Filmmaker O’Keefe Tweets on Pending Charges

It appears that conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe is continuing to comment on his case. Raw Story and other sites are reporting that O’Keefe tweeted shortly around midnight last night that “Govt official concedes no attempt to wiretap.” In the meantime, it appears that the stunt in New Orleans may have been an effort to cut off the telephones or film their operation as opposed to wiretapping calls. I discussed this story on Hardball and Rachel Maddow.

As noted in the segment below from Countdown, the affidavit accompanying the charges was curious in two respects. First, the government was charging a higher category of trespass by alleging intent to commit a felony. However, the prosecutors failed to state what that felony was. The clear suggestion of the affidavit was that the “malicious” interference with the telephone system was to wiretap Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office. Second, if this was a conspiracy to wiretap, one would have expected a reference to electronic surveillance equipment found at the scene.

Now, O’Keefe is saying that the government is not pursuing a surveillance theory. Such a development is important and worth public attention.

If he is not accused of attempted electronic surveillance, the ten year maximum under section 1036 may be the upper limit. The affidavit appears to be referring to section 1362 which states:

Whoever … willfully or maliciously interferes in any way with the working or use of any [radio, telegraph, telephone or cable, line, station, or system, or other means of communication, operated or controlled by the United States], or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Section 2 of that law expressed includes:

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

This may ultimately be the dispossession of the charges with Sections 1036 and 1362. However, there are also possible charges of conspiracy and false statements for these men as well as possible third parties.

It has also been reported that O’Keefe is under a gag order not to discuss the case. These orders can create difficulties for the defense when someone like O’Keefe is being widely accused of a wiretapping conspiracy. He has an obvious desire to rebut those allegations — as do his lawyers. Moreover, he was merely referencing a news development in a brief tweet.

Finally, a court would be on precarious ground when it says that a defendant cannot speak for himself in public. O’Keefe could raise first amendment claims if the government decides to raise the matter with the court. Nevertheless, it could be viewed as a technical violation since these orders often refer to the parties in general and not just the lawyers. One recent such controversy occurred in Texas, here, but such disputes are not uncommon in high profile cases. For another such recent case, click here.

Restrictions on statements to the press are often imposed by court rules for any criminal case. A court can then add a more detailed and demanding gag order in a given case. Reports indicate that a gag order was in place in this case.

Attorneys in some recent hig-profile cases have asked for such gag orders to be lifted to allow their client to defend himself in the public forum, here. On occasion, courts will grant such motions.

Even without a gag order, it is always a mistake for clients to directly manage the media or speak on a case. Most lawyers strictly forbid such communications absent prior legal review and supervision. While this violation is not likely to result in a serious penalty, it can bring a rebuke from the Court and undermine the relationship with the judge.

MSNBC is reporting that officials say that the men did want to interfere with the phones by shutting them off (one of the possibilities that I discussed below). In a remarkably dumb prank, they “wanted to see how her local office staff would respond if the phones were inoperative.” This was connected to their opposition to Sen. Landrieu’s position on health care. I will not try to bridge that logical gap.

O’Keefe seems to relish reckless acts. His stunt with ACORN appears to have violated state laws. Even without a surveillance conspiracy, the Landrieu stunt is still quite serious. What is interesting is that O’Keefe hardly needs to directly communicate such information given the press attention in the case.

For the story, click here.

320 thoughts on “Filmmaker O’Keefe Tweets on Pending Charges

  1. I think the definiton will address the reason why this happened:

    ar·ro·gant (r-gnt)
    adj.
    1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
    2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one’s superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt

  2. Prof. Turley said “I will not try to bridge that logical gap.”

    With all due respect Professor, the logical gap was created by you. A simple parsing of words created the illogical scenario.

    “In a remarkably dumb prank, they ‘wanted to see how her local office staff would respond if the phones were inoperative.'”

    That’s why it seems illogical. The logical reason behind the investigation, is that the Senator’s phones are always busy. Nobody could get thru to the Senator’s local office. O’keefe et al went to investigate why her staff wasn’t answering the phones. They went to see if the phones were inoperative.

    That is a much more plausable premise for their action.

    Does a gag order even exist? The story you linked to says “If a gag order exists”. If a gag order was issued, you should be screaming foul! Do you really think it would be acceptable for the government to arrest someone and then have a judge tell that person they must remain quiet about it? What country do we live in?

  3. > Most lawyers strictly forbid such communications absent prior legal review and supervision.

    I have no sympathy for O’Keefe. But let’s get a few things straight. First of all, a lawyer can’t forbid jack. The client is in charge, not the lawyer. If the lawyer doesn’t like it, he can move to withdraw, but he can’t order his client to do anything. Second, a gag order can certainly cover the government, the attorneys, and can protect confidential material provided in discovery, but beyond that, it becomes suspect. Categorically barring a criminal defendant from making any statements about charges against him is a clear violation of the defendant’s first amendments rights, and any order that purports do this this should be rightly ignored.

  4. What about Revoking his Bond and;

    Charging him Sedition, Disloyalty or even Treason

    1. the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
    2. a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
    3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

    Origin:
    1175–1225; ME tre(i)so(u)n < AF; OF traïson < L trāditiōn- (s. of trāditiō) a handing over, betrayal. See tradition

    Synonyms:
    1. Treason, sedition mean disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government. Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government. Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense.

    Or you can see Treason on Wiki

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

  5. Maybe some have not heard of the military/cia ite nstallations in Michigan that house detainees of opponents to the present military coup.

    There is also a site in deep East Texas outside of Winnsboro.

  6. “What is interesting is that O’Keefe hardly needs to directly communicate such information given the press attention in the case.”

    That, of course, would depend on who is doing the reporting. We can only imagine what would come from MSNBC, propaganda tool for the Obama.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMxVakssDdI

    O’Keefe is young, confident and still has a lot to learn even if he does not know it. It can safely be said that trespassing on Federal property is not the way to get an education.

  7. While a Rep from WY. he voted against the creation of the U.S. Department of Education.

    Way to flaunt the role as he nearly flunked out of college. He never directly worked in the Nixon Adm he was however Fords Chief of Staff. Then he was GeoI’s bitch from then on……

  8. “if this was a conspiracy to wiretap, one would have expected a reference to electronic surveillance equipment found at the scene.”

    There was: one of the four arrested was found in a car nearby with a “listening device.” What component is required to make a wiretap or bug useful? A listening device.

    I believe we’ve seen only the preliminary charges. Next up, conspiracy to wiretap an elected official, possession of wiretap equipment, etc.

    These four boys crossed the line into the big time. Now they may well do big time. Here’s hoping.

  9. My understanding was that one of the men had a device for receiving transmissions on him. Was this not the case? Wiretapping or not, it was still a criminal act, NOT a prank. If this was a liberal the right would be screaming bloody murder and accusing the left of a vast conspiracy directed by Obama.

  10. Bdaman
    1, January 28, 2010 at 7:24 am

    I think Andrew Knows something.

    A1 to A73 in 24 Hours: The Life and Death of ‘Watergate Jr.

    by Andrew Breitbart

    For those in the mainstream media committed to report the false and libelous narrative of “Watergate Jr.,” “wiretapping” and “bugging,” I predict much egg on your J-school grad faces. In your rush to judgment to convict James O’Keefe and his companions, you vengeful political partisans of press forgot to ponder: “Was Mr. O’Keefe up to one of his patented and obvious clown nose-on hidden camera tricks, trying to make his subjects look foolish?” Blog commenters seem to be quicker on the uptake than six-figured Washington-based pundits these days. And I predict there will be tape to vindicate these four pranksters, too.

  11. “My understanding was that one of the men had a device for receiving transmissions on him.”

    We call them there things cellular telephones.

    “There was: one of the four arrested was found in a car nearby with a “listening device.”

    We call them things AM/FM radios.

    Facts. We don’t need no stinkin’ facts. We can just take a little bit of information and run with it. Welcome to partisan politics. Find a transmitter capable of connecting to the phone system in possession of one of the three inside the office and you’ll have something.

  12. “First, the government was charging a higher category of trespass by alleging intent to commit a felony. However, the prosecutors failed to state what that felony was.”

    Bingo! It’s kind of hard to say they were going to tap the phone lines, if they didn’t have the necessary equipment in their possession.

    I think this may have just been a stunt. I think O’Keefe had the guys dress up like phone technicians to make light of the fact that the phones ring, but the staff never answers them. The phone techs were there to mock the staff when they claimed there must be something wrong with the phones, or to deter the staff from making such a claim.

  13. Where is VITTER on this…..considering one of these punks is the son of the Attorney General that is to be replaced while VITTER holds up this punk’s daddy being removed.

    O’Keefe is the kid that no girls looked at, still don’t, and the Republicans who praised his actions in ACORN should be outed on this escapade. You can see why he feels entitled.

    O’Keefe is an ugly wannabee for 13 minutes of fame.

  14. “Do you really think it would be acceptable for the government to arrest someone and then have a judge tell that person they must remain quiet about it? What country do we live in?”

    I don’t think that is what Prof. Turley is saying. (Hell, in his classes Turley tells some great war stories about flouting gag orders.) He is just saying that the lawyers should do the talking and not the client.

  15. The thing is that the surveillance equipment now being used by the CIA is so small that it can be easily disposed of.

  16. Some commenters make me pine for the days when few people had access to a typewriter, let alone a PC. Maybe I have a tiny crap tolerance container.

  17. Randi Rhodes on her show yesterday gave the best explanation of what’s going on:

    1. The acting AG for Lousiana’s Western District Flanagan wants to keep his job. He is a Bush appointee. Sen. Landreaux has nominated two possibilities for that job, both Democrats. The Acting AG wants to keep his job.

    2. Sen. Vitter has put a “hold” on those Western District nominations. His reason is that he wants the AG for Louisiana’s Eastern District, a Bushie to keep his job and is trying to make a deal.

    3. The son of Acting AG Flanagan was one of the four people caught in the act. He of course would like his father to keep his job as Acting AG.

    4. This was a dirty tricks mission to get some leverage on Landreaux that went bad.

    There is no way that you can dress up invading a Senator’s office pretending to be phone repairmen into a harmless prank. Whatever their intent it is a serious violation of the law. Those that would argue otherwise would probably also support torture. They have a serious moral deficiency.

  18. Four white, suburban, coordinator class, upper level management variety (one’s daddy an acting US Attorney,) attempt to sabotage the telephone system at the state office for a US Senator.

    Four black, inner city, working class, of the un-or underemployed variety, attempt to smoke a joint on a street corner.

    Who goes to jail?

  19. The idea that these were just a bunch of rambunctious kids who wanted to see if Landrieu’s phones were working is specious and self-delusional.

    If These arrogant, publicity seeing a$$h o l e s couldn’t think of another way to find out of there was a non-working phone they should be in jail for sheer stupidity.

  20. Mike Spindell said “There is no way that you can dress up invading a Senator’s office pretending to be phone repairmen into a harmless prank. Whatever their intent it is a serious violation of the law.”

    What law would that be? If the intent can be “whatever”, instead of an intent to commit a felony, what is the serious violation you are speaking of?

  21. These guys are not harden criminals and I think these guys are going to”vomit”information on somebody.Maybe not O’Keefe but the other three will.

  22. There is no violation of his 1st amendment rights at all. He has the right to defend himself in court. That right is not abroagated.
    And should you foolishly argue that there is an unconditional right to free speach, I ask of you whether reporting a non-existent crime to a police officer should constitute a crime, shouting FIRE in a crowded movie theater, or advocating the assassination of a Senator should be legally permissible?

  23. Any of you visit a federal office building lately?

    Didn’t think so.

    Remember that GOP stated we are a nation at war?

    To get into the Seattle Jackson Federal Office Building, you have to pass through the metal detector walk through and empty your pockets, produce some kind of legal, government issued ID (like your driver’s license).

    I stopped to look at the building directory before I went up the elevator and a US Coast Guard officer (yes, they are part of DHS) asked me if he could help me – we are at war.

    So these bozos were tampering with telecommunications equipment in a federal office building. Did they know if they were going to disrupt ONLY Senator Landrieu’s phones? Probably not. What if they took down other key Department of Homeland Security connections at the same time? Ever look inside a phone/computer closet? Would you know which line(s) to pull?

  24. Doesn’t O’Keefe appear to revel in all the press he’s been getting? He certainly does seem to relish the reckless schemes he’s involved in. He even informed a group of people at a luncheon held by the Pelican Institute recently that he was working on a project in New Orleans.

    **********
    Activist touted ‘project’ before phone tamper case
    Jan, 28, 2010 10:45 AM – Associated Press

    Excerpt:
    NEW ORLEANS_Four days before a young conservative activist was charged in a plot to tamper with the office phones of a Democratic U.S. senator, he promised his audience at a luncheon they would be hearing about a project he was working on in New Orleans.

    James O’Keefe wouldn’t elaborate on the nature of his plans, according to people who heard his speech at the luncheon held by the conservative Pelican Institute last Thursday in New Orleans.
    “He just sort of alluded to the fact that we would all find out real soon. And we did,” said Audra Shay, who is chairwoman of the Young Republican National Federation.

    http://www.poten.com/NewsDetails.aspx?id=10331867

  25. “O’Keefe is the kid that no girls looked at, still don’t”

    I met his girlfriend a few months ago when I had dinner and drinks with Mr. O’Keefe and his girlfriend. She was pretty cute.
    The name of the place was Sub-Zero in the Central West End. Mr. O’Keefe and I had a drink called a “Patriot”. We sat in the far back right corner of the bar.
    http://www.subzerovodkabar.com/

    Here’s the drink list http://www.subzerovodkabar.com/downloads/drinks.pdf

  26. A TELEPHONE is a “listening device”. So is a walkie-talkie. So is a radio. So is a CD player. So is an I-Pod. Any of these objects could plausibly be found in a car.

  27. Oh, how interesting – even though they dressed up as repairmen, and someone else admitted he helped them plan this “stunt”, the excuses and coverup are already being run up the flagpole.
    Now, if they can just work Acorn into all this, Glenn Beck can pretend to cry and blubber about it.

  28. So Elaine M.,

    Is this Conspiracy or complicity. It certainly sounds like espionage to me.

    Mike S.,

    Good point. Excuse me great points.

  29. Haven’t heard the ‘T’ word yet ?

    Isn’t this some form of ‘terrorism’ ?

    Everything else seems to fall into this category.

  30. “What law would that be? If the intent can be “whatever”, instead of an intent to commit a felony, what is the serious violation you are speaking of?”

    Trespassing. To put it another way what would you think if a groups of people, pretending to be utility repairmen came into your house to “look around?” I suppose you’d welcome them and offer them coffee. It wouldn’t bother you, after all it’s just a prank. You are so partisan that you would justify any lawlessness as long as its committed by your side. For you politics is a football game and you are resplendent in your teams colors.

    As to your purported friendship with Mr. O’Keefe as delineated in your other post is says much about you if true. None of it good, but I will admit your critical thought processes are the equivalent of FOX News: Deceitful and dumb.

  31. AY–

    “Is this Conspiracy or complicity[?]”

    Are they mutually exclusive?

    ************
    Mike S.

    “There is no way that you can dress up invading a Senator’s office pretending to be phone repairmen into a harmless prank. Whatever their intent it is a serious violation of the law. Those that would argue otherwise would probably also support torture. They have a serious moral deficiency.”

    I agree.

  32. “Maybe some have not heard of the military/cia ite nstallations in Michigan that house detainees of opponents to the present military coup.

    There is also a site in deep East Texas outside of Winnsboro.”

    You are BONKERS!
    There are no such sites, you listen to Beck to much!
    He already got one woman arrested when she went looking for those nonexistent sites.

  33. It seems Duh knows a little more then he’s letting on based on his weird Sub-Zero post and I can’t help but add the description of “the Patriot”, on the menu you inexplicably linked to, seems ridiculously fruity. Are you being subversive?

  34. Oh, come on now about “listening devices.”

    Does that mean cell phones, radios, and ipods are “eavesdropping” devices?

    How about my CB radio? My police scanner?

    Let’s throw in a tin-foil hat as a listening device (the one that these four musketeers probably wear to bed every night with their flannel pajamas) – that fits best with the conspiracy-oriented right-wing nut-jobs who believed that Landrieu’s phones were jammed up on purpose so she didn’t have to return constituent calls on health care.

  35. anonymously yours –

    Beginning to sound like sabotage rather than espionage. The uniforms were camoflage, and the subsequent explanations appear to be persiflage to this observer.

    These all fall under the rubric of intelligence or counter intelligence. Perhaps we can coin a new term for “absence of intelligence.”

  36. Fox News,Glenn Beck, Rush Limbuagh,Sean Hannity, have Made Acorn..

    The Wall Street Burden Of 2009 [Bull]

    ________________

    Here’s The Irony of the Entire Acorn obsession of O’Keefe, Fox News, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh & O’Reily…

    Last Year we had Billion Dollar Ponzi Schemes of Bernie Maddoff and Hannity’s Billion $$ Ponzi Schemer & Sponsor Of Builion & Gold Sir Allen Standford and yet…

    Fox News and it’s Followers, Dedicates itself to a Small Non Profit Organization who Amassed 5 Million In [Government Grants] Per Year for the Past 10 Years, which would total ..

    [50 Million Dollars In Grant Funds]

    Not 100 Million, 200 Million, 500 Million, In Grant Funding Per Year, But 50 Million Dollars in Grants for the Past [10 Years]

    Big Note: Yet Fox News made this Story, the Wall Street, AIG, Bank Of America, Citi Bank, Morgan-Stanley, Bear-Sterns, Goldman-Sachs, Allen Standford & Bernie Maddoff Equivalent and Story Of The Millenium !!!

    The Names and Wall Street Banking Elite, Screwed The Country For [TRILLIONS] yet made Acorn their [EQUIVALENT]!!!
    ________________

    Fox News & Republican Hate Radio and it’s Republican Followers Ran With this Story like it Was..

    [A TRILLION PONZI SCHEME !!]

    ACORN WAS A DISTRACTION BY CORPORATE AMERICA [RUPERT MURDOCH & COMPANY]

    THINK PEOPLE

  37. _______________

    1. James O’Keefe and his Co-Horts had No Business in Landrieu’s U.S. Federal Office at all [Felony Trespass].

    2. O’Keefe and his Co-Horts were Not Invited Guest of Landrieu’s Office Nor did they have Permission by her Staff to be in her Office [Felony Trespass]

    3. Using a Disguise to Enter a U.S. Senator’s Office, as Telephone Repairmen and Filming a Successful Entry, [Impersonation Felony Charge] in a Federal Building, in a U.S. Senator’s office, Without Permission form the Senator Nor her Staff [Felony Charges]

    4. Filming [O’Keefe] the Entire [Illegal Act] and Acorn Obsessive O’Keefe is a major Player in the Illegal Act [Felony Charges]

    These are the Acts I can Think Of, God Knows How Many More Felony Charges Await this Vermon, This Rabid Mongrel and he Deserves Far Worse.

    Timothy McVeigh Comes to Mind, Everytime I See this Spaz of a Man…

    He’s Not a Damn Kid [He’s 25 Years Old]

    Kid My A!!

    A Kid of 15-17 Robs a Liquor Store, then Shoots, Wounds Or Kills the Owner(s) when caught will be Tried as an Adult [Felony Charges]

    But a College Educated Man of 25 is a Full Grown Man,

    Hardly a [Kid]

    Just like Kelly Prejean, Fox News and Sean Hannity, said Kelly was a Teen when she Masturbated on Film One Time, Her Ex-Boyfriend says [8 Times]

    Watch what Fox News does, as they did for Kelly Prejean, She’s a Christian, to saying O’Keefe’s a Christian..

    [Borderline-Bull Spit]

    I can’t Wait until the FBI Gets Hold of O’Keefe’s Computer.

    Let’s See Fox News Disparage The FBI Findings form O’Keefe’s Computer.

    I cannot wait, God Forbid they Find Child Porno, O’Keefe Looks the Type.

  38. While I’m sure that Mr. O’Keefe was indeed “up to one of his Clown Nose on hidden camera, tricks” this one has surely backfired. There is almost no way that these “Clown nose” tricks violated Federal Laws. Oops. Much egg on their j-school faces.

    As to the criminal Complaint not specifying the Felony, that is still to be determined. Should it be determined that there was intent to disrupt the phone services then a much more serious Felony will be charged (jail time up to 20 years). If instead it is the lessor crime of Illegal Trespass on Federal Property (jail up to 10 years) that would indicate that it the “Clown nose” offence. The backgrounds of those involved probably will cause a great deal of scrutiny, however. A “follow the money” investigation is I’m sure, already under way.

    I’m fairly sure that the “Treason” idea floated above will probably not be pursued. That charge would be more fitting for someone such as Jim DeMint.

  39. “And I predict there will be tape to vindicate these four pranksters, too.”

    So, then as long as all they’re doing is misrepresenting themselves as repair’men’ in a federal building in order to tamper with the phones of a sitting US Senator it’s OK? Or is it OK because one of the ‘pranksters’ is the son of an acting US Atty ?

  40. Actually, progressive talker Mike Malloy reported that two of the three accomplices to O’Keefe have ties to the intelligence community.

    Stan Dai has ties to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, a front group for the State of Israel.

    http://www.defenddemocracy.org/

    Robert Flanagan is the son of the current U.S. federal prosecutor in Louisiana and Joseph Basel is also supposed to have had contact and experience in the intelligence community.

    Look it up.

  41. Oops, again. Should read “almost no way that these “Clown Nose” tricks did not violate Federal Laws.

    My bad.

  42. Duh,

    Your post re: hanging with O’Keefe is very telling with regards to your posts previous.

    But, seriously. You think that O’Keefe and company entered Sen. Landreau’s office, with two of them dressed as, and falsely representing themselves, as telephone technicians, because they just “wanted to help”?

    Your claim that the “listening device” found on the fourth individual in the car outside was a cellphone is also unlikely. Granted, the phrase “listening device” is vague – it could indicate a device to receive a signal from a wiretap. It could also indicate a device to listen to an audio feed from a microphone carried by one of the three individuals inside (i.e. monitoring what was going on).

    I expect more info to trickle out in the days to come. It would be irresponsible to assume anything at this point – either in favor of, or against – O’Keefe and his associates.

  43. The idea floated above onegandolf1 was not treason but terrorism.

    Disruption of a US Senator’s communication systems (one is who is on a committee for defense and intelligence) is very serious — the intent to disrupt her ability to communicate with Washington, DC given her membership on a key committee concerning defense & intelligence is very serious indeed – not a prank.

    After all, the GOP has declared that the nation is at war and the Democrats don’t take it seriously. Domestic terrorism – what if they attended Muslim worship services, visited the Mid-East lately?

    How about malicious mischief? ELF & PETA have been declared domestic terrorist – they deserve the same label, all courtesy of the right-wing.

  44. (Note: The above post of mine also assumes that “Duh” is a legitimate person etc., and not just someone posting these bits to yank people’s collective chains. Hey, it could happen.)

  45. Another non serving repugnant thug faces real time. how do you like me now mf cu*t boy. seems like some one just had you for breakfast.

  46. “To put it another way what would you think if a groups of people, pretending to be utility repairmen came into your house to “look around?”

    My house and my office are private property. It can’t be trespassing if they were permitted to be there in the first place.

    “You are so partisan that you would justify any lawlessness as long as its committed by your side. For you politics is a football game and you are resplendent in your teams colors.”

    Enough damn-it! Enough! Please stop your personal attacks. That’s all I can do is ask. Now please stop.

    “As to your purported friendship with Mr. O’Keefe as delineated in your other post is says much about you if true. None of it good, but I will admit your critical thought processes are the equivalent of FOX News: Deceitful and dumb.”

    More of the same. Please stop the juvenile tactics, Mike. I’m not the only one doesn’t like them. I will not respond in kind.

  47. Duh – you lost the high ground on personal attacks a long-time ago on this thread when you personally attacked the author.

    And you brought your personal life into it when you introduced your personal relationship with the suspect, so quit accusing Mike of being juvenile. Grow a pair and grow up.

  48. The Ombudsman said “You think that O’Keefe and company entered Sen. Landreau’s office, with two of them dressed as, and falsely representing themselves, as telephone technicians, because they just “wanted to help”?”

    No. I never made that claim. The premise is that no one was ever answering the Senator’s phones. They went in to catch the phones ringing, and the staff not answering them.

    “Your claim that the “listening device” found on the fourth individual in the car outside was a cellphone is also unlikely. Granted, the phrase “listening device” is vague – it could indicate a device to receive a signal from a wiretap. It could also indicate a device to listen to an audio feed from a microphone carried by one of the three individuals inside (i.e. monitoring what was going on).”

    The original “off the record” quote was that the person in the car had a device capable of “picking up transmissions”. Nothing more was provided. It’s not even in the affidavit. I’m making fun of such an ambiguous statement, and how, without support, it was turned into some device capable of covert surveillance. Besides that, wouldn’t a listening device without a transmitting device be kind of useless?

  49. You’re ridiculous Duh. By your own statement you are on friendly terms with O’Keefe. Now *GASP* posters would dare claim your opinion is suspect. Forgive me for thinking the “Patriot” you two drank was ordered ironically but trespassing on federal property for prank or otherwise is a ticket to real prison time, post 9/11. Even Glenn Beck had to admit it.

  50. Wiretapping no longer requires cute little bugs in your phone.

    Central phone systems are digital and programmable: all a person needs is physical access to gain electronic access to calls and messages–that’s how the phone companies accommodated the Bush administration and handed over access to tens of millions of our calls.

    I’m sure the prosecutor knows this, even if the media haven’t quite figured it out.

  51. Duh,

    “No. I never made that claim. The premise is that no one was ever answering the Senator’s phones. They went in to catch the phones ringing, and the staff not answering them.”

    Yet you said earlier:

    “That’s why it seems illogical. The logical reason behind the investigation, is that the Senator’s phones are always busy. Nobody could get thru to the Senator’s local office. O’keefe et al went to investigate why her staff wasn’t answering the phones. They went to see if the phones were inoperative.”

    Then what is the “logical reason” behind two of the three individuals dressing as, and falsely representing themselves as, telephone technicians? And their request to be given access to the room with the telecom equipment?

    One needs neither dress as a telephone technician, nor go into a room that has no telephones that would be dialed from the outside, to determine whether Sen. Landreau’s offices telephones were ringing and/or being answered.

  52. “Enough damn-it! Enough! Please stop your personal attacks.”

    I don’t personally attack people I disagree with politically. I attack those that present propaganda dishonestly and pretend they’re just objective bystanders.

    “My house and my office are private property. It can’t be trespassing if they were permitted to be there in the first place.”

    This is clearly a dishonest evasion since my point was obviously that gaining entrance to a private property is trespassing. I think almost all people except for strictly partisan apologists like yourself would see it that way.

    “More of the same. Please stop the juvenile tactics, Mike.”

    My comment was in response to your purporting to know Mr. O’Keefe and his girlfriend. Was that meant to be ironic. If so then it was a juvenile post quite deserving of the opprobrium I gave it.

    Byron and I disagree all the time politically and FFLEO and I admire each other even though we have very different political views. I don’t attack them because they present reasonable and thoughtful arguments. You just spout propaganda and so follow the trollish model. That’s why I use ridicule to deal with you, because you can’t be taken seriously. The sad thing is that most of my ridicule is based on truth about your comments.

  53. Seadog said “you lost the high ground on personal attacks a long-time ago on this thread when you personally attacked the author.”

    I did not personally attack the author. I pointed out that the professor created the logical gap. I didn’t say anything about the professor’s character.

    “And you brought your personal life into it when you introduced your personal relationship with the suspect”

    I sat at the same table with “the suspect”. I didn’t say we were friends. I didn’t even say whether or not I support him. I stated a fact. That is all. I rebutted a statement made about Mr. O’Keefe and women.

    There is no need to personally attack anyone here. If you don’t understand the difference between rebutting a statement, and personally attacking the person for making a statement, I can’t help you.

  54. “This is clearly a dishonest evasion since my point was obviously that gaining entrance to a private property is trespassing.”

    I don’t usually correct my editing errors but in this case I left out something important. That line should have read:

    This is clearly a dishonest evasion since my point was obviously that gaining entrance to a private property “through deceit” is trespassing.

  55. “Do you really think it would be acceptable for the government to arrest someone and then have a judge tell that person they must remain quiet about it? What country do we live in?”

    Have you ever raised that argument in a debate regarding the Guantanamo detainees who aren’t even allowed to defend themeselves in court let alone in the media?

  56. @Duh

    “My house and my office are private property. It can’t be trespassing if they were permitted to be there in the first place.”

    The work areas of staffers were accessed through deception.

    Thus, in law, there was no real “permission” for them to be there–that is trespass.

    They didn’t have to access the central phone room to document ringing phones.

    So they could have wanted access in order to shut down all the phones> That’s malicious trespass and sabotage of federal property.

    Or they could have wanted to reprogram the Centrex systems to split/forward calls or messages. That’s wiretapping.

    All the possibilities are felonies.

  57. Mike Spindell,

    I have asked you to stop your personal attacks. I even said please. You continue to refuse, and you continue to make excuses for doing so.

    I am now turning to Professor Turley and all of the regulars to ask you to do so. Your constant personal attacks, for whatever reasons you can conjure up, do nothing but discourage honest debate. These types of acts are detrimental to the free exchange of ideas, and only serve to hurt the quality of this blawg.

    As of late, this blawg has been a place where more people are coming in to exchange ideas. The rules of civility promote this.

    For the last time; please refrain from making personal attacks.

  58. Finally Duh,
    You are deserving of attack simply because in this obvious instance of wrong doing you keep following the party line. That is neither thinking nor commenting. Whatever the punishment, the law has obviously been broken and the defendants caught in the act. To try to justify it is ridiculous, dishonest and indicates why you are deserving of not being taken seriously.
    That you try to adopt a “reasonable” tone (except for sometimes)to your completely partisan comments doe not give them legitimacy, only the unpleasant aroma of disingenuousness.

  59. BD said; “Have you ever raised that argument in a debate regarding the Guantanamo detainees who aren’t even allowed to defend themeselves in court let alone in the media?”

    There’s a difference between a legal ethos, and a war ethos. The problem we have is that most people can’t differentiate between the two. Why did we even attend the Geneva Convention if the laws and protections of citizens of the United States, and welcome visitors are to be applied to enemy combatants? Unlawful ones to boot.

  60. “do nothing but discourage honest debate.”

    Here is where you go wrong Duh, there is nothing about your comments and/or statements that comes anywhere close to honest debate. Try being a real person instead of a propaganda troll and I’d take you seriously and engage with you in a different way. Your comments on this issue alone though show the dishonesty of your position. To debate with you “honestly” would put anyone in a weaker position, since you either have no desire to and/or capacity to debate honestly as a real person.

  61. > I have asked you to stop your personal attacks. I even said please. You continue to refuse, and you continue to make excuses for doing so. I am now turning to Professor Turley and all of the regulars to ask you to do so.

    Hi Duh, stop being such a whiner. Your efforts to control and manipulate Mike’s speech are transparent. I doubt running off to tell Mommy or Daddy is going to help you this time.

  62. @Duh
    “Do you really think it would be acceptable for the government to arrest someone and then have a judge tell that person they must remain quiet about it? What country do we live in?”

    Happens all the time to criminal defendants–for the very good reason of preventing jury bias via publicity. Cases should be tried in court, not on Tweeter, Fox, MSNBC, or anywhere else.

    We live in a country that esteems the rule of law. You knew that, I’m sure.

    Is this your first protest of the practice?

    Could you link me to an earlier one?

  63. Does the following scenario for “Landrieugate” make sense to you? If true, it’s one of the dumbest political dirty tricks I’ve ever read about.

    ***************

    Why tamper with Landrieu’s phones?
    Posted: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 7:49 PM by Mark Murray

    From NBC’s Pete Williams

    A law enforcement official says the four men arrested for attempting to tamper with the phones in the New Orleans office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) were not trying to intercept or wiretap the calls.

    Instead, the official says, the men, led by conservative videomaker James O’Keefe, wanted to see how her local office staff would respond if the phones were inoperative. They were apparently motivated, the official says, by criticism that when Sen. Landrieu became a big player in the health care debate, people in Louisiana were having a hard time getting through on the phones to register their views.

    That is, the official says, what led the four men to pull this stunt — to see how the local staffers would react if the phones went out. Would the staff just laugh it off, or would they express great concern that local folks couldn’t get through?

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/27/2187074.aspx

  64. “Whatever the punishment, the law has obviously been broken and the defendants caught in the act.”

    What exactly is the law that has been broken? I know they were charged, but as the professor points out, they fail to state what felony they are accused of. A charge of trespassing with the intent to commit a felony is kind of worthless without identifying the felony they intended to commit. Are you claiming to have more knowledge of the specifics than those who made the arrest?

    “That you try to adopt a “reasonable” tone (except for sometimes)”

    Show us where I have not presented my arguments in a reasonable tone. Show us where I led any personal attacks.

    I’m asking you to forget any past misconceptions and engage in reasonable debate. Is that really too much to ask? It would be of great benefit to this blawg if you would do so. Please?

  65. Whatever these nincompoops were up to…it wasn’t legal and they did mean harm to others (Landrieu/Staff) with their “antics”. It amazes me to listen to some of the obvious Pubies who defend this on this site and if this were reversed and the Dems had done this to say, DeMint in SC, you all would be screaming for prosecution to the highest degree. Dirty tricks are not representative of a democratic government and where they exist they rob the electorate of the truth and usually produce distortion and lame information…don’t we get enough of that already on MSM and Cable? These guys want to be the “new” Karl Roves and Lee Attwaters of the world. They are an impediment to your freedom and mine. They are the erosion of the democracy and I hope if not prosecuted that they are laid open to the public embarrassment they deserve! It is time to ask more of our pols and our government and to say these guys are helping is a huge JOKE!

  66. “There’s a difference between a legal ethos, and a war ethos. The problem we have is that most people can’t differentiate between the two. Why did we even attend the Geneva Convention if the laws and protections of citizens of the United States, and welcome visitors are to be applied to enemy combatants? Unlawful ones to boot.”

    So what branch of service did you serve in. What is your background in Internationaal Security? My wife has a Masters degree (Magne Cum Laude) in International Security from Georgetown University and I served in the Marine Corps for 6 years before serving as a DOD contractor/technical advisor to the Kuwait Air Force for three. Do you still want to lecture me on legal ethos vs. war ethos? We have violated the Geneva Conventions as well as US law. Singing the treaty was not to bridge a gap in US criminal law but to guarantee that all signatories would adhere to a MINIMUM standard for treatment for prisioners of war. It is to protect my brothers and sisters in uniform as well as those from other countries. By violating those standards we put them all at risk. You are a hypocrite and you apparently uneducated on the subjects of law or internations security.

  67. If James O’Keefe were a muslim from Pakistan, Yemen, or (pick a Middle-Eastern country), would he be held on suspicions of terrorism?

    Me thinks… Yes.

  68. Continued-

    “Why did we even attend the Geneva Convention if the laws and protections of citizens of the United States, and welcome visitors are to be applied to enemy combatants? Unlawful ones to boot.”

    One more thing – if they are unlawful combatants then they are criminals to be tried under criminal law. If they are not unlawful combantants then their treatment must adhere to the Genva Conventions. There is no grey area in between. They are either criminals of prisoners of war… “unlawful combatants” is a BS label created by the Bush Adminstation to skirt the law.

  69. This is typical republican spin. James O’ Thief was caught red handed with his hand in the cookie jar and has decided to use the republican’s 28th amendment- Lie, lie and lie somemore.

  70. I posted this earlier to the other thread on the break-in but it’s relevant here:

    There have been a couple of interesting updates to the story:

    “Landrieu phone plot: Men arrested have links to intelligence community”

    “The three accused by the FBI of “aiding and abetting” O’Keefe are Stan Dai, Robert Flanagan and Joseph Basel. O’Keefe is 25, and the other three are 24.

    Dai’s links to the intelligence community appear to be particularly strong. He was a speaker at Georgetown University’s Central Intelligence Agency summer school program in June 2009, and is also listed as an Assistant Director at the Intelligence Community Center of Academic Excellence at Trinity in D.C.”

    …”Dai has been an undergraduate fellow with the Washington-based national security think tank Foundation for the Defense of the Democracies (FDD), ”

    http://rawstory.com/2010/01/men-charged-attempting-bug-landrieus-office-intelligence-links/
    ——

    These aren’t a bunch of half drunk college kids out for an afternoon of guerrilla comedy for U-Tube. a couple of them have ample contact with the government to know what they were doing is illegal (trespass) and potentially felonies under Statutes that get you a bag over your head and enhanced interrogation techniques. If this didn’t involve an acting AG and a conservative media darling in the making there would be calls for them to be sent off to Gitmo from the right.

    It’s time for Rafflaw to again, properly inquire rhetorically if anyone can spell Watergate.

  71. This guy is the epitome of GOP character: mendacious, deceitful, arrogant and ultimately useless in “progressing” (thanks, Sarah!) this country.

    Lock him up for a decade or so, then he’ll be seasoned enough to run for office as a Republican.

  72. Stan Dai and O’Keefe got an own goal more than “veritas”. O’Keefe had little to lose. The remaining, Ralph Lauren wearing, nit-wits like Stan Dai wanted a homeland security job. So Stan walk me through your resume. Tell me about ethics. And what is your defense of these actions? The phones were inoperable? Well, we have better candidates for this big government job.

  73. These asswipes were there to plant a bug and we all know it. Landreiu’s brother is running for Mayor of NO and these clowns were there for no good and trying to pull a rove stunt. Saying they wanted to see how her office would react to down phones is ridiculous since they would of course CALL THEIR PHONE COMPANY! Down phones don’t usually send folks into a tizzy so I’m not sure what reaction they claim they wanted to see. I’m so sick and tired of wingnuts breaking the law and getting away with it. These shitheads need to be sent to prison. This is a serious offense.

  74. It does not surprise me that O”Keefe violated a gag order, as with most right wing extremists he thinks the law does not apply to him, the only thing he will understand is a jail sentence, he needs to learn respect for the law-SEND HIM TO PRISON!

  75. I know this has nothing to do with the O’Keefe fiasco,but Jonathan Turley is very smart, insightful, intelligent man and a pleasure to watch when he’s a guest on the cable shows. Keep up the good work professor Turley.

  76. Rich boys gets away with another one….guess money does talk and justice will walk. If he was black, Asian, Hispanic or a Dem. they would be throwing the book at him. But this boy like GW has a rich influential daddy so he will go free to harass some more folks.

    As a social worker, I have seen money talking. Two boys acccused of same crime. One had a rich daddy, he was let go and later served no time. The other boy, lost his job, had a public defender and served two years. Justice is bought and sold every day in this country. We are no better than a third world country if we let some who shows such blatent disregard for our laws.

  77. Duh:

    “The name of the place was Sub-Zero in the Central West End.”

    I used to work down there for a restaurant/bar. Is there a place called Culpeppers still there?
    My grandfather lived on Pershing about a 100 yards from Euclid. Spent a summer there working for a local developer as a laborer.

  78. First: A digital system is not nearly as easy to tap from the outside as an analog system – one wouldn’t logically go to the phone closet to set it up. That would take a hack-job well beyond the capabilities of these guys. IMO, they thought they could access it like an analog system w/ a butt-set: they figured to call in and show the lines weren’t ringing on the walk-in receptionist’s desk, then go to the phone closet and show the numbers were working and just blocked …. somehow. Even having done PBX work professionally, I’m a bit unclear how they would pull that off via the wiring closet. They must have been imagining dozens of Analog lines instead of a T or something. They are idiots.

    Second: One of the hard-hats worn by the guys “dressed as phone technicians” had a hidden camera. Any way it goes, in a federal building after 9/11 casing the joint w/ hidden video is a big no-no. They could go ALL sorts of different directions if they want to heap the charges on these guys.

    Third: MHO, the “listening device” from the car will likely turn out to be the receiver for the helmet-cam. Most such devices are wireless now days as rigging up a recorder to go from composite to digital is rather costly and strapping on a VCR is bulky, costly and unlikely to get through security. If the kids really did have an FM audio transmitter: {A}they are stupid because it wouldn’t have worked anyhow and {B} they are really, really screwed. I tend to think they didn’t have such a device.

    Fourth: These guys were not dressed like anyone who would be showing up to work on the phones would ever be dressed. A safety vest and hardhat? To go work in the wiring closet? You’d figure the Pelican Institute could have called their own phone guy in first and seen what he was actually wearing. Many people don’t really know what a pimp looks like, but most have seen the phone guy. They were idiots.

    Fifth: No matter what their desires once accessing the phone closet. The only thing adding up here is that they are total fools and clearly don’t know a damn thing about telephony.

  79. For what it is worth:

    ‘Hannah Giles — who posed as a prostitute for the sting videos, in which ACORN staffers appeared to offer illegal tax advice and support the misuse of public funds — said she was shocked when she heard about O’Keefe’s arrest.

    “I am well aware that following the law is an integral part of being a good investigative journalist,” Giles said in a statement. “I take that responsibility and accountability very seriously. I certainly hope these reports are untrue.”

    Fox News’ Glenn Beck, who made O’Keefe’s ACORN expose a national phenomenon by championing the videos, said on his radio show that if the allegations against O’Keefe are true, the young man crossed the line.

    “You don’t do anything illegal. That’s Watergate territory. You just don’t do that,” Beck said. “But besides that, I don’t even think you go dressed up. I mean, it’s a senator. For the love of Pete, it’s a senator.”

  80. Let me attempt to add some reason to the discussion of “foreign” corporations. If by “foreign,” one would mean owned and controlled by foreign interests, then Obama was certinly correct in saying that the decision was opening the door to allowing campaign expenditures by such entity, — as long as that particular corporation was incorporated in the U.S. The current restriction on campaign contributions and expendutires by foreign “nationals” (2 U.S.C. 441e)uses the definition of “foreign national” in the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and that includes businesses that are incorporated or do their major business in a foreign country. (22 U.S.C. 611). Now, a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary of a foreign corporation, doing business in the U.S. (Honda America, BP America, Sony America)even if it is 99% owned by foreign interests is certainly not a “foreign national” under FARA, and therefore may NOW make unlimted expenditures to influence elections in the U.S. I believe this is the issue that concerns people.

  81. I am not going to debate the stupidity of what O’Feefe did or didn’t do.

    My question is what happened to security screening people entering a Federal Building? Should they have not asked for a work order to begin with and shouldn’t they have examined all the equipment before allowing the “workers” to enter the building?

    Another security fail…

  82. Byron said “Is there a place called Culpeppers still there?”

    I don’t know. I rarely get a chance to visit that part of town. One of my fishing buddies is a LEO whose “beat” includes that area. I’ve met him for lunch across the street from Sub Zero, at a place called “The Pasta House”.

    Small world.

  83. Again: Despite what many here want to think was going on – good or bad – We. Do. Not. Know.

    We will likely not know for some time. If there are going to be federal charges, an investigation, a trial – the prosecutors involved are not going to be broadcasting that info, because it could impact their prosecution.

    One of the basic tenets of our society is “innocent until proven guilty”.

    Patience.

  84. Follow the Money. Just follow the money. It doesn’t stop with Andrew Breitbart, I guarantee you.

    This is some serious shit, and it doesn’t end with these self aggrandizing punks.

    This is infinitely more serious than the Detroit-bound underoos, and enough scratching below the surface will lead to a very stanky trail. Young Jimmy and his cohorts are looking at some very, very serious time. As someone note above, in their mid-20’s, these guys aren’t “kids”.

  85. 24 year old Robert Flanagan, son of the acting US Attorney for Western LA, William Flanagan (Senator Vitter Held Up Acting U.S. Attorney Flanagan’s Replacement) will more than likely get a plea deal and turn on The other three, too bad.

  86. BBaker – we don’t know all the facts, so before you presume there was another security fail, we could also guess (and we are ALL guessing, you included with “security fail”) that they had forged credentials?

  87. Milton:

    Flanagan (the elder) is the acting attorney for the Western District of Louisiana.

    The case is being handled by Jordan Ginsberg, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

    http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/01/26/acting-u-s-attorneys-son-tried-to-bug-senators-office/

    Also, Sen. Vitter is indeed reported to be involved in blocking the appointment of Finley as Flanagan’s replacement, but that began around a week before the incident in Landreau’s office.

  88. We know why the republicans like o’keefe, and we know why the democrats like the acorn machine. Nothing is advanced there. The real question is how you felt about what Seymour Hersh or the NY Times did?

  89. Laura Rozen of Politico reports that Stan Dai was an “operations
    officer of a Pentagon irregular warfare fellowship, before becoming the deputy administrator of the Trinity Washington University intelligence center program in 2008.”

    (http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/)

    There are links to Stan Dai’s bio at the end of the article.

    (Forgive me, if this duplicates information that has already posted. I’m having some trouble getting my comment to post.)

  90. Several House members had their websites hacked overnight after President Obama’s State of the Union Address. Around 6:30 a.m. Eastern, the sites of Joe Wilson (R-SC) and Peter Welch (D-VT) were both replaced with one line of text:

    ***FU@& OBAMA!! Red Eye CREW !!!!! O RESTO E HACKER !!! by HADES; m4V3RiCk; T4ph0d4 — FROM BRASIL Shortly thereafter, several congressional sites were completely offline, including Wilson, Welch, Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Phil Roe (R-TN).

    The attacks were first reported by the National Journal’s Hotline On Call, which noted this wouldn’t be the first strike by hackers using the Red Eye Crew name:

    The Red Eye Crew has been responsible for other hacks before. The group claimed credit for hacking a site belonging to Old Dominion Univ. in ’08 and Wieden + Kennedy, a New York ad agency. Politico reports that over 20 sites were affected:

  91. I have to agree with “Richard Blair” that this story probably “doesn’t stop with Andrew Breitbart”… Given what I’ve seen over the past several years, this may very well be the tip of an iceberg.

  92. That Shuster / Breitbart video is too painful to watch. Typical right wing response: talk loudly over the host, obfuscate, and go totally off on a tangent. Should have cut his mic 30 seconds into the segment. Breitbart’s actions and loud, hyper mouth indicate CYA writ large. He’s in deep poo, methinks, and he knows it.

  93. Ater watching Shusters interview with Breitbart,Breibart reminds me of Jim Mora when he was the coach of the Indianapolis Colts and he was asked about the team going to the playoffs,except here Bretbarts term is “wiretapping”

  94. “duh” seems to know A LOT of details…could it be that this is little Jimmy? Or one of his friends in the Junior Fascist Club, I mean College Republicans…They still don’t get they can’t spin away a felony by blaming the media trying to find answers..Little Jimmy…You and the boys fancy yourselves “journalists”…

  95. So you’re saying a man known for pulling dishonest (to be generous) publicity stunts pulled a dishonest (and likely illegal) stunt and is working to get publicity from it?

    An interesting side question, is politics the end or the means?

  96. A spokesperson for MSNBC told Politico today that the channel’s brass has reprimanded David Shuster for derisive tweets he directed at James O’Keefe Tuesday. Within hours, he had retracted portions of his tweeted comments on air during an interview with Andrew Breitbart.

    This humble blogger documented the Twitter exchange yesterday, and pointed out that Shuster was much quicker to assume O’Keefe’s guilt than he was the guilt of Major Nidal Hasan, the shooter at Fort Hood.

    “The comments were inappropriate. We have talked to David about them,” said the MSNBC spokesperson, referring to a series of tweets that included this one: “a) you are not a journalist b) the truth is you intended to tap her phones c) it’s a felony d) you will go to prison.”

    Shuster retracted his accusation that O’Keefe had attempted to tap the phones in Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office on his show this afternoon after Breitbart blasted Shuster for his false accusations.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz0dx5rbUyz

  97. Duh,

    Let’s start from the top:
    He’s by all reports a male; That’s a man.
    He’s in the public eye because of a single instance; That’s what he’s known for.
    During which the guy lied about who he was; That’s dishonest.
    The whole thing was a planned charade intended to draw media attention to himself and his views; That’s a publicity stunt.

    What exactly did I say that was inaccurate?

  98. Gyges:

    I watched the link that eniobob posted above and have an idea as to what was done.

    Apparently they were not trying to tap her phones, they were making a point about her office not answering their phones. I am wondering if this is their idea of showing the hypocrisy (I dont know if that is actually the right word) of Eric Holder concerning Acron (is I think, at least by way of videos I watched, guilty of tax fraud and aiding protitution). I think they want to show that O’Keefe will be crucified for entering a senators office without permission while Acorn is getting off scot free for what appears to actually be real crimes.

    As I say I dont know if this a correct take on what they are thinking, but listen to that exchange and let me know what you think.

    There is a good deal more to this than some kid trying to “wire tap” a senators office. I have a feeling that certain people are going to have egg on their face and it is not going to be O’Keefe or Brietbart. Something doesnt “smell” quite right.

    I think in military terminology it is a feint to get your enemy to attack thinking you are weak. Once your enemy commits his forces you encircle and destroy.

    Any way just some thoughts.

  99. “He’s by all reports a male; That’s a man.”

    I agree.

    “He’s in the public eye because of a single instance; That’s what he’s known for.”

    Not completely true. He’s in the public eye for his expose on ACORN. We can’t really call it one instance when it involves Acorn offices in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San Diego, San Bernadino, New York, Baltimore, and Washington D.C. Maybe you just never heard about all of those “single instances”.
    http://biggovernment.com/author/jokeefe/

    “During which the guy lied about who he was; That’s dishonest.”

    That’s what folks call being undercover. Did you make the same claim when all those perverts were caught on Dateline’s “To catch a predator” series? Is it really about lying about who you are? Or is it that he exposed ACORN?

    “The whole thing was a planned charade intended to draw media attention to himself and his views; That’s a publicity stunt.”

    His views? Are his views about corruption not shared by you? Is corruption alright with you, as long as those involved in the corruption are benefitting your agenda?

  100. Byron:

    Your theory does not explain why two of them were dressed as telephone technicians, and requested access to the telecom closet.

    Leaving to go to the telecom closet means leaving the office proper, where one could observe the phones and whether they were being answered or not.

    If they simply wanted to observe the phones in Sen. Landreau’s office ringing and not being answered, that would take only a single individual, with a hidden camera setup or simply a video/audio-capable cellphone.

    It would also not require a fourth individual waiting outside.

  101. Ombudsman:

    If the office used the excuse that the phones weren’t working you had the tech repair guy right there, ostensibly anyway.

    How hard is it to tap a main phone service line? Were any of them technicians? It is not rocket science but you do have to have a few skills and some knowledge.

  102. Personally, I doubt they were there to tap the lines. There’s a certain minimum level of technical expertise involved, and none of the three individuals that were in the building are likely to have said expertise, based on what has been documented on their recent backgrounds (work/school).

    But, they did attempt to gain access to the telecom closet. Two of them dressed as telephone technicians was likely intended to improve their chances of gaining that access.

    It’s more likely, in my mind, that they had other intentions. Possibly to simply disrupt the phone system. Any schmoe with a set of wire clippers could make a mess of a phone system in seconds, if they had the proper access.

    But, that is speculation, as is most (if not all) of the above theories posited. The investigation will take some time. I’m certain more information will be forthcoming later.

  103. But, that is speculation, as is most (if not all) of the above theories posited. The investigation will take some time. I’m certain more information will be forthcoming later.

    Hopefully not as long as it’s taken in the Blago or Resko case.

  104. @Duh: “Facts. We don’t need no stinkin’ facts. We can just …”

    revise that to:

    “Facts. We don’t need no stinkin’ facts. We can just make up shit to defend four conservative, alleged criminals who illegally tried to a) wiretap the phones of, and/or b) shut down the phone system of a United States Senator.”

    That, along with remarks like “It was just a prank” fly in the face of the federal agent’s affidavit. They also won’t get no traction with Obama’s DOJ.

    Echoing what everyone has been saying, if this had been Michael Moore or another liberal journalist/documentarian, the whole dittohead nation would be screaming for his head right now.

  105. Randy: “I know this has nothing to do with the O’Keefe fiasco,but Jonathan Turley is very smart,…”

    Yes he is. I saw him speak about this issue on Hardball tonight twice and really, it was disappointing, Mathews could have asked much better questions and provided more time to address the various tiers of Statute that could be brought into play; this would be an unusual Federal building that was not now covered by the Statutes constructed to serve the Homeland Security mandate. An explanation of those, which ones they are and why or why they would not apply would have been interesting.

  106. UnionJack: “Let me attempt to add some reason to the discussion of “foreign” corporations. …”

    UnionJack: “oops, wrong post, – sorry”

    –Right posting, wrong thread but I read the decision the same way. Alito, from his behavior last night, doesn’t seem to have a firm or practical grasp of what he actually ruled.

  107. If I can let me put something out there that we all know about and compare it to o’keefe,I don’t care how they try to spin this but try these down to earth examples.

    If you park your car in a handicap parking space where I live you get a fine and possible jail time.

    If you go and shoplift you face similar consequences.

    Comparing those two offenses to what o’keefe did,the man is going to jail.

  108. Duh,

    How about “Is known to most people because of…” would that fix it for you?

    He lied. That’s being dishonest. You might approve of his motivation, but that doesn’t change the fact that he lied, or that lying falls into the category of dishonesty. You may like his cause, but what he did was a publicity stunt.

    As to that implied false dichotomy at the end (either I support corruption, or I approve of O’Keefe’s methods), nice try, but if you’re going to bait a trap, you may want to make sure you’re smarter than the mouse in question.

  109. The Ombudsman: Coincidences, that all these creeps are connected, no. And now the background on Stan Dai. These guys were trying to get dirt on her and they failed, Robert Flanagan will be the turn coat.

  110. It will be sound a fury, and he’ll get nothing or probation. I don’t like it, but that’s what I predict. Smoke some crack, go to jail for years. This stuff… probably nothing.

  111. Mike S

    “Trespassing. To put it another way what would you think if a groups of people, pretending to be utility repairmen came into your house to “look around?” I suppose you’d welcome them and offer them coffee. It wouldn’t bother you, after all it’s just a prank.”

    There was a case last year where an Oklahoma State Trooper or County Deputy pulled into a lady’s drive out in the country to “ask for directions”. When the lady’s dog ran up to the car the guy shot it and drove off. The only reason he was ID’d was from a camera she had set up. The PD justified it saying that you can pull up to someone’s house and ask directions without it being trespassing.

    From this story it seems to me the trespassing would be more from when they went to the GSA floor than the Senator’s office since that theoretically is open to the public-as long as you are wearing a shirt and shoes if you know what I mean.

  112. Ombudsman

    “But, they did attempt to gain access to the telecom closet.”

    They ‘allegedly’ attempted to gain access. I’m not sure of exactly what took place.

    I think O’Keefe is a pretty sharp cookie. I don’t think he would do something as reckless as many would claim. I’ll just have to wait and see.

  113. Mike S et al

    I’m originally from WY and the Dick Cheney Federal Building sits by the main Post Office in downtown Casper.

    I worked for Pepsi for awhile and in that capacity I had occassion to deliver product to a cafe on the ground floor.

    I can envision a scenario where someone in what seems to be a uniform comes up to security and is let in to the facility.

    I could walk in wearing an old Pepsi shirt and say I’d like to see the vending machine on the third floor. Did I say I was from Pepsi? Did I misrepresent myself?

    I guess that’s what trials are for. Or State Dinners.

  114. rantcaster

    “Lock him up for a decade or so, then he’ll be seasoned enough to run for office as a Republican.”

    He could run against Trafficant.

  115. BBBaker

    “My question is what happened to security screening people entering a Federal Building? Should they have not asked for a work order to begin with and shouldn’t they have examined all the equipment before allowing the “workers” to enter the building?”

    And the ID that said “McLovin” should have been a real red-flag.

  116. Duh:

    I’m going by what’s in the FBI affadavit, with regards to the attempt to access the telecom closet. See paragraphs 7 and 8.

    Pinandpuller:

    Your example falls flat, I fear. There are no federal statutes regarding tampering with vending machines owned by the US.

    And again, FBI affadavit, paragraph 8. “…represented that they were employees of the telephone company…”

  117. Richard Blair

    “This is infinitely more serious than the Detroit-bound underoos,”

    Are you sure you aren’t downplaying PETN enough?

  118. The Ombudsman

    “Your theory does not explain why two of them were dressed as telephone technicians, and requested access to the telecom closet.”

    It does explain why they should have stuck with low-hanging fruit, as it were.

  119. Ombudsman,

    Thanks for pointing out the paragraphs in the affadavit.

    Did you notice paragraph 8 wherein they “represented that they were employees of the telephone company”?

    I doubt that the affadavit would just say that they “represented that they were employees” if they had actually stated such. That could just as easily been worded that Witness #2 assumed that they were employees of the telephone company. Then the two could claim that witness #2 also assumed that they needed to get to the closet. All the two imposters would need to do is claim that they never asked where the closet was. They were just there to investigate why phones weren’t ringing thru to the Senator’s office, and it was the GSA employees that directed them to the closet, which is why O’Keefe was waiting for them in the Senator’s office while they failed to show up.

    That pretty much brings us down to witness #1. Since Witness #1 didn’t ask for ID, they will chew the witness up and spit him/her out. The credibility of a witness who needs to cover their rear is not very good. And then we have the probability that neither of the men had possession of the equipment necessary to perform any tapping.

    Just some thoughts. I’ll be very interested in hearing O’Keefe’s side of the story.

  120. The Ombudsman

    “Your example falls flat, I fear. There are no federal statutes regarding tampering with vending machines owned by the US.”

    My example just had to do with gaining access without actually misrepresenting myself. I may not actually have any business up there but would it be trespassing? Am I responsible for other’s preconceived notions?

  121. Duh,

    Of course I noticed it. I quoted it in my last post with the link to the affadavit – in the line *immediately before* the link.

    Why do you feel that the affadavit would be false in this regard? If the two indeed did *not* represent themselves as telephone company employees, why would the affaint (that’s the term for an individual making an affadavit) state as much?

    Certainly, it’s possible that the FBI agent who wrote the affadavit got that bit wrong. But as he stated at the beginning of the affadavit, he’s got six years in the FBI, around 19 in law enforcement in general. It’s unlikely he would make such a mistake of attribution.

    Granted, the affiant in this case is representing what someone else (“Witness 2”, a GSA employee) reported to him as far as that witness’s interaction with those Flanagan and Basel.

    Your desire to defend your friend is understandable, but that desire is sending you down the road of concocting tales that portray O’Keefe and company as cherubic good samaritans, and everyone else involved – folks at their places of employment, as opposed to these four individuals who were far from their homes – as self-serving and deserving of being “chewed up and spit out”.

    Plus, why are you bringing up “tapping”? Nowhere in the affadavit is wiretapping mentioned.

  122. “Am I responsible for other’s preconceived notions?”

    Wearing a Pepsi shirt (the kind an employee would wear) and telling the security officer that you needed to look at the vending machines on the third floor, might be enough to justify the other’s preconceived notion that you worked for Pepsi, or were an authorized agent thereof.

    If it walks like a duck. :>)

  123. Duh,

    Part two:

    You said “All the two imposters would need to do is claim that they never asked where the closet was. They were just there to investigate why phones weren’t ringing thru to the Senator’s office, and it was the GSA employees that directed them to the closet, which is why O’Keefe was waiting for them in the Senator’s office while they failed to show up.”

    It seems you haven’t bothered to read the affadavit.

    “it was the GSA employees that directed them to the closet”

    Paragraphs 7 and 8. The GSA employee was on the 10th floor, where the telecom closet is, and not in Sen. Landreau’s office to direct them to the 10th floor.

    “which is why O’Keefe was waiting for them in the Senator’s office while they failed to show up”

    Paragraph 4. O’Keefe was already in Sen. Landreau’s office when Flanagan and Basel arrived.

    This is starting to sound like a quantum-mechanically-mixed up game of “Clue”, where the murder victim isn’t really a murder victim – in fact, *that* person murdered Col. Mustard with the lead pipe in the conservatory!

  124. “Even having done PBX work professionally, I’m a bit unclear how they would pull that off via the wiring closet. They must have been imagining dozens of Analog lines instead of a T or something. They are idiots.” -kgb999

    Wouldn’t be hard at all really. Simply pull the LAN side of the T and plug into a small hub to split the transmission then connect to a wireless N router.

    Then sit outside in a van with a laptop and coffee can and a sniffer on the laptop and grab all traffic in and out of the building on that T.

  125. That would have to be a fairly powerful wireless-N router – to be able to get a signal off of it from ten floors up, plus all the concrete/steel/etc. between it and the spot chosen to set up shop.

    Beyond that, an 802.11n signal doesn’t have the bandwidth to cover the likely amount of data that would be going through that phone system. The telecom closet on the 10th floor (where Sen. Landreau’s office is) likely handled the telecom traffic for the entire floor – fairly typical office building design. That would be a lot of data pushing through at any given time – far more than 802.11n would be able to keep up with.

    Assuming the telecom system in question is VOIP-based – and even assuming the data packets pertaining to calls routed to phones in Sen. Landreau’s office – I don’t believe it’s possible to instruct a wireless router which parts of the total data available to push out via wireless.

  126. “That would have to be a fairly powerful wireless-N router – to be able to get a signal off of it from ten floors up, plus all the concrete/steel/etc. between it and the spot chosen to set up shop.” The Ombudsman

    Not really. That’s why the coffee can to amplify the signal to your receiver. As long as you know the area of the bldg the closet was in and can locate it from the outside, piece of cake. You might have to place a signal booster or two along the path but not a problem if they think you’re with the phone company.

  127. “Assuming the telecom system in question is VOIP-based – and even assuming the data packets pertaining to calls routed to phones in Sen. Landreau’s office – I don’t believe it’s possible to instruct a wireless router which parts of the total data available to push out via wireless.” – The Ombudsman

    First whether its VOIP or not is moot. Most telco DS1’s terminate in the phone closet right next to the voice lines.

    As for the Wireless router you’d simply set it up for point to point tunneling then direct the gateway to the receiving end. Then sniff the traffic coming through the tunnel. And since email is sent in plain text you could literally sit there and read every email coming into or leaving the building. Assuming you mirrored the right T.

  128. Its not guaranteed of course what the system is like but 9 times out of 10 there’s a LAN hop in the wiring closet and the telco usually terminates the data T’s right where they terminate the voice T’s, if that’s what they have. An old copper Frame T, channelized or not is going to hop off to the LAN somewhere. And that’s where you’re going to put your little friend in the middle. Maybe you might need your crimpers but because they think you’re with the phone company then no one is going to think it odd that you’re working on a wire. And you probably won’t need to. That’s only if it goes into the wall.

    Once you get into the wiring closet under the guise of a telephone repairman you’ve pretty much got as much access as you want, assuming you know what you’re doing.

    This is why that GSA employee that challenged them for ID deserves a promotion. Phone company employees have photo IDs. These guys were obviously dupes and probably couldn’t have pulled off a hack but if someone set up the equipment for them all they’d have to do at the least is plug it in and at the most splice a wire or two to build your secret little hop.

    Chances are it would have sat there for months before anyone noticed it too.

  129. I assume entrances to federal building are video monitored and taped. It would be interesting to see how the 2 defendants posing as telecom workers approached and gained acccess. Were they dressed in complete uniform or partial (i.e. vest, helmets in a backpack)?

    Perhaps this is one area where they gained access to the building using false pretenses. Presenting themselves as constituents who just happened to be generic construction workers with a toolbelt. Then they donned the fake telecom outfits before entering the Senator’s office. This way they only needed to show their government issued ID, and not a “work order.” (Just another theory amongst many!)

    Additionally, it seriously bugs me when counsel refers to these MEN as kids. I know they are doing their job to spin and downplay, but the really frustrating part is MSM continues to call them “kids” which wrongly plays into the “it was a prank” or “they meant no harm” in the theater of public perception.

    As for “Duh” thinking “O’Keefe is a pretty sharp cookie,” just simply shows a disturbing level of infatuation for a tawdry character who’s obviously attempting to play investigative journalist to feed his narcissistic television fame endeavors.

    Had they been successful in entering and exiting it’s nearly certain they would have doctored, spliced, edited, modified dialogue using voiceovers to make the video fit any objective their financial handlers deemed necessary.

    ——–
    I admit I’ve fallen for this story and all the intricate twists and turns which have unfolded over the last 48 hours. Thanks everyone for all the great posts!

  130. “EW ORLEANS — Investigators pressed ahead with their probe of four men accused of trying to tamper with a senator’s phones after a lawyer said the conservative activists were just trying to capture embarrassing video of her staff ignoring constituent calls.

    For her part, Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu wasn’t impressed with the lawyer’s explanation Thursday that the men hoped to document claims that callers couldn’t get through with complaints about her support for health care reform.

    “Attorneys are hired to spin for their clients,” she said Thursday in an interview in Washington. “Good luck”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/landrieu-phone-scheme-mea_n_441505.html

  131. Pinandpuller,
    It would seem to me that if you gain entrance to someone’s office on the basis of deception you are at minimum trespassing. The gaining entrance through deceit is actually a common burglary methodology. Duh and BdA obviously approve of trespassing and attempted burglary as long as its’ done for their cause. This is known either as hypocrisy, ingnorance, or perhaps a mixture of both.

  132. “I think O’Keefe is a pretty sharp cookie. I don’t think he would do something as reckless as many would claim. I’ll just have to wait and see.”

    Right there is part of the problem with those who are trying to provide rationales. Richard Nixon, E. howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy were also “sharp cookies” and see how that turned out.

  133. “Did I say I was from Pepsi? Did I misrepresent myself?”

    Pinandpuller,
    Your wearing a uniform and the fact that you were known as a Pepsi delivery person amounts to misrepresentation. In this case these men identified themselves as being specifically from the phone company. There is no way around it they were misrepresenting themselves and that in the context was criminal per se.

  134. “Just some thoughts. I’ll be very interested in hearing O’Keefe’s side of the story.”

    I’m sure you would since your arguments so far injustifying this fall flat. The truth is though and you know it, that if O’Keefe’s story was:

    “Yeah we snuck in to get stuff on Landrieux because she’s a Democrat Senator”

    you would find that an exculpating excuse.

  135. Now for those who put haloes over these guys heads and protest their innocence three plausible theories as to what they were doing.

    1. They were casing the office for a bugger to come in later and do the job.

    2. They bought bugging equipment and instructions from a Spy Store and stupidly thought it was easy.

    3. They were getting stock footage of the office so they could later re-edit the tapes to show some nefarious purpose.

    By the way for those who keep using ACORN as an evil agent, look at some of the organizations on your side, which make ACORN holy by comparison. In truth ACORN is an excellent organization, but their goal of voter registration doesn’t fit the conservative model.

  136. Mike Spindell said “Duh and BdA obviously approve of trespassing and attempted burglary as long as its’ done for their cause.”

    I do not condone burglary, but I have no problem with undercover jounalism, and neither does Mike Spindell when he supports the cause.

    To support my claim, (that Mike Spindell has no problem with undercover investigative journalism when it supports his cause) please look at his comments here:
    http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/22/worst-show-on-earth-ringling-bros-accused-of-elephant-abuse-based-on-undercover-video/#comments

    and here:
    http://jonathanturley.org/2009/04/20/oscar-special-father-of-slumdog-millionaire-child-actress-accused-of-trying-to-sell-daughter/#comments

    Readers should note that not a word of distain was expresses by Mr. Spindell when he supported the cause. I point this out to expose the hypocrisy of Mike’s statements. I have no problem with undercover journalism, and most people don’t, unless it interferes with their cause.

  137. Mike Spindell said “Yeah we snuck in to get stuff on Landrieux because she’s a Democrat Senator”

    I think you’re correct. I think that is exactly what they were there for.

  138. “1. They were casing the office for a bugger to come in later and do the job.”

    Pure speculation. Not supported by any facts.

    “2. They bought bugging equipment and instructions from a Spy Store and stupidly thought it was easy.”

    Pure speculation. Not supported by any facts.

    For the above scenarios to be anything more than speculation, a bugging device would need to be found.

    3. They were getting stock footage of the office so they could later re-edit the tapes to show some nefarious purpose.

    Why not just walk in with a video camera and shoot some video? What purpose did the telephone repairmen serve?

  139. “To support my claim, (that Mike Spindell has no problem with undercover investigative journalism when it supports his cause) please look at his comments here:”

    Duh you once again expose yourself for the liar you are. In neither one of those threads, in any comments I made is there a reference to supporting undercover investigative journalism. I invite anyone interested to see the links and judge for themselves. I have called you ignorant, but to this point have not called you stupid (there is a differnce you know) but after this post I must say in line with all your other deficits you are stupid.

  140. Mike Spindell,

    I have asked you not to make your comments personal. Please refrain from doing so. Is it really to much to ask? We all appreciate your input. Your education and wisdom are of great benefit to this blawg. Your constant personal attacks are not.

    The referenced threads demonstrate that you did not express disdain when the actions support your cause.

  141. Mike S.,

    I am glad you are back. Buddha is not here to be the goat. So it picks and chooses it next target and I guess you are it. This person assumes various nom de plume nemesis are humorous until the attacks become personal.

    I don’t think this persona is stupid as much as “evil666.” The statements are designed to inflame and infuriate. Pretty much like Lee Atwater. However, he did apologize to Dukasis before he died. An interesting tidbit. Atwater stated one time that he got most of his flavor for his comments out of the Scandal Sheets such as the Enquirer. Makes you wonder if this is true, then they must have gotten all of their sex education out of Hustler. Just my Opinion.

  142. Mike.S:
    At the top of this thread I posted the word”arrogant”with its definition,if this comes to past Mr O’keefe will more than excede that definition:

    “James O’Keefe Still Booked for Speech on ‘Undercover Journalism’
    By David Weigel 1/28/10 3:41 PMJames O’Keefe Still Booked for Speech on ‘Undercover Journalism’
    By David Weigel 1/28/10 3:41 PM

    http://washingtonindependent.com/75029/james-okeefe-still-booked-for-speech-on-undercover-journalism

  143. Duh just ignore him, you can see by the look on his face he’s not a happy person. He always responds in a negative light ie. liar,stupid,ignorant ect.ect.

    Ay is still on his multiple nom de plume kick and will never be satisfied. I think it’s funny cause you can tell it just eats away at him like cancer.

  144. Duh:

    I don’t think Mike ever said what you say he said. You might want to re-read those posts.

    About the only thing I got out of the circus one was that he did not like animal abuse. He made no mention of it being ok to go undercover. I don’t even think you can infer that from what he wrote.

  145. Ay did Buddah call you as per your request? Whats the deal, where’s he moving to? Why did he have to move? I saw he has posted twice in a couple of weeks but like a ghost he simply vanished. I find it quite strange that he had time to post one comment on a paticular thread and not more. I mean if he was sitting in front of a computer anyways why post once at a blog that he gives great insight too. I miss him. Please say hello to him from Me Duh Wayne Jack, you know, all of my nom de plume’s

  146. “The referenced threads demonstrate that you did not express disdain when the actions support your cause.”

    If you read them that way then you prove my point as to your stupidity.
    Case closed. You’ll get respect from me when youshow some production that can be respected. So far nothing of the kind from you.

  147. Eniobob,
    O’Keefe is arrogant but he also feels entitled and protected. To a great extent he is protected and lionized by that small percentage of the population that sees politics as a football game which must be won at all cost. The fact that they are being overcharged for their team regalia simply doesn’t penetrate.

  148. “Duh just ignore him, you can see by the look on his face he’s not a happy person. He always responds in a negative light ie. liar,stupid,ignorant ect.ect.”

    Just as you responded gratuitously with “Christ Killer.”

  149. I find it odd that, on the blog of a professor of constitutional law, people – grown adults, I presume – are basically engaged in calling each other “poopyhead”.

  150. Mike Spindell,

    I read and reported that you did not express disdain because you did not express disdain. That’s a fact. It requires no interpretation.

    “You’ll get respect from me when youshow[sic] some production that can be respected.”

    Your respect of or for me is not necessary. I ask that you respect this blawg, and refrain from personal attacks out of respect for this blawg. The purpose of a blawg is to share thoughts and ideas. Some you will agree with and others you will not. Feel free to attack the ideas you don’t agree with, just don’t make the attack personal. Please.

  151. There is no gag order in place. The judge has instructed him to not talk about his case, which is NOT a gag order. There was NO reported gag order.

    Stop the lying.

  152. Byron said “I don’t think Mike ever said what you say he said. You might want to re-read those posts.”

    Byron,

    I didn’t say that Mike Spindell said anything in those other threads. That was my point. It was that no disdain was expressed for the same type of activity when that activity was supporting a cause that he favored.

  153. Ombudsman,

    “I find it odd that, on the blog of a professor of constitutional law, people – grown adults, I presume – are basically engaged in calling each other “poopyhead”.”

    I couldn’t agree more. It’s only a select few who engage in it. I think the best way to eliminate it is to point it out anytime it surfaces. The less of it we have, the more people will feel invited to share their thoughts.

  154. OOOOOOOOOKAY,Now I understand.:

    “O’Keefe: “On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation”
    January 29, 2010 11:39 am ET by MMFA Staff

    From James O’Keefe’s statement, posted on BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com:

    As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN. For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.”

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001290026

  155. Ombudsman,

    Thanks for providing a link to the statement made by James O’Keefe. I think this quote says a lot.

    “On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building. The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator. We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I’m eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.”

    I wonder how long the government can withhold those tapes? I know they would be made part of discovery, but that could take a while.

  156. If the government chooses to proceed with prosecuting Mr. O’Keefe and the other three – then the defendents’ attorneys will likely file discovery motions to acquire copies of any/all relevant videos. They would be remiss in their duties if they did not.

    It’s unlikely the U.S. Attorney’s office would release those videos. If anything, I believe the defendents’ attorneys would be the source of any videos released, once acquired through discovery. Again, speculation.

  157. A statement from Mr’ O’keefe:

    “It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story. MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent “gag order.” The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I “broke in” to an office which is open to the public. The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me. And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting. The public will judge whether reporters who can’t get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.”

  158. “Mr. O’Keefe fails to cite any of the various conservative media outlets who printed assumptions regarding his presence in Sen. Landreau’s office.”

    Sometimes it’s hard to bite the hand that feeds you; even if it stinks. :>)

  159. I have never seen a person caught so”red handed” play a “victim”like this guy seems to be trying to do.

    Like I had said in an early post these guys are”NOT” hardend criminals and I think when he stands before the judge and gets sentenced he is going to “freak out”

  160. Duh:

    why would someone express disdain for a cause they favored?

    Mike didnt approve or disapprove of hidden cameras in those links. I cant speak for Mike but my guess is he thought it was chicken shit to “invade” a US Senators office like that. I imagine he would think the same about a republicans office under similar circumstances.

    I actually think it is chicken shit to go into a US senators office like that for whatever reason and I would not condone it if it was Bernie Sander’s office.

  161. Isn’t O’Keefe’s manifesto an indirect contact with other witnesses? Certainly the tweet was since they are on his fan list.

    Item 7-j. “The defendent shall avoid all contact, directly or indirectly, with any persons who are or who may become a victim or potential witness in the subject investigation or prosecution, including but not limited to: unless for business purposes only.

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/01/james-okeefes-conditions-of-release.php?page=1

  162. Byron,

    If it becomes apparent that a Senator (or their staff) is refusing to answer the phones, in an effort to avoid answering to their constituents; how do you suggest it should be investigated? Should a journalist just say “I’m here to see if you answer the phones?” Do you think that would be effective? Or do you think the phones would be answered while they are documenting it?

    I happen to like undercover investigations. I have a problem with an investigator creating false credentials in order to become a member of the staff, but I am not bothered by Jeff Journalist pretending to be Chris Carbuyer to investigate unscrupulous activity at a car dealership. Our elected representatives are no exception.

  163. I think O’keefe and his lawyer need to decide whether he is an “investigative journalist” or a “kid”. Pick one and stick with it. He can’t be both.

  164. Duh:

    I don’t know if you know this but most politicians and their staffs think you (their constituents) are the hired help that need to be blown once every 2, 4, or 6 years. They don’t exist for us we exist for them. Washington is full of staffers with nothing but contempt for the people. And politicians are as full of themselves as any Hollywood actor except it is our tax dollars they use to live like kings.

    What needs to happen is everyone that is up for election be replaced by people who actually care about our country. It would put the fear of god into the rest and they would start answering the phones. Sending in a boy to video tape a staffer not answering a phone is a joke.

  165. Byron,

    I wholeheartedly agree with you about politicians and staffers. The best thing we could do for this country would be to get rid of every single one of the incumbents. That could only be done with the cooperation of Independents. I would gladly vote for the Independent. I’m sick and tired of electing somebody who is beholding to the Party first.

    I don’t agree with you about undercover investigative journalism. When people are just old about corrupt or worthless politicians, they just shrug it off. Too many will vote for a Democrat or Republican that is said to be corrupt or worthless unless they can see documented evidence to support the claim. I don’t know of any other way to get that information.

  166. Investigative journalism has been around for a long time, and has exposed plenty of corruption in elected officials, by use of ethical journalistic methods.

    Watergate is a fine example. Woodward and Bernstein did not have to resort to trickery and false representation to get that story.

  167. I find it fascinating the conservative-main-stream-media (CMSM) has basically exonerated Mr. O’Keefe and labeled his recent tactics as those of a kid’s prank. When previously the CMSM called his ACORN taping those of a hard-hitting investigative journalist. I emphatically agree with ’empirecookie’ that you just can’t have it both ways.

    What’s even more intriguing is Mr. O’Keefe wants to have all footage released from his latest ‘sting’ while at the same time refusing to release un-doctored footage from his ACORN prank.

    If he wasn’t such a partisan, right-wing, neo-con hack and had taken his ‘investigative journalist’ title seriously by uncovering wrong doing by BOTH parties, he’d be in a much stronger position to claim this title. (I don’t agree with his unethical ruse)

    Personally, I’d like to see the hidden cameras turned on Mr. O’Keefe to see how ‘honorable’ his actions line up with the CMSM portrayals of him.

  168. “The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator.”

    Duh,
    Believing this, or shilling this is why you deserve no respect. The excuse is ridiculous on its face, but you think it’s credible. Also with respect to your belief in investigative journalism the problem is that O’Keefe is not an investigative journalist. The best ones like Drew Pearson, Jack Anderson and I.F. Stone, were not partisans, but printed the truth as they found it, no matter what the political position of the person they investigated. O’Keefe on the other hand works for partisans like Andrew Breitbart and the Pelican Foundation, whose interest is in producing propaganda which people like you swallow whole.

    “The purpose of a blawg is to share thoughts and ideas.”

    That is the purpose of some people here, but not people like you who are into disseminating propaganda. You are just a minor league Goebbels, protesting that someone calls him on his big lie. By the way if you don’t like being characterized as such, think of the teabaggers who call opponents Fascists, Communists and Traitors. These are your people, but you try to stay above the fray.

    “Sometimes it’s hard to bite the hand that feeds you; even if it stinks.”

    More proof that even you know that O’Keefe is not a journalist, but a paid propagandist.

    “To support my claim, (that Mike Spindell has no problem with undercover investigative journalism when it supports his cause) please look at his comments here:”

    “I didn’t say that Mike Spindell said anything in those other threads. That was my point. It was that no disdain was expressed for the same type of activity when that activity was supporting a cause that he favored.”

    There is a disconnect between the first statement of yours and the second statement as you try to backtrack and evince the same type of (il)logic evinced by O’Keefe. If you honestly don’t see the dichotomy between the statements, then it merely proves my point that you are either stupid, a hypocrite or both.

    Now to again deal with your whining about name calling. The team you root for, yes you are that superficial, has for at least the past 30 years used lies to gain power. The MSM has treated these lies as equivalencies with the actual truth. (i.e. Health Care means Death Panels) By treating your drivel seriously it gives power to your lies and propaganda by making them respectable equivalents in debate. I refuse to treat ignorance, hypocrisy, stupidity and propaganda with respect. This has nothing to do with a liberal/conservative debate as people like Byron and FFLEO may attest to since we have disagreed on much, yet done it civilly.

    It has to do with pointing out dishonesty by trolls and using ridicule as the tactic. I’ve had disagreements with others here on various points but we didn’t call eachother names. I reserve that specifically for people like you who say the most outlandish untruths, in a respectful way of course and then expect courtesy. I won’t play your game because that gives you the advantage of being taken seriously and frankly you don’t deserve that honor.

  169. Doublebip,

    Thank you. This was interesting….

    Yet, there is a third way, or tactic, that sometimes appears, by far the worst of the lot – let’s call it the verbal tap dance. Instead of addressing the allegations truthfully or staying silent, the client or spokesperson’s response bends the spine of logic by parsing words to the point of sheer absurdity.

    The problem is that it doesn’t take much to see through such statements and everyone passes even harsher judgment on the scrutinized individual. In this case, the relevant FBI affidavit states that O’Keefe admitted coordinating with two others in an operation to tamper with federal government phone lines. So why does his lawyer say that there was no “interfering with the phone system”? And what good does it do O’Keefe to brag on Twitter that “Govt official concedes no attempt to wiretap”? (And that’s assuming that this observation is true! Right now O’Keefe isn’t exactly the best messenger for such forceful rebuttals.)

  170. The phrase you used, “room temperature IQ’s ” is probably the most appropriate description of these folks that has been offered by anyone – anywhere… I salute you for describing them as they really are AND here is a notice that I plan on using that phrase to describe MANY others that fall in the category….

  171. Anonymously Yours,

    You are incorrect.

    The affadavit only states that Flanagan and Basel admitted they “entered the office of Senator Landreau under false pretenses”, and that O’Keefe and Dai admitted in helping plan/coordinate that action. Paragraph 10.

    Paragraph 11, where the “maliciously interfering with a telephone system” line occurs, is the Affiant stating his belief that such was their intention.

  172. You know I’ve been musing over this incident since my last comments and given the fact these guys were dressed as telephone repair men I am assuming they had a TS22 test set (a small handheld handset used for testing)of some sort on their belts. Otherwise who would believe them?

    And we know they had a guy out in a van with a listening device, right? So they must have had some sort of transmitter, walkie talkie, etc.

    So if they had a TS22 on their belts and they got into the wiring closet then all they’d have to do is clip their handset to the punchdown block, key a walkie talkie or whatever they were using to transmit to the guy in the van and walla.

    Poor mans wire tap.

  173. It’s unlikely that these guys had access to real telecom gear, or would know what to do with it, based on their backgrounds. There is no information other than the phrase “tool belt” in the affadavit.

    And no, we do not “know” that Dai (the fellow in the car outside) had a listening device. That was not in the affadavit, but rather, is info from a single uncorroborated source, and therefore not necessarily dependable information.

    Also, it is likely that the telecom closet contained the wiring for the entire floor’s telephones – not just the phones in Senator Landreau’s office on that floor. They would need to identify the area of the punchdown block that pertained to the senator’s office, and then identify a single line to clip onto.

    Also, if you’re talking about using a handset and a walkie-talkie, that would entail making the traffic on that line audible – which would likely be notices fairly quickly.

    Plus, it’s “voila”. :)

  174. Mr. Turley, you said: “Reports indicate that a gag order was in place in this case.”

    You did not link to any such reports. Why not? If it was merely an oversight on your part, please provide the link. All I could find via Google was the HuffPo item that excerpted this article and a Raw Story item claiming that NBC reported a gag order in place (no link to the NBC report, if there is one, in the Raw Story post). You are quoted in the Raw Story item re the “gag order”. I can’t find anything on MSNBC.com referencing such a gag order or other instruction from the judge in the case.

  175. The Ombudsman 1, January 29, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    It’s unlikely that these guys had access to real telecom gear, or would know what to do with it, based on their backgrounds. There is no information other than the phrase “tool belt” in the affadavit.

    And no, we do not “know” that Dai (the fellow in the car outside) had a listening device. That was not in the affadavit, but rather, is info from a single uncorroborated source, and therefore not necessarily dependable information.

    Also, it is likely that the telecom closet contained the wiring for the entire floor’s telephones – not just the phones in Senator Landreau’s office on that floor. They would need to identify the area of the punchdown block that pertained to the senator’s office, and then identify a single line to clip onto.

    Also, if you’re talking about using a handset and a walkie-talkie, that would entail making the traffic on that line audible – which would likely be notices fairly quickly.”

    Access to “real telephone gear”?

    As opposed to fake telephone gear?

    I’m not sure what you mean here. You can pick up a Nortel or Harris handset at any Graybar or other telecom outlet anywhere in the country. Or online for that matter. Cheeeeep. And I can’t IMAGINE a telephone repair “tool belt” without one. It wouldn’t look right.

    As for making the transmission audible and someone overhearing it, you’ve been in a commercial or govt wiring closet before, right? Then you know you can’t hear much of anything going on in there in most closets. Simply hold the walkie talkie up to the handset, tape them together with the mic keyed and you’d be able to pick up the sound and record it. Never said it would be pin drop clear. But certainly audible enough to make out.

    As for the punch down block containing all the floors wiring that’s a given. Obviously they’d have to locate the correct wires but come on. Its not that hard to do once you’re in.

    Anyone who’s ever used a buttset knows that all you’d have to do is hook up, ring the other end and when someone answers saying “Mary Landrieu’s office” bingo.

    You’ve located the correct wire.

    This stuff is easy. I’m talking rudimentary techniques, not anything advanced. Now I won’t argue that these two chuckleheads probably couldn’t tap a beer keg without instructions but the capability was there. That is my point.

    Once inside the wiring closet even a dolt can tap a phone or a network as long as someone gave them simple instructions.

    So whether or not there was someone in the car with a listening device remains to be seen but a member of the FBI supposedly said there was so we’ll have to wait and see. But if there was then the capability to eavesdrop was surely there.

  176. If what James O’Keefe did in Louisiana is “investigative journalism,” then writing this Tweet about him makes me his official biographer.

  177. It sounds very much like Turley got it wrong, what do you say Bdaman? I bet he meant to really say as a condition of bond.

    Well Duh, lets be moving on.

  178. Mike Spindell,

    I, and others have asked for civility on this blawg. I have asked as nicely as I possibly can. Maybe the internet has provided a forum that makes you feel that type of behavior is acceptable, or maybe you just don’t know how to respond without personal attacks.

    I ask the other here to chastize you. I ask that they promote civil discussion, debate and argument.

    Step 1; ask for help from others
    Step 2; ask the Professor to intervene
    Step 3; be just as childish as you are

  179. This is a prime example of why Mr. O’Keefe and his tactics should be examined in excrutiating detail:

    Phone-tamperer O’Keefe’s bad week gets worse: Judge rules ACORN defunding unconstitutional

    “As former prosecutor Florida Rep. Alan Grayson has pointed out time and again, citizens pay more in one day to federal contractor Haliburton than taxpayers have given to ACORN in the last twenty years. Haliburton and many other defense contractors have been convicted of fraud, mostly for overcharging the government but also for gross negligence, as when Haliburton put in faulty showers in Iraq that electrocuted soldiers. ACORN has not been convicted of fraud. Grayson says the bill passed by Republicans to defund ACORN may result in broad “collateral damage” if lawmakers decide to go after contractors like Haliburton the way Republicans went after ACORN.”

    http://coloradoindependent.com/46799/phone-tamperer-okeefes-bad-week-gets-worse-judge-rules-acorn-defunding-unconstitutional

  180. “Step 1; ask for help from others
    Step 2; ask the Professor to intervene
    Step 3; be just as childish as you are”

    You are asking that I respect the drivel you produce and that will never happen. You play for sympathy, but deserve none. My ridicule bothers you simply because on some level you know all you’re producing is crap and you want that crap to be taken seriously. If that isn’t the case, though it is, then you wouldn’t care what I said. Your side is so good at dishing out the vitriol, but so unable to take it dished back. You want respect for your opinions, but they are ridiculous and therefore you deserve none. You are such a hack that you are twisting yourself into intellectual knots to provide cover for a loser phony like o’Keefe, how does that deserve being taken seriously?

  181. Mike Spindell said “You are asking that I respect the drivel you produce and that will never happen.”

    I am not asking you to respect anything I say or write. I’m asking you to respect this blawg.

    I don’t care if you respect me. You are welcome to attack my opinion ’till your heart’s content.

    PLEASE STOP YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS MR. SPINDELL.

  182. I’m hitting to close to home Duh? You don’t like to be made to look silly while you’re propagating the propaganda.

  183. Mike Spindell said “I’m hitting to close to home Duh? You don’t like to be made to look silly while you’re propagating the propaganda.”

    I voice my opinion, Mike. That’s all I am here for. I do so in a respectful manner.

    PLEASE STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS MR SPINDELL. PLEASE

  184. I’m no fan of personal attacks as anyone here who was in that other thread with me knows, but where is the personal attack here?

    I’m reading the thread but I don’t see one. I see where he indicated that you were partisan. I’m not sure if that qualifies as a personal attack.

  185. I’m so grateful for all these websites that have these “leave a reply” areas, where idiots like myself and the thousands of others who have posted here, can express our our deeply held yet completely ignorant political opinions. Thank you Mr. Turley for your “leave a reply” area, so I can unload my pile of bullcrap. Now I must be off to the next website to unload another massive dump about how angry I am.

  186. “ThirtyPercenter,

    A personal attack is any directed at the person (or persona) rather than the idea presented.” -Duh

    That’s a pretty broad stroke there. By that definition one could argue that your comments accusing Mike of personal attacks were personal attacks. I just think he’s saying your positions untenable and ridiculous and pushing it demonstrates your intent.

    Anyway far be it for me to butt in. This is between him and you. I just thought I’d point out I’m not seeing what I’d really call a personal attack.

  187. ThirtyPercenter,

    This is one of Mr. Spindell’s comments from today at 10:59 AM

    “I have called you ignorant, but to this point have not called you stupid (there is a differnce you know) but after this post I must say in line with all your other deficits you are stupid.”

    Do you have trouble interpreting that as a personal attack too?

  188. Duh,

    Debater, in-flamer take your choice. You shoot the first volley. Then take the spin and shoot it out like flim.

  189. AY said “Debater, in-flamer take your choice.”

    Isn’t it that a conservative point of view causes you to become outraged? Anyone posting a conservative point of view should be silenced before they “in-flame” the debate? Is that what you’re trying to say?

    What would you call someone who becomes enraged by reading an opposing point of view? Please answer that question without being a smart ass. I’m interested, because I just don’t understand how someone so secure in their own convictions can become outraged to the point of resorting to ad hominem attacks.

  190. You like to hear both side of an argument,so I went to the *REDSTATE* blog site and I saw this gem,amongst many others.

    “Maybe he should start
    anotherindyfilmguy Friday, January 29th at 12:20PM EST (link)
    suing the media outlets that have not run corrections/retractions for libel/slander as applicable? It would be interesting to see how suing them is reported as news if at all… Also it could hurt those outlets at their bottom line by directly taking cash or further destroying credibility which means even less viewers/readers etc…

  191. Mike S & Duh:

    Since someone asked, let me give you my take on personal attacks: If someone resorts to personal attacks, it is readily apparent and the rest of us just ignore it or consider the source. It is not a particularly enlightening form of debate and reveals a lot about the speaker. On the other hand, decrying every challenge or pin prick as a personal attack is manipulation pure and simple, as others have pointed out. How about we stay on topic; respond if the comment merits response; refrain from response if the purpose of the comment was clearly to inflame; keep it civil; and show the multitude of new commenters that we are decidedly above the din of most blogs where invective shabbily substitutes for insight?

  192. Duh It is not that you have a conservative point of view It is that you put a Fox News or Breitbart spin on everything you say.

  193. Swarthmore mom said “It is not that you have a conservative point of view It is that you put a Fox News or Breitbart spin on everything you say.”

    Well Sm, I don’t know what to tell you. I don’t watch FOX News, and I can honestly tell you that until the O’Keefe saga, I didn’t even know who Breitbart is.

    My opinion is just that; My opinion. I don’t voice it anywhere but here, and I don’t spend my day looking for news on other blogs.

    I don’t have cable or satellite.

    Maybe FOX News and Breitbart put a “Duh” spin on everything they say. Or maybe FOX News, Breitbart, I and many others express a conservative view. If it’s any concillation, On the occasion that I do see people like Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann (mostly YouTube videos), to me, they all seem to put the same spin on things that you do. :>)

  194. Swarthmore mom:

    “Duh It is not that you have a conservative point of view It is that you put a Fox News or Breitbart spin on everything you say.”

    Has it ever occurred to you that people tend to be attracted to those that think the way they think?

    For instance this blog is evidence of that. Most people here have a similar point of view. It varies only slightly and is more of nuances on shades of blue rather than an entirely different color. At least from my perspective. Since you are of like mind with most here, you are able to distinguish the differences.

    Since Duh is most likely to the right of all here he appears to you as a caricature of the right. You understand conservative thought about as well as most conservatives understand left wing thought. In fact that is one of the reasons I came here, I wanted to see what people on the left actually thought about issues. And I find myself agreeing with most of the civil liberties type issues and disagreeing on most of the economic issues.

    I have actually changed my outlook on a few things since coming here and would recommend being civil to Duh and explaining your positions and the reasoning behind why you hold them. Duh appears to be a very bright person and I am sure he is curious as to why you and others here hold the beliefs you do.

    If you can explain them to him in a rational manner he may end up questioning some of his long held beliefs as well and maybe you will question some of yours. Conservatives aren’t always wrong and people on the left are not always right.

  195. Byron What Bdaman posts is straight out of the right wing noise machine. A thinking conservative does not post the weather all the time to prove that global warming does not exist.

  196. Byron,

    Thanks for weighing in. I think your description was pretty accurate. I’m glad you said that I am “most likely to the right of all here”, because it provided a reference. As someone who was raised a Catholic, but is now an atheist, I don’t think I’m near as far to the right as some. I am against gay marriage, only because I have a desire to protect the institution and definition of marriage, but I have no problem with civil unions. I am also 100% in favor of tort reform.

    I know that to many we all look alike. That’s convenient, but it’s nowhere close to accurate. I may be wrong, but I don’t think all progressives agree on everything either, but I sure do hear the label used as a blanket to cover all pretty often.

    As I said, my opinions are mine. I present them here because this is the place where they are more likely to be challenged. Like most people my views are pretty much set in stone. Changing them takes chipping away a small piece at a time. The more trust and respect you have for a persons opinion, the more their opinion will influence your own. There are many here whose opinions I have come to respect and appreciate.

  197. Herr Duh,

    You are sanctioned to do with this site as you will. The check that we spoke of is in the mail. I like your style. Please show these non believers that no one and I mean no one is better than the NAZI Party the party of the Real people.

    Can you line up the Bdaman to start the attacks. We, no you sir need to show them the way of the truth and light. The way that we the Nazis have been taught to fight. It is out birth right.

    I cannot believe that you get away with this good work on this blog. We will take over the Congress this next year. I wish you well in your pursuit.

    The check is made out to you and please do with it as you wish. We have need for more like you.

  198. Swathmore Mom I was just teasing about the name switch. Global warming does not exist it is a myth. Yes the earth has warmed, the earth has cooled, it warmed and it’s cooling again.

    Medival Warming Period, Little Ice Age, Industrial Warming Period and now cooling.

  199. Swarthmore Mom:

    I have a sneaking suspicion that Bdaman does it as a joke. When he first came here that was his MO but he got so much crap for it he just started doing it for s & giggles. If you notice he has “cooled” it and now posts on topic the majority of the time.

    Bdaman: “did some one say cooled, it must be global warming here let me show you the newest latest greatest facts”

  200. “#
    Bdaman 1, January 29, 2010 at 9:06 pm

    Thank you Byron
    #
    227 Bdaman 1, January 29, 2010 at 9:06 pm

    Shoot forgot to change my name back to Duh, my bad”

    So you and Duh are the same? I thought so but wasn’t sure.

    That explains a lot.

  201. Swarthmore mom,

    If you’ve been paying attention, bdaman’s pet project is global warming/climate change. He probably knows more about the subject than anyone else here. I know he knows much more about it than I do. To dismiss it as being “straight out of the right wing noise machine” is to say that you know more about the subject than he does. If you do, spend a little time debating some of the issues of global warming with him. If you don’t, aren’t your responses straight out of the [left] wing noise machine?

    When you don’t paint with such a broad brush, you get to clearly see all the different colors. When you don’t, they all blend together.

  202. Herr Joseph please sign me up. My electric bill was $650.00 dollars this month. Florida had 14 consecutive days of low temperature below 32 degrees. In the history of record keeping this has never happened before. It was so cold in south Florida an entire coral reef has now been declared dead and ther was a massive fish kill never seen before.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/573/story/1432724.html

    P.S. Under Obama’s Cap and Trade Bill electricity rates will necessarily sky rocket.

  203. ThirtyPercenter said “So you and Duh are the same? I thought so but wasn’t sure.”

    I guess it’s true. Some fish will even bite an empty hook. :>)

  204. Sorry I thought you were confessing.

    So why did you say thank you again..?

    It was a joke? That took you a second post to explain that it was a joke?

  205. Goebbels said “Sie und bdaman sind im gleichen ?”

    You can look under bdaman to see if he is “gliechen”, but I’m happy to stay clear.

  206. ThirtyPercenter,

    It’s kind of a running joke. One of the regulars thinks that bdaman and myself are the same person. I don’t like to feed it, but bdaman likes to toy with that regular.

  207. Bomberman B-Daman
    Geschicklichkeit

    Was aber ist “B-Daman”? Nun, Informationen darüber sind nur sehr schwer zu finden, selbst auf ein paar vernünftigen japanischen Seiten zu diesem Thema fand ich nicht viel, was ich nicht selbst schon wusste. Ursprünglich wohl entwickelt von Takara, wurde das Spielprinzip, das hinter diesem Namen steckt, erst durch Hudson Soft wirklich bekannt. Die peppten das ohnehin schon maßlos coole B-Daman-Spielprinzip nämlich noch zusätzlich mit ihrem größten Helden Bomberman auf. Und das auf eine Art und Weise, dass man wirklich meinen könnte, dass Bomberman und B-Daman untrennbar seien und schon immer zusammen gehörten. Was allerdings, wie eben erwähnt, NICHT der Fall war. (Es sei an dieser Stelle darauf hingewiesen, dass ‘Bomberman B-Daman’ keinerlei direkten Bezug zu der auch schon in Deutschland gelaufenen Anime-Serie “B-Daman” hat. Die bezieht sich nämlich auf die später erschienenen “B-Daman”-Rollenspiele, die wiederum ABSOLUT NICHTS mit dem hier vorgestellten BOMBERMAN B-Daman zu tun haben. Alle Klarheiten beseitigt? Gut, dann weiter im Text.)

    http://www.pixel-heroes.de/Reviews/bombermanbdaman.html

  208. Herr Dr. Goebbels:

    “Whoever can conquer the street will one day conquer the state, for every form of power politics and any dictatorship-run state has its roots in the street.”

    Joseph Goebbels

    “His (Goebbels) National Bolshevik tendencies found expression in his evaluation of Soviet Russia (which he regarded as both nationalist and socialist) as ‘Germany’s natural ally against the devilish temptations and corruption of the West’.”

    “World Jewry will suffer a great catastrophe at the same time as Bolshevism. The Fuehrer once more expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness. We shall thereby render an inestimable service to a humanity tormented for thousands of years by the Jews. This uncompromising anti-Semitic attitude must prevail among our own people despite all objectors. The Fuehrer expressed this idea vigorously and repeated it afterward to a group of officers who can put that in their pipes and smoke it.”

    Joseph Goebbels

    I guess you can be taken seriously.

  209. 1, January 29, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    Oh, Duh… really, it’s past the point of wearying. I mean you bearing the entire weight of all these “personal attacks” by your lonesome. Whew, I’m exhausted just thinking about how much you’ve been through.

    – “I don’t watch FOX News”
    > But, but, but you state you have maybe, like, possibly once, seen Rachel Maddow or Mr. Oblermann on YouTube. I guess we should take it as a strange aberration you’ve never seen any of the Fox News talking heads either, except maybe once (oh, okay, twice). I guess you could parse and say you “don’t watch,” but then we’d be getting into definitions and “is” territory.

    – “I don’t have cable or satellite”
    > Bravo! Neither do I, but I have friends who do. I’d suspect you too have caught yourself some fair amount of television here and there in your life’s journey.

    – “I didn’t even know who Breitbart is.” (sic)
    > Really, because I thought you said you and Mr. O’Keefe were friends and had dinner and drinks? I’ll give you that sliver of doubt it could be entirely plausible Andrew Brietbart’s name never came up in your conversation and that you and Mr. O’Keefe simply talked sports and hot chicks all night long. However, seeing as you previously pointed out you ordered “Patriot” named cocktails and Mr. O’Keefe’s profession as investigative journalist and his narcissistic need to expound upon his journalistic conquests, I’d find it strange that Andrew Breitbart’s name never was uttered even once. Even stranger since Mr. Breitbart has claimed life-rights to Mr. O’Keefe, that Mr. O’Keefe wouldn’t brag or name drop. I’m sure though it’s because Mr. O’Keefe is so ethical he never discusses his media connections, right? More likely is you and Mr. O’Keefe aren’t as close as you’d like to think (desire?).

    – “Maybe FOX News and Breitbart put a “Duh” spin on everything they say”
    > Yup, I’m sure that’s it! Because they are so, so desperate for content they look to you for conservative talking points. I mean, you don’t have cable. No satellite. You don’t even read other news blogs so all your commentary would be fresh and witty and informed.

    p.s. It’s “conciliation” – you’d think that for someone with no cable, nor satellite and doesn’t spend his day on other news blogs they would be able to take the time to spell correctly. Fer chrissake, it even underlines the misspelled words for ya! (that was sarcasm and intentional misspelling in case you weren’t able to tell the difference)

    Lastly, if none of the above is clear to you, this is exactly why you get called out for carrying Mr. O’Keefe’s water for him… as you’ve previously pointed out you being his friend and all, of course.

  210. I swear every time I think I know something I read something that changes my mind. For Example a speech written by Goebbels on the German woman could have come from any Christian kook this side of the Mississippi. It was all about women behaving like women and having children for the perpetuation of the German race.

    Who would have thought that evangelical Christians and Nazi’s would want to keep them down on the farm barefoot and pregnant. Well Actually one woman did, a champion of the individual . . . I’ll let you figure it out.

  211. I’ll weigh in here too and try not to sound like the blog old fogy. I am a Duh fan for the reasons eloquently cited by Byron. The same goes for bdaman. We’ve had too much acrimony here that only resulted in the loss of two voices I would dearly like to hear again. (Patty C & Jill). Only the fool is certain, and I welcome views opposite to my own. I have learned much more from my drubbings here than any fleeting verbal “victories.”

  212. FYI,

    I am taking mespo’s, FF LEO’s advice and not entering into debates with propaganda spokespersons or those that are intolerant of others views.

    If you wish bdaman, duh the professor can check my address.

  213. doubledip,

    If you’d spend less time fantasizing about me, and a little more time reading what I wrote, you wouldn’t be so confused. I never said that I was “friends” with James O’Keefe. Did I?

    I’d take apart the rest of your post, but I don’t want you to lose the mood. Has green gone out of style?

    Being a regular at this blawg, do you find it strange that I would be exposed more to Maddow and Olbermann than those on FOX News?

    Did you spell “Oblermann” correctly? Pot, meet kettle.

  214. Thanks for weighing-in Mespo.

    When I first started reading this blawg, I wasn’t sure what to make of you. Today, Well, I’m still not sure. :>) LOL

  215. Duh,

    Yep, you got me. Mea Culpa.

    For the record though, I have not had one fantasy of you. Please don’t be disappointed :>)

    It’s best that I follow Anonymously Yours post and not enter into debates with propaganda spokespersons.

    Back to lurking, ciao!

  216. Mike S

    “It would seem to me that if you gain entrance to someone’s office on the basis of deception you are at minimum trespassing”

    Aye, there’s the rub. Was this a common waiting area like a foyer or was it back somewhere the commoners aren’t typically allowed (I would say that about any Congressman or Senator)?

    I have a friend who worked for Senator Craig Thomas in his office in Casper. I never had occassion to visit so I don’t really know how they are layed out. I guess if the footage isn’t accidentally erased we will have a lot more to go on in the court of public opinion.

  217. Byron : …”Who would have thought that evangelical Christians and Nazi’s would want to keep them (women) down on the farm barefoot and pregnant. Well Actually one woman did, a champion of the individual . . . I’ll let you figure it out.

    —-Eleanor Roosevelt! Yes, I agree totally, she was very forward looking and had a remarkable depth of compassion and wisdom not fully appreciated in her tenure as first lady. She is one of my personal hero’s. Here are some of the pearls of wisdom attributed to her:

    Do what you feel in your heart to be right- for you’ll be criticized anyway. You’ll be damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.

    In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.

    Anyone who knows history, particularly the history of Europe, will, I think, recognize that the domination of education or of government by any one particular religious faith is never a happy arrangement for the people.

    One’s philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes… and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility.

    The battle for the individual rights of women is one of long standing and none of us should countenance anything which undermines it.

    Friendship with ones self is all important, because without it one cannot be friends with anyone else in the world.

    I can not believe that war is the best solution. No one won the last war, and no one will win the next war.

  218. “Media Matters: Not-so-Breitbart and the story of James O’Keefe

    Back in September, right-wing activist James O’Keefe told Fox News host Glenn Beck that he was “willing to serve prison time” for his work.

    That just may happen.

    According to an affidavit from the FBI, O’Keefe and three others were arrested on Monday in connection with an alleged plot to “interfer[e]” with the phone system in Sen. Mary Landrieu’s New Orleans office. O’Keefe is perhaps best known for the heavily edited and misleading undercover videos he and Hannah Giles shot of low-level ACORN employees while the right-wing duo were dressed as a pimp and prostitute, an escapade that itself may have violated state criminal statutes.

    The New York Times reports that “the four men, two of whom were dressed as telephone repairmen, were charged with entering a federal property on false pretenses with the purpose of committing a felony. The crime charged is itself a felony that carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.”

    As Media Matters’ Eric Hananoki noted, O’Keefe’s three alleged accomplices — Joseph Basel, Robert Flanagan, and Stan Dai — are right-wing activists as well. Basel was the founder of a conservative campus publication at the University of Minnesota-Morris, which, like the campus publication started by O’Keefe at Rutgers University, received funding from the conservative Leadership Institute’s “Balance in Media” grant. Flanagan, the son of acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana William Flanagan, reportedly works at the conservative Pelican Institute in New Orleans, just half a block from Landrieu’s office. Dai received $5,000 from the right-wing Phillips Foundation’s Ronald Reagan Future Leaders Scholarship Program. Additionally, during his time as a campus conservative, Dai reportedly co-wrote “a satirical work entitled The Penis Monologues, apparently a takeoff on the Vagina Monologues.”

    News of the four’s arrest spread quickly Tuesday.

    Because Fox News had showered O’Keefe’s undercover video work targeting ACORN with near wall-to-wall coverage, one would have hoped the conservative network would provide comparable coverage of the arrest — it did not. In fact, a Media Matters study comparing coverage of the day following the release of O’Keefe and Giles’ first ACORN tape and the day news of O’Keefe’s arrest broke found that Fox News provided 13 times more coverage to the video.

    Fox News’ first segment on O’Keefe’s arrest was as funny as it was disappointing (view it here). During the report, assignment manager Tim Gaughan called the news a “very weird story that probably needs a lot of context and a lot of looking into.” Sage advice — too bad the network often didn’t offer ACORN the same deference.

    It really shouldn’t be much of a surprise that Fox News handled the O’Keefe arrest with such kid gloves. After the release of his ACORN videos, Fox and other media conservatives lavished praise on O’Keefe. Beck called him “courageous.” Andrew Breitbart — more on him in a bit — said that O’Keefe “is already well on his way to being one of the great journalists” and that he deserved a Pulitzer Prize. Sean Hannity applauded him as a “pioneer in journalism.” Bill O’Reilly said he deserved a “congressional medal.” Right-wing author Ann Coulter said O’Keefe was “so magnificent.” National Review editor Rich Lowry said he deserved an “award for impactful guerilla journalism.” On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace featured O’Keefe as “Power Player of the Week.” And when news came that O’Keefe might be sued by ACORN or its staffers over the videos, Hannity and Breitbart led the conservative media fundraising campaign for his defense.

    The fact that the right-wing media were so smitten with O’Keefe no doubt accounts for their skittish, measured response to the arrest. The Fox News website Fox Nation even posted a headline that read ” ‘There’s Much More to This Story.’ ”

    Perhaps no one in the conservative media has more to lose over this story than the previously mentioned Breitbart, a protégé of Internet gossip Matt Drudge and proprietor of a variety of right-wing websites including BigGovernment.com. After all, he was first to champion the undercover ACORN videos O’Keefe and Giles shot last year.

    Breitbart claimed that he was “out of the loop on this” and released a public statement to some in the press saying he had “no knowledge” “or connection to” O’Keefe’s actions. Breitbart also admitted during an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that he pays O’Keefe a “fair salary” so that “when he puts a story out there, it’s on the Breitbart sites, the Big sites, that he can tell people what transpired.” He reiterated during that interview that he was not connected with O’Keefe’s actions in Landrieu’s office.

    It’s been entertaining watching Breitbart lecture others on journalistic ethics when he’s shown such little regard for truth in his own work. In fact, according to a report released this week by Media Matters, Breitbart’s “Big” websites — Big Hollywood, Big Government, and Big Journalism — as well as his Breitbart.tv website, have in recent months laid claim to many “exclusives,” touting controversial and sensationalist storylines that have been picked up by other conservative media outlets, from Fox News on down. However, a closer examination reveals that many of Breitbart’s “scoops” have been based on speculation, gross distortions, and outright falsehoods.

    Later in the week, Breitbart brought his ACORN video lies and full-throated defense of O’Keefe to MSNBC, where he was subjected to a grilling by David Shuster that was followed up by an interview with Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert, who said Breitbart’s type of journalism produces “the kind of Johnny Knoxville situation we get down in New Orleans.”

    Ultimately, Breitbart predicted “there will be tape to vindicate these four pranksters.” Yep, the man who previously said O’Keefe deserved a Pulitzer is now calling him a “prankster.” How’s that for spin?

    Breitbart continued to function as O’Keefe’s de facto public relations flack as the week came to an end, posting a statement that “[o]n reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation” on his websites. Of course, Fox News is doing its part, trumpeting news of an exclusive O’Keefe interview with Hannity coming next week.

    So, how on earth could James O’Keefe think for even a minute that these types of actions might be a good idea? The answer to that question can be found in his own words from just two weeks ago.

    During an interview with Adam Weinberg of The Centurion — the right-wing student publication at Rutgers University that claims O’Keefe as a “founding editor” — Breitbart’s protégé said, “The more bold you are, the more opportunities will be open to you. The less bold you are, the less opportunities in life will be open to you.” He went on: “[T]he more you put yourself out there and you take those calculated risks — the contrary of what people actually think is going to happen — you’re actually going to get opportunities.”

    That’s the life lesson O’Keefe learned from his relationship with Andrew Breitbart — the man who made him a right-wing star and Fox News celebrity.

    Ultimately, a jury of O’Keefe’s peers may decide his fate, but it should be lost on no one that Breitbart and his allies at Fox News share in the responsibility for what has been alleged to have transpired.”

  219. Has Sean Hannity mentioned the arrest on his radio show yet?

    What are parents supposed to think when he prunes reality, censors questions and whitewashes felony charges against the kid that he chose to make famous?

  220. “Isn’t it that a conservative point of view causes you to become outraged? Anyone posting a conservative point of view should be silenced before they “in-flame” the debate? Is that what you’re trying to say?”

    Duh,
    There you go again Duh. Perhaps your problem is that you only skim others comments and don’t read them. Byron and FFLEO are conservatives and yet are highly valued members of this forum. JT and Mespo lean more towards the Libertarian side of things (I think) and yet they are esteemed here.

    I’ve said this before in comments on this thread but you choose to ignore anything that you feel you can’t answer. That is the tactic of a propagandist, not someone who wants discussion. I have made points to you which dealt with what you had written, but you ignored them by choosing to focus on what you wanted to say, rather than what you had no reply for. That too is the mark of a propagandist and a troll.

    It never ceases to amaze me how faux conservatives like yourself, can dish it out but can’t take it. I believe it’s because you cling to a non existent version of reality, such as dressing up as phone men to illegally gain entrance to a Senator’s office is alternatively a prank or investigative journalism.

  221. “We’ve had too much acrimony here that only resulted in the loss of two voices I would dearly like to hear again. (Patty C & Jill). Only the fool is certain, and I welcome views opposite to my own.”

    Mespo,
    Permit me to weigh in also about your tolerance for other views. I guess that goes well until someone brings up religion and then somehow you call them the equivalent of idiots. I offer as evidence your treatment on another thread of 30%er, which was beyond harsh to say the least and practically totally missed what he was really trying to say.

    I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored, or perhaps which buttons we don’t want pushed. Bdaman pushed my button by calling me a “Christ Killer” and there really are some things I don’t forgive. Duh pushed my button because he is a knee jerk example of the faux conservative noise machine that has dominated our politics since the time of Nixon. Plus I’ve explained why I attack him as I do, whether or not you like the explanation.

    I regret Patty C.’s leaving also, as you might remember, but she really kept going over the top in her indictments of Jill. Ah, and then we have Jill. Patty had it right, had she expressed herself with far less vitriol. Jill was fine on the attack, but when respectfully disagreed with, enterred pleas suprisingly similar to Duh’s. She attacked me twice for personally attacking her and in both instances i hadn’t, but she played the sympathy trump. If I atack someone personally I admit it openly, as I have with Duh. I didn’t with Jill and I wasn’t even the principal in that thread. However, to up the ante, since the sympathy trump wasn’t working, she threatened to leave and when that didn’t work she left of her own volition.

  222. Mike Spindell,

    Thanks for your constructive criticism.

    It would help me, and others, if you could provide us with a reference to a post to support or help explain this statement you made;

    “I’ve said this before in comments on this thread but you choose to ignore anything that you feel you can’t answer. I have made points to you which dealt with what you had written, but you ignored them by choosing to focus on what you wanted to say, rather than what you had no reply for.”

    I honestly cannot figure out what you’re talking about. I expect that you will provide a reply that amounts to “you’re too stupid to know, I’m not going to point it out”. Which would indicate that you either don’t really desire corrective action, or that you can’t support your claim.

    You said “It never ceases to amaze me how faux conservatives like yourself, can dish it out but can’t take it.”

    Can you please tell us all what the “it” is you are referring to?
    Are you using ambiguity as the primary focus of your rhetoric? Is that your game?

  223. “Duh pushed my button because he is a knee jerk example of the faux conservative noise machine that has dominated our politics since the time of Nixon. Plus I’ve explained why I attack him as I do, whether or not you like the explanation.”

    Translated: Duh provides commentary that I don’t agree with, so I have no choice but to resort to ad hominem attacks. He makes me do it. It’s his fault, not mine.

  224. Duh wrote:

    “Thanks for weighing-in Mespo.

    When I first started reading this blawg, I wasn’t sure what to make of you. Today, Well, I’m still not sure. :>) LOL”
    ________________________________

    Duh et al.

    Mespo is one among a diverse—albeit not abundantly numerous—cadre of intelligent lawyers who transform this blog into a blawg following the lead of the initial articles by Professor Turley. Those attorneys could easily spend most of their limited free time within other very good ABA blawgs that are mostly populated by other lawyers; however, they grace this site with their presence and provide us with legal perspectives along with those for which an overall good law degree education provides them.

    I have had several substantive disagreements with Mespo, although I never lost respect for his exceptional contributions herein. The same goes for your apparent blawg nemesis, Mike Spindell. Win/lose/or draw we avoided abject ad hominem attacks because of mutual respect and regardless of intellectual and/or educational disparities. If I disagree with their posts—or those of the many regulars I like—and I cannot rebut their positions with something logical and constructive, I simply ignore them the same way I would avoid irregular, but pesky troublemakers’ claptrap/twaddle. My best guess is that they and other regulars sometimes avoid my posts for similar reasons.

    While I can and do ‘get off track’, I most often try to remember that this is Professor Turley’s cyber-place/virtual classroom. I would not want to do anything that would denigrate or demean his site or him—notwithstanding that I sometimes adamantly disagree with his liberal positions while having the utmost respect for the man, his chosen profession, and admiration for his exceptionally good character.

    Therefore, when we *guests* here squabble like a passel of high school dropouts on secondhand dope, we not only debase ourselves, we disgrace the opportunity a fine legal scholar has provided for us to debate. Try to view this as a high school or college debate chamber with the addition of an abundance of humor and witticisms allowed that stuffy lectern debates preclude, but one many leagues shy of a virtual Fool’s Paradise.

  225. Why did they hurt me?
    How many times have you felt that someone did hurt you on intention?
    How many sleepless nights have you spent because of the feeling of being hurt?
    Have you ever tried to know whether people really intended to hurt you or whether its jut your lack of understanding of the full picture?

    Stand right in front of a big building and look at one of the walls then describe what you are seeing. If you found that you are only seeing a wall then take few steps back and take another look; here you will see a part of a building but if you stepped back again for a bigger distance you will see the whole building or the full picture.

    In most cases, people feel hurt because they only see part of the truth while ignoring that full picture that could have made them see this situation in a totally different way.

    Let go. Understand that there is no benefit in holding on to heartache, regret, and hatred toward another person. Realize that although it is over, your relationship with that person was unique and special. XOXOXOX

  226. FFLEO,

    After reading your post, and since you quoted me, I’m not sure if you took my comment about Mespo in the right way. I intended no disrespect towards Mespo. I, in a light-hearted, humorous fashion, expressed that Mespo is complicated. I like complicated people. They generally have much to share, which provides me with much to learn.

    My intent was to get a freindly chuckle from Mespo. I hope that he took it that way.

  227. Duh,

    Yes, I understood your humorous intent because of the “LOL.” I also added the ‘et al.’ for a distinct reason. I quoted your comment because had you not posted about mespo, I would not have responded; that is, your post was the impetus for my post and I took it the way you intended it to be—a humorous ‘jab’ and I know that mespo will (or has) also..

  228. Duh & FFLeo:

    I took the Duh comment in the humorous vein it was intended and greatly appreciate FFLeo’s flattering remarks.

    I am not really all that complicated. I prefer “misunderstood,” as in “To be great is to be misunderstood.” Now that thought really is humorous. :)

  229. Mespo you are too much, which is better that not enough.

    You’re One of a kind, which doesn’t beat two of a kind but is still special no matter how many hands one is dealt.

  230. “There you go again Duh. Perhaps your problem is that you only skim others comments and don’t read them. Byron and FFLEO are conservatives and yet are highly valued members of this forum. JT and Mespo lean more towards the Libertarian side of things (I think) and yet they are esteemed here.

    I’ve said this before in comments on this thread but you choose to ignore anything that you feel you can’t answer. That is the tactic of a propagandist, not someone who wants discussion.”

    That was the previous paragraph to the statement you quoted Duh, if you can’t understand the point that is not my problem.

    “Duh pushed my button because he is a knee jerk example of the faux conservative noise machine that has dominated our politics since the time of Nixon. Plus I’ve explained why I attack him as I do, whether or not you like the explanation.

    Translated: Duh provides commentary that I don’t agree with, so I have no choice but to resort to ad hominem attacks. He makes me do it. It’s his fault, not mine.”

    Again you delete context from my statement. However, let me give you a fuller context that can be found by anyone who cares to look. After the Goldwater Debacle in 1964 a bunch of like minded conservatives/corporatists, with lots of money decided that their problem was PR and launched a long run campaign to win the propaganda wars. Their initial foray was to create foundations like Heritage, funded by a John Birch Society Member, to provide academic speakers who would present the face of their brand of corpratism to the media. Many foundations were formed and after a while the lazy media began to put these people on without giving the context that they were paid spokesman. By 1968 Nixon realized that the Presidency could be won by using the disaffection with the Civil Rights and Anti-War movements heavily in the South and the country as a whole.

    They were very good on PR and invented memes like “soft on crime”
    and “lawlessness” which became codewords for racism and hatred of the counter culture. Now in truth both these movements played into their hands after the death of MLK and RFK by becoming caricatures of themselves and believing in their own omnipotence, so they made the job easy.

    What was added in the age of Nixon was the professionalism of the “dirty trick” player, Donald Segetti was the first I believe. Their object was to make the opposition look bad by developing a negative narrative, even when one didn’t exist. It was the epitome of Watergate and why Nixon had to leave office.
    However, he was was ultimately replaced by Carter and Segretti by
    Lee Atwater, who in turn trained Karl Rove. The conservative foundations flourished and the three networks were taken over by large, conservative corporations. The floodgates opened as propaganda became the new coin of political gain. Sunday news shows all had guests each week from the conservative foundations, who were now referred to reverantly as academics and disinterested experts.

    Stories were planted in the news to make it seem as if all government was incompetent and only business knew how to get things done. Tom Brokaw of NBC News, owned by the world’s largest defense contractor, GE, had nightly stories showing government incompetence. The PR campaign worked, the sons and daughters of the original founders followed in their footsteps. Nancy Reagan’s father for instance was an original member of the John Birch Society, which was dedicated to bigotry and the end of all government regulation.

    We are now in a stage where 50 years of propaganda and a lowering of educational standards has gotten many people to believe in what really is in their worst interests. However, that is the political game and liberals/moderates deserve what they get because they haven’t even realized the PR war they are in.

    The technique that was perfected by Karl Rove, namely the old Nazi technique of the Big Lie, is what gets me mad. That technique, developed by Streicher and Goebbels was simply that if you repeat a lie often enough in public, people begin to believe it’s true. i.e. Obama is not a natural born citizen.

    You duh are a propagator of the Big Lie, whether intentionally, or not, I neither know nor care. It is typified by your rush to promote the right’s talking points, no matter their silliness, or viciousness. By engaging in debate with you each time you present an unthinking viewpoint helps repeat the “Big Lie” and thus adds credibility to the untruth. I refuse to play your game and it mystifies you because it works so well with others.

    People like Byron and FFLEO think things through for themselves and many times I even agree with their viewpoints. You probably don’t even realize that I’m really not a left winger per se, I am a pragmatist and iconoclast. I have stated here many times that i’m not interested in political philosophy because it’s what gets people jailed and killed. I selfishly want and try to work for a better human race because I’ve got children and grandchildren. Whether you accept it or not that is the reason for my treatment of you in the manner I do, because to me not to do so, gives your propaganda license.

  231. AY,
    It was me, I didn’t realize the picture didn’t come out and wonder why. I’ve had a lot of difficulties with WordPress of late.

  232. Mike Spindell,

    Thanks for providing us with “your version” of history. You do realize that two people can view the same series of events and interpret them differently. Don’t you? You do realize that both can consider their view to be acurate. Don’t you?

    Who appointed you in charge of trying to run-off anyone who presents a point of view like mine? Who granted you permission to disregard the rules of civility in order to further your crusade against my point of view?

    I am not paid. I don’t work for, nor am I a member of any political strategy association. I’m me. I express my views.

    Maybe FFLEO or Mespo can better explain what you’re saying, and what I am saying. I don’t understand your justification for personally attacking me, and I don’t think you can understand that I am just me, expressing my own views.

  233. AY said “this is not Mike S’s writing style”
    Mike Spindell replied “It was me”

    ROTFLMAO. At least that will put an end to AY’s claims that bdaman and I are one in the same, based one our writing style.

  234. “Who appointed you in charge of trying to run-off anyone who presents a point of view like mine?”

    I’ve never once suggested that you shouldn’t post here. Actually I on’t believe I’ve done that with anybody. Nor have I appealed to others
    to take care of me, I’m well equipped to do it on my own. As to competing views of history I’ve forgotten more than you’ll ever learn and if you would simply try to read harder you might understand that what I said was no defense of the left wing. You won’t though and that is your problem. You can’t face up to being wrong and admitting it, or even seeing it. On the other hand in my history here I’ve admitted being wrong on many occasions and apologized for it sincerely with no equivocations. That is a big difference between you and me. I’m actually capable of trying to understand what someone is saying. You, not at all, you lack the capacity.

  235. use right bout dat, know watt i’m sayin. Just remembers, I aint laughin wit ya, I’m laughin at ya. word to ya mother, iaight

  236. So when are we to expect a correction in Mr. Turley’s commentary?
    There was, as far as anyone has been able to ascertain, no gag order for Mr. O’Keefe to violate. Perhaps Mr. Turley could, in the future, be more careful about judging the sources of items he reports as they have proven to be highly subjective, if not outright unreliable, as shown with this case.

  237. Hey Waynester, when are you going to correct this fallacy from your blog?

    “Born October, 1960. Served 4 years US Army. Currently operating home based electronics repair business. Dedicated to liberty and freedom, which puts me at odds with leftists and “modern” liberals. ”

    Obviously a party that permits zero dissent within its ranks cannot be considered promoting “liberty”.

    Obviously a party that believes in throwing more people in prison or sending the military into other countries to occupy and imprison their people cannot be considered to be promoting “freedom”.

    So your statement should read “Dedicated to defeating liberty and freedom, which puts me at odds with leftists and “modern” liberals. “

  238. A couple of years ago, a Sheriff’s deputy in Texas got off work, and went to do something he did often to relax–watch the trains run.

    Within 30 minutes, he was surrounded by other police, accusing him of DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

    Same has happened to people filming bridges, tunnels and other infrastructure.

    What these 4 did is DOMESTIC TERRORISM–ILLEGAL ENTRY GAINED THROUGH FRAUD, with the intent to SABOTAGE.

  239. Because he is a GOP operative, nothing will happen to him. He can confess his sins. Get absolved and go on his merry way. That is how the roll in the GOP. Governors get away with wrong doing but eh, they said to God they are sorry and they are forgiven. Dem who try the same thing are Godless Communist and will get the maximum sentence. That is the way it rolls in this new reality.

  240. Dear Duh, a little late but my problem with O’Keefe is calling him an undercover journalist. An undercover journalist does not edit the tape to show him waltzing down the street in a clownish pimp outfit when he entered the Acorn office as a well dressed boyfriend trying to protect his whore girlfriend. A journalist does not edit the tape to make it sound like Acorn is telling them to hide the money from the IRS (they tell them that all income must be reported to the IRS) when they were telling her to hide the money from the pimp. A journalist does not ignore those Acorn sites that called the cops. A journalist does not make headlines about the lady that obviously saw through there spoof and said she murdered her husband when both are still alive.

    He edited the tappe to make Acorn the evil doers he imagined them to be. He is an undercover propagandist.

    http://alturl.com/jb83

  241. Re: thirtypercenter
    I don’t have time to respond to bs from a collectivist. Collectivism, in it’s varied formulations, is the single most life and liberty destroying political philosophy the world has ever known. And besides, what my blog says is way off topic.

  242. Quoting “thirtypercenter”
    “Hey Waynester, when are you going to correct this fallacy from your blog?

    “Born October, 1960. Served 4 years US Army. Currently operating home based electronics repair business. Dedicated to liberty and freedom, which puts me at odds with leftists and “modern” liberals. ”

    Obviously a party that permits zero dissent within its ranks cannot be considered promoting “liberty”.

    Obviously a party that believes in throwing more people in prison or sending the military into other countries to occupy and imprison their people cannot be considered to be promoting “freedom”.”

    Did I say a damn thing about any party? Is the screen moniker “thirtypercenter” intended to be indicative of your rate of reading comprehension? If so I’d say it’s a little generous.

  243. Waynester,

    You sound like Duh, Bdaman. Any correlation between the three, four, five do I hear more?

    I am amazed at your capacity to comprehend facts. I think it is interesting the spin on the facts that you give it when they don’t go the way you wish, shows your military training. Guess the reason you only did four was because you can’t take orders and they had a nice signing bonus for the stint? Any truth?

    I see you taking the corrections page on now as well. Do that at your own peril. Spin, Jack threads on this side. That is, I believe the professors request that it be used for corrections only. Not disputing facts.

    I do post over there but it usually a mistake and when I do before nal, I heckle him then. Take this for what you want, I am sure you will…

  244. Anonymously yours
    If I had your level of acuity I’d be anonymous, too.

    “I think it is interesting the spin on the facts that you give it when they don’t go the way you wish…”

    What “spin” do you refer? And what the hell do you know about “military training” anyway?

    Former Federal LEO:
    “For anyone who claims a factual error in an original article, please post a polite, detailed rebuttal within the *Corrections* section:”

    Anonymously Yours:
    “Do that at your own peril. Spin, Jack threads on this side. That is, I believe the professors request that it be used for corrections only. Not disputing facts.”

    So which is it?

  245. “Did I say a damn thing about any party? Is the screen moniker “thirtypercenter” intended to be indicative of your rate of reading comprehension? If so I’d say it’s a little generous.”

    lol, hey that’s funny stuff.

    So you usually just come into the ends of threads to bury the topic with a bunch of juvenile insults and off topic babble?

  246. The troll that is “duh” cannot handle the debate so you come in to just sort of bury everything in a bunch of inane one liner insults against pretty much everyone?

    Anyway thanks for letting us know you’re not a neocon.

    Would have been hard to tell otherwise.

  247. “Re: thirtypercenter
    I don’t have time to respond to bs from a collectivist” -Waynester

    Here, let me fix that for you,

    “I don’t have the brainpower to respond to you so I make up excuses and toss labels so as to appear as if I had a brain”. -Waynester

    There. All better.

  248. …and off topic babble?
    He of off-topic babble dares to condemn–funny. My original comment was in fact on topic. It is you that decided to use my bio section of Newsvine for ammunition in a blatantly ad hominem manner. Thanks for illustrating to all the readers your proximate quality of argument. That is to say, low.

    “Here, let me fix that for you,”

    …that whole “let me fix that for you” bit is /so/ oughts. Got anything newer?

  249. Waynester,

    You are most certainly and indeed welcome. You make a great conversation piece. Sorta like the Head on the end of a stick.

    Your right wing stuff is interesting. So is a lot of stuff, like postings that are illusory or illogical mixed with some grain of truth. Just enough to make it hard to tell the truth of which is real and which is an illusion. But you get to decide who is right.

    The next time you go to Florida, hit Winter Haven. It the summer home to PT Barnum and his majestic estate. Suckers paid for it. But then again one is born everyday.

    Duh is good. He disappeared and you are here. Bdaman got burned to, now you are here. Jacker of Threads was here temporarily, now you are here.

    The only things used against you was the truth that you put out there. Why would you be so upset?

    Attack, ensnare, devour, attack, defend, deny, and attack. What is your pleasure?

  250. Waynester, Using the “oughts” as a characteristic of a shallow frame of cultural reference isn’t going to fly here. Several of the posters periodically retreat to the aughts to make a point, the real aughts, BCE 100 – 100 CE. They’ll hit you with a quotation from Vespasian at the slightest provocation. We loves ourselves some aughts at Turley blawg :-)

  251. “…and off topic babble?
    He of off-topic babble dares to condemn–funny. My original comment was in fact on topic. It is you that decided to use my bio section of Newsvine for ammunition in a blatantly ad hominem manner. Thanks for illustrating to all the readers your proximate quality of argumen”

    Thanks for illustrating to all the readers your quality of character. See, if you scroll up and read our first exchange you’ll find that it was not I who launched an ad hominem manner anything. I merely pointed out the fallacious nature of your condemnation of liberals from your bio.

    It was you who responded by calling me a collectivist, so apparently the ad hominem manner was yours.

    Get your facts straight.

  252. 30%er,

    I am in Shock, a Family Valued GOP Operative would use such words in Public. I am aghast, the purity that once was isn’t. Right Waynester Gangster? BeDuhGanster, WannaBedaman?

  253. Waynester: I have deleted a couple of entries for foul language. Please avoid such language in the future on this blog.

  254. Waynester–

    “There was, as far as anyone has been able to ascertain, no gag order for Mr. O’Keefe to violate.”

    Gag order
    Definition (from Lawyers.com)
    : an order barring public disclosure or discussion (as by the involved parties or the press) of information relating to a case

    Gag Order (from Legal-Explanations.com)
    (n) Gag Order is the order issued by a judge prohibiting the attorney and parties involved in a legal procedure not to disclose or discuss the matter involved in the case to the public, when the judge is of the opinion that such an action may prejudice or influence the outcome the trial.

    ***************

    I read in an article at The Huffington Post today that the judge told O’Keefe and his alleged co-conspirators not to discuss the case. That sounds pretty close to a gag order to me.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/01/interviews-shed-light-on_n_444300.html

  255. Elaine M.,

    I do not believe a gag order has actually been entered. I do think that this is a Condition of Bond and he is risking being held in contempt and remanded to the Custody of the place responsible for taking charge of Federal Prisoners.

  256. Phoebe,

    I do suppose he is most upset that his name will make him suffer impecuniously. Awe gosh, I had never really paid much attention to him before now.

    I wonder if O’Keefe will turn on him for a lighter sentence? Hmm, It does make one wonder. He complained that O’Keefe was denied an Attorney for 28 hours and compared this to the whole Gitmo. I suppose that they would be happy to be released after 28 hours. Now when did Bush give them an Attorney? 2001, 02,03,04,05,06,07,08? Was this more than 28 hours?

    I guess unless you are playing for the Hometeam you have no right.

    I did notice that he had a banner on his picture that said send “9th Graders to Prison.” If he really believes that they certainly O’Keefe is Prison material.

  257. AY–

    So…what exactly is the difference between a gag order and a judge’s instructions to parties in a legal procedure “not to disclose or discuss the matter involved in the case to the public?”

  258. Elaine M.,

    An Order is by the court subjecting the parties to contempt by the court for disobeying what the court has stated.

    A Gag order applies to others all persons and not necessarily parties before the court. Such as news medias. It is a prior restraint of dissemination of any information by the parties and if it is released somebody is going to Jail.

    The condition of bond in this case, although subject to the wrath of the court is generally not an order of the court unless set/ordered by the court.

    This is a magistrate setting the terms and conditions of bond and it only applies to these/this defendant.

    It is not an order by the court to the prosecutors or news media. YET.

    I would guess that the court will be having a hearing shortly. I do not think that the people with the media outlets have considered but they will do great benefit to those in Federal Custody being held in all sorts of places.

    My suspicion is that one of the reasons that they want to keep all of the detainees out of the US is because of the Noreiga decision that stated that the 4th AM has no applicability outside of the US borders and the CIA has made a hay day out of it ever since.

Comments are closed.