This time the scene was in New Hampshire where he and his associates engaged in voter fraud by attempting to vote in the Republican primary for President by using fake names.  They released a video which got limited play on TV and virtually [...]]]> New Orleans    James O’Keefe, video fool, clown, and conspirator, is at it again. Yawn.

This time the scene was in New Hampshire where he and his associates engaged in voter fraud by attempting to vote in the Republican primary for President by using fake names.  They released a video which got limited play on TV and virtually nothing in print.  Ostensibly his purpose was to prove the need for voter identification.   All he really seems to have done is once again unite the right and the left in agreeing on how sophomoric and misdirected his antics have become and the fact that his videos prove nothing whatsoever about the need for voter IDs.  We could have told them that without the trouble.

TPM for example interviewed someone from the right wing Cato Institute, and their remarks are telling

John Samples of Cato told TPM that this would be a political issue and that O’Keefe was “pushing on an open door” because voter ID is politically popular. But he questioned whether it was worth the risk for O’Keefe.“This is illegal, right? This is fraud and you would think he would actually get into trouble for doing this,” Samples told TPM.  Samples said that O’Keefe’s video could have an impact in the political fight over voter ID laws but “in the judicial fights — and the fight amongst wonks — it wouldn’t change much. The big question for policy always was what was the extent of it, and this doesn’t solve that question.”

Other sober election law experts and bloggers canvassed by TPM were even clearer that this stunt was little more than flat out, dead certain criminal fraud:

Hamline University law professor David Schultz told TPM that there’s “no doubt” that O’Keefe’s investigators violated the law.“In either case, if they were intentionally going in and trying to fraudulently obtain a ballot, they violated the law,” Schultz said. “So right off the bat, what they did violated the law.”  Election law expert Rick Hasen, who writes the Election Law Blog, joked in an email to TPM that O’Keefe’s team should “next show how easy it is to rob a bank with a plastic gun.”  “Who in their right mind would risk a felony conviction for this? And who would be able to do this in large enough numbers to (1) affect the outcome of the election and (2) remain undetected?” Hasen wrote.

Other reports indicate that the New Hampshire AG and various prosecutors in that state are investigating both the O’Keefe mess and whether or not there was ballot tampering.  There was no indication that the federal judge in Louisiana supervising his 3-year probation for trying a virtual B&E (breaking and entering) of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu’s New Orleans office in the federal building has revoked
probation, though from the above reports and many others, there seems “no doubt” that the law was broken here and then flaunted on video, which is what used to be called an open-and-shut case.

The www.americablog.com sums the latest O’Keefe escape up nicely:

O’Keefe is like a compulsive gambler who remembers hitting the jackpot on their first spin of the wheel and spend the rest of their lives trying to repeat the high. It won’t surprise anyone to hear that O’Keefe didn’t report that one of his accomplices did get caught in the act.  Election fraud is controlled by giving stiff sentences to people who get caught in the attempt. If people want to brake-test the election security system they should expect to go to jail when they get caught.

I’m tebowing that!

According to the article, Saul Alinksy, the great community organizer, is one of his influences, he [...]]]> Missoula Coming off the grid to read a long profile piece of James O’Keefe III in the New York Times is not anyone’s idea of good times in my book.  Kind of amazing to see self-delusion flaunted so flatly.

According to the article, Saul Alinksy, the great community organizer, is one of his influences, he says.

Figures perhaps, since part of his whole shtick seems to be the classic Alinsky tactical argument, not widely held, that the “ends justify the means.”  Asked about his strategy of picking on the small fry to try and bring down ACORN and Planned Parenthood, he is remorseless, saying “Congress acted to defund” not me, essentially.  He shot the sheriff; he did not kill the deputy.

In fact whether his ill fated Senator Mary Landrieu scam, which was  holding him on probation in New Jersey, or any of his other mischief, finds O’Keefe bereft of any modicum of responsibility or accountability.  He is a rock thrower who flaunts his hand, rather than hiding it, but emerges not surprisingly from this article as virtually amoral.

Past the illusions of grandeur and the self-delusion of it all, in over 3000 words of this piece it was impossible to find a moral compass.  More surprisingly, it was impossible to find a political philosophy.  I expected him to have one, but this project is so clearly, just “speaking truth of power,” wrapped in a package of self-aggrandizement and persecution complex, that there is no guiding rudder towards any port.

It was nice to finally see an admission that Andrew Brietbart had funded the ACORN scam, since both O’Keefe and Brietbart had been coy and cute about denying any financial connection until now.  Otherwise this dude is not so much dangerous as on some kind of self-destruct trajectory flaying at invisible dragons he imagines everywhere.

After reading the story, the overwhelming feeling was less anger, than profound sadness.

You know it’s a dog pile [...]]]> New Orleans It turns out that just like the song says, “it’s hard on a pimp” or a “punk” or a “pretend pimp,” which turns out is the case for video-sting-man James O’Keefe and his futile attempts to “come clean” and pull off his greatest ironic caper:  boy journalist.

You know it’s a dog pile when something as staid, boring and nose-in-the-air as The Chronicle of Philanthropy takes a look down at your problems, but sure enough, O’Keefe wants to make sure he gives his right-wing buddies a tax break for supporting his chicanery, so he’s applied for tax exempt 501c3 status for his paradoxically named “Project Veritas,” which used to be Latin for truth, but who knows what O’Keefe thinks it stands for.  But here’s the Chronicle’s cut:

“An attempt to visit Mr. O’Keefe at Project Veritas’s official address in Washington—2100 M Street N.W., Suite 170-241—was also unsuccessful. Suite 170 is a UPS store and No. 241 is a small mailbox that rents for $35 a month.

Project Veritas’s first step in getting an exemption is to file an application with the IRS known as Form 1023.

As part of that application process, Project Veritas must meet key requirements about how the group is organized and operated and spell out what charitable mission it will pursue.

Organizations must also prove that their assets do not unjustly enrich board members or officers and that board members do not pursue business activities unrelated to their tax-exempt purpose. Applicants must also show that they do “not engage in activities that are illegal or violate fundamental public policy.”

…Mr. O’Keefe pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor crime after he and three others entered the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, last year pretending to be telephone repairmen.

The fact that Mr. O’Keefe has stated in public that he would do it again, albeit “differently” would probably be the biggest stumbling block to gaining charity status, said Marc Owens, a Washington tax lawyer who formerly oversaw the IRS division that monitors tax-exempt groups.

“If he is proposing to do something that is, in fact, illegal, can the IRS believe, with any degree of credibility, what he is saying?” Mr. Owens said. “Is he going to continue to enter government offices illegally? He pled guilty to it once and said he would do it again. It’s reasonable to conclude that the organization may be engaged in criminal activity in the future.””

Bottom line: They are not sure you should get tax free donations when you announce that you may break the law with the money.  Geez, they have kind of a point there.

It’s probably only a minor aggravation for O’Keefe that the student paper at his alma mater publishes a piece that says essentially they are embarrassed by him and his exploits.  The web-magazine, Colorlines has documented with frequent stories O’Keefe’s problems with race.  As they said of his New Jersey teachers scam:  “What’s perhaps most notable is that O’Keefe, once again, found a way to racialize his hit job. ” Organizations involved in racial justice or with members of a darker hue than he carries — are probably also just water off a duck’s back to him, because I’m sure he’s comfortable in his own skin and only that skin indeed!   Of course ostensibly racial bias is also the opposite of the “fundamental public policy,” which in fact should be something worth the IRS looking at when they determine whether or not to give a tax exemption to foster O’Keefe’s brand of race hate and race bait through his work and caricatures.

Michael Gaynor, a lawyer and conservative blogger, who establishes his “right” credentials by trumpeting on this twitter bio the fact that he brought the Cloward-Piven “strategy to “Glenn Beck’s attention,” which is one heckuva claim to fame, looked closely at the San Diego legal problems posed to O’Keefe and Hannah Giles “acting” as the prostitute in that ill begotten scheme, and thinks there may be big problems not only for them but for their lifeline sponsors and outlets, Andrew Brietbart and his biggovernment website and the Fox News friends:

“So, make no mistake, in Maryland, California and Pennsylvania, Ms. Giles and Mr. O’Keefe are in legal peril, even more so in California and Pennsylvania.

Given the importance of the information contained on the videos, it is not reasonably disputable that the Constitution permits BigGovernment.com and Fox News to use them, at least if they are “otherwise innocent.”

If, as reported, Mr. Breitbart serendipitously first learned of the videos when Mr. Giles brought them to his house and Fox News was not involved in the sting in any way until it reported on it, then both BigGovernment.com and Fox News were within their rights in using the videos, the Maryland statute notwithstanding.

In Bartnicki v. Volper, which involved both the federal and Pennsylvania laws against surreptitious recording, the United States Supreme Court held that a publisher who has lawfully obtained information from a source who obtained it unlawfully may not be punished by the government for the ensuing publication based on the defect in a chain.

Bottom line: BigGovernment.com and Fox News appear to be safe, because, in the words of the majority opinion in Bartnicki v. Volper, the interest in “removing an incentive for parties to intercept private conversations–does not justify applying” a statute prohibiting surreptitious recording “to an otherwise innocent disclosure of public information.”

If BigGovernment.com and/or Fox News are NOT “otherwise innocent,” then Ms Giles and Mr. O’Keefe will have company on the legal hot seat.”

O’Keefe probably needs that tax exemption to raise money to pay the settlement that may be coming his way from losing the California suit for his shenanigans.

This guy seems is a heat seeking missile heading for trouble and exploding everything around him.  The Landrieu probably seems to have taught him nothing, but been mere rocket fuel for his mischief.

Press clips may be addictive, but they don’t pay the bills, and O’Keefe is due to learn that his was no free ride.

Houston James O’Keefe, the delusional, self-aggrandizer, copped a plea with his young, right wing buddies for the weird caper at Senator Mary Landrieu’s office in New Orleans where it is still difficult to fathom what in the heck the boys were really hoping to do with this half-baked idea. They pleaded [...]]]>

Houston James O’Keefe, the delusional, self-aggrandizer, copped a plea with his young, right wing buddies for the weird caper at Senator Mary Landrieu’s office in New Orleans where it is still difficult to fathom what in the heck the boys were really hoping to do with this half-baked idea. They pleaded guilty to misdemeanors with O’Keefe getting the ringleader’s reward of more time and fines. All of them got community service hours and fines ranging from $1500 on down.

Hardly stiff sentences but given that they were caught before they could do any serious damage, maybe enough is enough. Personally, I don’t begrudge them getting a pity pass from the judge. They are youngsters trying to sort out the wild and wonderful world. All of this would be fine, if I could pretend they are likely to learn something from this escapade other than not to mess with U.S. Senators, and that’s where I think we’re going to be disappointed.

The arrogant, self-righteousness of this guy is almost off the scale. Once again yesterday he kept repeating his self-serving chant about “truth,” which is pretty offense given his tactics and the slimy way he handles both film editing (even the always in denial New York Times finally referred to the “ACORN tapes” today as “heavily edited”) and casual disregard of the truth about his “pimp costume” if it got in the way with his marketing and promotion. I won’t bother to dwell on his myopic inability to understand that there are consequences to any of actions.

So, we’ll settle with the fact that he is guilty as charged with the record to prove it, even while we regret that it appears he will learn little or nothing from the experience and will keep yelling truth even though he wouldn’t know what that looks like if it slapped him in the face harder than this light tap on the hand.

]]> http://chieforganizer.org/2010/05/28/okeefe-and-pranksters-guilty-with-hand-slap/feed/ 0 http://chieforganizer.org/2010/02/18/o%e2%80%99keefe-never-dressed-as-pimp-breitbart-cover-up/ http://chieforganizer.org/2010/02/18/o%e2%80%99keefe-never-dressed-as-pimp-breitbart-cover-up/#comments Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:25:30 +0000 jstuart http://chieforganizer.org/?p=2795 Dallas James O’Keefe never dressed in his racist, caricature pimp suit in an ACORN or ACORN Housing office.  This has been an under-the-radar dispute for more than six months, largely because it fades in importance compared to the errors a small number of workers were trapped into making.  But, with the new attention on [...]]]> Dallas James O’Keefe never dressed in his racist, caricature pimp suit in an ACORN or ACORN Housing office.  This has been an under-the-radar dispute for more than six months, largely because it fades in importance compared to the errors a small number of workers were trapped into making.  But, with the new attention on O’Keefe and his paymaster, Andrew Breitbart, the way in which both of them have misled the public while also falsely impersonating journalists, it is a piece of the sad tale that won’t go away, but neither will either of them come clean about yet.  The clownish costume was probably their idea of promo for the rollout of the sting videos.  Time to fess up, folks.

Media Matters, which has been a truth squad on many of these vicious attacks handles it best in a column by Eric Boehlert.

Breitbart tries, and fails, to explain away the ACORN pimp myth

February 17, 2010 11:16 am ET by Eric Boehlert

As I note in my column this week, both Andrew Breitbart and James O’Keefe (with some help from Fox News, of course) did their best last year to mislead the public and the press into believing that as part of his ACORN sting, O’Keefe wore his outlandish pimp costume right into the offices, and that clueless ACORN workers didn’t blink an eye.

But it’s not true. Based on all available evidence, O’Keefe never wore his pimp costume inside ACORN offices. (Raise your hand if you got duped.)

Turns out last night Breitbart, doing lots of yellling and name-calling (surprise!), appeared on a conservative radio show with blogger Brad Friedman who pressed him on the myth of the ACORN pimp. At first, Breirtbart denied any wrong doing:

“I didn’t lie about James O’Keefe. When did I lie about James O’Keefe? “

When Friedman then read out loud from an erroneous Washington Times column by Breitbart in which he claimed O’Keefe was “dressed as a pimp” while receiving advice from ACORN workers, the furious (and confused) spin began.

Go here to listen. (The fun begins at the 36 minute mark.)

UPDATED: Breitbart insisted last night he had nothing to correct in his Times column, even though he falsely reported O’Keefe was “dressed as a pimp” while receiving ACORN advice.

She and [...]]]> New Orleans Hannah Giles, the “ho” in the ACORN video stings last fall is reportedly sending out direct mail fundraising appeals asking for $35 to $5000 to defend her against the so-called ACORN lawsuits against she and the discredited James O’Keefe, the pimp in that series.  I wonder if this is a scam?

She and O’Keefe certainly have some legal issues.  Several of the states where they ran their sting (Maryland, Pennsylvania and California) make it illegal (up to a felony) to secretly video and record people.  The two of them were sued by various ACORN staff people who felt maligned by their trickery.  ACORN seems to have also been involved in some of the suits.  The blogosphere is rich with speculation, left and right, about the merits of the case.  Supposedly, Glen Beck has gone on the air and tried to raise money for them or get lawyers to defend them pro bono, though without much success I read.

I was intrigued by a blog I read from a lawyer who was actually checking the progress of these suits.  He had checked the records in Baltimore on the first filing back in September 2008, and found that there had been no activity on the case since the original filing.  He promised he would stay on the trail and see if this was brass or baloney essentially.

Makes me wonder if we don’t have a combination of head fakes and scams going on here?

ACORN and these staffers might have lawyered up for public relations and defensive reasons without any real intention – or resources – to pursue the litigation to a judicial reckoning, but more as a push back to the stingers and a fig leaf in front of the original problem by diverting attention to whether it was legal to play “gotcha” at the organization’s expense.

Hannah Giles has certainly talked to lawyers at this point.  (Evidence now abounds that O’Keefe is spending lots of time with lawyers and law students, but may simply pay no attention to their advice when it comes to the law.)  She may be 20, but she is certainly savvy and a long mile away from naïve.  She has to have been advised that even with the filing of the suits, when there is no activity, they are simply dying on the vine.

Now Giles and ACORN may have the same interests.  She may not want the suits to be withdrawn or dismissed so that she can try to raise money for herself as the “ACORN killer.”  ACORN has no reason to withdraw the suits because it wants to discourage Giles, O’Keefe, and their wannabes and protect what’s left of its reputation as it winds down.  Neither does ACORN want to take the risk of having the suits pursued aggressively and dismissed, which would reawaken the ravenous media machine.

Seems like Hannah Giles may have her own faux scam going as she tries to breathe lives in these DOA lawsuits for the sake of the bucks she might be able to raise in the meantime.  Her worse nightmare may be coming.  What does she do for money, fame, and cache, if she doesn’t have ACORN to kick around any longer?