« A Gathering Of Scum | Main | Something smells funny about this »

James O'Keefe's bizarre CNN stunt

Earlier this week, CNN broke a story about iconoclastic film maker James O'Keefe that at first seemed too bizarre to be real. According to CNN, O'Keefe (who first gained notoriety for his hidden camera videos that proved the extent to which ACORN was willing to break the law) was working on an elaborate plot to "punk" CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau with a fake seduction plot.

According to the script that O'Keefe allegedly prepared, Ms. Boudreau was to be contacted anonymously and promised exclusive evidence that would prove the media's allegations of racism against the Tea Party movement. Ms. Boudreau was then to be lured onto a boat in order to retrieve the evidence. Once on the boat, she was to be led into a cabin that contained a bed, a generous supply of sex toys and pornography, and a video camera. Then O'Keefe would try to seduce her, and if she consented, the video was to be used in an attack campaign against CNN.

Again, just too bizarre to be real. Or was it?

According to CNN, Izzy Santa, the director of O'Keefe's Project Veritas, tipped off Ms. Boudreau and warned her not to meet O'Keefe. She also provided CNN with a copy of O'Keefe's script. O'Keefe issued a denial, stating that the ideas in the script were "not [his] work product" and that he "did not consider them for one minute following it." Reportedly Ms. Santa was relieved of her duties at Project Veritas as a result of her whistle blowing effort.

The tackiness and the unhinged nature of this alleged plan has left O'Keefe's supporters confused and angered. Brent Bozell, director of the Media Research Center and Newsbusters.com wrote:

The MRC unequivocally denounces James O'Keefe for his attempted assault on CNN. It isn't just childish and immature; it's ugly, dishonest and filthy. There is no place in the conservative movement for this type of behavior and that's exactly what I warned about in a commentary piece I submitted to CNN.com just two days ago.

"Could the Citizen Journalist abuse the public trust?" I wrote in this piece that should run in the next few days. "Hypothetically, of course. Conservatives must all guard against this. Let there be scrutiny, by all means." And I repeat: there must be scrutiny.

Bottom line: We want nothing to do with O'Keefe or his dirty antics.

Andrew Breitbart, who published O'Keefe's original video take-down of ACORN, also feels that there is still a lot of explaining to do:

I proudly stood behind James O'Keefe on his groundbreaking ACORN investigation. I also defended him when the media, including CNN -- during a previous regime, "the Rick Sanchez era" - falsely reported the Sen. Mary Landrieu story as a "wiretapping" plot gone wrong.

In all these cases the left-leaning media exposed its obvious bias against James because of his contrarian point of view and because the targets of his investigations are protected institutions of the Democrat Media Complex.

However, in my dealings with Ms. Boudreau, she and her producer, Scott Zamost, conducted themselves professionally, and I believe James owes them a candid and public explanation.

From what I've read about this script, though not executed, it is patently gross and offensive. It's not his detractors to whom he also owes this public airing. It's to his legion of supporters.

James O'Keefe has had plenty of time to respond to the allegations made by CNN. His refusal to say anything beyond "yeah, but we didn't really do it" seems to indicate that at least some elements of the the plan were for real. That being the case, James O'Keefe seems to have descended from "citizen-journalist" to "creepy sleazeball."

Hang in there, James. I'm sure Larry Flynt could use a guy like you.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40256.

Comments (29)

I appears that O'Keefe does... (Below threshold)
mpw280:

I appears that O'Keefe doesn't like seeing his fame clock tick down to 14:59 and is trying for a reset, poorly at that. mpw

For a guy with a such a pro... (Below threshold)
Eric:

For a guy with a such a promising future, this stunt was just stupid and sensesless. Its a shame because it seems that fame has gotten to James O'Keefe's head and made him arrogant.

O'Keefe is done as a conser... (Below threshold)
jim m:

O'Keefe is done as a conservative voice. The right neither wants nor needs people like him. Ends might justify the means for leftists, but the way you do something means something for conservatives.

Even if he were to come up with something serious now no one will listen to him. In less than a year he has managed to destroy every last shred of credibility he had.

According to CNN the script... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

According to CNN the script was "apparently written by Ben Wetmore" which supports O'Keefe statement that "That is not my work product. When it was sent to me, I immediately found certain elements highly objectionable and inappropriate, and did not consider them for one minute following it."

O'Keefe is guilty of having an associate send him a highly objectionable and inappropriate plan. If that's some sort of crime then Obama is in big trouble the next time the Pentagon sends him a military plan the public finds highly objectionable and inappropriate even if Obama did not consider following it for one minute.

Carful what standards you set for other because those are the standards by which you will be judged.

"Ben Wetmore"? It'd almost... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"Ben Wetmore"? It'd almost seem like a pseudonym, but apparently not.

"ESQ: But the stunt was aborted "minutes before it was supposed to happen." BW: I wasn't there during the meeting with Boudreau, but the document was never intended as a final plan. This is a brainstorming issue, combined with an event that didn't happen, so it's all speculation about how things would've happened. Everybody expects that it would've played out just like in the initial framing. ESQ: People are accusing you of misogyny and worse. What did you hope to achieve? BW: It was humor. There was a joke to it -- James isn't a lothario of sexual conquest at all. It was going to be awkward, not sexually aggressive. It was meant to be outlandish and ridiculous. When you dissect and sterilize a joke, it's not funny anymore -- when you read the transcript of an SNL skit, you're not going to laugh, but you do when it's performed. It seems one way in print, but the video would've looked very different. I could get very anxious about whatever the blogs are saying, but it's entertaining. It adds a little spice to life. At the end of the day, this stuff is fun. ESQ: But your work is political. Was there an ideological point to this? Are you trying to be a Daily Show of the right? BW: It was a comment on CNN's methods -- how they get stories versus how those stories turn out. In the grander scheme, the overall story that's unfolding is somewhat ironic. And there isn't an antecedent we're trying to replicate. James is doing his own thing. ... I may give him some ideas from time to time, but he's his own man and mind. ESQ: People are accusing you of misogyny and worse. What did you hope to achieve? BW: It was humor. There was a joke to it -- James isn't a lothario of sexual conquest at all. It was going to be awkward, not sexually aggressive. It was meant to be outlandish and ridiculous. When you dissect and sterilize a joke, it's not funny anymore -- when you read the transcript of an SNL skit, you're not going to laugh, but you do when it's performed. It seems one way in print, but the video would've looked very different.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/james-okeefe-cnn-scandal-093010#ixzz11DOW3Jqz
You know, I don't think SNL humor has quite the base that some folks think it does... and I think that base tends to be kind of on the mean-spirited side in the first place.

Plus, SNL skits go on with all participants in the know. This? Not so much.

Bad idea, space cadet.

The problem with your defen... (Below threshold)
john:

The problem with your defense, Mac Lorry, is that he actually DID follow the plan letter for letter, right up until Boudreau was warned RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE BOAT that was part of the plan. So you're accepting "yes I did call her, yes I did invite her to a meeting, yes I did plan to punk her, yes I did tell her to meet me near a boat, yes I was on that boat... but I did not consider for one minute following through on the plan!"

Weak.

I think a bit differently a... (Below threshold)
jennifer:

I think a bit differently about this story,

We needed someone on the right to "play" dirty as that is the way of the left and the right has been eaten alive in the media because of this. We see the left viciously attack anyone who says anything about someone of color that is on the right, and Trent Lott even lost his job(as well as others) and yet Robert Byrd held his esteemed position until his death...and never renounced much of his youthful behavior(well you know actions he did well above the age of 18).

We have the left rolling in wealth, smugly stating that they are here for the common man, yet store yachts out of tax zones, ignore taxes, hire illegals, spend 30,000 a plate for a dinner...and these smug folk, look down in disdain at someone common- like Sarah Palin who has a podunk university degree...hey don't most of us have the same one? And who can toss 30 grand down for a dinner? And yacht? Many Americans actually live in homes that arrived on the property on wheels.

We need someone bold and willing to slap around the left as much as the right has been slapped around.

I disagree with the sexual setting and the attempt to see if this woman would go for it, but I am darn well smart enough to know that sex is free loving and hey teach 5 year old's about transgender's homosexuality and fisting for middle school- so who really opened the ball here?

Sex is ok, and the Right is the prudish grannies outdated, so why not use this too?

The time is now to stop this-although O'Keefe may be the wrong person to play in the lefties league we need someone. We need to be bold in our actions and call out those who are this nasty and filled with deceit.

just for the record I am one who believes that the politicians have formed their own little class of elite folks in the US and to bring them down we will need to dismantle the institutions that hold them up so dearly-the media, institutions of higher learning, public education, and unions and many more.

Jennifer

Jennifer, on what planet do... (Below threshold)
S:

Jennifer, on what planet do you live? Sure there are some "leftists" who are filthy rich (lots less than right-wingers, though). And sure there are a great many conservatives who are poor--just as there are a great many liberals who are. Also, name me one middle school that teaches kids about fisting. You're buying all sorts of scare-story crap that right-wing blogs are feeding you.

I'm no big fan of Robert Byrd, but my understanding is that he _did_, in fact, renounce his earlier beliefs and behavior.

Jennifer,What are ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Jennifer,

What are you nuts?! I don't care what her politics or who she works for. That's irrelevant. This has every appearance of O'Keefe attempting to make an illicit (and likely illegal) sex tape for the purposes of embarrassing if not outright blackmailing Boudreau and CNN. This kind of sleaze is exactly what we want to stop, not what we want to be engaging in.

There is a difference between holding everyone to the same standard (which you correctly complain is not done) and stooping to a level that is truly disgusting. O'Keefe is WAY over the line here. No one on the right is standing with him. That is the way it should be.

John,The ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

John,

The problem with your defense, Mac Lorry, is that he actually DID follow the plan letter for letter, right up until Boudreau was warned RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE BOAT that was part of the plan. So you're accepting "yes I did call her, yes I did invite her to a meeting, yes I did plan to punk her, yes I did tell her to meet me near a boat, yes I was on that boat... but I did not consider for one minute following through on the plan!"

Being Boudreau never went on the boat there's no way of knowing what O'Keefe had planned. The mere existence of Ben Wetmore's plan doesn't mean that was what he intended to do. Before Boudreau left the scene O'Keefe walked up to her and said he would be more comfortable if the interview was recorded. If O'Keefe had been planning to seduce Boudreau he would have never asked to follow through after telling Boudreau the interview would have been recorded. It was Boudreau who pulled the plug without getting on the boat to see if it was an office or had been set up to seduce her. Without that key piece of evidence CNN has nothing but circumstantial evidence.

If such flimsy evidence were sufficient then anyone's reputations can be destroyed by the liberal media. Who's next?

You couldn't make this shit... (Below threshold)
epador:

You couldn't make this shit up, could you?

Well, we'll see, if someone did or it is for real eventually, I'm sure.

"O'Keefe (who first gain... (Below threshold)
Jerry Chandler:

"O'Keefe (who first gained notoriety for his hidden camera videos that proved the extent to which ACORN was willing to break the law)"

That's your first problem right there. You're still acting as though O'Keefe has any credibility and citing the debunked fraud that first got him his notoriety on the right.

O'Keefe's original story was already unraveling when he was first getting big promotion on Fox News. His claims that he was not thrown out of any ACORN office was shown to be false by police reports documenting ACORN's report of his actions.

Other parts of his story were beginning to fall apart at that point as well. To "prove" his claims he said he would show the unedited video footage. It should have been a tip off to many of his supporters that something was less than kosher with his story when he never released the unedited footage.

The final nail in the coffin of his support should have been when the California Attorney General's office looked into the ACORN case and got their hands on the unedited footage. The findings of their investigation, while confirming some other issues with ACORN from complaints unrelated to O'Keefe's work, showed that pretty much everything O'Keefe claimed happened as well as the way he claimed things happened was 99.9% hogwash.

But new, unedited videotapes discovered through Brown's investigation, as well as other evidence, shed clearer light on interactions between O'Keefe and the now-defunct ACORN.

Videotapes secretly recorded last summer and severely edited by O'Keefe seemed to show ACORN employees encouraging a "pimp" (O'Keefe) and his "prostitute," actually a Florida college student named Hannah Giles, in conversations involving prostitution by underage girls, human trafficking and cheating on taxes. Those videos created a media sensation.

Evidence obtained by Brown tells a somewhat different story, however, as reflected in three videotapes made at ACORN locations in California. One ACORN worker in San Diego called the cops. Another ACORN worker in San Bernardino caught on to the scheme and played along with it, claiming among other things that she had murdered her abusive husband. Her two former husbands are alive and well, the Attorney General's report noted. At the beginning and end of the Internet videos, O'Keefe was dressed as a 1970s Superfly pimp, but in his actual taped sessions with ACORN workers, he was dressed in a shirt and tie, presented himself as a law student, and said he planned to use the prostitution proceeds to run for Congress. He never claimed he was a pimp.

"The evidence illustrates," Brown said, "that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor."

http://caag.state.ca.us/newsalerts/release.php?id=1888

Seriously, this clown has actually managed to make Michael Moore look like a credible filmmaker in comparison. The longer that any of the media or the people on the Right gives this idiot support and a forum the longer the Right makes it easier for the Left to paint any claim of the Right supported with any mention of O'Keefe as fabricated nonsense.

And beyond that; given that the facts about O'Keefe are that he was a fabricator and manipulator from day one who was embraced and protected by some in the conservative media (especially on Fox) it shouldn't surprise anyone here that he would try something this mind blowingly stupid.

Tell the guy his 15 minutes are up and send him out to pasture already.

Jerry ChandlerHeav... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Jerry Chandler

Heavily edited is the same charge many have leveled at news shows like 60 Minutes. The difference is that established news networks have the money needed to used the courts to successfully block investigators from gaining access to unedited video. Rather than investigate ACORN, an organization that was already under investigation in several other states, Brown used his office to defend ACORN by going after O'Keefe. That would be like some AG now going after CNN for making accusations against O'Keefe. If they did I expect they would find some inconsistencies and perhaps it was Boudreau who was seducing her targets as was alleged in one of the emails. Maybe that's what O'Keefe was trying to capture on video.

O'Keefe is no hero of the right as can be seen by many comments above, but just like anyone else accused of wrongdoing, he deserves the benefit of the doubt and that means CNN needs better evidence than what they have presented so far.

Mac Lorry,It wasn'... (Below threshold)
Jerry Chandler:

Mac Lorry,

It wasn't just a matter of heavy editing. O'Keefe lied. He told lies repeatedly when talking about his ACORN piece and and he edited the footage to show things that were in fact not what actually happened. When confronted about the lies he doubled down and told more lies.

He then followed that up with his airheaded stunt in Louisiana.

"Rather than investigate ACORN, an organization that was already under investigation in several other states, Brown used his office to defend ACORN by going after O'Keefe."

No. That's just plain false. Brown was charged by Gov. Schwarzenegger with looking into possible violations of the law by ACORN. The request was prompted by the flap created by O'Keefe's video. The footage, the unedited footage, therefore became evidence. O'Keefe then had to do what he repeatedly claimed he was going to do but steadfastly refused to do; he had to give someone the unedited footage.

Brown then looked at the evidence in the investigation and found that the claims that prompted the investigation were in fact just so much video edited fabrications. Brown also stated that he did in fact find some unrelated issues of wrongdoing by ACORN and reported these facts when he released his findings.

Let's say I had a video of Mac Lorry taking bribes at his workplace. Mac Lorry (for our hypothetical) works in the media and my claims are that I caught Mac on film taking bribes to shape the coverage of events away from fact based journalism and into hatchet pieces filled with lies.

I show a video of my "investigation" where I claimed that I went in posing as a representative for a local political organization. I have you on camera taking $200 from me after my discussing my desire to see certain stories shaped and published to attack and smear certain officials in the city facts be damned.

You claim it's not true. I claim it is. You point out that the video was edited. I claim that I'll release the unedited footage because it backs my claims. After repeatedly claiming that over several weeks I still refuse to release the footage, but I do continue smearing your name. And then an investigation gets started.

My unedited footage then gets turned over to the authorities. In their investigation they find that I didn't really identify myself as a member of a local political group, we only discussed bribery and graft that had been in the news, and the $200 you took from me as a bribe was actually two $5 bills that I handed you and asked if you could break them into ten $1 bills.

The authorities release those findings. Now, did they "go after" me or did they review the only evidence of the event and discover that my claims were baseless and the video I first released was a hoax?

What Brown did was not "going after O'Keefe." It was investigating the claims O'Keefe made and looking at the only evidence that supposedly backed those claims. It was then simply reporting the facts discovered in the investigation that the claims and statements were bogus and not backed by the unedited footage. Twisting the events and outcome in the manner you did shows a disconnect from reality at worst or simply partisan desire to defend someone on "your side" even when you know they completely screwed up at best.

O'Keefe was a conman from day one. His ACORN work was a fraud, his stunt in Louisiana was idiotic as well as illegal and this stunt just looks like more of the same pattern.

ACORN is under investigatio... (Below threshold)
jim m:

ACORN is under investigation in 14 states. To claim that the allegations of corruption have been debunked is a gross misrepresentation. In that case what O'Keefe did was to use a bit of internet theatrics to underscore what many already knew: that ACORN is a thoroughly corrupt organization that has as its aim manipulating the government for fun and profit.

The second act of this tragicomedy was the Landrieau escapade. This was ill conceived and unnecessary. It failed and O'Keefe was shown to be a loose canon with extremely poor judgment. He broke no laws, but then he proved nothing that wasn't already known (as if unresponsive public officials were really something new).

The last act here is a further step in the wrong direction. He again shows that he is a poor thinker and there is no clear payoff. I am unable to see the point to any of it and the whole of it makes O'Keefe look every bit the journalistic slime ball that people loathe.

O'Keefe's actions show that this is more about him than it is about uncovering any particular truth.

O'Keefe is a lying slimebal... (Below threshold)
Dane:

O'Keefe is a lying slimeball - and what we have here is Bozell and Breitbart throwing that lying Piece of Crap under the bus the first chance they had to do so without looking ungrateful for the lies and deceit O'Keefe provided to DER PARTY in the past.

Like lemmings... of course the right wing blogosphere piles on as well. Not knowing why or how hard they should hit O'Keefe but always eager to do the bidding of the Masters of DER PARTY.

The unedited footage shows O'Keefe lied. This incident shows O'Keefe is an immature asshole. Proving once again the reality has left-leaning bias, again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

"ACORN is under investig... (Below threshold)
Jerry Chandler:

"ACORN is under investigation in 14 states. To claim that the allegations of corruption have been debunked is a gross misrepresentation."

And if you can find where I said that all of the allegations about every office of ACORN were debunked this might be something other than you starting off a response with a massive strawman argument. My comments here have been strictly limited to O'Keefe, O'Keefe's works and O'Keefe's video about ACORN. In those comments I have dealt with facts only and been completely correct.

"In that case what O'Keefe did was to use a bit of internet theatrics to underscore what many already knew: that ACORN is a thoroughly corrupt organization that has as its aim manipulating the government for fun and profit."

No, what O'Keefe did was make stuff up, make false charges about what happened, lie, lie to cover up his lies and then finally get exposed as a fraud.

Jim, if ACORN was so thoroughly corrupt and breaking laws so badly; why did O'Keefe have to make stuff up to make his video? Seriously, why couldn't he have simply spent a few weeks "working for" ACORN and recorded real acts of corruption and lawbreaking? Was it laziness? Was it stupidity? Was it that the charges against ACORN as an institution were greatly exaggerated? Was the answer "D" as in all of the above?

O'Keefe lied. He didn't present his work as a dramatization of what he experienced at ACORN. He edited video to show events in a way other than they actually happened and then repeatedly lied about every aspect of what he did and what went down.

Calling what he did a "bit of internet theatrics" is like calling burglary an act of borrowing without the owner's consent. Only an idiot would be unable to tell the difference between the two acts.

Being Boudreau never wen... (Below threshold)
john:

Being Boudreau never went on the boat there's no way of knowing what O'Keefe had planned. The mere existence of Ben Wetmore's plan doesn't mean that was what he intended to do.

If that's how you form the basis of your beliefs, I doubt there's any getting through to you. O'Keefe followed the plan step by step until the whistle was blown. He set up the meeting. He had Boudreau fly out. He had her meet him on a boat. He himself was on the boat. All of this was exactly as in the plan.

Your argument is that although he followed steps 1-6 of a predefined plan, there's "no way of knowing" if he was going to step 7. Rubbish. "Beyond all reasonable doubt" is not the level of evidence required for recognizing someone to be a crackpot.

I'd love to hear you assess a burglary attempt. "Yes, he approached the house, put on a mask, laid out his lock-picking tools, brought a sack, and reached for the doorknob. But even though this was all written in a plan beforehand, because the security lights came on, then there's no way of knowing if he was going to break into the house, and he deserves the benefit of the doubt." Unlikely.

It was Boudreau who pulled the plug without getting on the boat to see if it was an office or had been set up to seduce her. Without that key piece of evidence CNN has nothing but circumstantial evidence.

Sure, it would have been more certain if she had gone in and taken a picture. But the plan was for O'Keefe to invite her to a boat filled with sex objects. Has O'Keefe specifically denied that the boat was filled with sex objects? If it were true, one would expect that to be the first thing he would say. Instead we get "that is not my work product." Yeah, that sounds convincing.

If such flimsy evidence were sufficient then anyone's reputations can be destroyed by the liberal media. Who's next?

Funny you should say that, as the Boudreau plan stated a specific goal to "help burden her career". Who's next, indeed?

Jerry Chandler,<block... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Jerry Chandler,

It wasn't just a matter of heavy editing. O'Keefe lied. He told lies repeatedly when talking about his ACORN piece and and he edited the footage to show things that were in fact not what actually happened. When confronted about the lies he doubled down and told more lies.

Sounds like Dan Rather's hit piece on Bush except that in O'Keefe's case ACORN employees have plead guilty in relation to voter fraud. (Christopher Edwards in Nevada).

No. That's just plain false. Brown was charged by Gov. Schwarzenegger with looking into possible violations of the law by ACORN. The request was prompted by the flap created by O'Keefe's video. The footage, the unedited footage, therefore became evidence. O'Keefe then had to do what he repeatedly claimed he was going to do but steadfastly refused to do; he had to give someone the unedited footage

Like I said, the main stream media has a long record and the money to go to court and thwart turning over their unedited footage. O'Keefe just didn't have that kind of money.

As for your long winded hypothetical case, I've seen similar on 60 Minutes, but don't recall them having to turn over their unedited footage.

O'Keefe was a conman from day one. His ACORN work was a fraud

O'Keefe may or may not be a conman, I'll wait for more evidence. However, ACORN is a proven fraud.

John,If t... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

John,

If that's how you form the basis of your beliefs, I doubt there's any getting through to you. O'Keefe followed the plan step by step until the whistle was blown.

O'Keefe followed the plan he laid out to Boudreau to meet privately. Your assumption that he was following some other plan is just that, an assumption.

Your argument is that although he followed steps 1-6 of a predefined plan, there's "no way of knowing" if he was going to step 7. Rubbish. "Beyond all reasonable doubt" is not the level of evidence required for recognizing someone to be a crackpot.

The only plan he followed was to set up the meeting with Boudreau, which is the steps 1-6 that he followed. Step 7 could have just as well been the private meeting Boudreau expected.

Sure, it would have been more certain if she had gone in and taken a picture. But the plan was for O'Keefe to invite her to a boat filled with sex objects. Has O'Keefe specifically denied that the boat was filled with sex objects? If it were true, one would expect that to be the first thing he would say. Instead we get "that is not my work product." Yeah, that sounds convincing.

You're kidding right? O'Keefe tells Boudreau he wants to record their meeting and then you think he could seduce her on camera anyway. Now that's weak. The truth was right there for Boudreau to prove, but she pulled the plug without checking the boat. If she was afraid of O'Keefe she would have never agreed to meet with him privately in the first place, so why didn't she check out the boat? There's more going on here than Boudreau is telling.

Sorry, but I want hard evidence before I make a judgment. Apparently that standard has fallen out of fashion nowadays.

Mac, you're getting both de... (Below threshold)
Jerry Chandler:

Mac, you're getting both desperate and hilarious. We're not talking about Dan Rather, 60 Minutes or anyone else but O'Keefe. What's hilarious is that you don't even realize that you're actually saying that O'Keefe is a con and a fraud with your defense of him. You keep throwing out examples of things that you consider acts of media dishonesty and fraud as examples of what other people did that was just like what O'Keefe did.

Seriously, it's a laughable defense of the guy. What, if a guy you support beats someone you dislike half to death you'll say that it's not really wrong or all that bad since so and so did it and so and so over there actually killed a man?

Here's a novel idea for you. Let's just try to talk about O'Keefe without the desperate grabbing at whatever other garbage you feel will muddy the waters here. Simple questions for you.

1) Did O'Keefe lie about what happened? Yes or no?

2) Did O'Keefe edit the video footage to exclude things that showed that ACORN employees were in fact not doing what he claimed? Yes or no?

3) Did O'Keefe edit the footage to make it appear that ACORN employees were doing something other than what they were actually doing when he was filming them? Yes or no?

4) When confronted with his lies both before and after Brown released his findings; did O'Keefe continue to lie and make new lies to cover for his prior lies? Yes or no?

5) Is O'Keefe a convicted criminal who pleaded guilty o charges of entering federal property under false pretenses? Yes or no?

I'll save you some typing. The answer to questions 1-5 are all "YES" and not disputable in a fact based discussion.

"As for your long winded hypothetical case, I've seen similar on 60 Minutes, but don't recall them having to turn over their unedited footage."

Yeah, and I've complained about that kind of garbage journalism when they've pulled it as well. I an call something wrong if it's wrong no matter who it's done to unlike you who seems to be able to only call something truly wrong if it's done to someone you politically like. What O'Keefe did was wrong. Period. Full stop. It doesn't matter if anyone else somewhere else did something like it before. It just doesn't change the fact that what he did was wrong on every level.

"ACORN employees have plead guilty in relation to voter fraud. (Christopher Edwards in Nevada)."

Yes, and, as noted above, O'Keefe has plead guilty to entering federal property under false pretenses and is now a convicted criminal. What's your point and how does what Edwards did change anything about the falsified nature of O'Keefe's video or his multiple lies about the video? Oh, it doesn't. It's just smoke, mirrors and strawmen on your part.

"O'Keefe may or may not be a conman, I'll wait for more evidence."

Right... Because being a proven liar, having your biggest claim to fame debunked as a fabrication, being convicted of a crime thanks to another lame stunt gone wrong and now following a sleazy, lame plan to make a fake video to screw up someone's career right up to the last part and really only not following that last part because the intended victim was warned and backed away from the trap certainly doesn't qualify as evidence of O'Keefe's poor character and past actions as a con artist and fraud.

Mac Lorry: "O'Keefe may or may not be a conman, I'll wait for more evidence."

Ladies and gentleman, the statement of a conservative lemming.

Jerry Chandler,<block... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Jerry Chandler,

Mac, you're getting both desperate and hilarious. We're not talking about Dan Rather, 60 Minutes or anyone else but O'Keefe. What's hilarious is that you don't even realize that you're actually saying that O'Keefe is a con and a fraud with your defense of him. You keep throwing out examples of things that you consider acts of media dishonesty and fraud as examples of what other people did that was just like what O'Keefe did

I'm not defending O'Keefe, just not rushing to judgment and pointing out that CNN's story has only circumstantial evidence and something is missing. When there's hard evidence or an admission, then I'll make a judgment. In the meantime I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of liberal media doing on a regular basis of what some accuse O'Keefe of doing, but because that media is well connected and funded, their unedited footage is off limits to investigators except in very limited circumstances.

Here's a novel idea for you. Let's just try to talk about O'Keefe without the desperate grabbing at whatever other garbage you feel will muddy the waters here. Simple questions for you.

Actually you are the one mudding up the waters with your irrelevant ACORN story. I know the liberal thing is to brand people and then once branded they can be accused of anything with minimal evidence. However, being this is about the CNN story your questions are irrelevant.

I an call something wrong if it's wrong no matter who it's done to unlike you who seems to be able to only call something truly wrong if it's done to someone you politically like.

So now you are accusing me of hypocrisy. Do you have anything to back that up or are you just lying?

Yes, and, as noted above, O'Keefe has plead guilty to entering federal property under false pretenses and is now a convicted criminal. What's your point and how does what Edwards did change anything about the falsified nature of O'Keefe's video or his multiple lies about the video? Oh, it doesn't. It's just smoke, mirrors and strawmen on your part.

The same standard applies to ACORN with its employee's pleading guilty to serious crimes. Why is ACORN relevant to a story about CNN? Oh, it isn't, it's just smoke, mirrors and straw men on your part.

Right... Because being a proven liar, having your biggest claim to fame debunked as a fabrication, being convicted of a crime thanks to another lame stunt gone wrong and now following a sleazy, lame plan to make a fake video to screw up someone's career right up to the last part and really only not following that last part because the intended victim was warned and backed away from the trap certainly doesn't qualify as evidence of O'Keefe's poor character and past actions as a con artist and fraud.

You really show your lack of understanding when you make that statement. Go listen to the video where Boudreau tells what happened in her own words. If there ever was a trap it was sprung when O'Keefe came over to Boudreau's car and told her he wanted to record their meeting and wanted to proceed. Turn up your brain power to full and think about the following two statements for a second.

1) If O'Keefe had been following Wetmore's plan and didn't know Boudreau had been tipped off then he would not have told her he wanted to record their meeting. There would be no point to any of it if Boudreau knew she was being recorded.

2) If O'Keefe had been following Wetmore's plan and did know Boudreau had been tipped off then the last thing he would have wanted was to bring Boudreau on the boat where she would have witnessed the sex toys and other seduction props.

Boudreau own words and O'Keefe actions demonstrate that O'Keefe was not following Wetmore's plan, but the plan he had previously arranged with Boudreau. Boudreau pulling the plug shows there's something more going on than we are being told.

Ladies and gentleman we'll now see if a liberal can actually think for themselves.

"Actually you are the on... (Below threshold)
Jerry Chandler:

"Actually you are the one mudding up the waters with your irrelevant ACORN story."

I didn't muddy anything. My first post was directed at Michael Laprarie and addressed Michael's referencing O'Keefe's "hidden camera videos that proved the extent to which ACORN was willing to break the law" and pointing out that his video was debunked and shown to be full of it and that it showed and proved nothing about ACORN. This was then followed by you and one or two others jumping in to defend O'Keefe and his ACORN work while claiming that you weren't doing anything of the kind.

"I know the liberal thing is to brand people and then once branded they can be accused of anything with minimal evidence."
"Ladies and gentleman we'll now see if a liberal can actually think for themselves."

Right... Because, as a liberal, I would of course point out that O'Keefe has no credibility by comparing him to Micheal Moore. Hate to break it to you but I really am middle of the road in most things. I think Moore is full of $&!^. I just find that O'Keefe makes him look almost honest by comparison.

"Boudreau own words and O'Keefe actions demonstrate that O'Keefe was not following Wetmore's plan, but the plan he had previously arranged with Boudreau. Boudreau pulling the plug shows there's something more going on than we are being told."

Not really. O'Keefe may have decided the he wasn't going to try the sleazy part f the plan, but even if he wasn't going to follow the last step after following every single other step of the plan; he was still working towards a goal that was just as dishonest as his ACORN piece.

The plan as laid out wasn't just about the sex toys and seduction crap. That was actually plan #2. The other plan also called for planting a fake story with CNN by providing "false video evidence," "false textual evidence and documents," and/or "false interviews" and then, after creating false video and evidence with the aid of others in the movement and handing it off to CNN, setting up everyone to spring on CNN with the evidence of the false nature of what was provided.

So O'Keefe was still acting in a dishonest manner, being a liar and working to fabricate a news story; just like he did with his ACORN video.

He's got two documented strikes against him. There's very little doubt that this is number three. But I'm sure you'll find a way to twist logic to defend him even if he comes out and says that he was fully on board with even the sleazy parts of the plan.

By the way."1) ... (Below threshold)
Jerry Chandler:

By the way.

"1) If O'Keefe had been following Wetmore's plan and didn't know Boudreau had been tipped off then he would not have told her he wanted to record their meeting. There would be no point to any of it if Boudreau knew she was being recorded."

You've said a variation of this statement a few times now and frankly it's about as weak as a baby kitten insofar as arguments for your case go. Okay, O'Keefe doesn't know that she's knows in this scenario. Hell, let's even say she doesn't know about the shady garbage he wanted to pull. He tells her at the car he wants to film her during their meeting. This means he couldn't have tried plan "Sleaze-E" why?

Your statement has been that she would now know that she's being recorded. That's only half true. She would in fact only know that she was being openly recorded at that time. The plan that was laid out called for overt cameras and hidden cameras on the boat.

Abbie Boudreau: "When I showed up, there was no office, as promised. Instead, he wanted to get me on a boat, which we later learned, was staged as a "pleasure palace." One of his colleagues, Izzy Santa, who was in Maryland that day, told me about the plan and stopped the punk before it happened.

Izzy told me he had "strawberries and champagne" waiting for me on the boat, and that he planned to "hit on me" the entire time. She said it would all be captured on hidden cameras that had been set up on the boat and in the back yard. She said the sole purpose of the "punk" was to embarrass me, and to make CNN look bad."

Your master stroke of defense for O'keefe only works in a world where O'Keefe cannot simply turn off the visible camera and put it down in a location that "guarantees" that he is no longer filming their encounter. Since he could in fact turn off the camera he would have been openly filming her with and use the hidden cams that the plan called for to film their little sleazy bit; your point is meaningless.

O'Keefe followed the pla... (Below threshold)
john:

O'Keefe followed the plan he laid out to Boudreau to meet privately. Your assumption that he was following some other plan is just that, an assumption.

What plan? The only plan known is the plan to punk her. Your magical creation of a second plan is the only thing that's an assumption here. You want "hard evidence before I make a judgment", but apparently you need none to invent alternative theories out of thin air. If O'Keefe wasn't planning to punk her, then what was the point of him initiating the request for the meeting? Where is his explanation of that?

Step 7 could have just as well been the private meeting Boudreau expected.

Except O'Keefe has not offered this mythical alternative step 7. Only you seem to think it exists. It's one thing to take him at his word, but that doesn't fly when it's actually your words instead.

The truth was right there for Boudreau to prove, but she pulled the plug without checking the boat.

Right, she was just told the boat was loaded with hidden cameras, so she should just walk on board anyway. Good one.

If she was afraid of O'Keefe she would have never agreed to meet with him privately in the first place, so why didn't she check out the boat?

You are aware that she was tipped off after agreeing to meet him, right? Your theory only makes sense if you ignore the timeline. Which you seem to have no problem doing.

Jerry Chandler,<block... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Jerry Chandler,

You've said a variation of this statement a few times now and frankly it's about as weak as a baby kitten insofar as arguments for your case go. Okay, O'Keefe doesn't know that she's knows in this scenario. Hell, let's even say she doesn't know about the shady garbage he wanted to pull. He tells her at the car he wants to film her during their meeting. This means he couldn't have tried plan "Sleaze-E" why?

Are you really that slow? Knowing she was being recorded there never would have been an opportunity to seduce her, and thus, your hidden camera nonsense evaporates into the thin air it came from.

Abbie Boudreau: "When I showed up, there was no office, as promised. Instead, he wanted to get me on a boat, which we later learned, was staged as a "pleasure palace."

People do have offices on boats. What Boudreau says she learned about it being a pleasure palace is from Santa and reading Wetmore's script, not firsthand which she had an opportunity to do, but didn't. So far there's not one scrap of hard evidence that there was anything but an office on that boat. Do try to separate fact from accusation.

Izzy told me he had "strawberries and champagne" waiting for me on the boat, and that he planned to "hit on me" the entire time.

Why the selective quote? The actual quote is "Izzy told me that James was going to be dressed up and have strawberries and champagne on the boat, and he was going to hit on me the whole time." Why did you drop the detail about James was going to be dressed up? Likely because Boudreau saw O'Keefe close up at the time and she didn't report anything about him being dressed up. Once again Boudreau words and O'Keefe actions don't match up with Wetmore's script.

I'm not denying that O'Keefe has built a sleazy reputation for himself, but I'm not giving CNN a pass given their own sleazy reputation and false reporting in relation to O'Keefe.

O'Keefe called Boudreau on the August 10th to set up the meeting with Boudreau. According to the CNN story "The phone call was recorded without Boudreau's knowledge, but CNN obtained a copy of the recording after O'Keefe e-mailed it to friends and colleagues." Obviously, CNN had an insider passing them information about O'Keefe's plans, and yet knowing O'Keefe's reputation "Boudreau agreed to the meeting, which she understood would be in his office." Anyone who believes Boudreau was innocently going to this meeting without expecting some tricks by O'Keefe and being prepared with her own tricks is in line to win the Nobel prize for gullibility.

Most of all, Wetmore's script depends on O'Keefe being able to seduce Abbie Boudreau. That's like writing a plan where the key element is O'Keefe winning big at a Los Vegas casino. Only the dumbest of the dumb would consider such a plan viable. Reading the plan Boudreau says "The plans appeared so outlandish and so juvenile in tone, I questioned whether it was part of a second attempted punk." Bingo! Time to think out of the box.

An alternative explanation that better fits the facts we now have is that O'Keefe was set up by his own crew, likely as a power grab by Izzy Santa and others. Maybe for personal reasons or maybe because they believe O'Keefe is a liability that hinders rather than helps their cause. There's more to this story than we yet know, but we'll only get to the truth if people remain skeptical of what they are being told. Obviously, skepticism and critical analysis are not your forte.

John, Wha... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

John,

What plan? The only plan known is the plan to punk her. Your magical creation of a second plan is the only thing that's an assumption here.

Are you part of a 4th grade writing class or what? What plan do you think Abbie Boudreau was expecting? Do you think she was following the plan to get punked? Try reading the CNN story and you'll find the plan O'Keefe called Boudreau on the August 10th to set up.

And then you go on to write 4 or 5 more paragraphs without your brain catching up to the fact that there must have been some other plan or Boudreau wouldn't have been there in the first place. Talk about slow...

"Are you really that slo... (Below threshold)
Jerry Chandler:

"Are you really that slow? Knowing she was being recorded there never would have been an opportunity to seduce her, and thus, your hidden camera nonsense evaporates into the thin air it came from."

Dude, you're the slow one here. You seem completely unable to comprehend basic facts. Your scenario was O'Keefe doesn't know she knows about the plan. You then state that he couldn't have intended to go through with the final step of the plan because he tells her he wants to film their meeting. You just don't seem to want to comprehend the simple idea that his stating he wants to record their meeting means nothing since all he has to do when the time comes to enter the rooms on the boat and start working on the plan is to turn off the camera he was openly using.

And the hidden cameras are nonsense pulled from thin air? I realize at this point that you're enjoying life in a fact free world about this matter, but the facts are that the hidden camera part of this came from both their plan and from the tipoff about what was about to be tried that Izzy Santa gave Boudreau.

"People do have offices on boats."

Except that he's done interviews from their offices before and the Project Veritas offices aren't on a boat. There's also the little fact of this email O'Keefe sent to several people he works with after he set the meeting.

"Getting Closer. Audio attached conversation with Abbie. What do you think of her reaction guys. She said she could do it Monday, Tuesday. Ben, you think I could get her on the boat?"

Kind of odd phrasing for just a simple meeting at the office. Less odd when you loo at Santa's statement.

"She doesn't know she is getting on a boat but rather James' office. James has staged the boat to be a palace of pleasure with all sorts of props, wants to have a bizarre sexual conversation with her. He wants to gag CNN."

Of course there is always the possibility that everyone else is a liar and O'Keefe is the only honest person here. Let's look at his website.

http://www.theprojectveritas.org/

Oh, look... He's still promoting his proven lies and debunked fraud of an ACORN video as factual journalism as the first thing you see on the site. Yeah, real honesty and character guy O'Keefe is.

O'Keefe was pulling another dumb stunt. It backfired on him again. Deal with it already.

"What Boudreau says she learned about it being a pleasure palace is from Santa and reading Wetmore's script, not firsthand which she had an opportunity to do, but didn't. So far there's not one scrap of hard evidence that there was anything but an office on that boat. Do try to separate fact from accusation."

The hard facts point to O'Keefe being a liar who was about to pull another one of his lame stunts. Again, deal with it already.

Why did you drop the detail about James was going to be dressed up?""

I dropped nothing. That's a direct copy and paste. as for the rest of your burbling...

"because Boudreau saw O'Keefe close up at the time and she didn't report anything about him being dressed up. Once again Boudreau words and O'Keefe actions don't match up with Wetmore's script."

You're clutching at straws now. The outline in the plan simply suggested that he "should" dress and appear in an essentially sleazy and ridiculous manner. The fact that O'Keefe didn't dress up like a stereotype out of a cheap softcore film likely so as to not tip off Boudreau doesn't change the fact that he was following every step of the plan in regards to getting her down for the meeting and on the boat as outlined in that plan.

Keep in mind that O'Keefe didn't really dress as a pimp or claim to be one and didn't really have his sidekick dress as a hooker or have her claim to be one for his ACORN fabrication. He did that after the fact and edited it in. He's not completely stupid and likely knows that looking like a stereotype from a bad 70s film will be a bit of a tipoff to his intended victim that something isn't quite right with the situation.

"but I'm not giving CNN a pass given their own sleazy reputation and false reporting in relation to O'Keefe."

Nice charge there. Try backing it with facts now. Show some CNN reporting where they falsely reported on O'Keefe. Everything they said about his ACORN fraud being a fraud was accurate. The only things they reported inaccurately about his stunt in Louisiana were things that everyone initially got wrong, including Fox News, in the early confusion over the story. But CNN, unlike O'Keefe and his website, addressed and corrected the errors and didn't continue to promote false information as fact.

"O'Keefe called Boudreau on the August 10th to set up the meeting with Boudreau. According to the CNN story "The phone call was recorded without Boudreau's knowledge, but CNN obtained a copy of the recording after O'Keefe e-mailed it to friends and colleagues." Obviously, CNN had an insider passing them information about O'Keefe's plans, and yet knowing O'Keefe's reputation "Boudreau agreed to the meeting, which she understood would be in his office." Anyone who believes Boudreau was innocently going to this meeting without expecting some tricks by O'Keefe and being prepared with her own tricks is in line to win the Nobel prize for gullibility."

Except that the article doesn't state that the timeline happened in the manner you pretend it did. They didn't say that they got the email before she went to meet with him. You want it to be that way since you need events to have happened that way so you can continue to defend O'Keefe. Again, your clutching at straws at this point and your desperation is showing.

"Most of all, Wetmore's script depends on O'Keefe being able to seduce Abbie Boudreau. That's like writing a plan where the key element is O'Keefe winning big at a Los Vegas casino. Only the dumbest of the dumb would consider such a plan viable. Reading the plan Boudreau says "The plans appeared so outlandish and so juvenile in tone, I questioned whether it was part of a second attempted punk." Bingo! Time to think out of the box."

No. All O'Keefe had to do was get her on the boat and around the props. All he had to do was put her in an embarrassing situation with enough footage to edit into another of his fabricated bits of "journalism" leak some of the footage. The plan was not to actually seduce her, it was to put her into the position where they could make her uncomfortable and get footage they could use to embarrass her and try to damage her credibility. So, no, your latest point doesn't mean a thing and is about as weak as your prior desperate defenses of the con artist.

"An alternative explanation that better fits the facts we now have is that O'Keefe was set up by his own crew, likely as a power grab by Izzy Santa and others. Maybe for personal reasons or maybe because they believe O'Keefe is a liability that hinders rather than helps their cause."

Right... That's why Izzy is now demoted but still on the payroll. She tried for a power grab and wanted to overthrow him and he kept her on just for the hell of it.

You believe in the JFK conspiracy and the 9/11 Truther nonsense as well, don't you.

"Obviously, skepticism and critical analysis are not your forte."

I do fine with them. I also obviously do better with common sense than you do as well. Now you just keep defending O'Keefe the Con Artist to the best of your meager abilities and the rest of us will continue to laugh at your closeted hero worship.

Mac, you really are stretch... (Below threshold)
john:

Mac, you really are stretching so hard that your desperation to defend O'Keefe is transparent. You're calling what O'Keefe said to Boudreau on the phone "the plan"?

"I just want to talk," O'Keefe told Boudreau on the phone. "I just want to have a, you know, meeting with you, and talk to you face to face about this. Because, I don't, I feel sort of, let's just say reserved about, about letting people into my sort of inner sanctum, about letting, letting people sort of take a glimpse into, into, behind the scenes, so that's why you know, I just feel more comfortable if it was just me and you and we just had a face-to-face meeting before I agree to, to let you guys come out and shoot the video shoot out there."

BTW, note the use of the phrase "inner sanctum", which comes directly from the sex plan. Oh, and name one member of his organization who confirms O'Keefe's intentions. Don't you think someone else would know if he was going to discuss letting CNN film them if he actually had a plan to do so?

I will leave you to your fantasy world. On this topic, even Fred Phelps has more supporters than you do.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy