Patterico's Pontifications

10/5/2010

O’Keefe Speaks Out

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:23 am

James O’Keefe has given his side of the Abbie Boudreau kerfuffle. Essentially, he says that his plan to “punk” Abbie Boudreau was not what has been represented by CNN.

Given CNN’s history, I’m willing to give O’Keefe the benefit of the doubt. He notes:

CNN has falsely reported on every major investigation we’ve ever been a part of. For example, on September 10, 2009 CNN broadcasted we were “basically thrown out“ of the ACORN offices we visited. We weren’t. When the other tapes were released, it was shown we were not “thrown out” of any offices. (We’re still waiting on their correction.) On June 1st, 2010, CNN falsely reported we “plead guilty following an attempt to tamper.” We didn’t and they issued a correction. Now this.

So I’m not sure I would accept CNN’s version as gospel. Let’s look at the facts.

The written plan for punking Boudreau was really stupid. There is no defending it. However, O’Keefe says he agrees it was far too over the top, and he did not plan to implement it as written. It is beyond dispute that O’Keefe did not author that plan. The document revealed by CNN says it was authored, not by O’Keefe, but by someone named “Ben.”

O’Keefe has disavowed any intent to carry out the plan as written, saying: “I was repulsed by the over-the-top language and symbolism that was suggested in the memo that was sent to me, and never considered that for a moment.” He says: “Ms. Boudreau was never going to be put in the bizarre situations outlined in the document CNN reported. There were no mirrors, sex tapes, blindfolds, fuzzy handcuffs, posters of naked women, or music.”

But according to CNN stories by Boudreau and Scott Zamost, there are e-mails where O’Keefe indicates that he planned to execute the plan. I haven’t seen any such e-mails. Such e-mails may be consistent with O’Keefe’s claim that he was going to do a much milder “punking,” and that he had orally told the other planners he was not on board with the more over-the-top aspects of the written plan.

So is there any proof that O’Keefe is telling the truth? Actually, there is — and in a flashback to the Friedman/Boehlert claims re ACORN, it has to do with how O’Keefe was dressed. The written plan calls for O’Keefe to be dressed like a 1970s sex creep, with gold chains and the like:

So was O’Keefe truly dressed with slicked-back hair, an exposed chest, and gold chains? (I’m tempted to ask: was he dressed like a pimp?) He says he was not — and that Boudreau knows he was not, because she saw him:

The sexually explicit document CNN is now “reporting” on was never going to be implemented as written. She saw how I was dressed that day, with my usual blazer and collared shirt. In the document she reported as being “authentic,” I was supposed to have been dressed with my chest exposed, slicked backed hair, with gold chains. That ought to have been a red flag the document was not a reflection of my true intentions.

Zamost’s story confirms that Boudreau saw O’Keefe that day:

A short time later, O’Keefe emerged from a boat docked behind the house. In that brief conversation, Boudreau told O’Keefe that he did not have permission to record her, and reminded him that the meeting was solely to discuss the upcoming music video shoot, and he had never mentioned that he wanted to tape their meeting.

Boudreau ended the meeting and left.

Notice what that doesn’t say? It doesn’t say that O’Keefe was dressed in gold chains, with an exposed chest and slicked-back hair.

Don’t you think that if he had been dressed that way, she would have said so? After all, that would be corroboration for the claim that O’Keefe intended to execute the plan as written.

What this tells me is that Boudreau knows facts that are inconsistent with the written plan, and is not telling the public about those facts.

Look: this is no defense of O’Keefe’s plan. It sounds like it was not going to be funny at all — even without the over-the-top elements. I think Boudreau feels like she was going to be treated in a sexist manner, as if the work of an attractive journalist couldn’t possibly be anything but a sort of high-class prostitution.

And so, offended as Boudreau is — I would say with some justification — she is probably perfectly content to leave the public with the impression that the completely over-the-top written plan was going to be carried out to the letter. And if she knows facts that are inconsistent with that plan — such as O’Keefe’s dress that day — she probably isn’t going to be eager to divulge those facts.

That’s why I think that she will ignore me or stonewall when I write her to ask how O’Keefe was dressed that day.

I guess the question is whether it’s fair of her to withhold facts that tend to show O’Keefe is telling the truth — just because his plan seems offensive with or without the over-the-top elements.

Me, I say no. One of the main problems with media people is that they manipulate facts to make the story as dramatic as possible. If Boudreau can create a false impression that O’Keefe was planning something far creepier than he was actually planning, it may serve her personal sense of grievance, but it doesn’t serve the truth.

The most difficult time to defend the truth is when it leaves you open to attack by cynical people with an agenda. I know that by pointing out Boudreau’s silence on O’Keefe’s dress, the Boehlerts and Friedmans of the world will accuse me of defending a creepy sex plan to creepily seduce a woman in a creepy creepified sexist way that is creepy. The fact that I have explicitly said I am not defending the plan is their opening to say that I am. That’s how they operate.

Still, the truth is the truth. And liars like them are liars. So there you have it.

P.S. Speaking of the truth, the media is still lying about him:

He first got on the media’s radar in Sept. 2009 through his undercover videos posing as a “pimp” outside ACORN offices (and “boyfriend” inside) — several clips of which ran on Big Government — and earlier this year for tampering with Louisiana Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu’s phone lines.

Uh, no, Michael Calderone. He did not tamper with her phone lines. Correction, please.

UPDATE: Calderone also has a “correction” which reads as follows:

Correction: This article originally stated the O’Keefe posed as a pimp inside ACORN’s offices. That is incorrect. He actually posed as the “prostitute’s” boyfriend when speaking to ACORN staffers inside while wearing an outlandish “pimp” outfit outside in the video clips.

He actually posed as a pimp inside ACORN. You muttonhead.

137 Responses to “O’Keefe Speaks Out”

  1. Uh, no, Michael Calderone. He did not tamper with her phone lines. Correction, please.

    Paging Retracto, the Correction Alpaca!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  2. Now we’ll sit back and wait for the inevitable expert legal analysis and subsequent predictions of imminent frog – marching from EPWJ.

    Dmac (84da91)

  3. UPDATE: Calderone also has a “correction” which reads as follows:

    Correction: This article originally stated the O’Keefe posed as a pimp inside ACORN’s offices. That is incorrect. He actually posed as the “prostitute’s” boyfriend when speaking to ACORN staffers inside while wearing an outlandish “pimp” outfit outside in the video clips.

    He actually posed as a pimp inside ACORN. You muttonhead.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  4. Correction: This article originally stated that Michael Calderone is a reporter. That is incorrect.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  5. patterico

    so the left’s theory is that if you don’t dress like huggie bear, you are not pretending to be a pimp.

    Now i will not claim to any special line into the gang culture, but i am willing to bet that NONE of them dress like that.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  6. tyvm for the response, Patterico.
    i understand now.
    you feel O’Keefe was justified in w/e he planned because…

    Given CNN’s history, I’m willing to give O’Keefe the benefit of the doubt.

    Like Julian Sanchez said, conservatism is an inferiority complex masquerading as political philosophy.
    You feel absolutely any tactics used are warranted because you are overmatched.
    So even if O’Keefe surreptitiously added the pimp outfit clips in post event editting, he is entitled to push an agenda because the media has liberal bias.
    You don’t say if what O’Keefe planned for Boudreau was honorable or not…he obviously was planning SOMETHING sleazy…..good investigative journalism or not…..you say he was ENTITLED to do it because CNN is biased against him.

    thank you for the lesson in how conservatives think.
    it was edifying.

    wheeler's cat (f28646)

  7. Short of a felony, I really couldn’t care less what O’Keefe does to expose the lying, corrupt, scumbag leftist media. This is war. Go O’Keefe.

    rrpjr (68968c)

  8. wc,

    I don’t think you said one thing that’s true. Strawman buffet!

    Patterico (48300d)

  9. wheezzer’s cat…

    Patterico’s quote in the article: “The written plan for punking Boudreau was really stupid. There is no defending it. However, O’Keefe says he agrees it was far too over the top, and he did not plan to implement it as written. It is beyond dispute that O’Keefe did not author that plan. The document revealed by CNN says it was authored, not by O’Keefe, but by someone named “Ben.”

    Please read a little better before you post…

    reff (b996d9)

  10. wheeler’s cat, nowhere in the post did Patterico say O’Keefe was justified. In fact, Patterico wrote (in big, bold letters that you really should have spotted) that he wasn’t defending O’Keefe’s plan.

    Thank you for the lesson in how dishonest liberals think.

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  11. Ben is Ben Wetmore. He and O’Keefe have a history together, so the plot wasn’t just something that came over the wire.

    Wetmore gave an interview to Esquire about the memo here:

    http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/james-okeefe-cnn-scandal-093010#ixzz111pnNQYP

    Next time these young men come up with a bright idea like this one, they might want to run it past their mothers first.

    Janis Gore (1191a2)

  12. Best synopsis and analysis I’ve read so far. I had been confused by what actually happened. Now I have a clearer picture and am waiting to hear her answers.

    WillOTP (c26337)

  13. Dmac,

    I think the whole incident is unfortunate,that James’ staff jumped the gun.

    If it comes down to a he said she said thing – I’m going with O’Keefe

    Since CNN didnt show anything else (the emails or video et al), my initial reaction is that they are more interested in scoring damage points than reporting the facts

    EricPWJohnson (5895a8)

  14. “7.Short of a felony, I really couldn’t care less what O’Keefe does” Even if it is stupid, reckless, and discredits him, his supporters, and other conservatives?

    gp (72be5d)

  15. Here’s my problem with O’Keefe’s explanation. He says:

    I never wanted to be part of a CNN documentary because I know that CNN claims to be fair minded yet is not. Their pursuit of a non-story based on a document I neither produced, nor followed, confirms what we already know: “The most trusted name in news” can’t be trusted. Look at their reporting.

    Did O’Keefe produce that document? Apparently not. Did one of his close associates produce it and send it to him? <a href="http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/james-okeefe-cnn-scandal-093010"Yes, without question. That CNN reported on it confirms nothing at all about CNN. It was a newsworthy story. CNN had the plan document. It had copies of e-mails which showed that O’Keefe had reviewed the plan and intended to implement some form of it. She knew that he had tried to get her into his “inner sanctum” alone, without her bringing a video camera, and that he had recorded a phone call he had with her, without informing her about it, and distributed that recording to others.

    CNN has a copy of an e-mail (quoted here) in which O’Keefe says; “Ben [the author of the plan document], do you think I can get her on the boat?” while asking for his reaction to the phone call he recorded with the CNN reporter. Cited in the same story is an e-mail in which Izzy Santa, the O’Keefe assistant who blew the whistle on the “caper,” was instructed to prepare a “pleasure palace graphic” on a large poster.

    That seems like ample confirmation to run a story about the plan. Their report did include a report of O’Keefe’s immediate denial, when they asked him for comment on the story. His e-mail denial seems very lawyerly:

    That is not my work product. When it was sent to me, I immediately found certain elements highly objectionable and inappropriate, and did not consider them for one minute following it

    True, it was not his work product, it was that of his confederate, Ben Wetmore. He disavows “certain elements” of the plan, but doesn’t give any indication that he communicated his objections to the inappropriate elements to the person who sent it to him. He continued to communicate with the person who wrote these “highly objectionable and inappropriate” elements and to involve that person in planning SOME sort of punking operation on the CNN reporter. I don’t see anything significantly wrong that CNN did here with their initial reporting on the story.

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  16. PLEEAAASSSEEEE defend him and keep on defending him. Please. And, make sure you note it’s because the messenger is unreliable, because, you know, CNN lies at everything.

    Samuel Johnson was wrong. Patriotism is not the last refuge of a scoundrel; media bias is. And, there is literally no sin conservatives can forgive than being on the wrong side of non-Fox reporters

    timb (449046)

  17. I think this response is weak.

    There seems to be no disagreement about O’keefe’s goal and general plan. He planned to harass Boudreauz in a sexual manner. His goal was to humiliate her and embarrass her employer, CNN. He’s provided few specifics about what his milder punking would entail. He’s rejected the most objectionable elements of the leaked email but hasn’t spelled out what his plan actually was. He has thrown up a lot of information about how you shouldn’t trust CNN but he hasn’t denied that this was his goal.

    His claim is that CNN is guilty of
    1. Telling the public what Izzy Santa told them.
    2. Sharing the leaked email with the public.
    3. Accurately reporting that he planned to sexually harass a reporter to humiliate her and CNN.
    4. Sharing his statements about the matter with the public.
    5. Overstating what he intended to do to make him sound worse.

    The point about how he was dressed is debatable. My understanding of the timeline is
    1. CNN reporter comes to the boat.
    2. Izzy tells her about the plan.
    3. CNN reporter refuses to get on the boat.
    4. A short time passes.
    5. O’Keefe comes out dressed in his normal clothing.

    How long was a short time? Ten seconds? 1 minute? 5-10 minutes? Was he planning to change after she got on the boat? This isn’t a very persuasive point without more information.

    He’s claiming they are making him look worse than he actually was. How bad was he? What I’d like to see is the details of the plan they were actually going to pull off. He’s admitted that he planned to ‘fake seduce’ her. In and of itself that’s pretty repugnant, as Patterico noted in his post. Also, I haven’t seen him express any remorse for this plan. Apparently, he still agrees with it’s objective.

    time (bec298)

  18. So was O’Keefe truly dressed with slicked-back hair, an exposed chest, and gold chains? (I’m tempted to ask: was he dressed like a pimp?) He says he was not

    Well, that settles it, because everyone knows that it’s impossible to change clothes on a boat.

    Seriously, if O’Keefe really had intended to get her on the boat alone he OBVIOUSLY would have greeted her dockside in his swinger-gear. I mean, it’s not like he could have thought that coming out dressed like Leisure Suit Larry might blow the plan early and have planned to change personas only once she was on board and unable to escape.

    libarbarian (90bd00)

  19. You know, it all started with Geraldo Rivera. The whole ambush journalism thing. And then it went to Michael Moore in the movie business.That Geraldo has a lot to answer for.

    Of course, sooner or later a conservative would have to try the same kind of dumb stunts. But naturally the response is not the same.

    Gesundheit (cfa313)

  20. personally if he followed the plan, i have a really hard time getting riled up about it.

    i mean some people would have been offended by the sex palace thing. but i mean how is it unethical or dishonest, except in the way all pranks are dishonest?

    I have yet to see anyone explain what is so horribly about it, except for a general sense of ickiness about the whole idea. which is okay, and your perogative, but it doesn’t translate into the guy being discredited.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  21. Wardrobe details seem much too slender a reed, here. Izzy Santa’s words and actions are far more telling. After this, would-be donors are not going to see much ROI potential in Project Veritas and it will wither fast. Mr. O’Keefe should begin pondering his career options right away.

    Angeleno (196ff8)

  22. I guess I just expected O’Keefe to be more careful about how he presents himself. CNN is aggressively dishonest at times, so he knows they will leave out facts.

    Another attention getting stunt is fine and dandy, and it’s not my place to tell him to direct those stunts at something important again, that’s what I expected.

    This seems like a pointless and rude stunt.

    Aaron says this doesn’t discredit the guy. Unfortunately, it might. I don’t believe CNN because of their conduct in other cases. Someone out there will be less likely to believe the ACORN story (or the next expose) because O’Keefe acted in a strange manner here. O’Keefe took on powerful targets with sophisticated defenders who will take any advantage they see.

    Now, that doesn’t mean timb’s ridiculous whine is fair. CNN can’t be trusted, so why not ask for a little clarification?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  23. Dustin

    well, i meant more like, and truly this is an academic point, was even if every awful thing Cnn said about him was true, why should i care? i don’t get the theory that him trying the plan as written, would have been so horrible. arguably tasteless–i guess i have watched enough jackass that i thought it was kinda funny–but no one has explained to me how it is wrong besides saying it was tasteless. even if cnn was being accurate, and i tend to believe O’Keefe when he says they were not, i don’t see how it makes me think he was unethical or dishonest beyond the ordinary level of dishonesty needed to carry out these kinds of pranks or stings.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  24. Why should you care?

    Good question.

    But will other people care? Probably. I agree, jackassery can be hilarious and certainly isn’t going to get me upset. This reporter should be able to handle this without distorting the story (I don’t know yet if she did, but if she did she is a typical CNN sleaze).

    Other people will care. When they have to be reminded what ACORN did, it will be too easy to point out a few reasons to ignore O’Keefe. I know this well, because when a friend mentions a story from CNN or the NYT that I am unfamiliar with, but do not trust, it is very easy to point out that they are unserious and hack organizations.

    It’s a shame, because O’Keefe caught a huge fish. I know I couldn’t accomplish that, but it’s a shame if that accomplishment can be undone.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  25. Aaron, O’Keefe has not thus far tried to position himself in the public’s mind as the natural successor to Ashton Kutcher for new episodes of “Punk’d”. He made a name for himself exposing actually bad conduct by an actually corrupt organization. If the best he can come up with now is to conduct a faux seduction of a CNN reporter in hopes that she will run a story that he is a sleaze-ball which he can then refute, well, that’s falling a long way from his original goals.

    As others have noted, what his explanation really lacks are details of what his real, non-sleazy-sexual, plan for the CNN reporter was.

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  26. Oh, and this statement by O’Keefe is just ridiculous in the current context:

    I provided CNN with a clear statement that the document in question was objectionable. Still, they sent their “Special Investigations Unit” out in a failed attempt to discredit me. They do this not because they want to get to the truth, but because they are threatened by a bunch of independent journalists with video cameras uncovering the stories that they went to J-School to find.

    He provided a “clear statement” about the document, and so that should be the end of it? I guess it was ok, then, that the MSM stopped reporting on the ACORN scandal after ACORN provided a “clear statement” denying O’Keefe’s original allegations? Please. GOOD reporting involves not accepting denials, by ANYBODY, at face value. Good reporting involves continuing to question, to probe, to look at the details and the nuances of public statement.s

    It is indeed a very bad thing that the MSM usually only practices good journalism when trying to expose conservative misdeeds, but that’s not the claim O’Keefe is making here. He’s saying directly that once he issued a “clear statement” about the “plan” document, CNN should have just dropped the story. That’s not the standard to which he attempts to hold CNN in other circumstances.

    I’m fairly convinced now that O’Keefe is an Alinskyite, not in the ends that he seeks, but in the methods that he uses. His statement here reeks of the Alinskyite tactic of distracting from legitimate criticism by attacking the critic on personal grounds unrelated to the instant critique. I disapprove of Alinskyism, not just because of the ends they seek, but because the tactics themselves are dishonest and harmful, in the long term, to an open, democratic society.

    PatHMV (140f2a)

  27. Pat

    > to conduct a faux seduction of a CNN reporter in hopes that she will run a story that he is a sleaze-ball which he can then refute, well, that’s falling a long way from his original goals.

    Rereading the document it seems the joke was this. he felt cnn was using a hot chick to try to lull male targets into interviews with hostile organizations only to get skewered when she comes back to cnn and lets her editing team at it. He felt she was, or was going to be, really flirty and stuff to lull him into a sense that she was his friend, just before she stabbed him in the back. I can’t say for sure, but i have seen credible reports of similar dishonesty.

    So the idea was instead use the situation to show how far she would go to try to get that interview. they assumed at some point she would bolt, but the joke was to see how far they could go before she did. tasteless? maybe, but there is potentially a valid point about the media under all that and particularly about how how some female reporters use unprofessional conduct to get the story.

    Like i said the point is academic, because o’keefe said he didn’t want to use that plan, and he gets the benefit of the doubt. but i never thought there was anything to this story.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  28. pat

    as for whether he is alinskyite… well, sheesh, he has openly said he was. at least in tactics if not ultimate goal.

    But there is nothing alinskyite about pointing out that cnn has no credibility. one issue is percisely about his credibility v. theirs and pointing out they have none is just basic logic.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  29. The antidote for biased editing, is to not agree to any taped interview without having someone from your team recording your own tape simultaneously.

    This was pulled on Mike Wallace once, and it cleaned up his act a bit as he was caught in a very embarrassing moment when he thought the cameras were down (his guy was changing “reels”), but the interviewee’s camera was still rolling, and Mike said something he later regretted.

    AD-RtR/OS! (adf61c)

  30. AD

    what did wallace say? you have my curiosity piqued.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  31. AW…This was an anecdote told to us in a GOP club luncheon in the early-80′s by the interviewee (whose name almost completely escapes me…I think it was Alan …something…?).
    He was the PR guy for the leading S&L down there, and the CEO was a big Reagan backer from the 60′s, and Wallace was looking for an ambush.
    I don’t particularly remember what Wallace said (off camera, so to speak), but it was very impolitic, and embarrassing for him – especially after he did a cut & paste on the interview for 60-Minutes, and then had the other tape run on another network in rebuttal.
    BTW, this PR type went on to be appointed by RR to head the USIA IIRC.

    AD-RtR/OS! (adf61c)

  32. I see the trolls are out in full force.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  33. When I say “down there”, I’m talking about San Diego; and when I say the USIA, it could have been just the VoA portion.
    This was all 20+ years ago, and the memory cells demand a lot of downtime these days.

    AD-RtR/OS! (adf61c)

  34. I don’t understand how the CNN hoochie got hold of “the document” can anyone explain?

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  35. I think the commentary above has dispatched the “clothing” defense pretty handily.

    OKeefe is a hustler who hustles people for a living. Why would anyone believe that, if he got caught in the act of trying his next hustle, he wouldn’t lie through his teeth about it? Particularly if it’s a sort of creepy hustle?
    I can see the point of wondering why CNN doesn’t look a little further into the guy’s explanation,but why would anyone spend very much time trying to find out if a known hustler was lying this time or not?.

    As for whether or not any media is guilty of selective editing. Comment #29 pretty much says it all there.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  36. If O’Keefe is a hustler, the only ones seemingly being hustled are Andrew Breitbart and others at Big whatever, since they seem to be the source of his income
    (isn’t gaining income what a hustler attempts to do through his activities?).

    AD-RtR/OS! (adf61c)

  37. This guy is the Sacha Baron Cohen of journalism and should be lauded as a folk hero but instead is villified. Anyone that views the ACORN tapes (edited or not)…can see for themselves very, very bad dishonest rip off people. But, the “read” is that he’s a dangerous, dishonest conservative. Granted, the latest stunt is plain goofy.

    Quote in Wikipedia: An investigation report by California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. released on April 1, 2010 found the videos from Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Bernardino to be “severely edited” and did not find evidence of criminal conduct on the part of ACORN employees.

    Moonbeam?, more like LowBeam….no evidence of criminal conduct?????? I applaud all persons that uncover graft, government wastrels and duplicitous scum and scam artists.

    A bad AG will make a bad Gov. I hope O’Keefe will expose many more tawdry scenes of our tax dollar being wasted by cretinous organizers!

    dudeabides (4af6f8)

  38. Happy,

    Read the links. Short answer: a confederate of O’Keefe’s who didn’t like the idea gave Boudreau a warning and the e-mails.

    Patterico (48300d)

  39. Comment by dudeabides — 10/5/2010 @ 12:21 pm

    You’re correct, but to be precise:
    A bad Governor will make a bad AG will make a bad Governor!

    We’ve already seen how he performs as Governor, a reprise will not make the review any better.

    AD-RtR/OS! (adf61c)

  40. Patterico, O’Keefe ADDED the footage of himself in pimp clothing.
    He posed as a pimp inside the ACORN office but, he was not dressed in the pimp hat and coat.
    He ABSOLUTELY post editted that.
    That is not a lie.

    wheeler's cat (f28646)

  41. Are nishi’s lips moving?

    AD-RtR/OS! (adf61c)

  42. I think wheeler’s cat is a little slow on the up-take.

    Her own words:

    He posed as a pimp inside the ACORN office but, he was not dressed in the pimp hat and coat

    Calderone’s “correction”:

    This article originally stated the O’Keefe posed as a pimp inside ACORN’s offices. That is incorrect. He actually posed as the “prostitute’s” boyfriend when speaking to ACORN staffers inside while wearing an outlandish “pimp” outfit outside in the video clips.

    Patterico wasn’t taking issue with Calderone saying O’Keefe had worn an outlandish outfit in the video clips, he was taking issue with Calderone’s claim that O’Keefe hadn’t posed as a pimp in the ACORN offices. Which even wheeler’s cat agrees actually happened.

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  43. #36 Haw haw! Too true!

    EdWood (c2268a)

  44. wheeler’s cat,

    Good LORD.

    He posed as a pimp in the offices. There’s no doubt about it. He posed as a real pimp, wearing realistic clothing rather than a halloween costume.

    Those claiming he did not pose as a pimp in the offices, and merely edited that in, are either liars or dupes.

    His case against ACORN was not harmed because he didn’t really wear the unrealistic pimp outfit. It is bolstered by it. He did not hide how he presented himself in the offices. It’s one of the first things you see. Further, he provided 100% of the audio and a transcript, very early, and there is simply no doubt how he was presenting himself to ACORN.

    Aaron’s right that he was trying to show how lame reporter babes flirt for interviews. And I say that’s lame and his sting was poor. It’s predictable that folks like you intend to leap in now to attempt to discredit his excellent work on ACORN. I just wish he had avoided this.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  45. oh.

    I do believe that Izzy Santa, who came to Ms. Boudreau with the documents and the story, was simply trying to protect me and the organization from a dangerous and objectionable plan, one sent to me in my personal emails that she assumed, wrongly, and probably due to my own lack of communication to her, that I was going to implement. Nothing in the document was implemented.

    So the takeaway is that this Izzy person is a majorly disloyal tool what you can’t really trust in your employ.

    That seems to be the sum of it.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  46. Some chump beat me to the punch, getting directly to the point.

    ACORN tried to help a pimp in various horrible ways, and people covering O’Keefe, such as Calderone and CNN, will get the story wrong if they can get away with it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  47. wheeler

    > He posed as a pimp inside the ACORN office but, he was not dressed in the pimp hat and coat.

    so? and? what is your point? anyone watching the tape figured that out. these acorn people are stupid, but not THAT stupid.

    Look, even jon stewart wouldn’t defend acorn. and he exactly captured the problem–the sheer banality of it. they treated helping a man set up a brothel like it was nothing, “Lois get me form 10F!”

    Seriously, when even stewart turns against you, forget it.

    Btw, stewart was pretty funny last night talking about rick sanchez. but honestly i thought he let him off easy at the end. he shows a clip of sanchez excoriating a nazi for claiming jews control the media, but rather than point out the double standard, he says more or less, i think this is how sanchez was in calmer moments.

    Still the cartoon of jon listening to an old timey radio was gold. as it goes on, the image shows his eyes buggign out and other expressions of surprise.

    Aaron Worthing (b1db52)

  48. My sense is that O’Keefe is handling the Izzy tool person very gingerly cause of either he’s afraid she’ll get even more tooly and reveal lots of stuff if he calls her out for being the disloyal skank she is or he’s afraid she can damage him vis-a-vis his funding sources or both.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  49. Some Chump,
    Wheeler’s cat is saying that O’Keefe was being dishonest by adding in footage of himself in pimp clothes AFTER visiting the ACORN offices dressed as a prostitute’s boyfriend, thus making it look like ACORN employees were super extra dishonest since they “saw” a “real pimp” right in front of them. In short he was lying through his teeth via the magic of the camera.
    WC is responding to the comments here about how big corporate media is dishonest in their reporting because they bias their reporting via selective editing. But is there any journalistic media out there who doesn’t selectively edit? OKeefe obviously does so he’s out.
    BUT his tape managed to catch a few ballot box stuffers, so, with that in mind, is selective editing necessarily bad?

    …..that of course begs the question, if it’s not bad for OKeefe to do it then why can’t the courageous intrepid journalists at CNN do it too? You know, to catch “those guys” in the act?

    EdWood (c2268a)

  50. No, Edwood, you need to read the post and the comments again, because you have totally gotten it wrong.

    The idea that O’Keefe was lying through his teeth by pretending to be in a ridiculous outfit during his ACORN sting is simply so stupid that I know, for sure, you are insincere. You do not really think the sting would be more believable if O’Keefe was in a halloween outfit. You probably know that O’Keefe showed us how he was dressed during the sting, in a realistic outfit, and you probably also realize he was quite clear about his intent to profit from his prostitutes, as a pimp.

    I don’t know if you really read the comments and post you are trying to redefine, but someone pretended O’Keefe did not pose as a pimp. This is a serious error and has nothing whatsoever to do with how he was dressed. That is a red herring.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  51. @ happy48,
    What makes Izzy a tool? If I take O’Keefe’s statement at face value:
    1. His objective was to sexually harass and humiliate the CNN reporter. The only part in dispute is how obnoxious he was actually going to be while doing it.
    2. Izzy was unaware that this would not involve all of the over the top and threatening elements in the original email.

    If you had the same information that O’Keefe said was available to Izzy Santa would you let this go on?

    While I’m asking, do you approve of his stated plan? To embarrass and insult a female reporter by assuming that she would have sex with you to get an interview and pressuring her to do so on film? If I take his statement at face value his ‘non-threatening’ plan was to
    1. Lure her onto a boat where she is isolated and out of the public eye.
    2. Hit on her while she tries to discuss the specifics of a proposed interview.
    3. Film it and use the recording of her embarrassment to humiliate her.

    If he did 1 and 2 with the intention of having sex with her it would be sleezy. The fact that he planned it with the objective of humiliating her doesn’t make it any better.

    ‘Ali G’ and Tom Green provide ample examples of how people will try to humor someone that’s acting strangely. Except in this case the explanation wouldn’t be “I’m a wacky comedian that embarrasses public figures by acting stupid. Let’s watch them squirm”. It would be “See how this woman tolerates my sexual advances and humors me to try and keep the meeting going. Look how far this slut is willing to go to get an interview. I was totally unprofessional and she didn’t immediately call me out because CNN uses whores to lure men into interviews.” Then the debate would be about whether she was just humoring him or if she was flirting. She could look forward to having every word or gesture parsed to determine if she was ‘seducing’ him. How is this OK? Because she works for CNN and he (you?) think she’s part of the liberal elite? By all accounts she’s a good reporter. What did she do other than be pretty and female to deserve this treatment?

    time (bec298)

  52. Dustin,
    I was responding to WC’s and Some Chump’s comments, but you are correct, I remembered it wrong, the guy was not dressed as a pimp in the ACORN offices…. but I was right, he did edit the tape to make it look as if he was dressed as a pimp in the ACORN offices… i.e. lying via the magic of the camera. I suppose you could call it artistic license if you want.

    And he helped catch some bad guys, so my question still stands. Is his selective editing a good thing? And if so then why isn’t CNN or other big media selective editing a good thing too?

    EdWood (c2268a)

  53. time

    so to you its okay for her to use sex to get a story. But its wrong for him to use that against her.

    Why?

    i mean sheesh, the promos for parker and client number nine spitzer has parker getting all flirty with the former governor and whoremonger, talking about him “checking her out.” its pretty obvious that all the networks use sex to sell their product.

    you can use buzzwords all you want like “humiliate” and “sexually harass” but the whole plan depends on her acting inappropriately herself.

    Aaron Worthing (b1db52)

  54. EdWood, whatever extra video O’Keefe added does not alter the fact that he posed as a pimp at the ACORN offices. O’Keefe never claimed to have been dressed as a pimp there. There is a difference between the two words, and you seem to be confusing them.

    Some Chump (e84e27)

  55. Isn’t the ‘pimp costume’ lead in to the actual ACORN footage a red herring? It’s not like he didn’t release the ACORN video where he is dressed in normal clothes. I don’t get the objection and can only assume dishonesty on the part of folks that raise this as an issue.

    Interesting how CNN handled it. They hate O’Keefe of course. They could have nailed him big time by letting it play out. But they didn’t. Why? Almost like they knew they had a better story with the document alone and that they didn’t want to take a chance on the actual behavior deviating from the script. Because then the script isn’t ‘the’ script anymore.

    East Bay Jay (2fd7f7)

  56. “whatever extra video O’Keefe added does not alter the fact that he posed as a pimp at the ACORN”

    Some Chump,
    You are right.

    My question still stands. Why can he selectively edit his video and not be a dihonest biased hack, but anyone who else who does it IS a dishonest biased hack? Adding the pimp outfit was not the only selective editing in the videos.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  57. EdWood, you are rehashing long debunked spin, especially since the unedited videos were released.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  58. ed

    he released the unedited videos. he also released edited ones because they were more fun and got to the point quicker. no one has ever shown that the parts edited out exonerate any of them. indeed, acorn sued them for defamation but let the case die without a fight.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  59. Seems as though the wanna-be lawyer is trying to out-idiot wheelerz/nishit.

    JD (a61253)

  60. Seems as though the wanna-be lawyer is trying to out-idiot wheelerz/nishidiot.

    JD (a61253)

  61. “O’Keefe never claimed to have been dressed as a pimp there”

    Am I misremembering video of O’Keefe inside ACORN offices in at least one location?

    Further, lefties need to baseline their positions on their own views about Clinton’s perjury and obstruction of justice, and Dan Rather’s use of forged documents to try to take out a President. If you’re okay with perjury and forgeries, how can you object to misleading presentation (assuming the truth of the charge)? Work on the log in your own eye before coming for the speck in O’Keefe’s eye (doesn’t apply to critical righties that are outraged at all of the above).

    East Bay Jay (2fd7f7)

  62. More from CNN. O’Keefe’s associate, Izzy Santa, is evidently unwilling to back up his most recent statement.

    Angeleno (196ff8)

  63. The really unfortunate thing about this stupid boat stunt is that O’Keefe is no longer in a position to credibly pursue other stories.

    For instance, I’m kind of wondering what happened to ACORN after the breakup. The organization was composed of dozens of smaller operations, all with the same headquarters address. Does anybody believe that those groups are not trying to do the same things for the 2010 elections that they did in 2008?

    Unfortunately, I don’t see many conservative investigative reporters out there looking for the story. And one guy who could have been one decided instead to be a college clown. What a waste.

    Gesundheit (aab7c6)

  64. angelino

    one word against another. whatever.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  65. Ed’s Woody is attempting to retry the ACORN case, but in this instance Congress determines that O’Keefe edited something or other that Ed’s pulling out of his hindquarters, hence ACORN wins! Yes, if only they had looked just a little harder, ACORN would have been completely vindicated. Thanks for playing, Ed.

    because, you know, CNN lies at everything.

    Let’s count the ways, shall we, Timmah?

    - Peter Arnett fired over fraudulently presenting Operation Tailwind, in which he tried to smear the military, as his is usual MO.

    - admitted that they covered up Saddam’s rampant murder and torture over the course of a decade, all in order to get “access” to the great workings on his inner council.

    - smeared the Tea Party by insinuating some kind of racial animus was present, although no evidence was ever produced.

    Shall I continue?

    Dmac (84da91)

  66. Ah… here’s ACORN again. No new tricks – but still feeding at the trough.

    Gesundheit (aab7c6)

  67. “Adding the pimp outfit was not the only selective editing in the videos.”

    EdWood – Can you be specific on what the selective editing removed from evaluating the substance of the tapes rather than just mouthing the talking point “selective editing?” When you compared them to the full, unedited versions, did your understanding change? U doubt it and I doubt you even went through the exercise.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  68. CNN engages in “selective editing” in every last segment it has run, or will run in the future. It is only bad when someone else does it.

    JD (a61253)

  69. If you had the same information that O’Keefe said was available to Izzy Santa would you let this go on?

    I would take door number 3 and go get tasty pancakes and not be a stupid tool like Izzy what sold out my friend Mr. O’Keefe using information with which I had been entrusted but the import of which I was wholly ignorant. There are probably several people what knew what was going on but what weren’t so toolish and untrustworthy as to run to CNN and save their hoochie reporterette from a prankster’s clutches to some entirely unknown degree.

    What I conclude is that Izzy is not someone you want in your employ because in her eagerness to betray you she will run off half-cocked without having the facts straight and make a big fool of both herself and your whole enterprise.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  70. JD

    that is right. i am against editing. i want to see the whole boring thing.

    like when they report on a hearing, they should not edit any of it. they should show the whole thing.

    And when they show a war, they should show all their footage. even if it is just a soldier picking his toenails, because all editing is bad.

    of course then the nightly news would take 3 days, but so what?

    (yes, i am joking)

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  71. Angelino, that’s a news item? There is no content at all other than a quotation of a vague email.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  72. #66

    According to the California DOJ report, the unedited tapes showed that Hannah Giles made numerous statements designed to induce sympathy for her imaginary plight, including statements about her tragic life, her abusive pimp, and her fears for the underage girls. The tapes released by O’Keefe did not include these statements, the DOJ documents says (p.11). Nor did they show that one worker (Lavelle Stewart) initially told them that ACORN could not help them.

    Angeleno (196ff8)

  73. Angeleno just proved that Lavelle is exonerated !!!!!!!!!! RACISTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    JD (a61253)

  74. Comedy gold, Angeleno, comedy gold.

    Oh, you were not trying to be funny? Imagine that.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  75. #70

    Yes. Specifcally, CNN quotes Izzy as saying of O’Keefe’s statement that “[I]t’s clearly a PR statement for damage control. It’s clearly not true but what can you do.”

    Angeleno (196ff8)

  76. Angeleno, that’s meaningless. And its hilarious that you herald it like a huge story.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  77. Come on. This is how Boudreau describes Izzy’s appearance:

    When Boudreau arrived at the address, a house located on a tributary of the Patuxent River, Santa approached her with a tape recorder in her hand and said she wanted to talk in the car, Boudreau said.

    “I noticed she had a little bit of dirt on her face, her lip was shaking, she seemed really uncomfortable and I asked her if she was OK,” Boudreau said. “The first thing she basically said to me was, ‘I’m not recording you, I’m not recording you. Are you recording me?’ I said, ‘No, I’m not recording you,’ and she showed me her digital recorder and it was not recording.”

    There is a whole lot of drama going on.

    MayBee (e121ec)

  78. #75

    Izzy is terse, but she has now put herself on record as denying the truth of O’Keefe’s account.

    Angeleno (196ff8)

  79. Why can he selectively edit his video and not be a dihonest biased hack, but anyone who else who does it IS a dishonest biased hack?

    You can’t possibly be as dumb as you appear from your comments. The answer is simple: it depends on how the video is edited.

    ANY video that we see has been edited to some extent. We all accept that. The only thing that matters is whether the editing is done to obfuscate the truth.

    O’Keefe’s video taken in ACORN does not obfuscate the truth, and neither does the footage he added.

    Some Chump (e84e27)

  80. thank you for the lesson in how conservatives think.

    I thought you used to be a conservative.

    MayBee (e121ec)

  81. The only problem with O’Keefe’s statement is that there’s no reason for Santa to send this email to Project Veritas donors if his account is accurate:

    I have a problem on my hands that I think it has the potential for unnecessary backlash.

    Today James is meeting with a CNN correspondent today on his boat. She doesn’t know she is getting on a boat but rather James’s office.

    James has staged the boat to be a palace of pleasure with all sorts of props, wants to have a bizarre sexual conversation with her. He wants to gag CNN.

    The idea is incredibly bad and second CNN could go after James, the reporter is flying in and renting a car to have a talk with James.

    What do you think? This is happening at 12:30 EST.

    I am driving up to help James but the more I think about it, we should not be doing this.

    I doubt she would’ve been that concerned about, in O’Keefe’s words, a “counter-seduction satire executed in a tame, humorous, non-threatening manner.” Santa was down there with him, so whatever he was going to do was apparently still outrageous enough to convince her dissuade Boudreau from getting on that boat.

    SEK (7cb1d4)

  82. “The only problem with O’Keefe’s statement is that there’s no reason for Santa to send this email to Project Veritas donors if his account is accurate:”

    SEK – Actually there is a whole paragraph in O’Keefe’s explanation which would address Santa’s reasoning for sending that email, if you inclined to believe it:

    “I do believe that Izzy Santa, who came to Ms. Boudreau with the documents and the story, was simply trying to protect me and the organization from a dangerous and objectionable plan, one sent to me in my personal emails that she assumed, wrongly, and probably due to my own lack of communication to her, that I was going to implement. Nothing in the document was implemented.”

    daleyrocks (940075)

  83. I wonder if Izzy is on any medications.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  84. SEK

    So… she protected O’Keefe… by blabbing to cnn.

    you know, that way they couldn’t make O’Keefe look bad.

    mmm, yeah.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  85. angelino

    btw, really how stupid do you think we are. The Cali AG cleared them of criminal wrongdoing?

    And who is that AG?

    JERRY BROWN

    Gee, i am sure he based that on a fair reading of the facts and law.

    we all saw the tapes. who exactly do you think you are fooling?

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  86. AW #84 – we are seeing the effects of Moonbeams on liberals, I suspect …

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  87. Why did Izzy have dirt on her face? Was she hiding in the bushes?

    MayBee (e121ec)

  88. Aaron, you are correct, Jerry Brown is the attorney general. In an earlier post, “daleyrocks” pointed out to another poster that he had failed to say how the tapes were “selectively edited” (see #66). Having read the CA DOJ report, I recalled that it did offer some specifics, hence my posting the link.

    As you noted, the report found no criminal activity on the part of ACORN employees in California and offered a fairly full account of the reasoning behind the finding. I’m curious as to whether you disagree with this reasoning and, if so, why.

    Cheers.

    Angeleno

    Angeleno (196ff8)

  89. Angelino

    You need me to explain to you why it is illegal to help a person create a brothel of underage children?

    You know, you don’t need three years in law school for that.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  90. So Angeleno, your only standard for Leftwing organizations is that they escape actually being indicted for criminal activity.

    That level of standards explains a lot.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  91. Izzy creeps me out.

    She’s an instigator.

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  92. Angelino,

    Guess what happens to ACORN in a few months? They will be investigated by people who are not partisan shills unwilling to prosecute the democrat party (ACORN is basically the democrat party).

    Anyone can watch the unedited video and see for themselves that ACORN is a criminal enterprise. You can’t explain it away.

    For far too long cities with ‘community organizers’ have slippery drug dealers and pimps able to commit mortgage fraud and hide their ill gotten wealth. Now we know who was doing the dirty work.

    These tapes have tips on how to hide earnings from prostitutes, how to keep them from jeopardizing the security of the operation, what to claim (dishonestly) on a mortgage application… etc etc etc. You say this isn’t a crime, but your entire argument is that a democrat shill wouldn’t prosecute them. It’s the same excuse used for why voter fraud didn’t occur (even when there are more votes cast than voters). No prosecutions is an indication of a much more widespread problem, once you have proof a serious crime is known by the authorities to have occurred.

    This is low hanging fruit for the GOP House Committees.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  93. #89

    The attorneys who wrote the CA DOJ report disclose their reasoning on pps. 15-17. If you have criticisms of their reasoning, I’d be interested in hearing them.

    #90

    Actually, SPQR, it was Aaron Worthing who brought up the matter of criminality and I don’t believe that I’ve proposed anything concerning standards in this thread. Perhaps you’ve confused me with another poster.

    Angeleno (196ff8)

  94. #92

    See #93.

    Angeleno (196ff8)

  95. O’Keefe’s a punk. Bad for conservatives.

    Kevin Stafford (abdb87)

  96. Angelino, you have, in fact, argued in ACORN’s defense, but I’m glad you have the shame to deny it.

    In fact, just because you feel sorry for a prostitute does not mean you should fill out forms for them, tell them how to avoid the cops, and how to control their child prostitutes.

    You say you’d like to hear any criticisms of reasoning that this isn’t criminal behavior, as if that criticism hasn’t been made, because you are completely unable to overcome the argument plainly made. It’s not unusual for someone engaged in this degree of shilling to pretend no argument has been made, but ACORN is another major cloud looming over the democrat party for 2011. If you’re really confused about the matter, just watch the unedited videos from around the country.

    Cherry picking one employee or one state or one democrat shill AG is cute, but it isn’t going to cut it with reasonable people. I particularly like how you pretend you haven’t said anything about criminality or standards. The extreme lefty fringe… it’s amusing to consider just how awful the democrat party would have to be before you stopped offering excuses (and indeed, that’s exactly what you’ve done). I wonder how many people are dead because of ACORN helping pimps and dealers. You can pretend this kind of horrible decision making only occurred on these sting tapes, but no rational person wants ACORN in their neighborhood.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  97. CNN’s account says that they have additional e-mails, provided by Izzy Santa, which show that O’Keefe was, in fact, intending to carry out the proposal as described in Ben’s document.

    Where are those e-mails? Have they released them? If not, why not?

    JinEugene (a2693d)

  98. #96

    Dustin, if you take the time to review my posts, you will see that I have not made any arguments relative to ACORN and the O’Keefe-Giles videos.

    At #72, I pointed to the CA DOJ report and comments therein concerning “selective editing.” I didn’t express an opinion on the matter, much less offer an argument.

    Subsequently, Aaron Worthing brought up the no-crime finding. At #88 I noted that the CA DOJ report presented the department’s rationale for the finding and asked his view of it. Again, I did not express an opinion or make an argument.

    Angeleno (196ff8)

  99. Angelino

    > If you have criticisms of their reasoning, I’d be interested in hearing them.

    1) they can’t figure out that aiding and abetting prostitution is a crime.

    2) the AG has an inescapable conflict of interest.

    > Actually, SPQR, it was Aaron Worthing who brought up the matter of criminality

    No, you did. By bringing up the California DOJ report. http://patterico.com/2010/10/05/okeefe-speaks-out/#comment-706915

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  100. No, Aaron, you don’t get it. Angelino doesn’t have to take responsibility for quoting the AG. They said that, not him. He’s just curious if anyone can challenge the reasoning.

    No reason to see his uncritical citation of shill and sleaze as his own views. Oh wait… that’s the only rational way to read his commentary.

    Like I said, it’s interesting to consider just how far these types would be willing to go. Democrat party (under the ACORN banner) helping facilitate child prostitution? Already much further than I’d have guessed. Thanks to O’Keefe, a lot of democrat shills are now hopelessly exposed. They don’t even realize that the time bomb is yet ticking.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  101. “In an earlier post, “daleyrocks” pointed out to another poster that he had failed to say how the tapes were “selectively edited” (see #66).”

    Angelino – In your opinion did the “selective editing” make the tapes misleading or biased against ACORN? I have not seen anybody make a convincing case for that, only shriek about “selective editing” without pointing out any kind of impact of the editing. That should have been plain from my earlier comment. I’m sorry if it was not.

    It is also unfortunate that the left wants to hang its defense of ACORN on the observation that arguably no criminal acts were committed on the tapes. That would have been a beautiful thing wouldn’t it, to have an actual tax return filed and mortgage application submitted, so that ACORN employees and O’Keefe and Giles could all be busted for tax and mortgage mortgage fraud? Given the willingness of the ACORN employees to help out, there was really no reason to take it that final step, was there? There was also no reason to round up a bunch of hispanic teenagers to play the role of teenaged hookers either. Enough damage was done with the tapes as they stood.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  102. oh hey that sounds like a neat idea just do me a favor don’t tell Izzy cause you can’t trust her.

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  103. Dustin

    > No, Aaron, you don’t get it

    What i don’t get is what he hopes to accomplish. he will convince no one he is right who didn’t already agree with him. and i wonder what the hell he tells himself when he asks why he supports an organization as soulless as acorn?

    Probably tells himself we are all in the klan.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  104. So there was selective editing, to get to the point or whatever. And my question still stands, why is it ok for bravenoblepure journalist extroidinare OKeefe to selectively edit his tape and leave out the bits that might hurt his case, but it’s not ok for anyone else to?

    How convenient for everyone that any dismissal of OKeefe’s work must be part of “THE CONSPRIACY”. I read that a lot in lefty blog comments too.

    Haven’t you all figured out yet that
    “fair and balanced” is a marketing slogan?
    No. Really.

    EdWood (1969a9)

  105. OK, this is the point where I am going to step in and ask people to calm down.

    Angeleno seems fairly measured and is simply making some points and arguments. I think that a lot of commenters who I like are dogpiling. Go back and read his comments and assume he is NOT a troll and see if you think people are jumping down his throat a little. I do.

    I don’t even know that he is a lefty.

    Look, Angeleno: here’s the thing. Jerry Brown’s claims of selective editing miss one very important point: James O’Keefe released all the unedited AUDIO of all the visits when he released the videos. Of COURSE the videos are going to be edited. You can ALWAYS point to context and claim that the edited portion omits it. The question is whether the edited portion is unfairly edited to convey a different impression of reality than what actually transpired. I think this VERY difficult to assert when ALL the unedited audio was released from the get-go.

    As far as whether ACORN committed state crimes in California, I offer no opinion. I think it requires a little more analysis than Aaron’s flip comment in #89.

    As for your original comment in this thread, I don’t think Izzy’s opinion adds much to the case against O’Keefe beyond what we already knew: namely, she BELIEVED he was going with the original plan. Whether she was right or not, it seems, is subject to reasonable dispute.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  106. edwood

    > Haven’t you all figured out yet that “fair and balanced” is a marketing slogan?

    Why would it be a marketing slogan… unless there is a belief that we aren’t currently getting that?

    I mean Ed Schultz went on MSNBC the other day and claimed his rally was about the same size as beck’s. has msnbc corrected him?

    and every word of o’keefe’s indictment on cnn is valid.

    cbs aired fake documents and took weeks to admit they were fakes. i don’t fault them for being duped, but at some point they should have woken up to the deception.

    And it goes on and on. we are really running out of media outlets we can trust.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  107. Like Julian Sanchez said, conservatism is an inferiority complex masquerading as political philosophy.
    You feel absolutely any tactics used are warranted because you are overmatched.

    Regardless of the other arguments going on in this thread, this has to be the most inane comment by some poster that I have ever read.

    It is devoid of any succinct response by its abject ingorance.

    Ag80 (93f9d9)

  108. And I, of course, devalued my point by a stupid typo. Strike one for my side. “ignorance.”

    Ag80 (93f9d9)

  109. Angeleno seems fairly measured and is simply making some points and arguments.

    When watching the videos, it’s clear, particularly in offices other than the California ones (however, the Cali vids are quite bad) that ACORN is a criminal enterprise. Mortgage fraud, plain as day.

    I believe I asserted it’s cherry picking to rely on a particular office or worker, and also unreasonable to rely on the AG’s report when the activity is so extreme and the entire event has long been available for anyone to see for themselves.

    It’s not doing my case any good to express that I am amazed someone would watch all this material and still attempt to defend ACORN, so I’ll knock that off. But Angelino’s explanation that the prostitute told sob stories is inadequate. I’ve listened to the full audio and there is no reason to help such people grow their business.

    Guess I’ll leave it at that, but I am confident that this issue will be raised again by authorities that are not tied to ACORN.

    I do agree Angelino is simply presenting points and arguments (though I think he has attempted to deny some of the points he seems to be making). He is not a troll.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  110. “why is it ok for bravenoblepure journalist extroidinare OKeefe to selectively edit his tape and leave out the bits that might hurt his case, but it’s not ok for anyone else to?”

    EdWood – I asked earlier, but you have not identified any bits that were edited out that might have hurt O’Keefe’s case. Are you actually aware of any or just repeating a talking point?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  111. AW,
    You don’t need a reality to create a marketing campaign, a good marketing campaign can create it’s own reality. I can’t remember who said that.

    More to the point though…. “It’s all subjective.” Rupert Murdoch said that.

    I think there is a narrative by bloggers and independent journalists or punk’d journalists that they are more truthful, or at least the watchdogs of truth if they aren’t hunting down stories themselves. And maybe they are right. Maybe with more eyes on things the truth will out.
    But spin and seeing some “truth” when it’s not there, especially if one has pre-concieved notions about “those guys who don’t agree with us”, exist here on the wild wild web too.

    EdWood (1969a9)

  112. EdWood, given your history here of making a claim and failing to back it up, I think I can see where the spin is.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  113. Angeleno, I think my comment about standards stands. The best argument you seem to have is that the AG did not indict them.

    That’s not impressive. And it isn’t a refutation of anything O’Keefe accomplished.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  114. EdWood, I would like to see you back up your assertion too, please.

    I mean this latest one that hurts O’Keefe’s case. I have the full audio, so just refer me to which sting, and where in the audio the cut section appears (maybe refer to the area of the video that it was clipped from, and the case in the video that the cut section would have refuted).

    My opinion is that the full audio shouldn’t have been cut. It was not as punchy, but presented the idea of an even sadder situation for Hannah, and ACORN letting that slide in most cases, and usually making it quite a bit worse for more people. I don’t know how O’Keefe had the stomach to portray himself as a pimp profiting from such a situation, but that he was able to get approximately consistent results of aid is a strong case against ACORN.

    As to O’Keefe’s latest, I think Aaron’s description of the sting is probable, but I think that’s a lame stunt that shouldn’t have been attempted.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  115. D’rocks- You are sidestepping my question by asking for specifics. I’ll refer you to Angelino’s brief response above. No air time for the one guy who said ACORN could not help OKeefe. Why? Coz it messed up the narrative.
    You guys want OKeefe to be Woodward and Bernstein when he’s really Michael Moore.

    And none of you will answer the question. If selective editing puts out a story that does some good (I don’t think anyone here will argue that the story did some good, along with smearing a lot of other people who have NOT been proven to be crooked on tape or otherwise but hey that’s another argument) then was it BAD journalism? If OKeefe can do it to do some “good” then why can’t CNN etc?

    EdWood (1969a9)

  116. EdWood:

    D’rocks- You are sidestepping my question by asking for specifics. I’ll refer you to Angelino’s brief response above. No air time for the one guy who said ACORN could not help OKeefe. Why? Coz it messed up the narrative.

    You mean this guy?

    Although Mr. Felix D. Harris of Los Angeles ACORN told us he didn’t care about our prostitution business in regards to a housing loan, he drew the line when we spoke about the underage girls. Although he did not kick us out, he was the only employee in our nationwide ACORN child prostitution investigation who would not assist us.

    They called him “ACORN Employee of the Year.”

    You pretend that they swept him under the rug. They did not.

    I breathlessly await your correction and apology.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  117. “No air time for the one guy who said ACORN could not help OKeefe.”

    EdWood – I believe the person Angelino is referring to indeed got air time. You are sidestepping my question because you obviously have no knowledge of the subject. I contend the editing of the tapes did not meaningfully mislead viewers. Prove me wrong.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  118. “And none of you will answer the question.”

    EdWood – Nobody wants to address a question built on the false foundations which you have constructed yours. It’s just that simple.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  119. D’rocks
    If the guy is on the released tapes, not the “full audio” but the hand picked, specially edited ones, then I am wrong.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  120. Dustin

    > I think that’s a lame stunt that shouldn’t have been attempted.

    My thought, having slept on it, is this. Okay, say the plan was to do the written outrageous plan. Okay, but any plan needs to ask, “what happens if it goes wrong?” punking a reporter this way is dangerous because if it goes wrong then you have a strange situation that takes some serious ‘splaining to do.

    so if o’keefe was smart he wouldn’t have tried it for that reason, although ironically he is in exactly the same boat as if he tried the most extreme plan and failed. But that depends on people being smart and thinking things through, a dubious proposition in most cases. fwiw.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  121. And none of you will answer the question.

    I already answered it, Ed, and you ignored my answer. I’ll do the same for your posts in the future.

    Some Chump (e84e27)

  122. The Ben Wetmore memo to James O’Keefe proposed luring CNN to cover a fake story. Here’s a news outlet that didn’t need any help.

    Angeleno (196ff8)

  123. ed

    all editing that isn’t strictly random is “selective.” the question is whether it is dishonest or not.

    name a single new broadcast that doesn’t edit some. when they report on the SOTU, do they show all of it? no they show the highlights. no different with o’keefe.

    And they still release all of the audio, so if you feel it is dishonest, make your case.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  124. Angeleno, meanwhile the LA Times is wrapping their newspaper in fake headlines.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  125. In the best possible light, no tiniest part of this prank is defensible.

    nk (db4a41)

  126. #124

    Sadly true, SPQR.

    Angeleno (196ff8)

  127. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxdskI3uV3A

    O’keefe’s comments expanded

    Hank Chase (73b34c)

  128. Some Chump,
    I must have missed your answer while backpedaling.

    AW.
    Sure, everybody edits, that was what I was trying to say. Apparently I should have watched all 15 tapes and listened to the audio before I said anything but hey who has the time? My point above was that “honest and dishonest” are in the eye of the beholder. Rachel Maddow did her own critique of the tapes and pointed out some instances of what she thought was selective editing or later glossing over of certain facts but anyone not on her “side” will just blow her critique off by saying something along the lines of “those were not cases of selective editing and she’s a liberal anyway so nothing she says could ever be true”.

    I’m suspicious of the guy because in his “sting” he found NO good people in this organization anywhere, no matter where he looked(aside from, apparently the employee of the year above who is also a bad guy too it seems). I just don’t believe people who take a big sample and get those kinds of results.
    If he was a journalist and not another Michael Moore then he probably could have found plenty of dedicated workers at ACORN who would not talk to people who wanted to open up child sex rings and who would have found legal ways for a (fake) prostitute to get housing. Maybe not, maybe ACORN really was a mafia but I’m guessing he could have.

    And since I am suspicious of his motives in his ACORN sting it makes me doubly suspicious of his motives in his latest beano. I guess I am just suspicious of punk’d journalism in general.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  129. #119
    I addressed this to D’rocks but I meant Patterico. I’m just more used to getting whacked across the knuckles by D’rocks so I missed your nick.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  130. Edwood, good for you for back peddling.

    You really should watch the full expose and Breitbart’s other coverage of it. When I say some people either are not operating reasonably or must have not seen all the material, I’m hoping it’s the latter and it usually is.

    BTW, Daleyrocks IS Patterico IS Mike Castle IS Rick Sanchez, if you believe some of the folks around.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  131. Ed

    > My point above was that “honest and dishonest” are in the eye of the beholder

    Please leave your moral and factual relativism at the door. Post modernism is so tedius.

    > Rachel Maddow did her own critique

    Maddow has problem with truth and selective editing herself. But i have listened to all major critiques and they are like Michael jackson’s critique of the bashir interview way back when. None of it takes away from the valid truths of the video.

    I mean, once again, even JON STEWART had no defense for this. if you have lost stewart, you have lost the medium far left of America.

    > I’m suspicious of the guy because in his “sting” he found NO good people in this organization anywhere, no matter where he looked(aside from, apparently the employee of the year above who is also a bad guy too it seems).

    Its funny how the hyperbole is in the main text of your sentence, but the reality that takes away from it is in parenthesis. But basically your argument amounts to ”I can’t believe they would be that bad.” Well, of course Acorn repeatedly said that this was just one or two employees, and then “but they were turned away in Cities X, Y, and Z.” and then video from cities X, Y, and Z followed. Between acorn and o’keefe, there was only one proven liar: Acorn.

    > I just don’t believe people who take a big sample and get those kinds of results.

    It wasn’t that big of a sample. But is it really that surprising? Go to Holland. Prostitution is legal there. Pot is legal. Sex with girls as young as 12 is legal. Go to Bangkok, where the stuff ain’t legal, but it might as well be. Aren’t liberals always saying how civilized Europe is, how much we should be like them? is it shocking that an enclave of like-minded people would think Holland has the right idea?

    Not to mention how often liberals are willing to enable bad behavior on the theory that nothing can stop it, so the best they can do is mitigate it. Handing out condoms to little children is based on the theory that they are bound to have sex anyway, so the best we can hope for is they wear condoms. And then there is handing out clean needles, because again, you can’t expect people to stop shooting up just because they might catch AIDS. So the best we can do is mitigate the damage with clean needles. And illegal immigration. Again, liberals don’t think you can stop it, so instead they just figure they should get free education, healthcare, social programs, etc. and ultimately citizenship.

    So would it be all that abnormal for a liberal to say, “look these girls are going to be prostitutes no matter what. At least I can give them a nice house to live in”? its not hard for me to imagine.

    Nothing morally wrong with a view of humanity that is as optimistic as yours, but nonetheless, its incorrect. Maybe you need to see the ugly side of people up close and personal as I have, but I have no problem believing that this many bad people, or often technically, indifferent people, worked there.

    And certainly the sheer banalty of it all is damning. They don’t act like anything being said is outrageous, that they are doing anything wrong, that generally they can’t let others hear what is happening. They are sitting in the middle of the office behaving that way. Its just like that british woman saying she would smother a suffering child the other day and having no idea she said anything outrageous. Its like that 10:10 ad that went through all those hands and no one figured out how awful it was until they released it on the net.

    And it is especially unsurprising in the culture of Acorn. These are people whom violate the sacred right to vote. Setting up a brothel for children seems like child’s play by comparison (no pun intended).

    But on the other hand, what he did was not a scientific survey, nor was it presented as such. So what he presented was anecdotal evidence. It is enough anecdotes to say there was a systemic problem, but not enough to say for certain that everyone in that organization is the same. It would be fallacious on your part to take O’Keefe’s sample as representative.

    So the only take away I got was that acorn was an organization that has hired a lot of people who have seriously damaged senses of morality, and they don’t have any way of detecting and eliminating the problem. in fact in general the organization doesn’t seem particularly interested in stopping any bad behavior.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  132. Dustin, Guilty of the latter.

    “Daleyrocks IS Patterico IS etc….

    Interesting speculation. I always wondered if Patterico (or anybody running a blog where they try and keep things reasonably civil) would want a persona that would let him pop off and be more in your face if events warranted. I still assume that D’rocks is his/her own person of course.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  133. Ed Wood

    Actually Patterico is really the personna. His real name is George Soros. its all part of his nefarious plan.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  134. You’re right, Edwood, Patterico isn’t Daleyrocks. As you obviously realize, I was kidding about someone’s paranoia about that accusation.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if some major bloggers do that. Glen Greenwald did it, and Andrew Sullivan kinda does the opposite (hires people to blog and puts his name on it).

    Even if you’re a loyal progressive, ACORN’s such a liability that folks on the left should go ahead and write them off. A sincere organization that wants to improve the communities like Baltimore and LA and the like probably find the oxygen sucked out by political hack orgs.

    It’s easy to get carried away with politics, or compromise on principles. And it’s almost guaranteed to happen if people signal to ACORN and others that this kind of thing will blow over. ACORN should have been proactive in preventing the internal culture that I think was very consistent and awful.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  135. Dustin

    > Even if you’re a loyal progressive, ACORN’s such a liability

    Well, it was an asset too. let’s not forget how many of the dead have been registered to vote by them.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  136. Yep, ACORN did help the democrats gain thousands of votes and also sabotage the entire voter verification process with a denial of service type attack of fake registrations.

    Screwing with elections is worse than any other ACORN sin. It’s also a very bad idea, even if you are a loyal democrat, because things are tense enough without faith in the elections being lost. That’s when things get really ugly. Hopefully we all have lives that permit us the perspective to see that politics aren’t everything. Hopefully we can make it through our current tense and partisan times without bloodshed. But historically, that’s a huge risk for a country facing our problems.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  137. Dustin

    ah, but ever since bush v. gore a significant number of dems thought the elections were being stolen. you can be sure some of this acorn crap was their attitude of “if they steal it from us, we will steal it right back.” delusional, yes, but there you go.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5679 secs.