Posted on 01/26/2010 12:41:17 PM PST by Cheap_Hessian
If they've "got" O'Keffe - and they're sure - they'll blow this up to be the biggest thing since watergate...
Hmmmm..... The number one sting artist in the country today works for Breitbart and Brietbart's new site is called Big Journalism?
Perhaps some very interesting dots are forming here but it's not time to conect them just yet.
Well, he can kiss his life goodby now. Looks like all the fame went to his head. Idiot.
A pimp in a whore’s office? Say it ain’t so!
Apparently you never heard of the Louisiana Purchase.
It’s the reversal of Watergate.
You are not serious, right?
This article only implies that James is guilty... I wish people would not ASS-UME he is guilty from what the NEWS MEDIA is reporting. Something about these accusations do not make sense; so until we get all the facts, ASS-umptions should not be made. Let the Media report false statements and make ASSes of themselves! They do that well.
Pelican State ping
until the cows come home.
Did Mary Landrieu come home already? Ouch.
I fear that this is O’keef’s bridge to far.
I'd very much like to think that O'keefe has somehow pulled a "rope a dope" on Sen. Landrieu, but based on what information is available at this point, it looks like he got caught doing exactly what he's being accused of.
It's one thing to surreptitiously record video of people breaking the law, but quite another to bug their offices. That's crossing a line that is well defined by law.
I hope for O'keefe's sake that there's more to this story.
The basis of the story is the FBI complaint, which is obviously flawed, and a careful reading would indicate that O’Keefe did nothing illegal. I think there is a very good chance that the U.S. Attorney will drop the case after a few months of reflection, because if it comes to trial O’Keefe and Company are going to turn it into a three-ring circus. After all, O’Keefe is the “Abbie Hoffman” of the Right.
It wasn’t a complaint, it was an affidavit. In the FBIs affidavit it quotes specific criminal violations that were allegedly committed. And it won’t be the US Atty of NO or that district who will dismiss the case because one of the suspects was his son.
A rose by any name is still a rose...
A CRITIC OF THE FBI AFFIDAVIT RELATES:
1. The ‘physically and verbally represented’ themselves part is the conclusion of the agent and basis for arrest- not what necessarily occurred nor necessarily a crime.
2. Item 5 indicates they ‘represented’ themselves to the employee as phone repairers. Nothing defines ‘representation’ other than their wardrobe. Is dressing like a Village Person a crime?
3. Item six states they requested access to a phone and manipulated it. Well, if they touched it, they manipulated it. I’ve asked for use of a phone in various places. Is that illegal? It continues to go on that he tried to call the number with his cell. So?
4. Item seven states they indicated they needed to do repair work. What exactly did they say? Was it a ‘must access’ or ‘could we access’ or merely ‘there is repair work to be done’ [he might need to repair his truck] followed by a query to the phone room location. Asking where a room is isn’t illegal.
5. The conclusion states that they admitted to entering a Fed property under false pretenses. Goodness. Many folks sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution and do just the opposite have misrepresented themselves...and they swore something. Where are their arrest warrants?
6. Reading the final summary, it appears that entering under false pretenses isn’t the crime; it is the horrid offense of ‘attempting to manipulate’ a phone. When is it against the law to touch a phone?
While I may sound like an ACLU partisan, it seems to me that this case is not well fleshed out and they were held on the most tenuous claims.
In fact, if they were found guilty, would it be illegal to enter a Federal building if you disagreed with a policy, but lied in fact or by omission so you could get in to speak to a Senator? ‘I wanted to thank Sen. Reed for all of his great work...’ then ‘Sen. Reid, you sir, are a despicable louse and unworthy of your Senatorial seat!’ That certainly would be a false pretense.
If you manipulated or touched a piece of office equipment or fixtures in a Federal office, should you be arrested? So much for using the toilet!
There was NO information that ANYTHING was destroyed, maliciously tampered with, made inoperable or operable in a manner different from it’s prior function. So what is the crime of ‘manipulation’?
If someone goes into a Federal office for benefits and leads someone to think they are ‘qualified’ but don’t actually lie nor sign a form swearing they are representing the truth, should they be carted off to jail? To me the person doing the screening would be the guilty party as they would or should have some sort of fiduciary accountability as part of their job description if they can determine benefits eligibility or lead others to do so. If not, the agency or NGO which receives tax-payer funds and hands them out willie-nillie is likely operating outside of their charter or their charter needs a revision pronto-quick.
I realize this may seem way off base from the original complaint, but I find it a perfect nexus from a legal standpoint.
—FreeStateYank at Free Republic
Well, my fault for not reading the FBI complaint to spot the flaws. There are only so many hours in the day, and an avalanche of news that just never stops.
Thanks for sharing your insight.
I think you missed a little plane crash in there somewhere
For later read
OMG!!! I PRAY this was a SET-UP!! PRAY, PEOPLE!!!
Don’t jump to too many conclusions yet.....WHY MAry Landrieu???
AMEN!! I want to see what happens to the OTHER 2 and IF James REALLY KNOWS THEM!!!
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.