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.
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
Oh, Mike S.,
I guess the nefarious non de plume de jour infuriates the flamer. lol
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
“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.”
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.
O’Keefe statement on recent incident:
http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/29/statement-from-james-okeefe/
“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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
“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.
“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?
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.