The once-great New York Times has now become the new shame of this nation. Tonight they have run a “correction” concerning their repeated misreporting of the ACORN “Pimp” Hoax for tomorrow’s papers. And, as you’ll see below, it’s pathetic — simply pathetic — and still inaccurate.
It has been…
- …six months after the New York Times ran their first incorrect story on the ACORN “Pimp” Hoax;
- …five months since their ombudsman and reader’s representative Public Editor Clark Hoyt (Public@NYTimes.com) chided the paper for waiting “nearly a week” before reporting on the phony videos, and announcing the assignment of a new editor to specifically follow “the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio”;
- …almost four months since the former MA Attorney General correctly reported [PDF] what had really gone on in those ACORN offices (though his report was entirely ignored by the NYT until last weekend);
- …two months after their Senior Editor for Standards Greg Brock (SeniorEditor@NYTimes.com) wrote via email that James O’Keefe “appeared on a live Fox show wearing what HE said was the same exact costume he wore to ACORN’s offices…We believe him. Therefore there is nothing for us to correct”;
- …two months after Hoyt (Public@NYTimes.com) wrote via email to back up the editors and the paper’s reporting to say that “The story says O’Keefe dressed up as a pimp and trained his hidden camera on Acorn counselors. It does not say he did those two things at the same time”;
- …two days after Hoyt finally admitted in his column that “The Times was wrong…and I have been wrong in defending the paper’s phrasing” and that “Editors say they are considering a correction”;
- …and on the very same day that ACORN announced they were shutting their doors on April 1 following a lack of funding, in light of the damage done by the highly-doctored, falsely promoted and inaccurately reported hit videos released by known Rightwing partisan propagandists and liars…
…the “paper of record” has issued a correction for tomorrow’s papers, in which they repeat the falsehood that James O’Keefe “posed as a pimp” in ACORN offices. He didn’t. He posed as the fake prostitute’s law school boyfriend trying to help save her from a pimp who had stalked and threatened to kill her, as a review of even O’Keefe’s own unauthenticated text-transcripts show.
Here is the absolutely shameful squib published tonight on the web, and running in tomorrow’s paper, along with just the shortest explanation of how they are still getting it completely wrong, but don’t seem to care…
Published: March 22, 2010
NATIONAL
Several articles since September about the troubles of the community organizing group Acorn referred incorrectly or imprecisely to one aspect of videotaped encounters between Acorn workers and two conservative activists that contributed to the group’s problems.
In the encounters, the activists posed as a prostitute and a pimp and discussed prostitution with the workers. But while footage shot away from the offices shows one activist, James O’Keefe, in a flamboyant pimp costume, there is no indication that he was wearing the costume while talking to the Acorn workers.
The errors occurred in articles on Sept. 16 and Sept. 19, 2009, and on Jan. 31 of this year. Because of an editing error, the mistake was repeated in an article in some copies on Saturday. (Go to Article)
In case you’re wondering how O’Keefe “posed as a…pimp,” as the NYTimes is still inaccurately and shamefully contending, here’s an example of every use of the word pimp by James O’Keefe in his own unauthenticated text transcript [PDF] of his secret video taping at the Brooklyn ACORN office (the other transcripts offer, essentially, the same information):
…
James: and that is why we were in a rush you know why I am excited and I know nothing about her business I am just trying to be here to be professional because ya know she walks in and but now we have this pimp discriminating against us
…
James: I know I have to worry about the pimp but he is illegal anyway he is not going to do anything to me who what do I have to be careful of?
…
James: Sonny is the pimp
Two days prior to the NYTimes’ very first inaccurate story on the ACORN “Pimp” Hoax, Katherine Conway Russell, a worker at ACORN Housing (actually a separate organization from ACORN) in Philadelphia released this first-hand video explanation (see video at right) of her meeting with O’Keefe and Giles, how they falsely represented themselves before and during the meeting, and how she came to file a police report thereafter.
“They never said that she [Giles] was a prostitute, and he was not dressed in any unusually flashy manner,” Russell explains. “Mr. O’Keefe lied to get his appointment. He was not dressed like he is on the Internet. And when we got suspicious about the questions he was asking at the Philadelphia ACORN Housing office, we called the police and filed this report,” she says.
The raw, unedited videos of O’Keefe and Hannah Giles’ meetings, under false pretenses, with low-level ACORN and ACORN Housing workers have never been publicly released and the New York Times has never seen them. Yet, they are, apparently, still satisfied with taking the words of a known fraudster and accused felon about what happened in those offices, despite even the available record which shows otherwise, and despite the damage their reporting (and many others) has already done to one of the nation’s most important, four-decades old, real grass-roots community organizations whose mission is to help the poor in a fight against poverty.
It is not, apparently, even necessary — at a minimum — to point out that many strongly dispute the characterization of O’Keefe having “posed as a pimp.” Apparently, they still “believe him.”
At the same time, no apology has been issued for their misreporting, no explanation has been offered for the original and still-repeated errors, and no explanation is given for how such easily-avoided misreporting will be avoided in the future.
It will not be avoided. They will continue, and are still, repeating the same misinformation. In tomorrow’s paper, Ian Urbina continues the disgraceful failure by inaccurately reporting on the impending closure of ACORN on the heels of “videos advising two young conservative activists — posing as a pimp and a prostitute — how to conceal their criminal activities.”
…CONTACT…
Executive Editor Bill Keller, executive-editor@nytimes.com
Managing Editor John Geddes, managing-editor@nytimes.com
Sr. Editor for Standards Greg Brock, SeniorEditor@NYTimes.com
Public Editor Clark Hoyt, Public@NYTimes.com
Reporter Ian Urbina, urbina@nytimes.com
UPDATE 3/23/10: Would you like more evidence of O’Keefe having “posed as a pimp”? Here ya go, from O’Keefe’s own (unauthenticated) text transcripts:
New York transcript…
O’Keefe: have a seat
O’Keefe: well we have a unique situation and my uh this is my girlfriend, Eden, and I apologize about her attire but uhm uhm but Eden is in a unique line of work and umm… (page 3)
O’Keefe: and we have been…I work for Wells Fargo actually and we’ve been basically denied the right to appeal for housing. I have tried to talk to some of my co-workers and they do not want to help me apply for housing. (page 3)
O’Keefe: Yeah, yep, I work at a bank. (page 8)
O’Keefe: Well, the reason why we are rushing is because she was working for this pimp and he was very abusive. (page 17)
Giles: “He has been really aggressive toward me ever since I met him because I wanted to leave because it is scary being subjected to a huge man who has control over your life. And he [O’Keefe] is kind so… “ (page 17)
Baltimore transcript…
Kenya/Giles: Okay, uh, he is moving into town. I am not from here. An um…he wants me… He is going to be going to Johns Hopkins for graduate school. Graduate school, right?
Shira/ACORN worker: Congratulations.
O’Keefe: Yep, law. (page 3)
O’Keefe: The other thing we have to deal with is this guy she was working for, he is very abusive. And this guy has been giving us a lot of problems.
Kenya/Giles: ever since I left. (page 14)
Washington, D.C. transcript:
ACORN worker: Uh huh.
O’Keefe: And I’m running for a local election and we’ve gone to a lot of mortgage brokers… (page 4)
O’Keefe: Well, my ah, my partner is a ah, she’s in a unique line of business and I don’t know if you allow
Acorn 1: Unique line of business? What are you saying?
O’Keefe: Housing
Acorn 1: If you don’t tell us we can’t help you.
O’Keefe: My girlfriend is a prostitute. (pages 4,5)
Giles: I’m kind of afraid to make any ’cause ever since I met him [O’Keefe] I left a bunch of people and one guy in particular who was abusive and very controlling and, um, ever since I left he’s followed me and there’s problems and I feel if there’s more paper he’ll somehow get hold of that and I might end up dead and then I won’t be around. (page 11)
O’Keefe: See this is the problem because I’ve had my political meetings and she’s my girlfriend and I’m trying to set her up with a place so she doesn’t have to beholden to some pimp. You know what I””trying, trying to give her a new life. (page 12)
More on the above now here: “No, NYT, O’Keefe Didn’t ‘Pose as a Pimp’ Either”…
Here are those NYTimes contact addresses again. PLEASE USE THEM!
…CONTACT…
Executive Editor Bill Keller, executive-editor@nytimes.com
Managing Editor John Geddes, managing-editor@nytimes.com
Sr. Editor for Standards Greg Brock, SeniorEditor@NYTimes.com
Public Editor Clark Hoyt, Public@NYTimes.com
Reporter Ian Urbina, urbina@nytimes.com
Sharpton: ‘American Public Overwhelmingly Voted for Socialism When They Elected President Obama’
This headline currently appears on the front page of Andrew Breitbart’s video site, Breitbart.tv .
Unbelievable. I wonder what could have prompted Al Sharpton to say such a thing.
Well, the reason the quote is so unbelievable is because Andrew Breitbart made it up. He edited Sharpton’s words in an effort to change the meaning, employing a tactic very similar to the ones he and James O’Keefe used to destroy ACORN.
This time Breitbart is relying not on racial activist O’Keefe, but on the nutjobs at NewsBusters.com .
Before the New York Times jumps on Breitbart’s Sharpton-says-Obama-is-a-socialist bandwagon, I think we should take a closer look at what Sharpton actually said on Tuesday.
He appeared with Geraldo Rivera on Fox News. The topic was the passage of health insurance reform. Here’s the actual quote with due context, independent of the selective headline editing employed above by Andrew Breitbart.
(…)
SHARPTON: I think that the President and Speaker Pelosi get credit. I think this began the transforming of the country to where the President had promised. This is what he ran on.
RIVERA: Some would argue to socialism.
SHARPTON: Well, first of all, then we have to say that the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama.
(…)
See what happened there?
Prompted by Rivera’s GOP-approved talking point, Sharpton made a point of his own. He explained that Obama is forwarding the same agenda on which he campaigned — the same agenda for which the American people voted. And if one believes that Obama ran on a socialist agenda, then one must believe that the American people voted for a socialist agenda when they elected him.
Of course, there isn’t really — by any stretch of the imagination — a socialist revolution in the works. But Andrew Breitbart doesn’t do reality, so the words had to be changed.
I wonder if Breitbart would have run with this latest Big hoax had Sharpton been born a white guy.
http://tinyurl.com/ybda6ao
{Ed Note: As usual, L.A. County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey, who blogs as “Patterico”, has posted knowing disinformation here, which he has been informed, several times, is in violation of our very few rules for commenting at The BRAD BLOG. He has, however, included a “dare” for me to post a link to his article responding (dishonestly) to mine, which I’m happy to do. It’s right here. And while, as usual, Patty’s posts generally discredit and debunk themselves if anyone takes the time to check his “facts”, here is a brief response I posted to one of the commenters here who was disinformed by Patty, in which I speak to the nonsense that the irresponsible Dep. D.A. Frey is still trying to sell to gullible readers and democracy-haters. – BF}
They don’t want the po’ people to vote, that’s a gimme.
And the paper (media) has a vested interest to the rich and their stockholders to print their line of crap, as you can see here.
Don’t subscribe to it.
Just think how much more they could get away with this bullshit without the internet being around?
http://www.reddit.com/r/politic..._looks_like_a/
As Patterico plainly shows, Giles and O’Keefe were posing as pimp and prostitute.
“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 [a] campaign one day”
So he disagrees with ACORN being exonerated of all the accusations because of the findings that they had highly edited the video to meet their agenda, and it didn’t represent what actually happened? He’s a deputy DA, maybe he should push that further if he really feels that way. Of course, he knows what the truth is, and is merely being disingenuous. He is a deputy DA and he can’t do anything about it because they didn’t do anything wrong, and he knows it. So basically, I don’t think that little “snippet” from the supposed transcripts of the videos they won’t release for some reason constitutes proof of anything. They have only supplied their own bullshit to back up their own bullshit. The judge clearly forced them to back up the videos, and they couldn’t, leading to ACORN being exonerated. The onus of credibility rests on them, to publicly release the raw footage, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the released video fairly represented what actually occurred, and was not edited to make it appear as if there were improprieties when there were not. Or, even, to prove that the released transcripts match the raw footage, and were not also highly edited to meet their agenda.
Ernest:
Playing word games here. The definition of a pimp is that they personally solicit clients for a prostitute. Nowhere does O’Keefe say that. In fact O’Keefe contradicts himself in the transcripts saying that 1. He isn’t going to be involved with Giles business 2. That he isn’t going to live with them.
If O’keefe was clearly “posing as a pimp” like Patterico tries to imply he would have come out and said it. Unless you’re claiming O’keefe is some pussy who doesn’t say what he means.
The fact remains when entering the office O’Keefe did not represent himself as a pimp, claim to be a pimp, or pose as a pimp. Neither did the ACORN people believe him to be a pimp.
Just read the New York transcript. Third transcript I’ve read.
The Baltimore transcript– I can imagine how you could edit and take things out of context and by bringing an extremely anti-Acorn bias and by completely forgetting that this whole thing is in reality a very clumsy sting operation convince yourself that O’Keefe and Giles were posing as a pimp and prostitute. I don’t think a jury of normal citizens would see it that way but I can imagine how someone who really needs to smash Acorn for their own, probably not terribly conscious, reasons could get on a wobbly moral high horse and believe such a strained narrative.
The San Diego transcript has nothing damning in it except O’Keefe and Giles’ reprehensible behavior. The guy listening, Juan Carlos, mostly says yeah and listens, ends up taking a bunch of photos of Hannah(much to O’Keefe’s discomfort)as the pair are leaving, O’Keefe makes a racist comment about fearing that a bunch of Mexicans were gonna come beat them up, they leave. Then in reality, Juan Carlos calls his cousin the cop to find out what to do about the human traffickers he just had in his office. The doctored video on this one was called– Acorn San Diego Child Prostitution Smuggling.
In New York–Even trying to imagine it from the anti-Acorn Crusaders viewpoint there just isn’t anything there about O’Keefe being a pimp. There’s nothing there. There is nothing there no matter how you stretch, edit, manipulate, there just isn’t anything there about O’Keefe being a pimp.
Some Robin Hood lawyer should take up this case for Acorn and sue a whole lot of people’s asses off. If having an effective national organization’s entire operation shut down because of lies, doctored videos, and a shameless national propaganda campaign aided and abetted by Fox News and the “liberal media” isn’t libel causing irreparable damage, what is?
David, can there actually be a case for libel or slander as Acorn is not an individual person but an entity?
NPR is today credulously reporting the pimp story also.
Bob Ross @ 7
I don’t know the answer to that. But haven’t the food, dairy, and beef industries sued people for speaking out against some of the unhealthy aspects of agribusiness? Like rBGH in cows? I believe in the documentary Food, Inc. a woman who’s child dies from E.coli is afraid to speak freely because of libel laws. Something like that.
But I have no idea about the legal particulars concerning viability of libel suits filed on behalf of an organization vs on behalf of an individual.
Ernie probably knows.
I heard the “pimp” reference in an ABC news radio story on the Acorn shutdown as well.
Basically, we should just start using the phrase “The (once prestigious and reliable but now just corporate-pandering and innacurate) New York Times” every time we cite them.
Just cancelling our subscriptions is not enough. We must STOP mentioning them without pointing out their culpability and failure.
How about asking Move On to raise funds for Acorn.
They raised a million and a quarter for Bill Halter…maybe they could do the same for Acorn!!!!
Then we could could go after the NY Times for retractions.
It’s not like the nyt isn’t a repeat offender?
Look at how well they’ve covered the electronic vote tabulation device.
No I am not back. -fyi
we need freaking lawyers to stand up to the msm,yes sue the nyt first but do not stop there,the ap ran a story today,printed across the nation with the same “pimp and prostitute” line..money is the only thing these people care or understand
David #9 Well I understand there are several state laws that prohibit libel of industries. I guess you could sue individual writers. Where are you Ernie in regards to this?
Just went to a Yahoo news story on ACORN’S demise, and posted a reference to BradBlog (if they even allow the post to air, that is-i’ve been prevented from posting comments a number of times). Here’s the link to the story. Over 2000 comments-mostly illiterate and uninformed. If you experience a flood of wingnuts, blame me :).
Executive Editor Bill Keller
Managing Editor John Geddes
Sr. Editor for Standards Greg Brock
Public Editor Clark Hoyt
Reporter Ian Urbina
Dear Sirs,
James O’Keefe has nothing on you folks. HIS scam is peanuts-and he’s in trouble for it. YOU all, on the other hand, have perpetrated journalistic murder of a well respected organization that deserves only support. I suppose poor people just don’t count with you.
However, since your extremely unreliable reporting system has resulted in so many losses of life, home, health, etc., it is probably not going to do any good to let you know of my horror and shame at your behavior. As an American citizen who respects the rule of law, telling the truth, and an egalitarian system of well being, I can only say that your obvious intent to help bring about the end of ACORN will backfire.
See, when the people have no money, they can’t buy stuff. When they can’t buy stuff, advertisers tend to cut back on their expenditures. When the advertisers cut their budgets, the media loses money. When the media loses their income, reportage funding gets cut. When reporting funding gets cut, the journalistic quality and attention to telling the truth goes out the window. People stop reading the media. And the media lose their JOBS. Then THEY become the poor folk. The cycle is now complete.
Imagine THAT!
Have a nice day, all, and I hope it was worth all the effort to obfuscate the TRUTH. ACORN will rise from the ashes. What will you do to rise from the mud of your perfidy?
Sincerely,
age 52, college grad, solid citizen, voter, political activist, and former news junkie
RAISED reading the NYT-Now aware it’s not fit for bird cage lining.
I heard this falsehood repeated this am on Morning Schmoe and CNN.
– Tom
GAWD-please forgive me-i have a bad cold, and forgot to paste in the yahoo link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2010...pphu-container
however, as i suspected, they did not allow my post, with the bradblog reference to land onto cyberspace. BIG surprise…
Ernst @ 3 passed on the disinformation of L.A. Deputy D.A. Patrick Frey who shamefully blogs psuedonymously and dishonestly as “Patterico”, by saying:
There’s a few things Patty hasn’t bothered to let you know, Ernst, in his deceptive, selective quoting (that’s what he does, almost always, just FYI).
For one, the quote he offered above is taken unauthenticated text transcripts (and Patty, as a Dep. D.A. knows what constitutes authentication and evidence and stuff, though he hasn’t mentioned that to you all) from the San Bernardino video. That video was released long after the NYTimes began misreporting the story.
Secondly, while we have no idea if O’Keefe actually said any of that, because he refuses to release the actual raw video tapes (otherwise known as actual evidence) he told all of these folks that he was the boyfriend of the girl, not her “pimp”. They told all the workers that he was a college student (and a potential politician someday) and that they were trying to save Giles from an abusive pimp who had stalked and tried to kill her. They were playing on the sympathy of the workers to try to save this girls life.
In one or two of the cases, again — only according to O’Keefe’s own unauthenticated transcripts — he used words that might have indicated he’d be using some of that money years from now for a political campaign. We don’t know if he actually said those things, and we don’t know if the workers heard him say any of those things, but either way, that does not make him her “pimp”, and he did not “pose as a pimp” as has been repeatedly misreported by the NYTimes, and scores of other media outlets.
Deputy D.A. Patterico has been playing you, and his readers, for a fool for quite some time. As a Dep. D.A. in Los Angeles, of course, he knows better. He also knows that it’s quite likely that O’Keefe (an accused felon at this point) and Giles likely violated the criminal code in Patterico’s own district, and that defending him, in a case that may come before his office is inappropriate at best.
Again, Patty doesn’t care. Politics and party comes before the Rule of Law or the nation, apparently, for Deputy D.A. Patrick Frey.
Hope that clears up some of the confusion and disinformation that he has fed you.
His response will be (as usual) “He’s a liar!!!!” But a review of the available record, even O’Keefe’s own unauthenticated transcripts, clearly shows otherwise. Patty is seemingly incapable of offering actual, honest, legitimate arguments. Sadly.
(Here’s my second letter to the Times, which I sent today. I sent Clark Hoyt one two weeks ago. Thanks to Brad for his fantastic work. Thanks for not letting go of this important issue!)
Subject: Not Quite
You’re “correction” is far from adequate, and you continue to misinform.
Please stop.
You’re hurting our country and our democracy.
What part of this do you not understand?:
“She was working for this pimp and he was very abusive.”
–James O’Keefe
“Sonny is the pimp.”
–James O’Keefe
Giles and O’Keefe WERE NOT posing as a prostitute and a pimp. Stop lying to your readers. Stop carrying water for liars.
Have you no sense of shame?
I haven’t been this upset at the Times since you carried water for the liars who invaded Iraq.
It’s time to write letters to the Times main advertisers that the Times is lying, etc., or just cc the advertisers at the bottom of our complaints to the Times. I’m talking about Gucci, Burberry, Starbucks, Saks, Tiffany, and so on. That will really shake up the Times – they’re so afraid of losing the luxury advertisers still with the bucks to put into the now disreputable paper.
From Ernst #4:
From the San Bernardino transcript where this is from:
********
This is the office at which the ACORN rep scammed the scammers.
For example, the Baltimore Sting audio and video is here:
http://biggovernment.com/jokeef...aos-for-glory/
Along with the transcript.
Tonja: so the type of business okay…the type of business or service you provide let me make sure that there is a code for that OK
James: a code for prostitution?
…
Shira: and the think I tell everybody is do not ever ever whatever you line of business you in..be proud of it.
…
James: What if they are going to be making money because they are performing tricks too
Tonja: But if they making money and the are underage then you shouldn’t be letting anybody know anyway.”
The “code for prostitution?” remark is at 2:30 in the Part 1 video. The saga of the El Salvadoran prostitutes is at 5:30 of part 1 of the video. The complete audio is posted at the site. The audio exactly matches up with the transcript and video; see 22:45 in the audio.
O’Keefe presented himself as profiting from the prostitution of Giles and the El Salvadoran girls. That’s a pimp.
No Ernst that’s not a pimp. A pimp sets up clients for girls. Also the video does not match up with the transcripts or audio. That’s why they had to take clips. Reading the whole transcript Okeefe contradicts himself saying that he wasn’t going to be involved in the business.
Once again I’ll ask the question. Are you claiming Okeefe is a pussy that he didn’t bother to out and say he was a pimp? Instead he chose to say he wasn’t her pimp, that he wasn’t a pimp and chose to pose as a student. If it was clear Okeefe would have come out and said it.
Even so you’re assuming Okeefe is completely honest after editing the videos to imply he dressed up like a pimp in the offices, lying about it, lying about no one turning him away. Only the unedited raw videos can show what happened. I want to see all the videos including the ones where he was turned away.
Its hard to take Okeefe at his word after already lying several times during the process. You’re making an assumption that he wouldn’t edit the audio or transcripts even after a former colleague of his stated that he wanted her to edit the script of a previous project to make a nurse look really bad. He has a history of editing the “script”
You think because he didn’t say the magic word “pimp” during the meetings he wasn’t presenting himself as one? Alrighty then.
If he wasn’t a pimp, why exactly was he taking a percentage of their tricks, arranging housing for his hos, and importing 14 year olds who were going to turn tricks?
You are free to point out differences in the audio and video and transcript for the relevant portions if you like. You won’t; the video matches the audio, which matches the transcript.
You agree, though, that if the audio and transcripts are accurate, that O’Keefe did present himself as a pimp? That your entire argument rests on the unproven assertion that the audio and video were faked?
Ernst Blofled–Your questions have been answered numerous times in previous exchanges here with other commenters so forgive me for not addressing them directly. Instead I’d like to pose a few questions that so far, to my knowledge, have been unanswered by anyone. Love to hear what you think.
1. The whole issue of sex, prostitution, pimps, etc. was brought into the offices of Acorn by O’Keefe and Giles. There was no history of sex rings at Acorn or anything remotely like it that I’m aware of. This was all O’Keefe and Giles fabrication. Do you support wholesale lying to strangers who have done you no harm?
2. In San Diego O’Keefe and Giles’ interviewer called the cops on them after they left and after he’d taken multiple pictures of Hannah. Breitbart’s site calls this video–Acorn San Diego Child Prostitution Smuggling. Is alerting the cops about possible human trafficking something you would call “child prostitution smuggling”?
3. What in your opinion is moral about attempts at entrapment by lying about prostitution, abusive pimps, etc. to workers whose job it is to try to help poor people?
You’re shifting goalposts. The question isn’t whether ACORN was running sex rings themselves. It was whether they offered advice to someone who said they were.
Yes, I support sting operations if they demonstrate that the target is corrupt. Which the stings demonstrated. The Baltimore group was happily advising G&O on tax fraud and others were advising them on how to defraud the government. There’s along history of sting operations by media and police.
Ernst Blofled–
You’re correct, I’m shifting goalposts.
That’s because I do not accept your playing field. Or your idea of what the important questions are here. Are you a god? Is your context an infallible one? Or the most reasonable?
Not to me.
I see an almost completely different reality unfolding here.
In my reality this whole sordid mess is part of an ongoing campaign(see the U.S. Attorney Scandal for starters)of Acorn persecution by forces who either do not like or are afraid of poor people and how they vote.
You did not answer a single one of my questions, but instead answered one I did not ask.
This suggests to me that you are not interested in dialogue.
If you ever are give a shout.
I do not have anymore time for those interested only in conflict and the seeming infallibility of their worldview that doesn’t allow equal consideration for alternative worldviews with alternative interpretations and evidence.
There’s too much that needs to be done in community to waste time on closed people in closed systems of thought who don’t give honest consideration to conflicting views.
So I’ll keep looking for people who are interested in an open, honest give and take.
p.s. Ernst Blofled–
Your reality–Yes, I support sting operations if they demonstrate that the target is corrupt.
My reality–Sting operations are used when there is strong evidence or suspicion of criminal activity.
There was no evidence of criminal activity here.
And so far at least two investigations have concluded that even with these entrapment attempts there was no criminal activity here.
So if I decide out of the blue that you’re corrupt can I hire Hannah Giles to solicit you? She’s very attractive. How about if she shows up every place you go? Or I get different very attractive, appealing young women to show up wherever you go and solicit you. When you finally succumb to one of my babes and you’re arrested for soliciting prostitution, is that all for the public good cuz you’re corrupt?
It seems that in every single ACORN office the pair showed up in they were advised on various ways to cheat the government out of tax dollars, aside from the prostitution issue. That they can’t be prosecuted for merely advising people on efficient strategies on how to be a felon is beside the point.
Ernst 26. There you go again “relevant parts”. The videos do not match the audio. The videos were edited and cut. Have you personally authenticated the audio? I find it funny that they post the audio in flash form without a way to download it. No matter, when I have time I’ll extract the audio out of the flash and take it into adobe to check it out.
Again Ernst do you think Okeefe is a pussy? Yes or no? Why does he not say what he intends from the getgo instead of weaseling his way around? Its clear from the transcripts he provided the worker was still confused as to what O’keefe was talking about.
Even then O’keefe targeted low level no power part timers.
No he never said they were going to “turn tricks” he said they were to perform tricks. Two different terms. Now if O’keefe was truly posing as a pimp he would have came out and said it.
No my assertion doesn’t rest on the videos and audio being fake. Even reading the transcripts O’keefe clearly doesn’t pose as a pimp in the actual meaning of the word. Where was he arranging Johns for the girls? He presented himself as a law student.
Ernst 31. Therein lies the problem with Okeefe not releasing the unedited tapes including all film he took. O’keefe was trying to establish a narrative to fit his agenda. Anything that didn’t sound extreme was cut out of the tapes. He then refused to release the video where he was turned away. He originally claimed no one turned him away. That was a lie. He then claimed one person did. That also was a lie. The guy has constantly lied and has a history of editing scripts to match his agenda.
One of his former colleagues said he cherry picks without providing context. That much is clear but its telling you’d belief a proven liar.
Ernst Blofeld @ 31 said:
The comment above is patently untrue. I’ll presume you did not know that since so many have likely mislead you on that point up until now.
But now, in lieu of your posting evidence to back up the allegation, you know that it’s not true and that, according to
our few rules for commenting here, posting knowing disinformation is a bannable offense. Please consider yourself politely warned.
Thank you.
there was indeed one city that declined to help them, LA. So I retract that claim.
If you’re going to claim that the audio, video, and transcript don’t match, you have to provide examples. For example, this:
The video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtTnizEnC1U . The relevant portion is at about 8:00.
the audio and transcript are available at the Big Government site, URL already provided.
There’s no context in which this is anything other than repulsive. It’s on video, and presumably you don’t think O’Keefe has a state of the art render farm that creates ACORN employees. The portion quoted above is one take with no jump edits. So your task is to show material differences for this passage between the audio, the video, and the transcript that changes the meaning of the section. Asserting that they exist doesn’t work; you have to demonstrate it.
If you assert that the audio track is faked, you’re back to arguing about authenticity, not the contents as presented.
I have no idea why the flash audio format is important or relevant. And in any event it’s easy enough to extract the audio from flash if you want to jump through the hoops.
ACORN has claimed Giles and O’Keefe were asked to leave some offices, but they made that claim about Philadelphia, too. As this video shows they weren’t truthful about that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af9DDayHwbg
#35 Again with the “relevant portion” as I stated the videos are edited and do not match the transcripts. Certain parts of the transcript go with the video but as a whole the transcripts don’t match the video. So we’re back to this: you’re believing O’keefe’s word that the transcripts are accurate after he lied about being dressed as a pimp and lied about people turning him away.
Did you act the same way with Dan Rather?
I’ve already downloaded the text transcripts Ernst and read through them. The quotes in the video are taken out of context to sound more sinister as even the Brooklyn DA said.
Okeefe gets his equipment bankrolled from a think tank, he received money from Peter Thiel and is on Brietbart’s payroll. Its not so hard to edit video anymore. Say for instance some of the videos which include a substitute voiceover of Giles and Okeefe’s comments. This makes it hard to determine what questions were being asked and responded to at which time.
Ah yes the philadelphia video which is heavily dubbed and provides no context.
Its funny the whole spat about Dan Rather was about authenticity yet here you’re defending O’keefe who has lied several times throughout this whole affair.
E.Blo (#35)~
You’re way late to this party, so you don’t know we’ve already covered and debunked the whole O’Keefe’s “performing tricks” hooey you boys keep honking on mightily about in some desperate last-gasp, last-straw-grasp defense of your bogus, completely unsupported narrative. (Which, btw, no one believes anymore except you and a handful of bullies who don’t like it when poor people vote.)
Weeks ago whats-his-gut, your dissing cousin Patterico, conceded to us that “performing tricks” – which can mean lots of non-illegal activities – is not the same as “turning tricks” – which can mean only one thing.
O’Keefe’s use of “performing tricks” was another obfuscation meant to trap / confuse his victim and draw out the reactions he was looking for.
That’s not a ‘sting’, Fricky, that’s a form of ENTRAPMENT.
This nasty, racist lie unraveled faster than you can say, “stick it where the monkey put the onion.”
Ernst Baffled @ 35:
“There’s no context in which this is anything other than repulsive.”
CONTEXT:
********
********
Child labor violations at Agriprocessors Inc.
More context from the same (Baltimore) transcript:
********
From Ernst #35:
The UNEDITED VIDEOS would answer all these questions.
Wonderful work on the Times- Acorn scandal. Where’s the rest of the media, other than Maddow, on what’s obviously a huge story? Right wing activist + Fox news AND the Times + distortions + a hysterical congress= the destruction of legitimate (and now exonerated) organization? WTF! The Times seems to be hiding in panic for fear of another Judith Miller/ Iraq redux. This story has legs. Keep up the good work.