James O'Keefe vs. CNN

It’s “opinion” in the same sense that any assessment of the facts is ultimately opinion. It’s an independent arbiter whose job it is to assess the validity of reporting, who reviewed all the known facts and came to a conclusion. And his conclusion was that while there were misleading aspects to it, it also contained valid parts as well. And that conclusion was apparently shared by the former MA AG, who was hired by ACORN itself to review the facts.

In any event, my impression is that the latest CNN expose has not produced anything sensational at all.

[Updated AP story:

](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CNN_RECORDINGS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-02-23-11-24-47)Seems much ado about nothing so far, but that’s not really a big surprise to me.

From Politico:

“Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable”.

  • Finley Peter Dunne

Still thinking that it was a valid opinion it seems. That opinion came before all the other items about the fakery from O’keefe were reported, so the point here is that you are also pushing outdated info; as pointed already the links show that that arbiter you linked was an incompetent one by mostly concentrating on the presentation of O’keefe presentation that in reality had very little to do with what O’Keefe pretended to find.

As I also expected, a leopard cannot change its spots.

Note of snotty pedantry: The quote originated in one of his pieces written in Chicago Irish dialect, as follows:

This is apparently all incorrect.

Well, that certainly settles that!

Pretty much all that needs to be said. I link to an article by a qualified guy who reviewed all the evidence. A poster comes along and simply asserts that that guy was incompetent etc. I don’t see that I need to add anything further.

If that’s all that needs to be said I guess we won’t be hearing from you any more. Shame.

Again, that opinion does not mention at all what I linked to, and your latest reply then shows that what you are doing here is just to willfully ignore the further developments that showed what a weasel O’Keefe was and is.

I call that opinion maker incompetent because he did not bother to add a correction when in this day and age it is not a hard thing to do.

Nothing that you linked to would change anything in the article, and certainly not require any sort of correction. His point was that the bottom line remains that some ACORN people said some pretty bad - if not illegal - stuff. You’ve not linked to anything that changes that.

The fact was that no, **that was not their intention at all and O’keefe had to settle and was demonstrated that he was made a fool and many on the right fell for the edited foolishness; again, linking to an article with no corrections in light of what was found later is key to understand how guys like you are punked and willing to continue to believe that ACORN was an evil thing as it continues to be the gospel among the right wing.

OK, I see you just intend to keep on repeating your assertions again and again and again and again. Go ahead.

You really want to pretend that you do not know what *intention *means to the law and the courts? That figures.

OK

Again, it is even clear that he did not review all the evidence, or to be more precise, **the failure is yours **for not noticing that time wise he was not aware of what happened later. In any case, the information you linked to was grossly out of date and no, he did not see all the evidence. You linked to an incomplete opinion.

OK.

What I love about these threads is the rare opportunity for all of us to come together for a moment, however brief. O’Keefe is such a consummate slimeball, so morally bankrupt, so transparent, and so unassailably deserving of scorn and ridicule that no one, regardless of political affiliation feels compelled to debase himself by

Oh.

Hmm … I seem to have offended somehow. Very unusual, but it does happen.