Conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe has gone public with what is likely to be his defense at trial to the felony charge that he entered federal property with “false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony.”
In a statement published on bigovernment.com, O’Keefe says that he was merely trying to refute the claim of Landrieu that her office could not field constituent calls because her telephones had been “jammed for weeks.” He said “I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for ‘weeks’ because her phones were broken. . . . In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Sen. Landrieu’s district office — the people’s office — to ask the staff if their phones were working.”
The description in the affidavit shows more than asking the staff if their phones were working. They asked to see the main telephone system. Such a stunt is particularly dangerous at a time of terroristic concerns. Any number of political extremists could claim to be journalists in trying to infiltrate secure areas. Moreover, such stunts can lead to unpredictable responses from security personnel, including lockdowns and detaining large numbers of individuals. It is a perfectly moronic practice that raises questions of not just O’Keefe’s judgment but his mental faculties.
O’Keefe’s continued public statements show a lack of control and caution in this criminal defense case. Most attorneys bar clients from making such comments. While there has been no confirmation of the reported gag order in the case, O’Keefe was reportedly told to “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 on including but not limited to: unless for business purposes only.” That would not normally bar public comments, but his public statements could trigger a formal gag order in the case. Putting aside of rules restricting public statements in local rules (and any possible gag order), it is always a high-risk practice. O’Keefe is now locked into this defense because of his public statements. They can be admitted at trial. Moreover, if he decides not to take the stand, his public comments are likely to magnify the suspicions of the jury. In a case that is likely to turn on the jury’s view of motivation and intent, such presumptions can be highly damaging.
O’Keefe appeared willing to plead to entry under false pretenses while contesting the “intent to commit a felony.” The difference is considerable. Entry under false pretenses alone presents a maximum sentence of 6 months. Here is the language of Section 1036:
§ 1036. Entry by false pretenses to any real property, vessel, or aircraft of the United States or secure area of any airport or seaport
How Current is This?
(a) Whoever, by any fraud or false pretense, enters or attempts to enter—
(1) any real property belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States;
(2) any vessel or aircraft belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States;
(3) any secure or restricted area of any seaport, designated as secure in an approved security plan, as required under section 70103 of title 46, United States Code, and the rules and regulations promulgated under that section; or
(4) any secure area of any airport,
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is—
(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the offense is committed with the intent to commit a felony; or
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both, in any other case.
Of course, if he succeeded in defeating the felony component, he could be convicted and then sentenced to the full six months in the case. This also does not include any collateral charges like 18 U.S.C. 1001 for false statements to federal agents or other possible efforts to expand the counts by the prosecution.
Absent surveillance charges, the felony would be Section 1362;
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.
He appears intent in claiming that he was not going to interfere with the system, but only observe it. Even under this claim, the government could argue that any effort to test the system could cause interference. Moreover, the government could argue that O’Keefe’s team was interfering with the system by telling the staff that there was a problem that required work to be done. The law refers to any interference (willfully or maliciously) “in any way.”
For a jury, they are likely to be left with the same confusion of why O’Keefe thought this would prove anything of substance to show that the phone were working at that time. Yet, he appears to have thought that the operation was so important that he mentioned it to a conservative group as something they should be looking for in the coming days.
O’Keefe now says “[o]n reflection, I could have used a different approach.” Hmm, “I could have used a different approach” rather than dress men up as telephone repair men and try to secretly record events in a senatorial office. O’Keefe has always showed a surprising lack of concern over the legality of his actions as in the ACORN controversy. Maryland is a two-party consent state and O’Keefe showed no concern over whether he was engaging in unlawful surveillance.
O’Keefe is defining himself as an “investigative journalist” in operation and obviously effort to use constitutional claims to deter prosecution in the case. Such claims tend to undermine efforts of legitimate journalists who need these protections to conduct apolitical, substantive investigations. Presumably, he would also have to argue that Joseph Basel, 24, Robert Flanagan, 24, and Stan Dai, 24, were also journalists. For commentary on this aspects, click here and here and here.
Landrieu’s office released a statement saying that the evidence clearly shows the men were “attempting to manipulate the phone in her office.”
The biggest problem for O’Keefe may be Basel, Flanagan or Dai becoming cooperating witnesses. If any of them are willing to testify that they intended to shut off the phones (even in testing them) or interfere with their operation, O’Keefe would be in considerable jeopardy. He is only magnifying those risks by continuing to speak publicly on the charges.
Below is his statement:
The government has now confirmed what has always been clear: No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu’s office. Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines. Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.
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.
I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill. When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.” I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken. In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.
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.
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.
For the full story, click here.
AY do we really need to rehash all of it I mean, come on man.
BeDuhGangster, Bdatroll, birther, Bdalier on and on. I am one, you, Buddah Mike, and a few others are a gang. No need to figure out who the ring leader is. It was apparent while he took time off to move him and his clan of peoples like a ban of gypsies. There was much more civility then. But thats ok, it’s back to business as usual.
BeDuhGangster, Bdaman, whomever,
(This is the corrected version.)
This is why I do what I do. I was threatened last evening veiled or not. As you prove there are a lot of folks on here who are very unstable and will utilize any information that they have on the others and in not so much in an unharmful way.
What did it benefit you? Why would you> Knowing that you can and then not doing something is sometimes the best policy.
You have attacked me, mike, buddha all personally. Then when the tables turn. You are like a brat having a play ground tantrum after you bit the other kid first and are getting scolded.
You sanctioned Bryon’s veiled threat without equivocation. If it was only a joke then why did you let it play out?
You are standing up for Mr. O’Keefe. Which is very admirable. However, you have probably had less interaction with him than the Courts, or have you?
I would appreciate a response to this. Can’t ya?
BeDuhGangster,
This is why I do what I do. I was threatening last evening veiled or not. As you prove there are a lot of folks on here very unstable and will utilize any information that they have on them and in not so much in an unharmful way.
What did it benefit you? Why would you, knowing that you can and then not doing something is sometimes the best policy.
You have attacked me, mike, buddha and personally. Then when the tables turn brat having a play ground tantrum.
You sanctioned Bryon’s veiled threat without equivocation. If it was only a joke then why did you let it play out?
You are standing up for Mr. O’Keefe, you have probably had less interaction with him than the Courts, or have you?
wasn’t it you last year that claimed to know my wife’s name and where I lived, as a joke of course?
Mike someone made a statement, I think Jim Burns, that you were convicted of a crime or something to that effect. You called them on it and offered a website on a public forum and invited all to do a backround check. Because you post with your name and picture, I did, I just didn’t use the website you offered. In doing so I came up with multiple hits. You could have denied it and it wouldn’t have gone any further, but because of your reaction, which was equal to getting a root canal, I knew I struck a nerve and BINGO.
So the moral of the story is never ask someone to do something unless you actually want it done and there are more ways to skin a cat than one.
It is as you say, a joke, or was it?
The faux conservatives wanted to destroy ACORN ignoring the fact that they do some good. The bottom line is they do not accept Obama as president and will do whatever they can to block him from accomplishing anything.
“Mike:
I am sorry, but I was trying to make a joke out of AY’s and Bdaman’s back and forth.”
Byron,
Obviously AY and I took the joke seriously so perhaps you’ll follow his smiley face suggestion when the muse of humor hits you in the future.
“Some folks want SO BADLY to believe that this is some sinister conspiracy when it is pretty obvious that it isn’t.”
Wayne,
The hypocrisy literally drips from your post since you well know that if it had been a Republican Senator and a left wing operative your side would be screaming for weeks, led by FOX News for the parties heads and demand an independent prosecutor to investigate the possibility of the administrations role in this. That faux conservatives forget law and order when it comes to their people only illustrate the shallowness of their commitment to justice.
Byron 1, February 2, 2010 at 10:47 am
Mike:
I am sorry, but I was trying to make a joke out of AY’s and Bdaman’s back and forth.
**********************************
I am sorry, but I did miss the “Punch” line that stated that this was a joke. I took it as a veiled threat. Now if you had put the smiley face on it I would have almost taken it as such.
Some folks want SO BADLY to believe that this is some sinister conspiracy when it is pretty obvious that it isn’t. Whatayagonnado? He *maybe* committed a misdemeanor.
It is still possible to CONSPIRE TO commit a a Misdemeanor.
______________________
On side tangent, O’Keefe claims that he was held for 28 hours without access to an attorney with the prosecutors (sp Now) was running a misleading media campaign. The US Attorney has now rescued (sp Now) himself.
Please check the facts as to why he did the same. It does not say. Maybe he finally figured it out when he learned that one of the Defendants was the son of the Acting US Attorney that it would have the appearance of impropriety. These are after all Appointments and you do serve at the pleasure of the President. On a side note, I am sure that Flanagan did not call his Dad and say, he we are going to do such and such and if we get caught will you cover this up for us. I am sure that that conversation never happened. So what about the 50 mins that it took to get the alleged terrorist an attorney. I can’t find that anywhere.
_____________________________________
It’s pretty problematic.
I do agree that it is very problematic not only for these 4 defendants but for Flanagan’s dad, who is probably making at least 180 thousand a year. I bet he wants to keep that job.
______________________________________
I’m actually a little disappointed in Turley for lurching into the fray so far before any real facts had come forward. Turley definitely knows better than to accept the first word of the prosecutors as gospel. I had always fancied Turley less of a “team player” and more of a fierce critic of authority in all of its forms.
Are you not from the Team that states that 9th Graders should go to Prison? I think these Defendants because they are charged with a crime, should be in Grad school or Law School and maybe they would not have time to do stupid stuff. But once the case is closed they are no longer known just as a Defendant, they are known as CONVICTS.
It may not make it hard to get into Law School but I am sure the Character and Fitness committee of the state in which they intend to get licensed will not make it easy for these Convicts to get admitted to the bar.
What ya think Waynester?
Some folks want SO BADLY to believe that this is some sinister conspiracy when it is pretty obvious that it isn’t. Whatayagonnado? He *maybe* committed a misdemeanor.
On side tangent, O’Keefe claims that he was held for 28 hours without access to an attorney with the prosecutirs was running a misleading media campaign. The US Attorney has now recused himself.
It’s pretty problematic.
I’m actually a little disappointed in Turley for lurching into the fray so far before any real facts had come forward. Turley definitely knows better than to accept the first word of the prosecutors as gospel. I had always fancied Turley less of a “team player” and more of a fierce critic of authority in all of its forms.
Mike:
I am sorry, but I was trying to make a joke out of AY’s and Bdaman’s back and forth.
Mike,
It is just a prank, come on. Just like O’Keefe’s. So long as the prank is not on them.
You know he really likes it not, when you pen him as BeDuhGanster. It was stated that they would not read my posts after that.
If they wish so attack someone, please by alls means do attack me or Buddha. I can stand the hyperbole. Buddha will just make them sorry.
“my father had some sort of mob connection
Oh yea, well my grandfather was a psychic. He knew the day, date and time he was going to die. A judge told him”
“Does bdaman have access to us? It is disturbing.
One of my favorite quotes is
If I don’t see you thru the week, I’ll see you thru the windows.
The question is which one is it. Mozilla is better but not if your sly as a fox on fire.”
Merely a joke about my father’s mob connections, or was it. As for your second statement wasn’t it you last year that claimed to know my wife’s name and where I lived, as a joke of course?
I find it interesting that your next post after Byron’s ill considered comment was about the MMA, rather than a rebuke to him. Seems you wanted to reinforce his “joke” about your dangerousness, you were just kidding of course.
Crap like this has no place here, even joking. I have seen people hurt violently in my life, on occasion myself and so I do take “schoolyard threats” seriously. It also seems to me to have a chilling effect on debate perhaps.
Byron,
what you did was exceedly dumb.
“I am unsure if Letten is an Obama appointee or Bush hold over.”
AY,
As I wrote on my first post in this thread Letten is a Bush holdover that Se. Vitter wants to remain. Sen. Landrieux has been having her nomination for AG Flanagan’s position put on hold by Vitter as a bargaining chip to keep Letten in place. That is some of the back story on this that gets overlooked.
You are correct Hate does blind. Now what are you going to do about your propensity to show the same?
Swartzmore mom,
I presume if he did, we’d be the last ones that would need be worried.
Just remember if you send the original email it does have WordPress has your 1your static IP address. It is filtered out at wordpress so that it cannot be seen by the end user as it rolls into the Turley Blawg.
If however a credible threat involving National Security is involved then the IP address may not be released under the wireless communication act and even then they must get an order by a court laying out the facts to substantiate the imminent need.
If released or the security is breach by some other means then depending on WordPress’s security in place at the time they may or may not have liability. The hacker does once it is traced back to them.
If it was my guess, he does not have any means of knowing your email or IP address unless he has breached WP security, then he has a whole host of other issues.
my father had some sort of mob connection
Oh yea, well my grandfather was a psychic. He knew the day, date and time he was going to die. A judge told him.
Does bdaman have access to us? It is disturbing.
One of my favorite quotes is
If I don’t see you thru the week, I’ll see you thru the windows.
The question is which one is it. Mozilla is better but not if your sly as a fox on fire.
“AY:
I was joking about Bdaman painting the town red and knowing his way around a canvas.”
Byron,
The way you expressed itself was hardly a joke. Where I come from things like that are taken very seriously and I’m sure you read in ancient posts from me that I’m not unfamiliar with tough people and my father had some sort of mob connection. Jokes like that can cause hurt to the jokester, or the one being joked about.
Tiger Palpatja is an Aboriginal artist who sells his works through a gallery called marshall arts.”
I heard he once killed a man with a paintbrush-just for snoring too loud.
Once again letting hate blind you.