (f0d390)

  93. Say what you want about the Democrats, but the Party has indeed played an important role in the history of the United States. Just looking at the presidential fodder of the Party only glimpses at how it has shaped a nation:

    Jackson, Van Buren, Bryan, Tildon, Cleveland, Wilson, FDR, JFK, RFK, LBJ, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry, I could go on and on. No matter if they won or lost, no matter if you agree with them or not, they all influenced history and made contributions to a great nation.

    And now, they are joined by Assclown doodyheads. I hope his name lives in history books as one of the best of the Party.

    Ag80 (1592cc)

  94. All of that may be true, though given your record of outright asspulls I sincerely doubt it, yet it does not make O’Keefe an employee. Nice try though. Sorry you do not even have a passing acquaintance with the truth.

    JD (c15e93)

  95. I pay my barber for a service, that doesn’t make him my employee.

    You don’t have a contractual agreement with your barber or pay him a salary so that you have a special relationship to his work. Breitbart does have a contract and a special relationship and I would say an exclusive relationship.

    I would also bet you don’t “run for the hills” and issue legalistic sounding disclaimers denying any knowledge of or relationship to your barber if he gets arrested by the FBI.

    I would bet that’s something you don’t worry about. Ever. Breitbart is worried. VERY VERY worried. As he should be.

    Assclown doodyheads (f0d390)

  96. JD, Mr. Doody, he have him an agenda.

    The first part, he is so convinced he is so much smarter than everyone here, in a number of ways.

    Um. Not so much.

    The second part is that he is, well, servicing Teh Narrative. You can tell when he gets all angry and outraged…then realizes he is supposed to be playing…um…the assclown.

    Mission accomplished!

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  97. Ag80: And now, they are joined by Assclown doodyheads. I hope his name lives in history books as one of the best of the Party.

    Aw, shucks.

    I think I’m blushing…

    Assclown doodyheads (f0d390)

  98. Eric, man…relax, doood.

    Assclown doodyheads (f0d390)

  99. To the best of my understanding, that isn’t what “life rights” meant at all.

    Assclown is totally lying. Breitbart is saying he has the right to anything O’Keefe says about his own experiences. This is directly the opposite of that Assclown claims they meant, and Assclown lied because he’s trying to say that this Life Rights covered this expose on Landrieu. Now, no doubt, there’s a good chance this would have appeared on Breitbart’s site, but it could have appeared on Fox or some O’Keefe’s Veritas company.

    Anyway, I would love to make a gentleman’s wager with Assclown over whether Breitbart is ever convicted or pleas to any criminal charge with relation to this event. Assclown, are you game? This is not a monetary bet.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  100. Hey, Mr. Doody. Speaking of “legalistic,” we are all waiting for your detailed and incisive analysis of Constitutional Law. Remember we have a number of people, well, actually trained in that area to judge you work.

    Since you are so concerned and outraged by our recent SCOTUS decision. Since it was so awful, and you know so darned much, maybe you should take a couple of weeks and really impress us with your knowledge of ConLaw and history.

    No fair using Wikipedia! Or your usual talking points.

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  101. In other words, your life story might cover, say “I was in jail and this is what it was like.”

    and not

    “Exclusive: Landrieu was lying about her phones!”

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  102. You really think you are witty, Mr. Doody.

    And you are half correct!

    Oh, by the way: your mask has slipped. I just thought you should know.

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  103. You don’t have a contractual agreement with your barber or pay him a salary so that you have a special relationship to his work. Breitbart does have a contract and a special relationship and I would say an exclusive relationship.

    You have no idea what the work agreement is, you are just guessing. Come back when you have some facts.

    Some chump (d97978)

  104. I would say that asshat shitforbrains has an exclusive contract with mendoucheity.

    JD (c15e93)

  105. DRJ

    Louisiana does, in fact it was in the line of his work

    In fact Breitbart employed Okeefe for the purposes of exploiting his undercover journalistic endeavors

    EricPWJohnson (1465de)

  106. I would say that as*hat sh*tforbrains has an exclusive contract with mendoucheity.

    JD (c15e93)

  107. Hate to say it but ACDH has it centered

    EricPWJohnson (1465de)

  108. In fact, Breitbart contacted with O’Keefe for the rights to his work, not really the same thing.

    JD (c15e93)

  109. Eric Blair, JD

    ACDH is a moron – but as a broken clock here – Breitbart is exposed – to what extent – to be determined

    Going forward – It will be real interesting if even a crime was committed, up to a magistrate (who already ruled it was) or a grand jury then a Jury

    Hopefully it will get thrown out – the fiction that one can tresspass in the public reception area of a public servant is going to be one of those magic moments in the law

    EricPWJohnson (1465de)

  110. EricPWJohnson,

    We don’t know whether anything illegal happened or whether Breitbart knew what O’Keefe planned. But even if Breitbart is considered to be O’Keefe’s employer for some purposes (which he denies and I don’t have enough information to dispute), there is still the matter of the course and scope of that employment. There’s a big difference between hiring someone to do investigative journalism and hiring someone to commit illegal acts.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  111. Correct me if someone knows I’m wrong, but I still think the Life Rights referred to O’Keefe’s personal story.

    He also add “and we reserve the right to say yes or no to any of the stories”

    I don’t think it’s fair to say that O’Keefe was acting as Breitbart’s employee at all during this expose, or that it was a sure thing this story was going to appear on Breitbart first.

    It’s also silly to claim “tampering” would be part of what Breitbart understood to be O’Keefe’s work. Why would Breitbart pay someone to send in videos of breaking phones?

    Either you premise that O’Keefe wasn’t going to break anything, or you premise that Breitbart had no way of knowing of any criminal behavior. Or both, really.

    the false pretenses thing is a non-starter, too.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  112. How is Breitbart exposed? That is abject BS, unless you are privy to information not available to the rest of us. Andrew has specifically stated that he had no knowledge of O’Keefe’s actions.

    JD (c15e93)

  113. DRJ

    Oh I dont think there is going to be much if any doubt that Breitbart who (stupidly I might add) said he had much much more material to release and threatened to release it.

    Respectfully and regretfully I feel Andrew profited and got unprecendented national exposure off of Okeefe in fact in my opinion Okeefe is probably – if enough heat is applied on him and he’s facing ten years in prison – going to at some point point those inevitable fingers at others and we will find out much more about what Andrew knew and when he knew it

    EricPWJohnson (1465de)

  114. 114

    DRJ

    No – in this case there’s not much sunlight if any – I’m a bit surprised that he hasnt been indicted

    EricPWJohnson (1465de)

  115. There are differences between what will happen, what might happen, and what you want to happen.

    Just promise me you weren’t one of those characters who went on and on about Rove being frogmarched out of the WH in handcuffs a few years ago.

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  116. I think I’m blushing…

    Comment by Assclown doodyheads

    No, witches can’t blush.

    I would say that Breitbart has the same relationship a publisher has with an author. If an author, during the development of a new product,violates the law, the publisher, unless an advance was made or there is other evidence of a relationship for that product, is not liable.

    Aside from that, I don’t think any laws were broken. The facts, as presented so far, suggest that nothing illegal was done by O’Keefe.

    It was still a foolish thing for him to get involved with because he is such a target for the left.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  117. You are surprised that Breitbart has not been indicted?!

    JD (c15e93)

  118. Well, gosh, assclown, I was serious in the same way you are. I would blush, too.

    I can play this game:

    You don’t have a contractual agreement with your videographer or pay her a salary so that you have a special relationship to her work. Edwards does have a contract and a special relationship and I would say an exclusive relationship.

    I would also bet Edwards doesn’t “run for the hills” and issue legalistic sounding disclaimers denying any knowledge of his relationship to his videographer if he gets caught by the National Enquirer.

    I would bet that’s something Edwards doesn’t worry about. Ever. Edwards is worried. VERY VERY worried. As he should be.

    Ag80 (1592cc)

  119. EricPWJohnson, I think you’re really quite mistaken.

    The idea that Breitbart would send people off to commit a felony is ridiculous. You are actually assuming he did.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  120. EricPW – O’Keefe needs to be indicted for sitting in Landrieu’s reception area and videoing some guys doing something on his cell phone? Seriously?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  121. Eric Blair

    If you were addressing me no I didnt want Rove marched out in handcuff

    I’m just commentating on the obvious

    I mean do you want to ask the questions the Prosecutors are going to ask?

    A small (REPEAT SMALL) sample of the line of questioning

    Did you know James Okeefe

    yes

    Did you purchase his work?

    yes

    Were you aware he went into offices and misrepresented himself as a criminal

    yes

    Were those the videos that you purchases

    yes

    Did you have any other arraingments to purchase further work by James Okeefe

    yes

    did Okeefe ever send you videos where he was not representing himself or pretending to participate in an illegal act

    no

    Did Okeefe to you knowledge in these videos your purchased and published pretended to attempt to conspire in human trafficing, the sexual exploitation of children, and many other serious felonies

    yes

    Guys – if they find out Okeefe did something wrong (which I dont believe) – its not going to go well for Andrew

    A jury’s going to hang the guy

    EricPWJohnson (1465de)

  122. You are insaner than assclown doodyhead.

    JD (c15e93)

  123. Should Shuster be forced by MSNBC to retract ON TWITTER?

    Since the most heinous statements were made at http://twitter.com/davidShuster, shouldn’t the retractions appear there? Even moreso than on the network.

    As of now, anyone following the story on twitter will have no idea Shuster was asked to retract by the network.

    Anyone visiting his page still sees the hate… uncorrected.

    If MSNBC can’t have its journalists tweet responsibly, maybe they shouldn’t have twitter accounts as representatives of their news network.

    In otherwords, Shuster is being allowed to further a lie he knows is not true on twitter. A lie he was responsible for starting.

    What say you all?

    Steve (6bd10f)

  124. I say he is a poofter, Steve.

    JD (c15e93)

  125. guys

    I dont think he did anything illegally but last time I checked – I’m not in a position to stop the investigation or the prosecution

    you need to dispassionately review these things – like in the case of Ramos and Compean – introducing ideology into interpretations of facts and evidence – isnt helpful

    I think he’s going to jail and for a long time

    Andrew, if he paid Okeefe within two weeks of his going down there is going to be spending big bucks on legal counsel

    EricPWJohnson (1465de)

  126. All bow to the superior wisdom of Eric, whose asspulls have no basis in known facts.

    JD (c15e93)

  127. Bingo. I really like it. It is smooth. My old Sig is smoother, but that is due to use and age.

    JD (c15e93)

  128. JD

    No – but its not the first time – even on this thread that you were wrong – it probably wont be the last either

    its sad but the nasty troll has it right – I’m soory he does – I’m sorry Okeefe dressed up as a phone repairman (but that’s his schtick) all he had to do was stand there and film his friends trying to call – in fact a hilarious stunt and extremely effective would have been having a dozen people standing there trying to get through will filming the receptionist filing her nails and the phone not ringing – even better if the staff called security on them and had them thrown out for trying to call

    that would have been really effective…

    but sadly no – he chose another route

    EricPWJohnson (1465de)

  129. I think the phrase that everyone has forgotten is:
    Freelance Journalist/Writer/Photographer!

    When you freelance, you’re not employed by anyone, you just hope to be able to find someone to buy your product, whether it is a story, or film, or both.
    Who does Michael Yon work for?

    AD - RtR/OS! (bb36fd)

  130. EricPW, I’m not familiar with you so maybe you are one of those folks who just has an active imagination, but you think they didn’t do anything illegally, and also that the government will be able to prove a felony?

    Is there an intrade on this?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  131. None of which has a damned thing to do with Breitbart, someone that you have already convicted. Are you related to Shuster?

    JD (c15e93)

  132. JD

    Whats more insaner than someone who states the obvious or someone who loses an argument to a troll named assclown doodyhead –

    I understand you are embarassed JD – and hey I’m embarassed for you to.

    But the point is and I hope someone gets to Breitbart and does the following

    A: stops him from making any more statements

    B: prepared for a possible indictment

    EricPWJohnson (1465de)

  133. “I’m sorry Okeefe dressed up as a phone repairman”

    He didn’t do that. You aren’t even basically aware of the facts, then. How can you expect us to take you seriously?

    You say he chose a different route from having people call the phones. What are you basing that on? You seem to have this clear fact set in your head that isn’t based on reality at all. I think they did in fact, just call the number and show the results.

    What other route are you accusing them of taking? Don’t play coy… what do you think happened?

    you also suggest Breitbart paid them in advance. That’s simply not how it worked. He paid for stuff after it’s made… freelance.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  134. JD

    Whats more insaner than someone who states the obvious or someone who loses an argument to a troll named assclown doodyhead –

    I understand you are embarassed JD – and hey I’m embarassed for you to.

    But the point is and I hope someone gets to Breitbart and does the following

    A: stops him from making any more statements

    B: prepared for a possible indictment

    EricPWJohnson (1465de)

  135. Eric, your comment 138 is a total troll.

    You conclude that Assclown won an argument that he clearly didn’t. You refuse to justify your wild accusations. And yeah, you’ve been caught totally wrong on the facts.

    Just one easy example is that you say OKeefe was dressed as a phone repairman. Anyone who is informed wouldn’t say that. you say Breatbart may have paid them 2 weeks prior for this. That’s ridiculous. Of course he didn’t. He didn’t even talk to them for the 3 weeks prior, but he pays for freelance AFTER it’s done. Obviously.

    I guess your handle is more reasonable than Assclown, but your reasoning is not. Just because you agree with a person called “assclown” doesn’t mean you’re right.

    JD definitely has the better of you in this exchange, primarily because when he asks you to explain your premises, you refuse and resort to trolls.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  136. I am not embarassed, not by you, and certainly not by doodyhead. You and your buddy assbandit are speculating, and your speculation happens to stand in direct contradiction to known facts.

    JD (c15e93)

  137. Dustin

    Yeah he did win and 2 days ago I posted the same thing that WLS shipwrecked just evaluated that they cant be prosecuted for entering a public office – however – (and if they made the statement to the FBI) that they were attempting to disable the phones to see if the staff was concerned – then – well – they’re toast

    Will the government though risk exposing Landrieu for months being involved in the trial explaining in court why or if she had turned off her phones before?

    Or why the phone wasnt ringing while Okeefe was in their office?

    JD started throwing mud – I let him to a certain degree – with his childish simple takes on things without examining the evidence

    Disparaging me is okay but then again I didnt lose an argument with a guy named assclown

    EricPWJohnson (1465de)

  138. Eric – What evidence do you have that Breitbart had anything to do with this? Or was that mere speculation? Why would he be indicted because someone he contracts with did something illegal? Do you have evidence that Breitbart knew about this? Paid for it or funded it? You have made some huge ginormous leaps in illogic.

    JD (c15e93)

  139. JD

    I’m embarassed for you – personally – and assclown is right on this – not for the same reasons I am.

    I dont want to be right believe me I hope Okeefe and company have all charges dropped and a sincere apology from the feds.

    First tresspassing in Orleans Parish whether it be in a judges quarters or in the reserve bank is a local issue – In the eyes of Orleans Parish they dont do that jurisdictional thingy very well

    I think this is a hugely bad thing for the democrats – I feel Okeefe probably knew he was going to be arrested – I would not be surprised at all if Andrew (his probable employer) knew it as well (however they underestimate the ability of political prosecutions reach)

    Having a sitting senator with a potential swing vote on the biggest most unpopular issue since the 60’s turning off her phones and lying about it – is going to be big

    Wishing that the guys who exposed it were going to get a slap on the wrist – well thats another thing

    Trying to paint me with an ideology thats not mine is fine

    not accurate – but thats not really been an issue for you.

    EricPWJohnson (1465de)

  140. Eric, I seriously doubt you posted anything like this awesome post by WLS. You’re just being a jerk.

    I pointed out facts you are backwards on twice. You refuse to explain how you misunderstand what few facts we know to such an extent.

    You say they said to the FBI they were disabling phones. I think you made that up too.

    whatever. I don’t know JD and he’s disagreed with me a few times. It’s not like he’s my best pal or anything, but he’s making you look like an idiot. I have no problem with people speculating against Breitbart or O’Keefe… you are going further than that, though.

    You say Breitbart should prepare to be indicted. You have set the goalposts pretty far for your argument by making ridiculous assumptions (and not even admitting that’s what they are).

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  141. Hey, EPWJ, I have an idea for you.

    If Breitbart is indicted, I will PayPal Patterico some money. Call it 50 bucks. And I will write: “ERIC P.W. JOHNSON WAS RIGHT, AND I WAS WRONG.”

    However, if Breitbart is not indicted, you have to pony up 50 bucks and admit you were wrong, in writing.

    How about it?

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  142. I will second that. Good idea, from the Eric that does not engage in asspulls.

    JD (c15e93)

  143. JD

    I dont need any evidence every time Andrew opens his mouth – he is building a case against himself

    First – its overwhelming that Andrew bought the rights to Okeefes work

    Second – what was the nature of that work? Extreme undercover journalism

    THird – How did Okeefe obtain his footage – by pretending to engage in felonious acts and get others to follow along –

    Fourth – The Acorn was a great story but the problem with child exploitation (fictional or not) its real hard to explain yourself in front of a jury now on a totally unrelated manner.

    Its not going to go over well with fathers and women in a jury pool

    They are going to brutally dissect and show all those videos of james bragging about 14 year olds having sex for him for pay

    Not going to show the acorn side

    Going to be ugly ugly ugly if it goes to court which I’m praying it doesnt

    EricPWJohnson (1465de)

  144. “…O’Keefe was dressed as a repairman…”

    No, only the other two who entered the offices were dressed as repairmen, and stated they were there to check on reported problems with the phones.
    O’Keefe had come in separately in civvies, and was using his cell-phone to document what was transpiring between the “repairmen” and the office staff. The fourth man was in a car parked nearby and may, or may not, have been on the receiving end of O’Keefe’s phone call.

    AD - RtR/OS! (bb36fd)

  145. And of course, these people know that the democrats are going to come after them. They know they have to be careful. Breitbart in particular knows he could never dare to contract for something illegal right now. He’s threatened the AG with exposure if ACORN isn’t fairly scrutinized.

    No doubt, O’Keefe was reckless and this has blown up in his face. I don’t think he planned for this result and I don’t think he was set up. but to assert the opposite of the obvious requires a good argument. Not a repeated “no, I’m right… because I think I am”.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  146. None of which has anything to do with the instant case. Andrew’s own words contradict all of your speculations. But, carry on.

    JD (c15e93)

  147. Eric

    I’d rather you donate it to Okeefes legal fund and I will match it ten fold

    You mistake me for being on one side instead of damage control

    I dont want Andrew hurt nor James – but pretending and being blind to the fact one is under a Federal indictment and now the investigation is starting and the other is already denying he’s not a criminal

    This isnt good

    Blaming me for not drinking the koolaid is fine

    EricPWJohnson (1465de)

  148. “every time Andrew opens his mouth – he is building a case against himself”

    What in the hell is this?

    AB says he didn’t speak to O’Keefe for weeks prior to this, had no idea about this, and pays for work freelance, after it’s done. His statements have clearly gone past a lawyer, too.

    Wow.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  149. I’d rather you donate it to Okeefes legal fund and I will match it ten fold

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  150. JD

    Andrews words mean squat – he’s not a law enforcement official – he’s a guy who bought undercover politically motivated videos from a guy and exploited them for monetary and personal gain and had a contract with him and this contractor has been arrested while doing a undercover pollitically motivated video investigation

    Yeah I’m in denial

    EricPWJohnson (1465de)

  151. Has O’Keefe been indicted?

    JD (c15e93)

  152. I’d rather you donate it to Okeefes legal fund and I will match it ten fold

    up to what maximum. Let’s at least do some good here, if we’re going to be totally unable to understand eachother’s views.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  153. EPWJ will (or should – but probably won’t) be mightely embarrassed when this whole thing goes away, and the Senator has to admit that she instructed her staff to side-track incoming constituent calls because she just didn’t want to deal with the opposition to her political maneuvering.

    AD - RtR/OS! (bb36fd)

  154. Well, EPWJ, I think we should do this via Patterico, just to make sure we are being honest about that.

    Remember: you said you would contribute 500 dollars if you are wrong. And admit it in writing.

    Witnesses?

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  155. You don’t need a witness, Senor Blair. His words are right there, for all to see.

    JD (c15e93)

  156. Andrew’s words mean squat, but EPWJ’s words carry the weight of Rosie O’Donnell. Give me a break.

    JD (c15e93)

  157. I want the money to go through someone like Patterico. It’s too easy for someone to make a claim and not follow up on it, claiming that they have.

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  158. You are in for $50, Senor Blair. I am in for $50. Assclown’s buddy, by his own words, is then in for $1000.

    JD (c15e93)

  159. EPWJ has become a four-letter word in my household. It’s a slightly worse four-letter word than ACDH, on par with the four-letter word that begins the acronym SFB.

    John Hitchcock (c05cdf)

  160. EricPW @129 – You are really losing me here.

    “I dont think he did anything illegally”

    “I think he’s going to jail and for a long time”

    I can’t tell if you’re talking about two different people, the ACORN tapes, this incident or what? Can you clarify?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  161. daleyrocks – he knows things. Just agree with him.

    JD (c15e93)

  162. “he’s a guy who bought undercover politically motivated videos from a guy and exploited them for monetary and personal gain”

    Sounds like Dan Rather and CBS.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  163. Now I’m in for a thousand LOL

    Never ever bet on the internet

    Yes I will make a contribution if he has one

    I was trying to be nice but naturally – not everyone is or can have a discussion without being hateful and ugly

    I agree that I think this wont go to court – but if it does and if it looks bad and Okeefe is facing ten years – I mean do you really think he’s going down with the ship

    EricPWJohnson (1465de)

  164. “They are going to brutally dissect and show all those videos of james bragging about 14 year olds having sex for him for pay”

    Eric – The men on the jury will be getting chubbies.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  165. No, EPWJ, this is about Breitbart. Nobody is being hateful or ugly, we just happen to disagree with you.

    JD (c15e93)

  166. Let’s be very, very clear about this, EPWJ. This isn’t about being hateful or insulting. This is about my honesty, and about yours.

    If Breitbart is indicted:

    1. I will contribute $50 via Patterico or DRJ (if either agrees) to James O’Keefe’s “Defense Fund.” This will prove I actually made the donation.
    2. I will also write, in a thread here at Patterico’s blog: “I WAS WRONG, AND EPWJ WAS RIGHT.”

    If Breitbart is NOT indicted:

    1. You will contribute $500 to O’Keefe’s defense fund, via Patterico or DRJ. Ditto thee confirmation above.
    2. You will write, in a thread here at Patterico’s “I WAS WRONG, AND ERIC BLAIR WAS RIGHT.”

    Fair enough?

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  167. And I agreed to the same, Senor Blair.

    JD (c15e93)

  168. We shall see, sirrah….

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  169. Eric Blair – Perhaps you should set a deadline for the indictment and make it clear that it must relate to a part of it must relate to the incident at Landrieu’s office.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  170. Well, I don’t want to overly involve Patterico. But if he needed assistance in keeping up bandwidth, I think this could be a good source!

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  171. JD – When are you going to be in my hood on a Thursday night?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  172. One of these days, Daley. I will be there Sat night for the BoDeans concert at the Chicago Symphony Hall.

    JD (c15e93)

  173. Goodnight, folks. Even EPWJ. Hope you all have a wonderful night, and a productive tomorrow.

    JD (c15e93)

  174. BoDacious!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  175. It most certainly will not be BoRing.

    JD (c15e93)

  176. Daleyrocks

    I always thought that those involved in forging military documents concerning the fitness of command of a sitting president was a very serious matter and should have been remanded for prosecution.

    I dont condone it on the left and I wisk Okeefe had just gone in with a bunch of people and video’d using their cell phone calling the main number and watching it not ring

    Now, I know the charges to us seem specious but a Federal Prosecutor indicted him – his previous work was purchased (not allt hat long ago) by Andrew

    Willing or unwillingly Andrew is having to worry about this and iot could be damaging no matter what the final assessment is or the facts – based upon a poorly thought out stunt

    Thats my point

    EricPWJohnson (cb15e6)

  177. DRJ

    This may complicate the employment relationship

    From Andrew Breitbarts company

    James O’Keefe
    James O’Keefe is an investigative journalist and filmmaker. He filmed and produced a 2009 investigative report that helped expose corruption within ACORN, including ACORN employees providing individuals they believed to be involved in an international under-age prostitution scheme with advice on how to break the law. Congress voted to defund ACORN shortly after the videos were released.

    James began his career as a journalist as the founder and editor-in-chief of The Centurion at Rutgers University. He has helped start over a dozen campus newspapers nationwide. His past projects include an investigation of Planned Parenthood, where his reporting exposed the organization’s willingness to ignore apparent instances of statutory rape and eugenics-based racism. He is currently working at VeritasVisuals.com and blogs at BigGovernment.com

    EricPWJohnson (c8e67e)

  178. Now on Hugh Hewitt

    Someone BTW needs to shut up Andrew quickly.

    Breitbart conceded that he does pay O’Keefe a “fair salary” and also mentioned that he pays O’Keefe for “life rights” and can accept or decline to use what O’Keefe produces. It’s not clear, but it sounds like Breitbart has a right of first refusal on whatever O’Keefe’s produces and in return O’Keefe receives compensation in some form, perhaps on a monthly basis akin to a salary.

    In the interview, Breitbart stopped short of calling O’Keefe an employee, while also agreeing with Hewitt — perhaps incongruously — that whatever O’Keefe was doing in New Orleans was “not within the scope of his employment.”

    Red meat for prosecutors (especially politically motivated ones)

    EricPWJohnson (c8e67e)

  179. All Okeefe has to do is say Andrew knew about it

    Obviously he doesnt have a lawyer yet or an effective one

    Actual transcript from Hugh Hewitts show

    HH: Do you pay him for that?

    AB: Yes.

    HH: And are you free to tell me how much you pay him?

    AB: I’ll…perhaps at another date, but he’s paid a fair salary.

    HH: Is he…so he is an employee?

    AB: I’m not sure that’s technically the thing, but yes, he’s paid for his life rights. And he’s, you know, he’s still…we reserve the right to say yes or no to any of the stories that he puts up on our site as we do to any other contributor who comes to the site.

    HH: Will it be a mischaracterization to say he was working for you when he went about this?

    AB: Well, I mean, no. He was not involved in anything that was related to Big Government, or Breitbart.com.

    HH: And I think that’s the key thing. Lots of people work for lots of corporations, and do dumb and sometimes illegal things that are not within the scope of their employment. And this was not within the scope of his employment.

    AB: Yes, absolutely. That is absolutely the case.

    This is why I made the statements earlier that he is building a case against himself..

    He needs to stop

    EricPWJohnson (c8e67e)

  180. WOW! That’s a whole lotta rhetoric spent on a fairly unnecessary argument. What PROOF is there, no matter whether O’Keefe is under contract or a paid employee, that Breitbart: planned, ordered, contracted for, directed, paid expenses, or otherwise coordinated this operation?

    Icy Texan (2dde99)

  181. EPWJ, first, sorry if I’ve been rude to you. I just find your arguments to be ridiculous and it’s annoying that you won’t answer major criticisms with anything other than ‘you lost to the assclown’. Icy is right, btw. What are you basing this on?

    Another point: you say that Breitbart is helping the feds make this huge case against him and this proves he has no or terrible legal reps. But in reality, Breitbart is only revealing information that is already obvious and provable. The feds already know that Breitbart paid for the ACORN vids and that O’Keefe blogs there. Beyond that, all Breitbart says is that he didn’t know about this plan. And that’s probably the truth, since he didn’t know about the ACORN vids until after they were done, either.

    It would be a huge change of policy for him to be part of the planning process, so I think he’s just telling the truth there. Beyond that, he’s not really making any comments and I don’t think they can catch him in any misstatments (as there weren’t any).

    so it’s hard to see what your problem is with him saying what the FBI would already know.

    Further, you misunderstand the situation in various other ways, from depositions to O’Keefe’s clothing and activity (which is a relevant aspect, since O’Keefe did not personally misrepresent himself as a phone guy). You repeatedly say he ‘took another path’ from the path it appear he took (to tape the phones not responding to a call), and I guess this means you think he confessed to tampering. That’s an assumption on your part.

    If he did go there to tamper, he should be punished for it. You won’t find many who disagree. We’ll have to wait and see what his videos say about his intent.

    I haven’t seen anyone attack Breitbart as much as you have, and it’s unfortunate you can’t acknowledge that your comments constitute an attack. I think your entire argument against him is a total failure of assumptions that conflict with the few things we actually know.

    But be comforted. Breitbart does have a good lawyer, and so does O’Keefe, and we’re going to see them vindicated from these accusations and distortions. They went in this office as a public service, and I don’t know if they succeeded and I wish their plan hadn’t blown up into this mess, but I am confident they didn’t go there to commit crimes.

    I had originally thought this was an insane attempt to wiretap the office in reaction to a tip about some massive crime. I was reacting to a pack of lies I read in the news. A lot of people had a vendetta against O’Keefe and Breitbart, so I’ve learned to give them the benefit of the doubt, which I should have already known to do since their prior constant vindications.

    DCSCA posted some Watergate coverage from back in the day. Look at it. Look at what they found and how the bad guys acted. Breitbart is acting like an innocent man, and so is O’Keefe. If they are wrong, they don’t realize it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  182. By the way, that long ass tendency of mine is why I sometimes go by Leo Tolstoy (a long winded writer). But I just had a lot of coffee, so deal.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  183. “What PROOF is there, no matter whether O’Keefe is under contract or a paid employee, that Breitbart: planned, ordered, contracted for, directed, paid expenses, or otherwise coordinated this operation?”

    Maybe breitbart could say he was a VICTIM of o’keefe’s fraud.

    imdw (e66d8d)

  184. Maybe a troll could show up and demonize someone they disagree with.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  185. Okay. I asked “What PROOF”; you respond with “Maybe,” followed by an imaginary scenario. Is this like “The Secret”? If you wish hard enough will all kinds of evidence linking O’Keefe to Breitbart suddenly appear?

    Icy Texan (2dde99)

  186. Maybe imd-dumbass ought to be sued for everything it has and will have by Breitbart. Maybe seeing one dolt go down in legal flames would wise up the other leftie trolls.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  187. “I think I’m blushing…”

    Comment by Assclown doodyheads

    Just some blood in the stool.

    GeneralMalaise (c34110)

  188. When someone posts the inevitable wall ‘o text to defend their arguments, you know it’s the hallowed “if you can’t beat them with facts, baffle ’em with bullshit” technique.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Dmac (539341)

  189. It’s also amusing to see Eric convict someone before a trial, before any evidence is actually presented. How Maoist of him.

    Dmac (539341)

  190. Dmac

    My point was Andrew for his own sake needs to shut up

    Anytime a key employee gets arrested doing something that could be construed as on your behalf – its not wise to argue

    Compare contrast the statements to Shuster, the AP and the Hugh Hewitt radio transcript.

    There is no reason for him to be saying anything beyound – we are waiting for the facts in the case to be presented – or – no comment

    Dustin

    You’re letting in my opinion what you wish would be the outcome against the fact that its a career partisan democrat prosecutor in a political office defending a key democrat senators reputation against someone who didnt execute something as well as planned

    I’m not disagreeing with any of your criticisms of me – I’m just not being so cocksure that the other side steps on the virtues of truth and righteousness

    I quit skipping through the daisies in New Orleans when some guy shredded one of our cruiser with a mac 10 and that was a politicians son…

    EricPWJohnson (c8e67e)

  191. It doesent matter whether Okeefe was wearing telephone garb or not I was talking collectively about all four

    The fact that they said they needed to work on the telephone dressed as telephone repairmen and asked to see the closet which is a secure communications hub in a federal building went down a path that many here are delusional that is nnot going to have repercussions

    Including myself – I originally thought this was much ado about nothing – apparently I forgot the levels of security in that Building and its been 17-18 years of my involvment and I’m sure its even more enhanced

    every word they said every move they made was caught on tape and video

    given the level of intelligence that went into this stunt – lets hope their discipline outside was better

    EricPWJohnson (c8e67e)

  192. “Now, I know the charges to us seem specious but a Federal Prosecutor indicted him”

    EricPW @180 – Have you actually seen an indictment? Also did you clarify your point on the earlier comment #129?

    FYI, I know plenty of independent contractors who get draws, or salaries if you will, against future production. They receive 1099’s instead of W2’s. From a tax perspective, as opposed to a legal one, it can sometimes become murky, but it is not at all unusual.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  193. Dmac

    I’m not the one who bought tapes from a guy who posed as a sex slave trafficer to make a reputationa and then paid the guy a salary – bought rights to his “lifes work” then pretending faux outrage that one of two charges was premature.

    Thats like accusing someone of murder – no no – that wrong I want a retraction – my client only shot the guy three times in the face.

    Thats a poor argument

    Like the one when the presentencing judge ordered Ramos to anger management and his lawyer offered the information that he was already under a anger management judicial order – could that count for both?

    I can only imagine the struggle the judge had to control HIS emotions…

    EricPWJohnson (c8e67e)

  194. When were they indicted?

    JD (b9cdd4)

  195. EricPW – Ramos and Camean don’t have anything to do with this case that I can tell. Am I missing something?

    The ACORN videos as far as I can tell were the beginning of the relationship between Breitbart and O’Keefe, but apart from establishing a relationship have nothing to do with the current events. Breitbart has not been charged with anything.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  196. Daley

    Tresspassing happens almost weekly there Hale Boggs was a focal point – as many federal building are and I cannot recall the FBI or the US Marshalls service or any of the other agencies doing anything more than calling NOPD to hand em over

    Asking for access to a secure federal communications portal – pretending to be repairmen

    If thats true – looking at ten or more years

    EricPWJohnson (c8e67e)

  197. EricPW – I understand that, but you’re avoiding the other questions which you raised last night.

    In any event, here is O’Keefe’s statement from this morning:

    http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/29/statement-from-james-okeefe/

    daleyrocks (718861)

  198. Eric, no, I’m not inserting my wishful thinking into my view of your drastically exaggerated warnings. I think you are doing that though.

    ” ten or more years

    Comment by EricPWJohnson ‘

    More than ten years? So now they are going to get more than the maximum for the worst charge (a charge for which the affidavit doesn’t even lay a foundation for)?

    It’s amazing how you simply avoid every great question asked of you. Your refusal to do so is not some accident. You clearly are trying to spin this story. Go ahead and do it, though. I’ll just keep in mind that you aren’t reasonable.

    One problems I really have with you is how you keep slandering their awesome ACORN work as some kind of sin. You act like O’Keefe’s undercover work last year is some horrible thing that proves AB should never have bought his work (you call it hired because you are trying to spin things and can’t resist). You’re defending people who would help set up tax havens of sex slavery. You really shouldn’t do that. O’Keefe did a brilliant job of that, and he was vindicated every time the machine tried to lie about him or spin things as you are.

    That work is, of course, STRONG evidence in O’Keefe and AB’s favor. They are honest and they are out to get information. They didn’t commit crimes against heinous and crooked ACORN losers, so they would be making a strange change to do it against a US Senator when investigating the phones.

    You won’t explain why your leaps make no sense, honor the dishonorable, or dishonor the honorable. Perhaps you are really bad at this kind of analysis, but your consistent distortions and declarations as fact of things that are unlikely makes it seem you have an axe to grind.

    So grind away, by all means.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  199. General Malaise: Just some blood in the stool.

    It’s probably best not to make light of something, that will soon be a frequent issue in the near future (beyond the metaphorical aspects currently in progress), for those individuals involved in the events crimes being discussed in this thread.

    EPWJ: Asking for access to a secure federal communications portal – pretending to be repairmen

    Also, let it not be overlooked, the phone in the waiting area was, manipulated and tampered with by O’Keefe & Co.

    They were sent the phone closet upon request, and were asked for credentials by Witness2, but were unable to provide any (they, lied and said their ID’s were back in the van), at which point W2 called security.

    This goes a bit beyond being in an open area or only requesting access to off limits high security federal communications equipment.

    Assclown doodyheads (f0d390)

  200. Dustin

    I wish no harm to Okeefe but trying to access top secret installations under false pretenses is going beyond a 1362 charge

    EricPWJohnson (c8e67e)

  201. I’m glad you aren’t saying all this out of wishful thinking Eric, and i’ll take you at your word. This is in spite of being pretty difficult to do.

    You have a lot of assumptions which are simply unlikely as far as I understand, but we agree that the system should take its course and let the chips fall where they may.

    I think you will be happily surprised that O’Keefe comes out of this more or less OK, albeit looking quite foolish to many. Unless something huge and unalluded to appears, I think AB is going to be just AOK.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  202. I’m not disagreeing with any of your criticisms of me – I’m just not being so cocksure that the other side steps on the virtues of truth and righteousness

    You’re being a petulant little git stomping your feet and demanding that we recognize the vileness of James O’Keefe and Andrew Breitbart, and we aren’t buying your bullshit. Let’s not start the pity party or the martyr celebration for you, k?

    I like how he’s still on his “secure federal communications portal” bit too – I sure hope O’Keefe didn’t set off the TOP SECRET laser defense system because that would have chopped him to bits a la Resident Evil.

    If thats true – looking at ten or more years

    Bullshit. EricPWJohnson knows absolutely nothing what he’s talking about here, regardless of how many assertions to greater than average knowledge of this situation or CAPS he uses.

    I’m not the one who bought tapes from a guy who posed as a sex slave trafficer to make a reputationa and then paid the guy a salary – bought rights to his “lifes work” then pretending faux outrage that one of two charges was premature.

    It’s pretty obvious that you have something more vested in this than simple interest – your animus towards O’Keefe and Breitbart makes that clear. Cass Sunstein send out an urgent action report Eric, rally the internet brigade after this story broke eh?

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    chaos (9c54c6)

  203. 204, Eric, come on. Don’t beclown yourself. Top Secret my donkey! Top Secret is any of Obama’s papers and long form birth certificate.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  204. “your animus towards O’Keefe and Breitbart makes that clear. ” -Chaos

    This is how it looks to me. But let’s take Eric at his word that this is his honest-to-God best analysis and he supports O’Keefe and AB. Nobody’s perfect.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  205. Dustin

    I wish no harm to Okeefe but trying to access top secret installations under false pretenses is going beyond a 1362 charge

    Comment by EricPWJohnson

    At most, there would be 2 people in that office with a Secret Clearance. And it wouldn’t apply to the phone bank.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  206. Dustin

    We’ll find out in a month

    EricPWJohnson (c8e67e)

  207. This was a top secret installation? Still waiting on Eric to show us the indictment he claimed above.

    JD (1cc534)

  208. my 209 was sarcasm. I’m sure that’s obvious but I don’t know or care about that matter.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  209. Folks, remember that EricPW also was a major supporter of the Scozzafava clown on this site. And he got just as shrill and mendouchous during that discussion as he is now.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  210. EricPWJohnson,

    Thank you for providing the Hugh Hewitt-Andrew Breitbart quotes. I’ve said consistently in this thread that I think the issue is whether O’Keefe acted in the course and scope of his employment (if any), and Breitbart’s quote supports that view.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  211. EPWJ, I was kinda surprised that some people supported Scozzafava. I actually really prefer to be exposed to folks who would help be grok that philosophy.

    You kinda come across as loud and unyielding. Which I guess applies to me sometimes too.

    I like Breitbart’s role in, at least, trying to keep the media more honest, so I really hope he comes out of this OK. Granted, that skews my POV a bit, but I think the facts are on my side in this case.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  212. DRJ

    I think the investigation is going to focus on Andrew. Its pretty obvious James was an employee and this was definetly within the scope of his employment

    EricPWJohnson (c8e67e)

  213. You made two assumptions in that statement that I’m not sure are correct. O’Keefe may or may not be considered Breitbart’s employee, and this incident may or may not have been conducted in the course and scope of any employment. Further, those issues impact civil liability. There are higher standards for criminal liability.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  214. Breitbart knew they were going to continue to do their hidden camera shtick. I think that’s safe.

    But so what? A jury is supposed to convict him of something because of that? Some (probably most) will recognize that this is what big media has been doing for ages and ages. I don’t think the FBI is going to start prosecuting people who had a business relationship with those who use a disguise to enter secret areas without any malice (but rather to get a scoop).

    Oh, and there’s no civil liability since no one was damaged (imo). Not that DRJ said any different, but there.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  215. And that’s assuming Eric is right about the government’s ability to prove some kind of employer relationship and some kind of awareness of the scheme (via pattern or not).

    But even granted that, I don’t see the problem.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  216. dustin

    here’s my point – oh and keep on insulting me personally – it really builds your character and reputation of many who read but never post –

    Patterico blogs in all honesty so does DRJ – there motives are pure – unquestionable (okay enough gratiuitous sucking up)

    Andrew is none of those things, he’s about empowerment, he’s about self promotion, he’s not about keeping David Shuster honest he was about protecting the brand name that he knew has been – possibly irrevocably damaged by his employee in the direct scope of his work doing something incrediably stupid.

    but then again – I’m sadden to a great degree that my fellow conservatives were heartened by a couple of young people posing as child sex slave trafficers to discover what everyone already knew about Acorn.

    Know people are going to come in and say see – you hate andrew

    Umm no I dont hate him – I dont despise, loath or anything of the sort

    but just stating the obvious

    Okeefe was an employee – worse yet a salaried employee – Andrew stated as much in the Hugh Hewitt interview – Breitbart contradicted himself in other interviews – Sorry, I just have this annoying habit of not believing people who just make statements when they are under fire or possible investigation.

    All I’ve ever said here was Andrew should not be making statements at all for his own sake

    EricPWJohnson (c8e67e)

  217. Eric, I’m not trying to insult you. I’ve tried to explain that I’m not holding your views against you, though I think you come across as … well .. unreasonable. I’m trying to be understanding of that.

    Don’t take it too personally.

    I don’t really have a reputation to ruin, to be honest. I’m just pixels on a screen treating folks as I want to be treated. I will note that you haven’t really been the nicest person at various points, and I’ve explained why I don’t mind that. Like I said, someone who would actually support Scozzafava is a very unusual person in my circle and I hope to learn more about your views and arguments. I’m not trying to put up a front of be a jerk. Trust me… I am rude sometimes to imdw or others like that. I’m not subtle about that stuff.

    It is frustratind that you won’t address the errors brought up about your views.

    As to your general thesis, that AB shouldn’t be making any statements at all, I actually addressed that. It looked to me like the Hewitt interview only said stuff the government would already know anyway. He isn’t just being tried in court (and he never will be). He’s being crucified by a lot of people who are believing spin. He’s proven that in his countless corrections to other agencies and certainly in the video above (did you watch it? I just did for the second time.) To me, these things show that AB has at least some incentive to get out there and fight in public about the truth.

    Now, if he is guilty of knowing about some felony scheme (lol), then I don’t really mind if he gets caught and sent to prison over it. I think that he is making statements on this partly because the connection to O’Keefe he acknowledges is already public (since.. ya know… the connection is how he publicizes O’Keefe’s work). You say, for his sake, that he should just shut up like he’s guilty (which is exactly what people will assume) in order to avoid proving things that are already proven.

    I disagree with that.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  218. Dustin

    Never every have your personal freedom on trial in front of a jury, never ever get in front of a jury

    NEVER EVER have YOUR LIFE being decided by a jury

    If you can avoid it…

    Andrew needs to heed that advice

    like I said – its all fun and games until the reality of prisons cold fingers start constricting someone’s breathing

    EricPWJohnson (c8e67e)

  219. Also, while the ‘if you don’t have anything to hide, why don’t you cooperate’ line is a perilous rule to follow… it’s not 100% wrong.

    Maybe Breitbart’s actions are so hard to understand in your view because you haven’t considered that he really is totally innocent.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  220. Eric, don’t take this as an insult, but you don’t know me or what I have experienced, and you seem to be projecting the ‘personal’ argument thing. The allcaps screaming about my life on the line in front of a jury is a fair point, actually.

    Perhaps you should consider that people who are that afraid of a jury should not be journalists challenging ACORN style billion dollar thugs. You have to be able to stand up to that kind of intimidation to some extent (in my opinion). AB is not solely concerned with the outcome of an unlikely trial. He’s on a mission to deal with “Big Government and Big Journalismm” et al.

    See what I mean?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  221. dustin,

    you have a habit of over commentating while adding no substance to the argument – stating no facts – just being well – a loud brayish bore like JD

    all snark no substance

    EricPWJohnson (c8e67e)

  222. DRJ

    There is no doubt that Okeefe was an employee – I have Breitbart on tape saying he was an employee –

    that and the overwhelming statutory evidence

    EricPWJohnson (c8e67e)

  223. I definitely overwrite. No disagreement there. I hear that all the time and it’s 100% valid. Sometimes I cut my comments in half before I post them (I did that to one of the last three, btw), and I would do that more often if I wasn’t lazy.

    However, 221 223 224 all had an argument about AB that is germane to this thread. Which one did you not see?

    You are being inconsistent. In one comment you tell me to stop insulting you, and when I point out I didn’t intent to (And you don’t actually point out where I did this), you start insulting me.

    Where’s the snark? I think I’ve shown the substance. I’m trying to argue with you in good faith and this is how you respond?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  224. It does beg the question, how much contaminating CBS, Politico, MSNBC has done of the jury pool; I’m sure they’re worried sick about it (sarc) Consider
    that the Libby jury, knew that he was not guilty of the main charge, yet felt they had to ‘send a message; how that jury contained one lefty blogger, and s former employee of Bob Woodward, not my understanding of a jury of your peers

    ian cormac (fb852e)

  225. “There is no doubt that Okeefe was an employee”

    There is doubt.

    “I have Breitbart on tape saying he was an employee -”

    Actually, I think you might be mistaking the interviewer’s words for Breitbart’s.

    HH: And I think that’s the key thing. Lots of people work for lots of corporations, and do dumb and sometimes illegal things that are not within the scope of their employment. And this was not within the scope of his employment.

    AB: Yes, absolutely. That is absolutely the case

    As best as I can tell, this is what you’re talking about. But AB didn’t say O’Keefe was an employee, he was saying something isn’t in the scope of their relationship. He had just said a few seconds prior that O’Keefe was not technically his employee and their relationship was that AB had bought the rights to some material.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  226. “He had just said a few seconds prior that O’Keefe was not technically his employee and their relationship was that AB had bought the rights to some material.”

    I thougth the term he used was something like “life work.” Is that a term of art? Does it mean breitbart would have had the rights to what O’Keefe was filming?

    I guess the lesson here is ACORN should switch to having contractors, not employees.

    imdw (f7b257)

  227. DRJ
    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fss8.pdf
    For your information form ss-8 – BTW in my direct communications with the IRS the only thing really considered is in Part III its question number 5

    EricPWJohnson (c8e67e)

  228. ian, that is something I think they should press if O’Keefe winds up in trial (which is totally plausible).

    The plastering of lies in this case is dramatic, has been constant, and MSNBC says everyone in NOLA is calling this ‘Watergate 2.’

    As EPWJ noted, a jury trial is a scary risky experience. It’s considered unprofessional and sleazy to report allegations as fact, because it can so easily lead to injustice, but in several cases, such as with Shuster, they go even farther than that.

    We’ve all seen how these same outlets treat terrorists who just got caught with a bomb or something. “alleged”. Amazing how they have dehumanized the right beyond even terrorists in some cases.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  229. Ian

    exactly my point – thanks for making it

    Dustin, that was Hugh cutting off the interview cause he knew that Andrew was incriminating himself

    EricPWJohnson (c8e67e)

  230. I guess the lesson here is ACORN should switch to having contractors, not employees.

    Comment by imdw

    I think your error here is that you’re equating a hidden camera operation… journalism under false pretenses, with the stuff ACORN was caught doing in remarkably consistent fashion (consistent in that most were doing things deeply wrongly).

    One is not that bad. Maybe it’s technically illegal (and maybe not) in some cases, but it’s not some kind of horrifying thing. I don’t think it would even slightly be a problem if AB did have O’Keefe as a full employee, but this is a different part of the argument.

    They aren’t really on the same level, even if you do have a huge problem with O’Keefe’s behavior. And it’s not like this is the seventh time AB’s ’employee’ was caught doing something ‘illegal’.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  231. Dustin, that was Hugh cutting off the interview cause he knew that Andrew was incriminating himself

    Comment by EricPWJohnson

    I don’t mean this as an insult either, but you have an active imagination. The entire point of the interview was to fully describe the relationship AB had with O’Keefe. When people say you are making an assumption, they are saying whatever conclusions you draw on the basis of that assumption are not as reliable as you may think.

    What did O’Keefe do that was so awful that his employer (granting for sake of argument) is supposed to be indicted and go to prison? He didn’t tamper with anything. He didn’t bug anything. He didn’t misrepresent himself. It’s unlikely AB had ever met the two guys who had. There was no felony committed and it’s going to be a stretch to show they planned one. Hell, I think any felony guessed about so far hasn’t made any sense.

    For your theory to work, such a felony will have to make sense to 12 people, and you have to prove the intent. And the employer relationship. And a pattern to actually break the law, perhaps.

    You are speaking about this very thin theory as though it’s certain or a safe bet.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  232. DRJ

    For your consideration from the 1996 training manual for the IRS on Sec 530 issues (hey okay its 11 years old – its the FEDS)

    The determination of what is substantially similar work rests on analysis of the facts. The day-to-day services that workers perform and the method by which they perform those services are relevant in determining whether workers treated as independent contractors hold substantially similar positions to workers treated as employees. Comparison of job functions is an important fact. Workers with significantly different, though overlapping, job functions are not substantially similar

    Andrew said two significant things

    Paid a fair salary

    Had first right of refusal on all his work

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/emporind.pdf

    EricPWJohnson (c8e67e)

  233. We have seen cases where journalists were jailed for information the prosecutor already knew, (Libby)
    where another personage who had committed the same
    alleged offense was left out of the indictment. Where a US Senator was charged with made up evidence and the lead witness against him, who had a huge conflict of interest, and impeachable credibility was obfuscated (Stevens)where US soldiers were tried even though the major witness was an AQ propagandist (Haditha), or the incriminating ammunition matched more insurgents than the defendants in Nissan Square (Blackwater)
    and in the apolitical field, OJ and the first
    Menendez trial

    ian cormac (fb852e)

  234. Dustin,

    Yeah I would bet my life my personal freedom on Hugh Hewitt putting words in my mouth because 10 seconds before I just called Okeefe my empployee

    Like I said – I’m looking out for Andrew not my ideology

    EricPWJohnson (c8e67e)

  235. No need to bet your life. I think the existing bet is certainly good enough. For the record, though, I think you should honor that one.

    It’s interesting that you say AB admitted O’Keefe is AB’s employee a few seconds prior. So my quote is not the admission, then. The other reference is AB explicitly saying that he doesn’t think O’Keefe is his employee. And that he paid for some rights to some work.

    I feel like a bore to say this, but again, we already know that AB paid O’Keefe for his work and future work. They’ve said so dozens of times before this controversy erupted. If that fact damns him, it’s not because he admitted it in this interview, right?

    Anyway, why did Hewitt ask him about it? AB gave a negative answer. The alternative is to give a positive (and worse) answer. So you are saying Hewitt is trying to keep AB from answering a question that apparently Hewitt shouldn’t have asked?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  236. An observation…

    The media, and the Left (redundency alert), need to be very careful in how they gin this up. Just as in the Valerie Plame matter, you have the media screaming for the scalp of someone, yet it was one of them that spent (what) 2-weeks in jail for contempt (Judith Miller), re-inforcing the Govt’s right to compel testimony over sources.

    Here, they are literly salivating at the thought of putting O’Keefe (and Breitbart) into their rightful place for making them look bad re ACORN; but, if they’re not careful they’re going to push a precedent that will, in the future, proscribe any investigative journalism that uses the techniques employed by O’Keefe when involving the Government, ones that are straight out of the 60-Minutes handbook – and open the members of their industry up to subsequent jail time for such activities.

    But what else can you expect from an industry that has been captured by a movement which relies on feelings instead of thought.

    Just my $.02!

    AD - RtR/OS! (098720)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1823 secs.