Will Breitbart, O'Keefe, and Giles come clean about the ACORN pimp hoax?
Last September 12, when the story of undercover ACORN surveillance videos was just breaking, conservative activist Hannah Giles, who starred in the clips as a wannabe prostitute, appeared on Fox News. Host Greg Gutfeld was positively giddy during his Giles interview, as he mocked the ACORN employees who were caught on tape giving Giles and her undercover partner, James O'Keefe, all kinds of misguided advice on how a prostitute could pay* taxes on her late-night income.
The wisecracking Gutfeld especially loved the whole pimp-'n'-ho premise of the sting and was stunned that ACORN staffers bought the ruse, considering the outlandish way Giles and O'Keefe were dressed when they strolled into the community organizers' offices. In the ACORN clips posted online, viewers could see Giles strutting around outside in a revealing outfit, while O'Keefe was decked out in fur with sunglasses and a goofy-looking cane.
As Gutfeld excitedly mentioned to Giles [emphasis added]:
GUTFELD: It's amazing to me because, seriously, you guys look like you came from a frat party where it was pimps 'n' hos. I would think they just would've said, "Get out of here!" But in fact they were trying to help you set up a brothel.
According to Gutfeld, O'Keefe walked right into the ACORN offices looking like he came from a costume party, and they still didn't catch on.
But, of course, we now know Gutfeld had the story all wrong. As I noted last week, and as blogger Brad Friedman had pointed out previously, James O'Keefe never wore his crazy hustler outfit to meet with community organizers. Instead, the '70s-style blaxploitation pimp costume O'Keefe helped make famous was a propaganda tool used after the fact to deceive the public about the undercover operation.
Yet in the very infancy of the ACORN scandal, Fox News host Gutfeld was peddling a false story about O'Keefe's pimp costume, a false story that quickly morphed into accepted fact. (Eventually, after an avalanche of repetition, didn't pretty much everyone believe O'Keefe was decked out as a pimp?)
It quickly morphed into fact because the lead propagandists helped to spread the tall tale. And now they won't come clean about their role.
For instance, during that September 12 broadcast, Giles said nothing to set the record straight. That night, she sat and listened to Gutfeld tell the phony pimp story, and she became complicit in the lie. Obviously, Giles knew her undercover pal didn't look like he just came from a costume party when he walked into ACORN outposts with his undercover camera. But on Fox News, when Gutfeld spread that tale, Giles did nothing to correct the record.
Soon, her undercover cohort joined in the misinformation campaign. Two days later, O'Keefe appeared on Fox & Friends decked out as a pimp. Host Steve Doocy announced that O'Keefe was "dressed exactly in the same outfit that he wore to these ACORN offices up and down the Eastern Seaboard."
O'Keefe made no effort to correct Doocy's falsehood.
And then one week later, writing in The Washington Times, O'Keefe and Giles' mentor, conservative activist Andrew Breitbart, whose website Big Government first hosted the ACORN clips, added to the misinformation movement. He wrote that O'Keefe had been "dressed as a pimp" while "getting" tax advice inside ACORN offices.
It was all part of a campaign, often fueled by winks and nods, to plant the indelible image of O'Keefe strolling into inner-city ACORN workplaces on summer afternoons decked out in his furry pimp costume and clueless employees not batting an eye.
It wasn't enough to uncover dubious practices inside the offices. Breitbart and his colleagues, consumed by hatred for an underfunded and somewhat adrift nonprofit, were determined to demonize ACORN (a "thug organization," as Giles put it) and paint its workers as immoral fools for not being able to spot the spoof a mile away. (In truth, O'Keefe was dressed rather conservatively -- slacks and dress shirt -- when he talked to ACORN staffers, and he often presented himself as an aspiring politician.)
Last week, when highlighting how the pimp story was a fake, I stressed two things. First, that fact does not change what happened on the Candid Camera tapes, and it certainly doesn't excuse the behavior of the low-level ACORN staffers who seemed shockingly eager to help people skirt the law. Second, the pimp revelation does raise all sorts of questions about the ethics and accuracy of Breitbart, O'Keefe, and Giles and indicate that the hoax should send up a red flag among journalists. Breitbart claims he's championing a new breed of "journalism." But is his brand built on lies?
If the trio's willing to obfuscate about clothing, then reporters and pundits need to use extreme caution when dealing with any claim they make in the future. And that probably goes double for O'Keefe, who offered up pretty dubious spin following his arrest in New Orleans last month in connection with the Keystone Kop capering inside Sen. Mary Landrieu's office.
So last week, Media Matters helped highlight how the pimp story was bogus, and what did Breitbart do in response? Did he accept responsibility and make plain to his Big Government readers that any confusion on the pimp issue was his fault and that he regrets not being straight about it?
Of course not. Breitbart, allergic to fair play and decency, at first insisted he had nothing to correct in his Washington Times column, even though he falsely reported O'Keefe was "dressed as a pimp" while receiving ACORN advice. He then posted a nasty, insincere "correction" via Twitter. And at CPAC last weekend, his voice dripping with contempt, Breitbart announced he was "so sorry" that O'Keefe "apparently" hadn't been dressed as a flamboyant pimp when taping ACORN. (Breitbart ought to take lessons from fellow conservative Michelle Malkin on how grown-ups post corrections.)
Meanwhile, Giles last week flatly denied they had ever claimed O'Keefe entered ACORN offices as a pimp:
"We never claimed that he went in with a pimp costume," said Giles. "That was b-roll. It was purely b-roll. He was a pimp, I was a prostitute, and we were walking in front of government buildings to show how the government was whoring out the American people."
Ah, the B-roll. For those unfamiliar with the video production term, B-roll is secondary footage often included in TV reports that shows the featured subjects in some sort of pedestrian action mode, like walking through their office or taking a phone call at their desk.
When the ACORN tapes were first posted at Big Government, they contained plenty of B-roll, or cutaway shots, featuring O'Keefe in his flamboyant pimp outfit outside. And, of course, that's a key reason viewers and news consumers first got the false notion that O'Keefe did his entire undercover sting in the costume, because the video-makers left that obvious impression. (Since O'Keefe did the ACORN filming, he's rarely seen on tape inside the offices.)
Indeed, wasn't the entire point of the deceptively edited B-roll clips to create confusion from the outset? Giles says they "never claimed" O'Keefe wore a pimp outfit, but why else would they purposefully include footage of him in the video if not to create that false impression? Meaning, the videos in and of themselves represent proof that Breitbart, O'Keefe, and Giles knowingly tried to peddle the pimp lie.
As blogger Conor Friedersdorf sensibly noted last week:
After watching the ACORN videos, I shared them with several apolitical friends who don't follow the blogosphere very closely. All assumed Mr. O'Keefe walked into the ACORN offices wearing the pimp suit.
For me, the "Hey, look, I'm dressed like a pimp" B-roll clips posted on Big Government tell us all we need to know about the purposeful attempt to mislead the public. But if you want more proof, let's continue.
Let's go back and reread a Washington Post article from last September and note the picture painted by O'Keefe. It seems pretty definitive [emphasis added]:
The proposition was outrageous, outlandish and right up James E. O'Keefe III's alley. Hannah Giles was on the phone from Washington, D.C., and she was asking him to dress as her pimp, walk into the offices of the ACORN community activist group, openly admit to wanting to buy a house to run as a brothel and see what happened.
It was serendipity, O'Keefe said Thursday. On that day in May, he was still burning mad after watching a YouTube video of ACORN workers breaking padlocks off foreclosed homes and barging in. "I was upset," he said.
O'Keefe, 25, packed his grandfather's old wide-brimmed derby hat from his swing-dancing days, his grandmother's ratty chinchilla shoulder throw, and a cane he bought at a dollar store, then drove from his parents' home in northern New Jersey to the District to execute the idea with Giles, 20.
Last September, the Post interviewed O'Keefe, who told the newspaper all about how the ACORN videos came to be. According to his telling, Giles called and asked him to dress as a pimp and "walk into the offices of the ACORN community activist group," as the Post relayed it. And after getting Giles' call, O'Keefe told the Post, he packed up his pimp costume and drove south to execute the plan.
But today, Giles claims they never claimed O'Keefe was dressed as a pimp for the sting.
Meanwhile, I already noted the time when Giles appeared on Fox News and remained silent while the host pushed the bogus talking point about the pimp costume. But that wasn't the only time Breitbart and friends remained mum.
Question: Isn't sitting idly by while a lie is broadcast about your story nearly as bad as broadcasting the lie yourself?
Let's go back to Sean Hannity's show on September 14, 2009. (That's the same day O'Keefe appeared on Fox News in his full pimp costume.) Giles and Breitbart were the guests, and host Hannity was hyping the ACORN clips (transcript from the Nexis database):
GILES: Yes. Imagine that. Everyone is suffering and looking for a loan and they tell us and you know, we're going through all this financial problems, and they're telling me to bury funds in the back yard so that the government or my pimp can't come steal the money.
HANNITY: And by the way, and he is the least convincing pimp that I would think in the world. But he pulled -- you guys pulled it off and did a great job.
Hannity claimed O'Keefe wasn't even convincing as a pimp, yet was still able to fool ACORN employees, to "pull it off." Of course, as we now know, O'Keefe wasn't dressed as a pimp inside the offices, so that didn't fool any of the employees.
So what did Breitbart and Giles do as Hannity pushed the phony pimp story on national TV? Did they jump in quickly to set the record straight, so no misinformation spread across the airwaves? Did they stress how important it was to be factually accurate about the ACORN sting operation and that neither one of them wanted to mislead Hannity's viewers into thinking O'Keefe was actually dressed as a pimp on the undercover videos?
Nope. Neither Breitbart nor Giles tried to correct Hannity, because by all indications, O'Keefe, Giles, and Breitbart wanted the bogus pimp story to be pushed in the press.
The same dance played out on November 16, 2009, when Hannity again hyped the tapes. His guests that night were O'Keefe and Giles (transcript from Nexis):
HANNITY: All right. You were both dressed as -- and by the way, you are the least convincing pimp in the entire world. I mean, I just don't -- I don't get it.
O'KEEFE: It's pretty outrageous. It's ridiculous. And look at the way that Hannah's dressed. They didn't blink an eye.
HANNITY: And by the way, Hannah, you are the least convincing prostitute. I want that to be clear, too, in the entire world.
But in all honesty, it is outrageous.
Not only did Giles and O'Keefe fail to correct Hannity's false implication that O'Keefe had worn the pimp outfit while secretly filming, but O'Keefe enthusiastically agreed the whole thing was "pretty ridiculous."
Last point: When many in the mainstream press began to erroneously report the pimp costume falsehood, did Breitbart or O'Keefe or Giles contact reporters to set them straight? Out of a concern for accuracy and fair play, did any of them step forward and spell out the facts, which were routinely mangled in the press? Did Breitbart, who seems obsessed with seeking corrections, contact New York Times editors, for instance, when the newspaper last year mistakenly reported that when he "visited ACORN offices," O'Keefe was "dressed so outlandishly that he might have been playing in a risque high school play"? Did Breitbart get in touch with the New York Post when it made a similar blunder? NPR? The Dallas Morning News?
I suspect the answer is no, because the right-wing activists wanted the falsehood to flourish. And, as I've detailed, they helped plant it in the first place.
But now the fooling is over, and it's time for Breitbart, O'Keefe, and Giles to come clean about the ACORN pimp hoax and their role in spreading it.
Follow Eric Boehlert on Twitter.






















Maybe he is a Pimp-Wannabe.
And mabye she is a Girl of ill-Repute.
Mr. News
The reason that they didn't correct the false impressions about how O'Keefe was dressed can only be because that's the impression that they wanted to create.
Sadder words have not been said. He's nothing but a white-boy wannabe. What a freakin' laugh.
Great observation, GBU.
You people are truly pathetic.
Don't be such a drama queen.
Not at all, he was being a drama queen, even with two of you trolls running around giving "thumbs down" to opinions you don't like.
It wouldn't have been one of my kids because ACORN isn't involved in child prostitution.
I think that is fair.
I might consider a "good" or "above average" rating if you can show some evidence of any ACORN employees being involved in child prostitution.
Because Michael Savage cribbed that line from Lenin?
1) No full, unedited version of any tape has been released by O'Keefe. Furthermore, he's proven himself to be a liar and likely, a criminal...calling into doubt everything he has released.
2) There was no child prostitution.
3) Repeating blather issued by the likes of Drudge and Breitbart simply makes you a blathering drama queen, retiredinsf.
~
The tapes have to speak for themselves.
If O'keefe is a lying racist sob, which he might be, is completely irrelevant.
Yes, it is very fortunate that in this specific case, there was no actual child prostitution as Okeefe does not traffic children, though ACORN was more than willing to lend aid for the trafficking of children for prostitution.
As I am someone who cares about race and child welfare I hope that you will consider an investigation of ACORN a required detail.
This has already happened, Mister concern troll.
The tapes do not speak for themselves, because without full unedited tapes, context is lost. FAUX nooze uses this technique all the time to mislead its sheep.
Rules of logic, you say? Learn them. Apply them. Once this is done, you will no longer be a puppet of this country's right wing propagandists.
Good Luck with it!
~
Maybe...
But if that's your preferred reality, good for you.
NO ACORN WORKER EVER GAVE ADVICE ON SETTING UP A CHILD PROSTITUTION RING!!!
You only ever hear the topic mentioned by the off-camera voice. Prove me wrong.
Apparently more than happy to profit off the real thing.
~
I should correct the above: "criminal investigation".
I made a bad assumption that you would understand the interment. :(
Cheers!
Have a nice day.
:)
That's not hypocrisy.
Are you sure your using the word correctly or are you offering your willingness to seek social justice for one example and release accountability for another (ACORN)?
Not to your posts, apparently.
The tapes have to speak for themselves.
Even the tapes we've seen don't 'speak for themselves'. In many places, O'Keefe is talking over the actual conversations. On top of that, they're all edited, and he hasn't let anyone see the unedited tapes, so who knows what's on them. Lastly, O'Keefe, Breitbart and others have grossly distorted what IS shown on the tapes to mislead their followers - like you. MMFA has intensively covered this - go back in their archives, because I'm not going to cover that ground again.
If O'keefe is a lying racist sob, which he might be, is completely irrelevant.
Are you completely daft? Of course his motivation and his internal biases matter!
Yes, it is very fortunate that in this specific case, there was no actual child prostitution as Okeefe does not traffic children, though ACORN was more than willing to lend aid for the trafficking of children for prostitution.
There's no evidence, not one shred, that anyone within ACORN's reach was willing to lend aid for what you suggest. On top of that, there's no evidence that ACORN management supported the bad behavior exhibited by a couple of intake workers at a couple of sites. You condemn all of ACORN unfairly.
As I am someone who cares about race and child welfare I hope that you will consider an investigation of ACORN a required detail.
Yeah, because none of us posting here care about race and child welfare? Give me a break. You can't come here claiming to be holier than thou. And then you don't know that investigations into ACORN have already happened? Wow.
Massive FAIL. You got nothing right. Nothing. Go slink away back into your hole.
At least you can acknowledge that some foul play was happening in the offices of ACORN. :)
There are rules to logic that weeds out the "daft".
Facts and motivation are completely separate.
It's just good science. :)
Do you have any evidence of this ? I don't believe there was any paperwork filled out, let alone any actual prostitution to "aid".
Correction:
ACORN employees on the video were more than willing to lend aid for the trafficking of children for prostitution.
Thanks!
From the evidence of the tapes given it is evident that the employees were compliant with the context.
I am open to the possibility that the tapes were edited to represent a bias and welcome the opportunity to adjust my point of view with new evidence.
You only ever hear the topic mentioned by the off-camera voice. Prove me wrong.
I can only interpret that as "NO, I don't have any evidence".
And "compliant with the context" is a meaningless string of words that you're hoping sound important .
I picked this argument back up with ScienceBuff on down the thread where I offered the evidence.
The evidence in question are the videos and since you are among the individuals here that dispute the varsity of the evidence/videos, the discussion can't really move forward and that's O.K.
No need to get nasty :(
I am just hear for a friendly discussion.
I'll go look at your evidence.
Because you listen to Michael Savage and think his senile rants make sense?
Excuse me, but that plane guy was a confirmed liberal. Then again, facts don't seem to matter to lefties.
Troll post - please ignore this guy whenever possible - he's never, ever exhibited an interest in a fair discussion of the facts.
See, some of us don't have kneejerk reactions to things. We look at the evidence.
And the evidence is that many people don't realize some posts are troll posts that should be ignored. But after they're informed, they then do treat the troll posts as troll posts.
Deliberate ignorance, you phony conservative, that's what you show time and time again.
Ah, a Michael Wiener Savage fan.
You do understand that the tapes which have been shown were dubbed and edited, right? You also understand that Breitbart and his little criminal, O'Keefe, refuse to turn over the unedited originals, right? You don't KNOW what's on the original tapes.
You've already proven on other threads here that, even when faced with TRUTH, you choose to remain deliberately ignorant of reality. You are the one with the mental disorder, sir, and not of the political ideological type.
Proof please. If you are going to spout this as fact, then show us the facts. Oh, and I LOVE your use of "you people." Kinda prooves a point here ... no? This is the 2nd such post of yours where you use that offensive language. Are you ignorant or stupid?
The way I see it I'm giving you the benefit of doubt by referring to you people as you people. I will change it to you mentally challenged whacked out idiots on drugs if you'd like.
Let me know.
Hold it, you're telling me you didn't hear about on the news!?! Fox News didn't broadcast in a loop? Hannity didn't have the authors on? The New York Times never put it on the front page?
Well, that's just odd. You'd think a media interested in the truth would inform our "less-knowledgeable" posters of the exonerating report...
I guess that's not how it works in a world where Al Gore invented the Internet, found Love Canal, where the W's were ripped off keyboards in the White House and the Clinton's stole stuff, where we always hated Ahmad Chalabi (even before we loved him), and Judith Miller didn't help kill untold Iraqis by being a stenographer for Scooter Libby.
Facts? Blah, we have Breitbart and video editing!
It's impossible to get around that logic.
By your logic, a bank whose employee has embezzled money from it actually hired the employee with the intent to lose money.
Someone didn't read the column.
By a few employees of ACORN. Every organization has some bad apples, and we don't know how many times Dumb and Dumber here got kicked out of offices before some of them delivered the goods.
"You completely forget and forgive the bigger issue of indisputable and complete moral failure by ACORN and simply hang your hat on technicalities"
Read it again: "First, that fact does not change what happened on the Candid Camera tapes, and it certainly doesn't excuse the behavior of the low-level ACORN staffers who seemed shockingly eager to help people skirt the law."
But this is a website for media criticism, not non-profit group criticism, so that's largely beside the point.
I find that too unbelievable to even go to the next step. This gets into ThoughtCrime territory, where people are mind reading "willingness to aid" a crime from a few seconds of edited videotape.
Law enforcement has a lot more leeway with sting operations than pretend journalists, and a scam like O'Keefe's would be thrown out of court if attempted by police.
Mr. Boehlert takes pains to point out that the falsehood about that ridiculous pimp outfit does not in any way absolve the actions of the ACORN workers.
I love how the right can so easily generalize the actions of 3 people to an organization of 400,000 without a shred of proof that this was some systemic conspiracy instead of a couple isolated incidents (how many offices did they try before they got their footage btw?).
It is instructive of the right wing mind. They demonize an entity for no apparent reason and, without any evidence, go all out to destroy it. That doesn't sound ANYTHING like Iraq.
This site is about the media, and flagging right wing hijinx therein.
How hard is this? You're retired. You have all day to understand things.
There is no doubt that after months of under cover operations these 3 were finally able to expose the regrettable actions of a few low level employees.Leaving aside for now the "Pimp and Ho" costumes,do you honestly believe that an organization that has done so much in helping America's poorest people for years deserves this kind of treatment?
It's a little harsh don't you think?
You mean if it was one of our kids working for ACORN? I would be disgusted if someone accused them of such a horrible thing using edited and doctored videos, that use devices like "b-roll" to give viewers false impressions and that not release the unedited videos so that our children could properly defend themselves.
Oh, wait! You mean if one of my kids was involved in a made up and fake prostitution ring with ACORN. Well then, retiredinsf, is there any evidence now or in the history of the ACORN organization where it has been shown to have connections to a house of prostitution? Has there been one house that was raided by police that was later to have been discovered that the owners had received housing assistance by ACORN? Come on big guy. Looking for one single case. Crack house? Anything?
Why not just say, "whatever," like a thirteeen year old, and get it over with?
Why are you encapable of doing so? Have you even watched these videos?
Were the employees in Philadelphia who called the police after O'Keefe and Giles left their offices attempting to assist in child prostitution?
Was the employee who offered Hannah assistance with a shelter or home to get her out of prostitution attempting to assist in child prostitution?
Was the employee who called National police and put in contact with a federal officer in human trafficing attempting to assist in child prostitution?
Was the employee who told the two of them that anything they do with ACORN must be legitimate attempting to assist in child prostitution?
You are so quick to condemn me with out showing me why I am wrong or what I have missed that would suggest that illegal child prostitution was being "encouraged and endorsed" by employees of ACORN. Why, with all your conviction in the ACORN employees' illegal activities, can you not show me examples of their criminal behavior?
Use the tapes. Use the transcripts. Show me where I am wrong. It can't be that hard, can it?
He remains deliberately ignorant. He's a very sad, uninformed individual who just lashes out because he has nothing else.
(A little Rush type humor - you're welcome.)
BTW, are "trolls" paid? If so, who do I bill?
I am not gonna spend time going thru all the tapes and transcripts just to satisfy your denial of the facts.
Then stop claiming that they are facts when they are simply YOUR opinions from what you have viewed and/or read. All you are being asked to do is provide facts ... failing to do so, you should state that what you are spouting is nothing more but your humble opinion and nothing more.
So tell us, since you care so much about the ACORN fictional child prositutes, are you concerned about the REAL child prostitutes being imported by Blackwater/Xe?
How very sad for you.
Bold mine. Third time. I'm beginning to think stupid not ignorant.
You are a truly pathetic, stupid [deliberately ignorant] man. Even when people post truth to refute the false talking points you post, you claim that it is suspect because it just represents "their side." Deliberate ignorance is very, very pathetic.
What complete moral failure? Only one office was told about child prostitution, and still offered help. In that case O'Keefe and Giles portrayed it as giving the girls a safe place. It was still dumb of them not to call the cops, but they got fired for that. In one other case they mentioned the children, but as rescuing them, not prostituting them.
In all other cases, either O'Keefe and Giles didn't mention child prostitution at all, or they threw them out of the office, or they called the cops on them.
Did you ever watch the videos, the ones on the Breitbart website, not the Youtube ones? Did you ever read the transcripts?
IOW, you are a BSer in spades.
If it's a "complete moral failure" by an organization, that doesn't happen. You get it? Do I need to say this more slowly? What?
Same deal for all the fake registrations. It was ACORN itself who detected and reported those, and they resulted in exactly no skewing of elections anyway, because of the nature of the fakes (nobody ever would have been registered via joke identities in the first place).
Is all this too difficult for people like you? Really?
I love this site. It cracks me up.
By a few employees of ACORN. Every organization has some bad apples, and we don't know how many times Dumb and Dumber here got kicked out of offices before some of them delivered the goods. Also:
Read it again: "First, that fact does not change what happened on the Candid Camera tapes, and it certainly doesn't excuse the behavior of the low-level ACORN staffers who seemed shockingly eager to help people skirt the law."
But this is a website for media criticism, not non-profit group criticism, so that's largely beside the point.
There were no children and ACORN is not involved in the sex trade.
ACORN was attempting to include itself in the sex trade by proxy.
Why?
That is irrelevant to this thread, BUT
O'keefe was arrested for using poor judgment to execute what he considers an investigation. It was a risk he was willing to take and it didn't pay off.
Do you know why the ACORN employees were fired?
O'Keefe was arrested on felony charges.
ACORN employees, as far as I know, were fired for not handling the situation with the felons properly. I'm sure the firings were also affected by the media blitz/witch hunt against ACORN by the media.
In both cases they were fired for wrongdoing.
Maybe you didn't understand the context.
There is no witch hunt against ACORN only a cry from the right that there should be a witch hunt against ACORN. That is their beef. The right feels that there is a double standard of accountability and on this one I would have to agree.
I am happy we can agree that the ACORN employees involved were in fact fired for wrongdoing that was uncovered and a direct result from the tapes.
Can you provide the felony charge O'keefe was arrested on?
To my knowledge the U.S. attorney's office in New Orleans has yet to make a charge and has filed for an extension to file.
Thanks.
I think you'd have a lot more success in these discussions if you would try to understand what others are posting, rather than imagining that others are agreeing with you.
"context" doesn't simply mean your spin on things.
Thanks !
I missed that earlier, with all of the other problems with your arguments. I think admitting a "cry for witch hunts" says a lot more than you ever intended to say.
Thanks.
Wow. Just by talking about child prostitution they're implicitly involved in child prostitution.
In turn, I was talking the other day about banging Angelina Jolie. I guess then, by proxy, I got lucky. Hooray for me!!!
Correction should read:
The consequences of which would include ACORN in child prostitution.
Thanks!
You're stating the assumptions you've made, based on a few seconds of edited video, as fact.
What you're saying is so fundamentally flawed that if you were on Peoples' Court, Judge Wapner (or whoever is on it now) would throw you out before the first commercial break.
But, if you need me to apply a textbook logical fallacy to your argument, I'd say Begging the Question is probably closest.
Cheers :)
I love this site. It cracks me up."
Isn;t it amazing how these people can't see the forest for the trees? They make silly little issues out to be great big things while overlooking the big picture all the time here. For example they complain about the tapes that busted ACORN were "edited". Of course they were! Each one was probably hours long so only the incriminating parts that exposed the behavior of the ACORN employees were shown. They make excuses for these ACORN people! Isn't it shameful? How twisted their minds must be to actually think this way.
If the alleged egregious behavior of the ACORN employees was so cut and dry, as you seem to believe, why would there be a need to advance the lie that Giles and OKeefe actually wore these costumes during the interviews?
Like it or not, what they were wearing is a BIG part of the overall story.
And if they lied about something as "insignificant" (in your mind) as what they wore, what makes you so sure every other aspect of their "investigation" would be an honest depiction of what really transpired?
As far as the edited tapes, they have refused to release the UNedited tapes to anyone.
Because this is what you people do. Pick out a small trivial issue and pick it to death while completely missing the bigger picture.
Dang you lefties are thick!
Because I believe what my eyes and ears tell me. If you people think the tapes were edited such that the ACORN employees did not encourage child prostitution then hey, go ahead and keep your head in the sand. But, you really are stupid thinking this.
Non-sequitir much, pinhead ?
NO ACORN WORKER EVER GAVE ADVICE ON SETTING UP A CHILD PROSTITUTION RING!!!
You only ever hear the topic mentioned by the off-camera voice. Prove me wrong.
Where is this stuff coming from? Did I miss something? Can someone point out an underage child to me?
In all other cases, either O'Keefe and Giles did not say they were going to prostitute those girls, didn't mention them at all, were told Acorn would have nothing to do with it, or the Acorn people called the cops.
Read the transcripts. Some stuff that was not in the videos is in there.
NO ACORN WORKER EVER GAVE ADVICE ON SETTING UP A CHILD PROSTITUTION RING!!!
You only ever hear the topic mentioned by the off-camera voice. Prove me wrong.
Randy
Could you please provide some evidence of this?
Thanks. :)
Randy
The Catholic Church is heavily aligned with the principles supported by the democratic party in this country. There are few on which they largely disagree.
On Health care reform, living wage, even right to unionize, the Catholic Church is on our side. The Catholic principle of right to life is for all of life, even after the child is born.
I am not a christian but I do know many and your conclusion does not establish well at all. I'm not sure where your wealth and class analogy is going but most christians in America are low to middle class citizens and immigrants.
Cheers! :)
Your right wing ideologues are more responsible for causing suffering than alleviating it.
Thanks! :)
The end doesn't always justify the means, but in this case these individuals representing Acorn are so completely out of control something needs to be done.
How about instead of worrying about how he was dress, instead focus on the actual criminals?
Excuse me. Ends do not and cannot justify means. They can only follow them chronologically.
Again, this site is a media watchdog. Why the hell are you here complaining about a media watchdog watchdogging media?
Oh yeah... means justification. I forgot.
Oh really now, Im sorry I thought it was a far left site used to sling mud and malice at the loudest mouths on the right, to constantly confuse the issues and say "No story here !"
I'm niether left or right but American and frankly I liked you guys (liberal democrates)alot more during the previous 8 years when you all were all over the net saying our government is shady, out of control and leading us of a cliff. So now that a few faces have changed and a few people have changed seats you really believe that we're not being lead over the same cliff ?? Really ??
If you want ACORN prosecuted, your first goal should be to muster a single shred of admissible evidence against them, possibly by getting the proven liar to release video that isn't hacked to pieces.
Not evade them....pay them.
Well, his lies about the costume are just another brick in the wall of O'Keefe's overall criminal behavior. It is related to his dishonesty, so while it may seem that MMFA is focusing on the O'Keefe lies about the clothes rather than O'Keefe the actual criminal, it's all relevant to those who can hold onto a couple of thoughts at the same time.
Why does Hannah get a pass? Do only white prostitutes wear miniskirts and high heals?
"...in the very infancy of the ACORN scandal, Fox News host Gutfeld was peddling a false story..."
This statement strikes me as irresponsible. It suggests that Gutfeld was privy to all details of the movie and its production. Are you attempting to implicate Gutfeld as well? Do tell.
Seems that O'Keefe has a long history of pulling off racially insensitive stunts, dating back from his days as a student at Rutgers Uhniversity in New Jersey, as well as alleged ties to a white-supremacist group -- all of which was exposed by DailyKos on February 3:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/3/833486/-OKeefes-Racial-Animus:-White-SupremacyBaked-Goods
More recently, O'Keefe was caught on tape disrupting a gay-rights rally in St. Louis. Not only is O'Keefe an apparent racist, but he's a homophobe as well:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/23/839901/-Video-of-OKeefe-and-Basel-Disrupting-LGBT-Rally-in-St.-Louis
This James O'Keefe is one sick puppy. . .
http://patterico.com/2010/02/24/eric-boehlert-lying-scum/comment-page-1/#comment-629221
Best decision I've made in a long time was to disconnect. No cable, no broadcast. TV is nothing but advertising saturated propaganda. Keeps the increasing screwed American public fighting amongst themselves about stupid sh*t like the "ACORN pimp scandal".
Turn off. Tune out.
The only place you hear those things mentioned is from the off-camera voice. Supposedly they're talking about child prostitution and prostitution rings to about a dozen ACORN workers and none of those workers ever made any direct reference to those topics. Does that seem likely? Reasonable? No, it doesn't.
Prove me wrong. I've been issuing this challenge for months and no one has succeeded yet. Link to a video and list the time stamp where an ACORN worker talks about those things. Link to a transcript and cite the quote where that happens. PROVE ME WRONG. You can't do it because it didn't happen.
NO ACORN WORKER EVER GAVE ADVICE ON SETTING UP A CHILD PROSTITUTION RING!!!
You are correct. They, ACORN employees, were just willing to aid them in there fictitious attempts to house a child prostitution ring.
Fair?
WOW! It wasn't even off camera!
Do you agree that ACORN employees on the tapes were aggressively offering advice on how to evade federal and state law under the context of immigrant trafficking child prostitution?
I've heard disagreement whether the advice they gave with regard to taxes amounted to tax evasion. I'll agree that some of it might have been questionable, which is why there were a couple of firings, but we can't say for certain that it crossed the line into illegality.
I'm more inclined to point out the FACT that in all of those videos NO ACORN WORKER EVER GAVE ADVICE ON SETTING UP A CHILD PROSTITUTION RING!!!
Do you agree that ACORN employees on the tapes were aggressively offering advice on how to evade federal and state law under the context of immigrant trafficking child prostitution?
You seem very careful not to stay within the context of my question.
The closest I can recall is advice for Giles on how to label her supposed profession for declaration of income. It's not clear that the advice given qualifies as a violation of tax law. Regardless, there was no mention of prostitution rings or child prostitution, as is frequently, and baselessly, charged by ACORN's attackers.
The woman in the Cali office talked specifically about prostitution in the context of immigrant child prostitution.
Are you denying that the ACORN employees understood the context that O'keefe provided?
Do you understand the context that O'keefe provided?
In short, this is the basic premise and context:
Okeefe- "We want to set up a immigrant child prostitution brothel to funnel money to my political campaign. Can you help us do that."
ACORN- "Yes. Let me show you what we can do"
The only place we hear those things mentioned in ANY of the videos is from the off-camera voice. Do you know what editing is? How easy it is to create questions after the fact that fit the answers to other questions?
Without the ability to examine the unedited videos, and they will never allow that, there is no evidence that any ACORN worker ever discussed child prostitution or prostitution rings with O'Keefe and Giles.
Your case isn't actually based on anything any ACORN worker said or anything they did. It rests entirely on the integrity of O'Keefe, Giles and Breitbart. That's a very thin foundation for such serious accusations.
My burden of proof isn't that high. I simply expect to hear the ACORN workers actually mentioning those topics. They don't. It wasn't what I expected when I decided to watch those hours of videos. I thought they might just be pretty damning. What I saw, in video after video, was exactly what I described. That's why no one has ever proved me wrong in all of the many times I've made this challenge. The dirt you think is there simply isn't.
I had fun discussing!
Thanks! :)
Recently (as I'm sure you know), James O'keefe was arrested by the FBI for suspicious activities at a US senator's office. The arresting officer stated under oath that O'keefe and his pals sought access to the office's telephone closet by fraudulently representing that they were telephone repairmen. O'keefe openly admits that much.
The officer's sworn affadavit also alleges that O'Keefe & co used this ruse in order to "willfully and maliciously interfere" with that system (those were Rayes' own words, btw.)
Okay, so this news makes its rounds. And O'Keefe and Breitbart scream HOLY HELL because several news reporters used the term "wiretap" instead of the more ungainly phrase: "malicious interference."
I'm sure (based on your stated arguments) that you'd likely support O'Keefe's complaint: that he was misrepresented in the news, and that the media committed "journalistic malpractice" by their paraphrasing of the words used on officer Rayes' report.
This stupid detail has been a major point of contention for the boobs at BigGov.com. They are quite indignant about it, and in their blue-faced elaborations, they stop short of claiming that O'Keefe committed no crime. They act as if it were CNN and the WaPo who made the arrest, not the FBI. They claim that the news intentionally misrepresented O'Keefe by NOT PROVIDING ENOUGH CONTEXT.
And recently, O'Keefe complained to Sean Hannity that if only the FBI released the full unedited video of what he recorded, he would be exonerated of any suspicion of bugging, wrongdoing or what not.
What's so ironic here is that ACORN made the EXACT same complain about O'Keefe's tapes. And certainly, even a reading of the posted transcipts would demonstrate that the posted tapes have left out plenty of information that counters the appearances on the videos --or even what is generally assumed to have occurred on them.
But outside of the obvious fact that the tapes blank out, have too much voice-over, and the fact that you never really hear the ACORN emplyees directly reference what O'Kkefe appears to be talking about, there's another very clear-cut point.
Consider what behavioral science has to say about contentious words and phrases. If you describe contentious images to someone, (say, the act of child-trafficking for prostitution) that person would react with some sort of surprise, just because of the obnoxious nature of the act described. Even if a person were (for some crazy, f-ed up reason) "okay" with that act, s/he'd still react with some surprise over that topic being breached. Generally speaking, taboo subjects and hot-button words do that to people, and there is plenty of hard science demonstrating just that point.
So if the subject of child-trafficking really did come up with these employees, the very taboo element endemic to the discussion would totally register on the subjects face and voice, even if s/he were "okay" with it. What O'keefe is proposing is that the people he interviewed had absolutely NO visceral reaction to the subject of child-trafficking, and that is TOTALLY unlikely. So I really dont believe that O'keefe is telling the truth there.
As for Hannah not being immediately dismissed for being a prostitute: Well, the best way to get you to understand that is to ask you to volunteer somewhere... maybe a soup-kitchen or a church charity. After a few weekends of that, i bet you'll find yourself hard-pressed to judge people who are down on their luck, let alone those so desperate as to take up prostitution.
Those are highly edited videos. That's plain on the face of it. The topics of child prostitution and prostitution rings are ONLY mentioned by the off-camera voice. Because of these undeniable facts, I'm not inclined to believe that any ACORN workers actually said anything at all that would aid in setting up a child prostitution ring.
If the unedited videos were ever released for examination and they support your claims, I'll shout apologies from the rooftops. I strongly suspect that no one will ever be allowed to examine those unedited videos.
So, I repeat: NO ACORN WORKER EVER GAVE ADVICE ON SETTING UP A CHILD PROSTITUTION RING!!!
For me, it starts with the basic idea that the ACORN employees were buying anything the masqueraders were selling. I have such a hard time believing that, that it doesn't go any further, as far as the possibility of the employees advocating or aiding child prostitution. The reasonable doubt is at square one.
But, let's spot them a point. Even if the unedited tapes showed discussions of the crime, we'd need to know what happened after. There are too many possibilities, even after conceding the far-fetched premise of O'Keefe fooling anybody-
Were ACORN employees keeping them there to collect information to report them ?
Are there guidelines for ACORN employees making personal commentary during an interview ? Do they have any sort of law enforcement authority ?
Would an employee assume that a skinny white kid making it as an inner city pimp must be very well-armed, or a psychopath, and feel it wise not to try a citizens arrest ?
I know, all sort of out there, but I don't think any are as crazy as the idea that any ACORN employees thought there was an actual child prostitution ring.