Breitbart: "videos will be shown and at a particular moment" if "there isn't an investigation into ACORN"
November 21, 2009 11:10 am ET by MMFA Staff
From Andrew Breitbart's November 21 BigGovernment.com post:
In response to the Columbia Journalism Review's accusing me of "blackmailing" the Attorney General of the United States, I must take notice that the mainstream media as a journalistic establishment IS paying attention to the ongoing ACORN scandal. Good. I thought so.
What the Columbia Journalism Review is doing is very similar to what Media Matters is doing: protecting the Democrat-Media Complex, the natural alliance of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media. This ACORN investigation has been going on for two months and Hannah, James, and I have proven to be truth-tellers every step of the way, while the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now has been proven time and again to be liars.
Yet instead of engaging the real, newsworthy issues of ACORN's possible corruption, malfeasance and illegal behavior, the CJR, like its more overtly political online counterpart Media Matters, and indeed every other MSM outlet, has been sitting it out on the sidelines, waiting - rooting - for Hannah Giles, James O'Keefe and me to make a mistake. In fact, my appearance Thursday night is the only time in which the media has introduced itself into this ongoing narrative: proof that it's paying attention and taking sides.
[...]
And now to address the fever-swamp's notion that what I said on "Hannity" last night was "blackmail." Blackmail occurs when one party threatens to reveal an unsavory piece of information about another party, and demands money in exchange for silence. For obvious reasons, it is most often conducted in private. I, on the other hand, went on national television with a challenge to the Attorney General to do his job; unlike this administration and its justice department, what I did was fully open and transparent.
There will be consequences if there isn't an investigation into ACORN. The videos will be shown and at a particular moment. There is nothing illegal about my proposed response to the continued inaction from this justice department, and there's nothing I'd like more than to have my day in court and let a jury hear why I have gone to such extraordinary measures to tell a major story that the dying, partisan, leftist media has worked so hard to suppress.
The days of the Democrat-Media Complex controlling the narrative are in their end times. And if the AG wants to turn his focus on me instead of ACORN, then that day will be closer than many of them think.
Previously:
Extortion? Breitbart threatens to release more tapes during election unless DOJ investigates ACORN
"Blackmail occurs when one party threatens to reveal an unsavory piece of information about another party, and demands money in exchange for silence."
that is one of the definitions the dictionary gives (to extort money from (a person) by the use of threats.) but there is also:
to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc
so what you are doing, Breitbart IS IN FACT blackmail. at least, according to the dictionary. but i guess the dictionary has a liberal bias
blackmail: extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution.
extort: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power.
It turns out you are wrong about the definition of the word blackmail, Mr. Breitbart.
You are trying to obtain a result from the Attorney General of the United States into taking actions, investigating ACORN in this case. You are threatening public exposure if you do not get your way. Your actions are the definition of blackmail. The fact that you openly and publicly blackmail the A.G. in my opinion leaves you open to prosecution.
Really? You and Hannah and James are the truthful ones?
(here)
Looks like you were lying about that, weren't you, Mr. Breitbart? Besides which, the complete and un-edited video, to my knowledge, has never been produced for examination, so we really don't know what other lies you are hiding.
As for ACORN, the few responsible for engaging in morally questionable but not illegal behavior have been fired, and the $54 million over 10 years that they had been granted by Congress has been rescinded. You want a real story? Halliburton is still getting government funding, and they kill U.S. soldiers. No outrage over that though, at least from you.
Mr. Breitbart, it is to be hoped that, even as we speak, wheels are turning in the D.O.J., determining if your words and deeds are in fact actionable. I admit I am no lawyer, but it appears so to me.
Needless to say, Breitbart is wrong about the definition of blackmail. Blackmail does not always involve money.
(Honestly, I don't consider it blackmail, because I don't believe you have anything at all of any use in a criminal prosecution or of an embarrassing nature - if you did, you would have brought it all out quickly and decisively. You just have a few bits of questionable video that may or may not have been altered and edited to appear damning.)
Breitbart: check it out, loser - there is no chain of custody for your supposed evidence. It is worthless.
Apparently not what the House and Senate think, ReasonandResolve. Nor the Census Bureau. Nor the majority of Americans' opinions on this corrupt organization. Nor the the numerous investigations going on, including the raid on the New Orleans headquarters. Oh, and apparently not liberal icon and hero Jon Stewart.
Worthless? I don't think so.
Report: ACORN mismanaged grant money
As taxpaying citizens, we all owe Breitbart, O'Keefe and the incredibly beautiful, strong and intelligent Hannah Giles a debt of gratitude for their bravery in exposing the corruption that is ACORN. The ironic thing is, liberals are almost always happy to see whistleblowers and undercover journalists uncovering corruption, fraud and graft. Not this time, though.
I find that very telling. Is she more or less capable because of her looks? Are all conservatives sexist pigs? Is her beauty somehow proof of her intelligence, because I haven't seen any evidence at all that she is any more or less intelligent than most women. She has shown herself to be wonderfully average, yet you have judged her to be intelligent. Surely you base that upon somethng besides her physical appearance - do you know her? Have you seen her carry on an actual discussion beyond the prepared talking points she has used on the television.
It is precisely this type of shallow analysis that leads people like you to arrive at your deeply flawed positions.
I've read and heard enough of Hannah Giles to know she's a very intelligent young woman who knows how to spew out talking points, unlike what you are doing here, R and R.
There is nothing wrong in the way I described Hannah Giles.
The more apt question is why you think it is. The far more apt question is are all liberals sexist pigs and why do they attack attractive conservative women far more than they do relatively less attractive ones. Why do you find them more threatening and single them out more for attack?
Otherwise, her political philosophy and her intelligence or lack of same are up for debate. Her looks shouldn't ever have anything to do with any discussion on a board such as this.
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/michele-bachmanns-insane-sex-clinics-an
and this:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/01/bachmann-slit-our-wrists/
I could go on about others you cons find attractive but you get the point and that is it ain't their strenght or beauty that drives us crazy it's their hyprocrisy and crackpot views. That you find them attractive says alot about you.
Personally i find him a tad too skinny to be attractive.
(like that isn't onlgoing already)
If Breitbart has "evidence" then let him post it and show everyone what it is.
If it shows ACORN breaking the law, then let's take them to court.
Does it show some Dem breaking the law, then let's take them to court.
If you have "evidence" then show it, otherwise you are just trying to maximize your 15 minutes and the rest of us don't care.
Most of these women that you claim to be great beauties are fueled by hate and their own self importance.
Your side is shallower than our side, and places too much weight on what people look like rather than what they stand for or how intelligent they are.
That's your failing, not ours. It's not our fault that you have some attractive conservative women who are dunces. Their looks shouldn't matter to you, and their looks don't matter to us.
No, you mentioned her beauty because YOU somehow found it relevant. While I notice a woman's physical appearance, I don't judge her based upon it. It is irrelevant in a discussion of how she thinks or behaves.
You found it relevant. I found that to be a very telling thing.
The question I would ask you is "why is it important to you?"
See, if you take a closer look at the issue, you will find that, on the rare occasion that the conservatives allow an unattractive woman to be a spokesperson, liberals take equal exception to their idiotic blatherings. However, it is very rare. Can you name a single female conservative spokesperson who is not attractive? This is because of one of two things: either 1) conservatives don't like unattractive women, or 2) conservatives purposely choose attracte spokeswomen so that they can preserve their idiotic meme that liberals have something against attractive and strong conservative women.
We don't. That is your projection. We have something against people with ugly brains - male, female, beauty queen or bowwow. Ugly brains suck.
And probably criminal charges, especially for the many servicemen and -women electrocuted in their barracks because of it.
Additionally, by your very post, you prove that Breitbart is not being truthful - apparently there have been many investigations, haven't there?
Breitbart is just using his pulpit to try to stir up more trouble and to keep the ignorant mob inflamed.
I'll anxiously await your thoughtful reply.
Glenn Greenwald put it like this:
"...ACORN has received a grand total of $53 million in federal funds over the last 15 years -- an average of $3.5 million per year. Meanwhile, not millions, not billions, but trillions of dollars of public funds have been, in the last year alone, transferred to or otherwise used for the benefit of Wall Street. Billions of dollars in American taxpayer money vanished into thin air, eaten by private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, led by Halliburton subsidiary KBR. All of those corporate interests employ armies of lobbyists and bottomless donor activities that ensure they dominate our legislative and regulatory processes, and to be extra certain, the revolving door between industry and government is more prolific than ever, with key corporate officials constantly ending up occupying the government positions with the most influence over those industries.
Exactly as one would expect, the prime beneficiaries of all of that pillaging continue to grow. The banks that almost brought the world economy to collapse but then received massive public largesse because they were "too big to fail" are now bigger than ever; as The Washington Post delicately put it: "The crisis may be turning out very well for many of the behemoths that dominate U.S. finance." Everything involving the government turns out well for these "behemoths" because they own and control the U.S. Government..."
How you can watch those videos by Giles and O'Keefe and not be appalled is beyond me. Oh, and btw, regarding the KBR rape victim's ability to prosecute, blame Obama's DOD and Democrat Sen. Inouye, who has announced he may be the one who strips the rape language out of the bill.
Because, as it happens...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111712/Sharp-Increase-Concern-About-Ineligible-Voters-Year.aspx
Most Americans don't succumb to the day-in/day-out fluctuations in political BS, hoosier. Most Americans don't actually concern themselves with the machinations of politicos from either side of the aisle, contented to work, pay their bills, and raise their families.
As politics-junkies, we tend to lose track of the real world and we make the mistake of thinking that most people are as addicted to politics as we are. that is simply not the case.
We need to defund ACORN for having abstract conversations about imaginary crimes, while we continue to pour momey into defense contractors, because they actually rape and murder people. Now those guys actually know how to get stuff done.
The offense resides in the threats and attempts to force an action by them, rather than what you actually use to threaten with.
LOGIC!
BRILLIANT!
Why is it that you of the Far-Left cannot tell the difference between Tina Fey, on Saturday Night Live, and Gov. Palin's actual remarks?
It makes you appear even more ignorant and hate-filled than most of you already are.