7 Responses

1. 

   1)

   Jeff Waldorf said on 3/13/2013 @ 5:28pm PT: [Permalink]

   O’keefe is a douche, glad he got his ass sued. I’d like to bestow onto Brad, the title of Troll Crusher, because that’s what people like O’keefe are, trolls.

2. 

   2)

   CambridgeKnitter said on 3/13/2013 @ 8:16pm PT: [Permalink]

   Maybe he actually believes his own hype and thinks he actually did (or didn’t do, as the case may be) that stuff. Which is worse, believing the fake reality he tried to create by editing those videos or brazenly sticking to the lies despite proof that they’re lies? Neither choice flatters him. And refusing to take you up on your offer when you called his bluff shows his true character for all to see.

3. 

   3)

   Ernest A. Canning said on 3/13/2013 @ 8:41pm PT: [Permalink]

   James O’Keefe tweeted:

   CA, FL filming statutes too broad (I’ve been sued). But it would be delectable if we discover a violation after Polk gave 47% vid J-prize.

   Too bad James didn’t bother to read the decision issued by U.S. District Court Judge on May 23, 2011 in Vera v. O’Keefe. Not only did the court expressly reject O’Keefe’s argument that PC 632 is too broad, but he went on to state:

   But clearly it is not a violation of § 632 for the mere audio or video recording of an event or interaction. Instead, there must also be “an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overhead or recorded.” [citation]. Also § 632 provides certain express exceptions for public proceedings…or other circumstances “in which the parties to the communications may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.”

   O’Keefe went so far as to ask Vera whether the conversation was confidential. His violation was clear cut.

   Romney made the 47% remark in front of a well-heeled but very public gathering. According to Scott Prouty, there was other video equipment set up for the gathering.

   Even if it had been recorded in CA, the 47% recording would not have violated PC 632 because Romney had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

   Finally, leave it to convicted federal criminal O’Keefe to overlook the fundamental difference between Prouty’s honest presentation of what Romney said and O’Keefe’s despicable deceptive editing that tried to frame people for what they did not say.

4. 

   4)

   Randy D said on 3/14/2013 @ 6:26am PT: [Permalink]

   While I welcome any bad thing that happens to O’Keefe, we do have to admit that his losing a court case on THESE GROUNDS (clandestine taping) is like Al Capone being convicted on tax evasion. He has it coming but its the least of his crimes.

5. 

   5)

   Gus Wynn said on 3/14/2013 @ 5:10pm PT: [Permalink]

   I would encourage O’Keefe to enjoin the open, live head to head debate. It’s what’s sorely missing in media today. both sides airing it out live to convince the listening audience.

   Andrew Breitbart was not afraid to go live with Cenk Uygur, Ann Coulter went live with Bill Maher, Sean Hannity went live with Michael Moore, Oliver North went live with Randi Rhodes. The interviews were important because truths were put on the table that can’t exist in bubbles…

   If O’Keefe takes any calls or questions, I’d ask how he expects thinking people to trust him if he works for hire for secret donors. Does that not make him closer to a PR firm than a news gatherer, especially since we know he suppressed his own reports when they bore no fruit.

6. 

   6)

   Bamboo Kingfish Harvester said on 3/15/2013 @ 12:30am PT: [Permalink]

   Holy Mackerel!

7. 

   7)

   Mary59 said on 3/15/2013 @ 9:37am PT: [Permalink]

   I think the reason O’Keefe won’t debate is obvious–he’d get creamed. His defenses are so wobbly, they’d get shattered at the first jab. For someone with this level of sleaze and deceit, he comes off as just a juvenile punk.

   And Brad is also an excellent debater, which isn’t true for many a person with facts on their side.