• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Activist filmmaker arrested in senator’s office

mpg said:
Let's focus on the messenger and forget all about the actions of ACORN.
Click to expand...

Really? Focus on the messenger? OK, you are right. He only committed an itty bitty felony, but he's really a good guy. Come on, folks. We can turn our heads and look the other way over this. After all, there are plenty of witches out there that need burning. He is being prosecuted... err, I mean persecuted, by his enemies, the same way the Watergate burglars, were prosecuted... err, I mean persecuted. It's just not fair. :rofl

Seriously, the man is not a messenger. He is a criminal.
 
Last edited:
EnigmaO01 said:
???

Did you actually read what happened? He and his coworkers got access via pretending to be phone workers and were only suspected when they couldn't provide proper identification. For someone that was targeted they were given the benefit of the doubt quite a ways until they wanted more access and met up with an individual that became suspicious of there real identity.
Click to expand...

The secret service should hire that guy!.......:lol:
 
EnigmaO01 said:
And many you seem to ignore were exonerated of wrong behavior. But please please don't let the facts get in your way.

But an exhaustive report recently released by the Congressional Research Service -- a nonpartisan branch of Congress -- exonerated ACORN, finding no incidents where the organization broke any laws or misspent any federal funds.

ACORN exonerated? - Roanoke.com

These activists were a dangerous group of people that believed the ends justified the means regardless of how illegal it was. It might play well on prime time fiction series like White Collar or Burn Notice but in the real world it's frowned upon, and thank God it is. I hope they have plenty of time to think about their stupidity in jail.
Click to expand...

Okay, I gotta ask...

How in the world did through all of this you manage to find an article on the website of the Roanoke Times of all places.

LOL, not the topic I'd expect to see a link to my old home paper pop up.

Though I find it funny that you use a wholey agenda driven person writing an agenda driven editorial with the vast majority of it rooted in opinion rather than fact and giving no specifics as to what the CSR actually investigated to somehow prove how bad and wrong someone else was for being agenda driven.....
 
danarhea said:
Seriously, the man is not a messenger. He is a criminal.
Click to expand...

Actually, he's both. You can be both you know. He was a messenger in regards to the ACORN thing, and it sure seems he's a criminal in this case.

He's bad for being a criminal. If he's found guilty he should be punished. That doesn't magically change the ACORN footage into something else. And the hypocritical nature of some of those who immedietely doubted him on the ACORN story and have repeatedly said it doesn't matter but are acting like they just found him molesting puppies while sacrificing a kid on top of a stolen Picaso and as such must just be an agenda driven compulsive liar is rather funny.

Seriously though, trying to falsely represent yourself to the over the line degree he did and tapping phones, for whatever reason, is just way over the line. The punishment may vary based on motive and purpose but there's nothing that'd really excuse it.
 
Zyphlin said:
Actually, he's both. You can be both you know. He was a messenger in regards to the ACORN thing, and it sure seems he's a criminal in this case.

He's bad for being a criminal. If he's found guilty he should be punished. That doesn't magically change the ACORN footage into something else. And the hypocritical nature of some of those who immedietely doubted him on the ACORN story and have repeatedly said it doesn't matter but are acting like they just found him molesting puppies while sacrificing a kid on top of a stolen Picaso and as such must just be an agenda driven compulsive liar is rather funny.

Seriously though, trying to falsely represent yourself to the over the line degree he did and tapping phones, for whatever reason, is just way over the line. The punishment may vary based on motive and purpose but there's nothing that'd really excuse it.
Click to expand...

Good post, but it is kind of funny how some here have attempted to change the topic from a man committing a criminal act to how bad ACORN is. LOL.

Finally, if he really is both, then his criminality doesn't say much for his message, does it?
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Okay, I gotta ask...

How in the world did through all of this you manage to find an article on the website of the Roanoke Times of all places.

LOL, not the topic I'd expect to see a link to my old home paper pop up.

Though I find it funny that you use a wholey agenda driven person writing an agenda driven editorial with the vast majority of it rooted in opinion rather than fact and giving no specifics as to what the CSR actually investigated to somehow prove how bad and wrong someone else was for being agenda driven.....
Click to expand...

Booo! You can do better than that. Does it matter what the source is when the fact remains they were exonerated by a nonpartisan congressional panel, the CRS? Please tell me you can do better than this.
 
Last edited:
EnigmaO01 said:
Booo! You can do better than that. Does it matter what the source is when the fact remains they were exonerated by a nonpartisan congressional panel, the CRS? Please tell me you can do better than this.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the only evidence against them inadmissable in court anyway? Not that I know much about this, but if that's the only evidence, and even if it shows murder, isn't it worthless?
 
OxymoronP said:
:lol: I love conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

You got your arse whooped because you didn't bother to read the story or you have serious partisan blinders on and that the best you can come up with? :rofl

No conspiracy here.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Booo! You can do better than that. Does it matter what the source is when the fact remains they were exonerated by a nonpartisan congressional panel, the CRS? Please tell me you can do better than this.
Click to expand...

Actually, I wasn't complaining about the source directly (The paper). Actually, I was just kind of interested in that. Roanoke is a small (though biggest in its area) city in Southwest Virginia that I'm from and I was just surprised to see a random story from there pop up.

However, in regards to the source who wrote it, not particularly. You have people in this thread complaining that the man's comments on ACORN can't be trusted because he has an agenda.....and then you post an ar ticle by a person with an agenda as proof of this.

The article doesn't even address the CSR's report outside of summarizing how they read it.

What was actually looked into by the report. Whether they broke the law or not is extremely broad and without clarification (was it individual branches? was it during the election? was it about the things alledged in the video). This is the problem with using an EDITORIAL rather than an actual news article. A news article generally tries to get FACTS, not opinions. This person included little to nothing of the CSR, gave no specifics of what the CSR was looking at. They gave their own summary of the information they read that they don't tell us about and proceed to give us their opinion.

Its not that the source was not credible, its that the source did'nt really give facts, just their opinion.

How about actually linking to the CSR's report?
 
Zyphlin said:
Actually, I wasn't complaining about the source directly (The paper). Actually, I was just kind of interested in that. Roanoke is a small (though biggest in its area) city in Southwest Virginia that I'm from and I was just surprised to see a random story from there pop up.

However, in regards to the source who wrote it, not particularly. You have people in this thread complaining that the man's comments on ACORN can't be trusted because he has an agenda.....and then you post an ar ticle by a person with an agenda as proof of this.

The article doesn't even address the CSR's report outside of summarizing how they read it.

What was actually looked into by the report. Whether they broke the law or not is extremely broad and without clarification (was it individual branches? was it during the election? was it about the things alledged in the video). This is the problem with using an EDITORIAL rather than an actual news article. A news article generally tries to get FACTS, not opinions. This person included little to nothing of the CSR, gave no specifics of what the CSR was looking at. They gave their own summary of the information they read that they don't tell us about and proceed to give us their opinion.

Its not that the source was not credible, its that the source did'nt really give facts, just their opinion.

How about actually linking to the CSR's report?
Click to expand...

Here eat your heart out. But I'm not doing your homework again.

[ame="http://www.scribd.com/doc/24424725/Congressional-Research-Service-Report-On-Acorn"]Congressional Research Service Report On Acorn[/ame]
 
You know, this dweeb should have taken the advise that popped up on his computer screen the day before:

a-funny-pic.jpg
 
Zyphlin said:
Actually, he's both. You can be both you know. He was a messenger in regards to the ACORN thing, and it sure seems he's a criminal in this case.

He's bad for being a criminal. If he's found guilty he should be punished. That doesn't magically change the ACORN footage into something else. And the hypocritical nature of some of those who immedietely doubted him on the ACORN story and have repeatedly said it doesn't matter but are acting like they just found him molesting puppies while sacrificing a kid on top of a stolen Picaso and as such must just be an agenda driven compulsive liar is rather funny.

Seriously though, trying to falsely represent yourself to the over the line degree he did and tapping phones, for whatever reason, is just way over the line. The punishment may vary based on motive and purpose but there's nothing that'd really excuse it.
Click to expand...
i posted this because i found it pretty funny that the guy who actually created the acorn scandal was arrested for breaking the law. no, it doesn't change the acorn footage, but it does tell us what lengths he would go to for a story which damages dems.
 
liblady said:
Activist filmmaker arrested in senator?s office - More politics- msnbc.com

this is interesting. a son of a federal prosecutor? now we can stop pretending that this "film maker" is in any way non-biased.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone was under the impression that he was unbiased in his views. I also don't see how that bears on the facts of what he uncovered in his initial case.

"poor judgement" my ass.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what this turns out to be, I think we can all agree that at a minimum, it involved poor judgment.

EnigmaO01 said:
And many you seem to ignore were exonerated of wrong behavior. But please please don't let the facts get in your way.

But an exhaustive report recently released by the Congressional Research Service -- a nonpartisan branch of Congress -- exonerated ACORN, finding no incidents where the organization broke any laws or misspent any federal funds.
Click to expand...

EnigmaO01 said:
Booo! You can do better than that. Does it matter what the source is when the fact remains they were exonerated by a nonpartisan congressional panel, the CRS? Please tell me you can do better than this.
Click to expand...

You're conflating legal innocence with "being good." I don't think that many were actually claiming that ACORN as an organization was violating federal law in regards to what it was doing with its federal funding, but rather that it was encouraging or enabling others to engage in activities that any reasonable person would consider reprehensible.

Let's say you go undercover into my office and secretly audiotape me using every racial slur in the book and talking about how I would love to bring back a Nazi regime. If you bring that to the press, I would certainly look like a horrible person. I think it's safe to say that many would choose to stop doing business with me. If a prosecutor looked into that tape and concluded that I was not guilty of violating any crime (as I obviously would not be), does that mean that I'm somehow no longer a scumbag? Does that mean that everyone in the community should run back and embrace me?
 
RightinNYC said:
I don't think anyone was under the impression that he was unbiased in his views. I also don't see how that bears on the facts of what he uncovered in his initial case.



Regardless of what this turns out to be, I think we can all agree that at a minimum, it involved poor judgment.





You're conflating legal innocence with "being good." I don't think that many were actually claiming that ACORN as an organization was violating federal law in regards to what it was doing with its federal funding, but rather that it was encouraging or enabling others to engage in activities that any reasonable person would consider reprehensible.

Let's say you go undercover into my office and secretly audiotape me using every racial slur in the book and talking about how I would love to bring back a Nazi regime. If you bring that to the press, I would certainly look like a horrible person. I think it's safe to say that many would choose to stop doing business with me. If a prosecutor looked into that tape and concluded that I was not guilty of violating any crime (as I obviously would not be), does that mean that I'm somehow no longer a scumbag? Does that mean that everyone in the community should run back and embrace me?
Click to expand...

Depends. What if you had never done those things, and the the guy going undercover was merely on a fishing expedition? He should go to jail, and you would have the right to sue him for everything he's got.
 
i need to remember that excuse next time i break the law......i'm sorry i used poor judgement.

this guy is no better than michael moore, and worse, actually, because he did break the law.
 
danarhea said:
Depends. What if you had never done those things, and the the guy going undercover was merely on a fishing expedition? He should go to jail, and you would have the right to sue him for everything he's got.
Click to expand...

You mean if I literally never said them and he falsified the tape to dub someone elses voice over mine? Then yes, in that case it would certainly be defamation. I don't think anyone has claimed that that's remotely like what happened in the ACORN case.

liblady said:
i need to remember that excuse next time i break the law......i'm sorry i used poor judgement.

this guy is no better than michael moore, and worse, actually, because he did break the law.
Click to expand...

Did anyone say that he should be excused because he used poor judgment?

What people are saying is that whether or not what he did was criminal (which it certainly looks like it was), it was poor judgment regardless.
 
RightinNYC said:
You mean if I literally never said them and he falsified the tape to dub someone elses voice over mine? Then yes, in that case it would certainly be defamation. I don't think anyone has claimed that that's remotely like what happened in the ACORN case.



Did anyone say that he should be excused because he used poor judgment?

What people are saying is that whether or not what he did was criminal (which it certainly looks like it was), it was poor judgment regardless.
Click to expand...

I think what liblady is getting at is "poor judgment" sounds like the person committed something minor (I made a right turn on red when there was a sign saying I couldn't). Going into a federal office for the purpose of committing a crime connotes more than just having poor judgment.
 
aps said:
I think what liblady is getting at is "poor judgment" sounds like the person committed something minor (I made a right turn on red when there was a sign saying I couldn't). Going into a federal office for the purpose of committing a crime connotes more than just having poor judgment.
Click to expand...

And I'm just saying that until we know more about what they were going in there to do, "poor judgment" is all we know for a fact. Depending on what they were actually doing, I can envision plenty of scenarios in which they honestly (and mistakenly) believed that what they were doing was either legal or in some grey area, but was generally harmless. I'm not saying that that will be the case, but I'm also not saying it can't.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
And I'm just saying that until we know more about what they were going in there to do, "poor judgment" is all we know for a fact. Depending on what they were actually doing, I can envision plenty of scenarios in which they honestly (and mistakenly) believed that what they were doing was either legal or in some grey area, but was generally harmless. I'm not saying that that will be the case, but I'm also not saying it can't.
Click to expand...

I'd love to hear some of these scenarios in which a couple of people dress up and pretend to be something they're not, to do work they were neither asked nor authorized to do, in a place they don't belong, and it's all just a "mistake" on their part because they believed it was completely legal and above board.

:roll:
 
It's going to fun watching the DoJ try to prove that a crime was actually committed here.
 
apdst said:
It's going to fun watching the DoJ try to prove that a crime was actually committed here.
Click to expand...

Pffft. It's a slam dunk. Did they or did they not enter a federal building under false pretenses? Were they actually telephone repairmen? Were they called to fix the phones? Did O'Keefe admit to helping plan and coordinate the scam?
 
Last edited:
Glinda said:
Pffft. It's a slam dunk. Did they or did they not enter a federal building under false pretenses? Were they actually telephone repairmen? Were they called to fix the phones? Did O'Keefe admit to helping plan and coordinate the scam?
Click to expand...

Did they have electronic surveillance devices on their person that would enable them to actually tap a phone? If not, then the government's ability to prove intent is going to seriously hampered.

Actually, this is the only crime that's been committed:

18 U.S.C. § 1036 : US Code - Section 1036: Entry by false pretenses to any real property, vessel, or aircraft of the United States or secure area of any airport.

(a) Whoever, by any fraud or false pretense, enters or attempts
to enter -
(1) any real property belonging in whole or in part to, or
leased by, the United States;
(2) any vessel or aircraft belonging in whole or in part to, or
leased by, the United States; or
(3) any secure area of any airport,
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this
section is -
(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5
years, or both, if the offense is committed with the intent to
commit a felony; or
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 6
months, or both, in any other case.
(c) As used in this section -
(1) the term "secure area" means an area access to which is
restricted by the airport authority or a public agency; and
(2) the term "airport" has the meaning given such term in
section 47102 of title 49.
Click to expand...

If the government can't prove intent, then O'Keefe is going to allowed to walk with probation, at the most.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom