|
the freepwad threads on O'keefe- and there are a slew of them- are delicious and nutty as a fruitcake.
To: OldDeckHand
My guess is that they were simply trying to catch Landrieu's office in an embarassing security lapse. That may not do them much good, however.
How this plays out depends on the federal prosecutor for the jurisdiction. It could get pretty ugly for these guys.
To: FromLori
I think O’keefe’s plan is working exactly how he wanted it to work. Any person that has kept abreast of his appearances would probably think the same thing.
and then there's this guy; happily dashing freeper delusions. OK, 'fess up, which one of you is it?
To: txhurl
"Right now technically James can bring his ACORN sting into the case, along with more *discovery* from this case."
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.
83 posted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:19:36 AM by OldDeckHand
To: OldDeckHand
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.
bam:
To: blake6900
"The only info we have is from the MSM."
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.
89 posted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:45:59 AM by OldDeckHand
To: OldDeckHand
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.
To: OldDeckHand
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.
To: sig226
I can only think of one reason why O’Keefe would record the exchange between the office worker and the phony telephone repairmen. It would be to prove that the claims made in the affidavit were not true. That video will be very interesting.
WE HAVE A WINNER! I think you hit it right on the head. The affidavit doesn't claim that the phone handset was taken apart by Basel but my guess is the prosecutor will. And that's why O'Keefe was there.
To: blake6900
Everybody assumes they were attempting to plant a bug, I say the opposite is more likely. They may have been looking for a bug.
Little Mary Rat's office is in the federal building, little Mary Rat is a crook and deeply tied to Acorn as is her brother Mitch who happens to be running for mayor of New Orleans.
Who else is in the federal building, Jim Letten, US attorney.
With proper access to the main phone distribution panel, what better place to bug the US attorney than from little Mary Rats office.
This may have been what O'Keefe and crew were trying to uncover.
Maybe it’s a feint for discovery?
After all, they didn’t tap a line, they simply were wearing overalls and carrying tools. Did they offer phony ID, or just ask where the phone wiring was located?
If they didn’t actually misrepresent themselves with phony ID, what are they guilty of? Chatting up stupid office workers?
But think of all the records they might be able to dig out of her office.
Hmmmmm. This might be a very, very brilliant, non-violent move by some patriots. If the Feds jumped the gun, they’ll look silly.
Meanwhile, no further follow up with the Black Panthers and possible RICO charges.
To: FreeStateYank
"But think of all the records they might be able to dig out of her office."
Oh, goodness. There seems to be wild misunderstanding about what "discovery" is. For a judge to grant discovery motions, litigants (or defendants in this instance) must establish foundation for such discovery. What foundation could the defendants possibly establish for a judge to grant a search of Landrieu's records? Zip, nada, nothing, as there's no possible nexus between a defense of what they were doing and what the Senator is doing.
It's not an allowable affirmative defense to say that you've illegally attempted to wire-tap someone's office because you believe that particular someone might be engaged in criminal activity. Any criminal activity on the part of the victim would be immaterial to the court.
Let me use this example - a burglary suspect can't say to the judge, "Hey, let me see the victim's tax returns". It's not going to be granted unless the burglary suspect can establish some legitimate reason to have access to that information - IOW, he must be able to demonstrate how that information can benefit his defense.
227 posted on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 7:15:10 PM by OldDeckHand
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
