A guy with no conscience or ethics, there has to be more dirt on this dolt.
I think the group Buckley promoted in the 60s was called Young Americans for Freedom.
The Washington Post seems to want a Nobel Prize for vetting a source correctly.
OK, the morningās first cup of coffee sits unsipped in front of me so maybe Iām missing something but the way I read that, heās mocking the Post for how easy it was to see through his employee. Which isākind ofābackwards? As I recall they had at least three holes in her story by the time she came in for that famous second interview. The whole thing calls his entire existence and purpose for being into question. But if he realized that he wouldnāt be the special snowflake that he is.
I can imagine what Buckley would have to say about someone like OāKeefe
OāKeefe would have been thrown in jail years ago had he not been a privileged little shit whose daddy had to bail him out of everything. Someone finally got the one-up on his dirty sting tactics, threw the whole thing back around on him and his true colors are finally showing. Heās a coward with zero integrity who isnāt even willing to back himself up despite a record of ruining peopleās careers and good organizations when other people were honest with him (and often edited or taken wildly out of context).
This is āconservative journalismā having a light shown on it up against real journalism:
His own feet are held to the fire for just a second and all he can do is tuck his tail in-between his legs and duck out of it.
I canāt speak intelligently about it.
Tell us something we donāt know, weasel.
Hard to imagine a more punchable face.
OāKeefe is a skid mark on the underwear of journalism.
I hope it doesnāt sound priggish to say legitimate journalists donāt go around deceptively encouraging subjects to do wrong stuff. It would be like cops engaging in entrapment. In particular, investigative folks donāt look through keyholes and so forth. Mostly they pore over public records, exactly like auditors and for the same reason, to find patterns that suggest wrongdoing. OāKeefe can call himself a journalist but Iāll call him what he isāa ratfucker.
I keep thinking about a moment in the video of the Washington Post reporter confronting OāKeefe outside the shitty āVeritasā storefront office. The WP reporter has this weary and resigned look. He should feel vindicated, but instead, forced to look into OāKeefeās dead eyes, you can see heās facing the realization that thereās nothing that can be done to people who feel no shame.
Old Bill would walk up and kick him right in the nuts.
SO BUSTED, ya self-righteous whiny boy, ya!
āI donāt have an opinion on it honestly. I canāt speak intelligently about it."
Yep.
During the speech, OāKeefe repeatedly decried the Post as corrupt. But when asked what evidence he had of the Postās corruption, OāKeefe told AP he had no specific evidence to support the claim.
Double yep.
The thing about shitstains like OāKeefe is that they act smug when they win and when they lose. Itās all part of being a soulless, amoral asshole.
How ironic it is that Project āVeritasā is one big lie after another.
Wow, from William F. Buckley to James OāKeefe, the slippy slope of conservative intellectuals.
Something about this guyās eyes says Iām a creep!
Roy Moore has it too!
He reminds me a little of Lee Harvey Oswald.
I think the biggest problem here may be that conservative student groups are inviting people like James OāKeefe to come speak to them. This is a clear sign of what American conservatism has become. It is no longer interested in honest debate, and hasnāt been for a long time.
When an entire political movement has āmoved onā from intellectual honest and the truth in pursuit of their goals, history has shown us that very dark things follow.