Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks
UPDATE: James O’Keefe has a statement at Big Government here. Original post below. Bumped to top.
Over at Big Journalism, an alpaca named “Retracto” is amusing demanding corrections from various news entities, for saying James O’Keefe was accused of wiretapping. Such as TPMMuckraker:
-O’Keefe was allegedly using his cell phone to film the attempt to bug Landrieu’s office as it happened.
-And let’s say they got something really juicy off of Sen. Landrieu’s tapped phone line. What exactly were they going to do with it?
-But they were never going to protect you from an investigation into bugging the office of a United States senator.
-Now, one might speculate that they were going to use the bug to get leads that they would then report out and surface by other means.
-And filming the bugging as it happened definitely suggests they didn’t plan on keeping the thing a secret.
And Newsweek:
Fake ACORN Pimp Arrested in Attempt to Bug Senate Office
It’s unclear what the bugging was intended to prove, or why Mary Landrieu was the target.
And the New Orleans Times-Picayune:
Robert Flanagan’s attorney, J. Garrison Jordan, said he believes his client works for the Pelican Institute. Asked the motivation for the alleged wiretap plot, he said: “I think it was poor judgment. I don’t think there was any intent or motive to commit a crime.”
Retracto notes:
There are no allegations of any wiretap plot in the FBI affidavit, and a law enforcement official has conceded that the four men were not attempting to wiretap or intercept calls.
Indeed. And the Washington Post issued a correction after making a similar statement.
So you might as well add the Dallas Morning News, which slapped this headline onto an AP article:
ACORN foe arrested by FBI in plot to bug senator’s office
I have one more possible angle for the wooly little bugger to try to track down. The Huffington Post has a headline that reads: James O’Keefe Tweets Info On Wiretapping Case, Violates Gag Order. The entirety of O’Keefe’s plain vanilla Twitter message: “Govt official concedes no attempt to wiretap.” How dare he try to set the record straight in the face of the above!
I’ve been searching for the original source that definitively reports the existence of a “gag order.” Starting at HuffPo, I click back through a post by moron Jonathan Turley, to a post by Raw Story, which claims:
Wednesday afternoon, NBC News reported that the judge had instructed O’Keefe not to talk about the case.
I can’t find any trace of the NBC News story on the Internet. Did anyone see it? Is there a link anywhere?
Because if there is a gag order, and it applies to the parties, then one of the parties is the U.S. Government. And we have heard several leaks from unnamed law enforcement officials sharing otherwise unknown details of the case — seemingly a little worse than O’Keefe straightforward Twitter message reporting public news to correct a distortion repeated by several outlets.
Did NBC News mention that?
Will this gag order story be the next “wiretap” allegation — something repeated by numerous outlets that they will eventually be forced to retract?
Help me out, Retracto!
1. O’Keefe’s a moron. Whether or to what degree this was criminal is obviously still up in the air, but I’m not accepting any “obviously-not-a-moron” defenses for him.
2. You can gag the lawyers, but I’m pretty confident that you’d have a tough time gagging a criminal defendant due to that pesky First Amendment. Contrary case cites welcomed.
–JRM
JRM (355c21) — 1/29/2010 @ 7:11 amWelcome to The Machine.
GeneralMalaise (c34110) — 1/29/2010 @ 7:17 amO’Keefe’s a moron. Whether or to what degree this was criminal is obviously still up in the air, but I’m not accepting any “obviously-not-a-moron” defenses for him.
That seems a little harsh, but I’m not saying that it was necessarily the wisest way to handle things.
Then again, I’d really like to see the tape they say he was making. If you had never seen the ACORN tapes, and he had been arrested for doing this taping without consent deal, and the feds had done the arresting, and talked about him dressing up like a pimp, maybe everyone would be talking about what a moron he was, and focusing on the criminal aspect.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/29/2010 @ 7:24 amTurley really is a moron – he asserts that 1362 clearly indicates/signals an eavesdropping intention. Anyway, the supposed “gag order” is probably something that appears on the conditions for release, part of the bail/release process.
cboldt (60ea4a) — 1/29/2010 @ 7:38 amSee TPM – James O’Keefe Must Live With His Parents After Arrest for images of the order.
For one thing, stipulating some sort of gag order, O’keefe didn’t talk about the case pending against him, because there is no case where wiretap charges are pending.
SarahW (692fc6) — 1/29/2010 @ 7:50 amcboldt:
Didn’t see it after a quick glance. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/29/2010 @ 7:56 amTurley really is a moron.
Filmmaker O’Keefe Tweets on Pending Charges Despite Reported Gag Order
Until Turley or one of these other commentators produces a source, I think the NBC News story
is a figment of imagination. And even if there is an NBC News story, it’s just as likely to
report a generic order to “don’t contact witnesses” as “a judge’s gag order,” similar to how
the news reported the affidavit as alleging a wiretapping violation.
I stopped giving them the benefit of the doubt (i.e,m attribute to stupidity), and just consider
cboldt (60ea4a) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:00 amnews reporters to be malicious vermin.
For what my memory is worth, I do recall Judge Moore issuing some kind of instruction to *the other three* men involved –
they were out on bond, allowed to stay with each other; that is, together as group, but on condition they not talk about the case (which I took to mean, with each other).
O’keefe was ordered to stay at the home of his parents (apart from the other three) and I don’t remember his getting any specific admonishment not to speak to the press.
But, since I wasn’t there I don’t actually know what the judge said to O’keefe. I guess I’ll go try to look it up.
SarahW (692fc6) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:02 amNo judge has the legal authority to instruct a criminal defendant not to talk about his case. A criminal defendant has an absolute right to stand outside the courthouse and yell to everybody who cares to listen that “I’m being railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor and a corrupt judge”. A judge has the legal authority to place certain evidence under seal and forbid its release as a condition for sharing it with the opposing party. Usually in cases of national security or very private information about non-government individuals.
nk (db4a41) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:08 amThen again, I’d really like to see the tape they say he was making. If you had never seen the ACORN tapes, and he had been arrested for doing this taping without consent deal, and the feds had done the arresting, and talked about him dressing up like a pimp, maybe everyone would be talking about what a moron he was, and focusing on the criminal aspect.
Comment by Patterico — 1/29/2010 @ 7:24 am
A really good point. I’d certainly have reacted the same way I did to this one: “Oh, come ON….”
Until my jaw dropped actually seeing the employees being all helpful telling them how to bury john money in the back yard in a tin and how to use the tax code to claim 14 year old illegal-alien sex slaves as dependents on the old tax return.
Well, we may see that video sooner than we think. And with these guys over the last several months, payoffs have up to this point proven worth the wait. Heh.
no one you know (196ed7) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:09 amForgive me if I’m late to the party, but I can’t find much on “how” O’Keefe was arrested. The “why” has been kicked around plenty, but, I like to know how.
Did someone call the Feds? Staff members? Security guards let him through and then call the cops?
I’m wondering whether O’Keefe was under surveillance by the Gov’t.
JayCee (00f5a1) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:11 amI’ve been looking both for NBC news stories, and for any other reports about judge’s orders pertaining to O’Keefe. The only order I can find is the bail order / conditions for bail. One of the conditions is to avoid contact with witnesses, etc. I would expect a typical modern news/propaganda operation to transmogrify that generic condition for bail into “gag order.”
Separately, Turley also asserts that he was NOT quick to jump on the “wiretapping bandwagon.”
Turley: Phone tamperer’s Tweet may violate court order | Raw Story
cboldt (60ea4a) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:11 amHe probably thinks that is perfectly consistent with his “The clear suggestion of the affidavit was that the ‘malicious’ interference with the telephone system was to wiretap Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office.”
A judge does have legal authority to discipline a prosecutor for prejudicing the defendant in violation of the local rules’ code of conduct for prosecutors.
nk (db4a41) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:11 amVia Talking Points Memo, here is the Magistrates actual orders pertaining to O’Keefe’s release: http://tiny.cc/7fFw8
There is no restriction on speaking with the press; just a general order not to talk with other participants in the case, except for business purposes.
See for yourself. Did I miss something?
SarahW (692fc6) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:18 amJust for ease of review by others, here are the words that appear on p2 of the Conditions for release, that I suspect haven been colloquially referred to as “gag order”:
cboldt (60ea4a) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:21 am“avoid all contact, directly or indirectly, with any persons who are or may become a victim or potential witness in the subject investigation or prosecution, including but not limited to: –[handwritten] unless for business purposes only [/handwritten]–“
Also, the comments or “concession” from the government/law enforcement source were not revealed de novo, or for the first time, by O ‘Keefe.
The words of that source were already widely (world wide) circulated in all forms of news media.
Or, as someone would say to Ace of AOSHQ, old. So it’s not O’keefe indirectly spilling about something he knows to witnesses or victims.
SarahW (692fc6) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:26 amIf it was a “bugging” attempt (and I’ve not seen the evidence yet to support that) then it was indeed poor judgment on the part of the defendents, and possibly criminal (that IS however up to the courts to decide). Regardless, sometimes when you are “on a roll” you get hoisted on your own petard.
GM Roper (a0b04a) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:30 amArgggg that should be “defendants”
Dumb Finger Disease is sooooo hard to treat!
GM Roper (a0b04a) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:31 amFrom the NOLA article 1-26:
“The four men appeared in federal magistrate court Tuesday afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Louis Moore wearing red inmate jumpsuits from St. Bernard Parish Prison. Moore is allowing the men to be released on $10,000 bond each.
The men have to go to pretrial services, a federal agency, tomorrow morning. Moore allowed three of the men to stay together Tuesday night, but ordered them to not talk about the case.”
I originally (mis)interpreted this as the judge allowing the three of them to bunk in the same holding cell overnight under the admonishment not to speak to each other about the case. I also assumed they’d be recorded while in the cell.
SteveG (909b57) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:40 amThis reading makes me think they were released on bail and stayed together that night.
I didn’t know that the judge could release people on bail and prevent them from talking about the charges… particularly if the three hired the same attorney
Roper, there’s no bugging needed to expose Landrieu’s disingenuous apologetic laments about constituents getting busy signals because her phones are “jammed”, ( as she put it.)
The affidavit with the charges does not allege any wiretapping and doesn’t support any conclusion that wiretapping or bugging took place or that there was a conspiracy to make it take place.
SarahW (692fc6) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:43 am— I originally (mis)interpreted [“Moore allowed three of the men to stay together Tuesday night, but ordered them to not talk about the case.”] as the judge allowing the three of them to bunk in the same holding cell overnight under the admonishment not to speak to each other about the case. —
A couple of points. I think the fellows were from out of town, and staying together at a local hotel. So “allowing them to stay together” isn’t necessarily a holding cell arrangement. If the judge wanted to insure separation while in jail, he would arrange it with the local jailer.
cboldt (60ea4a) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:48 amAs for the admonition not to speak to each other about the case (ostensibly trying to avoid them coordinating cover stories, I would suppose), it’s a bit naive on the judge’s part; but even given the order, it is directed NOT to O’Keefe. The solid, unqualified assertion by some on the left is that O’Keefe is in fact under a gag order. Where is the order? Where is the story of an order that pertains to O’Keefe?
It’s is truly unfortunate that none of the parties involved (O’Keefe & Co, Sen Landrieu, DoJ) have any involvement with the NSA, or every microscopic detail to date would have been on the front page of the NYT!
AD - RtR/OS! (098720) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:53 amHell, not only would we know the answer to the eternal question “Briefs or Boxers”, we would also know the brand and waist-size.
Hahaha. Here he is, breaking that gag order again today!
» Statement from James O’Keefe – Big Government
So, maybe looking for MSNBC / gag order will turn up the reporter who asserted that O’Keefe is under a judicial gag order.
cboldt (60ea4a) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:57 amGenerally, the order to “not talk about the case” is directed to the defendants and it is to not talk about the case with each other, except in the presence of their lawyers.
Issuing a “gag” order to the defendants preventing them from talking to anyone about the case at this early stage would be highly unusual.
Once again, Turley has no clue what he’s talking about.
WLS (3d3fb8) — 1/29/2010 @ 9:09 amOkeefe has statement up at Big Journalism, confirms they were only trying to check phones not disconnect them, and denies being issued a gag order.
windansea (91d763) — 1/29/2010 @ 9:11 amhttp://bigjournalism.com/jokeefe/2010/01/29/statement-from-james-okeefe/#more-14542
windansea (91d763) — 1/29/2010 @ 9:13 amPatrick, I would be very interested to know what exactly was said to the receptionist and other office staff by the defendants. If they never explicitly claimed to be employed by the telephone company, then their defense is cut-and-dried. They did not trespass, they were invited by the office staff to inspect the phone lines!
Yes, I read the FBI affidavit, and it says that the men falsely claimed to work for the phone company. But that allegation is based on the memory of a witness, not a transcript of the conversation. It might well be that the men implied they were phone company employees, without actually saying so. What if the conversation went like this…
MAN: Hello, did you call the phone company about problems with your system? We’re here to fix the phones.
RECEPTIONIST: Oh, okay, the equipment is right over there, help yourself.
Notice that in such an exchange, the man does not claim to work for the phone company; in fact he tells nothing but the truth, so long as he really came with the intention of fixing the telephone. But the receptionist may remember the conversation differently, wrongly thinking that he claimed to work for the phone company. A recording of the actual conversation would exonerate him. (And that’s exactly what O’Keefe was doing, recording that conversation on his cellphone.)
So that’s my theory of the whole plot: the men really came to look at the senator’s telephone system, because she had complained of “jammed phone lines.” They had every intention of fixing the system, if they were able. They never claimed to work for the phone company, and they only did what they were given explicit permission to do by the office staff.
With a bit of practice, the men could have rehearsed evasive yet scrupulously honest answers to many questions beforehand.
Q: Do you work for the phone company?
A: The phone company often uses private contractors. We’re here to fix your phones.
Q: Show me your phone company credentials.
A: Our identification cards are in our truck.
It’s just a theory, but it fits with everything I have seen so far, and my knowledge of O’Keefe’s methods. What do you think?
Sean Gleeson (a972c3) — 1/29/2010 @ 9:14 amSlow curtain. The End.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 1/29/2010 @ 9:23 amOne more bit of speculation on whether they identified themselves as working for the phone company. If any of you have had a service call on telephone problems recently, the people who came to fix the phones may not have worked for the phone company. Many of the service people for telephone and cable operators are independent contractors.
O’Keefe might have great future ahead of him if he can follow in the footsteps of another guy who was tampering with phones. His name was John F Kerry in 1972. Best of the Web dug this up.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/29/2010 @ 9:24 amO’Keefe is in trouble. Trust me on this. You don’t f**k with a U.S. Senator. If you are a U.S. District Attorney, you don’t just dismiss a case if there’s enough to take the case to trial and a U.S. Senator is involved. The case will go to trial unless O’Keefe pleads out. Everything else is wishful thinking.
nk (db4a41) — 1/29/2010 @ 9:26 amI think it’s ironic that the initial mis-reporting of the O’Keefe et. al. arrest as an alleged wire-tapping is what the public will remember due to the sheer volume of the initial, frenzied reporting of the story.
Ironic because that’s pretty much what happened to ACORN – everybody remembers the story as one of ACORN workers ‘assisting’ O’Keefe and Giles in setting up a child prostitution ring … few are aware that subsequent inquiries into the affair show ACORN in a much better light and O’Keefe/Breitbart in a more negative one.
Live by the sword of playing the news cycle, etc.
D. Aristophanes (4284cd) — 1/29/2010 @ 9:33 amO’Keefe mentions “journalistic malpractice” right at the beginning of his comments. He’s right. The dinosaur media recklessly and wrongly decided that this case was just like Watergate. Wrong! The media saw a break-in and wiretapping when there wasn’t any.
The most laughable comment was from David Shuster, who tweeted to his followers on January 26th (2:03 pm) that they should follow the money! That’s what real, rough and tough journalists used to say during the Watergate days, didn’t they? They probably have plaques inscribed with that phrase on the wall at all graduate schools of journalism. Follow the money! Was it Woodward or Bernstein who said that, or was it only in the movie, where either Dustin Hoffman or Robert Redford said that? (Let’s call City Desk and get someone on it right away.)
Official Internet Data Office (dc2fe1) — 1/29/2010 @ 9:37 amIf the press will accuse O’Keefe of attempting to bug the office even though he had no listening equipment be glad they do not accuse him of planning to blow it up even though he was not carrying any explosives.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 1/29/2010 @ 9:44 am(Though several of our trolls claimed this was terrorism in prior threads.)
Personally I haven’t trusted a thing you’ve said since I started reading this site, but that’s digressing.
Are you drunk? You don’t fuck with a US Senator? What planet are you from? This is America, and lefties do this kind of nonsense all the time. Where were you when Code Pink was infiltrating Congressional hearings and trying to break into or barricade Congressmen’s offices both in DC and around the country? How many times was Cindy Sheehan arrested for trespassing on federal government property?
You’re being a blowhard and that’s just about all there is to it. O’Keefe’s rather vigorous defense of himself starting today means one of two things: he’s an unspeakably huge moron, or this is much ado about almost nothing. He’s proved himself with his ACORN work to not be an unspeakably huge moron, so…
The case going to trial would almost certainly be a huge bonanza for O’Keefe. He gets to stay in the media, he gets to keep rubbing the media’s nose into the frivolousness of the charges, and eventually, this is all going to go away with a slap on the wrist for O’Keefe and a stern talking to about thinking about consequences and recklessness.
If the government had O’Keefe stone cold on trying to do something truly shady, they wouldn’t be standing around mouthing “mum’s the word” while he trumpets his innocence (or rather, lack of guilt of some serious crime) to the sky. The Feds don’t like it when they have a strong, serious case and the defendants get mouthy to the press. I haven’t seen any G-Man down in Nahleans leaking to the press about how O’Keefe is going to regret the way he’s acted since his arrest, have you?
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
chaos (9c54c6) — 1/29/2010 @ 9:44 amOkeefe also, in his statement, says MSNBC falsely reported on the “gag order” business.
http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/29/statement-from-james-okeefe/
SarahW (692fc6) — 1/29/2010 @ 9:49 amBTW, when I call my phone company (AT&T) about problems with the phone, they always remind me that any problem with the phone lines inside the dwelling are my responsibility, and I would be charged for the inspection and repair, and that they are only responsible for the lines leading to the dwelling to where they connect with the in-house circuitry.
I do not think that O’Keefe & Co would say that they were there to fix the phones (or would want to actually touch anything beyond a handset [“Gee, can I see if there’s a dial-tone on your phone?” or, “Could I use your phone to call my supervisor?”]). The vital thing is what dialogue was recorded by O’Keefe on his cellphone – that could put the lie to a lot of what is in the complaint.
AD - RtR/OS! (098720) — 1/29/2010 @ 9:58 amSean Gleeson – maybe, but it gets pretty dicey with them saying they left their ID cards in the truck. Also, I’m not sure how a judge would receive an argument that the defendants walked a technically above-board line if it’s shown convincingly that the intent was to deceive.
D. Aristophanes (4284cd) — 1/29/2010 @ 10:00 amSlightly off topic but it is disheatening to see the amount of press this has generated (good, bad, ugly, fair, unfair) for a relatively minor incident.
At the same time the news I think needs more emphasis gets short shrift in the msm as well as the blogosphere.
http://news.techworld.com/security/3211356/congress-hacked-near-obama-speech/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/11/06/campaign.computers.hacked/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,448626,00.html
http://www.darkreading.com/security/attacks/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222500222&cid=nl_DR_DAILY_2010-01-27_t
We are bleeding info out like a sieve in the commercial world and at government offices and people should be concerned.
I’ll save some the time to post it
voiceofreason2 (8e6b90) — 1/29/2010 @ 10:08 am“vor2 why don’t you go start your own security blog if you care so much”
😉
Howdy all,
The Williams report was broadcast on MSNBC at around 12-12:30 pm on December 27. Unfortunately we stupidly didn’t save a copy, we’re working hard to get a new one.
TPM called the court, and so did we…. and it appears to be Pete Williams’ report is wrong. And we were told roughly the same.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/okeefe_posts_statement_on_phone_tampering_allegati.php
We’re trying to contact Williams but, frankly, it’s doubtful he’ll get back to us.
Anyway, we’re still working on this story…but I do want to point out that our report – and I believe all of Turley’s words on the matter on his blog, in my article and on MSNBC – does not say that there is one but that there might be (heck, that’s why my first sentence wasn’t as strong as I would have preferred in the first place).
PS:
Some awesome digging by you, your readers and fellow bloggers on this story and Ellie Light…even if some of the theories were a bit out there there was great detective work going on regardless.
Ron Brynaert (5e3edf) — 1/29/2010 @ 10:15 amIn a day and age when technicalities thwart all sorts of trials (what’s the definition of “is”?), you think a very technical choice of wording is not going to carry any water?
John Hitchcock (adbcf1) — 1/29/2010 @ 10:17 amWhich subsequent inquiries into the ACORN matter showed ACORN in a better light, D.Aristophanes?
JD (861229) — 1/29/2010 @ 10:25 amJH – probably depends on the judge and the quality of the lawyering, I would guess.
D. Aristophanes (4284cd) — 1/29/2010 @ 10:26 amJD – here’s a link to a summary of the Harshbarger assessment of the affair:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200912080007
D. Aristophanes (4284cd) — 1/29/2010 @ 10:30 am#42
voiceofreason2 (8e6b90) — 1/29/2010 @ 10:33 amMediamatters.org?
Call it a hunch but I think you are about to get denounced.
Also, I would say that despite the sensationalistic claims of Breitbart and O’Keefe advocates, all O’Keefe and Giles did with the ACORN videos is to demonstrate that it is possible to manipulate people into saying and doing foolish things.
These days, that’s called ‘social engineering’ … in earlier times it was called by the less morally neutral term, ‘confidence game’.
That’s been done many times on shows like Punk’d, but nobody ever calls for such-and-such celebrity to enter anger management sessions when Ashton Kutcher successfully goads them into blowing their lid.
D. Aristophanes (4284cd) — 1/29/2010 @ 10:35 amDenounce all you like, that’s just a link I found on the wiki page detailing the aftermath of the ACORN video affair.
D. Aristophanes (4284cd) — 1/29/2010 @ 10:36 amoooo wikipedia!
D Aristophanes, I saw ACORN go out of its way, in place after place, to help someone import kids as sex slaves and hide the money.
They are supposed to be honorable tax assistants, and were almost perfectly consistent in wanting to help cheat.
You say all that proved was that you can socially engineer people. You’re wrong. You could never get me to do that. You could never get 99% of folks to do that. ACORN did it for free, and eagerly.
You have let partisan politics put you in a very dark place. It actually seems you can conceive of being convinced to help the sex slavery business.
the ACORN videos are absolutely damning, despite the repeated lies from ACORN that it was isolated or distorted. You can see with your own eyes what ACORN did, over and over again.
I don’t know what the Landrieu tapes show, but the ACORN tapes prove that organization is destroying communities and stealing from the people.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/29/2010 @ 10:48 amthat’s pretty much what happened to ACORN – everybody remembers the story as one of ACORN workers ‘assisting’ O’Keefe and Giles in setting up a child prostitution ring … few are aware that subsequent inquiries into the affair show ACORN in a much better light
Which “subsequent inquiries” were you thinking of here? The only inquiry I’m aware of is ACORN’s own inquiry – which, amazingly enough, concluded that ACORN was pure as snow.
Subotai (fc1340) — 1/29/2010 @ 10:51 am#42 –
Even Introlliology and Assplode Shiteater wouldn’t try that one.
I’m sure you’re better than both, do try again.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Matador (176445) — 1/29/2010 @ 10:53 amhere’s a link to a summary of the Harshbarger assessment of the affair
That’s a link to ACORNS’s own assessment of the affair. Harshbarger, a Democratic party hack, was hired by ACORN.
Subotai (fc1340) — 1/29/2010 @ 10:54 amWhat evidence do you have that ACORN workers were assisting people in setting up prostitution rings before two tricksters manipulated a couple of staffers to (if looked at a certain way and with the audio garbled) appear to maybe kinda do that?
D. Aristophanes (4284cd) — 1/29/2010 @ 10:55 amvor2, that really is a central aspect of this story.
Before we really knew anything, the press was going wild, sending reporters down and putting this above the folks as Watergate 2 or Jr. They didn’t jus tlie repeatedly, they showed a clear disinterest in learning the truth or scrutinizing both sides of the case.
They were so absolutely eager to destroy O’Keefe because O’Keefe showed up the entire journalism world.
Every single major US liberal media enterprise could have gotten that ACORN scoop without traveling more than 25 miles, wherever they were. It was apparently not hard at all to expose this organization, receiving billions in tax dollars, of the most horrible tendencies.
Many didn’t or barely covered the story. Certainly they waited as long as possible, and have never followed up. Never attempted journalism by putting an undercover reporter on the scene and testing O’Keefe’s methods. They do that stuff to car mechanics, though.
ACORN is a liberal darling organization, but I think the explanation for covering this story so unfairly when not covering other stuff is that AB and OK set out to expose Big Journalism. More than anything else, they want to deny O’Keefe the ability to show them up.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/29/2010 @ 10:56 amHarshbarger was on ACORN’s payroll!
Official Internet Data Office (dc2fe1) — 1/29/2010 @ 10:57 amWhat evidence do you have that ACORN workers were assisting people in setting up prostitution rings before two tricksters manipulated a couple of staffers ..
In what way were the stafferes “manipulated”? Do Giles and O’Keefe possess Jedi mind control powers?
They walked into the ACRON offices and said “We’re a pimp and prostitute trying to set up a brothel. Can you help us? Oh, and btw, we want to set up a brothel for underage girls”.
How does this “manipulate” the ACORN staff into responding with, “Sure, we can help you here!”?
Subotai (fc1340) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:01 amAnother point: Why do ‘elite’ journalists get to pass bullshit on O’Keefe (whether out of malice or laziness) and keep their credibility?
If MSNBC ever did catch O’Keefe being as inaccurate as MSNBC has been about O’Keefe, they would parade that for the rest of time as proof he should be ignored. And they would be right.
The hype that O’Keefe committed a felony: that was actually wishful thinking! They WANTED him to destroy his reputation and commit crimes. And he’s the unserious partisan? Bullshit.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:02 amWhat evidence do you have that the staffers were manipulated?
You don’t, of course, because you obviously haven’t watched any the of the videos. It was very buddy-buddy between O’Keefe and Giles and the allegedly “manipulated” ACORN office workers. Especially the one in New York where it was suggested, you know, stick your money in a tin can in your backyard to hide it from the Feds. There was some real manipulation going on there. O’Keefe was probably feeding her the lines through his top-secret mind-control device he cleverly hides in his forehead, maybe that’s why he has that big mop of hair on his head, to hide all the transmitters and blinking lights.
These comments are getting just a little bit unreal. It’s as if people like Aristophanes (insulting the man by using his name for your pseudonym, by the way) literally do not think a single thing they are typing through as they type it, throw in as many negative implications and accusations and just plain old bald-faced lies attacking O’Keefe as they can come up during the time it takes them to type the post, hit the submit button, and await the next opportunity to rinse and repeat.
chaos (9c54c6) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:09 am“I can’t find any trace of the NBC News story on the Internet. Did anyone see it? Is there a link anywhere?”
There was an order that he live with his parents. That also contained a prohibition on him speaking to witnesses or victims. This may be what they are referring to as a “gag order.” Though it is not as broad as they are taking it to be. However, would his tweets count as speaking to witnesses or victims? If one were a follower?
imdw (5ca691) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:13 amThere’s a rule against prosecutors or other law enforcement agents making extrajudicial statements that does not apply to defendants.
I guarantee that O’Keffe has had an offer. From his prospective attorney. “$30,000 for a plea, $100,000 for a trial”.
chaos is an ignorant jackass.
nk (db4a41) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:13 amThere’s a rule against prosecutors or other law enforcement agents making extrajudicial statements. *That rule does not apply to defendants.*
nk (db4a41) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:19 amYou’re an arrogant old blowhard who thinks being an arrogant old blowhard means you know something. You don’t. You know jack shit. Go get steamed some more about not being shown proper respect or whatever bullshit old people like you get steamed over when you act like you’re better and people don’t acknowledge it.
You’d be better off keeping your mouth shut instead of making stupid pronouncements as if you’re the federal agent in charge of the investigation, or a US Attorney, or someone else who would actually be qualified to make a statement specific to how much trouble O’Keefe is in, as opposed to your retarded bombast.
In two or three or six months when O’Keefe has been through his little jaunt through the legal system and all your ridiculous bullshit is shown as such, maybe I’ll remind you who’s an ignorant jackass.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
chaos (9c54c6) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:20 amThe Democrats and their establishment media allies have every bit as much interest in exposing ACORN as they demonstrated in exposing John Edwards, or New Black Panther Party thugs intimidating voters in Philadelphia.
ropelight (5c0b64) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:23 amDon’t mess with him, nk! He’s sooper-dooper smart. And a Sheriff. And maybe a Doctor of Torts.
Leviticus (f0f166) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:24 amnk’s a defense attorney, Sheriff. I can pretty much guarantee he knows a hell of a lot more about the legal system and its processes than you do.
Leviticus (f0f166) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:26 amSocial engineering has nothing to do with what they were doing. The term refers to tricking people on computers into divulging information, like passwords, account numbers etc. It has nothing to do with people doing something where they understand what they are doing, which is what was happening with ACORN. Your premise is delusional/dishonest.
Social Engineering
Gerald A (a66d02) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:30 amI may be getting suspicious in my old age but I suspect that, if I was a DoJ attorney working on this case, I would approach it as if it was an IED or worse.
There appears to be the posibility, in a trial, for Senator Landrieu and/or members of her staff to be subject to cross examination on matters that they would not like to become public information.
It is not a good idea for Brer Fox and Brer Bear to do what old Brer Rabbit wants.
Longwalker (4e0dda) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:31 amVery mature, Mr. Chaos:
I think that tossing “old people” lines around make you look, well, a little bit young. Why write that at all?
If you are correct about O’Keefe, time will tell. And I hope that, despite how you write, you will be mature enough to “own” a mistake, if you have made one. I know that nk would do so.
And if you are correct, good for you.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:33 amWhether Landrieu avoided her constituents’s phone calls is collateral, incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant, and no judge will permit any mention of it in the trial. Or any third-party discovery.
nk (db4a41) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:35 amTake that back. Maybe Judge Ito, but he won’t be the judge on this case.
nk (db4a41) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:36 am61.Don’t mess with him, nk! He’s sooper-dooper smart. And a Sheriff. And maybe a Doctor of Torts.
Comment by Leviticus — 1/29/2010 @ 11:24 am
Actually, I think he bagged my groceries, today, Leviticus.
nk (db4a41) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:41 amnk, I appreciate your insights, and you’re pretty convincing.
But if this goes to trial, won’t the jury see the video? Wouldn’t they know what O’Keefe was there for?
Now, don’t get me wrong, it is immaterial that they were there to expose this behavior. but I wonder if it’s even prejudicial (in the def’s favor) that they were doing that. It’s not that urgent a matter. I think it’s lame of Landrieu in the extreme, but you’d be hard pressed to find someone who thinks it justifies crimes.
I don’t see how this case can be tried without this information being exposed to the Jury, but I have no experience with this.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:45 amDon’t mess with Leviticus. He has a well-worn copy of Witty Repartees, First Edition, the Master Classic, a work that shall never be surpassed no matter how hard the minions of Fark try. Even if they joined forces with Something Awful, they could never surpass Leviticus’ ability. Really. You excel at regressing to the 8th grade, Levi, it’s really impressive.
James O’Keefe is lucky he’s hired a real lawyer then, I suppose, as opposed to internet lawyer extraordinaire nk. Oh, and, I don’t care if nk’s a lawyer or not. He’s blowing smoke out his ass right up your nose with the things he’s said on this case. Luckily, it looks like O’Keefe has a lawyer who not only possesses all the facts, he knows what to do with them, unlike nk. Looking at O’Keefe’s lawyer’s statements and nk’s, you really have to wonder just who is better informed and has better counsel for Mr. O’Keefe. Of course the lawyer could just be bluffing to get a better deal, the possibilities are endless. But unless you’re OJ Simpson, you don’t come out the door with both guns blazing the way O’Keefe has unless you have something you think will keep you safe. O’Keefe’s lawyer calling it a “stunt” is telling. They aren’t talking as if O’Keefe is floating down shit creek and he needs the government to throw him a paddle.
And as for experience with federal prosecutions, I live near Pittsburgh, and our fine US Attorney, Mary Beth Buchanan, has given all residents of her area of responsibility a hell of a lot of answers as to whether or not the Feds 1) know what the hell they’re doing and 2) know when to do it. The answers are “no,” by the way. If you think the Feds don’t go after people for bullshit, don’t make eight million mistakes, or that people don’t face federal charges without it being “serious,” you’re dead wrong. Ask Cyril Wecht, who really was doing some shady shit and got away scot free (although he’s about broke now).
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
chaos (9c54c6) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:46 amRight after I bagged your wife. I felt so bad for you I thought arranging your groceries was the least I could do.
chaos (9c54c6) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:48 amNo, actually. Social Engineering has to do with using natural human reactions (wanting to help people out) to get them to do things they shouldn’t. While it is often used to get people to divulge passwords or department procedures, or to ignore policy. In this case, it would be “hey, we were supposed to meet with the Senator, but we’re running early, and can’t stay… Could you let us in so we can drop off a note for her?”
Social Engineering is not solely computer related. The other poster was mostly right. I think a more accurate term for Social Engineering would be “grifting”…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:53 amYou’d do much better if you relied on the known facts so far, Chaos – and not your speculation. This blog has more than a few practicing attorneys posting, and none are ambulance chasers (yet).
Dmac (539341) — 1/29/2010 @ 12:54 pmThere is a lot of heat in this thread right now, and not much light. The hangmen might be interested in Big Journalism’s long list of demands for correction. Now O’Keefe is a public figure so the standards for libel are higher for him but malice is all over these stories in the MSM.
I think the chances that this will go to any sort of trial are diminishing like a ballon after it has encountered a pin.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/29/2010 @ 12:54 pmmike k, I don’t think many are saying O’Keefe is going to win libel suits. That’s not the point.
as you note, there is a lot of malice in how media is handling this story. Those people have no business telling anyone what constitutes a journalist if they couldn’t control themselves on this story.
your link is great, though. I think that says a lot. This was either a massive exposure of how conservatives can’t get a fair shake or a coordinated smear campaign.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:00 pmWhether Landrieu avoided her constituents’s phone calls is collateral, incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant, and no judge will permit any mention of it in the trial.
I don’t see any way it does not come up in a trial. Both the prosecution and the defence will ask O’Keefe something like “What were you doing there?”
There’s no grounds for the judge to find either the question or the answer to be immaterial, since it goes to the heart of the currently projected charges under USC Section 1362.
Subotai (fc1340) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:01 pm“This blog has more than a few practicing attorneys posting, and none are ambulance chasers (yet).”
Dmac – Isn’t our friend who is trying to harpoon the great white judge moving in the direction of becoming an ambulance chaser?
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:04 pm— I think the chances that this will go to any sort of trial are diminishing like a ballon after it has encountered a pin. —
cboldt (60ea4a) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:06 pmI agree that the chances of a trial are negligible. I think the most likely outcome is a plea bargain. The stakes are too high to permit dropping the charges altogether, and I don’t think the boys have a slam dunk case in their favor to beat the misdemeanor 1036 charge. Not saying they couldn’t beat it, or that they wouldn’t – but they have no guarantee of a jury trial (despite the plain language of the 6th amendment – I’ll look up the cite in a minute), and a judge isn’t going to nullify the law. The only way I see a slam dunk in their favor is if they never suggested a desire to view the telecom closet.
Wow
Someone who likes nk more than I do.
Didn’t think it was possible.
$30,000 sounds high right now…
SteveG (909b57) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:11 pmDo the feds do public service and let people pick up trash in the park or is that just local?
Flag on the play… illegal use of dog whistle.
Of course, it may be over-ruled since “the Virus” isn’t likely to recognize the reference. Kind of like “uncatchable”. 😉
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:12 pmcboldt, it’s all on video and Breitbart, who was staying clear of this case at first, is now putting out very broadchested demands. He has excellent judgement that O’Keefe didn’t seem to have. I think he has seen the video.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:15 pmThe Harshbarger thing is bullshit by a paid ACORN consultant.
Patterico (2beca1) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:17 pmonly my opinion but IF it went to trial and IF O’Keefe testified he would likely be foolishly ignoring his attorney’s advice.
vor2 (8e6b90) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:17 pmdaley rocks – good point, but maybe he’s shooting for something higher, like suing obstetricians for wrongful deliveries. I hear that’s a great market to be in – just ask “I channel dead babies’ voices during closing arguments” Edwards.
Dmac (539341) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:22 pm[…] falsehoods printed by media (and some of the retractions), including lots of news source links: Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and Lawyer: O’Keefe & Co. Trying to Embarrass Landrieu Over Ignoring Calls Re Health […]
Journalist James O’Keefe: Looking More Innocent by the Day, to the Dismay of ACORN, Liberals, & the Media « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:24 pmThe video most likely will be used to impeach the testimony of prosecution witnesses on cross; though if it does, I cannot imagine a prosecutor oing forward with this case if the words of Witness#1 & #2 in their depositions don’t match up to what’s on the video.
AD - RtR/OS! (098720) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:26 pmIt seems to me that the last thing a prosecutor would want is to have his two star witnesses impeached in front of a jury – makes a conviction a bit difficult it would seem.
Here’s that missing “g”!
AD - RtR/OS! (098720) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:27 pm“The bartender was trying to find limes for a Bloody Mary when I asked him what he thought about the Pulitzer divorce case. He stiffened, then leaned quickly across the bar to seize my bicep, and he said to me: ‘You know what I think? You know what it makes me feel like?’
‘Well…’ I said, ‘not really. I only came in here to have a drink and read the newspaper until my trial breaks for lunch and – ‘
‘Never mind your goddamn trial,’ he shouted, still squeezing my arm and staring intently into my eyes – not blinking – no humor. I jerked out of his grasp, unsettled by the frenzy.
‘It’s not the goddamn Pulitzers,’ he shouted. ‘It’s nothing personal – but I know how those people behave, and I know how it makes me feel!’
‘Fuck off!’ I snapped. ‘Who cares how you feel?’
‘Like a goddamn animal!’ he screamed. ‘Like a beast. I look at this scum and I look at the way they live and I see those shit-eating grins on their faces and I feel like a dog took my place.’
‘What?’ I said.
‘It’s a term of art,’ he replied, shooting his cuffs as he turned to deal with the cash register.
‘Congratulations,’ I said. ‘You are now a Doctor of Torts.’ He stiffened and backed off.
‘Torts?’ he said. ‘What do you mean, torts?’
I leaned over the bar and smacked him hard on the side of the head.
‘That’s a tort,’ I said. Then I tossed him a handful of bills and asked for a cold beer to go. The man slumped back on his rack of cheap bottles, breathing heavily: ‘You whoreface bastard,’ he said. ‘I’ll kill you.’
I laughed. ‘Shiteyes! People like you are a dime a dozen!’ I reached over and grabbed him by the flesh of his cheek. ‘Where is your dog, swinesucker? I want to see the dog that did this to you. I want to kill that dog.’ I snapped him away from me and he fell back on the duckboards.
‘Get out!’ he screamed. ‘You’re the one who should be on trial in this town! These Pulitzers are nothing compared to monsters like you.’
I slapped him again, then I gathered my change and my mail and my newspapers and my notebooks and my drugs and my whiskey and my various leather satchels full of weapons and evidence and photographs… I packed it all up and walked slowly out to my red Chrysler convertible, which was still holding two feet of water from the previous night’s rain.
‘You skunk!’ he way yelling. ‘I’ll see you in court.’
‘You must be a lawyer,’ I said. ‘What’s your name? I work for the IRS.’
‘Get out!’ he screamed.
‘I’ll be back,’ I said, lifting a small can of Mace out of my pocket and squirting it at him. ‘You’d better find a dog to take your place before you see me again – because once I croak these scumbags I’m working on right now, I’m going to come back here and rip the nuts right off your ugly goddamn body.’
The man was still screaming about dogs and lawyers as I got in my car and drove off. People in the street stopped to stare – but when he begged them for help, they laughed at him.
He was a Doctor of Torts, but in the end it didn’t matter. A dog had taken his place anyway.”
– Hunter S. Thompson, Rolling Stone, July 21/August 4, 1983
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Leviticus (30ac20) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:28 pmThat kind of shit will get you banned at PW, Levi.
But it was a fun read.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:38 pmThe ranting delusions of a mind wasted!
Anyway, “Duke” was more likable.
AD - RtR/OS! (098720) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:41 pm“Flag on the play… illegal use of dog whistle.”
Stashiu3 – Well played!
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:44 pmPatterico – 24Aheaddotcom is calling your site “buffoonish” in his post on this matter while blowing his own horn for getting it right from the start, as usual. I can’t tell if “buffoonish” is a step up from “low wattage.”
“Only on the day after Breitbart’s post did you find some of them catching on, such as the buffoonish Patterico.”
http://24ahead.com/james-okeefe-landrieu-wiretap-shows-how-entire-political-cla
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:51 pmSo how many arrests have been made of the ACORN staffers in the O’Keefe videos, Patterico?
D. Aristophanes (4284cd) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:52 pmThat is relevant in what way? Those are your fellow travelers. Be proud, aristophones.
JD (c971c7) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:57 pm#93, that’s a false argument.
Part of what O’Keefe and AB have proven is that the community organizer scam involves massive government corruption.
It’s a shame that these people aren’t in jail, but just watch the videos. they are criminals, there is no reasonable way anyone could disagree with that.
If there was a video of O’Keefe tampering with their phones, you wouldn’t see anyone on here argue that wasn’t a crime.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/29/2010 @ 1:58 pmAristophanes is an apologist for the people that eagerly volunteered to help organize a brothel for underage illegal immigrants and to defraud the IRS. This is what they eagerly volunteered to do on tape. But, this sophist is this way every time he comes here, why should this time be any different?
JD (c971c7) — 1/29/2010 @ 2:07 pmWait, we’re arguing in this thread as to whether O’Keefe might have a libel beef against media orgs. that mischaracterized ‘interfering’ with ‘bugging’ … and you call the ACORN staffers in the O’Keefe vids ‘criminals’, Dustin? What crime have they been convicted of? How can we trust your concern regarding ‘malice’ against O’Keefe when minutes later you identify uncharged, unconvicted people ‘criminals’?
D. Aristophanes (4284cd) — 1/29/2010 @ 2:07 pm“you call the ACORN staffers in the O’Keefe vids ‘criminals’, Dustin? ”
Yes.
I don’t think your argument makes sense, though. O’Keefe didn’t wiretap or attempt to. That’s just a bloody fact. He can complain when people say something that is blatantly untrue.
You’re saying this is somehow similar to me watching a video of someone offer to help import kids for rape slavery and calling that a crime?
I’m sorry for whatever kind of life messed you up that badly.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/29/2010 @ 2:12 pmAristophanes is right. That wasn’t criminal, it was just community organizing.
JD (c971c7) — 1/29/2010 @ 2:12 pmSo how many arrests have been made of the ACORN staffers in the O’Keefe videos, Patterico?
Arrests are hardly the point in that matter – discredited and defunded was the primary purpose of those actions and accompanying vids. I get the distinct feeling that your knowledge of that operation has more than a few gaps – first you make insinuations that somehow they “lured” or did a Vulcan Mind – Meld on all of the people at those offices. As if they somehow forced those poor, ignorant souls to show them exactly how to bury money in order to hide it from the gov’t, and that when workers took them through the exact paperwork and processes needed to cloak their “pimp and ho” operations it was against their wills. Do you even realize that they explicitly stated that they were illegally importing underage girls for their prostitution ring, and that no one even batted a freaking eye when they heard that amazing disclosure?
You sound like a parody of the old lawyer joke, where he’s defending a hapless client in front a jury – “who you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?” Ridiculous.
Dmac (539341) — 1/29/2010 @ 2:17 pmWell, I’ll accept that ‘crime’ has a fairly broad range of uses … could be a ‘moral crime’, for example. ‘Criminal’ is a bit more specific, though … but I could still accept that you meant it in a general sense rather than intending to state (falsely) that the ACORN staffers are criminals in the sense of having been convicted of crimes.
Not that I think you particularly care what I accept or not … just saying that I’m willing to agree with your counterpoint.
Anyway, on the ACORN stuff – we’ll probably have to agree to disagree. I should clarify that I’ve watched the videos and I’m not arguing that it’s okay to help people start up child prostitution rings. It’s not and those who do that should be prosecuted.
What I’m saying is that after watching the vids, it’s not clear to me that this is what was actually happening. I think there is more than a reasonable chance that those caught on tape either didn’t believe a preposterous bit of acting by O’Keefe or Giles and were playing along out of amusement, or else were humoring them in their delusions so as not to incite a reaction.
From what I can recall, there was never any paperwork filed on behalf of O’Keefe and Giles, or any attempted follow-up with them to see how things were going. I’d also like to see some evidence that any of the staffers on the videos had ever assisted other ACORN applicants with anything remotely similar in its perversity, or I will conclude that this is not an ongoing problem for ACORN, barring a couple of provocateurs creating a problem where there wasn’t one before.
D. Aristophanes (4284cd) — 1/29/2010 @ 2:31 pmHell Dmac it’s worse than that. The main selling point to ACORN to get them to support the commercial exploitation of female minors through slavery and rape was to tell them that they would use some of the money to support and promote Democratic politicians. O’Keefe stated he would run for office as a Democrat, suporting the ACORN agenda, with cash money obtained from the running or his brothel.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 1/29/2010 @ 2:33 pm“I will conclude that this is not an ongoing problem for ACORN, barring a couple of provocateurs creating a problem where there wasn’t one before.”
Of course you will. Even if 7 offices behave identically, there’s no reason to think ACORN is willing to help drug dealers, pimps, illegal aliens, thieves, or other crooks hide their income from the feds. That’s totally not a defining aspect of working for ACORN. the fact that these people don’t even blink an eye and have actual defined policies on this matter means very little.
The fact that many ACORN folks have been arrested for fraud, found to have lied in voter registrations thousands of times, and of course, lied about O’Keefe’s expose doesn’t mean this organization is turning a blind eye to any problems it might have.
Sure.
but O’Keefe is Watergate Jr.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/29/2010 @ 2:47 pmI’d like Patterico to answer the following question:
If the exact same actions had been taken by these gentlemen at the offices of the District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles, his employer, what would Steve Cooley (the current LA Co. DA) do? (You can summarize this question as WWSCD?)
I have my own guess as to what Mr. Cooley would do. I know that a state Court of Appeal would likely say, as this issue has arisen before.
So Patterico, what do you think? In asking this question I recognize that you of course do not speak for Mr. Cooley on this point.
Then everyone else should ask themselves the same question. What would they expect should be done to these gentlemen if the same “stunt” were pulled at (a) their employer, or (b) their residence?
Cyrus Sanai (311cd8) — 1/29/2010 @ 2:48 pmDustin – I think you’re wrong that all 7 offices behaved identically. What about the San Berdoo woman who turned the tables on O’Keefe and Giles and started spinning her own outrageous fabrication?
D. Aristophanes (4284cd) — 1/29/2010 @ 2:55 pmAlso, ACORN has ‘defined policies’ on assisting crooks with tax evasion? Really? Link?
D. Aristophanes (4284cd) — 1/29/2010 @ 2:57 pmSnore. You lost this argument.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/29/2010 @ 2:58 pmOk, glad that’s been settled by fiat. Guess I’ll skulk off now.
D. Aristophanes (4284cd) — 1/29/2010 @ 3:01 pmThanks.
It’s my mistake. for some reason I dignify arguments that are just fucking asinine sometimes. It’s probably really annoying.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/29/2010 @ 3:05 pmI can’t stop saying Retracto the Correction Alpaca. It’s the funniest shit I’ve read in weeks.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Chris (ded5f2) — 1/29/2010 @ 3:16 pmall O’Keefe and Giles did with the ACORN videos is to demonstrate that it is possible to manipulate people into saying and doing foolish things.
Baloney. A white dude walks into an office in several urban cities dressed like freakin’ Huggy Bear and asking how to hide child prostitutes, and he doesn’t get reported to the police or laughed out of the office? What kind of “street-savvy” “community organizers” would be fooled by such an act, and then go on to aid and abet these individuals on top of it?
What the ACORN videos displayed, along with the ridiculous corruption that is rampant in progressive urban machines, is that these community organizers/glorified ward heelers are less about “helping” people than in “sticking it to The Man.”
No wonder Obama worked with them on lawsuits.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 1/29/2010 @ 3:28 pmAlso, ANYBODY defending ACORN as an institute of integrity is completely clueless, or deliberately disingenuous.
For starters, ACORN doesn’t pay their vote canvassers a whole lot of money. From the individuals I’ve seen, it’s usually college-age kids looking to get beer, pot, and condom money that take these jobs on. So right away they are starting off with some rather dull knives.
ACORN reps have gone the record stating that voter fraud implications are the result of poor supervision and training. Oddly enough, they’ve been saying this for the last five years or so.
In other words, rather than create a competent training and mentorship program (which shouldn’t take more than a year to develop and implement) and chain of command that includes strong supervision of its worker bees, they set their employees up to fail and then have the gall to throw them under the bus to the law when THEIR failure to properly train them resulted in voter fraud laws being broken.
Anyone who thinks ACORN cares about “little people” is quite ignorant–and their contempt shows in how they treat their own employees.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 1/29/2010 @ 3:39 pmStashiu…
AD - RtR/OS! (098720) — 1/29/2010 @ 3:41 pmWhen you free something from moderation/spam filter/etc.,
is the time stamp we see the time it went into “moderation/etc”, or is it the time that you release it?
Retracto the Correction Alpaca makes more than the Los Angeles Times’ new Readers Representative, and that’s not even counting the oats.
Official Internet Data Office (dc2fe1) — 1/29/2010 @ 3:42 pmAD,
The original time stamp remains. If I didn’t put the little note on there, nobody could tell later that it had been in moderation.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/29/2010 @ 3:49 pm[…] Patterico noted in an earlier post, James O’Keefe has issued a statement that is posted at Big […]
Patterico's Pontifications » James O’Keefe Issues Statement (e4ab32) — 1/29/2010 @ 3:50 pm“Baloney. A white dude walks into an office in several urban cities dressed like freakin’ Huggy Bear and asking how to hide child prostitutes, and he doesn’t get reported to the police or laughed out of the office?”
He did. Though having some experience with social service agencies and their training, they usually don’t laugh people out of their offices. Because oftentimes crazy-sounding people do come in, and do need help.
imdw (f7b257) — 1/29/2010 @ 3:51 pmO’Keefe stated he would run for office as a Democrat, suporting the ACORN agenda, with cash money obtained from the running or his brothel.
Yeah, but of course they were only kidding! HA! What a bunch of kidders, they’re hilarious!
Dmac (539341) — 1/29/2010 @ 3:57 pmHe did.
No he didn’t.
Another Chris (35bdd0) — 1/29/2010 @ 4:39 pmThey also sometimes post here, imdw. And you do need help.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 1/29/2010 @ 5:17 pmEric Blair – imdw has DCSCA and The Emperor who help him …
Alasdair (6c03a9) — 1/29/2010 @ 5:52 pmDon’t forget the doody – always remember who the chief assclown is these days.
Dmac (539341) — 1/29/2010 @ 6:12 pmDmac,
I don’t ever forget the doody. I always wipe after doodying. Otherwise, you itch and get butt rash.
peedoffamerican (0a295f) — 1/29/2010 @ 6:32 pmThe ACORN folks seemed pretty clear on how to evade taxes (a crime) and defraud a mortgage company (Oh Noes! another crime)to help the kids get a loan.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/29/2010 @ 6:37 pmO’Keefe, and the shaking in his boots fair weather Breitbart, and the whole right-wing blog-O-Sphere assclown-alternative-reality-mafia, need so desperately to make this Landreiu-office tard-orgy committed by four idiots about the media. Hmmm…I wonder why?
Could it be they need to question the credibility of others (right winger’s never do that) because they are so utterly and completely screwed?
Yes. I think so.
To read O’Keefe’s self-righteous and very unhumble or penitents statement, you’d think he thought he had more right to be in that off ice than Sen. Landreiu herself. And hell he doesn’t even live in Louisiana, but by golly by golly, they’re on a righteous mission from the right wing God up above and no one will ever ever know better than they do what it means to be an American.
Christ…what a sociopathic assh*le…
Assclown doodyheads (f0d390) — 1/29/2010 @ 10:25 pm“need so desperately to make this Landreiu-office tard-orgy committed by four idiots about the media.”
Assclown – Point of clarification. Hasn’t the media, by its reckless stampede to Palinize O’Keefe and his buddies, effectively made it a story about themselves. Talk about collective own dick stepping!
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:19 pmAwww, why the big frowny – face on your sh-t, doody? Put a smile on that expectorant feces!
Dmac (539341) — 1/30/2010 @ 7:33 am[…] Offices? Mayrant&Rave: Breitbart’s O’Keefe Arrested Patterico’s Pontifications: Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and Lawyer: O’Keefe & Co. Trying to Embarrass Landrieu Over Ignoring Calls Re Health Care […]
More Media Mayhem: David Shuster vs. Andrew Breitbart on the Media’s False Reporting of Facts in O’Keefe’s Arrest (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 1/31/2010 @ 8:02 am[…] Retracto, Call Your Office! and Should James O’Keefe Be Prosecuted? Should Ellie Light? and Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and Lawyer: O’Keefe & Co. Trying to Embarrass Landrieu Over Ignoring Calls Re Health Care […]
James O’Keefe’s Interview on His Arrest by FOX’s Sean Hannity (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 2/2/2010 @ 8:10 am[…] Retracto, Call Your Office! and Should James O’Keefe Be Prosecuted? Should Ellie Light? and Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and Lawyer: O’Keefe & Co. Trying to Embarrass Landrieu Over Ignoring Calls Re Health Care […]
James O’Keefe’s Interview on His Arrest by FOX’s Sean Hannity (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 2/2/2010 @ 8:10 am[…] Retracto, Call Your Office! and Should James O’Keefe Be Prosecuted? Should Ellie Light? and Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and Lawyer: O’Keefe & Co. Trying to Embarrass Landrieu Over Ignoring Calls Re Health Care […]
James O’Keefe’s Interview on His Arrest by FOX’s Sean Hannity (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 2/2/2010 @ 8:10 am[…] Retracto, Call Your Office! and Should James O’Keefe Be Prosecuted? Should Ellie Light? and Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and Lawyer: O’Keefe & Co. Trying to Embarrass Landrieu Over Ignoring Calls Re Health Care […]
Alinsky Smear Tactic FAIL: Andrew Breitbart KO’s Leftist Max Blumenthal at CPAC (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 2/21/2010 @ 7:39 am[…] Retracto, Call Your Office! and Should James O’Keefe Be Prosecuted? Should Ellie Light? and Retracto the Correction Alpaca Goes to Work on O’Keefe Stories; UPDATE: O’Keefe Speaks and Lawyer: O’Keefe & Co. Trying to Embarrass Landrieu Over Ignoring Calls Re Health Care […]
Chuckle: Left-Wing Zealot Hack David Shuster in Boiling Hot Water with MSNBC for Shooting CNN Pilot Without Notifying His Bosses (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/5/2010 @ 12:44 pm