TPM LiveWire
Breitbart And Shuster Battle On-Air Over O'Keefe (VIDEO)
Rachel Slajda | January 28, 2010, 3:20PM
David Shuster and Andrew Breitbart
Share
Send to a friend!
MSNBC's David Shuster just battled with Big Government's Andrew Breitbart on-air over the arrest of James O'Keefe and friends for allegedly trying to tamper with the phones in Sen. Mary Landrieu's New Orleans office.
Shuster has been covering the story on location from New Orleans. Breitbart has ties to O'Keefe, having posted the latter's ACORN sting videos on his web site and paying him as a contributor. (Breitbart maintains he was not involved in what happened at Landrieu's office and has no knowledge of it beyond what's been reported in the news.)
Breitbart attacked Shuster and MSNBC for "slandering" O'Keefe by saying he had wiretapped Landrieu's phones and demanded Shuster retract the wiretapping claim, which he did. He also attacked Shuster for tweeting that O'Keefe "intended to tap [Landrieu's] phones."
The interview quickly turned into a shouting match about journalism ethics.
Watch:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Breitbart wrote a post earlier today titled "How David Shuster Lied to Get Me to Appear on MSNBC," with the text of an email from Shuster about the segment.
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
rbeats
January 28, 2010 3:38 PM
If you put the video together I hope you add the guy from Media Matters they had on right after this spectacle. His insight was pretty good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
January 28, 2010 3:38 PM
Wish I would have seen this one...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
January 28, 2010 4:12 PM in reply to GTFOOH
Wow, sorry I finally got to see it. This Breitbart is a flaming idiot!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
miasmo
January 28, 2010 5:12 PM in reply to GTFOOH
Andrew Breitbart runs a child prostitution ring. Why is the government not investigating this? It's a conspiracy and MSNBC is clearly in on it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
morgan warstler
January 28, 2010 3:47 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/28/breitbart_takes_on_msnbcs_shuster_over_okeefe_scandal.html
Only 35% of America trusts MSNBC... this is why. ACORN is a bad apple. Josh, You saw the videos. They were INTELLIGENTLY trying to circumvent tax code to aid 15 year prostitution.
You work hard for your cred, keep it in place here. When one on your own team goes rotten, throw them over.
And now there's no wiretapping. Shuster's on air mea culpa is a humiliation... he isn't the right mouthpiece to tag after O'Keffe.
As to O'Keefe, I think you might want to prepare yourself for another rope-a-dope from Breitbart and crew. If it turns out that this was conservative-Borat's who didn't do any actual damage to property, you might end up seeing this whole thing kicked. No felony. Suddenly, it's just good old making fun of power.
If I were you, I'd wait.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
superking
January 28, 2010 4:03 PM in reply to morgan warstler
The audio was dubbed in that propaganda hit-piece. The ACORN Employees thought they were playing along with a practical joke, as would anyone who saw a frat-boy douchebag in a pimp costume.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
January 28, 2010 4:42 PM in reply to superking
Exactly, superkin. I was about to say that the average, competent ACORN employee would have simply looked at an asshole who'd walked in in a Super Fly costume and said, "Get the fuck outta here!"... then I remembered: MANY OF THEM DID.
The videos the whole world saw (courtesy of Fox "News") were what little O'Keefe had managed to cull, from what comparatively few ACORN workers would even consent to speak to the guy
Although we heard doctored audio (which, if Breitbart is really interested in guilty parties "admitting" things, Fox never admitted), you can tell just from the look on the ACORN workers' faces that their response was basically: "Mm-hmm. Yup. yeah, I guess. I suppose you could... whatever..." In other words, these ladies didn't know what the hell to respond (stipulated: they shouldn't have said anything).
Take that, edit heavily, and market it to Fox as the result you intended to get when you first walked in, et voila!.
This is why I always put quotes around the second word in Fox "News". Total absence of "news" standards, hyped as cutting-edge "street" journalism. Which is fine, if you also don't mind "street" heart surgery or "street" congressional legislation...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
superking
January 28, 2010 5:27 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
It defies credibility that anyone who's career consists of working with the urban poor would think for a second that a white college kid dressed like he came from a SF Pride Parade was actually a pimp.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Donald from Hawaii
January 28, 2010 10:31 PM in reply to superking
Sorry, but as outrageous as the San Francisco GLBT community can be, no self-respecting gay man or lesbian would appear in public looking like Mr. O'Keefe and Ms. Giles did, except on Halloween.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nomad28
January 28, 2010 5:58 PM in reply to superking
Riiiiight. That's why the ACORN employees were fired.
From Acorn CEO Bertha Lewis' own words: "The employees were fired, but she said some of them were women who thought they were doing the right thing and “thought they shouldn’t be judgmental.”"
http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/10/06/bertha-lewis-in-defense-of-acorn-in-the-face-of-scandal/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
morgan warstler
January 28, 2010 6:02 PM in reply to superking
1. O'Keefe did not have on a pimp outfit in the ACORN offices. That's WHY it's so bad. Those bozos thought it was REAL. That's what they do all day long. Abuse the system meant to help. Aid is justified proportionally to the discerning eye used to hand it out. The thing standing in the way of getting a home loan for most people ACORN "helps" is not needing information on where to go and how to do it.... the thing standing in the way is not being a decent loan risk. ACORN's approach is criminal.
2. 1 out of like 8 offices even questioned it... the rest all ate it up.
3. It wasn't edited heavily... the only thing added was the pimp outfit.
Again, rope-a-dope. MSNBC rushed in to pronounce judgement, and now as each plank gets pulled back on them they are going to be left with nada.
We're hearing now they didn't even try to disable the phones. This is going to become, "making sure she wasn't lying about her phones being busy leading up to her Senate vote."
Again, no felony. Borat obnoxiousness.
Watch, it will come down to whether she was initially lying about her phones. If she was then Borat scored one for the truth. If she wasn't, a slap on the wrist.
Watch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
January 28, 2010 6:10 PM in reply to morgan warstler
You know, after your career as a masturbating wingnut apologist in Mom's basement peters-out, you really should think about doing something substantial with your life and going to law school. They're gonna be needing more good, slick shysters, to spin "Federal crime" into "all a big hype by the durty libruls".
You've already passed the entrance exam, Sparky.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
superking
January 28, 2010 8:12 PM in reply to morgan warstler
O'Keefe did not have on a pimp outfit in the ACORN offices.
My mistake. Transcripts show that O'Keefe posed as his 'prostitute's' boyfriend, asking Acorn employees for help protecting her from her pimp. He then edited the video to make it appear as if he were posing as the pimp. My bad.
It wasn't edited heavily... the only thing added was the pimp outfit.
That may have been the only thing "added," but there was a hell of a lot subtracted, including Acorn employees bullshitting with someone they clearly considered a practical joker, kicking O'Keefe out of their offices, and even calling the police.
This whole episode is an embarassment for everyone involved, from idiot propagandists, morons who eat up the faked story even after it's proven to be fake, and yes, Democrats and Repubs in Congress who illegally voted to defund ACORN based on a hoax.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
morgan warstler
January 28, 2010 8:51 PM in reply to superking
It is OK if you make mistakes here, and frankly if you were right about the heavy editing of things being taken out, I'd agree with you.
But the transcripts were not edited, those are what I read. Dude walks in says, "she a hooker, I'm her pimp, we want to get a house for underage prostitution, and all but one ACORN office says, "welcome, we'll try and help," some in particular really put themselves to the task.
Look, just pause for a second and we can find some common ground... the ACORN thing is/was big news... because it disgusts people who never bought into the nanny state enough to accept that things are ugly in real life. They are not prepared to see an ex-hooker sympathize with a current hooker, in a quasi-government office. You may not like it, but I think you'll agree the vast masses are willing to help those in need, but only those who really "buy-in" to the system. So I'll say it again, if you want to really grow the ACORNs of the world, take the time clean them up... help a smaller percentage of people who deserve it, where there's a better chance at success stories. It doesn't help the left's side to pretend it was all trumped up bs, infact it turns the masses off to the left.
Now on O'Keefe... just remember I pointed it out, we'll see what goes down. But it smells to me like the Senator's claims about her phones lines are going to be a point of contention. Because if they simply lied to get into her office and check if her phone lines are really easily "jammed," well thats a journalist and a sting operation.... and what will matter is if she was telling the truth.
Welcome to the new media journalism. Admit you are biased. And go expose the other side's lies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
January 28, 2010 9:45 PM in reply to morgan warstler
Oh, give us a fucking break with your "common ground" (which is a retread of "a pox on both their houses; EVERYONE'S guilty!" right-wing horseshit)!
Your boy went in there, with the intention of obtaining damning evidence on those wacky, screwy Poor Black People... who, as we all know, can't go 10 minutes without running afoul of the law. Dammit, they were going to emerge with that footage, if their little wee-wees fell off. Which of course is everyone's legitimate idea of "investigative journalism".
So what did they do? They visited about a million ACORN offices, had their butts thrown out of most of them, and in a couple, encountered workers who (wrongly) tried to be helpful by stabbing at straws, when the perps asked them for help; weird questions they'd clearly never been asked before.
Then, the perps just threw out all the footage from the project that didn't meet their goals, and overdubbed the audio of the footage where the clueless workers tried to be polite to these... odd... kids.
Now, how the hell in your RW brain damage do you figure that's not "editing"? Because these little bastards' lawyer said so? Jesus.
Your premise is that because chunks of the "damning" film were not removed from the body of it, this doesn't constitute "editing".
O'Keefe's lawyer's premise (and Breitbart's!) is that because the FBI did not charge them specifically with "WIRETAPPING", this somehow proves that they were there innocently and committed no more an infraction than misrepresenting who they were; a "prank". Right, because everyone who breaches security and then seeks access to the goddamned telco room, does so for absolutely no reason! (If the jury believes this, you're home free, kid.)
According to Breitbart, the corollary to that is that whatever media outlets first reported that it walked like a duck, were a bunch of biased libruls who needed to "retract!!" their smear. The corollary to which, in turn, is that the librul media is engaging in "JURY TAMPERING!"
You know what gets me seethingly angry almost more than the politics of Republicans like you? The fact that you truly, truly believe we are all totally fucking stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
January 28, 2010 10:09 PM in reply to morgan warstler
Liar.
Liar liar liar liar liar.
Liar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
superking
January 28, 2010 10:14 PM in reply to morgan warstler
But the transcripts were not edited, those are what I read.
Dude walks in says, "she a hooker, I'm her pimp"
You really didn't think I'd fact check you? Or do you simply not care whether or not people know you're lying?
James O'Keefe: Well, my ah, my partner is a ah, she’s in a unique line of business and I don’t know if you allow
Acorn 1: Unique line of business? What are you saying?
James O'Keefe: My girlfriend is a prostitute.
DC Transcript, P.4, Biggovernment.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
morgan warstler
January 28, 2010 11:21 PM in reply to superking
My sincere apologies, I wasn't quoting the transcript(s), I was just paraphrasing them.... exactly what you found. it happened in every city.
"They visited about a million ACORN offices," Nope. It was like 7 or 8.
"had their butts thrown out of most of them" Nope. 1 office (Philly I think) had the good sense to complain to cops.
You really need to come to terms with reality - it was PERVASIVE behavior. It wasn't cherry picked. It wasn't edited falsely.
It doesn't do the progressive cause to defend the indefensible.
Your whole picking on blacks reeks of that soft bigotry thing... we should not, cannot accept that kind of rational intelligent abuse of the system as something that those "screwy" people can't be expected to do better... none of us are that liberal... look with ACORN the same thing basically would have happened anywhere, in any city. That organization had a MO based on "quantity," not "quality," which is great for rounding up votes, etc... but IS NOT how you want to go about helping people get banks loans and set up businesses.
Think how much better it would be if in 7 out of 8 offices, the people CALLED THE COPS.... after the first try, those boys would have had their reality altered. And that's what we're talking about here, down in the nitty gritty, they started from the presumption that ACORN workers were system scammers, and their assumption was rewarded.
It is one thing to demand society help the less fortunate, it is another to demand the givers expect less of the recipients than they do themselves. The left is categorically more persuasive when it remembers this.
We shouldn't be surprised, we see corporate officers take bribes and loot accounts and we see them go to jail and companies shut down... ACORN is the Alinsky version of ENRON. Come to terms with it.
This LA thing will go the same way.. they started from the assumption the Senator lied about her phone lines... do you think her office lines were jammed? Or were they not answering the phone?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
January 29, 2010 2:01 AM in reply to morgan warstler
Liar.
Liar.
Liar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
January 29, 2010 1:19 AM in reply to morgan warstler
That's what they do all day long. Abuse the system meant to help.
_____
Have you PROOF for that smear?
I thought not.
STFU, felon O'Keefe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
January 28, 2010 4:08 PM in reply to morgan warstler
Ever hear of "conspiracy." They went in with their costumes etc. and asked to work on the phone system. Actual 'property damage' is irrelevant.
Depends, of course, with what they can charge them with.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
January 28, 2010 6:47 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Lack of damage does not eliminate the charge and neither does it knock it down to mere conspiracy, very certainly.
There probably was a completed crime here. If not, it is attempted completion (like attempted murder, attempted robbery), not just conspiracy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mastershake1
January 28, 2010 4:14 PM in reply to morgan warstler
Yes, because someone who goes to all the effort to impersonate telco employees in order to get into the phone closet is just "pulling a prank."
If the guy just wanted to see that the phones were working, he could have just asked to use the phone. Or better yet, make a call from home.
Your argument is like saying that the pedophiles on Dateline who got busted for trying to solicit sex with kids shouldn't be prosecuted because there wasn't actually a real kid. The law bans "attempts," and you shouldn't get to walk merely because you tried and failed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nomad28
January 28, 2010 5:59 PM in reply to mastershake1
So, following your logic, should AG Holder indict that Acorn employeed who aided and abetted the setting up of a brothel?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
superking
January 28, 2010 8:13 PM in reply to nomad28
never happened. read the transcripts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
January 29, 2010 1:25 AM in reply to nomad28
STFU, felon O'Keefe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
swade518
January 28, 2010 4:27 PM in reply to morgan warstler
troll much?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
January 28, 2010 4:27 PM in reply to morgan warstler
If Breitbart couldn't shout over other people, he wouldn't have anything to say. These are the people on whose say-so ACORN is being trashed. Wow. Why did Shuster put up with this asshole?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 28, 2010 4:44 PM in reply to ericf
Put up with him? Shuster dropped the bait and hooked him in the jaw. Breitbart looked like a gibbering idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nomad28
January 28, 2010 6:02 PM in reply to agio
Funny. The opposite actually happened. Breibart forced Shuster to retract TWO patent lies and brought to light that Shuster was "reprimanded" like a little boy by MSNBC for his stupid teets..haha.. Classic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Massenois
January 28, 2010 6:22 PM in reply to nomad28
Stupid teets? What does his teet or teets have to do with anything?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Friction
January 28, 2010 8:37 PM in reply to Massenois
always loved a good set of teets myself..........
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
January 29, 2010 12:41 AM in reply to nomad28
What lies? Shuster reported what the rest of the media reported. So the O'Keefe Gang were charged with a different felony. Same act, same jail time. Bretibart had no intention of answering questions in an interview, but planned to make his case by the volume of his voice. I still don't get why Shuster tried to reason with him when an honest guest was waiting to go on next.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Pragmatic
January 28, 2010 4:39 PM in reply to morgan warstler
Give me a break. The Acorn tapes were edited and altered and no one knows for sure what anyone said. Notsobreitbart won't let anyone see the originals. There are lawsuits in at least two states because this O'Keefe guy is a fraud that acts in typical bad faith repug manner.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
January 29, 2010 1:28 AM in reply to Pragmatic
And he's given a boost to the plaintiffs against him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
January 28, 2010 5:07 PM in reply to morgan warstler
Liar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
January 28, 2010 5:16 PM in reply to morgan warstler
America has more idiots than we realized, who knew?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
woundedduck
January 28, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to morgan warstler
Bush got elected twice and Fox News is the most trusted news source--what does that tell you about who Americans? It tells me they don't think too hard about anything, and that just because MSNBC isn't hugely popular doesn't mean it's an untrustworthy news source.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Friction
January 28, 2010 8:39 PM in reply to woundedduck
Rachel Maddow is the most thorough and honest news person I have ever seen. Guess that Rhodes scholarship and Oxford PhD are good for something.
"Just the facts mam, just the facts"
Where's Joe Friday when you need him
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DP1
January 28, 2010 6:57 PM in reply to morgan warstler
So based on your analysis, since a few bad apples spoiled the bunch and now the whole organization is rotten, then by your standards, the entire republican party is comprised of cheating husbands who engage in payoffs when husbands of mistresses get wise, closeted gay men who: patronize male prostitutes and solicit sex in public restrooms, etc.
Sounds good to me!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 29, 2010 9:04 AM in reply to DP1
Bingo!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tralbry
January 28, 2010 10:20 PM in reply to morgan warstler
If he were you. he'd be running Red State. I think you better come up with a better argument.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
January 29, 2010 1:15 AM in reply to morgan warstler
STFU, O'Keefe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mJJ
January 29, 2010 3:48 AM in reply to morgan warstler
Sorry sir, but you are plain delusional. Messing in ANY way with a Senator's office is a Federal offense. So please explain it to a judge your thoughts on just how innocent the Judge thought your little star was when he and his cohorts did their dirty tricks. And telling a big whopper about being from the phone company also adds to these perp's problems. But of course one the the many shames of my own Republican party now is that there is this total double standard in our judgments. So long as a Republicans screws everything up, we thinks that is fine. No moral compass at all these days left in the Republican Party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ray reynolds
January 29, 2010 6:39 AM in reply to morgan warstler
Lies work. $1.5 million a day was spent by lobbyists just to lie about health reform.
Most citizens don't take the time to fid out who is lying because we don't have a media that does its job.
For decades the CIA has been spending $millions in other countries smearing people we don't like so those we (who we control) get elected.
Now the Supreme Court made that possible here.
Welcome to Fascism-govt controlled by corporations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
terje
January 29, 2010 9:41 AM in reply to morgan warstler
You've got to be f**king kidding when you say: "If it turns out that this was conservative-Borat's who didn't do any actual damage to property, you might end up seeing this whole thing kicked. No felony. Suddenly, it's just good old making fun of power." And add in the equally ridiculous : "We're hearing now they didn't even try to disable the phones. This is going to become, "making sure she wasn't lying about her phones being busy leading up to her Senate vote....Again, no felony. Borat obnoxiousness."
You don't get that it doesn't matter if they were trying to wiretap or trying to damage property -- the criminal complaint "entering federal property under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony" -- “for the purpose of interfering with the office’s telephone system.”
Interfering with the telephone system at a federal facility isn't some minor Borat "prank" -- it is a serious offense - and wiretapping or property damage are not required for this to be a felony. Attempting to dismiss this as some kind of "boys will be boys" hijinks gone wrong is a ridiculous way to minimize the clearly illegal actions of one of the right wing's heroes.
Imagine for just a second if a group of Democratic activists had been caught red-handed mucking around in the phone system of the official government offices of Jim DeMint or Mitch McConnell or some other Republican federal elected official. It would be wall to wall coverage on Fox, the Republicans in Congress would be delivering speeches demanding dire actions be taken, accusing the Democratic party leadership of orchestrating a terrible crime, tea-baggers would be comparing it to the tactics of Stalin or Hitler, and they would all be refusing to talk about anything else on the national agenda.
Sadly, O'Keefe and his ilk are typical of a special breed of young right wing activists who have come up through the well-funded network of college right wing newspapers and Young Republican groups -- self-satisfied, smug, obnoxious, privileged frat boys who don't think the rules apply to them (only to poor people) and who think they can do anything they want to advance their agenda without paying the price when they cross legal and ethical lines. They have been nurtured and coddled by a series of right wing foundations and foundations, trained in dirty tricks by party operatives, encouraged and praised by party leaders, given a platform in the right wing media, and turned into heroes by right wingers. It will be very sweet to see them finally held accountable for their excesses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Gee
January 28, 2010 3:50 PM
The Boehlert (Media Matters) video is
here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
georgecs
January 28, 2010 3:57 PM
It's pretty obvious now that the "wiretap" story was planted by O'Keefe's attorneys knowing full well it wouldn't hold up - giving them a perfect red herring to distract and distort the issues by bleating and braying about the "rush to judgement" and the "biased liberal media."
Pretty pathetic for them to pull, even more pathetic that they are 100% right that they will without a doubt get away with it. Again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
January 29, 2010 1:37 AM in reply to georgecs
We don't know that it won't hold up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
January 28, 2010 4:07 PM
"EM-ES-EN-BEE-CEE, EM-ES-EN-BEE-CEE, EM-ES-EN-BEE-CEE, Do you retract!?"
I hope some youtuber remixes this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ariseatex
January 28, 2010 4:35 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
That's stuck in my head now. Damn you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Duncan Hines
January 28, 2010 4:13 PM
Breitbart is right to note that it might be prejudicial to refer to the Okeefe affair as Watergate Jr. A more accurate name for this incident, one that better describes the spirit of the crime, springs from the question Landrieu uttered when confronting Okeefe: Is that an acorn in your pocket or are you just here to bugger my office?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
January 28, 2010 4:39 PM in reply to Duncan Hines
Because Republicans are always sensitive to the framing of an argument. "Death panels" are perfectly reasonable.
This is the problem with the media. They let the politicians set the frame of discourse. It's their job to police and correct that, but instead they just sign on to it because it's catchy and riles people up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
January 28, 2010 4:32 PM
Poster-boy ReThuglican shouting hypocritical crapola. I'm shocked.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
January 28, 2010 4:35 PM
Wow. Breitbart takes the prize for ugly angry asshole of the year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 28, 2010 4:45 PM in reply to jeffgee
The year is young...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 28, 2010 4:39 PM
Video of the day!!!!
Breitbart is so upset with ACORN. I just don't get it. There are so much more things to be upset over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shwazy
January 28, 2010 7:44 PM in reply to Maritza
I would not be at all surprised if Mr. Breitbart finds himself charged with criminal conspiracy on this one. He is lost in his own spin, and I think he actually believes it. Given the nature of the relationship between Breitbart and O'Keefe, I would think it probable, or at least possible, that he was personally involved in planning this stunt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GermanyOrFlorida
January 28, 2010 4:39 PM
This video is like watching three year olds.
Can someone get MSNBC a memo that no one wants to see obnoxious confrontational guests yelling and that no one wants to see obnoxious confrontational hosts like Ed Schultz?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
samifloo
January 28, 2010 4:56 PM in reply to GermanyOrFlorida
You are so right. I don't have television and I haven't had it since 1989 and it just amazes me when I see this sort of stuff on the internet.
No wonder why this country is going down the tubes.
Why not just throw these two in a mud pit and see who wins because that is about where they belong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
January 28, 2010 5:48 PM in reply to GermanyOrFlorida
Oh you are so right. A pox on BOTH their houses! Schuster possessed exact equivalence with Breitbart, when it comes to inappropriate behavior and intellectual dishonesty! No difference between the two!
You are an idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
spruce
January 28, 2010 4:44 PM
Breitbart doth protest a bit much. Something tells me that he may be getting contacted by the Feds soon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ally
January 28, 2010 4:46 PM
Go Shuster! He did a great job trying to talk to a completely insane rightwing nut.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Armageddon T. Thunderbird
January 28, 2010 4:52 PM
Can't wait to get Breitbart under oath.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
skygazer
January 28, 2010 4:53 PM
If Breitbart had no prior knowledge of this, how does he know for certain that it wasn't "wiretappin?" Also why did he so quickly (instantaneously really), deny any knowledge or relationship with O'Keefe & Co. before the news that they'd been caught had barely hit the web.
From how hard and fast and thoroughly he washes his hands of these 'fine young conservative American's" and "journalists," you'd think he was afraid of something. It sounds defensive. And any good law enforcement or prosecutor is going to be all over someon acting that way, before anyone's even said anything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Morbo
January 28, 2010 4:57 PM
Talking to Not-so-Breitbart is like trying to reason with a drunk goat.
His asinine "I'm gonna talk about what I want! I'm gonna talk about what I want! I'm gonna talk about what I want! I'm gonna talk about what I want! I'm gonna talk about what I want! I'm gonna talk about what I want! I'm gonna talk about what I want!" gambit makes him look like such an asshole.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SardonicOptimist
January 28, 2010 4:59 PM
Best line: "YOU CONVICTED HIM ON TWITTER!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
January 28, 2010 5:54 PM in reply to SardonicOptimist
Right, it's (Breitbart's words) "jury tampering", because you can't find 12 people in Louisiana, who don't Twitter.
But you know they'll throw that against the wall, anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Africanlivedit
January 28, 2010 6:42 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
Please go troll somewhere else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
January 28, 2010 10:16 PM in reply to Africanlivedit
You're saying *I'M* a troll, or are you just inept at posting replies? I think my unwillingness to buy all things Breitbart and O'Keefe pretty much excludes me from trolldom.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Reefdancer
January 28, 2010 5:00 PM
Breitbart looks and sounds like a liar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Acewrap
January 28, 2010 5:05 PM
Someone needs to punch Andy in his flapping cockholster.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
donquijoterocket
January 28, 2010 5:08 PM
Any even cursory analysis of the spurious allegations against ACORN shows that their major and most serious crime, in the eyes of the wingnuts, is advocating for the middle class, the poor, and people of color and doing it effectively.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
January 28, 2010 5:27 PM
MSNBC gets billions of stimulus money??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
January 28, 2010 7:23 PM in reply to Rockridge
I'm suspecting they're referring to General Electric which does, I think, have a substantial financial subsidiary that DID get some TARP money.
Still, since the fool doesn't say that but implies that MSNBC gets it, it is truly an astonishing allegation as made.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bw
January 28, 2010 5:53 PM
Fox News and Conservative media outlets are the most prevaricators in news. Conservatives wouldn't know how to tell the truth with burning their lips.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pmb50
January 28, 2010 5:57 PM
Nice job David. This piece of fuck Andrew Breitbart is an accessory to a crime. Typical republican jackal who ignores this own criminal activity. Those video of Acorn were analyzed and found that where edited and doctored. Does Mr. Breitbart ask Fox News to apologize for ALL the stories it get wrong
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 29, 2010 9:20 AM in reply to pmb50
Jackal is a good word for these folks. Thanks. I will remember to use it more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheOtherWA
January 28, 2010 6:07 PM
I'm glad you posted this. Now I have a headache.
Andrew Breitbart is a complete fucking tool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbo92107
January 28, 2010 6:50 PM
Thugs are already pimping the "Animal House" defense. Case closed; wimpy Obama DOJ is looking for a reason to make the bully Thugs stop whining.
If a liberal 25-year old does this to a Republican, guaranteed it's ten years in butt-thumping prison. IOKIYAR.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jimminy
January 28, 2010 7:40 PM
Brietbart has to employ an attorney or two. The simple fact is that these suspects were charged with gaining access to federal property under false pretenses.
BOOM. CRIME AS DEFINED BY STATUTE. Yell all day about ACORN, guess what won't be admissable at trial? ACORN.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jimminy
January 28, 2010 7:42 PM in reply to Jimminy
Why? IRRELEVANCE.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shwazy
January 28, 2010 7:46 PM
I would not be at all surprised if Mr. Breitbart finds himself charged with criminal conspiracy on this one. He is lost in his own spin, and I think he actually believes it. Given the nature of the relationship between Breitbart and O'Keefe, I would think it probable, or at least possible, that he was personally involved in planning this stunt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jones0430
January 28, 2010 8:06 PM in reply to Shwazy
If there is any trail back to Mr. Breitbart, either monetary, or a tacit agreement to publish the story, he would be part of a conspiracy.
What would they expect if they tried to enter a military base and attempted something similar? Would they be surprised if conjecture about them being charged with terrorism? Why do these people think they aren't responsible and subject to the law?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
witty1
January 28, 2010 8:17 PM
I'm sure I'm going to hell for it - but, I love that Schuster used false pretenses to get this assclown to appear on MSNBC.
You can't beat these people with polite truthfulness - make them a victim of their own bullshit so they finally understand what Karma is.
Karma isn't about being nice, its about being patient and you do the collective Karma a huge favor by giving douchebags like O'Keefe and Breitbart a taste of their own medicine. It brings the force back into balance
Be meaner, call people stupid when they act stupid. When they use intellectual dishonesty to steal taxpayer money - send them to jail.
You owe it to the children.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dannyluv
January 28, 2010 8:20 PM
Briebart's defense was a whiney slog about how huge a victim he actually is. Give me a break. As for James O'Keefe and friends, You are not some innocent little tykes running around, you are adults and knew better. Unless you plead "retarded", good luck with your new homies in the pen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
witty1
January 28, 2010 8:20 PM
By the way, didn't the United States Supreme Court just give David Schuster his god-given rights BACK to have a "horse in this race"... and the right to lie about it to Andrew Breitbart if he wanted to?
See, Karma.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lovethesinner
January 28, 2010 8:24 PM
The endless and banal gotcha game. I'm so glad I finally stopped watching the news.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 29, 2010 9:23 AM in reply to lovethesinner
There is no news to stop watching anymore but I do agree. I still have a TV but I don't watch any news. I do watch Rachel and sometimes Keith (because he's getting to be too much even for me) for political discussion but other than that, there is no point. The BBC is a bit better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Friction
January 28, 2010 8:34 PM
When you can't win the main topic of discussion one of the oldest ploys in the book is to pick a tiny thing that is of little or no importance to the main fact and then push hard on it. Yes he shouldn't have said wiretape, AND wiretap has almost nothing to do with 4 people being arested in a Senator's office for a felony. Period. Stay on topic and out of rat holes and the right will not win. Basic skills gentlemen, basic skills
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 28, 2010 8:43 PM
Breitbart's whole argument seems to boil down to a complaint that Shuster accused O'Keefe of the WRONG FELONY.
It's not as if Shuster accused O'Keefe of a felony in the absence of a criminal complaint. As I understand it, O'Keefe and associates were accused of trying to gain access to US real property by fraud or pretense with the intent to commit a felony AND attempting to interfere with a US government communications system. Both of those are extraordinarily serious offenses.
How sad is it that Breitbart is trying to deflect by whining about early reports of wiretapping?
Hey, Andrew: the crimes O'Keefe and friends have been charged with aren't any less serious or less criminal than wiretapping!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IMNOTBITTER
January 28, 2010 9:25 PM
Best part of the story......Jimmy has to live at home with his parents....LMAO!!!!!!!!! That about sums it up for me. Swaggering right winged "Journalist" has to live at home with mommy and daddy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
darkrhyme
January 28, 2010 10:17 PM
Breitbart, you pompous ass, if you REALLY want to feel like a victim, pay me a visit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chard
January 29, 2010 12:13 AM
Breitbart's frantic defense tells me he knows more about the Landrieu incident than he lets on. Wanna bet?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheOtherWA
January 29, 2010 11:04 AM in reply to chard
You may be right. You'd expect that someone who knew nothing about the crime would distance themselves from it. Why is he so desperate to defend O'Keefe?
Even if my best friend did something this stupid, I couldn't defend it. Wouldn't say much at all, but I sure as hell wouldn't defend it. Breitbart came across as afraid. Very afraid. Makes me think O'Keefe may have other things on video that Breitbart cares very much about. Just sayin'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Faceplant
January 29, 2010 1:11 AM
I understand that journalists want to appear fair, and unbiased, and they want to make sure that their guest gets to speak without interruption. But when your guest is literally not letting you speak for more than one second without interrupting you, it's probably okay to stop and tell him to shut the hell up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Greydog
January 29, 2010 2:30 AM
Ricco e cremoso : )
Breitbart is such a tool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MarkOfOhio
January 29, 2010 7:20 AM
Breitbart is an annoying, immature little man who doesn't know how to behave in public. In other words, a typical conservative. Yuck!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorShaw
January 29, 2010 11:48 AM
Somebody needs to give MSNBC producers a mute button for clowns like this chump, Breitbart.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JerseyCurmudgeon
January 29, 2010 2:24 PM
I feel like I am reading a transcript of a catfight at a high-school sorority party. I said sorority instead of fraternity since adolescent girls are more likely to scream insults across each others' voices while adolescent boys are more likely to grunt incoherently then try to punch each other out.
I think exchanges like the one between Shuster and Breitbart are great examples of what drives a lot of people, including me, nuts.
Sure Breitbart is an angry, obsessed fool, endlessly mouthing a bunch of fact-free facts.But why in hell does Shuster think it is possible to have a rational discussion with him, or anyone like him, in the first place? And what makes him think that trying to talk past him actually accomplishes anything more than creating an endless stream of meaningless, high-decibel noise?
I would have simply allowed him to rant his rant, including all the assertions about ACORN, and then offered to put him back on the air to present documentary evidence of each one. I would have given him a short deadline to produce that documentation or face Shuster's solo presentation of the fact that he had failed to do so.
Enough already.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
April 29, 2010 4:56 AM
I'm sure I'm going to hell for it - but, I love that Schuster used false pretenses to get this assclown to appear on MSNBC.
You can't beat these people with polite truthfulness - make them a victim of their own bullshit so they finally understand what Karma is.
Karma isn't about being nice, its about being patient and you do the collective Karma a huge favor by giving douchebags like O'Keefe and Breitbart a taste of their own medicine. It brings the force back into balance
Be meaner, call people stupid when they act stupid. When they use intellectual dishonesty to steal taxpayer money - send them to jail.
You owe it to the children.
kamagra m65
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?