Police: ACORN worker in video reported couple

[951-Riverside]

Source: The Associated Press

NATIONAL CITY, Calif. — Police say a worker with the activist group ACORN who was caught on video giving advice about human smuggling to a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute had reported the incident to authorities.

National City police said Monday that Juan Carlos Vera contacted his cousin, a police detective, to get advice on what to with information on possible human smuggling.

Vera was secretly filmed on Aug. 18 as part of a young couple's high-profile expose.

Police say he contacted law enforcement two days later. The detective consulted another police official who served on a federal human smuggling task force, who said he needed more details.

The ACORN employee responded several days later and explained that the information he received was not true and he had been duped.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hA9b96qgu9MG_331xFUGcYvhOcLAD9AS3CUO0

[RoyGBiv]

1. Gee ...

Why no three page write-up on that particular wrinkly in the story.

And where's CNN?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Go2Peace]

220. Beware DU readers... Freepers playing games below... You're warned :)

[RoyGBiv]

224. Ya think? n/t

[Brickbat]

2. He'll get his job back then, right? Right?

*crickets*

[mzmolly]

7. I sure hope so. If he wants it

that is.

[Festivito]

11. The CEO of ACORN has to admit to the egg on her face.

After hearing her, I don't think she's too swift in Republican mind game avoidance.

[mzmolly]

12. I felt that she was quick to fire some people, yet to my knowledge, she did not offer to step down.

That might have been the best overall move for the organization?

[Festivito]

16. That would have made the problem look systemic.

But, she might have to consider that now.

[mzmolly]

17. I think after a few videos it did look that way. And, I believe this may make it appear

as though the systemic issues will be dealt with? That said, I trust the board of directors to make the right decision regarding Ms. Lewis. She may not deserve to be a scapegoat. But, I don't think Mr. Vera did either.

[NashVegas]

49. The Only Systemic Abuse Was By the Perpetrators

Who went around to a half-dozen offices in order to get footage for their little publicity stunt.

[louis-t]

84. No, it was dozens of offices.

[mzmolly]

104. Do you trust the messenger?

I don't frankly. When O'Keefe releases complete unedited video to someone besides Fox "News" then, I'll make up my mind.

[JeanGrey]

36. Are you joking? TWO DAYS later? Nope, no cya here.

[iamjoy]

40. I Wonder About The Two Days Also

It's a valid question and one that should be asked - but not as a rhetorical question. That's a technique the right wing media uses. They ask a question about a Democrat, but in the media so the very issues causes people to follow that line of thinking.

Until we hear an answer from Mr. Vera, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he waited two days for valid reason - such as he didn't think they were serious, but after thinking it over for a while decided that he should report it just in case or that he was hoping to get more information, but then realized it was better to contact law enforcement anyway. Until I hear Mr. Vera's official response, I'm going to assume he made a honest (if foolish) mistake rather than that he deliberately did something wrong.

[JeanGrey]

73. It is also cya. I don't give it much credence.

[mzmolly]

119. The story I get from the article above is that he consulted his cousin,

and officially reported the incident two days later?

:shrug:

Also, the fact is, he contacted police in a reasonable amount of time, regardless.

[grahamhgreen]

50. The story time line is not clear. It says he

"contacted his cousin, a police detective, to get advice on what to with information on possible human smuggling.

Vera was secretly filmed on Aug. 18 as part of a young couple's high-profile expose.

Police say he contacted law enforcement two days later. The detective consulted another police official who served on a federal human smuggling task force, who said he needed more details.

The ACORN employee responded several days later and explained that the information he received was not true and he had been duped."



That could mean he contacted his cousin/detective immediately, and other law enforcement after they'd had a chance to discuss it. The time-line is unclear.

[MindPilot]

66. It could also mean it took two days to get in touch with his cousin

I'm guessing Vera felt he needed to talk first with someone he trusted, hence calling his cousin rather than just phoning the local FBI office.

[JeanGrey]

75. Look, all they had to do as soon as those people left

was call the police. Period. It really isn't hard.

[Eric J in MN]

93. Hannah Giles said she wanted to protect girls from a pimp.

"the girls are coming this weekend, that's why we're in an emergency situation, that's why we like ran in here for help, because I wanna get them before the pimp has time to bond with them and you know, herd them away."

- Hannah Giles

You act like it's so obvious that Hannah Giles was trying to promote prostitution.

But the reality is that she was an actress trying to getting ACORN workers to talk about prostitution so their words could be edited for a smear campaign.

Things aren't simple.

[defendandprotect]

121. Agree . . . sources controlling this info - Fox - need to release ALL the video --

everything they have on this --

[mzmolly]

125. Or call their cousin who was a police officer, wait for a call back and file

a formal report two days later.

Mr. Vera doesn't speak the best English, as was demonstrated by the edited video tapes. He may have wanted the guidance of his cousin given the complexity of the situation?

[Sivafae]

260. If Mr. Vera thought it was real

it would make sense that he didn't officially report it because if the people did return, he could be used in a sting.

[grahamhgreen]

194. Perhaps he did. It is impossible to tell from the story.

[RobinA]

250. Then What?

Ever call the police about some maybe incident twice removed? They don't jump in their cars and speed off to the supposed perps, sirens blaring. I, working in an official capacity, had a hard time interesting them in child Internet porn situation being perpetrated by a guy who had a previous arrest FOR THE SAME THING. If I ran into some possibility of human smuggling like this, I'd ask my friend's friend the cop what to do just like this guy did. Unless you live in El Paso, I doubt the local police know any more than you do about human smuggling, and they are going to be just as befuddled when you call them.

[mzmolly]

120. Exactly

my thoughts as well!

Regardless, he did call police.

[pnwmom]

58. Sure it is. There are plenty of reasons he could have waited two days, and the point

is that he called the police voluntarily, well before he was "exposed."

[JeanGrey]

77. The point is he didn't call the police for two days.

That smells.

[Cass]

79. It may be that there wasn't an 'official' record of his complaint for 2 days but it sounds like he

was in contact with his cousin who is a detective about this prior to that. He said he called his police detective cousin first for advice on how to handle it.

[Eric J in MN]

94. It took him a couple of days to process a strange conversation.

The idea behind the "Candid Camera" TV show was that most people won't immediately protest when strangers say strange things to them.

[robinlynne]

127. my thoughts as well. . I might mull it over before taking action too.

[pnwmom]

145. Exactly. And most people aren't in the habit of calling police. n/t

[mzmolly]

153. Either that or he wanted to get thoughts from his cousin

before proceeding. Though, even if it took two days, factor in the time it took to process the info, along with the language barrier and it's certainly understandable.

[mzmolly]

160. Just learned he called his cousin (a detective) two days prior to police.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/09/21/state/n190928D71.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0RsAASwQC

[Eric J in MN]

225. Thanks. NT

NT

[bobbolink]

142. I think the pointed suspicion smells.

[TroglodyteScholar]

169. Good thing our justice system doesn't rely on your hunches and intuition.

You may recall that we live in a nation where you are innocent until proven guilty.

Why, may I ask, do you so blindly trust this hacked-up video that's only been given to Fox News? Doesn't THAT smell at all?

[Eric J in MN]

91. Hannah Giles told Juan Vera she needed help protecting girls from a pimp.

She said, "I wanna get them before the pimp."

It took him a couple of days to decide that her story was suspicious enough to contact the police.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/20/784620/-OKeefe-said-he-went-after-ACORN-because-it-registers-minorities-likely-to-vote-against-Republicans

[sabrina 1]

199. Why didn't O'Keefe and Giles and Fox News

Breitbart, Rove, Greta Van Susteren and Hannity report the confession of murder by an ACORN worker? Maybe because they didn't believe it to be true, but wanted the sensationalism for their witch-hunt. Their standard of journalism is 'report salacious stuff on Liberals, and if it turns out not to be true, stop covering it but do not retract anything. The impression is all that counts.

From what I understand Juan Carlos was told they were trying to escape the woman's pimp. He thought they wanted help- to rescue the young girls also. He wasn't sure what to think of them. He took their information, emails etc. But when he could not contact them to give them information, he realized his suspicions were probably true.

Not everyone has such a dark soul, that they immediately suspect everyone who comes to them with a sob story, as these two went to him with, is a liar. Nor does everyone immediately call the authorities until they are relatively sure there is something to call him about.

He excercised very good judgement, imo as he wasn't certain their story was true, but did not want to rush to judgement. He called in a reasonable amount of time after deciding there was something fishy about them after all.

[FBaggins]

200. Actually they tried to make a big deal out of it

They blasted all over the place that an Acorn employee might have confessed on tape to murder.

Or do you mean why didn't they report it to police?

Obvious... they didn't want to ruin their story by letting it leak that they had done this. Which makes them every bit as craven, doesn't it?

Their standard of journalism is 'report salacious stuff on Liberals, and if it turns out not to be true, stop covering it but do not retract anything. The impression is all that counts.

Yep. Or better yet... "throw it all at the wall and see what sticks".

[sabrina 1]

211. They did, but not until Sept. 15th

which was at least weeks after the video 'confession' was filmed. We know that from the conversation between Giles, O'Keefe, Breitbart and Hannity on 9/15.

They had no interest in the possible death of another human being and were soley concerned with sliming ACORN because they register poor, minorities to vote (O'Keefe's own confession) so they failed to do what they demanded ACORN workers do.

Soulless, liars and hyocrital is about the best way I can think to describe these people.

I agree about flinging it all at the wall and seeing what sticks, but should they have a license to be on the air presenting themsevles as a news organization with standards this low? I think Congress needs to look into their practices and find out who funded this little stunt, rumored to be Morton Blackwell. If that is the case, his tax-exempt status should be removed immediately.

[FBaggins]

213. I agree

Oh... "no interest in the possible death" might be a stretch since the victim wouldn't be any more or less dead for the delay... but it's clear that "the story" was the important thing to them than reporting a possible crime.

Different in degree, perhaps, than what Veras is accused of... but not different in type.



but should they have a license to be on the air presenting themsevles as a news organization with standards this low?

There's too much of that on all sides to get any such ruling... but yeah, there should be less of it all around.

[sabrina 1]

284. Not a stretch at all. If somene confessed to a murder

to me or to most people I know for the sake of those who loved the person, most decent people would report it.

They clearly had no problem with a murderer working at ACORN, did they? Nor did Hannity, Rove or Greta. Only in destroying an organization that helps the poor and minorities.

'Different in degree' ~ it certainly is since Vera was under the impression he was being asked for help and offered to contact the authorites to get that help, which the pranksters turned down. He then emailed his cousin, a police officer and I have read emailed Giles and O'Keefe with information about an event that he thought would be helpful. When they did not respond, his underlying suspicions were confirmed so he went ahead and contacted the police.

There is simply no comparison to the responsible way in which he behaved, not jumping to conclusions right away, yet asking for advice from an authority, following up on a promise to contact these people who claimed to be danger, and then following through when he was convinced there was something very wrong with them. His entire motivation was to do the right thing, nor did he lie or use deception in his efforts to do so.

By contrast these rightwing thugs had zero interest in who might be hurt, or had been hurt. They lied, they hid their intentions of filming the conversation, they edited the tape, and most of all, they contacted no one in authority to report a possible murder for a full month before the police themselves investigated, after seeing the video.

To try to compare these people is simply mind-boggling. Liars and deceivers, cold-hearted conspirators to bring an organization that, in his own words, O'Keefe has admitted, 'were registering people to vote' that he considers 'undesirable'. That VERSUS a man whose main concern was to verify their story as much as he could and to help them if the story was true.

Please, you are being disingenuous and biased to an extreme, imho.

[defendandprotect]

266. Agree ... and completely in line with GOP/FOX anti-immigrant, anti-poor, anti-liberal agenda . . .

We need to get Fox to release the FULL videos on all of this --

And maybe get Congress to hold some hearings on it --

This is without doubt looking more and more like ROVE/GOP/FOX dirty tricks --

Maybe Fox's license should be in question?

[McCamy Taylor]

42. And ACORN will get their funding back, right?

[mzmolly]

131. I think they need more funding. Surely they have an issue to deal with that's

going to cost them financially. ;) I kid, sort of.

[defendandprotect]

267. I think you're both right . . . and that we need CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS on this . . .

Let's get Fox and these reporters and all the employees to tell us what really went on ...

and make sure we have interpretors so that language can't be used against them as it has

been done by Fox/O'Keefe.

With all the corruption among corporations -- from GE to every one of our pharmaceutical

companies -- and the need for health care, what the GOP/Rove/Fox are working is an attempt

to smear a minority organization which gets minority voters out!!

And, just coincidentally, smear people of AA and Latin descent -- !!!

Don't trust the poor, folks!!! Nor those who try to help them!!

Especially if they speak another language besides English--!!!


:eyes:

[jasi2006]

270. ACORN funding = 53 million over past 15 YEARS!

Wow! I am sure they are responsible for the housing market collapse.

[emulatorloo]

3. Very interesting. Where is the front page coverage? Why did it take so long to come out? n/t

[marshall]

14. He didn't have ACORN to back him up--he lost his voice in the process

That's the problem with jumping to conclusions and summarily firing people--even if they have an alibi they have lost the avenue of letting that alibi be known.

[mzmolly]

18. In hindsight, they should have suspended him with pay until an investigation

could be completed.

[Turborama]

21. What do you think if he went for unfair dismissal?

I know he has a right to but it could make matters worse for ACORN in the short term but as a bigger picture thing it could act on their behalf, regarding bringing to light the malfeasance of the agent provocateurs...?

[FBaggins]

60. There's nothing unfair about his dismissal

I see a few here commenting (reasonably) that reporting it two days later doesn't demonstrate much... but that's not that important. It may help Acorn (slightly), but it doesn't make him any less open to termination. Would you be ok with what he said if he worked for you?

You run a company that helps the poor and disadvantaged in our society and someone comes in with this story and he offers to help them do it? A prostitute comes in and he asks her how much she charges and if she would work for him?

Maybe he thought better of it a day or two later and did the right thing... maybe he realized he had a problem and tried to cover his rear end... either way he's already past the "fire me" stage.

[Cass]

67. When did he ask the prostitute to come work for him?

I didn't hear him ask that question of her.

[FBaggins]

68. The first video release wasn't clear...

...but he says "work for me" twice in the longer version I saw yesterday.

In his defense, he's quick to say "oh no no" when they guy asks if he's a potential client.

[Cass]

76. Where is the longer version that you saw?

I have watched the 2 videos at this link and don't hear him say that. http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/acorn-prostitution-scandal-in-san-diego.html

Juan asks her what she charges and O'Keefe says "are you going to work for me, are you a potential client?" and Juan says oh no no no. There was a lot of cross talk at the time and it's difficult to make out but I'm pretty sure O'Keefe is the one who says are you going to work for me. I didn't hear any other conversation where Juan asks her to work for him. If you have a link to a longer version with better audio, I'd like to see it. The videos that have been released by O'Keefe have been edited and spliced which I think is very unfair to Juan.

IMO, Juan didn't do anything wrong in these tapes....he contacted his police detective cousin after they left. What more should he have done? Cuff them and hold them until cops arrive?

[ieoeja]

82. He's not obligated to even call the cops. That was purely voluntary. (nt)

[FBaggins]

97. He works for a company that helps poor people in high crime areas.

He is "obligated" to his employer to respond correctly to requests that the company aide people in illegal activities.

How much simpler does it need to be?

[mzmolly]

107. He called police,

so your point is moot. He was told he did not have enough information.

[FBaggins]

117. Hardly "moot"

He called the police two days later and we don't even have that report to see what he alleged.

But either way it's not at all "moot" because this isn't a criminal prosecution. It's a discussion about whether he should have been fired. "Called the police after playing along pretending he would help them is not the appropriate response for someone in that position.

Acorn doesn't run stings, they help people (presumably within the bounds of the law). The Philly response "sorry, I can't help you... we don't do that" is the correct one. Whether he was aiding in a criminal enterprise or "running his own sting" he needs to be fired.

[mzmolly]

123. So, you maintain that a man interested in helping smuggle young children

would contact police prior to when they're supposed to be smuggled into the country? That's an interesting assertion.

As others have pointed out, the story would suggest he contacted his cousin and an official report was filed two days later. Numerous media sources have confirmed the police report exists.

Of course in hindsight, Philly was the best response. However, if there were actually humans in danger, the more correct response might be to obtain as much info as you can, or even offer a point of reference for police, so you can save human lives.

Also, the Philly response was not reported by Fox and or, O'Keefe was it?

I think Philly alone demonstrates that at best, ACORN was caught off guard as they're not in the business of having pimps come in asking for help. Surely ACORN did not endorse assisting child smuggling rings as is essentially being asserted!

This is a manufactured story which will presumably be used to smear Democrats in coming elections if we don't demand the truth right now.

[FBaggins]

149. If he began to be suspicious that they weren't what they said they were?

Yeah... the first thing he would do would be to try to cover himself.

A man NOT interested in participating would have made that clear RIGHT AWAY and would have called the cops right after his safety was assured.

"Numerous media sources have confirmed the police report exists."

I have seen no such reports. What I've seen was that no report was filed because by the time they followed up he didn't think it was real any longer.

"Of course in hindsight, Philly was the best response."

NOT in hindsight. I can't imagine that I haven't made myself clear on this. Think about what Acorn does... think about who they serve. They WILL meet people on an ongoing basis who are involved in criminal activity (not this serious presumably). Philly's response was how every single Acorn employee should have been trained. This (to me) is where Acorn is most culpable. They obviously have inadequate training and/or oversight.

They didn't need the "more correct" response that you posit (correctly) because they weren't presented with the same situation.

"Also, the Philly response was not reported by Fox and or, O'Keefe was it? "

This is true... but not really a big deal because the reported videos were from the prior weeks and the Philly situation was over a year ago and involved a different story and a different girl. I don't know if that's "research" or a "dry run" or whatever, but it's only "part of the story" now because it was the only thing Acorn could put forward that was an acceptable response when they had previously claimed that the pair had visited several (named) offices and been turned away (until videos from other offices - including at least one they named - were released).

[mzmolly]

157. My you're jumping to quite a few conclusions.

1. The average "latino male" (attorneys without past criminal records no less) is interested in helping child smugglers.
2. He called police only to cover his tracks, because once again he's highly interested in #1, being a "latino male" and all.
3. The police are now involved in covering for him.

From the San Francisco Gate:

"National City police said Monday that Juan Carlos Vera contacted his cousin, a police detective, to get advice on what to with information on possible human smuggling.

...

Police say he contacted law enforcement two days later. The detective consulted another police official who served on a federal human smuggling task force, who said he needed more details.

The ACORN employee responded several days later and explained that the information he received was not true and he had been duped.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/09/21/state/n190928D71.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0RsAASwQC

In spite of Mr. Vera's valiant attempt to get details from the couple, it was still NOT ENOUGH to help police.

[FBaggins]

163. Not at all.

And that response is a cheap cop out.

1) Nothing I've said has anything to do with "average latinos"... it has to do with what we saw on tape in a number of instances. YES I would find it hard to believe that anyone in such a position would do anything but tell them to get the h#@$ out of their face... but I watched it happen over and over.

2) I think the average latino male would call 911 the moment he thought he was safe from potentially dangerous people. You obviously don't think they're that smart (see how easy the cheap cop out is?) :)

3) How so? The police only say that he made the call (two days later). They haven't "covered" for him.

You've also conflated two seperate statements as if they create a timeline. He called his cousin and then the police two days later. Making it seem as if the call to the cousin was that same day. It doesn't read that way. The call to the cousin WAS the call two days later.


And oh please... let's not move him on to making "valiant attempts" at anything. This is the knee-jerk partisan response to any such allegations. The accused isn't just innocent, he's a white knoght fighting for all that is good and holy.


I've enjoyed the debate. Thanks a good back-and-forth (and I hope that nothing came across as adversarial), but I need to run.

[mzmolly]

167. Sorry, "as a latino male" is how the supposed smuggling question was posed.

1. If the video tapes are indicative of what happened, I glad that someone who wanted to report an incident involving children to police didn't kick them out, and instead tried to obtain as much info as he could in order to spare the potential child victims.

2. Mr. Vera called his cousin presumably that day. Perhaps the very moment he "thought he was safe?"

3. Apparently, you're bringing his cousin into the "I support child pimp smugglers and their supporters" scenario? So much so, that the detective/cousin would lie about having talked to amother detective who confirms the conversation? Boy, this web of human smuggling support, keeps growing doesn't it? ;)

I did not consider you to be overly adversarial. I think it's good to see a debate on this.

Peace

[defendandprotect]

263. That's what he's here for . . .!!

:evilgrin:

[Turborama]

177. "the Philly situation was over a year ago and involved a different story and a different girl"

Wrong, the police report was made in July this year.


Full story, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x373378">here.

And, how do you know it was "a different girl"? Do you have inside information that we're not aware of?

"the only thing Acorn could put forward that was an acceptable response"

As reported in the link above, actually this is a massive thing that ACORN put forward which proves that O'Keefe (and his spinmeister Breitbart) are liars and that Faux are the enablers of their lies.

[FBaggins]

183. I stand corrected on the date

The stories I've seen said "last July" and indicated a "different girl"... the Acorn video also describes a substantially different story.

As reported in the link above, actually this is a massive thing that ACORN put forward which proves that O'Keefe (and his spinmeister Breitbart) are liars and that Faux are the enablers of their lies.

That's simply wrong. It's understandable as a "gotcha" but it goes way too far. In order for their statement that nobody ever called the police on them to be a "lie", they would have to know that it wasn't true. How would they know about this report until Acorn published it?

Heck... as far as "gotchas" go it is at best 1:1 since Acorn previously listed locations that had turned them away... and they later released at least one video from one of those named locations NOT turning them away but helping them. No doubt the right wing sites were shouting that it was a massive thing[/b[ that proves Acorn was lying. Do you believe it? Or might it just have been a simple mistake on Acorn's part?

[Turborama]

196. You're defending their lies?

The stories I've seen said "last July" and indicated a "different girl"...

Where did you see them, on Faux's or Breitbart's website?

the Acorn video also describes a substantially different story.

But you originally brought up this substantially different story at length in post #149.

In order for their statement that nobody ever called the police on them to be a "lie", they would have to know that it wasn't true. How would they know about this report until Acorn published it?

They lied about not being kicked out of any ACORN offices repeatedly on Faux. Maybe you didn't go to the link I provided because that's what the whole story I'm referring to is about.

[FBaggins]

198. Lol... does "their lies" refer to Acorn?

Because thats who I was talking about with "last July" and "different girl". Not Fox or Breitbart.

"Last July" is at about 20 seconds into the video you posted - "Another woman" is at just after the one minute mark.

"Different story" is about 15-20 seconds later when they point out that he didn't pretend to be a pimp and the girl wasn't a prostitute.

This could very well be the attempted sting that supposedly got Giles interested in working with him and crafting the lie that became the series of videos that we've all now seen. It wouldn't be entirely unreasonable for her to think of that as the beginning of their current project and say that nobody turned them away on that. It's spin to be sure, but hardly any more of a smoking gun than Acorn's supposed "lie" that they didn't succeed anywhere else.

[Turborama]

208. No, and you know it doesn't. However, this post is more defense of Brietbart & Co.'s lies

"Last July" isn't "last year", is it. If someone says to me "last July I went to Disneyworld", I wouldn't think they meant last year, I would have thought they meant the last July we just had. Why is it important to continue on this point, you may ask. Well, it is important because you're defending their lie and Faux not covering ACORN's Philadelphia response with continued hypotheses...

Post #123
"Also, the Philly response was not reported by Fox and or, O'Keefe was it? "

This is true... but not really a big deal because the reported videos were from the prior weeks and the Philly situation was over a year ago and involved a different story and a different girl. I don't know if that's "research" or a "dry run" or whatever


Post #198..

This could very well be the attempted sting that supposedly got Giles interested in working with him and crafting the lie that became the series of videos that we've all now seen. It wouldn't be entirely unreasonable for her to think of that as the beginning of their current project and say that nobody turned them away on that. It's spin to be sure, but hardly any more of a smoking gun than Acorn's supposed "lie" that they didn't succeed anywhere else.


The more I read of what you have to say, the more it looks like you either have inside information on what went on or are just spending a lot of time hypothesizing on Breitbart's gang and Faux's behalf because you're a fan of their work.

[FBaggins]

210. Chill... your anger takes it too far

You accused me of making things up and/or getting them from right-wing sources that made them up... and insisted that I watch the video you linked.

I pointed out that the info I was referring to was from the video you posted and cited times where you could find it.

Yet I'm defending lies and Breitbart?

Please let us not take disagreement over the issue to mean that we're on opposing sides of the political divide.

"Last July" isn't "last year", is it. If someone says to me "last July I went to Disneyworld", I wouldn't think they meant last year,

And obviously I would. If it turns out that "last July" and "July of last year" aren't synonyms, what's the big deal? It obviously isn't an intentional act of disinformation. You posted the report and I looked at it and admitted my error. Why can't you look at your claims for where I got things and see that you also got it wrong?

Post #123

That's correct. I see enough of a difference that the two sides could both be telling the truth. Acorn sees "O'Keefe scam" and treat it all as one scheme and Giles sees only the series of visits that she participated in and that were part of her "hooker" plan.

or are just spending a lot of time hypothesizing

Actually I was comparing baseless speculation to other baseless speculation.

Surely you can agree that the Acorn claim that they got nowhere at some named location - followed by damning video from that location - is just as "gotcha" as the Philly police report? I'm not saying that Acorn lied (though I'm sure Fox does)... I'm just saying the the rock-hard certainty that this PROVES it was all a lie just doesn't hold water.

Breitbart's gang and Faux's behalf because you're a fan of their work.

Oh please. Have I been intentionally insulting anywhere? There are a whole mess of good loyal Democrats who have had enough of damage control for Acorn (or "thrown them under the bus" if you prefer)... and plenty of people here with thousands of posts who felt the same way when they saw the videos. How is your knee-jerk reaction any different from the right's knee-jerking in the opposite direction?

I admit I'm ticked at Acorn... maybe it taints what I'm seeing. I think they should have known better and been better prepared. I think that they do good work in communities, but are awfully amateur players when it comes to politics and political organizing. I think that that amateurism comes close to hurting the party and I think it's pretty obvious that our party leaders agree with me. You don't? That's fine... but it doesn't put us on opposite sides of the political fence.

[Turborama]

234. I'm not "angry", I just call things as I see them.

You have been defending Faux not covering ACORN's Philadelphia response & Breitbart & Co.'s lies, with your hypothesis http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4070953&mesg_id=4072267">noted above.

"It obviously isn't an intentional act of disinformation."

Well, it could be seen that way if you've http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6598365&mesg_id=6605015">said it before when it's clearly written in a police report as 07/24/09 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6598365#6605015">in the OP.

Actually I was comparing baseless speculation to other baseless speculation.

....

I'm just saying the the rock-hard certainty that this PROVES it was all a lie just doesn't hold water.

There's no "baseless speculation" - and I didn't say anything "PROVES it was all a lie" - in what I wrote. Your speculation/hypothesis, however, is just that, speculation verging on spin on the behalf of Faux and their friends.

Again, O'Keefe was lying when he said he wasn't kicked out of any ACORN offices, no matter what time frame you want it to be.

The time frame of Brietbart & Co.'s sting operation was over the July/August period of this year. Hence, your hypothesis that the Philadelphia incident well precedes the other videos and therefore he wasn't lying when he said he wasn't kicked out of any ACORN offices because he was just testing the ground is a weak defence in his favor.

To conclude:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x373378">O'Keefe was asked on multiple times by Faux if he was kicked out of any ACORN offices and each time he was asked he said no. That IS a lie.

Faux has not covered the Philadelphia incident. That is TRUE.

[FBaggins]

237. Really?

I didn't say anything "PROVES it was all a lie" - in what I wrote.

Did someone else steal your logon and post: "massive thing that ACORN put forward which proves that O'Keefe (and his spinmeister Breitbart) are liars and that Faux are the enablers of their lies."

???


Again, O'Keefe was lying when he said he wasn't kicked out of any ACORN offices, no matter what time frame you want it to be.

The video I've seen linked to that statement was from the girl, not O'keefe. She apparently wasn't involved at the time. The timeframe does matter because O'keefe has been running these KINDs of things for years (I recently learned he was the guy going after Planned Parenthood - pretending to want to donate money only if it would be used on minorities). I'm just saying that if two people are looking at the same cloudless night and one guy says it's day while the other says it's night... you know you have a lie. If they're looking at different skies, the conflict doesn't demonstrate a lie. Acorn (and you obviously) see the Philly sitaution as all part of the same package of visits... they appear not to and there are enough differences to at least make that plausible (though obviously the "last year" part would make that an easier sell for them). I'm taking the SAME stance with Acorn. They said with conviction that they had been turned away over and over and gave some examples... we now know that they were wrong. that DOESN'T mean that they "lied" - even though the facts directly contradict what they said. I'm sure that they made an honest mistake. The point is that BOTH examples can be "sold" as "lies" by the opposition. That's fine... it's expected in politics. I just see it for what it is.

O'Keefe was asked on multiple times by Faux if he was kicked out of any ACORN offices and each time he was asked he said no. That IS a lie.

Ok.. that's the first I've seen where it was O'keefe - which makes it harder for their spin, but still not beyond the realm of possibility. But again... there are two sides to the claim and neither appears to have "clean hands". If Acorn claims they were kicked out of five places and the only example they can give was from a somewhat different exchange... why can you only see error on one side?

It's all post-game spin. How many offices did O'Keefe and Giles walk into with their pimp/hooker story and get sent packing? We don't know of any. If that's what they were saying then a lie isn't proven. Were all Acorn offices that O'keefe knew of crooked even by his own definition? We know that isn't the case. If THAT is what they were saying then they're lying.

"Spin" is often the ability to say one thing and leave viewerd with the impression that you're saying something else.

Faux has not covered the Philadelphia incident. That is TRUE.

See? Now there's a good example of what I was saying. It HAS been there (just yesterday?) and I know it because the video has been linked HERE from mediamatters.

So have you been proven a liar? Or was it simply a mistake? :)

[Turborama]

282. Taking things out of context seems to be your forte

My 1st post (#177) where I pointed you to the story that shows O'Keefe was lying to Faux: As reported in the link above, actually this is a massive thing that ACORN put forward which proves that O'Keefe (and his spinmeister Breitbart) are liars and that Faux are the enablers of their lies.

YOU: Surely you can agree that the Acorn claim that they got nowhere at some named location - followed by damning video from that location - is just as "gotcha" as the Philly police report? I'm not saying that Acorn lied (though I'm sure Fox does)... I'm just saying the the rock-hard certainty that this PROVES it was all a lie just doesn't hold water'

ME: I didn't say anything "PROVES it was all a lie" - in what I wrote.

YOU: Did someone else steal your logon and post: "massive thing that ACORN put forward which proves that O'Keefe (and his spinmeister Breitbart) are liars and that Faux are the enablers of their lies."

Notice how I put the emphasis on "all"? "PROVES" in capitals was a direct quote from you - IOW your emphasis. Now, where did I say that anything proves it was ALL a lie in the post you are quoting from, or any other post I've made for that matter? What I have said (and provided a link showing this to be the case) multiple times from the get go is that:

O'Keefe has lied to Faux that he wasn't kicked out of ANY ACORN offices.

That. is. a. FACT!

ME: O'Keefe was asked on multiple times by Faux if he was kicked out of any ACORN offices and each time he was asked he said no. That IS a lie.

YOU: The video I've seen linked to that statement was from the girl, not O'keefe. She apparently wasn't involved at the time. The timeframe does matter because O'keefe has been running these KINDs of things for years (I recently learned he was the guy going after Planned Parenthood - pretending to want to donate money only if it would be used on minorities).

YOU: Ok.. that's the first I've seen where it was O'keefe - which makes it harder for their spin, but still not beyond the realm of possibility.

You mean you didn't go to the link in post #177 and totally ignored me saying it was O'Keefe then and afterwards? The link I provided in post #177 is all about O'Keefe saying that he wasn't kicked out of any ACORN offices, not "the girl". Also, by that logic, this whole ACORN thing was set up by O'Keefe, not Giles. That means Giles is lying that it was all her idea and she called O'Keefe in to help her.

YOU: we now know that they were wrong. that DOESN'T mean that they "lied" - even though the facts directly contradict what they said. I'm sure that they made an honest mistake. The point is that BOTH examples can be "sold" as "lies" by the opposition. That's fine... it's expected in politics. I just see it for what it is.

OK, now we're getting to know how you see it. You're sure O'Keefe & Co. made an honest mistake? The way I see it is that it was a lie, you see it as an "honest mistake". Kind of gives away which side of the fence you're sitting on, doesn't it.

YOU: why can you only see error on one side?

I can see errors on both sides. I'm just picking up on O'Keefe's lies about not being kicked out of ANY ACORN offiecs and, as proved above, you're defending those lies by saying you're "sure it was an honest mistake".

ME: Faux has not covered the Philadelphia incident. That is TRUE.

YOU: See? Now there's a good example of what I was saying. It HAS been there (just yesterday?) and I know it because the video has been linked HERE from mediamatters.


So have you been proven a liar? Or was it simply a mistake? :)


No, I haven't. Please provide a link to Faux reporting on O'Keefe being kicked out of the Philadelphia office?

[defendandprotect]

265. Rather, it looks like Fox and the right-wing are watching this scam fall apart . . .

Maybe the story has to be shored up a bit?

Oh please. Have I been intentionally insulting anywhere? There are a whole mess of good loyal Democrats who have had enough of damage control for Acorn (or "thrown them under the bus" if you prefer)... and plenty of people here with thousands of posts who felt the same way when they saw the videos. How is your knee-jerk reaction any different from the right's knee-jerking in the opposite direction?

I admit I'm ticked at Acorn... maybe it taints what I'm seeing. I think they should have known better and been better prepared. I think that they do good work in communities, but are awfully amateur players when it comes to politics and political organizing. I think that that amateurism comes close to hurting the party and I think it's pretty obvious that our party leaders agree with me. You don't? That's fine... but it doesn't put us on opposite sides of the political fence.

There are many Democrats who are getting a whiff of the GOP/fascist smell coming off of this scam.

Nor is anyone here treating you to a "right-wing-type-knee-jerking" in any direction.

You've been accorded the opportunity to reveal yourself.

ACORN is "amateur" at political organizing?

If that were true, you wouldn't be here.

ACORN played a large role in putting Obama into the White House.

[shimmergal]

146. Well then, with your "correct" response,

you get absolutely no information to report to authorities.

He may have played along ineptly but how to react to such a request probably wasn't part of his job training.

[FBaggins]

150. And he didn't

get any such "information" nor did he report it in a timely fashion.

As for not part of his job training. THat's my point. It absolutely HAD to be. (meaning "should have been").

If it wasn't then the organization is without excuse. If it WAS then Acorn should have released that training and said "everyone has to agree to this when they are trained and we fired the people who proved they couldn't do it"...

...honestly, I think if they could have done this there would be little impact on their funding. Just like any company. Someone breaks the law... we fire them... we document that they were told they can't do this... story over.

[mzmolly]

158. He called a detective for advice, and two days later reported it himself.

National City police said Monday that Juan Carlos Vera contacted his cousin, a police detective, to get advice on what to with information on possible human smuggling.

Vera was secretly filmed on Aug. 18 as part of a young couple's high-profile expose.

Police say he contacted law enforcement two days later. The detective consulted another police official who served on a federal human smuggling task force, who said he needed more details.

The ACORN employee responded several days later and explained that the information he received was not true and he had been duped.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/09/21/state/n190928D71.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0RsAASwQC

[FBaggins]

164. Read it again

That's not two events on one timeline... that's the same event introduced and then fleshed out. Note "detective" in each. The "two days later" isn't two days after talking to his cousin, the context makes pretty clear that it's two days after the 8/18 event. Other reporting makes clear that "the detective" who "consulted another officer" was the cousin.

[mzmolly]

168. I did read it again.

National City police said Monday that Juan Carlos Vera contacted his cousin, a police detective, to get advice on what to with information on possible human smuggling.

...

Police say he contacted law enforcement two days later.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/09/21/state/n190928D71.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0RsLEGAQC

His cousin does not appear to be the generic law enforcement being referred to in the article. These ARE two distinct events from what I can tell. Though two days one day three days ... it doesn't much matter to me. I don't believe that this man was actually interested in assisting pimps who peddle children.

[FBaggins]

176. Notice how you had to add the ellipsis?

That changes the context of the second time statement. The part you omitted changes the context of the "two days later" from "two days after speaking to cousin" to "two days after the incident".

This reading is confirmed by this report that "The detective" who "consulted" others occurred in conjunction with that two-day-later call. Other reporting shows that the cousin IS the one who consulted other officers (and is thus the one mentioned in both sentences).

But police said in a press release that Vera reported the incident to his cousin, a detective with the National City Police Department. Vera worked in ACORN's National City office. The detective contacted a federal task force that deals with human smuggling, and an officer from the task force asked for more details. By then, Vera realized that he had been the victim of a ruse, and relayed that to the officer.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/PoliceACORN-Employee-Reported-Alleged-Smuggling.html

I don't believe that this man was actually interested in assisting pimps who peddle children.

You can say that... and certainly we don't WANT to believe it, but I don't want to believe it in the other videos either and there they (non latinos all) are actually helping them. Getting out their tax books and telling them hot to file, how to hide the income, how to title the property etc.

[mzmolly]

178. I added that the second time I posted it for you, because the notation was an aside.

My aren't we picky about context all of a sudden though huh?

I stand by my reading of the article until I have information to the contrary. Not that it matters though, either way HE CONTACTED POLICE.

As for the other videos, again context is important. I'm glad you realize that now. However, I'm not defending every worker at every office. All I'm saying is SHOW ME THE ACTUAL FOOTAGE!

[FBaggins]

186. Until you read something to the contrary?

You just POSTED something to the contrary. You're just not reading it correctly. :)

[mzmolly]

188. No I didn't. But as I've said, it's not overtly relevant as far as I'm concerned.

:)

[FBaggins]

195. You've made that clear.

I think to others, the "I called the police on them" claim sells better if he didn't wait two days and then do it through his cousin.

The Philly story makes that lady clean. Nobody can pretend that they did anything wrong.

[mzmolly]

201. If I had a cousin who was a detective,

I'd consult with him/her as well. Especially if English was a second language for me and attempting to communicate a confusing experience was a factor.

[FBaggins]

207. Yep

I would too. Either on a "bathroom break" while O'Keefe was there... or right after he walked out the door. NOT two days later.

Hint... there really isn't anything to "consult" here. He could have skipped the cousin and dialed 911 from the bathroom.

Especially if English was a second language for me and attempting to communicate a confusing experience was a factor.

That's a more valid defense on the earlier conversation. His cousin can't aide in communication problems two days later.

[mzmolly]

214. The goal posts keep moving.

The first argument put forth was he should have called police. That has evolved into, he didn't call police when I think he should have. C'mon.

[FBaggins]

217. I wouldn't say so

I think "he should have called police" implies "as they walked out the door".

I think that people just assumed it would have been right away or not at all. Two days later doesn't make any sense... especially in the context of understanding that he didn't really "call the police" in any sense that the rest of us would have he called his cousin (for advice?) and his cousin called the right people.

I gave you my goal posts. I would have called 911 from the bathroom or as they walked out the door. They aren't moving.

Tell us now... how long would you have waited if you thought they were legit????

And what "advice" would you have NEEDED?

I don't think that any liberal/moderate can answer that question honestly and not see that he kicked it sideways. It doesn't matter how far up/back the goalposts are moved.

[mzmolly]

226. What doesn't make sense is the notion that he wanted to help

peddle children.

People have lives. I don't know how long I would have waited to call police, it would depend on what I had going on in my personal life. It would depend upon whether or not I had my cousins phone number at my disposal. It would depend upon whether or not I felt I had enough info to provide to police. Perhaps he knew his call would be futile because he couldn't get enough info? But, he decided to call just in case something could be done?

I think it's far easier to understand why a person who's English is broken, who was obviously confused about what was being asked of him, might wish to discuss this with his detective cousin, than it is to believe that he intended to help peddle children. Don't you?

Here's a question for "liberals and moderates," why would Juan Vera want to help anyone smuggle children into the country? What did he have to gain?

[FBaggins]

230. You keep saying that... yet

there wasn't just one video of this happening.

We clearly saw people offering advice on how to make the girls look legit (even claim them as dependents), or hide them from the authorities. It's disgusting, but there were too many examples to write it off based on the source.

People have lives.

You're not SERIOUSLY saying that are you?

He just has a busy life and didn't get around to it?

I don't know how long I would have waited to call police, it would depend on what I had going on in my personal life.

Take that back before it haunts you (as it should). If someone told you they were going to sneak little girls into the country and there was a pimp involved

it would depend on what was going on in for personal life!!!???

Please tell me you're kidding. I mean it. Please.

Here's a question for "liberals and moderates," why would Juan Vera want to help anyone smuggle children into the country?

I can't fathom ANY reason WHY anyone would do that. I can't imagine a pimp wanting to do it... I can't imagine an adult wantint to sleep with the girls. It's all so far outside of what I can imagine... but I saw women sit down with these scum and help them pick a business designation (should we use "entertainment" or "performance art") and recommend using the girls as a tax writeoff and pointing out that even though they would be earning money ("turning tricks"), the government wouldn't know that because you won't be getting them social security numbers (unless you want them as a tax deduction of course). It happened. It happened more than once. I can't imagine "why" - but I can't sit here and assume that it couldn't happen.

Maybe he gets paid by the number of cases he works.

[mzmolly]

232. Each video was a bit different. Some offices are accused of giving

illegal advice on taxes etc. right? Vera, on the other hand, is accused of offering to help them smuggle people into the country, because obviously, "as a latino male" he's privy to the how to's on that. :sarcasm:

I will say, I'm inclined to believe that some employees at various offices did commit wrong doing, upon viewing some of the snips. But, I still want to see the unedited videos from every location given the seriousness of the charges.

I wish to make it clear that I am not defending every ACORN employee featured in the so called sting operation. But, I would urge caution before believing that the Giles/O'Keefe version of events is wholly accurate. I would also caution that we not sweep everyone accused under the proverbial bus without proof of wrong doing.

Editing to respond to your "please tell me your kidding" plea ... Hilarious, considering my scenario is far less vile than yours.

[FBaggins]

238. Each IS a bit different, but the story is the same.

In each case, they were presented with a potential client who was clearly involved in illegal activity that nobody could reasonably support (i.e. it wasn't medical marijuana etc). In each case the worker offered to provide services that would have enabled the crime.

I suppose I would be more upset at someone actually being willing to smuggle people than at the white-collar accountant who knowingly did their taxes... but I'm not so sure that I would be on firm moral footings in doing so.

I wish to make it clear that I am not defending every ACORN employee

Of course not. And Acorn wants to make the SAME thing clear.

More importantly to the discussion. Our party and our president want to make the SAME THING CLEAR. The way they do so is to cut any cords between us and them. "Stand by them until it's proven true" is a deadly prescription in politics. How many good people (on both sides) have been burned by that in recent years?

Hilarious, considering my scenario is far less vile than yours.

Yet STILL way beyond the "well... I had to get my nails done... and then there was a really good episode of House on tv... I just didn't get around to it" stage. No? :)

The "far less vile" scenario still involves underage girls brought across the border and protecting them from a pimp, right?

[mzmolly]

241. The story isn't the same. Some videos were not even shown to the public. Not to mention the fact

that O'Keefe is known to cherry pick and take conversations out of context to make people look bad. Others, once again were subject to selective editing, by a person known to do http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/us/19sting.html">just that.

Not everyone among Mr. O’Keefe’s acquaintances agrees. Liz Farkas, a Rutgers student who called Mr. O’Keefe “a nice guy and a loyal friend,” said she grew disillusioned after he asked her to help edit the script of a Planned Parenthood sting.

“It was snippets to make the Planned Parenthood nurse look bad,” Ms. Farkas said. “I said: ‘It has no context. You’re just cherry-picking the nurse’s answers.’ He said, ‘Okay’ — and then he just ran it.”

I ask again, why do you believe James O'Keefe?

"More importantly to the discussion. Our party and our president want to make the SAME THING CLEAR. The way they do so is to cut any cords between us and them. "Stand by them until it's proven true" is a deadly prescription in politics. How many good people (on both sides) have been burned by that in recent years?"

Let me be clear. I'm not saying that we should stand by anyone. I'm saying that we should demand an impartial review of all the evidence before we "stand by" FOX NEWS and James O'Keefe, understand?

Also, are you suggesting that if we toss ACORN under the bus, that Republicans will not use this in future campaigns? :rofl: That's humorous. Associating Democrats with a besmirched organization is their intent no matter what we do, believe me! Further, the Republicans are already demanding a review of their voter registration records.

If we lay down now (as you suggest we should) and allow them to effectively smear ACORN, without any credible evidence that we're getting the full story, we'll never an opportunity to effectively scrutinize these claims again. You will hear nothing but "ACORN and the Democrats" and that "community organizer" who "worked for ACORN" must be defeated in 2012. We MUST fight back NOW.

Regarding the two day wait vs. the sure, I'll help you smuggle children into the country for prostitution (for no good reason) scenario. Once again, your version requires a far greater leap than mine. ACORN employees work days, nights and weekends, so do cops. It's not a stretch to understand why he may not have reached his cousin for a day or two.

On edit, speaking of a two day wait, I presume you're aware that O'Keefe and co. NEVER reported a http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6607357&mesg_id=6607357">so called murder? Not two days, not three, not a week ... NEVER.

You keep on doing what Republicans want you to. As for me, I refuse. I will never give Fox and their cohorts the benefit of the doubt. I know better.

[defendandprotect]

268. Vera, of course, isn't involved in child smuggling . . . more likely GOP is -- !!!

This has all the ear-marks of a ROVE swiftboating on it --

and I think we're going to need Congressional hearings on this --

and I imagine that FOX is shredding the tapes right now!!!

Fox/O'Keefe and the handy hooker helper -- all under oath?

[defendandprotect]

269. Trying to reply to mzmolly post #226 but this keeps getting misplaced . . .

Of course, Vera, had nothing to do with child smuggling - however, more likely GOP did -- !!!

his has all the ear-marks of a ROVE swiftboating on it --

and I think we're going to need Congressional hearings on this --

and I imagine that FOX is shredding the tapes right now!!!

Fox/O'Keefe and the handy hooker helper -- all under oath?

[FBaggins]

197. Here it is a bit clearer

"Juan Carlos Vera contacted his cousin two days after the incident for advice on what to do with information he obtained regarding possible human smuggling, National City police said in a news release Monday."

http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/breaking/ut_polblog/index.html

Note two things:

1) It's clear that it wasn't an immediate call to his cousin and then two days to hear back... or whatever. The call to the cousin was the first one and it was two days later. Yes you've said it doesn't matter to you. It does to others.

2) The wording is interesting. He called for advice on what to do... not to report a possible crime. It was truly the cousin that decided to contact the authorities with the incident. There the timeline gets a little fuzzy... we don't know when that call occured or when the return call happened. It's possible that it was days later.

Keep in mind that this supposed smuggling was to happen that weekend (and the visit was IIRC Tuesday). If he's the white knight trying to save those poor girls... that two day delay could have been critical.

[mzmolly]

202. One story says two days another is less clear. It doesn't matter to me

if it was two days or not. The fact is, he contacted police prior to the so called "shipment date."

It is interesting that you demand specifics on what happened regarding the call however, vs. the actual conversation? AS to the two day delay being critical, the date of delivery was supposedly a Saturday, the police were contacted by Thursday at the latest.

[FBaggins]

206. That's not really fair.

I "demanded specific" only because they mattered (to me of course). If he called that same afternoon... he's clean in my book. Two days isn't acceptable if you witness a potential crime. It also isn't fair to say "vs. the conversation" when I've agreed with you more than once that I want to see the whole thing.

The difference is that it will only make a difference in how well we can sell Fox/Breitbart as over-sensationalizing one or more of the videos. I can't see possible content (absent the "whole thing faked" that nobody has reasonably alleged) that makes me think he should have a job in that industry and I can't think of anything that would push his behavior into the criminal range. So I want to see it, but I don't need to suspend judgement on his behavior until I see it.

Unlike some (perhaps you), I also can't divorce this one incident from the others that were shown for which no such defense is possible.

AS to the two day delay being critical, the date of delivery was supposedly a Saturday, the police were contacted by Thursday at the latest.

The cousin was contacted by Thursday. We don't know exactly when the relevant authorities were brought in and we DO know that there wasn't enough "oomph" behind the call to get them to call him back before the supposed delivery date.

IOW... if there WAS a deal going down... his actions would NOT have helped the girls.

[mzmolly]

209. The time he called police matters to you, but having proof that an otherwise law abiding

citizen intended to help child smuggling pimps does not? Interesting set of priorities.

I have not deeply examined every video tape. And, frankly I can divorce the situation from office to office, employee to employee. I'm not responsible for what coworkers of mind do or don't do. In fact, ACORN workers acted differently, depending. Some called police, others did not.

I will say however, I have a hard time assuming that average Americans are dying to help pimp and smuggle children simply because they work for ACORN.

You say, if there was a deal going down he would not have helped the girls. Perhaps this is true given he didn't have enough info. But that doesn't mean he didn't try. That said, (once again) he would not have contacted police had he actually been interested in helping anyone smuggle children.

Again, I'll check back in a bit. :hi:

[FBaggins]

212. Why are all of your assumptions ok... but nobody else can do it?

He's "otherwise law abiding"?

Probably... but has that been established?

Once again... this is in the context of a number of other videos that are clearer. If this was the only one it would be hard to accept that anyone would do this... now we know that some Acorn employee WOULD. It isn't as much of a leap as it would have been a month ago.

, frankly I can divorce the situation from office to office, employee to employee.

Not just "can"... "have to". No offense, but how else could you say you just have a hard time believing he could do that while watching others do it?

That said, (once again) he would not have contacted police had he actually been interested in helping anyone smuggle children.

Again... that's only true unless he began to think that they might have been police/immigration/reporters/whatever.

If he really thought they were crooked I can't see how he doesn't call right away. I see that others don't see it that way but frankly the position baffles me. I couldn't wait two minutes, let alone two days. Ask yourself how long YOU would wait if you thought there MIGHT be a SINGLE 13-yr-old girl about to have this done to her? THIS is the blood-pounding drive that is getting so many of us to see things this way (and obviously that's WHY O'keefe picked that story when Giles thought it up).

If a moment entered his mind when he thought they might NOT be who they said they were... as I've already pointed out... calling the cops ceases to be "the right thing to do" and becomes "CYA". That two day gap pushes it over the line for me and others. I don't insist that you or others agree.

[mzmolly]

223. So now your evolving theory is that he wanted to help child smugglers

(out of the goodness of his heart) but later came to believe that he better report the incident to cover his ass for a crime that never took place? Fascinating, once again.

As to what you claim "we" know about ACORN employees, please don't assume anything about what "we" presume to know. I have said that I want to see the full, unaltered videos from every office involved before making any assumptions. Especially given what "we" know about O'Keefe.

[Go2Peace]

216. You make this sound so clear cut, If the "pimp" were for real his life would be in danger

Turning in someone for people trafficing is a very serious thing, those folks are killers. That does not mean you don't do it, but it might not be the kind of think you just hop on to 911 and call. Duh!

[FBaggins]

219. I guess I don't have the same level of experience with pimps as some.

:-) Kidding.

That's why I said more than once that maybe you wait until you know you're safe. But two days?

Come on... given the timeline reported, that means that he hit the sweet spot of getting himself in trouble with the pimp but not able to save the girls.

Moreover, as I understand the story (from posts here), he's the kind of pimp that was trying to save the girls from the mean kind of pimp. Want a bigger laugh? Look at a picture of this O'Keefe character. I don't think anyone would be intimidated.

[Go2Peace]

222. Your not being consistant. If he wasn't a threat or appeared serious then why would you be adamant

the police be called. Friend, you are either too stuck in proving a point or trolling. You are spending all night on this post. Take a break.

[FBaggins]

231. Because there's a differnece between

"threat to me" and "threat to little girls". The second ALWAYS requires an immediate call. The first might impact whether I waited till they left the building and/or whether I tried to get some protection from the police.

I'm a father of two little girls... I know that that changes a man (for the better), but I don't think my reaction would have been any different ten years ago.

[mzmolly]

229. Given you have such a depth of understanding about what motivates Mr. Vera

why do you suppose he wanted to help smuggle kids into the country for prostitution?

I'm sorry but unless you have something new to say, it's pointless for either of us to continue this circular discussion. If you do have anything new to say, I'll be glad to respond.

Peace :hi:

We agree, O'Keefe is neither convincing, nor intimidating.

[mzmolly]

227. Why would his life be in danger? O'Keefe didn't claim to be a pimp to my knowledge.

:shrug: You're saying that people who want to get children before the pimp does are dangerous?

Another "new" person interested in the ACORN story? Welcome! :hi:

[defendandprotect]

247. Rather "pimps who peddle children" is more in the GOP/Repug line . . .!!!

That's been shown time and again --

:evilgrin:

[JackRiddler]

261. Glad you're such a believer in calling the cops immediately...

many people who actually have experience with the frequent abuses of law enforcement may feel otherwise.

Vera was out of his depth obviously. But he talked with his cousin right away. He apparently thought about his options, and then, still thinking that the actors were real, called the cops. Obviously this proves that he wasn't intending to get involved in any human smuggling!

[defendandprotect]

271. Agree --

[FBaggins]

95. I'll see what I can find

As for "what more should he have done" ???

You're kidding, right?

Oh... I don't know... How about not offer to help them smuggle in underage sex slaves through his contacts in Mexico?

How about just saying "That would be illegal. I'm sorry but I can't help you".

"Didn't do anything wrong" Bah!

[mzmolly]

105. You don't know what he offered to do or not without viewing unaltered

video. There are two more reasonable possibilities.

1. He was conducting his own sting, offering a location so he had a place of reference for police.
2. He was talking about where to get a good margarita.

You don't know because you've not seen the original, unedited video.

Further, do you REALLY believe that most people would want to help ANYONE smuggle underaged girls into the US for prostitution? C'mon...

I think Vera was playing along, getting info to give to police. I want to hear his side of the story.

[FBaggins]

113. Found it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwbEPjYqKwI&feature=player_embedded

I'd love to see the unedited video, but I don't need to in order to know that the guy wasn't someone I want working for a me - especially if I'm in the business of helping the inner-city poor.

How about "Honey... you don't want to get mixed up in that" ?

Further, do you REALLY believe that most people would want to help ANYONE smuggle under aged girls into the US for prostitution? C'mon...

Most people? Of course not. But enough people at Acorn to make me very uncomfortable.

Further... If I did catch someone at it, I would expect the answer to be just like the kiddie-porn possessor who claims that he was writing a paper on the evils of kiddie porn and how prevalent it was... or the John who tells the cops that he was going to try to win the girl out of that lifestyle... or the guy who swears he thought she was 18... or the guy just holding the pot for a friend he just met.

Are such occurrences possible? Certainly. But five separate times? Come on.

[mzmolly]

129. I don't know how much you watched, but Mr. Vera clearly had trouble

understanding the pair. Further, she was already "mixed up in that."

I believe that ACORN workers were told that the girls, including "Eden" were being rescued from a dangerous person. Unless I see proof (in the way of unedited video tapes). I maintain my position.

And, make that three times at best, not five. Mr. Vera contacted police, another woman was acting as she didn't believe the pair.

In fact, I doubt most of the workers have viewed the video tapes. It's probably too upsetting at this point. I personally want to hear from THEM.

[Cass]

159. He told them he wanted to call police right then and there but O'Keefe and Giles

didn't want him to. He was also told she was trying to get away from her pimp. Of course, that is all edited out from the tapes. Who knows what else is edited from those tapes? The question is should he lose his job for asking a question? I don't think so. He should have been placed on paid leave until the matter was fully investigated.

The youtube video you linked is the same one I saw and I still don't hear Juan asking her to come work for him.

And, btw, the police department verified that Juan contacted them, in addition to him contacting his police detective cousin.

It's real easy to sit back and Monday morning quarterback a situation like this. He seems sincere in his assertions that he was trying to help people. Maybe he didn't handle it exactly how you or someone else would have handled it but he did his best and he did contact police about the situation.

[mzmolly]

162. Good point!

:hi:

[Igel]

170. Don't go to secondary or tertiary sources

when the primary source is on the web and a click away.

http://biggovernment.com/

It's where the edited video was posted; full video was given to Fox, but is still held by Breitbart and BigGovernment.com and, obviously by the two who actually produced the video. Pretty much everything else is taken from biggovernment.com or from Fox. This website isn't a secret.

The full audio is there in mp3 format. If you don't want to listen, there's a transcript of the full audio (which I think is better in some ways--for example, it can be searched).

The stuff you want is nicely separated out so you're not forced to click on stuff that you don't want to see.

[mzmolly]

172. I'm sorry but there are no guarantees that the "full audio/transcrpts"

are unaltered. This is why I want to see the full video tapes.

FYI ~ I've read the transcript more than once, and I've listened to the audio.

[defendandprotect]

272. AND. . . I think Congress should get interested in these videos -- all of them!!!

Let's find out what was really going on --

[mzmolly]

283. Fully agree!

:hi:

[Cass]

240. Thanks for that link, Igel! I hadn't seen it before.

The transcripts are very helpful in all this.

[mzmolly]

243. Just an FYI, I would not trust the transcripts. There is a reason we're being

refused an ability to review the full, unedited video. :hi:

[Cass]

262. That's a good point, mzmolly. I wondered who put the transcript together.

The film-makers should not be able to withhold the full, unedited tapes especially when people are losing their jobs over this. I feel really bad for Juan.

Thanks for everything you're doing to get the truth out here on DU. Your initial thread about the San Diego tape really caught my attention on the unfairness of the situation with Juan.

[mzmolly]

264. The filmmakers are now being sued, so perhaps we'll get an idea

regarding their editing techniques?

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

273. Only CONGRESS and witnesses under oath . . .Fox/O'Keefe & Co. . . .

They also have to make sure that the tapes aren't shredded --

[ieoeja]

81. So he's trying to give her a job so she can go straight? And you have a problem with that?

You do realize that ACORN is a charitable organization, not a money-making corporation.

[FBaggins]

99. He's trying to "give her a job"

That involves asking her how much she charges?

[mzmolly]

106. It's relevant to knowing what programs she qualifies for. He clearly

turned down an "offer" from the "hooker" in the video. Sorry, that would have made for good TV, but it didn't happen.

Boy, it's nice to see so many 'new' DU-ers, interested in the subject. :hi:

[gaspee]

166. Isn't it though?

And it's kind of like when men come in to a women's forum and have to set the little wominz straight by *explaining* to us what we're too dense to understand on our own. It kind of has that feel to it, non?

[defendandprotect]

122. Could it be that there was also a LANGUAGE barrier here that they were using to their advantage???

PLUS we don't know what these "undercover" reporters actually told the ACORN worker

perhaps even off-camera???

Am I trust Fox -- or am I waiting to see if these employees can produce other information

which might make more sense?

[FBaggins]

133. That's what he said happened (language barrier), yes.

Of course that would "Sell" better if there weren't four other videos of other Acorn offices with people who spoke English just fine making the same kinds of errors.

We don't know what they told him off camera... but we've seen what he said ON camera and it was unacceptable for a person in his position. Of course that's why he was fired (or did you think that Acorn had Fox fans in high places?)

An interesting assertion though. Can you speculate what might have been said off camera that would make this any more palatable? "Hey... we're doing a school play... would you audition for the role of... ?"

[defendandprotect]

173. The tapes may have been altered . . . and/or edited . . I don't think we can be sure what

he really said --

And "four" other videos of workers who spoke English . . . with one poster here saying
it was obvious she was "playing along with them" --
however, how many ACORN workers didn't either fall for this?

Are we going to find that out?
Numerous employees seem to have thrown them out --
and/or called police.

How many thought they might be able to help rescue women/children from prostitution?

ACORN has fired people in my opinion because they're being "Swiftboated" by Fox and their
gullible fans -- and their entire organization is on the line.
Remember, GE and pharmaceutical companies who defraud government for decades get fines
but no penalties -- AND they are permitted to continue doing very profitable business
with government!

As for what might have been said off camera . . . many possibilities.

For one, they might have told him they were "trying to rescue girls from prostitution" --
and think that's been one of the suggestions.

In fact, when I watched one of the tapes briefly, it sounded to me as if that's what the
young woman was saying . . .

And, here's a link to a poster below who is saying that --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4070953&mesg_id=4071654

The GOP "Swiftboatings" obviously proceed on getting a lot of info out to overwhelm the public
-- Terri Shaivo - Kerry - Dan Rather -- but it is only much later AFTER this surging GOP rage
has blown thru like a hurricane that we come to understand what really went on !!

And they are usually TWO or THREE or FIVE or EIGHT different things!!!

[mzmolly]

130. Seems he offered her

legitimate work. Which is akin to "don't get mixed up in that" is it not? ;)

[FBaggins]

134. Sorry... I don't have that active an imagination.

It does not "seem" anything like offering her legitimate work.

Surely someone who wanted to help her get out of prostitution might have said something other than that his contacts in Mexico could help bring the underage illegals into the country? Or was he planning on offering them legitimate work too?

[mzmolly]

137. Again, you're making assumptions based upon a conversation

that appears altered at worst and taken entirely out of context at best. I'm not. That's the difference between us, I guess? Not to mention your assumption has been proven incorrect given a police report was filed.

No where did Juan Vera say his contacts would help anyone smuggle children into the country. I'd be careful repeating that if I were you?

[FBaggins]

144. No police report was filed

It said that he contacted the police. By the time they got back to him he said that he realized that he was being scammed. Of course we don't know that he didn't "realize" that just before he called the cops (to help his story).

Once again... give me the supposed "context" that makes it ok. Not "legal" since I don't think we're defending him against illegal actions, but "ok to continue working there". Acorn obviously doesn't think so.

He didn't say that his contacts would help? No I suppose that all he said was that one location was better because he had contacts there and then said "yeah" when asked if they could help.

You say tomato...

[mzmolly]

148. Given several media sources have confirmed the report,

I'd say one exists. However, the greater point is that he contacted police. There is no reason to "help" his story if he's not in any trouble, which he wasn't at the time. Unless you're suggesting he's psychic?

The context that makes what "ok"?

He said "yeah" about 50 times in the first transcript alone. And, you can't see his face in the most important part of the conversation, the part you reference. Also the portion where they supposedly speak about under-aged girls being used for prostitution is edited out, why?

Also, Juan Vera takes their information and talks about the housing seminar on Saturday. He doesn't appear to know what's going on?

Yep, tomato...

[FBaggins]

154. No reason to help his story?

If he didn't think they were legit (legitimately crooked that is)... there are only three other possibilities:

1) They were kids pulling a prank
2) They were a news/political "sting" - in which case he was going to end up as the bad guy on TV
3) They WERE the police.

In the case of either 2 or 3, he was in big trouble. What can he do NOW that can cut that? Call the cops and try to look like a concerned citizen.

The context that makes what "ok"?

You said that we hadn't seen the entire video. What might be on the rest of the video that would mean that he shouldn't be fired?

He said "yeah" about 50 times in the first transcript alone.

Ah... I see. It's important to note that he hasn't claimed that someone dubbed his voice over other parts of the video. He definitely said that Tijuana was the better choice and that was because he had contacts there.

Also the portion where they supposedly speak about under-aged girls being used for prostitution is edited out, why?


They definitely showed the part where they talked about smuggling underage girls across the border and he knew what line of business the Fox kids were supposedly in. Is it your position that Mexicans are stupid? (of course not) It hardly matters though... since he should be fired just for the underage part or the smuggle across the border part. "Hey they never said THESE girls would be prostitutes" isn't much of a defense.

[mzmolly]

165. According to reports, he came to the conclusion about a week later that they were not legit.

"What might be on the rest of the video that would mean that he shouldn't be fired?"

Well, for starters the video might show an entire conversation taken out of context. Like the fact that he wanted to call police on the spot and was urged not to? This is what HE says. It might also show that O'Keefe played with the context so much that the story being presented is quite different than what actually occurred(see what his friend says below.) It might show that he inserted statements that were never made under the guise of producing satire?

http://biggovernment.com/author/jokeefe/

"His most recent project is Veritasvisuals.com, a collection of satirical short films on newsworthy topics, featuring ridiculous situations and demands."

Start watching the tape about 2 minutes in. This is the beginning of the story about girls supposedly bring brought into the US. Right in the middle of the story, at about 2:32 into the video, there is an obvious edit/splice and O'Keefe says he needs to bring in a chair. This appears to be an important, yet missing piece of the conversation? O'Keefe later asks if the conversation is confidential, and another obvious edit takes place. I counted ten splices in the first three minutes. Not to mention, the fact that Mr. Vera's face/mouth is not visible, or is blurred in various portions of the first tape. In spite of that, one can clearly make out the street behind him. This may be due to sun exposure on the film, or it may be a deliberate alteration.

In regard to my point about context ~

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/us/19sting.html?_r=1

"...Liz Farkas, a Rutgers student who called Mr. O’Keefe “a nice guy and a loyal friend,” said she grew disillusioned after he asked her to help edit the script of a Planned Parenthood sting.

“It was snippets to make the Planned Parenthood nurse look bad,” Ms. Farkas said. “I said: ‘It has no context. You’re just cherry-picking the nurse’s answers.’ He said, ‘Okay’ — and then he just ran it.”

And once again, Giles and O'Keefe express concern that he may be gathering info to contact police. He did so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6576332&mesg_id=6592690

"They definitely showed the part where they talked about smuggling underage girls across the border and he knew what line of business the Fox kids were supposedly in."

Which is why he reported them to police.

Do you object to having the full, unedited video tapes available to all interested parties?

[TheeHazelnut]

175. what about O'Keefe's dialogue?

"Mr. Vera's face/mouth is not visible, or is blurred in various portions of the first tape."

More importantly, in my opinion, O'Keefe's mouth is *never* visible, so he could have re-recorded his entire portion of the conversation from scratch to make what Vera said look bad. His voice is right on top of the microphone in those videos.

[mzmolly]

180. EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!

I hear bells ringing. ;)

[FBaggins]

179. Again, that wouldn't hack it.

Like the fact that he wanted to call police on the spot and was urged not to? This is what HE says.

And that fits the "sting". When the story is that she was abused he offers to call the police (what else might he do? Offer to go beat the guy up?) That's not calling the cops on THEIR illegal plans, so why does it indicate anything?

It might also show that O'Keefe played with the context so much that the story being presented is quite different than what actually occurred

Yes... and I can't think of one that would clear him enough to keep his job.

It might show that he inserted statements that were never made under the guise of producing satire?


So you DO think that hispanics aren't so smart? You don't think he would have said "Hey... I never said that!" at some point???

Once again.. Acorn fired him AFTER interviewing him and supporting him and then reviewing more of the video. THEY came to the conclusion that his story wasn't supported. I don't think they have a "thing" against latinos.

to mention, the fact that Mr. Vera's face/mouth is not visible, or is blurred in various portions of the first tape.

See previous response.

Do you object to having the full, unedited video tapes available to all interested parties?

Of course not. I just can't imagine anything that would clean his hands enough to warrant Acorn trying to stand behind him.

[mzmolly]

182. I don't know if Vera has watched the full version of the altered video tapes or not?

However, he did say the the conversation that took place was vastly different than the one proposed by the media.

Of course not. I just can't imagine anything that would clean his hands enough to warrant Acorn trying to stand behind him.

I think confirmation of contacting police, should justify his being rehired or at the very least paid until a full investigation is complete.

[FBaggins]

187. It would

If he had contacted them right away... and if the first call wasn't to his cousin. We don't even know that he would have called someone else or what advice his cousin gave him. He might have sed "Cuz... we need to cover you or YOU will be in trouble... I know just what to do" but (unlike much of what I've said) THAT would be speculation.

Again, he doesn't have to call or not call for firing him to be appropriate. He just needs to have people come into his office and ask for help with illegal activity and then say ANYTHING other than "sorry... we don't do that... I can't help you".

That's all the organization should need to fire him. There's no language barrier that can change the fact that he knew there were a dozen girls in Mexico that they needed to get across the border. What Acorn WANTS (or should want) him to say is "that's illegal. Sorry" - whether he's "running his own sting" or culpable, he didn't respond correctly.

[mzmolly]

190. Again, you're now implicating the cousin. Pathetic! Bottom line, we agree that the video

tapes, in full should be available. As for what he said or did not say, he may have said "I can't advise you on anything illegal". The tapes again, are ALTERED. This portion of the conversation is ALTERED.

WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS SAID TO WHOM.

Again, the fact that he presumably knew about any such girls is why he contacted the police, in spite of Giles pleas that he not do so.

[FBaggins]

192. "As for what he said or did not say, he may have said "I can't advise you on anything illegal"

Wouldn't that be an easier sell if he wasn't on tape actually GIVING them advice on things that were illegal?

The tapes again, are ALTERED. This portion of the conversation is ALTERED.


Edited/cut and "altered" are not the same thing. There isn't any evidence that something was pasted in that wasn't actually said or that words were literally put into his mouth and he hasn't claimed that they were.

And I went out of my way to NOT implicate the cousin. I just pointed out WHY calling your cousin who happens to be a police officer isn't really the same thing as calling the police.

[mzmolly]

205. You're assuming again,

that the context provided for any conversation in question was correct in spite of obvious splicing of the video tape. And, editing a conversation mid-stream is, in fact, an alteration.

Also there is too much that doesn't make sense in the context of supposedly assisting a child peddling smuggler. For one thing, Giles says that she wants to get the girls when they come into the country BEFORE THE PIMP CAN get to them. How does this fit the scenario that she and O'Keefe are in charge of the smuggling operation?

"The girls are coming this weekend, that's why we're in an emergency situation, that's why we like ran in here for help, because I wanna get them before the pimp has time to bond with them and you know, herd them away...,” ~ Hannah Giles to fired ACORN victim Juan Vera

Sorry, I WANT UNADULTERATED CONTEXT. You apparently are fine trusting a right wing, politically motivated satirist, who's own friends have implicated him in dishonesty involving his work? Feel free... just don't insist that I and others here join you.

Vera denied that he was helping further a prostitution scheme. "That's stupid! I'm 39 years (of age)," he said. "What is my benefit to do that? I have my record clean. Over there and here. What is my benefit?"

I agree, there is absolutely NO REASON a law abiding ATTORNEY would involve himself in human trafficking. Unless I see compelling evidence to the contrary, Mr. Vera is innocent until proven guilty IMO.

I'll check back in a bit. :hi:

[defendandprotect]

248. Great points . . .and I think Democratic leadership has to start hearing them -- !!!

Dems have to stop waving the white flag every time the GOP opens its mouth --

and start fighting back --

This stuff is intended to knock everyone off their feet -- AND KEEP EVERYONE FROM

ASKING ANY QUESTIONS ... it's typical GOP right wing propaganda play.

[mzmolly]

253. Exactly!

I at the very least expect SOME in the media to ask a few questions. Good grief!

[defendandprotect]

256. Sent out a few e-mails today . . . Keith, Rachel . . . White House . . .

etal ...

hope they might revisit and RE-THINK this story --

But it will probably take a lot more to save ACORN --

[defendandprotect]

259. "Edit" is ALTERATION....especially when it's done by the right wing . . .!!!

[defendandprotect]

258. ...but what YOU'RE piling on isn't "speculation" . . . ???

[defendandprotect]

257. Cut the crap . . . ACORN fired these people cause they're under the gun of GOP propaganda ...

[defendandprotect]

174. How much of the tape has been altered/edited . . ??? Or do you totally trust FOX ????

[noiretextatique]

185. i vote totally trust FAUX eom

[FBaggins]

191. How many of the tapes?

Note that this was Acorn's spin too... when there was just one tape... and a little when there were two.

The "It's all some special effects video editing... none of this really happened" train left the station quite some time back.

OF COURSE the videos are all edited to make them as salacious as possible. Truth or lies we know that was going to happen. They're going to cut 20 minutes down to the "best" 45 seconds. "Altered" is a tougher sell.

Of course I don't "trust Fox"... that's why hardly anyone else covered it after one or two tapes. But you'll note that everyone paid attention shortly after that.

I completely "get" the assumption that I'm on the other side. That's the natural reaction to anyone who doesn't buy into the "other guy bad therefore everything is made up" meme (plus low post count of course :) ) - but the vast majority of democratic congressional representatives and senators were able to stick their finger into the wind and tell which way it was blowing... and Acorn shifted quickly from "it's all lies and distortions" to "they're fired and we're shutting down operations until we're able to train everyone".

[defendandprotect]

215. Oh, what ACORN says is "spin" . . .?

How many tapes were there -- and who would know? Fox?

When videos are "edited" then the intent can be ALTERED ...

However, obviously in your mind ACORN's "spin" has left the station quite some time back.

I think we will, however, ALL speak for ourselves as to what we think.

Personally, I hadn't paid any attention to this story until it arrived at DU . . cause

I don't watch Fox or CNN -- presume C-span covered it at some point but I missed it.

As for this . . .

I completely "get" the assumption that I'm on the other side. That's the natural reaction to anyone who doesn't buy into the "other guy bad therefore everything is made up" meme (plus low post count of course ) - but the vast majority of democratic congressional representatives and senators were able to stick their finger into the wind and tell which way it was blowing... and Acorn shifted quickly from "it's all lies and distortions" to "they're fired and we're shutting down operations until we're able to train everyone".

Personally, I don't buy into any thinking that because Dems may be involved they're innocents
and I don't think that's true of other Du'ers here - lots of criticism of Obama, DINO's, Blue
Dogs and DLC.

And I judge posters' by what they're saying, not their post count.

And, yes, a vast number of Congress reps have deserted -- anything new there?

How many of them "deserted" Howard Dean over the "S C R E A M" -- another ridiculous bit of GOP-
Swiftboating which worked!

And Kerry didn't fight back, either, against his "Swiftboating" which attempted to turn him into
an undeserving Medal of Honor winner, who probably wasn't seriously wounded -- quiche-loving, as
well -- and then there's Max Cleland --

When do Democrats not run and hide from the GOP -- "the devil with the blue dress on"???

I would suggest that ACORN also saw that they were being deserted by Dems and are trying to
salvage what they can.

Meanwhile, maybe ACORN is running drugs, guns -- and is involved with child prostitution -- under
cover of doing good for the minority communities in need? And maybe they're actually doing all
of that for the GOP?

Let's wait and see . . .

[FBaggins]

228. Of course it's "spin"

Were you under the impression that our side doesn't do that?

Should we expect them to come out at once and say "aw man... you got me" and close up shop when their political opponents have a "gotcha" moment?

As for this . . .

Sorry... I guess I need a thicker skin. I just can't take the number of posts (in general, not against me) of people who not only disagree, but assume that that disagreement is evidence that the other side is REALLY on "the other side" wasting their time here as some kind of virtual double agent. My point was simply that there are plenty of Democrats who see it this way... we don't have to be brainwashed by the right's Pravda machine.

I enjoy debate and the give/take of it. I'm far more likely to post when I disagree than when I agree. And I'm pasionate about little kids (buy that could be read more than one way). That's all. I'm a dad of four and would like to think that a community assistance worker would be out to defend my kids.

How many of them "deserted" Howard Dean over the "S C R E A M" -- another ridiculous bit of GOP-
Swiftboating which worked!

That's a good example. And I'll say "me". Not because he was "bad" - but because it became clear that he was less politically viable than we expected. Think of Allen in VA and his "Macaca" moment. It was a great soundbite for us. I don't think that it really said anything about the man... but the race went from a loss to a win for us on that error alone.

I would suggest that ACORN also saw that they were being deserted by Dems and are trying to
salvage what they can.

Sounds about right (whether it's "deserted" or "last straw" doesn't matter). You are focusing on the damage done to one individual/group by the party throwing them under the bus. I'm focusing on the concrete weight that they want to tie around our candidates' ankles before the next election. And it doesn't even have to WORK for it to "work". They almost certainly will pick up some seats over the next year and a bit... it almost always happens in that first off-year election of a new president. I don't want them to attach this as a meme to the likely loss of VA and NJ. There's always a "narrative" to the "whys" of a loss, and we're trying to keep it from being "Democrats ties to corruption cost them..."

[defendandprotect]

233. It's YOUR presumption that ACORN is not being honest . . .

. . And, if I suggest a possible "language barrier" is that also "spin. ???

And, yes, I do understand that we have a DLC, DINO's, "Family" members, Blue Dogs in Dem Party
all inclined to corporate-friendly/GOP-type spin . . .

I don't think that ACORN was saying anything but what they hoped was true -
and raising questions which many here have also raised --
PLus, what a number of the employees said -- i.e., that their comments were
taken out of context -- or taken seriously when they were merely "playing along" --
and, perhaps, even misleading premise given by those doing the entrapment videos?


You comment re Dean/Scream . . .

That's a good example. And I'll say "me". Not because he was "bad" - but because it became clear that he was less politically viable than we expected. Think of Allen in VA and his "Macaca" moment. It was a great soundbite for us. I don't think that it really said anything about the man... but the race went from a loss to a win for us on that error alone.

Allen is, of course, a racist and we didn't need that incident to make it clear!

Re Kerry, unfortunately, too many of our leaders are given to us by TPB -- but in this
case, he was the candidate. Not only didn't he reply sufficiently then, he failed to
carry out his promise to investigate another stolen election. And, who would have stood
with him if he had?

It does matter whether it's "deserted" or not -- it reinforces the image of weakness of the Dems when faced by a threat from the GOP. Do you really think they'd run from Dean, Kerry, Clelland but hold on when it counts re other issues where the GOP raises it's ugly bullying head?

And what if the GOP Swiftboating of ACORN holds - you don't think the GOP would tie that millstone
around every Dem candidate's neck even if ACORN were abandoned/cut loose?

Nor do we KNOW what the GOP will pick up next time around -- especially if Democrats found some
courage and if the public fights for and with a "social will" for MEDICARE FOR ALL vs capitalism
and the profit motive!

PLUS I think they're probably worried about all of the red states turning blue.
Let's keep it that way! And why with states turning blue are you suggesting NJ turning red?

Again, whether ACORN is cut loose -- and I certainly hope that doesn't happen --
or whether ACORN continues to be under the GOP gun -- the GOP will use ACORN as a battering ram
during the next election.

"Democrats ties to corruption cost them..." the next election.

And, let me add that given the levels of GOP corruption, lies, theft, bankrupting our Treasury,
two illegal and immoral wars, corruption and politicizing of every government agency/office from
EPA to DOJ - wiretapping of citizens the moment they came into office/not beginning 9/11 --
ans not to mention torturing the law to bring forth TORTURE of real human beings ....

I'd certainly suggest that you're either really, really, really paranoid about the GOP --
or you're on another planet.

Sorry... I guess I need a thicker skin. I just can't take the number of posts (in general, not against me) of people who not only disagree, but assume that that disagreement is evidence that the other side is REALLY on "the other side" wasting their time here as some kind of virtual double agent. My point was simply that there are plenty of Democrats who see it this way... we don't have to be brainwashed by the right's Pravda machine.

Certainly there are TROLLS here at DU -- and they usually expose themselves.
Certainly there are many Dems here who DON'T see it your way.
Again -- wait and see.

I enjoy debate and the give/take of it. I'm far more likely to post when I disagree than when I agree. And I'm pasionate about little kids (buy that could be read more than one way). That's all. I'm a dad of four and would like to think that a community assistance worker would be out to defend my kids.

You might honestly believe that ACORN is engaging in sexual enslavement of young kids --
and young women? Maybe they're doing it for the GOP . . . cause from what I've seen of their
sexual perversions it includes young kids!

On the other hand, you might be way wrong -- ???

Let's wait and see before we hang ACORN --

[FBaggins]

236. Don't confuse "spin" with dishonesty.

I'm not saying that they're lying. What I'm saying is pretty close to what you are "they're just saying what they hope is true". That's not a bad way to describe "spin".

And, if I suggest a possible "language barrier" is that also "spin. ???

Not at all. It's clear that there is one.

Allen is, of course, a racist and we didn't need that incident to make it clear!


Ok. Maybe you know him better than I do. I just remember him as being pretty popular in VA and looking like a viable candidate until he slipped with that comment. IIRC, he didn't just lose that race, but immediately lost a big part of the RW base supporting him for president.

And what if the GOP Swiftboating of ACORN holds - you don't think the GOP would tie that millstone
around every Dem candidate's neck even if ACORN were abandoned/cut loose?

I think that they will try... but that it will be far less effective. More importantly, I think that the President and our leadership in both houses agrees with me.

And, let me add that given the levels of GOP corruption, lies, theft...

Yep... but let me finish the sentence correctly. Given ALL that, the last thing we need to do is give them the easy out that changes the debate.

Things have started to trend downhill for us. That's "ok" when you're trying to make significant change... some people are going to disagree with you and do it loudly. A bright spot is that even when the polls say that more people are upset with Democrats, an encouragingly small percentage seem to think that the Republicans are the answer. I don't think we should give them easy ways out.

I'd certainly suggest that you're either really, really, really paranoid about the GOP --
or you're on another planet.

Paranoid about the GOP? I can only assume that refers to my earlier statement that they're likely to make gains. I don't know how long you've been following politics, but that's not "fear", it's the normal course of things. If we actually make gains this cycle it would be solid proof that the President is succeeding. The party in power almost ALWAYS loses seats in the first off-year election of his first term. Especially when they start with solid majorities.

The best thing going for us right now is that the Senate class is the one remaining class that doesn't reflect the shift toward the left from four years ago... so there are possible gains to be made that the other two classes wouldn't reflect.

You might honestly believe that ACORN is engaging in sexual enslavement of young kids --
and young women?

Of course not. But it's clear that SOME of them, when faced with people who WERE supposedly doing that... really dropped the ball. That first or second video was the one that did it for me once I knew it wasn't an isolated example. We can't say that one of those women would "engage in sexual enslavement" - but we CAN say that they were willing to help those who DID (supposedly) hide the money.

Acorn was one of the groups out front in talking about "liar loans" - now I'm left with the impression that if someone came in for help getting a mortgage but couldn't qualify because his income was from illegal sources and couldn't be veridied... the Acorn office is the last place I would have wanted to see him go.

[mzmolly]

244. Why do you believe James O'Keefe?

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

245. So you want to see Democrats shift to the right . . . ??

I don't confuse "spin" . . . but you seem to be doing so --

GOP "spin" tries to convince you up is down --

GOP "spin" is propaganda --

DLC "spin" is the same --

Blue Dog "spin" -- the same --

In other words, lies --

Sure, there is some "spin" which tries to make the crap go down easier --
but it's still crap.

You didn't know that Allen was a racist?
You don't know that right wing politics in VA are generally racist?
Wasn't this the state where Ollie North sought the governorship?
Wonder why?

Obviously, the President and the leadership are running scared re ACORN.
And, that's a mistake. Whether ACORN or any other Democratic organization or policy.
The corruption is on the right -- including sexual perversions.
Which is why this particular game being played at Fox is starting to smell more and more
like a GOP-frame up.

It is those who run-scared of the GOP who pave the way for their progress.

If Obama supports MEDICARE FOR ALL his numbers will rise -
If he continues to hedge on single payer his numbers will fall -
And as he goes, so will the Democratic Party.
If he pulls off MEDICARE FOR ALL, he'll be the new FDR and the Dems will be
in power for the next 40 years -- the GOP knows that.

If he runs scared re the GOP and the health care/insurance industry ... then he will
not be supported EVEN BY DEMOCRATS the next time around.

I'd also suggest that the Bush-wars need to be ended -- that's why we elected Democrats.

I'm aware of the "generalities" and they point to red states going blue.
Again -- why are you suggesting that Dems would lose NJ?

The best thing going for us right now is that the Senate class is the one remaining class that doesn't reflect the shift toward the left

from four years ago... so there are possible gains to be made that the other two classes wouldn't reflect.

And, evidently, you don't like liberal/progressive change?
So you're DLC or a Repug?


You might honestly believe that ACORN is engaging in sexual enslavement of young kids --
and young women?

Of course not. But it's clear that SOME of them, when faced with people who WERE supposedly doing that... really dropped the ball. That first or second video was the one that did it for me once I knew it wasn't an isolated example. We can't say that one of those women would "engage in sexual enslavement" -

but we CAN say that they were willing to help those who DID (supposedly) hide the money.

Nor, can we say anything of the kind. There is no evidence of what you are trying to put over
other than your own prejudices.

And, evidently, you're ready, willing and anxious to believe GOP and Fox -- ?

The film is by Fox -- in Fox's hands -- we have no idea what the actual films consisted of.
All we know is that film exists which certainly has been edited -- and most likely has been done
so to distort and confuse the public re ACORN and it's largely minority employees.

Now, just who would profit from all of that?

By now the smell of this latest GOP/FOX dirty trick I hope is reaching those who might begin to
fight for ACORN.


Acorn was one of the groups out front in talking about "liar loans" - now I'm left with the impression that if someone came in for help getting a mortgage but couldn't qualify because his income was from illegal sources and couldn't be veridied... the Acorn office is the last place I would have wanted to see him go.

Peddling more Repug delusion . . . or spin -- ?

Let's see now . . . We should abandon ACORN . . . We should only believe what GOP/FOX say . . .
We should believe that ACORN was involved in enslaving women and children in sexual slavery . . .
We should believe that ACORN would have helped someone applying for a mortgage to hide illegal
income . . . and most of all we should FEAR the GOP bullying and Democrats should wave the white
flag every time the GOP pulls a dirty trick.

And who but the GOP would benefit from that . . . ??

It's time to knock down the Repug bully and the only way to do that is to stand against them.
Democrats need to wake up to that.

The vileness of the fascist right has to constantly be addressed and the public reminded of
their fake schemes of "rallies" to stop vote-counting, to stop health care reform -- and every
other move they make to destroy democracy.

The Repugs are filth -- selling filth -- moving filth -- and the most likely to be involved with
schemes based on sexual perversions like this one. Let's keep after FOX and the GOP and see where
the trail actually leads.

As though we can't guess . . . ???

[mariawr]

203. This whole thing is a HOAX. It's what Faux specializes in. n/t

[defendandprotect]

246. I agree -- I don't know that we'll get the info or evidence . . but this SMELLS like GOP --

Especially the play on "sexual perversion" --

Who else would be playing that card?

And who else would benefit from all of this than the GOP --

I'm not even sure that they planted employees at ACORN any longer --

I just think they took advantage of the language barriers and may have

even suggested an opening premise off-camera which led the employees to

not immediately feel distrustful.

Remember, some threw them out immediately -- and the Repugs probably refined

their tactics after that.

But -- obviously the sexual stuff would play to the Evangelical religious nuts!!

And, cause the Democrats to run away and raise the white flag as they do every time

the Repug bully pulls some dirty trick.

It is those who run-scared of the GOP who pave the way for their progress.

[mzmolly]

255. I think that would be a good way for Mr. Vera to go.

:hi: Sorry, I just saw your question.

[EFerrari]

22. They were fighting to keep their funding. That's how we know this was planned.

The Congressional pukes probably had that amendment in hand before anyone could sort out anything. Bet me.

[No Elephants]

23. Yep.

From www.thomas.gov

Items 1 through 5 of 51. H.R.3571 : To prohibit the Federal Government from awarding contracts, grants, or other agreements to, providing any other Federal funds to, or engaging in activities that promote certain indicted organizations.
Sponsor: Rep Boehner, John A. (introduced 9/15/2009) Cosponsors (152)
Committees: House Oversight and Government Reform
Latest Major Action: 9/15/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. S.AMDT.107 to H.R.1 Prohibiting direct or indirect use of funds to fund the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
Sponsor: Sen Vitter, David (introduced 2/3/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 2/6/2009 Senate amendment not agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 107 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 45 - 51. Record Vote Number: 56.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. S.AMDT.705 to H.R.1388 To prohibit ACORN, or organizations affiliated or co-located with ACORN, from receiving assistance under this Act.
Sponsor: Sen Vitter, David (introduced 3/25/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 3/26/2009 Motion to table amendment SA 705 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 53 - 43. Record Vote Number: 114.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. S.AMDT.2355 to H.R.3288 Prohibiting use of funds to fund the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
Sponsor: Sen Johanns, Mike (introduced 9/11/2009) Cosponsors (14)
Latest Major Action: 9/14/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2355 as modified agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 83 - 7. Record Vote Number: 275.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. S.AMDT.2394 to H.R.2996 Prohibiting use of funds to fund the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
Sponsor: Sen Johanns, Mike (introduced 9/15/2009) Cosponsors (12)
Latest Major Action: 9/17/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2394 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 85 - 11. Record Vote Number: 289.

[Joe Chi Minh]

37. Double it - the funding. The language of money they used!!!!!

[SomeGuyInEagan]

63. NOTHING is done that fast in Congress.

NOTHING.

They've had the language ready for just such an event.

One thing that the Republicans know very well is that in chaos, you can ram your stuff through. And if there is no chaos, you create it .... nobody will call you on it, at least not until it is too late. The Democrats simply refuse to learn that and other obvious lessons which win and that is why we are struggling as a country (except for the upper 0.5%).

[EFerrari]

74. Exactly. nt

[mzmolly]

96. Absolutely. They said their plan was a sort of media ambush.

This way, no one has time to do any digging.

[grahamhgreen]

53. Guilty until proven innocent for liberals, don't you know.

[grahamhgreen]

51. A teeny tiny little buried article... should be front page.

[wroberts189]

4. knr

[mzmolly]

5. More here.

http://blog.taragana.com/n/police-acorn-worker-who-discussed-human-smuggling-in-video-reported-couple-to-detective-174827/

NATIONAL CITY, Calif. — Police say a worker with the activist group ACORN who was caught on video giving advice about human smuggling to a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute had reported the incident to authorities.

National City police said Monday that Juan Carlos Vera contacted his cousin, a police detective, to get advice on what to with information on possible human smuggling.

Vera was secretly filmed on Aug. 18 as part of a young couple’s high-profile expose.

Police say he contacted law enforcement two days later. The detective consulted another police official who served on a federal human smuggling task force, who said he needed more details.

The ACORN employee responded several days later and explained that the information he received was not true and he had been duped.

Vera was fired on Thursday.

[myrna minx]

69. Molly, thank you so much for following this very closely.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

98. Thanks Myrna. I just have a hard time believing most people want to

offer help to those who pimp children, KWIM? Something seems amiss.

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

249. And another "thank you!" . . . keep at it -- it's starting to really smell GOP . . .

[mzmolly]

6. More on the particulars can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6587421&mesg_id=6587421

So glad the AP has taken an interest! I HOPE that some will cover the story of Mr. Vera in a fair manner. :)

[Beaverhausen]

8. K&R

[Merlot]

9. if someone were in my office talking about human smuggling

doubtful I'd confront them due to the fact that if they were smugglers, they'd have no qualms about having weapons and possibly harming me. I'd play along and contact authorities later. just seems sensible. Maybe the employee should have sounded the alarm sooner, like right after they left he should have told someone, But even so, to loose his job over this validates the charges.

[ieoeja]

85. If someone were in my office talking about human smuggling ...

... I wouldn't do shit. Cause I really don't care.

(I assume this is voluntary smuggling and not kidnapping we're talking about)

[drm604]

10. K&R

There still seem to be DUers who need to read this stuff so I'll keep Kicking and Rec'ing it.

[MidwestTransplant]

13. Will we see this on Faux news?

[Ranting_Wacko]

15. K&R - nt-

[Arctic Dave]

19. Well I guess there are a couple of DUer's that need to apologize.

I believe they were quit vocal in their debasement of this guy.

[Turborama]

20. Yes, I totally agree

BTW have you seen the video of Katherine Conway Russell & the MediaMatters article about her reporting her experience with them to the police?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x373378

[durutti]

59. Add to that...

DUers who jump the gun to believe everything and anything negative claimed about Hugo Chavez, Palestinians, Ward Churchill, etc.

[defendandprotect]

274. Agree . . . right wing propaganda is aimed at creating emotional assumptions --

certainly not giving anything a second thought --

I think we need to get Congress to hold hearings on this attack on ACORN --

We need Fox/O'Keefe & Company and all the employees of ACORN under oath --

with translators and let's see what we hear -- !!!

I also think we need Congress to ensure that any of the evidence is not destroyed!!!

[FBaggins]

61. Oh come on...

... the only thing you questioned in that video could be cleared up if he called the cops two days later?

There wasn't anything that upset you from the moment he said it?

[noiretextatique]

92. of course not...the entire video is a complete joke

those people had an agenda...a republican agenda. it's a smear job, plain and simple.

[FBaggins]

101. Of course they did...

...that doesn't make Acorn innocent.

News organizations have an agenda (making news) when they run these undercover expose's too. That doesn't make their victims "clean" when they act this way.

[mzmolly]

108. News media has a reputation to conduct themselves with a certain amount of integrity.

O'Keefe on the other hand has been accused by at least one "friend" of not being entirely honest in his editing/presentation of events. There is quite a big difference.

[FBaggins]

115. It's the difference of a professional vs the amateur

But don't try to spin that local news stations don't run similar "stings"...

...and those who they catch frequently accuse them of having a left-wing bias and/or of creatively editing the video.

Get this... it's entirely possible for O'Kefe to be slime and for the videos to reflect serious problems at Acorn.

[mzmolly]

118. I don't believe local media is in the business of manufacturing scandals

that did not exist. Unless O'Keefe had reason to believe that ACORN had a reputation for helping pimps? :eyes:

As for what is possible regarding O'Keefe, I don't dispute your assertion. All I ask is for unedited video tapes before I make up my mind based upon evidence vs. potentially altered conversations.

Again, I'm not of the belief that most people want to help pimps of any stripe, let alone pimps who deal in children.

[FBaggins]

132. The people they "sting" sure seem to think they are.

And the attacker always seems to think that they DO "have reason to believe" that the accused is crooked.

It's a natural phenomenon.

[mzmolly]

138. That doesn't impact my opinion

on the matter.

[FBaggins]

147. And that's what I'm saying

People that automatically assume that the "good guys" must be innocent and unfairly harassed because they agree with us on major issues and their attackers are unsavory to us and not logically on better footing than people who assume that the "bad guys" are guilty of anything that is alleged just because we know they're bad (and darn it Rush said so!).

There appears to be no possible combination of facts that WOULD impact your opinion because you know that the right wing is behind the accusation. Let's face it (as I said before)... there is no "greater context" that could possibly defeat a defense that he was running his own sting (which he hasn't pretended) because nobody went through with it and imported any girls.

I was predisposed to support Acorn when the mickey mouse charges were brought up... I accepted that anyone trying to register lots of people with paid volunteers would end up with some screw ups (even illegal ones that landed individuals in jail)... I was concerned over allegations by former board members that some of the highest founders were involved in theft from their funds, but similar things happened to Air America too. Eventually the "drip drip drip" adds up to a big puddle.

When they released the first video I was shocked and wanted them fired but didn't think that Acorn had a structural problem. There are no combinations of excused that add up to "nothing to see here" at this point. Acorn has people working for them who should NOT be working among the inner city poor. They should have known it.

[mzmolly]

151. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I want to see unaltered video

before I judge Mr. Vera. Further, I'm saying that the worst case scenario for Mr. Vera is that he lied to liars so he could call police later with information that would help an investigation.

I'm not defending ACORN, I simply want factual information before forming an opinion. It has nothing to do with left v. right. What does have to do with left v. right is the fact that the right wing is targeting ACORN because they see them as helpful to Democrats in elections. What also pertains is the fact that only Faux News has access to complete, unaltered video.

As to your nothing to see here point. I think there is "something to see" in every organization across America if you try hard enough.

Further, ACORN hires THE INNER-CITY POOR. Often times, those who have a difficult time finding employment.

[FBaggins]

156. Your last sentence is the crux of it

It isn't just who they hire... it's who they serve (and no, I don't mean "minorities"). They absolutely can be expected to run into problems like this (not in the specifics of course). If Acorn isn't training them WELL on how to handle a drug dealer who wants help getting a mortgage but keeping his source of funds under the table (or dozens of similar situations) then they shouldn't be there and they certainly shouldn't get dollars that can be tied to elected Democrats' support of the organization. They're damaging their mission AND they're not helping the "inner-city poor" employees who are coming to them for employment.

[mzmolly]

161. As a person who has served the same segment of the population,

I FULLY disagree. Additionally, I grew up in the inner city, I have yet to meet ONE person who smuggles under aged prostitutes. I also have yet to meet a drug dealer who tells strangers he or she is a DRUG DEALER.

[noiretextatique]

184. what utter nonsense

clearly you have no idea what ACORN does.

[defendandprotect]

275. You've got a lot of right-wing/GOP-type thinking going on there . ..

[noiretextatique]

128. what is ACORN guilty of exactly?

i know they are guilty of empowering poor and black people and registering DEMOCRATIC voters. that's enough guilt for the republicons.

[FBaggins]

136. You're right.

That's all they need to want to go after them. But that's not much of a defense. Earle hated Delay... does that make Delay innocent?

[noiretextatique]

181. Delay was indicted

Remember those ACORN indictments?
By Steve Benen Tuesday May 01, 2007 1:33pm Just five days before last November’s elections, this was the lead editorial from the Wall Street Journal:

So, less than a week before the midterm elections, four workers from Acorn, the liberal activist group that has registered millions of voters, have been indicted by a federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms to the Kansas City, Missouri, election board.... We wish this were an aberration, but allegations of fraud have tainted Acorn voter drives across the country. Acorn workers have been convicted in Wisconsin and Colorado, and investigations are still under way in Ohio, Tennessee and Pennsylvania.

The good news for anyone who cares about voter integrity is that the Justice Department finally seems poised to connect these dots instead of dismissing such revelations as the work of a few yahoos. After the federal indictments were handed up in Kansas City this week, the U.S. Attorney’s office said in a statement that “This national investigation is very much ongoing.”

It sounded like a serious voter-fraud crisis. After all, the Justice Department has a long-standing policy of avoiding election law prosecutions immediately before voters head to the polls, so for these indictments to come down with less than a week before the midterms, there had to be some serious wrongdoing. And if so, it made some sense for the right-wing WSJ editorial page to gloat about it.

What we didn’t know at the time, however, was the truth. Bradley Schlozman — the former U.S. Attorney for Kansas City and controversial deputy head at the Civil Rights Division — appears to have rushed these ACORN indictments for maximum political benefit.

http://crooksandliars.com/2007/05/02/remember-those-acorn-indictments

[defendandprotect]

276. When we're talking about entrapment, it is .... O'Keefe and Planned Parenthood, eh???

[LanternWaste]

254. In and of itself, no.

"..that doesn't make Acorn innocent."

In and of itself, no-- it doesn't make ACORN innocent, or guilty.

But it the additional information, plus the released bias of the producers, plus the alleged heavy-handed editing of the video does force us to step back and fully and completely re-evaluate any conclusions we may have made that were based (even if only in part) on that video.

[mzmolly]

100. Wouldn't we need to se an unedited video tape in order to know

what was actually said?

It is my contention that Mr. Vera was conducting his own sting operation, trying to get info to help people who he believed were in danger.

Giles and O'Keefe express concern ON THE EDITED VIDEO TAPE that police will be contacted, Mr. Vera did so.

[FBaggins]

116. Let's play the imagination game

Let's imagine you have the unedited video. What content could possibly refute and imaginary defense of "running his own sting"?

I mean... apart from waiting a couple days to talk to the cops. But whatever. :)



Let's keep in mind that this isn't a criminal prosecution. I don't think that there's any evidence to arrest the guy (though the police might investigate whether he had any connection to cross-border activities in other investigations). That's not the point. The question is whether Acorn was well represented by this employee. Whether "running your own sting" is even an appropriate response to noticing potential illegal activities.

[mzmolly]

135. I don't think there is always an appropriate response to a bizarre inappropriate

situation. Given his cousin is a cop and he's an attorney, he may have sought an opportunity to get as much info as he could. Clearly he demonstrated that he wasn't actually going to help smuggle anyone when he filed a police report. I think at worst, given the transcript is actually correct, he played along with the racist question, "as a latino male surely you an help us smuggle children into the country for prostitution" bullsh*t, to get more info. That's paraphrased, but you get my drift.

However, once again, I'm not convinced that the context of the conversation is correct. I want to see the unedited video tapes.

Also, Giles and O'Keefe said they were concerned Vera would contact police given he was asking so many questions. Giles goes into a story about "not trusting men" and asks that Mr. Vera not break her so called trust. So, why were they concerned?

I agree, there is no evidence to arrest Mr. Vera. But police may want to investigate O'Keefe and his potential links to child prostitution? ;) He certainly seemed familiar with the subject matter.

[FBaggins]

140. Why were they concerned?

Let's imagine for a moment that these were Acorn employees doing an internal investigation. Wouldn't you WANT to know whether a request to not tell the cops would be honored?

They were trying to get him to say (on camera) as many times as possible that he would work with them.

Yes! If Vera actually reported to police that a pimp and his prostitute were planning to do this, I would expect an investigation by police. Is there any evidence of such? From what I've seen they confirm that Vera called them but that no police report was filed.

Keep in mind that it was Acorn that said that his statements/conduct on the video contradicted his previous statements and that's why he was fired.

[mzmolly]

152. The police told him there wasn't enough info to pursue anything.

I'm all for an investigation. I would like someone in authority, to examine the unaltered video tapes!

I understand ACORN's stated response. However, they are basing that determination on altered video tapes. I don't know if they were even aware that Vera contacted police? But, they are now.

[defendandprotect]

277. I think we're going to need CONGRESS and Hearings and people under oath -- !!!

[JeanGrey]

78. For what?

He should have called immediately they left.

[Arctic Dave]

102. Yes, call the police for every crank you run into in a day.

[JeanGrey]

218. Crank? Someone asking about under age prostitution is far

from a 'crank' and yes the police should have been called.

[mzmolly]

110. So now his crime is not calling when you say he should have?

Fascinating. Perhaps he has a life to attend to? Perhaps he was trying to reach his cousin for a few days for advice?

[hay rick]

24. k&r

[No Elephants]

25. When the first ACORN thread went up, I was going to post that maybe the employees

were simply afraid to make waves. South American child smuggling ring? If I believed it, it would have scared me. But, all the anti-ACORN sentiment here was running so high, I didn't bother. I knew those who were anti-ACORN just wouldn't even consider anything like a normal human reaction.

[EFerrari]

26. And they won't next time, either. Whatever.

I'm glad this is unraveling as fast as it is. The Republicans overreached this time. People will buy anything from the right wing media whores but they hate being lied to. And the public is going to find out very soon that they were lied to mightily, imho.

[redqueen]

48. Nobody here who got played seems to be all that upset about it. (nt)

[sabrina 1]

27. Has Fox News covered this?

They need to be bombarded with angry emails and a demand to spend as much time apologizing to the ACORN workers they have smeared and to the public.

If Juan Carlos wants to sue, I would be more than happy to donate to a legal fund for him. I hope he does.

Also, if Van Jones is still running Color of Change, he should start a new boycott, this time against the entire network. That would be a sweet victory for him, to start the movement to get Fox off the air. Rupert Murdoch's brand of propaganda doesn't belong here.

CNN who has now started to attack Fox for distorting news, could do a real investigative story on this, as a perfect example of what Fox does.

Rachel and Keith also. I wonder why they haven't done so yet?

They should have all these workers who have been lied about on. It could be a fantastic show. They should find out if Morton Blackwell funded this stunt, and if he did, Congress needs to act immediately to remove his tax exempt status.

And Congress, I want to hear Democrats explain their behavior on this.

[NecklyTyler]

28. Too bad Juan Carlos didn't call the police while they were in his office

It would have been something else to have law enforcement walk in while the tape was rolling

[ngant17]

30. It's not normal to react that quickly to hearsay

and from the tone of their voices in the video, I would not have believed half of their stories.

But anyway, his reponse to police agencies should be making at least as much news on the rightwing talk shows as the original video entrapment played there. My guess is that Rush, Shawn and all the other lowlife rightwing blow-hards will selectively ignore this, as it does not factor into their design of discrediting Pres. Obama and wanting him to fail.

Speaking of failure, Limbaugh was complaining that Obama's policy in Afghanistan was a failure. Isn't that what he orginally said he wanted, he wanted Obama to fail? OK, now he's getting what he wants and then he's complaining about it.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

41. Well, unless you're Congress.

Just sayin'.

[Robb]

44. +1. nt

[Judi Lynn]

90. The tape would never have seen the light of day publicly, had that happened. n/t

[NecklyTyler]

29. K&R

[tpsbmam]

31. K&R

Figures. So, does DC admit acting hastily & reinstate funding now? Or quietly reinstate funding? They'll do that, right? Right?

[ScottLand]

32. They should at least attempt to exhonerate the

people who were smeared as these things come out. The Right-wing are too much better at getting out misinformation.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

33. I'm happy to see that Sen. Casey voted nay on these.

Of course, some of the people in this area are trying to use it against him since ACORN is considered too liberal. I don't remember the national media giving this much air time to the various United Way scandals. The people involved in the ACORN tapes should have been given more of a chance to explain what actually happened. Didn't there use to be this quaint little custom of "innocent until proven guilty"? When you see the Diaper Dandy Vitter name on anything, it's probably going to be some baseless attack on the Democrats or their allies.

[Dystopian]

34. KandR

peace~

[elocs]

35. Why did he wait 2 days to contact law enforcement? Why not immediately? n/t

[SomeGuyInEagan]

62. More importantly, why is this JUST NOW BEING REPORTED?!

This guy - and/or ACORN - should have held a press conference the moment the story broke with this information. Bring cops on stage, send out press releases, put out a lot of food for reporters ... they had the national media at their door already.

[Star]

72. NPR reported it right away

I first heard this story on NPR, and they mentioned that some ACORN offices had kicked the couple out, and one of them had called the police. I never heard anything more about those other offices until now.

I don't know if this is the incident NPR was reporting about the police being called, but there is more to this story than we know right now. That shouldn't surprise anyone, since that's another favored Repuke tactic - show the damning stuff but hide the other stuff that makes the damning stuff not so damning.

Its not in anyone's best interest to react until all of the facts are known.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

80. Thank you for the information.

Just seems odd that I haven't heard of this until today - and NPR is my main source of news (I don't watch any TV news, local or network but do check web sites and newspapers).

[MindPilot]

65. I'm going to speculate that it was just so weird and outside the norm

that he probably at first didn't believe it was real; which of course it wasn't. He may have just kind of blown it off and then after thinking about it, decided to talk to law enforcement. Also the law enforcement person he talked to is a relative so the delay may have been nothing more than him trying to get hold of someone he trusted.

And since everyone involved was summarily fired, it indicates the culture at ACORN doesn't seem to be very supportive.

[Eric J in MN]

88. Hannah Giles said that she wanted help protecting girls from a pimp.

She said, "I wanna get them before the pimp"

He needed to process her story in his mind for a couple of days to decide to call the police.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/20/784620/-OKeefe-said-he-went-after-ACORN-because-it-registers-minorities-likely-to-vote-against-Republicans

[mzmolly]

103. He was trying to reach his cousin to my understanding. Phone tag?

What I'd like to see a reporter ask this question of him, vs. our assumption that for two days he wrestled with helping people pimp children. :eyes:

At the time he notified police, this was not a story. He certainly did not do so to cover his ass. He was in no trouble at the time.

[elocs]

114. This looks way better for ACORN if he calls the police right away

and not his cousin the cop 2 days later.

[mzmolly]

139. Sorry, I think he called his cousin right away for help relaying the story

and filed a report two days later.

As to what looks best for ACORN, I don't believe he was thinking that far ahead? At the time ACORN was not under this kind of scrutiny.

[mainer]

38. wow, puts a whole different spin on it

He was playing along, trying to get info and gain their trust before he went to the police.

[and-justice-for-all]

39. I figured as much....nt

[Kingofalldems]

45. When will Fox news and their DU pal apologize?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

46. Are you talking about a certain individual throwing fits all over this place every time

somebody says ACORN?

[fascisthunter]

251. or Chavez

[subcomhd]

47. well, well, well - I'm sure Fox and Sludge will be all over this. nt

[tjwash]

52. They should have did a citizens arrest on the spot, cuffed the perps, and taken them to jail.

But since they didn't and waited a little while to call the cops, they are still guilty of everything fox is claiming, so I'm still right!

I shouldn't need this, but...
:sarcasm:

Oh...and fuck all of you never been in a situation like that, but know EXACTLY what they should have done anyway jerk-offs on this thread.

[fascisthunter]

54. Funny how we see a double standard for populists

but if you are criminal fuck up, you are innocent until proven guilty.

Lets admit one thing here, DUers. The Democrats were waiting for a chance like this to get the cover they needed to cut funding. They were way too eager to jump on this BS...

[Scruffy1]

87. Democrats

Screw them we need a new party that actually will stand up and fight for those without money. This incident where they blame the victims and not the people that committed them. It is a felony im Maryland and illegal in California to tape people without consent. A great country we live in when whole organizations are tried on FAUX NEWS.

[defendandprotect]

278. You mean DLC?

[earcandle]

55. crap, total crap not worth my time to read.

[mzmolly]

111. Why?

:hi:

[fascisthunter]

252. hahaha

[BeliQueen]

56. I KNEW IT!!!!!!!

I could see it in his eyes and his mannerisms that he was weighing the implications of their story.

This is such a vindication of his tearful plea.

I hope he is reinstated immediately!

[erpowers]

57. Will Media Report This

I am wondering if the media will report this as much as they have reported the initial reports. It seems to me that some in the media have been slow to report that some ACORN workers reported the duo to the police and asked them to leave the offices. The media should report this part of the story just as much as they have reported the first part of the story.

[Uncle Joe]

64. Not just no, but hell no. The corporate media don't want the people to be empowered. n/t

[sonias]

70. Kicking this for Juan Carlos Vera

Who was telling the truth and was a victim of these right wing fakers James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles.

Those two should be prosecuted.

Sonia

[Scruffy1]

83. Indictments

I have been told that indictments are on the way from the state attorney in Baltimore. Facts are stubborn things and in all the hoopla what has been missed IS THAT ACORN BROKE NO LAWS AND GILES AND O'KEEFE COMMITTED A FELONY IN MARYLAND PUNISHABLE BY UP TO FIVE YEARS. ITS IS MY UNDERSTANDING IT IS
ALSO ILLEGAL TO SECRETELY TAPE PEOPLE AND PUBLISH. CALL AND HOLLER EVERY CONGRESSMAN SENATOR AND NEWSPAPER THE FIGHT IS ON.

[sonias]

86. Hope you're right about the indictments

Particularly interesting is the taping secretly without the parties agreeing being illegal. ACORN should definitely pursue that crime with the authorities.

By the book, as they say!

Sonia

[EFerrari]

89. Welcome to DU, Scruffy1.

[mzmolly]

112. I hope you're right Scruffy.

:hi:

I send the Baltimore DA some info on this, perhaps it will be of help?

[defendandprotect]

279. Agree, "felony" in Maryland/5 years -- We need Congressional Hearings on this --

Fox/O'Keefe and Co. under OATH --

and a look at all the videos -- complete videos -- unedited!!!

[me b zola]

71. K&R

[winyanstaz]

109. I saw the one of the lady talking to the fake pimp and ho....

and it was plain to me that she was playing them right back.
As to it taking two days..I am sure he was worried about his job being on the line as well as wanting to get with his cousin first. At least he did report it and now we all know these fake video reporters are full of crap and liars to boot.
Isn't there a law against entrapment anymore?
Why isn't the funding for Congress cut off when they are full of KNOWN criminals?
Its plain for anyone to see, this is all about getting rid of acorn for helping Obama get elected.
Acorn does a lot of good for the poor so of course these ass-wipes had to set them up to try to shut them down.
Don't let them get away with this.

[marshall]

124. Entrapment only applies to law enforcement

Not to media like these folk, 60 Minutes, etc.

[mzmolly]

141. 60 minutes obtains permission to record people before they do

so.

[marshall]

189. Check out the latest issue of Rolling Stone

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/29735796/remembering_60_minutes_creator_don_hewitt_inside_his_groundbreaking_show

[mzmolly]

193. Good point. But it's not akin to manufacturing a problem that did not

exist.

[FlaGranny]

239. MzMolly

Please accept my sincere appreciation of your patience. I would have told your adversary on this thread to "go piss up a rope" after a few posts. Conversing with closed minds is unproductive, at best.

:toast:

[mzmolly]

242. Thanks FG.

:hi: :pals:

[defendandprotect]

280. In his case ... there's an old saying . . .

"You can't wake up a man pretending to be asleep!"

:)

Nice job, Mizmolly !!

[defendandprotect]

126. "Why isn't the funding for Congress cut off when they are full of KNOWN criminals?"

Wonderful comment -- !!!


:)

[JohnWxy]

143. something you WON"T hear on Corporate M$M news. REcommended!

[Jim__]

155. I think we know enough now to surmise that we saw carefully edited video.

The video makes it appear that the ACORN workers were cooperating in smuggling in underage prostitutes. Watching the Juan Vera tape, I thinks it's clear that the ACORN workers were told that O'Keefe and Giles were trying to help these prostitutes. Listen carefully to everything Juan says on the tape. He never agrees to do anything illegal. Giles mentions that they are trying to get away from the pimp.

The media need to demand access to the unedited tapes. The media need to interview Juan Vera. I believe if the media interviewed Juan Vera, ACORN could tun this situation around and expose O'Keefe, Giles and Faux for the treacherous liars that they are, willing to destroy the lives of working class people in order to pull off a dishonest political sting.

[mzmolly]

171. Hear hear!

:toast:

[mariawr]

204. HOAX-plain and simple. Faux misrepresents again. n/t

[defendandprotect]

235. The more I see of this the more I'm tending to agree....they've attacked the WEAKEST . . .

here in ACORN -- an agency serving poor communities --

who did a lot of damage to the GOP in the last election !!!

Cheers to ACORN and I hope that some evidence comes forth to redeem them.

Also, I hope more Democrats in Congress start to rethink this one!!!

:)

[defendandprotect]

281. I think we need CONGRESS to hold hearings on this . . . get Fox/O'Keefe under oath . . .

as well as the Acorn workers who were approached --

Also, get all the evidence in hand -- full, unedited tapes - - !!!

[defendandprotect]

221. k i c k

[Douglas Carpenter]

285. kick