ACORN was the perpetrator of the cover-up of the embezzlement.
Because this continues to perplex you, I’ll try to make it simpler.
Joe is the President of a Bank. One day, Joe’s bank is robbed. Joe’s bank is the VICTIM of a robbery.
The robbers entered the bank after hours, though an unlocked door, and then entered the time-lock vault, which was normally kept wedged open by a book because it was easier to deal with that way, and no alarm went off because the bank had stopped paying the alarm company as a budget saving measure. When Joe learns of these facts, he decides to not report the robbery to the police, because he believes that if depositors learn of his bank’s lax approach to security, they will leave his bank.
Joe is the PERPETRATOR of a cover-up.
Robbery VICTIM. Cover-up PERP.
Now, let’s see if you can remember this one this time.
Incidentally, Starving Artist, the Republicans have gotten so fucking crazy that if Richard Nixon and Teddy Roosevelt came back from the dead they would be damned as liberals.
Unless your garage is a non-profit organization. Then you are obligated to report losses due to theft on your IRS 990.
No. It’s true that the guy stealing from them did not advertise his crime, but that’s not what’s being referred to by “cover-up.” The cover-up was the failure to disclose the theft when they became aware of it.
You embarass those amongst us who would like to think of you as a reasonable person. This is revisionism, re-writing history to suit your agenda.
The embezzlement scandal took place a full year before all of this shit hit the fan. You know this. You also know that that the hue and cry, the screaming conniption fits, were about the child abuse “scandals”. Scandals you know, full well, were utter horseshit.
If, as you claim, the defunding effort was inspired by the embezzlement scandals, why did it take so long? And how is it that every major news outlet in the country was misinformed, saying that the defunding was a result of the bogus “scandals”, with hardly so much as a mention to the “embezzlement”? Were they all lying, Bricker?
It went nowhere, as you well know. Not until the “scandal” videos, a year later. You want to offer us the proposition that this is merely a coincidence? That what it really was about was bookkeeping issues?
Followed by an effort to defund ACORN. Which went nowhere. Until Mr. O’Keefe arrived on the scene, then lickety-split, badda-boom, badda-bing, done.
You seem to want to insinuate that this is merely a coincidence, without actually saying so. Hoping to preserve a scrap of dignity, trying to imply what you refuse to say.
Straw that broke the camel’s back. You’ve got the liberal’s liberal, Diogenes, still denying that there even was a cover-up. That’s what the opponents were up against. It took the cumulative effect of the embezzlement cover-up and the subsequent events to gain the momentum necessary to pass the defunding bill.
It was a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition.
Ah, and “the subsequent events”? Birthday parties? Press releases?
What “subsequent events” are you delicately alluding to? These “subsequent events”, they include, but are not limited to, the video scandals? But I take it that you offer the astounding proposition that these “subsequent events” had only a minor role in the defunding, merely the “straw the broke the camels back”?
Seriously? With a straight face? You’ll look me right in the monitor, pee on my shoes and tell me its raining?
I don’t think you’ll actually do it. I think you will sidle up to it, imply it, suggest it, but I don’t think you’ll actually do it, that last scrap of your integrity won’t let you.
Let’s be clear about something else as well - the loss of federal funding didn’t do ACORN in. They could only claim in court that about 10% of their income came from federal grants or contracts.
However, at the same time all of this was going on private donations to ACORN were collapsing. And this was a harder problem to fix - many liberals on this board who were broadly supportive of ACORN’s goals were becoming leery of donating to them.
This is why a comparison to NPR in this case isn’t especially apt - I think NPR would be quite able to line up underwriters and continue their mission if the federal subsidy went away.
The latest news is always the most important. But the videos alone would not have caused the defunding bill to pass. All the old, middle, and new scandals were necessary.
It speaks to motivation, doesn’t it? If ACORN were merely a feckless band of wandering idealist, and having no real impact on political power, then Republicans being shockedshocked at such appalling scandals is untainted and pure. However, if you believe as I do, that the whole point of the operation was to undermine an organization that was effectively challenging Republican grip on power, then, well, not so much.
But what do you think, Bricker? Was it about power, or morality?
The underlying motivation was absolutely to destroy an organization that threatened Republican interests.
But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the claim that ACORN covered up embezzlement. They did. If it had been a friend to the GOP, then there would have been a smatterinig of embarrassed throat clearing on the right, not an effort to defund them. But the point was not (until now) what the underlying motive was.
The point was that these things happened. They were real. ACORN did things wrongly. Their defunding was a result of doing things wrongly in a situation where they had an enemy waiting for just such an opportunity.
This was a direct result of the (now completely debunked) smear job by O’Keefe. He defamed and damaged the lives of innocent people do earnest and honest work.
No. As I said, each individual scandal was necessary, but not sufficient. Without the video scandal, people like you would have continued to insist that ACORN was a victim, and never covered up anything, and their obstinate denials would have worked to diffuse the will of Congress.
I notice that you have failed to acknowledge your error about the cover-up, but are no longer pushing your interpretation. In Diogenes-land, this is usually a sign that you realize you were wrong but are loathe to admit it, and so you seek to reframe the conversation away from your error without ever confronting your error directly.
Do you now admit that ACORN covered up the embezzlement?