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.
ThirtyPercenter,
A personal attack is any directed at the person (or persona) rather than the idea presented.
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.
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.
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
I’m hitting to close to home Duh? You don’t like to be made to look silly while you’re propagating the propaganda.
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.
“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?
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
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
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.
what gag order?
If what James O’Keefe did in Louisiana is “investigative journalism,” then writing this Tweet about him makes me his official biographer.
Tapping into a twisted pair is like plugging your earphones into your IPOD.
So easy a Caveman can do it.
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.
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.
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”. 🙂
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.
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.
Sorry forgot to change my name.
Professor Turley, Didn’t you watch the video?