About us Login Get email updates
Eric Boehlert
Print

Breitbart confirms he was duped by O'Keefe and the ACORN pimp hoax

March 02, 2010 5:40 am ET

It turns out that Andrew Breitbart didn't actually know what was on the ACORN tapes when he helped launch them on his website last year, and used the videos to fuel his oddly personal crusade against the low-income advocacy organization.

That's right -- Breitbart didn't know what was on the tapes. Take a few seconds to let the implications of that confession sink in, and what it means to Breitbart's already dented credibility.

Recall that for months Breitbart personally vouched for the ACORN videos, braying loudly that they could not be ignored and that they represented the unvarnished truth. Breitbart claimed he had told "the truth" every step of the way about the controversial ACORN clips and bragged that "[t]hroughout the ACORN story I applied my conscience to the material."

But now it turns out that Breitbart was fooled by the ACORN pimp hoax and mistakenly assumed, after watching deceptively edited clips from his protégé James O'Keefe, that O'Keefe strolled into ACORN offices wearing the outlandish pimp outfit.

Now Breitbart, the chief promoter of the ACORN sting, claims he "didn't know" the truth about the tapes. Although he's quick to insist it doesn't really matter anyway.

And yes, that sound you hear is Breitbart throwing O'Keefe under the bus. Because it's O'Keefe who Breitbart now blames for the "discrepancy" regarding the pimp hoax. It's O'Keefe, who Breitbart once touted as a should-be Pulitzer Prize winner, who created the false impression that he walked into ACORN offices last summer dressed as a garish pimp.

In a video interview posted Monday at Crooks and Liars, Stark Reports, as well as The Brad Blog, Breitbart, filmed by blogger Mike Stark at the recent CPAC convention, claims he did not know the facts about O'Keefe's pimp outfit. (See video below.)

Essentially, Breitbart claims he was duped like everyone else who saw the ACORN clips created by O'Keefe. He was duped because at the outset, the misleading clips contain cut-away shots filmed outdoors, which feature O'Keefe decked out in the cane-fur-sunglasses pimp costume. (Breitbart deceptively refers to the dressed-as-pimp section as the "title sequence" of the videos, but it's really much more than that.)

It appears that many viewers just assumed O'Keefe wore the get-up while he surreptitiously filmed the ACORN workers who ignited a scandal when they gave O'Keefe and his pretend prostitute girlfriend, Hannah Giles, tax advice on how to run a brothel.

The dressed-as-a-pimp storyline was one Breitbart, O'Keefe, and others eagerly pushed last fall. And it was one the press quickly embraced. (In truth, O'Keefe was often dressed rather conservatively -- slacks and dress shirt -- when he talked to ACORN staffers, and he often presented himself as a law school student and an aspiring politician trying to rescue his prostitute girlfriend from her abusive pimp.) The outlandish costume was used as a prop to both mislead viewers, and to make ACORN staffers look like idiots for not being able to spot the obvious ruse.

But it was all a hoax. And for weeks now, ever since the trick was highlighted by blogger Brad Friedman, Breitbart has been wrestling with the glaring contradiction and struggling to explain his own role in the hoax. He's been straining to explain why, for instance, in a September 21 column in The Washington Times, Breitbart specifically claimed O'Keefe had been "dressed as a pimp" while receiving tax advice from ACORN workers.

That claim was categorically false.

He's been laboring to explain why he never sought a single correction last year when an avalanche of news outlets erroneously reported O'Keefe was dressed as a pimp inside ACORN offices.

And he's been struggling to explain why, in light of the pimp hoax, he refuses to release all of the unedited ACORN tapes so we can see what other discrepancies might pop up.

At least now, thanks to Stark, we finally have Breitbart's unequivocal admission: It was all O'Keefe's fault.

From the Stark interview [emphasis added; full transcript here]:

Hello to anyone that thinks that I was misleading. I did not know that there was a discrepancy between the title sequence -- I didn't think it was significant. I saw the videos. I read the transcripts to make sure that there was continuity, and my only mistake -- and I've admitted it to Brad, I've admitted it, now that I now know about it -- is that there is a title sequence and it doesn't reflect what he was wearing when he was in there. But he still represented himself as a pimp.

In the interview, Breitbart also stressed that because O'Keefe is an "independent film producer," Breitbart couldn't "tell him what to put on these things." And to make his point clear, when Stark pressed further about the hoax, Breitbart responded, "Your problem is with James."

Breitbart may have tried to shift the blame, but the admission was a devastating one. After all, he's the guy who won't stop bragging about how he's going to reinvent online journalism, and how he and his conservative activists are going to shame the liberal media with relentless fact-checking. Yet it turns out that for the biggest story of his career, Breitbart didn't even know what was on the ACORN tapes.

Not only did Breitbart clearly fail Journalism 101 in this case, but the way he's refused to publicly accept responsibility for the blunder represents another body blow to his credibility. To date, Breitbart has made no effort to correct the record on his site, which helped launch the ACORN sting. Which means that, to date, Breitbart's sycophantic readers have not been told that, oh, by the way, that whole dressed-as-a-pimp thing was bogus.

With that in mind, what journalist would take seriously the next undercover video sting Breitbart might sponsor, when we find out that for the all-important ACORN caper he didn't even know what was on the tapes until observers pointed out a glaring discrepancy?

Meanwhile, should we believe Breitbart's pimp spin? Tough to say. It probably represents his only way out of this mess. If Breitbart actually confessed that he knew the pimp costume story was a fake, and that not only did he do nothing to try to stop the misinformation last year but actively helped to spread the hoax, then I think his credibility would be permanently demolished. At that point even mainstream journalists, who tend to turn a blind eye to Breitbart's mendacity, would have to acknowledge he is nothing more than a partisan propagandist.

So, searching for a face-saving move, it appears Breitbart has opted for Plan B: Blame the young "independent film producer" O'Keefe, who brought the videos to Breitbart, complete with the misleading pimp costumes shots already embedded. (Does Breitbart really expect people to believe that he never had a single conversation with O'Keefe about the pimp outfit prior to the release of the videos?)

The problem with Breitbart's alibi (i.e. it's O'Keefe's fault!) is that it means Breitbart has copped to the fact that he didn't know what was on the tapes that he relentlessly hyped and used as a weapon in his oddly unhinged attack on ACORN, an underfunded and somewhat adrift nonprofit that advocates for poor people. (In one disturbed dispatch from a pro-ACORN rally last year, Breitbart attacked the attendees as "common street thugs, the dregs of society.")

His new song and dance (literally -- see the 6:40 mark in the video below) is that none of this matters because it's irrelevant whether O'Keefe was dressed flamboyantly inside the ACORN offices. It's true, as I've stated many times, that the costume question does not negate what was captured on the ACORN videos. But the hoax certainly does matter in terms of the larger ACORN attack and how the press embraced it. Breitbart knows it, and that's why he's been so slow to clear up the confusion. (And it's why he seemed so eager last year to spread the confusion.)

As the blogger Digby recently explained:

But the less than obvious reason this is a big deal is that the pimp and ho costumes were a send-up of over-the-top racial stereotypes that both reinforced some very ugly notions about the African American community, but more importantly, made these ACORN workers look as though they were so dumb they shouldn't be allowed to cross the street, much less handle tax dollars. And this was done for a reason.

The pimp hoax is not some footnote that can just be dismissed. The glaring blunder goes to the heart of Breitbart's credibility as a wannabe journalist. The lie was absolutely central to the rollout of last year's ACORN attack campaign. And now, six months later, Breitbart claims he didn't know the first thing about the hoax because, truth be told, he didn't even know what was on the ACORN tapes.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by overmars jr. (March 02, 2010 6:01 am ET)
      25 3
      Say goodbye, Andrew. You're done.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mhughen (March 02, 2010 9:02 am ET)
        14  
        Dont count on Andrew going anywhere. Our media loves themselves some conservative "victims".
        Report Abuse
    • Author by cst (March 02, 2010 7:07 am ET)
      18 3
      Hopefully, this will mean his future "exposes" will be treated with extreme wariness by everyone... but I suspect Fox and co. will jump on the next story, with the full awareness that they can just discretely disavow any falsehoods later- you know, after the smear is in place and the damage done.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mari2jj (March 04, 2010 11:46 pm ET)
        1  
        I never expect Fox to own up to the fact that they did NOT do due dilligence on this story. They no doubt, will dream sone exigent circumstances that make the whole mess sould reasonable. But as my mom used to say to me when I tried to explain when I broke the rules, "That sounds like an excuse NOT a reason". How pitiful is it when the far right has to dream up all this crap to make their point. Facts alone simply would not withstand the smell text.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by open_mind (March 02, 2010 7:21 am ET)
      22 3
      oddly personal crusade against the low-income advocacy organization.
      I think Eric is being a little bit disingenuous here. I think it is pretty clear why Breitbart and conservatives do not like ACORN. Setting aside the idea that many conservatives see poverty as a moral failure and thereby think it is a plague inflicted on those deserving of it, Breitbart and other conservatives have made it pretty clear that they do not like that ACORN registers people who are likely (, but not certainly) to vote Democratic. They are also suspicious (paranoid might be more accurate) that ACORN is capable of perpetrating wide-scale election fraud through over-registering people - despite a lack of evidence to support the idea.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by You're Kidding Right? (March 02, 2010 8:20 am ET)
        2 19
        Not sure what you mean by "lack of evidence to support the idea" of wide-scale election fraud... let's clear that up right now - there was clear evidence of wide-scale election fraud and Acorn has been taken to court in several states regarding their fraudulent practices.

        Here's a story on CNN from October 2008, just before the election showing clear evidence - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkUKOSnv2zY

        Acorn Employee Pleads Guilty of Voter Registration Fraud in Nevada -
        http://tiny.cc/MCkhE

        The Complete Guide To Acorn Voter Fraud (With Numerous Convictions)-
        http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-complete-guide-to-acorn-voter-fraud/

        So, there's been ample evidence time and again of voter registration fraud being committed by Acorn, with enough evidence to convict members of their organization time and time again.

        Oh, yeah, evidence of registering Mickey Mouse... here's his registration -
        http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/article852295.ece
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (March 02, 2010 2:46 pm ET)
          14 1
          That's not voter fraud. It's voter registration fraud, which is different. Mickey Mouse isn't going to try to vote!

          Here's the full sentence that you dishonestly cropped one phrase from.

          "They are also suspicious (paranoid might be more accurate) that ACORN is capable of perpetrating wide-scale election fraud through over-registering people - despite a lack of evidence to support the idea."

          There's no evidence that voter registration fraud by low-level ACORN employees and temp workers has EVER led to any election fraud or even vote fraud, much less wide-scale election fraud.

          This is not rocket science!

          Please don't continue to feed this troll. The topic is not how ACORN temp workers messed with voter registration.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by You're Kidding Right? (March 03, 2010 8:36 am ET)
            1 8
            In case you missed it, the statement above was that "They are also suspicious (paranoid might be more accurate) that ACORN is capable of perpetrating wide-scale election fraud through over-registering people - despite a lack of evidence to support the idea." so, try to follow the conversation here...okay?

            I love it when people make up their own definitions and rationalizations regarding what constitutes fraud. Okay, how about this, here's an Attorney General who successfully prosecuted an Acorn employee of "Voter Fraud" in Alabama back
            in September (and yes, they called it "voter fraud") -
            http://xr.com/c5g

            How about Daniel Nash being convicted of "Voter Fraud" and given a six month prison sentence for casting a fraudulent ballot as a result of Acorn registering him multiple times under different names which he used when voting back in October... Acorns part in this would seem obvious to most people...
            http://xr.com/348w

            How about the many cases of "absentee ballot fraud" that were discovered? These were ballots sent in, not just registration cards... would that fit in with your definition of "voter fraud" or do you have some explanation why ballots made out to cast a vote fraudulently is not voter fraud too...?
            http://www.infidelsparadise.com/?p=1918

            False registration and absentee ballots fall within the laws definition of Federal Election Fraud, even if it doesn't fall within yours, and indeed Acorn has been found guilty and complicitous in the acts of Voter Fraud on numerous occassions. So, the statement that there is no evidence of voter registration fraud was clearly in error, as was the assertion that Acorn had nothing to do with actual voter fraud. In point of fact they have been found to be involved in both.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Midnight Kevin (March 03, 2010 6:14 pm ET)
              5  
              First, regarding fraud against an ACORN employee in Alabama, the link you posted, nor the article it cites, nor other news articles online that I could find ever mentioned ACORN.

              As for Darnell Nash, he had supplied incorrect information to workers, and during the hearing, board workers testified that they had contacted Nash to tell him to stop registering using false information. ACORN also did not force him to sign up repeatedly and vote early.

              As for your third link, it is an article that discusses fraudulent activity involving ballots intended to vote for the WFP, and then mentions ACORN, and then mentions ACORN's past involvement with the WFP in an attempt to link ACORN to what was going on in Troy.

              Maybe you should learn to find more reputable news sources then Infidels Paradise or ACORN Watch. The facts of this thread are that Breitbart published a video without knowing what it was, defended it without knowing the details, then changed his story, throwing O'Keefe under the bus, but still standing by the integrity of the video (which has had numerous holes punched right through it)...

              I suggest you learn to look at things more objectively in the future.
              --------------------------------------
              The Midnight Review
              Report Abuse
            • Author by open_mind (March 04, 2010 12:41 pm ET)
              3  
              Okay, how about this, here's an Attorney General who successfully prosecuted an Acorn employee of "Voter Fraud" in Alabama back in September (and yes, they called it "voter fraud") -
              Uh, fail. There appears to be no mention or evidence presented that Rosie Lyles even worked for (or was in any way associated with) ACORN. Much less any evidence of "wide-scale election fraud" which was my original statement.
              How about Daniel[sic] Nash being convicted of "Voter Fraud" and given a six month prison sentence for casting a fraudulent ballot as a result of Acorn registering him multiple times under different names which he used when voting back in October... Acorns part in this would seem obvious to most people...
              First of all, your link does not work. Secondly, you misspelled the name. It's "Darnell" Nash - which I normally wouldn't complain about, but it makes it harder to search for whatever information you were trying to provide. Darnell was conviced of voter fraud and was registered multiple times by ACORN, but again, ACORN was not found guilty of anything in the case and this single instance is not evidence of "wide-scale election fraud" as I mentioned previously.
              How about the many cases of "absentee ballot fraud" that were discovered? These were ballots sent in, not just registration cards... would that fit in with your definition of "voter fraud" or do you have some explanation why ballots made out to cast a vote fraudulently is not voter fraud too...?
              It seems ACORN played no part in this alleged fraud as well. ACORN (along with several other groups) helped create the WFP. That's all you got? Seriously? This is your evidence of "wide-scale election fraud"? One example that has seemingly nothing to do with ACORN, one example where an individual deliberately supplied false information to ACORN to vote multiply and some alleged absentee fraud in Troy, NY that apparently some right-wingers very weakly are trying to attach to ACORN.

              I stand by my original remarks as you haven't done anything to refute them: "[Many conservatives] are also suspicious (paranoid might be more accurate) that ACORN is capable of perpetrating wide-scale election fraud through over-registering people - despite a lack of evidence to support the idea." Now if you think that is a strawman, I am willing to downgrade the words "wide-scale" to "isolated and very small-scale" to fit more closely to the level of "evidence" you have so far provided. I don't want to overstate your apparent argument (or lack thereof). I'm trying to be fair here.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by timburns116 (March 02, 2010 3:30 pm ET)
          2  
          Karl? Is that you?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by donoorst (March 04, 2010 11:11 pm ET)
          1  
          Lets dispense of this sillyness shall we?

          There was no election fraud. There was registration fraud committed against ACORN. An Acorn employee filed fake forms to try and defraud ACORN of commission fees. Acorn found the fraud and reported it to police. Then conservatives claimed it was *acorn* who was trying to commit fraud.

          But why didn't fox report that ACORN was the victim of the fraud? Why did Fox news chose to lie?

          Remember *ACORN* has never been conviced of any felony or crime. ACORN has however reported staff who have committed fraud against ACORN.

          If I stole stationary from my office and my boss caught me and reported me to the police, would you say it was my company that committed the theft. If you would not, then why is it different when its ACORN?

          Remember, repeat after me because what I'm telling you is the established facts. ACORN was the *victim* of voter registration fraud. That is all that happened.

          Which brings me to a final question, now that we've established that some of these sources you have quoted have been lying to you, why would you persist in trusting them?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by TheDayV (March 02, 2010 8:43 am ET)
        9  
        I'd say disingenuous is too strong a word. If anything, he simplified Breitbart's position without clarifying why it's "oddly personal". Perhaps he'll produce a piece on that soon.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by timburns116 (March 02, 2010 10:27 am ET)
        10  
        Dead on. Giles specifically copped to that as her motivation. O'Keefe claims he went after ACORN homes (a different division than the voter registration group), because he "saw them breaking into foreclosed houses on Youtube" and it just made him mad. In my head, that story always evokes a 25 year old man watching Youtube and siding with banks over people (people who had paid the bank thousands of dollars over the course of a loan and now had nothing). Right after he screams "LET THEM EAT CAKE!" the phone rings and it's Giles and her idea to sting ACORN.

        It was kismet.

        The kid lied from the beginning, IMHO, his story doesn't strain credulity; it takes credulity into a dark alley, works it over, and shoots it in the gut. What emerges is a partisan hit piece, faked, sold and delivered to a gullible news media. Oh, and could ACORN hire some non-morons
        Report Abuse
      • Author by tuersm3856 (March 02, 2010 11:31 am ET)
        2 10
        I love seeing the NeoCons and Progressives spending so much of their time and energy on every little detail of these football issues...and all their little-people followers cheering for their side as if they're going to win something. Anything it takes, I guess, to get the ignorant masses (or minority) out of the real political debates.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by You're Kidding Right? (March 02, 2010 7:40 am ET)
      2 20
      What are you, some kind of kook Boehlert? You ignore Acorns actions, the significance of the videos, and instead attempt to discredit Andrew Breitbart? That's real intelligent. Nice try. Acorns actions speak clearly by themselves and attempts such as yours to take the focus off of those actions shouldn't have even been dignified by a response by Mr. Breitbart.

      If O'Keefe wanted to dress as a pimp, claim he was dressed that way during the videos, and you want to address that issue, take it up with Mr. O'Keefe. It makes little sense to ask a third party to answer to it. Such actions bring your journalistic integrity into question.

      O'Keefe dressed as pimp in acorn video -
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UOL9Jh61S8

      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (March 02, 2010 2:50 pm ET)
        14 1
        Other journalist's integrity is called into question when, after it becomes KNOWN that O'Keefe wasn't actually wearing the pimp outfit when he was talking to ACORN workers, they don't issue corrections.

        Their integrity is called into question when they, Breitbart included, didn't vet the edited videotapes by viewing the unedited tapes!

        This whole issue is ABOUT Breitbart's lack of vetting and his lack of a published correction/admission of his error.

        Not sure how you missed that this isn't about ACORN's misdeeds, but is about the duping of others by O'Keefe.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (March 02, 2010 6:11 pm ET)
        14 1
        "You ignore Acorns actions, the significance of the videos" -- the significance of the videos is that they are entirely inadmissible in court, seeing as how they were fabricated by a proven liar. There is no case against Acorn because there is no evidence.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by coldteablues19577325 (March 03, 2010 1:22 pm ET)
          3  
          ""You ignore Acorns actions, the significance of the videos" -- the significance of the videos is that they are entirely inadmissible in court, seeing as how they were fabricated by a proven liar. There is no case against Acorn because there is no evidence."

          Bold mine. Thank you. I've been wanting to say as much everytime I see someone dismiss the fact that the videos were edited. It's the same for photos as well. With the advent of Photoshop and other photo-editing software, photos are have become inadmissable as well.

          As DellDolly says, "This is not rocket-science!"
          Report Abuse
      • Author by mattcable250650 (March 02, 2010 9:57 pm ET)
        13  
        According to prosecutors in Brooklyn, there were no ACORN misdeeds to overlook. Andrew Breitbart very energetically made himself part of the story by promoting O'Keefe's filmmaking.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Malik Nidal (March 03, 2010 2:53 pm ET)
          1 5
          You mean the District Attorney there, who is a member of the Working Families ACORN Party?

          Imagine that...an ACORN member DA found that ACORN did no wrong.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (March 03, 2010 4:06 pm ET)
            5  
            FYI - ACORN is not a political party. Never was. You've been getting some bad information.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by MadRiver Jack (March 03, 2010 5:08 pm ET)
            3  
            You mean the District Attorney there, who is a member of the Working Families ACORN Party?
            That seems quite serious. Who is this DA? How do you know he is a member of that particular party? Do you have any cites?
            Report Abuse
    • Author by bilbo_dies (March 02, 2010 8:12 am ET)
      20 4
      Now Breitbart, the chief promoter of the ACORN sting, claims he "didn't know" the truth about the tapes. Although he's quick to insist it doesn't really matter anyway.

      Stay tuned for version 3.0.1.1 of why Breitbart is not to blame for illegally filmed, obviously doctored video that he had posted and voraciously advertised as "the truth".


      BTW I see the drive by thumbs down guy has been here already.
      Obviously some true believers are still carrying the torch.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by timburns116 (March 02, 2010 10:28 am ET)
        6 1
        BTW I see the drive by thumbs down guy has been here already.


        Patterico was already here? That fits sicne he's stalking Bohlert
        Report Abuse
    • Author by punkin (March 02, 2010 8:18 am ET)
      17  
      "It's true, as I've stated many times, that the costume question does not negate what was captured on the ACORN videos."

      O'Keefe and co. proved themselve quite capable of blatant duplicity in their ACORN video. What is Breitbart hiding by not realeasing the uncut version of the tape? Dialogue can be edited to make it seem a person is saying something quite opposite of what is actually said.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jmccray (March 02, 2010 1:18 pm ET)
        10  
        You hit the nail squarely on the head with dialogue editing. Why is no one mentioning that the Attorney General of Massachusetts tossed out this tape in another matter because it had been obviously edited so that there was no way of knowing what question was actually asked of the ACORN people. He called the tape "useless." This wasn't just a matter of lying, it is a matter of a right wing scam to destroy an organization that right wing lies had so effectively portrayed as a BOOGIE MAN. O'Keefe is a wanna Nixonian dirty trickster. After the stunt in New Orleans, he might re-think his motivations from a jail cell. Now if CNN will revisit this story and show the righties what a sham it was in the first place. As if they'd believe it!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by TheDayV (March 02, 2010 8:45 am ET)
      16 1
      The message is that ACORN and other so-called progressive groups are receiving tax-payer dollars. I don't know if anyone's done the numbers, but the outrage is over a total funding for ACORN of somewhere around $53 million over 15 years. If that funding went out all at once and the right opposed it, they would literally be nickel-and-diming the federal government over funding for an anti-poverty group because it would require about $.15 from every American.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by overmars jr. (March 02, 2010 8:45 am ET)
      15 1
      Frankly, I think he is STILL lying. He knew.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by goesto11 (March 02, 2010 9:09 am ET)
        14 1
        If he didn't know, that's just as bad as lying. It means he didn't bother to do any investigating as to whether what he was handed was legit.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bilbo_dies (March 02, 2010 11:08 am ET)
        8 1
        It's called "plausible deniability", and allows him to continue to say "I didn't know" until concrete proof is produced to show he did know.

        In other words, "you can't prove I'm a lier".
        Report Abuse
        • Author by CrashGordon (March 02, 2010 12:13 pm ET)
          7 1
          Very possible, though very shortsighted on his part. If he didn't ask to see the unedited tapes, he basically set himself up for his current predicament. Any good journalist (I know, we're talking about Breitbart here) should know that those unknown facts can always come back to blow you out of the water.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by TheDayV (March 02, 2010 10:46 pm ET)
            4  
            Precisely. The fact that he would even fall back on anything like "plausible deniability" would set him up to be an example of how not to be a journalist at any two-bit journalism school. If people question your credibility as a journalist, you might as well have none.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by coldteablues19577325 (March 03, 2010 1:24 pm ET)
        4  
        "Frankly, I think he is STILL lying. He knew."

        Deny everything.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (March 02, 2010 9:03 am ET)
      14 1
      And now, we have 2 different investigations that have turned up, yep, wait for it, nothing illegal in ACORN's activities. I might add, they were independent investigations carried out.

      The only thing these videos showed are poorly trained workers offering some potentially bad advice, that was never taken up anyway.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by copernic (March 02, 2010 10:29 am ET)
      5  
      I don't understand how he can say that it doesn't matter. It goes to the core of the charge, does it not?
      Either O'Keefe is a young law student/upstart politician helping to save his girlfriend (why he would go to ACORN for this, I don't know) or he is a pimp trying to get his hoe some support. It makes all the difference in the world, one would think.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by historygeek001 (March 02, 2010 11:28 am ET)
      7 1
      So Breitbart is incompetent AND dishonest.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (March 02, 2010 12:25 pm ET)
      7  
      So Breitbart throws O'Keefe under the bus.

      Is anyone surprised that these RW media clowns eventually end up like canibals, eating thier young?

      I'm not. In the words of Edward Blake, "It was only a matter of time, I suppose."

      --------------------------------------------------
      LOL. Burn, baby, burn.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (March 02, 2010 12:27 pm ET)
      7  
      It's really offensive to real journalists that he would think it's legitimate to publish edited tapes without seeing the full unedited originals.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by richard m. mathews (March 02, 2010 1:18 pm ET)
      7  
      When Breitbart says in this interview, "I used trickery," is that anything like the CRU e-mail that refers to "Mike's Nature trick"?

      For anybody who argues that the CRU e-mails discredit massive amounts of science, can they still believe anything that Breitbart says?

      For anybody who still believes Breitbart, must they not accept that the CRU e-mails mean nothing?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by saywha (March 02, 2010 1:31 pm ET)
      10 1
      I hope ACORN's lawsuit against him and Fox News is still ongoing. Here's hoping they take all of these vile creeps to the cleaners.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (March 02, 2010 1:47 pm ET)
      6  
      [Breitbart's] new song and dance... is that none of this matters because it's irrelevant whether O'Keefe was dressed flamboyantly inside the ACORN offices.


      I agree with Breitbart here, but not for the same reason he's using.

      My first reaction to the short clips I saw ( voice-overs and responses from ACORN employees) had me thinking there was a convincing undercover pimp in the offices, and that there were some serious problems at ACORN.

      Then I saw the footage of O'Keefe and Giles, and my BS detector went off. I still don't think any of the "undercover" work passes the first smell test; ACORN employees would have to take the act seriously for any of this to be incriminating. I don't buy that, whether O'Keefe was wearing the Halloween costume or his Young Republican uniform.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Northeast Elizabeth (March 02, 2010 3:01 pm ET)
      2 11
      It's true, as I've stated many times, that the costume question does not negate what was captured on the ACORN videos

      Exactly! What was captured on the tapes was ACORN's willingness to promote child prostitution. And the fact that O'Keefe wasn't outlandishly dressed only makes it worse for them, showing that they thought he was serious and wished to facilitate his felonies. Your point? You like child prostitution?

      Eric, keep beating this irrelevant point like a dead horse. Patterico has made a fool of you more times than I can count. I await his next post.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (March 02, 2010 4:48 pm ET)
        9 1
        Please show us one example of ACORN (the organization) willingness to support or promote child prostitution. Just one.

        Okay, since I know you can't do that, let's say you provide ONE example of any ACORN employees doing that?

        See, we know that you can't even do that! What you were misled by was the voice-over that O'Keefe put in there.

        There was no child prostitution to support, and there was no support.

        Patterico couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 02, 2010 5:07 pm ET)
          2 10
          That there is no prostitution is irrelevant. The support is in question.

          I know you think it is closed, but the evidence on the support seems open.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Old_Benjamin (March 02, 2010 5:40 pm ET)
            10 1
            Evidence? You mean the raw footage that no one is allowed to review?

            Keep reaching for that rainbow!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 02, 2010 5:48 pm ET)
                10
              Until you see it, do you know?

              Do you know what else goes on there?

              I am not trying to condemn them now, but it raises some interesting questions, doesn't it?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 02, 2010 5:50 pm ET)
                2 8
                And for the record, I condemn any deception that occurred here.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by Old_Benjamin (March 02, 2010 5:54 pm ET)
                7  
                I am not trying to condemn them now,


                Yes, you are.

                but it raises some interesting questions, doesn't it?


                No, it doesn't.

                Ahhh the old - We don't know exactly what happened, so something very bad MAY be going on.

                What about all the evidence against Blackwater/XE and their participation in actual child prostitution? Not a word.

                But a liars lame attempt to edit a final product which comports with his preconceived notion regarding ACORN has you on edge about what MIGHT go on there.


                Report Abuse
                • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 02, 2010 6:02 pm ET)
                    8
                  Something bad may have indeed happened with Blackwater.

                  See, you assume I think various things when you have no knowledge because you have not seen nor have you asked.

                  You simply assume, which is not a way to know for sure, is it?

                  Now, I do disagree with Acorn, and think it is a manipulative group with an agenda that goes against my sense of politics. However, that alone is not a reason to say it should be shut down or punished. But if it has done something wrong, it deserves somesort of sanction.

                  This is the same truth for Blackwater or any conservative organization.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Old_Benjamin (March 02, 2010 6:55 pm ET)
                    9  
                    May have? There is far more evidence concerning Blackwater/XE and yet all you can manage is "may have" putting them in the same league as ACORN in your worldview.

                    And that is all I need to know about you and your posts.

                    Rational conservative? LOL at the oxymoron.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 02, 2010 8:17 pm ET)
                        6
                      Actually, Ben, my point stands.

                      Do you wish to address the substance of post rather than blindly assert that there is more evidence against Blakwater?

                      Further, evidence against an organization has nothing to do with their politics, nor my agreement with them.

                      If that eveidence is there against BW (I am not educated on the issue) then they should be punished. And that is what I said.

                      I will do some quick research on BW this evening, though, so I can discuss that a little more in depth (if you'd like), though this topic in on Acorn.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Old_Benjamin (March 02, 2010 9:27 pm ET)
                        8  
                        Do you wish to address the substance of post rather than blindly assert that there is more evidence against Blakwater?


                        vs

                        If that eveidence is there against BW (I am not educated on the issue) then they should be punished. And that is what I said.


                        Most of the time it takes a couple of posts to accomplish this kind of contradiction. But you did it in one! Congrats.

                        Good night and good luck.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 02, 2010 9:43 pm ET)
                            5
                          While you deny this charge and continue on your line, you have not addressed the substance of the post.

                          You are avoiding giving any meat to your comment. I am not educated on the BW issue, and I have said that if they did these things and there is evidence to prove it then they should be treated accordingly.

                          But that's not the issue here, is it? The issue is Acorn, and all I have suggested is there is more to the story that we do not know. If that more exonerates completely, great. But until then, questions exist. But even as those questions exist, we should not condemn them until the allegations are proven.

                          And this point stands, regardless of what you say about BW, or me.

                          Finally, Ben, I am discussing in good faith, as should be evidenced by my offer to reseach an issue. Are you? I think you have an opinion of me without knowing much more than what you want to see. If you are willing to provide some more meat to your posts in response to me, you will be showing a good faith effort. Until then, your responses are empty show a closed mind to discussion.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Old_Benjamin (March 02, 2010 11:19 pm ET)
                            7  
                            I think you have an opinion of me without knowing much more than what you want to see.


                            That's where you are wrong. I am judging based on what you post. Like the contradiction I highlighted above. That's why there is no point in attempting to have a discussion with you.

                            Again - good night and good luck.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 02, 2010 11:55 pm ET)
                                6
                              Contradiction? Please explain how my posts are contradictory when we are talking about Acorn and not Blackwater, and when I admit that I have not followed that situation closely. My point is that, and has been, that if there is enough evidence to prove someone has acted wrong, they should be treated accordingly, and just the same it is wrong to completely exonerate someone from doubt simply because one person did something wrong. That one person should be held accountable, no doubt, but his actions do not NECESSARILY exonerate the party he acted against. Finally, I say that until there is enough evidence to convict, any inividual or group should not be convicted. As to Blackwater itself, I have stated I can research it if you so desire such a discussion.

                              You have not addressed any of this but continue to dodge the issue by pulling me down. So, you do continue to judge without addressing anything of substance, and I am assuming it is because I disagree with what you say. This is an intellectually dishonest way to address someone who disagrees with you. Perhaps a better way is to say why I am wrong and explain why you are right.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by trelan1701 (March 03, 2010 12:38 am ET)
                                8  
                                Rational - it's very, very simple: If those tapes were as damning as O'Keefe constantly suggests, he would have released them unedited. The fact that he will not release them even to a DA looking into illegal activities raises VERY interesting questions about the rest of the content. More specifically, how much of it would put the lie to O'Keefe's claims?

                                Here let's try this: If ACORN had those tapes and wouldn't release them what would you think? You would think they were trying to hide something. And you would probably be 100% correct.

                                Now, why would the fact that O'Keefe is hiding those tapes bringing you to the same conclusion as to ACORN's possible guilt? Does it not seem strange to you that you're not wondering "What is O'Keefe hiding?" How do you rationalize that bit of logic?
                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by trelan1701 (March 03, 2010 12:44 am ET)
                                7  
                                Also, while we're here. If a McDonald's employees spits in your food, is it proof that the McDonald's corporation wants to spit in people's food?

                                If 4 Blockbuster locations overcharge your account, is it proof that Blockbuster the company is trying to steal from its' customers?

                                No one has ever held large businesses accountable for the actions of a few of its workers the way the right has attacked ACORN. When was the last time you heard Rush claim all McDonald's employees were trying to poison you? Never, of course.

                                Does that not strike you as odd and possibly, just possibly, politically motivated as opposed to legitimate outrage?
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 03, 2010 1:13 am ET)
                                    8
                                  Trelan, I am not suggesting they are guilty, only that the outrage over his not handing it over proves it is all a lie. Just the same, people want to assume that because there is at least one lie on the video the whole thing has not truth to it. Neither of these propositions are necessarilly true.

                                  They might be, and you are right to be suspicious. But again, using this easy example, if Obama won't release his college records nor his original birth certificate, don't some have a right to be suspicious as well? If I remember right, wasn't there an outrage that Bush did not immediately release his military records?

                                  Here's the deal, it is a mistake to jump to 100% certain conclusions when there is still evidence to be seen.

                                  As to the second post, actually, you are wrong on the liability issue, because an entire multi-national corporation can be held liable for just one employee. It is one thing to state the intention of an entire organiztion anda different thing to hold it liable. You speak of the two as if they are the same. So, if one Acorn 'branch' is found to have done something wrong the entire organization can be found guilty as well, even if the one acted independently.

                                  Yes, it is largely political. What do you expect? Do you also think that the left has not had its pet cases to destroy elements of the right? However, the political motivation has little to do with what I am arguing here. If you wish to bring in the political motivation, it is you bringing it in.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by open_mind (March 03, 2010 2:04 pm ET)
                                    4  
                                    [P]eople want to assume that because there is at least one lie on the video the whole thing has not truth to it.
                                    The problem is that is the way journalism works. If these conservatives want to get in this business, they can't just expect to get special treatment.
                                    Report Abuse
                                  • Author by louee (March 03, 2010 4:17 pm ET)
                                    1  
                                    Aarrghhh! Your attempt to structure your posts as reasonable arguments blows up in the face of the outrageous repetitions of stupid right wing talking points. First, Obama has released his birth certificate but the nutcases refuse to believe it. Second, his college records have nothing to do with his eligibility or qualifications for the office of president, so why do you think he should have to produce them? I don't know about any controversy over Bush not releasing his military records, but at any rate I consider Bush's military records to be a different thing since he was commander in chief and he apparently was AWOL for most of his tenure with the guard. Don't you?
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by mattcable250650 (March 04, 2010 12:43 am ET)
                                         
                                      The story on the Bush military records is that he served four honorable years of a six-year term in the Texas Air National Guard. No one outside the Bush family and a circle of various close friends can account for where he was during, I believe, 13 months during the fifth & sixth years of his term. The Boston Globe covered this in 2000. This piece got cited in other publications fewer than 100 times. Al Gore "invented the Internet"? Cited over 1000 times during the same period.

                                      As to the O'Keefe/ACORN videotapes, if ya can't release them to a DAs investigation...nah, these guys are definitely hiding something!
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 05, 2010 1:09 am ET)
                                           
                                        Matt, didn't someone get fired from a major news organization over this issue?
                                        Report Abuse
                                    • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 05, 2010 1:07 am ET)
                                        1
                                      My understanding on the birth certificate is that he has yet to release the original. Big difference. His college records are relevant in that they A) show his integrity and B) his true education level. As I have said before, I think those fights are foolish, and I only present as a parallel to the claims here. Not releasing does not necessarily mean someone is guilty.
                                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by foghornleghorn (March 02, 2010 7:31 pm ET)
                    6 1
                    it is a manipulative group with an agenda that goes against my sense of politics

                    So registering people to vote is against your sense of politics?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 02, 2010 8:11 pm ET)
                      1 6
                      If only that were all they did. Do you really think they are not politically slantrf/
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by foghornleghorn (March 03, 2010 12:27 pm ET)
                        4  
                        You tell me. They are forced by law to turn in EVERY registration, including those from Mickey Mouse and Harry Potter.

                        You just don't like it because they register the predominantly poor and minority voters who tend to vote Democratic.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 03, 2010 1:15 pm ET)
                            2
                          Yes, they are politically slanted.

                          So do you think are not politically biased?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by foghornleghorn (March 03, 2010 2:46 pm ET)
                            2  
                            No. You tell me how they are politically slanted. Is it because they register the poor and minorities?
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by bilbo_dies (March 03, 2010 8:43 pm ET)
                                 
                              I think what he means is that they must be politically slanted, since poor people tend to vote for Dems more than Repubs.

                              quo erat demonstratum Thus, they must be politically slanted.


                              BTW Somehow I think he would sing a different tune if someone came into his place of business, videotaped him without his knowledge, and then posted video on the internet that "proved" that he was a criminal.

                              Report Abuse
                          • Author by magnolialover (March 03, 2010 2:50 pm ET)
                            2  
                            They aren't actually. They are a non partisan organization that will register anyone. Doesn't matter what party.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 05, 2010 1:13 am ET)
                                1
                              Non-partisan, like Focus on the Family (which is technically non-partisan).

                              Yes, Focus has a political tilt, and so does Acorn.
                              Report Abuse
              • Author by steeve (March 02, 2010 6:23 pm ET)
                3  
                "Until you see it, do you know?"

                No, so we rationally assume that the guy who lied in fabricating heavily edited video had nothing the least bit incriminating in the real video.

                Why isn't that your default position towards the proven liar? Why are you even at all curious about the real video? We know what liars are like, don't we? O'Keefe doesn't deserve the time of day from you.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 02, 2010 6:28 pm ET)
                  1 5
                  Steeve, in all due respect, I do not understand what it is you are trying to say.

                  My point is that the real video may have some questionable material from the Acorn folk. The guy who fabricated SHOULD be chastized and punished. But the fact remains that there is still other information out there. Others have said there is nothing in the rest of that video, and since I have not seen I cannot comment on that aspect. My understanding, though, is that the rest has not been shown in ints entirety. Maybe it has and I am wrong on it.

                  So be that.

                  As to knowing what real liars are... are you saying the only liars are conservative?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mary59 (March 02, 2010 6:43 pm ET)
                    7  
                    Again, why would O'Keefe splice, dice and talk over, wear that stupid costume to imply he was wearing it in the ACORN office, and many other fabrications if he really had something that showed a problem with ACORN? Why won't he produce his original video? Doesn't that make you suspicious?

                    We know he's a self promoting liar.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by Ruby (March 02, 2010 7:46 pm ET)
                    4  
                    Why would Breitbart vehemently refuse to release the unedited tapes if they did, indeed, contain something incriminating?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 02, 2010 8:25 pm ET)
                        5
                      For both you, Ruby, and Mary, using that logic can I accuse Obama of lying about graduating from law school since he has not released his academic records? What about his original birth certificate?

                      Personally, I think those are red herring issues and are fruitless to discuss, though many conservatives think exactly that-- that he's hiding something.

                      I bring them up to suggest that there may be very good reasons not to that do not prove your point. And until we see, then we don't know. Stated in a broader view, using that argument is selective and it is faulty, unless you are willing to apply it to everyone.

                      All of that said, I am not condemning Acorn on this issue yet, especially given this news. That would be dumb.

                      I have said this from the beginning, yet no one believes me for my word. Why is that?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by steeve (March 02, 2010 11:13 pm ET)
                        4  
                        Questions that don't have an ordinary explanation are truly open questions. Questions that do have an ordinary explanation are not open questions, even when we don't possess full knowledge. There are enough of the first type of questions to deal with. You'll never get anything done if you insist on being agnostic about the second type.

                        It is the ordinary, default position that Obama was born in Hawaii. Despite possibly not being fully known, it is still a closed question unless the people asserting the extraordinary produce something new and real.

                        It is the ordinary, default position that a liar who produces fake video doesn't have anything in the real video. It is a closed question unless the people asserting the extraordinary produce the goods.

                        When you explicitly keep bogus questions like these open, you bog everything down. There are enough real questions to deal with. Any fool can run around saying "uncertainty exists!". If we humor that too much, we'll end up debating if the moon landing really happened, or if there is such a thing as cause and effect.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 03, 2010 12:24 am ET)
                            6
                          Steeve, on a level I agree with you, and that is partly why I personally choose not to put too much stock into the arguments by some that he should be impeached (better yet, election voided) because he may have been born in Kenya.

                          But there are problems in your assumptions and discussion. Who defines ordinary or default positions? What is necessary for something to be a ordinary, default position? Is it the one that makes most sense? Is it the one accepted by the most people? By the most important people? I tink you see my objection there.

                          Also, notice in your comment you state that it is an ordinary, default position that a liar who produces a fake video does not have anything (of truth) in the real. You assume that someone who produces a fake video is a liar. Certainly, this is a reasonable assumption, but I can also think of reasons that do not require lying to produce a fake video. Second, it is also an assumption to assume that just because someone alters some of a production that the whole thing is wrong.

                          There is also the issue that your analysis fails to explain why so many people on the left continue to question Bush, Cheney, or any other conservative leader or action on what should otherwise be ordinary, default questions. If what you state is true, then it must be applied equally. Of note, though to apply it equally it must be clearly defined, and as I demonstrated, it is not.

                          As you consider, keep in mind that not everyone shares the same assumptions that you hold, and so what may make perfect sense to you is foreign to someone else.

                          In the end it is not really a closed question at all, since it is an assumption that the person is a liar and that the video does not necessarily contain any other truths.

                          However, this particular discussion really misses my point and is a deflector from the reality in this situation. I used Obama as an example, but he is certainly not the only example. My point is simply that there may be more there and that there may not. If he's hiding something then that's a problem, but if he's not, then there is no problem. And it is wrong to state DEFINIATIVELY that he is hiding something when we simply do not know.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by steeve (March 03, 2010 1:19 am ET)
                            6  
                            "You assume that someone who produces a fake video is a liar."

                            I assume that someone who spliced in a fake pimp outfit, then went on Fox News wearing and selling the fake pimp outfit, is a liar.

                            "My point is simply that there may be more there and that there may not."

                            Your point is that you're agnostic about everything. If O'Keefe isn't a liar, then nobody is. If nobody's a liar, then there is no morality, and that's a very un-conservative position to have.

                            At some point in the day you have to know something. If you are unwilling to admit that it's possible to know something, stop posting here and debate the existence of absolute truth in a philosophy class.

                            "did Bush lie?"

                            Bush said "by far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom." You tell me if that's a lie or not. Your answer will tell us if there's hope for you or if you'll grope in an agnostic fog for the rest of your life.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 03, 2010 1:55 am ET)
                                5
                              So you are not applying the same standards in all situations from what I can assume, then.

                              I know quite a lot that I know is true, but examining evidence in a forum like this and jumping to conclusions is not good way to get to know something is true. Knee jerk reactions will sometimes lead you in the right direction, but not always. It is therefore better to hold off coming to a conclusion, even when your instinct pointed you there all along, until you have had a chance to consider all relevant points. This is actually the whole idea of innocent before guilty.

                              You cannot expect me to reach a conclusion when I do not know all the facts, now do you? What if I told you I knew that he was not a liar? You would tell me I was an idiot and that I needed to look at what is out there more closely. Similarly, when I look at what is out there, I am unable to reach a given conclusion. But this does not mean that when I do see more I will not reach a conclusion.

                              Bush is not the first president to lie on taxes, and Obama is pushing the limit right now (something I know). The context of Bush lying is in regards to the saying "Bush lied, people died" in the context of Iraq. More specifically, it was brought up to show that to many people this was an ordinary, default position but to many it others it is anything but.

                              Anyway, it is a mistake to assume that because I have yet to call them guilty or innocent necessarily means I am not going to decide.

                              As to the point on him being a liar, I agree, that is a reasonable belief. But it being a reasonable belief doesn't matter until it is proven.

                              A final thought, if you are willing to prejudge that is your prerogitive. I choose not to do so and instead seek to hear the merits of a situation before judging. Isn't that a tenet of liberalism?
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by steeve (March 03, 2010 7:30 pm ET)
                                1  
                                "then went on Fox News wearing and selling the fake pimp outfit"

                                That was new information to you. Own it. Now you realize that it is certain that O'Keefe is a liar. We weren't assuming. We knew for sure. Now that you do too, adjust your thinking accordingly and take a position.

                                In cases which are not certain, such as Iraq's WMDs, doubt is reasonable. In cases which are certain, such as Iraq not posing an imminent security risk to the US (note that if Iraq had WMDs it would still not have been anywhere close to an imminent threat to national security), doubt is not reasonable.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 05, 2010 1:15 am ET)
                                     
                                  As someone who would be investigating it, it certainly is damning evidence against him. But it in and of itself proves nothing.
                                  Report Abuse
                          • Author by mikehuck1976 (March 03, 2010 1:44 pm ET)
                            2  
                            "I personally choose not to put too much stock into the arguments by some that he should be impeached (better yet, election voided) because he may have been born in Kenya." - RC

                            Cuckoo. Cuckoo. You can guys can stop wasting your time. There is nothing rational about this one.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 05, 2010 1:17 am ET)
                                 
                              Nice, Huck. Care to state why I think that the issue of his birtch certificate is a losing one makes me "cuckoo"?

                              My sentence was not well written, but that is my point.
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by pilotx (March 05, 2010 1:20 am ET)
                                 
                              Proof Obama was born in Kenyahere
                              Report Abuse
                      • Author by pilotx (March 02, 2010 11:57 pm ET)
                        4  
                        I think we can apply the same logic to the President's birth certificate and his college records. The law applies the idea that a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty. So in this light ACORN has done no wrong until proven and President Obama is a citizen and a college graduate until PROVEN otherwise. Easy enough?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 03, 2010 12:31 am ET)
                            5
                          And I have said that is true, so yes, it is pretty simple.

                          Now, let me ask you this: did Bush lie? Has that been proven through an authoritative source beyond the minds of some liberals? What about Blackwater? (Just cleared in the shootings case in court, so are they still guilty?)

                          I only ask to see if you apply this idea uniformly or just to those you like.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by congero6189599 (March 03, 2010 12:23 pm ET)
                            3  
                            The case was thrown out because the government got the evidence from the guards while granting them immunity and threfore couildn't use that evidence against them in court. One guard was convicted because he plead guilty to manslaughter. In Afghanistan Xe employees were employing Filipino child prostitutes to entertain themselves paid for with our tax dollars and charged as entertainment. In Brooklyn the DA could find no incriminating evidence that ACORN employees had done anything wrong because the tapes were heavily edited to prove what O'keefe wanted it to prove.
                            No one has raised this but O'keefe went into those offices dressed in khaki slacks and a dress shirt. Why? was it to dupe the employees of ACORN that he was just some nice white guy trying to help this women.
                            Then later he dawns the phony pimp costume(actually a costume that only some square white people would think a pimp dresses like)outside the offices. Why? Was he playing to white stereotypes about pimps and prostitutes? Did he dupe YOU into believing that these black ACORN employees could be fooled by this phony costume? Obviously! I think it says alot that about race and stereotypes and given O'keefes history of associating with white supremacist organizations true to form. He played you cons.
                            What is more telling is that you would be more concerned about some alleged prostitution abetting by ACORN(poor peoples organization that registars voters,counsels new home buyers,fights for decent wages and housing conditions for poor and working people and receives pennies in return)and the actual prostitution(child prostitution)carried out by Xe and charged to voters under the fguise of entertainment. Xe receives billions of dollars in tax-payer fund for the work they do and what they do in foreign lands affects our relations with those countries. The attrocities they carry out are paid for by our troops who are paid pennies compared to the Xe employees.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by pilotx (March 04, 2010 10:32 pm ET)
                               
                            This can go on all day long. I clearly stated the presumption of innocence is afforded all in this country. Please don't go about asking about every case that has a conservative or liberal bias. The answer will continue to be yes. I don't know for a fact whether or not Bush lied but after reading alot of information on the subject including Tony Blair's testimony I think he did. As far as BW their employees did in fact shoot innocent people but they weren't held liable, whole nother topic for a whole nother time. My only point was we need to stop playing the tit for tat games like 10 year olds. ACORN has NOTHING to do with BW, Bush or the President's birth certificate. It seems odd that one cannot seperate events and not be influenced by a liberal or conservative bias. Strange.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 05, 2010 1:26 am ET)
                                1
                              Pilot: you say this-- "It seems odd that one cannot seperate events and not be influenced by a liberal or conservative bias. Strange."

                              This is really my biggest point. I do not know how well it is coming across, and I probably got carried away, but I really try to avoid seeing something with that bias. I know I usually come out on what is a conersative point of view. I have been accused of following talking points here but honestly came to most of my conclusions on my own, after consideration.

                              But I see many people (not just liberals) who immediately react in a given way.

                              It really bugs me how quickly and vehemently people react in a given way, and in the context of this piece, two things came out from the liberals-- Acorn is innocent, and not only the journalist but Fox News were guilty.

                              Alas.
                              Report Abuse
                        • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 05, 2010 1:18 am ET)
                             
                          Pilot, and likewise, so is journalist who posted it.
                          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (March 02, 2010 5:51 pm ET)
            4  
            Then you can surely show us exactly where in the videos ACORN employees supported child prostitution.

            I'll wait.

            But I can tell you right now, you won't be able to find it - O'Keefe snowed everyone with the voiceovers and editing he did.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 02, 2010 6:07 pm ET)
                5
              If that is true, then it is true, and I have not seen the 'admission' (for lack of a better term).

              I do understand that authorities have cleared them on this issue, and I am OK with that. If they didn't do anything, they didn't do anything.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by You're Kidding Right? (March 02, 2010 11:25 pm ET)
                 
              Sure... that not a problem... easy to find...

              Here, turn up your speakers and watch the Acorn employee's responses here (no voiceovers or editing of the Acorn employee's here) -
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdhRp5EGyNQ

              Report Abuse
        • Author by You're Kidding Right? (March 02, 2010 11:18 pm ET)
            1
          Interesting, have you not seen even one of the videos being spoken of...? There are examples in every video of Acorn employees supporting and aiding Giles in her desire to bring over and house underage Salvadorian girls illegally. How did you miss that?

          Here's one video for you to review...
          The fact that this conversation is even taking place and the Acorn employee is offering to assist them when they've openly stated they're trying to smuggle children for prostitution should be evident enough
          - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaf_3Gv2AZo

          Here's another video showing blatant support on the part of Acorn employees for child prostitution (starts around 2:15)-
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdhRp5EGyNQ

          So, there's two...

          Want more...? Just do a search on Youtube for "Acorn Prostitution"... you'll find there's plenty of scenes like this readily available for your viewing.


          Report Abuse
      • Author by Old_Benjamin (March 02, 2010 5:14 pm ET)
        5  
        You like child prostitution?


        Are you taking a bath in a sink at a Burger King right now?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by louee (March 03, 2010 4:03 pm ET)
        1  
        What are you talking about, nutjob? You certainly live on your own little planet. Why are you even here? Get lost.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 02, 2010 4:02 pm ET)
      2 5
      This whole episode is a shame.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by latichever (March 02, 2010 5:47 pm ET)
      3 1
      And from today's NY Times:

      "No Crime in Acorn’s Advice to ‘Pimp,’ D.A. Says"

      http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/no-crime-in-acorns-advice-to-pimp-d-a-says/?scp=2&sq=acorn&st=cse
      Report Abuse
      • Author by latichever (March 02, 2010 5:48 pm ET)
        5 1
        That is "No Crime in Acorn's Advice to 'Pimp," DA Says"
        Report Abuse
        • Author by You're Kidding Right? (March 02, 2010 11:32 pm ET)
             
          "Mr. Hynes declined to elaborate on his decision."

          I'm sure judge Hynes is aboveboard and totally honest... (yeah, right)

          The ruling is preposterous and I'll be surprised if it stands.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (March 03, 2010 5:44 pm ET)
            2  
            First of all, Hynes is not a judge, he's a DA, second of all:

            NEW YORK (WPIX) - Brooklyn prosecutors cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing following a four-month probe that began when activists - dressed up as a pimp and prostitute - taped employees giving shady advice on how to hide their illegal earnings.

            James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles filmed the three ACORN workers as they dished out what seemed like illegal advice. However, according to prosecutors, O'Keefe and Giles edited the tape in order to meet their agenda.

            "The three [ACORN employees] had been secretly videotaped on Sept. 15, 2009 by two people posing as a pimp and prostitute, who came to ACORN'S Brooklyn office, seeking advice about how to purchase a house with money generated by their 'business,'" said Kings County District Attorney Charles J. Hynes. "The 'couple' later made the recording public. That investigation is now concluded and no criminality has been found."

            http://www.wpix.com/news/wpix-acorn-criminal-wrong-doing,0,144032.story
            Report Abuse
    • Author by Conchobhar (March 02, 2010 9:56 pm ET)
      3 1
      Somehow, I have a feeling that BilldO's not going to discuss this tape with his "body language expert."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (March 03, 2010 12:47 am ET)
      3 6
      The fact that MMFA defends the kind of people who would willingly volunteer to assist people who are saying they want to engage prostituting underage illegal immigrant girls shows what kind of moral slime populates the staff of this site.
      There is a $100 award out there for Mr. Boehlert if he will say plainly whether or not O'Keefe posed as a pimp.
      This is a classic case of attacking the messenger because one doesn't like the message. It doesn't matter if O'Keefe was dressed like George Soros. ACORN is a corrupt and evil criminal organization. O'Keefe and Giles did the country a great service by exposing this evil. That MMFA attacks them just goes to show the moral turpitude of the MMFA mindset.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (March 03, 2010 10:37 am ET)
        5 1
        Could you point to the evidence of this "support for child prostitution" in the transcripts of the videos please? Since you are so familiar with the videos, this should be an easy process.

        Voter registration fraud doesn't make anyone "evil." It does make them lazy.

        Care to refute anything in the post? O'Keefe and the media were claiming that he was dressed as a pimp and going into these offices. Obviously, this isn't true.

        Thanks in advance.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (March 03, 2010 4:48 pm ET)
             
          Voter registration fraud doesn't make anyone "evil." It does make them lazy.

          While I go back and watch those clips again, try thinking about that statement awhile. (Let me give you a hint: Those who will knowingly commit federal felonies to achieve progressive political aims are undermining the very democracy that allows them to exist. That is evil - not as evil as their willingness to help in the creation of underage sex-trafficing among illegal immigrant girls, but evil, none the less.)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (March 03, 2010 5:26 pm ET)
               
            I had no idea Mickey Mouse was a progressive! Who did he vote for?

            Maybe you should read this:

            "NEW YORK (WPIX) - Brooklyn prosecutors cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing following a four-month probe that began when activists - dressed up as a pimp and prostitute - taped employees giving shady advice on how to hide their illegal earnings.

            James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles filmed the three ACORN workers as they dished out what seemed like illegal advice. However, according to prosecutors, O'Keefe and Giles edited the tape in order to meet their agenda."

            http://www.wpix.com/news/wpix-acorn-criminal-wrong-doing,0,144032.story

            THAT, my friend is pure evil. Why would the other tapes be different?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by bilbo_dies (March 03, 2010 8:57 pm ET)
               
            Those who will knowingly commit federal felonies to achieve progressive political aims are undermining the very democracy that allows them to exist.

            But; obviously, if someone were to commit a crime to achieve a conservative political aim, you would be OK with that.


            It has been said a million times before: "If the ACORN workers really did anything wrong O'Keef would not have any problem with releasing the uncut video to prosecutors." Since he WON'T do that, I think it is pretty obvious that any "wrong" any of the ACORN workers committed was not anywhere near what has been intimated.


            BTW If there is anything that is wrong with America, it is the current fad of convicting people in the media. It may fit your agenda but; if anything is evil, I think that qualifies.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (March 03, 2010 5:08 pm ET)
            1
          Transcript page 23 of 29, http://biggovernment.com/author/jokeefe/
          Full Transcript: ACORN Prostitution Scandal, San Diego, Part II
          They are talking about twelve thirteen year old underage girls coming across the border from Tijuana for the purpose of prostitution; the ACORN individual, identified as Juan Carlos, tells them he has contacts there. He was later fired for this incident by ACORN. O'Keefe says he is going to take a cut of the proceeds and use it to run a Congressional campaign - in other words, he was posing as a pimp.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (March 03, 2010 5:37 pm ET)
            1  
            The New York prosecutors found that the videos had been altered and decided not to prosecute ACORN, why would the LA tapes be more legit?
            Report Abuse
    • Author by proudObamasupporter (March 03, 2010 8:04 am ET)
      6 2
      What I want to know is when is Fox News going to admit they were wrong? Actually I know the answer, never. Why is it that so many people have a problem with ACORN? My opinion is that they don't really want the poor to vote. Maybe if they manage to get back that control in Congress they are dying for they can pass another poll tax so it can be the way it used to be, where only the wealthy have a say in how the government runs. Wouldn't the repubs love that!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 03, 2010 11:40 am ET)
        1 3
        Unless they knew the video was manipulated, there is no reason they (Fox News) should be blamed.

        The problem with Acorn is that they are not simply an agency to get people to vote. They all too often get people to vote and to vote a certain way, among others sins. They have been in trouble for misusing funds, for instance.

        Reps don't want votes? Like any self respecting group of politicians, they want every vote they can get, the poor included. And yes, it is in the GOP platform that they will institute a poll tax. Check out their website.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (March 03, 2010 12:35 pm ET)
          5 1
          Unless they knew the video was manipulated

          I knew the video was edited the first time I saw it. Am I more video-savvy than Fox News?

          They all too often get people to vote and to vote a certain way

          That is a LIE. For the final time, (in regards to voting), all they do is register people. That's it. They accept registrations from Republicans. Didn't you know that they have to accept registration from anyone and everyone?

          You just don't like it that they register the poor and minorities because they tend to vote Democratic.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by congero6189599 (March 03, 2010 12:36 pm ET)
          4 1
          Give me a break. A legitimate news organization should have studied the tapes and asked more questions to verify the truth. They pushed the story without question because it fit their aganeda of attacking ACORN and by association the Obama. The failed in their journalistic duty to verify and inform responsibly. Instead tney became advocates and that is not being fair nor balanced.
          As far as your allegation ACORN gets people to vote a certain way. What is your proof? Poor people and minorities vote mostly democractic but that is because of the policies of the Republican party that continually attacks them. Case in point O'keefes scam. ACORN also does counseling for 1st time home buyers and warned against the sub-prime loan scandals. They do alot of work with limited funds to help the poor and working class.
          You have the fricking nerve to ask why poor people vote democratic while you cons advocate poll taxes and voting test(Tancredo) that have historically been used to discriminate and lower voter turnout of the poor and minority. Rational conservastive my butt you talk the SOS.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 05, 2010 1:36 am ET)
               
            First, I never said they get people to vote a certain way. I have said the organization itself has a bias. Do you really think they do not have any bias? If not, then we are far apart (surprise) in our assumptions.

            Second, that may be about them checking it out. To be fair, it was within something their audience would have enjoyed.

            Third, it is debatable that Rep policy attacks the poor, though it should be readilly apparent that the Dem platform is more attractive to the poor. Getting more for less from the Dems is something anyone would follow.

            Fourth, have I ever said anything about instituting a poll tax? Do you assume I support Tancredo?
            Report Abuse
        • Author by friedbergboy1422 (March 03, 2010 12:49 pm ET)
          4 1
          Even if your premise is accepted (that unless Fox News knew there is no reason for them to be blamed), shouldn't they read an apology on the air now in light of the new facts that are out?

          News networks run apologies all the time. In light of the new facts, doesn't Fox (assuming you think it is a legitimate news organization) owe its viewers an apology on each show that ran the exaggerations and lies?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Slow Cowboy (March 05, 2010 1:31 am ET)
               
            Maybe they should. It certainly would be a good PR move, but I do not think they are obligated to.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (March 03, 2010 12:59 pm ET)
          5 1
          No legit news organization should have published and promoted those videos without vetting them first. For you to gloss over FoxNews's omission here of their journalistic duty is ridiculous and utterly dishonest on your part.

          You're lying about ACORN in about 3 different ways. Your lack of credibility oozes out of every pore of your being.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by duufus (March 05, 2010 1:40 am ET)
        1  
        why would fox admit to lying?
        considering they've won their court case by arguing that they have a right to lie......
        the nerve to call themselves a new organisation ( notice what they say about themselves when describing themselves as the number one cable NEWS channel)

        congratulations mr murdoch
        Report Abuse
    • Author by coldteablues19577325 (March 03, 2010 1:12 pm ET)
        1
      I-D-I-O-T!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by LibLieDestroyer (March 03, 2010 1:34 pm ET)
        1 3
        Perhaps all you Acorn-supporting Neolibs should read this...

        http://patterico.com/2010/03/01/debunking-some-emerging-acorn-liberal-myths/
        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (March 03, 2010 4:11 pm ET)
          2 1
          Perhaps you should show us where the underage sex slaves are.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by LibLieDestroyer (March 03, 2010 4:34 pm ET)
            1 3
            O’Keefe: But, one of the things I was one of the things we also wanna do um one of my goals you asked you asked do you know how you wanna do this, I think one of the goals is not only can Eden protect some of these 13, 14, 15 year-old girls

            Theresa (ACORN) Yeah.

            O’Keefe: coming over from El Salvador. In addition to protecting them and getting their feet on the ground so that they can you know perform the tricks and you know learn the how LA prostitution scene is I was also wanting to um use some of the this is very lucrative and potentially we can use a lot of the money we’re getting from the underaged girls from El Salvador and use some of the money for campaign one day

            As far as Theresa knew... they were real!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by friedbergboy1422 (March 03, 2010 5:49 pm ET)
              2  
              So, why are the LA tapes supposed to be more legitimate than the NY tapes which were found to be altered?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (March 03, 2010 6:46 pm ET)
                  3
                friedbergboy1422; You are being willfully ignorant.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by friedbergboy1422 (March 03, 2010 6:57 pm ET)
                  5  
                  Explain, Ed. What makes the LA tapes more credible than the NY tapes?

                  Why should someone (O'Keefe) who did not stop the lies of Fox and Friends (when they said he wore the pimp costume into the ACORN offices, and he let it slide) be credible?

                  Why should Breitbart, who seems to backtrack daily, and who now says that

                  "ACORN tapes were less about 'criminality' than facility with which employees all knew how to work system for any lowlife wanting govmnt $"

                  be believed? Why is he backing down from previous charges?

                  Breitbart previously claimed that the tapes exposed "illegal activity" and that ACORN was a "corrupt and criminal organization" and that ACORN had "regard for thug criminality," was he lying or exaggerating?

                  What changed?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (March 03, 2010 8:46 pm ET)
                    2 1
                    Even Briebart confirms he was duped. What are these fools arguing?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (March 03, 2010 10:37 pm ET)
                    1 3
                    Well, to be exact, nothing of any significance has changed. The tapes were never the kind of evidence that could be used in a court of law because of O'Keefe's editing of them. I doubt that O'Keefe ever thought that anyone would go to jail over the tapes. That doesn't make them less factual. It's not like O'Keefe made this stuff up whole cloth like CBS and the Bush Memo. Breitbart was correct in his original characterization of ACORN as a thug organization and the tapes do show the criminal mindset of the ACORN staff who were approached. But showing something to be true and proving it in a court of law are two entirely different things.
                    That MMFA would attack the messenger instead of condemning the mindset that would offer to assist in setting up a 'business' to engage in sex-trafficing with underage illegal immigrant girls shows the moral perversion of the philosophy this site espouses.
                    You can caterwaul all you want to about the costume of O'Keefe, but it does not negate the perversion and criminality of the ACORN staff.
                    I hope that the moral turpitude of the scum at MMFA is a 'fringe element' of the 'Progressive' movement, but I fear that this kind of unprincipled and perverse philosophy is fairly mainstream among them.
                    It is certainly shameful and morally grotesque.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by RKAllen (March 03, 2010 11:42 pm ET)
                      3 1
                      Ed, I will ask you now as I have asked you before and you have still failed to answer the questions I have put to you.

                      ... it does not negate the perversion and criminality of the ACORN staff.


                      - Was the office that called the police and filed a report a perverse and criminal staff?

                      - Was the ACORN employee who called the National Police and then contacted by a Federal officer in human trafficing, a perverse and criminal member of the ACORN staff?

                      - Was the ACORN employee who told them that anything they do with ACORN, "must be ligitimate," a perverse and criminal staff member?

                      - Was the ACORN employee who offered to help Hannah find a shelter or home to get her out of prostitution really a secret perverse and criminal member of ACORN's staff?

                      - Was the ACORN employee who "play acted" her entire interaction with them when she realised they were a scam, really a perverse and criminal member of ACORN's staff? (weird woman... admittedly... but hardly criminal)

                      While we are at... just one more question.

                      - Breitbart says in this video that if we have a problem with O'Keefe not being dressed as a pimp then our problem is with O'Keefe and not him. Why can't he apply that same logic to the employees of ACORN who were the most egregious offenders in the videos? Why is ACORN guilty of this fraudulent scheme because of the actions of a few low level employees?

                      If he wants the organization to be guilty of their employees sins, then so is he.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by friedbergboy1422 (March 04, 2010 9:52 am ET)
                      2 1
                      If Breitbart was correct about his original thoughts, why is he backing away from them?
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by LibLieDestroyer (March 04, 2010 6:50 am ET)
                    2
                  Yes the tapes were found to be "altered" by an "investigation" paid for by Acorn...

                  All your questions are answered here:
                  http://patterico.com/2010/03/01/debunking-some-emerging-acorn-liberal-myths/
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by ptluzzi59 (March 03, 2010 9:02 pm ET)
         
      this guy is a complete and utter fool!!
      Report Abuse