It Doesn't Matter If The O'Keefe Break-In Was A "Prank."

[babylonsister]

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=01&year=2010&base_name=the_okeefe_breakin

It Doesn't Matter If The O'Keefe Break-In Was A "Prank."


MSNBC reports that Andrew Breitbart-funded conservative activist James O'Keefe wasn't trying to wiretap Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's phones, but rather was attempting to record how her office might respond to the phones being disabled. Conservative activists had complained earlier this month about not being able to reach her office to register displeasure for her support for health-care reform.

This strikes me as a more plausible explanation than the wiretapping allegations, partly because even if one were recording the calls going in and out of Landrieu's office, interpreting and contextualizing the information you acquired in a manner that would imply corruption on a scale necessary to justify breaking the law would still require actual -- you know -- work. Meanwhile, videotaping someone in the hopes that they do something stupid or embarrassing, which can then be inflated and amplified by a sympathetic audience into a high crime, takes far less work and is far more easily accessible. It also fits better with O'Keefe's record.

But I will say, MSNBC's frame for the story, "prank or crime," is incorrect. If O'Keefe and his pals committed a crime in pursuit of their prank, they still committed a crime. It doesn't "not count" because they got caught. Still, it's not hard to imagine a judge going easy on O'Keefe and his crew. Children of privilege are often thought of as "good kids who made a mistake" rather than the incorrigible "bad apples" of lesser economic means.

But even in his original ACORN videos, O'Keefe may have broken state laws in Maryland and California. So this kind of recklessness can't really be described as a "mistake." And while I doubt Breitbart had prior knowledge of this scheme, he was already aware that O'Keefe's methods were questionable, and he paid him to come up with "stories" anyway. The issue is that trying to make people look like idiots and catching it on camera is what passes for conservative "journalism." O'Keefe was doing exactly what made him so popular in the first place.

-- A. Serwer

[yourout]

1. What ever hardware these guys were caught with will tell the tale.

If they were caught with obvious listening devices the "prank" defense goes right out the window.

[DJ13]

2. Why are so many media types trying to downplay this?

Political espionage shouldnt be excused away just because the twit that did it was a GOP darling a few months back.

[gkhouston]

3. That alone tells me there's plenty of "there" there. n/t

[paulsby]

4. in terms of sentencing it does, and in some cases, even decisions to charge

that's the reality in the law.

it certainly doesn't mean they aren't guilty.

but generally speaking, it can be a mitigating factor in sentencing. SOMETIMES, it could even be an aggravating factor.

for example, there are cases where one university student steals another university's mascot. while in many cases, this could be felony theft (depending on value), a "prank" is going to be dealt with a lot less seriously in terms of sentencing (if it even gets that far) than a theft where the intent was to get pecuniary benefit from the theft, etc.

or i had a case once where a "death threat" was sent from one cell phone to another

it was a prank, but it still met the statutory definition of "harassment" under WA RCW.

the fact that it turned out to be a prank, and NOT intended to place the person in fear of death, WAS a factor in the case, and also why it was (correctly) nolle pros'd

but the statute doesn't distinguish. iow, just because it was a prank doesn't mean it didn't meet the prongs

1) threat was communicated
2) person received the threat
3) person receiving the threat was in fear
4) fear was reasonable, based on the facts and circumstances known to the threat recipient, one that a reasonable person in similar circumstances would feel



iow, it's a factor to be considered. the law- it has nuances.

[cbdo2007]

5. At the very least the lawyers should be looking at their emails

and will find out who they're connected to/working for and what their true intent was.

[madokie]

6. Theres a lot more to this than a prank you can bet on that

these :puke: play for keeps and they have no scruples

[Last Stand]

7. It's not why they did it, it's whether. The burden on them is to prove that it didn't happen.

You don't tap a Senator's phone line for a prank, and if you do, it's still tapping a phone line.

If we wanted to act like our Repuke pals would if the shoes were on the other feet, we would treat O' Keefe & Co. as a threat to National Security. As terrorism suspects, the perps would lose all rights, wouldn't have to be charged and wouldn't get a lawyer unless the Repukes said so. Republican justice.

Now, THAT would be funny, wouldn't it?

[Lord Helmet]

8. His history with Acorn probably won't be a plus for him in sentencing.

Catching this creep in the act was fortuitous. It should put him out of commission for a good while.

[struggle4progress]

9. Um ... why did they try to get access to the GSA telephone closet? Did they think they'd find

Landrieu's staff there?

[KittyWampus]

17. arrows pointing to your post ^^^^^^^^

[Arkana]

10. They were committing a crime. It's not a "prank" to try and bug a US Senator's office.

The MSM is just an idiot repository.

[Gregorian]

11. But it will be minimized. The son of a judge. You bet the judges are talking amonst themselves.

This is justice for the rich.

[jwirr]

12. For sure. If any of us broke into a government office and tampered

with the phones it would be a crime and when these idiots did it was a crime. That is the bottom line.

[SoCalDem]

13. When republicans do this sort of thing, it's a stunt..a frat-house joke

a lark, a caper.. just boys having a little fun:(


but

if a dem or a poor person does anything at all, it's the CRIME OF THE CENTURY..and fully worthy of the death penalty..

[customerserviceguy]

14. O'Keefe learned from his ACORN stunts

that the end justifies the means, at least when you're talking about reich wingers. He never bothered to consider what might happen if he got caught in the middle of the means, without any end to show for it.

[Liberal In Texas]

15. Just because somebody has a camera and interntet access, doesn't make them a journlalist.

Fox praised this guy as a "New Journalist". He's nothing of the kind, he's just a creepy punk who deserves to have the book thrown at him.

[concerned1]

16. So can a 25 y/o black male claim his attempted robbery was just a "prank"

and the judge can slap him on the wrist and send him back to his parents

Youthful indiscretion, ya know...

[Mike_03]

18. Wow, good to see you again

Sorry, I know this is totally irrelevant, but I saw your name and was so happy to see it, and to be back here at DU

[theothersnippywshrub]

19. The teabuggers' attorneys and reich wing media are doing an excellent job

of selling the idea that this was just a youthful prank. Unless someone serious mounts a counter attack I am beginning to doubt these crimes will even be prosecuted.

The criminal laws cited in the FBI affidavit that the teabuggers are alleged to have violated are straightforward and clear, and the teabuggers have admitted they committed acts which violated those laws. But the crimes are not serious enough to prosecute according to the reich wing and the teabuggers' attorneys. Someone needs to begin asking the US Attorney in New Orleans whether Sections 1036 and 1362 of Title 18 define serious crimes or just pranks.

[marshall]

20. What ever happened to that college student who hacked Palin's email?

It's a similar type prank, and if I recall he did have some kind of charges filed against him.

[Canuckistanian]

21. Sounds like an attempt to "poison the well"

The judge will decide on the strength of the evidence whether it's a "prank" or not.

And this sounds like an "easy" case for any competent prosecutor.

The only people they can fool is a TV viewer. And that won't be enough.