# NYT apologized for ACORN story, where are Doper apologies? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 4, 2010, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945 "2010-04-04T20:24:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/121 "2010-04-06T15:34:56Z")
How many offices/states did he pull this stunt? I see now he also went after HUD. There is a pretty good chance none of us are talking about the same location/event. **Bricker** , as a lawyer, what would you make of this as evidence? You have a guy that went into several offices, a few of which called the cops. He doctored at least one of the tapes to give a false impression of events. I think back to all the bad cop dramas I’ve watched. Where they are so desperate to get a guy that they get sloppy. In the end, having one good piece of evidence doesn’t make up for the 12 shitty things they did. It’s all tainted. “…sure, we planted THAT evidence. But THIS evidence is solid, trust us.” The result here being that a charitable organization has been destroyed. Hooray. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/122 "2010-04-06T15:36:53Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Cite that this conclusion was based on a viewing of the unedited video? It was in the NYT editorial. Now, will we ever really know if those were unedited? Probably not. But if the Public Editor is satisfied, and the attorney hired by ACORN to do the investigation is satisfied, I think the burden of proof falls back on those crying foul here. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/123 "2010-04-06T15:42:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But if we are funding organizations like ACORN to do community outreach and support, I would like them staffed with people that don’t respond like that. > > That’s a legitimate call for me (or Congress) to make. Well, is it a legitimate call? It seems the reaction by Congress was not to make sure organizations are staffed well, but instead to simply go after ACORN. Wouldn’t the correct thing be to address the actual issue of staffing problems? O’Keefe went after ACORN because of his political bent towards it. If we set up a task force to go into all charitable organizations receiving federal funds, how many do you think would pass this litmus test? Without actually knowing where you work, I’m pretty sure that someone could go into your office and get someone on tape saying something stupid. What does that prove? Note that it’s just “saying” something stupid, not “doing” something illegal. Hell, if I posted on your front door, “Bricker believes that it is acceptable for people to die because they cannot afford proper treatment,” what do you think the outcome would be? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/124 "2010-04-06T15:45:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It was in the NYT editorial. Now, will we ever really know if those were unedited? Probably not. But if the Public Editor is satisfied, and the attorney hired by ACORN to do the investigation is satisfied, I think the burden of proof falls back on those crying foul here. That’s right, they found no “pattern of illegal conduct” by its employees. Which is why an apology is in order by those that were so quick to sentence ACORN to death. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/125 "2010-04-06T15:56:23Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > No, I plan to wait for it to be appealed to what ever the next level is, State Supreme Court? SCOTUS? > > And if it fails that I plan to declare the judges to be activist, Bush appointees, that have been instructed by their handlers to see this ends badly for Obama… I believe you. Thus the contrast between us. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/126 "2010-04-06T16:01:13Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If your aunt had balls would she be your uncle? What? The district court’s opinion is not precedent. It doesn’t make law. The circuit court’s opinion will make law, at least in the circuit. And since the circuit in question is the DC circuit, which is the circuit in which all such cases regarding bills of attainder would be heard, then it effectively makes THE law. Given the vast number of pivotal laws we have that saw their birth in a circuit court overruling a district court, and given the lack of precedent carried by a district court, the distinction I’m making seems quite reasonable. So let me ask again: I’ve already said once that if the circuit court comes down affirming the district court, I’ll admit error and apologize. Will you? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/127 "2010-04-06T16:03:29Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Well, is it a legitimate call? > > It seems the reaction by Congress was not to make sure organizations are staffed well, but instead to simply go after ACORN. > > Wouldn’t the correct thing be to address the actual issue of staffing problems? O’Keefe went after ACORN because of his political bent towards it. If we set up a task force to go into all charitable organizations receiving federal funds, how many do you think would pass this litmus test? > > Without actually knowing where you work, I’m pretty sure that someone could go into your office and get someone on tape saying something stupid. What does that prove? Note that it’s just “saying” something stupid, not “doing” something illegal. > > Hell, if I posted on your front door, “Bricker believes that it is acceptable for people to die because they cannot afford proper treatment,” what do you think the outcome would be? Are we talking about the correct thing to do, meaning the wisest? or the correct thing to do, meaning the thing that was actually done is unconstitutional? I’ll happily give my opinion of what the wisest move would have been. Is that what we’re discussing now? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/128 "2010-04-06T16:09:40Z")
Apologize for what? No, I’m not going to apologize for my opinion which I’ve held since before the district decison, why should I? neither should you. Yor opinion is your opinion. I think you’re also being disingenuous in your assertion that the current decision doesn’t mean anything. If the District Court had ruled that this was not a Bill of Attainder (which it totally is), then you would be citing it until the cows come home. If you really want to play the game of waiting until all the appeals are strung out, then you have to wait for _all_ the appeals. You can’t declare victory after the Circuit Court decison, you have to wait for SCOTUS. I really don’t think even you have any doubt, if you’re completely honest, that this was a bill targeted specifically (and as we now now, completely unjustifiably) at ACORN. If SCOTUS decides that it wasn’t a BOA, then I would expect you to begin agitating for the immediate defunding of all the military contractors which have been _adjudicated_ as guilty of far more egregious offenses than anything ACORN was merely _accused_ of (and falsely accused at that, as we all know). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/129 "2010-04-06T16:16:27Z")
Isn’t it odd how often the true crux of the these discussions turns out to be a fine point of legal aracana beyond the grasp of us laycritters? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/130 "2010-04-06T16:21:39Z")
Isn’t it odd how **Bricker** doesn’t actually practice law anymore? Gotta be a reason for that, right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/131 "2010-04-06T16:30:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Apologize for what? No, I’m not going to apologize for my opinion which I’ve held since before the district decison, why should I? neither should you. Yor opinion is your opinion. No. My opinion was an opinion about what the law of the land is, when applied to these facts. It amounts to a factual assertion. If I’m wrong, if the courts rule otherwise, then obviously I’m wrong. > [@](#): > > I think you’re also being disingenuous in your assertion that the current decision doesn’t mean anything. If the District Court had ruled that this was not a Bill of Attainder (which it totally is), then you would be citing it until the cows come home. It’s NOT a Bill of Attainder, at least as that term was used in any caselaw predating this. Had it gone the other way, I would have pointed out that at least one federal judge agreed with me, but acknowledged that the law was not yet defined for the issue. > [@](#): > > If you really want to play the game of waiting until all the appeals are strung out, then you have to wait for _all_ the appeals. You can’t declare victory after the Circuit Court decison, you have to wait for SCOTUS. No. Because this is a question on what the law is. The district court’s opinion resolves a case, but does not settle the law. The circuit court’s opinion does. Of course the Supremes might come along and change things again, but that’s true of any case or controversy. But when the circuit court’s opinion comes, it makes law for that circuit. And as I said earlier, in this case, that’s effectively law for the whole country, since the DC circuit is where these types of challenges would always be heard. Now, I suppose I could wait to see if there’s a motion to rehear the question in the DC Circuit _en banc_, because that would change things more immediately, but let’s not confuse the issue even more. > [@](#): > > I really don’t think even you have any doubt, if you’re completely honest, that this was a bill targeted specifically (and as we now now, completely unjustifiably) at ACORN. Yes, it was targeted at ACORN. I have never denied that. But no, that doesn’t make it a Bill of Attainder. > [@](#): > > If SCOTUS decides that it wasn’t a BOA, then I would expect you to begin agitating for the immediate defunding of all the military contractors which have been _adjudicated_ as guilty of far more egregious offenses than anything ACORN was merely _accused_ of (and falsely accused at that, as we all know). Maybe. What does the law say? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/132 "2010-04-06T16:40:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …Yes, it was targeted at ACORN. I have never denied that… Was it just? Was it right? I don’t mean to pester you with trivial aracana, but to some of us, those are the crucial issues. Do forgive us, won’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/133 "2010-04-06T16:40:26Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Isn’t it odd how **Bricker** doesn’t actually practice law anymore? Gotta be a reason for that, right? I know lots of trained lawyers who don’t practice law. They’re the happy ones. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/134 "2010-04-06T16:40:32Z")
The key salient fact, AFAIAC, is that there’s not a single case on record of ACORN advising actual criminals on actual criminal behavior. Not one. And it seems overwhelmingly likely to me that if they were in the habit of giving such criminal advice, it would’ve come out by now. Criminals get caught a lot, they give other people up a lot to reduce their sentences, and some lowlevel pimp or dealer would’ve tattled by now about how ACORN help them set up their accounts or whatever. But that doesn’t happen. It just doesn’t. A good organization that did good work was destroyed because someone may have figured out how to con a few low-level employees at ACORN into giving stupid advice. That sucks. I’m not qualified to discuss the legality of the dropping funding, but I’m certainly qualified to discuss the ethics of the con artist and of their Congressional patsies, and what both of them did sucks. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/135 "2010-04-06T16:51:45Z")
Still, a very valuable lesson has been gained here, and that is that community organization works! Empowering the disenfranchised is a weapon of awesome, but gradual, political power. The pubbies didn’t expend all this energy to cripple ACORN just for recreation, the did it because ACORN was hitting them where they live. Especially in the more or less evenly split communities, the gradual upcreep of Dem voter registrations was a threat, a real threat, a growing threat. They won this one, and, surprise! they played most foully for it. But the people who really comprised ACORN are still out there, ACORN itself was really just an umbrella coalition of the like-minded. No body was executed, no printing presses smashed, none of that sort of thing. The lefty leadership should have paid more attention to this sort of work, they should have listened to Saul Alinsky and his ilk, rather than putting all their effort on playing the national stage, they should have put more money and time into the dull, plodding, excruciatingly slow process of WINNING! If the left takes this bitter lesson to heart, the sacrifice of ACORN may prove to be well worth it! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/136 "2010-04-06T17:00:06Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > That’s right, they found no “pattern of illegal conduct” by its employees. > > Which is why an apology is in order by those that were so quick to sentence ACORN to death. Well, if anyone sentenced ACORN to death, then maybe they need to apologize. Who did that, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/137 "2010-04-06T17:04:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s NOT a Bill of Attainder, at least as that term was used in any caselaw predating this. At least one federal judge disagrees with you. > [@](#): > > No. Because this is a question on what the law is. The district court’s opinion resolves a case, but does not settle the law. The circuit court’s opinion does. Come on, this is sophistry. It will certainly be appealed to SCOTUS and THAT will determine the law. In no way will it be settled until SCOTUS says it’s settled (even if they settle it just by declining to to hear it). > [@](#): > > Yes, it was targeted at ACORN. I have never denied that. > > But no, that doesn’t make it a Bill of Attainder. So far, the courts disagree with you. > [@](#): > > Maybe. What does the law say? > [@](#): > > Covered Organization- In this section, the term ‘covered organization’ means any of the following: > > ``` > 3 > (1) Any organization that has been indicted for a violation under any Federal or State law governing the financing of a campaign for election for public office or any law governing the administration of an election for public office, including a law relating to voter registration. > > (2) Any organization that had its State corporate charter terminated due to its failure to comply with Federal or State lobbying disclosure requirements. > (3) Any organization that has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency. > > (4) Any organization that- > > (A) employs any applicable individual, in a permanent or temporary capacity; > (B) has under contract or retains any applicable individual; or > (C) has any applicable individual acting on the organization’s behalf or with the express or apparent authority of the organization. > > ``` [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3571/text](http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3571/text) Here is a [list of violations by defense contractors](http://www.contractormisconduct.org/) which put those contractors into the definition of “covered groups” as defined above. You will need your scroll wheel. ACORN, for the record, was never even formally charged with anything. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/138 "2010-04-06T17:07:45Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Isn’t it odd how **Bricker** doesn’t actually practice law anymore? Gotta be a reason for that, right? If true, was does that have to do with anything? Or can you not directly address his arguments? I don’t agree with the guy often enough, but he certainly thinks about what his argument is, and has at times provided the best insights into law of anyone posting on the SDMB. So, my advice is address his argument, otherwise you’ve got nothing but childish name-calling. You may as well say “Bricker is a poopy-head.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/139 "2010-04-06T17:12:53Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Was it just? Was it right? I don’t mean to pester you with trivial aracana, but to some of us, those are the crucial issues. Do forgive us, won’t you? The problem with asking just that question, **elucidator** , is that you and I may disagree with the answers, each of us acting in good faith. We need to agree on some sort of system, then. Some method of arriving at a conclusion that each of us agrees in advance to be bound by, even if we disagree with it. We could… flip a coin? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945/140 "2010-04-06T17:16:10Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > If true, was does that have to do with anything? His credibility. > [@](#): > > Or can you not directly address his arguments? Can, but waste of time. > [@](#): > > So, my advice is address his argument, otherwise you’ve got nothing but childish name-calling. You may as well say “Bricker is a poopy-head.” Strip off the polysyllaby and that’s what most of his amount to. But thanks for caring. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-apologized-for-acorn-story-where-are-doper-apologies/534945.md?page=8)