In the article posted on the Huffington Post written by legal scholar Jonathan Turley, ”James O’Keefe Tweets Info On Wiretapping Case, Violates Gag Order” of January 28th, 2010, the headline makes an unverifiable claim that James O’Keefe is in violation of a gag order. Additionally, the headline refers to a “wiretapping case.”
Huffington Post offers no credible citation for the claim Mr. O’Keefe was in breach of a gag order. Furthermore, Mr. O’Keefe has gone on record denying claims there was a gag order placed on him.
There are also no allegations of any wiretap plot in the FBI affidavit, and a law enforcement official has conceded that the four men were not attempting to wiretap or intercept calls. In addition, legal representation for the accused has gone on record stating there were no intentions to tap phones in the Senator’s office. Thus, the assertion Mr. O’Keefe’s legal matter is a “wiretapping case” is a false one.
We kindly ask you to issue a correction/retraction to the story.
We have been/will be making similar requests of other news sources to correct similar errors. Some, such as the Washington Post, MSNBC’s David Shuster, and Talking Points Memo already have posted corrections or retractions.
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
29 Comments
This is totally shaping up to be an incident where O'Keefe wanted to report on the fact that the Senator's office was simply not taking calls in opposition to her position on the funds to buy her healthcare vote. I believe his cohorts were dressed as phone repairmen because the Senator's office claimed the phone systems were down, when in fact everyone in the office likely knew that was not the case.
There is no evidence of a crime. At the very worst, if they were asked to leave, and did not, it would be trespassing. How long until these federal charges are dropped?
Kharma.
It's a bitch.
" The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. "
~ Thomas Jefferson ~
of the three links purporting to debunk the wiretapping allegation, only the unnamed federal official actually says it doesn't appear there was any wiretapping attempt–only an attempt to render the phones inoperable, which is itself a crime. the FBI affidavit does not conclusively prove anything. it merely states the probable cause grounds for interfering with a phone. That does not preclude any additional charges based on the facts alleged in the affidavit or found out later. (this is not to say these charges will be brought, or could even be sustained, but only that you cannot point to the affidavit's lack of a wiretapping allegation as proof there was no attempt to wiretap.) the denial by counsel for the accused is not proof of anything except the lawyer's position. it is not evidence. in that light, even a denial by the accused would not be conclusive proof of anything, just evidence for a jury to consider.
and I'm curious, since Breitbart made such a big deal out of insisting he had no prior knowledge of any of this, and did nothing to support it, where does he get off requesting other media issue retractions? if anyone should ask this, it would be the accused (or their counsel). unless Mr. B was more involved in this than he admits….
The purpose of this website is to highlight media bias. You expect Breitbart to ignore THIS?
Have you also forgotten that it was the left media who were making the big deal and trying to implicate Andrew Brietbart in this. Get your facts straight before you post. Thank you!
alpaca n. , pl. , alpaca , or -as . A domesticated South American mammal (Lama pacos), related to the llama and having fine, long wool. (and a perfect what the he*l do you think your doing? face) Classic!
Hey Retracto…. Never change…;)
You miss the point; there's no evidence anywhere that there was any wiretapping involved, or any attempt to wiretap a phone. It was speculation, but the headlines in this and other pieces indicated otherwise.
In other words, it is a lie. The whole concept of this website is to point this out. Moreover, failure to issue a retraction gives O'Keefe grounds to sue.
Don't mind the lefties. They're just depressed that it's starting to look like James WON'T be prison-raped at any time in the near future.
Maybe it's not Andrew Breibart asking for retractions.
Yep, it's all speculation at this point, so to report it as fact is not … being factual. You may as well be writing James O'Keefe fan fiction in this post, since nobody except "journalists" is saying there was any attempt to bug the phones.
What? HuffPo made a mistake? Say it cannot be!
Correction: there is no evidence that there was or was not wiretapping involved, yet.
That evidence may come forth at any time, and indeed it seems highly unlikely that at least two of the conspirators would have donned repairman/technecian outfits, nor requested access to telephones if there were not some intention of either disabling or wiretapping them.
Had they only been interested in ascertaining if and why the Senator's office was not replying to phone calls, then it would have sufficed tovisit the office and ask questions.
Howerver you look at it, this is a Federal building and it was more than a little stupid to think you can just waltz in pretending to be official repairmen and get access to swithcboards and telefone hardware.
This whole episode seems to shed a great deal of light on the agenda of the "Acorn pimp" and his backers from the far-right. [Far, far right I might add]
The Huffing-paint Post wouldn't know truth or honesty if it bit them in the A$$!
Rick, the FBI's own affadavit says nothing about wiretapping.
So the question is, where did the wiretapping "facts" come from? Answer: nowhere.
Now as to "it seems highly unlikely that at least two of the conspirators would have donned repairman/technecian outfits, nor requested access to telephones if there were not some intention of either disabling or wiretapping them" — how about donning the outfits to gain access to the telephones? and then showing that the phones had deliberately been shut off by the Senator's staff?
Yankee Imperialist :
Is there such a thing as a left wing reactionary ? (schuster )
[...] Huffington Post [...]
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by BigJournalism: Correction Request: The Huffington Post http://bit.ly/99QiTP…
well, I would guess the wiretapping allegations are based on (1) guys in phone tech suits (2) fiddling with phones while (3) there was a listening device involved. I can't recall off the top of my head, but I believe the listening device was found on the person outside the building. what would he be listening to?
my post indicates I am well aware people are trying to connect him to this. please learn to read. thank you.
No, I think I get the point. Breitbart expects a retraction of any mention of wiretapping based on (1) an affidavit that does not allege wiretapping, but could be read to include sufficient facts, (2) an unnamed official who made a statement to a reporter later and (3) a statement by a defense lawyer.
(1) does not prove or disprove anything; Breitbart has made allegations of criminal misconduct based on his review of "evidence" where no such allegations or charges have been made by prosecutors (ACORN is a good example–I don't see any charges there, but Brietbart called them a "criminal organization" based on his review of the video; he didn't even bother to use the word "alleged"). (2) is interesting, but there is no reason for a media outlet alleging a crime based on their reading of the affidavit to withdraw the allegation based on an unnamed and yet unverified source. and (3) simply does not matter. the right wing media was quick to "allege" criminal conduct in the ACORN videos (and in many cases accuse outright), which I have no problem with. why does it bother you that this works both ways? because (supposedly) the left-wing media dominates the world, and that is so unfair? seriously, this claim is getting tiresome, especially where fox is crowing about being the biggest and most trusted media source. the whole right wing persecution complex would be funny if it were not so disingenous.
No. Breitbart correctly expects a retraction based on there being zero evidence that an attempt to wiretap took place, which the affadavit confirms.
You'll notice if you read all of these retraction stories, that respected news organizations (e.g., WaPost, CBS News) have now issued retractions. That's what real news organizations do.
What this whole series exposes is that most of these so-called news organizations are nothing but. A real news organization issues a retraction/correction when it makes a mistake.
the affidavit does not confirm there was no attempt to wiretap. the affidavit only alleges there are sufficient facts to support a charge of entering a federal building on false pretenses to commit a felony (interfering with a phone). this affidavit is then presented to a prosecutor who may choose to (1) support the charge (2) reject the charge or (3) issue additional charges based on the allegations. all these options may involve further investigation. so the question is: could a charge of wiretapping be supported by the allegations in the affidavit? possibly. you have guys dressed as phone techs "manipulating" a phone handset and then asking for access to the phone closet. as a prosecutor I would want more (listening device? I will note that is not mentioned in the affidavit but has come up in other reports), but to say the affidavit provides zero evidence of an attempt to wiretap is inaccurate. it would be more correct to say it does not provide sufficient evidence.
You're missing the pont.
Even if everything you said is true, it doesn't make it a wiretapping case. It makes it an ALLEGED wiretapping case.
The same as those people were the "alleged Foot Hood shooter" and the "alleged Christmas day bomber".
This is the problem with the bias in the media; it's OK to call people who kill, or try to kill, Americans "alleged", but when it comes to a Conservative activist, he's guilty as sin. Nothing "alleged" about it, even when it turns out that there really isn't even an allegation. There's a level of integrity that these so-called journalists have completely forgotten about, and what used to be a respectable profession is now nothing more than a shill for progressivism.
Please point out what part of the affadavit gives any indication there was an attempt to wiretap or bug the phones?
Exactly, it doesn't exist. Since the affadavit is all there is to go on, there is zero EVIDENCE of the above.
You can spin it all you want. Congrats. Doesn't detract from the fact that Breitbart is right, and what he's doing is having an effect (see all the retractions/corrections to date).
Now, be a good troll and go crawl back under your bridge.
No prior knowledge of what? He "insists" or claimed or said? I guess your opinion of what happened depends on you political view. I take it at it's face value. If these guys went in there asking about the phones and got information what was going on why were they arrested? I think this case will be dropped.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Tania Gail, greychampion, John Bailey, spiritarrow and others. spiritarrow said: Correction Request: The Huffington Post http://is.gd/7jpGH [...]
Way to go Andrew Breitbart! You eviscerated Shuster in your on-air encounter, and clearly deserve apologies from the "elite" media pundits who engaged in one of the ugliest smear campaigns of recent memory.
You must be logged in to post a comment.