NBC's Pete Williams offers an explanation for the attempted phone tampering at Sen. Landrieu's office attempted by ACORN stinger James O'Keefe:
A law enforcement official says the four men arrested for attempting to tamper with the phones in the New Orleans office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) were not trying to intercept or wiretap the calls.
Instead, the official says, the men, led by conservative videomaker James O'Keefe, wanted to see how her local office staff would respond if the phones were inoperative. They were apparently motivated, the official says, by criticism that when Sen. Landrieu became a big player in the health care debate, people in Louisiana were having a hard time getting through on the phones to register their views.
That is, the official says, what led the four men to pull this stunt -- to see how the local staffers would react if the phones went out. Would the staff just laugh it off, or would they express great concern that local folks couldn't get through?
Patterico had linked to that very coverage in an Update, then mentioned it again:
What was he doing? I don’t know. You might look at UPDATE x4 to my initial post about this, and consider the story linked there. Which has to do with Landrieu’s phones being “jammed” over calls coming in regarding her position on health care:
“We were stunned to learn that so many phone calls to Sen. Landrieu have been unanswered and met with continuous busy signals,” Perkins said. “We asked them to call their senators. They could get through to Sen. Vitter, but not Sen. Landrieu.”
“Our lines have been jammed for weeks, and I apologize,” Landrieu said in interview after giving a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday. “But no amount of jamming is going to keep me from supporting a good work for Louisiana and the nation.”
Just sayin’.
Well, that's their story. Maybe.
If one of the four flips and says " yeah, we were gonna disable the phones," they're in trouble and they plead to a misdemeanor. No jail.
If all they wanted to do was see if they got a dial tone when they picked up, and get some firsthand video of what happens when they call on their cellphone, community service.
Purely guessing, of course.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 28, 2010 at 12:35 AM
But, now that the story has been put out there by the left wing media as "Republican attempts to wiretap Democrat," the media will not push to let people know the reality.
Posted by: William Teach | January 28, 2010 at 09:17 AM
I think the agent got it wrong, remember he wasn't there.
I can't believe these well educated young men thought it was ok to disable a phone line, I think they were checking to see if line was disabled.
we'll find out soon enough
Posted by: windansea | January 28, 2010 at 09:23 AM
Ahh, memories of Fitzmas. Still no Cheney (Dick or Liz), they weren't happy with the scooter they got.
Is anyone surprised or even slightly disturbed that our federal watchdogs were apparently running a sting on O'Keefe, but couldn't find the time to put the pantybomber on the terrorist watch list after his own father called to warn them he was planning jihad?
Patterico is right. This is a nothingburger. Worse than a nothingburger from left-progressive political perspective, O'Keefe could just wind up a martyr of the right.
This smells like the Duke rape case.
Posted by: Angry Dumbo | January 28, 2010 at 09:46 AM
If they in fact were going to disable the phone line, the 1362 charge will stick. But it's worth noting that this is the story from law enforcement (which not surprisingly backs up the official complaint). If the object was to something else (e.g., demonstrate there was nothing physical wrong with the phone lines--and thus that Landrieu's excuse was actually reluctance to talk to constituents), it's hard to see how there was a crime at all.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 28, 2010 at 10:33 AM
Ever seen a affidavit with paraphrasing, or is
the AP working at the FBI now
Posted by: narciso | January 28, 2010 at 10:35 AM
I can't believe these well educated young men thought it was ok to disable a phone line, I think they were checking to see if line was disabled.
That's sorta my guess, too. And I'm betting the guy with the "device to receive communications" or whatever, had a hand held walkie-talkie so they could contact him easily to make a call to see if they had it right.
Posted by: Pofarmer | January 28, 2010 at 10:55 AM
Don't all wiretappers walk into occupied bldgs in clear daylight with lots of people around to do their work?
Posted by: clarice | January 28, 2010 at 10:59 AM
If the government's version of the story is true wouldn't that mean that anybody and everybody in Landrieu's office would be called to testify about the state of the phone system? At least by the defense if not by the prosecution.
Obviously if the phone system was already inoperative, then it would be hard to interfere with it.
If Landrieu's staff had altered the phone system in any way (in the past or otherwise) Landrieu's office may just want this to drop.
My guess, this never gets to trial, and people on the left will be accusing O'Keefe of wiretapping a Senator's office for the rest of his life.
Posted by: ARC: Brian | January 28, 2010 at 11:36 AM
"...it's hard to see how there was a crime at all."
Except for the false-pretenses misdemeanor, which is sure as hell not going to be tried.
"Manipulating" the phone may well have consisted of, say, pushing a button to get an outside line.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 28, 2010 at 12:01 PM
My guess, this never gets to trial, and people on the left will be accusing O'Keefe of wiretapping a Senator's office for the rest of his life.
Ditto.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 28, 2010 at 12:31 PM
"Manipulating" the phone may well have consisted of, say, pushing a button to get an outside line.
I think its simpler than that DOT, since the agent specifically says WITNESS 1 saw him manipulate the handset.
Why use the word handset in your affidavit?
My guess he was checking for dialtone. And if thats manipulation.....
Posted by: ARC: Brian | January 28, 2010 at 12:41 PM
The over/under on number of days before the Feds throw this out or arraign is now 35 here at the JiB Casino and Fortune Telling Club.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 28, 2010 at 12:44 PM
Except for the false-pretenses misdemeanor, which is sure as hell not going to be tried.
If the public is allowed free access to the building (which I continue to presume is correct), then it's hard to see how a false pretense charge can stand.
If access is free, "Whoever, by any fraud or false pretense, enters or attempts to enter" simply doesn't apply.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 28, 2010 at 01:10 PM
here's what they should have done if they were trying to prove the public office phone line was off the hook or always busy.
walk into office
Hi, I've been calling for days, line always busy, something wrong with your phones?
If they say no, just dial the number from your cell and if busy signal and phone isn't ringing tell the receptionist, ask for manager etc
all the while filming with a spy camera in your hat or shirt button.
pretty easy and not illegal
Posted by: windansea | January 28, 2010 at 01:32 PM
But if they're wearing hard hats, tool belts and orange vests it would be illegal?
Posted by: boris | January 28, 2010 at 02:37 PM
Did they look like the Village People telephone guys or like ==um==actual ones?
*I'm thinking this over.***
Posted by: clarice | January 28, 2010 at 02:51 PM
But if they're wearing hard hats, tool belts and orange vests it would be illegal?
the supposed illegal act was entering under false premises, saying they were from tel company (if they did indeed say that)
walking in as a citizen and asking about busy lines, calling line from cell phone while in office etc is not entering under false premises.
Posted by: windansea | January 28, 2010 at 03:10 PM
"if they did indeed say that"
Where did I claim they did? The setup was what you said plus hard hat, tool belt and orange vest.
Posted by: boris | January 28, 2010 at 03:27 PM
For the sake of argument let's assume O'Keefe was smart enough to video exactly what was said and what happened. In my scenario, no false pretense, unmarked Village People costume only.
Posted by: boris | January 28, 2010 at 03:31 PM
. . . the supposed illegal act was entering under false premises . . .
The quote above is from the statute. You have to enter by fraud or false pretense. Still don't see how that can be the case if they'd have let you in anyway.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 28, 2010 at 03:43 PM
ok the affidavit sez
"the individuals did so by falsely and fraudulently representing that they were employees of a telephone company"
all I am saying is they could have done the sting without any false representations, as I described above.
Posted by: windansea | January 28, 2010 at 04:01 PM
I think we have to have more than the affidavit to make a decent judgment, frankly. I don't put a great deal of faith in FBI affidavits after the you know who's trial.
Posted by: clarice | January 28, 2010 at 04:09 PM
(possible repost)
"falsely and fraudulently representing ..."
By manner of dress?
Again ... scenario = O'Keefe has audio and video. "Hi, We'd like to check if something is wrong with your phones"
No false claim, costume only.
Posted by: boris | January 28, 2010 at 04:10 PM
Unless they entered an area restricted to the public by use of the false representation, it doesn't fit under this statute.
Telling fibs is generally not a crime.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 28, 2010 at 04:11 PM
Rank speculation alert:
I can't figure how they thought they would exit the building without being arrested. My drawn conclusion is that they were at least willing to accept that outcome.
I think they will dispute that they represented themselves as repair men directly. The costumes were Village People for sure and O'Keefe's video/audio will provide a transcript of what was said. I'll bet their words were carefully chosen.
Was the larger goal drawing the office staff into legal jeopardy for tampering with the phones? What would be the point of that unless Landrieu could be implicated in it or a related matter?
Blazingly stupid or bold? Probably a little of both. I look forward to their explanation.
Posted by: scott | January 28, 2010 at 04:33 PM
This is kind of interesting:
Breitbart vs Shuster
Shuster is a real.......
Posted by: glasater | January 28, 2010 at 05:19 PM
No false claim, costume only.
so you think they used sign language?
come on, they didn't just walk in and start picking up telephones
the affidavit also states they admitted they weren't telephone repair men and that they entered under false pretenses
parsing words is fun but until we have more to go on I'll reference the affidavit.
if it's a pack of lies their attorney will have a field day.
Posted by: windansea | January 28, 2010 at 06:10 PM
A lawyer for one of four conservative activists accused of tampering with a Louisiana senator's phones says they hoped to embarrass her over claims her staff ignored calls critical of her stance on health care reform.
J. Garrison Jordan is an attorney for suspect Robert Flanagan. He denies the men sought to disable or wiretap the phones in Sen. Mary Landrieu's office at a federal building in New Orleans.
Jordan said Thursday they were trying to document allegations that Landrieu's staff has been ignoring phone calls about the Democratic senator's health care position.
Posted by: windansea | January 28, 2010 at 06:32 PM
The Marxist Rot....The House of Kennedy 1962
AFSCME, NEA, SEIU
Posted by: Army of Davids | January 28, 2010 at 06:34 PM
parsing words is fun but until we have more to go on I'll reference the affidavit.
The law is the part that doesn't fit. Unless I'm missing something, it's not illegal to walk into a federal building, nor to walk into a senator's office.
The law in question makes it illegal to enter various places by pretense, and specifies things like aircraft and vessels, and restricted areas of airports. It would seem to me to apply to things like claiming to be a pilot to get into the restricted area or on a plane, or a ship's officer to board a vessel, or a clown to visit Bozo (okay, made that last one up). It doesn't apply to things like visiting a public office of a senator.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 28, 2010 at 07:26 PM
I seem to recall a reporters' sting on Capitol Hill years ago where a couple of guys pretended they were sheikhs trying to buy off Congressmen..They came close to burning Gaylord Nelson and I forget who else but I don't remember anyone talked about prosecuting THEM.
Posted by: clarice | January 28, 2010 at 07:35 PM
"until we have more to go on I'll reference the affidavit"
I called it a scenario because it was your "pretty easy and not illegal ... what they should have done" only while wearing a hard hat, tool belt, and vest. IOW not claiming that's exactly what happened anymore than yours was.
Posted by: boris | January 28, 2010 at 08:32 PM
24 year old Robert Flanagan, son of the acting US Attorney for Western LA, William Flanagan (Senator Vitter Held Up Acting U.S. Attorney Flanagan’s Replacement) will more than likely get a plea deal and turn on The other three, too bad.
Posted by: Milton | January 28, 2010 at 09:45 PM
a Federal prosecutor post at Pattericos
It is also now being reported, as Patterico’s post from last night indicates, that law enforcement officials are saying that O’Keefe and the others intended to, in some manner, disable Landrieu’s phone system in an effort to see how Landrieu’s staff would react to the fact that constituents couldn’t get through, and to possibly capture that reaction and their comments on video.
If that is true — and I’m not convinced that the press is accurately reporting what they are being told — then O’Keefe and the others have a serious problem under Section 1362. No defense of “public interest” or “journalism” is going to get them out from under an effort to disable a Senator’s phone system, IF it is true that they intended to do that when they entered the building and her offices.
On the other hand, if their only purpose was to demonstrate on video that the current state of the phone system was that it was working or not working, and their intent was to return later with that video to press the Senator or her staff on their claim that constituents were unable to get through to her because her phone system was not functioning properly, then I would not be surprised if no indictment was filed — or if something is filed, that it is a charge under Subsection (b)(2) of Section 1036, which would be a misdemeanor. A conviction under that section would likely result in a fine and probation.
Posted by: windansea | January 29, 2010 at 11:01 AM
If that is true — and I’m not convinced that the press is accurately reporting what they are being told . . .
The question is not whether the press is reporting it accurately; obviously that is the LEO story, because the affidavit says precisely the same thing. The question is whether or not the LEOs are correct (I suspect they aren't).
I'd like an opinion on whether or not 1036 applies in space open to public access . . . but I suspect a prosecutor is going to say "yes" whether he's right or not.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 29, 2010 at 11:30 AM
BigGovernment just posted a statement from O'Keefe here.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 29, 2010 at 11:36 AM
BigGovernment just posted a statement from O'Keefe here.
If that statement is correct (and it fits with the known facts better than any previous version), then I can't see any crime at all. As O'Keefe states, you can't break in to an office that's open to the public.
I'm not completely sure about a 1036b2 charge for the GSA office or telephone closet, if those are restricted and they entered (or attempted to enter). But that seems to me both extremely weak and a stretch of the law. Besides, if that were going to be the charge, you'd think it would have been prominent in the affidavit (instead of "the office and telephone system of United States Senator Mary Landrieu"). If the GSA office is also open to the public, then it seems to me they've got bupkus.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 29, 2010 at 11:59 AM
I bet they will be offered to cop to a misdemeanor with no jail time, community service.
If they fight it can the busy phones in the office be brought out in discovery?
Posted by: windansea | January 29, 2010 at 12:06 PM
Officials said: "the men, led by conservative videomaker James O'Keefe, wanted to see how her local office staff would respond if the phones were inoperative."
So they meant to DISABLE the Senator's telephone. This is worse than wiretapping.
FELONY!!!
Posted by: dee | January 29, 2010 at 04:15 PM
"See ya in court" should be what O'Keefe asks for. He's entited to a defense. The attorneys will get priceless exposure. And, this will be like the LaCrosse team discovering NIFONG's weakness. And, if you followed that story you know Nifong's been disbarred.
O'Keefe was performing another public service. However, the staff in Landau's office thought they spotted O'Keefe, and they used their clout to call in the FBI.
Wait till there's discovery. And, the lawyers call in the staff to discuss how they dealt with the unanswered constituent phone calls. Already got the senator stepping up to the plate on that what.
Busy signals are also something those trying to make the phone calls are also aware of.
Sure. The Heath Care Bill bites the dust. 2200 pages. Focusing on this Bill is what brought Scott Brown into office.
You know Kirk keeps voting. While the the GOP is bypassing making a "federal case" out of not seating Brown.
Excuses. Excuses. But the courtoom, even with a politically handicapped judge, still brings sunshine. And,just like Judge Ito played to the cameras, I don't think the prosecutors are gonna get O'Keefe to "cut a deal."
There's book deals, ahead, too. And, Breitbart already got Schuster to look like a fool.
This is a good story for the Internet.
Posted by: Carol Herman | January 29, 2010 at 10:32 PM
There's very limited discovery in criminal cases, but as a defense they could call in witnesses to this , they can subpoena witnesses and can cross examine any witnesses the govt produces in an effort to elicit these facts.
Posted by: clarice | January 29, 2010 at 10:47 PM