I would argue that ACORN couldn't expect a reasonable level of privacy in this situation, but it all depends on how good their lawyer is and the makeup of the jury, honestly.
Bull .
Funding someone for a project is not the same as conspiring to commit a crime. The doner claims to have no knowledge of the specific project. Being independent does not mean you cannot receive financial help from others.
If you are going to repeat what is no better than slander, you need to connect the dots in a factual matter that proves the case. Not one that just shows it's possible.
Way to go Propaganda Dan.
This whole thing would have been a big deal no matter who bankrolled it. I don't understand why he had to hide who funded it.
He's such an idiot.
Does the reason matter? Did he say he was using his own finances?
Do you read anything, WC?
On farther reading, it becomes obvious that Thiel funded the video for "Tax Payer Clearing House." Not the ACORN project.
Silly to lie about the funding but it's not really relevant. The tapes were legit.
(RICO... LOL)
Yeah. And it wasn't really needed to read that far.
I know. RICO is a real stretch.
Love how liberals parse the fact that he was funded for one project, then says the ACORN project was his own, yet they try to tie it otherwise.
Cost of a pimp and outfit:
Free, leftover from Halloween (maybe).
Cost of the ACORN scandal... Priceless...Now in the case of the Tax Payer Clearing House video required the several checks to be made, truck logo's, etc. I won't specualte on the true cost, just that there is more than what a minicam and costumes cost.
It's a slippery slope, isn't it? First you say that O'Keefe payed for the investigation himself, now we come to find that O'Keefe had been previously employed by a GOP operative....next we find that the GOP Operative who financed O'Keefe knew what he was up too...and it's illegality....before you know it, your sucking this guy's ..
...how do you know the financiers intent?
No, you are interpreting this wrong. It is easy to understand, but you either don't understand, or are a pundit spinning lies.
Yeah. This offensive is rolling right along ...............
No matter what dirt comes out about the film makers it was a stupid sucker move for ACORN to file this lawsuit. It was already yesterdays news and everyone would have forgotten it in a month. Now, they open themselves up to discovery and the bleeding and bad publicity will continue for years.
This memo is just one example of the stuff that will start coming out about ACORN.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/01/...s-of-troubles/
The memo is a kind of Holy Grail for ACORN researchers. One source of mine keeps a copy in a safety deposit box.such drama.
You obviously didn't get the memo!
As far as I know, ACORN hasn't sued...the fired employees did...
Are you kidding? It's been talked about here. Wake up!
This is from the ACORN website:
ACORN Files Law Suit in Connection with Illegal Videotaping in Baltimore; September 25, 2009
None-the-less, as I've said before, ACORN has been investigated before....and passed the smell test..I wonder if the O"Keefe-Giles and GOP operative connections will pass the same test..
Well, they will fail the liberal smell test of sniffing butts. Their won't be stinky enough for you. However, I'm real sure they will pass the real test. The rule of law.
Show me a law they broke again...
That's been covered. By the writing of MD law on the matter, ACORN would have to prove that the setting was a private setting. That would be difficult. Is it a locked office? Are the people required not to report who they speak to and about what? This is a place of employment, not a home. Is it a private setting to the point two people could expect to have sex, uninterrupted?
Now satisfy this first test, then this second one. Did they knew their actions could be illegal under MD law. Ignorance to this law is actually written in as an exception. ACORN would have to prove they knew of the law.
Don't you read anything those of us with counterpoints post? I posted the letter of the law earlier, highlighting these!
That's a silly comparison...suppose O'Keefe was revealing serious (as in not-laughable fake pimp crap) confidential information to get feelers...like account information, income information..home address....wouldn't he expect some level of privacy?That's been covered. By the writing of MD law on the matter, ACORN would have to prove that the setting was a private setting. That would be difficult. Is it a locked office? Are the people required not to report who they speak to and about what? This is a place of employment, not a home. Is it a private setting to the point two people could expect to have sex, uninterrupted?
Yes, the privacy of clients is expected to be kept. The workers are not afforded privacy by their employer, at the workplace.
Besides, assuming you are correct, how are you going to prove O'Keefe knew about the law? Keep in mind, the law was written to keep law enforcement from abusing their capabilities. All he did was something journalists do regularly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
