Big Government doesn't want to "jump to conclusions" on guilt -- unless it's ACORN
January 28, 2010 2:21 pm ET by Simon Maloy
This morning, BigGovernment.com contributor Kyle Olson offered a rousing defense of his colleague James O'Keefe, the undercover ACORN video auteur currently under parents' house arrest after getting pinched by the Feds for allegedly trying to tamper with Sen. Mary Landrieu's phone lines. Olson specifically defended O'Keefe against the "hypocritical" left, writing:
The alleged crimes committed by ACORN employees in the O'Keefe and Giles videos were excused, and even rationalized, by the Left. But they don't apply the same level of patience and understanding for O'Keefe and Company. Even worse, they're jumping to conclusions about their guilt, and the nature of their alleged crime.
OK, so jumping to conclusions about guilt is a bad, bad thing to do. With that in mind, let's take a look back at what BigGovernment.com contributor Kyle Olson wrote in December about the report issued by former Massachusetts attorney general Scott Harshbarger, which found no evidence that the ACORN employees involved in the O'Keefe video sting had acted illegally:
One of Harshbarger's most startling conclusions was that ACORN Housing Corp. employees committed no crimes when they were caught on video repeatedly giving advice to a couple posing as a pimp and prostitute. He even suggests that the employees may have been represented in a false light, and were not as guilty as they appeared on video.
Oh my... It seems that Kyle Olson jumped to a conclusion about the guilt of ACORN employees. Not only that, he considered them guilty even though, unlike O'Keefe, they hadn't been charged with an actual crime.
That's not to say that hypocrisy like this from a Breitbart outfit is at all surprising. "Jumping to conclusions" before the facts are in is pretty much their business model.
That can easily be said of Obama also, look how he criticized the police before he had the facts in the Prof Gates controversy. It is much easier for people to draw conclusions about acorn, after all we could watch them in action. Acorn itself told us all we needed to know.
Tax advice for prostitutes
The salient bit?
"Sex-worker advocacy organizations regularly receive requests for tax advice. Some prostitutes, for example, might need help with the first line on the form—which asks the filer to identify her profession and service offered. It turns out that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination permits a prostitute to leave this line blank or provide a vague answer like "sale of leisure services." The form also requires the filer to select a code for line of business. The ACORN employee recommended 711510 ("independent artists, writers, and performers"), but 713900 ("other amusement and recreation services") and 812990 ("all other personal services") would have been equally appropriate."
In other words, the ACORN employee was under no obligation to either call the police on a prostitute, nor to give them bad advice in filling out a tax form that would have sabotaged their Fifth Amendment rights. In fact, by informing the 'prostitute' to use a non-specific response, the worker was doing exactly what they were hired to do.
Now back to the topic. Big Government is in full backpedal right now trying to break any real association with O'Keefe. They cant fully act like they don't know him, but they are not going to completely back him up either. Since the website did back his first round of videos there is an interest in trying to protect his reputation, and by association theirs. But they honestly want to be as far away from this guy as they can be.
Let's say... for the sake of argument that Mr. O'Keefe was in fact just there to disrupt the lines of a United States Senator's office to film a reaction by her staff. This "prank," as you would like us to believe, required the breaking of more than one Federal law in order to accomplish it.
But, laws aside, Mr. O'Keefe has been exposed for the fraud that he is. He is no journalist, by any stretch of the imagination. He is a side show circus clown who is manufacturing and artificially creating stories for political ends.
The King has no clothes, Mr. Olson. He has been exposed.
Veritas!!!