• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Charges reduced in phone caper at senator's office

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,657
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Looks like O'keefe was telling the truth about why they were there and the prosecutors jumped the gun with with the felony charges, Opps!

I guess this will cause a few more tears to be shed by the people at the criminal enterprise known as ACORN.


Charges reduced in phone caper at senator's office | National news | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

NEW ORLEANS — Federal prosecutors filed reduced charges Friday against conservative activist James O'Keefe and three others who were accused of trying to tamper with the phones in Sen. Mary Landrieu's New Orleans office.

The new charges are contained in a bill of information, which can only be filed with a defendant's consent and typically signals a plea deal. The new filing charges videographer the four with entering a federal building under false pretenses, a misdemeanor. They had been arrested Jan. 25 on felony charges.

O'Keefe, a videographer famous for wearing a pimp costume in a stunt that embarrassed the ACORN community organizing group, has said the group was trying to investigate complaints that constituents calling Landrieu's office couldn't get through to criticize her support of a health care reform bill.
 
What really annoys me is that news organizations are still saying he was "dressed like a pimp" in the now-infamous videos. The media still hasn't managed to pick up on the fact that the videos were edited to show something that didn't happen.
 
What really annoys me is that news organizations are still saying he was "dressed like a pimp" in the now-infamous videos. The media still hasn't managed to pick up on the fact that the videos were edited to show something that didn't happen.
Were you there? Or are you just going on ACORN's statements, sorry, but I trust an independent journalist more than a corrupt community organization ATM.
 
What really annoys me is that news organizations are still saying he was "dressed like a pimp" in the now-infamous videos. The media still hasn't managed to pick up on the fact that the videos were edited to show something that didn't happen.

LOL What didn't happen? This should be good
 
The OP spins the reduced misdemeanor charges, a plea deal, as “the prosecutors jumped the gun with with the felony charges” initially. I think that is false.

Let's face it, the interest of justice and the state, was not in pinning felony convictions on these four perpetrators, it was in assuring that they and anybody like them understood that what they did was against the law.

The state avoided a lengthy, expensive trial and the defendants avoided the considerable risks of long term incarceration. Such are the nature of plea deals.
 
The OP spins the reduced misdemeanor charges, a plea deal, as “the prosecutors jumped the gun with with the felony charges” initially. I think that is false.

That isn't the same subject. You said you were annoyed at the fact he was "dressed like a pimp" and that the video was cut a certain way because it "didn't happen"

Clearly you are referring to the Aacorn videos so I ask again, what "didn't happen"?

Let's face it, the interest of justice and the state, was not in pinning felony convictions on these four perpetrators, it was in assuring that they and anybody like them understood that what they did was against the law.

Let's face it. The charges were bogus and only now after the political story is over do we get the truth.

The state avoided a lengthy, expensive trial and the defendants avoided the considerable risks of long term incarceration. Such are the nature of plea deals.

And you have zero evidence that is the reason why and not because since the beginning, we knew felony charges were never supported and what the young man said they were doing there in reality is now conveniently reflected in the charges.
 
Were you there? Or are you just going on ACORN's statements, sorry, but I trust an independent journalist more than a corrupt community organization ATM.

I trust the full transcript from said "independent journalist."

And the police who reviewed it with the same conclusion that I reached.

LOL What didn't happen? This should be good

I've been over this a thousand times already, so I'll summarize:

1) Pimp never dressed as a pimp in the ACORN offices. He went in in slacks and a tie or something

2) Pimp was actually presented as the girl's boyfriend, not her pimp.

3) The house they were trying to get a loan for was actually presented as an escape from prostitution (and an abusive pimp), both for the girl and for the underage girls talked about later. An escape from child prostitution, not a haven for it.

4) Tax lady did not help the girl evade taxes, she in fact explicitly advised her to always declare income from any source. Even an illegal source. (the IRS is not tasked with investigating or prosecuting the sex trade)

5) The segments of video that showed the above were all edited out of the released video
 
Last edited:
That isn't the same subject. …

You're confused.

… The charges were bogus and only now after the political story is over do we get the truth. …

People don't plea guilty to misdemeanor charges lightly. Typically in plea deals it's because they are lowering their risks of far more severe penalties that could be assigned by an expensive criminal trial over more severe charges. The prosecution didn't see the value in that trial or those penalties, so both sides interests in avoiding it were served.

And, if the felony charges were so bogus and political as you claim, don't you think that someone like O'Keefe would have relished fighting them in court? I do. But, of course, we know his answer now: “Guilty.”
 
Last edited:
It's a plea bargain! They happen in every single case! It's what defense attorneys do; they get the DAs to reduce the charge in exchange for a guilty plea.

Did some of you miss the "guilty" part?

Good grief.
 
You're confused.

Is that why you cut off the part where I quoted you? :roll:

People don't plea guilty to misdemeanor charges lightly. Typically in plea deals it's because they are lowering their risks of far more severe penalties that could be assigned by an expensive criminal trial over more severe charges. The prosecution didn't see the value in that trial or those penalties, so both sides interests in avoiding it were served.

All speculation on your part.

And, if the felony charges were so bogus and political as you claim, don't you think that someone like O'Keefe would have relished fighting them in court? I do. But, of course, we know his answer now: “Guilty.”

He didn't have to. They dropped them remember?
 
It's a plea bargain! They happen in every single case! It's what defense attorneys do; they get the DAs to reduce the charge in exchange for a guilty plea.

Did some of you miss the "guilty" part?

Good grief.

I never said he wasn't guilty of something. Try reading carefully.

I said his actions never amounted to the felony he was charged with. And I was right.
 
He didn't have to. They dropped them remember?

Either you didn't read the article, ignored it willfully, didn't understand it, or have no idea how the system works. Here, try again:

The new charges are contained in a bill of information, which can only be filed with a defendant's consent and typically signals a plea deal.

There is absolutely no reason for a prosecutor to suddenly drop charges.

And when a plea deal is announced at the exact same time, and where the announcement includes a statement pointing out that this is done because of a plea agreement, I think the proper conclusion is (I know -- this is tough, but try to follow me here) there was a plea agreement.
 
Were you there? Or are you just going on ACORN's statements, sorry, but I trust an independent journalist more than a corrupt community organization ATM.


The individual to to whom you refer, is neither independent, nor a credible journalist. Acorn has been found not guilty of any unlawful actions, unlike Mr "independent journalist"
 
I trust the full transcript from said "independent journalist."

And the police who reviewed it with the same conclusion that I reached.



I've been over this a thousand times already, so I'll summarize:

1) Pimp never dressed as a pimp in the ACORN offices. He went in in slacks and a tie or something

2) Pimp was actually presented as the girl's boyfriend, not her pimp.

3) The house they were trying to get a loan for was actually presented as an escape from prostitution (and an abusive pimp), both for the girl and for the underage girls talked about later. An escape from child prostitution, not a haven for it.

4) Tax lady did not help the girl evade taxes, she in fact explicitly advised her to always declare income from any source. Even an illegal source. (the IRS is not tasked with investigating or prosecuting the sex trade)

5) The segments of video that showed the above were all edited out of the released video
Then you wouldn't mind sourcing it I suppose.
 
The individual to to whom you refer, is neither independent, nor a credible journalist. Acorn has been found not guilty of any unlawful actions, unlike Mr "independent journalist"
Mr. Independent journalist had damning video, because he wasn't acting as a law enforcement official and the video was obtained without a warrant it would not be admissable as evidence. However ACORN was guilty as sin....but appeal to the court is fine when the results go your way isn't it.:roll:

EDIT- BTW, I went to college for broadcasting which also involves a journalism aspect, there is no credibility test for journalism, if there were quite a few "credible" journalists would be flipping burgers right now.
 
Last edited:
It turns out more and more that some people either don't or can't read and comprehend, and thus get confused.

Plea bargains are not offered if a solid case for the prosecution exists, and there is no way the Federal prosecutors file reduced charges against O'Keefe after what he and his partner took down Obama's pals at ACORN if they had a bigger case.

We have seen Obama pals in the past get a pass in the past so it's no stretch to believe Obama would want to make sure the book was thrown at these four knuckle heads who didn't think there little caper through.
 
Plea bargains are not offered if a solid case for the prosecution exists, and there is no way the Federal prosecutors file reduced charges against O'Keefe after what he and his partner took down Obama's pals at ACORN if they had a bigger case.

And no defense attorney would accept a plea bargain if there wasn't a solid case.
 
Is that why you cut off the part where I quoted you? :roll:



All speculation on your part.



He didn't have to. They dropped them remember?

Surely you must have some inside information we lack. Enlighten us!
 
Surely you must have some inside information we lack. Enlighten us!
Having problems providing that link I requested or just incapable?
 
Back
Top Bottom