No it doesn’t, because that is not a request for any help or service from ACORN. It also confirms that he never claimed to be a pimp.
They helped him run for Congress? Cite?
Thanks for this. This must have been what I was thinking of. If it was an independent investigation and not from an official one, then I guess Bricker will say it’s therefore a lie and the former Mass. AG is in on ACORN’s nefarious conspiracy to shine on fake pimps as they talk about their plans to run for Congress.
Still, the official findings still remain that ACORN was cleared by every law enforcement in investigation in every state concerned. I’d like to know what Bricker thinks ACORN was actually guilty of.
Many third party sites were reporting this investigation as by the Attorney General of Mass. (they left out “former”) so it is understandable if you gathered that it was a government report.
I’m comfortable believing that Harshbarger would not simply make shit up about “insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O’Keefe’s and Ms.Giles’s comments”
This goes beyond simple film making, into the genre of:
Lying, dirtbag vicious cowardly propagandizing, for the purposes of destroying the credibility of an organization who is doing nothing illegal, but is registering voters who may tend to vote for a political party you do not like.
Y’know, in my experience, if a poster explicitly withdraws an erroneous assertion, then restates essentially the same thing without the error, Bricker tends to be quite generous about acknowledging it, and dealing with the assertion as amended.
OTOH, when a poster pisses and moans about how he (Bricker) would call them a liar because of a nitpicky little error (yet neglects to acknowledge and correct the errror itself), yeah, he can be pretty enthusiastic in his insistence that the poster still has an unacknowledged inaccuracy in his resume.
I’m just sayin’…
So what you are saying so far are virtually empty assertions just to keep your “point” going?
Do tell.
It is clear that you do not want to consider that one of the ACORN workers did plant information that demonstrated how unreliable the “pimp” was.
I’d sure like this link.
Skadoosh. (Link to PDF)
He was going to use the proceeds from the prostitution but he wasn’t a pimp?
What am I missing?
No. “They helped him” refers to his original request for assistance from ACORN.
Not his run for Congress.
Surely there exists some corroborating paperwork? I mean, if they were going to assist him in any way, there would have to be a papertrail, correct?
Or are we talking just emotional assistance?
And exactly what assistance did this ACORN office give him? Sympathetic noises? Precisely what paperwork did they file on his behalf?
What about the other ACORN offices where the staff turned him away, reported him to the police, refused to provide him any aid, and in one case tried to convince the phony prostitute to get counseling?
I have no problem with the credibility of a report from Harshbarger. In fact, given that it was made in an effort to improve ACORN’s processes, as opposed to determining if any ACORN conduct was prosecutable, it arguably reaches a higher standard of criticism. I don’t imagine a former state AG is going to throw his integrity under the bus for ACORN, either.
So I am willing to take whatever facts he reports at face value.
So far as I’m aware, no one actually filed paperwork on his behalf; the jig was exposed before that point was reached. The problem that he exposed was that in some ACORN offices, he could go in and talk about setting up a prostitution scheme and NOT get immediately told, “We can’t help you.”
Those offices did nothing wrong.
Well, you’re missing the words you quoted yourself from the California AG, for one thing:
What do you think the AG meant when he said "he never claimed to be a pimp?
The “money from prostitution” was ostensibly money previously earned by the girl he claimed he was trying to rescue from prostitution.
He did not get any assistance at all from ACORN.
This is completely false. He did not talk to a single office about setting up a prostitution scheme. If you disagree, please provide the evidence along with an explanation for why all the relevant law enforcement agencies determined that this did not happen.
There was no “jig,” and your insinuation that those ACORN workers were just about to file the paperwork (weeks or months after the stunts took place) only to be foiled by the public “exposure” of what we know were falsified tapes is notuonly baseless, but laughable on its face.
No office made any attempt of any kind to try to help this kid after he left the office.
notuonly, Adj., reckless depravity, indicative of corrupt moral character and poor personal hygiene.
So essentially the “crime” of this one ACORN office (out of many) is that they did not show this guy the door fast enough, and tell him to piss off?
That’s kind of hard to wrap my head around. SHE (allegedly) still has proceeds from her prostitution work, and HE putatively intends to use those proceeds to finance HIS run for [public office].
Huh?
Sorry, missed this one.
“The jig was exposed”?? WTF?
You contend that the reason that no paperwork was filed by ACORN to help O’Keefe was because of the “expose”? I’m sure that since you demand cites and proof from us that you won’t mind the same demand made of you? Right?
The timeline will support your suppositions? Paperwork was in the pipeline, only to be nipped in the bud just in time, was it?
I think the “use the prostitution money to run for Congress” thing makes it even more likely that the people at ACORN were just humoring him. If someone comes to me and says he’s got a big shipment of crack rock coming in that night, and he’s going to sell it and use the money to work on the spaceship he’s going to fly to Venus, should I report him?
To me, it would be different if O’Keefe had a record of quality journalism behind him, and his transgressions were flukes in an otherwise interesting record. His words would still be suspect, but I might still consider his future work to be worthwhile.
O’Keefe is known for exactly three things: 1.) the ACORN videos, which were misleadingly edited and very misleadingly presented, 2.) being convicted of tampering with a Senator’s phone system (for reasons that remain unclear), and 3.) this nothingburger of an expose on the census. There’s no honest, interesting work to mitigate those. How can you put that together and call this guy anything but a dishonest hack?
OK, a lot of these claims and counterclaims are flying past each other, in part because we’re referring to different things. So far as I can tell, the California report deals only with the Los Angeles, San Bernadino, and San Diego office visits. So it seems to me that if you say, for example, “He never claimed to be a pimp,” and then refer to the California report, your actual claim is, “In the three California office visits, he never claimed to be a pimp.” Yes?