I don’t see it.
The accepted narrative around here now seems to be that O’Keefe simply made up the entire ACORN story. Because you haven’t seen unedited tapes, the thinking seems to be, none of it happened.
I don’t agree. I find it very likely that the ACORN people featured on his tapes did substantially what he portrays them as having done.
Not quite, because we don’t have any instances of ACORN folks contacting higher and higher levels in the supervisory chain in an effort to reverse their fake time sheets.
Even murdering a husband?*
The real expose will be that the company that sold them video software capable of “undetectable edits” ripped them off.
I find it very likely that the ACORN people featured on his tapes did substantially what he portrays them as having done.
I find it very likely that the ACORN people featured on his tapes did exactly what he portrays them as having done.
I find it very likely that the ACORN people featured on his tapes did substantially what he portrays them as having done.
I find it very likely that the ACORN people featured on his tapes did substantially what he portrays them as having done.
I find it very likely that the ACORN people featured on his tapes did substantially what he portrays them as having done.
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn’t belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
The logic is quite simple.
We know that he misrepresented the scenarios on the tapes. The released tapes were clearly edited.
We know that he went in with the agenda of making ACORN look bad.
Given these two facts, I don’t understand how anyone, even Conservatives (and *especially *you, Bricker) can be willing to give O’Keefe even the slightest benefit of the doubt. Is it just that the scenario he’s trying to present matches up with what you *want *to believe?
They were edited, yes. And “Sixty Minutes” also edits tapes before broadcast. So does NPR. I don’t know of a single news organization that makes a practice of either airing unedited tapes or making unedited tapes available for inspection.
Do you?
And “we” don’t know that he misrepresented the scenarios on the tapes. How do we know that, again?
Yes, just as my local TV station’s investigative reporter went into car repair shops with the intention of finding ones that were finding and fixing non-existent problems. Nonetheless, I don’t discount the instances of fraud she uncovered.
It is a proven fact that he faked the tapes (he actually dubbed in dialogue that had not actuallly taken place). It’s also a fact that multiple investigations have found no wrongdoing at all on the part of ACORN. It’s also a fact the faked videos resulted in the public losing an organization which had done a lot of good services and that the entire incident unfairly (and for transparently racist reasons) smeared the reputaions of honest and decent people.
What is it that you believe is “substantially true,” and whart is the specific evidence which brings you to that conclusion?
Because we haven’t seen the unedited versions of the tapes, have we? If the tapes represent the unvarnished truth, why haven’t they been released? Come on, if a Democrat were doing this, would you be so willing to believe it?
So you’d be just fine with edited tapes being presented as evidence in court by a hostile witness, with no access to the unedited versions?
Sixty Minutes and NPR aren’t political advocates. They’re news organizations. Do you think O’Keefe is an objective journalist?
In any case, anyone who makes up their mind on the basis of Sixty Minutes clips is just as dumb as anyone who makes up their mind on the basis of O’Keefe’s ACORN expose.
Now, obviously, one can point to your full post to show that what I have quoted is total bullshit misrepresentation. Without your post to draw on, though, one can choose either to take my representation at full face value or be skeptical of it until proof is offered. Which is more rational?
Skepticism is fine.
An outright and confident statement that “We know that he misrepresented the scenarios on the tapes,” seems to go a bit beyond skepticism, though, doesn’t it?
As I recall, there was testimony offered that did not corroborate the tapes. I agree that’s not strong proof in itself, but it’s certainly enough to make me want to see the full, unedited recording before I’ll agree that what was shown could be accurate.
Besides, there was a good deal more swallowing the footage whole than flatout denying it. The footage should not have been enough to crush ACORN, yet at least in the court of public opinion it did.
We know, Bricker, because law enforcement said so.
Is this clear enough for you? Do you see any ambiguity there?
We do know that he misrepresented the scenarios. That’s a demonstrated fact, not an opinion. He dubbed in faked dialogue. He made it appear that the employees were ersponding to different questions than what he’d actually asked. If that doesn’t count as “misrepresentation,” what does?
He also misrepresented what he told the workers. He never really told them he was a pimp, for instance. He also edited tapes so as to conceal the fact that several of the employees thought he was joking and were joking back with him (like the one who said she’d killed her husband – who O’Keefe and his conservative media cohorts tried to pass off as some kind of genuine, shocking confession).
What would it take for you to call it a misrepresentation?
Moreover, what speficially do you believe is “substantially true,” and what evidence are you relying upon to reach that conclusion?
Again I will draw your attention to the distinction between “,before I’ll agree that what was shown could be accurate,” and “We know that he misrepresented the scenarios on the tapes.” Your statement says, correctly, that we don’t have enough evidence to regard it as proven. The latter statement says that we know it’s false.
And how is that statement relevant to knowing the verity of the tape’s version of events?
Quite a bit of ambiguity. “Not as clear,” means precisely that there WAS ambiguity of some kind on the tape, and there was editing used to remove some of that ambiguity. So taking that unnamed law enforcement source’s statements at face value, the original tape was more ambiguous – not outright false.
And that’s assuming that i do take as completely authoritative the quote from someone unwilling to be quoted by name. Which I don’t.
I don’t agree with any of the claims you’ve made there. How do you know he dubbed in fake dialog? How do you know he substituted questions?
What I believe is substantially true is that he told the ACORN workers that he intended to finance the home mortgage through earnings from prostitution, and that they continued to assist him even after learning this.
The bottom line is that O’Keefe’s actions caused an organization that was registering voters to collapse.
I consider that an organization that registers voters is doing their community and country a service.
I submit that any flaws existent in this organization did not warrant the wholesale destruction of the organization - they were no more egregious than those found in any large organization.
If registering voters is a good thing for society, then eliminating a large organization that does this, for no good reason, is damaging to society.
I further submit that the accusations by O’Keefe against this organization were shown by third parties to be either materially false, fabricated or grossly exaggerated.
It has been shown that video “evidence” taken by O’Keefe was substantially altered for the express purpose of making the organization look bad.
I am of the opinion that O’Keefe undertook to fabricate, falsify and exaggerate the flaws of the organization for the express purpose of discrediting them or destroying them.
I believe that political partisanship is the reason that O’Keefe wanted to damage or destroy the organization.
IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, I think that anyone who tries to defend O"Keefe in the current matter under discussion is doing so for one of two reasons:
Devils’ advocate/ defending a client to the full extent of the law.
Pure, unadulterated partisanship.
Wow.
So… even if I accept everything preceding “IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE,” as true, I must reject this second claim. According to this view, O’Keefe now has the Mark of Cain, and is automatically guilty of any future offense? I cannot defend him in this matter because of what he did to ACORN?
That just doesn’t seem right.
Not quite, but nice try anyway.
You may certainly defend him in any way you wish, and I’m sorry if I implied that he was automatically guilty.
But… you seem to want us to ignore his past behaviour and criminal acts. His past record does have a bearing on what this court will find in the current matter.
Objection overruled. Your clients past misdeeds must be taken into account when we determine Mr. O’Keefe’s veracity for the present charges.
Because it’s not. That slope sure do be slippery.
If O’Keefe were to say that he witnessed a crime, I’d be inclined to believe him. But if he said that he witnessed a Democrat committing a crime, my first inclination would be that he’d made it up to make Democrats look bad. He poisoned his own well.