In "heavily edited" video rebuttal, O'Keefe does not dispute Philly police report filed after his visit to ACORN office
In a heavily edited video released on October 21, conservative filmmaker James O'Keefe purported to rebut statements made by Philadelphia ACORN worker Katherine Conway Russell about O'Keefe's and Hannah Giles' visit to the Philadelphia ACORN office, but O'Keefe did not dispute the authenticity of the police report ACORN filed with Philadelphia police following their visit. The filing of the police report by ACORN -- Russell can be seen holding a copy of it in O'Keefe's video -- indicates the Philadelphia ACORN office had no intention of helping O'Keefe and Giles conduct any illegal activities, and ACORN said the police report "proves our clear understanding of this scam that was being portrayed."
"Heavily edited tape" includes no evidence ACORN office provided actual assistance in engaging in illegal activities
O'Keefe releases heavily edited video that omits ACORN worker's statements. In the video released on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com on October 21, the audio and video of O'Keefe's and Giles' July 24, 2009, visit to the Philadelphia ACORN office have been heavily edited. Many of Russell's statements in the video of the office visit were edited out and replaced with audio of O'Keefe purporting to explain what she said. As Fox News reported: "The new eight-minute video depicts O'Keefe and Giles entering ACORN's Philadelphia office and meeting with Conway-Russell. O'Keefe and Giles are seen speaking with Conway-Russell, but audio portions of the video are missing or edited in some portions."
O'Keefe: We muted the audio because of "ACORN's legal attack upon us." In an update to the video at BigGovernment.com, O'Keefe wrote:
**UPDATE 2:24 PM EST** We muted the audio of the ACORN employees on the video released today due to ACORN's legal attack upon us. We call upon ACORN to state publicly now that it has no objection to the public release of any its employees oral statements to us. If they are interested in the truth, why wouldn't they do so?
Fox News: "They played that heavily edited tape but did not show the ACORN worker's audio for legal reasons." O'Keefe and Breitbart also conducted an October 21 press conference at the National Press Club to publicize O'Keefe's video. In a report on the press conference and the video, Fox News correspondent Eric Shawn stated, "They played that heavily edited tape but did not show the ACORN worker's audio for legal reasons."
O'Keefe's video does not dispute police report filed by Philly ACORN office following visit
ACORN released police report following O'Keefe's visit. ACORN has publicly released a July 24, 2009, Philadelphia police report stating that an ACORN employee complained to police that O'Keefe had created a "verbal disturbance" at ACORN's office.
Russell can be seen holding police report in O'Keefe's October 21 video. O'Keefe's video shows footage from Russell's September 17, 2009, YouTube video in which she made statements about O'Keefe's and Giles' visit to the Philadelphia ACORN office. Russell said that following O'Keefe's visit, "We called the police and filed this report." In his October 21 video, O'Keefe does not dispute that ACORN filed a police report about his visit.
Below is an image of the police report, which Media Matters has confirmed is on file with the Philadelphia Police Department:
Fox News cites Philadelphia police report posted by Media Matters. In his October 21 report on the press conference and video released by O'Keefe and Breitbart, Shawn stated that Media Matters for America, "a group that has been very critical of coverage of ACORN, released this police report. It's from the Philadelphia Police Department. It shows, they say ... basically James O'Keefe was in that office causing a 'verbal disturbance.' "
Other news outlets have reported on police report. On September 11, CNN's Abbie Boudreau reported that an ACORN spokesperson "told us today that the filmmakers made similar efforts in Philadelphia, and in that case, ACORN workers actually reported the filmmakers to the police. ACORN provided a copy of that police report to us." The Washington Post reported on September 17 that "[a]n ACORN spokesman said they [the videographers] were turned away in Miami, Los Angeles and Philadelphia, where workers called police and filed a report." The Post further reported on September 18 that "ACORN emailed a copy of a Philadelphia police report dated July 24 to The Post to verify its account that police were called and the couple was shown the door. O'Keefe is named on the report." The Philadelphia Daily News reported on September 16 that Philadelphia ACORN president Carol Hemingway "e-mailed copies of the incident report to the news media."
ACORN spokesman calls O'Keefe's video "concocted," says police report "proves our clear understanding of this scam that was being portrayed." In response to the October 21 video, ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson told Fox News: "This is another example of Fox Entertainment treating concocted video as if it's actually news. ... The police report we filed contemporaneously proves our clear understanding of this scam that was being portrayed."
San Diego ACORN official also reported duo to police following encounter. In a September 22 article, the Associated Press reported that California police said an ACORN worker contacted them about "possible human smuggling":
Police say a worker with the activist group ACORN who was caught on video giving advice about human smuggling to a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute had reported the incident to authorities.
National City police said Monday that Juan Carlos Vera contacted his cousin, a police detective, to get advice on what to with information on possible human smuggling.
Vera was secretly filmed on Aug. 18 as part of a young couple's high-profile expose.
Police say he contacted law enforcement two days later. The detective consulted another police official who served on a federal human smuggling task force, who said he needed more details.
The ACORN employee responded several days later and explained that the information he received was not true and he had been duped. [AP, 9/22/09]
L.A. ACORN employee reportedly says she attempted to help videographer "prostitute" go to women's center. Los Angeles Times media critic James Rainey reported:
And visits to other ACORN offices have gone almost entirely unmentioned. Lavelle Stewart, a fair-housing coordinator in the group's Los Angeles office, told me this week that she tried to get the "prostitute," who claimed she had been beaten by her pimp, to go to a women's center.
"The fact she was not taking the help I offered her made me think something was not right," Stewart said. "It raised a red flag." [Rainey, Los Angeles Times, 9/23/09]
MM is trying to "move the goalpost" by switching the issue and raising new, irrelevant issues.
1. The video totally rebuts the MM/ACORN claim that ACORN threw the pair out of their office. It didn't happen, and MM should acknowledge this error/lie.
2. MM: "O'Keefe does not dispute that ACORN filed a police report about his visit." Well, why would he? What does that have to do with anything?
MM should acknowledge their errors and ACORN's lies.
Like bayo wrote, "When you're in a hole, the first thing you do is STOP DIGGING."
#
The allegation made by the pair was that they had not been turned away by any office they visited of ACORN. That every ACORN office they visited was willing to cooperate with their scheme. This was rebutted by ACORN and they produced a copy of the police report to prove it. Oops.
This guy is sleezier than any ACORN rep he managed to record.
And only an idiot would believe his line of BS.
This puts ACORN in a rather interesting position which will reveal once and for all their true colors. One the one hand, if what ACORN says is true, and the two kids really were given the boot after bringing up prostitution or whatever, then all ACORN has to do is give their consent to air the audio so James can show the full video which would clear them and prove ACORN's story. This is a possibility that I find highly unlikely as ACORNS word has not proven to be very reliable.
The other possibility is that ACORN is indeed lying. At this point, taking into account that Acorn has already been caught in so many lies regarding this whole scandal, I am inclined to believe that this is the case. Acorn will likely not consent to this audio recording, and continue to claim that it's a hoax, or edited or whatever.
Keep in mind that the video you saw regarding Philly was just a preview. This is unlike the previous 5 video's, this tactic is designed to put ACORN in the precarious position of deciding it's own fate in a lose/lose situation.
At this point, you should assume that the folks at BG.com have far more tapes waiting to be shown. They are simply biding their time in order to keep the nations attention on this story.
If Philly was indeed as ACORN claims, a failure on the part of Hannah and James, then it means two things to me.
1. is unlikely that BigGov would have chosen now to air it as it would be one of the video's that would most discredit them at a time when, quite frankly, they are on a roll.
2. ACORN will certainly call BigGov's bluff and give their consent.
I love thinking critically.
How about this critical thinking: the time stamp appears and re-appears on thvideo, indicating that it has been doctored - ACORN would have nothing to gain by giving "permission" for these people to air a video that has already been obviously doctored - and a video that conveniently omits the critical portions due to a convenient loss of battery power that only allegedly affects the video, while allowing still images.
You should try some more critical thinking.
Assuming you believe that Acorn is telling the truth, then you should not believe that they have nothing to gain by giving their consent to air the video as it will obviously prove their story.
This "preview" video was released for a number of reasons:
1. To show that they had not been given the boot by someone who claims that they did. Yet again pointing out another blatant lie told by ACORN.
2. To put ACORN on the spot, as I described in my previous post.
As far as the picture failing towards the end of the video goes, I'm going to assume that this wasn't the only incident where their equipment failed in the middle of a meeting. As someone who works regularly with electronics, I can tell you that this type of technology is prone to those sorts of complications. And at this point, I'm willing to give BigGov the benefit of the doubt more than I am willing to do so for Acorn.
At any rate, should the video be released, and it is indeed as long as is claimed by the filmmakers, (even with the malfunction towards the end) it will be enough to debunk ACORN's claim of giving them the boot after the whole prostitution topic was mentioned.
2. You assume that the video is un-altered. Why would ACORN give permission for them to show a video that may have been altered?
If the battery runs out before they leave, how will it ever show that they were not thrown out? The full video still ends before the crucial moment.
The one thing that will prove once and for all that they were not booted out is when Acorn gives its consent to air the tape. It should be easy enough to tell who is telling the truth about this specific incident at that time.
Think of it this way. Acorn claims they kicked them out after a relatively short time. If they are telling the truth, the video will reflect this, and there is little that the BigGov people can do to give the illusion that the meeting lasted longer.
If Biggov is telling the truth, the video will indeed last around a half hour as they claim, with the video aspect failing shortly before the end of the recording. At any point, by the time that they show the video and it does indeed last as long as they claim, then by the time the video does go out, with the audio continuing, it will have proven two things:
1. Acorn did indeed lie about the length of the meeting only lasting for a short amount of time (i believe they said something about 5 to 8 minutes or something).
2. At that point, it will be revealed that the Acorn employees did in fact not react negatively when the duo mentioned Prostitution, again, proving Acorn the liar.
But as I said before, it will only be possible to determine which side is being truthful after Acorn gives consent to release the audio.
Again, keep in mind, we havent seen the full video yet, and until then, determining it's authenticity is impossible. I will say this much, I have no reason to believe that the previous 5 video's were doctored in any way. So, right now, I am inclined to believe there is an authentic video until it is otherwise disproven, and the only one that is in a position to reveal the truth in this particular matter is ACORN. (Helpful hint: Don't go holding your breath waiting for that to happen.)
I think at this point we should just sit back, relax and see what happens.
ACORN doesn't have to give permission for them to display the unedited audio. That's a strawman argument that they raised, and you continue to push. Give it up. It's a non-starter.
"In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her Halliburton/KBR co-workers while working in Iraq and locked in a shipping container for over a day to prevent her from reporting her attack. The rape occurred outside of U.S. criminal jurisdiction, but to add serious insult to serious injury she was not allowed to sue KBR because her employment contract said that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration--a process that overwhelmingly favors corporations.
This year, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment that would deny defense contracts to companies that ask employees to sign away the right to sue. It passed, but it wasn't the slam dunk Jon Stewart expected. Instead the amendment received 30 nay votes all from Republicans. "I understand we're a divided country, some disagreements on health care. How is ANYONE against this?" He asked.
He went on to show video of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) arguing that it's not the government's place to decide who the government does business with and juxtaposed that with Republican sentiment on how the government should deal with ACORN. "I guess it's an efficiency thing. You don't want to waste tax-payer money giving it to someone who advises fake prostitutes how to commit imaginary crimes, you want to give it to Halliburton because they're committing real gang rape."
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/jon-stewart-takes-on-30-r_n_321985.html
Until you cons apply the same arguments to real crimes you are nothing but bullies and liars going after the weak and poor because they have little power while shilling for the rich and powerful. We see your game."I guess it's an efficiency thing. You don't want to waste tax-payer money giving it to someone who advises fake prostitutes how to commit imaginary crimes, you want to give it to Halliburton because they're committing real gang rape."
and acorn was going to go along with their crazy plan..right..
errors and lies..right..
Yes, when do you want that on your desk? First thing in the morning acceptable to you? Double-spaced ok?
You could go to any mid-size to large company in America and set them up the exact same way. It would have been one thing if the Acorn employees were out trying to find pimps and ho's to "help" out; it is another when someone comes to you. Do people really think that O'Keefe and Giles "uncovered" a big story? Do you really think that Pimps had been coming in with their hookers trying to get free housing and looking for tax credits? Giles and O'Keefe have finally pulled back the covers on this; because one thing Pimps and Hookers have is a real understanding of how to use the federal goverment to get tax credits???? (It would be hilarious if so many people didn't take it seriously) This is why we have laws against entrapment; because it just isn't right. Walk into a Wal-Mart and start asking the clerks if you can pay them directly then walk out with the goods, you will find people that would say yes to that. Does that mean Wal-Mart is just crooked and corrupt?
The most upsetting part about this whole "story" is that Giles and O'Keefe knew the news media was so dumb they would actually report this nonsense; there was never a doubt in their minds that they were going to get coverage and possibly bring down Acorn.
He never said a police report wasnt filed he only pointed out that they didnt call the police right away. They freely gave info and advice, and no one kicked them out as you and others wrongly reported.
Only an idiot would accept this video as proof of anything.
Those who shout loudest are usually wrong.
Or, conversely, if ACORN simply ignores this latest salvo, can we then sya that , since they didn't shout the loudest, they must be right?
Most of the shouting occurs on Fox - does this mean that Fox is usually wrong?
Pithy aphorisms are cute, but they really don't mean much.
The "shouting" is happening on the right, which is insisting on the guilt of an organization without provide concrete proof of that guilt.
Your comment basically boils down to the fact that you believe these allegations are true because you WANT to believe they are true.
Grow up.
The fact is ACORN has little to stand on with this one. Their employees engaged in illegal activities and they are doing their best to change the attention to something else.
When evidence is shown that any papers were filed, I will be the first calling for investigation. Right now, all I'm seeing is a bunch of nothing.....
But a lot of companies have their employees sign a blanket consent upon hiring to allow for audio recording which is probably why ACORN can tell O'Keefe he cannot play the audio since it is theirs to allow or disallow.
According to what I have looked up the following states where they made the videos require that only one member of the conversation to consent to recording:
New York
The following states require both parties to consent:
Washington
Maryland
California
Pennsylvania
Not sure why you think we need educating on this point when we provided the correction.
If they truly thought something was wrong with them why were they not kicked out? Why were police called only after they were cordially listened to and engaged with by the friendly staff? Why were they given information that could help them in their illegal efforts?
And another: If the videos could truly stand up to any scrutiny, and they show criminal activities, why have they not been released (at least to law enforcement)?
Because, in this country, people are innocent until proven guilty.
You folks are acting like this evidence is slam dunk when it is not even enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is proven by the very fact that law enforcement is not prosecuting.
You've just conceded the entire point without knowing it.
I never said the video was slam dunk but it raises more questions about ACORN and it's practices. And authorities don't just prosecute they take time gathering evidence and planning.
I'm going to be frank for a moment. I've been pretty harsh with conservatives during my short time on this site. I've identified with liberals through my own words. In reality, I'm still a registered Republican who would identify himself as a "conservative" if not for the fact that many conservatives have told me that I have no place to do so due to my opposition to both certain things that happened over the course of the past eight years and certain things that are happening now. In light of all that, I'm not particularly inclined to argue about my status with you people and am instead inclined to side with those you tell me I should side with.
With all of that said, I STILL back ACORN given the current facts that have been presented. Your insistence upon pushing your case despite the fact that you lack a slam dunk case while all the while insisting that people who don't agree with you are defending the indefensible makes me absolutely sick. You guys are ALIENATING people who would otherwise be strong allies in your cause by insisting on pushing this sort of crap.
You have no case. Stop pushing this nonsense and find something substantive. Until you do so, the Republican Party is going to keep going down the hole. I quite frankly fear whatever might take its place given the current climate.
Second, They are focusing on ACORN because they have a history of questionable practices and are receiving Federal monies.
Third, obviously the evidence is compelling enough or else Federal funds would not have been pulled from thew organization and Federal agencies would not have pulled out of association with them.
But I'm not particularly proud of that fact at the moment and don't see myself voting for any of the current crop of Republican candidates again any time soon.
The video was edited for legal reasons, it is OBVIOUS that the person in the video had no problem helping them just like all the other videos...
Later they had conviction for their clear lapse in judgement and made a police report to cover themselves.
Corruption. Plain and simple.
Get real, acorn is a bad nut. And The nut doesn't fall far from the tree (Obama?)...
Are you required to check your brain at the door in order to become a neo-con?
That part of your argument is not a winning argument. The rest is spot on.
Randy
The employees didn't engage in illegal activities, that's second.
Lastly, when O'Keefe made his propaganda statement today, he suggested that he was only doing the work that other organizations should do. Of course that's ridiculous. It would be called entrapment if any other group did what he did. On top of that, he suggested specifically that Media Matters should have done this research.
His whole purpose today was to smear ACORN and MMFA again. I suspect there are things that are happening in the background and this was a preemptive counterattack from O'Keefe.
I suspect the three people who gave your posts thumbs up are yourself, Breitbart himself, and O'Keefe.
Your suspicions are incorrect.
And I don't doubt that the people mentioned in these kinds of threads either post here, do thumbs up here, or sent their minions to do their dirty work.
And did you think that I was saying that as a certainty anyway?
I don't think that I'm going to far out on a limb here when I proclaim that you don't get your 'news' by any other source than Cluster Fox... because I cannot imagine anyone being so brainless than to keep repeating the same right-wing garbage expecting a different result.
I think that the problem is that they give an undue amount of weight to certain sources in coming to their decisions. Much of that is due to a difference in paradigms in approaching basic information. Ridicule of conservative paradigms is only useful insofar as it might snap someone out of that paradigm. When using that approach, however, we have to be very careful about assuming a lack of rationality or honesty on behalf of the people we are arguing with. A big problem with the differences between liberals and conservatives has to do with the fact that both are operating from very different initial premises... it is possible to be perfectly reasonable within one paradigm and appear completely irrational within another.
I've been where they are and have argued quite vehemently for their positions. I also know what the left looks like to them, and it's even uglier than the right appears to the people on this website. We can make cracks about them being idiotic in their conclusions and reasoning processes but I would personally hesitate in questioning their honesty or their degree of keeping an open mind unless I was near certain that such is the case.
Today's debating opponent can always be tomorrow's ally... such is always far more likely than being allies with the person who doesn't bother engaging in conversation in the first place.
Clearly Acorn has lied repeatedly and with great specificity about what happened at the Philly office. Not a crime, but still reprehensible. All such mouthpieces starting at the top should be fired.
Clearly everyone who bought Acorn's story about what happened and reported it as fact was wrong. Not a crime, but a credibility shredder. But then again, most like MM already have no credibility left.
Just as clearly however, someone filed or prepared a false police report. That IS a crime.
Read the report. It complained of a verbal disturbance with ACORN employees. Such disturbance clearly did not happen. Thus this is a false report.
James O'Keefe is named as having been the subject of the report. How exactly did Mr. O'Keefe's real name appear on a contemporaneous report if he did not give them his real name. That information was not available to ACORN or the police on the date and time of the report. It seems likely this is not only a false report but a fabricated one as well.
Again looking at the report - Please note nothing but a verbal disturbance was complained about in the report - not pimping, not prostitution, not underage sex slaves, not proposed illegal enterprise - nothing. So whenever it was that the police were called "after the below had come to the above location" it was not to report any of the behaviors relating to running an underage brothel. So just stop trying to claim the ACORN employees were just playing along with the pimp and the prostitute. The report is a poorly executed attempt to cover ACORN's collective backside which has failed miserably.
The "verbal disturbance" on the report was filed by the officer after speaking to the ACORN employee about the nature of her interaction with O'Keefe.
Not sure why you think that ACORN had any control over how the officer reported the incident.
This sort of case is a possible career maker for any officer. To be able to bust something like that up would do wonders for the officer and it is doubtful he would keep those details hidden.
Considering that the police report has been confirmed as being on file with the Philadelphia police department it is obvious the ACORN employee felt it was necessary to call the police, and obvious that a report was filed by an officer. As to what the police officer filed in regards to this incident, seems like a problem you would have with that specific officer and not ACORN.
Sounds to me like you are using a lot of speculation to draw your conclusions.
You have no evidence of illegal actions, no evidence of an ACORN coverup envolving the Philadelphia Police Department, or any proof as to what was said during the taking of the police report.
You use words like "if" in your previous post and your latest one you are taking wild leaps to draw your rediculous conclusions, to which you have no proof of at all.
You're arguing in circles!
I hope you are kidding. If not, then your mind is clearly clouded by partisanship. No trained law enforcement officer would take any of this nonsense seriously. They may not laught out loud, but they would certainly not take it seriously.
"So ma'am you are telling me that Screech from Saved by the Bell was here with one of his ho's? And you would like me to investigate whether or not Screech is running an international human smuggling / brother enterprise?" Yeah, that would be a career maker - if you wanted to spend your career as a traffic cop. It is simply ludicrous to imagine anyone with any level of common sense taking this crap seriously. Unless you only view things through a right-wing mindset.
What more do you think the police or ACORN should have done at that point? The only thing the police would do is say call us if they return and we will escort them off your property. How much time and resources do you think should be given to this nonsense?
The police had their names obviously, they could have followed up and questioned them.
Police waste time busting people who smoke pot whats five minutes questioning potential human smugglers?
No one thinks Screech is smuggling humans or pimpin' ho's. Nobody buys this nonsense. Certainly not the police.
You've got to be kidding. ACORN knew that there was no genuine prostitution, sex ring or any other actual illegal activity of that sort to report. They knew that there was nothing there for the police to investigate.
That's one of the weakest gotcha points I've ever seen in here. Truly pathetic.
Beyond that, I really don't believe that any underage sex ring was ever discussed with any ACORN employees. I go into detail in my post below.
The same San Diego office that is mentioned in the MMfA article that you are posting on?
Man, you're good. All of ACORN knew this? And you know they knew this because...?
Good story though. Too bad it's two months too late.
O'Keefe and Giles were NOT particularly convincing. I don't have much experience in the inner city and even *I* can tell that they are two idiots playing cartoon caricatures of a pimp and a prostitute rather than the real deal. Real people who do that sort of thing don't talk about those sorts of activities with people they don't know either trust or have leverage over - they are SMARTER than that. Use some common sense.
I can't imagine that it would be convincing at all to people who probably DO deal with prostitutes looking to leave that life behind on a daily basis.
Just face it, this was not a particularly convincing ruse. They violated Alinsky's second and third rule, "Never go outside the expertise of your people," and, "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." They did the exact opposite of both, thought they were being smart and were getting away with it, and now it's all blowing up in their faces.
The entire situation was farcical to the point of being absolutely contemptible.
I want to ask those of you that are defending O'Keefe and Giles an important question here. Are you good folks implying that you YOURSELVES would have fallen for their little act? I'm honestly very curious about this.
I mean, if so, this answers a lot of questions I've wondered about over the years. I've always wondered who the folks are that fall for these Nigerian 419 scams I keep receiving in my email inbox. I've also always wondered who those warning labels on hair dryers and on my morning cup of coffee are meant for as well.
I wouldn't have guessed they were for you folks but, really, this wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong in my life.
The videos are fun for a few minutes and certainly worth watching for a giggle. But, they are not a news story worth of more than a mention as a joke. And, in fact, these videos are clearly edited and put together as a joke and not as a news story. This is very clear to any rational mind that watches them. This would be like the Daily Show entering one of their videos as evidence of wrongdoing. Only instead of entering the actual, unedited version of what their interview subject actually said, they submit into evidence the video where they splice everything together to make the subject look as ridiculous as possible. Funny on TV, evidence of nothing.
And these videos are evidence of nothing. They are certainly not a political story of any importance and they are certainly not worth shutting down an entire organization because a handful of frontline employees listened to the geek play out his sad, caricature of a pimp fantasy. Move on to something worthwhile for the good of your party and for the good of your country. There are actual issues to discuss, this clown is not one of them.
They are evidence ACORN lied. And if they are evidence of nothing then why have people been fired and an internal review begun? If the videos prove nothing why is ACORN acting as if they do? If the cideos prove nothing why is the Federal government distancing themselves from ACORN?
The organization receives Federal funds which makes it political. Obviously they have a systemic issue within their organization if they hire people that are willing to help these types of people.
Why have people been fired? I would assume for not following ACORN's policies and procedures. That certainly does not mean they broke any laws. I have fired many, many people - most never broke any laws. Why is the federal government distancing themselves? Because they are cowards. I think this has been proven time and again.
And, I would not agree that every organization that aids the government is necessarily political. Helping poor people does not have to be political, unfortunately because of rabid right-wingers, it has become so. Helping the poor should be above party. But, as the right has shown us clearly, nothing is above party.
In a HYPOTHETICAL situation where you were in those ACORN employee's shoes, would you have bought into the claims that those two were making?
It's a simple yes or no question.
But I didn't ask you how you would respond to the situation. I asked whether you personally would have found that particular act to be believable or not.
I am not saying that all the police resources should have been devoted to this but some police followup was certainly warranted.
Also, if you believed Screech in a fur coat to actually be a pimp, you may want to stay away from the big cities as well. They will take you for all you're worth if you are that gullible.
This wasn't a simple case of someone being frustrated and blurting out something they do not mean.
Again you shouldn't make assumptions. If you have someone telling you they are a pimp or a hooker and they want to break the law you should call the police and let them decide whether or not they are what they say they are.
I certainly would NEVER involve the police is what is obvioulsy a lame prank of some kind by a dork in a floppy hat. Do you call the police every time you see a woman who appears may be a prostitute and let the police investigate? Of course not. It's silly to assume we all would. The police would get nothing done because they would be wasting all their time investigating "suspected" hookers. If I tell you I am a pimp are you going to call the police, cause my ho's are acting up as we speak?
And there WAS a verbal disturbance with two individuals purporting to be what they were not, in a rather poor manner at that.
You can whine all you want about how it's not fair that the ACORN employees were just playing along with the two but those are the facts. Face it, O'Keefe wasn't even that convincing of an actor in the role and the situation was OUTLANDISH. What sort of streetwise pimp would be stupid enough to do what he did the way he did it?
O'Keefe portrayed a horribly stereotypical pimp and he completely underestimated his targets. He got away with what he did because he was such a stupid jackass that no one took him seriously and no one perceived his real intentions.
I personally believe that the majority of the employees were actually trying to advise the two on how to scam the government. If not, there should have been a paper trail, notes, reports, phone calls.. something.
The police report says a lot for the credibility of ACORN in that they were suspicious of the two, however I think that the video tape also damages the credibility of their statement that they were thrown out. They lied when they did not have too. Some habits are hard to break.
If ACORN was so intelligent as to see through the ruse why was this duo able to what they did? They were not kicked out and people have been fired for offering them assistance on this subject. I doubt that every ACORN employee thought, "MMM, these people are obviously lying so therefore I am gonna mess with them and act like am helping."
Here's the thing. You act as though it was ACORN itself that got busted in this situation. ACORN is an organization. These two "punk'd" a few INDIVIDUALS, some of whom might not have been entirely honest and who may or may not have been rather naive to accept the story in the first place. You have about three or four cases in an organization with FAR more people. No paperwork was filed. Nothing was examined beyond people at the ground level of the organization. It is stretch to claim that these people are representative of the organization as a whole.
At best, O'Keefe and Giles have proven that ACORN needs to tighten up its hiring practices for ground level positions. They have not proven systematic criminal behavior on behalf of the organization itself. If you can prove that, I think everyone here at MMfA will back you up. You CAN'T yet.
The fact that ACORN hires such people is tells a lot about their organization as a whole. The fact that this stretches across the nation in multiple offices shows this is a fundamental problem with ACORN.
While we may not be able to show criminal activity by the organization itself this certainly raises questions and begs for more scrutiny.
I would settle for evidence of any criminal activity by any of the individuals for starters. What crimes do you think were committed? And, if there were crimes committed, why have not the unedited version of these videos been turned over to the authorities? I thought you said that was a duty?
These were two schmoes playing dress-up and playing a practical joke. And, like all practical jokes, it was actually only funny for a couple of minutes and then it just gets tired and you actually start to feel sorry for the people the jokesters are annoying and whose time they are wasting. If you take this nonsense so seriously, you need to apply more scrutiny before buying your next bridge.
But that's the most that's been actually proven. It's not enough to point fingers at the entire organization as a criminal enterprise, as much as some people might wish otherwise.
That's what these people don't get...forget that...they know exactly what their doing but they're trying to bail the Titanic...
Good sleuth work on the police report also. THAT should be the center of this investigation. The tell is that mmfA is pimping this feeble attempt at diversion.
This is why I stopped being a conservative. Eventually I realized my own cognitive dissonance by examining the differences between the reality portrayed by the right-wing talking points machine and the actual reality around me.
You folks have to make so many rationalizations to keep your world view afloat that it's not even funny. I really do feel bad for you, even if you do not quite realize why.
Remember - confession is good for the soul!
Does it make you feel good to say things like that?
Find something concrete and systematic, otherwise stop wasting our time with this crap. America has far more important issues to be with concerned with right now.
It goes 'round and 'round and it comes out there!
You may dislike Rush, but if you truly love freedom and the constitution, you cannot support what took place last week. Shame on you.
No I wasn't happy, I was ecstatic! To finally see a right wing gasbag, get his comeuppance was almost like winning the lottery.
Limbaugh has for years cried "individual" responsibility, well somebody finally made him pay for what he has been doing for years.
What you right wingers don't understand, is that freedoms are a two way street. Limbaugh is free to say anything he wants, and the investment group is free to throw him out. Sort of like the Dixie Chicks a few years back, or as a right winger, did you forgot about that.
It was Rush's partners that decided HE (Rush) was not good for their business. I bet you believe in Capitalism don't you? This is Capitalism at it's best. Without Rush they have the possibility of making millions - with him, their possibilities became less. Capitalism at it's finest.
Has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution.
Seeing that the government didn't have a hand in denying Rush Limbaugh's bid, I don't see how his Constitutional rights were violated. People on your side say it all the time and hate it that it is being turned around on you, but PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE OR NOT ASSOCIATE WITH WHOMEVER THEY CHOOSE.
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that a private organization like the NFL might not want its ownership associated with a man who has made comments which some regard as racist? That's their prerogative as a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION.
The constant right wing whining about this and the attempts to portray the NFL as another ACLU or ACORN makes you guys look desperate and idiotic.
Yeah, because we all have a constitutional right to be a part of any investment group we would like. Please. Wake up and join adulthood. Business is a tough world, if you can't handle it and can only cry when an investment group denies you like a litte baby (or like Rush) then you will never make it in big-boy business. Welcome to the NFL.
"That a man was denied the opportunity to invest his money in the manner he saw fit because of lies that were propagated by race hustlers and incompetent media hacks." - Nut
I didn't even know that Beck was in the investment group that denied Rush. Or, are you saying that Rush being a race hustler is what got him denied? Or are you just like Rush, and crying some more?
notice there is NO mention of the prostition discussion
good job O keefe
Thats what irks me too. You have Halliburton/KBR electrocuting our soldiers,doing shody work receiving billions of dollars of tax-payer money but who do they go after ACORN, a community organization trying to help poor people.
Oh, and then you remember the Democratic Party? I forgot. You're fighting on a Crusade against absolute evil! That makes everything you do acceptable and exonerates you from all your sins!
My apologies!
And that girl who got gang raped when she started working for them? She totally shouldn't be able to sue them for letting that happen. That'd be un-American.
Good call.
it also serves to distract and delay any real investigation of the previous administrations good o'boy network of corporate thieves and pirates.. and provide cover for the criminality of their agenda's..
what's discouraging is it seems so many fall for this crap so easily..and so much hypocrisy is ignored..
How do you know this? I'm all for helping the poor, the disenfranchised, and those that have been marginalized by society (like conservatives), but ACORN is not about this. ACORN is about using those on the lower rungs of our socioeconomic ladder to empower themselves and to spread their political agenda.
I can understand your sympathies for those that are in need, but ACORN is not the horse to which you wish to hitch your cart.
but most of all..because they have nothing they stand FOR
..only that they are against..
conservatives have marginalized themselves because they speak and act as if only they are right..and only their rights are important..and yet recent events have peeled back their facade..and they have exposed themselves to be petty..immature and obsessive..how can they not be marginalized when it's the beck's..limbaugh's..steele's and hannity's..and coulter's that are their spokespersons..that drive their ideology of the day and shout down even those that may self identify with conservatism..
as a liberal..i have manage to coexist with conservatives for most of my 60 years..but what conservative have become now..needs to be marginalized..and shouted down..and exposed..
conservative have become a clear and present danger to this country..they have all too easily wrapped their hatred and blatant self serving interests in the flag and their religion..they have bankrupted this country and pillaged it's middle class..they have lost all legitimate claims to any moral issue America faces..
I'm sure the unedited version will not be to ACORN's advantage and careful what you wish for. Every time the media makes excuses for this corrupt organization and tries to support their lies - they are exposed as duplicitous and Breitbart/Giles/O'Keefe are 6-0 (Baltimore, DC, Brooklyn, San Bernadino, San Diego and Philadelphia) in their battle with ACORN. What other gems are out there waiting. Death by a thousand paper cuts or chinese water torture and now they have discredited Media Matters! Life is good.
Media Matters got pwned first by Acorn and then by O'Keefe and Giles.
The police report does not accurately represent what happened.
It never ceases to amaze me how you guys can feign outrage about people engaging in "personal attacks" that amount to zilch and then turn around and do it tenfold.
Is this the same guy who accused people of having "no soul" earlier? Are you right-wingers unable to comprehend what you write yourselves? Or does someone else write this trip for you? Escape your perpetual victimhood already. You're like attack dogs that whimper as soon as a hand is raised. And you wonder why mainstream voters stopped taking your party seriously.
They call us every name in the book but the second someone calls them a dirty name or says a mean word to them, they start bitching about how we're the ones to jettison reasonable discourse and fall back on name calling tactics.
It gets so very tiresome.
ACORN has never been found guilty of voter fraud. Some ACORN employees committed voter registration fraud in which the ACORN organization was more victim than perpetrator.
ACORN has been operating for decades all over the country. In all of that time, not one fraudulent vote (required for there to be voter fraud) has ever been found to be a result of ACORN's activities. Not one. Ever.
I'm unaware of any tax evasion charges. ACORN was a victim of embezzlement, not a perpetrator. They discovered it and arranged for the embezzler to reimburse what he stole.
Now that, my friend, is reality.
Never. And, what is worse, is that RightNut knows this and does not care. He only wishes to spread more propaganda about those damn poor people who are always keeping conservatives down.
The United Way was also a victim of a large embezzlement several years ago. I am sure RightNut wants them to be destroyed as well. After all, they also help those damn powerful poor people.
They just magically KNOW things will be better once the country reflects their vision for it, sort of like a Communist knows that life will be great once a True Workers' State is implemented. Methods be damned.
We'll thank them for all their lies and dirty tricks in the end, if we're alive to do so.
BTW, would YOU believe these fruitcakes were a prostitute and her pimp? I bet there is a % of people who come into ACORN that are dangerous, do you think they just answer questions for safety's sake and then move on? What fraud was commited here by ACORN? Talking is not a crime, action is. What action's were taken? Get a grip already!
Please stay on-topic. We're talking about ACORN, not the Republican Party.
Every time we heard anything about the topic it was from an off-camera voice. Given that upwards of a dozen ACORN employees are on video supposedly discussing that topic with the illegal videotapers, does it really seem credible that NOT ONE of those employees ever made a direct reference to the topic? It's a pretty extreme topic. Shouldn't someone have used some sort of terminology that at least suggested that that was what they were discussing?
But the fact is that no ACORN employees can ever be heard discussing a child prostitution ring. Not one. Ever. It's only ever mentioned by an off-screen voice.
Give that level of apparent dishonesty, how seriously should we be taking the rest of the videos? I'm maintaining a healthy level of skepticism based entirely on the evidence.
No one is ever going to be allowed to review the unedited videos. The illegal videotapers have too much to lose.
Anyone who buys thiseither has an axe to grind or is several cards short of a deck (or both).
I'm not convinced either way and I'm ready to be shown to be wrong, but so far I'm swayed by the evidence and what seems credible. I don't believe that the questions we hear coming in from off-camera were the same things the ACORN workers heard.
If they really had anything of substance to substantiate their ridiculous claims, they would have released them by now. Until they do, they are just dorky looking kids playing dress up and trying to punk somebody. It was a lame attempt at a Daily Show interview and I will begin to take it seriously as soon as they show any attempt at actual journalism, such as releasing the video without their editing already being done.
And the way that kid is dressed really says it all for me. NO ONE in a big city who has actually encountered real pimps is going to take that kid seriously for a minute. They may play nice and put up with him, but NO ONE thinks that kid is any kind of a pimp. It reminds me of when Michael Moore sent checks to Pat Buchanan's campaign (and others) as if they were from the American Pedophilia Society or NAMBLA or whatever. Sure, it's a funny Daily Show-type prank to see how far you can go before someone calls "BS" but it means nothing. Buchanan does not support NAMBLA and ACORN employees did not believe this geek was a pimp.
And, no, we will never see the unedited videos - this is obvious. If there were actually something to be concerned about on any of these videos they would have been turned over to the authorities. Wouldn't they have? Instead, they have been played up endlessly by Fox News without EVER seeing anything other than the heavily edited Daily Show version where all the most damaging things are said when you do not see the faces. It's very obvious what is going on here.
Because looking like idiots who think that everything outside their little world is made up of cartoon stereotypes and getting in massive legal trouble is a great way to kick a national organization's ass!
Keep it up, James and Hannah!
I only care if this kid broke the law by recording/using the tape these people without permission and if ACORN broke the law.
I am sure everyone who has posted here today agrees that if anyone broke any law, they should be prosecuted..do we all agree on that point???? No end justifies the means crap, just simply, DID ANYONE BREAK ANY LAWS....
MMFA continues to attack the messengers, rather than admit the truth.
ACORN has publicly dismissed the employees caught up in this scandal and are taking steps to rectify the situation. Truthfully, the ACORN organization has done more good than harm. Unfortunately, ACORN is under a microscope and every little misstep is blown way out of proportion. I'm sure if a hidden camera decided to investigate any company or organization you would probably find some kind of wrongdoing on the part of one's employees.
These incidents in no way indicates that this is the policy of ACORN. I'm sure ACORN employees aren't trained to help out illegal workers. When the employees overstep their authority and mandate they are the ones that should be reprimanded not the entire organizaion.
Unless Beck, Hannity or anyone else can show a clear connection that the employees acted on behalf of ACORN, meaning they acted in a way that was in compliance with ACORN's rules, systems and policies, then ACORN is innocent. ACORN would only be held liable if helping prositiutes with income and low-income housing was their intent.
If you could hold an organization or company liable for every employees' actions then you may as well deem every org. and company corrupt.
You are one of the few on this blog that approach this issue intelligently and without the need to stoop to name-calling. I applaud you for that.
But, I respectfully differ with you on many points. First, you have written that James and Hannah have used coercive means. You and I may have a different understanding of what coercion means, so, if you would, please cite the portion of the videos that you feel are coercive. It appeared to me that no threats, force or leverage was used in any of the videos.
You also have said that, the couple has a “political end.” Everyone, including James and Hannah, is aware that Acorn is a 503(c) corporation and is barred from taking a political stand. Why would two seemingly intelligent people launch a political campaign against an apolitical organization? Could it be that Acorn is, in fact, political and in violation of IRS regulations? If this is the case, their motives could be considered “American” as they would be attempting to expose tax cheats.
You correctly state that Acorn has dismissed the employees involved in past infractions. Let’s see how quickly Acorn acts with regard to this most recent video and the statements by Ms. Russell. I am sure that when asked, Ms. Russell will very quickly give her consent to have the video, in its entirety, made public. Media Matters will, of course, be encouraging her to grant her consent to prove that that what they have reported is substantiated for all to see.
As far as your claim that the types of events reported by James and Hannah are not the policy of Acorn, I find that a little disingenuous when I hear the interviews of Bertha Lewis. She has gone out of her way to discredit the messenger (James and Hannah) rather than correcting the message. I am sure that her veracity is being called into question by many who have seen the most recent video. Do you think that Ms. Lewis will change her rhetoric in light of the actions of Ms. Russell?
We don’t need to rely on Beck, Limbaugh, or Hanity to show the connection between Acorn and their employees. I’m sure you and most everyone else is aware that an employee of a corporation is presumed to be acting on behalf of that organization “unless specifically stated otherwise.” Legally, corporations are held liable for the actions of their employees! No state in the country has laws to the contrary.
I don’t remember any of these employees on the videos giving any type of notice that they were acting outside of their corporate governance. Maybe you could show me where I missed it.
I will await your considered and helpful response.
First of all, I said Hannah and James MAY have used coercive means. The videos were edited and courts haven't made their rulings yet so I don't have all the information. I say 'may' cause I'm not sure.
In regards to coercion, when any person uses a hidden camera with intent to convince another of doing something illegal would be considered coercive, a kind of entrapment. Let's say I don't usually do drugs, but somebody with a hidden camera attempts to sell me those drugs and continues to talk to me and convince me to buy them. Thus, if I for a moment say 'yes' or 'maybe' then should I be considered guilty? This is entrapment. I find it very suspect that these two (Hannah and James) would travel all over the U.S. seeking out willing ACORN workers for the purpose of destroying their reputation. Then, springing the videos on a conservative website. This becomes politically motivated, not because ACORN should be considered apolitical, but because many on the right-wing make countless attempts to tie ACORN to the Obama administration.
Do you catch my drift yet??
I can't say I know enough about the most recent video nor can I speak for Ms. Bertha Lewis. The recent video has been heavily edited which is a fact, and there is a police report recounting the incident although not every detail of the contact. With such limited information neither you nor I can give a reasonable answer. So, claims that these are MM lies defending ACORN doesn't hold up. So far the evidence seems to be in favor of ACORN. I haven't seen the whole video but from what I've seen the ACORN worker is constantly shaking her head as if to say 'No'.
I've seen some of Bertha Lewis's statements and I've witnessed making a full confession of the wrongdoing, including the firing of the employees and plans to re-evaluate the conduct of business. She seemed quite genuine and we can only see if they follow through although I'm sure there will always be some bad apples. Overall, the ACORN organization has done a lot of good over the years. Let's not let a few bad apples spoil the whole batch.
If you want to talk about corruption, then I can use the police force as a comparative example. It is widely known that in the past and even today police from all parts of the globe have acted in contradiction to their role. Probably more so and worse than ACORN ever has. Should the government just cut off funding and close the organization down or should they attempt to deal with the problems? I suppose a closer example would be Halliburton or Blackwater.
"I don��셳 remember any of these employees on the videos giving any type of notice that they were acting outside of their corporate governance. Maybe you could show me where I missed it."
When somebody doesn't act in accordance with company policy why would they or should they give notice? Are you saying when an employee does something wrong they should annouce it first? That's just strange to state that. You expect the ACORN workers to validate that they were acting alone by having to state "by the way, this isn't ACORN's policy". Don't you think your reaching here?
I personally give you a thumbs up in addressing that question the way you did.
I can't help but think that you are wrong in your personal conclusions but positive, reasonable, and respectful debate should be encouraged wherever it presents itself, from whatever side it might come.
Like the written policy ACORN had to get at least 20 "new" registered voters in order to meet their quota? Is this what you mean?
Of course if an Acorn couldn't leagally get their quota they would simply forge registration forms under names like Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck - or dead people or dogs. And whalla, they met their quota and got paid! And what a coincidence ACORN registered almost all Demoncrats. Acorn, a not for profit organization just like MMFA!
Let me know if you need further explanation. You’re welcome
Mmmmm, mmmmm, mmmmm.
So because ACORN was defrauded by its own employees and even though they reported most of the reported fradulent registration forms, as they are REQUIRED to do, you some how equate this to ACORN equals crimnal organization?
Gee, what a shock that an organization that champions the poor, minorities, and the unfortunate largely registered those people to vote for a party that represents those same people. What are the odds?
What do you have against "not for profit" organizations?
I was going to say the same thing to you.
Mmmmmm, mmmmmm. Good? Campbell's?
We're not discussing FOX News right now. Save it for later.
Unfortunately, though, these journalists wanted a "big" story, so they did what any inflammatory documentary maker does. Edit, re-hash, and cut, then stretch the truth a whole bunch to make it fit the story you want to tell. They wanted a big ACORN scandal. Looks as though they found a couple bad seeds and ran with it.
Now really it's just this back and forth partisan crap where I get the sense that both sides aren't being wholly honest. I know not all ACORN offices are bad as these pseudo-"reporters" want people to believe. I also can tell by some of the footage that not all ACORN employees immediately balk at the first sign of human indecency. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, I'm sure, but everyone wants to cover their asses. But, as the expose was the instigator of it all, and it appears to be substantially re-edited, I think the burden of this one is on them.
(1) Katherine Conway Russell, the only apparent ACORN eyewitness to the incident, in her Media Matters video NEVER CLAIMED THAT SHE FILED A POLICE REPORT, even though she misleadingly waved one around.
(2) Ms. Russell NEVER said she “kicked them out” because they asked for help with a prostitution ring, although she did falsely deny that they brought up prostitution. Rather, in the Media Matters video, she says that she told she had to go to a meeting and could therefore not answer any additional questions.
(3) Russell didn’t call, and never claimed to call, the police while they were there. Rather, after they had already left, she called an ACORN official to ask why they had been referred to her office.
(4) It was then that the ACORN official, Keith Crosby, first contacted the police. He filed a false police report, apparently claiming an emergency because the filmmakers were “causing a verbal disturbance with employees of ACORN.” But Crosby knew that the filmmakers had already left — and the report notes that the police advised him of this fact that he obviously knew.
(5) In the Media Matters video, RUSSELL NEVER CLAIMED THERE WAS “VERBAL DISTURBANCE.” That was a LIE made up by other Acorn officials after the pair left, apparently because they realized they were being investigated (maybe by the FBI, in their minds) and wanted to “make a record.”
Below is the full text of the police report. NOTHING IN IT IS CONFIRMED, AND ALL OF IT IS CONTRADICTED, BY THE VIDEO POSTED BY THE ONLY EYEWITNESS TO THE INCIDENT, KATHERINE CONWAY RUSSELL.
The above compl[ainant][Crosby] called police, after the below man [O'Keefe] had come to
the above loc[ation] to apply for low income housing and was causing a verbal disturbance with employees of ACORN. The below man was not on location and the compl[ainant] was so advised.
Shouldn't Fox News (being a news organization) have seen unedited versions before going on air with what amounts to a Daily Show interview and using it as evidence to make serious accusations? I think you guys ran Dan Rather off the air for doing much less. I am sure if the unedited versions proved any of the nonsense claims that are being made they would have been turned over to the proper authorities. They were not. Smart money says they never will be.
It's the smoking gun here - the lack of unedited videos.
That fact indicts Breitbart and O'Keefe, but as usual, they try to turn it around and use that to indict ACORN.
Oh, how very sad for you. Your very first example that ACORN filed a false police report has nothing to do with the filed report at all, but accuses the ACORN employee of not claiming she filed a report but "waved one around," which just so happens to be the very same police report filed by the Philadelphia police department regarding the incident.
Actually, doesn't she say that they don't bring up prostitution until later in the conversation at which time she started to back off and became less helpful to them. O'Keefe was attempting a bait and switch tactic gained her confidence and then moved into the prostitution part of his act where the whole thing started to fall flat.
Also you have failed to point out how this is proof that ACORN filed a false police report.
And...... this shows that ACORN filed a false report how again?
Once again, I fail to see where the accusation of a filing false report comes in.
That is complete and total conjecture and speculation to which you have absolutely no poof of.
1) Acorn did not commit any crimes in these videos.
2) any organization that does not see anything blatantly wrong about smuggling 13 year old girls into the country in order to set up an underage sex slavery ring, should never receive ANY of our tax dollars.
Yesterday, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) challenged the constitutionality of one of these anti-ACORN measures being supported by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) during a hearing of the Science and Technology committee. Grayson repeatedly questioned Broun about the constitutionality of “bills of attainder” — which are punishments that single out a group or individual without a court trial. The Georgia Republican was unable to offer a coherent rebuttal:
GRAYSON: I’d like to ask the gentleman from Georgia a few questions, and I’ll yield to him for the purpose of having answers to these questions. Does the gentleman from Georgia know what a bill of Attainder is?
BROUN: A bill of, the answer’s yes, in fact it’s been very explicitly described by the court’s.
GRAYSON: What is it?
BROUN: [long pause. Scrambling through papers.] The courts have applied a two pronged test. Number one, whether specific individuals or entities are affected by the staute, Number two, when the legislation affects a “punishment,” on those individuals, it serves no legitamate regulatory purpose.
GRAYSON: What, um, does the Constitution says about Bills of Attainder?
BROUN: Oh, I suggest that this is not a Bill of Attainder. It’s, um, certainly does focus on a specific entity, but it does not inflict punishment by any means. In fact…
GRAYSON: Will the gentleman from Georgia explain what the Constitution says about Bills of Attainder?
ANOTHER CONGRESSMAN: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a second? The gentleman from Florida?
GRAYSON: No. I’d like an answer to my question. [...]
GRAYSON: The question is, will the gentleman from Georgia agree with me that the Bill of Attainder clause was intended not as a narrow or technical provision, but as an implementation of the seperation of powers, and a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or more simply, trial by legislature. Will the gentleman agree to that?
BROUN: No, sir, I will not, and I ask counsel to help us with this. I think all this is determination of the court and I’d like to appeal to Mr. Sensenberner.
GRAYSON: Well, I’m sorry, but it’s my time, not yours or Mr. Sensenberner’s, so I will reclaim my time, and I will point out that what you just you would not agree to is from a Supreme Court case called the United States v. Brown, something I would expect you might know about, given your name.
Watch it:
Grayson ended his remarks by noting that the conservative crusade against ACORN isn’t based in principle but politics: “We are trampling on people’s Constitutional rights. And I think it’s unfortunate that the mania that exists on the other side of the aisle regarding this one organization, and we know why that mania exists, it’s because they’ve registered an awful lot of Democrats, continues to distort and waste the time of this committee and many other committees here in Congress. Enough is enough.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/22/grayson-grills-broun-constitution/#comments
I like wine too but I try not to post when it interferes with my judgement. What you cons are trying is Un-American and against the constitution.
The same is not true of those who present the opposite opinion. They do not claim there was no wrongdoing, just that none has been proven. From a legal point of view, they are absolutely correct. None of the videotapes would be admissible in a court case as evidence against ACORN because it has been established that they are edited. Only the original, unedited versions could be accepted as evidence.
Therefore, any commenter who relies on the evidence of the videotapes doesn't understand what constitutes factual evidence of an action.
Also, it cannot be argued that a police report is false without understanding the basis of the report, in other words, without knowing what actually happened and how it was reported.
This will not stop the anti-ACORN commenters from making their baseless accusations. But it should stop anyone who hasn't drunk from the "poisoned well" from paying serious attention to them.