Looks like Rachel Maddow did some dishonest "editing" at 6:56 to distort the CA AG report to make it look like Vera reported the “human smuggling” to the police immediately instead of 9 Days later.

Immediately after the couple left, Vera telephoned his cousin, Detective Alejandro Hernandez, at the National City Police Department. [He left a voicemail message for Detective Hernandez stating that some “crazy people” were in his office providing information. Vera did not explain
the substance of the conversation and did not make reference to prostitution or human smuggling on the message. He asked his cousin to call him back. (Interview with Vera; Vera Phone Records, at p. 4 [reflecting a 2-minute call to Detective Hernandez’s cell phone at 6:40 p.m.];
Detective Hernandez Phone Records, at p. 132 [reflecting a call to voicemail at 6:45 p.m.].)
Later that day, Vera also reported the incident to fellow ACORN employee Cruz Acosta. Acosta had been away from the office while the couple was present. Vera explained to him what happened. Vera also reported the incident, either the same day or shortly thereafter, to Mar 15
Murrillon, an ACORN board member. Vera told Murrillon that he had reported the incident to the police. (Vera Interview.)
Vera eventually spoke with Detective Hernandez on August 27, 2009. He told Detective Hernandez ] [and said] that a self-admitted prostitute had been to the office and was discussing human
smuggling.

So he called immediately, but was unable to talk to the detective until 9 days later, is that right?

Paul L:

Who is Paul L? The "about me" information from your idiotic website gives your name as "Heir to the Throne" and says you are hundreds of years old.

It wasn't Maddow who said he immediately called his detective cousin, it was in the Attorney General's report, right?

Sometimes when you leave a message on an answering machine, that person doesn't or can't get back to you right away.

But welcome to troll city, otherwise known as the comments section at BradBlog. Readers beware of commenters you're not familiar with. Obviously, this dudes name isn't Paul L.

Comment # 1

Belongs in the Nonsense on Stilts Beyond the Pale Pantheon.

The ACORN story is pertinent...but dead.

The media murdered ACORN...no way the same media will confess to that murder.

I'm speechless...the truth has been kidnapped, we just haven't gotten a ransom note yet.

Great job Brad, Rachel Maddow et al....

But Americans are too intoxicated to give a crap.

while racheal didnt give u credit brad,raw story does,and i gotta say,i do not think this ever would of been brought to the light if not for u...but the bigger question is....why do we believe anything any neo con ever says?

btw bigdansbigblog has loads of newsworthy stuff too

Big Dan... Big Dan... that sounds familiar

OK, Paul L (@ #1), I'll give you that one.

While I think it is an extremely minor offense when compared with O'keefe's editing job (on the order of several magnitudes different), nevertheless I am a stickler for accuracy and I agree that Rachel should have clarified that the actual reporting to Detective Hernandez occurred 9 days later.

However I don't agree that this means Maddow deliberately quoted from Brown's report in such a way as to have viewers misconstrue the timing. It could have been merely sloppiness in the form of expediency.

In England, you often hear the opposition party referred to as "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" - one implication being that the opposition has a responsibility to act with honorable intentions and with integrity.

OT, I thought this should be posted somewhere over here:

http://emptywheel.firedo...-more-malfeasance-poo-2/

I don't agree that this means Maddow deliberately quoted from Brown's report in such a way as to have viewers misconstrue the timing.

So why did she say this after quoting the report?
From the transcript of 'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Tuesday, April 6, 2010

He elicited as much information as he could get out of his supposed pimp and prostitute in his office and then he immediately reported it to the police. For that he ended up getting fired after fantastical interpretations of his actions like these aired on Fox News.

I contacted Barbara Boxer's office today to ask for a statement from the senator regarding her own vote to defund ACORN in Sept of last year and how she feels knowing she voted to do so based on fake evidence. They took my contact info and said they would get back to me, though that doesn't necessarily mean anything these days. Every democrat in congress that voted to defund ACORN should be ashamed of themselves. Not only for being taken for fools by Okeefe's "evidence", but that anyone with half a brain cell would have never taken the video has legitimate evidence to begin with. You don't need 4 independent investigations into the video to have seen from the very beginning it was a fraud. If I do get a response from Boxer, I can post it here if people like.

Also, I run my own small politically oriented forum and we've been talking about ACORN quite frequently. The right wingers on the forum have used just about every talking point and lie about ACORN while repeating the conservative meme. It's sad. My forum is at www.politicalslugfest.com if anyone is interested. The members there cover the entire political spectrum, liberal, independent, libertarian, to right wing, and no one is ever censored.

Paul L. @ 11 wrote:

So why did she say this after quoting the report?
From the transcript of 'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Tuesday, April 6, 2010

He elicited as much information as he could get out of his supposed pimp and prostitute in his office and then he immediately reported it to the police. For that he ended up getting fired after fantastical interpretations of his actions like these aired on Fox News.

I dunno, Paul L. It's a valid criticism, although I still say it doesn't prove Rachel was deliberately misinforming. Maybe she was. Maybe exaggerating a little. Another take is that she shortened/simplified her script where she could to keep to a few salient points, and she shortened it too much.

For example, take her sentence:

"He elicited as much information as he could get out of his supposed pimp and prostitute in his office and then he immediately reported it to the police."

Now add two words and I think it would have been legit:

"He elicited as much information as he could get out of his supposed pimp and prostitute in his office and then he immediately attempted to [report] it to the police.

I give the benefit of the doubt and call it sloppy editing. I also accept that she may have phrased things to make Vera's actions look a little more proactive than they apparently were. I agree she shouldn't have portrayed things differently than they were portrayed in her source, the AG's report. I count it a minor flaw in a very good show. And I will watch her shows more carefully (as I try to do with all news shows) for evidence of bias.

Paul L.'s complaint is a straw man.

The gist of the fabricated O'Keefe story is that Acorn offices across the nation aided and abetted a prostitution and human smuggling ring.

The gist of the truth is that is simply untrue.

In the San Diego story it's particularly untrue as the interviewer placed a call to his cousin the cop immediately after O'Keefe and Giles left his office. Eventually he talked with is cousin about what he believed to be a human smuggling operation. The substance of the truth, which reveals the O'Keefe story to be a lie, is not effected in the slightest by any misconceptions about whether he talked to his cousin immediately or days later.

There is no equivalency here of biased reporting by Rachel Maddow.

Acorn is not dead! It is just being re-branded. Bertha Lewis is alive, well and rich.

1st- @ Jim_NH,

Dont look behind you, but I think Bertha Lewis is staring at you through the window!
She’s also laughing at you from behind the fridge. Wonderin’ why all your sweat-socks disappear in the dryer? That’s Bertha Lewis again.

2nd- @ Paul L.

Your criticism presents as much horse-pucky as O'Keefe's propaganda tapes. Vera made his calls immediately, and I'm sorry to tell you that there's nothing which can change that.

Furthermore, in true BigGov.com fashion, youre taking a lice comb to Maddow’s report in order to tease out something you can mangle into an example of misinformation.

But in doing so, you completely miss the point that the entire subject is one not just of misinformation, but of slander, libel, and falsely representing evidence of criminal behavior.

Look, Vera called the police, he did the right thing, and he was acting on behalf of the pretty intense story of human suffering which Giles and O’Keefe completely left out of their posted tapes.

Despite that, Vera was falsely portrayed by O’keefe as a lecherous pervert hungry for young prey. THAT TWISTING OF FACTS IS WHAT IS SIGNIFICANT HERE!!!

You probably don’t know this, but that’s the kind of thing that Inquisitors and witch-hunters used to do... splice together bits of a persons words in order to paint that person as a satanist (usually one who murdered children or cattle.) O’Keefe’s technique is as archaic as the hatred which motivates it.

Look, Breitbart always whines that the worst thing to accuse someone of in today’s America is racism. He always rants and raves about how O’Keefe is accused of racism, and how thats just the worst thing you can call someone.

But that’s not true at all... there are far worse things you can accuse someone of, even more than the disgusting trait of racism. As someone who takes public trans, I hear racist crap every day. It disgusts me, but like most other commuters, I choose to ignore such expressions in order not to feed the anger that inspires it.

But I know that I , and almost every other commuter would react very differently if someone was talking about how much he liked smuggling children for prostitution. I think I and EVERYONE ELSE would freak out. You know why? Because that idea is just SO incredibly horrifying.

My point is that to accuse someone of being a child-trafficking pedophile is FAR FAR FAR more damaging that accusing someone of racism. You can walk away from a racist, but you always try to get pedophiles out of your neighborhood.

Breitbart, Giles and O’Keefe have all falsely accused the workers at ACORN of being child traffickers, and have labeled their ensemble the “ACORN Child Prostitution Sting”. That’s a VERY heavy accusation... one so serious that, if you are making it, it had better be true.

They are accusing innocent people of a crime that ranks as the most heinous by almost all cultural standards. But Breitbart has the nerve to throw a tantrum over being called the racist that he is. What a shmuck!

And lets not forget that they have wasted the time of law enforcement officers whose primary concern is REAL crimes (not ones made-up by a delusional bigot and habitual liar.) Because of O’keefe, real criminals have a little less heat to worry about.

For Shame!

... I should rephrase my 2nd to last scentence from my post above.

It presently reads, "Because of O’keefe, real criminals have a little less heat to worry about."

It should read, "Because of O’keefe, OTHER real criminals have a little less heat to worry about."

There is an extremely important detail left out of your post. Please tell us what specific, unedited video was finally shown to prove the ACORN employees had been set up by severe editing? Surely Maddow's 12 minute report had lots of scenes that have never been seen. And those scenes, which had been SEVERLY EDITED out of the O'Keefe videos have lots of exculpatory evidence. So, please, tell us. What was left out of O'Keefe's videos?

It seems you have been spending months demanding the unedited, full videos to be released. Now they have been for the San Diego office. What was in the unedited videos that exonerate Mr. Vera?

Also, have you been able to find anything in the unedited videos that are differ from the full audio and transcript that have been available since September at Big Government?

I look forward to your reply.

@larry - have you not read brads many posts on the edited tapes? just by piecing together what Okeefe chose to give out, his lying was already exposed. And the fact that all these AGs keep finding no criminality when they look at the raw tapes?...If you believe OKeefes lies, criminal acts were committed, and AGs would be arresting folks. Brad has had many other previous posts going into way more details than OKeefe has ever bothered in defending his characterization of this story. This post was primarily noting Maddow's coverage, not going over new information thoroughly.

And why does Brad, who has been way more thorough about this than anyone else (except maybe the AG laywer staffs that got to see the raw tapes) why does Brad have to have all the info in every post with every detail backing up any claim every made, and yet Okeefe was blasted all over MSM with no questions? These were big media orgs who within a day or two could have easily interviewed other witnesses to the events, talked to the several police depts that were called by Acorn after these idiots showed up, talked to the Acorn employees, reviewed the edited tapes thoroughly etc..But Brad is the inaccurate one?!?...whatever.

Also, think about the question I have raised here before, again: even if Acorn employees were just as OKeefe presented them (they were not, but go ahead a cling to an unfactual story), why didn't OKeefe make the unedited and raw tapes available, at least to journalists, from the beginning? Certainly Okeefe in presenting, and media in their "reporting", could/would have highlighted the worst moments most interesting/shocking moments in their coverage, but if you have nothing to hide and your reporting is correct and consistent with the facts on the ground, you can post the whole interview tapes somewhere as reference material, you have no reason to withold once you have done your story. There were no secret sources to protect, OKeefe and Giles were very open about who they were, very public with their images, the Acorn employees were already shown also, so no reason to hold back access raw material, that is except if you are engaged in deception. So Okeefe's own actions are not consistent with your defense of him/his story.

But hey, either your paid to post or you seem unable to wrap your mind around the fact Acorn and its employees may have been/acted at least slightly different than how they were portrayed.

So, because you are so resistent to facts, lets just set aside that issue for a moment and I ask you to think about how you are being manipulated into hating something, seeing something as evil incarnate by looking at this another way.

Let's just say everything in regards to Acorn is just as it appears from Okeefe/Fox's presentation (its not, but I play a silly game for your sake). So a few Acorn employees would be in jail by now. Even if that was true and had happened...does that make Acorn more criminal than any other Fed funded org or org in general? I

If we could secretly video interviews and actions of many Blackwater employees, you think none of them would every be caught in illegalities? We know some have committed crimes, even without secret videos made in disguise. What about your local police force, not ever any bad or corrupt cops? As far as I've seen in the last 20 years, there has been some significant corruption or illegalities of at least some of the cops of every major city' police force. Often they steal drugs, shake down drug dealers, take bribes, sexual assualt women etc.....the FBI just caught some Mpls cops in my local area for taking bribes they set up.

How about if we secretly taped WalMart employees, would some of them go for child trafficking and meth dealing, tax evasion? Have no WalMart employees been arrested for such activities? What about Congress, it has many of its members busted for corruption, on both sides of the aisle, some with damning video tape. What about the NHL, NFL etc...

So just about any organization you can think of has some proven, convicted criminals in its ranks and so it stands to reason if you present people in any org with a fake story of crime, some of the employees might go along with it, as we already know, some of their employees have been criminals in the past.

So then the question is how endemic, pervasive is the criminality, and how high-up does the corruption go. If a few cops are caught taking bribes, is everyone doing that or is it just these bad apples? Are the supervising cops aware of the corruption and allowing to persist, or worse yet, encouraging it. Is the police chief in on it? What about Blackwater employees engaged in prostitution, drugs, gun running, rape? Does this go all the way up, or is it just a few bad apples in the org who did bad when they had opportunity in anarchic situations?

Election security researchers decided to get an idea of how easy it might be to rig an election. They offered bribes to election staff, and found several that were willing to do something illegal for a few hundred dollars.

So if we had video of bad cops, bad Walmart employees, bad Balckwater employees, bad Congress-people, bad election workers...wouldn't the typical questions be, Have these staff/people commiteed crimes as its seems on tape?, How deep/high up is this corruption?, Who knew what/when? Is it a culture of corruption or is just a few bad apples?

As I can see in the case of local police force, Blackwater, Walmart, proven illegality of their employees is generally not assumed to be a reflection of whole org unless widespread corruption is proven. People generaly do not call for defunding entire orgs because some employees are convicted of crimes.

If corruption and criminality was so widespread in Acorn, than prove it, just like they do for police corruption, like they did in KY for election corruption, like they did with Congress and Abscam etc..

And yet, when OKeefe's so truthfully presented tapes of the soooo corrupt Acorn are shown to AGs, not even one employee, let along whole chapters or the whole org, is found to have committed a crime. And yet Acorn no logner exists.

And if we are evaluating corruption of Acorn as a whole, (even if we pretend OKeefe was so right in his portrayal of the employees he taped) what of the actions of Acorn in total? That is the question we should be asking, as we do with other orgs. So, how many secret recording visits did OKeefe do? How many resulted in the police being called by Acorn employees. How many resulted in no interesting video, no unethical action? How many showed leadership higher up than staff level employees engage in wrong beahvior, organized corruption? We know some Acorn employees did call the police after OKeefe visits, so at most some (what precentage we do not know) employees acted well and some acted bad (if we believe OKeefe as you seem intent on doing). And remember, for this excerise I am conceding OKeefe did not trick and decive but presented rightly, which we know is also not true. But even if it was, your vilification of Acorn does not hold up consistently with treatment of orgs found to have bad/criminal employees.

The reason you think Acorn is so bad is because there are some powerful people that want you to think they are bad and are working the media to spread that image. There are many bad orgs out there with criminal employees and high-up corruption, but those are not exposed, or a few employees caught in corruption are arrested and go quietly into the night while their org lives on...Just as we had to lose so many lives to take out the bad man Saddam, but the bad man who enslave women in Saudi Arabia or the bad man that tyrannizes his whole coutnry in No Korea, we hear little in media about them, we do not get images eeryday telling us how horrible they are and how necessary it is for us to take them out even though the demonstably do at least as much harm to their people as Saddam.

Be very wary when somone defines your bogeymen and enemies for you...likely they are distracting you from them, your real enemy.

By the way Brad, you have already done so much, but given all the info on this has trickled out over time, a good overiview article with summariizing everything about this would be great...to see it in Time or Newsweek or NYT, those liberally biased mags would be nice, but I think you are all we got. Maddows coverage has been welcomed, but also piecemeal-ed.

Thanks Brad, I doubt anyone would no mich about this except for you.

I'm glad you like Brad's thorough coverage of this topic. But, there is no way he could have written about what was left out of the edited tapes in past posts since he has not seen them and he does not trust the complete transcripts that have been made available.

But, my point, which you neglected to address, was the fact that Maddow, and Brad's headline, trumpet the notion of: "NOW WE'RE GOING TO SHOW YOU THE UNEDITED VIDEO TO PROVE O'KEEFE LIED" and yet, Maddow only showed 30 seconds of Mr. Vera that had been edited out. That 30 second clip included an edit which left our 17 minutes of footage. And, that 30 seconds did nothing to "prove" that Mr. Vera did nothing wrong.

You are also wrong about the AG's report and the Brooklyn DA's report.

The B'klyn DA's office merely said that the grand jury did not bring an indictment. There were reports of an anonymous source within the DA's office who claimed the video that was edited out was exculpatory, but no specifics were provided.

The California AG's report said that they could not bring charges of aiding and abetting against the employees because ultimately O'Keefe and Giles were not actually a pimp and a prostitute, they merely pretended to be. Therefore, if there was no underlying crime, then the ACORN employees could not have been guilty of aiding and abetting. You can not aid and abet playacting.

Have you READ the AG's report, or are you merely relying on Brad and Maddow for your information? I suggest you look at the actual source, and read some web pages from the conservative angle as well as Brad's then you can reach a well-rounded and fully informed opinion.

You might even enjoy it. I write for a conservative leaning site, but I really enjoy reading Brad and HuffPo and Salon and Media Matters. It helps provide me with a fuller picture of the truth. I suggest you do the same.

And, while you are asking Brad for a new post, ask him to provide in this post, which is headlined "Maddow airs unedited ACORN videos" an example of unedited video from the San Diego sting that Maddow aired which actually proves O'Keefe left things out that would have exonerated Mr. Vera's behavior.

By the way, it is incredibly insulting and arrogant to suggest that the only reason someone would disagree with your position is if they were "paid to post". Are you so close-minded that you can not make room for a person to look at the same information you are looking at and honestly reach a different conclusion? That is the kind of statement that gives people on your side of this debate an appearance of intolerance. I am an average citizen, just like you. I have a different opinion. Nothing in my posts have been derogatory about you or Brad or Maddow. I am asking simple questions which challenge the premise of Brad's post and what he is trying to convey to his readers.

His thesis here is that O'Keefe SEVERELY EDITED his tapes to make the ACORN employees look bad. If we could just see the unedited tapes, everyone would see the truth. So, now the San Diego tapes have been seen and Maddow made a huge deal out of telling her audience that the tapes exonerated Mr. Vera. and Brad repeated that claim in this post, So, now I ask, again: What part of the unedited tapes were shown that exonerates Mr. Vera's behavior?

ANSWER: None. Otherwise, Maddow would have shown it. She did not. READ the AG report. What exonerates the ACORN employees is the fact that O'Keefe and Giles were acting instead of really doing the things they were claiming.

But, that's not as sexy a headline because it doesn't slam O'Keefe or Breitbart... so, Brad spun the story a different way so he could attack O'Keefe and Breitbart.

Consider yourself better informed ow. Your Welcome.

Larry, Larry, Quit Contrary, How does your love for lies grow?

Going from the unedited footage, to the fallacious and libelous claim that there is an actual case for “ACORN Child Prostitution Smuggling” (as the San Diego video is clumsily titled) represents not just a leap..., it’s a BOLD FACED LIE advanced with the sole intention of damaging the people who are mis-represented on the videos.

THAT’S CALLED A LIE, LARRY,.... YOU SHOULD HAVE LEARNED THAT IN 3rd GRADE!!!

And yes, the unedited videos make that ABUNDANTLY clear.

The fact that all this has to be explained (again) for the benefit of the likes of Larry O’Conner is absolutely pathetic.

Larry, if you cant figure these things out with your own human senses, then you really are way too feeble to have this discussion, let alone have access to a computer.

Sorry pal, but you should start trying to get used to the truth. Its part of maturing.

Suffice to say this–

O'Keefe edited out the REALLY PAINFUL STORY OF HUMAN SUFFERING which he had orchestrated for Vera, and for other ACORN workers.

Some of that story might be on the transcripts, but its not on the HEAVILY EDITED videos which Okeefe posted, promoted on Fox, circulated on the internet, and submitted as explicit (albeit false) evidence of criminal activity.

That significant aspect of the recordings has had NO place in the narrative set up by the video producers, nor by their unquestioning followers, nor on the posted videos themselves, nor in the fallacious conclusions drawn from them.

That story totally changes the nature of what appears to be occurring on the posted video, AND YOU KNOW THAT, Larry... don’t play dumb for the sake of maintaining this nonsense.

The question posed by this fact is one that has been repeated quite a few times... and one which was offered quite pointedly by Mike Stark (a real journalist with real integrity) at last year’s National Press Club meeting.

Incidently, it is also a question which Breitbart, Giles and Okeefe have all consistently REFUSED to answer by playing a very cowardly and transparent game of “hot potato”... and it continues to be one which they refuse to answer with equal cowardice and dishonesty.

But being caught off-guard by Stark last year had really upset Breitbart (quite noticeably,) and his people want to make sure that it doesnt happen again... hence, Larry’s redundant and moot questions.

O’Conner’s posture echos the utter absurdity represented in the hurried equivocation of O’Keefe’s pimp garb by his unquestioning followers.

For example, most of O’keefe’s crowd are now circulating the lie (six months after the fact) that O’keefe “never claimed to dress like a pimp in the ACORN offices.” They faithfully defer to Hannah’s “b-role” line of BS (again, SIX MONTHS after the fact.)

They now claim that it was the media who “speculated” that O’keefe dressed as a pimp, and that he had nothing to do with that impression.

This is not just a despicable lie (one verifiable as such), it also shows how easily the BigGov crew can twist the very events which we have all lived through, and which occurred only a few months back.

And it shows how comfortable they are with that degree of cognitive dissonance.
This assault on living memory is one that which I consider very scary and dangerous... it is a willful dismissal of fact in favor of baseless ideology and unsubstantiated fabrications, steered towards political mud-slinging and slander (shades of George W., on that note.)

When this story first broke, O’Keefe was sitting with Fox and friends, and was introduced by the man who sat right in front of him as being “dressed in the exact same” costume that he wore to ACORN offices.

Okeefe was right in front of him when he said that. He made NO effort (for about 6 whole months) to correct the false impression created by what Giles now calls “a b-role clip” (in fact, he actively fed that impression.)

Nor did James make any attempt to correct the false impression created by selectively editing out the traumatic story so callously mocked by ho-bag Hannah Giles. He seems more interested in grotesque pin-up pics of Hannah, then in telling THAT part of the story.

Apparently, when all this was being discussed, the “investigative journalist” in james must have been asleep at the wheel...

He and Giles had SIX MONTHS to correct those false impressions. They only corrected the former when called out on it (six months later) and remain completely silent regarding the latter. Their silence speaks volumes.

James had SIX MONTHS to explain, with his own mouth, what the context he had established before he edited the videos... he never has. And folsk like Larry just choose to ignore that part of the story.

When James was asked if he was ever refused by an ACORN office, a reference to the story about helping abused and under-aged prostitutes flee an evil pimp would have been both appropriate AND NECESSARY (that is, IF he were actually interested in the truth.)

He made a choice not to (because, like you Larry, he is not interested in truth, he’s interested in assault.)

AGAIN LARRY, THAT’S CALLED LYING,.... AGAIN, YOU SHOULD HAVE LEARNED THAT IN 3rd GRADE!!!

Now the suckers that trail after BigGov.com act as if james is being blamed for something he never did. Again, that’s just pathetic.

Even by comparison with O'keefe's own transcripts, his posted videos lie... not only that, they falsely accuse Vera of an EXTREMELY heinous crime (one far worse than the accusations of racism which Breitbart is always crying about), and have ruined the man’s life because of that.

The data from the LA office is even more incriminating for O’keefe, and I think we should just let Larry compare the unedited footage with the posted videos in order to work that one out for himself (Really Lars, its not that hard, just pay attention. Youre not a 2 year old, this doesnt have to be explained to you.)

You know, I dont want to answer too much from Larry's questions, only because I know that the BigGov crew are trying to use a tactic of online reconnaissance in order to brainstorm for O'keefe's defense. They want to see what cards O'keefe's critics have on the table so that he wont be taken by surprise like he was during last year’s National Press Club meeting (let alone in a court of law.)

Like it or not, Laurence, there is room for honesty here, and its high time your pals stepped up to that standard.

For The Benefit of Larry O'Conner, whose physical eye's seem to have the same filters as James Okeefe's own "Final Cut Express" equipment---

(from the conclusions to AG Browns report, emphasized and spaced by moi)

"The edited O’Keefe videos released on the BigGovernment.com website portrayed ACORN as an organization infested with employees committing crimes.

However, the impression of rampant illegal conduct created by the recordings at the various ACORN offices around the country is not supported by the evidence related to the videos in California. Our investigation revealed facts which were not reflected in the recordings.

The San Diego employee’s answers were influenced by his limited English and intent to contact the police. The San Bernardino ACORN receptionist knew it to be a prank and made outrageous and false statements.

O’Keefe stated he was out to make a point and to damage ACORN and therefore did not act as a journalist objectively reporting a story.

The video releases were heavily edited to feature only the worst or most inappropriate statements of the various ACORN employees and to omit some of the most salient statements by O’Keefe and Giles.

Each of the ACORN employees recorded in California was a low level employee whose job was to help the needy individuals who walked in the door seeking assistance.

Giles and O’Keefe lied to engender compassion, but then edited their statements from the released videos. Would it have been best had each ACORN employee simply refused to deal with the couple and shown them the door when their story came out? Of course.

ACORN was not the criminal enterprise described by O’Keefe in his “Chaos for Glory” statement – it did not receive billions in federal funds and did not control elections.

(btw, Lars, these last three examples point out verifiable lies)

ACORN is, however, disorganized and its operations were far from transparent, leaving it vulnerable to allegations of illegal activity and misuse of funds. Many of the ACORN employees lacked appropriate training and ACORN did not comply with its own internal policies and procedures. "

Of course, AG Brown does go on to fault ACORN for its own mis-deeds and short-comings... but those short-comings arent what OKeefe is addressing.

Okeefe is addressing a lie which he fabricated, and which he collaged out of sound-bytes.

Sure, a habitual liar as sociopathic and self-contradictory as Andrew Breitbart would find that entirely natural... but real adults react otherwise.

Face it Laurence, Okeefe, Breitbart and Giles are about as helpful to modern conservatism as Stephen Fincher or Dale Robertson.

Again: What part of the unedited tapes were shown on Maddow's 12 minute report that exonerates Mr. Vera's behavior?

And what is with you and Brad insisting on taunting people with their names? Lawrence, Lars, Andy, Crazy Andy... it's kind of weird and it contributes to the diminishing of our social discourse.

Can you point to any personal attack I have made here? Or any time here that I have been uncivil?

Larry O'Connor (who works for Andrew Breitbart) shamelessly mislead and/or lied in various comments above:

So, please, tell us. What was left out of O'Keefe's videos?

There is no need to. It has already been documented in the CA Attorney General's 28 page report [PDF], and 55 pages of supporting documentation, and hours of previously unreleased video tape. You know, the stuff you shamelessly mischaracterized and/or lied about when you recently wrote your own self-discrediting post about it all at Andrew Breitbart's "Andrew Breitbart Presents Big Journalism" sham webiste.

Happily SreeBee has been decent enough, however, to share with you just some of the information from that report which you failed to share with your misinformed and disinformed readers over there, before we had to waste too much time in doing so.

But here's just a few more points (but by no means all) from the AG's summarized look at what wasn't in each of the severely edited videos (beginning on p. 11 of his report), as released in the illegal California video and audio tapings illicitly made by Giles and O'Keefe and published by your boss Andrew Breitbart:

The released recordings did not include all Giles’ statements regarding the abusive pimp, her tragic life, and fear for the underage girls, or Stewart’s statements that ACORN could not help. ... He also released an edited audiotape of the conversation with Miller but did not explain that Miller was not an ACORN employee.

The deceptively edited versions of the videos also failed to show employees repeated assertions that ACORN could not help the pair, employees urging Giles to find a different line of work, or seek counseling as a tortured abuse victim.

Just some of the additional information from the AG's report which you also dishonestly withheld from your mess of a "Big Journalism" article and its readers when you made your false charge that the only reason there were no crimes committed was because O'Keefe and Giles weren't actually a pimp or prostitute:

Even if OKeefe and Giles had truly intended to break the law, there is no evidence that any of the ACORN employees had the intent to aid and abet such criminal conduct or agreed to join in that illegal conduct. ... Additionally, there is no evidence that any of the California ACORN employees did any act to further or promote any of the criminal activity discussed with O’Keefe and Giles. ... ACORN employees did not commit any crime in advising O’Keefe and Giles to report and pay taxes on income earned from criminal activity because income taxes apply to both legal and illegal activities.

I could, of course, continue to waste much more of my time in showing the disinformation you posted at Andy's site is deceptive itself, but you --- like your fellow Breitbart Tea Bag Boyz Ben Shapiro, L.A. County Deputy D.A. Patrick "Patterico" Frey, and fellow stooge/commenter DaleyRocks --- are not serious critics, not serious people, and are little more than propagandists, clowns, dirty trickster, ratfuckers and liars in the mold of covert CIA asset-outer Karl Rove, Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy, and arms for Iranian hostages law-breaker Oliver North.

In short: You, like they, are an unscrupulous joke and an unapologetic partisan propagandist --- and sadly, one who has no compunction about undermining democracy, the Rule of Law or the Constitution in order to ply that sick, immoral trade in which your fellow citizens --- some of those who can least afford such assaults --- pay the greatest price for your political ambitions and ideology. You are welcome to do so, just not at my website, where you have also now violated the "knowing disinformation" rule which you and your Tea Bag Boyz just can't seem to help but ignore.

Just one or two more points, and then I'll go back to being done with your disingenuous jackassery. You further wrote, misleadingly:

The California AG's report said that they could not bring charges of aiding and abetting against the employees because ultimately O'Keefe and Giles were not actually a pimp and a prostitute, they merely pretended to be. Therefore, if there was no underlying crime, then the ACORN employees could not have been guilty of aiding and abetting. You can not aid and abet playacting.

Yes, it did say that. It also said much more. Some of which I've quoted above to you, none of which you've bothered to share with your misinformed and disinformed readers at Breitbart's propaganda site.

You then deceptively wrote:

I suggest you look at the actual source, and read some web pages from the conservative angle as well as Brad's then you can reach a well-rounded and fully informed opinion.

Can you recommend any "web pages from the conservative angle" in addition to mine? Because my interpretation of the Rule of Law has been consistent, from day one, with real conservatism, versus the deceptive, America-hating Republicanism that you and your fellow hoaxsters preach.

I write for a conservative leaning site, but I really enjoy reading Brad and HuffPo and Salon and Media Matters. It helps provide me with a fuller picture of the truth. I suggest you do the same.

No, you do not "write for a conservative leaning site". You write for Andrew Breitbart's various Rightwing Republicanist sites. There is nothing "conservative" about those sites, else you'd see them calling for the Rule of Law to be respected, the U.S. Constitution to be followed, accountability for those who violated both of the above, and the fight for democracy of the people, by the people and for the people inherent in both.

You wouldn't know "conservatism" if it bit you on the ass, Larry. And, by the way, it has. When you decide to join me in the fight for true conservatism, please let me know, I'll be happy to remove you from the moderated commenters list at that time.

Perhaps I'll even call off my "Larry O'Connor Pedophilia Investigation" at the same time if it turns out you can prove your innocence against the overwhelming evidence compiled so far.

@ Larry,

Oh, Stop it Lars, no one is attacking you, just the nonsense that you’re peddling (and it IS complete and utter non-sense.) If you cant take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

1st-
If you have a problem with the known and accepted variations on your name, take it up with your parents, not with me.

2nd-
The behavior of Mr. Vera and of ALL the other ACORN members on the videos is entirely exonerated by the story which Giles had told them about needing to RESCUE underage prostitutes, okay?

They are exonerated by the VERY TRAGIC story which Hannah had fabricated about escaping abuse and trying to help others do so (and which, interestingly enough, has had NO place in the posted videos nor in the subsequent conclusions which the BigGov, the RNC, CPAC etc... had developed from them.)

Believe it or not Laurence, but that story which Hannah told DOES resonate with people involved in urban relief.

This may be a shocker to you, but there are a LOT of women who need to escape the nightmare which Hannah is mocking in her attack on ACORN.

Try going to your own church’s own charity (if it has one) and see how many homeless women (and men) are fleeing abuse, and trying to find safe places to live, and who (sadly) need to sell themselves just to get some food.

I know that world might not seem real to you... and it shouldnt be real for anyone. But it DOES exist, and people involved in urban relief are ABSOLUTELY beholden to helping people in that scene, whether you or Crazy old Andy like it or not.

And Lars, if you dare to step away from your blogs, and venture outside your comfort zone, you might discover how painfully real that world is.

You might just grow a little bit if you tried to understand what actually happens in many inner-city ghettos, or why feminists mobilize against the violence inflicted on women.

Nevertheless, in the unedited videos, Hannah explicitly expresses fear for her life, and those of her younger companions. THAT is edited out of the tapes. THAT, AMONG SO MUCH ELSE MAKES THE VIDEOS A LIE!

QUIT KIDDING YOURSELF, OKAY?

And if parts of Hannah’s story are referenced in the transcripts, then that means that what Mike Stark had said last year was ABSOLUTELY TRUE, and the videos don’t even stand up to their own transcripts.

Also, Mr. Vera's behavior is exonerated by his contact with the police... a fact that Giles and Okeefe have NEVER MENTIONED FOR THE LAST 6 MONTHS (and continue to never mention) while simultaneously accusing him of being a pervert and a child-molester. That accusation IS A LIE! They know it, and so do you.

What's so hard to understand about this?

This is ridiculous... I am starting to believe that you are the same guy that was trolling Max Blumenthal at CPAC muttering the word “rubric" like it was going out of style.

You ask the same questions over and over, but you refuse to acknowledge the answers.

And on this one, you are really fighting an up-hill battle, deary.

The evidence is stacked against Okeefe... nothing you or he can say will change that until O’Keefe explains why he deliberately left out the story about “Kenya’s” life from the videos, or from any interview about his experiences at ACORN.

The burden of proof is on James, and he'd better quit playing the games which he has been, and which you are only too happy (or too immature) to accomodate.

Again, watch the videos, and read the report... ESPECIALLY the portion cited above.

3rd--
You have an ample selection of very reasonable answers to your questions. If you choose to pretend that you dont understand them, then get some help.

This is just an observation, not an attack.

If young Lars is in the employ of Breitbart, then no amount of hard evidence, plain logic or clear reasoning will penetrate that rock-hard shell.

These guys hard-wire deniablity right into their own programming (eg Hannah Giles-- "Above all, attack! attack! Attack! Never defend".... it’s a brain-dead fanatic's way of saying "never, ever be accountable!")

Also Larry, if you are in the employ of Breitbart, then NOBODY owes you an explanation, here or ANYWHERE!!!

On the contrary Laurence, YOU need to do the explaining.

Your boss needs to do the explaining. James and hoe-bag Hannah need to do the expalining.

Since you are actively participating in libel, disinformation and slander, you dont deserve the courtesy of an explanation.

You should be thoroughly ashamed for your own contributions to a unjust campaign of deceit and cruelty. And you have some nerve assuming that people answer your contradictory, redundant and pointlessly idiotic demands.

YOU need to do the explaining!

Why did your boy edit out the story about the traumatic life of "Kenya" ("Eden", or whatever), or her concern for the safety of her underage charges? WHY was that taken out of his posted tapes? Why didnt he ever bring it up in his interviews, or answer AT ALL when the question was posed to him? What purpose did that serve?

Why hasnt James or Hannah updated any of their slanders and smears about the people in their tapes? Why no caveats explaining what they got wrong?

Other people have corrected their work as per the grievances of a scumbag like James... why cant he do the same for Juan Carlos Vera?

Has BigGov retracted Hannah's description of Tresa as a "murderer?" Has O’Keefe changed the name of his tapes from “ACORN Child Prostitution Smuggling”?

For shame!

All very interesting. But, do you realize you still have not shown one thing in the Maddow report? You have picked out a few things from the AG report. But Maddow and her producers did not include those items. Brad, maybe you should be one of Maddow's producers.

Moderated comments? Disinformation. Brad, do me a favor and email me what you consider disinformation. I've always been civil to you. I've exchanged emails with you. I even gave you my phone number to discuss an issue. Your attack on me seems histrionic.

Looking forward to your email pointing out my disinformation versus my differing opinion.

"Your attack on me seems histrionic"?

This IS the "rubric" guy, isnt it?

I got a fresh 10 dollar whopper for ya Lars...
"disingenuous"... look it up!

Lets consider the net effect of the work which you, those unfeeling, toe-headed kids and your blowhard boss have all engaged in.

It has been to force public policy on the basis of un-vetted internet video which was heavily edited by a very shady individual who already has been witnessed doctoring footage to meet his agenda (and thank you, Liz Farkas.)

That’s pretty freakin’ Mediaeval. Orwell couldn’t have imagined a better MiniTrue tactic himself.

Additionally, your crew has slandered innocent people with some extremely disturbing accusations, all of which have proven to be fabricated by James, Hannah and trusty ol’ “Final Cut Express”.

You also contribute to a web-complex which continues to post what has already proven to be very cruel and hair-raising LIES about real people (eg, that Tresa is a “murderer”, that Juan Carlos is a perverted old lech hungry for kids, that Stewart was coxing Hannah to set up a brothel, that there is even any evidence for “ACORN Child Prostitution Smuggling”, etc...)

Does that ever get to you at all?!?! I mean, don’t you have anything remotely resembling a conscience?

Your boss has had plenty of opportunities to offer retractions, corrections, addenda, even an apology for slandering people in such a hideously malicious way, but he never has. Okeefe has had plenty of opportunities to explain why he edited the tapes the way he did, and he never has. And what they both continue to promote, with a little help from you, has already proven to be lies.

Get real, Lars..., you don’t deserve any explanation.

YOU still have to be accountable for your own participation in this campaign of deception. People have answered your questions more than enough, and you just don’t seem to want to acknowledge it.

But now its your turn.

Now YOU have to answer why, for instance, O’Keefe decided to edit out their terrible mockery of human suffering which he and Hannah introduced to the ACORN members on the tapes. You have to explain its absence from his own spoken synopsis of the encounters.

Don’t try to tip the question elsewhere, the burden of proof is on your boy, not on anyone else.

If my tone has seemed too strong in my dealings with Lawrence, then I sincerely apologize to Brad and all the other readers on this blog.

But Lars baby, if you work for Breitbart, then you don’t deserve any of the courtesies which your boss and his delinquent charges so callously withheld from their targets.

I'm done with you Lawrence... we're breaking up.

But do take my advice above (#27) and try to see what things are like in a homeless shelter.

I mean, you might as well know what you are trying to condemn so many people to through the libelous assaults that your boy makes on places like ACORN, HUD etc...

1.Are you censoring Larry's posts, Brad?

2. You guys do know that Breitbart's offered to show the unedited tapes ,followed by a Q and A session. Boehlert's never responded. Why?

3.It's too bad you ACORN defenders are so blinded by your ideology that you can't see the nose in front of your face.

4.

1.Are you censoring Larry's posts, Brad?

2. You guys do know that Breitbart's offered to show the unedited tapes ,followed by a Q and A session. Boehlert's never responded. Why?

3.It's too bad you ACORN defenders are so blinded by your ideology that you can't see the nose in front of your face.

Dear Brad,

You said that I was guilty of breaking "knowing disinformation" rule of your website, I am no longer welcome to post here, and my comments will be screened in the moderation mode. You don't consider that censorship?

And, could you please let me know why you feel it is necessary to taunt and call people names? "Andy", "Crazy Andy", "Tea Bag Boyz", "Stooge", "Patty"... Is this your attempt at elevating the debate in our society?

Also, have you found the one piece of unedited video in Maddow's report that shows a different story than the edited tapes O'Keefe released?

Still waiting. Given the headline of this post and the entire thrust of this post (other than you pointing out that you did not get credit on MSNBC). I would think that actual video footage in the Maddow report that actually shows that the O'Keefe edited videos misrepresented the truth would be pertinent.

Now, I beg you and/or any one of your readers to answer this point without using the AG report and without calling anyone names or being patronizing. It is a simple question:

What video was shown in the Maddow report, that had been edited out of the O'Keefe videos, that proves the O'Keefe videos were misleading?

If there isn't any, would it not call into question the implication in your headline and your post? Isn't that why you have not been able to answer the question? It seems like it should be quite simple.

Waiting.

Larry O'Connor disingenuously whined @ 33:

You said that I was guilty of breaking "knowing disinformation" rule of your website, I am no longer welcome to post here

Once again you display that you and your fellow self-proclaimed victims are unable to go even a sentence without telling a lie.

Isn't that why you have not been able to answer the question? It seems like it should be quite simple.

Your questions, for what they are worth, have been given the answers they deserve over and over again.

But one might wonder why you didn't bother to ask these questions either of Maddow, or even of me here (since you claimed to have learned something in my reply, which you could have as easily learned yourself --- and most certainly did, but simply chose to dishonestly withhold it from your Andrew Breitbart "journalism" gig readers --- by actually reading the CA AG's report) before posting your dishonest, deceptive, misleading article over there.

That's what you guys do, however, with no morals, standards, scruples or conscience to go with it. It doesn't matter how many of your fellow citizens get hurt by your political hit jobs. It doesn't matter how much you undermine the nation and its constitution. So long as you forward your partisan agenda, clearly that's the most important thing of all.

Pathetic.

Now get out there on sTwitter and lie about me and/or my coverage again, Larry. You're a helluva guy and a great American.

SreeBee @ various above:

You actually are a great American! Thank you for getting it. Thank you for holding folks like Larry accountable, since he seems to have no ability to distinguish the difference between right and wrong. We could use a few million more like ya!

I ask what was in the Maddow report and you point me to the CA AG report.

Now, I understand these questions can be confusing, but please point me to what was shown IN THE MADDOW REPORT. I KNOW what is in the CA AG report. I am not asking about the CA AG report.

Your headline implies that Maddow showed unedited video which proved the ACORN story was 'fuleled by pure manure'. So, WHAT WAS SHOWN IN THE MADDOW REPORT THAT PROVES THAT STATEMENT?

Finally with regard to you calling me a liar (which is, again, contemptible and not at all in keeping with the more civilized tone I continue to attempt to maintain with you).

You claim this sentence is a lie:

"You said that I was guilty of breaking "knowing disinformation" rule of your website, I am no longer welcome to post here"

And yet, you say in comment #26:

"You are welcome to do so, just not at my website, where you have also now violated the "knowing disinformation" rule which you and your Tea Bag Boyz just can't seem to help but ignore."

and then you placed me on your dreaded "moderated comments" list. Now, are you telling me that to characterize that as censorship is a lie?

Please explain. (And it really shouldn't take multiple rambling and insulting paragraphs to explain, two points is all I need clarification on !. What was in the Maddow report?, 2: Am I lying when I characterize your words and actions as censorship?)

Oh, and try to do it without calling me names.

34 Breitbart offered to show them to Boehlert? Why not just release them publicly from the get go instead of waiting months until the damage was already done? I think Breitbart knew the footage was edited to an agenda because O'Keefe's agenda matches Breitbarts

Gary Eaton @ 32 asked:

1.Are you censoring Larry's posts, Brad?

Not so far, though I retain the right to do so if he fails to follow the simple rules we have for commenting here respectfully at The BRAD BLOG (none of which have anything to do with agreeing with me, or the content of this site btw, as you can see). This is my private website after all. Every word he has posted to this site has been made available for all to read, despite his whining and misleading to the contrary --- but that's what he does apparently.

2. You guys do know that Breitbart's offered to show the unedited tapes ,followed by a Q and A session. Boehlert's never responded. Why?

Why don't you ask him? But I'd tell you my answer, if you're asking me. It's because real journalism is not an Andy Breitbart Side Show. It's not a performance.

If Breitbart, O'Keefe or Giles actually believed their hoax ACORN video tapes demonstrated any actual crimes, they would have released them in full for the world to see, so justice could be done.

Such as they were a scam from the jump, however, Breitbart decided to make a show out of it all instead. He's a coward and a liar and a con-artist who relies on the gullible nature of folks like yourself to buy into his bullshit, and folks like Larry O'Connor to pass it on unquestioningly to the public. It all amounts to journalistic malpractice, and apparently neither Breitbart nor O'Keefe nor O'Connor nor any of the other patsy's he's fooled into buying into his nonsense seem to give a damn.

In short: It's a circus sideshow, not journalism. Andy knows that. Andy doesn't care. He also knows there are no crimes in those videos (other than the ones carried out by O'Keefe and Giles), else he'd have released them. If he tells you they do show crimes, then that means he's withholding evidence of a crime.

3.It's too bad you ACORN defenders are so blinded by your ideology that you can't see the nose in front of your face.

I think that wasn't a joke. Which is sad for you, my friend. Enjoy your world of delusion. We'll be back here in the Reality-Based World whenever and if ever you choose to come join us.

@Gary Eaton #32,

Okay, Gary, you are right... Breitbart has been totally honest from day 1. And of course, he has even offered the unedited tapes for public viewing...

....it’s just the rest of us who refused to see them, that’s all... especially that damn Eric Boehlert, with his despicable lefty beard and his despicable liberal web-site, ... he refused to view it,... how could that be Breitbart's fault? Andrew's been an absolute peach this whole time, right?

Andrew NEVER tried to blackmail AG Holder, O’keefe NEVER wrote up a public refusal to accept an interview with CNN ON THE VERY DAY HE FIRST RELEASED HIS TAPES, and Breitbart NEVER authored an article celebrating the “politicized art” of his disingenuous video-release method. They have always been open and transparent about their work, right? Completely above the table? But of course!

The unedited tapes were there for all and sundry to view, with a Q & A session to boot! How could everybody just have missed that for the past 6 months? CURSE YOU ERIC BOEHLERT!!!

I am sure that AG Brown didn’t really need to offer James and Hannah immunity for access to the unedited tapes, because they and their boss never presented a consistent refusal to allow for such an unedited viewing..., (certainly not..., that never happened at all),

...Brown was just being a dear, that’s all.

Maybe its just that Brown likes the cut of O’Keefe’s gib? Maybe that's why he got immunity? The AG just might have a fetish for guys with that chinless, “Granny Clampet” thing going on.. because certainly, BigGov.com was utterly transparent this whole time.

So OF COURSE, Breitbart was offering the unedited footage for public view these past 6 months... He was always open about the facts,... and we were greeted as Liberators, and Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia, right?

Double plus good, eh?

.... its just that ACORN, Bertha Lewis, Joan Walsh, AG Harshberger, CNN, Mike Stark, Media Matters, Brad Freidman, Katherine Conway Russel, Alexandra Fenwick, Carol Leonning, Dave Weigel, Mike Madden, (even Greta Van Susteren and James Taranto) and especially that “despicable” Eric Boehlert, have all just refused to look at that evidence which Andy put out there...

None of them ever bothered to ask Breitbart to release the unedited tapes, and Andy has been forthright from the get go.

---Seriously, you know Gary, we have all seen what has transpired over the past 6 months. Dont be convinced to dismiss what actually occured in living memory for the sake of a last minute ditch by that maestro of misinformation, Andrew Breitbart.

Why do fools fall in love? Why do Right Wing losers comment on Progressive and Liberal posts with their defense of Fox Entertainment(sorry it is not News, that is why they can LIE) and other s**m like O'Keefe, the failed wiretap conspiritor?

@Larry,

Please answer this: Why is the tragic story of Kenya, and of the hair raising peril which she outlines for her younger charges, left out from the tapes? Why is it absent from O'keefe's narrative of is visits?

Why have you, your boss, or those irresponsible delinquents NEVER discussed that part of the story for the past 6 months? Why do you continue to avoid even acknowledging its existence in these exchanges?

We have all answered your questions, even though (as a professional liar) you hardly deserve that all. If you choose to ignore those answers, that’s more of a reflection on you than on anything else.

And please drop the whole Polyanna bit, you don’t wear it well at all. ... You work for an organization that has actively slandered people with false accusations of VERY SERIOUS CRIMES (the expression “ACORN Child Prostitution Smuggling” is not a light accusation.. Its pretty serious by most standards.).

Your hands are filthy with the most grotesque indulgence in mud-slinging, and you continue to refuse accountability. So you can loose the whole “righteousness” trip... its no more convincing than Lame james excuses.

You and your crew remain as the sole actors who need to explain why you chose to malign others so recklessly, and with such paltry and unconvincing “evidence”.

Since you work for Breitbart, and you particiapted in his libelous agenda, you cant afford the luxury of being indignant about this.

You need to explain why your company forced public policy on the basis of grossly distorted “evidence.”

No body owes you anything. The burden of proof is on you.

Larry @ 35,

You posted the following (referring to Brad):

You claim this sentence is a lie:

"You said that I was guilty of breaking "knowing disinformation" rule of your website, I am no longer welcome to post here"

And yet, you say in comment #26:

"You are welcome to do so, just not at my website, where you have also now violated the "knowing disinformation" rule which you and your Tea Bag Boyz just can't seem to help but ignore."

Actually, the full paragraph of Brad's which you quoted in part, is this:

In short: You, like they, are an unscrupulous joke and an unapologetic partisan propagandist --- and sadly, one who has no compunction about undermining democracy, the Rule of Law or the Constitution in order to ply that sick, immoral trade in which your fellow citizens --- some of those who can least afford such assaults --- pay the greatest price for your political ambitions and ideology. You are welcome to do so, just not at my website, where you have also now violated the "knowing disinformation" rule which you and your Tea Bag Boyz just can't seem to help but ignore.

Larry, even if you are not welcome (that is, if you insist on doing the above), I'm betting you won't be banned as long as you follow Brad's rules.

Pretty simple, I'd say.

Brad @ 34

Thanks so much for the kind words, and please know that I feel the same way about you and your work!

I am really glad you have created a forum to keep these guys accountable.

It’s a pretty scary world when unvetted and doctored evidence can force public policy, the way O'Keefe misled congress... but isnt that how W got the war in Iraq off the ground? Something about those boys from the Leadership Institute... whether big (Rove) or small (OKeefe), is there even an honest one among them?

Breitbart's crew evidences an almost robotic ability to distance themselves from their own actions, even their own words. That is really quite remarkable...and it would be entertaining if they werent so malicious and destructive.

But it is an absolutely maddening discussion, precisely because of that tendency so endemic to their behavior.

I mean, even as James recklessly edits his tapes for his agenda, his crew seems to have the ability to do the same with their own memories... that’s pretty freaky.

James’ love for selective editing seems to reflect a culture of selective memories, selective vision, selective hearing etc...

So thank you, Brad, for setting up a bulwark against the regression these folks want to actualize with such a hurried fever.

Larry @ 35 asks:

"What was in the Maddow report?"

After WATCHING the Maddow report, I can tell you!

According to Maddow (with back-up from her video clips that show both edited and unedited versions):

1. Pimp outfit

Edited: Appeared as if O'Keefe & Giles were entering the San Diego office with him dressed in hat & fur coat.

Unedited: Showed shirtsleeve --- no coat. Instead, dress shirt with pinstripes. (NOT shown in edited version.)

2. Human trafficking

Edited: Showed Vera offering advice on smuggling in girls.

Unedited (NOT shown in edited version): Showed Vera pushing Giles & O'Keefe for details and information.

Other material (AG report; video of Giles misquoting Vera) show that Vera had no intention of helping Giles and O'Keefe, but wanted information to pass along to police.

3. "You can do anything."

Here Maddow reports on the differences between Fox's editing of the videotape and the unedited version, NOT the difference between O'Keefe's public version and the unedited version (there isn't any difference for this particular clip).

FOX: LaVelle's "You can do anything " speech followed disclosure that Giles and O'Keefe wanted to start a prostitution business.

Unedited tape (and released tape): LaVelle's "You can do anything" speech followed disclosure that Giles and O'Keefe were being denied housing because Giles was a prostitute.

Hey, no problem Larry, glad to help. I know it's hard for some people to follow these things sometimes.

Larry what part of Juan Carlos Vera did nothing to help O'Keefe and Giles, took a bunch of pictures of them as they were leaving which made O'Keefe extremely nervous, and then placed a call to his the cousin the cop when they did leave do you not understand?

Larry O'Connor,

Your question---What part of the unedited tapes were shown on Maddow's 12 minute report that exonerates Mr. Vera's behavior?

The answer---

Your question doesn't make any sense.

When you look at the transcripts and tapes there is nothing to exonerate.

Your question only makes sense if one accepts the distorted representation of reality of O'Keefe's highly edited video.

Apparently, you do.

We don't.

Neither do any of the multiple investigations into this matter.

Your question doesn't make any sense.

Even when you ask it repeatedly.

@Lora #43

THANK YOU! Finally someone directly answers a direct question.

1. The video that Maddow claimed was unedited showing O'Keefe's shirt sleeve (thus proving he did not dress as a pimp in the office) was actually NOT from the unedited video it was absolutely in the edited video that O'Keefe released last September. Either Maddow was sloppy, or she purposely mis-informed, you decide.

But, what she did NOT include in her report was O'Keefe saying THIS in the unedited video:

But, um, I met her and we sort of fell in love and I'm trying to help her get set up
here with this with this sex business and maybe even one day I can take like a percentage a
percentage um like I dunno like 30% or something financially from the from the house that
we're running

And:

The girls would be my primary source of income.

Does that suggest that maybe he was posing as a pimp regardless of his clothing? You decide.

2. The clip you mention is a 30 second part of the unedited video which Maddow claims shows Vera "pressing and pressing and pressing" O'Keefe for details (presumably to set him up for a police sting)

But, did you know that the 30 second clip she showed contained an edit? And that edit omitted 17 minutes of dialog that did not fit her agenda? So they edited it to make it appear that Vera was "pressing and pressing and pressing" for more information from O'Keefe.

But, here is a quote form O'Keefe on the video:

I need to figure out like what, what things do you need um from, for our phone call tomorrow? What things do you need from me in terms of like the shipment information. What can I give you, what information would you further need would help you in, in advice you would give me?

Now, does it sound like O'Keefe needs to be "pressed" to give out information? You decide.

3. I was really only focusing on the Vera segment. I agree with you that this one is pretty innocuous. I'm surprised she didn't pull more out of the LA tapes. There is more there that could have made her case.

I think Maddow's producers did not serve her well at all. Her report was full of holes. It seemed they were more interested in making Fox look bad than they were in exposing truth behind the unedited video.

Honestly, I think Brad could have done a much better job. That is why I quarrel with the notion that Maddow exposed anything with this report and with the unedited videos. She really didn't in my opinion.

I hope Brad allows this comment to post in its entirety. It is really the point I wanted to make, but only after his readers viewed the Maddow piece in its entirety and reached the conclusion that @Lora did.

I also hope the readers acknowledge that I have attempted to offer a contrary perspective using the same facts that area available to anyone who wants to look for them and I have maintained a civil and respectful tone throughout this exchange.

If Brad posts this, I promise not to respond to any other feedback on this post.

Best,
Larry

@ Larry...

First of all Larry, that was all so entirely pointless. I can believe you put up that much of a stink to make those really innocuous talking points. Your whole argument has been that of a dog chasing its tail.

Congrats on finally biting down on the tip... but you still havent proven anything, and you still have avoided the real substance of the issue at hand.

Second, your promise to bow out gracefully belies your reluctance to answer why you, your boss or those kids neglected to say ANYTHING about the tragic story of "Kenya" and her charges.

Well, toodles pal... way to duck and cover.

correction to the above ----

that should have been "I cant believe you put up that much of a stink to make those really innocuous talking points, etc...."

Not like it matters... Lars wont address the issue of Kenya's tragic backgorund, or the potential rape that her charges faced. or maybe theyre brainstorming a way out of that one... who knows, they are all expert liars.

This is what is interesting about the BigGov style of analysis. They focus on irrelevant minutiae with such a blast that they block out the real significant matters at hand.

Gary Eaton above is a perfect example... in his world, it's Eric Boehlert who is to be held accountable for not viewing the tapes, rather than Breitbart for withholding them.

pretty freakin' backwards.

Larry @ 46,

You're welcome. I can see you were waiting with bated breath to be able to answer me.

So, let's see... The San Diego shirtsleeve. I watched all the edited videos I could find very carefully several weeks ago, specifically to look for what O'Keefe was wearing. My comment for the San Diego tape was "no shots of O'Keefe in office." So, unless you can back up your assertion that Maddow (and I) had it wrong, I call BS.

Now, the "sex business." Yes, I remember that. That particular video was unusual, in that it was one of O'Keefe's most blatant descriptions of what they were pretending to do. He and Giles were still pretending to be boyfriend and girlfriend; he was trying to set Hannah up in her own business; and he was expecting to sponge off Hannah indefinitely. Hannah was to be in charge of the business, not him. He made Giles out to be more like a pimp than he himself was in that video.

Now for the "pressing, pressing" part. Maddow shows the clip in which O'Keefe asks what information Vera needs. So 17 minutes goes by (what was in that 17 minutes, anyway?) and Vera is STILL asking for phone numbers, dates, etc...??? Sounds like "pressing" to me.

Here's my question to you, Larry:

What "holes" that you can provide back-up for did Maddow have?

Oh, wait....

"If Brad posts this, I promise not to respond to any other feedback on this post."

Awww, I guess we will never find out.

In closing, I say that Brad did a fine job, and Maddow's report did what it set out to do: showed that O'Keefe and Giles presented a heavily slanted picture of ACORN that exaggerated and lied about their own pretense and about the way ACORN and ACORN housing reps responded to them.

And Larry has not yet shown any "holes" in Maddow's report.

Lora @ 49 said:

And Larry has not yet shown any "holes" in Maddow's report

Right. But it didn't keep him from writing about it at Breitbart's site with enough words that Andy's tea bag boyz would beleive that he did (usually a descriptive headline is enough to satisfy the "journalistic" curiosity and "integrity" of that bunch.)

I'm afraid our dear Larry doesn't seem to have ever had an idea that his boss Andy Breitbart didn't have first. His Twitter feed ( @Stage_Right ) is a must read if you're wondering what's on Andy's mind/agenda at any given time. Really quite amusing actually.

Does he really expect with time constraints on a show to show the full unedited tapes on air? Maddow expects her viewers to actually go and watch the tapes for herself. Again Larry gets it wrong. You obviously have no idea what a pimp actually does. By his very definition anytime a husband is a stay at home dad and his wife works and he supports himself off her income he's not a mooch but instead a pimp. Mooching off of your girlfriends money does not make one a pimp. Only a blockhead would think that.

Before this thread drops below the fold…and so I can sleep tonight…I have to address Larry’s attempts again to discredit ACORN via Rachel Maddow at Breitbart’s site (Thanks to Brad @ 50 for the link). (Transcript links are on Larry’s article at Breitbart’s site, linked by Brad @ 50). (Emphasis is mine throughout.)

The SHIRTSLEEVE: “Edited vs. Unedited”

True, Larry was right: at the end of the Edited video is a glimpse of the shirtsleeve, same as in the Unedited video. BUT: in the Edited video, when the shirtsleeve was seen as O’Keefe was walking out of the building, the music was playing and it was shown as part of a montage – as in “B-roll,” with other clips that were not part of the interview at all! Something Larry did NOT bother to disclose!

“Pressing, pressing, pressing…”

Larry correctly describes Maddow playing an exchange in which O’Keefe was asking Vera what information he needed to help with transporting underage girls. When Maddow then plays a clip showing VERA pressing for information about a phone number from O’Keefe, Larry calls foul because the phone number clip happened earlier in the video. Larry writes that Maddow “tells her audience that O’Keefe purposely left out an important portion of this exchange, in which Vera asks O’Keefe for his phone number. “

Um, FALSE. Maddow did NOT say that. She says: “Actually, what you don’t see in that Fox news report, is the rest of the video…” …which includes Vera asking about the phone number.
(continued)

(cont'd from #52)

Larry then is quick to point out some things Maddow left out of her clips that didn’t “fit into her story.” He neglected to mention that he, O’Keefe, Breitbart, and Fox left out a few things, too, that certainly didn’t fit into THEIR story.

For example, what Larry left out is that Vera’s question about the phone number came after THIS (from the transcript p.8):

James[sic]: And it's I mean I can I can only imagine like how scary it was cuz like I was I'm from Miami and I was sold to the pimp here so like that was scary for me, but at least I was still in America.
Juan Carlos: Yeah.
James[sic]: And these girls are coming from overseas like to somewhere really foreign and they're young, so I just need advice on how to carry on with that, you know.
Juan Carlos: Okay.
James: It is an immigration issue, I guess. So,
Juan Carlos: So, is um so the telephone number is 201. What area is that?

Vera’s Intentions

Next, Larry casts doubt on the intentions of Vera, suggesting that Vera only “may have intended to report Giles and O’Keefe to the police.” This is a pretty funny statement, given that in the same sentence Larry reports that “Vera finally gave a detailed account of what had happened to law enforcement officials…” His logic escapes me. If you can figure out how Vera “may have” intended to report the scammers to the police, when in fact he actually DID report them, you are better than I am at logic. His full sentence:
“It wasn’t until nine days after the incident, when Vera finally gave a detailed account of what had happened to law enforcement officials, do we have any third party verification that Vera may have intended to report Giles and O’Keefe to the police.”

Vera’s English

Next Larry thinks Maddow mischaracterizes Vera’s understanding of English:

“Yeah, it seems like Vera understands quite a bit. But none of that behavior fits with Maddow’s characterization of Vera as an innocent ACORN employee who doesn’t speak English very well, who did the right thing and reported O’Keefe and Giles to the police.”

There are several pages of the transcript where O’Keefe tries to get advice on setting up a prostitution business and on classifying prostitution as performing arts. He gets a series of “yeah’s” from Vera and it appears he isn’t sure Vera understands him (p. 13):

Juan Carlos: you, you have your own business you need to prove the income. The income
James: Well, we can prove it by classifying it as uh performing arts.
Juan Carlos: Yeah.
James: Isn't that a way to do it?
Eden/Hannah: Isn't proving your incoming just giving cash to somebody like obviously
James: No. You have ta you have to classify it
Juan Carlos: Yeah.
James: and the tax form
Eden/Hannah: Oh.
James: is something so I'm I'm explaining to him is that you can classify it as um as not as prostitution but as performing arts. That way we can declare all the income. We can get past that first hurdle.
Juan Carlos: Yeah.

Larry mischaracterizes the entire show and ignores the fact that the unedited tapes and the CA AG’s report show an entirely different version than what Fox and Breitbart and O’Keefe ran with to discredit and blackball an entire organization whose employees didn’t do anything close to what was represented about them.