http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/10/chaos-for-glory/
http://biggovernment.com/tag/hannah-giles/

This is the link to the investigative video of ACORN Baltimore.
A couple, posing as a pimp and 20 year old prostitute are assisted by ACORN workers in pursuing their illegal activities. These activities range from tax evasion, lying on a mortgage, money laundering, and trafficking in the child sex trade.

This is an incredible video, not only for what it shows- but also because of how NONE of the MSM sources, other than Fox News, have reported on it yet.

Made it a point to scan all networks tonight to see if they covered this story-ACORN gets 8 billion dollars in Federal funds, and there is NO coverage of this at all??? That is yet another factual example of the bias of the 'mainstream' media-and, as a taxpayer, you can bet I am pissed that this is going on, without any apparent oversight. I have written to ABC, NBC and CBS, and will continue to do so until I get a reply-:q:q:q:q:q:q:qs...

Don't forget to write to Fox too, you know, fair and balanced.

FOXNews.com
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10036

Don't forget to write to Fox too, you know, fair and balanced.

FOXNews.com
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10036

Yes, do that.
And thank them for being the lone independent voice in the mainstream media.
They have covered the story.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549001,00.html
2 ACORN Employees Fired, Could Face Criminal Charges
Thursday , September 10, 2009

The community organizing group ACORN has fired two employees at its Baltimore office who were seen on hidden-camera video giving advice to a man posing as a pimp and a woman pretending to be a prostitute, as some legal experts raise questions over whether the employees broke the law.

The staffers appeared to commit federal tax fraud by offering to help them — for a fee — to establish a child brothel, legal experts say.

In a video made public Thursday, two visitors to an ACORN office in Baltimore told staffers they needed assistance securing housing where the woman, a 20-year-old who called herself "Kenya," could continue to run her prostitution business.

An ACORN official told the couple how to falsify tax forms and seek illegal benefits for 13 "very young" girls from El Salvador that they said they wanted to import as prostitutes.

Though no tax forms were filed and the child prostitutes didn't exist, the ACORN official engaged in "numerous acts of criminal facilitation," said Judge Andrew Napolitano, FOX News senior judicial analyst.

• STORY: ACORN Officials Videotaped Telling 'Pimp,' 'Prostitute' How to Lie to IRS

"Criminal facilitation occurs whenever a person encourages, enables, entices, or explains to another how to commit crimes with the real purpose of helping that person to commit those crimes" — a violation the ACORN employee "committed in full," he said.

Napolitano said the worker could also face charges for criminal conspiracy, though each charge would require a heavier burden to prove: a so-called "act of furtherance" — a concrete move that makes the conspiracy active.

Napolitano outlined eight crimes the ACORN worker could potentially have committed that could bring a total sentence of 24 years in prison, including criminal facilitation and conspiracy to:

• (a) commit prostitution

• (b) operate a prostitution ring

• (c) file false documents with taxing and other government authorities

• (d) file false documents with a bank [also known as bank fraud]

• (e) violate numerous immigration laws

• (f) transport children into the U.S. for immoral purposes

• (g) transport women into the U.S. for immoral purposes [also known as violating the Mann Act]

• (h) impair the welfare of minors.

But not all legal experts agreed that ACORN had committed a crime. Trial attorney Lee Armstong said that the employee had engaged in "repulsive ... disgusting behavior," but nothing illegal occurred because the entire scenario was a sham.

"For aiding and abetting tax evasion, for aiding and abetting child prostitution ... you need the actual crime," said Armstrong, an attorney for Jones Day in New York. "That's what's missing here."

Armstrong said that the videotape appeared to show the ACORN official hatching a conspiracy, but no violation occurred because the 25-year-old filmmaker was only "pretending" to be a 25-year-old pimp.

"You need an actual agreement between two people to commit a crime. If one person is just faking it, you don't have a meeting of the minds, you don't have a conspiracy," Armstrong told FOX News. "How do you clap with one hand?"

ACORN — the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now — calls itself a network of families "working together for social justice and stronger communities," according to its Web site.

But the organization has been accused by conservatives and Republicans of committing fraud in voter registration drives around the country, and reaction to the videotape came swiftly after its release on Thursday.

"Taxpayers should be outraged that their money has gone to an organization that, in addition to facing charges of voter fraud and tax violations, is willing to facilitate prostitution," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.

"As this video confirms, ACORN continues to operate as a criminal enterprise."

In a selection from the video, ACORN officials treated the "pimp's" illegal schemes with nonchalance and offered to help further what they knew to be crimes.

"It's illegal. So I am not hearing this, I am not hearing this," said an ACORN staffer who identified herself as an accountant. "You talk too much. Don't give up no information you're not asked."

Because the group receives millions of dollars in federal grants, Napolitano said, "ACORN agents and employees are required by law to adhere to high standards of lawful and ethical behavior; standards akin to those required by law of federal employees."

ACORN suggested a plan of action for the purported pimp and prostitute, but did not fill out tax forms with any false information. But because the official sought a $50 fee for ACORN's services, a conspiracy charge could still be considered, a defense attorney told FOX News.

"Conspiracy requires an agreement to do something unlawful and an act in furtherance," said Mark Eiglarsh, a New York-based attorney. "There's an agreement to assist in creating the brothel, in tax evasion, a number of other offenses."

The act in furtherance, he suggested, could be the staffer's seeking payment for the work. "I think that a prosecutor ... would agree to go forward on a conspiracy count," he said.

Whether or not prosecutors charge any ACORN officials in Baltimore, the filmmaker himself could be in hot water.

A Maryland state statute requires consent from all parties whenever a conversation is taped, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Violations of the law are punishable by a maximum of five years in jail and a fine up to $10,000.

But that statute does not apply to videotape recordings — only to phone calls or other electronic "communications," Napolitano argued — meaning the filmmaker is likely in the clear.

Seems Mmtphoto should have been watching/reading Fox then.

Maybe this was just an isolated incident? Just the Baltimore office, just THOSE employees of ACORN would engage in behavior like that...

SECOND VIDEO SHOWS ACORN OFFICIALS HELPING 'PIMP & PROSTITUTE' in WASHINGTON OFFICE.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549241,00.html

Let's see if anyone in the mainstream media (ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, or NBC) covers this story tonight!

I seriously doubt the latest ACORN scandal is just a few bad apples. ACORN has been caught numerous times engaging in election fraud. I'm sure there are a lot of other things ACORN representative are engaged in that are clearly illegal. I wouldn't doubt many are buying drugs with federal tax dollars.

I know, this was an isolated thing.. just one office in Baltimore. Those people were fired, move on....

Then it was at the Washington office too....

And now.... NEW YORK TOO.

Seems Mmtphoto should have been watching/reading Fox then.No comment on the obvious sins of ACORN, just trolling eh?

Will Hannity get this on the air - how about anyone at Fox, maybe Rush covered it...

They all praised O'Keefe as the next coming of god in "Fair and Balanced" jounalism - I guess heavily altered video qualifies as fair and balanced...

Nothing like altering the facts (video) to fit your agenda...

And Cal, maybe there is a reason MSM didn't cover it - Perhaps they actually saw through the heavily edited video and labeled O'Keefe for the publicity whore he is...

ACORN Cleared by Brooklyn DA in Big "Pimp/Prostitute" Probe (http://gothamist.com/2010/03/02/acorn_cleared_by_brooklyn_da_in_pim.php)

Kings County District Attorney Charles Hynes has concluded his investigation into possible criminality on the part of three ACORN employees caught on video giving advice to a couple posing as a prostitute and companion. (Though the right-wing gadflies who made the hidden camera video edited it to suggest that James O'Keefe was posing as the woman's pimp, the couple actually told ACORN employees he was trying to protect her from the pimp [PDF (http://www.acorn.org/fileadmin/HomePageNews/2009Dec/Video_Transcript_Analysis_withExcperts.pdf)].) Yesterday Hynes cleared ACORN of any criminality...

Corbert really did a great job of skewering...

Fox and their love for hating ACORN all got the Colbert treatment recently. Best part: Colbert explains why James O’Keefe wasn’t really dressed like the pimp he pretended to be dressed as. “It was perfectly easy to explain. It was casual pimp Friday.”

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/265498/march-04-2010/tip-wag---james-o-keefe---sean-hannity

That is an awful lot to draw from this simple press release.

Here is all that the press release says...“On September 15, 2009, my office began an investigation into possible criminality on the part of three ACORN employees. The three had been secretly videotaped by two people posing as a pimp and prostitute, who came to ACORN’S Brooklyn office, seeking advice about how to purchase a house with money generated by their ‘business.’ The ‘couple’ later made the recording public. That investigation is now concluded and no criminality has been found.”

In chastising O'Keefe, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. for leaping to conclusions, you are in fact leaping to conclusions not supported by the evidence...

To me the most telling thing about fox is how some of their announcers dumb themselves down to connect with and not speak over the head of the average fox viewer almost like they are speaking to children :rolleyes:

http://errwhateverz.com/2009/12/09/when-did-dumb-become-the-new-red-the-dumbing-down-of-americans-for-political-gain/

When Did Dumb Become the New Red? The ‘Dumbing Down’ of Americans for Political Gain

I really think Jon Stewart is onto something. Last night’s episode of the Daily Show (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/09/jon-stewart-calls-out-gre_n_385158.html) served Gretchen Carlson’s head up on a silver platter and I couldn’t have been happier. Gretchen Carlson is one the many commentators on “Fox & Friends” who spew their fabrications and scare tactics to millions of viewers every day, with the hopes that those viewers will soon join their side. She was outed for ‘dumbing herself down’ by pandering to her audience while at the same time, successfully managing to convince yet more Americans that our President is a hybrid reincarnation of Stalin and Hitler (hence the ‘czar’ innuendo).
http://errwhateverz.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/gretchen-carlson-13.jpg?w=300&h=225 (http://errwhateverz.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/gretchen-carlson-13.jpg)
Kudos to you Gretchen Carlson, it takes a strong woman to reverse her own intelligence for the sake of a paycheck and some TV time.
While some consider the Daily Show “just another piece of liberal propaganda” that pokes fun at the Republican Party, we all know there are hidden truths behind the sarcasm and wisecracks.
Daily Show Clip – Gretchen Carlson (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-8-2009/gretchen-carlson-dumbs-down)

This clip basically sums up my point: YOU DON’T HAVE TO ACT LIKE AN IDIOT TO GET THEM TO JOIN YOUR CAUSE…unless of course you think your viewers are just too dumb to understand you. In that case, Gretchen has a whole different problem on her hands and she should probably be spending her days brainstorming about ways to fix our broken education system. Oh wait, she doesn’t need to worry about that, she was valedictorian of her class, graduated from Stamford, while spending time at Oxford and is a classically trained violinist; how very non-elitist of you. I’m sorry, but if you are using intelligence as a negative flaw, I think there is something seriously wrong with your rationale.

Don’t worry Gretchen, you’re not alone! I have reason to suspect another famous female politician uses the same‘dumb-speak’ tactics to gain admiration from her audience…but I can’t help but think she is just really really dumb, so never mind, she is speaking to her peers (cough, cough, Mrs. Palin). I know, that was low, but I can never resist a chance to take a shot at her.
I’d like to go a step further and say that Fox & Friends themselves are taking a page right out of the hate group’s playbook and using Neo-Nazi recruiting tactics to gain followers and increase their numbers. That’s right guys, go after those marginalized gun-toting/religion-clinging patriots that Obama accidentally insulted last year…and then build up from there. Hmmmm, I think I’ve heard somewhere that they are a much easier target population.
I guess if all the intelligent people are already taken, it really is slim pickins’ for ya’ll.

To me the most telling thing about fox is how some of their announcers dumb themselves down to connect with and not speak over the head of the average fox viewer almost like they are speaking to children :rolleyes:

proof?

FYI: the blog you cited does not give any proof. It is mere speculation by a clear propagandist based on a piece from a fake news show with no fact checking that habitually misrepresents and mocks non-liberals...

In chastising O'Keefe, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. for leaping to conclusions, you are in fact leaping to conclusions not supported by the evidence...

Ah, if you look at the pdf (http://www.acorn.org/fileadmin/HomePageNews/2009Dec/Video_Transcript_Analysis_withExcperts.pdf) link - it pretty much shows what they have as far as altering the video... (the link that is in the italicized section that I copied...)

Kid wanted his 15 minutes of fame, then he got hooked and did something really stupid - felony stuff for the wiretapping (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/26/james-okeefe-arrested-for-trying-to-tap-mary-landrieus-phones/) (or at least tampering with a federal phone) that he did after the Acorn/Pimp stunt...

And I bet Acorn will follow with a lawsuit of their own - the kid is in for a bunch of legal headaches, he better hope that Fox ponies up for a real good attorney.

proof?

FYI: the blog you cited does not give any proof. It is mere speculation by a clear propagandist based on a piece from a fake news show with no fact checking that habitually misrepresents and mocks non-liberals...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/09/jon-stewart-calls-out-gre_n_385158.html

What?
Am I going to believe you or my own eyes.

IMO She's obviously dumbing herself down in this video on HuffPo

To me the most telling thing about fox is how some of their announcers dumb themselves down to connect with and not speak over the head of the average fox viewer almost like they are speaking to children :rolleyes:

04 - I got to agree with the Gretchen Carlson stuff - the woman isn't dumb (honors in college) but she sure plays one on TV... It is embarrassing to watch her. Talk about wanting to fit in with a stereotype. Maybe it makes the men around her (and the ones who watch her) feel good :rolleyes:

04 - I got to agree with the Gretchen Carlson stuff - the woman isn't dumb (honors in college) but she sure plays one on TV... It is embarrassing to watch her. Talk about wanting to fit in with a stereotype. Maybe it makes the men around her (and the ones who watch her) feel good :rolleyes:

She can be the leader of a peasant revolt :eek: for the government keep your hands off my medicare protesters and other luminaries. :D

To the Lumber yard! (from Young Frankenstein) LOL :p

I'm just making fun here but to be fair many of Obama's supporters are no intellectual giants either.

There's more than enough "dumb" voters to go around, plenty for both parties to manipulate and exploit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/09/jon-stewart-calls-out-gre_n_385158.html

What?
Am I going to believe you or my own eyes.

IMO She's obviously dumbing herself down in this video on HuffPo

again; DAILY SHOW!

They habitually edit to misrepresent. It gets a laugh and helps to de-legitimize those they disagree with.

In fact, in this clip they are not only selectively editing (cherry picking), they present things in such a way that mere circumstantial evidence seems to prove the narrative they place in the viewers mind. FYI: circumstantial evidence cannot prove anything.

Basically, the Daily Show takes Michael Moore's techniques and adds a comedic twist to it.

Want to cite a credible source? Maybe the full, unedited videos that Stewart was citing?

In fact, what Stewart is talking is something Colbert, Mahr and Stewart himself engage in on a daily basis! The MSM has been engaging in those types of deceptive techniques for longer then I have been alive.

You want to talk about condescending to your viewers, what do you call cherry picking information (thus denying viewers all the facts, or at least an accurate representation of them), misrepresenting certain arguments (thus denying viewers the chance to consider the actual argument) and subtly editorializing to draw a narrative (attempting to deny the viewer the chance to draw their own conclusions)?

That is what the MSM has been doing since the days of Cronkite (if not earlier). It is what they are still doing. It is what Stewart, Mahr and Colbert do for a living (albeit in a comedic manner).

As to the Acorn thing..

Fox you seem to be missing the point what the video shows is that they were willing to commit fraud and to hide criminal activity. But they never did in this video. So of course the DA is going to find no criminal activity. You actually have to commit a crime for their to be criminal activity. There also may be issues of entrapment here.

Neither of those facts makes the videos any less damning.

What you cited is a non-issue that you are blowing way out of proportion and drawing conclusions that the facts do not logically support.

There is no evidence that the video was edited in order to substantively mislead.

Another example of misleading very similar to what the Daily Show is doing in that clip, this time from the "documentary" Outfoxed: Outfoxed: The Smoking Water Pistol (http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C1049953760/E1833320877/index.html)

Does the "smoking gun" clip seen in the anti-Fox crockumentary tell us something about Carl Cameron? Or does it tell us something about the thieves who made "Outfoxed"?

Our friend CableNewser has a transcript of the "smoking gun" clip that shows Carl Cameron making small talk with President Bush on satellite but off-air. Read it, and then consider these questions...

Was Cameron's wife campaigning? He says she's been traveling around the state and "hanging out" with Dorothy Bush. The narrator says wife Pauline was campaigning, but does the clip say so? Cameron says Dorothy has been campaigning, and Pauline has been "with her".

Cameron goes on to discuss how "To hear Pauline tell it, when she started campaigning for you, she was a little nervous..." Maybe Cameron is talking about his wife; maybe he's talking about Dorothy Bush. It can be read both ways. But this "documentary" has no time for such subtleties as this. They take a position that fits their narrative, and don't bother them with such nitpicky trivia as research, confirmation, or accuracy. What kind of journalism is reflected in "Outfoxed" when something is this easy to nail down, and nobody bothered to do so? (There are more examples of this film's dirty tricks from Howard Kurtz (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41604-2004Jul10?language=printer).)

The Kurtz article in the Washington Post quotes Cameron as saying his wife never joined the campaign--a reponse the producers of this film didn't make any effort to obtain. But it's time to play "Let's Assume"...let's assume that Pauline Cameron did campaign for Bush. Unmentioned is this peculiar fact: Greta van Susteren's husband not only campaigns for John Kerry, he is one of Kerry's top fund-raisers. Why is this inconvenient detail not mentioned? Why is it that Carl Cameron is hopelessly "tainted", but Greta gets a pass? (Don't everybody raise your hands at once!)

As to the Acorn thing..

Fox you seem to be missing the point what the video shows is that they were willing to commit fraud and to hide criminal activity. But they never did in this video. So of course the DA is going to find no criminal activity. You actually have to commit a crime for their to be criminal activity. There also may be issues of entrapment here.

Neither of those facts makes the videos any less damning.

What you cited is a non-issue that you are blowing way out of proportion and drawing conclusions that the facts do not logically support.

There is no evidence that the video was edited in order to substantively mislead.
Shag - from the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/acorn_set_up_by_vidiots_da_x16IroTf4AsXCI19nttFLL) (Murdock's Post - not the overtly liberal Times;)...)

The video that unleashed a firestorm of criticism on the activist group ACORN was a "heavily edited" splice job that only made it appear as though the organization's workers were advising a pimp and prostitute on how to get a mortgage, sources said yesterday.

The findings by the Brooklyn DA, following a 5½-month probe into the video, secretly recorded by conservative provocateurs James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, means that no charges will be filed.

Many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister, sources said.
Maybe shag, you didn't get the part where the videos were heavily edited, you can't believe anything in the videos at this point - it is a slice and dice job. Unless they release the unedited versions, which appears unlikely, you throw it all out...

You can look at the transcripts and compare them to the videos - and who knows what editing happened before the transcripts were released...

again; DAILY SHOW!

They habitually edit to misrepresent. It gets a laugh and helps to de-legitimize those they disagree with.

Yep shag - The Daily Show - It is on the Comedy Network - it is comedy shag - not hard news.

But, have you watched Gretchen Carlson? She can't be that stupid - watch one airing of 'Fox and Friends' - she has to be pandering...

"Heavily edited" does not mean "edited to substantively mislead"

FYI: complete audio and complete transcripts are available in the links in the original post of this thread from September of 2009.

Here is what Andrew Breitbart wrote in the link from September 2009 (http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2009/09/10/introducing-james-o%E2%80%99keefe/) where the FULL audio and FULL transcripts are available:But I also know how my journalist friends are going to react. And so my advice to James is this: You can put this thing out your way, but you should also offer the full audio and full transcript so that people can hear and see them in their entirety – sans edits. So they can judge for themselves.

James agreed and has posted them on his website. We have posted the audio here...
You might want to do your homework before you parrot leftist talking points...

Ah, if you look at the pdf (http://www.acorn.org/fileadmin/HomePageNews/2009Dec/Video_Transcript_Analysis_withExcperts.pdf) link - it pretty much shows what they have as far as altering the video... (the link that is in the italicized section that I copied...)

Kid wanted his 15 minutes of fame, then he got hooked and did something really stupid - felony stuff for the wiretapping (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/26/james-okeefe-arrested-for-trying-to-tap-mary-landrieus-phones/) (or at least tampering with a federal phone) that he did after the Acorn/Pimp stunt...

And I bet Acorn will follow with a lawsuit of their own - the kid is in for a bunch of legal headaches, he better hope that Fox ponies up for a real good attorney.
You FAIL at factchecking. The hotair story is old and has been updated with a more recent story. At present, O'Keefe isn't being charged with a felony, nor is wiretapping or phone interference among the charge.

Hey fox...

Since you're so busy defending ACORN, defend this:

MILWAUKEE – Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen announced today that the Milwaukee Election Fraud Task Force has brought additional electoral fraud cases against five Wisconsin residents. The Department of Justice, acting as Special Prosecutor for Milwaukee County, has filed felony charges against Maria Miles, Kevin Clancy, Michael Henderson, Herbert Gunka, and Suzanne Gunka, all alleging election fraud arising out of the November 4, 2008, Presidential Election.

“The integrity of elections is dependent upon citizens and officials insisting they be conducted lawfully. Wisconsin’s citizens should not have to wonder whether their vote has been negated or diminished by illegally cast ballots,” Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said.

According to the criminal complaints, Miles and Clancy served as Special Registration Deputies (“SRD”) for the City of Milwaukee in advance of the 2008 Presidential Election. Each worked for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (“ACORN”). Miles and Clancy are each charged with the felony offense of Falsely Procuring Voter Registration as Party to a Crime. The complaint alleges that Miles and Clancy submitted multiple voter registration applications for the same individuals, and also were part of a scheme in which they and other SRDs registered each other to vote multiple times in order to meet voter registration quotas imposed by ACORN.

Henderson is charged with one count of Voting by a Disqualified Person and one count of Providing False Information to Election Officials, both felonies. The complaint alleges that Henderson registered to vote at the polls on November 4, 2008, thereby certifying that he was a qualified elector. It also alleges that he then cast a ballot. At that time, Henderson was on an active period of probation for felony convictions from Rock County. A felon on an active period of supervision for a felony offense is prohibited by state law from voting in any election.

Herbert and Suzanne Gunka are each charged with the felony offense of Double Voting. The complaint alleges that they each voted in the November 2008 election by casting absentee ballots before the election. The complaint also alleges that after casting absentee ballots, they each voted in person at their polling place on election day.

Each individual charge carries a potential penalty of imprisonment up to 3 ½ years and a $10,000 fine. All defendants are ordered in for an initial appearance on April 20, 2010, at 1:30 p.m.

Excuse me while I go into another room to laugh at you.52561

Yep shag - The Daily Show - It is on the Comedy Network - it is comedy shag - not hard news.

...but we should uncritically accept the narrative it creates through misrepresentation and deceit in the name of comedy?

They heavily edited those clips, taking them out of context and using them to confirm their own narrative instead of actually understanding the points being raised and looking for the truth. (a tactic all to common on the left).

You question the ACORN videos because they were "heavily edited" yet you accepted The Daily Show's "report" which also "heavily edits" and in fact took clips out of context. Care to justify that double standard?

But, have you watched Gretchen Carlson? She can't be that stupid - watch one airing of 'Fox and Friends' - she has to be pandering...


PANDER (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/pander): To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses

Do you think it is pandering when the MSM cherry picks, misleads, misrepresents and editorializes in their "coverage"?

"Heavily edited" does not mean "edited to substantively mislead"

FYI: complete audio and complete transcripts are available in the links in the original post of this thread from September of 2009.

Here is what Andrew Breitbart wrote in the link from September 2009 (http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2009/09/10/introducing-james-o%E2%80%99keefe/) where the FULL audio and FULL transcripts are available:But I also know how my journalist friends are going to react. And so my advice to James is this: You can put this thing out your way, but you should also offer the full audio and full transcript so that people can hear and see them in their entirety – sans edits. So they can judge for themselves.

James agreed and has posted them on his website. We have posted the audio here...
You might want to do your homework before you parrot leftist talking points...

Breitbart isn't showing unedited video - it is easy to post edited audio, and then claim it is unedited - there isn't any visual confirmation. With just the 'unedited' audio, there is no way to see if there is cutting away - you can tell that fairly easily in video, and especially if you have full video, you can check time stamps, etc., however with just audio - that has been separated from the video front load, you can't check things like time stamps, etc.

Why won't he post unedited video? Should be easy-just upload it. Just as easy as the audio.

You might want to question Breitbart a bit more shag - without unedited video he doesn't have any proof whatsoever, and if that video isn't timestamped correctly, it gets thrown out too. From what I saw on Fox, the video is edited - there are a lot of cuts, and it doesn't match the audio and the transcripts (as explained in the pdf).

And junk it is shag - If you want to be taken seriously in this realm, you never, ever cut the video - you never, ever edit. Your credibility then lies in tatters...

And, I don't think Jon Stewart is news, and he certainly isn't claiming to be unearthing Pulitzer prize worthy expose journalism as Breitbart claimed when he released O'Keefe's junk. It is satire- it is always taken as such - once again, Stewart isn't on Fox - he is on the Comedy Network. And it is edited - to the hilt... just like Corbert's little clip with Hannity is... it is comedy - it isn't hard hitting expose journalism as Breibart claimed that O'Keefe's video was.

But, you still haven't answered - have you watched Gretchen? What do you think of her? Do you think she is an airhead - or does she just play one on TV?

Do you think it is pandering when the MSM cherry picks, misleads, misrepresents and editorializes in their "coverage"?

Yep - I have said that over and over again shag-msm panders to their audience, Fox panders to theirs. It is one big pandering party out there...

But, as you call out MSM, I think Fox needs to be called out as well. They are not 'fair and balanced'. They pander - happily so -

And, shock of shock, Jon Stewart panders to his...

But, when someone like O'Keefe is going undercover to expose an organization like ACORN - you don't edit the tape... ever.

Hey fox...

Since you're so busy defending ACORN, defend this:

Excuse me while I go into another room to laugh at you.

I am not defending ACORN -

I am showing how the right pounced on this story-ran it to the hilt, and now that it is coming out that the video is edited, and the case has been thrown out, magically FOX is ignoring the back end of this story. Will Hannity or Beck or Rush get on the air with the DA's decision - or the fact that there could be problems with the video? It doesn't seem like it... it doesn't fit in with their agenda.

Breitbart isn't showing unedited video

Moving the goalpost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost), also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

It is interesting that you can supposedly draw conclusions about Limbaugh without the full audio or even the full transcript, but for this the full audio and full transcript are not enough; you have to have the full video.

Again, would you care to justify that double standard?

Continued dodging merely puts more egg on your face...

But, as you call out MSM, I think Fox needs to be called out as well. They are not 'fair and balanced'. They pander - happily so -

"pandering" does not mean "unobjective".

However, misrepresenting, misleading, cherry picking and editorializing in the middle of what is supposed to be unbiased news coverage is unobjective.

But, when someone like O'Keefe is going undercover to expose an organization like ACORN - you don't edit the tape... ever.

Then the story doesn't get played by any news organization.

So, you are imposing unrealistic standards?


I am showing how the right pounced on this story-ran it to the hilt, and now that it is coming out that the video is edited, and the case has been thrown out, magically FOX is ignoring the back end of this story. Will Hannity or Beck or Rush get on the air with the DA's decision - or the fact that there could be problems with the video? It doesn't seem like it... it doesn't fit in with their agenda.

It is no new revelation that the video is edited. They admitted as much when they broke the story back in September of 2009. You keep ignoring that.

And the fact that they didn't find any criminal activity in the videos is not a "revelation" as you are presenting it.

You are taking a non-story and misrepresenting it to de-legitimize it and those who reported on it.

And you said Cal was the propagandist?

Moving the goalpost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost), also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

Someone obviously has the unedited video - why not post it - it isn't moving the goalpost, it is asking for 'reasonable' proof. It is too easy to edit audio, and Breibart knows it...

It is interesting that you can supposedly draw conclusions about Limbaugh without the full audio or even the full transcript, but for this the full audio and full transcript are not enough; you have to have the full video.

Again, would you care to justify that double standard?

Rush Limbaugh is a right wing commentator, and I didn't take him out of context - he plays 'now I'm satire, now I'm not' when ever it suits him. However I do look at full transcript - I often link to it... plus - you can't get full video on Rush - can you? And he is on the air - live - so he can't edit - he would be caught. Someone would notice that his broadcast didn't match what was posted on the site...

But here, we are talking 'news' not commentary - a little different set of standards - don't you agree?

"pandering" does not mean "unobjective".

However, misrepresenting, misleading, cherry picking and editorializing in the middle of what is supposed to be unbiased news coverage is unobjective.

Editing this video negates it shag - you know it. If this was on the other side - this would be all over Fox in a heartbeat.

Then the story doesn't get played by any news organization.

So, you are imposing unrealistic standards?

So, misleading editing to get 'play' is justification... ah such high standards Shag -

It is no new revelation that the video is edited. They admitted as much when they broke the story back in September of 2009. You keep ignoring that.

And the fact that they didn't find any criminal activity in the videos is not a "revelation" as you are presenting it.

You are taking a non-story and misrepresenting it to de-legitimize it and those who reported on it.

No - what is the revelation is that they won't post the unedited videos - and it is odd that Breibart asked them to post the unedited audio and not the unedited video - almost like he knew there were problems involved in posting the raw video, and went for 'unedited' audio from the beginning.

They can quickly avoid all of this and post unedited video - it is easy to check timestamps on video - the unedited audio is moot in this case, because it was made from the video tape, which is what should be in question - original source.

Perhaps I missed it, but what is your point, foxpaws?

Nothing objectionable took place in the ACORN offices?

That the journalists just fabricated the video to make it look like- for example, an ACORN employee was helping the pimp and whore figure out a way for them to import underage sex workers into the country, when in reality, the employees were shocked, outraged, and demanded they leave the office before calling the police?

The Breitbart has repeatedly posted wildly edited, misleading audio that radically misrepresents what happened (on multiple occasions). Nothing of the sort took place, don't mind that fact that ACORN initially fired the women present in the first video.

Or that the D.A. in a major city simply chose not to prosecute "mighty, mighty" ACORN because the actions didn't quite cross a legal threshold so overtly that the DA was compelled to endure the slings and arrows associated with prosecuting this powerful, well connected group?

Instead of the non-denial denials, where you dance around the subject and simply muddy the waters, deflect, and issue attacks against those who stand in the way of your agenda, why don't you tell us what you think happened during those recording at the various ACORN offices.

Anyone interested in who the D.A. was that decided to conclude the investigation?

District Attorney Charles Hynes.

Who is he? An ELECTED Democrat that was endorsed by the Working Family Party (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6965), a socialist front group for ACORN:
http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/2009/08/wfp-announces-nyc-endorsements/

Perhaps I missed it, but what is your point, foxpaws?
Cal - it follows the title of this thread - 'no mention'

Fox isn't going to mention that Acorn was cleared of criminal charges, and that the video appears to be heavily edited, and that the unedited footage is not being made available.

If Fox makes a big deal that the MSM doesn't cover this crap - then Fox needs to show the end game.

Instead of the non-denial denials, where you dance around the subject and simply muddy the waters, deflect, and issue attacks against those who stand in the way of your agenda, why don't you tell us what you think happened during those recording at the various ACORN offices.
I have no idea what happened in the ACORN offices - you obviously can't go by the video...

That the journalists just fabricated the video to make it look like- for example, an ACORN employee was helping the pimp and whore figure out a way for them to import underage sex workers into the country, when in reality, the employees were shocked, outraged, and demanded they leave the office before calling the police?

The Breitbart has repeatedly posted wildly edited, misleading audio that radically misrepresents what happened (on multiple occasions). Nothing of the sort took place, don't mind that fact that ACORN initially fired the women present in the first video.
From everything I have read O'Keefe presented himself not as a pimp - but as a friend of the girl, and he was trying to protect her from the pimp (the pimp costume was never worn inside any Acorn office - he usually wore a button down shirt and khakis - not too pimp like). The pimp suit was a misdirection edited into the video.

And don't forget the Philly office called the police (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/11/ldt.01.html) on O'Keefe.

Are you really going to believe this kid - he was stupid enough to think that going in to a Senator's office with intent to wiretap a phone was a good idea... Even Townhall's blogs (http://townhall.com/blog/g/34fdad1f-d0ea-4a97-a270-4d3510fc9a76?comments=true) called him on it..

Or that the D.A. in a major city simply chose not to prosecute "mighty, mighty" ACORN because the actions didn't quite cross a legal threshold so overtly that the DA was compelled to endure the slings and arrows associated with prosecuting this powerful, well connected group?

The Philly office is going after O'Keefe - in court - no doubt they will be successful - there are a lot of democrats in Philly... just like it isn't too much of a surprise that the Boston DA is a Democrat - what are the odds? Heck - I think in every 'major' city there is a good chance the DA is Democrat, especially in the north...

Quite the conspiracy theory Cal - how silly...

I am going for the double standard Cal - you expect MSM to be fair and balanced, but when your shining beacon in the media - Fox - is obviously not - you turn away making excuses.

They are all pandering to an audience - Fox included. Why is that so hard to admit?

Fox isn't going to mention that Acorn was cleared of criminal charges
Concluding an investigation is not the same as no inappropriate behavior. This is even more true when the investigation is concluded by an elected DA who has close political ties with ACORN, and was endorsed by their political arm in the last election.

If Fox makes a big deal that the MSM doesn't cover this crap - then Fox needs to show the end game.
Why are you presuming that the status of the criminal charges in THIS particular city won't be reported? I am sure it will be or already has. They HAVE been covering the story as it progressed in the various cities. So your ENTIRE attack here is without merit.

I have no idea what happened in the ACORN offices - you obviously can't go by the video...
Actually,I have a very good idea.
So does ACORN. That's why their initially reaction was to FIRE the employees caught on tape in Baltimore.

And don't forget the Philly office called the police on O'Keefe.
And don't forget that several other offices gave advice regarding how to avoid taxes and fraudulently obtain a loan while putting illegal immigrant children in the sex trade.

Are you really going to believe this kid - he was stupid enough to think that going in to a Senator's office with intent to wiretap a phone was a good idea...
It's a very interesting and overt double standard you have hear...
You're reporting the initial charge, while not having any idea (or concern) what actually happened or how the story has evolved since more information has come out. You're basically lying.

He did not go in there to "wiretap" anyone.
The government has now confirmed what has always been clear: No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu’s office. Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines. Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.


http://biggovernment.com/jokeefe/2010/01/29/statement-from-james-okeefe/

I am going for the double standard Cal - you expect MSM to be fair and balanced, but when your shining beacon in the media - Fox - is obviously not - you turn away making excuses.

You try to go for the double standard by lying and applying a twisted double standard. How cute.... and how tiresomely predictable of you.

They are all pandering to an audience - Fox included. Why is that so hard to admit?
If you're claim is true, Fox News is the ONLY one that seems to actually have an audience to pander to.

But to repeat, is anyone interested in who the D.A. was that decided to conclude the investigation?

District Attorney Charles Hynes.

Who is he? An ELECTED Democrat that was endorsed by the Working Family Party (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6965), a socialist front group for ACORN:
http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/2009/08/wfp-announces-nyc-endorsements/

I don't think anyone had much confidence that these offices were going to be criminally prosecuted.

Are you really going to believe this kid - he was stupid enough to think that going in to a Senator's office with intent to wiretap a phone was a good idea... Even Townhall's blogs (http://townhall.com/blog/g/34fdad1f-d0ea-4a97-a270-4d3510fc9a76?comments=true) called him on it..This is FALSE (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/FBI-affidavit-against-ACORN-filmmakeractivist-82723992.html), fox...

Please stop LYING.

I've already corrected you once, and you're blatantly pursuing a false premise (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/james-okeefe-on-wiretappi_n_442003.html).

I guess we can add 'LIAR' to your other illustrious title of 'RACE BAITER.'

Or are you going to claim that you DIDN'T know that the story was updated?

In that case, your new title is 'Glittering jewel of colossal ignorance.'

This is FALSE (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/FBI-affidavit-against-ACORN-filmmakeractivist-82723992.html), fox...

Please stop LYING.

I've already corrected you once, and you're blatantly pursuing a false premise (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/james-okeefe-on-wiretappi_n_442003.html).

I guess we can add 'LIAR' to your other illustrious title of 'RACE BAITER.'

Or are you going to claim that you DIDN'T know that the story was updated?

In that case, your new title is 'Glittering jewel of colossal ignorance.'

So, yes, wiretapping isn't listed...

From the affidavit (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Affidavit.pdf)

Aided and abetted for the purpose of interfering with the telephone systemSo what were they going to do with it – turn the Muzak up?

Authorities (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/27/filmaker-targeted-acorn-appears-court-faces-felony-charges/) reportedly found a listening device in one of the suspect's cars.

So, if not wiretapping what were they doing there Foss? Checking out the latest in Telecommunication technology?

Too bad they apparently weren't taught 20th century politics in any of their college journalism classes - they might have remembered Watergate and avoided this all together.

Hey Foxpaws,

We're prosecuting a couple of Ahole, I mean Acorn workers here in Milwaukee for Voter Fraud in the '08 election. We'll see if they get off the hook.

5 face voter fraud charges (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/87049717.html)

Concluding an investigation is not the same as no inappropriate behavior. This is even more true when the investigation is concluded by an elected DA who has close political ties with ACORN, and was endorsed by their political arm in the last election.

But wasn't the whole thrust of this on Fox that there was criminal behavior involved? I think O'Keefe and Breibart both were on many of their shows and indicated that there was something way beyond 'inappropriate behavior'.

From Hannity's show... (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,551403,00.html)
Well, this is the first time we've come to the border. And it seems to me as we go ACORN office to ACORN office, they seem to be experts at facilitating crime. And they — their knowledge of that crime and helping bring the underclass, you know, to — how to work the system as best as they can.

Why are you presuming that the status of the criminal charges in THIS particular city won't be reported? I am sure it will be or already has. They HAVE been covering the story as it progressed in the various cities. So your ENTIRE attack here is without merit.

Because it happened over a week ago, and Beck, Hannity or the silly morning show (the last 2 had O'keefe on in Sept when the tapes 'broke') haven't said a word...

Actually,I have a very good idea.
So does ACORN. That's why their initially reaction was to FIRE the employees caught on tape in Baltimore.
I believe it is called damage control Cal - even if they were innocent, you fire them or put them on leave, you get them away from the situation immediately.

And don't forget that several other offices gave advice regarding how to avoid taxes and fraudulently obtain a loan while putting illegal immigrant children in the sex trade.

And in LA the kids were punk'd by one of the offices they 'hit'. The woman was onto them and made a satire of it...

It's a very interesting and overt double standard you have hear...
You're reporting the initial charge, while not having any idea (or concern) what actually happened or how the story has evolved since more information has come out. You're basically lying.

He did not go in there to "wiretap" anyone.

See the post above... and you believe BigGovernment.com - isn't that Breibart's site? He might have a vested interest to keep the boy's nose out of trouble. He embraced this whole thing - backed the stupid kids, and is scrambling for credibility now.

I love O'Keefe's excuse about how he was just investigating why the phones were 'busy'... what an idiot.

I hope the feds go for the jugular... I think he could get 10 years... Heck, the brothers in prison probably would love to explain to O'Keefe how that pimp suit really offended them... and show him the real meaning of the word 'whore'.

If you're claim is true, Fox News is the ONLY one that seems to actually have an audience to pander to.

Really - what are they - 1/10 of msm's combined numbers - if that? Bret Baier - a measly 2.7 m... even lowly Katie Couric gets 6.2. And penetration (http://www.multichannel.com/article/307416-Cover_Story_Extended_Reach.php) is at almost 90% for Fox News (98 million households). Why do 26 million people watch MSM when 90% of them could watch Fox News - but for some reason only 10% of them do?

So, you are willing to entertain the fact the even Fox panders to their rather puny audience Cal?

But to repeat, is anyone interested in who the D.A. was that decided to conclude the investigation?

Once again - it isn't a surprise the the DA in Boston would have democrat group ties... pick any major city - especially in the north, and you won't find anything any different Cal.

So, yes, wiretapping isn't listed...

From the affidavit (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Affidavit.pdf)

Aided and abetted for the purpose of interfering with the telephone systemSo what were they going to do with it – turn the Muzak up?

Authorities (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/27/filmaker-targeted-acorn-appears-court-faces-felony-charges/) reportedly found a listening device in one of the suspect's cars.

So, if not wiretapping what were they doing there Foss? Checking out the latest in Telecommunication technology?

Too bad they apparently weren't taught 20th century politics in any of their college journalism classes - they might have remembered Watergate and avoided this all together.So you're willing to speculate as to O'Keefe's purpose there based on ZERO evidence, but you won't speculate as to ACORN's activities?

Hypocritical LIAR, thy name is foxpaws.

By the way, if you could read more than, oh, one sentence or so, you'd know what they were doing. Again, you are a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance.

So you're willing to speculate as to O'Keefe's purpose there based on ZERO evidence, but you won't speculate as to ACORN's activities?
So speculating from heavily edited video tapes, from an admittedly biased source, and speculating using the facts on an FBI affidavit are apples to apples foss?

By the way, if you could read more than, oh, one sentence or so, you'd know what they were doing. Again, you are a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance.

And if you read what I wrote in response to Cal you will see Foss that I read all about O'Keefe's lame excuse

I love O'Keefe's excuse about how he was just investigating why the phones were 'busy'... what an idiot.

I stand by - "what an idiot"...

Once again - time will tell on what the idiot was doing tampering with the phones in a federal office, just like time is showing what a farce O'Keefe's whole little expose is...

So speculating from heavily edited video tapes,

...and FULL transcripts and FULL audio

"speculating" would be an inaccurate term. Logically inferring would be more appropriate to this case.

"Speculating" is what you are doing from the DA's statement as the few facts actually cited do not logically support what you are saying...

from an admittedly biased source

proof?

keep in mind the difference between bias and biased

So speculating from heavily edited video tapes, from an admittedly biased source, and speculating using the facts on an FBI affidavit are apples to apples foss?
Same affidavit that DID NOT say he was wiretapping, despite your INSISTENCE that he was, LIAR?

That's right, Lying Hypocrite, keep wriggling on the double standard hook. It amuses me. You've already been caught LYING, now you're just trying to escape.

Once again - time will tell on what the idiot was doing tampering with the phones in a federal office, just like time is showing what a farce O'Keefe's whole little expose is...And time has already revealed that O'Keefe was instrumental in exposing ACORN as a corrupt and crime ridden organization. They're going down, and all the deflection on your part can't stop it.

...and FULL transcripts and FULL audio

"speculating" would be an inaccurate term. Logically inferring would be more appropriate to this case.

"Speculating" is what you are doing from the DA's statement as the few facts actually cited do not logically support what you are saying...

And do you really think you are listening to 'full audio' and reading 'full transcripts' - you are quite naive shag... Even you should know the full video is out there - and its absence is a smoking gun...
proof?

In his own words... (http://www.dailytargum.com/2.4988/the-conservative-manifesto-1.1516055)
At 19, I am a conservative Republican and an ideological minority.

From Breibart (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9ATAACG0)
But as far back as 2006—well before the videos became a national sensation and conservative rallying cry—the fresh-faced O'Keefe and Giles connected with a pair of Washington conservative institutions that boast programs training ideological journalists.
<snip>
O'Keefe, 25, was paid to set up magazines and newspapers on university campuses for the Leadership Institute, which recruits potential conservative public policy and media stars.

Each has other credentials that place them squarely in the network of activists who believe liberal-leaning mainstream media willfully ignore stories that illustrate the failings of the political left and its leaders.

keep in mind the difference between bias and biased

showing bias...

And since Foss keeps track of everyone who has read Alinsky (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/us/19sting.html)... because even if you are in the same room as the book - you are evil....
Three years ago, Mr. O’Keefe said, he read “Rules for Radicals” by the left-wing icon Saul Alinsky, the Bible for many community organizers, including those at Acorn, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. He absorbed in particular Rule 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

Too bad he never read Woodward and Bernstein-:rolleyes:

And time has already revealed that O'Keefe was instrumental in exposing ACORN as a corrupt and crime ridden organization. They're going down, and all the deflection on your part can't stop it.

And you don't think ACORN won't just rise as another entity - you are almost as naive as shag...

And you don't think ACORN won't just rise as another entity - you are almost as naive as shag...Another weak straw man, lying hypocritical race baiter. I have given you no indication that I think any such thing. In fact, I'm aware that they've already started the process, having disbanded in some states. Regardless, you have no point again, as usual, having been found to be lying, you try to deflect and change the subject.


And since Foss keeps track of everyone who has read Alinsky (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/us/19sting.html)... because even if you are in the same room as the book - you are evil....
English, please...

Buh-bye, liar.