It’s one thing to pretend to be a pimp when interviewing ACORN employees. It’s quite another to pretend to be a telephone repairman to gain access to a U.S. Senate office and its telephone system. Apparently noted ACORN-sting filmaker James O’Keefe and some compatriots did not see the difference, and are now facing federal charges and the possibility of significant jail time. Politico reports here.
UPDATE: More from the Times-Picayune.
UPDATE: Patterico thinks there may be less to this story than meets the eye. We’ll see.
Baseballhead says:
Yahoo News also had this. I like the comments from one of the faux-repairmen’s lawyers:
Heh.
January 26, 2010, 5:30 pmzuch says:
Is it “one thing to pretend to be a pimp”?
Isn’t that by far the more unethical/illegal activity (compared to answering questions from said “pimp”)?
Cheers,
January 26, 2010, 5:36 pmAnderson says:
Obviously, the poor men were set up by a partisan FBI in order to prevent their blowing the whistle on the fact that Obama’s real father was Lee Harvey Oswald.
January 26, 2010, 5:41 pmjosh bornstein says:
If it’s just an ass-hat committing a few felonies; not much of a story. I’ll be very interested to hear if anyone prompted him to hit this particular congressperson. (A conservative news organization? Someone involved with another political figure??) One wonders what the conservative media will make of this story. Both now, and as it unfolds.
January 26, 2010, 5:43 pmThe Drill SGT says:
It appears that 15 minutes of fame and an attempt to do better in the next sting got too much for them.
I hope they get a good lawyer and plea deal this loser fast.
January 26, 2010, 5:47 pmShelbyC says:
Hey, at least he wan’t pretending to be a politician. Looks like he’s gonna be on the other end of the whole “pimping” thing for a while.
January 26, 2010, 5:50 pmwfjag says:
Interesting that Politico didn’t mention who the compatriots were. One is Robert Flanagan, son of Bill Flanagan, the acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana. See http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/26/acorn-antagonist-arrested-senate-phone-scheme/
It always pays to check multiple news sites.
Better excuse than “I know what I’m doing. My Daddy’s a lawyer.” And, almost as good an excuse as:
– Animal House.
January 26, 2010, 5:51 pmA. Zarkov says:
These days it must be illegal to impersonate just about anything except a pimp. What exactly is charge against them– criminal trespass or something more specific to federal offices?
January 26, 2010, 5:54 pmDaniel Chapman says:
Wow. Well, I guess there *is* something to be said for J-School… I bet they learn this sort of distinction somewhere along the way. I hope this doesn’t get plea-bargained too far down, honestly… this sort of behavior could be imitated if it’s tolerated.
January 26, 2010, 5:56 pmJames Craig Ziegler says:
The affidavit
January 26, 2010, 6:02 pmCrust says:
That was not the only ethical issue of course:
January 26, 2010, 6:02 pmBrett says:
Ha-Ha!
That’s the sound of me playing the world’s smallest violin over this idiot. I especially like the comment from the Politico article:
Yeah, sure – a “good kid” who tries to sneak into a congresswoman’s office under false pretense and essentially steal confidential information from it. I hope he gets the maximum sentence.
January 26, 2010, 6:11 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Am I the only person who immediately thought of Watergate? Not the Nixonian coverup, but the initial deed.
January 26, 2010, 6:11 pmAnderson says:
What exactly is charge against them– criminal trespass or something more specific to federal offices?
The latter, it appears. Who’d've thought that Congress would enact a statute making it a crime to bug its own offices. Go figure.
One is Robert Flanagan, son of Bill Flanagan, the acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana.
Sweeeeeet.
January 26, 2010, 6:14 pmShelbyC says:
I’m thinking of Sarah Palin’s email “hacking”. It’ll be interesting to see if the punishments differ.
January 26, 2010, 6:15 pmThe Drill SGT says:
I suspect we’ll see indictments of O’Keefe and crew long before any of the ACORN folks.
One observation, if I had to pick any state’s Congressperson’s offices for bugging looking for criminal activity, it would have to be the great state of Louisiana, where political corruption is an art form greatly appreciated by the voters.
January 26, 2010, 6:25 pmBrian K says:
woh now, are you telling me that conservatives lie for political gain!? say it ain’t so!!
hahaha
January 26, 2010, 6:28 pmNattyB says:
Does anyone care that they never released the unedited videos?
I’m all for the well done “take down” piece, whether it’s Charles Johnson or Michael Moore.
But, these guys’ didn’t seem to get the “credibility hit” that they should’ve, when it was revealed that they edited and doctored the videos.
I doubt they’ll see any jail time. Because, ya know, they were fighting for the Truth and [insert anti-government bromides and platitudes].
January 26, 2010, 6:42 pmwws says:
seems, as others have said, like someone who watched way too much TV and who didn’t realize real life was a lot more serious than that. Also a young person who’s still in the “I’m immortal and can do anything!” stage. Idiotic.
On the other hand, the actual charges – dressing funny and messing around with the office phones – do seem kind of weak, so I think they’ll be able to plea it down.
And as a side thought, I’m not really impressed with the security at that Federal Building. Granted, I don’t think the Senator was there herself, but still – after all the terrorism alerts it shouldn’t be possible for 4 unknown guys to just stroll into a Senator’s office without some kind of screening and ID check.
January 26, 2010, 7:14 pmEarly Bird says:
This O’Keefe guy seems like a real mind. Not only did he (allegedly) help his buddies “interfere” with a Senator’s phone system, but he filmed them doing it! WTF was he ever going to use that footage for? His own trial? Hint to would-be criminals, actual footage of you committing a crime is not helpful to your case!
January 26, 2010, 7:19 pmAnon21 says:
Given his MO, he was probably prepping for a future video exposé on…the Senate?
January 26, 2010, 7:28 pmArthurKirkland says:
Who funded the travel to Louisiana?
Who concocted the scheme?
What was the objective?
Why was a senator/this senator targeted?
Someone is probably squealing those tunes, and the “brains” and muscle behind this operation are likely to be revealed. Maybe they could start a new website: BigHouse.
I agree that O’Keefe is likely to avoid prison (although perhaps not jail), but my reasoning relies on his squealing. I see little chance that young man is prepared for prison, so I expect him to do whatever it takes to avoid it. Good news for those who are interested in the background. Bad news for those (who thought they were) in the background.
A United States Senator, especially in her backyard, should be low on the list of people to affront in this manner.
January 26, 2010, 7:30 pmpc says:
Of course! The perps could have been attempting to upgrade the phone service.
January 26, 2010, 7:38 pmPer Son says:
Winner of Post of the Day Award!!!
January 26, 2010, 7:41 pmjstar says:
NattyB
-Is that satire? You say it as if Michael Moore is known for his cinema verite unedited documentaries.
And anyways, this is clearly a plot lifted from Ocean’s Fourteen. The suspects wanted to get caught because that’s the only way that they can plant the bugs at the real target. And while everyone’s looking at them, they send in a second team to swipe diamonds from the FBI agent’s personal safe.
January 26, 2010, 7:45 pmJoyS says:
Yep, “Watergate” for me, too. Does that make us old?
January 26, 2010, 7:51 pmC Barnes says:
For what it’s worth, this story is already being reported on Drudge, Hot Air (Malkin’s site) and Instapundit.
I think they all know that to try to pretend as if this didn’t happen won’t work. The story is already an enormous headline on HuffPo.
The “argument” that is required to appear now in every ideologically charged blog comment section — namely “boy, what if the other side did this; how differently the libs/reactionaries would behave — is not only a very tired meme, but also not always very insightful.
January 26, 2010, 7:55 pmChris Travers says:
next you’ll be telling me that Washington has been overrun by honest politicians!
January 26, 2010, 7:56 pmAnthony says:
Actually, it’s probably just general anti-tapping laws; obvious candidate would be http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002511—-000-.html
January 26, 2010, 7:56 pmAnderson says:
I don’t think so, Anthony; read para. 11 of the affidavit.
January 26, 2010, 8:02 pmShelbyC says:
Arthur, dollars to donuts there’s no “brains” behind this operation.
January 26, 2010, 8:17 pmC Barnes says:
I didn’t have real problems with what O’Keefe and his cohort apparently did when they first smuggled cameras into Acorn offices, and taped incriminating behavior — assuming the truth of their claim that the released videos were not edited to skew the content. However, what he appears to have done here certainly provides a reason to doubt his journalistic integrity with respect to his earlier shenanigans.
January 26, 2010, 8:18 pmwlpeak says:
I do not know the lads and could not vouch for them, that said, the affidavit sounds weak. And the gloating unseemly.
January 26, 2010, 8:23 pmAnthony says:
Ah, you’re right, though it’s still not specific to Congress, it’s just any federal property.
January 26, 2010, 8:31 pmBT says:
Where is G. Gordon Liddy when you need him?!!!
January 26, 2010, 8:51 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
zuch,
Is it “one thing to pretend to be a pimp”?
Isn’t that by far the more unethical/illegal activity (compared to answering questions from said “pimp”)?
You mean, is it far more “unethical” to pose as a pimp during an amateur sting operation than it is cheerfully to advise someone you think is a real pimp about the best ways to import his underage foreign sex slaves, house them, structure his business, conceal his income, claim some of the prostituted girls as dependents for tax purposes, &c.? Erm, that’d be “no.”
January 26, 2010, 9:00 pmcinnamonape says:
I think that the complaint (not an indictment) would contain a broad “umbrella” charge like “interference” (which would include bugging…which interferes with the intended privacy of conversations). It would take examination of the materials these guys had to determine if they had “bugs” or were altering the phone system in some other way. So the complaint is likely to not be specific. I don’t think it “discredits” the bugging claim, but does raise other possibilities, perhaps. Do you have some other hypothesis about what they were doing that is more reasonable?
January 26, 2010, 9:04 pmDilan Esper says:
It’s hard out here for a pimp.
January 26, 2010, 9:10 pmOren says:
Thanks JCZ.
January 26, 2010, 9:39 pmjccamp says:
I suppose this will all turn on what the actual goal was. For instance, was the (planned) story about how easy it might be to bug the Senator’s phones? (Fail!) Or did they suspect someone else had bugged the phones and they were trying to find the bug and video-record it? I cannot imagine a genuine attempt to find a way into the phones required a trip inside the office or the building. I also cannot imagine them being so stupid as to actually attempt to bug a sitting U S Senator’s telephone.
There must be a good back-story, like someone else claims to have recordings, something like that. Should be interesting.
This is definitely behavior of the brain-dead, though. It ranks right up there with the “My child’s in the runaway balloon!” and “Healthcare reform. They’ll love us for it.”
January 26, 2010, 9:45 pmorca says:
Not unlike the fall of Achilles.
January 26, 2010, 9:53 pmMartha says:
Me, I’m a little disturbed by the idea that we’d need to undergo background checks to visit an elected official in her public office. Maybe that’s where we are; if so, I’m sad.
The day that I realized that I could just walk into Newt Gingrich’s office and talk to someone on his staff, without even needing an appointment–that made a big impression on me. I did have to go through a metal detector, but that was it.
Of course, what I said made absolutely zero difference (I was protesting a bill that Gingrich, on the floor later that day, said was “noncontroversial”). But still.
January 26, 2010, 9:55 pmjccamp says:
orca –
The main distinction being, of course, Achilles didn’t shoot himself.
January 26, 2010, 10:12 pmOperationCounterstrike says:
Can we lock him up somewhere where he’ll get gang-raped?
January 26, 2010, 10:31 pmLaertes says:
Fame makes people crazy sometimes. This kid was on top of the world, and a hero to millions. Would it be so surprising if it turns out that he convinced himself that he could get away with wiretapping a U.S. Senator?
January 26, 2010, 10:35 pmbyomtov says:
ask yourself: would you videotape yourself in the process of tapping a phone, intending to have it played on the Internet and Fox later?
Great defense. Innocent by reason of stupidity.
January 26, 2010, 10:37 pmAndy Bolen says:
Winning comment from another thread:
“This is a serious offense. It’s not like they were trying to steal documents from the Pentagon, or something.”
January 26, 2010, 10:39 pmDave N. says:
If this was meant as sarcasm, it is questionable at best. If this was meant seriously, it is beneath contempt.
January 26, 2010, 10:40 pmBenP says:
I’ll start by saying it looks like the “bug” stories were among the initial break of the story, and most say tamper, so there’s not any reason to believe those over the others.
But that said, So your explanation is that they wouldn’t tape themselves doing something illegal….while they were taping themselves doing something illegal?
I think I can say any good trial lawyer knows you don’t get anywhere just claiming something didn’t happen unless you can present an alternate theory of the case.
So…what exactly were they doing there? Did they suddenly just get the urge to impersonate telephone repairmen? and only a democratic senators office a thousand miles from their home would do?
It’s also notable that it appears from the affidavit that they were stopped prior to actually getting access to anything other than the secretary’s desk phone (when they could not present credentials). And it says that they were there “for the purpose of willfully interfering with the phone system.”
Your argument that “attempting to interfere with the phone system” necessarily excludes attempting to place any sort of device is pretty weak at best. Especially without a plausible alternative.
January 26, 2010, 10:49 pmHarry Eagar says:
I’d be interested to know what drillsgt expects ACORN to be indicted for, at least as relates to the video.
January 26, 2010, 10:50 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Pardon the language, but one ‘Oh shit’ negates one million ‘atta-boys’.
January 26, 2010, 10:53 pmBenP says:
To add an additional argument.
The end of the Affidavit says “In violation of 18 USC 1036, 1362 and 2″
a vilation of Sec 1306 is “entering any secure government facility by false pretenses”
A violation of 1362 is “Whoever willfully or maliciously injures or destroys any of the works, property, or material of any radio, telegraph, telephone or cable, line, station, or system, or other means of communication, operated or controlled by the United States”
January 26, 2010, 10:58 pmbmc says:
24AheadDotCom’s goal appears not to be “let’s find out what really happened” but “how can we show these guys were not attempting to bug the office” (e.g., “This would seem to be a good opportunity to discredit those making “bugging” claims…”). Are you claiming to know for a fact that these guys were not attempting to bug the offices?
According to one AP writer, 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 the FBI affidavit.” So 24AheadDotCom, are you claiming you have knowledge that what this official (or reporter) is stating is a lie or is otherwise incorrect?
January 26, 2010, 11:10 pmbyomtov says:
Dave N.,
If this was meant as sarcasm, it is questionable at best. If this was meant seriously, it is beneath contempt.
Dave N. is absolutely correct.
January 26, 2010, 11:29 pmRational says:
i have said it before, and i will say it again. this is louisiana. you should have more than your usual suspension of judgment. i am not saying he is innocent, i am just saying that the administration of justice is less trustworthy there, especially in politically charged cases, than most other places. Sad, but true.
But hey, it could be hubris, for sure. certainly the lawyers they have in the acorn litigation are shaking their heads tonight.
January 26, 2010, 11:32 pmArthurKirkland says:
“Provide an innocent explanation for this set of facts,” with respect to the reports from Sen. Landrieu’s office and proximate locations, could be a fine law school exam question. Any student who could devise a straight-face defense theory would deserve an A.
The more the backgrounds of the suspects, and their associations, become apparent, the more interesting this gets. Mr. O’Keefe is reported to be smug and lippy — that should also make the story more interesting as it unfolds. Perhaps most important, this might direct some overdue illumination toward the editing of the ACORN “report” by these “journalists.”
January 26, 2010, 11:52 pmAnon21 says:
You know what the most outrageous part of this whole affair is? I’ll bet you good money that the first thing that the FBI did upon taking these saboteurs into custody was to Mirandize them. And look what we get: they’re all lawyered up, not talking to investigators. Heckuva job, law enforcement officers: now we’ll never get information about their superiors and organization.
January 27, 2010, 12:00 amLooziana lawyer says:
As a longtime Louisiana lawyer, I’d appreciate seeing your evidence that the FBI is “less trustworthy” in Louisiana than elsewhere. To me, they just seem busier than in other states.
And of course, if these guys DIDN’T dress up in phone repair costumes and lie their way into a senator’s office, that seems rather easy to expose.
And about acting US Attorney Flanagan- he is a respected lawyer and longtime career AUSA. I’m sorry his son dragged his name into this.
January 27, 2010, 12:19 amCornellian says:
Anyone going to call for some “enhanced interrogation techniques” to find out what these guys know?
January 27, 2010, 1:29 amOren says:
Seconded.
January 27, 2010, 1:50 amArthurKirkland says:
I second the motion about giving the father plenty of benefit of doubt. When I mentioned “associations,” I was referring to the Breitbart site (which published O’Keefe’s original “report” and had some kind of ongoing financial relationship with the chap), the right-wing college newspaper incubation project that reportedly spawned several of the suspects, the Pelican group, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, etc.
January 27, 2010, 2:00 amfatal in fact says:
Wow.
January 27, 2010, 2:18 amdisintelligentsia says:
While what they did was unquestionably stupid and unethical, the FBI’s affidavit is somewhat lacking in details. The only real alleged facts are that they entered pretending to be telephone repairmen and that the men who weren’t acting as telephone repairmen acted in concert with those who were. No admissions appear to have been made as to anything else. No allegations that they had tools adequate for destruction of the telephone equipment, or tools or hardware for bugging, etc. It could have been a simple “snoop” operation – I remember seeing news items on a local Obama Campaign headquarters having posters of Che and Lenon.
It’s not outside the realm of possibilities that they were conducting that kind of operation – looking for some kind of dirt inside the offices but open to anyone who worked there (but couldn’t be seen by the day-to-day public). Using the cover of a “utility repairman” would be an obvious cover – what other means would you use to do an undercover investigation? Maybe a copier repairman? It’s best not to confuse the cover they used to gain entry with their ultimate purpose. Given O’Keefe’s prior investigative work I’d be skeptical that he was trying to bug her office. Unless you think his prior cover was an attempt at prostitution. . .
However, the bigger question is “why Landrieu?” — she’s not up for re-election until 2014.
January 27, 2010, 2:33 amrpt says:
In that case, the gang went to see the wrong Louisiana senator.
January 27, 2010, 2:38 amrpt says:
No; probably most of us remember that far back.
January 27, 2010, 2:39 amrpt says:
It wouldn’t be unseemly if it was your office.
January 27, 2010, 2:43 amrpt says:
Wait and see how long it takes for Andrew Breitbart to get “lawyered up”.
January 27, 2010, 2:53 amTatil says:
That is significant because prosecutors never enter only lesser offenses in the initial indictment before they get their ducks in order and enter the real hard core ones? They could not act like electricians fixing the fluorescent tubes or copier repairmen, but instead acted as telephone repairmen out of coincidence or lack of imagination? Yeah, sure…
I’ve never heard that ACORN tapes were edited. Can somebody provide a link to some article covering this story in a level headed manner?
January 27, 2010, 3:38 amgrog says:
Instead of deleting comments that disagree with the posters, they need to improve the quality of the posts and start encouraging better comments even if they’re hostile just as long as they’re intellectually honest.
I certainly agree. Any intellectually honest poster attempting to propose an alternate theory for
– posing as telephone maintenance personell,
– in a government office,
– with co-conspirators filming the operation,
– and sitting outside with surveillance equipment,
– having demonstrated an interest in the telephone equipment of a sitting congressperson
should certainly propose it. In an intellectually honest way, of course.
These clowns certainly deserve being presumed innocent until proven guilty, but they don’t win any awards for intelligence. I think the statute of limitations timed out at this point, but I realized after the fact that, when I used to work as (partially) a network engineer at a dot.bomb, the sort of social engineering I and a lot of my peers engaged in simply to short-circuit the pointless delays in a lot of things were actually technically crimes. Nothing I did involved playing dress up/role play games like these, er, performance artists, and it was actually targeted intelligently (hint: if you’re looking for particular phone circuits and pretending to be repair monkeys, you really, really wouldn’t want to go to the target’s office first unless you have absolutely no clue how telephony bureaucracy works) and involved dealing with our own circuits.
You know what the most outrageous part of this whole affair is? I’ll bet you good money that the first thing that the FBI did upon taking these saboteurs into custody was to Mirandize them.
I agree! This wasn’t simply an attempt to kill people or knock over landmarks, this was an attack against a sitting government official with what at least looks like an obvious attempt to steal confidential government information for who knows what end. This is obviously subversion of government, and if the FBI failed to aggressively interrogate them in an inhancive fashion, then we’ll never learn the truthiness. So where are the waterboards, dogs and collars being kept in this time of weak executive fortitude?
January 27, 2010, 4:28 amgrog says:
This is a decent round of links that will take you to the important points of the editing story. I’m sure there are others, but likely you’ll find them starting there.
January 27, 2010, 4:34 amTatil says:
Thanks. I am a bit saddened. All I see is an internal investigation claiming that the videos were substantially edited. Now the people who did not buy into the scandal in the first place think that is enough to ignore the whole affair and the people who have already bought into it ignoring the editing part completely. It seems like nobody is interested in anything more than affirming their own opinions about ACORN.
January 27, 2010, 5:18 amgrog says:
Yeah, well, me too. Partisan team building exercises tend to do that. I think there probably was a problem, but it became an excuse to destroy the target for partisan game. I don’t know what happened, and I wish there were more concern with that than the kabuki that ensued. As far as the video goes, that these “new media” mavericks refuse to release unedited recordings (never mind the current being accused of federal crimes bit) tells me that at the least, there is reason to doubt the narrative.
Add in details like trying to wiretap a sitting congresscritter… At the very least, I think you have to accept the point that perhaps the authors of that video were not objective fact gatherers.
January 27, 2010, 5:48 amFederal Dog says:
For the people claiming that they were bugging the phones: I assume you are saying that because when they were arrested, they had listening devices on them that they had not had a chance to install. I have not, however, seen any suggestion of that. Can you post a report that details the bugs that they were purportedly trying to install?
January 27, 2010, 7:14 amgrog says:
For the people claiming that they were bugging the phones: I assume you are saying that because when they were arrested, they had listening devices on them that they had not had a chance to install.
I don’t know why you’re assuming that’s relevant, You seem to have a pre-9/11 mindset. I think we should let the enhanced interrogation help us understand what happened here. Or do you want the enemy to win?
January 27, 2010, 8:54 amcboldt says:
– looking for some kind of dirt inside the offices but open to anyone who worked there (but couldn’t be seen by the day-to-day public). Using the cover of a “utility repairman” would be an obvious cover –
January 27, 2010, 8:59 amThe switchboard they attempted to access was not inside the Senator’s offices. It was in the GSA offices, (also? I think Landrieu’s Room 1005 is also 10th floor) on the 10th floor of the building.
In addition to being interested in any justification or ultimate objective they might claim, I notice that 18 USC 1362 refers to telephone systems “operated or controlled by the United States, or used or intended to be used for military or civil defense functions of the United States.” Are these sorts of systems separate from the Public Switched Telephone Network that most of us connect to?
Laura(southernxyl) says:
rpt, the sad thing is that we shouldn’t have to actually remember that far back to know about Watergate. Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it, or however that goes.
When my daughter was a college freshman – this would have been in 2005 – Bob Woodward spoke at her school, sponsored by the honors college I think, and the honors kids all went. She told me that when the honors kids were told that this would happen, no one besides her seemed to recognize his name at all. When they got out in the hall, she said, “Do you guys really not know who Bob Woodward is?” Silence, then one girl finally said, “Wasn’t he involved in Watergate, with Ronald Reagan?” I guess for some people, every day is a new day. Which is a shame, because you can prevent or at least anticipate a whole lot of grief if you just pay attention.
January 27, 2010, 9:25 amAnderson says:
OperationCounterstrike: Can we lock him up somewhere where he’ll get gang-raped?
Sometimes the internet tells me way more than I wanted to know about the sexual fantasies of complete strangers.
January 27, 2010, 9:28 amcboldt says:
Found a link to answer my own question about the scope of property under the protection of 18 USC 1362.
January 27, 2010, 9:30 am[USDOJ] Criminal Resource Manual at 1668
Mark Buehner says:
That occurred to me as well. One possibility is that this was a recon run to find the location of the phone closet (if you break in in the middle of the night you don’t want to spend time wandering around the building checking closets). Or not. Its troubling that they asked and were led to the phone closet. What could they possibly have wanted with it otherwise?
January 27, 2010, 9:31 amcboldt says:
The underlying charge (the thing they are charged with using false pretenses to facilitate access) is fundamentally in the nature of destruction of property. Destruction of communications facilities is antithetical to surveillance/bugging employing that communications facility.
January 27, 2010, 9:58 amNot to say they did or didn’t intend to conduct surveillance; only that the charge is that they used false pretenses in order to accomplish destruction/disruption.
United States v. Turpin, 65 F.3d 1207 is about some fellows who stole the copper communication wire belonging to CSX rail. The conviction was upheld, with the dissent arguing that CSX’s private copper line didn’t satisfy the “military/civil defense” limitation.
Cornellian says:
Anyone care to do some “back of the envelope” calculations about what kind of sentence the Sentencing Guidelines will require for these guys?
January 27, 2010, 10:06 amEric Rasmusen says:
“It’s one thing to pretend to be a pimp when interviewing ACORN employees. It’s quite another to pretend to be a telephone repairman to gain access to a U.S. Senate office and its telephone system.”
He should have tried pretending to be a pimp when interviewing senators.
Some commentors said that the ACORN videos were doctored. That’s one reason a criminal trial of the ACORN employees would be useful—it would clear that up. Trials establish facts, and can clear the innocent person. That’s why the government so often makes allegations and then doesn’t prosecute in political cases.
January 27, 2010, 10:15 amcboldt says:
– Anyone care to do some “back of the envelope” calculations about what kind of sentence the Sentencing Guidelines will require for these guys? –
January 27, 2010, 10:16 amThe result will be highly variable, and dependent first on whether the government proves the intent or conspiracy to commit an underlying felony. The “false pretenses” charge has a bifurcated sentencing structure, with (statutory) 6 mos. max unless the purpose of the false pretense is to commit a felony.
Volokh Conspiracy » Criminal Charges for the White House State Dinner Crashers? (November 2009) has a comment about sentencing guidelines in the non-felony branch of 1036.
The statutory time under the felony branch is “not more than 10 years.”
ruuffles says:
Yes, would be useful. It’s a bit hard to have a successful trial when the credibility of your star witness is shot.
Keep in mind, O’Keefe wasn’t arrested for an unrelated federal crime like drugs or weapons. He was arrested for attempting a similar stunt to the one that would net ACORN a criminal trial.
January 27, 2010, 10:24 amcboldt says:
– Anyone care to do some “back of the envelope” calculations about what kind of sentence the Sentencing Guidelines will require for these guys? –
I may have to take back that “highly variable” conclusion. Not that I know the Sentencing Guidelines …
2B2.3 – Trespass Base Offense Level: 4
2B1.1 – Property Damage Base Offense Level: 6 (modified -3 if a conspiracy)
Worst case looks like a Base Offense Level of 6 (arguing no reduction of “conspiracy” because, but for the fact of being intercepted, the destructive act would have been carried out). The sentencing Table suggest 0-6 months for a person at the low end of criminal history, and a maximum of 12-18 months for those at the high end of criminal history.
January 27, 2010, 10:40 amBoonton says:
I can’t believe that months after their ACORN sting they have not released the video without edits and without dubbing! This is pretty outrageous IMO. The MSM and blogsosphere went ballastic over the ACORN video and yet no one demands something as basic as a full unedited video!
Compare this to the Bush-CBS News-National Guard story from a few years ago. Right wingers pulled out 30 year old typewriters to question a document’s authenticity. What type of improvement in journalism have we seen since then? A major story that motivates a Congressional law where the only evidence is an edited video from a partisan source? Stunning. We have a non-trivial # of crazies demanding a ‘full Obama birth certificate’ but this one breezes by!
January 27, 2010, 10:50 amDotar Sojat says:
“It was poor judgement”, said Liddy’s attorney……………..
January 27, 2010, 10:56 amrpt says:
Apparently Andrew Brietbart acknowledged to Hugh Hewitt yesterday that O’Keefe is a salaried employee of one of his organizations. Is anyone here familiar with the Breitbart operation?
January 27, 2010, 10:59 amEric Rasmusen says:
That “unedited video never shown” point is a good one. It points to the fact that tho the media is heavily biased, it is also shallowly biased: they don’t care enough about their liberal opinions to actually work hard to promote them.
January 27, 2010, 11:07 amnibbles says:
Here’s a theory (not sure if it qualifies as “intelectually honest”)
These intrepid young journalists have discovered that their phones have been tapped by DNC operatives, presumably in connection with their ACORN sting.
In order to publically expose this, they decided to do a reverse sting.
On their phone, they discuss a phony wiretapping conspiracy, giving details such as the location of the accomplice outside the building.
Then they do their little operation, using comically fake wiretapping gear, while filming the whole time.
The FBI has them under survailence, but lets them get access to the phone cabinet in order to increase the severity of the resulting charges. The FBI then swoops in and arrests them all, including the accomplice outside the building, who in no way could be connected to the conspiracy without the information gained through the wiretapping of the conspirators.
January 27, 2010, 11:11 amHocking Hick says:
Like at least half of the people reading this, it makes me wonder what he thought he knew he was going after, or if it was just – sponsored or not – a fishing trip…
January 27, 2010, 11:24 amBoonton says:
Eric
“That “unedited video never shown” point is a good one. It points to the fact that tho the media is heavily biased, it is also shallowly biased: they don’t care enough about their liberal opinions to actually work hard to promote them.”
Pot, Kettle, Black. What about the wonderful blogosphere? Did Volokh demand the release of the full unedited tapes when the story was front page?
January 27, 2010, 11:29 amcboldt says:
– Like at least half of the people reading this, it makes me wonder what he thought he knew he was going after –
January 27, 2010, 11:41 amProbably way over half. Patterico has an interesting theory on motive, at Washington Post Writer Makes Assumptions About O’Keefe That the Facts Don’t Cash. Essentially that the charge is not related to wiretapping at all; and then (separate from what the charge actually is), speculating a motive based on this:
ArthurKirkland says:
When O’Keefe told reporters “the truth shall set me free,” was he referring to an intention to rat on those who funded and planned the expedition in exchange for a pass from incarceration?
Given that the prosecutors probably require just one rat to accomplish their objectives, is there any reason to offer a deal to more than one of the suspects?
Should they be charged as burglars?
January 27, 2010, 11:42 amArthurKirkland says:
Patterico predicts this episode will turn out to be “nothing.”
My thought: Follow the money.
That approached worked last time.
January 27, 2010, 12:02 pmcboldt says:
– 1362, one of the statutes in which he was being charged. And lets not be silly here… the only purpose for which he would have to meddle with the phones is for the purpose of bugging it. –
January 27, 2010, 12:12 pmHow do you read 1362 and its precedents as an anti-surveillance statute? There are separate privacy-protective statutes that proscribe unauthorized surveillance. 1362 is a proscription against destruction of and tampering with government (or government-used) communications facilities.
Again, I’m not referring to the motive of the players, my comment is about the charge. There is no charge of an attempt to violate privacy.
Chem_geek says:
Uhmm, most every car sold for as long as I can remember has been equipped “with a listening device that could pick up transmissions”. There’s a big market in selling souped-up devices of that nature, amplifiers, MP3 player interfaces, etc.
January 27, 2010, 12:16 pmBoonton says:
If the purpose was just to confirm that the Senator’s lines were really jammed why not simply visit the office in plain cloths, ask for an interview or ask to examine the phones & videotape it so you can see if her staff was using the phones normally.
Was it their intention to take the phone system apart themselves to see if it was really ‘jammed’? Or were they playing ‘good citizens’ by trying to fix the phones themselves disguised as technicians? Still sounds criminal to me.
January 27, 2010, 12:20 pmzuch says:
and:
I was under the impression that the standard conservative wisdom on this was that gang-rape (and similar incidents of assaults on prisoners) were considered incidental to incarceration, and as long as they were not official policy of the prisons and administered as punishment, were not actionable. See, e.g., Thomas on the Hudson case. Wouldn’t it be O’Keefe’s fault he dressed like a white conservative’s fantasy vision of a pimp?
If indeed conservatives now have consideration for the mistreatment of white conservatives in prison, maybe they will show this by starting to worry about other incidents of prison violence and abuse….
Cheers,
January 27, 2010, 12:29 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
You were under a wrong impression.
January 27, 2010, 12:41 pmRPT says:
A fishing trip sponsored by the Pelican Institute? Hmmm.
January 27, 2010, 12:44 pmzuch says:
What “crime” are you going to try them for?
A criminal or civil case against O’Keefe would be better for uncovering the facts.
Cheers,
January 27, 2010, 12:56 pmcboldt says:
– If the purpose was just to confirm that the Senator’s lines were really jammed why not simply visit the office in plain cloths, ask for an interview or … –
January 27, 2010, 1:03 pmFWIW, the meaning I find in Landrieu’s use of the word “jammed” is in the nature of “phone line is used to capacity.” That is, as soon as one call is taken and completed, the phone rings again, and the next call is handled. I do not take her as asserting that the capacity of the phone line has been compromised or altered.
There have been reports that the Congressional switchboard was stretched past its capacity during Congressional consideration of Comprehensive Immigration Reform. I would not be surprised in the least if the phone system serving Landrieu’s LA offices was similarly taxed. “Jammed up,” like a freeway at rush-hour, or a freeway during an evacuation. Nothing wrong with the freeway, but it’s still “jammed.”
zuch says:
The ACORN internal report (see Appendix D) has a rather different account of what transpired at the eight places visited (not necessarily inconsistent, but giving a better account at the very least as to what happened in those places that Breitbart didn’t highlight).
Cheers,
January 27, 2010, 1:03 pmzuch says:
Care to explain the Hudson dissent then?
And while you’re at it, the benevolent neglect shown towards prison conditions….
Cheers,
January 27, 2010, 1:06 pmwlpeak says:
Huh? I must be sleep deprived again because I don’t get your meaning here.
January 27, 2010, 1:09 pmPubliusFL says:
A better question: how do you see the Hudson dissent as in any way relevant to whether it’s appropriate to wish rape on someone?
January 27, 2010, 1:18 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Zuch, do you think the Hudson dissent is the result of a referendum among American conservatives? Do you think more than a small fraction of us have ever even heard of it?
Why is the burden on us to fix prisons? How come your side hasn’t done it yet?
And finally, why do you assume evil on the part of your fellow humans? Do you take pleasure in doing that?
January 27, 2010, 1:28 pmAssistant Village Idiot says:
Arthur Kirkland, your thought actually seems to be to read minds and jump to conclusions. I think we’re fairly aware what you are pretty durn sure because I know what these people are like at this point.
Re Zuch: People who sign off “Cheers” or “Best,” on a post comment, if you follow them long enough, reveal that they actually mean “F-you.” They also tend to be mind-readers. I have noted very few exceptions to this since noticing it 3 years ago.
January 27, 2010, 1:50 pmRPT says:
My read of your earlier comment was that this was some sort of prank over which gloating was unseemly. My thought was that if it was your–or my–office that was illegally accessed that we would think it pretty serious. Sorry if I misread your comment.
January 27, 2010, 1:52 pmzuch says:
I don’t wish rape on anyone. But there seems to be a certain insouciance towards rape and other assaults in prisons in certain quarters (at least, when the victim is not a Republican Congressional resolution honouree), and I thought that my pointing that out was pretty straight-forward. Hudson is part and parcel of that; getting asssaulted is just part of the game, not like a civil rights violation or anything. And Hudson was a case where the guards did it, rather than just looking the other way when fellow inmates do so….
Cheers,
January 27, 2010, 2:00 pmtrashhauler says:
I’m having trouble determining exactly what O’Keefe was supposed to have done to aid and abet the bogus telephone repairmen. The afadavit only says that he said he was waiting for someone and that he used his cell phone to film the phoney repairmen.
Is that aiding and abetting? Did he say something like, “Oh, here come the repairmen” or something similar? Did he do anything to encourage the office workers to cooperate with the repairmen?
For that matter, what crime did the repairmen commit? Not bugging, not destruction. They didn’t even gain access to the phone system. So, how will anyone prove what it was they intended to do?
January 27, 2010, 2:03 pmzuch says:
I haven’t discerned a strong movement towards solicitude to the plight of prison assaults amongst conservatives … until this last day. In fact, while not all conservatives are of such mind, there have been some that have expressed a view that such “extrajudicial punishment” may be what is deserved for some particularly unpopular inmates (albeit, I’ve heard the same from some erstwhile liberals but not to the same extent).
But I proffered the Hudson conservative minority view. What’s your take on that?
Cheers,
January 27, 2010, 2:05 pmzuch says:
Filibusters? ;-)
Then there’s Sheriff Arpaio….
But I’d note that you don’t need to actually have accomplished anything prior to letting your voice be heard. In fact, it generally works the other way. I welcome all conservatives of good heart to an new-found appreciation for basic human decency, and hope that this wake-up call does result in some reform.
I’d also note that the people most subject to violence in prison are many times the least offensive, and those that commit such crimes are often the worst offenders [not even counting their in-prison violent acts]. Welcome on board!
Cheers,
January 27, 2010, 2:14 pmBrian K says:
a rational person would take this as evidence against the supposed liberal bias. although your twisting of logic to confirm your own biases is pretty funny.
January 27, 2010, 2:16 pmzuch says:
Unintentional Irony Department:
Cheers,
January 27, 2010, 2:17 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
And thus you reveal yourself to be a jerk.
January 27, 2010, 2:26 pmPubliusFL says:
Have you actually read Thomas’s dissent in Hudson? That is, not just the brief excerpt on the page you linked to?
January 27, 2010, 2:29 pmArthurKirkland says:
In response to someone who predicts this will fizzle into nothing, I proposed investigation (follow the money) and predicted that prosecutors will benefit from squealing.
Feel free to tackle the law school exam question: Craft a straight-face defense theory from these facts . . .
But if you are arguing that I infer that someone who, while costumed as a telephone repairman, uses false pretenses to seek access to a federal communications closet has acted unlawfully, you got me. Some may prefer faith to support an expectation that these defendants were acting innocently; I’ll stick with reason.
January 27, 2010, 2:31 pmbbbeard says:
grog wrote at 4:28 am:
Please go read the post by Patterico on O’Keefe’s Cajun Caper, linked also by cboldt at 11:41 am.
Being familiar with the modus operandi of the estimable Mr. O’Keefe, I was puzzled at first by the arrest and the story that accompanied it. After reading Patterico’s story, it all makes sense now. I would propose that O’Keefe planned to catch Landrieu in an obvious lie — her office claimed that their phones were jammed with calls, and indeed calling her office number invariably resulted in a busy signal. So they visited the office, in order to obtain video showing no such steady stream of calls was being answered. They were prepared to document the most obvious theories of how Landrieu accomplished this: either (a) leaving the phone off the hook (necessitating that the ‘repairman’ pick up and flash the phone, i.e. “manipulate” it), or (b) installing some device in the telephone closet to block incoming calls. To document the second possibility, they needed access to the phone closet, and they were prepared to find a blocking device.
Since they did not bring any listening devices of their own to install, I propose that it will be tough for prosecutors to prove that O’Keefe’s hit team intended to install listening devices. I propose that the alleged “listening device” found in a car several blocks away was receiving and recording the live audio/video feed from the wire that O’Keefe was wearing.
As far as gaining access “under false pretenses”, I suspect this will hinge on the details of O’Keefe’s actions. Did he actually say to the guard “We are employees of BellSouth and we are here to respond to the service call that Senator Landrieu’s office made”, while flashing a fake ID? Or did he say “We are here to fix the problem with Senator Landrieu’s office phone” while wearing stereotypical phone-repair-guy duds? I would argue that the latter is not a false statement at all, no matter what blue-collar clothes he wore. And I suspect they did NOT have false IDs, since apparently they were unable to establish their bona fides to the satisfaction of the rent-a-cop.
Prediction: in the coming days we will learn that a member of O’Keefe’s team has experience with telephone equipment. The left will spin this as proof of intent to install listening devices. Instead I think it supports my theory equally well — O’Keefe needed someone to look at the phone cabinet and make a definitive determination that someone had installed a call blocker.
In any case, it should be interesting to follow.
BBB
January 27, 2010, 2:50 pmegd says:
Probably already been covered, but I’m reminded of the occasional ABC/CBS “undercover report” where the individuals smuggle contraband past airport security to allegedly show the deficiencies in the system (and actually boost their own ratings).
I haven’t seen reports of any of these intrepid reporters getting caught, can you imagine the fallout for someone smuggling a firearm through airport (or even federal court) security?
I think it’s likely that this was either part of or a setup for an “undercover report,” (even if tremendously one sided) especially given O’Keefe’s previous work.
Still, he’s an idiot. If you’re going to do a “sting,” try to keep within the bounds of the law, or at least some reasonable interpretation thereof.
January 27, 2010, 2:56 pmTatil says:
Through competent police work. Search their person, car or house for electronic devices, look into their computers and email accounts to see if there was any record of what they were planning, get their phone records to see who they were communicating with etc.
Wishing prison rape is classless, I have to say, but that does not mean it does not happen. I had a friend of mine who told me that they visited a prison for a term paper in high school and spoke to the warden. During their interview, prison rape came up. She told me the warden did not seem to care and he told that if it happens, it is part of the punishment, so who cares. Well, I don’t think this is a liberal or conservative issue, as neither side pays much attention to it, but there should be some liability on the prison personnel and the prison system if these crimes are happening and they are not taking much if action to prevent it. Still though, I don’t remember any “conservatives” bringing it up, but at least some “liberals”. Somehow it does not meet the “tough on crime” personality the “conservatives” conjure up and liberal politicians seem to need, so the whole thing continues.
January 27, 2010, 3:02 pmTatil says:
I gotta say I did not read that post. but just the overview you wrote and it sounds feasible. Of course, it depends on what other evidence may come up through an investigation to see f it supports it or not. Otherwise it seems they can at least get their reasonable doubt.
By the way, was this such a big deal, that one Senator’s phone lines were fairly busy? Is there some kind of history between these two groups leading up to this? Or is it just some random, try to find any kind of mud, however small it may be kind of a thing?
January 27, 2010, 3:08 pmzuch says:
Yes.
I like this quote:
And all apples are edible even when they’re tractor-trailers.
“De minimis non curat Thomas”
But this one gets right to the heart of what I’ve been saying:
Or this one:
Thomas gives us this:
I guess if O’Keefe is raped in prison, he can sue the pants off his attacker, but, hey, our hands are clean….
Cheers,
January 27, 2010, 3:11 pmPubliusFL says:
Alright, then. Please reconcile this:
With this (from Thomas’s dissent):
You also said: “And Hudson was a case where the guards did it, rather than just looking the other way when fellow inmates do so.” Incidentally, Thomas follows the above-quoted statement with a cite (inter alia) to a case acknowledging that a prisoner may have a due process claim against prison officials for “injuries caused by an unjustified attack . . . by another prisoner where officials simply stood by and permitted the attack to proceed.”
January 27, 2010, 3:49 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
zuch,
I haven’t discerned a strong movement towards solicitude to the plight of prison assault [victims] amongst conservatives … until this last day.
Perhaps you’ve been reading in the wrong places. Megan McArdle, for one, has been strong and consistent on this subject. See, e.g., this from three and a half years back (though you can also go to her current site at The Atlantic and see her pushing back against some commenters on the same subject now). Then there is Cathy Young here.
(OK, both are libertarians, not self-described “conservatives.” That does not prevent commenters at their respective sites from calling them “wingnuts” and the like.)
In fact, while not all conservatives are of such mind, there have been some that have expressed a view that such “extrajudicial punishment” may be what is deserved for some particularly unpopular inmates (albeit, I’ve heard the same from some erstwhile liberals but not to the same extent).
“Erstwhile” liberals? As in used-to-bes? McArdle quotes Brad DeLong; Young quotes (current CA Treasurer) Bill Lockyer.
January 27, 2010, 4:05 pmJerry M says:
the only purpose for which he would have to meddle with the phones is for the purpose of bugging it.
Seems like checking to see if the phone, you know, the ones that are so jammed one cannot get through, actually works would be one purpose of meddling. Since no one had any bugs on them it would be kind of hard to bug the phone.
January 27, 2010, 4:08 pmRPT says:
This prison tangent has to be one of the strangest thread detours ever. Like Patterico’s explanation that the O’Keefe escapade is really the Washington Post’s fault.
January 27, 2010, 4:14 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
RPT,
Is it a “tangent”? I give you ShelbyC, six whole comments in:
Looks like he’s gonna be on the other end of the whole “pimping” thing for a while.
My, my, isn’t that amusing.
I’d say the whole thing deservedly went off on a “tangent” very early, when the first commenter thought a prison-rape joke was cute.
January 27, 2010, 4:22 pmtrashhauler says:
tatil quotes me and then responds:
“Through competent police work. Search their person, car or house for electronic devices, look into their computers and email accounts to see if there was any record of what they were planning, get their phone records to see who they were communicating with etc.”
Well, that’s the point, isn’t it, tatil? There doesn’t seem to be much in evidence at the moment. Right now there is no evidence of malicious intent, other than possibly trying to embarass a sitting Senator. There certainly isn’t anything definitive in the afadavit. Perhaps they’ll try to flip one of them against the others. Convictions have been obtained on little more than the unsubstantiated word of confederates, but this seems a mighty slim case, so far.
January 27, 2010, 4:44 pmShelbyC says:
Doesn’t pretty much everybody think that rape, in or out of prison, is a terrible crime, but not actionable against the state? I’m not sure I understand the objection.
January 27, 2010, 4:48 pmRPT says:
To be clear, I thought that comment was indefensibile. Just surprised it generated a side discussion.
January 27, 2010, 4:50 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
ShelbyC,
Doesn’t pretty much everybody think that rape, in or out of prison, is a terrible crime, but not actionable against the state?
So in the post I quoted just above, you were finding the prospect of O’Keefe becoming the victim of a “terrible crime” amusing? Or is the jocular tone of “Looks like he’s gonna be on the other end of the whole ‘pimping’ thing for a while” entirely my imagination?
January 27, 2010, 4:53 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
RPT,
OK, I understand you. But when one person says hey, this dude’s gonna get some pimping from the other side now, and a second says, well, conservatives think prison rape is just what those scum deserve anyway, so why not?
— it’s not surprising if a couple of people who think otherwise do push back. Sorry for the thread-derailment; OTOH, as the hapless client in a Perry Mason episode would say, “It was derailed when I got there!”
January 27, 2010, 5:03 pmShelbyC says:
I’m not sure my post was “jocular”, maybe humorous in a dark sort of way. I feel bad for the guy, he was a bright kid who made a dumbass move, and if the “bug” angle to the story is true he will probably be incarcerated for a while. Too bad, but we can’t just let folks bug senator’s offices. People joke about lots of things, from rape to murder to the challenger explosion. Deal.
January 27, 2010, 5:05 pmShelbyC says:
BTW, I believe that this was the comment that generated the discussion:
And FWIW I’d wager that the poster is not a conservative justifying prison rape.
January 27, 2010, 5:09 pmArthurKirkland says:
Welcome to full-throated members of the Periodic Criminal Defendant Advocacy Club. Haven’t seen the membership assembled since . . . since . . . oh, yeah, since Scooter Libby was being tried.
January 27, 2010, 5:35 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
ShelbyC,
I’m not sure my post was “jocular”, maybe humorous in a dark sort of way. I feel bad for the guy, he was a bright kid who made a dumbass move, and if the “bug” angle to the story is true he will probably be incarcerated for a while.
I see. So this was, sorta, sympathetic? “Hey, tough breaks, kid, but in here you’re going to have all the fun of the other side of the pimp/prostitute relationship”? If this is how you ordinarily communicate about kids “you feel bad for,” I can’t imagine what your actual invective reads like. Jeez.
Too bad, but we can’t just let folks bug senator’s offices. People joke about lots of things, from rape to murder to the challenger explosion. Deal.
Indeed.
January 27, 2010, 5:40 pmShelbyC says:
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree about how I feel about the kid. No bigee.
January 27, 2010, 5:47 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
The problem with joking about horrible things is that they cease to horrify us. We don’t ever want to accept rape, or murder, or the explosion of space shuttles for that matter, as just the status quo.
I used to participate in the forums of a newspaper back home. There was a politician who had been convicted of some bad stuff and was heading off to jail, and way too many comments about how he was going to be somebody’s girlfriend. The paper deleted those but they kept turning up. I commented that American courts do not sentence American citizens who have broken the law to systematic rape, as a punishment. Maybe that has happened elsewhere, but not here. When it happens it is a systemic breakdown and it’s something to deplore and to fix, not to joke about. I don’t know whether it was my comment or not, but the jokes did stop.
January 27, 2010, 5:48 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
ArthurKirkland,
I don’t believe I posted a word here on the subject of Scooter Libby, but VC has nice accurate archives, searchable, and so no doubt you can find out for yourself.
I should say that I have never heard or seen this sort of “heh-heh, maybe your cellmate will be named ‘Spike’” “humor” except from liberal figures or liberal commenters on sites like this one. I concede readily that that doesn’t mean conservative commenters don’t also do this. But when zuch implies that conservatives do it all the time, and liberals not so much, I do wonder where the examples are. I posted links to quotations from Brad Delong and Bill Lockyer; where’s the conservative gleeful that someone is going to be raped in prison? Anyone? Come on, they must be thick as daisies in midsummer. Yes?
January 27, 2010, 5:51 pmKevin P. says:
You must be referring to California’s Democratic Attorney General (now Treasurer) Bill Lockyer:
January 27, 2010, 5:53 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Laura(southernxyl),
I commented that American courts do not sentence American citizens who have broken the law to systematic rape, as a punishment. Maybe that has happened elsewhere, but not here. When it happens it is a systemic breakdown and it’s something to deplore and to fix, not to joke about.
Yes. Thank you for having said that, and for saying it again.
January 27, 2010, 5:55 pmKevin P. says:
… or his attacker could be prosecuted and the prisoner could obtain redress through other means. But that would mean that you would have to actually read through all of Justice Thomas’ opinion, and that would be too much work. Much better to sneer and be flippant.
January 27, 2010, 5:55 pmShelbyC says:
Valid point, but I joke about pretty much everything. That’s me.
January 27, 2010, 6:08 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Kevin P.
Much better to sneer and be flippant.
For the love of God, sir, could you stop giving zuch ideas?
January 27, 2010, 6:09 pmleo marvin says:
Good luck with that argument.
January 27, 2010, 6:59 pmArthurKirkland says:
What in hell are you talking about? I was referring to the conservatives who abandon their customary ‘tough on crime and criminals’ theme — and temporarily become huge fans of procedural safeguards, spinners of incredible defense theories, furious whittlers of sentencing guidelines, and fervent advocates of comfortable prison conditions — when one of their ideological comrades is wearing the handcuffs.
January 27, 2010, 7:14 pmBrian K says:
you obviously haven’t wandered into any of the terrorism and torture threads then. i would certainly say that expressing a desire to crush a child’s testicles is far worse than pointing out that if you drop a bar of soap in jail your probably shouldn’t bend over to pick it up.
January 27, 2010, 7:15 pmleo marvin says:
Whether certain subjects should be out of bounds to joking isn’t an inherently partisan question. Many people assume a joke that offends them must have contrary partisan motives, but the joker may be someone who shares their ideology, just not their sense of propriety. I suspect you, Laura and Michelle may fall into this category, though neither of them accused you of untoward political beliefs, and I’m not even sure myself what your politics are. Just guessing.
January 27, 2010, 7:21 pmShelbyC says:
Well, remember Orin’s “my side” post?
January 27, 2010, 7:24 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
My ideology is kind of cafeteria-style, actually. I don’t know if there’s anybody on the planet with whom I agree on every point. So I don’t assume that another person shares my ideology, even if we agree on specific issues.
And I find that I have things in common with people who don’t share my ideology, but are able to have courteous and reasonable discussions.
I guess impropriety is a good word to describe how I feel about prison rape jokes and the like. It’s not that I think Shelby would literally laugh at a specific person in prison being raped, or be happy about it, or facilitate it. It’s that I think it’s wrong to make light of another person’s real anguish. Think of the pain and grief that Christa McAuliffe’s children felt as they watched the Challenger explode, and the aftermath when they didn’t have their mother anymore. Is it really funny?
January 27, 2010, 7:31 pmzuch says:
I already gave you this:
This supports my assertion on Thomas’s worldview here. Conveniently, Thomas doesn’t make this a Fourteenth Amendment case; he would deny any relief. Comes a Fourteenth Amendment case….
If you’re talking about Davidson v. Cannon, no, that held the opposite (with Rehnquist at the helm).
Thomas’s conclusion is not that he has other remedies. It is that he must be “serious[ly] injur[ed]“:
You know, just a little bit of torture is OK. The marks can’t show.
Cheers,
January 27, 2010, 7:44 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
ArthurKirkland,
What in hell are you talking about? I was referring to the conservatives who abandon their customary ‘tough on crime and criminals’ theme — and temporarily become huge fans of procedural safeguards, spinners of incredible defense theories, furious whittlers of sentencing guidelines, and fervent advocates of comfortable prison conditions — when one of their ideological comrades is wearing the handcuffs.
Yes, and whom exactly did you have in mind? I presume it was someone posting in opposition to cheap humor about prison rape, given that that’s what was being discussed just then. But who among the people taking the, shall I say, “this-is-not-funny” side said what about Scooter Libby? You can make a plausible case that specific people have been inconsistent if they said Y but failed to say equivalent X; but if you want to show that A has been inconsistent, you need to do more than show that while A said Y, B failed to say X. I didn’t realize you could get second-hand hypocrisy just by fraternizing with another person who has said something someone else thinks is “conservative.”
January 27, 2010, 7:50 pmShelbyC says:
I sure didn’t mean to imply that it was. I didn’t think the “partisan” comments were directed at me; my earlier comment was directed at Zuch, who implied that only conservatives joke about such things.
January 27, 2010, 7:58 pmtrashhauler says:
Sure you can. It’s just like cooties, you see. At least, to those who are inclined to accuse folks of hypocrisy on small acquaintance.
January 27, 2010, 8:05 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Brian K,
i would certainly say that expressing a desire to crush a child’s testicles
Look, I know it’s insufferably trite, but can you give me a cite for this?
is far worse than pointing out that if you drop a bar of soap in jail you[] probably shouldn’t bend over to pick it up.
Of course, that’s not what we have been talking about; we’ve been discussing, not the possibility that men will be raped in prison, but positive glee about the near-certainty that they will be raped in prison.
January 27, 2010, 9:04 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
zuch,
Hmmm. I didn’t think I owned a Cloak of Invisibility.
I said (way the hell back) that posing as a pimp in order to pull off an amateur sting was so not (as they say in the Rising Generation) worse than advising people who you think actually are pimps about how to import their underage sex slaves, house them, claim them as dependents for tax purposes, bury the money in the backyard so the IRS wouldn’t find out, &c. No answer.
Later, you denied that you could find anyone on the right side of the spectrum who thought prison rape was even something to worry about earlier than yesterday. I mentioned two people generally called “conservatives” who protested against prison rape years ago, and pointed out two people who (to their certain relief) are never called “conservatives” who thought prison rape was, after all, a matter of light comedy.
No answer.
Jeez, zuch, I’m not asking for a dissertation here, just an acknowledgement that I exist ;-)
January 27, 2010, 9:22 pmCornellian says:
As far as gaining access “under false pretenses”, I suspect this will hinge on the details of O’Keefe’s actions. Did he actually say to the guard “We are employees of BellSouth and we are here to respond to the service call that Senator Landrieu’s office made”, while flashing a fake ID? Or did he say “We are here to fix the problem with Senator Landrieu’s office phone” while wearing stereotypical phone-repair-guy duds? I would argue that the latter is not a false statement at all, no matter what blue-collar clothes he wore.
There’s a reason why the statute uses the phrase “under false pretenses” rather than “by making a false statement.” Even if he said nothing at all, it’s still false pretenses if he went in there wearing clothes designed to convince people to give him access to the place.
January 28, 2010, 12:20 amPubliusFL says:
So Thomas explicitly states that relief was available to the petitioner, but you say that Thomas “would deny any relief.” Why should we believe what you say about what Thomas says rather than what he actually says? Justice Strawmas or Justice Thomas?
Davidson v. Cannon includes this:
Mere negligence may not be enough to establish state action to deny life, liberty, or procperty, but an attack by another prisoner can be a due process violation when the official(s) knew enough that it can be said that they “permitted the attack to proceed.” For example, if (as OperationCounterstrike suggested in this thread) a prisoner were to be put somewhere with the intention that he be raped.
You say “Thomas’s conclusion is not that he has other remedies.It is that he must be ‘serious[ly] injur[ed].’” Again, Thomas quite clearly said that the petitioner had other remedies. Anyone can read where he said that multiple times in his dissent. The serious injury requirement applies only to the narrow issue of cruel and unusual punishment. Contrary to your suggestion, the Supreme Court can’t just sua sponte convert an 8th Amendment case to a 14th Amendment DPC case at the Supreme Court stage and grant that kind of relief. Your twisting of Justice Thomas’s dissent is equivalent to a “lock ‘em up and throw away the key” right-winger pointing to a case where a judge excluded evidence uncovered in an illegal search, with the consequence that a rape case has to be thrown out, and claiming that the judge believes that rapists should not go to jail.
Here’s something else Thomas said regarding Hudson:
You’re clearly literate, so in your case I’m going with “fraught with malice.”
January 28, 2010, 12:21 amCornellian says:
Jeez, zuch, I’m not asking for a dissertation here, just an acknowledgement that I exist ;-)
I hereby acknowledge that you exist. I’m not Zuch – don’t even look like him – but it will have to do.
January 28, 2010, 12:22 amTatil says:
As we all know, if an evidence has not been made public in the first 24 hours, it does not exist. There is a pretty good circumstantial evidence already, I’d take a wait and see approach, but you seem to be one of those who’d rather ignore any inconvenient facts as much as possible. Lack of unedited tapes probably does not bother you, either.
January 28, 2010, 3:15 amTatil says:
I think it is more like “short term ratings hunting; sensationalist; if it cannot be summed up in 30 seconds, it takes too long; nuance is too tough, it’s got to be black and white; give them what they want to hear” oriented, but I guess “biased” makes it easier for you to feel victimized.
January 28, 2010, 3:23 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » One Sting Too Many -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Linley Wehipeihana, andrew. andrew said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » One Sting Too Many: The Volokh Conspiracy · Home · About · E-Mail Policy · … http://bit.ly/brA7TC [...]
January 28, 2010, 11:32 amzuch says:
Well, yes. And so not worse than biting their heads off and eating their spleen too. But is that a fair summation of the facts at hand?
Some of the ACORN people were so concerned they called the cops on O’Keefe et al., and the reliability of the edited (and overdubbed) clips that were selectively shown is somewhat in question. No action taken by anyone in ACORN was criminal per se, while one might consider a case for fraud (not to mention the illegal taping) by the hoaxsters.
Where did I say this?!?!?
Cheers,
January 28, 2010, 1:30 pmzuch says:
He says there might be such. He’s not granting it. As I said, he doesn’t say that he’d have preferred to address this as a Fourteenth Amendment case.
Yes, it does. A lower court decision. Thomas doesn’t say he agrees with this necessarily. He cites Davidson v. Cannon as a “Cf.”, meaning that Davidson v. Cannon actually held what I had said. You put it such:
In Davidson v. Cannon (a Supreme Court case), that’s basically what happened. They didn’t bother to act on his complaint/warning. There wasn’t any obvious malice there, just arguable insouciance or indifference or neglect.
I note you clipped the part where I quoted Thomas’s reason for his dissent:
Why did you clip this (and without any indication you did so)?
I guess it depends on what the definition of the word “permitted” is…. Add “intentionally” and you have a better summary of the law (as Thomas supposedly cites it indirectly).
May have other remedies ["if [<certain things pertain>] … would have a claim” that Thomas might entertain] . In one paragraph of his dissent. But not here (even thought the guards beat Hudson). Because the injuries were de minimis. As I said, make sure the marks don’t show.
I agree that procedurally, this is a hurdle. But not one that’s always been too high to overcome. ;-)
Yes. That it’s the deminimis nature of the injury that was the basis for his decision. He says that he didn’t address the “morality” or legal ramifications of any other type claim.
I quoted Hudson mainly for his statements concerning historical legal indifference to the fate of prisoners (which I quoted but you ignored). Take that with his trend towards “originalism”….
Cheers,
January 28, 2010, 2:13 pmzuch says:
No one looks like me. See the gravatar (larger image here).
Cheers,
January 28, 2010, 2:17 pmChrisTS says:
I have no idea what is going on, here. But, while I cringed a bit at Shelby’s pimping joke, I think the outright expression of a desire to have someone gang-raped is truly appalling.
That said, it is absurd to suggest that anyone’s political leanings determine their readiness to engage in such ugliness or that such ugliness is to be found only among one political group. Ugliness is, alas, multi-partisan.
January 28, 2010, 4:14 pmzuch says:
FWIW, here’s a rundown on the veracity of the O’Keefe ACORN clips.
Cheers,
January 28, 2010, 6:45 pm