re: #40 goddamnedfrank

In other words, O’Keefe seems to think it’s not a crime to intentionally deceive poll workers as to one’s identity if the ruse used is worded cleverly enough. He doesn’t seem to think that intent matters, no matter how duplicitous and clearly stated.

It’s a very interesting genre of legal defense for sure, but I don’t think it will stand up to much scrutiny. How he talked any of these people into following him down this line of reasoning is a mystery to me. His collaborators must be incredibly naive and credulous believers, because they’ve bet their public records on some incredibly dubious advice.

If his claim of receiving $50,000 to fund his “stings” is true, then it would explain how he found willing accomplices to go through with this. I just hope they saved it all up for their lawyer fees.