READER COMMENTS ON

"VIDEO: 'Andy Breitbart Explains It All For You' - An Exclusive Interview, Disturbing Admissions, and Manic Responses to the ACORN Video 'Pimp' Hoax"

(176 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... sophia said on 3/1/2010 @ 8:02 am PT...





Just a note on technology & compatibility-my crapberry does NOT support flash video-strange, huh? Just wondering how many out there, dependent on their 'smart phones' for info, don't get to see the good stuff. I can watch a lot of video posted on youtube, but not everything. I can't use my computer much anymore due to injury, so am frequently out of luck. Is there another format in which videos on bradblog can be posted for those of us who are shut out? Thanks!

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Shortbus said on 3/1/2010 @ 8:03 am PT...





It does matter Andy!

Release the Tapes! Thank You Mr.Stark, for a fine piece of work here.

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... Hugh Burns said on 3/1/2010 @ 10:05 am PT...





At the 9:38 mark of the video, Breitbart says "And you care about what the pimp was wearing," This statement appears to confirm that contrary to the truth. Breitbart is saying the O'keefe was posing as a pimp inside the ACORN offices, which he was not. Breitbart is not simply stating that O'keefe was dressed as a pimp for an intro, but Breitbart is impling that O'keefe was appearing as a pimp the entire time he was inside ACORN offices.

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... MP3 Obsession.com said on 3/1/2010 @ 10:28 am PT...





This might not be the right place to post this, but I just wanted to say what a great site.

I just stumbled across it and have wasted most of my day reading through old posts!

I'm definitely adding you to my feed list.

Thanks

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... camusrebel said on 3/1/2010 @ 11:00 am PT...





The NYT has no interest in the truth. They are a mouthpiece for a segment of society that would love to destroy ACORN. When Judy Wood was selling an illegal war like it was so much laundry detergent, do you think her bosses were unaware how completely false her bullshit was? No. They knew perfectly well it was crap. But it serves their masters agenda. Why did they sit on the illegal wiretaping story for 9 months until after the election? That rag is worse than Pravda. The sooner its inevitable demise occurs the better.

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Mitch said on 3/1/2010 @ 11:15 am PT...





Mr. Breitbart, I care what O'Keefe was wearing to ACORN's offices, but I care more about what sort of editing Mr. O'Keefe did to his videos. If the full unedited videos show what you claim, why are you not releasing them? Most people are anxious to be vindicated by evidence they control. I suspect, based on your behavior in the video attached to this article, that you realize the unedited videos would seriously damage your "credibility." If someone really believed that "it doesn't matter" what O'Keefe wore to the ACORN offices, and did not think the gist of the videos was edited to present a deception, here's what they would do: they would show the unedited videos to anyone interested, hand out transcripts to anyone interested, and say the costume worn to the office was irrelevant. Your audience would agree with you. I'm in my mid-fifties and have spent most of my professional life training software engineers and doing computer programming myself. I'm not an ideologue except that I don't like lies. Even more than I don't like lies, I don't like the arrogance of newspapers like the Times, which don't think they need to correct lies they've helped spread. That means I actually think more highly of you than I do of the public editor at the Times. I think of myself as liberal. The next time you think of the left-wing media (a/k/a The Times), please take a moment to think of this: as a liberal, I think the Times is basically a tool of power and wealth, without a liberal thought to be found in its building. If you're looking for "liberal," look to non-US media.

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... CharlieL said on 3/1/2010 @ 11:39 am PT...





@MP3 Obsession.com Spending a day in the Bradblog archives is NEVER a waste. Everybody out there who thinks they are getting "the story" from The New York Times or even from The Atlantic or even The Nation should spend a day in the archives of this site. It might very well be the most educational day spent online. @camusrebel I think you meant Judith Miller, but your sentiment is completely correct. NYT editors KNEW she was full of crap, and they didn't care. They refused to cover election fraud fairly. They refused to cover the fact that Bush was using an earpiece at many points in his illegal occupancy, including during at least one Presidential debate, and perhaps at his 9/11 testimony. They refuse to cover most of the "problems" with the 9/11 story. They basically refuse to cover anything outside the very narrow frame of Republicans and Democrats and the status quo.

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... T.R.O. said on 3/1/2010 @ 12:07 pm PT...





It is pretty interesting to compare and contrast the angst that the New York Times experienced a couple of years ago regarding a story dealing with John McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Anybody remember that? Such fretting and soul wrenching by Keller as has not been witnessed since, and most surely not in attempting to establish the veracity of the Pimpostor's verbal assertions, nor his videos' veracity. The ACORN stories were certainly not handled with the studied reticence,nor with utmost delicacy as to not offend delicate sensibilities,as was the McCain scenario. Read the piece and decide for yourself: The Long Run-Up | The New Republic

After three different versions, the piece ended up not as a stand-alone investigation but as an entry in the paper's “The Long Run” series looking at ...

www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-long-run - Cached - Similar How many other stories ,on another note, has the NYT "spiked",btw?

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... T.R.O. said on 3/1/2010 @ 12:18 pm PT...





@#7 A verynarrow frame as to not properly reveal the bigger picture.

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Adam Fulford said on 3/1/2010 @ 12:35 pm PT...





@Sophia, from a google search, it looks like there may be applications to install flash video functionality on Blackberries:

http://www.google.ca/sea...ackberry+flash+video+app Brad et al, you should seriously consider creating a mirror site compatible with mobile phones, eg bradblog.mobi:

http://www.dailyblogtips...bsite-on-a-mobile-phone/ Learn from the porn industry that was always quickest to implement and utilize the latest technologies (from the earliest movies to the most contemporary video technologies). Beat the mainstream media by being ahead of it (as you are, of course).

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/1/2010 @ 12:42 pm PT...





Brad and Mike--technical issue- On the print out text for this post, in 4th paragraph which starts--"But then my luck turned", the 2nd sentence is interrupted after "..basement to cover the.."and jumps to the 3rd sentence picking it up at "previously questioned Breitbart..". Bunch of words missing in between.

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 3/1/2010 @ 1:02 pm PT...





Thanks, David L. HTML typo! Good catch. Have fixed. Gracias!

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Adam Fulford said on 3/1/2010 @ 1:17 pm PT...





This looks like a better link than the other one I gave to test BradBlog.com's compatibility with mobile phones:

http://mobiready.com

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 3/1/2010 @ 1:46 pm PT...





The first seconds of the video, I was going to comment on how calm he seems, but I was going to ask why he always seems to have a permanent frown on and circles under his eyes. Then he flipped out. He looks insane.

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... OR Native said on 3/1/2010 @ 2:01 pm PT...





Dear Mr. Hoyt,

Here is the general public AND congress's "take away" of your stories on O'Keefe's video's. Dressed as a Pimp, O'Keefe entered ACORN offices from coast to coast and asked for help running a child prostitution ring AND how to hide the income from the IRS and ACORN did not alert the authorities. What the transcript, a video taped interview of one of the actors in the video and a video taped interview of the producer now confirm is that Mr. O'Keefe was dressed in an oxford shirt and Dockers in ALL of the Acron offices and that he never openly said he was a pimp or that he was going to be bringing young women into the country to work as prostitutes or sex slaves. Additionally, for the first week or so, your coverage did not include easily verifiable claims that several ACORN offices did call the police to report the encounters OR include interviews with ACORN employees in the offices named in the video for their account. Now three months later the impression the Public AND Congress has of ACORN's actions during and after this attempted "sting" is still factually incorrect. This false impression is due largely to your papers "reporting" which we now know did not meet the highest of journalistic standards that the NYT has historically applied. Unlike many people who have contacted you demanding a correction of one or two aspects of this story Im strongly suggesting that if the NYT expects to maintain the confidence of the American Public as The Paper of Record that they devote significant and prominent space to correcting the misleading impression your coverage has left in the public's mind. Anything less is and admission that you can be easily manipulated and will be too embarassed to admit it when confronted with hard evidence. Your continued refusal to set the record straight only shows that you care more about the papers "perceived political balance" than the consequences that manipulation has had on hundreds of thousands of Americans dependent upon ACORN for stabilizing their lives and providing an opportunity to live with dignity and participate EQUALLY in our democracy.

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 3/1/2010 @ 2:29 pm PT...





Great job, Mike. This is exactly the kind of quality citizen journalism that can make a huge difference in the long run, as opposed to the bottom-feeding, short-term, high voltage, possibly illegal (?)and definitely manufactured "splash" The Effin'Times likes to repeatedly lie about. So, thank you. A portion of my tax refund has just been re-appropriated by my internal moral-center steering committee and will land in yours (and Brad's) PAYPAL account as soon as it's birthed into direct deposit being. I, like others here I'm sure, would love to see a play by play of O'Keefe's raw video / audio review and analysis from AV and intelligence experts just to see what else was bogusly bought. If (and when) Doofus-Boofy releases them, please pass the PAYPAL hat so I can contribute. Can't think of a better way to spend what would have been my $50.00 / year New York TIMES SUBSCRIPTION dollars. Keep up the great work. (Tweeting away: NYT Public Editor #CLARKHOYT RETRACT #Breitbart's INSANE #O'keefeACORNHOAX #Clark Hoyt #GIANTDOUCHEBAG #NYTIMESFAIL http://bit.ly/blwEWa

less than 5 seconds ago via web) (Big Dan @#14 - HA!)

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 3/1/2010 @ 2:38 pm PT...





Also wondering: Was this interview filmed before or after Breitbart's freaky-deaky confession /acceptance speech where he opened with that sarcastic admission of guilt that fell flat because his audience doesn't read BRADBLOG? (Welcome MP3!)

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... sophia said on 3/1/2010 @ 3:40 pm PT...





@adam fulford-many thanks-did go to the adobe site long ago to no avail. They are only just coming out with a new crosplatform mobile phone capability. Not sure what to do on the mobi web page. I'll jut get on my computer and watch the fun another time. Ciao!

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... PatriotNW said on 3/1/2010 @ 3:57 pm PT...





So, he will "release" the unedited video if he can get a moment to grandstand and try to weasel more attention through a larger media blitz, but he won't release the video purely for journalistic integrity? I have a song for you, Breitbart. "Old MacDonald knew a man and Lame-O was his Name-O. L-A-M-E.O. L-A-M-E.O. L-A-M-E.O. And Lame-O was his Name-O"

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 3/1/2010 @ 4:08 pm PT...





Jeanie Dean @ 17 asked: Also wondering: Was this interview filmed before or after Breitbart's freaky-deaky confession /acceptance speech where he opened with that sarcastic admission of guilt that fell flat because his audience doesn't read BRADBLOG? It was in the hall, must BEFORE he went on stage and made that "freaky-deaky confession". Do his comment there make more sense now?

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 3/1/2010 @ 4:09 pm PT...





BREAKING: Brooklyn D.A. says "No criminality found" at Brooklyn ACORN. Law enforcement source tells NYDailyNews: "They edited the video to meet their agenda". No kidding? Details: https://bradblog.com/?p=7721

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... zapkitty said on 3/1/2010 @ 5:06 pm PT...





Nothing to add to Brad and Mike re: Bitefart ... but you are aware that "MP3 Obsession.com" is a spambot, right?

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... camusrebel said on 3/1/2010 @ 5:54 pm PT...





yeah, wow, I really mixed up my Judys. While I'm basking in my mistakes...I mentioned a few days ago that Howard Baker was helping to defend O'Keefe and his 3 co-criminals in the NOLA bugging. I got that from the comments section of another blog. Trying to verify it I came up empty. Fact checking can be fun and rewarding, maybe Hoyt and co. should try it.

COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... sophia said on 3/1/2010 @ 6:04 pm PT...





BTW-the comments on the Politico site, below the article linked in the comments here, are quite amusing-a dogfight between the braindead teabagger zombies (convinced that it's all a liberal set up b/c the investigation took place in new york) and a few stalwarts who actually know what is happening re: costuming, set-ups & the like. Kinda fun. Enjoy. A never go to Politico-it's so partisan I wheeze while reading its 'in the know' posts. Ciao!

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... bartkid said on 3/1/2010 @ 6:19 pm PT...





(No relation to bartcop, brietbart, or even bart simpson.) As a personal favour to me, can everyone from now on call this person Brietborat? Thank you.

COMMENT #26 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 3/1/2010 @ 6:19 pm PT...





CamusRebel - It's Howard Baker's lead attorney from the Senate Watergate committee who is representing O'keefe. From back when Baker was the ranking Repub on the committee.

COMMENT #27 [Permalink]

... Adam Fulford said on 3/1/2010 @ 6:43 pm PT...





... sophia said on 3/1/2010 @ 3:40 pm PT... Not sure what to do on the mobi web page. Sorry, that was just the first page I found on testing website mobile phone compatibility. I think I just confused matters with it, lol (also, seems to be someone's affiliate link --- not mine --- whoops). Anyway, basically a .mobi site would just be a site specifically designed to be seen on mobile phones.

COMMENT #28 [Permalink]

... Danny Guam said on 3/1/2010 @ 6:46 pm PT...





Sorry Brad, but he is already known as blartblart.

(thanks to SadlyNo)

COMMENT #29 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/1/2010 @ 7:35 pm PT...





"Oh what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practice to deceive!" --- Sir Walter Scott

COMMENT #30 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/1/2010 @ 7:36 pm PT...





Highly edited, deceptive video with no transcript or unedited audio. Also, it lies about whether O'Keefe pretended to be a pimp. He and Giles said they were setting up a house for Giles and underaged girls to turn tricks and give the money to O'Keefe for his Congressional campaign. Your claim that he was not pretending to be a pimp is just an attempt to rewrite history and it is a goddamned lie. Luckily none of this matters to anyone but you idiots. Most people understand that a guy who sets up a house of prostitution and takes the proceeds is a pimp. You're the only ones too stupid or dishonest to understand that. That's why Hoyt says your view of what happened on the video is partisan and not credible. He's right there. [Ed Note: Consider this your warning, Patty. We have a very few rules for commenting here. Among them, no personal insults to other commenters. Please respect those rules at this site, even if no such similar courtesies or decency exists over at your own blog. Thanks. - BF]

COMMENT #31 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/1/2010 @ 8:30 pm PT...





Coupla things-- 1. Mike, I apologize for my critical self as I think you're doing great work here but I have to say it was disconcerting given the subject matter to see so many edits throughout your piece. From what I've seen of Breitbart I have no reason to think he is being misrepresented here in the slightest but given the fractious history of the particulars in this story all the editing makes me kinda queasy. 2. Particularly helpful in this video to see Breitbart not behaving always like an angry madman. When he's calmer it's much easier to hear his point of view. 3. Seeing/hearing him in this new way leads me to think he is completely sincere in his belief that he is doing the right and upstanding thing, fighting the good fight. I believe this fight of his is based on almost 100% pure magical thinking, but I think Breitbart believes in what he is doing. I suspect he is not consciously trying to be manipulative or deceitful. 4. The big thing I want to comment on, therefore, is a different way of dealing with Bartleby the Pimpener and his cohorts. But it's late in the East and I fear it may take an hour or two to comment coherently and do the topic justice. Maybe tomorrow. Good night all. And Mike Stark, thanks for this work. Invaluable.

COMMENT #32 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/1/2010 @ 8:37 pm PT...





"it was disconcerting given the subject matter to see so many edits throughout your piece." Just go to the unedited audio. Oh, that's right. There is none. I bet Breitbart destroys Stark in the portions left on the cutting room floor. Kind of like when Larry O'Connor destroyed Blumenthal and Blumenthal left that part on the cutting room floor. Luckily someone else taped it. Release the full video, Stark! WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?!?!?!?!

COMMENT #33 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/1/2010 @ 8:37 pm PT...





I hope my fellow Brodblogdinians will not mistake my words for a yielding of even a millimeter of ground on the substantive issues here. I do not yield anything on all that Brad has uncovered. I'm just interested in a different, possibly more constructive(possibly impossible), way of dealing with the madness.

COMMENT #34 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/1/2010 @ 8:51 pm PT...





Patterico-- Do I come shit in your house? What are you doing? What's the purpose of coming in here screaming insults? If you just need to scream and have a shit fit, I guess I can understand that. And I won't bother you any more. Go at it. But if you're interested in dialogue I can assure you, conversations that start off with Linda Blair projectile vomits across the bow usually result in just a messy deck. So if messing up the deck is your aim, you're doing great. If you're interested in dialogue... Got any other approach shots?

COMMENT #35 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/1/2010 @ 8:53 pm PT...





Sorry, shoulda specified--Patterico @ 30

COMMENT #36 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/1/2010 @ 8:57 pm PT...





David Lasagna, I come in here as I do because of the breathtaking dishonesty of the host of the site and of the author of this piece. You want to have a civil discussion, you and me, that's fine. I didn't insult YOU. Just the people I already know to be liars. So, let's start our civil discussion. I put this to you: don't you agree that O'Keefe pretended to be a pimp at ACORN, regardless of how he was dressed?

COMMENT #37 [Permalink]

... The Devolutionist said on 3/1/2010 @ 10:23 pm PT...





Did he actually ask why BradBlog doesn't go after the Merry Pranksters? Seriously? Um, how about because that was the 1960s, Ken Kesey is DEAD, and I don't recall that the Pranksters did anything as outrageous and propagandistic as what O'Keefe and Breitbart pulled? How's that for a start. If Breitbart is not in fact putting on one of the greatest pieces of performance art in history, then he is mentally unbalanced and should seek help.

COMMENT #38 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 3/1/2010 @ 10:31 pm PT...





Patterico @ 30: Patty, I hadn't seen your note @ 30 before replying to the last one. I'll repeat what I added to it as an Ed Note up there: [Ed Note: Consider this your warning, Patty. We have a very few rules for commenting here. Among them, no personal insults to other commenters. Please respect those rules at this site, even if no such similar courtesies or decency exists over at your own blog. Thanks. - BF] You are welcome to hurl personal insults at me if you like, if that's the best case you're able to muster, but you are not welcome to do so at other commenters here, as per those rules. Thank you again, in advance, for respecting them here.

COMMENT #39 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/1/2010 @ 10:32 pm PT...





Patterico @ 36-- Way past sleepytime. I'll get to your question on the morrow. But I have not read all the transcripts. Maybe I can find them somewhere tomorrow and print them out so I can take a good look at them. Have you gone through all the transcripts? Wouldn't that be helpful, if we're both up to speed on what's supposed to be in them? Maybe you are already. I'm not, yet.

COMMENT #40 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 3/1/2010 @ 10:36 pm PT...





David Lasagna @ 31 said: 1. Mike, I apologize for my critical self as I think you're doing great work here but I have to say it was disconcerting given the subject matter to see so many edits throughout your piece. From what I've seen of Breitbart I have no reason to think he is being misrepresented here in the slightest but given the fractious history of the particulars in this story all the editing makes me kinda queasy. No worries, Dave. Stark told Breitbart during the taping that he'd be releasing the full, unedited videos (since Andy couldn't be honest enough to do same for his false vids). But I think Mike just wanted to wait for folks like Patty to start screaming hypocrisy first Full transcript will also be available. But not unless Patty says pretty please. 3. Seeing/hearing him in this new way leads me to think he is completely sincere in his belief that he is doing the right and upstanding thing, fighting the good fight. I believe this fight of his is based on almost 100% pure magical thinking, but I think Breitbart believes in what he is doing. I suspect he is not consciously trying to be manipulative or deceitful. You've been conned. Andy knows *precisely* what he's doing. He knows it has nothing to do with government corruption or prostitution rings (else he'd have bothered to publish even one article on this). It's a purely political game for him, no matter how many good folks get hurt in the bargain. But no worries, you wouldn't be the first to have fallen for his loathsome scams (yup, talking to you, New York Times!

COMMENT #41 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/1/2010 @ 10:58 pm PT...





Friedman the hypocrite calls me "Patty" in the same sentence where he decries my lack of civility. At least he says I am free to call him a shameless liar, and so I will. As for his other commenters, anyone else who repeats his shameless lies will get the same treatment. Mr. Lasagna, by contrast, claims to be for civil discussion and I will take him at his word. Accordingly, I will talk to him civilly, declare Friedman a liar, and deal with others as their behavior warrants.

COMMENT #42 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/1/2010 @ 11:31 pm PT...





My Dearest Bradford @ 40 Was that really the end of your comment? You finished with me quoting me? As to being conned, I must beg to differ, my liege. I do not think I have been conned for I believe naught that he says. I am merely of opinion that I am seeing a fool who believes his own foolishness. In this I am certainly only witnessing the most common of occurrences--a human enamored of their own magic thinking. Is this being conned? Say it is not so, my lord and king. And my careful friend, though you have offered volumes testifying to the extent that Breitbart, O'Keefe, and Consorts have mislead and misrepresented in these matters, I have seen no one offer a deep, authoritative, psychological profile as to motivation.(And I'm not complaining or suggesting you need to do this, I'm just saying...) I'm not speaking here of obvious political motivations. I'm referring to the deeper more personal ones. Just because people are doing things, saying things that defy common sense or are 180 degrees opposite of previous things they've said, does not mean that they don't fully believe themselves in the moment or that they haven't found a way to completely and happily ignore previous statements. I know this for a fact. An incredibly painful and unhappily experienced more than once personal fact. So please hold off a bit on the notion that I've been conned. I think I'm just seeing a possible different motivational construct than you are. In this case. My dear friend. Sure could be wrong. Don't have a ton to go on. But from what I'm seen, for now I'm sticking with he's sincere. Have I mentioned that I'm a dog? I think I have some dog sense about people. I'm a fucking addict here, Brad. I was going to bed two hours ago. Now it's almost 2:30 and I still have to drop a note to Serpico.

COMMENT #43 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 3/1/2010 @ 11:32 pm PT...





Patterico @ 41 said: Accordingly, I will talk to him civilly, declare Friedman a liar, and deal with others as their behavior warrants. If you do not wish to be banned, but rather prefer to stay here and make your case --- whatever you may wish it to be today, and whether it disagrees with mine or not --- you will follow the simple rules here, or you won't be participating, Mr. Deputy D.A. Thank you in advance again. Oh...and since you've repeatedly used it to call me a liar (and worse, suggesting I support child prostitution or some such utterly dishonest nonsense), I'm renewing my request again for descriptions of the procedure you used to authenticate the so-called "unedited audio" you've repeatedly referred to as "proof" of this or that. I realize you're time spent as a wingnut blogger is separate from your work as the Deputy D.A., but I'm sure, given your job, you know what it means to authenticate evidence such as audio, to determine whether or not it's edited or "unedited" as you've claimed with certainty. Your explanation will be helpful here, so we can put all such concerns on that point to rest.

COMMENT #44 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/1/2010 @ 11:41 pm PT...





Mr Patterico @ 41-- Now that I have so unabashedly and shamelessly declared my love for Mr. Badly Fried Man I fear that I may have despoiled our chance for civility. I hope you can find it in your heart to pursue civil discourse, even for one such as I who holds in high esteem him whom you revile. In any case, before I got caught up in my love disagreement with Brad, I was gonna tell you I've printed out 78 pages of the trancsripts from New York and Baltimore. I hope that's sufficient and representative. I'll read them tomorrow. Have you read them? Are we gonna be comparing the same notes?

COMMENT #45 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 3/1/2010 @ 11:49 pm PT...





Lasagna @ 42: Was that really the end of your comment? You finished with me quoting me? My bad. Have cleaned up behind myself there. Apologies for the confusion! As to being conned, I must beg to differ, my liege. I do not think I have been conned for I believe naught that he says. I am merely of opinion that I am seeing a fool who believes his own foolishness. As I said, you've been conned As to the rest, as ever, I'll stick to reporting what I can actually prove, and leave you guys to the speculation and pondering

COMMENT #46 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 12:15 am PT...





"I am merely of opinion that I am seeing a fool who believes his own foolishness." Says Mr. Civil. OK, Mr. Lasagna. Let everyone note who leveled the first insult. Oh: Friedman is a liar. Did I mention that? He is currently coupled with Boehlert in a hoax --- still uncorrected --- claiming O'Keefe has not released the ACORN audio. Liar Friedman knows what he said is not true. But he has not retracted. Odd, for the guy who claims to care about truth. I said "claims."

COMMENT #47 [Permalink]

... SreeBee said on 3/2/2010 @ 12:22 am PT...





I just want to offer my sincere thanks to Mike Stark, Brad Feidman and ESPECIALLY to the "disgusting" Eric Boelhert for exposing Breitbart, O'Keefe and the rest of the BigGov smear-squad for the power-hungry, lunatic predators that they are!!!!! The world owes you all an incredible debt of gratitude for taking a stand against Breitbart's dark-age assault on reason, decency and compassion. Mike, i'm sure it could not have been easy to share your past as you had in this article, but I commend you for doing so. People need to know that there are faces behind social services. People need to know that ACORN serves real people with real problems... that its not just all political symbols. I really hope your statement gets much more distribution... particularly to those that really need to read it. The points you bring up are too important, albeit completely ignored in the overall discussion of this matter. Thanks for the good work!

COMMENT #48 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 12:24 am PT...





I debunk some of the lies and myths spread by Friedman, Boehlert, etc. here. Using evidence and facts.

COMMENT #49 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 12:25 am PT...





I could have included the lies spread by Stark's video, discussed in this post. Oh well. Read the post and you'll see just where Stark has also lied.

COMMENT #50 [Permalink]

... Chris Hooten said on 3/2/2010 @ 1:46 am PT...





Patterico:

Ha hahah hahhahah hahahahah hahahah hah. You are obviously Breitbart. How's it goin'?:-) Are you seriously going to come in here and try to tell the regulars that Brad is a big liar, and then lie about what Brad was supposedly "lying" about? How sad. Good luck with that one.

COMMENT #51 [Permalink]

... camusrebel said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:32 am PT...





Pattie...among your other personal issues you seem to have an inflated ego. Mine may be one of the least nimble of minds here, yet even I knew the "fool believing own foolishness" was directed at not too Brightbart. Is it true he is you? I do not really believe it. Yet, you jump to the unfounded belief that Mr. Lasagna was talking about you when it is clear even to a blue collar hack like myself he was not. You did this to put him on notice for having cast the first uncivil stone. Dare we ask for a retraction?

COMMENT #52 [Permalink]

... Paul L. said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:49 am PT...





So when is Mike Stark going to release the whole unedited video? Since that is﻿ the standard of Journalism Brad Friedman claims should be followed.

COMMENT #53 [Permalink]

... Ancient said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:51 am PT...





And here is yet another example of nytimes affinity for printing lies: http://original.antiwar....he-iaea-reports-on-iran/ The link was from Chris Floyd's Empire Burlesque: http://www.chris-floyd.com/ iraq wmd lies, acorn protecting pimp lies and now iran iaea lies. All the lies fit to print.

COMMENT #54 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:37 am PT...





PaulL @ 52 asked: So when is Mike Stark going to release the whole unedited video? Since that is﻿ the standard of Journalism Brad Friedman claims should be followed. Actually, I believe you've misrepresented what I've said about that. What I said was that Breitbart/O'Keefe refuse to release the unedited videos, and have pointed out that, given the repeated questions about the edited versions validity, as to their accuracy and whether they were (as a law enforcement source was quoted saying yesterday as the D.A. cleared Brooklyn ACORN of criminality), "edited to meet their agenda", obviously, the unedited videos should be released so that we can all determine what actually did or didn't happen in those offices. If there were no questions about the veracity of O'Keefe and Breitbart and no claims that the tapes were misrepresentative of what actually happened, etc. there would be no need to release the raw footage of the highly-doctored, heavily-overdubbed, secretly-taped ACORN videos, there would be no need, nor no call for the release of the unedited versions. But since the credibility of O'Keefe and Breitbart has obviously taken a serious hit as each have been caught now in one scam after another in regard to these tapes (and, in O'Keefe's case, to federal felonies he has allegedly committed) the deceptive duo has a responsibility to support their supposed "journalism" with transparency that they have so far showed unwilling to do. That said, when Mike Stark interviewed Breitbart in the damning video as seen above, he promised Breitbart he'd release the full, unedited version of the video. And so he will. And thanks for playing along. Don't know if he will do so when Breitbart and O'Keefe release theirs, or if he plans to do so sooner or not. I should add, btw, that apparently unlike Breitbart, I actually bothered to review the entirety of those unedited videos before publishing the edited one here, by way of due dilligence. Too bad Breitbart either didn't do same, or did, but then subsequently lied about it.

COMMENT #55 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:45 am PT...





Patterico @ 46 said: Oh: Friedman is a liar. Did I mention that? He is currently coupled with Boehlert in a hoax --- still uncorrected --- claiming O'Keefe has not released the ACORN audio. Liar Friedman knows what he said is not true. But he has not retracted. Now, Patty, when I pointed you (several times) to those few rules for posting comments here at The BRAD BLOG, I presumed you'd actually bother to read them. Given they are all of 5 or 6 sentences long, I'd figured a Deputy D.A. such as yourself would be able to make it all the way through them. But apparently you didn't bother --- or didn't care. We have a rule against spreading "knowing disinformation" here. Now we know that you know the above is disinformative, since I've corrected you on it previously, and you've acknowledged that correction. So are you going to clarify the disinformation you've just posted here? Or do I have to start moderating your posts for prior-approval and/or start banning you entirely? I'd much rather not have to treat you like a Kindergartner, so please correct the record here. Thank you. Also, still waiting to hear about how you, Patrick Frey, Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney went about authenticating the "unedited audio" that you claim proves this thing and that thing to be a "lie", etc. Thank you again in advance for doing the right thing. I'm sure you've got it in you. You were once a very decent fellow when I hosted you in studio on my radio show, so I can only hope that your appalling behavior on the web is a show for your fans, rather than a real testament to your character (or, lack thereof, depending on what you do from here.)

COMMENT #56 [Permalink]

... BlueHawk said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:24 am PT...





In a video interview posted Monday at Crooks and Liars, Stark Reports, as well as The Brad Blog, Breitbart, filmed by blogger Mike Stark at the recent CPAC convention, claims he did not know the facts about O'Keefe's pimp outfit. (See video below.) That quote is from the Smirking Chimp (link here) This story is getting some cyber traction...

COMMENT #57 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:36 am PT...





You know what's funny? Isn't Patterico whining for the full video of Breitbart to be released, but not the full ACORN video?

COMMENT #58 [Permalink]

... BlueHawk said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:50 am PT...





Big Dan @57 I was just finished catching up on Patty's comedy from earlier....when you stated what I saw too. Why isn't Patty asking for Breitbart to release his whole vids too ? It's really telling that Patty insists that only Stark release unedited video, but he ignores Breitbart edited con job. Patty seems to be just a self serving dis-informationist. He's only here to muddy the discussion and sling unfounded shit. Ipso facto; Patty = Troll

COMMENT #59 [Permalink]

... TLV said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:55 am PT...





Remember when the police or the "nut squad in the white coats" or some other kind soul would gently take the screaming wacko from the town square and make sure he or she was put in a safe place?

COMMENT #60 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:59 am PT...





Patterico = Breitbart spokesman Breitbart = O'Keefe spokesman The other day when I said O'Keefe had to ask his parole officer for permission to go to CPAC to accept an award, Patterico said not to believe Olbermann, assuming I got that from Olbermann. Patterico said: "(Also, O'Keefe had to get permission from his parole officers to accept his award at CPAC.) - Uh, no he didn't. Don't believe everything you hear on Olbermann's rantshow. https://bradblog.com/?p=7710#comment-420453 I then pointed out this article to Patterico, good thing I cut/pasted the ENTIRE article in a previous Brad Blog comment: Bustin' loose: O’Keefe wrestles with parole officer to make CPAC

By: Nikki Schwab and Tara Palmeri

Washington Examiner

02/17/10 8:46 AM EST Thanks to the courts, he’s stuck in Jersey. But conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe is desperately trying to claw his way to the Conservative Political Action Conference. O’Keefe told Yeas & Nays he’s in the process of petitioning his parole officer to let him cross state lines to make the big event Thursday where he will be awarded the “XPAC Annual Award for Impact” for cracking ACORN with his pimp suit and, of course, his most recent attempt at high jinks in the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. “We’re having this e-mail exchange right now, actually,” O’Keefe said about his correspondence with his parole officer. O’Keefe isn’t on complete lockdown — he did spend Presidents Day on the ski slopes of New Jersey. But for a trip to the District for CPAC to join his cohort Hannah Giles, he’ll have to beg. “But hopefully I should be able to make it down to D.C. on Thursday,” he said. If he can’t make an appearance, he plans to do a prerecorded or satellite interview with Town Hall’s Kevin McCullough that will appear Friday. But even if he does make an appearance, don’t expect him to be raging at the concerts, comedy shows or bar parties. “That’s just not my scene,” O’Keefe said. Read more at the Washington Examiner: Well that article now looks like this at the same exact link, notice the differences: Bustin' loose: O’Keefe wrestles with parole officer to make CPAC

By: Nikki Schwab and Tara Palmeri

Washington Examiner

02/17/10 8:46 AM EST Update: O'Keefe is on pre-trial release, not parole, as he told Yeas & Nays last week. "I've called it a parole officer, but she's actually from 'pre-trial services,'" O'Keefe said. His officer is from the Pretrial Services Agency District of New Jersey. Thanks to the courts, he’s stuck in Jersey. But conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe is desperately trying to claw his way to the Conservative Political Action Conference. O’Keefe told Yeas & Nays he’s in the process of petitioning his parole officer to let him cross state lines to make the big event Thursday where he will be awarded the “XPAC Annual Award for Impact” for cracking ACORN with his pimp suit and, of course, his most recent attempt at high jinks in the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. “We’re having this e-mail exchange right now, actually,” O’Keefe said about his correspondence with his parole officer. O’Keefe isn’t on complete lockdown — he did spend Presidents Day on the ski slopes of New Jersey. But for a trip to the District for CPAC to join his cohort Hannah Giles, he’ll have to beg. “But hopefully I should be able to make it down to D.C. on Thursday,” he said. If he can’t make an appearance, he plans to do a prerecorded or satellite interview with Town Hall’s Kevin McCullough that will appear Friday. But even if he does make an appearance, don’t expect him to be raging at the concerts, comedy shows or bar parties. “That’s just not my scene,” O’Keefe said. Read more at the Washington Examiner: At the same exact link: http://www.washingtonexa...28327.html#ixzz0h2ijxqlN Here's my original comment with the original cut/paste of the entire article that has changed: https://bradblog.com/?p=7710#comment-420457 I received no reply from Patterico on this. Patterico wants an apology from Olbermann on quoting O'Keefe himself!!! Any comments on this Patterico??? I think Patterico has to apologize to Olbermann!

COMMENT #61 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:16 am PT...





CamusRebel @#51 re: Patterico ~ Not only the misdirection w/ our Lasagna , but from the same nasty pissy-fanny who raged in here refering to Brad as "liar Friedman", called us all "idiots" and "too stupid or dishonest to understand" the rather basic evidence presented here, then honked on like a crazy person about the kind of "treatment" we all deserve from him for believing facts... ...and "Patty" and "foolish" are the uncivil attacks that get his britches zippered?

Wow. Sensitive lil' sociopath.

COMMENT #62 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:19 am PT...





...and I mean that in the most respectful sense of the word.

COMMENT #63 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/2/2010 @ 11:10 am PT...





Patterico, aka Mark Frey, wrote @30 He and Giles said they were setting up a house for Giles and underaged girls to turn tricks and give the money to O'Keefe for his Congressional campaign. ______________________ Facts: O'Keefe, who went in dressed like a college student, said nothing of the sort. He first told the ACORN workers that he was a law student and that he intended to run for student government. He never said he was a pimp. His motives, he implied, were benevolent; that he was just trying to help Giles get away from "this guy." Later, well into the charade, O'Keefe identifies "this guy" as "a pimp." But he does not identify himself as a "pimp." Aside from the one occasion where he slipped in the word "tricks," both O'Keefe and Giles suggest benevolent motives in trying to provide the young girls from El Salvador "shelter," though they offer an occasional, ambiguous "putting them to work." O'Keefe never said he would solicit customers for Giles or anyone else. He never said that either Giles or anyone else would either be working for him or giving him money for setting up the house. In fact, at p. 37 of the 46-page transcript, O'Keefe said "I am not going to be with the house. That is why I am trying to get her independent." At p. 40, after repeatedly stressing his benevolent motives and Giles's "independence," O'Keefe slips in the word "we" for the first time, at a point when the ACORN worker appears to be addressing Giles. (According to Harshbarger, the ACORN workers thought of Giles as a client and were focused more on what she was saying). O'Keefe: "We gonna use a lot of the money that we are getting." ACORN worker: “You don’t want to use all of it?” O'Keefe: "No. We want to use a lot of cash in my campaign." ACORN worker: “But what I am saying is like put maybe 200 in the bank every week.” Giles: "Cause like all of a sudden, cause I can’t put all my cash…I could not part with it.” It is nothing short of disingenuous for an attorney to scour a 46 page transcript in order to parse a few disparate sentences containing the words "underage girls," "tricks," "we" and "money" and to then reassemble these unconnected words and phrases into "posed as a pimp" after O'Keefe, by his attire and by his words, uttered over the first 39 pages, repeatedly suggested that he had accompanied Giles to ACORN solely in the capacity of a friend. But such is the level of the verbal gymnastics the would-be slayers of ACORN are prepared to go. These were not law students asked to spot the issues at a bar exam, Mr. Frey. They were low level, part time employees who were duped the right wing con-artist you extol as heroes at your site. In the meantime, Mr. Frey, you still haven't answered a basic question. As a Deputy DA for LA County, don't you think it creates a bit of an ethical dilemma for you to be defending O'Keefe and Giles when your office should be investigating these two for a possible criminal violation of CA Penal Code Section 632?

COMMENT #64 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/2/2010 @ 1:02 pm PT...





Apropos my last comment, The word "pimp" is defined as "a person, esp. a man, who solicits customers for a prostitute or a brothel, usually in return for a share of the earnings; pander; procurer." Neither O'Keefe nor Giles so much as hinted that O'Keefe would "solicit customers" for Giles, let alone that he would do so "in return for a share of the earnings." Also, Mr. Frey, in a separate piece, you accused Brad Friedman of "lying" when he said that we do not have the "complete" transcripts. We only have the word of accused federal felon O'Keefe and his serial dissembling employer, Breitbart, that these are the complete, unedited audios and transcripts. However, the Baltimore transcript only records conversations between these two scam artists and two ACORN employees. Former MA AG Harshbarger, who, in addition to reviewing the dubbed videos and reading the transcripts, interviewed numerous ACORN employees, says that Giles & O'Keefe actually spoke to three ACORN employees at the Baltimore office. The first, a receptionist, is not included in the transcript. Per Harshbarger, they told that receptionist that Giles was a "dancer" and O'Keefe a college student. From the method this pair of con artists employed at other ACORN & ACORN Housing offices, I suspect that this conversation in which they represented that Giles was a "dancer" probably occurred over the phone when they called to set up the appointment. The "dancer" representation helps to explain why, during the first 14 pages of transcripts, the ACORN employees had such a Devil of a time trying to figure out just what "business" Giles was in.

COMMENT #65 [Permalink]

... camusrebel said on 3/2/2010 @ 1:13 pm PT...





Sometimes I balk at commentin when there r over 60 already as it will soon be buried and forgotten...but, just checked out not too Brightbart's blog BigGovernment. They got an article about how ACORN is like the KKK. Just flat out hysterical stuff. But it is suprisingly easy to comment so I went on a bender of a positive tirade under "JohnnyO". Not sure any there know who Camus was, plus it's my stage name for my rock star alter-ego.

COMMENT #66 [Permalink]

... Chris Hooten said on 3/2/2010 @ 1:19 pm PT...





Since Patterico is NOT Breitbart, why is he going to such lengths to defend him? And really, a deputy DA should be a lot more convincing than that. Or at least more FACTUAL than that, sheesh.

COMMENT #67 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/2/2010 @ 2:23 pm PT...





Oops, allow me to make a correction. Patterico = "Patrick Frey;" not "Mark Frey," as I erroneously stated. Sorry about getting your name wrong, Patrick.

COMMENT #68 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/2/2010 @ 5:06 pm PT...





Hey my compadres-- Please everyone try to resist getting your foofs all blingeed up in a bunchdrop, but having gone through the Baltimore transcript I think I understand where Breitbart and his supporters are coming from. Maybe.(Brad, am not). I tried reading the thing just trying to imagine how Breitbart might take it in. Does anybody else out there do this? I mean it's a little risky cuz you have to let go a bit of your own reality but I think it can be helpful in trying to understand the "other's" point of view. And my goodness are we making Breitbart and Patterico into "others". If you read it from a certain viewpoint you can make up that of course those Acorn workers knew they were a pimp and a prostitute and look how much they were trying to help them. (BRAD, AM NOT!!!)I'm not saying this is any kind of correct interpretation of reality. It's certainly not mine. The point is(Braaaaaad, ammm nooootttTT)I'm just saying I think I can see it from their perspective. I think you have to do some pretty fancy dancing to get there. But fancy dancing in pursuit of evermore extravagant Magic Thinking is what we, as a nation, do best. (Jeeze Louise, I hope and pray my beloved brethren and sistren are not having multiple shits over fists fits) There's more of course but I'm sleep deprived from last night's Brad Binge. And I hope I can resist my Bradophilia addiction tonight. Not promising though.

COMMENT #69 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/2/2010 @ 5:19 pm PT...





Note to Patterico--sorry if my last comment short-circuits our attempts at civil dialogue I just had to jump in. I've read the one transcript. I've printed out three others. I've looked at your blog. (Gotta give you credit on that though I have large problems with your conclusions). Read a bunch more of the Harshbarger report. May not be good for much more tonight. Had a long, sad, sleep-deprived day. Want to read the rest of the transripts. Maybe we can pick it up soon. Here or on a subsequent post. Oh and by the by CamusRebel had the call exactly right. I was referring to Breitbart. Did you really think I was talking about you? For me calling someone a fool is not much of a thing. We're all fools. I'm certainly one and can be a major asshole to boot. But I try to compensate/correct for that by keeping up with my critical self-examination homework. That's my complaint about Breitbart. He looks like he's skipping that part. Bart. (So you're a DA.? You overlegalized rascal.)

COMMENT #70 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:04 pm PT...





Friedman you lying sociopath: You wrote Hoyt and said O'Keefe has refused to release unedited AUDIO. Have you retracted? Have you written Hoyt to tell him you got this wrong? I love Ernie's claim that someone who sets up a house for underage girls to turn tricks and turn over the money to him is not a pimp. You don't learn much about the criminal world in your little worker's comp practice, do you?

COMMENT #71 [Permalink]

... BlueHawk said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:08 pm PT...





David Lasagna @68 My hat's off to you for your effort at being conciliatory and fair-minded...it is a noble endeavor. BUT!....come on David...we're talking about a contrived illusion (O'Keefe's vid)...of course if we do the mentally contortionist gymnastics that you did then almost any conclusion will seem feasible...WMD in Iraq, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy will seem reasonable inferences. That's the point David...the truth shouldn't require mental contortions to be seen. If truth is not apparent with plain open minded consideration...then it's not truth but a contrived illusion. Again...you're a solid guy for trying to see the Acorn vids through "their" point of view...but David their point of view is skewed...Their point of view isn't objective. Seems you put on their painted goggles. You can't drop objectivity David in an attempt to perceive truth. You took off your truth detector (objectivity) and put on their blinders....as it were.

COMMENT #72 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:14 pm PT...





Lasagna, Sorry about the incorrect assumption. Check my site for extensive quotes from transcripts showing O'Keefe seeking to set up a house for Giles and underage girls to turn tricks and turn the proceeds over to O'Keefe for his Congressional campaign. Yes, he described himself as helping get Hannah away from an abusive pimp. In essence, he portrayed himself as "the good pimp." But still a pimp. Not as someone trying to get her and the underage girls out of the life, as Stark and Friedman and Boehlert claim. By the way, pimps often claim to be (or even are) their prostitutes' "boyfriends." They're still pimps.

COMMENT #73 [Permalink]

... BlueHawk said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:14 pm PT...





Patterico @ 70 You constantly call Brad a liar...yet you offer no smoking gun. I would like to see some evidence. Your mendacious rants and epithets don't do much for your case. Evidence sir... Didn't you claim to be an DA in Cali ?

Seems building a case to support your point of view would be second nature to you. So far you've miserably failed.

You SEEM like an angry individual in a double wide with a snaggle toothed wife and a squeaky screen door. Let's see you display some of those district DA skills there son...evidence.

COMMENT #74 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:32 pm PT...





Evidence of numerous misstatements by Friedman here. More here. Evidence that Starks's video tells a lie here. That first link is especially replete with evidence. Lasagna, I am amused that you find it such a strain to conclude that O'Keefe and Giles posed as pimp and prostitute and that ACORN knew it and tried to help them anyway. But it's not easy to test one's comfortable assumptions, and you seem to be trying. I admire that. When you have reviewed the transcripts, tell me whether O'Keefe ever claimed that he was seeking to set up a house for Giles and underage girls to turn tricks and turn the proceeds over to O'Keefe for his Congressional campaign. The first link in this comment has extensive quotes to help you along. For example: O’Keefe: But, one of the things I was one of the things we also wanna do um one of my goals you asked you asked do you know how you wanna do this, I think one of the goals is not only can Eden protect some of these 13, 14, 15 year-old girls Theresa (ACORN) Yeah. O’Keefe: coming over from El Salvador. In addition to protecting them and getting their feet on the ground so that they can you know perform the tricks and you know learn the how LA prostitution scene is I was also wanting to um use some of the this is very lucrative and potentially we can use a lot of the money we’re getting from the underaged girls from El Salvador and use some of the money for campaign one day . . . . O’Keefe: We’re bringing these girls from overseas. Hannah (Eden) Well, they’re here. O’Keefe: But, we are gonna take a part of the profit and I intend to use the profit Theresa (ACORN): Right. O’Keefe: From the tricks the girls perform Theresa (ACORN): Right. O’Keefe: To fund my political campaign. Theresa (ACORN): Right. I don't even have to strain to read that as O'Keefe claiming claimed that he was seeking to set up a house for Giles and underage girls to turn tricks and turn the proceeds over to O'Keefe for his Congressional campaign.

COMMENT #75 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:33 pm PT...





Patterico wrote @70 Friedman you lying sociopath _________________________ Psychological projection is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, the government, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings." Fits you like a tee, Patrick. By the way, my 32 years of practice has included business and civil litigation, appellate work, Cal OSHA defense, and workers' compensation. My first employer, a Century City business litigator, started as a U.S. attorney before he moved to the DoJ where he served under RFK and was one of the attorneys who prosecuted James Hoffa. I graduated law school 4th in a class of 276. How'd you do? I'll stand by my observations as to the level of perfidy required to extract these out of context statements to try to build a case for "posing as a pimp" in the face of the extraordinary efforts your hero, an accused federal felon, made to suggest that he was nothing more than Giles's friend. Take pot shots at my qualifications on criminal law all you want. A former MA AG and Brooklyn prosecutors who studied the infamous tapes for four months found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by any of the ACORN workers. Your personal attacks on Brad Friedman remind me of the old saw: If the law is with you, argue the law. If the facts are with you, argue the facts. If you have neither, attack your opponent! In the meantime, Mr. Frey, you still haven't answered my question. "As a Deputy DA for LA County, don't you think it creates a bit of an ethical dilemma for you to be defending O'Keefe and Giles when your office should be investigating these two for a possible criminal violation of CA Penal Code Section 632?"

COMMENT #76 [Permalink]

... BlueHawk said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:44 pm PT...





Patterico @74 Let's say O'Keefe was charged with pimping. Would you as a presumed DA, be willing to prosecute O'Keefe as a pimp with the evidence you presented in comment 74 ? I also find it odd that you provided zero evidence of Brad being a liar...The screed posted at your site isn't evidence of lying. It's simply a retaliatory mudsling that again has zero smoking gun evidence of a lie. That would fail in a court of law too Patterico. Patterico are you sure you're an attorney...or do you just play one on the internet ?

COMMENT #77 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:46 pm PT...





"We did not interview the employees captured on video, since we were satisfied there was no question that the visits occurred and the comments were made. . . . Hence, all our knowledge about the videos is largely circumstantial and secondhand." --- from the report by paid ACORN consultant Scott Harshbarger

COMMENT #78 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:48 pm PT...





Tonja: No you have to pay taxes on the money you make O’Keefe: Is there any way around that though Tonja: Yeah don’t file them and you continue doing cash

COMMENT #79 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:49 pm PT...





James: So, I can be the one who ah, I have documentation right? So, I can, I can be the one basically put up the house for it and she can perform tricks in the house. Acorn 3: Yep. James: Okay, and well all those girls too? All those, there’s like 10 girls? There’s 10 El Salvadorians. . . . . Acorn 4: If you but the home, you have no knowledge of what’s goin on in that home. He’s just [garble] the landlord.

I. I t, say that again. Acorn 3: You have no knowledge of whats goin on you just the landlord. Acorn 4: You have no knowledge of what’s goin on, I’m just keeping it real – your just the landlord. James: I’m just the landlord. Acorn 4: You’re just the landlord. James: But, but, but… Acorn 3: We know she’s your girl friend, but we’re talking about your career. How far you trying to go? James: I’m using the money that she’s getting, you know what I mean? Acorn 3: Okay. But you don’t know where its coming from. Hannah: It’s cash. James: I, I, I personally know where its coming from. Acorn 3: Right, but when the police ask you – you don’t know where its coming from – that’s what we’re trying to tell you James: Alright. Acorn 3: We’re looking out for you. . . . . Hannah: And I want him to be successful and why I’m working so hard and bringing these girls in so when he does run for office he has unlimited funds.

COMMENT #80 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:50 pm PT...





Tonja: so the type of business okay … the type of business of service you provide let me make sure there is a code for it okay O’Keefe: A code for prostitution? Tonja: Well, yeah I have to have a name and a code number. and this: Tonja: they under sixteen so you don’t worry about that, but on the other part of the form you can use them as a dependents because they live in your house they are under 16 and they are living in your house. Well you live in a boat but because you are taking care of them so you can use them as a dependent O’Keefe: What if they are going to be making money because they are performing tricks too Tonja: but if they making money and they are underage then you shouldn’t be letting anybody know anyway and O’Keefe: we want to use a lot of the money that we are getting Shira: you don’t want to use all of it O’Keefe: No I am saying we want to use a lot of the cash for my campaign

COMMENT #81 [Permalink]

... BlueHawk said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:51 pm PT...





Patterico has succesfully (for the time being) taken the spotlight here off of Breitbart, O'Keefe and the NYTimes and turned on Brad...

Hurling false accusations at Brad to deflect the Breitbart-O'Keefe crimes...yes crimes. Patterico has effectively turned this thread into an offensive against Brad's credibility...and he's done it with accusation, nefarious word play and conjecture...nothing solid, nothing real. A classic right-wing tactic...

COMMENT #82 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:54 pm PT...





Ernie, Tell us the context for this: O’Keefe: We’re bringing these girls from overseas. Hannah (Eden) Well, they’re here. O’Keefe: But, we are gonna take a part of the profit and I intend to use the profit Theresa (ACORN): Right. O’Keefe: From the tricks the girls perform Theresa (ACORN): Right. O’Keefe: To fund my political campaign. Theresa (ACORN): Right. Me, I read that as O'Keefe telling someone at ACORN that he's bringing girls from overseas, and plans to take a part of the profit from the tricks the girls perform to fund his political campaign.

COMMENT #83 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:56 pm PT...





"Hurling false accusations at Brad . . ." Ain't nothing false about them. I note you offer no specifics. Me, I offer links, links, and more links. Quotes, quotes, and more quotes. Evidence.

COMMENT #84 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:01 pm PT...





Here is a lie: “Giles Admits O’Keefe, Breitbart ACORN ‘Pimp’ Story was a Lie: ‘That Was B-Roll, Purely B-Roll’.” If you are not already familiar with Friedman's dishonest practices, you would think that Hannah Giles had said: "Yes, the ACORN pimp story was a lie" or words to that effect. Instead, she gave a statement about the videos, and Friedman used that statement as (flimsy and insufficient) evidence that O'Keefe and Breitbart had lied. But she never "admitted" that they lied. But Friedman said they did. I'm not the one engaging in slippery wordplay here. That's Friedman's shtick. On Twitter he did the same to me. Claimed that I had "admitted" that Breitbart had lied or engaged in journalistic malpractice. That was a goddamned lie as I never admitted any such thing. Friedman is a liar. Pure and simple.

COMMENT #85 [Permalink]

... BlueHawk said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:03 pm PT...





Patterico @83 "Hurling false accusations at Brad . . ." Ain't nothing false about them. I note you offer no specifics. Me, I offer links, links, and more links. Quotes, quotes, and more quotes. Evidence. I offer no specifics..because I made no allegations. I'm challenging your false claims...which mean you carry the burden of proof.

Are you sure you're an attorney ?

Because if you're not then you would be a....LIAR Brad's credibility is fine with me...I've read and checked his articles for a while here...the man is journalistically impeccable. Sorry kid...but a link to your site isn't evidence...it's self promotion.

COMMENT #86 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:12 pm PT...





Patterico @ 70: Friedman you lying sociopath: You wrote Hoyt and said O'Keefe has refused to release unedited AUDIO. Have you retracted? Wow, speaking of sociopaths, have you bothered to share the context of the comment for the claim you make above? Like the sentence that came before or after it in the letter you cite? Or have you just continued to quote the entire phrase out of context, under the presumption that your readers --- who don't seem to have much interest in facts and stuff --- would just buy it? Feel free to share the context and see if your charge still holds up. I'll wait. Then, when/if I have time, I'll be happy to share what you didn't (presuming others here don't do it first, while I'm busy trying to get accountable for liars, scoundrels and scofflaws, while you're here making excuses for them.)

COMMENT #87 [Permalink]

... BlueHawk said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:13 pm PT...





My mendacious Patterico @84 It's telling that you omit the context of the... "“Giles Admits O’Keefe, Breitbart ACORN ‘Pimp’ Story was a Lie: ‘That Was B-Roll, Purely B-Roll’.” article. The story my friend was about whether or not O'Keefe was dressed in his clown pimp suit while sitting at ACORN offices...he wasn't; the pimp suit footage was shot after the fact and made to seem like O'Keefe was dressed like that while meeting with ACORN employees...hence Hannah Giles correctly called it B-roll footage...which made Breitbart and O'Keefe liars for saying O'Keefe was dressed like a pimp for the whole shoot...they lied he wasn't. Are you sure you're an attorney ?

Do you actually make a living practicing law ?...

seriously ?

COMMENT #88 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:18 pm PT...





The context is that when your political opponents make mistakes you call them lies. When you make mistakes you call them "typos." When the New York Times says something you deem misleading you call for a retraction. When you say something that is flatly false you do not lift a finger to correct it. If James O'Keefe hoaxed people by failing to correct Doocy, you are hoaxing people by failing to correct your errors.

COMMENT #89 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:25 pm PT...





The story my friend was about whether or not O'Keefe was dressed in his clown pimp suit while sitting at ACORN offices...he wasn't; the pimp suit footage was shot after the fact and made to seem like O'Keefe was dressed like that while meeting with ACORN employees...hence Hannah Giles correctly called it B-roll footage...which made Breitbart and O'Keefe liars for saying O'Keefe was dressed like a pimp for the whole shoot...they lied he wasn't. One should not claim someone "admitted" that a person lied unless they actually "admitted" that the person lied. But Friedman does that, because Friedman is a liar. I love how it works here. People demand evidence. I provide scads, and it is declared non-evidence because it is set forth at my site. You would never accept such a breathtakingly dishonest argument from a conservative, yet you happily make it yourself.

COMMENT #90 [Permalink]

... BlueHawk said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:28 pm PT...





Patterico....All you've done is taken out of context words...applied those out of context words to your desperate theory (that Brad's lying) and called it your "proof". All that's left now is for you to chest thump and do a touchdown dance....

COMMENT #91 [Permalink]

... BlueHawk said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:33 pm PT...





Patterico @89 O'Keefe and Breitbart said that O'Keefe was dressed in his pimp outfit while visiting the ACORN offices; their accomplice Hannah Giles said he wasn't, She called the pimp outfit footage "B-roll" footage that was shot after the fact. Hannah Giles made O'Keefe and Breitbart out to be liars...Brad simply reported it. Seems your venom is missplaced there kid...Hannah Giles outted O'Keefe and Breitbart as liars. Yet you're angry at Brad... Are you sure you're a lawyer ?

COMMENT #92 [Permalink]

... BlueHawk said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:39 pm PT...





Patterico has ignored the direct question in comment 76. duly noted

COMMENT #93 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:44 pm PT...





See, I argued that Friedman lied when he wrote to Hoyt that O'Keefe had not released the unedited AUDIO. Then Friedman confirmed that he got this wrong --- although he didn't say he had lied. He said it was a "typo." Using his tactics, I get to say that he admitted he lied.

COMMENT #94 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:45 pm PT...





BlueHawk has ignored all my evidence. Noted.

COMMENT #95 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:48 pm PT...





Let's say O'Keefe was charged with pimping. Would you as a presumed DA, be willing to prosecute O'Keefe as a pimp with the evidence you presented in comment 74 ? No. He was PRETENDING to be a pimp, genius.

COMMENT #96 [Permalink]

... BlueHawk said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:00 pm PT...





Patterico...@95 You mean like you're pretending to be a lawyer. Don't you see the ludicrous nature of your position here ? You wouldn't prosecute a "pretend pimp" who was dressed normally by the way...the pimp outfit footage was shot later. But you want to condemn ACORN for not seeing through O'Keefe's sham; and pretend that ACORN accommodates pimps and hos all the time.

And then smear Brad as a liar for reporting the story. I'm not a genius as you allude Patterico...I do however have a trained nose for the bullshit you're slinging here. But please continue...I have the time to continue handing you your ass.

COMMENT #97 [Permalink]

... Lora said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:12 pm PT...





Dear Patterico (May I call you Pat?) Slam-dunk by Ernest Canning! O'Keefe did NOT represent himself as a pimp! Not that Ernest needs any more support for his comments as they stand entirely on their own, but Pat, since you had already inspired me to do yet a little more research I will present EVEN MORE evidence that, in the Baltimore office at least, according to the Baltimore transcript, Mr. James O'Keefe assuredly did NOT represent himself as a pimp.

From the Baltimore Transcript (emphasis added) page 2:

James: Well I am doing pretty well for myself but I am coming to talk to you about my girlfriend, my girl Kenya here, we have kind of a unique life situation... page 3:

Kenya: He is going to be going to Johns Hopkins for Graduate school. Graduate school, right?

Shira: Congratulations.

James: Yep, law. page 4:

James: Well its not so much, well, she is in a situation where she is in a unique line of work. I am running for campaign I am running for student government. Hello? Pat? You were wrong, weren't ya? Now show us you are an honest guy, unlike that crazy "liberal" NYT, and ADMIT IT. (doo dee doo dum doo dee doo....doo dee doo dee DEET --- dee doodle doodle...)

COMMENT #98 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:21 pm PT...





Lora, Please try to keep up. I have covered this ground already. Ironically, you are engaged in the exact type of selective reading that I have been falsely accused of being engaged in. You left out this: Tonja: so the type of business okay … the type of business of service you provide let me make sure there is a code for it okay O’Keefe: A code for prostitution? Tonja: Well, yeah I have to have a name and a code number. and this: Tonja: they under sixteen so you don’t worry about that, but on the other part of the form you can use them as a dependents because they live in your house they are under 16 and they are living in your house. Well you live in a boat but because you are taking care of them so you can use them as a dependent O’Keefe: What if they are going to be making money because they are performing tricks too Tonja: but if they making money and they are underage then you shouldn’t be letting anybody know anyway and O’Keefe: we want to use a lot of the money that we are getting Shira: you don’t want to use all of it O’Keefe: No I am saying we want to use a lot of the cash for my campaign See, he represented himself as Kenya's girlfriend, and as an aspiring student politician. Who was trying to save his girlfriend from an abusive pimp. And --- and here's the part you're missing --- and who intended to set up a house where his girlfriend and underaged girls could turn tricks and give him some of the proceeds for his campaign. Friedman and Boehlert tell you about the "boyfriend" and "student" and "save her from pimp" part --- and let you imagine that the rest of it was just manufactured. But it's there, in the unedited audio and the transcripts based on the unedited audio. You can listen to one and follow along with the other. Friedman hasn't done that because he doesn't care. He is out to protect ACORN using any lie, however transparent, he can get a willing audience to follow. But he can't change the facts. Which I am pushing in your faces. And which most of you will ignore --- but which some will see. Making them wonder why Friedman has lied to them.

COMMENT #99 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:22 pm PT...





Obviously he represented himself as Kenya's boyfriend, not girlfriend. If I were Andrew Breitbart, Friedman would make this his next headline. "BREITBART CAN'T EVEN DECIDE IF O'KEEFE IS MAN OR WOMAN!!!!! 16 ARTICLES ON SAME ISSUE TO FOLLOW!!!!!"

COMMENT #100 [Permalink]

... BlueHawk said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:29 pm PT...





Lora @97 Nice try there...Patterico isn't man enough to graciously concede a valid point. Yours got to the heart of the matter...yet Patterico ignores it. Patterico selectively ignores the real issue and creates illusory issues to make a fake point.

COMMENT #101 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:34 pm PT...





The word "pimp" is defined as "a person, esp. a man, who solicits customers for a prostitute or a brothel, usually in return for a share of the earnings; pander; procurer." --- Ernie I'm not looking at dictionary definitions, my fine feathered friend. I'm looking at common understandings of what is mean by being a pimp --- which, as it happens, is quite consistent with the California Penal Code: [A]ny person who, knowing another person is a prostitute, lives or derives support or maintenance in whole or in part from the earnings or proceeds of the person’s prostitution, or from money loaned or advanced to or charged against that person . . . is guilty of pimping. Cal. Penal Code 266h(a).

COMMENT #102 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:37 pm PT...





I am not gracious enough to concede half-truths, no. I am not trying to convince you, BlueHawk. You are unconvincable. I am using you as a foil to demonstrate how ridiculous the positions of the commenters here are. I have succeeded.

COMMENT #103 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:50 pm PT...





Dear Everyone, There's just no fucking way I can do this tonight and in this format. I need everyone in the same room, an extremely less tired head, to have given all this a whole lot more thought, and for us to have hours together and lots of wine. I can only dabble tonight, sooo..... Dear Bluehawk @ 71-- Don't think you(anyone?)is getting where I'm coming from yet on this. You say-- Their point of view isn't objective. Seems you put on their painted goggles.

You can't drop objectivity David in an attempt to perceive truth. You took off your truth detector (objectivity) and put on their blinders....as it were. How to deconstruct this... 1. Yes, their point of view isn't objective, but I'm with Zinn on this--no one's view really is. We all have our biases. This does not mean there are not discernible truths. This does mean that certain ways of looking at things/events gets closer to the heart of any particular matter than others. This doesn't mean that some viewpoints are extremely wide of the mark or even completely cuckoo. But even if someone's view is wide of the mark, I think there can be legitimate reasons why they might hold their view. To dismiss the view, I believe, translates into dismissing the person. Who is going to go along with that? Probably no one happily, or without a fight. This I suspect is one of the factors contributing to the increasing acrimony of debate nationally. 2. Yes, I put on their painted goggles. That's exactly what I did. But from my point of view I didn't drop objectivity. I sorta expanded it. I'll say it again--I did not embrace this worldview. I simply, I think, recognized it as one. I repeat, I did not embrace it. In fact, I have a somewhat different view of the transcripts of any I've seen so far. Maybe someday I'll even get to that part. 3. So no, I'll disagree again as I did with Brad when he said I've been conned--I don't think I took off my truth detector. I think I found a larger setting. 4. I'm trying to say I think I see how they're putting it together. Maybe if I get really smart I can break it down for you. What an effort that would be. Holy shit. We'll see.

COMMENT #104 [Permalink]

... BlueHawk said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:50 pm PT...





You see Lora ? You laid it out really well @97...all Patterico calls it is a "half-truth" And he calls others "unconvincable" Makes one wonder if Patterico is really Breitbart...the guy is a single minded automaton hell bent on debunking this story...truth be damned. I'm waiting for a Breitbart like meltdown....

COMMENT #105 [Permalink]

... Lora said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:57 pm PT...





From the NY transcript:

(emphasis added)

James: Well we have a unique situation and my uh this is my girlfriend Eden, and I apologize about her attire but uhm uhm Eden is in a unique line of work and uhm....

Volda (loan counselor) for example?

James: Uhm I dunno if you wanna tell her

Hannah (Eden): I have an extensive client base, male clients (Uh huh. He one bad-ass pimp here, all right! /snark) Page 14

James: The reason that don't want it to be in my name is because its her business and it is going to be all cash and I don't want to be connected to it Page 15

James: Cause if she has a bunch of girls working in this house I don't want my name on it that is what I'm saying [Clearly he is not pretending to be a pimp. Or if he thought he was, then he didn't pull it off. He would say it is HIS business, and that HE has a bunch of girls working in this house.] page 17:

James: Well the reason we are rushing is because she was working for this pimp and he was very abusive [Not: she was working for this OTHER pimp. He is NOT presenting himself as a pimp! Over and over and over again!] I'd go on but it's past my bedtime. Pat, if you're a stand-up guy, you'll do the right thing. G'night, all.

COMMENT #106 [Permalink]

... BlueHawk said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:58 pm PT...





David @103 Again I understand what you attempted. Here's why it didn't make sense. They don't even believe the story. They created a scenario...an illusion to back up what they wanted to portray. They came from a dishonest point of view in the first place and then dishonestly presented it to infer something that it didn't say. So you trying to be objectively honest with a situation that was born from dishonesty with dishonest intentions...well that's not intellectually compatible. See Lora's comment at 97

COMMENT #107 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:03 pm PT...





Lasagna, You're the only person here trying to be honest. I will talk to you only. I may use others as foils, but you're the only person even making an effort to see what I am saying. It still amuses me how difficult it is for you to conceptualize the idea that the transcripts show O'Keefe as a guy setting up a house of prostitution, from which he intends to take profits to use for himself. This is a little like a Democrat in the 70s talking to a Republican who says: "If I strain hard I can just barrreeeeely see how those Democrats might be convinced that Nixon has acted immorally." Such a person would be shaking off their world view because of a respect for facts. But it would still be amusing to a disinterested outsider how hard it is for him.

COMMENT #108 [Permalink]

... Lora said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:10 pm PT...





Last comment: Pat: James is not presenting himself in either the NY or the Baltimore transcript as what the world in general, not lawyers or DA's, consider a pimp: Someone who has authority over a prostitute --- her clients, her money, how, when and where she works. Now I'm sure you know this. Legal parsing aside, O'Keefe did NOT, I repeat NOT, represent himself as a pimp. He represented himself as her boyfriend, as someone who was trying to help her get set up on her own, yes as someone who hoped to use some of the money she made which she said she wanted to use to help him, AND as someone who was trying to help her escape FROM a pimp. Sorry but your legal stuff just does not apply here. As Ernest said, the ACORN reps were not lawyers. So....once more, Pat....here's your chance to show you are not a cog in a right-wing propaganda machine. Okay, this has to be it. My coffee's gonna have to be extra strong in the morning!

COMMENT #109 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:24 pm PT...





Oh, you want to talk New York, do you? I'm so glad you asked. James: okay even if the business like of what goes on in the house

Volda (loan counselor): its a house you're buying they don't ask

Tara: we don't care they don't ask what you are going to do

Volda (loan counselor): as long as you live there

Tara: As long as you pay the mortgage

James: I have to live there

Volda (loan counselor): yeah its

James: oh

Volda (loan counselor): its got to be your primary residence

James: well she is going to live with me but we are using the house so that she can do her work .... James: Yea well she is gonna have this business in the house with a bunch of girls coming and doing these things, performing tricks and she is going to give me the money so that I can pay the

mortgage that is how we want to work it potentially.

Volda (loan counselor): but your name is going to be on the mortgage your name is going to be

on the deed

James: but no one has to know where the money is coming from My favorite part: Volda (loan counselor): because they might wants to ask about it I don't think that they would go

to that length but ya know you outta say where the monies come from where they don't want to see

that money record its illegal. Because it’s not legal in NY.

James: so we gotta we gotta make

Milagros (counselor)You can't say what you do for a living because the law

Volda (loan counselor): so you say that you doing freelancing you gotta start thinking

James: okay

Volda (loan counselor): if you want it to work

Milagros (counselor)you are young you're both and make assumptions

James: well she is very honest

Milagros (counselor)Honest is not going to get you a house that is why you probably been denied

cause you probably going in saying "Honest is not going to get you a house." --- ACORN worker. God, I feel so bad for them!

COMMENT #110 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:29 pm PT...





Well, Patrick: To begin with, I did not research whether MD has a Penal Code section identical to CA Penal Code Section 266h. Did you? Second, you know as well as I do that O'Keefe, throughout the first 39 pages of the transcript represented himself to simply be a college student and Giles' friend. He slipped in a technical comment about money being used in his campaign, and, I would wholeheartedly agree that if O'Keefe knowingly accepted money from a prostitute's earnings for such a purpose, a smart DA like you could prosecute him as a pimp under PC 266h. But you know damn well that this ACORN worker is not an attorney and cannot be expected to understand O'Keefe's obtuse reference to receiving funds to equate to his being a pimp! You want to play these legalistic games, do so with the mindless trolls who inhabit your right-wing propaganda site. Don't expect to persuade anyone with half a brain buy into your little game of parse the occasional phrase and reassemble them as "O'Keefe posed as a pimp." Meanwhile, since you are fond of citing the pertinent provisions of the CA Penal Code, perhaps you can tell us whether your office plans top initiate an investigation of O'Keefe and Giles with respect to CA Penal Code Section 632 --- or is it your position that criminal statutes only apply to Lefties.

COMMENT #111 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:30 pm PT...





Dear Patterico @ 74-- You say, Lasagna, I am amused that you find it such a strain to conclude that O'Keefe and Giles posed as pimp and prostitute and that ACORN knew it and tried to help them anyway.--- I feel you, too, are attributing points of view to me that don't fit. As a matter of fact, when I try to look at the transcripts from what I make up might be your point of view, I have no trouble at all concluding that they're posing as a pimp and prostitute and that Acorn is trying to help them. But as I was just trying to explain to Bluehawk, your way of looking at this is not the only way there is. I can see other ways. I can see mine which has its own flavor. There are several questions we might get to. 1. How are we taking the exact same words written on a page and coming up with different interpretations of the realities those words represent? 2. What are the relative merits or lack of merit to the different ways of interpreting the transcripts and the events they in part describe? I'm not gonna get into it here, cuz look it's getting late again(these things often take so long to compose to get them anywhere near right)but-- For me the one transcript I've read so far surprised me with how involved, multi-colored, full of nuances, richly textured the interaction was. I don't think there's a simple one size fits everything here. There appears to me there was a lot more going on than I hear people talking about. It's late. I appreciate your efforts at civility. And I very much appreciate your acknowledgment of that misread. I always feel a little acknowlegment goes a long way. And finally Patterico, though I have some sympathy for you because you're kinda alone in this venue right now and everyone's jumping on you, I think you're doing the same thing to them that they're doing to you. Dismissing everything out of hand. I suspect you may think that you're doing painstaking deconstructions showing them the errors of their ways(as they are doing for you)but I'm not sure you're really slowing down and trying to understand where these other humans might be coming from. I think there's another way. And I'm hoping we went at least a little bit down that path tonight.

COMMENT #112 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:32 pm PT...





He represented himself as her boyfriend, as someone who was trying to help her get set up on her own, yes as someone who hoped to use some of the money she made which she said she wanted to use to help him, AND as someone who was trying to help her escape FROM a pimp. Sorry but your legal stuff just does not apply here. As Ernest said, the ACORN reps were not lawyers. He represented himself as a banker and as her boyfriend, trying to help her escape an abusive pimp. OH --- and as someone who wanted to help buy her a house, which she would use to turn tricks, and give him the money, which he would use for his future campaign. Once again, you give half the story. I give all of it. And these aren't legalisms. This is a question of common decency --- especially when 13-15 year-old girls are involved.

COMMENT #113 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:37 pm PT...





Oh, and Patrick, since you chose to ignore it when I posted it on Brad's cartoon piece, I'll re-post it here so that those Brad Blog readers who don't read the other piece, can appreciate the level of your hypocrisy: "I'm curious both you and The New York Times are so concerned about a couple of low level ACORN employees who were entrapped in the accused federal felon's deceptive "sting," yet I've seen not one word from either you or The New York Times about the sworn affidavits of former Blackwater/Xe insiders which not only alleged that Blackwater had engaged in murder, destruction of evidence, weapons smuggling, and corruption but specifically alleged that Blackwater operated a wife-swapping sex ring here in the US, and that, in Iraq, Blackwater had “young girls provide oral sex to Enterprise members in the 'Blackwater Man Camp' in exchange for one American dollar." "Tell me, in your expert opinion, if Blackwater management arranged for young Iraqi girls to provide oral sex to its employees in exchange for $1, doesn't that make Blackwater management a gang of pimps?" If you are so disturbed by pimps, Mr. Frey, why aren't you covering this on your blog? Why are you not calling for Congress to cut off all further Blackwater funding?

COMMENT #114 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:39 pm PT...





Patterico wrote: He represented himself as a banker.

___________________________ What a load of crap!

COMMENT #115 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:43 pm PT...





And where's your concern for common decency, Patrick, when it comes to the young Iraqi girls who, according to the sworn affidavits of former Blackwater insiders, are not merely being turned into prostitutes but, at $1/a BJ, significantly underpaid prostitutes. Get out of here with your pseudo morality!

COMMENT #116 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:44 pm PT...





re: my own comment @ 103 when I said--There's just no fucking way I can do this tonight and in this format. I need everyone in the same room, an extremely less tired head, to have given all this a whole lot more thought, and for us to have hours together and lots of wine. I can only dabble tonight, sooo..... Just read it back in the actual comment section and it's funny how different things can look there. That sounds incredibly arrogant or presumptuous, as if I could actually work this all out between everyone. Hah. What I meant was to have anywhere near any kind of a chance to possibly begin to get an inkling of what I think I'm seeing across to anyone--I'd need all of us drunk, together, and with time on our hands. Okay, maybe not drunk so much. Just a little, maybe... Good night.

COMMENT #117 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:48 pm PT...





re: comment 116 sorry, too stupid arrogant AND presumptuous

COMMENT #118 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:52 pm PT...





If Blackwater had any hand in child prostitution, I decry it. HOWEVER: I am not throwing up phony defenses for Blackwater. My big sin in your eyes is not writing about it. Well, I am a busy man. I write about things where I see that my input will add value. As just another blogger re-reporting the Blackwater story, I would add no value. As someone debunking the lies of Friedman and Boehlert, I am adding considerable value. Thousands are seeing the truth from the facts I am setting forth. Thanks for giving me the chance to reiterate this crucial distinction.

COMMENT #119 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:59 pm PT...





As a matter of fact, when I try to look at the transcripts from what I make up might be your point of view, I have no trouble at all concluding that they're posing as a pimp and prostitute and that Acorn is trying to help them. But as I was just trying to explain to Bluehawk, your way of looking at this is not the only way there is. I can see other ways. I can see mine which has its own flavor. Can we agree on this? The only important thing is what the ACORN workers actually knew/intended. You and I can do our best to interpret that. But WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO INTERPRET is their intent. I posit that Giles and O'Keefe were posing as a pimp and prostitute and that Acorn was trying to help them. As I have also said on the radio, I think that many of the ACORN workers proceeded from a benign motive: let's not discriminate against criminals, but treat them like humans too. And help them like we help everyone. Lavelle Stewart in L.A. seemed particularly sympathetic, as she told Hannah never to give up. Where that benign motive turned ugly was when the pair began talking about pimping out underaged girls. And the ACORN workers continued their helpful attitude. This is what appalled regular Americans. And you don't have to twist yourself into some contorted mental position to understand that.

COMMENT #120 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:07 pm PT...





Patterico's dissembling: Patterico quotes the following to Lora: Tonja: so the type of business okay … the type of business of service you provide let me make sure there is a code for it okay O’Keefe: A code for prostitution? What Patterico left out: 1. Although the transcript records conversations with only two ACORN employees, Harshbarger reveals that there were three--the first being a receptionist who was told by the deceptive duo that Giles was a "dancer" and O'Keefe was a college student. The transcript reveals the extraordinary efforts by O'Keefe and Giles to conceal just what it is that Giles does until after they secured some useful sound bites: ACORN tax lady: They pay you with cash. And they are reporting this to the government? Giles: No who? O’Keefe: The clients. Giles: My clients. Tax lady: No the person that’s paying you. James: The clients. Tax lady: The job that’s paying you. Giles: Well people pay me different things every day. Tax lady: Well there’s a difference between having a job and having your own business. Okay, so tell me. Giles: Well before I guess it was a job. There was this guy that people would give me money and I would give money to him. But now…I am trying to get away from that guy. O’Keefe: I am trying to help her out; maybe give her a place to go where she can perform her work, maybe a house where she doesn’t have to get targeted by this other guy. You know what I am saying? Tax lady: …Does the business have an ID number? O’Keefe: No." Tax lady: Okay. So there is no taxes and nothing being put to government so the government really knows nothing about this business? Giles: No. They don’t know about me --- hopefully. Tax lady: So you are just starting the business." When this is placed in the context of their initial representation that Giles was a "dancer," you begin to understand why the ACORN tax lady is having so much trouble making head or tails about just what "business" Giles is actually in. The transcript captures O'Keefe and Giles, whispering to one another, on how best to entrap this part-time ACORN employee into giving advice on write-offs, etc. Fourteen pages into the transcript, after these slick hustlers secure a statement that the part-time tax employee is looking for the appropriate code for Giles's business, O'Keefe blurts out, "There's a code for prostitution?" --- a word they had, until then, adroitly avoided. Yet when they later dubbed the video with voice overs, Giles and O'Keefe used the earlier statements to suggest that they were giving tax advice for prostitution. They used the same approach with the girls from El Salvador; stating that they wanted to provide them with "shelter." Its only after they secure statements about the possibility of claiming them as dependents that O'Keefe slips in the words "tricks." They're all the way through their charade--at page 40 of the 46 page transcript when O'Keefe slips in the "we" with regard to the money and mentions using cash for his campaign. And now, although O'Keefe never said that he would personally take possession of any of the proceeds of the business, Patterico, shockingly dissembles and says that O'Keefe posed as Giles' "banker." Shame on you, Patrick.

COMMENT #121 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:11 pm PT...





Patterico, shockingly dissembles and says that O'Keefe posed as Giles' "banker." Liar. I never said that. He posed as an honest to goodness banker. At Wells Fargo. Goddamn you're a liar. I'd love to get you on the radio where we could debate this in real time. I would eat you for breakfast. Because you don't understand the facts.

COMMENT #122 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:13 pm PT...





So are you telling me Patrick that you never wrote about the ACORN sting at your blog until Brad Friedman and Eric Boehlert began challenging its accuracy? And you still haven't answered my other questions: Should Congress cut off funding for Blackwater? Does your office intend to investigate O'Keefe and Giles for a possible violation of PC 632?

COMMENT #123 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:25 pm PT...





Patterico @121 wrote: Patterico, shockingly dissembles and says that O'Keefe posed as Giles' "banker." Liar. I never said that. He posed as an honest to goodness banker. At Wells Fargo. _____________________ Patterico @112 wrote: He represented himself as a banker and as her boyfriend, trying to help her escape an abusive pimp.

_____________________________ Oh, and Patrick, I re-read your entire post #112. You don't mention the word Wells Fargo a single time in that post. Care to apologize? Or are you going to give me a Hoyt; stating that since you said, "He represented himself as a banker and as her boyfriend," you did not mean at the same time.

COMMENT #124 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:26 pm PT...





The first post on my site that I can find that I personally wrote about ACORN was this one, criticizing the L.A. Times's coverage of the scandal. I see many posts on the scandal before that from my guest blogger DRJ. Me, I don't too exercised about reporting day-to-day news. I went into overdrive when I saw O'Keefe smeared by Big Media and by you assholes, yeah. That's where I add value.

COMMENT #125 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:29 pm PT...





Oh, and Patrick, I re-read your entire post #112. You don't mention the word Wells Fargo a single time in that post. hahahahahahahahaha Goddamn you're an idiot. No, I didn't, ERNIE. I said he was a banker. Later, when you claimed (falsely) I had said that he was GILES'S banker (which I never did) I said, no, moron, he said he was a banker. At Wells Fargo. THIS is your idea of a gotcha? PLEASE, PLEASE come on the radio with me. You are so, so, very stupid. I would mop the floor with you. Mop. The. Floor.

COMMENT #126 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:31 pm PT...





And Patrick, if you concede that O'Keefe simply posed as her "boyfriend," how do you square that with posed as a "pimp." Damn this guy wore a lot of hats, 22 year old banker, boyfriend, law student, politician, pimp.

COMMENT #127 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:32 pm PT...





Care to apologize? Or are you going to give me a Hoyt; stating that since you said, "He represented himself as a banker and as her boyfriend," you did not mean at the same time. I did mean both at the same time. He said he was a banker. He said he was her boyfriend. At the same time. Which does not mean he was HER banker, idiot. That's your idiot gloss, which you idiotically imported all on your own, in an idiotic attempt at a gotcha. I lack words to express my contempt for you.

COMMENT #128 [Permalink]

... Patterico said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:34 pm PT...





And Patrick, if you concede that O'Keefe simply posed as her "boyfriend," how do you square that with posed as a "pimp." Uh, pimps are also boyfriends of the prostitutes? Idiot? You never heard of that? I wear a lot of hats. Father. Husband. D.A. Blogger. Music lover. Debunker of morons like you. ALL AT THE SAME TIME!!! AMAZING!!!!

COMMENT #129 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:50 pm PT...





Okay, smart guy. I need a bit of help here. I went back over the entire Baltimor