“reject this second claim?” Sorry, I’m having trouble following your antecedents. Which “second claim” is it that you feel you are being unfairly being pressured to reject?
Because that was the conclusion of the investigators. It’s not my opinion that he dubbed in dialogue. It’s a fact on the record.
- What is your evidence for this?
- How do you explain that every investigation cleared them of these charges?
What record is that?
My evidence is the dialog on the tapes, and the difficulty in imagining what could have have come before it to make it be innocent.
And what investigations were actually done? Are we talking about the internal ACORN investigation?
This is the second claim:
The conclusion of law enforcement investigators and experts.
The dialogue which is proven to have been FAKED.
No, I’m talking about the actual law enforcement investigations, like that of the California DA, for instance.
You should really make an effort to inform yourself about this story before you comment on it.
By the way, even Breitbart has now admitted the tapes were faked and that he’d been duped. I would have thought you’d be up to date on this stuff.
Ah. Thank you. Poor reading comprehension on my part.
Still, are you saying that there’s a third (fourth, fifth, etc.) plausible motivation for being a defender of O’Keefe? It might have been less confusing if you had mentioned what one or more of them would arguably be.
I can certainly see how you might consider that to be more trouble than it’s worth, of course, especially around here.
Independent investigations of the incident by the former Attorney General of Massachusetts, the Brooklyn District Attorney, California’s Attorney General, a federal district court, the Congressional Research Office concluded that ACORN had done nothing illegal, the tapes were doctored, and O’Keefe never posed as a pimp inside ACORN’s offices. cite
The lost CPAC video: Breitbart’s unhinged confession that there was never a pimp in ACORN
Here’s a third plausible (but unlikely) motivation, which I did not include out of respect for a fellow poster’s high character:
- Totally unaware of the facts of the ACORN case, particularly the fact that independent investigations of the incident by the former Attorney General of Massachusetts, the Brooklyn District Attorney, California’s Attorney General, a federal district court, the Congressional Research Office concluded that ACORN had done nothing illegal, the tapes were doctored, and O’Keefe never posed as a pimp inside ACORN’s offices.
Yet willing to argue in the absence of knowledge.
Really? Why? I don’t think Bricker is likely to thnk of Breitbart or O’Keefe twice in a month, except when prompted to by a Pit thread. I certainly don’t see him as having a standing motivation to keep himself up-to-date on this kind of thing.
If a lawyer is arguing a case for a client, and is ignorant of relevant recent facts concerning the case, my sympathies for the lawyer are minimal.
Well, as much as I respect your ability to neutrally and fairly convey the facts in a matter you’re arguing, maybe a little linky-poo to the results of the California AG’s investigation would help?
Meh. I don’t really think of him as arguing a case for a client. I really think he came to check out the latest addition to the thread, saw it as weak sauce, and decided to (per usual, for him) challenge the liberals to show that they weren’t going off half-cocked.
I’m okay with waiting until he (O’Keefe) screws up a bit more unambiguously. And I’m pretty confident that he will. He’s just not demonstrated being smart enough not to.
In any case, I’m going to stop speculating about/speaking for Bricker, now.
I don’t regard the lack of a pimp costume as meaningful. He establishes by dialog that his associate intends to prostitute. So I’m prepared to concede that there was no pimp costume, but not that this admission damages the basic story, which is: O’Keefe told ACORN workers he wanted help getting a mortgage, and that they would be paying that mortgage with money earned from prostitution.
No he didn’t. He told them that he was a law student trying to get his girlfriend OUT of prostitution. He never told them he was a pimp.
By your own words, he presented the video as one of himself, wearing a pimp costume, seeking counsel on how to secure housing using funds from prostitution. This ultimately turned out to be a lie- there was no costume. So why are you so willing to continue to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that everything else he claimed was also true?
That’s the most frustrating thing about this whole situation, Bricker. O’Keefe had an agenda, and he lied in support of that agenda. He got caught in a lie… which, in my mind, would make me wonder what else he’s willing to lie about. He has, in effect, become unreliable. And yet many people, such as yourself, are willing to believe that, while yes, he lied, he didn’t lie about the main thing that he has reason to lie about.
He went in with an agenda to make ACORN look bad. He lied in support of that agenda, and got caught doing so. Why is it so easy for you to assume he told the truth about anything?
And what did ACORN workers do with this information?
My guess is that if you are a defense lawyer, you have to go with :
OK, so he lied about that. And the other thing. And he lied there. And over there too. BUT! That does not mean that you can say with 100% certainty that he lied on THIS SPECIFIC OCCASION!!
Well, as much as I respect your ability to neutrally and fairly convey the facts in a matter you’re arguing, maybe a little linky-poo to a cite for this claim would help? Whether he told them he was a pimp or not is not relevant. He told them that the mortgage would be paid from prostitution earnings.
Like Bricker, I presume you’re speaking of the AG, rather than the/a DA. And, like Bricker, I’d appreciate a link to a cite. I tried to find one on my own, but I couldn’t locate a money quote with the AG’s report confirming “dubbed dialog.” Could you oblige?