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.
Winski,
Where did that statement come from?
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….
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.)
PR crisis management and their take on how Mr. O’Keefe is in way over his head. http://praecere.com/public-relations-firm-pr-blog/crisis-corner-okeefe-third-and-worst-way-in-crisis-public-relations-strategy
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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”
“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. :>)
Mr. O’Keefe fails to cite any of the various conservative media outlets who printed assumptions regarding his presence in Sen. Landreau’s office.
Links to said outlets and their stories here:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001290013
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.”
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.
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.