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





















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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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!"
Imagine that...an ACORN member DA found that ACORN did no wrong.
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.
Patterico was already here? That fits sicne he's stalking Bohlert
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.
In other words, "you can't prove I'm a lier".
Deny everything.
The only thing these videos showed are poorly trained workers offering some potentially bad advice, that was never taken up anyway.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
I know you think it is closed, but the evidence on the support seems open.
Keep reaching for that rainbow!
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?
Yes, you are.
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.
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.
And that is all I need to know about you and your posts.
Rational conservative? LOL at the oxymoron.
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.
vs
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
As to the O'Keefe/ACORN videotapes, if ya can't release them to a DAs investigation...nah, these guys are definitely hiding something!
So registering people to vote is against your sense of politics?
You just don't like it because they register the predominantly poor and minority voters who tend to vote Democratic.
So do you think are not politically biased?
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.
Yes, Focus has a political tilt, and so does Acorn.
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.
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?
We know he's a self promoting liar.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Cuckoo. Cuckoo. You can guys can stop wasting your time. There is nothing rational about this one.
My sentence was not well written, but that is my point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Are you taking a bath in a sink at a Burger King right now?
"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
I'm sure judge Hynes is aboveboard and totally honest... (yeah, right)
The ruling is preposterous and I'll be surprised if it stands.
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
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.
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.
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.)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
You're lying about ACORN in about 3 different ways. Your lack of credibility oozes out of every pore of your being.
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
http://patterico.com/2010/03/01/debunking-some-emerging-acorn-liberal-myths/
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!
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?
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.
- 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.
All your questions are answered here:
http://patterico.com/2010/03/01/debunking-some-emerging-acorn-liberal-myths/