Posted on 01/26/2010 6:43:50 PM PST by FromLori
Between the Republican Federal Prosecuter in New Orleans and a local a jury, i’m sure they will find the truth.
His ego has outweighed his common sense.
I'm not sure how many cases you've prosecuted, but I've prosecuted a bunch. I can't see any way ACORN - in any manner - comes into this "case", whatever this case is. Furthermore, if you think that discovery will yield a trove of treasure with respect to either ACORN or information about Mary Landriue's goings-on, you have absolutely no idea how discovery works.
Right now they're looking at ten years each - perhaps more if they find themselves at the business end of an enterprising prosecutor. Just wait until the grand jury is involved.
This was stupid, stupid, stupid. Any competent attorney who had even a little experience in media cases could have given them badly needed advice with their last set of adventures, and told them - unequivocally - that playing college pranks in a Senator's official offices is a big time no-no.
Depends on the jury.. if there IS one..... ha ha.
Why don’t we just wait and see. The only info we have is from the MSM. Remember when the AP reported the Weekly Standard reporter “slipped and fell” when the video clearly showed him being pushed. There’s video to this too and my guess is many here are jumping the gun here.
Depends on the jury? What? Juries don't make determinations with respect to discovery motions, judges do. In criminal cases, discovery refers to the mandated sharing of information between prosecution and defense. Any information, to include exculpatory information held by the prosecution, must be shared with the defense.
Subpoenas issued for personal or confidential information - to especially include the victim(s) - may only be done so with a court order. Before such an order is granted, the victim may move to quash such a subpoena.
What if O'Keefe has evidence of wrongdoing between ACORN and Landrieu? After all, ACORN is based in New Orleans.
No, we have the a copy of the actual sworn affidavit by the investigating officer. In my professional opinion - even in the absence of grand jury investigation - the people's case is on the stronger side. The agent has attested that at least two of the accused have confessed to gaining entry under false pretenses.
There's no allowable affirmative defense that says - "Hey, but we meant well" That's arguing for jury nullification, and it's illegal. Having said that, I doubt that the prosecutor will take them to the wall over this - unless of course they actually develop compelling evidence that they were trying to bug the place. I think a more likely outcome is a plea agreement to some misdemeanor(s) and a fine.
My point being there will be be no prosecution, ergo no jury.
Do you REALLY think an accomplished sting operator goes for even bigger fish on a whim, with no legal direction?
Like he just got lazy or stupid or something once he accomplished, publicly, his first goal?
Hopefully he can drop what he’s got prior to the state of the bozo address tomorrow.
It would have to be VERY compelling evidence for a judge to allow a jury to hear it. Even then, one crime doesn't excuse another, so it's relevance to their guilt or innocence is suspect, if also possibly beneficial at sentencing.
There are PLENTY of cases where FBI agents broke wiretapping laws on some very bad people who I'm sure that were guilty of some very bad things, but that doesn't inoculate the FBI agents from the crime of an illegal wiretap.
He clearly didn't consult with counsel prior to his last round of documentaries. If he had, he wouldn't have recorded conversations in states requiring "two or all party" consent. It's not even my area of practice, and I was WELL aware of the legal limitations of surreptitious recordings of in-person conversations. I would hope that he would have learned his lesson, but this doesn't seem likely as he's already been arrested.
Getting back to ACORN as I asked before: What if O'Keefe has evidence of wrongdoing between ACORN and Landrieu? Or at least evidence of a relationship between the two? After all, ACORN is based in New Orleans. Would it be possible to somehow bring that in as evidence and hence bring in ACORN itself?
Perhaps the Senator was using her office to help ACORN inappropriately in there litigation dealings with O'Keefe. I'm not an attorney so I call upon your expertise.
I guess what I’m saying is regardless of the legalities of impersonating phone company employees, maybe O’Keefe and friends simply wanted to appear to be bugging the phones. For what reason, I’ve no idea but I think there’s way more to this than meets the eye.
No. In fact, if they had established (or do establish) that they were in possession of an actual listening device, the the charges and corresponding penalties become much worse. I don't have the relevant statutes memorized, but "interfering" comes in the same section as "tampering with", which could mean either destroying, disabling or otherwise interfering with the operation of equipment.
"Would it be possible to somehow bring that in as evidence and hence bring in ACORN itself?"
Highly unlikely.
Now, that is likely. I would be surprised beyond all description if they were actually trying to bug - or even really interfere with - the Senator's phone system. I can't believe they'd be that stupid. But, that doesn't mean that whatever they did, no matter how well-intentioned, wasn't violating the letter of the law.
This really will come down to how motivated the US Attorney is, and how pissed Landrieu is. If she wants to make this an issue, look out. It is VERY difficult to escape the fangs of a prosecutor with the taste for your blood - just ask Scooter Libbey.
Some people are anxious for O’Keefe’s VERITAS, some people dread it.
The ones who dread it on this thread and others regarding the case... well, I think they doth protest too much.
OK...thanks for the info. BTW, is this affidavit typical of an FBI affidavit? In other words, is it usual for it to be so vague as to times and places, when or how the FBI was informed of a possible crime, etc. It seems rather poorly written and not extremely detailed.
Yep, very typical. This isn't the indictment. This is just an affidavit establishing probable cause so that the magistrate will issue an arrest warrant. With this affidavit, he meets probable cause, easily and that ALL he's looking for.
Thanks. It’s been a pleasure.
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.