By John M. Rogitz

Unless he’s planning on pleading temporary insanity from the time he entered Senator Landrieu’s office all the way through his appearance on Sean Hannity’s television show, James O’keefe is pretty much screwed.  But listening to the masterful legal analysis on Hannity’s show following O’keefe’s first public comments since the incident, you wouldn’t know it.

Bob Beckel and Hannity went back and forth over whether O’keefe’s actions could be construed as “breaking and entering.”  It was obvious from their discussion that neither of those two legal ignoramuses had a clue what they were talking about.  Why didn’t Hannity’s production team have a lawyer come in and explain instead of listening to those two badger on and on about a topic they knew nothing about?

Well I’m a lawyer and I actually read the indictment, so allow me to help you all out here.  Here’s the deal with breaking and entering:  Yes, you can be charged with it even if you don’t technically break anything.  It’s called a “constructive” breaking.  Why bash the window in if some one has left their front door unlocked?  We don’t want to let criminals sneak through that massive loophole, so we created the idea of constructive breaking and entering for instances when a criminal’s job is made especially easy by hapless property owners.  BUT!  It’s still breaking and entering, comprende?

That said, O’keefe didn’t break and enter.  You cannot even constructively break and enter a place where the public at large is allowed access.  Sure, O’keefe’s cohorts used false pretenses to gain access to a room which was not open to the public, but they were already lawfully inside the building.  That’s a totally different crime which has nothing to do with breaking and entering.  Strangely enough, entering under false pretenses was what James O’keefe was actually charged with.

What was all that breaking and entering talk about?  Lesson learned, don’t trust Sean Hannity’s research team with even basic information.  For Pete’s sake, all they had to do was read the indictment and look up two different code sections cited in the indictment.  They couldn’t even get that right.

Now as for what O’keefe has actually been charged with:  I have to tell you, I’m pretty sure James doesn’t have a leg to stand on.  Nothing in the law is 100%, but after looking at the deck stacked against him, I have to say the only question seems to be how much jail time he’s looking at.

James admitted on Hannity’s show that he did in fact approach his newest project the wrong way and that his friends essentially did enter under false pretenses.  Because he helped with the planning and execution of the scheme, James is also liable for his friends’ actions.

Here’s where James’ lawyers need to focus their attention: Was James trying to commit another felony after entering through false pretenses?  Or was he simply checking to see if the phones were not working the way that Senator Landrieu claimed?  Either way, his friends tried to enter the back room through false pretenses as telephone repairmen.  The way the statute is written, this clearly constitutes a crime and James was a party to that crime.

If a jury believes O’keefe that he did not intend to bug the phones or commit any other crime while there, then he’s looking at a fine and 6 months max in jail.  I bet prosecutors will demand at least some jail time, but a good litigator will be able to get it down to single digit days.  But if a jury does find that he intended to commit another crime while in the Senator’s office (like bugging her phones or disabling them), he’s looking at a much heftier fine and up to 10 years in jail.

Do you see the problem here?  It’s clear by O’keefe’s own admissions that he committed a crime that day.  What the hell is everyone arguing over?

We know Beckel doesn’t care about his credibility and it seems as though Hannity doesn’t either.  If you were going to dedicate a few minutes of one of the highest rated cable television shows in the country to whether or not some one committed a crime, first make sure you discuss the crime actually committed and then make sure you actually know the facts.  That way you don’t get caught with your pants down talking about phantom crimes.

Come on James, get it together.  You’re a bright kid.  You did such an excellent job with ACORN but you just totally destroyed your credibility, whether you think its destruction was justified or not.  You’re a public figure now – perception is reality.  Just ask Sean Hannity.

COPYRIGHT 2010 JOHN M. ROGITZ