What was the real plan for James O'Keefe to do

[Steely Dan]

Please read the entire article before criticizing my theory, thanks.

 

Fake pimp from ACORN videos tries to 'punk' CNN correspondent

By Scott Zamost, CNN Special Investigations Unit

September 29, 2010 9:07 a.m. EDT

 

Link

 

...O'Keefe is best known for making a series of undercover videos inside ACORN offices around the country in 2009. The 40-year-old liberal group was crippled by scandal after O'Keefe and fellow activist Hannah Giles allegedly solicited advice from ACORN workers on setting up a brothel and evading taxes.

 

The videos led to some of the employees being fired and contributed to the disbanding of ACORN, which advocated for low- and middle-income and worked to register voters.

 

But prosecutors in New York and California eventually found no evidence of wrongdoing by the group, and the California probe found the videos had been heavily and selectively edited.

 

O'Keefe's next big splash ended with his arrest after he taped associates entering Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu's office in New Orleans posing as telephone repairmen. He ended up pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge of entering a federal office under false pretenses and is now on probation.... (IMO, his attempt at the Mary Landrieu office taping makes the Watergate planners look like criminal masterminds.)

 

Here's O'Keefe's response. Because this new system automatically adds to your post if you make a post right after it, I'll get into my opinion on O'Keefe's response later. It's long.

 

Evidently O'Keefe has a real beef with CNN correspondent Abbie Boudreau, who is doing a piece on young conservative film makers. He wanted to embarrass CNN and her. Read the full article first so you can understand my theory please. I can't post more of the article without breaking the rules.

 

My theory is he was going to lure her onto the boat make sexually suggestive remarks, filming the whole time and then (this is pure speculation on my part) knock her out with a date rape drug and put her on the bed and tape people who wouldn't show up on camera doing things to her in an attempt to blackmail her. I don't believe the idea was to embarrass CNN as much as it was to blackmail them from running the piece they were working on. I also think some edited stuff of her being assaulted may have eventually shown up on Youtube.

 

The list of things that lead me to this conclusion are: They were going to make a tape before hand claiming it was a gag, hidden cameras on the boat and a tripod and recorder near the bed, a condom jar, dildos, posters and paintings of naked women, fuzzy handcuffs and a blindfold.

 

The fuzzy handcuffs, video camera near the bed, condom jar, dildos and a blindfold make me very, very uncomfortable.

 

IMO, the condoms were to limit DNA, the fuzzy handcuffs were to restrain her on the bed, the blindfold was to keep her from identifying her attackers, the dildos were to be used in an obvious way and the camera was to record it all, edit it and send it to CNN as a blackmail attempt.

 

The "editing", IMO, would have been done in a way to show she went along with it and liked it.

 

If this was a "gag" or "punk'd" attempt the things listed above wouldn't be necessary, IMO.

 

 

I listed below the things I find really frightening. I bolded the most disturbing things to me.

 

If this had been merely a strawberry and champagne prank I think it would be offensive but not nefarious. I'm mystified by the need for: (look at page three of this link) hidden cams, a tripod near the bed "an obvious sex tape machine" (what exactly does that mean?), condom jar, dildos, romantic music but nothing too cliche, lube, ceiling mirror, posters and paintings of naked women, porno mags, candles, Viagara and stamina pills, fuzzy handcuffs and a blindfold.

 

Also this from this article;

In a different e-mail to Santa, O'Keefe gives her specific instructions to help him prepare for the meeting.

 

"Please go to fedex and print out pleasure palace graphic on large banner," O'Keefe wrote, "needs to be ready by late tonight -- if possible..."

 

Those emails contradict O'Keefe's latest statement, in which he says he did not implement plans detailed in the document.

Why is that banner also necessary for the "harmless" prank he was planning?

 

The theory on editing it to make it looks like she's enjoying it comes from their plan to overdub the N word in another effort to punk CNN. Overdubbing a sex tape of her would be possible too. I think they believed that if they mailed it to her she would be so embarrassed as to never mention it to anyone and stop working on any projects in the future. Unfortunately, I believe there is a very good chance they would have been right.

 

The other idea I have is that this mook believed he actually had a snowball's chance in hell of actually seducing her and having sex with her recorded with his permission.

 

One more thing. I hate it when journalists edit short subjects. The seven missing pages may shed more light on this and change opinions.

[Steely Dan]

My summary of O'Keefe's answer to the accusation;

 

 

1. O'Keefe claims he gets emails that he'll answer with "I like it" although he disagrees with some parts of the email. IMO, if someone emailed me, or anyone I could respect, anything to do with what he claims was his only intention I'd tell him there would be a better way to handle things.

 

2. He says he was repulsed by some of the things suggested to him and yet he never says that he emailed that person back with a response about being repulsed. (Possibly because no such email exists).

 

3. I like this part of his response from the link; She would have had to consent before being filmed and she was not going to be faux "seduced" unless she wanted to be. I'd really like to know the specifics of what "faux seduced" means. Does it mean that this mook, really, believed he actually had a snowball's chance in hell of actually seducing her and having sex with her recorded with her permission? Also, why were there "hidden" cameras on the boat if they had made it clear there wasn't to be filming?

 

4. The sexually explicit document he knows exists, he claims, wasn't going to be acted on. Why would one exist? A sick joke?

 

5. Izzy Santa, who he works with, seemed to believe it was within the realm of possibility for him to do such a thing.

 

6. He claims CNN is not fair reporting. (The following part of #6 is not from his piece, just fact.) He claims CNN is not fair reporting and yet he was found to have heavily and selectively edited the ACORN video by a California prosecutors probe and no wrongdoing by ACORN in a NY probe.

 

7. He says CNN issued an apology after making a mistake but says they made another mistake they won't apologize for. He also claims CNN has falsely reported on every major investigation Project Veritas has done.

 

8. Then he moves the debate to his pet conservative causes that he believes CNN should be covering.

 

I have some questions. "If" what is being reported is true what do you think O'Keefe's response would be? Another question; Why did Izzy believe that this is something he would do? (trying to seduce Boudreau on a boat) Finally, why did he want to meet her on a boat? Why not a restaurant or some other public place? The subject they were going to discuss was CNN's ground rules for a video shoot. It was not anything top secret. JMO

 

BTW, can somebody find a link from Fox News about this. I want to see if they have the seven missing pages. I can't find a link for a FN article. Thanks