Let's get this out of the way: James O'Keefe, the wannabe gotcha journalist who can't hide his punk stupidity, is a big, fat liar. If he directs his hidden camera at you, you can be sure that what turns up will be wildly edited and quickly discredited.

O'Keefe loves to go after liberal stalwarts: ACORN, NPR, voting and democracy. You know, basically things that aren't at all threats to anything other than the mindset that we're a center-right nation. In his latest stunt, he tried to "prove" that voting fraud was rampant, with dead people actually voting in the New Hampshire primary. Except....

With his last set of videos largely seen as meaningless and pathetic, his fundraising in shambles, and his allies leaving him in disgust, O'Keefe clearly hopes to press this non-issue to revive his standing in the conservative movement. As always, the Daily Caller is happy to help out, already trumpeting the "bombshell video" that they received "exclusively" from O'Keefe.

In the service of this aim, O'Keefe and associate Spencer Meads visited a number of polling locations during the January 10 New Hampshire primaries armed with hidden cameras. At each polling location, the videographer in question would approach a poll worker who was checking in voters and ask the poll worker if a recently deceased voter's name is on the rolls. When the poll worker, assuming that the right-wing operative is presenting themselves as that person, attempts to give them a ballot, the videographer says that they don't have their ID and leaves.[..]

But O'Keefe's claim [of rampant fraud] aside, there is simply no evidence that such fraud occurs more often then, say, community organizations are asked to help set up child sex rings. In a 2007 report, the Brennan Center for Justice reported that there are a "handful" of cases when votes have actually cast in the names of the deceased, compared to thousands of such allegations that ultimately proved fruitless.

Again, this whole conservative bugaboo demanding Voter ID to prevent voter fraud is a solution to a non-existent problem, and one that has been shown to actually prevent legitimate voting from taking place. But convicted parolee O'Keefe may have reached too far:

[E]lection law experts tell TPM that O’Keefe’s allies could face criminal charges on both the federal and state level for procuring ballots under false names, and that his undercover sting doesn’t demonstrate a need for voter ID laws at all.

Federal law bans not only the casting of, but the “procurement” of ballots “that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held.”

Hamline University law professor David Schultz told TPM that there’s “no doubt” that O’Keefe’s investigators violated the law.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (231)

PLAYS: (1684)

Embed

James O'Keefe could use a few lessons in logic. He was so determined to get his "big scoop" on voter fraud that he may have had his goons commit voter fraud in order to prove it.

TPM Muckraker:

It was one of the few — if not the only — coordinated efforts to attempt in-person voter fraud, and it was pulled off by affiliates of conservative activist James O’Keefe at polling places in New Hampshire Tuesday night. All of it part of an attempt to prove the need for voter ID laws that voting rights experts say have a unfair impact on minority voters.

Now election law experts tell TPM that O’Keefe’s allies could face criminal charges on both the federal and state level for procuring ballots under false names, and that his undercover sting doesn’t demonstrate a need for voter ID laws at all.

Federal law bans not only the casting of, but the “procurement” of ballots “that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held.”

It still amazes me that O'Keefe is allowed to do this as a tax-exempt entity. Here is how he describes his "sting" operation on the YouTube page with the published video:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (885)

PLAYS: (4794)

Embed

The thing about joining up with other people to scam someone is that you need to give them some of the credit for the scam or else they get ticked off and start talking. That is precisely what is happening to James O'Keefe right now. It seems his partners in scamming NPR are upset over O'Keefe snatching the limelight away from them, and are talking to Howard Kurtz about it.

The Daily Beast:

As the world would soon learn, Simon Templar had secretly recorded National Public Radio executives saying disparaging things about conservatives by passing himself off as Ibrahim Kasaam of the Muslim Education Action Center. He had even gotten a phone call with Vivian Schiller, NPR’s chief executive.

James O’Keefe, the man behind the undercover project, wanted to make the hidden-camera video public immediately last February as Congress debatedwhether to kill NPR’s funding. Templar insisted on waiting, and a confrontation ensued.

Templar insisted on waiting because, well, he didn't really have anything, and he was planning to up the ante and rope in other organizations.

Templar grew a beard and dyed his hair dark for the sting. After the lunch, Templar and Adeleye wanted to stick with the plan of approaching other media outlets and academic institutions to expose their purported hypocrisy.

But O'Keefe was in need of something to bolster his incredibly deserved bad reputation, and insisted they release it immediately.

But Templar says O’Keefe told him the video had to be released within three days because he was in touch with sources in Congress and a vote was about to be taken on a budget resolution that could eliminate federal funding of NPR. O’Keefe said he had been assured that "this story would push it over the edge,” according to Templar.

“James was insistent … My position was that trying to beat that deadline was not only futile but irrelevant, even if the desire was to directly prompt the defunding of NPR,” Templar says. “The only result would be an extremely slipshod product.”

So there you have it. O'Keefe was in touch with members of Congress who let him know that they were voting on whether to defund NPR, and he was happy to provide them with ammunition. For O'Keefe it was a win-win proposition, given that NPR executives reacted with extreme cowardice and fired Vivian Schiller and Ron Schiller summarily, despite the fact that they didn't do or say anything particularly wrong.

I've always wondered who the money is behind O'Keefe. He's been well-funded and now has the shield of a tax-exempt organization to receive large, tax-deductible contributions. This paragraph might give a clue:

The next day, according to Templar, O’Keefe and others on the team held a conference call with conservative fundraiser Richard Viguerie, whose firm was retained to send out financial appeals for O’Keefe’s nonprofit group, Project Veritas.

Oh, Richard Viguerie. Ron Paul fanboy and Howard Phillips buddy. Member of the mysterious Council for National Policy (CNP). That Richard Viguerie. He and his buddies made sure James O'Keefe survived to smear another day, courtesy of his buddies in the conservative cabal.

What a motley bunch of people these folks are. James O'Keefe is a perfect standard-bearer.

Previously on Hell's Kitchen my C&L blog, I cooked an absolutely stunning beef wellington wrote about the disturbing trend of Americans being arrested for filming cops.

I happen to be one of the unfortunate saps who's been put in the slam simply for pointing a camera at police. So without further ado, here's the second installment of my own private police state...

“They got me on some straight-up bull----, son!” exclaimed the kid sitting next to me in the bullpen at the Erie County Holding Center. “What they get you on?”

“I shot a cop,” I growled, shooting him an icy stare. “And I’d do it again.”

“Son?!” His face froze in delighted dismay. “Real? That f----- dead?!”

“I really doubt it.”

“Jablaow!” he mimicked a gunshot, aiming his hand at the mucus-encrusted, blood-smeared brick wall.

“What’d you use–a nine, forty-five…”

“A Sony Handycam,” I said with the unflinching nerve of a coldblooded videographer. “It’s the same kind James O’Keefe uses; he told me himself.”

“James who, f-----?” he balked. “Pfft! You on some f-----’ camera shit, son?”

“Yeah,” I said. “I shot a video of a cop.”

“Pfft! That ain’t no law, son. Somebody need to tell them motherfuckers!” he hollered, slapping the cold, metal bench. “We all in here on some bull----!”

***
Bunting swung by my place at about 2pm and we headed to the demonstration downtown. The New York Marriage Equality Act went into effect the previous evening, and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) was protesting gay marriage throughout the state, for reasons of a religious and hate-filled nature. We wanted to cover the event properly, so we brought along a video camera, a couple bibles, and a massive latex dildo/microphone. The jiggly kind is best for serious journalism.

We circled the block a few times, parked and walked over to the growing crowd at Niagara Square. To our surprise (and because most had been bused in from out of state), the delusional NOM bigots totaled about 250. The righteous counter-protesters were only about a dozen strong. As press, we moved among both factions, asking questions.

“The bible says nothing about gay marriage,” I told a NOM supporter, “and marriage invariably results in less sex, so wouldn’t it stand to reason that, as a Christian, you should support gay marriage?” He was confused.
“Would it be fair to say that you’re doing The Lord’s work here today?” I pressed him. After much squirming, “Yes,” was his answer. I pointed to the bible, politely informed him that he shouldn’t be working on the Sabbath, and told him he was going to hell. It’s in the bible.

We also talked to this hayseed who subsists, ostensibly, on moneys derived from the Tooth Fairy. In a hill-folk whistle, he claimed to be “a low-level politician.” He had glossy, moonshine eyes. And dementia, possibly. “They took our rights!” he claimed. I didn’t bother to ask how.

“Your pants are clearly a poly-cotton blend,” I informed him. “You’re going to hell. It’s in the bible.”

The crowd started chanting, “Let the people vote!” Because social conservatives are not allowed to vote for governor or state legislature. Then they started singing; it was pretty gay. “How great is our God?” went the seemingly endless refrain. Not great enough to stop gay marriage which, for an omnipotent being, should have been pretty easy. One would imagine.

“This here’s a chocolate protest,” I heard one woman say to another. Indeed, most of the NOM supporters were black and, apparently, incapable of detecting the historic irony in their prejudice.

“Excuse me, ma’am,” I beckoned one lady. “Are you menstruating?”

“Well, this is what this is all about,” she inexplicably answered.

I was like, “Whaaaa?”

“He’s trying to say you’re unclean,” her husband chimed in.

“It’s in the bible,” I said. “You’re going to hell.”

She then claimed that the New Testament was her guiding principle. I quickly shot back that in Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus said he didn’t come to change the law. Bunting had made a note of this in anticipation of her predictable nonsense. He spends his spare time studying apologetics. I prefer to stab at my eyes with needles. But to each his own–unless it impinges on the rights of others.

We lingered on the outskirts of the protest. Bunting taped while I interviewed. I snagged a beardy bible-humper, but the noise of the rally was ruining our audio, so I broke out the dildophone. “How do you define marriage?” I asked him, waving the wobbly latex member near his face.

“I hope someone does this to your child,” he said, slowly slinking away.

Continue reading »

One of the slimiest things about the Right Online convention is that they make a point of planning their event in the same city as Netroots Nation. It's not enough to bring together conservative bloggers and politicians together, creating some nexus of unspeakable evil, but they have to do it withing taunting distance of progressive bloggers. That's why Andrew Breitbart can troll around the convention entrance and my friend and radio host Nicole Sandler can find none other than James O'Keefe hanging out in the hotel lobby.

O'Keefe, accompanied by some fawning male friends, agreed to sit down with Nicole Sandler to "have a conversation." I'm not sure any conversing happened, and by the smug smile on O'Keefe's face, that was probably by design. Admittedly, trying to make herself heard over the din of the lobby traffic, Nicole did sound increasingly agitated, which is of course, exactly what O'Keefe sought. Notice how carefully he parses his answers (or rather, non-answers) on his conviction for entering Sen. Mary Landrieu's office, dressed as a telephone repairman. As part of his plea deal, the government stated that O'Keefe and his colleagues were going to pretend to "test the phone system" rather than tampering with her phones, as had been originally reported. That's not to say that's the full truth of what happened, merely what O'Keefe and the feds mutually agreed to charge him and he plea guilty to.

But O'Keefe will stick to his lessened and lightened version of the story, because it suits. Just like the "posing as a pimp" story suits, even though it ignores the manipulation that edited tape had.

Because in the end, it's not about the truth for O'Keefe. It's about a partisan agenda, and he will do anything and violate any ethical (and criminal) code to achieve it.

enlarge

Credit: Bradblog

James O'Keefe has had a mixed blessings week. The IRS has granted his ridiculously hacky "investigative" group C3 (non-profit) status.

In its application, Project Veritas said it planned to pursue as many as a half-dozen journalism projects and conduct five two- to three-day training sessions for people interested in learning how to do such projects on their own. “I can’t tell you the secret sauce of it, but we do have a training method,” Mr. O’Keefe said. “There are many people learning this method and learning how to expose abusive power in creative ways.”

He said he would work as the organization’s “muckraker in chief,” for which he will be paid about $120,000 a year, according to the group’s application.

It raised $2,367 last year, according to the filing, and expects that figure to grow to $1.65 million over the next three years, though Mr. O’Keefe described that as “a sort of dream.” The group has hired a firm led by Richard Viguerie, a conservative strategist, to help it raise money.

Charities are constrained by law from participating in lobbying and political campaigns, and in response to a question posed by the I.R.S., Project Veritas specifically said it had no plans to lobby on behalf of specific legislation.“We’re designed to expose malfeasance, waste, fraud and corruption, to expose things for what they are,” Mr. O’Keefe said. “That’s not policy work, that’s educational work.”

Jeffrey S. Tenenbaum, a lawyer specializing in nonprofit matters, looked at the Project Veritas Web site and said he could see nothing that would cause the group to run afoul of the rules on politicking.

I don't know, seems to me that illegal acts like attempting to break and enter into Sen. Mary Landrieu's office for the purpose of illegally wiretapping her and whatever creepy plans he had with CNN journalist Abbie Boudreau on the boat might have tipped off the IRS that O'Keefe deserves no such classification. It's not his partisanship; Heritage Foundation is a C3 organization too. It's his fast and loose playing with ethics and rules that should work against him.

But luckily for all of us, a federal judge is not so easily persuaded by O'Keefe's machinations. O'Keefe and his partner Hannah Giles are being sued in San Diego by ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera. Giles previously tried to get out of the suit by claiming that all the recording was done by O'Keefe and she was there merely as a prop. O'Keefe, for his part, claimed that his First Amendment right as a "citizen journalist" absolved him of liability. The judge didn't buy either argument. Bradblog:

According to Maria Dinzeo of Courthouse News Service: Juan Carlos Vera claimed James O'Keefe III and Hannah Giles visited his office in August 2009, and conspired to create video and audio tapes of him, even after asking him if their conversation would be confidential.
...
[Lorenz ruled] that the law "is directed to the surreptitious recording of confidential communications and not the manner or method of recording the conversation." Given the meaning of the word "record," Lorenz found Giles equally responsible.

Lorenz also rejected O'Keefe's motion for judgment on the pleadings, in which he argued that First Amendment protections for journalists supersede the California Privacy Act. Since there was a mutual understanding that the conversation was confidential, Lorenz found that the privacy law "is not an overbroad intrusion on exposé newsgathering in which O'Keefe participates."

"Exposé newsgathering" is not what O'Keefe traffics in, as demonstrated again most recently by, ironically enough, the "news" website of Fox "News" host Glenn Beck after a similarly deceptive and secretly video taped smear of an NPR employee by O'Keefe last March.

But O'Keefe's long track record of deceptive video hit-jobs was not at issue in this particular legal argument.

In his ruling [PDF], Judge Lorenz highlighted specific portions of the CA law which is violated by "Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication."

The ruling goes on to further cite the statute which reads "The term 'confidential communication' includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto."

"California's law is quite clear," Lorenz wrote in response to the First Amendment arguments by O'Keefe and Giles, "that persons who engage in news gathering are not permitted to violate criminal laws in the process."

Now the question remains if the IRS will continue to allow Project Veritas (a misnomer if ever there was one) its C3 status with a convicted criminal at its helm.

In The Cinema, the edit is a delicate dance. A nonlinear two-step with the time/space continuum, fueled by vision, culminating in self-revelation. "THAT," the editor says at last, "is what played out in my mind. Now my fever dream belongs to the world."

James O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart are lousy human beings. Their misanthropic, race-baiting fantasies, when writ large on the screen, are an ugly mirror image of humanity's darkest side. Where some people might use the tools of the motion picture industry to create art, they use them to hurt the poor, minorities, and boons to society.

To sum up: The Jerks of the world have learned to use iMovie.*

So, what a rush. What a feeling. To see that James O'Keefe is begging for money.** It's sweet on so many levels. It suggests that while Tea Party-types embrace all sorts of incoherent political narratives, even they have some standards for basic competence. Often working in concert with Breitbart and this super-awesome moral genius, the cheap cons O'Keefe perpetrates are self-imploding--once someone learns you edit like the creepy, soulless, self-entitled fraud your work reveals you to be, credibility is out the window and you're cold-calling for cash.***

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

*NOTE TO JOHN AMATO: Hi, John! Just wanted to let you know that if, Huffpo-style, you feel the need to sanction me for these clearly ad hominem attacks, I do understand. Please know it's not just petty name-calling--it's from the bottom of my heart. I really, really think James O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart are crap-ass examples of our species. Also: they suck eggs.

**Fifty-thousand per video? FIFTY-THOUSAND PER VIDEO? Have you SEEN his videos?

***Seriously. FIFTY-THOUSAND DOLLARS PER VID? For THAT? What's his biggest production expense, the drunken gibbon who holds the camera or the Klansman who does the edit? Whatevs, man.

Fox News has now lost their perch as most trusted news in the PPP's newest survey. However, since PBS wasn't polled last year, I'd say they never had that distinction in the first place.

Raw Story:
In the space of one year, Fox News has lost its perch as the most trusted TV news network in the US and is now average at best, a new survey has found.

A poll gauging public trust in TV news has found that PBS is the most trusted name in news, while trust in Fox News has dropped significantly.

According to a survey from Public Policy Polling, "a year ago a plurality of Americans said they trusted Fox News. Now a plurality of them don't."

In a survey taken a year ago, PPP found that Fox was the most trusted news network, with 49 percent saying they trusted the network, and 37 percent saying they did not. In the new poll, 42 percent said they trusted the network while 46 percent disagreed.

The new reigning champion is PBS, which was not included in last year's inaugural poll. The public broadcaster was found to be trusted by 50 percent of respondents, and distrusted by 30 percent -- the closest any news network has come to gaining the trust of a majority of Americans.

Fox News has found itself in roughly the same place, trust-wise, as NBC and CNN, but still above ABC and CBS, who were trusted by 35 and 36 percent, respectively, in the latest poll.

PPP notes that trust in the network declined only marginally among conservatives, from 75 percent to 72 percent. "But moderates and liberals have both had a strong increase in their level of distrust for the network -- a 12-point gain from 48 percent to 60 percent for moderates and a 16-point gain from 66 percent to 82 percent for liberals," the institute reported...read on

They lost 12 points of trust with moderates. As Digby says, who are these people? Anyway, it's good to see some people understanding the truth, but it's really taken a lot of crazy-town to convince them and as the election draws near, the amount of crazy will surely rise to incredible heights.

enlarge

Credit: jezebel

James O'Keefe the Pimp!

I know conservative flim-flam artists will not abide. Here's a reminder to PBS and their staff and brass: Beware being O'Keefe'd.

The guy even took a slimy shot at CNN. What did they ever do to him? I mean, CNN even does its best to support the Tea Party. PBS, just remember the pimp.

Hypocrisy, O'Keefe is thy middle name:

Conservative activist James O’Keefe, who has gained notoriety for his hidden-camera stings of NPR executives, ACORN employees, teacher unions, and CNN reporters, gave a speech to a New Jersey Tea Party group today. The Asbury Park Press reports that O’Keefe had only one condition: that his speech not be videotaped in any way. A representative for the Tea Party group told a photojournalist from the Press that she didn’t agree with O’Keefe’s order, but explained that “This is a guy that’s in trouble with the law, he’s got lawsuits up the gazoo for trying to help you with your freedom.”

ThinkProgress' George Zornick quotes O'Keefe's speech, wherein he says:

"It all goes back to one fundamental principle — and that is to make (the media and public officials) live up to their own book of rules. If you want to call out a hypocrite, the best way to do that is look at how he lives his life."

Quoth the guy who tried to lure a CNN reporter onto his Loooove Boat.

DOWNLOADS: (901)

PLAYS: (643)

Embed

The Republicans' assault on public broadcasting touches something near and dear to my heart. Both my television and my car radio are likely to be tuned to a public broadcasting station as anything else. Wanting to defund such treasures as Terry Gross' Fresh Air or Sesame Street just smacks of the ongoing campaign to dumb down the populace, much like their oh-so-reasonable suggestion to "teach the controversy" of creationism vs. evolution. So I find myself feeling very protective of public broadcasting...especially when Breitbart's stooge James O'Keefe decided to take his puerile and staged flip cam aim at it.

You would think that the Beltway crowd would circle their wagons around one of their own when O'Keefe started up with his antics, especially given his past history. But no, even the damn NPR talent themselves distance themselves. How frickin' sad that even Glenn Beck's Blaze blog takes a more skeptical eye than its own employees.

No one--not a single person--on Chris Matthews' program bothers to add this critical little bit of context to discussing NPR's bias. No one points out that absolutely NOTHING O'Keefe alleges should be taken credibly. Seriously, if he says the sky is blue, one ought to go outside to check. No one points out that PBS and NPR only count federal funding as less than 5% of the whole, but that smaller, rural stations will be greatly affected by the cuts, thereby making Schiller's statement factually true, if a bit tactless. No one points out that the "explosive" charges O'Keefe are so much less than explosive when looked at in full context.

Nope, all that is taken at face value (a measure of respect that should not ever be given to O'Keefe, Breitbart, et al--EVER), and instead the media pushes the ridiculous narrative of PBS being "elitist" and "liberal".

I'm sorry, but any channel that no longer employs Bill Moyers, but continues to give a platform to John McLaughlin & Co can hardly be called "liberal elitists". Media Matters has compiled a list of conservative commentators and pundits who claim that they consider NPR's editorial coverage "fair". Apparently, "fair" is the new "liberal elitist" for Tweety and panel, thus coloring their own editorial slants as something less than that.

Transcripts (courtesy of Heather) below the fold

Continue reading »