Sunday, March 28, 2010

Charges Reduced Against O'Keefe

Charges surrounding O'Keefe's arrest (see also) have been reduced. O'Keefe appears to have been fully vindicated in that he did not try to tap any phone. It begs some questions about why the original allegations were made, but the answer seems to be pretty clear cut; attempted political character assassination in the fruitless hope of helping ACORN.

"Federal prosecutors filed reduced charges Friday against conservative activist James O'Keefe and three others who were accused of trying to tamper with the phones in Sen. Mary Landrieu's New Orleans office.

The new charges are contained in a bill of information, which typically signals a plea deal. The new filing charges the four with entering a federal building under false pretenses, a misdemeanor. They had been arrested Jan. 25 on felony charges.

O'Keefe, a videographer famous for wearing a pimp costume in a stunt that embarrassed the ACORN community organizing group, has said the group was trying to investigate complaints that constituents calling Landrieu's office couldn't get through to criticize her support of a health care reform bill.


  1. fully vindicated? no, he'll do gown in history like all other right-wing activists in American history do- an embarssement.

    James O'Keefe is not some unfairly oppressed activist, or the victim of any "political character assasination" expect his own work in political character assasination on behalf of the republicans

  2. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - you need to read the rest of the sentence "fully vindicated in that he did not try to tap any phone", not necessarily fully vindicated in that he did nothing wrong.

    He is not the embarrassment, ACORN was. Instead of targeting him they should have kept their act clean.

  3. They did keep their act clean, its O'keefe who largely didn't. And even if he is vindicated by the law, I don't think he has vindicated himself as a moral actor.

    The evidence just is not with you here:

    I expect like your habit of war crime denial you wont read these either, its a shame because after a month or so of these conversations, I think your as smart a person can be whose mind is so closed.

  4. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - I am not a war crime denier when war crimes actually happen.

    If you really want to talk about morality you have people on one side trying to help others prostitute and traffic in underage human slaves all while evading taxes, and someone on the other trying to stop them. It is not even close who has the moral high ground.

  5. That's not at all what was really happening, if the situation was as simple as you are then yeah who would disagree with that, but its not. you can either be indifferent to the truth or not, its a choice. Man up and read the evidence.

    And you are a war crime denier, the conversations with you about Israeli war crimes are pretty much the same as conversation I have with chinese people in denial about crimes commited by the chinese government. The point isn't to rehash the goldstone report, the point is to illustrate how indifferent to the truth you tend to be. Very post-modern idealist of you.

  6. I'm just curious what kind of pathology leads you to say you are not denying war crimes, when you know i have proof of you denying war crimes? you can always just admit you were wrong you know, it won't make you a bad person.


Related Posts with Thumbnails

Like what you read; Subscribe/Fan/Follow