Something that was smoke and mirrors…
…what the fuck?
Right, fraud and trickery like pretending to be a fuckin pimp. That’s fraud and trickery, dude.
You’re wrong here. Read further: the court
If there’s no other evidence of a person’s guilt, they’re otherwise innocent. O’Keefe was seeking to punish ACORN for an alleged offense which was the product of the creative activity of his own organization.
Offtimes where there’s smoke, there’s smoke and the person behind it yelling “FIRE!!”.
No it’s not. Otherwise every undercover operation would by definition be entrapment.
What would be entrapment would be if there’s reason to believe that under ordinary circumstances a guy would not have dealt with this drug dealer/hitman/pimp/etc. but the fake drug dealer/hitman/pimp/etc. tricked him into doing it in this specific instance. But the mere fact that the undercover cop was using trickery in pretending to be a drug dealer/hitman/pimp/etc. is not “fraud” for purposes of an entrapment defense.
Think about it.
Creative activity doesn’t refer to posing as a pimp or the like. In the case that you cite, the accused “gave in to an undercover Prohibition officer’s repeated entreaties to get him some liquor”.
The term creative referred to the fact that the guy obviously had no inclination to violate the law, as he turned down the original offers. The “repeated entreaties” were creative, in that they created the desire to violate the law.
If the guy would have accepted the first offer it would not have been entrapment, even though the Prohibition officer was engaging in “trickery” in posing as a bootlegger.
As above, your misconception is not uncommon, but it’s a misconception nonetheless.
No. If someone is looking for a prostitute, and they proposition an undercover cop posing as a prostitute, that’s not entrapment.
If a cop poses as a prostitute and goes to a person’s place of business and propositions someone, that’s borderline entrapment.
This case involves someone pretending to be a criminal, asking an innocent victim for help, and then gradually revealing that they’re asking for advice on committing a crime. The person never had an intention of committing a crime or helping someone commit a crime; but the person asking is pushy and subtle and good at making the ask slow, and so the victim goes along with it rather than cause a scene (there is no other choice).
I know you really want O’Keefe’s methods to be like an undercover cop’s, but it’s super duper not.
Look at it from F-P’s point of view-undercover cops are supposed to target the bad guys, and since liberals are the bad guys…
This is the key part of your claim. That O’Keefe was pushy and subtle etc. Similar to your earlier assertions that O’Keefe “pressured” them or “tricked” them and the like. If you had any evidence of that, then you would have a point. But as you don’t you don’t.
This is remarkably similar to what I said about you earlier, but you seemed to object to that approach at the time. I guess if you can’t fight 'em join 'em.
Let’s just cut to the chase here. O’Keefe is a lying sack of shit and pretending he isn’t is a lying sack of shitty thing to do.
Oftentimes things are not that simple. Other than to the simple-minded. 
I am a highly intelligent individual who has a good sense of when a simple description serves and a complex one would be superfluous. If you can present argument or evidence that I’ve been ungenerous to O’Keefe or his defenders, please do so.
And yet sometimes they are that simple. Ideology can warp ones perspective and cause one to see complexity where there is none.
Or the reverse.
This isn’t one of those times.
I guess you got me with that one.
?enon si ereht erehw ytixelpmoc ees ot eno esuac dna evitcepsrep seno praw nac ygoloedI .elpmis taht era yeht semitemos tey dnA
I doubt it.
Meh, so far what I see coming from you is just more evidence of the timeline avoidance syndrome from conservatives that I thought it was a joke or hyperbole. Sadly there are many conservatives that show that deficiency and that tells me that I’m onto something with more evidence that any O’Keefe had.
Bottom line: years after the incident the evidence and settlements show that O’keefe made people declare things that were never going to be done and were said with the intention to see if what O’keefe was pretending to be was indeed someone that the authorities should be aware of.
And your cite was indeed just an example of ignoring what was found later. An incomplete and misleading article made misleading because of the march of time. Indeed, the “arbitrator” did not know yet what was coming later. But we do now, and as others do point out, we know that what O’Keefe did was shitty indeed.
Right wing fake newsman and agent provocateur James O’Keefe has been caught attempting to bribe protesters to riot at Trump’s inauguration. This time the sting was on him:
The counter-sting, carried out by The Undercurrent and Americans Take Action, a project of a previous target of provocateur James O’Keefe, managed to surreptitiously record elements of O’Keefe’s network offering huge sums of money to progressive activists if they would disrupt the ceremony and “put a stop to the inauguration” and the related proceedings to such a degree that donors to the clandestine effort would “turn on a TV and maybe not even see Trump.” To have riots blot out coverage of Trump, the donor offered “unlimited resources,” including to shut down bridges into D.C.
They’ve released a YouTube documentary of the sting.
Staff for Senate candidate Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, busted a right-wing activist who attempted to infiltrate the campaign as a volunteer Wednesday, they said.
The unmasking comes after conservative provocateur James O’Keefe, who specializes in these types of stings, blew his own cover in an attempt to run a sting against George Soros ― by forgetting to hang up the phone after leaving a voicemail.
The Feingold sting apparently fell apart thanks to profiling on the part of the campaign. The would-be infiltrator was blonde and drove a big white pickup truck, which staff said was part of the tipoff.
The woman, who identified herself as Allison Moss, told Feingold staffers that she had been active in College Democrats at the University of Minnesota and wanted to get involved in the campaign. She also signed a nondisclosure agreement with the campaign under the same name.
But after a Feingold staffer began pressing Moss on some of her past work, her backstory started unraveling. The staffer said someone on the campaign had gone to the University of Minnesota and remembered Moss as a member of the College Republicans. Moss denied being involved. They also asked her whether she worked for the right-wing group Campus Reform and whether she gave a false name on her nondisclosure agreement.
A Clinton campaign official alleges that the women engaged in several efforts to entrap supporters. In one scheme, described by Clinton staff, a woman attempted to pass a cash donation to Clinton volunteers and interns. In another, a woman approached the campaign on Aug. 19 and said both her parents had donated to Clinton the legal maximum of $2700 each and wanted to funnel an additional donation through their daughter, a violation of federal law. On Aug. 13, a woman claiming to be Canadian approached another Clinton fellow to ask how to falsify an address for a campaign donation.
In another instance, a woman volunteering with the Clinton campaign on voter registration efforts in Iowa City returned to the campaign’s office in Des Moines and asked whether it was okay that she refuse to register people who don’t support Clinton, the campaign official said. The Clinton campaign maintains that its policy is to register all voters, regardless of their preference in candidates. Maass was also involved in an undercover sting attempt last year against Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in Iowa, according to Time:
A Clinton campaign official alleges that the women engaged in several efforts to entrap supporters. In one scheme, described by Clinton staff, a woman attempted to pass a cash donation to Clinton volunteers and interns. In another, a woman approached the campaign on Aug. 19 and said both her parents had donated to Clinton the legal maximum of $2700 each and wanted to funnel an additional donation through their daughter, a violation of federal law. On Aug. 13, a woman claiming to be Canadian approached another Clinton fellow to ask how to falsify an address for a campaign donation. The women presented themselves as Allison Holmes, Jess Koski, and Jess Jones, according to the Clinton campaign, which collected names, email addresses, and phone numbers for the women. All gave the same phone number, which is listed on the website for the University of Minnesota-based Students for a Conservative Voice. Messages left at the number by TIME requesting comment were not returned. The women did not identify themselves as part of O’Keefe’s group, the campaign said.
This is the same O’Keefe who tried to falsely smear Acorn
This is the same O’Keefe who accused Planned Parenthood of being a clearinghouse for body parts.
For an example of how James O’Keefe’s schtick works, read this piece by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker “James O’Keefe Stings himself.” http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/james-okeefe-stings-himself
.
So it is your assertion that had O’Keefe not gone into the ACORN office and suggested the desire to set up a pimping buisness, The Acorn office in question would have found someone else to help with their pimping buisiness, because ACORN has a innate desire to assist illegal enterprises. If so you would have thought that there would be large number of actual pimps having been assisted by ACORN in their illegal enterprises.
This also doesn’t even begin to touch on the fact that O’Keefe had to go to a large number of ACORN offices before he found one that he would play along. This clearly indicates that it wasn’t a widespread practice of ACORN.
As I said earlier, a Sting operation run like O’Keefe, would pick out a apartment building in a nice part of town that they wanted to have as their new police station, knock on all the doors one by one until they find someone they can convince to buy a bag weed and then once they find one, then use that as a basis accuse everyone in the building of being a drug dealer and seize the building.
FTR I certainly agree that you couldn’t indict the entire ACORN based on this type of expose, for reasons such as you give.
The same applies to all such similar exposes and sting operations, as you seem to be saying.
You have said that he was on to something. Can you explicitly spell out the thing that he was on to? I’m not sure what exactly you think ACORN is guilty of.