These numbers came straight from that kid’s butthole and nowhere else.
It’s also a paltry amount even if genuine (which I don’t accept. This kid is a convicted scam artist whose previous work has already been proven to have been faked). Bush spent that much for the daily beer allowance to Blackwater.
Funny how conservatives always focus on the trivial waste and ignore the real waste. You lecture people for throwing away bread crumbs while you throw away cases of steaks.
He didn’t sting them, he defrauded them.
Well, there he might have a problem. I have no idea what the specific question and answer he might have put on the form, but if we assume it was material and clearly false, then that’s a crime.
However… in reviewing this PDF of the application census workers fill out for 2010 census work, I can’t find a spot that fits those conditions. If he was fired, asked to resign, or told by OPM that he was debarred, and failed to disclose that, then… yes. But I don’t know of any reason to believe any of those things are true.
I’m assuming he didn’t let on that he was under charges for trespassing in a Senator’s office:
It doesn’t appear to ask if the candidate was previously employed by the Census, though.
Your sense of construction of criminal statues seems to vary dramatically. In the Obama job offer to Sestak thread, you were extraordinarily adept at construing the law so it didn’t apply to the event. And you were correct (although I didn’t endorse your more outrageous analytical leaps) in that the conduct was not a crime.
Here, you don’t seem to be construing the law the same way at all. Instead, you seem to be looking for any way, however small, to find criminality.
Why is that?
Depends on when he filled out the form, though, doesn’t it?
Right.
Questions 28 or 29 (depending on the time frame) were almost certainly not answered honestly.
Arguably question 15 too, if he answered “yes.”
It didn’t require any adeptness. That was a no brainer. You came to the same conclusion imediately, as did every legal pundit in the universe who wasn’t a political hack (and even some that were).
I’m not looking for anything. O’Keefe himself admitted that he scammed them. I don’t allege that manipulating the bureaucracy to get a couple of extra hours pay is “criminality,” but it IS petty fraud. My point is that he’s exposing his OWN petty theft, not some conspiracy by the Commerce Department to willfully overpay temp workers.
28 asks, “During the last 10 years, have you been convicted, been imprisoned, been on probation, or been on parole?” It’s virtually certain that 'No," is an honest answer to this, since he would not have had to answer “Yes,” until after May 26, 2010.
29 asks, “Are you now under charges for any violation of law?” After January 25th, 2010, he would have been required to answer “Yes,” to this. I don’t know if he did.
15 asks, “Are you willing to work in the field, verifying household address listings and knocking on doors to collect information?” He may well have been willing to do that in order to accumulate hours and overcharge for them, if the opportunity didn’t come up before.
So I don’t agree on 28 or 15. I think 29 is the most likely candidate, but since the census does not automatically reject people with prior convictions, it’s at least plausible that he didn’t lie.
I think his point is not conspiracy, but gross laziness. It’s much easier to get everyone to fill out the same time than it is to verify each individual’s time. That’s not a conspiracy: it’s just ennui.
His whole class filled out the time sheets the same way, and his whole class didn’t actually work the hours.
It’s minor, to be sure, and arguably would cost more to audit than it takes to just pay.
But that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
It may or not have happened, but O’Keefe is not a credible source. It’s also not anything worth exposing.
Do you really think there’s any chance he revealed that he was under indictment for federal wiretapping charges, by the way?
My bolding. He was arrested and jailed on January 25th, so the answer to 28 would also be yes.
Bricker, I don’t think anyone here is arguing that timecards weren’t filled out incorrectly, or that money wasn’t defrauded.
We’re arguing that O’Keefe is miles away from a trustworthy witness or investigator, and that he is really just a wannabe journalist with a hardon for anything which can be used to make Democrats look bad. We *know *he lies and misrepresents his stories. What’s more, this particular “expose” of his is remarkably weak tea- hell, I’m posting this message while I’m at work and should, theoretically, be working. What’s more, most of my coworkers have a browser open all day long. And yet we still manage to get our jobs done.
Are you really defending his actions?
No. “Imprisoned” does not mean jailed on the basis of an arrest. If it did, this question would always be ‘yes,’ after an individual was arrested once, even if the arrest turned out to be groundless - for example, not based on probable cause.
Jail is not prison; “imprisoned,” is not “jailed.”
I’ve been paid in full for trainings that ended early too. Who hasn’t?
Oh, and some people take extra time for lunch? Wow, he’s really blowing the lid off, isn’t he?
Not sure I agree. I agree that O’keefe’s unvarnished word is not credible.
Sure. If I were a betting man, I’d say there’s a one in three chance he did. He must have known, after his arrest, that if he got something out of this “investigation,” he’d have his application reviewed with a fine-toothed comb. So I imagine he made a practical decision: how much do I want this, vs. how likely is that they’ll boot me if I answer truthfully.
I could make a more informed guess if I knew what the Census Bureau’s standards were. For example, if I were to learn that they routinely trained everyone and then only gave them actual jobs working in the field after investigating the “Yes,” answers, then I’d assume strongly he told the truth.
If I were to learn that a “Yes,” answer routinely delayed hiring completely until investigated, then I’d assume he lied.
My best guess now is that it’s twice as likely he lied as told the truth, based on what I know of previous census sweeps’ hiring practices.
I’m more defending him against the barrage of attacks that claimed he had committed another crime by his actions here.
So the form is poorly worded. O’Keefe was still lying or incorrect if he failed to answer in the affirmative.
Do you deny that O’Keefe was lawfully detained in a place set aside for that purpose?
So have I, I suppose, but as a salaried employee, I get paid the same regardless – I don’t punch a time clock.
An hourly worker, on the other hand, should theoretically only get paid for the hours he works.
I agree this isn’t exactly the Teapot Dome scandal.
I have no idea. Did he bond out immediately? I don’t know.
But let’s assume that he was physically arrested and placed in a holding cell. Your contention is that he had to answer “Yes,” on that question?
I disagree.
Are you really going to make me dig out cites to the proposition that “Have you ever been arrested?” is an improper question? Because that doesn’t seem like a claim you’d be making in good faith.