Breitbart Offers Money for Unethical Behavior

WingnutsJune 2010 • Views: 9,690

This is absolutely typical behavior from someone who has demonstrated that his concept of ethics is akin to slash-and-burn warfare: Reward: $100,000 for Full ‘JournoList’ Archive; Source Fully Protected.

That’s right. Andrew Breitbart is offering money to anyone who will steal the contents of a private mailing list and send it to him, so that he can make it public, without the consent of anyone on the list. I have reservations about journalists belonging to a mailing list devoted to promoting liberal views (and I’d have the same reservations about a Journolist dedicated to promoting conservative views) , but something like this is utterly beyond the pale.

I shouldn’t be surprised, I know. After the bogus “Climategate” story, it’s clear that the right has lost any sense of boundaries, ethics, or even decency. But this really is a new low.

Jump to bottom

60 comments

Summer Seale Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:09:59am

Not to worry! Breitbart has lots of experience shrugging off illegal activities in the past when it comes to underhanded political tricks.

abolitionist Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:10:50am

"..so that he can make it public, without the consent of ~~anyone~~ everyone on the list."
--Ethical tweek?

webevintage Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:12:09am

ezraklein
If only my freelance pieces commanded the sums my e-mails do...

On Twitter a few mins ago.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:12:12am

I expect nothing less/more from Breitbart. "Screw ethics! I have an alternate reality to construct here!"

darthstar Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:13:09am

Breitbart is fond of making $100,000 offers for shit that he knows he can't get. My guess is he doesn't have that kind of money, and that his attempts at sock-puppetry on Journolist have consistently failed.

darthstar Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:14:03am

re: #3 webevintage

ezraklein
If only my freelance pieces commanded the sums my e-mails do...

On Twitter a few mins ago.

Ha! Laughter, the best medicine. /readers digest mode

Feline Fearless Leader Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:18:36am

Wonder offhand if he's simply fishing for someone unethical enough to offer it to him for said sum. A "liberal sting" in other words that he can trumpet far and wide.

That making said offer is unethical itself being beside the point in his eyes.

Cato the Elder Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:19:55am

And you know what? If I didn't sign a non-disclosure agreement when joining the list, I would sell it for $10,000. Or even $1,000.

Gus Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:20:30am

My head is spinning after reading Breitbart's paranoid rant.

This is interesting, Weigel has joined MSNBC.

Yes, MSNBC, the enemy of the right wing!!11ty And he's also no blogging for Big Hollywood?

My head is still spinning.

Aceofwhat? Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:20:34am

re: #8 Cato the Elder

And you know what? If I didn't sign a non-disclosure agreement when joining the list, I would sell it for $10,000. Or even $1,000.

heh

What, me worry? Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:21:29am

re: #5 darthstar

Breitbart is fond of making $100,000 offers for shit that he knows he can't get. My guess is he doesn't have that kind of money, and that his attempts at sock-puppetry on Journolist have consistently failed.

Breitbart has scraped the bottom of the barrel and continues to dig.

Where is his proof that there were not 15 racial epithets hurled at the Black caucus members? 1 or 15, what does it matter anyway?

tnguitarist Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:21:35am

Ethical issues aside, aren't there legal issues he should be worrying about? He is and idiot and a bully-victim. I know that seems like an oxymoron, but you sure do see a lot of it these days.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:22:42am

re: #12 tnguitarist

Ethical issues aside, aren't there legal issues he should be worrying about? He is and idiot and a bully-victim. I know that seems like an oxymoron, but you sure do see a lot of it these days.

Unless there was some kind of contractual privacy agreement people signed when they joined Journolist, there aren't any legal issues on this one.

Just a giant glaring ethical issue.

Cato the Elder Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:23:42am

Seriously, if you comment on a blog or a mailing list or USENET (anyone that old here?) or in any way whatsoever in writing, you have no expectation of privacy. Unless it's email and you put some lawyerspeak at the bottom of everything you send, you're fair game. And even then, if you're doing something odd or wrong, tough titty.

I never will understand how people think that pixels can be protected private privileged property.

Gus Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:24:03am

Incoming! OT...

Sharron Angle Opposes Abortion Even With Rape, Incest: 'God Has A Plan' (AUDIO)

Since winning the Republican nomination in the Nevada Senate race Sharron Angle has drawn attention and controversy for a host of conservative policy prescriptions that seem well outside the political mainstream. Now, a Democratic source has passed along a radio interview she did back in January 2010 that could end up topping the list.

In an segment that has gone unnoticed since it first aired, the Tea Party-backed candidate told the Bill Manders show -- a favorable platform for Republican candidates -- that she opposed abortion even in cases of rape and incest. A pregnancy under those circumstances, she said, was "God's plan."

Manders: I, too, am pro life but I'm also pro choice, do you understand what I mean when I say that.

Angle: I'm pro responsible choice. There is choice to abstain choice to do contraception. There are all kind of good choices.

Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

Angle: Not in my book.

Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

Angle: You know, I'm a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

Virginia Plain Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:24:09am

Reward: $200,000 for any emails between Andrew Breitbart and James O'Keefe. $250,000 if you don't get caught for hacking into his email account.

I bet he wouldn't like that, huh?

Gus Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:25:38am

Another day of "Shit my wingnuts say."

brownbagj Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:25:56am

re: #13 Fozzie Bear

Unless there was some kind of contractual privacy agreement people signed when they joined Journolist, there aren't any legal issues on this one.

Just a giant glaring ethical issue.

Ethics shmethics.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:26:24am

re: #14 Cato the Elder

Seriously, if you comment on a blog or a mailing list or USENET (anyone that old here?) or in any way whatsoever in writing, you have no expectation of privacy. Unless it's email and you put some lawyerspeak at the bottom of everything you send, you're fair game. And even then, if you're doing something odd or wrong, tough titty.

I never will understand how people think that pixels can be protected private privileged property.

Ok, but when I start wardialing for BBS's, that's definitely private! I don't want anybody peeping on my explicit ascii art. //

darthstar Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:27:08am

re: #16 Virginia Plain

Reward: $200,000 for any emails between Andrew Breitbart and James O'Keefe. $250,000 if you don't get caught for hacking into his email account.

I bet he wouldn't like that, huh?

O'Keefe would send you everything for 200K

ReamWorks SKG Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:29:06am

re: #18 brownbagj

You'll have to ask a lawyer, of course, and not some random nut on the internet (i.e., me), however, forwarding emails _may_ violate the ECPA
ECPA (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521).

[Link: books.google.com...]

Aceofwhat? Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:29:22am

re: #13 Fozzie Bear

Unless there was some kind of contractual privacy agreement people signed when they joined Journolist, there aren't any legal issues on this one.

Just a giant glaring ethical issue.

Which is like asking a guy with RBG blindness how he likes your purple shirt...i don't even think AB can see the color "ethical"...

Cato the Elder Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:30:20am

re: #20 darthstar

O'Keefe would send you everything for 200K

I heard he still hasn't paid the fake whore.

darthstar Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:31:15am

re: #19 Fozzie Bear

Ok, but when I start wardialing for BBS's, that's definitely private! I don't want anybody peeping on my explicit ascii art. //

I was a sysop for a BBS back in 1993. TOTT (Turn On To Teens - a BBS for incarcerated and at-risk youth)...worked with another geek in the community on it. I'd preview all the emails before they were uploaded for content, but the kids actually used it as a way of educating each other about the downsides of fucking up and getting sent to Juvenile Hall. It was a good thing.

Aceofwhat? Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:31:33am

re: #21 reuven

You'll have to ask a lawyer, of course, and not some random nut on the internet (i.e., me), however, forwarding emails _may_ violate the ECPA
ECPA (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521).

[Link: books.google.com...]

nah. disclosure is ok with the consent of ONE of the parties involved. anyone on that listserv can distribute or sell the contents.

ReamWorks SKG Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:31:35am

re: #21 reuven

as a practical matter, if I want to keep something between me and someone else, I tell that person face-to-face. I always presume emails are forwarded, and phone calls are recorded or transcribed.

(It's a common practice in Hollywood to have an admin listening in on the call when talking with Talent, or some high-profile-executive, to accurately capture all the points in the conversation, and make a list of action items. I never assume that a call is just between me and the other party.)

What, me worry? Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:31:45am

re: #14 Cato the Elder

Seriously, if you comment on a blog or a mailing list or USENET (anyone that old here?) or in any way whatsoever in writing, you have no expectation of privacy. Unless it's email and you put some lawyerspeak at the bottom of everything you send, you're fair game. And even then, if you're doing something odd or wrong, tough titty.

I never will understand how people think that pixels can be protected private privileged property.

I'm not sure what this List is really. If it's like Usenet or a mailing list, there's no expectation of privacy between users, but to outsiders, especially where money is involved, may be a whole other issue.

A lof of this is new territory legally. Morally? Well Breitbart has none.

darthstar Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:31:46am

re: #23 Cato the Elder

I heard he still hasn't paid the fake whore.

Now that doesn't surprise me. Hopefully, she'll get pissed off enough to bring him down.

What, me worry? Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:33:54am

re: #28 darthstar

Now that doesn't surprise me. Hopefully, she'll get pissed off enough to bring him down.

Poor choice of language :p

Bubblehead II Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:34:21am

"We will protect that person’s privacy and identity forever. No one will ever know who became $100,000 richer"

Lets see, Just from the article it seems to me that if anybody actually comes up withe info he is offering to pay for, he is (1) engaging in conspiracy to steal a private database. A crime that is discussed here and (2) Conspiring to defraud the U.S. Government by failing to report to the IRS, said payment for taxing purposes.

Guy likes to live dangerously doesn't he?

brownbagj Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:35:32am

re: #30 Bubblehead II

"We will protect that person’s privacy and identity forever. No one will ever know who became $100,000 richer"

Lets see, Just from the article it seems to me that if anybody actually comes up withe info he is offering to pay for, he is (1) engaging in conspiracy to steal a private database. A crime that is discussed here and (2) Conspiring to defraud the U.S. Government by failing to report to the IRS, said payment for taxing purposes.

Guy likes to live dangerously doesn't he?

They could turn it in to the government but not "publicly" release to the press who became richer. Tax documents are not public information.

ReamWorks SKG Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:35:44am

re: #30 Bubblehead II

That is true. He'll definitely have to submit a 1099-Misc to the IRS. But I'm not sure that information is considered public...

Sacred Plants Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:38:16am

If the list had actually developed in way that would legitimate it to leak it all to the public, why would these taking responsibility for that action want to see their intentions corrupted like this? Either there is nothing spectacular to see here besides what was already seen, and the bid is not just illegitimate but empty as well, so that it can be ignored. Or it is targeted at making money, then it is clear that a deal would not result in open publication but in restricted reselling, so it can be ignored. Might be a good oportunity to sell spoofs though.

Aceofwhat? Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:41:13am

re: #33 Sacred Plants

still gaming the welfare system?

Cato the Elder Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:41:56am

re: #33 Sacred Plants

If the list had actually developed in way that would legitimate it to leak it all to the public, why would these taking responsibility for that action want to see their intentions corrupted like this?

Upding for the worst-constructed sentence of the year.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:42:46am

re: #34 Aceofwhat?

still gaming the welfare system?

He is a "professional", after all. A professional language mangler, apparently.

brownbagj Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:42:48am

re: #35 Cato the Elder

Upding for the worst-constructed sentence of the year.

It IS the sacred plants man. Puff, puff give.

Aceofwhat? Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:42:58am

re: #35 Cato the Elder

Upding for the worst-constructed sentence of the year.

aren't you worried that you are 'legitimating' the sentence by doing so?

Jimmah Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:43:25am

More GOP fail re Thurgood Marshall :

GOPers Who Slammed Marshall's Activism Can't Name A Case Typifying It

Republicans raised eyebrows yesterday when they criticized the first African-American Supreme Court justice, Thurgood Marshall, as a way to attack nominee Elena Kagan, his former clerk. One would think that, to avoid any appearance of racial dog-whistling, the senators attacking Marshall's record would be able to name the decisions or opinions with which they so vociferously disagreed.

After the hearing broke last night, TPMDC asked three of the top Republicans on the Judiciary Committee which of Marshall's opinions best exemplified his activism. And while two of the three were careful to praise Marshall the man, none of them could name a single case.

"You could name them," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Pressed, though, he could not. "I'm not going to go into that right now, I'd be happy to do that later," Hatch demurred.

[Link: tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...]

Aceofwhat? Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:44:09am

re: #36 Fozzie Bear

He is a "professional", after all. A professional language mangler, apparently.

Indeed. If we learn anything here, perhaps it's that the welfare controls need an upgrade after all, if this the baseline intellectual effort required to game it?

brownbagj Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:45:13am

re: #34 Aceofwhat?

still gaming the welfare system?

For those lost like me, what is this about?

Jimmah Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:45:47am

re: #35 Cato the Elder

Upding for the worst-constructed sentence of the year.

It's all that caffeine, I tell ya.

Jimmah Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:46:15am

re: #42 Jimmah

It's all that caffeine, I tell ya.

oops - forgot the explanatory image:

[Link: digitalsushi.com...]

Bubblehead II Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:47:01am

re: #31 brownbagj

re: #32 reuven

Well as Fozzie pointed out in his #13, unless there was a nondisclosure agreement signed, then that info is fair game. But if he is being honest with that "no one will know who is $100,00.00 richer" crack, I take that to mean he has no intention of telling the IRS who it was paid to.. But as several of you have pointed out, he is probably just making an empty offer.

Though I would find it funny if someone then came up with a true copy of the database and then sued his ass for contractual violation when he couldn't or wouldn't pay it.

darthstar Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:47:12am

re: #35 Cato the Elder

Upding for the worst-constructed sentence of the year.

If only grammar were as sacred as a plant.

Aceofwhat? Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:48:21am

re: #41 brownbagj

For those lost like me, what is this about?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

we're asking sacred plants the same thing...

Cato the Elder Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:48:26am

re: #43 Jimmah

oops - forgot the explanatory image:

[Link: digitalsushi.com...]

Dude, the LSD net is the best. I need to put more of that shit in my diet.

Aceofwhat? Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:51:16am

re: #39 Jimmah

More GOP fail re Thurgood Marshall :

[Link: tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...]

And that's why, although i desperately want to refute Charles' assertion that this has a racist component, i can't. It's killing me, but i can't. Principled opposition to a position held by an otherwise fantastic human being is well-researched...because it's principled. This vague crap only strengthens our worst presumptions.

brownbagj Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:52:53am

re: #46 Aceofwhat?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

we're asking sacred plants the same thing...

Thanks. I would like to read an explanation. Plus, what is this about "handing everyone their share?" That kind of thinking makes me sick. There are people who really need the help and they get less because of yahoos like this.

brownbagj Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:53:28am

An explanation from SP of course. What a weird thing to put on the intertoobz.

Aceofwhat? Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:59:31am

re: #50 brownbagj

An explanation from SP of course. What a weird thing to put on the intertoobz.

i've been asking for days. they conveniently disappear when asked.

elizajane Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:08:44pm

I'm sorry, but if the Washington Post hadn't fired Wiegel (or "accepted his resignation") over this, Breitbart wouldn't be doing this. He smelled blood, but they provided the first kill. I'm furious at the Post on this, terrible judgement. What they should have done was immediately to hire a reasonable right-winger (if such exists) to do a blog on the Left. It would have been fair and interesting, although the new person would have had a harder job because the Right provides so much more colorful stories these days.

elizajane Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:13:58pm

OK, that was a little incoherent (I was sputtering with rage) but you get my meaning.

Sacred Plants Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:55:14pm

re: #35 Cato the Elder

Drop a few typo and all their halucinations will pour out...

Sacred Plants Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:57:05pm

re: #41 brownbagj

Apparently the commenter did not see my responses on the Beck thread.

Aceofwhat? Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:00:27pm

re: #55 Sacred Plants

Apparently the commenter did not see my responses on the Beck thread.

//

I saw this...

Neither am I interested to live off your income, nor do I want to know off whom you live with that. The fact of the matter is that in this economy we all live off the fossile resources, and the wealth they generate when they are not preserved for the future. I want my share of that, not only that of the environmental consequences. It seems the appropriate method to determine how much everyone´s share is is being called elections.

But just because you wrote it doesn't mean that i can make a lick of sense out of it. And yes, i'm blaming you.

Sacred Plants Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:06:21pm

re: #56 Aceofwhat?

Which part is it that you don't understand?

Right Brain Tue, Jun 29, 2010 4:05:25pm

When Larry Flynt offered a million dollars to anyone who could prove that any Congressman had an affair I don't recall anyone on the Left calling it unethical. They knew that the Right would punish the cad and the Left wouldn't care. Flynt merely wanted to get someone caught with their pants down, having no bearing on the direction of the country. What is happening with journoLists is much more serious.

Breitbart is doing a great public service by exposing the collusion among the main stream media to manufacture a consensus, praise words such as "ethical" don't factor into it.

Charles Johnson Tue, Jun 29, 2010 9:37:18pm

re: #58 Right Brain

What crap.

Breitbart Offers Money for Unethical Behavior

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud