ACORN INVESTIGATION: undercover video, no mention in the MSM?

[fossten]

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.

 

[shagdrum]

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: 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"?

 

[foxpaws]

"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 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?

 

[foxpaws]

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.

 

[foxpaws]

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.

 

[shagdrum]

Breitbart isn't showing unedited video

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?

 

[foxpaws]

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.

 

[Calabrio]

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.

 

[Calabrio]

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, a socialist front group for ACORN:
http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/2009/08/wfp-announces-nyc-endorsements/

 

[foxpaws]

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 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 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?

 

[Calabrio]

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, 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.

 

[fossten]

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 called him on it..

This is FALSE, fox...

Please stop LYING.

I've already corrected you once, and you're blatantly pursuing a false premise.

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.'

 

[foxpaws]

This is FALSE, fox...

Please stop LYING.

I've already corrected you once, and you're blatantly pursuing a false premise.

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

Aided and abetted for the purpose of interfering with the telephone system​

So what were they going to do with it – turn the Muzak up?

Authorities 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.

 

[MonsterMark]

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

 

[foxpaws]

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...
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 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.

 

[fossten]

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

From the affidavit

Aided and abetted for the purpose of interfering with the telephone system​

So what were they going to do with it – turn the Muzak up?

Authorities 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.

 

[foxpaws]

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...

 

[shagdrum]

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

 

[fossten]

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.

 

[foxpaws]

...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...

At 19, I am a conservative Republican and an ideological minority.​

From Breibart

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... 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-

 

[foxpaws]

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...

 

[fossten]

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... because even if you are in the same room as the book - you are evil....

English, please...

Buh-bye, liar.