Wednesday, January 27, 2010

James O’Keefe Arrested in Phone Tampering at Landrieu Office

Federal officials charged four men on Tuesday with plotting to pose as telephone technicians and tamper with the telephone system in the New Orleans office of Senator Mary Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana. One of the men was a filmmaker who gained fame last year by secretly recording members of the community group Acorn giving him advice on how to set up a brothel.

The charges seem to be kind of a stretch, unless they implicated themselves by telling the feds that it was their intent to tamper with the phones.....otherwise it's just a tresspassing case, but either way, a bad move. I am staying neutral. The men involved in what took place need to be heard in court.

On the other hand, if there were no wire tapping devices to be found, then that makes such claims false – why am I not surprised that the usual suspects will make these false assumptions?

There could be a good case for the three attempting to investigate why it is that Landrieu’s constituents cannot reach her office. In other words, Landrieu and her office staff have tampered with the phones so that no one can get through. This might indeed explain why they used the cell phone to try and reach the office phone.

It is best not to get those knickers in a twist over this matter until it is resolved in the courts.

There is more than O’Keefe involved and all of the young men have their own reputations to consider.

What is different about this attempt to get at a truth and that of a 60 minutes reporter who goes under cover to give some really dodgy story in a kangaroo court environment?

We should not be talking about the case until it is resolved. But my money is betting that this story is way exaggerated.

2 comments:

  1. You said "We should not be talking about his case until it is resolved".

    So why are you talking about it ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. He's reporting it friend, then briefly giving his thoughts (did you read the name of the blog?). He then arrived at that conclusion in the next-to-last sentence.

    ReplyDelete