Skip to comments.Governor Walker Responds to Prank Call (Did Ian Murphy break the law?)
Posted on 02/23/2011 2:40:05 PM PST by Libloather
Governor Walker Responds to Prank Call
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Gov. Scott Walker says he won't be distracted by a prank phone call made by a blogger posing as one of his campaign donors, and he'll push forward with a bill to limit the power of public employee unions.
Walker stood by his comments on the call, saying they were no different than what he has said publicly.
A website called the Buffalo Beast posted audio of Tuesday's call in which its editor pretended to be conservative billionaire David Koch, who had supported Walker's campaign.
Walker revealed his supporters considered bringing in outside agitators to stir up trouble with protesters, but he dismissed that idea.
(Excerpt) Read more at todaystmj4.com ...
Ever notice that Libtards cannot win an argument with facts? The only way they can sell an idea, is by lying or through deception.
Then on the other hand, a lot of us who were 100% behind O'Keefe have a much different opinion when the acting is on the other side.
Except they gave O’Keefe a felony... So nobody from the right would ever do it again.
When our side does it, it is to expose the secret truth to what Liberals are doing, and the reuslt is that the exposed truth is very different from what they say publically.
When Liberals do it, it is (presumably) also to expose that conservatives are lying with their public statements, and their secret statements will expose the lies. Except the public statements match the ‘secret’ statements.
How so? Did he use a real persons name and pretend to be them?
I'm not so sure. O'Keefe never tried to use someone else's specific identification to get his info. I could be wrong.
And the felony was for what???
You’re correct. The thing he still lied about the circumstances of his ‘reporting’. Whether it was the Acorn take down or the fiasco in NO. He lied to get his version of the ‘story’. Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, though.
The crime of pretending to be another individual in order to deceive others and gain some advantage.
In New York, giving only a fictitious name does not constitute false impersonation. Under New York law, criminal impersonation is committed when an individual "[i]mpersonates another and does an act in such assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another" (N.Y. Penal Law § 190.25 [McKinney 1996]). In other words, it is illegal to impersonate a real person, but not a fictitious one. Thus, if Carol forges Ann's name on checks made out to Ann so that Carol can cash the checks, Carol could be guilty of false impersonation but only if Ann is a real person. Such laws are designed to protect innocent people from the losses they may incur owing to the wrongful acts of others and to restore any loss of dignity and reputation they may have suffered as a result of impersonation.
That's not a crime. Using someone else's personal identification is a crime.
No. It isn’t the same. O’Keefe didn’t impersonate a known person.
Federal Law does not criminalize recorded conversations....Federal law is “one-party consent”. Since this recording was done across state lines....the Feds would have jurisdiction
This was well discussed in the Linda Tripp recordings case...when Maryland tried to go after her for recording Monica Lewinsky....however the recordings did not take place in Maryland....Tripp’s case was dismissed
Impersonation is a crime, even on the Internet
I dont’ know if taping without consent is in Wi.
But impersonating as was done in this case ,is a felony.
NY is one-party consent. I get that. He impersonated a specific individual. That's a crime.
The leftists are howling: http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/February11/0223/0223carpenter.pdf
I did not say it was the same. I did not say O’Keefe committed a crime. I said he lied in an attempt to manufacture a story that suited his ideology. The same as this yahoo did with Gov. Walker. That he used an actual persons name may put him in legal jeopardy, something O’Keefe did not do. Did O’Keefe break any laws by secretly taping in the manner he did? Are you saying it is ok to lie to further ones ideology, views or opinions? I do not like this fiasco any better than anyone else, but turnabout is fair play, right?
Walker was pretty stupid. Never say things like that on an unsecure line.
Walker was pretty stupid. Never say things like that on an unsecure line.
Entering a federal building under false pretense.
Your first statement I did not say it was the same. does not match the last but turnabout is fair play, right? It isn't the same yet you ARE stating they are.
Would not David Koch also have a claim as a civil tort?
I'm thinking YES! I'm calling the NY fraud helpline tomorrow just to see if they enforce the law. 1-800-771-7755.
Yes I am new to FR and am not yet sure if I am conservative enough for FR. Maybe I am not presenting myself clearly enough. If we lie, O’Keefe, to expose liberals, how is that any different than if they, Murphy, lies to expose us? Yes, I understand that Murphy most likely committed a crime by saying he was David Koch, but that is not the point I am making here. How can we take offense, to what Murphy did, when we engage in the same behavior?
What O'Keefe did was an expose. He did NOT use a known person's name.
The blogger however DID impersonate a known person in order to gain entry. Impersonation is a no-no. There is a difference in pretending to be a pimp and pretending to be Mr Koch. One is illegal for obvious reasons and one is not. It's too bad that you can't see that.
So O’Keefe’s lie is acceptable because he is for our side? He did commit a crime in the NO incident, correct? The NO fiasco was patterned after the Acorn operation. In one instance he lied to gain access and didn’t commit a crime and that’s OK. Then in the second he lied and did commit a crime and that is still OK?
I guess we will have to disagree on this issue. I do not see lying to further ones ideology as acceptable behavior, for either side. Maybe I was just raised differently.
You truly DON'T get it, do you.
He did commit a crime in the NO incident, correct?
Was he prosecuted? No. All charges were dropped because it was bogus.
Has the blogger that impersonated Mr Koch been charged even though what he did is really illegal? No.
You may be correct that you don't belong on FR. You don't seem to understand the difference between a "sting" /expose and illegally impersonating a named person.
Impersonation of a living person is illegal. And since it was across state lines that makes it federal. The law has been posted on several threads.
Your right I may ‘fit’ well with FR. Time will tell on that.
Sadly I do “get it”. You’re willing to accept O’Keefe’s actions as just and not Murphy’s. You’re comparing apples and oranges to justify your position, “the difference between a “sting” /expose and illegally impersonating a named person”. Both parties lied to accomplish their respective goals. Does the fact that one committed a crime, and the other did not, change the fact that both lied to accomplish their goals? For you it seems to.
Sadly, you don't.
O'Keefe didn't break the law. The leftist blogger did.
Youre comparing apples and oranges to justify your position,
No. YOU are comparing legal and illegal. I think you're trolling.
Both parties lied to accomplish their respective goals.
One broke the law and the other didn't. O'Keefe did EXACTLY what every news team on the planet has done.
Does the fact that one committed a crime, and the other did not, change the fact that both lied to accomplish their goals? For you it seems to.
Only a liberal would see it your way. Cops and newsies have done for decades what O'Keefe did. And even the newsies cried foul on the blogger.
I'll say it again, I think you're a lefty trolling FR. ESPECIALLY after looking at your posting history.
You have a nice day!
Yes, I know that I am not as conservative as most who post here and FR may not be the place for me to interact on the net. But I will not know for sure unless I try. You’re arguing legal and I’m arguing moral, so we’re simply talking past each other on different aspects. The nuns of my youth did not differentiate between lies. It either is one or it isn’t one. Maybe that is too black and white for politics.
You have a nice day, too!
You are secreting a Jewish family in your attic in WWII Holland. The Nazis come to your door and ask if you've seen any Jews in the area. You would feel morally compelled to tell them the truth?