I honestly don't know what to make of this, though if it is true that James O'Keefe, conservative filmmaker and investigator, actually attempted to bug the phones at the office of Senator Mary Landrieu, it was undoubtedly a boneheaded move on part.
I still think there is a lot more to the story than we are being told. One of his alleged co-conspirators is Robert Flanagan, the son of US Attorney for Western Louisiana James J Flanagan. Another individual is rumored to be the operator of some kind of obscure private "spy school".
Andrew Breitbart, who has long been a supporter of O'Keefe, has denied all knowledge of O'Keefe's actions, which could, if he is tried and convicted, earn him a lengthy prison sentence on federal charges.
Personally, I think he was set up. That doesn't excuse his actions, but it damn sure mitigates them, especially if he was led to believe by an authoritative source that his recent attempts to apparently uncover damaging information about Landrieu's official activities were legal, if unethical.
It becomes a matter of concern when you consider that this might have been a set-up that goes all the way up to the Justice Department and the very FBI who busted O'Keefe and his crew. Why were they investigating him to begin with? Who tipped them off? Is it possible that they weren't exactly so much tipped off as they were in on this from the beginning?
ACORN is still facing potential legal problems, to say nothing of losing it's considerable federal funding, over a series of undercover film exposes conducted by O'Keefe in which he shows the depths to which ACORN personnel were willing to sink, advising him and a partner, both of them in disguise (he as pimp, she as prostitute) as to how best to go about importing Salvadoran underage girls to work as prostitutes in a proposed brothel in such a way as to avoid tax and legal problems. One of the videos which resulted from the investigation of an ACORN office in Baltimore, follows below.
It goes without saying that ACORN has friends in high places who would like to see their present problems go away as much as they would. What better way to do that than to manipulate a scheme aimed at tarnishing, preferably outright destroying, the reputation of the man who caused them their problems to begin with?
Shamefully, everybody on the right seems eager to hang O'Keefe out to dry, despite the fact that he performed an obvious service, one of incalculable merit to the country. Now, even Breitbart seems determined to distance himself from O'Keefe.
I am not impressed by claims that Landrieu's person and offices is sacrosanct. This is not ancient Rome, where a Senator's person is considered inviolable. At least, this certainly should not be the case. How is she different from the myriads of people targeted in undercover investigations by journalists over the years, such as 60 Minutes? This is a woman who is a known whore, only getting on board the latest health care reform scam after she was promised that her state would be the beneficiary of extra federal funds, to the tune of 100,000 dollars, in an affair that has been dubbed The Louisiana Purchase. Are we supposed to accept that she should be immune from investigation by a citizen journalist? Why? While we are at it, is she above the law as well? Well, that would seem to be the case, as the last I heard, vote-buying is illegal. But then again, that seems to be yet another example of a law that applies only to private citizens, yet is business as usual in Washington.
That's all right, Landrieu's time is coming soon, as are many, many others.
And to those who like to insinuate that the actions of the ACORN employees in the film above has been taken out of context, or that it might be one example of a few employees who are not reflective of the organization as a whole, I would suggest that you watch it once more, very carefully, this video taken surreptitiously at an ACORN office in Baltimore.
Then watch the following one, which was taken at an ACORN office in San Bernardino California, which in many ways is even more disturbing, the female employee here going into vivid detail as to how she set her allegedly abusive husband up to kill him by making the rounds at several abuse shelters in order to establish a defense.
Also, O'Keefe informs her he plans on using the proceeds of his business as seed money to run for Congress, which doesn't seem to elicit any kind of surprise from her. Then again, this is a woman advising him, just as in the video above, as to how best establish a business utilizing underage prostitutes in such a way as to avoid any potential legal hassles.
I'll come right out and say it, I know to my own satisfaction that O'Keefe was set up, and if the truth ever does manage to come out, it might well serve to replace the current Tea Party movement with another movement that hearkens back to the days of the founding of the country, and one which I would actually prefer in some ways.
The Tar-And-Feather movement.
15 comments:
Yeah... or he was just a kid who did something pretty stupid, like pretty much every other kid does at that age. They should rap his knuckles and send him home.
Oh, he was definitely stupid, whether he was manipulated or not he should have known better, I just don't see how he got as far as he did before the FBI conveniently got there just in time to catch them.
If it does turn out to be some kind of entrapment, that could turn into a real mess.
I'm totally open to the possibility. But you've got to admit that, if this was this a story about activists associated with, say, Code Pink tampering with a Republican Senator's stuff, your assumptions would likely be different. My guess here is that some dopey kids just tried to pull a stunt to get attention and it backfired.
Code Pink might not be the best example you could use Rufus, they like to get all in your face, they aren't known for subterfuge, but I get your point. And yes, I do concede this could very well have just been some bonehead stunt they pulled on their own initiative. If that turns out to be the case, then they will have to pay the consequences.
My point is, people shouldn't be so quick to jump to the conclusion that that is the case. I have a lot of questions. Why exactly would they target Landrieu, for example? What information did they have-or think they had-that would make her worthy of such a risk? And, where and from whom did this information come? Somebody evidently told them that Landrieu was up to no good, had some dirty deal brewing, etc., something that made them think they were on to something big, to take the kind of risk that bugging the phone and office of a United States Senator entails.
The "Louisiana Purchase" fiasco I mentioned in the post was a done deal, so what else could there have been? Bear in mind Landrieu doesn't come up for re-election for I think at least another couple of years, though I could be wrong.
Another Acorn oriented sting, perhaps? I don't know, but they must have had some idea of something.
Like I said, maybe it was totally on their own initiative, I just don't think it's likely. In the current political climate, with things turning so sour for Democrats, this seems a little too convenient.
According to ACORN, the video against them was spliced together. Still they are not accused of anything illegal.
O'Keefe doesn't have a code of conduct, including obey the law. He was so stupid, he should be punished for stupidity.
ACORN hires people off the street, often lumpen. They make easy targets.
As long as ACORN fronts for the Democratic Party, it'll never gain anything politically.
Ren-
"According to ACORN, the video against them was spliced together. Still they are not accused of anything illegal."
Watch the videos. I've heard that argument, and don't believe it. Sure, he might have taken out some snippets of irrelevant small talk that had nothing to do with the matter at hand, but that proves nothing. If the tape was spliced and edited in a misleading way, any number of independent experts would catch on to that.
"O'Keefe doesn't have a code of conduct, including obey the law. He was so stupid, he should be punished for stupidity."
I agree with the stupidity part when it comes to the subject of the post, but seriously, how many reporters or investigators are going to go directly to your face and tell you they are investigating you and then ask you direct questions?
"ACORN hires people off the street, often lumpen. They make easy targets."
These weren't the typical brown shirt thugs they might hire to do door-to-door canvassing or to slash the tires of GOP campaign volunteers, these were office personnel, presumably city and area managers.
"As long as ACORN fronts for the Democratic Party, it'll never gain anything politically."
It's a symbiotic relationship. ACORN gets federal funds, the Democrats get campaign volunteers.
I agree with you about ACORN and the Democrats.
The ones from ACORN I met, came from the ranks of the homeless etc. Their leaders are more sophisticated than the ones in the tape. ACORN is full of people desperate for work.
Not only the idiot get busted, ACORN's funding being taken away, was ruled unconstitutional in Federal Court. ACORN losing funding, could threaten Haliburton etc.
What the accused are saying is that her office wasn't answering their phones, so they wanted to make sure the phones worked. I'd imagine they planned then to go on Fox and make fun of her. It seems a bit puerile, but not felonious. Given the ACORN stunt, I'd imagine the kid hopes to be a sort of right-wing Michael Moore. Getting arrested might just add to his mystique.
I didn't see the actual video from ACORN, but I did see the take on it that Jon Stewart did. That one looked REALLY staged.
I bet every liberal group in the country, is writing a brief, to bury this clown.
Yep, and who knows, maybe some conservative groups will file some briefs on his behalf.
Who knows how it will all turn out? Why, this might end up making it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
It won't make it to the Supreme Court. He was caught with bugging equiptment in a government office. He's dead.
He had to go to several ACORN offices, before he found people who can be construed as he wanted.
So I'm really not so clear bugging a federal office is against the law. Maybe it is, I don't know. As for getting to the Supreme Court, that depends on who is willing to take his case pro bono, assuming he doesn't have the funds to go that far, and whether or not the Court is willing to hear the appeal. That's their decision alone.
If they do agree, it would be interesting to see how they would decide. Another 5-4 vote, I'm sure. Of course there's always the chance Souter could suddenly remember he was appointed by a Republican but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Mainly, I would like to see the law that specifies that a private citizen is not allowed to conduct an undercover investigation of the federal government for journalistic purposes. Can he do so if he is a licensed journalist. If so, would this guy qualify as a journalist?
Also, what if there does turn out to be some kind of entrapment there? Hell Ren, if that turns out to be the case, that might be warrant a 6-3 decision to overturn his conviction, if he is convicted that is.
Its not the bugging per se that has him in trouble, its the fact that they were caught inside a government building with the intent to tamper with a federal communication system,, it is a felony, carrying a 10 year sentence.This isnt Watergate, its a couple of Dumb Republican kids thinking they were gonna score points with Glenn Beck..I saw the stupid Acorn pimp video.. personally i hope they get the max, and of course they would get off if it went to the Supreme Court, you got cock suckers like Roberts running the show.!!
Shadowhawk-
I'm not that sure the Court would even hear the case, let alone how they would decide. Most of the time, they tend to be defferential when it comes to established law, even if they don't necessarily agree with it. I guess it all depends on the grounds for appeal. If they made a case for entrapment, for example, they might, just might, hear the case.
Roberts sets the tone of the court by the way and has an influence on what cases are heard, I think, (and I'm pretty sure even that much is limited) but other than that, his position as Chief Justice is largely ceremonial. Once a case actually goes before the court, he's just another judge with just one vote.
Post a Comment