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.
Some may have noticed that until now I haven’t commented at all on this thread. I felt that I should lay back and observe the debate in order to see if I was being too harsh in my judgment of Duh, who last responded to me pleading for civil debate, rather than ad hominem attack.
So the more than 100 posts on this thread that I’ve just read have enabled me to get a more nuanced view of Duh and his methods of “civil” argumentation.
Let me begin by saying I do owe him a sincere apology for calling him stupid. He is not at all stupid and calling him such was an error on my part. Now it is possible that he might be ignorant, a far cry from stupidity since even intelligent people can be ignorant, but my guess is that he is not ignorant.
What he is, however, is a completely disingenuous propagandist.
Some may use the harsher term liar, but I will not go that far.
My reason is that he is aware of his untruths, but utilizes them to present propaganda strategically. A habitual liar is someone who cannot help but lie about everything, but that is not Duh’s game. I’m sure there are people, perhaps family/friends which he would never lie to. his particular mis-truths are simply in the service of his political beliefs, which is why he is a propagandist.
I have little doubt that he understands the true nature of what Mr. O’Keefe does, which is political disinformation, “dirty tricks” and propaganda. This though, is being done in the name of Duh’s political cause and like many of his ilk he believes the ends justify the means. Now one could argue that this might be because he is so besotted with his cause that Duh is ignorant of the right or wrong of this matter, but I would disagree.
When it comes to politics, perhaps even in more personal matters,
Duh is basically amoral. As a sower of propaganda he is well aware of what he is doing and performs it with malice aforethought. What must be understood though, is that the positions this man supports are inimical to freedom, liberty and democratic governance. In Duh’s world only the strong matter and the weak are left to fend for themselves, or exist in a state of serfdom. He is not a stupid man after all, but his methods and policies are loathsome. This is made clear by the fervent dishonesty with which he advances his cause, in the face of the obvious fallacies as pointed out by much of the people posting on this thread.
“dais” SB said
Oh Dog, the dyslexia is becoming more noticable. LOL
Blouise,
I tend to agree with your conclusions if the two who represented themselves did say something like “We’re here to fix the phones. Where is the telecom closet”. Unfortunately an exact quote of what the two men said has not been made available. If they just dais that they were there to look at the phone system, it could have been interpreted in many ways. Without reading the witness statement, we are left to our imaginations.
I realize that I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. I’m not a big fan of ACORN. I think ACORN does some good things, and they have done some not so good things. None of those things have been a big benefit to the conservative side. I’m not looking for revenge on O’Keefe, and I’m not looking for vindication of ACORN. That is probably the major influence on our perspectives.
I’d really like to read the witness statements, and view the video taken by O’Keefe. I hope they will persuade one of us to change our mind. :>)
Duh,
I read it under Eniobeb but went back, at your suggestion, and read it again. I’m not certain what your point was in directing me to it but then I don’t understand all the legal ins and outs of Federal prosecutions … so I’ll restate my original point in admiring ThirtyPercenter’s posts as to the dangers, self imposed by the young men, in asking for directions to the telephone wiring closet. If their intent was to simply film admissions from Landrieu’s staff that they had been ignoring constituents’ calls and publish said admissions vis-a-vis another “Acorn” scam format then the request for directions to the closet kicked things up a notch for reasons that ThirtyPercenter described so well.
In other words, I was persuaded by ThirtyPercenter’s argument that there MAY be more here than meets the eye … so to speak. If not, then the three who went along with O’Keefe are … well … gullible is the kindest word that comes to mind.
Winski, Is this what you had in mind?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it6Q6HJBuAs&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Isn’t there a Bush/Cheney hidden memo somewhere we can use to send O’Keefer DIRECTLY to a cell at SuperMax?? Tyrone is getting impatient……
id, ego, super ego
I am not sure id it matters.
AY, Is the Acorn case in Maryland one of the state laws required to be broken in order to impose further action under the RICO Act?
Bingo, This is the Federal required knowledge to pass the State Bars. The outline always gives you the Federal and then it is tailored for the individual states.
Bingo, you have it again. This case, from my understanding would have to wait until the ACORN case is settled. Leaves even the possibility for civil damages to be applicable. Think of NOW and the Anti-Abortion protesting….
AY, You should point out that “§ 22.01” is not a reference to U.S. Law, but that of a home study guide on law.
Since you introduced charges under the RICO Act, what are the two required state or federal crimes committed that would make such a filing possible?
§ 22.01 General Principle
Generally speaking, a conspiracy is an agreement by two or more persons to commit a criminal act or series of criminal acts, or to accomplish a legal act by unlawful means.
[A] The Agreement
[1] Common law – At common law, a conspiracy need not be based on an express agreement. Furthermore, an agreement can exist although not all of the parties to it have knowledge of every detail of the arrangement, as long as each party is aware of its essential nature. [Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 557–58 (1947)] Moreover, a “conspiracy may exist even if a conspirator does not agree to commit or facilitate each and every part of the substantive offense.”[Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 63 (1997)] It is enough that each person agrees, at a minimum, to commit or facilitate some of the acts leading to the substantive crime.
[2] Model Penal Code – Four types of agreement fall within the definition of conspiracy. A person is guilty of conspiracy if he agrees to:
1.) commit an offense;
2.) attempt to commit an offense;
3.) solicit another to commit an offense; or
4.) aid another person in the planning or commission of the offense.
[B] Overt Act
[1] Common and Statutory Law – A common law conspiracy is complete upon formation of the unlawful agreement. No act in furtherance of the conspiracy need be proved. [United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10, 13 (1994)]
I think the hole is getting deeper.
Correction
20 not 30 years….
Some have rocks for brains and a wetland to boot. Conspiracy, cog in the Wheel.
I forgot about RICO and humm maybe when Mr. O’Keefe is convicted of the charge in Maryland then he can be charged with Conspiracy under the RICO statute. Enhanced penalties and up to 30 years.
In a conspiracy case, you can still be convicted with an unindited conspirator. It would probably behoove Mr. Flanagan to turns states evidence if he was with Mr. O’Keefe in Maryland.
….fraud, … obstruction of justice,….
The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to follow the continuity-plus-relationship test in order to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern. Predicate acts are related if they “have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events.” (H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.) Continuity is both a closed and open ended concept, referring to either a closed period of conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.
Thanks I forgot about RICO, thanks again….
WOW. Thanks again….I remain….
Buddha, (Welcome back. I hope the move is going well.)
O’Keefe et al have been charged with entering a federal building under false pretense with the intent to commit a felony. However, as Professor Turley pointed out, what that felony is has not been identified. Without identifying that felony, the charge cannot stand.
Newser.com can say whatever they want. They are not the Federal Prosecutor. As I pointed out earlier, what would be the purpose of having O’Keefe videotape the happenings in the Senator’s Office, if the intent was to cut the lines? If the phones aren’t ringing, the staff cannot be accused of not answering them. If the intent was to tap the phones, a device to tap the phones would need to be found. If one of those posing as a repairman did have such a device (which is possible) that information was not contained in the affidavit. Relative to this discussion, it does not exist. Demonstrate that they had such a device, and I’ll be happy to concede that the intent was to tap the phone lines.
“He broke into a Federal building using false pretenses with the intent to commit a felony therein. His intent as to the possible related felonies of wiretapping and/or destruction of property is for the courts to determine based on evidence”
O’Keefe nor his associates, did not break into a Federal Building. That is not the charge. The charge is that they entered under false pretenses. While I will concur with a finding that the two posing as telephone repairmen did enter under false pretenses, as demonstrated by the fact that they are not telephone repairmen, we have nothing that indicates that O’Keefe entered under any pretense other than to videotape what took place in the Senator’s Office. The FBI affidavit supports this. The FBI affidavit states that O’Keefe and Dai “aided and abetted Flanagan and Basel in the execution of the plan”. (See paragraph 2 of the FBI affidavit http://www.scribd.com/doc/25899197/James-O-Keefe-FBI-affidavit)
As you point out, this needs to be determined in a court of law, but first, it must be determined by the prosecutor. Evidence of intention must be presented. If the charge was B&E, a broken window and the fact that they were inside would be enough. A B&E charge requires no additional intent. It is a charge that stands on its own.
When you connect the dots, any claim that the intent was to disrupt communications doesn’t fit with a reason for O’Keefe to be in the Senator’s Office. If the intent was to tap the phones, why was O’Keefe in the Senator’s Office?
As it is I can see Flanagan and Basel prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1036(b)2, which requires dropping the intent to commit a felony, but I don’t see O’Keefe being prosecuted under the same statute. I could see O’Keefe prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. 371 for his role in the planning and execution of of the entry under false pretense.
If the prosecution does go forward, with the corrected appropriate charges filed, I doubt any of them will receive more than a fine and probation.
Nice post Buddah, nice to see you back.
Yeah, it is pretty clear. Pretty clear you are a partisan apologist.
If O’Keefe’s name was Omar Al-Akbar, he’d be getting waterboarded at Gitmo right now.
They were sneaking into a Federal facility under false pretenses (and this is important) with the intent to commit (multiple) felonies. That they were apprehended before the wiretapping/sabotage act could be completed is something for the trier of fact to consider.
If you want to talk motivation that is.
One can be charged with B&E without completing a successful theft or other felony. Intent is key here, not success. But intent is to be determined by judge and jury based on the totality of the facts, not O’Keefe’s “word”. Newser.com is reporting O’Keefe’s intent was to cut the lines, not tap them. Well guess what? Still a crime. A felony is a felony. Whether the goal is theft or destruction of property, both are against the law. And the charged is denying any culpability! What a shock. If you’ve lived under a rock for the entirety of human history.
In almost all states, in order to record a telephone conversation, at least one party to the conversation proper must have knowledge and consent to the recording. This is the law in Louisiana. The states that DON’T require just one party’s consent require consent from BOTH. This is aside from the fact that tapping phones without party consent and without court order is a Federal offense in itself. Bugging a phone conversation one is illegal as is tampering with phone company equipment as it is neither O’Keefe’s property nor did he have the proper permissions – which would have been a court order. A court order he’d have had no standing to ask for in the first place.
If he was serious about finding out the volume of calls going to Mary’s office? He could have sought the PIN details from the phone company in court. No work at the switch or on the PBX required.
But no.
O’Keefe decided to use fraud and deceit to enter a Federal facility (a felony) to plant phone bugs and/or cut phone lines (a felony). And poke a judge in the eye when caught by going to the media despite being told not to discuss the case in language that stopped just short of a gag order. Genius? Hardly. Going to the press to attempt spin is about the only defense this clown has. Gag order coming? You can bet your ass it is now if the judge isn’t a bought off tool.
Personally I could give a damn about party affiliation. O’Keefe is smarmy little criminal wannabe (look at his “fashion” sense – pimp – even in jest that says a lot about a “man’s” character) and they were doing EXACTLY what Nixon’s boys did at the Watergate: breaking and entering to commit theft (of information) and/or manufacture a “scandal” by sabotage. At least G. Gorgon Liddy didn’t dress like a clown pimp, er, prince.
Planting bugs is not investigative journalism. It’s espionage. If O’Keefe were a foreign national and not a Neocon operative, his ass would be up on terrorism charges for “attacking” a Federal facility and threatening a Senator. That is not a partisan statement either, but a simple fact in today’s political climate.
This is not a defense of Mary Landrieu either. I know both her and her brother Mitch (although in fairness I should acquainted in her case, I know him better). Let me say this with clarity: There isn’t a single member of that family I’d trust farther than I can throw the Capitol building. And I personally like Mitch. He’s a smart witty guy and fun at parties. But I also think it’s time for their “political dynasty” to be out of business as much as it is for the Bush (Crime) Family and the Kennedy family to withdraw from the public trough. Any family that seeks to make governance their “family business” is not to be trusted. Period.
That in NO WAY excuses O’Keefe from his pending criminal trial.
O’Keefe is a worm trying to squirm out of the grip of the system now that he has been caught by manipulating the press. Just like his masters.
Anyone not blinded by partisanship would see that and not accpet his public denial of charges as an excuse for violating the law. Oh, that’s right! Unless you’re from the Bush Cheney Support Group and think the law applies to everyone but “the fascist chosen”.
Bottom line: Determining O’Keefe’s intent is the function of a trial. If there are mitigations to O’Keefe’s prime facie chargeable actions (as detailed above), they should be raised in defense at trial.
Not “tried in the media” and the “court of public opinion”.
Which is just a code phrase for propaganda used to pollute jury pools no matter who uses the tactic.
See, a true non-partisan wants O’Keefe charged and to let the chips fall where they lay at trial – not make excuses for his actions. Making excuses for O’Keefe is itself a partisan action. I don’t care if he’s a member of the Whig Party – a criminal is a criminal. If it were Dennis Kucinich brought up on these charges, I’d want him to go to trial too. The fact is O’Keefe’s day job is partisan hack. He’s a smear operative. This doesn’t mitigate his criminal action any more than “I was following orders” worked for Liddy at Watergate or the Nazis at Nuremberg. Criminal action is the issue REGARDLESS OF WHAT PARTY PAYS O’KEEFE’S BILLS.
Just like a true non-partisan wants Cheney on trial for treason. Because he aided and abetted an enemy of the state during war time – the very Constitutional definition of treason. Just like a true non-partisan wants Obama held to task for not restring both the Constitution and the rule of law under the same kind of corporatist fascist influences that Cheney not only cooperated with in selling out America, but was an explicit coconspirator in arranging the criminal invasion of country that did not attack us (Iraq) while treasonously protecting the country that did attack us (Saudi Arabia).
Justice for ALL. Or there will be justice for none.
Justice demands he face trial in a court of law, not a court of public opinion. He broke into a Federal building using false pretenses with the intent to commit a felony therein. His intent as to the possible related felonies of wiretapping and/or destruction of property is for the courts to determine based on evidence, not what O’Keefe opines. The charged often plead their innocence. “I was just following orders” is the phrase that comes to mind here. He just can’t outright say that or the people he works for, the Neocons, would simply arrange for O’Keefe to have “an accident”. So he went to the media in an attempt to corrupt process because he knows turning on his masters is a death sentence. Going “public” was O’Keefe’s only weapon and he used it poorly.
O’Keefe and his crew are facing pending criminal charges with good reason.
THEY WERE CAUGHT RED-HANDED.
His attempts to make it seem otherwise by going outside the system appealing to the media just screams “guilty”. Any defense attorney this guy has is simply pissed about his opening his mouth and INVITING a gag order proper.
Spin is a two-edged weapon.
And O’Keefe – an amateur propagandist – has just cut himself AND (with the judge’s forthcoming help) dropped his best weapon (ability to talk to the press without sanction). He panicked and shot himself in the foot. A premature defense is an opening at worst and a telegraphed blow at best. This is true in all forms of combat, from argument to warfare.
Cue the circus music . . .
Here’s Okeefe’s 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.”
The statement is hogwash.
See what’s missing?
Any mention of why they were posing as telephone repairmen.
He makes all these explanations, takes the time to release this carefully prepared statement, and yet he offers no explanation for why they were posing as telephone repairmen?
Or what they wanted access to the wiring closet for?
His statement completely ignores these obvious questions and thus the statement itself is in question. Unless someones been lying to us and bearing false witness against Okeefe and crew then its pretty obvious what they were up to. To anyone not blurred by party loyalties that is.
First you pretended to be some sort of expert. When you proved that you didn’t know what you were talking about from a technical perspective you resorted to juvenile diversions like mocking and trying to divert attention off your glaring mistakes.
But none of that changes the fact that when someone is posing as a telephone repairman to gain access to the phone system they usually intend on breaching or breaking the system.
That’s the obvious.
You however given your partisan loyalty are here defending the indefensible by making up nonsense. Much like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar who just doesn’t know when to quit.
Jigs up.
Deal with it.
I’m sorry duh, but “LoL” is not a rebuttal.
It’s what you say when you have no valid response.