Good analogy. If a prosector's case consisted entirely of hearsay from anonymous sources, the defendant could indeed simply deny the charges (i.e., plead not guilty) and win walking away.
There's a reason for that; hearsay is inherently unreliable and using anonymous sources deprives the accused of the opportunity to confront his accuser, and the fact finder of the ability to assess the accuser's credibility.
The interesting thing here is how well the entire dialogue in regards to the OWS movement is being controlled by conservative media.
This one is a great example.
The original concept is "OWS is NOT a grassroots phenomenon".
NYCC is labeled the AFP of the left, a secret ACORN operation. Astroturf for sure.
And even I fell for the misdirection.
OWS has SOME funding.
Not custom-painted bus funding, but some.
"Paying people to protest" sounds a LOT more sinister than "paying people to attend protests on behalf of NYCC".
See the distinction?
It is neither illegal nor inappropriate for employees of NYCC to attend protests. They're a low income advocacy group. Its what they exist to do.
Did AFP pay people to attend town halls to scream at Dem congressfolk?
Don't onow for sure.
What I DO know is they paid for the busses that took them there and the signs they carried while they were there, and the town hall meeting tour was DEFINITELY protest activity.
So AFP paid for protest activity. Just like NYCC.
Degree is another issue. Did either groups activities rise to the level of "astroturf"?
I think AFPs did, but that's based on information gathered over time.
A little early to tell, but the lack of cohesive direction at the beginning and absence of clever logoed printed signage (as seen at many tea party events) casts doubt on the idea. At least where NYCC is concerned.
LSS? Much ado about nothing.
