Shuster grills Breitbart about his relationship with O'Keefe
January 28, 2010 3:40 pm ET
From the 3 pm ET hour of the January 28 edition of MSNBC Live:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
I hope he makes his rouunds on all the shows because his head will explode on one of them soon.
I just got a chance to watch the video, and I agree. As much of a d****bag as Breitbart is, I just don't have enough of a sadistic streak to enjoy seeing somebody fail that badly.
The guy had one bullet, Schuster's use of the phrase "wire tap". The second that was retracted, Breitbart was completely unarmed. That didn't stop the logic-impaired ideologue from continuing with his rant.
I'm glad Schuster closed by getting that "absolutely not !" from Mr. B. regarding his knowledge of the crime. Breitbart better hope he's covered his tracks.
I'm rubber your glue whatever I say bounces off me and sticks to you.
What an idiot!
I love how Breitbart tries to say that the DOJ did not investigate ACORN. If there was a crime committed by ACORN, it probably would have been a state crime and not a federal one.
THEY ARE CORRECT ALLEGATIONS!!!
JamesOKeefeIII@JuryofPeers: STFU
Antonio Fargas
Snoop Dog
(Both played Huggy Bear, in Starsky and Hutch,the series and movie, respectively).
@JamesOKeefeIII a) you are not a journalist b) the truth is you intended to tap her phones c) it's a felony d) you will go to prison.
All Shuster got wrong is the type of felony that O'Keefe himself admits to committing.
There were several lost souls here who volunteered to say they believed that fairy tale.
Andy is unintentionally hilarious.
Seriously people, it ain't that big a deal, and O'Keefe ain't that big a player. He's a young man who at the very least screwed up and got too cute after becoming somewhat of a celebrity. ACORN is big organization with federal funding and offices all over the country with a significant effect on elections that has been exposed for having a lot of corrupt employees.
Big difference between the two stories.
There is zero evidence that ACORN has affected any election.
Sorry hoos.
Just wanted to make the right wing collectively crap themselves.
After evisceration in the court of public opinion, unconstitutional defunding by Congress, and independent investigations, ACORN to date has not been charged with a single crime related to the O'Keefe operation. Not one single criminal charge.
On the other hand, we have a 25 year old MAN who has admitted to the conspiring and execution of using false and fradulent means in an attempt to gain access to Federal property with the intent of committing a felony. The felony being his attempt to disrupt the phone system of a United States Senator's office in order to illicit a response from her staff and capture it on hidden cameras and a cellular phone. The use of this footage would be later used in an attempt to discredit and embarass the Senator... perhaps at a critical moment during her election campaign.
This is O'Keefe's new journalism that you are apparently supporting and encouraging. Manufactured reporting of artificially created incidents that are used as political chess pieces to embarass and damage democratically elected officials.
You may want to say that this isn't that big of a deal, but Federal Law Enforcement officials apparently strongly disagree with you.
And, oh RK, how many convictions has Halliburton and Dick Cheney had? How many has George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld had? War criminals all, right, according to the nutroots?
Big difference between the two stories."
On second thought, it's no wonder.
Just because this 25 year old MAN happens to represent your alleged political ideology does not excuse him nor does it mean that he is a target for the OTHER SIDE. . . . {{{{{shudder}}}}} the LEFT!!!! He flat out broke the law, AGAIN. He should be punished.
He's a young adult and he did something very wrong and very stupid. He is not a representative of the Republican party. If you want to be like Shuster and claim that he was funded or directed by someone much higher up, go right ahead. Your dishonesty rivals that of Shuster's already, so feel free.
WHAT?!?!?!? He did not claim to be representative of Republicans, you did not claim he was representative of Republicans, bitnx did not claim he was representative of Republicans...THE REPUBLICANS CLAIMED HE WAS REPRESENTATIVE OF REPUBLICANS. Remember the resolution signed by 35 Republicans wanting to claim him a "hero"? Would they do that for someone who they don't think represents them and their ideals? Remember the right wing media going gaga over him? Would they do that if they did not feel he represented their right wing, republican ideals?
He might not have been funded or directed by someone else in this instance, but by praising and idolizing him for his past behaviour, they certainly enabled this one. And the story isn't necessarily O'Keefe himself, but the behaviour of the right wing which encouraged his behaviour and then their hypocritical distancing and disavowal of O'Keefe and his current behaviour.
And, last time I checked, federal law was neither left nor right. When someone BREAKS said law, their alleged political ideology [which in this case is NOT conservative] is irrelevant.
HE BROKE THE LAW. The reason it is a story is because HE'S BROKEN THE LAW before and the IDIOTS like Breitbart, Fox and hate talk radio made him a HERO. HE BROKE THE LAW. Let go of your ridiculous "us v. them" crap.
To try to downplay the story as just some "kid" who was caught doing something "naughty" is just as misleading and hypocritical as the rest of rght wings response.
Actually he was named Fox News Sunday's Power Player of the Week just 17 weeks ago. If you feel he's not that big a player, perhaps you should take that up with Fox and Chris Wallace and correct them.
What the hell does that mean, anyway? Fox is supposed to listen to me exactly why, in your opinion?
You took the initiative to alert MMFA to your opinion that O'Keefe "ain't that big a player", but MMFA wasn't the media organization that promoted his work. If you truly feel that way, your issue isn't with MMFA directly but with the organizations that originally touted him as a "Power Player".
For the same reasons anyone would listen to you. If you don't think Fox should have elevated O'Keefe to the level of "Power Player" then you and MMFA agree and there's no reason you shouldn't take your criticism directly to Fox.
Good God, listen to yourself. Fox names a Power Player of the Week- I give it about two seconds of thought when I happen to hear them say that and that's being generous.
Seriously, dude, you need to get a life. Really seriously.
-Wake up.
-Repeatedly defend a smarmy wingnut-welfare beneficiary whose claim to fame is wearing a Party City costume when he gets caught doing something illegal.
-That second thing? Keep doing it for a while.
-Type the following with a straight face:
I don't, but there is this internet thing that makes information available. It's handy for fact checking. To return to the issue at hand: you don't think O'Keefe is a big player, MMFA doesn't think that O'Keefe should be a big player, and Fox News actually elevated him to the level of "Power Player"... and yet you're taking issue with MMFA. Makes plenty of sense.
And in those two seconds, you apparently didn't seem to recognize that it was Fox, not MMFA, that considers O'Keefe a big player. You and MMFA agree that O'Keefe shouldn't have received the kind of fawning attention and heavy coverage that FNC gave him. You just don't seem to be aware that we agree yet.
Are you suggesting Fox doesn't speak for REAL MURKA? Treason!
Only right wingers think 10% is a back breaker. Especially when they have to do it in taxes.
Actually, it was the court ruling in their favor that took care of that.
In a way, I'm kinda glad this little episode has given you guys a glimmer of hope, though. I was starting to get worried you were going to sink back into the depression you all were in after the 2004 election.
Actually, it's a felony. So it is, by definition, a big deal. Sorry.
You know WHY they've currently got federal funding? BECAUSE A JUDGE GOT IT RESTORED WHEN HE RULED THERE WAS NO ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. And by the way, if telling someone "This is how you would do something illegal" constitutes a crime, I look forward to the arrests of Laura Ingraham and G. Gordon Liddy.
Here's a thought; imagine the hysteria on Hate Radio if Michael Moore got caught trying to fudge with the phones in John McCain's office.
Now, where were we?
You're not very good at this.
I had to read the part about Bush Sr. more than once, trying to make sense of it. That was out in left field. Moore would be more guilty because he's more famous and respected ?
And, if ACORN is a corrupt, criminal enterprise because of something an employee did, then wouldn't Breitbart and his website company be the same thing? Try to think these ridiculous partisan ravings through before you post them. They are tragically, unintentionally hilarious.
Shame on you, there, dude.
That's bad.
If you watched any of the videos, or if you even watched the above videos, O'Keefe and Giles found people willing to aid and abet childhood prostitution and nearly every stop they made. A clear pattern. A pattern so clear that the House voted to defund them by a margin of 345-75, and the Senate did likewise by a vote of 85-11.
That's an awful lot of Democrats in there, too, my none-too-bright friend.
You're not 25 too, are you?
O'Keefe was wrong and did something stupid. He bragged that he was about to come up with something really huge even before he did it- something kids do.
Defending him because you agree with his previous illegal and not very important "vidoe" expos. I don't know if you've heard the news, but ACORN was exonerated of any wrongdoing in O'Keefe's previous illegal adventure. He's being sued in two states for his illegal actions and from what I read yesterday, he can't find a lawyer to represent his sorry little punk rear. Encouraging him by calling him a "25 year old kid" is part of the problem. My 25 year old son is a MAN, not a kid. When he screws up, he accepts the fact that he is a MAN.
And what is it I've said here that you think is defending him? How is it encouraging him to say he's a young kid who did something stupid? Compare and contrast him to the adults who were completely on board with aiding and abetting a child prostitution ring if you would.
O'keefe has been featured on Fox news several times and his videos have been shown over and over again to try to discredit an organization that helps the poor and disenfranchised. Now he is trying to rig an election by producing another fake news story to discredit a Democrat. Only a partisan hack like hoosier would defend this guy.
And, for over a year, Republicans and most of the media dismissed Watergate as "just a third-rate burglary."
Is this "Watergate Jr.?" Too soon to tell.
It's the typical right wing tactic. Scream and shout...start before the question is even out of the interviewer's mouth...talk over anyone else who tries to offer a dissenting opinion...and then cry "Are you going to let me talk?" when you've gone off on monologues that have nothing to do with the original point.
http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/28/how-david-shuster-lied-to-get-me-to-appear-on-msnbc/
What a tool...
"you convicted him on twitter"
"how much money does MSNBC get from Obama's stimulus package, I think it was in the billions, what does that have to that you falsely portrayed James O'Keefe as a felon"
"are you retracting Watergate Jr"
I'm not sure what Breibart does for a living or what his skills are, but communication is definitely not one of them.
Is he the clear winner because he lied and and spouted that MSNBC received billions of dollars in the stimulus package as a response to the question "how much money do you pay O'Keefe"
Was it the "you convicted him on Twitter" comment that won him the debate... please... the reason I want the transcript because I am sure when you read his comments (sans screaming) the true brilliance of his idiocy will shine through.
The only thing that Shuster, whose tweet was completely inappropriate for a journalist, said that was incorrect was that O'Keefe was there to wiretap.
Meanwhile, concerning David Shuster's supposedly controversial tweet to O'Keefe, InsideCableNews claims Shuster is "going too far" because he isn't an opinion anchor like Keith Olbermann and others like that.
Does anybody see a problem with Mr. Shuster's decision to directly tweet O'Keefe and criticize him like he did? Maybe not the smartest thing to do, but there is nothing unethical about it. Even MSNBC reprimanded him on it.
What do you guys think?
How David Shuster Lied to Get Me to Appear on MSNBC
Shuster is a smarmy, disingenuous, lying, piece of crap who isn't all that different from O'Keefe in the category of being someone with sudden celebrity who does dumb things. He lied to Breitbart to get him on camera so he could embarrass him, all the while pretending impartiality and claiming to have no horse in the race, when he was impassioned about this as he was Plamegate- for which he quite falsely claimed Karl Rove was going to be indicted.
I'm embarrassed to be from the same state as this d-bag.
Get over your us v. them game. It's silly and destructive for our country.
O'Keefe and his gang of three were caught in the commission of a felony. They should all be punished as the MEN they are. None of them are "kids." They are malicious TWERPS that you and your heroes on FOX and hate talk radio have elevated to HEROES. It's disgusting.
Exactly who here claimed that it's a "big, wide-ranging, all-encompassing, Republican-indicting deal"?
So that's your reason? Because "It just isn't" I should believe you? Give me, and the rest of us, a reason for why it isn't. We're not going to take your word for it, especially when you try and get us to go to a disgusting website like bigjournalism.com with the same scummy jerkoff, Breitbart, that is claiming ZERO responsibility for this whole crime, even though he took O'Keefe under his wing and paraded him all over the right-wing media trying to make him into a big star.
No one has said any such thing. It is simply another example of Republican Party business as usual. By poo-pooing the commission of a felony as "something a 25 year old kid did (as if it's a major event)", you do seem to condone the event.
This does not seem to be a one time thing for Mr. O'Keefe either. The footage he shot of two ACORN employees in Maryland would seem to be in violation of two sections (10-402 & 10-410) of the state's Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code that requires "two party consent to all electronic surveillance".
According to Fox News Legal Analyst (note that's FOX NEWS legal analyst), Arthur Aidala, the lawsuit filed by Katherine Conway-Russell "absolutely" has merit because Mr. O'Keefe and Ms. Giles violated Pennsylvania law by recording Mrs. Conway-Russell without her knowledge. Mr. Aidala also said, "...that because the filmmakers were there ostensibly to get financial advice, ACORN staff had a reasonable expectation of privacy that the filmmakers violated."
If you have proof (and Andrew Breitbart does not constitute proof) that ACORN employees aided and abetted child prostitution, I would like to see it for myself.
I'm quite sure you are a fairly resonable human but you cannot suspend critical thinking just because doing so would fail to support which ever side of the political fence you happen to be on.
As for the video (yea, back on topic) I seriously do not know how anyone can conclude Shuster or Breitbart "won". All I heard was each one talking over the other (a fairly recent interview tactic that you'll find on talk shows, news programs, anywhere interviews take place these days, that I absolutely hate) with the occasional audible accusation. It gave me a headache.
If Shuster did not write that memo that Breitbart posted on his website, then Shuster would've already denied having written by now- you can bet your bottom dollar on that. He could destroy Breitbart if Breitbart had falsely attributed Shuster to a memo he did not write as having come from him when it didn't.
You're the one with the us vs. them mentality, my friend.
What? Please explain, Bret. Start your conspiracy theories.
Yes exactly, Bret, you do act as a journalist... stop pretending like you are one. Kind of like your pale, lanky, night in-shining armor (soon to be charged with a federal crime) punk buddy is.
Riddle me this--since Breitbart put so much effort into explaining how Shuster is such a dishonorable, unethical, untrustworthy kind of guy, why, oh why did Andy agree to the interview?