There is a controversy brewing at Tulane Law School where I began my academic career. The law school was the scene of a confrontation between controversial conservative filmmaker and activist James O’Keefe and former U.S. Attorney James Letten whose office handled the prosecution of O’Keefe for his entry in the office of Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu under false pretenses. Letten is now an Assistant Dean at the law school. Letten never explained why he recused himself from the case but O’Keefe suggests that he was responsible for leaking confidential information to the media. In the video below posted and edited by O’Keefe, Letten confronted O’Keefe and accuses him of “terrorizing” his wife and violating state and federal law by appearing at the law school. Letten calls O’Keefe and his crew a bunch of “hobbits” and berates the filmmaker. While I am no fan of O’Keefe, I am afraid that I do not see the basis for the alleged crimes by O’Keefe or the basis for his being held by law enforcement outside of the law school. The school has banned O’Keefe from the campus after the confrontation with Letten.
Letten confronts the man he calls a “nasty little cowardly spud” outside of the law school. He says that O’Keefe has committed federal and state crimes and was particularly upset with the appearance of O’Keefe at his home in an attempt to give Letten his book. I do not blame him. However, Letten says that such an attempt constitutes some form of crime of “harassing a former U.S. Attorney.” Absent some restraining order or threat, I fail to see how such a visit would constitute a federal crime. Regardless of the provocation however Letten response is not befitting an academic. While filming can be limited on private property, the claim of state and federal violations was never explained by Tulane in its public statement. The University is only claiming that O’Keefe committed “the provocation of these unannounced and uninvited visits.” There has been no mention of criminal conduct by the University in any of its subsequent statements on either the state or federal level.
My greater concern is the holding of O’Keefe and the conduct of Letten. We have previously discussed such tirades from faculty (here and here) Letten unleashes a tirade of abuse on the crew and throw a book handed to him back at Letten. (O’Keefe calls this assault, but once again I fail to that that crime any more than Letten. It is a technical offensive touching but it is pretty trivial to constitute a crime). Letten is unwilling to discuss any issue and instead tells the crew “Listen to me,. Listen to me, hobbits, okay? Listen to me. Listen to me. Pay attention to me. Listen to me. You went to my house. You terrorized my wife. You are violating federal law. You are violating state law. You’re trespassing. You’re a nasty little cowardly spud. All of you. You’re hobbits. You are less than I could ever tell you. You are scum.”
The part of the video that I find interesting is where O’Keefe begins to leave and he is stopped by security and what appears to be a New Orleans police officer. Letten and the officer say that O’Keefe is trespassing. However, that does not appear to be the case. The public is allowed to use public sidewalks and access on such campuses. I certainly fail to see the basis for the officer telling O’Keefe that he is in custody. He is entitled to express his opinion just as Letten is entitled to express his opinion to O’Keefe that “You spend your life as a snail. You do weird little political things, you’re a horses a–. Stay away from my family, stay away from me, stay away from this institution. If you want to be a political, you know, extremist nut job, that’s fine, don’t break the law.”
I certainly understand Letten’s frustration and anger, particularly when someone goes to your home. However, he is now part of an academic not a prosecutorial enterprise. Universities are traditionally zones of protected speech and the actions taken against O’Keefe in preventing him to leave, if only briefly. The officer says that he is indeed in custody and that the University is private property. The university can exclude people from its facilities, but it is not clear what precisely was the grounds for the detaining of O’Keefe.
The University is standing with Letten in the following statement: “This exchange, arising from an issue related to his previous position as U.S. attorney, followed visits to Jim Letten’s home and campus office by James O’Keefe and his film crew that were intimidating and harassing to both his wife and staff. Despite the provocation of these unannounced and uninvited visits, Mr. Letten regrets losing his temper in addressing the impropriety of Mr. O’Keefe’s conduct.”
The film of the home visit does not appear to have any threats. It is the visit itself that appears to be the basis for the intimidating conduct. However, people are allowed to go to homes absent threats or a court order. There is no mention of a specific threat or threatening act other than the appearance at the home or the campus.
Here is the video:
Nick: “Steve, I don’t like or dislike O’Keefe. He uses the same tactics as Michael Moore.”
***
I don’t recall Michael Moore dressing up as a phone repairman, bringing his posse to Senator Mary Landrieu’s office, attempting to tap her phones and being convicted of a misdemeanor in the case.
Michael Moore is an in-your-face, face to face journalist and investigator. With a point of view. James O’keefe is a sneaky propagandist that makes his bones in a post-processing studio, constructing fantasies.
Nick,
I think you are spot-on about O’Keefe and Mrs. Letten. For me, that is one of the few things where I might lose my cool. I have an idea that O’Keefe meant to light the fuse to the dynamite, but one of these days he is going to pick the wrong person.
As for Michael Moore, I don’t think he has ever presented himself as anything but who he really is. Moore always seems to look like an unmade bed instead of like this:
http://chattahbox.com/images/2011/04/james_okeefe_video_grab-landrieu_dance-1024×545.jpg
Or like this:
http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2009/09/14/news/photos_stories/Cropped/hannah_giles–300×300.jpg
Additionally, Michael. Moore has not tried to entice a female news anchor onto a boat filled with sex toys.
pdm, As I said to Mr. Greenberg, I am suspicious of that edit @ the house. However, the footage of Mr. Letten is not a question of editing.
AY, Thanks for the reference. I’m not an attorney. However, in reading that ACLU interpretation, although Tulane is a private university, the spot where this interview occurred is a public area. Anyone can walk through, take pictures, converse w/ people, etc. That’s my take. When doing surveillance I would constantly have to decide what was in public and where someone had no reasonable expectation of privacy. That’s somewhat different than this but generally the same. No one would have any reason to not believe they could walk through the university and I’m sure thousands of folks do so daily. However, if O’Keefe was told to leave by a campus or NO cop, and he didn’t, then he would be trespassing.
Mr. Greenberg. My apologies assuming your knowing Mr. Letten. I can tell you, Mr. Turley is an honorable man. I am quite certain he will take your critique seriously. I concur the interview was in the mold of a YOUNG Mike Wallace. I would give a more recent comparison to Brian Ross. And, I know my comparison to Michael Moore would be controversial, but the “ambush” interview is also his forte. Moore does it w/ a “golly gee” demeanor which is smart. You see, I have no problem w/ a no warning interview. If I need to interview someone who I know doesn’t want to talk w/ me, I always hit them cold. If they’re going to refuse to answer questions, they’re going to have to do it to my face.
What seemed to bother Mr. Letten the most in this video was the contact w/ his wife. The video shown from that venue was obviously edited. And, there was a sloppy jump cut edit. I believe O’Keefe only had one camera. In the first shots @ the residence, the camera angle and location is different from the “let’s go” take. That is the aforementioned jump cut. Combine that w/ what Mr. Letten said, and now you, I think there is more to learn. I specialized in video surveillance and have edited thousand of hours of footage. There is legit editing and there is deceptive editing. My edited footage would be presented in court. I would testify no exculpatory evidence was cut, and that the “footage clearly and accurately represented what I saw.” Journalists do not have to testify under oath. Allegedly esteemed journalists have deceptively edited footage. I have little doubt O’Keefe would do that also. All that said, this is a blog. The people who make posts aren’t doing a news article. They use other news sources and expand or opine on it. That’s blogging!
Mr. Greenberg, I understand and admire you standing up for someone you don’t know. You are obviously passionate about this, and I hope the truth is found. You seem to me to be an excellent source to keep up abreast of this situation. We can maybe turn a negative into a positive and have a new regular commenter. Ciao.
NIck Spinelli, I really was not trying to “have the back of a colleague,” as you said in your post. I do work for Tulane, yes, but I don’t know Mr. Letten. My comments were really about Jonathan Turley’s post. I think before you can really pass a full judgment about this situation, you need all the facts and you need to know what happened before and after the video. As I said in my earlier post, I’m not here to defend O’Keefe or Letten. I will say this about O’Keefe, though: He has taken Mike Wallace’s brand of ambush journalism to an extreme that is more cloak and dagger caper than it is news gathering. . He engenders negative feelings wherever he turns up.
Gene,
It just occurred to me that one might watch Bad Lip Reading videos just to get some ideas for responses. Like this one.
Nick, see OS @ 7:55 regarding Pimp O’Keefe’s journalistic credentials.
And I had earlier addressed my opinion of the confrontation with Letten. I was more concerned with the “truthiness” of the encounter at the house and the entire encounter at Tulane.
Deception is not a great way to seek the truth. But maybe it is if you are a PI.
Oh, and off the cuff, other options for in addition to leading questions are tangential questioning (take a minor element from their spiel and turn your counter interrogation on it) and “the confusion ray” (formally you’d call it argument by non-sequitur, essentially turning a propaganda technique against them, in its mild form its directed distraction, in its severe advanced form you’ll illicit the response of “What?” leaving them no place else to go – see Groucho Marx).
OS,
I was indeed already pondering an installment on how to combat propagandists.
To expand on mespo’s suggestions. O’Keefe and people like him are not looking for information or answers. They are looking for a reaction, preferably an emotional reaction. As was said earlier, rule number one is to keep cool. Rule number two is, see rule number one. O’Keefe wanted a reaction he could edit and piece together to tell a story about Letten. Unfortunately, Letten handed O’Keefe what he came for, on a platter.
O’Keefe is not a journalist or investigator, he is a propagandist (Gene, here is red meat for another story). Also, if confronted with anyone of his ilk, there are a few things to keep in mind. The more you talk and engage him the more video he has. This guy is representative of a new breed of propagandist that is not above putting words in your mouth through the magic of digital technology. Ever see one of those “Bad Lip Reading” YouTube videos? Second, he can edit anything you do say to put you in the worst possible light. If you must speak, do the broken record. Ask the same question over and over again until you get an answer.
All of us have had to deal with professional irritants who are probing for a reaction at one time or another. Simply don’t engage. And as mespo said, keep control of the situation by asking affirmative, leading questions. If there is anything a lawyer ought to be good at, is asking affirmative questions. Don’t answer any of his.
Another rule is to NEVER use ad hominems in confrontations. That is junior high stuff.
One of my graduate school professors was a master at deflection. You could tell him the sky is falling, and his response would typically be, “Really? I guess I might look into that sometime.” His response to salesmen was more on the order of, “I can’t afford that right now. I’m saving up for a wart transplant.” In other words, think of statements that have no possible follow-up, and have them ready for use at a moment’s notice.
Nick,
Here you go…
Where can I exercise my speech rights?
On any private property where the owner gives permission (the owner always decides) and in any area open to the public, such as streets, sidewalks, town squares or parks. If you plan to or actually block passage on a street or sidewalk, you must apply for a permit.
http://www.aclupa.org/issues/freespeech/kyrataprotest.htm
I refuse to make any judgment on this film because O’Keefe is notorious for doctoring his films. Until an unedited version is made avaliable, I see no reason to even discuss it.
Both O’Keefe and Letten just need to chill out and watch The Flintstones for a while. Lighten up fellas.
AY, I need to know the source of your quote and its context.
pdm, I am not, nor ever was, a journalist. I can assure you, knowing some investigative journalists, they use pretexts and deception to get information. That’s just on background. This guy used deception to gather information for a production. This is an interesting question if that is a disqualifier vis a vis being a journalist. However, in this context, few would disagree that O’Keefe was doing what journalists do, try to interview people. However, what Feinstein is proposing is that people like Assange, Greenwald, etc. be considered outside the journalism field, and not afforded those fundamental rights of journalists.
Letten, as other have also noted, played into the hands of O’Keefe. I reckon the transition from US Attorney, w/ all of that power, to law prof, has been rocky so far. Hopefully, he’s learned something from this. While professor Greenberg is nobly having the back of a colleague, he failed to address the behavior of Mr. Letten. Well, what is there to say? Letten was not only profane, he used the words of someone who expects to be in control. As a US Attorney, he indeed had power and control. He obviously needs to learn to control himself as a professor of Tulane, a great school.
What was left on the cutting room floor? If it was as he said why did he edit it before publicizing it? (I am on neither side since I am not sure if there was more happening then what was alleged in words)
Nick makes an interesting point: best way (only way?) to get to the truth is to deceive. I wonder what others here think about that. Seems pretty creepy to me.
Wasn’t there a big discussion a while back on what constitutes a journalist. Does O’Keefe qualify (as journalist) even though his main objective seems to be the promotion of his book?
Great comments addressed to the Prof. by Paul Greenberg. It’s a good idea to carefully examine any tape made available for publishing from Pimp O’Keefe.
mespo,
Spot on, counselor. Especially when dealing with a professional distortionist like O’Keefe.
Mespo,
Excellent…