One More Time on James O’Keefe

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Patterico, Dizguise Costumes and WashIndependent, TMC Member Feed. TMC Member Feed said: Wash. Independent: One More Time on James O’Keefe: Patterico brings to my attention this argument from blogger Bra… http://bit.ly/ag50ck [...]

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TWI_news: One More Time on James O’Keefe http://bit.ly/9FloxQ...

O'Keefe's a garden-variety huckster, and the Teabaggerz who he's selling to are the gamest rubes in the trailerpark—easy pickins.

Nice use of a 'z' at the end of Teabaggerz. It gives them more street cred.

David –

This is what comes of trusting Patrick “Patterico” Frey with anything.

I see that you've linked to his misleading blog item above, which refers to my blog item, but you didn't link to my original piece. I don't know if you've read it or not, or only Frey's mischaracterization of it, but the original is here: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7761

As usual, Frey began by misleading you with his tweet to you ( http://twitter.com/Patterico/status/10979979707 ) in which he blatantly mischaracterized my article and argument by saying to you: “@thebradblog says u claim O'Keefe always played ONLY boyfriend, never said he wanted 2 run brothel, & Giles admitted this 2 u”

As you'll see in my original article, I said no such thing. Didn't say one word about what you claimed. I cited only what you quoted Giles as saying to you. But hoaxing folks seems to be what Patterico likes to do.

In any case, as to what you note in your article above, neither I — nor my article — have any particular dispute. (Though, the ACORN workers were telling O'Keefe and Giles how to *report* their income, not how to hide it, by filing as “performance artist”, etc. since there is no option for “prostitute” on tax forms. But that's all a separate issue from both my article, and the disingenuous dispute that Frey seems to have with it. If you read my piece — presuming you have not, or read only Frey's mischaracterization of it first — I'm sure you'll see that.

The question is not whether the edited videos or O'Keefe's unauthenticated transcripts “show O’Keefe and Giles seeking extra-legal advice on how to hide prostitution profits from the IRS”, it is whether O'Keefe “clearly represented himself” as a pimp to ACORN workers, as the NYTimes has uncritically reported, even in their correction that they finally issued yesterday on the pimp costume itself.

I appreciate (being a follower and reader of yours) that you disagree with the importance of the issue of how O'Keefe was dressed, and that's a debate/discussion we can have at another time if you wish. But as to this particular matter, again, the argument is in my article, which you are free to agree with or not, but I'd ask you to base it on my work, not Patterico's misrepresentation of it. A link to that article so other readers can decide on their own would also be appreciated.

Just as what he Tweeted you originally had wholly misrepresented what was in my article, I suspect you'll see how he's done what the Brooklyn DA accused O'Keefe and Giles of doing when they charged “they edited the tapes to meet their agenda”. So has Frey done with the case he's tried to make to you about my piece.

Best,
Brad

God knows they need whatever cred they can lay their hands on

Friedman repeatedly claimed, falsely, that Giles admitted to Weigel that the “pimp concept” was grafted onto the videos after the fact. Weigel honestly notes here that Giles only said that about the pimp “costume.”

That is quite a difference.

The difference is especially great in the context of Friedman's post, in which Friedman defies all the evidence to claim that O'Keefe never posed as a pimp — something O'Keefe absolutely DID do. Friedman tries to corroborate this phony thesis by invoking Weigel in a slippery way to suggest Giles said something she never said.

In context, by claiming the “pimp concept” was included in the final edit, Friedman is saying that Weigel wrote (citing Giles) that O'Keefe never posed as a pimp at ACORN. That O'Keefe always played ONLY Giles's boyfriend; that O'Keefe never said he wanted to run a brothel; and that Weigel knows this because Giles admitted that the “pimp concept” came after the visits.

This is false, and Weigel has clearly said so. I salute Weigel on his integrity in rejecting Friedman's slippery citation of his work.

Well, Mr. Weigel, between getting the WaPo gig and having a couple of fairly well known bloggers duking it out here in your joint, you're truly moving up in the world.

Ah, Patterico – aka Patrick Frey, a Deputy (or is it Assistant?) District Attorney for Los Angeles (is it City or County? can't recall…) – friend of the powerful and comfortable, and foe of those unpleasant disadvantaged socioeconomic scum that are were ACORN's primary constituency. Still at it, I see. As a commenter (Jay B.) said back in 2006 (at 18:22 in [1]), “Patterico (aka Glenn Frey) is an assitant D.A. in LA County. Makes you wonder what the public’s paying for, don’t it?”

I suppose it is an improvement that he has graduated from outing pseudonymous bloggers by posting their real names, or by laying out enough of a trail of bread crumbs for even drooling idiots to figure out their identities. Click on [2] for an example. To his credit, at least Dep. D.A. Frey apologized for that later.

And click on [3] to see another example of Dep. D.A. Frey working it hard to defend weaselly right-wing propagandists. Unfortunately, in taking on Glenn Greenwald (aka 'Glennzilla'), Mr. Frey may have bitten off more than he could chew.

Oh well, it's good to know that there are still jobs out there that leave plenty of time for online shenanigans.

[1.] http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/3469.html
[2.] http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2006/08/very-passive-…
[3.] http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/disn…

Patterico -

You're an L.A. County Dep. District Attorney. Do you lie like this to get convictions in your office as well? Unbelievable.

You wrote, inaccurately, that “Friedman repeatedly claimed, falsely, that Giles admitted to Weigel that the “pimp concept” was grafted onto the videos after the fact. Weigel honestly notes here that Giles only said that about the pimp “costume.”"

That is, of course, exactly what I wrote in my article which you purposely bastardized when you misled Dave in your original Tweet to him ( http://twitter.com/Patterico/status/10979979707 ) in which you dishonestly I wrote “@TheBradBlog says u claim O'Keefe always played ONLY boyfriend, never said he wanted 2 run brothel, & Giles admitted this 2 u”.

That's a complete, and utter lie. Amazing. I never made ANY such claim about Dave, or about what he claimed in my article. You are, in short, a liar.

You then go on to write an article ( http://patterico.com/2010/03/25/dave-weigel-i-d… ) about it, in which you can't even get further than the headline without lying when you mischaracterize Dave with: “Dave Weigel: I Did Not Write What Brad Friedman Claims I Wrote”

If anyone bothers to read my actual article ( http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7761 ), which I suspect you're counting on your readers not doing (and, happily for you, Dave didn't bother to link to it here, unfortunately), they would quickly see that I made no claims about Dave Weigel's claims at all. Not any. Not none. His only cursory relation to my piece was that he was the one who quoted Giles, so I offered him the courtesy of citing him by name. My “claims” were about Giles quote, which Dave reported here, and had nothing to do with Dave, no matter how opportunistically and dishonestly you keep claiming otherwise.

Finally, you finish your garbage by commenting here, ironically (but not surprisingly anymore), with a “salute” to Dave “on his integrity in rejecting Friedman's slippery citation of his work.”

Um, speaking of “slippery citations of work”, Patty, could you have possibly been any more “slippery” in your citations of my work, and your false citations about my “citations” of Dave's work? Jesus.

Seriously — you're really, truly a Deputy D.A.?! Do your bosses know what you do in your free time? Are you allowed to get away with this kind of shoddy work on the job? And why are you out publicly defending accused felons and known liars, when your office OUGHT to be investigating whether or not O'Keefe and Giles should be prosecuted for violating penal code 632 in their Los Angeles video tape, as the former MA AG has suggested? I'll assume you don't find any problem with putting such a case at risk by going on the public record the way you have (using “Patterico” pseudonymously, instead of your real name Patrick Frey) in defense of these folks, when a prosecution on this matter could very well come up in your very own office.

You are quite a piece of work, Patty.

Acorn is dead. End of story.

Acorn is dead. End of story.

See the quote in the post that Dave Weigel says is inaccurate? That is your quote, Brad Friedman. Dave Weigel is saying *you* mischaracterized his writing.

My comments here are made on my own time, as a private citizen not representing the views of my office. I uphold the truth during the day and sometimes point out lies by people like you at night. Again, I am not the only person who has concluded that you bent the truth here; the very post we are commenting on is a testament to your dishonesty.

I know it can't be pleasant to be portrayed as a liar, but there's a cure for that, Brad. Stop lying.

The issue about the pimp dress is only representative of the lack of scrutiny that O'Keefe's narrative has been given. And considering the serious crimes he was falsely accusing people of, that's a shame.

No offense Dave, but you are demonstrating that lack of scruntiy in your own article above.

Eg., you state above- “But the videos and transcripts clearly show O’Keefe and Giles seeking extra-legal advice on how to hide prostitution profits from the IRS.”

Well, no… not really Dave. I mean, that's not just overgeneralizing, that's flat out wrong.

For example, take a look at the Brooklyn Video transcript. The scene in which Volda advises Hannah to “bury the money” is frequently cited as evidence that ACORN is advising Hannah to hide her money form the government.

Nothing of the sort appears to be happening in the transcripts.

Instead, Volda is advising Hannah to hide the money from her abusive pimp, “Sonny”, the only pimp EVER mentioned in the encounter.

So Dave, it's clear you have a soft-spot for these guys, and I can appreciate that.

But you are wrong in your statement above… I suppose a correction is out of the question, right?

And that's the problem Brad is demonstrating, using the costume issue as a representative.

You are willing to report false info which the very subject of your research wants you to advance for him. In doing so, you unfairly preclude any opportunity for those accused of these crimes to make their own case.

O'Keefe recently got to know what that feels like, but I'm sure he would never learn from it.

Sorry Pats, but you are totally in the wrong here….

This very post which you and Brad are commenting on is not a “testament” to what you call Brad's “dishonesty”…., it’s a testament to how shamefully irresponsible the reporting on this issue really is.

And Pats, you do have yourself, in part, to thank for that twisted state of affairs. In fact, so does Dave Weigel (sorry Dave).

I mean, Dave makes an EXPLICITLY FALSE and confused statement about the content of the ACORN videos right there in his own article above (the one which you see as so outstanding in its condemnation of Brad Freidman.)

Dave states “But the videos and transcripts clearly show O’Keefe and Giles seeking extra-legal advice on how to hide prostitution profits from the IRS.”

No, the videos/transcripts don’t show any such thing. And Dave is being entirely irresponsible by passing this sweeping mis-characterization. At this point, and after all that tweeting and reporting and blogging and emailing, he SHOULD know what is on those transcripts.

For one thing, as stated below, according to those transcripts Giles is being taught, not how to hide her profits, but how to declare them without calling herself a “prostitute”.

More importantly, according to the Brooklyn transcripts, Giles was advised by ACORN’s Volda to hide her money, but NOT from the government… rather from the abusive pimp named “Sonny.” This “Sonny” is the only pimp EVER referenced in the transcripts, and Giles claims he is a serious threat to her and her fellow prostitutes; hence the immediate need for her to seek info on buying a home.

Now, lets forget about mocking people who REALLY ARE in such situations… this aspect of the story, by itself, COMPLETELY discounts the mis-characterization which Dave is offering above (and which is pushed like crack-on-a-cruddy-corner by the likes of yourself, Pats ol’ boy.)

What Brad has been trying to demonstrate (and what many of us have understood from the moment that James refused to let anyone see his original footage) is that the MSM’s reporting on this matter relies on too many falsehoods which are demonstrated as such by a unbiased review EVEN of the unauthenticated material.

Brad is thus using the Pimp costume issue as a model. And it is representative of how mismanaged reporting has been about this matter.

Dave has just unwittingly proved that point by his false claim above.
(And by the way Dave, a correction WOULD be the right thing to do.)

As such, Dave’s article is a testament to what little interest most reporters have in being fair about this issue,. It demonstrates what little concern many of them have for REALLY getting to the heart of what was actually happening on those videos.

It’s a shame that un-vetted internet video from an explicitly biased source is what you might consider to be suitable “evidence”. Even more, its ironic that only a few months ago James found his future hinging on the disclosure of unedited footage from his crime.

You’d think he’d have learned a lesson about the importance of primary evidence. But since he has too many ideological blow-hards mangling his mind, I doubt he could ever grow in that way.

[...] One More Time on James O'Keefe « The Washington Independent [...]

[...] One More Time on James O'Keefe « The Washington Independent [...]

[...] One More Time on James O'Keefe « The Washington Independent [...]

Better website?…

Hey this can be a actual cool web site…