Breitbart (of Anti-ACORN fame) covers his own backside before James O'Keefe?

[mzmolly]

As many know, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/23/lawsuit.acorn/index.html">ACORN is suing Breitbart, Giles and O'Keefe for illegally taping employees, who've now been defamed all over the television and internet. At the website owned by Breitbart, www.biggovernment.com Breitbart has links to donate to his own legal fund, and that of Hanna Giles. Mr. O'Keefe's fund is supposedly coming soon. I wonder why Mr. O'Keefe is required to wait for assistance? Especially given not long ago, Breitbart boasted http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/20/planting-the-seeds-the-politicized-art-behind-the-acorn-plan/">"I felt I had a moral obligation to protect these young muckrakers from the left..." ? It seems one young muckracker remains on his own? ;)

[mzmolly]

1. I thought it odd?

:shrug:

[karnac]

2. Hannah is more sympathetic

Not to mention cuter. Consequently she will generate MORE money. And it makes sense. She is the only one returning to school while the other two have jobs and will be generating income. O'Keefe IS working for Breitbart and and won't return to school for a year. Whatever money Hannah makes will help O'Keefe anyway.

Now, Breitbart actually has the best situation. It's highly unlikely he even needs a lawyer except for the formalities and WILL win. Maryland criminal law can't apply to him for one thing. He wasn't there when the tapes were handed to him. As for the civil suit, federal court precedents(which are different from Maryland's) should apply in his case(as long as he claims them at some point) so he really doesn't have anything to lose anyway.

However, he wants to use the suit to aid him in the destruction of ACORN. THAT is his goal. His second goal is to destroy whomever ACORN ever has had dealings with(Obama?).He will MILK his "discovery" advantage first, which he is entitled to when sued. This will enable him to find out "dirt" he can.

Now THAT takes money and lawyers! To push forward the discovery requests/demands and to pore over whatever documentation they force ACORN to hand over. Not to mention dispositioning all the people on the rolodex somebody stole from ACORN and handed to him a couple weeks ago.

O'Keefe might need money eventually, particularly if there is a criminal indictment(possible but unlikely). But i think this sequence for fundraising makes the most sense.

[mzmolly]

3. Nice spin. Especially the "Hannah is cuter" assertion. Sounds like you have quite a bit of inside

info as well? Unlike you, I'm not so confident that O'Keefe, Breitbart and/or Giles will skate. I too look forward to the discovery process, but for very different reasons.

A stolen rolodex!? :rofl:

[karnac]

4. I don't have inside info

However, I have found this entire case rather fascinating so have have spent many hours researching it on the web. And yes, i am pretty certain they will get "off" on the civil case.

There is plenty of information available. As you might guess, Both left and right have their own spins where they "reliably" predict what they WANT to happen. I base my guesses on what more Legalese folk/press(speech)groups/blogs think will happen based precedence and law.

As far as what Bretbart wants, it's pretty clear and has so stated publicly and seems to be following his game plan. And, yes that rolodex will figure into what he wants to make a connection/stink about.

Yes, I know why you want discovery too. If the connections you want made are made, well how consequential do you think they could possibly be? Criminal? Doubtful. Some "I told you so" moment? Maybe for a day or two.

As far as criminal, ah, there ya got me on Giles and O'Keefe. I only have the foggiest of clues. New precedents will probably be made one way or the other. It's obvious they are guilty by the letter of Maryland law. Yet the number of ways they can probably get off is really large. Some make sense yet I am not convinced.

BTW, if you don't like what I say, you will be happy to know I am not a lawyer. ;-)

[mzmolly]

5. Don't worry. I didn't confuse you for an attorney.

;)

If the connections I think exist are made, it will reveal the debacle for what it is, manufactured outrage by wealthy, dishonest, special interest groups. Obviously the R/W wants to use the faux ACORN sting to further their lies and spin in coming elections. The lawsuit may shed enough light on things to prevent that from happening. Further, discovery will force the defendants to turn over video tapes in their entirety, which could present an entirely new perspective. ACORN has already been effectively smeared. They've hit their bottom. As such, there really is only one way to go from here.

I'll pose the same question to you ...

"If the connections you want made are made, how consequential do you think they could possibly be?"

Horrors! We may find out that a non-profit group got dun dun dun donations!? :sarcasm:

[sabrina 1]

22. Well said, mzmolly. You reminded me too that

no only should all the edited video be released, but also the video from the Philadelphia Office where they were thrown out and the cops were called. Funny how we haven't seen that. I also noticed that they had promised to post more videos, but so far, looks like either they don't have any and were just threatening to do so to keep the story going, or the law-suit has scared them.

I still feel bad for Juan Carlos Vera. I hope he gets something out of this, at least that he is called as a witness and gets to tell the truth about what happened to him.

[sabrina 1]

13. They are guilty of more than violating both California's and MD's

laws. They are guilty of lying about individuals, editing tapes to support their lies, and if they were to live up to their own standards, of not reporting a 'crime', the same thing they accused ACORN workers of, except ACORN's workers did report them, while they did not. Not only did they not report a possible murder, they used it for political purposes. I don't think it's possible to sink as low as these two and whoever backed them, have sunk and I hope others will be suing them soon as they surely have a right to do.

As for your assumption that people donate to someone because 'they're cute', well, I don't see anything cute about that woman. I see someone who is without morals, basic ethics. Someone who is willing to destroy the lives of decent people for, what? ACORN helps poor people and minorities, is this 'cute person' so threatened by that that she is willing to lie and get people fired from their jobs, or thrown in jail because of her lies?

Your idea of 'cute' and mine are vastly different. I know many beautiful women, and I have to say, even on the physical level, never mind the dark, twisted soul, she just doesn't rate, except maybe to the sex-starved denizens of the radical rightwingnut fringes.

[KharmaTrain]

19. Discovery Works Both Ways...

I agree with some of your premise of using any civil suit to investigate ACORN, I don't see a similar scenario. Depending on the judge, the scope will be limited to the suit that ACORN is bringing and it will go not only to the heart of the charges but on who is really behind O'Keefe and Breibart. It costs a lot of money to go chasing around from city to city and arranging for these set up...who paid the bills? That surely would come out in a discovery. Now what could Breibart discover? ACORN has been watched like a hawk over the past 4 years (look at the various DAs who were fired who couldn't find criminal charges)...and if it's shown these videos were staged (which ACORN would have the ability to prove in discovery...getting the raw tapes and correspondence) or that recordings were made without the consent of all parties, it's a classic entrapment that won't play well with a jury.

The game is to discredit ACORN and make its name toxic...and that job appears to have been working. The fact the corporate media jumped on Keefe's scam before looking a little deeper shows how well this smear campaign is working.

Criminal depends on the jurisdiction and how strong a case a DA can bring. I'm no lawyer, but been around enough legal proceedings over the years to know never to try to second guess a court.

[LaydeeBug]

21. "yet the number of ways they can probably get off is really large" Bull two honey.

Just ask Linda Tripp. Indictments WILL BE coming. Trust.

[sabrina 1]

11. Sorry, but your post sounds like rightwing spin. Perhaps you're not

familiar with the facts of the case. ACORN has an excellent case against these two. As to who needs to fear disclosure, nice try.

Let's see. O'Keefe has lied and so has Giles. The lied on national television and were proven to have lied.

Who is funding them? O'Keefe claimed he was being funded by the Leadership Institute! Oops, now if that is true, what is a tax-exempt organization doing funding a political stunt designed to, as you so helpfully point out, bring down a president of the opposition party?

I am seriously looking forward to the revelations of who funded this stupid stunt. Are you aware that just about all of this stunt has now been discredited, and with evidence?

I think Breitbart may realize that attaching himself to O'Keefe is not a smart thing to do considering the information already available on that particular individual. And no doubt more will be revealed as ACORN's discovery process begins. My feeling is that Breitbart has been scared off O'Keefe, as Morton Blackwell claims he was. And as the other funder O'Keefe claims, has stated 'I knew nothing about this stunt'. So, money was donated, both known donors have stated publicly that their donations were not meant to be used for this purpose. Looks like either O'Keefe was lying, or he mis-appropriated funds donated for other purposes to his own little scheme. Somehow though, I think they were all in on it. But to save their own skins, it will be fun watching them fight it out.

And yes, laws were broken and that needs to be addressed.

[mzmolly]

15. Well said as usual!

:toast:

[UTUSN]

6. K&R #3 for Breitbart, the TOOL, the son-in-law of ORSON BEAN, & co-founder of PUDGE

[mzmolly]

7. Speaking of ... who would change their name from Dallas Burroughs

to Orson Bean?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004730/bio

BTW, I had no idea that Orson Bean was related to Calvin Coolidge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge

[bleever]

8. Now it says "James O'Keefe (coming soon)".

I can't tell you how I loathe the myth that ACORN is connected to voter fraud, when not a single fraudulent vote has ever been shown to have been cast.

It's all about the GOP keeping poor people from voting, because they don't vote for plutocrats and warmongers.

[mzmolly]

9. Yep. And they want to portray a false notion that Obama won due to

fraud. Pathetic.

[bleever]

10. And, on the bright side, the best kind of opponent to have is

that pathetic kind.

:toast:

[sabrina 1]

12. And the lying kind!

Clearly they did not familiarize themselves with ACORNS long history of fighting off Rightwing smears. These are tough people. Poor little spoiled Repub operatives thought it was all over and that no one would be looking into their nefarious dirty tricks, and who really is behind them.

O'Keefe is toxic. I would not want to be associeated with him in any kind of law-suit. Not that Giles is any better. But then look who raised her.

She claims, and it's hard not to laugh, the whole idea of this racist scam came to her while she was walking in the woods or something and saw an acorn on the ground. Apparently that reminded her that she 'didn't like ACORN'. She then tells us she called O'Keefe who she knew only from a chat room and asked him if he would like to pose as pimp while she posed as a prostitute to entrap those damn minories who worked for ACORN. I mean what else would black people relate to other than child prostituion and pimps? :sarcasm: just in case!

[mzmolly]

14. LOL. I love that ACORN story. When I saw her on Fox, it was so apparent

she was coached and was regurgitating nonsense verbatim, I chuckled.

[sabrina 1]

17. Yes, I think I read about that fantasy tale in one of your

OPs, msmolly. It really is laughable ~ even funnier that they expect us to believe it. I know five-year-olds who wouldn't try a story like that.

I would be very surprised if her father, Doug, was not part of the plan not to mention Morton Blackwell and a few others. Let's hope all these questions are raised in court where, unlike when you are on Fox News, you have to avoid telling lies ~

What amazes me is that, other than Fox which is a given, anyone gave this story any credibility at all.

[sabrina 1]

16. Hi mzmolly, regarding your question about why

O'Keefe has to wait for a fund-raiser, I came across this article from about 10 days ago. Looks like at that time Breitbart was getting ready to fund-raise for both of them. Wonder what changed his mind?

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2009/09/fox_news_acorn_lawsuit_breitba.html

"Do you have lawyers helping you with it? Because you know, this is expensive," O'Reilly said. "That's what lawsuits are -- they try to break you financially."

"...I just want everybody to know we will be advertising Hannah and James' defense fund at BigGovernment.com (one of Brietbart's Web sites)," Breitbart said.

The article is dated the 25th, so the show was probably a day or so earilier. Will have to watch to see when they include O'Keefe.

[mzmolly]

18. Good find! It definitely seems odd. Like so much of

this so called story. :crazy:

[sabrina 1]

20. Yes, it is odd, mzmolly ~

I keep remembering how Morton Blackwell stated that the was not funding O'Keefe's video 'work' ~ while at the same time, found on his now scrubbed website, O'Keefe was claiming he had been provided with equipment worth over $4000.00 by the Leadership Institute for his 'work'.

And then there was the other funder, Peter Thiel, who also denies funding the stunt.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/09/acorn_videomake.php?page=2

Though Thiel denies directly funding O'Keefe's latest videos, Thiel may have made them financially possible anyway. O'Keefe has, in the past, used support from one project to fuel another.

> snip

In the same way O'Keefe used equipment from the Leadership Institute to make his future films, he may have made use of Thiel's cash infusion for future projects, too. The "Taxpayers Clearing House" video that Thiel's money made possible was posted just a few months before O'Keefe and Giles set off on their summer adventure. The multiple ACORN videos were shot and produced over the course of more than two months, in San Diego, San Bernardino, Brooklyn, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. (plus an unknown number of other cities, like Philadelphia, where O'Keefe attempted to shoot but the sting failed).

O'Keefe declined to be interviewed by phone for this article, and did not respond to e-mailed questions. But he has not publicly explained how the help he's received from either the Leadership Institute or from Peter Thiel has influenced his filmmaking -- or how they may have made a summer traveling around the country for undercover stings possible.

UPDATE: Thiel's spokesman, James O'Neill, disputes Farkas' estimate of $30,000, saying that Thiel's contribution was only "about $10,000."

Looks like Thiel wants to set the record straight also. He should have known better than to get involved with these kind of people.

I hope ACORN's legal team is aware of these issues. It looks like O'Keefe has some explaining to do and while he can lie on Fox he cannot lie in court.

It's possible that Breitbart is receiving funding from the Leadership Institute who must be pretty furious at O'Keefe. I think the real reason for O'Keefe scrubbing his blog was to remove those statements about funding.

Can we lose on this? Lol, either O'Keefe was telling the truth and Blackwell did fund him, which means Blackwell's tax exemtp status is in trouble, or O'Keefe mis-used the funding which Blackwell et al will be forced to say to save their own tax exempt skins.

If Breitbart IS being funded by the LI, he probably doesn't want to become involved in any dispute between O'Keefe and Blackwell and risk losing the money. Money will determine how much Breitbart wants to take care of these two. This could get interesting. I predict a settlement, rather than have any revelations about their funding come out. But, who knows, maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part ~ :-)

They were so arrogant, so certain no one could touch them. But someone is lying and I hope this law-suit will reveal who that is.

'

[mzmolly]

23. This could get very interesting.

:evilgrin: Wasn't Jeff Gannon associated with The Leadership Institute as well?

[sabrina 1]

24. Lol, yes he was. That is where he got his two day 'journalism'

degree. I think that was when I first heard about them. Jeff Gannon, that's another story that the media dropped as soon as people were tracing him back to people like Morton Blackwell. I think that organization has a lot to hide. Similar situation here. Blackwell seems to pop up every time there are rightwing dirty tricks being played. We have him to thank for Karl Rove, Norquist, Ralph Reed and Abramoff and who knows who else? They were all protegees of Morton Blackwell, and now, these two and once again, the media backs away.

[mzmolly]

25. Sounds like ACORN hasn't much to lose turning over rocks? Look at this...

Blackwell has been a member since 1984 of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_for_National_Policy">Council for National Policy, a group of politically active conservatives. Founders included Richard Viguerie, the Virginia direct-mail specialist, Paul Weyrich, Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party, and Phyllis Schlafly, a St. Louis activist who led the opposition to the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. Another founder was Tim LaHaye, author of the Left Behind novels. The council does not make its proceedings public. When he first ran for president, George W. Bush addressed the Council for National Policy. His remarks from 2000 have never been unveiled.

...

The Council for National Policy (CNP), is an umbrella organization and networking group for social conservative activists in the United States. It has been described by the The New York Times as a "little-known group of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country," who meet three times yearly behind closed doors at undisclosed locations for a confidential conference.<1> Nation magazine has called it a secretive organization that "networks wealthy right-wing donors together with top conservative operatives to plan long-term movement strategy."<2> It was founded in 1981 by Tim LaHaye as a forum for conservative Christians seeking to strengthen the political right in the United States.<3>

The CNP describes itself as "an educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. We do not lobby Congress, support candidates, or issue public policy statements on controversial issues. Our over 600 members include many of our nation's leaders from the fields of government, business, the media, religion, and the professions. Our members are united in their belief in a free enterprise system, a strong national defense, and support for traditional western values. They meet to share the best information available on national and world problems, know one another on a personal basis, and collaborate in achieving their shared goals."

I've got to say, I don't fear the ACORN rolodex, but I AM definitely interested in O'Keefe's possible political connections. ;) Wouldn't it be fun if ACORN's legal discovery eventually led to the CNP "secret" membership list!? :P

[sabrina 1]

26. Oh, fascinating stuff, mzmolly. I remember reading about them

Can't remember in connection to what though. It will come back to me I'm sure. This stood out to me, one of their 'goals':

Our members are united in their belief in a free enterprise system, That's a nice way (for tax exempt purposes) of saying what they let their front people, like Limbaugh et al, say a lot less politely. That welfare, or any help to the poor is considered a crime to people with this radical ideology. Giving anything to the poor IS Communism to them. Organizations like ACORN would be like a what a cross to a vampire is, to these people. Which is why ACORN was targeted almost from its inception. They have a sick, visceral hatred of the poor and of minorities, except for a few token members of their political party.

I wonder who else attends those meetings in 'undisclosed locations' ~ and why do they have to be so secretive? What ARE they up to?

O'Keefe probably appealed to them in the same way as Rove did as a Young Republican. A person with low morals, willing to do things most decent people would not do. They probably saw him as a possible successor to Rove. Why else would Blackwell encourage and then fund his College newspaper whose sole purpose was to mock and attack 'liberals'.

There are other dots that can be connected through O'Keefe. Eg, David Horowitz had a campaign going for a while where he paid Young Republicans to spy on Liberal Professors and film them without their knowledge after getting them riled up. I can't remember now where I read it, but I believe O'Keefe was involved in some of those dirty tricks also.

You are thinking the same thing I'm thinking that the ACORN discovery process might be way more interesting than anyone imagined ~ how great it would be if this 'secret society' were to be exposed all because of Giles' and O'Keefe's little stunt! Lol, that would be Karma ~

Going to do a little more digging as it's bothering me that I cannot remember what scandal brought the CNP into the news last time ~

[mzmolly]

27. "ACORN would be like a what a cross to a vampire"

You have a wonderful way with words Sabrina! :hi:

Yes indeed, discovery for ACORN could get VERY interesting.