Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Brad Friedman makes a very interesting argument that had not occurred to me as I've watched the fallout of the arrest of James O'Keefe. For the last few years, conservatives have made a huge deal out of ACORN employees -- minimum wage canvassers, almost exclusively -- being charged with voter registration fraud for turning in fake registration cards in order to get paid without putting in the effort of actually doing the job.
The argument they make is that ACORN is responsible for the actions of their employees even when those actions victimize ACORN and even when ACORN is the one who turns those employees in to election officials to be investigated and prosecuted. But guess what? O'Keefe is employed by Andrew Breitbart, and the two of them have been the chief bashers of ACORN.
You'll recall The BRAD BLOG's years of reporting on the GOP's fraudulent scam to accuse the community group ACORN --- which has legally registered millions of low and middle-income Americans to vote over the years --- of committing some sort of "voter fraud," for which they've never actually been charged in any state or any court of law that we know of. Moreover, we are unaware of even an an iota of evidence that demonstrates that the group or any of their employees, or anyone who has ever been registered by one of their employees, has committed the crime vis a vis that registration.Some of their workers, a tiny handful of their more than 13,000 employees, have been charged with committing "voter registration fraud" after being turned in by ACORN officials themselves, after the community group discovered the employees had defrauded them in light of the "fair salary" they were paid to legally help sign up new voters.
For all of that work legally registering voters and turning in those who didn't to law enforcement, ACORN became the target of the GOP and their wingnut operatives, since so many low and middle-income voters tend to vote Democratic instead of Republican for some odd reason...
Even if we stipulate that Breitbart was not paying O'Keefe to break the law, its clear that ACORN was not paying its workers to break the law either --- at least no evidence exists to demonstrate otherwise. And yet, ACORN has long been charged by Breitbart, and Hewitt himself (a long-time leader in the GOP's phony "Democrats are committing massive voter fraud through ACORN!" movement), as being a "criminal organization" for having employed those workers who did break federal law by committing voter registration fraud in order to continue receiving their "fair salary."
So, again, if ACORN is "guilty" for all of that, what does that make Breitbart?
But as if all of that wasn't ironic enough, Hewitt's "interview" with Breitbart concludes this way, with an exchange so full of incredible irony that we are left gasping for air and without words to properly respond to it:
HEWITT: ...Lots of people work for lots of corporations, and do dumb and sometimes illegal things that are not within the scope of their employment. And this was not within the scope of his employment.
BREITBART: Yes, absolutely. That is absolutely the case.
HEWITT: Andrew Breitbart, thanks for checking in with us. I appreciate that.
Get that? Read it again if necessary. And then, if necessary, read this entire article from the top again if there remains any question of the absurdity of the entire situation, and the utter disingenuousness of Breitbart and Hewitt in that exchange.
So were they full of shit before, when they spent years demonizing ACORN as a "criminal organization" based on scant evidence of petty crimes committed by a handful of workers (none of which was actually revealed in those videos, as we noted), or are they full of shit now?
He makes a good point.
Politics
Comments
Ed, Ed, you don't understand. They're them, we're us. There are entirely different standards. Lower ones.
Posted by: snurp | February 1, 2010 9:51 AM
I find it difficult to believe that you didn't honestly think of this double standard, Ed.
Posted by: Andrea | February 1, 2010 9:55 AM
James O'Keefe and friend were not disguised as pimp and whore, they WERE pimp and whore, for Fox news. Unless they did it for love.
Meanwhile don't expect Breitbart to apply his ethics to himself.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | February 1, 2010 9:57 AM
If you take O'Keefe at his word, then he's guilty mostly of bad judgement and not looking into the legal limits of what he could do as an 'investigative journalist'. You'll see all the time journalists using hidden cameras and posing as customers and such when investigating companies, but apparently there are situations when that kind of thing isn't legal. (I remember that there were arguments that the whole 'pimp' sting against ACORN may have violated some such laws.)
I'm not suggesting that anyone simply take him at his word, but until more facts are available, it still isn't entirely clear what he might be guilty of. (He and the others are charged with entering Landrieu's offices under "false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony" as quoted by this cnn article.) The early reports of him attempting to actually wiretap Landrieu's phones might turn out to be false, for instance. It would be pretty clear from what equipment they had on them whether that was part of their plan.
I don't disagree with the point Brad Friedman makes here, though. Regarding ACORN and voter registration - If ACORN makes all reasonable efforts to be check that their canvassers aren't submitting fraudulent voter registration forms and turns them in when they do catch them, then they aren't guilty of anything. In fact, they are doing a valuable service in encouraging people to vote that typically do not participate in the electoral process at a high percentage.
Posted by: JasonTD | February 1, 2010 10:20 AM
If I understand OK's side correctly, he was trying to disable the phones, at which point he would have people try to call them and then video tape the employees indifference. Am I the only one that thinks that that is a really, REALLY lame stunt to pull? I get that there were complaints about getting through to the employees, but was this stunt really worth playing dress up and lying for? I just doesn't seem worth the effort...
Posted by: jake | February 1, 2010 10:48 AM
Mr. Brayton, that is a logically sound, morally fair bit of reasoning you got there. However, I doubt anyone is going to let logic or fair play rain on their two-minutes of ACORN hating.
Posted by: History Punk | February 1, 2010 11:23 AM
Posted by: Deen | February 1, 2010 11:23 AM
I agree that the comparison is apt, however, what are the consequences? I'm pretty sure Breitbart doesn't receive federal funding. Does he lose some credibility here? How do we ensure that?
Posted by: Michael | February 1, 2010 11:45 AM
When Breitbart "absolutely" denies any knowledge of James O'Keefe's shenanigans in New Orleans, why does it sound to me as if he were making a statement on a witness stand?
Maybe it's because Breitbart will be called to testify in the prosecution's case vs. O'Keefe should it go to trial. I suspect, though, that Jimmy and his fellow Hitler Youth will eventually plead out and get a slap on the wrist (probation).
But either way, make no mistake: in a pinch, if Breitbart is faced with covering how own legal ass or protecting O'Keefe's, his Boy Wonder is going to lose big time.
Posted by: CHV | February 1, 2010 11:47 AM
Aside from the stupidity of trying to gain access to a federal building's phone lines under false pretenses, I don't get what the point of the whole "sting" operation was to begin with. Let's assume that Landrieu's staff were getting sick of handling angry phone calls from a handful of uninformed, unrepresentative constituents, and decided to ignore most of the calls. So what? Senators get more phone calls and letters than they can possibly handle, so at most their staff only relays to them a sense of what people are complaining about, and with right-wing crazies and health care reform, that's been obvious for months. Besides, politicians shouldn't be basing decisions on the concerns of a small and self-selected group of hot-heads in the first place. I'm hard pressed to think of anything more trivial to launch a sting operation against.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | February 1, 2010 12:54 PM
I predict that in an effort to "get" Breibart that O'Keefe will be given immunity, and then there will bo no documentation found (because it has already been destroyed) giving Breibart plausible deniability.
Just like how North got off for his role in Iran-Contra.
Posted by: daedalus2u | February 1, 2010 12:56 PM
As for the legality of O'Keefe's actions with respect to his pimping fantasy, he and his "prostitute", Hannah Giles,have been sued in both Maryland and Pennsylvania for violating both states' laws against recording/filming a party to a conversation without their knowledge. Both suits are seeking damages and the plaintiffs are represented by some high powered attorneys from NYC, Philadelphia and Baltimore.
Both suits were filed before the recent telephone caper. Mr. O'Keefe better have some good attorneys. And a bundle of cash, since his legal expenses will start mounting up rather sharply.
Posted by: Keanus | February 1, 2010 2:52 PM
Waterboard both of those motherfuckers.
Posted by: democommie | February 1, 2010 3:46 PM
I'm sorry. I said that in haste and anger.
What I meant to say was:
"Waterboard both of those motherfuckers--and, make the truth of their confessions a very high bar."
Posted by: democommie | February 1, 2010 3:48 PM
Keanus @ 12:
I suspect that one of O'Keefe's many financially well-off fans on the right would be happy to help cover his legal bills - or at least in the short term.
Posted by: CHV | February 1, 2010 4:25 PM
So waterboarding terrorists is an evil violation of human rights but waterboarding silly kids in pimp suits is desirable?
Posted by: Three Wolf Shirt | February 1, 2010 5:40 PM
Given which of the two is a greater threat to society ... yes. ;o)
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 1, 2010 6:48 PM
JasonTD,
I for one will admit to being a little prejudiced against O'Keefe and that probably colors my interpretation.
Still, the material facts look suspicious. I don't believe that he was trying to bug anything, but why did they feel the need to dress up as Telephone workers and ask for access to the main communications room if they just wanted to ask some questions about the phone service? They could have used a lot of disguises (Democratic constituents of Landrieu, for example) ... why choose the one that also would be most appropriate for actually meddling with the phone system if they had no intent to meddle with the phone system in ANY way?
Right now I lean toward the explanation that they wanted to somehow screw with the phone lines and the videotape the reaction in the hopes of showing that Landrieu wasn't being honest about how her phones have been not working right "for weeks". I think he found out, after arrest, that even such an apparently minor "prank" could expose him to severe federal penalties and is now trying to craft a post-hoc reason for his stunt that does not include actually tampering with the phones at all.
Posted by: libarbarian | February 1, 2010 7:20 PM
Three Wolf Shirt:
FuckinA. These are the people who cheered on Bushco. Let them have a taste of what they thought was appropriate for those who disagreed with them.
Posted by: democommie | February 1, 2010 9:08 PM
I am disturbed by this on a lot of levels. Obviously, as pointed out in the post, the irony is thick and buttery in regards to previous antics with ACORN. And well, the Republicons, going after people who register middle class and blue collar workers in mostly minority areas--I shudder to think....You mean like how the Republicons attempted to change voter registration laws at the last minute to exclude the newly homeless after the Housing Bubble Burst? Wow, what fucking Patriots they are to kick Americans when they are already down. Going into a federal building in order to eavesdrop on an elected official in this day and age of terrorism plots---well that don't sit to well with me. Thanks to the changing scope of terror concerns in this country that goes all the way down to the muninciple level, bugging the phones of nominally important authority figures in even local govt could be pose a hazard to what the military would call, Operational Security or OPSEC. I have no idea if local leaders use the same terminology. Bushco made that a real possibility long before Obama ran in even the primary. So wouldn't it be rich if these dipshits got hung with that particular rope? Some Patriot Act violation? That would be mighty fine.
Where does political dissent end, and stalking begin? Or espionage for that matter.
Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | February 2, 2010 12:24 AM
I mever cease to find it amusing how media advocates of waterboarding (or "enhanced interrogation" as it's called on Fox News) like to claim it's not torture (Hannity, Marc Theissen), but then get very squirmy when someone suggests they undergo the procedure to verify the claim.
Humanity will never run dry on cowards and hypocrites.
Posted by: CHV | February 2, 2010 12:25 AM
I think you just miss what Breitbart and O'Keefe and the Republicans were complaining about.
In the case of a pimp and a whore asking about paying taxes, Republican outrage was directed at ACORN's advising them on how to pay taxes and file tax returns, since Republicans are allergic to the thought of actually self-reporting taxes owed and writing a check to the U.S. Treasury.
They wanted ACORN to offer advice on tax evasion, and they think it a crime not to have done so.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | February 2, 2010 4:12 AM
By the way, why have O'Keefe's handlers not released the hours of tape of O'Keefe doing actual research on the behavior of pimps and whores, for his masquerade? Shouldn't we have the full story?
Where are his expense reports, again?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | February 2, 2010 4:32 AM
It must be nice to live in a world without shades of grey.
Posted by: lukas | February 2, 2010 5:51 AM
Lukas:
WTF are you saying? That they don't deserve to be treated as they would treat others who violated U.S. anti-terrorism statutes or plotted against the U.S. goverment OR that they weren't cheering on Bushco? Since we all know that the most likely outcome of any prosecution is to leave these fuckwads free to perpetrate future crimes a boy can only dream about a perfect world (sigh).
Posted by: democommie | February 2, 2010 9:20 AM
Well, it would be nice if you showed some evidence that young O'Keefe was, indeed, cheering on the Bush Administration's use of torture; as you well know, not every conservative agrees with every single thing Bush did. Stereotyping your opponents gets you a few cheap shots when you are preaching to the choir (hell, Rush makes a handsome living doing just that), but that's all it is good for.
Posted by: lukas | February 2, 2010 10:18 AM
Yeah, democommie, you're exactly the same as Rush Limbaugh! Feast on that crow!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 2, 2010 11:08 AM
poor victim
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/andrew-breitbart-phones-his-okeefe-c
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | February 2, 2010 12:13 PM
If it helps any, O'keefe impersonating a telephone worker to get into a federal building is fraud in some states. (You are misrepresenting a company for financial gain). I know he wasn't in it for financial gain necessarily, it isn't a felony I don't think if you don't try to swindle someone.
But accessing the phone system without permission IS a felony in some jurisdictions.
Investigative reporters who use hidden cameras and the like generally aren't bugging phone lines either. And the "rules" of such are sort of strict, even if to non-reporters they can seem a little arcane. But one of them is similar to the police use of entrapment -- you can't do anything that would elicit an atypical response. (Cops, for instance, can't go undercover and offer to sell you coke, show you a baggie, and say the price is good -- you have to ASK them to buy drugs before they do anything, otherwise it is entrapment).
For instance, way back in the Food Lion case, the reporters IIRC brought in a hidden camera. They did NOT go in, pose as food workers, contaminate the food, and see if Food Lion responded. They just filmed day-to-day operations. O'Keefe was up to something different.
Posted by: Jesse | February 2, 2010 4:00 PM
Lukas:
Your concern--trolling--is duly noted.
James O'Keefe is a Yellow Elephant whanker and has been pulling his shit for years. He was a darling of the YR's and the shitforbrainscaucus in the GOP. That may change. Read up on him, he's a piece of shit.
Posted by: democommie | February 2, 2010 5:28 PM
No need for partisan guilt by association if he's a piece of shit all by himself.
Posted by: lukas | February 2, 2010 6:22 PM
Lukas:
Again, WTF are you talking about? O'Keefe is a piece of shit, he is a part of the GOP which is also shit. Are you saying that one is not the other?
Posted by: democommie | February 2, 2010 11:04 PM
Mike Blumenthal has an article in Salon about O'Keefe's racist (as in white-supremacist) past:
http://www.salon.com/news/james_okeefe/index.html?story=/news/feature/2010/02/03/james_okeefe_white_nationalists
O'Keefe's ACORN antics, and his lame attempt to tamper with a Senator's phones, are pretty mild compared to his earlier actions. This guy isn't just a right-wing prankster, he's a longtime hater of all things nonwhite.
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 3, 2010 2:26 PM
On O'Keefe's racist past, why am I not shocked?
Posted by: Dr X | February 3, 2010 2:34 PM
Not every Republican is an asshole. O'Keefe is an asshole, but not because he's a Republican. Why do you feel the need to attack him by associating him with stereotypical Republican positions that he may or may not hold? He deserves much more than just your partisan hatred for all things Republican.
Posted by: lukas | February 4, 2010 2:53 AM
Lukas:
Bullshit. He's one of them; a group of GOPukes in congress lauded him for his "investigative" journalism re: ACORN.
You are either an idiot or a concern troll and I'm certainly not ruling out you're being both.
He's a dick, his party is te Party of Dicks. Fuck the GOP. If the foreskin fits, wear it.
Posted by: democommie | February 4, 2010 7:58 AM
Keep on painting with that broad brush then.
Posted by: lukas | February 4, 2010 4:25 PM
Lukas:
Thanks, but I wasn't really waiting for your permission.
I'm guessing your a teabagger or Yellophant. In any event, why the need to separate him from the people that lionized him as recently as six months ago? He was a piece of shit, then, nothing's changed--except now the GOP is anxious to paint him as a renegade. Defend him all you like, he'll still be a piece of shit--from a piece of shit party.
Posted by: democommie | February 4, 2010 4:58 PM