[EL] Check out New O'Keefe video: Obama campaign staffer caught helping a...

Fri Oct 12 08:44:25 PDT 2012

There are a few reasons to believe O'Keefe is not an investigative
journalist. A journalist, for example, might disclose how many other people
were approached who *didn't* encouraging dual voting, and manage to do his
job without violating federal criminal law.
http://www.fbi.gov/neworleans/press-releases/2010/no052610b.htm

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Benjamin
Barr
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 11:34 AM
To: Jamin Raskin
Cc: JBoppjr at aol.com; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out New O'Keefe video: Obama campaign staffer caught
helping a...

Oh, Jamin-

Let's get back to reality.

Investigative journalists (they are real and need not have "Slate" badges or
flow from the halls of Columbia) enjoy a variety of privileges when
investigating potentially illegal conduct.  Think back to the many useful
purposes of Dateline and Primetime investigations into allegations at Food
Lion, child predators, medical fraud, and the like.  The common refrain
stemming from all of these acts is that while some of the investigative
journalists were nudging or encouraging potentially illegal conduct, it
would be very difficult to find the specific intent on behalf of a
journalist to actually complete a crime or have another complete a crime
since their purpose is to illustrate the potential or existence of illegal
conduct.  Thus, recognizing this worthwhile function, investigative
journalists have been immune from invasion of privacy suits, claims of
fraud, and excluded from criminal prosecutions against the parties-in-chief
since they could adequately illustrate their intent and innocence in these
actions.

Some people might not like James or Project Veritas, but there's no reason
to think he's not an investigative journalist or that his work isn't in the
same line of investigative reporting as ABC.  I'm not aware of an exception
to journalistic privileges just because you investigate voter fraud.

Now, something entirely different happens when a third party seems giddy (as
does the DNC agent in the Veritas video) to commit a crime and actually
takes steps to commit criminal acts.  The intent difference matters
remarkably, since the DNC agent doesn't enjoy any investigative immunity -
she's there to get people voting, even twice or thrice, it would seem, and
cannot fall back on the protective immunity enjoyed by an undercover
investigator in the field. 

Shouldn't we be celebrating the investigation of crimes against voting
integrity just as courts laud the efforts of investigative journalists
against other entities?  Since the police and other investigative arms are
overworked, it comes down to the rightful civil actions of concerned
citizens, activists, and investigative journalists to step in and uncover
what the government does not have the resources to accomplish.  I think we
can all celebrate that.

Forward,

First Amendment Ben

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Jamin Raskin <raskin at wcl.american.edu>
wrote:

Mr. Bopp:  If this ridiculous case wasn't totally "concocted," as I wrote,
do you mean to say that the self-proclaimed "reporter," who instigated the
whole conversation and proposed the crime, is actually guilty of the
criminal offense of voter fraud?  If this was voter fraud, both parties must
be guilty of it, no?  Indeed, isn't the person who actually casts two
ballots more guilty than the accomplice?  Of course, if this is not voter
fraud, then neither party is guilty.  (Criminal attempt presents other
issues.) Recall that the "reporter" who was apparently in on the joke and
instigated the whole thing, after all, is not a police officer or FBI agent
who has the right to participate in criminal activity to catch others.  So
either the ludicrous conversations caught on tape constitute a crime and
both individuals are part of it, or it was no crime at all.  Surely you do
not mean to "defend" or "justify" a private person's creation and commission
of an actual crime just to catch a confederate--or do you?  Do I have the
right to organize the robbery of a convenience store just so I can get you
involved and prove that you have the predisposition even if you've never
done it before?  This is weird.  I know of no legal doctrine that would give
me a defense in that case.

In any event, I wasn't writing about the RNC, which obviously did the right
thing politically and morally too, in dumping Mr. Sproul; I was curious
about why we experienced the radio silence about Sproul on this list over
the last week of all those, like you, who are jumping on this transparently
concocted case of two valley girls talking about how "hilarious" they are
going to be.  There are real, actual cases of voter registration fraud
taking place in this campaign, but evidently you prefer not to talk about
it.  This distorted attitude only increases people's sense that the concern
about voter fraud by leading figures like you is totally partisan and
selective in nature.

Yours, jbr        

From: JBoppjr at aol.com [mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10:39 AM
To: Jamin Raskin; joseph.e.larue at gmail.com; hoersting at gmail.com
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out New O'Keefe video: Obama campaign staffer caught
helping a...

Please observe that in Sproul's case, he got fired by the RNC and is being
pursued by the cops.  That is as it should be.

Contrast that with instances of Democrat voter fraud -- it is "silly"
"concocted" didn't happen, etc.  No one defended or sought to justify
Sproul.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 10/12/2012 10:29:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
raskin at wcl.american.edu writes:

Actually, you didn't have to wait for this one silly and transparently
concocted case of two giggling nincompoops talking about a phony plan to
engage in voter-fraud-by-mail to vindicate your belief in voter fraud.  You
just had to have read the New York Times a week ago about the widespread and
serious allegations of real and massive voter fraud being executed by
Republican operative Nathan Sproul, whose company has received millions of
dollars from Republican entities across the country and faces complaints
from at least ten Florida counties of registrations involving "similar
signatures," "false addresses," and registration of the dead.  See
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/us/politics/nathan-sproul-a-republican-ope
rative-long-trailed-by-voter-fraud-claims.html?pagewanted=all
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/us/politics/nathan-sproul-a-republican-op
erative-long-trailed-by-voter-fraud-claims.html?pagewanted=all&_> &_

                I wonder why none of those List members indulging in all of
the sarcastic outrage this morning didn't use the occasion of the Nathan
Sproul revelations to prove their point.  Hmm.

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Joe La
Rue
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10:13 AM
To: Steve Hoersting
Cc: JBoppjr at aol.com; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out New O'Keefe video: Obama campaign staffer caught
helping activist v

You beat me to it, Steve. I was going to say that. Frankly, I'm disappointed
in Jim and Ben. They've obviously not been paying attention to the List
Serve. After all, if you say it enough ("There is no such thing as voter
fraud") it MUST be true. 

Joe
___________________
Joseph E. La Rue

cell: 480.272.2715 
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com>
wrote:

There is no such thing as voter fraud.

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Benjamin Barr <benjamin.barr at gmail.com>
wrote:

Thanks, Jim.  I recently signed James O'Keefe and Project Veritas as
clients.  Expect more great work on exposing voter fraud and problems with
voting integrity as we push ahead to November and beyond!  While so many
allege this fraud never happen or is unlikely to, James' work offers a great
insight to reality on the ground.  Stay tuned!

Forward,

First Amendment Ben

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:

Click here: New O'Keefe video: Obama campaign staffer caught helping
activist vote twice | The Daily Caller
<http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/new-okeefe-video-obama-campaign-staffer-c
aught-helping-activist-vote-twice/#ixzz293I3dEts>  

Obama campaign caught red handed participating in voter fraud by helping
voters vote in two different states in this election.  And some say there is
no voter fraud!  Jim Bopp

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121012/5941c55a/attachment.html>