Someone at Judicial Watch is going to wake up to a severed horses head.
WASHINGTON, March 11 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) detailing federal investigations into the alleged corrupt activities of Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The documents reference serious allegations of corruption and voter registration fraud by ACORN as well as the Obama administration's decision to shut down a criminal investigation without filing criminal charges.
The ACORN documents uncovered by Judicial Watch include internal FBI memoranda, signed affidavits, subpoenas, fraudulent voter registration cards, and publications describing ACORN's policies and practices. The documents also include details regarding numerous allegations of corruption extending beyond voter registration fraud, to include attempts by ACORN employees to coerce workers to participate in campaign activities on behalf of Democratic candidates.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 11, 2010, 01:30:21 PM
Someone at Judicial Watch is going to wake up to a severed horses head.
WASHINGTON, March 11 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) detailing federal investigations into the alleged corrupt activities of Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The documents reference serious allegations of corruption and voter registration fraud by ACORN as well as the Obama administration's decision to shut down a criminal investigation without filing criminal charges.
The ACORN documents uncovered by Judicial Watch include internal FBI memoranda, signed affidavits, subpoenas, fraudulent voter registration cards, and publications describing ACORN's policies and practices. The documents also include details regarding numerous allegations of corruption extending beyond voter registration fraud, to include attempts by ACORN employees to coerce workers to participate in campaign activities on behalf of Democratic candidates.
Let me guess ... the allegations came from James O'Keefe. ::)
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 11, 2010, 01:45:16 PM
Let me guess ... the allegations came from James O'Keefe. ::)
No, it's actually a collection of complaints and investigations going all the way back to 2006 involving thousands of voter registrations.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/ACORN_FBI_docs.pdf
http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/612_FBI_acorn_2ndrlsdocs_2_24_10.pdf
It seems to be a "culture of corruption." :o
Alinsky style.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 11, 2010, 01:45:16 PM
Let me guess ... the allegations came from James O'Keefe. ::)
I knew that was coming, surprised you were the one that fell for it.
Who was it in the Obama Administration that declined to file charges?
Quote from: Gaspar on March 11, 2010, 02:00:30 PM
No, it's actually a collection of complaints and investigations going all the way back to 2006 involving thousands of voter registrations.
It seems to be a "culture of corruption." :o
An alleged culture of corruption that hasn't led to much of anything in terms of criminal charges. And Judicial Watch doesn't exactly have a lot of credibility.
But that leads me to a question, Gaspar. Do you believe that ACORN stole the election for Obama?
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 11, 2010, 08:13:22 PM
An alleged culture of corruption that hasn't led to much of anything in terms of criminal charges. And Judicial Watch doesn't exactly have a lot of credibility.
But that leads me to a question, Gaspar. Do you believe that ACORN stole the election for Obama?
I too have a problem with Judicial Watch, in particular when Larry Klayman was there and, in my opinion, was his chronic need for attention. Still, the documents they obtained speak for themselves and for us to view and evaluate.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 11, 2010, 08:13:22 PM
An alleged culture of corruption that hasn't led to much of anything in terms of criminal charges. And Judicial Watch doesn't exactly have a lot of credibility.
But that leads me to a question, Gaspar. Do you believe that ACORN stole the election for Obama?
Oh heck no. He won the election. He won on the platform of Hope & Change. This ACORN thing has been going on since the mid 00s. The question is why halt an investigation that obviously has merit?
Why would a sitting president want to be connected to such an organization?
I never understood what the Hope was or what the Change was supposed to be. Perhaps this is just part of it.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 12, 2010, 07:58:23 AM
Oh heck no. He won the election. He won on the platform of Hope & Change. This ACORN thing has been going on since the mid 00s. The question is why halt an investigation that obviously has merit?
Why would a sitting president want to be connected to such an organization?
I never understood what the Hope was or what the Change was supposed to be. Perhaps this is just part of it.
Well, good. I asked about the election because there's a small but noisy contingent that thinks Obama's election was "illegitimate" and stolen, including that damned fool David Arnett. Those folks are reality-challenged, to say the least.
As for the allegations, color me skeptical ... if for no other reason that study after study have shown that allegations for voter fraud have been way, way overblown and are statistically insignificant or absent entirely.
That doesn't mean voter fraud should be tolerated. But if you hear a politician yelling "if there's smoke, there's fire" about alleged voter fraud, you can rest assured that the only smoke is coming from his butt.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 12, 2010, 09:11:17 AM
Well, good. I asked about the election because there's a small but noisy contingent that thinks Obama's election was "illegitimate" and stolen, including that damned fool David Arnett. Those folks are reality-challenged, to say the least.
As for the allegations, color me skeptical ... if for no other reason that study after study have shown that allegations for voter fraud have been way, way overblown and are statistically insignificant or absent entirely.
That doesn't mean voter fraud should be tolerated. But if you hear a politician yelling "if there's smoke, there's fire" about alleged voter fraud, you can rest assured that the only smoke is coming from his butt.
The big difference with ACORN is that it's not politicians complaining so much as it is voters, election observers, and the registration headquarters that have to spend thousands of dollars in time going over every registration from this group. It seems that ACORN's philosophy is to throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. This makes big problems for local election boards. ACORN public and private funding gives them the power to create a deluge of registrations without any focus on the validity of the registrations. And furthermore it is now obvious that they have no intension of correcting or even taking responsibility for these actions.
Apparently they don't have to any more, because now they have been granted the authority to operate above the law. Now under their new names "Americans for Change", "Communities for Change", "International Association of Community Organizers",and "Citizens Consulting, Inc." and a dozen others they have applied for, they are attempting to develop a more scatted target.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 12, 2010, 09:11:17 AM
As for the allegations, color me skeptical ... if for no other reason that study after study have shown that allegations for voter fraud have been way, way overblown and are statistically insignificant or absent entirely.
Just shut the he!! up for once. We are still hearing about how Bush was selected as president in 2000, despite the numerous newspaper recounts in Florida and how Bushco stole the 2004 election. Another example of your bs (oops, I said a baddy) double standards.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 12, 2010, 09:11:17 AM
Well, good. I asked about the election because there's a small but noisy contingent that thinks Obama's election was "illegitimate" and stolen, including that damned fool David Arnett. Those folks are reality-challenged, to say the least.
As for the allegations, color me skeptical ... if for no other reason that study after study have shown that allegations for voter fraud have been way, way overblown and are statistically insignificant or absent entirely.
That doesn't mean voter fraud should be tolerated. But if you hear a politician yelling "if there's smoke, there's fire" about alleged voter fraud, you can rest assured that the only smoke is coming from his butt.
It should not be tolerated one iota, especially when it's being done by an "agency" which recieves money from the Federal Government. I think ACORN is ripe for a total anal probe, and yet the admin wants to sweep this under the rug and I believe they are pressuring and inimidating local prosecutors and judges to back away. Obviously nothing new as this has been a practice through many administrations to help protect those who help them.
I could care less that ACORN supports causes and candidates which I don't care for. What bothers me is they recieve federal funding and should be A) non-partisan in their activities much like tax-exempt churches are and B) when laws are apparently being broken on many fronts- fraud, corruption, embezzlement, what basically passes for organized crime in other realms. No more federal funding, period. If they are working to disrupt the electoral system, then dis-banded all-together.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 12, 2010, 09:42:19 AM
non-partisan in their activities much like tax-exempt churches are
Had to cough on that one Conan
Quote from: Townsend on March 12, 2010, 10:30:04 AM
Had to cough on that one Conan
Meant to say "...as churches are expected to be" my bad.
Now drop your pants, turn your head, and cough again.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 12, 2010, 10:41:51 AM
Meant to say "...as churches are expected to be" my bad.
Now drop your pants, turn your head, and cough again.
Pffft, not falling for that one again mr. "practicing without a license".
Quote from: guido911 on March 12, 2010, 09:39:04 AM
Just shut the he!! up for once. We are still hearing about how Bush was selected as president in 2000, despite the numerous newspaper recounts in Florida and how Bushco stole the 2004 election. Another example of your bs (oops, I said a baddy) double standards.
Show me where I've ever said that Bush stole the election. I never thought that.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 12, 2010, 10:58:44 AM
Show me where I've ever said that Bush stole the election. I never thought that.
Welcome to the lib Borg, where in Guido's mind we're all responsible for everything every liberal has ever said, ever.
Quote from: we vs us on March 12, 2010, 12:39:08 PM
Welcome to the lib Borg, where in Guido's mind we're all responsible for everything every liberal has ever said, ever.
You're not???
Quote from: guido911 on March 12, 2010, 09:39:04 AM
Just shut the he!! up for once. We are still hearing about how Bush was selected as president in 2000, despite the numerous newspaper recounts in Florida and how Bushco stole the 2004 election. Another example of your bs (oops, I said a baddy) double standards.
To be fair, there was never any clear result of those newspaper recounts. The newspapers, in the interest of getting along, decided to push the story that Bush won their recount, despite something like only one of the 5 recount methods producing him as the winner. It truly was too close to call. I would respect a coin toss more than I do Bush v. Gore. Of course, if there had been a coin flip to determine the winner, we'd still be arguing about whether Mother Teresa's corpse should have been making the toss instead of the Republican Secretary of State.
That said, people arguing that the 2004 election was stolen are idiots. Yes, there were some irregularities, but there are
always irregularities. Moreover, there is no clear evidence that those irregularities were responsible for enough miscast votes to switch the election. It was a very good example of how lack of transparency breeds suspicion of the results, however. It also provides an excellent example of why electronic voting machines should be required by law to produce a voter-verifiable paper audit tape. Not because anything went wrong in a major way, but because that's about the only thing that will put this idiocy to bed.
One thing I think we all agree on is . . .
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2771/4427051615_1388abc060_o.jpg)
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 12, 2010, 12:44:28 PM
You're not???
Well, personally, I can tell you that I can't vouch for PETA, EarthFirst, or in general any radical student group that throws rocks/bombs/gang signs.
I plead the fifth, however, on the 1848 Socialist Revolution in Europe.
Quote from: nathanm on March 12, 2010, 01:02:44 PM
To be fair, there was never any clear result of those newspaper recounts. The newspapers, in the interest of getting along, decided to push the story that Bush won their recount, despite something like only one of the 5 recount methods producing him as the winner. It truly was too close to call. I would respect a coin toss more than I do Bush v. Gore. Of course, if there had been a coin flip to determine the winner, we'd still be arguing about whether Mother Teresa's corpse should have been making the toss instead of the Republican Secretary of State.
I remember those stories, mostly for the fact they were all over the place on who would've won. The race in Florida was too close to call, and any number of variables could have changed the result.
Still, I said at the time that Gore deserved to lose because he didn't even win in his home state of Tennessee. Any presidential candidate who loses in his home state is doomed.
As for 2004, feh. The election was close in the electoral count, but not in the actual vote numbers. Bush won by 3 million votes nationwide, and by 120,000 in Ohio, which put him over the top.
Quote from: we vs us on March 12, 2010, 02:07:48 PM
Well, personally, I can tell you that I can't vouch for PETA, EarthFirst, or in general any radical student group that throws rocks/bombs/gang signs.
I plead the fifth, however, on the 1848 Socialist Revolution in Europe.
PETA, People Eating Tasty Animals
;D
So what's up with this ACORN fetish? Why are we pressing this? "Because of voter-fraud" isn't enough. Conservative organizations have been accused of -- and convicted of -- similar things. We know fraud happens. So far these details summarize about what we've all heard about ACORN.
So if this is about winning some moral point, what IS it? Obviously a whole lot of people are fighting to finally say "YES YES YES I TOLD YOU ACORN WAS A CROCK YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT BUT I DID AND I TOLD YOU SO NYAH NYAH!" Is it that the Pres's favorite organization is supposedly corrupt to the core? Is it that nonprofits run for and by the inner city poor deserve to fail? I'm trying to decipher what this level of obsession with ACORN is supposed to tell me and I'm coming up blank.
Any of you conservatives out there get any talking points that can shed light on this? Inquiring minds want to know!
Quote from: we vs us on March 12, 2010, 11:00:56 PM
Inquiring minds want to know!
Copyright violation.... be prepared to get the crap sued out of you!