No, she wasn’t lying. But all she did was discipline (in this case, dismiss) an employee that was acting horribly unprofessionally.
That is not a “scandal” in any sense of the word.
And that demonstrates what? The factuality and significance of the “scandal”, or mere political cowardice?
This is probably another thread but this topic reminds me of those times I wonder why people seem to tolerate bad or even unlawful behavior in their community. Does it seem that certain communities treat some unlawful behavior as if it’s just someone doing what they have to to survive.
Then again I have friends who smoke dope. We probably know people who snort a little coke now and then.
Could it be that in these poor communities looking the other way concerning certain unlawful acts is par for the course.
And I’m still amazed when I see pictures of Okeefe and his Ho that anyone took them seriously.
whoops double post
How is an organization firing bad employees a scandal?
How is that a scandal?
Both. Were there any laws broken by ACORN in this whole thing? Nah, unless they can find a memo from upper management that tells employees that they should be doing these things. The term “scandal” does not imply that any law was broken. Remeber the Clinton scandal was the affair even though that in itself was not against the law.
The FBI is trying to determine if ACORN broke any laws. We’ll see in time. But, this scandal has caused congress to quickly distance itself, and our money, from this organization. Good enough for me.
I would expect them to do so, yes, but the person hiding the tapes is pimp boy, not any news networks, as far as I know. I’m sure you would agree that it’s impossible to make an informed evaluation, and certainly irresponsible to make accusations without being able to view the full tapes.
An interesting wrinkle has evolved…
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/020067.php
You already kinda know where this is going, don’t you?
And the GOP is hoisted on it’s own retards.
What are you, 12?
Nars Glinley
Proud older brother of a “retard”.
And then there is this little nugget…
Damn that ACORN!!
Update: When I read about the above reported bill, I had the impression that is was a prospective bill, awaiting action. Not so, the bill was passed. I note this correction in gleeful anticipation…
You gotta keep up.
The bill might be unconstitutional anyway. Jerry Nadler is challenging it as a Bill of attainder.
A lot of defense contractors better hope that Nadler is right. Either way, the whole thing still exposes the Republicans as shallow, disingenuous hypocrites.
Quick warning, if you value your brain cells, do not read the comments after the article in that link.
Yeah, the comments after are full of LOLs. I like how they argue that a Bill of Attainder has to be targeted at a person or a group, and that somehow ACORN is neither.
I dunno, mighta been some laws broken
Not stopping the Wall Street Journal. While its assertions about his history with the organization may be true, I just don’t see how they draw the conclusion from them that he “should have known” about the scandals. Why?
No.
That argument is not supported by any existing Bill of Attainder decisions. The prohibition forbids non-judicial punishments or determinations of guilt. The mere decision to fund or not fund a particular agency cannot be a bill of attainder (it would be if the bill sought to refuse to pay a specific named agency for work already done, of course).
But … no. In fact, the defense contractors’ plight suggests an even farther distance from a bill of attainder. A bill that prohibits payment to ANY entity that’s filed a fraudulent submission is clearly not a bill of attainder.