Ugh: ACORN-buster busted at Sen. Landrieu’s office in alleged bugging “malicious” phone tampering plot; affidavit link added; Update: “Veritas”?
Scroll for updates…See this clarification…
The New Orleans Times-Picayune reports that James O’Keefe, half of the ACORN-busting duo that conducted undercover stings across the country last summer, was arrested today in an alleged wiretapping* plot at the New Orleans office of Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu. O’Keefe and three other young men were arrested by the FBI. One of the men is the son of the acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana.
The Times-Picayune has not posted the full FBI affidavit, but the details they have are damning. This is neither a time to joke nor a time to recklessly accuse Democrats/liberals of setting this up — nor a time to whine about media coverage double standards. Deal with what’s on the table:
Alleging a plot to wiretap Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office in the Hale Boggs Federal Building in downtown New Orleans, the FBI arrested four people Monday, including James O’Keefe, a conservative filmmaker whose undercover videos at ACORN field offices severely damaged the advocacy group’s credibility.
Also arrested were Joseph Basel, Stan Dai and Robert Flanagan, all 24. Flanagan is the son of William Flanagan, who is the acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, the office confirmed. All four were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony.
According to the FBI affidavit, Flanagan and Basel entered the federal building at 500 Poydras Street about 11 a.m. Monday, dressed as telephone company employees, wearing jeans, fluorescent green vests, tool belts, and hard hats. When they arrived at Landrieu’s 10th floor office, O’Keefe was already in the office and had told a staffer he was waiting for someone to arrive.
When Flanagan and Basel entered the office, they told the staffer they were there to fix phone problems. At that time, the staffer, referred to only as Witness 1 in the affadavit, observed O’Keefe positioning his cell phone in his hand to videotape the operation. O’Keefe later admitted to agents that he recorded the event.
After being asked, the staffer gave Basel access to the main phone at the reception desk. The staffer told investigators that Basel manipulated the handset. He also tried to call the main office phone using his cell phone, and said the main line wasn’t working. Flanagan did the same.
They then told the staffer they needed to perform repair work on the main phone system and asked where the telephone closet was located. The staffer showed the men to the main General Services Administration office on the 10th floor, and both went in. There, a GSA employee asked for the men’s credentials, after which they stated they left them in their vehicle.
The U.S. Marshal’s Service apprehended all four men shortly thereafter.
*Updated* They are, of course, presumed innocent until proven guilty.
But for now, let it be a lesson to aspiring young conservatives interested in investigative journalism:
Know your limits. Know the law. Don’t get carried away. And don’t become what you are targeting.
***
*Updated*: The affidavit pdf is here…O’Keefe and the others admit to entering the government office under false pretenses. O’Keefe admits to planning the operation.
*Update: Note that the affidavit refers to malicious interference with the phone system, not bugging or wiretapping.*
Excerpt:
Update: Allahpundit has the relevant legal statutes/analysis. Not good.
***
Update: Ooookay…
A conservative activist who posed as a pimp to target the community-organizing group ACORN and the son of a federal prosecutor were among four men arrested and accused of trying to tamper with phones at Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office.
Activist James O’Keefe, 25, recorded two of the other suspects with his cell phone as they walked into the office dressed like telephone repairman and said they needed to fix problems with the phone system, according to an FBI affidavit.
A federal law enforcement official said one of the suspects was picked up in a car a couple of blocks away with a listening device that could pick up transmissions. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the information was not part of an FBI affidavit that described the circumstances of the case.
O’Keefe said “veritas,” Latin for truth, as he left a suburban jail Tuesday with suspects Stan Dai and Joseph Basel, both 24. All declined to comment.
“There will be a time for that,” Dai said.
As he got into a cab outside the jail, O’Keefe said, “The truth shall set me free.” His biography on a Web site where he blogs says he works at VeritasVisuals.com, though that Web site does not currently work.
The fourth suspect, Robert Flanagan, the son of Shreveport-based acting U.S. Attorney Bill Flanagan, was not with them. It was not immediately known if he had already been released on the $10,000 bail set for each suspect.
It sounded like a Watergate-style operation, but federal officials have not yet said why the men wanted to interfere with Landrieu’s phones, whether they were successful, or even if the goal was political espionage.
Local TV report shows brief comment from O’Keefe here. Pre-trial proceedings are schedule for tomorrow morning:
***
Update: Hmmmm. Here’s Patterico’s take…
OK, final word. I’m sticking out my neck and declaring that I think this will prove to be a big nothing.
I just don’t believe this guy was wiretapping phones or trying to do so. I really don’t.
It might not even have been an attempt to show how easy it would be to bug phones. Maybe there is another explanation. But I don’t think he was acting in a criminal fashion. I don’t.
You can quote me.
***
Update: Hannah Giles writes:
Andrew Breitbart has made the new media trendy, and after the ACORN videos everyone and his conservative dog was aboard the new-media campaign bandwagon. Yet, the moment an unsubstantiated report on James was leaked, the rank and file of our movement exposed themselves as vulnerable to the MSM as anyone
For instance, Michelle Malkin, a once avid supporter/defender of James and all his work, called for an example to be made out of him, and instructing other young journalists to not follow in his footsteps. Again, this was before she knew his side of the story.
As a reminder, here was Hannah’s initial reaction before she knew the full story:
I am shocked by the reports of this behavior. I am well aware that following the law is an integral part of being a good investigative journalist. I take that responsibility and accountability very seriously. I certainly hope these reports are untrue.
I stand by my initial response to the story:
Know your limits. Know the law. Don’t get carried away. And don’t become what you are targeting.
***
There has been considerable overreach by some media outlets, to be sure. Some elements of the story have come directly from the report filed by the FBI,- detailing what the witnesses told them about the operation. That information remains to be tested in court, but the description therein doesn’t quite square with O’Keefe’s explanation. They wouldn’t have needed to get access to the telephone closet in order to observe people answering the phone, and attempting to access it under false pretenses (representing themselves as telephone-company technicians) strongly implies that they wanted access for other reasons.
If the FBI affadavit or the witness testimony is inaccurate, then that will come out in court. However, I doubt that the FBI got the description of their clothing wrong, and dressing up as telephone repairmen wouldn’t have been necessary at all to get undercover video of people answering the phone, or not answering it, as the case may be. If all O’Keefe and his people wanted was an admission that the phone system was working, then the disguise may have helped, but it still wouldn’t have been necessary to gain access to the phone closet.
O’Keefe seems to recognize that now:
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.
Even accepting O’Keefe’s explanation, his team still appears to have broken the law by gaining admission to a federal office under false pretenses and attempting to access the phone system, possibly with “willful and malicious” intent to interfere with it. Be sure to read Allahpundit’s analysis of the law and how it applies to this situation. If a judge winds up with this case, he will certainly take intent and purpose under consideration but it doesn’t change the fact that O’Keefe should have done his homework and reconsidered this very bad idea before engaging in it. And what for? To get on people on tape answering the phones? That’s not exactly a journalistic scoop.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
A new Chicago-based minority voter outreach program: What could go wrong?
September 26, 2011 03:34 AM by Michelle Malkin
60 CommentsTwo important Secretary of State wins for GOP
November 2, 2010 11:38 PM by Michelle Malkin
12 Comments
ACORN Watch: New HUD IG report details counseling grant scams
September 23, 2010 01:54 PM by Michelle Malkin
20 Comments
ACORN/Project Vote retreat from bully lawsuit against whistleblower
April 8, 2010 02:19 PM by Michelle Malkin
21 Comments
Categories: ACORN Watch
Redstate
» Morning Briefing for February 14, 2012Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad jokeJustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
Interestingly, if there is a message taken about the arrival of a phone call in a Congressional office, the record of that phone call would probably be considered an official document and subject to records retention regulations.
Back in the old days they used to use the colored, multi-part forms bound in spiral notebooks and those had to be retained for a certain period.
So the call isn’t subject any such rules but the record of the call, if written might be? You have to love government regulation. It is as simple and reasonable as the tax code…
Ohhhh! Okay, them. If O’Keefe says so, then I guess we really should just believe him.
Biased, maybe. That does not mean not credible. And there is another witness that testifies to the fact they were trying to gain access as well. All are things that can come out at trial.
Again, its almost like you haven’t read a word of it. The affidavit says that all four admitted to planning, coordinating and preparing for the operation. That right there is more than enough. In fact that is a freaking slam dunk for at the very least getting an indictment.
No. According to the affidavit, and relevant statute, they attempted to “interfere” with the phone lines.
From the update:
No…you have ruled that out.
Exactly my point. And the issue of constituent conversations misses what the real concern is: conversations with other congresspeople, lobbyists, donors, etc…
Of course, the NYT’s has this one their home page hyperventilating about it.
Where were they when ACORN was busted? Where were they when NV AG arrested a bunch of ACORN staff for fraud? Where were they when ACORN committed numerous other felonies throughout the country?
Oh, nevermind.
Purple, actually, what I meant by the kid comment is that I don’t know too many 24 year olds who have a good sense re: judgement…that said, I’ll wait and see I’m not ready to get all emotional over this.
They have already served time:
St. Bernard Parish jail has to be the tip of hell, as any jail near New Orleans would be.
O’Keefe seems pretty confident. Perhaps Mary Landrieu is the one sweating bullets tonight.
It looks like someone let his earlier success go to his head.
Let’s not jump the shark..Let’s wait and see what happens.
Of course, then the Congress-critters would just start using “personal cell phones” for all their communication. These people (Democrats and Republicans) are never going to play by the rules…
If this act of stupidity is true, then they deserve to be punished.
Didn’t we learn this back in 1972 when Watergate was discovered?
Those white terrorists at it again. Is his name Gondorf?
Yeah, I know what you mean by “kid”, Misscheryl, as the years have gone by I’ve come to consider those under 35 as “kids”.
Hear, hear!
It was obvious in the ACORN sting that our young hero was a bit of a wacko. In a sane universe, he would have not gotten to first base with his crazy approach to ACORN. Of course, since it ~did~ succeed — and succeeded spectacularly — it was wonderful fun. We all knew that ACORN was incompetent and corrupt but few suspected that it was something out of a Kurt Vonnegut novel. Whatever. We had a great laugh and a huge political moment.
But this kid was obviously a goof. Now he’s got his butt in a crack.
Hang’em High.
You could’a been a contender, now your off the reservation.
Yup, Iggy R, Hannah Giles was the brains of the ACORN scandal expose duo. O’Keefe had the kind of “Jackass” bravado to do it as a prank-stunt thing, but he never impressed me as being all that bright. Too bad.
the Feds, especially the FBI rarely charge anyone they don’t think they have a slam dunk on…. its one way they keep their stats high.
“toast” is the first thing that comes to my mind when i’m reading this story.
Stupid, stupid, stupid! And it does not appear that daddy has a very good lawyer either! It sounds like they all started shooting their mouth’s off like AK-47s the minute they got to the FBI office.
O’Keefe had the right, but not the ability or common sense, to remain silent!
What were they thinking? Were they thinking?
Sorry, but you guys have swallowed the lefty media’s lure, hook, line and sinker. They may have gained entry by claiming to be telephone repair men, or some such nonsense, but the chasm between that and “conspiracy to bug Landrieu’s phones” is so wide as to be laughable.
If they were in possession of a phone bug or electronic listening equipment that could be attached to phones, then they’re in big trouble. If they weren’t, then you’ve been sold a gallon of Kool-Aid.
It does say that. It does not say what “the operation” was, unless that’s mentioned somewhere else.
As always, whether to these folks or anyone else out there, is simple. If you are questioned by the police, the first, and only words out of your mouth should be: “Am I free to leave?”. If the answer is yes, do so and call a lawyer. If the answer is no, the next, and only, words out of your mouth should be “I want a lawyer.”
Don’t think that you can just explain things and the police will believe you because you know you are innocent. Don’t think it is your obligation to help them. Don’t believe them. Don’t trust them. They have their job. You have yours.
They were not charged with wiretapping, but with entering a federal building under false pretences and with “interfering” with a phone.
Of course, more charges may be pending. But the wiretapping claims seem to be unfounded at present.
Look at the link at HotAir.com by AllahPundit Michelle Malkin posted in her update above.
The link points to the applicable statutes. These guys appear to have done something incredibly stupid and have been caught red-handed!
And Mr. O’Keefe and friends seem to be unable to stop talking to the Feds.
STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!
I cannot believe I am going to say this. (Man, the world is turning upside down right now!) But in this instance, Chappy is absolutely right!
These guys have pretty well done themselves in with what they have said already. And, if there is any doubt, the DA will flip the weakest one with a deal too sweat to ignore.
Chaps and Texvet…
I am too much a civil libertarian to be sanguine about recording people’s phones as a matter of course, but especially those of elected representatives.
Nobody has addressed the point about it chilling the LEGITIMATE speech of constituents, or made any case that would justify the practice, except to say they don’t trust the people in power. But those are the very people who…with their power…might well be expected to abuse the practice.
And how easy would it be to wire around!?!?
Crikey…!!!!
Rags,
I just want you to address why written communication should be treated differently than oral.
Sound advice from Chaps; the cops will lie to your face, promise you all kinds of things, and manipulate you like a sock puppet. I bow to nobody in my admiration for good police, FBI agents, etc, but I’ve seen too many lie under oath to think they all fit that category…or even many fit that category.
The affidavit mentioned the applicable statutes – Title 18, USC Sections 1036, 1362, and 2.
I don’t recall the details anymore, but isn’t this one of the several “crimes” the Democrats alleged against Palin?
Part of it lies in the “expectation of privacy” analysis. We write any email or letter knowing it is likely to be persistent…filed away in some form. I think it generally true that we are more deliberate when we write things, as a result, that are not anonymous.
We have a body of laws (wire tap) that I think expressly reinforce the notion that our verbal communications will be more private and confidential.
While an elected official may keep correspondence in whatever form it arrives, I think it is very unlikely they could be compelled to disclose it except under the force of law and after due process. A FOIA request would not suffice, INMHO, nor should it.
TxVet2,
They claimed Palin was using personal email accounts to conduct official business. Evidently, she was, but what she was doing did not violate any statutes in AK at the time IIRC…
Rags,
But surely there is no expectation of privacy if, by law, one knew, or should know, the conversation was recorded.
I really don’t see a reason for objection here, unless you object to court-sanctioned wiretapping too. It amounts to the same thing, as far as I can see. After all, as public servants, these elected representatives have no right to privacy with official communications, including constituent phone calls. And neither should the consituent have any expectation of privacy of the call, given that in most cases they are seeking some sort of official/semi-official response.
Yeah, I think I remember now. Thanks.
This story seems strange. I wonder if we are missing something…
But court-ordered wire-taps are EXCLUSIVELY made after a showing of “good cause” and exercise of due process before what should be a jealous guardian of privacy and free speech.
I cannot see why an elected representative should have no right to privacy. I can readily see why that would cause many good people (me included) to NEVER run for office.
I especially cannot see any justification under the First Amendment for a constituent to have no right to speak to an elected official without fear of having the time, frequency, and content of their communication revealed.
Go and read the First Amendment, and see if you would weaken it with that…very dubious…”safeguard” you propose.
Trollman,
The story is strange. But keep in mind we are dealing with 4 24year-old kids who probably grew up on Punked! and Jack-A$$ and Extreme Sports. One of them probably has an inflated sense of self and put together they don’t have the common sense God gave a house plant…
Was James O’Keefe trying to film an expose of lax security at government offices?
Assuming they had no wire tapping equipment, this would be the simplest explanation of this affair. Without any wire tapping equipment, and no damage to any existing equipment, it would seem unlikely this will be more than a trespassing charge.
Let me clarify. I don’t claim they have no right to privacy, although you’ll play hell trying to convince me that it’s in the Constitution, RvW be damned. My point is that they have no right to privacy with their official communications, which includes everything on their (taxpayer funded) office phones. And I doubt that you’ll find a single “journalist” of any political stripe who would agree with you that they have any right to privacy at all. Certainly they don’t honor that with conservatives/Republicans, although I admit that Democrats seem to be able to wave that privacy flag when they want to.
And they frequently intercept non-target communications, which are duly disposed of. Same should apply to FOIA requests. Once again, I’m only referring to use of publicly funded, FOUO telephones.
Just for the sake of argument, why should a public servant have such an expectation of privacy in telephone communications?
I work for a private firm and when I am in the office I have very few privacy rights if I am using company phones and computers. Why should a public servant? If I want to have a private conversation I leave the office and use my personal cell phone.
Of course, in the end, such public servants would simply do the same thing as I do and stop answering calls in the office.
Of course there would be massive concerns over the vast amount of personal and confidential information that would be exposed to FOIA requests. How many times might a constituent reveal an SSN or date of birth or other confidential information? The government would have enormous difficulty keeping all this information secure.
The real world intrudes and seem to expose some real problems. And I for one don’t want to fund another HUGE government bureaucracy that would make a hash out of every the very information they collected.
I dunno…
that seems clear enough.
We have every right to petition the government for redress of grievances. But, where does it imply that our conversations with the government has any reasonable expectation of privacy?
If we just address the facts, there is actually no evidence that they did interfere with, or intended to interfere with the phone system. They picked up the reception phone; made a call to it; claimed it didn’t work; called a cell from another cell; then requested access to the phone closet.
The absence of any reference to telephone recording or line tapping equipment would indicate to me that they had none.
Regarding conspiracy…. conspiracy to do ..what exactly? Attempt to enter the phone closet without proper ID? The intent stated in the affidavit is purely the subjective opinion of the agent. While it’s not a stretch to make that assumption, I would think that intent would require some reasonable chance of carrying out the act.
There’s no doubt that Flanagan and Basal lied about who they represented. And that O’Keefe and Dai assisted in the preparation for their entry into the building.
But I see little else.
I have to wonder why O’Keefe was there and why he was getting some phone video of the other two. It seems more like a test of the building’s security than an attempt to tap a line or interfere with a communication system.
Stupid act by these four for sure. Seems there was little to gain but lots to lose. Now they have court dates.
They should have said they weer members of the New Black Panther Party or ACORN. They’d have jobs in the Senator’s office by now.
I think that some constituents could be uneasy about the notion that what they are asking of our government is recorded for posterity.
I also don’t care.
You are asking our government to do something which affects every single person in the nation. Suck it up and own up to your beliefs. If it is that important to you that you want to invoke the power of the federal government, you should take ownership.
Otherwise, you are no better than a teenager that thinks he is ready for sex but is too embarassed to buy condoms.
I wonder how much absolute nonsense would stop overnight if people knew that every time they picked up the phone to call Congressman Dopey or Senator Corrupt that it was being recorded for posterity?
Of course, practically speaking, I doubt it could be done and I don’t really want to pay for the Feds billions to prove they can’t do it…
Why would he do that?
It’s completely unnecessary.
When Landrieu was questioned about the 100B dollar payoff, she claimed it was 300B.
What were they expecting to learn? They must have known something and needed proof. But still, this is completely unnecessary.
Imagine the hit list that the anti Prop 8 terrorists could work from if they could obtain a list of all person who requested support for prop 8.
A request for some action does not constitute carrying out those actions. I don’t see anyone has a right to know who asked for or inquired about what.
If it’s recorded anonymously, that’s different. But I see no inherent right of the public to know which constituents asked about or discussed what issue with their representatives.
If that person represented a group, I may look upon that differently.
I was running some numbers based on some elementary assumptions about how many calls a person makes a day and how large 45 seconds of audio would be. Multiply that by a couple of million federal employees times several hundred days a year and the number is, uh, HUGE…
Like I said, I have seen Federal IT up close and personal and I wouldn’t want to pay the Feds to demonstrate that they couldn’t do it.
And Landrieu’s brother Maurice is an Asst. US Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana, where the crime took place.
This could get interesting, but I think these guys are toast.
On January 26th, 2010 at 10:45 pm,
I understand your point. But the same standard should apply to the Prop 8 donor lists, and they’re publicly available (For the record, I think all campaign contributions should also be publicly available). I understand there might be some discomfort for some people with having their calls recorded but I was under the impression that they probably already were, and I still think official communications should be publicly available.
I tend to think the Congress-critters and bureaucrats would have far more concern about what the average citizen might learn about their dealings than vice verse.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Why not let it shine everywhere?
But, again, I don’t see it as practical. It would be far too easy to circumvent and it would be virtually impossible to pull it off. Every call to the HHS would suddenly become a matter of “national security” and classified. The damning stuff would be buried for 50 years or “lost.” And the Feds could never manage the project if it were approved.
The leftists-Fifth Colummists-Liberals-Democrats and their media claques are going to blow this up real big and capitalize on it.
When the pro-life March is held in January in remembrance of the horrible Roe v Wade decisions which unconstitutionally was interpreted as allowing the legal slaughter of babies via induced abortion, the press often ignores the March and often refrains from reporting on it, and/or gives little notice of it. However the same media DO make a point to report on, and interview the small handful of pro-abortion advocates who “counter protest.”
This is just another example of media bias which I have no doubt will be exercised again with the foolhardy action of this “film maker” as they indict any and all conservatives, “right wingers,” “Tea Party” demonstrators, who the media insultingly refers to in a crude manner as malicious, stupid, dishonest, etc., whereas the actually violence, dishonesty, deception,, etc., of the left is ignored or reported as good.
People, take note of this. chap is giving you pearls.
The only problem is that in some states it’s a crime to refuse to answer certain questions by law enforcement if you’re being detained due to an investigatory stop. Nevada’s statute was recently upheld by the Supreme Court.
In such states, you only have the right to remain silent AFTER you’ve been arrested. So under certain circumstances, you might be DETAINED and, while you might not be free to leave, you still might be obligated to answer specific law enforcement questions.
However, you might be able to get around this by telling the law enforcement officer that you are NOT refusing to answer, but that you need to determine whether or not you have a 5th amendment right to avoid self incrimination and that you’re having trouble deciding because of the pressure of the situation.
O’Keefe should look into joining the Army and catching the 1st transport to Afghanistan., That will put some common sense in the young man.
Some observations on the complaint:
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 nuch 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. [But I’m no lawyer and do not play one on TV. Although I’m finding an urge to go to law school, lol]
So what are your thoughts on the above? Any merit in the outline and conclusions?
In some states, such as Nevada (and many more), you may be stopped and asked to identify yourself.
You can be detained without being arrested. You aren’t under arrest but you aren’t “free to leave.” But you don’t have to spill your guts like O’Keefe evidently did. Look at “Terry Stop” in the wiki link.
At any given moment every person in America is probably violating some Federal statute. See http://www.overcriminalized.com/ for more details.
O’Keefe ripped the mask off ACORN. Have you ever done anything so significant in your entire life?
We don’t know what he was doing in this case. It doesn’t sound like he actually did anything criminal, certainly nothing as criminal as what most of our glorious leaders in WDC do all of the time.
For anyone other than the leftwing nuts who think unmasking ACORN was a bad thing, the right thing to do is to give O’Keefe the benefit of the doubt until we know more.
What a shame that the feds didn’t go after the New Black Panther “poll watchers” with the same determination.
I am waiting to see where the chips fall on this one before drawing any conclusions.
Unfortunately, a felony conviction would make that very difficult. Along with any number of other restrictions this will put on O’Keefe’s future prospects.
Whatever O’Keefe et al were trying to do here, the stupidity level is stunning. If you consider a bone head scale of one to ten, even thinking of gaining access to a US senator’s office communications system using fradulent means has to rate a solid 8. Actually trying it a 9. Then freely offering information about their intent to arresting officers – 10.
Well, maybe 9.5. He could have tried it wearing his pimp outfit to achieve a solid 10. Conservatives need to condemn this in no uncertain terms. The ACORN sting may have been close to the line. This is waaaaaaay over it.
This case is very curious, and I’m wondering this morning after much reflection that it may well be a “set-up”….by none other than O’Keefe.
Like Hannibal at Cannae, O’Keefe may have pulled back his front as a tactic to draw in the enemy and destroy them. My sense is that this is a gig devised to blow up in the prosecutor’s face and give O’Keefe a hammer on the prosecutor and the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Isn’t that the basis for that whole “presumed innocent” thing? Or is the presumption of innocence reserved strictly for Gitmo detainees and enemy combatants?
Ronbo I hope you’re right.
I hope O’Keefe is protected by God himself, because if he sees jail, ACORN will have plenty of representation, (so to speak) inside, waiting to do him harm.
Doin’ they thug thizzle, is all.
I perfectly agree – and, yes, I’m quoting Patterico!
Possible – but out in speculation land. If so, O’Keefe is some kind of genious, and the information at hand points the other way. If you’re right I will be happy to eat my words with some hot tobasco sauce, but I’m still leaning heavily toward the bone head theory. I honestly hope I’m wrong.
BTW – This will be a felony prosecution, not a lawsuit. He is being sued by former ACORN employees, and I don’t see how this could have a positive effect in that action. We’ll see.
On January 27th, 2010 at 8:28 am, Ronbo said:
Some observations on the complaint:
my thoughts on your observations:
Phenomenal! you should think about law school fer sure!
Frankly, I don’t think O’Keefe is some strategic or even tactical genius on par with Hannibal.
From what we know now, he was trying to pull some stupid stunt with a bunch of friends. They have already said too much to the Feds and that proves they aren’t geniuses.
Like I said, he had the right, but not the ability, to remain silent.
Mr. O’Keefe just complicated his young life by a factor he cannot imagine.
STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!
Let’s take this independent of the morality question for just a moment. It seems reasonable to assume that there was some lawbreaking going on here. And also seems reasonable to assume that somebody who demonstrated such intelligence in the ACORN affiar does not simply go in tapping phones on a fishing expedition. You go in knowing that there’s something there to uncover, or you simply don’t take that risk.
I have to assume that there is far more to this story than we know at the moment. Personally, I will be most interested in seeing what it is that O’Keefe has on Landrieu…And I fully expect that to come out in the trial. Which, the way things time out will come out just about the time that we are due for another election.
As to whether not all the charges will hold up, I’ll reserve judgment. I’ve read the affidavit, I’m less than convinced that they will hold up, frankly, but then again, this is the Democrat party stronghold of New Orleans, where you can not only indict a ham sandwich you can convict it if you like, and have some political clout.
I will also warn you, that the mainstream media will tend to ignore anything that surfaces about corruption and Sen. Mary Landrieu… after all, corrupt Democrats , particularly in that part of the country, are hardly news.
On the other hand, the story might serve as a decent diversion from the rather lackluster state of the union message that we anticipate this evening.
I was thinking more of the situation where you are pulled into a police station or even in a situation where they show up at your door, but this is basically correct, with one caveat.
The standard for right to an attorney and right not to self incriminate attaches when you are in custody, i.e., when your freedom of action is impaired in a significant way. Being under arrest is certainly in custody, but that is not the threshold. That is why the question “Am I free to leave” is vital. Right there you can determine, without ambiguity, if you are in custody. If so: 1) they better read you your Miranda rights right then and there and 2) you’d better invoke everyone of those Miranda rights. Demand an attorney in clear, unambiguous terms, and then STFU.
“Custodial interrogation” is the standard in any state. No state could pass a law saying that Miranda doesn’t attach until you are actually arrested. If there was ambiguity to whether or not someone is in custody, the Court will look to see how much like it was to an arrest. But don’t be THAT person that gets into that messy situation. Don’t let the cops be able to say “Hey…he could have left if he wanted. He never asked. As far as we were concerned he was there voluntarily” (i.e., no Miranda). Know your rights.
What I believe corkie is getting at is that the S.C. has ruled that, in a routine traffic stop or a “stop and frisk” situation, yes you are detained, but you are not in custody, because the nature of these stops is that they normally check you out and send you on your way. A cop can pull you over and ask if you have been drinking or give you a brethalyzer, for example, without giving you a Miranda warning.
So…detained does not necessarily equal in custody and one need not be arrested to be in custody.
Also, you do have to provide identification in any situation. Just hand them your license and….
STFU!!!
The part of this that isn’t clear to me is why he was in the office before his pals arrived and what was he expecting to get by getting these two guys on video. It doesn’t make sense if they intended to tap a line. Why go there to observe?
Besides, he has to know that if he even attempted to tap a senators phone lines he’d be going to jail. So I would be surprised if that was their intent.
It seems more likely that they had another purpose.
In any event, if he was trying to uncover some sort of corruption or illegal back room dealing, he needed to vet his process a whole lot better and make damn sure he wasn’t breaking the law in the course of gathering whatever evidence he was seeking. If his methods even pushed the envelop, he needed to come up with a better plan that didn’t push it.
Ultimately, he may be exonerated, but at the very least, this does little good for conservatives. And far less good for Mr. O’Keefe.
I don’t want to revisit the “reasonable expectation of privacy” debate about the ACORN videos, but at the VERY least he was “pushing the envelope” of Maryland’s (and maybe one or two other state’s) wiretapping laws when he secretly taped conversations.
Good advice.
In the scenario where you are pulled over. You hand the officer your docs at the officer’s request, then he or she asks if you’ve been drinking. You say no. In this case, let’s say the person has not been drinking. Not that it matters.
Then, before the officer requests a breathalyzer or is asked to perform some other sobriety test, the person states, “Am I free to leave?”
The officer could say yes and return the driver’s docs, or he might not respond and keep the docs, then request a breathalyzer.
Chap, in that situation, do you think the officer required to Mirandize the driver? Or can he continue on without doing so. In NJ if the driver refuse the breathalyzer, it’s an automatic DWI.
I don’t know from personal experience. I don’t drink and drive. But it seems like an interesting test of what’s being discussed.
Yes, you are correct. He was pushing that envelope. Which could beg the question… does this guy have his head on straight?
Auto stops are difficult because the follow a whole different set of rules, not only with respect to stops, but also with respect to search and seizure. I believe the detainment (as contrasted to custody) would last up until the point that the officer has taken all necessary steps to ascertain sobriety, including going through the breathalyzer, do whatever else is his right under the law, search passenger compartment, process whatever tickets, etc… At that point, you could certainly ask “Am I free to go now?” and act accordingly. Just note that in a traffic stop, a court is going to be relatively lenient on how long this detainment can last, as opposed to a police station, which is a much more coercive environment.
In fact the very case that ruled traffic stops are not, in and of themselves, custodial situations, also makes it clear that once the officer goes beyond the purview of a normal stop, and the driver is subject to treatment which would restrict one’s free actions, that driver is in custody and must be Mirandized. So just because it is a traffic stop does not make it a free for all.
If, it were to come out negative, he would have to give
I was thinking something along those lines. Thanks Chap.
I am not so sure O’Keefe is a genius for pulling off the ACORN “sting.” That he was manifestly smarter than the MORONS in ACORN is not at question. But that is like stating a kitten is smarter than an earthworm. Plus, it is obvious Breitbart put him up to the ACORN operation and probably helped him plan it even though they overlooked or ignored the wiretapping laws in Maryland which was stupid.
This latest stunt demonstrates that O’Keefe and his buddies are no geniuses. Anyone with an actual IQ does NOT screw around in Federal offices.
Like I said before, on any given day, every person in America is probably in violation of some Federal statute. Sticking your head into the lion’s mouth while yanking on his tail is going to ruin your day…
Maybe they thought it was an audition for the new Village People group.
Hollywood shows us Private Investigators posing as linemen, mothers with babies, construction workers, mailmen, repair men, cable guys etc all the time. They also all seem to know someone down at police hq. Art become life.
Mike Hammer, Magnum PI, James Okeefe.
Even if true didn’t Landrieu’s statement on the Senate floor correcting the amount of her sellout vote in favor of HC, invite this sort of occurrence?
Back in the “good old days” pretexting was not necessarily illegal. There are now Federal and state laws against pretexting in certain situations.
And even the old TV PIs were quick to point out they were skating on thin ice if not breaking laws.
But, I don’t think O’Keefe has that many friends down at the local precinct. Maybe he thinks he does and that may come in handy with an insanity plea but I would NOT want to be this young man this morning.
How does a Senator, bragging out reprehensible but legal behavior, invite some young Turk to mess around with her office telephone system?
Obama is clearly a Marxist traitor and has betrayed the oath of office. But that doesn’t give me the right to slip into the White House and play with their systems. Of course, it evidently does allow me to attend any social event at the White House but that is another matter entirely.
The only thing that would make sense would be if O’Keefe was attempting to prove that the phone lines were okay and off the hook when constituents were trying to call her office with their pesky conservative views. Maybe as O’Keefe sat there “waiting” he had people trying to call in and he could observe and video-record if any phone lines were being responded to. Also, maybe the telephone guys were an attempt to document her staff’s reaction to reports the phones weren’t working. (Based on Patterico’s link to a protest at her one of her offices in which she said her phone lines were jammed, but people calling in said they couldn’t get through. Another senator’s office was reported to be claiming the same thing…I forget who…but some outsider in the office said they didn’t hear phones ringing) Either way he was really tempting fate without a lawyered up network behind him for a 60 minutes type undercover sting based on following whatever state laws were in play.
They could have been checking to see if the phones were tapped. Their behavior sounds more like that was what they were doing. I doubt that would be a crime.
They could have gotten information from a source that was claiming the phones were tapped, or they could have had a friend who was being blackmailed by someone claiming they had him on tape when he was talking to that office. Or …..
We know nothing. We are only guessing.
Sometimes the smart thing to do is just suspend making judgments until you get more info.
Right. If I thought a Senator’s phone lines were tapped I’d hatch some hair-brained scheme to go and check it out myself exposing myself and four friends to felony charges. That would be much easier than calling the GSA or FBI to ask them to check the phone lines in their building.
But at least I my Captain Marvel fan club membership authorizes me to inspect any phone system in the United States. I have another card that licenses me to park my spaceship in low earth orbit. But that one may not be valid in Louisiana…
Is there any piece of lefty spin which you do not repeat? You know as much about the law in Maryland as you do about this case. Nothing.
flenser,
I believe Breitbart has admitted to being involved with O’Keefe and Giles in the ACORN sting. What “lefty spin” am I repeating?
And for the record, Breitbart has denied any involvement in O’Keefe’s latest fiasco. Is that “lefty spin” too?
And it is clear that the law in Maryland requires both parties to be informed before taping a conversation. The fact that O’Keefe overlooked or ignored that fact was just plain stupid. He could have gone to an ACORN office in another state, recorded the conversations and not had to worry about the matter. Just what part of that am I “spinning?”
BTW, the Maryland codes that apply are:
http://law.justia.com/maryland/codes/gcj/10-402.html and http://law.justia.com/maryland/codes/gcj/10-410.html.
If I am overlooking anything else let me know.
So you’d give the FBI your number so they could call you back to let you know if the Senator’s lines were tapped?
And you are calling O’Keefe dumb?
Would your observations change if the men in question were of middle eastern heritage?
What they did was stupid and reckless.
“Momma says “Stupid is as Stupid does” seems quite appropriate here.
Roland,
Read what I said and then read what you said. Your response makes no sense at all.
If I thought a Senator’s lines were bugged and called the FBI or the GSA how would that necessarily require me to give my own name and phone number, and how would that put me at risk of arrest on Federal felony charges?
But, then, you were the one concocting the silly theory that O’Keefe was just performing some civic duty and trying to check out the Senator’s phones.
Stupid is as stupid does, Roland…
WarEagle,
The speculation was that he wanted to know if they were bugged. Tipping off the FBI that they might be bugged wouldn’t tell him what he would have wanted to know.
However, you miss the main point: We do not know why they did it.
Until we know, condemning O’Keefe is asinine, unless you already had it in for him because you hated him for unmasking ACORN.
Roland,
You are just wrong on so many points.
If a person suspects a crime has been committed, and bugging a Senator’s phones would be a crime, unless it were done by a court order, he would contact the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction. That would be the FBI in this case.
And if O’Keefe wondered whether the courts were tapping a Senator’s phones, interfering with an investigation is sometimes referred to as “obstruction of justice” and that is considered a crime too.
We don’t know why they did it, but that isn’t really my point. What they did has landed them an arrest on felony charges! And, they have almost certainly violated one or more Federal statutes. Again, I have pointed out this time and time again in this thread.
I applauded O’Keefe’s unmasking of ACORN! I simply stated the fact that he has broken one or more laws in Maryland by doing so and he is even now facing legal action, along with Breitbart, for doing so. And again, I simply stated had he gone to a different state, he could have avoided that situation.
And I don’t think I have “condemned” O’Keefe. But I have pointed out his actions were stupid and have landed him in a world of trouble. Do you see the difference?
WarEagle,
The scenario I suggested where he would want to know so he could verify his source wouldn’t have had anything to do with a legal tapping.
You continue to misunderstand the scenario, and you continue to miss the point of the suggested scenario: We do not have any idea what O’Keefe was trying to do.
Are you just too uncomfortable suspending judgment?
The trouble is, that is not a “fact”. And your repeating the claim does not and will not make it one.
It is, at the very, very least, a distinct possibility.
I have looked at the relevant statutes and case law.
Have you?
Roland,
What he was trying to do does not give him the right to do what he did in New Orleans! Just for the record, you and I don’t have the right to do that either.
And how do you conclude O’Keefe did not violate in part or in whole one of the two Maryland statutes I listed earlier?
She had no good reason to make that confession on the Senate floor. It created a world of suspicion among the political pundits about her past votes and was bound to come off as a “catch-me-if-you-can” statement to any overzealous journalist with an ounce of the investigative spirit in his/her body – excluding those so-called journalists who
workshill at MSNBC.OT – I read on NewsBusters that Keith Olbermann made an ugly double entendre against Bill O’Reilly for touting FNC’s and the Factor’s ratings successes but in doing so, wasn’t Olby guilty of doing for O’Reilly what he accused O’Reilly of doing for himself?
Again, the Senator wasn’t “confessing” as much as bragging! And as reprehensible as her actions are, it isn’t illegal. She can do this all day long. It is how the horribly broken system in Washington works.
And everybody in Washington and the MSM knows this stuff goes on all the time. They were not surprised that she got “bought off” with federal money for her state.
Can one be convicted of “maliciously interfering” with a phone system which isn’t been answered in the first place?
I suspect that O’Keefe already has substantial recordings, made on the day of the arrest, which PROVE that the phone system in the office was OFF THE HOOK, or was somehow otherwise blocked from incoming calls. It could be his purpose to INTENTIONALLY get arrested by the Feds in order to be able to PROVE in court that the phones had already been “maliciously interfered with” by someone on Landrieu’s staff long before he and his crew arrived.
Since the staff already knew about the phone system, it explains the arrest of the 4 young men in question.
This is my suspicion.
There is more to this ‘arrest’ than what has been leaked out so far…don’t jump to any conclusions.
Statement from James O’Keefe:
http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/29/statement-from-james-okeefe/