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

Fri Oct 12 08:49:49 PDT 2012

A journalist might. Or, a journalist might not. Let's face it: journalists
make editorial decisions all the time. O'Keef is entitled to do the same,
don't you think?

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 8:44 AM, Adam Bonin <adam at boninlaw.com> wrote:

> 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-operative-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-caught-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****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121012/978f3e3d/attachment.html>