Well, James O’Keefe has issued a statement about whatever the hell it was he was trying to do with his video sting of CNN’s Abbie Boudreau. Go ahead and read it, if you want. Or do not bother—the result is the same.
This is not an apology; nor does it remotely clarify whatever his intentions were. In fact, he seems to be holding back on saying what it was he was trying to do to her, as if the whole truth would destroy his statement.
James O’Keefe says what he attempted to do was understandable; “As you can imagine in our line of work, we get lots of leads, ideas, schemes, ‘punked’ style [sic] plans sent to us all the time.” Exactly what line of work is that, Mr. O’Keefe? Do you rate yourself a journalist? An investigative reporter? A brilliant film maker? The new Johnny Knoxville? So what the heck was this?
First, he says, When the CNN idea was pitched to me, I’ll admit that I liked the basic absurdity of meeting Abbie Boudreau on a boat and the idea of counter-seduction satire executed in a tame, humorous, non-threatening manner. After all, as all liberal reporters do, she was trying to “seduce” (a metaphor) me so she could get more for her story. It would be fun, I thought, to turn the tables in jest. However, I was repulsed by the over-the-top language and symbolism that was suggested in the memo that was sent to me, and never considered that for a moment. Good you have your standards. But what is this crap about her seducing you, like all liberal reporters do? This sounds disturbingly familier: hey, she was dressed like she was asking for it.
Second, Ms. Boudreau was never in any danger, he assures us. Who said she was? The story on CNN said she sniffed something bad was in the works and cancelled the interview. She operated correctly according to common sense and basic standards.
And then he explains that the story is being reported incorrectly, that he was not dressed the way he was portrayed, nor were there sexual devices around. Well, frankly, CNN is attributing these comments to your assistant, not to Ms. Boudreau. Take this up with Izzy Santa, pal, not us.
CNN has falsely reported on every major investigation we’ve ever been a part of. For example, on September 10, 2009 CNN broadcasted we were “basically thrown out“ of the ACORN offices we visited. We weren’t. When the other tapes were released, it was shown we were not “thrown out” of any offices. (We’re still waiting on their correction.) On June 1st, 2010, CNN falsely reported we “plead guilty following an attempt to tamper.” We didn’t and they issued a correction. Now this. Non sequiturs. You still did not explain what you were doing, planning to do, and exactly why. All you have done was say the story is incorrect, and that you hate liberal reporters.
I provided CNN with a clear statement that the document in question was objectionable. Still, they sent their “Special Investigations Unit” out in a failed attempt to discredit me. They do this not because they want to get to the truth, but because they are threatened by a bunch of independent journalists with video cameras uncovering the stories that they went to J-School to find.
Abbie Boudreau and Scott Zamost need to start worrying about – and covering – real abuses that are actually happening at Planned Parenthood, ACORN, or in Charlie Rangel’s office. They need to start producing the type of investigations young people with shoestring budgets and flair are investigating. Got it. So this is all their fault for not doing news stories the right way, right? But what does this have to do with you?
O’Keefe should have shut his mouth after the Landreau incident; instead, he screwed up and looks pretty bad with this Abbie Bourdreau stunt—his non-explanation and poorly supervised public statement here makes him look like a college frat boy writing a non-apology letter for a sexual assault attempt gone wrong at a hazing party. Like the college frat boy, he assumes he is smarter than us and that we won’t see right through this.
So now who sounds like a liberal journalist?