Posted on 01/29/2010 8:29:50 AM PST by BAW
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.
I'm taking my cue from the recent voter registration fraud incidents.
I swear I recall reading some excuses that it didn't matter if someone REGISTERED fraudulently unless they INTENDED (or maybe even ACTUALLY) voted under that registration.
Using that same logic, it doesn't matter if O'Keefe and company ASKED where the phone closet was, if they didn't intend to tamper with it, then there was no crime in just asking where it was.
-PJ
Amen! The commie liberals stick up for thier own, no matter what. We eat our own, no matter what.......
While you were somewhat level-headed in your posts at the time this story broke, you also made many comments that indicated you believe O’Keefe was guilty and would be going to prison.
In other words, you didn’t give him the benefit of the doubt, and trusted the early reports from the MSM (which we all know lies).
Tuesday, January 26, 2010 7:09:33 PM · 245 of 435
trumandogz to muawiyah
That is not going to be enough to get this trial moved. And I’m guessing that the Feds may have a little bit more cash to spend on the trial.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010 9:56:05 PM · 35 of 36
trumandogz to truthandlife
O’Keefe may be on trial in October and many surprises may come out of that trial.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010 10:00:39 PM · 298 of 435
trumandogz to muawiyah
Typically, when one is arrested by the FBI, they are put on trial unless they accept a plea.
And with four suspects, each looking at hard time, I am sure one of them will sing like a bird.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:25:47 AM · 101 of 113
trumandogz to txhurl
Depends on the jury.. if there IS one..... ha ha.
Oh yes, there will be an Orleans Parish jury made-up the fine citizens of New Orleans.
And in the trial of Mr. O’Keefe, you can expect at least one of his co-conspirators to testify against him.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010 1:00:30 AM · 332 of 435
trumandogz to musicman
While I wish we could, we cannot put ACORN in prison however, we can put in prison those who are convicted of attempted to bug the telephone of a federal elected official.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010 1:36:14 AM · 339 of 435
trumandogz to BP2
Perhaps that is possible, but it has nothing to do with the case at hand which has to do with private citizens allegedly attempting to wiretap telephone owned by the federal government.
There are just a few of your posts where you assumed their guilt. In fairness, some of your posts you also indicated it was an ‘alleged’ crime.
If you are allowed in a building, I see no specific law against entering a closet. Was it a locked closet?
They don’t call me knewshound for nuttin...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2439221/posts?page=17#17
I read that post at the time, and I have just one difference of opinion.
I don’t think O’Keefe will be given the recorded video evidence back.
They ought not plead to anything.
“If you are allowed in a building, I see no specific law against entering a closet. Was it a locked closet?”
I don’t know specifics on the building in question. In my locality, our Senators are housed in the Federal Building (most cities have a similar building)with tight post 911 security.
In our case, that building has tight security; and bad things could happen if people are snooping around the infrastructure part due to all the federal agencies inside.
But I probably shouldn’t be commenting since I don’t know if that’s the case in this story.
BTW-Do you have difficulty with every Freeper who in the past has questioned the innocence of those that have been arrested for a crime?
Since, I am sure if you were to look, there would be thousands of posts throughout the years where posters have suggested that a suspect in guilty of a crime, even though the trial had not taken place.
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. actually spent some time in jail, it didn't seem to hurt his popularity or credibility, either.
In all of you citations, you have not been able to cite where I stated that they were absolutely guilty of a crime. BTW-Do you have difficulty with every Freeper who in the past has questioned the innocence of those that have been arrested for a crime?
Since, I am sure if you were to look, there would be thousands of posts throughout the years where posters have suggested that a suspect in guilty of a crime, even though the trial had not taken place.
Agreed. Please note that in that thread I noted the vagueness of the charges.
I didn’t think of that angle, but the seizure of potentially damaging video could be the real reason behind the arrest of THE NEW ORLEANS FOUR by the FBI.
If this is true, O’Keefe and Company are off the hook because if the matter goes to trial, the video will have to be released.
while accepting some chastisement for my first comment on that thread, I also want to note that (maybe) I hit early on an interesting and plausible possible explanation of the situation (which now appears to be the direction in which all of this is heading, whether or not it was all originally anticipated or intended by O’Keefe and friends):
To: muawiyah
hey, this may be wishful thinking on my part, but let’s consider this scenario:
first let’s postulate that O’Keefe may well be a very sensible and clever guy who would know better than to get himself caught up in what he appears to be caught up in
then let’s imagine why he and the others might be doing what they reportedly did
could it be that they did strictly stay on the right side or the law, or at least nothing beyond a misdemeanor, but that this is all a kind of “trojan horse” publicity stunt to get the Demagogues and MSM to focus upon these guys non-stop??
i.e., what if there is no “listening device” and/or it’s a fake device that could not actually work for any nefarious purpose?
what if they meant to be “caught” knowing (possibly) that there was no real case against them, but that the Demagogues and MSM would quickly over-play the hand, making these guys famous, and then it could boomerang against all who ignored or downplayed the ACORN stings?
not saying I can account for all details since (1) there is a lot we don’t know, and (2) I don’t claim to know what’s going to happen next in legal, political, and media terms..... but if this guy is as clever as he was for the ACORN stings, maybe this is all a set-up AGAINST the Demagogues and MSM..... ssssshhhh, if this is so let’s not tell anyone outside of FR..... we need the media and Demagogues to greatly over-react..... let Holder and even Obambi make statements etc. ooooh, this could be fun
296 posted on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 8:54:10 PM by Enchante
BTW, WHERE IS THE INDICTMENT against O’Keefe & Company? This is Day Five and the U.S. Attorney can’t figure out what charges to bring before a Grand Jury? I’m no legal eagle, but it looks like to me if the Feds thought they had a strong case they would have filed an Indictment by now. I’m bginning to think the point of this exercise was to seize the video.
He's either tooooooo busy looking for some convoluted, obscure statute to hang this on, or he's not going to do a thing because he knows like everyone else does it's all nonsense.
“If this had been Michael Moore dropping in on a Republican’s office to see why his constituent’s were unable to reach him, all would be forgiven by now, and the Republican Senator would be the object of invective and ridicule for the heavy handed suppression of Moore’s First Amendment rights.”
Absolutely.
“Was he or was he not arrested?”
Yes. Because they were impersonating, they probably were ‘trespassing’ or some other fine points of the law. But nothing too serious, it appears.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.