Last night, the New York Times issued a pathetic “correction” in which the paper finally admitted it had gotten one very important element of the ACORN “Pimp” Hoax story wrong by reporting on at least four occasions that Rightwing activist James O’Keefe had dressed in his ridiculous 70s-era blaxploitation “pimp” get-up while secretly video-taping low-level ACORN and ACORN Housing workers last Summer. He didn’t. That was a lie by O’Keefe and his publisher Andrew Breitbart, and it was forwarded uncritically by the New York Times over and over again.
After two months of my badgering the paper’s Senior Editor for Standards Greg Brock and its Public Editor (ombudsman) Clark Hoyt about it — and after each offered all sorts of extraordinary excuses (see here and here for just a start) as to why they stood by the paper’s demonstrably inaccurate reporting — the “paper of record” was finally, and begrudgingly, forced to admit it was wrong on that one element, and has issued a correction to it.
The “correction” came six months after the Times first damagingly misreported the story, and was followed by repeated similar misreports. It also came on the same day that the four-decade-old community organization announced it had been forced to close shop in the wake of the phony scandal, which was helped along by the gross misreporting by the Times and many others that followed suit.
But the Times’ correction still made it a point to include the false notion that, while O’Keefe didn’t dress as a pimp in ACORN offices, he still “represented himself” as one, by “posing” as a pimp.
Well, no, as we’ve shown time and again, he didn’t do that either. He posed as the law school student (or sometimes a banker or politician) boyfriend to Hannah Giles who was dressed similarly to a prostitute. During the secretly-taped interviews, they both told the low-level ACORN and ACORN Housing workers they were trying to save her from an abusive pimp who had attempted to stalk and kill her.
Yet, the Times is still standing by its inaccurate reporting.
So, to help them out, here are just a few more examples of O’Keefe “posing as a pimp,” as the New York Times, the “paper of record,” would have you believe, as taken from O’Keefe’s own unauthenticated text transcripts…
New York transcript…
O’Keefe: have a seat
O’Keefe: well we have a unique situation and my uh this is my girlfriend, Eden, and I apologize about her attire but uhm uhm but Eden is in a unique line of work and umm… (page 3)
O’Keefe: and we have been…I work for Wells Fargo actually and we’ve been basically denied the right to appeal for housing. I have tried to talk to some of my co-workers and they do not want to help me apply for housing. (page 3)
O’Keefe: Yeah, yep, I work at a bank. (page 8)
O’Keefe: Well, the reason why we are rushing is because she was working for this pimp and he was very abusive. (page 17)
Giles: “He has been really aggressive toward me ever since I met him because I wanted to leave because it is scary being subjected to a huge man who has control over your life. And he [O’Keefe] is kind so… ” (page 17)
Baltimore transcript…
Kenya/Giles: Okay, uh, he is moving into town. I am not from here. An um…he wants me… He is going to be going to Johns Hopkins for graduate school. Graduate school, right?
Shira/ACORN worker: Congratulations.
O’Keefe: Yep, law. (page 3)
O’Keefe: The other thing we have to deal with is this guy she was working for, he is very abusive. And this guy has been giving us a lot of problems.
Kenya/Giles: ever since I left. (page 14)
Washington, D.C. transcript…
ACORN worker: Uh huh.
O’Keefe: And I’m running for a local election and we’ve gone to a lot of mortgage brokers… (page 4)
O’Keefe: Well, my ah, my partner is a ah, she’s in a unique line of business and I don’t know if you allow
Acorn 1: Unique line of business? What are you saying?
O’Keefe: Housing
Acorn 1: If you don’t tell us we can’t help you.
O’Keefe: My girlfriend is a prostitute. (pages 4,5)
Giles: I’m kind of afraid to make any ’cause ever since I met him [O’Keefe] I left a bunch of people and one guy in particular who was abusive and very controlling and, um, ever since I left he’s followed me and there’s problems and I feel if there’s more paper he’ll somehow get hold of that and I might end up dead and then I won’t be around. (page 11)
O’Keefe: See this is the problem because I’ve had my political meetings and she’s my girlfriend and I’m trying to set her up with a place so she doesn’t have to beholden to some pimp. You know what I-trying, trying to give her a new life. (page 12)
Those three unauthenticated text transcripts were made available by O’Keefe and Breitbart before the Times filed the first inaccurate story on September 15th last year, reporting on O’Keefe and Giles as “amateur actors, posing as a prostitute and a pimp,” and asserting, completely incorrectly, that O’Keefe “was dressed so outlandishly that he might have been playing in a risqué high school play.”
Three days later, in an approving puff profile of O’Keefe, they inaccurately described his “travels in the gaudy guise of pimp…through various offices of Acorn,” and quoted him as telling the paper: “I’m a skinny nerd, the least convincing pimp in the world.”
But in mid-February of this year, after we’d called out O’Keefe as a liar for misrepresenting himself, Giles admitted to Washington Independent reporter Dave Weigel that the “pimp” concept was added-on with footage that was shot later and edited in. The “gaudy” costume seen in the videos was meant to convey “the whoring out of the American people,” she told Weigel.
“We never claimed that he went in with a pimp costume,” Giles admitted, “that was b-roll. It was purely b-roll. He was a pimp, I was a prostitute, and we were walking in front of government buildings to show how the government was whoring out the American people.â€
In other words, as Giles admitted, and as O’Keefe’s own unauthenticated text-transcripts show, the entire “pimp” concept was added on as an afterthought, and edited in later.
On Sunday, after months of our badgering, NYTimes Public Editor Clark Hoyt finally admitted some error, by explaining that though “The Times was wrong” and he has “been wrong in defending the paper’s phrasing” of the repeated inaccurate assertions that O’Keefe was dressed as a pimp in those ACORN offices the paper’s reporting that O’Keefe posed as a pimp, was nonetheless justified because he “presented himself as one” to the ACORN workers.
Here’s how Hoyt explained it:
Contrast that line, with the way O’Keefe is seen presenting himself in the excerpts posted above. You may also add to them the following excerpts, which we’ve posted before, from O’Keefe’s unauthenticated Brooklyn ACORN transcripts [PDF]:
…
James: and that is why we were in a rush you know why I am excited and I know nothing about her business I am just trying to be here to be professional because ya know she walks in and but now we have this pimp discriminating against us
…
James: I know I have to worry about the pimp but he is illegal anyway he is not going to do anything to me who what do I have to be careful of?
…
James: Sonny is the pimp
So did O’Keefe “clearly present himself” as a pimp, as Hoyt asserted in his Sunday column this week and as the Times re-asserts in both its correction and the reporting by Ian Urbina in today’s paper on the news that ACORN is now being forced to shut down for lack of funds? Urbina reports, uncritically, that “The transcript of several stings, however, indicate that Mr. O’Keefe clearly presented himself as a pimp.” He does not bother to note that the “transcript” is O’Keefe’s own, and has not been authenticated by the Times, or anyone else.
Even so, do the transcripts show O’Keefe “clearly presenting himself” as a pimp? Or is this another case where Hoyt, as we have seen before — for example in the extraordinary email chain between him and me as published in early February — has gone to absurd extremes to justify the unjustifiable, and has the led the Times down yet another path towards yet another long-overdue correction.
There is, of course, more evidence, as I included in my article last night, demonstrating that O’Keefe did not pose as, or “present himself as” a “pimp”, and certainly not “clearly”, as the Times is still standing by and misreporting.
At best, if one relies on even the unauthenticated text transcripts posted by the accused felon O’Keefe and his employer/publisher Breitbart (who has already been shown to have lied about this entire matter as well) — that and testimonials from employees who were there (like the one at right) are all we have to go on, because neither O’Keefe nor Breitbart will release the unedited videos publicly for some reason — then at a minimum a responsible media outlet would have to note, at least for balance, that compelling evidence shows that O’Keefe almost certainly did not “pose as a pimp.” And I’m being very generous here.
Instead, the NYTimes continues, as it has again and again and again — and even in its supposed “correction” — to report this point as a fact, when it is anything but.
The Times wasn’t the only one to did so, of course. Most of the other corporate media outlets followed suit. They all owe their readers and viewer and listeners corrections, retractions, apologies, and an explanation as to what they will do to keep such shoddy reporting from ever happening again.
And there also needs to be some accountability here. Hoyt is supposed to serve as the “reader’s representative,” according to the Times. But it seems clear that he’s more interested in representing the paper, along with O’Keefe and Breitbart, instead of the readers. The Senior Editor for Standards, Greg Brock, a veteran at the paper since 1995, identifies himself as the “senior editor who oversees corrections.” But in this case, he was the senior editor who went to extraordinary lengths to cover-up the paper’s errors, as seen in these extraordinary emails that we published in early February.
New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller needs to take a serious look at the outrageous behavior and dreadful failures of both Hoyt and Clark in this matter, and appropriate action needs to be taken. The readers, the truth, and the now-destroyed, four-decade old community organization ACORN — tried and executed only in the media, with the help of the New York Times — deserve to see some accountability.
Here are the appropriate email addresses at the New York Times. PLEASE USE THEM or you are guaranteed to see these sort of outrages happen again and again and again…
…CONTACT…
Executive Editor Bill Keller, executive-editor@nytimes.com
Managing Editor John Geddes, managing-editor@nytimes.com
Sr. Editor for Standards Greg Brock, SeniorEditor@NYTimes.com
Public Editor Clark Hoyt, Public@NYTimes.com
Reporter Ian Urbina, urbina@nytimes.com
Brad, I sent this today. Wish my Twitter list was bigger than a handful…
Subject: SHAMEFUL and OUTRAGEOUS
To: executive-editor@nytimes.com
Cc: managing-editor@nytimes.com, SeniorEditor@NYTimes.com, public@nytimes.com, urbina@nytimes.com
Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 4:53 PM
Dear Mr. Keller:
I am outraged that a supposedly professional newspaper such as yours pretends to be, still continues to spread misinformation and libelous lies against the ACORN organization.
It has been reported numerous times to Editor Hoyt that what he is printing about the O’Keefe encounter at ACORN offices has been shown to be a fraudulent story- made up by wet-behind-the-ears thug O’Keefe- who is now facing federal charges over another criminal transgression.
It is unforgivable that your rag does not see fit to print the unvarnished and uncorrupted truth. It is not enough that you aided and abetted the Bush administration to push this nation into war by corrupting the news during the run-up to that war. You have not learned any morality nor proper journalism since then.
I enjoin you to print a proper FRONT PAGE truthful story about the O’Keefe fraud.
It is beyond shameful and dishonest that your editors – even as they claim to correct the story- continue falsely to report that ” In the encounters, the activists posed as a prostitute and a pimp and discussed prostitution with the workers.” WRONG!
I am still waiting for a voluminous FRONT PAGE story about how this young journalist has turned out to be a fraudster who doctored up videos to LOOK LIKE they posed as a pimp and a prostitute, and had everyone including Congress believing their fraud. And that ACORN was wrongly denied federal funds through an unconstitutional (as ruled already) law of attainder. It should also report that O’Keefe is now accused of a federal crime.
The proper title for this FRONT PAGE article would be
“The truth is in- Fraudulent video caused demise of ACORN.
O’Keefe accused of federal crime.”
Our national media is on a precipitous fall from grace. I suspect that it is incidents like this and like the scandalous misleading reporting in the run-up to the Iraq war that have caused this demise.
I am not sure that we have much left to preserve.
Please prove me wrong.
Sincerely.
Yesterday NPR news also reported incorrectly about ACORN. As if it were needed, there’s another good reason for NYT to issue a bonafide correction.
FYI – in case you’re tracking this sort of thing – Patterico paid a couple of visits to the comments section of Simon Owen’s Monday (22Mar) blog post on this topic, accusing you (Brad) of “constructing a false narrative” yadda-yadda-yadda, and generally making what appear to be the usual excuses for O’Keefe and co.
You may have noticed on Maddow this evening about the up and coming Republitard barrage of Amendments to the health insurance bill…
the first two to be introduced were done so by philanderer David Vitter and one of them was to
DENY FUNDING FOR ACORN!!!
It would be funny if it wasn’t so fucking sad, and if their goal wasn’t to just kick people in need while they are down.
Kill this fucking party. Kill it dead.
(And that sentiment in no way excuses the fucked up state of the corporate-owned Democrats)
Brad,
I really want to thank you for maintaining the discussion on this issue.
Outside his of regressive, pre-teen tantrums and his violent need to be coddled by the media, Breitbart relies principally on 2 things to get his way–
1. the irrational anger and unfocused rage that he deliberately cultivates in his base, &
2. The apathy which he can presume that, most likely, everyone else has (and with spineless opportunists like Hoyt running around, it’s not surprising that he comes to that conclusion.)
I’m just glad folks like you are there to counter that negative imbalance, and that you have the means to voice what so many of us already know to be true– that this whole “sting†was all a fabricated political witch-hunt that targeted services for the poor with the hope of smearing Obama.
I am grateful for your work, because the kind of world which Andy, james and Hannah all envision is a freakish and scary one…one where un-vetted and doctored video become not just political smear tools, but worse, the basis for public policy (…that congress could punish ACORN on the basis of questionable videos which they didnt even investigate or review is just appalling.)
O’keefe, Breitbart, Giles etc… are all people who take it for granted that they don’t need to be accountable for ANYTHING (is that the stomach-churning, gutter-trash scent of Karl Rove wafting about?) So I am glad folks like you are there to make sure they are.
I am also glad to help hold Hoyt accountable for his participation in the BigGov agenda, and I want to thank you for giving us the proper contacts to express our disappointment at the NYT.
But Hoyt also needs to be taken to task for something else. Hoyt has pushed the narrative dictated by Breitbart which claims that the msm “ignored” him & james etc… (as if Fox News isnt’ the msm… I mean, they might skirt each and every ethic in the book, but they ARE mainstream.)
That whole scenario was a pretty unconvincing one to me.
First of all, because I saw the review of the tapes on CNN the morning after they aired on Fox’s evening show. So the story was hardly “ignoredâ€. Rather, it seems like Breitbart went to some lengths to deliberately keep News groups (other than Fox News) out of the loop.
He did this perhaps just to make it look like he was being persecuted (he really gets off on that… I bet there’s a really mean & unforgiving set of anal beads in his hope chest.) But honestly, I think he just didnt want to have james go in front of anyone that would ask a substantial question.
Consider that, when James released his tapes, every News anchor (other than those on Fox) claimed that James and Hannah would not respond to requests for comments. And this was the very same weekend they released the footage.
And on the very day James released the footage, he posted a statement, read by Rush, which basically offered some lame and unconvincing excuses as to why he why he flatly refused CNN’s request for an interview ON THE DAY HE RELEASED HIS TAPES. You should read the post…. it’s a real bed-wetter!
See O’Keefe’s post on BigGov.com for 9-11-09 regarding this… its really paranoid, and just plain loony. I mean, how can someone say “I have evidence of complicity in the awful crime of child-trafficking etc…â€, but then openly (and hostilely) refuse the opportunity for air time to get your point across ESPECIALLY to a wide-reaching news group like CNN?
I mean, Bertha Lewis went on Fox, and faced people who explicitly hated her. What “enemies†was O’Keefe so worried about? Candy Crowely? Really?
In his statement, James throws out all sorts of bs about CNN doing a “hit job” on him (as if CNN had some secret love for ACORN… as if the previous year never happened!) Personally, I think that is entirely Freudian. O’keefe knows that he, himself, is a liar, a hack, and a hit-job goon. So of course, his frail, chapped and abused mind thinks everyone else is as devious as he is.
And then there’s the fact that Breibart all but admits to giving the story exclusively to Fox, and cutting almost everyone else out, from the get go (see his Washington Times article on what he calls his “politicized artâ€.) Again, he uses as his excuse some wacko, archaic distress over his “enemiesâ€.
“Enemies  Not, “those who might disagree with meâ€. Not “those who might ask me fair questions or offer reasonable critique about the material I am producingâ€. Not even “fellow journalists .
“Enemies!†I mean, what the hell? There’s professionalism for ya!!!!
And Hoyt gave in to that contrivance, even though it was a lie, deliberately orchestrated by Breitbart to paint this false “underdog†veneer over his creepy, lying megalomaniacal charges.
You know… Hoyt just sucks all around.
How to go, Brad! Send him back to Joisey in a woild of Hoyt…
Janet A. (#2)~
I heard that, too. And while it’s disappointing that even Amy Goodman hasn’t (yet) changed her inaccurate phrasing from “posed as a pimp as prostitute” – at least today she covered HOYT’s regressive, tar-baby, non-retraction:
http://www.democracynow.org/
(HOYT / NYT coverage begins @ 11:47 mark)
…just goes to show how effective that Pimp n’ Ho hook was. No one can let it go; a lie impervious to all disinfectant.
Over at Patterico, he’s pretty much nullified your narrative.
But only if you rely on the transcript and the tapes.
Your readers are pretty gullible.
(#8) ~
Who? Oh! That claptrap phenom dupe-sitter whose false “narrative” has been eviscerated here over and over again? Who has proven time and time again that he can’t be trusted to write or speak without farting obfuscations all over everyone while accusing everyone of obfuscating and lying?
Yeah, that guy’s SO over. He’s been toast here for months – exposed by the contradictions in own sick dribble. He doesn’t know when to stay down.
…and neither do you.
Unlike your rot-blog, talking trash doesn’t advance your argument here.
I know you are lying Brad, but I believe you cause I’m a liberal.
Hey, good job describing NYT’s error there. I agree that they fumbled on this one. This video does kind of the same thing: http://www.newsy.com/videos/acorn-files-for-bankruptcy/ Good job calling them out!
Sorry Steve,
Anyone who puts stock in Patterico’s foolishness is hardly in any place to call others “gullible”. And that goes double for anyone who looks at those tapes and doesnt ask basic questions about their obvious inconsistencies, or the holes in James & Hannah’s story.
If perhaps you had some understanding of human psychology, you might be aware of the studies done on facial responsiveness to taboo subjects.
Taboo and criminal topics, owing to their non-normative natures, will always cause some sort reaction to register on the faces of their audiences.
For instance, even in interviews with convicted child molesters, the subject of child molesting causes them noticeable “surprise†(eg, if you don’t want to peruse the literature, you can just check out the set-ups on the stings from “To Catch A Predatorâ€.)
Likewise, robbers, when discussing robbery (even those that aren’t their own) get excitable and uneasy. The same is true with drug-dealers or shop-lifters.
You don’t need to be in a police interrogation to know that… there’s actually a rather substantial body of literature detailing the very subject of facial-responsiveness (if the public library isnt too “socialist’ for you, you might want to check some of that material out.)
Non-normative subjects cause visible facial reactions, even to someone waering a â€poker-faceâ€. Such subjects unsettle people, even if said person is (for whatever reason) “okay” with the taboo subject being discussed.
For instance, people who support the war evidence some degree of unease about discussing it, just because the subject is contentious. The same is true, in recent months, with the subject of healthcare. While I might be in support of healthcare reform, if the suibject came up at work, my face would register a noticeable change or “surpriseâ€.
You can even look at James’ own interviews on Fox regarding his tapes. Look at how different his manner gets when it comes to the material… its because of its contentiousness. People are hard-wired to react that way by nature. It takes a HELLUVA LOT of training (or trauma) to overcome that.
That being the case, if the subject of trafficking underage girls for prostitution really did come up in James & Hannah’s discussions with ACORN, there would have been some moment when the faces of the ACORN employees would have registered, quite visibly, surprise at the idea that “oh, you are talking about child -trafficking.” There would have been a moment when they would need clarification, or just to take that information in.
We don’t see that at all.
I mean, my goodness, one lady doesnt even want Hannah in the office dressed like a hooker… She’s clearly upset by the way Hannah is dressed, and has to be pressed by James into accepting her into the office.
Do you honestly believe that this woman, who was quite visibly put off by Hannah’s dress, would just slip into the subject of international child sex-trafficking without batting an eye?
Talk about gullible!!!
Look, the issue really isnt what James was wearing. That aspect of the story is just representative of the fact that reporters were not asking basic, reasonable questions about the videos.
And Breitbart, James etc… , through their tantrums, their antics (and their immediate refusal to meet with the very press which they pretended “ignored†them) have tried very hard to maneuver away from those reasonable questions, and actually fault those who pose them.
That’s really what Brad, and the rest of us are getting at.
Look, James claims to have evidence of some pretty serious crimes (I mean, I consider human trafficking serious, don’t you? ) But he adamantly REFUSES to be accountable about that evidence. Or to answer meaningful questions about them.
That speaks volumes. It also leaves him to callously mock those who are truly suffering in that horrible reality of international human trafficking. He’s made a joke out of their sorrow.
One last thing. I am sure that, like most of Patterico’s patsies, or BigGov bone-heads, you call yourself a Christian.
Ever read the Sermon on the Mount? Just sit down and take a long think about it.
This past winter was pretty darn cold (conservatives were reveling in that fact, by assuming that the cold had bebunked Global Warming Theory.)
A LOT of people were turned onto the streets and went homeless because of what James and Hannah did. You celebrate that fact, even as they make money and fame off of it.
They are too young to realize it now, but that’s going to stay with them the rest of their lives… someone once said “the poor are always with us.â€
In your own lifetime, you will see just how far on the wrong side of history you truly are.
Very good Acorn article at Commondreams today that gets it right. Very refreshing.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/24-4
The American news media failed in all sorts of ways when it comes to the pimp hoax story. First no mainstream news sources even bothered to delve whether the heavily doctored pimp hoax videos were legitimate. Honest investigations, including those in courts of law, show they were not. Second, the news media didn’t explore the bigger picture of what ACORN does, and convey what role those low-level ACORN employees caught in those bogus Candid-Camera-Type “stings” played in the organization. The news media broadcast a slanted and distorted picture of ACORN that offered almost no perspective whatsoever. Even after being presented with the facts, the New York Times refused to retract the damaging lies that it published. Congress, with nary a bat of an eye, disgracefully jumped on the anti-ACORN bandwagon without asking pertinent questions themselves, stopping funding to ACORN, and effectively putting an end to it. Those lies weren’t damaging to well-paid New York Times editor Clark Hoyt, probably didn’t cause direct harm to Brad Friedman who practiced *honest* investigative journalism in exposing the ACORN pimp hoax for what it was, and those lies certainly don’t affect my standard of life here in Canada. Those lies were damaging to the poorest and most vulnerable people in the United States. The mainstream media failed them, the US government failed them. The New York Times continues to broadcast misinformation. What would be in it for the New York Times to do so? What would be the rationale behind refusing to tell the truth. While Brad Friedman has given the New York Times the benefit of the doubt, I say follow the money. The New York Times has a long history of publishing lies. Look at their long history of lies regarding events Latin America (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_ElSalvador.html). Who benefits from those lies and the destruction of ACORN and the reduction of voters more likely to vote for progressive candidates? Follow the money.
First, I wish you would go after NPR like you did the NYT. I also heard their short report on the demise of ACORN and they did virtually the same thing.
Here is what I just put on the comments page of teh NYT admitting it was wrong page:
I have to admit I haven’t read all of the comments, so forgive me if I am repeating them.
First, it is illegal to not send in a registration form that has been filled out. Even if it says Mickey Mouse. Since when was following the law the basis for crying fraud? Since the media wanted to buy it, I guess.
Second, to say that 16 different reporters covered the story as an excuse for getting things wrong is pathetic. Does that mean you really aren’t responsible for fact checking and investigating stories because you don’t know who is doing what? Because someone else started covering the story?
Third, I think the way the NYT swallowed this story should really be considered a STING operation on the NYT. It shows how much the paper should not be trusted.
Good work, Michelle. PLEASE use the email addresses I’ve provided at the end of the actual articles to send an email to Exec. Editor Bill Keller and the others!
What I want to know is, what is taking so long to charge these little picks with the crimes they were trying to perpetrate down in New Orleans…maybe the msm would clean up their shill reporting on these wealth funded propaganda scum and shut the ignoramuses up! Its clear who msm are supporting at this point.
Sreebee (@ 5 & 12),
Excellent analysis of what James and his scaly friends were up to, during the commission of the hoax (#12) and how they went about letting the world know (or not as the case may be)(#5).
What you say makes perfect sense.
Rich @10 wins the thread!
Ah Daley now you’ve resorted to one liners. I find it funny now that the new narrative by ponis is that even though Acorn didn’t break the law they broke the Natural Law. Good lord now we have a philosophical breaking of the law. This is like the same argument birthers use when they bring up de Vattel as if he had any relevence.
Another issue: If ACORN was trying to go about trying to help Giles “hide income” from the IRS, why tell her to even file? Prostitution is an all cash business. They could have just as easily told her not to file or report absolutely zero income.
Lets see how long this lasts before Frey starts trying to out people’s real identities again
Why hasn’t Brad posted on Weigel saying that Brad has got it wrong. O’Keefe and Giles did pose as a pimp and a prostitute as the tapes and audios make clear and that what Giles was referencing was the pimp costume concept.
Brad – Don’t get a hernia moving those goal posts.
#21 No O’keefe did not pose as a pimp. Again a pimp finds johns for his hookers. Nowhere did O’keefe claim Giles was his hooker or even that the “girls” would be his. Nor did he say he would find johns for them. You can claim it from now until next tuesday but it still won’t make it so.
If anyone is moving the goalposts its your crew as there has been no breaking of the law yet people want to demonize Acorn still.
Once I saw George Will trying to discredit Jesse Ventura when he was governor of MN…he tried to make him look like a kook by saying why to you believe in Kennedy conspriraacy theories when blah blah smart people/commissions have proven lone shooter…I was waiting for Jesse to say well there is this and that disproves that etc..instead Jesse just asked a questions back, he said (paraphrasing) “if it was not a conspriracy, why do they keep sealing record, keep things classified?”
So i say to folks who keep claiming Brad is wrong even tho he references the evidence OKeefe provides, for folks think that Okeefe is the most reliable witness and he has no reason to lie and thinks all the Acorn employees on record, including the two offices that calle cops the day OKeefe visited them are they liars and the guy lying his way into office to illegally record people is the saint and honest, intergrity filled reporter….I will simply ask you this, if Okeefe version of his visits are so truthful, WHY DOESN’T HE REALEASE THE RAW, UNEDITED TAPES OF HIS VISITS???? The fact that he has never done this but only provides heavily edit material, clearly tried to mispresent how he looked in the offices (know one denies now he was not dressed as pimp) shows he has something dishonest to hide. And there have been multiple criminal investigations that have sided with ACORN, are all these investigators and lawyers corrupt?
The other thing that really irritates me is that even if the impression of ACORN O’Keefe created with his tapes were correct, if even the misrepresentation in the media of ACORN in regards to voting registration was correct, they’re alleged ACORN behavior IS NO WORSE THAN REBUBLICAN SUPPORTED ORGANIZATIONS such as the Republican registration consulting firm that had their leader convitcted of fraud and Blackwater that has engaged in all sort of behavior far more reprehensible than telling a ‘ho to hide her cash, including Blackwater employees not just talking about child prostitution but engaging in it. Has anyone defunded Blackwater yet? When Blackwater has to close its doors I’ll buy that there is a liberal MSM.
“Again a pimp finds johns for his hookers.”
Bob Ross – You keep repeating that based on dictionary definitions. That is not the behavior of pimps I saw in action when I lived in New York in the 1960s and 1970s. The women found their own johns. Perhaps you have never witnessed them in action or grew up in rural America or somewhere where customs were different. Keep repeating something that doesn’t match reality if it works for you.
Also, nobody has been claiming any actual crimes were committed to my knowledge. If somebody has, can you provide a link?
Karen @ 23 – Where did Blackwater have a prostitution ring. Is there actual proof or is this another Scott Horton scam?
Blackwater and prostitutes (on the government tab)
links here here and here
I’m not saying that’s proof…but there was NOTHING to the ACORN story either.
#24 Daley again you’re defying what words mean to try to ascribe something that wasn’t there. He never said he was a pimp, never claimed she worked for him, so what you have is him saying he’s not going to be involved in her business and that she may one day give him money from them. Not a pimp. Maybe we don’t travel in the same circles but I’ve never solicited, you have?
Lets see one of your fellows over at patterico’s blog keeps claiming there was a breaking of natural law.
I find it funny though how you guys weren’t all up in arms when Dyncorp which still receives money from the government was running prostitution rings in bosnia with girls as young as 12-15. Priorities Daley. I’m still trying to figure out what your point is.
If no crime was committed why are you still going on about this? Did you mind as much with Dan Rather?
By the way…My comment #26 was a responce to Daleyrock’s comment/question #25.
But I suspecty that Daley actually knew the answer to his own question…
I find it funny he uses the word scam without talking about a James O’Keefe scam
“when Dyncorp which still receives money from the government was running prostitution rings in bosnia with girls as young as 12-15.”
Bob – You have any links to this allegation? BlueHawk thoughtfully provided links for the other, which do seem to be weak tea by disgruntled former employees – nothing proved at this point.
Thanks BlueHark.
Bob – You seem hung up on the fact that O’Keefe did not specifically call himself a pimp – so what? Acknowledge that he was going to use the earnings of the girls for his political campaign at least. Also acknowledge my observation of the operation of pimps in the real world as opposed to the dictionary definition.
The straw man argument you set up with pons in between the two of you. Leave me out of it.
Here’s great coverage of Brad’s fight with the NYT over their errors about ACORN (as well as other NYT “corrections”):
The Politics of Corrections by Robert Parry (via smirkingchimp.com)
Daley you seem to be hung up on O’keefe not specifically acting like a pimp but calling him one even though he didn’t fit what a pimp does. Again you’re scribing that he was a pimp because of his original bullshit was exposed. You failed to answer my question and ignore why you’re apt to believe Okeefe after he’s lied multiple times. Did you believe Dan Rather as much?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTa04c5eMuY
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/13/iraq17
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/08/06/dyncorp/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/13/business/yourmoney/13MILI.html?pagewanted=10
Your fellows over at Patterico’s blog continue to claim Acorn assisted in setting up a child prostitution ring which was false. So again you make a big stink over acorn who committed no crime but I don’t hear much about Dyncorp, Haliburton, etc who actually have defrauded the government and cost taxpayers money.
I didn’t set up a strawman argument. Ponis claims there was a breaking of natural law. Its absurd.
You seem to be hung up on the idea that somehow O’keefe posed as a pimp when he didn’t. He went into ACORN offices dressed and posing as a law student who may one day run for office. That’s how he posed, that’s how he presented himself