Only Liberals do stupid illegal shit - Page 2

Scrum · 01-29-2010, 03:55 PM

He was just going in there to make sure the phones were working? Sure.....

Stylerod · 01-29-2010, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Big Hollywood Blog Archive Statement from James O?Keefe

"On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation"

you think?

What a dope!

JaJae · 02-02-2010, 06:57 AM

Well this story is getting interesting. O'Keefe claims he was in jail for 28 hours without access to an attorney. During this time the prosecutor from the US attorney's office ran to the media with wiretapping allegations and such. O'Keefe claimed he was being "framed" by the US Attorney's Office and the media. Just hours later the prosecutor recused himself from the case.

I still think O'Keefe was wrong for whatever he did. But, it seems the government may have done something wrong in the prosecution of the case. There is no word yet as to why US attorney Jim Letten recused himself.

Scrum · 02-02-2010, 08:10 AM

Holy crap the criminal is claiming he's innocent and that he was set-up. That never happens.

Stylerod · 02-02-2010, 08:17 AM

I'm not sure how he could be "framed" when he admitted to lying about who he was to break into a government building.

absent · 02-02-2010, 03:22 PM

It's disheartening to see such a knee-jerk response to such a situation. Obviously, the left is up in arms about O'Keefe's involvement in exposing the questionable activities of ACORN, since ACORN is so closely tied to Democrats. It's no surprise that the liberal media would quickly pass judgement on O'Keefe before anything has been proven. However, I believe O'Keefe is a bright young man with a bright future. While I may not agree with everyone he's done, I do believe he's got too much to risk to do something as illegal as tapping a phone, particularly in front of everyone. He claims he was trying to figure out why Landrieu's phone was "jammed", a claim made by her in the past. Could it be they merely switched them off to avoid listening to her constituents in the past? Perhaps, it's not difficult to imagine it so. Also, one of O'Keefe's "partners-in-crime" was Robert Flanagan, son of the interim U.S. for the Western District of Louisiana. Does it make sense that he would do such a stupid act? Recently it was announced that the US Attorney has recused himself from the case, something that happened the very next day following O'Keefe's arrest. That means he will not be prosecuting O'Keefe. This should be enough evidence to show that O'Keefe is not guilty as many have already claimed he was. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

Donkey® · 02-02-2010, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Well this story is getting interesting. O'Keefe claims he was in jail for 28 hours without access to an attorney. During this time the prosecutor from the US attorney's office ran to the media with wiretapping allegations and such. O'Keefe claimed he was being "framed" by the US Attorney's Office and the media. Just hours later the prosecutor recused himself from the case.

I still think O'Keefe was wrong for whatever he did. But, it seems the government may have done something wrong in the prosecution of the case. There is no word yet as to why US attorney Jim Letten recused himself.

Could it have been his ties to the Congresswoman? That would be my guess. As far as his claim he was without a lawyer for 28 hours...prove it criminal.

Stylerod · 02-02-2010, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Could it have been his ties to the Congresswoman? That would be my guess. As far as his claim he was without a lawyer for 28 hours...prove it criminal.

Is that even illegal? Is there a timeline of when you can talk to a lawyer? When you ask for one is there a clock that starts ticking and one has to come? I really don't know.

Donkey® · 02-02-2010, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Is that even illegal? Is there a timeline of when you can talk to a lawyer? When you ask for one is there a clock that starts ticking and one has to come? I really don't know.

Everything I've ever heard or seen says "reasonable" amount of time. I think the courts give law enforcement a lot of leway on this. Besides, if he wasn't being questioned after he asked for a lawyer it's moot...although I do remember hearing that the Supreme Court ruled that even that scenario is fine.

JaJae · 02-02-2010, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I'm not sure how he could be "framed" when he admitted to lying about who he was to break into a government building.

His argument is that it was clear there was no wiretapping issue and that it was fabricated for the media. While I disagree with the term "framed" I do see his point.

JaJae · 02-02-2010, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Is that even illegal? Is there a timeline of when you can talk to a lawyer? When you ask for one is there a clock that starts ticking and one has to come? I really don't know.

Different states/jurisdictions have different rules and guidelines. But it is telling that the prosecutor was talking to the media about the case before he had counsel. I imagine that is one of the reasons he stepped down from the case after O'Keefe complained about his ethics. He definitely wasn't behaving on the up and up.

Stylerod · 02-02-2010, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

His argument is that it was clear there was no wiretapping issue and that it was fabricated for the media. While I disagree with the term "framed" I do see his point.

The media jumping to conclusions isn't being framed. The DA or police would have to frame him.

JaJae · 02-02-2010, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by absent

It's disheartening to see such a knee-jerk response to such a situation. Obviously, the left is up in arms about O'Keefe's involvement in exposing the questionable activities of ACORN, since ACORN is so closely tied to Democrats. It's no surprise that the liberal media would quickly pass judgement on O'Keefe before anything has been proven. However, I believe O'Keefe is a bright young man with a bright future. While I may not agree with everyone he's done, I do believe he's got too much to risk to do something as illegal as tapping a phone, particularly in front of everyone. He claims he was trying to figure out why Landrieu's phone was "jammed", a claim made by her in the past. Could it be they merely switched them off to avoid listening to her constituents in the past? Perhaps, it's not difficult to imagine it so. Also, one of O'Keefe's "partners-in-crime" was Robert Flanagan, son of the interim U.S. for the Western District of Louisiana. Does it make sense that he would do such a stupid act? Recently it was announced that the US Attorney has recused himself from the case, something that happened the very next day following O'Keefe's arrest. That means he will not be prosecuting O'Keefe. This should be enough evidence to show that O'Keefe is not guilty as many have already claimed he was. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

While I agree with much of what you are saying he had no business being in the office. They would not have allowed him in if he was honest about his intentions. Congressional offices can have classified and private information in them. The fact that he made his way into the office on false pretenses shows he clearly did something wrong. I'm usually very big on innocent until proven guilty, but even O'Keefe has admitted he was there and even if all he wanted to do was inspect the phones he had no right or business being there. They were right for calling the police and having him arrested and quite frankly for even that minor offense that he admitted to I would say throw the book at him. What he did was a very bold move and he took a huge risk doing what he did. He deserves to get burned.

JaJae · 02-02-2010, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

The media jumping to conclusions isn't being framed. The DA or police would have to frame him.

I agree, his terminology was horrid, but I understand the point he was trying to make and that is he feels as if they were publicly accusing him false behavior to hinder his ability to defend himself in court. Whether that is true or not, he was not given counsel and the fact that the media/prosecutor wasted no time fabricating the issue would only promote that mentality in his head. And quite frankly, I find it to be fairly feasible. Either way, I agree.. he's an idiot, he was wrong, he deserves to be scrutinized in the media and made a mockery of since that is exactly what he did to his political opponents and what he intended to do while engaging in this criminal act. But, the accusations against him need to be true and the prosecutor of his case should uphold ethical standards.

kinggovernor · 02-03-2010, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Well this story is getting interesting. O'Keefe claims he was in jail for 28 hours without access to an attorney. During this time the prosecutor from the US attorney's office ran to the media with wiretapping allegations and such. O'Keefe claimed he was being "framed" by the US Attorney's Office and the media. Just hours later the prosecutor recused himself from the case.

I still think O'Keefe was wrong for whatever he did. But, it seems the government may have done something wrong in the prosecution of the case. There is no word yet as to why US attorney Jim Letten recused himself.

Possible reason-
One of the suspects, Robert Flanagan, is the son of acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana William J. Flanagan.

The Esteemed Gentleman · 02-04-2010, 12:34 PM

Regarding the right to counsel, this information may be helpful in providing further information regarding when an individual may invoke his constitutional right to counsel.

1. Lawyers.com - Right to Counsel

2. Findlaw - Right to Counsel under the Sixth Amendment

3. Findlaw - Right to Counsel Overview

4. NLADA - History of the Right to Counsel

Generally speaking, under the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, once police exercise "custodial interrogation" powers (e.g., they bring you in for questioning even if you have yet to be "arrested") you have the right to an attorney and must be provided with one once requesting counsel's assistance. Constitutionally, police are not allowed to further question a suspect until counsel has been provided once asked for.

Donkey® · 02-04-2010, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Regarding the right to counsel, this information may be helpful in providing further information regarding when an individual may invoke his constitutional right to counsel.

1. Lawyers.com - Right to Counsel

2. Findlaw - Right to Counsel under the Sixth Amendment

3. Findlaw - Right to Counsel Overview

4. NLADA - History of the Right to Counsel

Generally speaking, under the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, once police exercise "custodial interrogation" powers (e.g., they bring you in for questioning even if you have yet to be "arrested") you have the right to an attorney and must be provided with one once requesting counsel's assistance. Constitutionally, police are not allowed to further question a suspect until counsel has been provided once asked for.

I knew that much. What I don't know is how long can they keep you from your lawyer in what we call a "reasonable" fashion.

Dispatcher · 02-04-2010, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Holy crap the criminal is claiming he's innocent and that he was set-up. That never happens.

Many years ago, a friend of mine was sent to prison for, shall we say, illegal farming. He told me when he got out, that he was the only guilty person there.

DosEquis · 02-04-2010, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

Many years ago, a friend of mine was sent to prison for, shall we say, illegal farming. He told me when he got out, that he was the only guilty person there.

I have heard the best way to ask someone else what they are in for, is to say "What are you accused of?" instead of what did you do or what were you found guilty of.

The Esteemed Gentleman · 02-04-2010, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I knew that much. What I don't know is how long can they keep you from your lawyer in what we call a "reasonable" fashion.

Technically, it means immediately. They cannot continue to question you unless they provide you with counsel, and if they don't provide you with counsel and continue questioning you, anything they elicit from you can be suppressed at trial via the exclusionary rule so long as you do not waive your right to an attorney.

Additionally, the government must bring charges against you promptly. If they fail to bring charges, you must be released (which I am sure you know). But, as soon as they do bring those charges, an attorney will be appointed if you do not already have one.

So, in answer to your question, the time-frame may not be precise, but it is not very long and if the police violate criminal procedure, then they do so at the peril of their own investigation.