Cross-posted from Blue News Tribune.
Of course there had to be more to this.
Our own Scott Harshabrger is on it. Joe Conason writes in Salon:
In San Diego, for example, the ACORN employee shown on the tapes is someone whose primary language is Spanish, not English. The report notes that “in the released video, his participation amounts mostly to nodding or saying ‘OK.’ It is difficult to determine what this employee is responding to because the videographers’ statements are obscured by a voiceover inserted later.”
After O’Keefe and Giles left the San Diego office, that same employee called a cousin who worked in a local police department “to ask him general advice regarding information he had received about possible human smuggling” — a reference to O’Keefe’s claim that he was bringing in young girls from El Salvador to work as prostitutes. The police report concerning that call shows that officers followed up later, only to be informed by the ACORN employee that the incident was a “ruse.”
That’s a pretty significant detail.
In Philadelphia, O’Keefe’s suspicious behavior likewise alerted the ACORN staff that something was amiss, and the police were informed there as well. No video of the visit to the Philly office was ever released by O’Keefe and Breitbart, although Harshbarger notes that “some of the released videos contain scenes of the sign of the Philadelphia ACORN office and shots of Philadelphia’s head organizer with no audio.”
Contrary to the claims of right-wing critics, who complain that Harshbarger failed to interview any of ACORN’s adversaries, the lawyer and his colleagues were rebuffed when they tried to speak with O’Keefe and Giles. Amy Crafts, a Proskauer associate who co-authored the report, told me that she made several efforts to contact the video producers both in person and through their attorneys.
Good thing our kneejerk Congress abandoned ACORN already.
Glenn Greenwald reports that a judge has ruled that Congress’ defunding is in effect an unconstitutional bill of attainder. I’m still not completely convinced, but apparently there is precedent.
But I’m not a fan of this kind of questioning — using questions to (a) make statements (especially those made by others), and (b) to try and pigeonhole a colleague and embarrass him. It’s a bit too much bullying for my taste.
in order to bring the information to the committee which was holding hearings on ACORN so that they would know that what they were prospoing was unconstitutional.
<
p>Read through the other articles and you will find that Grasyon was correct and they were wrong. A judge found the legislation to be a bill of attainder. The most compelling part of Grayson’s argument is the Supreme Court decision that says bill of attainder is to be interpreted broadly. Read Greenwald. It will help you understand what was going on.
<
p>Besides being right, Grayson stood up for ACORN which represents the least rich and least powerful among us. I have absolutely no problem with the way he made his point, just as I have absolutely no problem with the way Kennedy made his point when he faced obstruction after obstruction by the Republicans in the Senate who were determined to kill an increase in the minimum wage.
<
p>Grayson’s approach was exactly the way a litigator slow walks a witness to the truth, step by step.
<
p>If Coakley is willing to use her skills in this way in committee conference or questioning a nominee for Supreme Court I will applaud her too.
<
p>That said, there is a lot to be said for accomplishing the same thing with a friendly style and I think that’s everybody’s first choice (See Franken.)
I agree with his point and I remember it from when it happened; I just don’t like the way he delivered it. Congressional discourse — even in the case of a hearing — is not the same as courtroom discourse between attorney and witness.
His 5 minutes would be better spent making more of the argument that he made in the last 20 seconds and just citing the references he tried to get Broun to “agree” to in the other four and a half minutes.
I agree with his point and I remember it from when it happened; I just don’t like the way he delivered it. Congressional discourse — even in the case of a hearing — is not the same as courtroom discourse between attorney and witness.