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.
Duh,
Sie und bdaman sind im gleichen ?
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.
“#
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shoot forgot to change my name back to Duh, my bad
Thank you Byron
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.
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. :>)
Mespo,
Point taken. I will admit that I have become over-sensitive to the personal attacks.
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.
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?
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…
“
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.
Duh,
Debater, in-flamer take your choice. You shoot the first volley. Then take the spin and shoot it out like flim.
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?
“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.