The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
In which activists think they are spies https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1575 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | Serienya [ Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:49 pm ] |
Post subject: | In which activists think they are spies |
Quote: January 27, 2010 4 Charged With Trying to Tap Landrieu’s Phones By LIZ ROBBINS Four people were arrested on Monday for allegedly posing as telephone technicians and trying to tap the phones of Senator Mary Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, in her New Orleans office. According to The New Orleans Times-Picayune, one of the men arrested was James O’Keefe, a filmmaker who produced videos purporting to document questionable practices at some field offices of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as Acorn. In the videos, Mr. O’Keefe and an associate, Hannah Giles, posing as a pimp and a prostitute, secretly filmed themselves seeking and receiving financial advice for a brothel from Acorn workers. All four of the people arrested in New Orleans were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony. At least two of the four people were dressed in telephone company work clothes and construction hats when they were arrested. Senator Landrieu, one of the last Democratic holdouts in the Senate to vote for the health care bill, first negotiated an increase in Medicaid funds before she voted in favor of the legislation. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/po ... drieu.html I'm just curious to find out what they were targeting with this scheme. Has Landrieu been allegedly involved in any corrupt activities? I honestly don't know... My fav quote from another article (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wirestory?id=9667665&page=1): Quote: "It was poor judgment," Robert Flanagan's lawyer, Garrison Jordan, said in a brief interview outside the courthouse. "I don't think there was any intent or motive to commit a crime." Dude, really??? Ummm... |
Author: | Rorinthas [ Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:38 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: In which activists think they are spies |
Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Yeah that was a pretty dumb move. Hope he gets some jailtime. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:07 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: In which activists think they are spies |
Because if a little legal clever subterfuge is good, even more, illegal subterfuge ought to be better! What a moron. |
Author: | Uncle Fester [ Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:54 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: In which activists think they are spies |
And over reached, oh well hope he gets what he deserves legally. |
Author: | Screeling [ Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:38 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
heh - dummy. |
Author: | Monte [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:41 am ] |
Post subject: | |
It's still not clear if his original film was taken legally. Furthermore, the original film was heavily edited. This guy was a sham from the word go. Interesting how he's just "dumb", as opposed to being, you know, a criminal. What he did here is not just innocently foolish, but illegal. He shouted "the truth will set you free" from his cab after posting bail. Heh. |
Author: | Micheal [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:02 am ] |
Post subject: | |
To paraphrase Mr. Quigley, in reference to the idiot 'spy'. This ain't Latveria and you ain't Nick Fury. Lock him up, throw away the key. Maybe he can escape with some clever convoluted plot. |
Author: | Rafael [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:44 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: It's still not clear if his original film was taken legally. Furthermore, the original film was heavily edited. This guy was a sham from the word go. Interesting how he's just "dumb", as opposed to being, you know, a criminal. What he did here is not just innocently foolish, but illegal. He shouted "the truth will set you free" from his cab after posting bail. Heh. It was illegal. But the real question is, was it *illegal*? |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:04 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: It's still not clear if his original film was taken legally. Furthermore, the original film was heavily edited. This guy was a sham from the word go. It's quite clear that the original film ws completely legal. Simply because ACORN claims it was illegal to avoid embarassment doesn't mean it's at all "unclear". I can loudly claim it's illegal to give me a ticket for driving on the wrong side of the road too, that doesn't make it any less clear. As for being "heavily edited", that's meaningless. How much is heavy and what kind of editing? Quote: Interesting how he's just "dumb", as opposed to being, you know, a criminal. What he did here is not just innocently foolish, but illegal. Interesting how several people here have specifically said what he did was illegal. Someone who does things that are illegal is, by definition, a criminal. We shouldn't need to state the obvious for your benefit. Saying he's dumb is in addition to that, not instead of it. Or were you just disappointed that no one is trying to excuse him and needed some excuse to castigate people? Quote: He shouted "the truth will set you free" from his cab after posting bail. Heh. So he also has a talent for stating irrelevancies. |
Author: | Screeling [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:58 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: nteresting how he's just "dumb", as opposed to being, you know, a criminal. What he did here is not just innocently foolish, but illegal. Okay, he's obviously a criminal too. You happy, jackass? |
Author: | DFK! [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:28 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Actually, calling him a criminal is a violation of foundational ethical principles, until he is found guilty. Unless you don't believe in presumption of innocence, in which case, *yeah* he's a *criminal* and *dumb!!!!!one!!!* |
Author: | Talya [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 1:22 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Screeling wrote: You happy, jackass? Yeah, let's not go in that direction. Consider this a warning. |
Author: | Monte [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:38 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
DFK! wrote: Actually, calling him a criminal is a violation of foundational ethical principles, until he is found guilty. Well, that's true. Then again, getting caught red handed is a pretty good indicator of guilt. |
Author: | Screeling [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:38 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Talya wrote: Screeling wrote: You happy, jackass? Yeah, let's not go in that direction. Consider this a warning. IN MY FACE!!! |
Author: | DFK! [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:46 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Monte wrote: DFK! wrote: Actually, calling him a criminal is a violation of foundational ethical principles, until he is found guilty. Well, that's true. Then again, getting caught red handed is a pretty good indicator of guilt. Yes. 100% correct. That doesn't, however, make "criminal" an accurate or non-slanderous term though (until proven). |
Author: | Monte [ Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:11 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Fair enough. I do find the republican response to be a bit amusing, though. His act has been pooh poohed as a childhood prank, despite the fact that the guy is 25 years old. He was remanded to his parent's home, after making bail. And congressional Republicans were trying to get a resolution passed to honor him as a hero. Heh. |
Author: | Rafael [ Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:33 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Right, so because the tapes are illegal on a technical basis, that means the actions recorded cannot be judged on merit, right? I want to hear what you'd have to say if, we hypothesize, wife cheats on you at some other dude's private house, you film it illegally and someone tells she didn't really cheat because the video you took was taken illegally. |
Author: | Monte [ Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:06 am ] |
Post subject: | |
What do you mean, illegal on a technical basis? Like, it's technically illegal to drive drunk? Or, it's technically illegal to shoplift? Furthermore, the tapes were *heavily* edited, so we don't really know what actually transpired. We only know what we were told transpired by a man who is clearly not very credible. |
Author: | Rafael [ Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:13 am ] |
Post subject: | |
I'm not arguing the merit or the quality of the tapes. I don't know either way. It was technically illegal to take the video even if the video shows (or rather, appears to show) incriminating behavior. Just like I said. If you can't comprehend that simple idea, I'm not sure what to say. Like I posited before, if you filmed your wife having sex with someone else but did so illegally (i.e. in the other guy's property without his consent), would you then conclude that because the film was illegal, that what you filmed didn't actually transpire? |
Author: | Monte [ Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:18 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Of course not, but I would be criminally liable for the film I took. That being said, your question presumes that the film Mr O'Keefe produced was actually legitimate evidence of a crime, when it was severely edited. That fact, in addition to his obvious disdain for the rule of law, leads me to believe that his initial accusations were likely to be entirely unfounded, and that the context he fabricated was not a clear picture of what happened when he went into ACORN. |
Author: | Ladas [ Fri Jan 29, 2010 11:18 am ] |
Post subject: | |
I'm curious about the claims of "heavily edited"... being able to make such a claim implies that one knows the actual contents of "unedited" tapes prior to editing, or has alternate sources for what really transpired to compare/contrast with what was released. One would think, assuming they weren't just parroting unsubstantiated claims for blogs, that if that were in fact the case and not just a claim to deflect attention, those sources would be make public, or at least made a reference to support such charges. |
Author: | DFK! [ Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:12 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Ladas wrote: I'm curious about the claims of "heavily edited"... being able to make such a claim implies that one knows the actual contents of "unedited" tapes prior to editing, or has alternate sources for what really transpired to compare/contrast with what was released. One would think, assuming they weren't just parroting unsubstantiated claims for blogs, that if that were in fact the case and not just a claim to deflect attention, those sources would be make public, or at least made a reference to support such charges. That's because they were neither "heavily edited" nor "taken out of context." |
Author: | Nitefox [ Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:04 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Ladas wrote: I'm curious about the claims of "heavily edited"... being able to make such a claim implies that one knows the actual contents of "unedited" tapes prior to editing, or has alternate sources for what really transpired to compare/contrast with what was released. One would think, assuming they weren't just parroting unsubstantiated claims for blogs, that if that were in fact the case and not just a claim to deflect attention, those sources would be make public, or at least made a reference to support such charges. He has been asked this many, many times. He has yet to offer any proof other than his own opinion.(in other words, surprise, surprise) |
Author: | Monte [ Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:38 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Ladas wrote: I'm curious about the claims of "heavily edited"... being able to make such a claim implies that one knows the actual contents of "unedited" tapes prior to editing, or has alternate sources for what really transpired to compare/contrast with what was released. The claim of heavy editing is not unsubstantiated. It's been examined by experts, and they concluded that the content of the video was heavily edited - both what was said and what you saw. I noticed, in my own watching, that the way their mouths were moving wasn't matching what was being said in the subtitles. There are also discrepencies between what is being said on the tape and the transcript. Like I said from the beginning - this was a hack job. It's clear the perpetrator was more than willing to lie, cheat, and steal his way to get a sensationalist story and some fame. Hopefully, he'll be doing 10 years in a federal prison for his trouble. |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |