Image 01 Image 03

James O’Keefe subpoenaed by NH Attorney General

James O’Keefe subpoenaed by NH Attorney General reports that James O’Keefe has been subpoenaed by the New Hampshire Attorney General in connection with his New Hampshire voter-fraud investigation.

James O’Keefe tweeted early Sunday evening that New Hampshire Attorney General Michael Delaney “attempted to serve a criminal grand jury subpoena on me at event in NH”:

James then tweeted:

He’s not the first to try to stop our work through intimidation and the threat of criminal prosecution. But we’re not stopping.

Tomorrow morning we are going to FOIA DOJ for all communications between NH AG and US AG Eric Holder to determine who’s really behind this.

Half tragic and half comic public officials wish to jail journalists for legally exposing facts that run counter to their false narratives.

James O’Keefe and his organization Project Veritas requested ballots in multiple New Hampshire precincts by providing the names of dead voters to election workers, where voters are not required to provide identification. As a result of his investigation, the New Hampshire state senate passed a bill requiring voters to provide identification.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


WarEagle82 | May 6, 2012 at 7:25 pm

Alas, the New Hampshire voter ID law applies only to zombies and other “undead.”

great unknown | May 6, 2012 at 7:30 pm

The current NH AG, Michael Delany, is an appointee of Governor Lynch, a Democrat. He has already come into conflict with the Republican Legislature over his refusal to join other states in their lawsuit against Obamacare. Under the arcane constitutional structure of NH, he managed to get away with a claim that although he is the chief legal officer of the state, he does not have to accept direction from the legislature. He was ultimately supported by the court system.

Of course, this cuts both ways. Three weeks ago he petitioned the legislature for funds to hire an out-of-state firm in order to join a lawsuit against oil companies for “price gouging.” The response [in technical legal/political jargon]: “Go to hell.”

Checks and balances, indeed. Except, he isn’t getting any checks.

    persecutor in reply to great unknown. | May 6, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    The response [in technical legal/political jargon]: “Go to hell.”

    Ah, yes; the venerable legal doctrine of ABI IN MALAM REM!

soon they’ll require national ID, internet SSO equal to legal identity… skyping in won’t help the jackbooted police would just track you down to where your device and national ID are logged on //

James O’Keefe has monetary incentive to put himself into the fray of rough and tumble activism… you and I not so much and would be the first casualties of #war.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to OcTEApi. | May 6, 2012 at 10:24 pm

    I think they would easily be able to track you down within 24 hours now if they wanted to. Credit card Cel phone gps numberplate plane ticket.

[…] SHOOTING THE MESSENGER: James O’Keefe Subpoenaed by NH Attorney General. […]

Unfortunately for O’keefe, being a journalist doesn’t give you the right to break the law, I’ve said it to the Occupiers and I’ll say it to him.

Then again, I’m somewhat biased against O’Keefe. He’s another person using false narratives and false arguments to fight an otherwise important fight, and that’s not the way we should want to win. I remember after his ACORN investigation, he went on a bunch of television shows wearing a “pimp” outfit and let the reporters say that’s how he dressed when he went to the ACORN office, even though he actually went to the ACORN office in a suit. When a reporter questioned whether it was ok to be deceptive like that, he responded “sometimes you have to be deceptive to get the story”. He wasn’t being deceptive to get the story, he was being deceptive about what the story was. That bothers me a lot.

    raven in reply to Awing1. | May 6, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    What law did he break?

    New Hampshire is now drafting a voter ID law in response to this video series. You can thank James O’Keefe. This is the age we live in. This is what it takes.

      Awing1 in reply to raven. | May 6, 2012 at 9:14 pm

      I’m not sure that he did in this case, but nearly every state requires you to sign to get the ballot. That would be forgery in NH.

        dmacleo in reply to Awing1. | May 6, 2012 at 9:30 pm

        so he broke a law you don’t know about?

          Awing1 in reply to dmacleo. | May 6, 2012 at 9:36 pm

          I never said he broke the law. Please quote me where I said that.

          See now why deceptive wording is bad?

          RRR1 in reply to dmacleo. | May 6, 2012 at 10:22 pm

          “I never said he broke the law. Please quote me where I said that.”

          You have got to be kidding me. Are you on something?

          “Unfortunately for O’keefe, being a journalist doesn’t give you the right to break the law, I’ve said it to the Occupiers and I’ll say it to him.”

          Not only is your logic out to lunch, you either have no idea of what you’ve already written in the same subthread or you’re being intentionally deceitful because you know you’re not making any sense.

          Awing1 in reply to dmacleo. | May 6, 2012 at 10:32 pm

          I was being intentionally deceitful to make a point about being deceitful and why I disapprove of O’Keefe. Was that not clear by my statement “See now why deceptive wording is bad?”

          Awing1 in reply to dmacleo. | May 6, 2012 at 10:38 pm

          Maybe you just need it laid out for you more clearly. I never explicitly said O’Keefe broke the law. It is implied from my statement, but it’s not a necessary logical deduction of it.

          This is analogous to what O’Keefe did with his whole pimp costume on TV. He implied that he wore it during his visits to the ACORN offices, he even fails to correct a reporter that claims he wore it when he was in a one on one interview with them, but he never actually says it because it isn’t true.

          Clearer now?

        radiofreeca in reply to Awing1. | May 7, 2012 at 10:43 am

        Awing1, I’m not following your logic: you appear to be saying “yes, I *implied* that O’Keefe broke the law, but I didn’t explicitly say it – I did that lie to illustrate how O’Keefe also lies”. But that’s not making any sense to me – first, since you said you only implied (but did not claim) that O’Keefe broke the law, you now appear to be implying that he did NOT. Which makes you look well – not very rational – I’m not sure I’d ask you twice what time it was, because I’d probabably get two different answers back-to-back: one for Hong Kong time, and the other for Berlin (Summer adjustment), while we were both in DC.

        Anyways, could you please explicitly answer the following questions:
        1) Do you believe that O’Keefe broke the law in any states at any time? And if your answer is yes, please cite the states, statutes and incidents. I live in CA, and I’m not following O’Keefe, so I’d like to understand more about this. My impression so far (and it’s just an impression) is that he has been careful to not break the law. And there appears to be no convictions or ongoing criminal investigations against him (just this process-server event).
        2) Do you believe that voter fraud should be legal or illegal?
        3) if you believe it should be illegal, could you please list specific requirements/laws on how you’d prevent it?


          Awing1 in reply to radiofreeca. | May 7, 2012 at 3:09 pm

          Do I believe he broke any laws in any state at any time? Yeah, I could probably be convinced he broke a few, namely California privacy laws. But that wasn’t the point of my post.

          Obviously voter fraud should be illegal.

          I wouldn’t claim to know how such laws should be enforced. It would obviously require a balance. Just as we don’t prevent murder by incarcerating every single person (which would make murder go down substantially) I don’t think that preventing voter fraud should be something that’s taken as an “at any costs” type of thing. But my views on voter fraud and voter suppression are irrelevant to my post. I’m sorry if you missed the main theme, but I don’t have time to give every commenter at legalinsurrection a reading comprehension class.

    newrouter in reply to Awing1. | May 6, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    “I remember after his ACORN investigation, he went on a bunch of television shows wearing a “pimp” outfit ”

    well links/video of what you assert would be helpful.

      Awing1 in reply to newrouter. | May 6, 2012 at 9:21 pm

      Here’s him failing to correct a Fox News reporter stating he’s dressed “exactly in the same outfit that he wore to these ACORN offices”

      And here’s the admission that he never actually wore it.

      Anyone going to take back their negative votes on my post?

        jasond in reply to Awing1. | May 7, 2012 at 9:58 am

        Nitpicking. If it increased interest and created more viewers I’m glad he did it.
        The left does much, much worse and gets away with it.

      Awing1 in reply to newrouter. | May 6, 2012 at 9:51 pm

      I’m not exactly sure why, but my links aren’t appearing. Let me try it this way:

      Here’s him failing to correct a Fox News reporter stating he’s dressed “exactly in the same outfit that he wore to these ACORN offices” www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=vL68WFEw2Gk

      And here’s the admission that he never actually wore it.

        OcTEApi in reply to Awing1. | May 7, 2012 at 12:20 am

        what he said or didn’t say about wearing the outfit and/or whether he did or didn’t add the bit of theatrical editing to the videos is irrelevant to the facts that were revealed about ACORN in the actual video.

        Quit reading bradblog, its sucking your brains out and probably a leading cause to your posting moonbat fray the topic arguments.

          Awing1 in reply to OcTEApi. | May 7, 2012 at 1:00 am

          First, I don’t read Bradblog, it just happened to have the evidence I was looking for. Second, there were a lot of things wrong with O’Keefe’s ACORN expose. The most egregious being what happened to Jose Vera. The man never attempted to help O’Keefe with his purported prostitution scheme and immediately called the police after O’Keefe left. O’Keefe edited the video to make it look like Vera had tried to help him with the prostitution scheme and he got fired for it. If that’s your idea of “theatrical editing”, I’d love to know where you think the line is for it actually being a lie?

          OcTEApi in reply to OcTEApi. | May 7, 2012 at 4:20 am

          First, what you evaluate as evidence, is NOT, since its an informal news program and NOT some formal evidentiary hearing.
          O’Keefe has no duty to correct a misperception about his style of dress while in the ACORN office itself, especially so since in the second link you provided Hannah Giles explicitly admits it (his style of dress) was strictly added for theatrical impact and promotion of said videos.

          YOUR straw man argument revolves around this incident on Fox as being one that compromises his journalistic integrity and therefore negates that what eventually exposes the many wider and varied long-standing controversial taxpayer funded practices of ACORN.
          example HERE

          Second, I reject your notion that the loss of Jose Vera’s job at ACORN being a “most egregious being” offense as the Democrat Party’s voter fraud machine known as ACORN is formally defunded and disbanded.
          Good riddance to bad rubbish.

          Awing1 in reply to OcTEApi. | May 7, 2012 at 7:47 am

          Wow. Just wow. I’m not even sure where to being. I guess first with this:

          Second, are you freaking trollin me at this point? You have to be trollin. No one can be so dumb as to think that what you just wrote is a logical, intelligent response. It’s just not possible.

          Third, if you aren’t trollin, and you earnestly believe what you just wrote is actually defensible. How dare you try to call what I’ve written a straw man fallacy. Do you even know what a straw man is? Do you have even the slightest clue? I created the original proposition! You cannot create a straw man with the original proposition, it’s logically impossible. Straw men refer to how you refute another’s position! So, I say again, shame on you.

          OcTEApi in reply to OcTEApi. | May 7, 2012 at 9:16 am

          I dunno pick a fallacy that best represents your bs, whateva you want to call it…

          Trolling you?
          more like blowing your shifting nonsensical bloviations out of the water in three posts or less.

          you have no more moonbat points to destroy, so this is the third and last response you’ll garner from me.
          have a tissue, lick your wounds and pls gfy

          radiofreeca in reply to OcTEApi. | May 7, 2012 at 10:48 am

          Actually, what Awing1 is really saying is that every journalist who went undercover, or who ever stated anything at any time with less than 100% fidelity, or who modified in any way their presentation (to make the news fit the format in the paper or TV show), cannot be trusted because they are liars. Specifically, he cites O’Keefe’s statements about his clothes. The general application if his statement indicts every journalist out there – they all have to make a summary of the news, they’ll cut it to fit, and they’ll also modify to make it look dramatic – 60 minutes is even proud of doing this. So he’s really quite a rabid Conservative – I’d stay away from him 🙂 I’ve never met anyone so hostile to the entire MSM.

          Awing1 in reply to OcTEApi. | May 7, 2012 at 2:57 pm

          @OcTEApi, are you freaking serious? You actually think you won the debate? You have nothing but fallacious statements to offer, even you statements about fallacious statements are fallacious, and you think you won? I honestly feel sorry for you.

          @radiofreeca, I’m certainly not a fan of the MSM, but what O’Keefe did was not just to make things appear more dramatic, he made them appear as the exact opposite of what they were.

          Prof. Are you really going to let such illogical arguments stand on your blog without countering them? Is this really what LegalInsurrection has come to, being overrun by the noise of mass irrationality? This blog is better than that.

          OcTEApi in reply to OcTEApi. | May 8, 2012 at 5:20 am

          never was a debate, it was a double-tap take down to the heart of your nonsense.

    RightWingNutter in reply to Awing1. | May 7, 2012 at 1:29 am

    You’re correct in that being a journalist doesn’t give one the right to break the law. However in requesting ballots in the names of dead people I don’t think he broke any laws. If he or anyone else voted using those ballots then THAT would be illegal.

    The next thing to find out would be whether there are records of those people voting since their passing. That would be proof of voter fraud, and good for the NH Senate for passing a bill to make that illegal. Left unsaid is whether that bill is now law.

    ACORN broke the law and the lawbreakers who work for ACORN were prosecuted and punished. But that isn’t important in your “one world” view.

    SunnyJ in reply to Awing1. | May 7, 2012 at 9:50 pm

    Spare me the self righteous indignation…you don’t get in a pissing contest with a skunk…ACORN, DOJ, DEMS are skunks..requires different set of tactics. Ethan Allen and his boys didn’t play by the “rules” either…thank God! O’Keefe is the embodiment of this site…he’s running a legal insurrection.

Ann in L.A. | May 6, 2012 at 8:16 pm

O’Keefe’s people didn’t “obtain” ballots–which would have been illegal–they simply requested and were offered them. They never actually laid their hands on them.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | May 6, 2012 at 8:46 pm

He requested a ballot under a false identity. Even if he did not cast the ballot, maybe the act requesting one under false pretenses is enough to constitute a crime. I don’t know the answer.

The Left constantly points to a paucity of voter fraud convictions as evidence it’s not a problem. So what he did was demonstrably prove that the system has gaping holes in it which makes voter fraud easy to commit. The partisan AG responds by wanting to punish him for something the Left insists isn’t a problem.

How ironic. And sad.

    I have to disagree with this, he didn’t ask for a ballot, all he said was “Do you have an Eric Holder?”, he didn’t say he was Holder, he didn’t even request a ballot, he was offered one by a person who didn’t even check who the person was.

    I would completely agree, if he had impersonated a person, wrong, gotten a ballot in that person’s name, wrong. It never got to that point. I found him going into Landrieu’s office pretending to be a repairman to be pretty much close to breaking the law.

    But this voting ID expose, nothing I have seen is breaking the law, it does appear to be embarassing the AG though, and as far as I know that is not breaking the law.

    Milwaukee in reply to MaggotAtBroadAndWall. | May 6, 2012 at 8:56 pm

    The reason there is a paucity of voter fraud convictions is because the left is not interested in pursuing voter fraud. In Milwaukee the District Attorney had a slew of cases to work on, but couldn’t get any cooperation from the police. Gee, go figure.

I smell something very fishy here. I really appreciated the whole ACORN expose by O’Keefe. What law has he exactly broken??? Even when he showed how a white guy was not even checked when he tried to vote in Eric Holder’s name, the person said “do you have a Eric Holder?” He didn’t say “I am Eric Holder”, which is against the law.

I consider myself a pretty fair minded person, and I did find Okeefe’s whole Sen Mary Landrieu episode a bit too close to breaking the law, but in terms of his Project Veritas, I have seen no evidence they have broken any law, I think its the opposite, he seems to be exposing the flaws in the system.

The NH AG looks like he might be doing the bidding of the dem’s higher ups in DC, this does not pass the smell test, not one bit. I’m siding with O’Keefe on this one!

    Oh come on! I’m certain the NH AG wants nothing more than a polite chat to gather information on what needs to be done to secure the critical right to vote for all NH residents, and has no interest in detaining Mr. O’Keefe on some trumped up charge, to be held and squeezed until he coughs up some trivial inconsistency where he then may be charged with perjury and other crimes in State court–

    *ouch* Sorry about that, I pulled a sarcasm muscle. In the Real World, I’m suspecting Mr. O’Keefe will be avoiding NH the same way Soviet defectors avoided Russia, to avoid a similar fate.

Ragspierre | May 6, 2012 at 8:53 pm

This is just EXACTLY like a “bean ball”.

A pitch thrown for the sole purpose of dusting a batter off the plate. Pure intimidation.

I hope the idiot NH AG presses this. O’Keefe will find MANY pro bono attorneys ready to defend him.

    1. Hopefully O’Keefe consulted an attorney before proceeding with his investigation.

    2. Hearing of the subpoena, a cynic might say that the Left wants to make it illegal to investigate voter fraud. Just like, the cynic might continue, the Left wants to make it illegal to detain an illegal alien.

      Ragspierre in reply to gs. | May 6, 2012 at 10:13 pm

      The Collective HATES being shown for what they are and what they do.

      Moreover, POWER HATES being put on review. You can see this a lot WRT videos of LEOs, and the police reaction to them.

      My position is tough spit. MORE information is better. Pretty much always (with a very few notable exceptions).

[…] new reason to repeat their demands.LIVE FREE OR DIE!A Memeorandum thread with more commentary from Legal Insurrection and Power LineCategory: Journalism, New HampshireComments /*LONELY CONSERVATIVE: They really do […]

Hope Change | May 6, 2012 at 10:58 pm

Thank you, James O’Keefe!

JackRussellTerrierist | May 7, 2012 at 12:50 am

James O’Keefe has shown more moxy and more guts in his young life than most people do in a lifetime.

Breitbart would be proud!! 🙂

[…] James O’Keefe subpoenaed due to his Project Veritas.  <HT Legal Insurrection> […]

CaliforniaJimbo | May 7, 2012 at 11:08 am

The scary part about all of this is ANYONE can get a ballot without actually proving who they are. If one wants to purchase cigarettes or alcohol, ID is mandatory. If I want to use my Credit Card, most stores ask for my ID. Others compare my signature to the one on the back of my card. Here is an easy way to do this:

Option A: Require a state issued ID since you vote based upon your state residency. If you cannot afford a state ID, the state can provide you with one free.

Option B: Bring your voter registration book they SEND you to YOUR address prior to the election on voting day. That way, you show your book and receive your ballot.

I’m not asking for a poll tax, literacy test or other strange requirements that were used to keep people from voting in the past. Just a simple way to show this is who I am, can I please have my ballot.

I encourage EVERYONE who is legally able to vote should do so. Regardless of what political persuasion you hold, if you do not vote, you remove the ability to have a say in what happens to you when someone is elected you do not approve of.

Unbelievable. An investigative reporter demonstrates on video how easy it is to obtain somebody else’s ballot because there is no requirement for voter ID, and people are accusing HIM of committing a crime?

No, no– it’s a crime to let a reporter’s comment slip by and correct it later?

No, no –it’s a crime to be James O’Keefe?


[…] Intimidating the messenger (and failing): James O’Keefe subpoenaed by NH Attorney General  […]