• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Biased Media: How To Kill A Story

Mike

Well-known member
Killing A Story: How It's Done
May 17, 2009 Posted by John at 8:33 AM
In today's New York Times, Public Editor Clark Hoyt reveals the result of his investigation into the charge that the paper killed a story during the 2008 Presidential campaign in order to help Barack Obama. Hoyt concludes that the claim is "nonsense."

ON March 17, a Republican lawyer, quoting a confidential source for a Times reporter, testified to Congress that the newspaper killed a story last fall because it would have been "a game-changer" in the presidential election.

The charge, amplified by Bill O'Reilly on Fox News in April and reverberating around the conservative blogosphere, is about the most damning allegation that can be made against a news organization. If true, it would mean that Times editors, whose job is to report the facts without fear or favor, were so lacking in integrity that they withheld an important story in order to influence the election.

But the facts as related by Hoyt don't rebut the charge; they support it.

Times reporter Stephanie Strom was looking into ACORN, and she had a source, a former ACORN employee named Anita Moncrief. Moncrief told Strom that she had evidence of "constant contact" between ACORN's Project Vote and both the Obama and Clinton campaigns:

On Sept. 7, Moncrief wrote to Strom that she had donor lists from the campaigns of Obama and Hillary Clinton and that there had been "constant contact" between the campaigns and Project Vote, an Acorn affiliate whose tax-exempt status forbids it to engage in partisan politics. Moncrief said she had withheld that information earlier but was disclosing it now that the conservative columnist Michelle Malkin was "all over it."

"I am sorry," she wrote, "but I believe in Obama and did not want to help the Republicans."

A key part of Moncrief's story was that the Obama campaign had furnished ACORN with lists of maxed-out donors so that ACORN could mine them for contributions. In fact, Moncrief provided the Times reporter, Strom, with such a list that ACORN allegedly obtained from the Obama campaign. Hoyt does not dispute that this story, if true, was evidence of violation of the campaign finance laws.

So why did the Times pull the plug on Strom's ongoing investigation? The story became public because a Republican lawyer named Heather Heidelbaugh testified, apparently based on information she got from Anita Moncrief, that the Times had been working on an Obama-ACORN story but that "Ms. Strom reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at The New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, 'it was a game-changer.'" Hoyt undertakes to show that this charge was false.

He admits, though, that Strom's editor, Suzanne Daley, "called a halt to Strom's pursuit of the Obama angle." So the Times did kill the investigation and any further reporting. The only question is why. Hoyt uncritically accepts Daley's explanation:

"We had worked on that story for a while and had come up empty-handed," Daley said. "You have to cut bait after a while." She said she never thought of the story as a game-changer and never used that term with Strom.

But wait! Hoyt also relates that shortly before Daley pulled the plug, "Moncrief finally agreed to go on the record" and Strom had scheduled a meeting with her. It was when she called Moncrief to cancel the meeting that Strom allegedly told her that her bosses had killed the investigation to protect Obama. Obviously, if Strom was about to hit pay-dirt with an on-the-record witness, Daley's assertion that she killed the story because Strom "had come up empty-handed" is false.

Hoyt doesn't appear to notice the contradiction. He does, however, labor manfully to defend the Times. He goes to great lengths to refute the claim that Strom told Moncrief the Times killed the story because it was a "game-changer," as though that particular phrase had some talismanic significance. Yet, if you read Hoyt's column to the end, you find that in an email to Hoyt Moncrief attributed exactly that statement to Strom:

She said Strom told her "it was their policy not to print a game-changer for either side that close to the election."

Hoyt also argues that the story about Obama and ACORN would not have been a "game-changer" in that it would not have swung the election to John McCain. I agree. But since when is that the standard? Is Hoyt telling us that the Times' policy is only to print stories that have the potential to change the result of a Presidential election? Of course, if the story did have the potential to change the outcome of the election, that, too, would have been offered as a reason not to print it.

Hoyt also volunteers that Moncrief had a "credibility problem" because she had been fired by ACORN for putting private expenses on an ACORN credit card. So she is that classic newspaper source, a disgruntled former employee. Is Hoyt telling us that the Times doesn't run stories on the basis of leads from disgruntled former employees? Hah! If the paper followed that policy, it would lose out on its best exposes. And it bears repeating that Moncrief was attesting to first-hand information, not just passing along a rumor she had heard at ACORN. By her account, "it was her job to identify" maxed-out Obama donors who might contribute to ACORN's Project Vote.

Hoyt interviewed Strom, of course, but--rather remarkably--he does not reveal what Strom told him about her conversation with Daley in which Daley killed Strom's ongoing investigation. That's a rather significant omission, isn't it? Instead, Hoyt merely quotes Strom's observation that she did write a story on ACORN that appeared on October 22:

efore they were to meet, Strom said, another source gave her an internal report detailing concerns about impermissible political activity by Acorn and its tax-exempt affiliates. The resulting article was published on Oct. 22.

That story is here. It addresses another topic entirely, the lack of any real distinction between ACORN and Project Vote. It does, however, address the Obama controversy, very briefly:

Republicans have tried to make an issue of Senator Barack Obama's ties to the group, which he represented in a lawsuit in 1995. The Obama campaign has denied any connection with Acorn's voter registration drives.

There you have it. That's the last word the Times' readers got on Obama's very likely illegal relationship with ACORN.

If the Times didn't kill the story for the reason illogically asserted by Daley--it hadn't panned out--then why did they kill it? Perhaps Stephanie Strom's email reply to Anita Moncrief, quoted by Hoyt, suggests an answer:

Am also onto the Obama connection, sadly. Would love the donor lists. As for helping the Repubs, they're already onto this like white on rice. SIGH!

For the New York Times, Republicans are simply the enemy. By October 2008, it was time to circle the wagons.

 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Wait until the whole story of ACORN, CCI, SEIU and Obama comes out. There are something like 200+ Liberal organizations that receive funds from that one CCI office.

When the head of CCI was "terminated" from ACORN (he was founder of ACORN) for his embezzlement of Millions did not pay back the funds, an anoynomous donor came forward and bailed him out. Guess who he has connections to?

Why is Barney Frank protecting them from investigation? More community organizing at it's finest. Bet Reader didn't read this kind of stuff on Wikipedia, when she was vetting the "Greatest President in US history"

Tax documents show ACORN link to affiliates

By: Kevin Mooney
Examiner Columnist | 5/19/09 7:32 PM
Association of Community Organizers for Reform leaders deny having ties to legions of affiliated state and local organizations, but federal tax documents examined by The Examiner show concrete financial links between four such groups and the national ACORN office.

Project Vote, ACORN Institute, ACORN Housing Corporation and the ACORN American Institute for Social Justice included financial transactions with Citizens Consulting Incorporated on their tax documents.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/special-editorial-reports/Tax-documents-show-ACORN-link-to-affiliates-45443062.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Acorn is making a mockery of American politics.

Why can't the Liberals see it?


Yep- its a mockery for a group to work to get all Americans to come out and vote :???: :wink:

And we know holier than thou Repubs would never use behind the scenes financiers or grey area organizations to finance their agendas :???: :lol: :p

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=56177
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Acorn is making a mockery of American politics.

Why can't the Liberals see it?


Yep- its a mockery for a group to work to get all Americans to come out and vote :???: :wink:

And we know holier than thou Repubs would never use behind the scenes financiers or grey area organizations to finance their agendas :???: :lol: :p

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=56177

Acorn is right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook, which his son gave credit to Zer0 for perfecting. :lol: :lol: :lol:

It ain't just simply 'come out and vote'. It's come out and vote all derelicts, thugs, convicts, leeches on society....then there's you. :lol: :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
OT, how much of these 200+ groups taxpayer funded activities is spent on their legitimate causes/business?

Shouldn't you know that before you blindly give them another few Billion, from the stimulus funds?

See, you're all worried about "for profit" businesses and you forget that their are dishonest crooks in the "not for profit" businesses more than happy to steal taxpayer money also.
 

Mike

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
OT, how much of these 200+ groups taxpayer funded activities is spent on their legitimate causes/business?

Shouldn't you know that before you blindly give them another few Billion, from the stimulus funds?

See, you're all worried about "for profit" businesses and you forget that their are dishonest crooks in the "not for profit" businesses more than happy to steal taxpayer money also.

Plus thay always vote the ones in who will give them MORE money........

It's never ending cycle with the taxpayer left hung out to dry. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
OT, how much of these 200+ groups taxpayer funded activities is spent on their legitimate causes/business?

Shouldn't you know that before you blindly give them another few Billion, from the stimulus funds?

See, you're all worried about "for profit" businesses and you forget that their are dishonest crooks in the "not for profit" businesses more than happy to steal taxpayer money also.

I guess we wait and see if ACORN gets involved in something they haven't been- and if they outbid the competitors...

Q: Does the stimulus bill include a $5.2 billion payoff for ACORN?
I would appreciate having FactCheck.org look into whether ACORN will receive $5.23 billion from the Obama stimulus package under the guise of “stabilizing neighborhoods.” I have been bombarded by e-mails from an acquaintance about this. What can you find about this? Thank you.

A: The bill does include funds for which ACORN would be eligible to compete - against hundreds of other groups. But most is for a housing rehabilitation program ACORN says it never applied for in the past and won't in the future.


For the past two weeks, Republicans have been raising a new charge against a familiar enemy, claiming that the Democrats' stimulus bill includes as much as $5.2 billion in "goodies" for the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN). Last fall, Republicans accused ACORN of "massive voter fraud," a claim which we said was exaggerated. The group has since become a favorite target of Republicans, so it understandably raises a few hackles when House Republican leader John Boehner's Web site proclaims that the bill provides "a taxpayer-funded bonanza" for ACORN. And Republican Sen. David Vitter goes even further, telling Newsmax TV that the provisions amount to "a political payoff." Also, the National Republican Trust PAC has taken up the issue in fundraising pitches. But these claims are wildly exaggerated and rely upon faulty logic.

Let's start with the (very few) claims that critics get right. The House version of the stimulus bill does indeed include about $1 billion in funding for the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) program and another $4.2 billion ($2.2 billion in the Senate's version) in funding for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). Neither program is new: CDBG has been around since President Ford (a Republican) signed it into law in 1974, while the NSP was authorized in 2008 as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act signed into law by President Bush.

On its Web site, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which runs both programs, describes CDBG as "a flexible program that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs." But those funds cannot be used for anything resembling ACORN's controversial voter registration programs. HUD has very strict rules for projects that can be funded through CDBG grants, including promotion of home ownership and micro-enterprise assistance. ACORN has long been eligible for CDBG funds, and Boehner's Web site points out that the group has received almost $1.6 million (not billion) in CDBG grants over a four-year span.

NSP's mission is more limited: Its funds are used to purchase foreclosed or abandoned homes, redevelop and then resell them, with the aim of stabilizing home prices. Boehner and Vitter claimed to smell a rat in the stimulus package's language that allows nonprofit entities to compete directly for NSP funds. When the NSP was created last year, only state and local governments were eligible to participate in the program. The new language in the stimulus bill, Republicans argue, is a way to funnel money to ACORN.

We make no judgments about the wisdom of allowing nonprofits to compete with state and local governments for NSP funds. Is this a "payoff" or "goodies" for liberal allies, or for ACORN specifically? Actually, both programs hand out grants only on a competitive basis. ACORN – and any other nonprofit entity – would be eligible to compete for NSP funds (as it already does for CDBG funds), but the key words here are "eligible" and "compete."

Competition would likely be stiff. In 2008, NSP's first year, states handed out funds to a total of 308 grantees. The NSP rules would require ACORN to show that it would spend the money to renovate and resell foreclosed homes more efficiently than other applicants.

Moreover, ACORN is already indirectly eligible for NSP money; current law permits state and local governments to subcontract work, and ACORN would be eligible to compete for funds at the local level. However, ACORN didn't get any NSP money last year and says it doesn't plan to apply for NSP money in the future. Indeed, renovating foreclosed properties is not something the group has done in the past; its efforts in the home-buying industry focus mainly on developing new affordable housing and eliminating what it calls "predatory financial practices" by mortgage lenders. The group's chief organizer, Bertha Lewis, writes:

Lewis: We have not received neighborhood stabilization funds, have no plans to apply for such funds, and didn't weigh in on the pending rule changes.

Faulty Logic


Boehner and Vitter commit two logical fallacies. Their argument has the form:

The stimulus bill provides funding for redeveloping neighborhoods.
ACORN does work in redeveloping neighborhoods.
Therefore the stimulus bill provides funding for ACORN.

That's an example of what philosophers call the undistributed middle fallacy. It's a common mistake; in May 2008, we caught Sen. John McCain making a similar logical blunder. But Boehner and Vitter compound their error by treating different terms as if they had the same meaning. ACORN does indeed work in redeveloping neighborhoods, but the work that it does is not the same sort of work for which NSP provides funding. By pretending as if the two are the same, Boehner and Vitter commit the fallacy of equivocation.

We're accustomed to seeing logical fallacies in political arguments. But working two of them into a single argument is unusually bad logic.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_stimulus_bill_include_a_52.html
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
OT, you found one of the 200+ organizations getting funding from the CCI office.

Good investigative skills.

Check out Annenberg foundation, see how they fit into Factchek.

The bill does include funds for which ACORN would be eligible to compete - against hundreds of other groups. But most is for a housing rehabilitation program ACORN says it never applied for in the past and won't in the future.

What would be wrong with ACORN opening their books? Why is Barney Frank protecting against them opening their books?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
OT, you found one of the 200+ organizations getting funding from the CCI office.

Good investigative skills.

Check out Annenberg foundation, see how they fit into Factchek.

The bill does include funds for which ACORN would be eligible to compete - against hundreds of other groups. But most is for a housing rehabilitation program ACORN says it never applied for in the past and won't in the future.

What would be wrong with ACORN opening their books? Why is Barney Frank protecting against them opening their books?

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

ACORN "could get up to $8.5 billion more tax dollars despite being under investigation for voter registration fraud in a dozen states."
Michele Bachmann on Wednesday, May 6th, 2009 in a press release

Bachmann claims ACORN has access to $8.5 billion in federal money
Bookmark this story:


Not only are there new charges in two states related to fraudulent voter registration efforts by ACORN and its employees during the 2008 presidential election, she said, it now appears the group could tap into billions of dollars of federal money in the economic stimulus and Obama administration's proposed 2010 budget.

In a May 6 press release, Bachmann sounded the alarm:

"At least $53 million in federal funds have gone to ACORN activists since 1994, and the controversial group could get up to $8.5 billion more tax dollars despite being under investigation for voter registration fraud in a dozen states. The economic stimulus bill enacted in February contains $3 billion that the non-profit activist group known more formally as the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now could receive, and 2010 federal budget contains another $5.5 billion that could also find its way into the group's coffers."

She has since thrown these numbers out several times in interviews, including ones with Lou Dobbs on CNN and Glenn Beck on Fox.

In January, we addressed a piece of this when we fact-checked a claim from House Republican Leader John Boehner, who warned the economic stimulus package "could open billions of taxpayer dollars to left-wing groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)." Boehner was referring to $2.2 billion in the stimulus package for "neighborhood stabilization," essentially money doled out to groups to buy up abandoned and foreclosed homes, to rehabilitate them and then sell or rent them out. ACORN said it had no plans to apply for the funding, and if it did, the money would have to be used to buy and fix abandoned houses, not for voter registration efforts. We ruled that claim Barely True.

This latest claim from Bachmann follows the same tortured logic on an even grander scale.

A spokesman from Bachmann's office said the congresswoman got her data from a May 6, 2009, Washington Examiner commentary written by Kevin Mooney, who got the $8.5 billion figure from Matthew Vadum, a senior analyst and editor with Capital Research Center, a conservative think tank.

Let's first look at how they arrived at that number. It includes, of course, the same $2.2 billion that Boehner cited from the stimulus package. Vadum also adds in another $1 billion in the stimulus for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. ACORN could potentially tap into that, he said.

The remaining $5.5 billion comes from the Obama administration's proposed 2010 budget, specifically the budget for Housing and Urban Development. The budget plan includes $1 billion for an Affordable Housing Trust Fund, plus $4.5 billion more for CDBGs.

CDBGs have been around since 1974. Obama is seeking to increase the CDBG budget, from about $3.6 billion in 2009 to $4.2 billion next year. And then there's the addition $1 billion for CDBGs in the stimulus. But the point is, this isn't some new pot of money that hasn't been available in years past. To the extent ACORN has been eligible for CDBG money for decades, it is available to ACORN now.

But the fact is, ACORN isn't eligible for CDBG funding. At least not for the controversial voter registration efforts that Republican leaders claim are a willful effort to forward the group's liberal agenda.

ACORN has a complex corporate structure. It's actually a network of affiliates. The ACORN that Republicans love to hate gets involved in political activity like voter registration. But there are other entities, like the sister company, ACORN Housing Corporation, a non-profit that provides free housing counseling to low and moderate income homebuyers. Some of the ACORN Housing affiliates have also dabbled in affordable housing projects, and have received federal funding. But ACORN Housing doesn't get involved in voter registration activities at all.

CDBG money is given to local governments and states to use as they see fit for community development projects. But there are strings attached. CDBG rules list eligible uses of the money, including such things as building sidewalks, sewers and affordable housing, mostly. Specifically ineligible: "political activities." In other words, ACORN can't use the money for voter registration.

According to the Washington Examiner's report, ACORN and its affiliates have received $53 million from the federal government since 1994. Most of that federal money went to the ACORN Housing Corporation, which by law could not be used for voter registration.

We checked, and there is no money in the stimulus package or the budget for voter registration programs.

So if ACORN Housing was to apply for and receive CDBG money, it would be for a very specific project. And legally, it could not be transferred to other ACORN affiliates to perform political activities like voter registration.

But some ACORN opponents allege that's exactly what would happen.

"ACORN is constantly shifting funding," Vadum said. If ACORN Housing were to get federal funding, "we don't know where it would go. The problem is that ACORN transfers vast sums of money around in its network all the time. We don't know whether the money would be spent on voter registration or other activities."

According to a July 2002 report from the Employment Policies Institute called "Rotten ACORN, America's Bad Seed," tax forms show that since 1997, the ACORN Housing Corporation has paid more than $5 million in fees or grants to other ACORN entities. The report does not claim, however, that federal tax dollars were shifted into ACORN voter registration efforts.

Asked what funds ACORN Housing has transferred to other ACORN affiliates, Vadum said ACORN Housing has paid over $1.5 million to Citizens Consulting Inc., which he describes as "the shadowy part of the ACORN network where money seems to disappear into."

That's absurd, said ACORN executive director Steven Kest. Citizens Consulting Inc. is the accounting arm of the ACORN organization. CCI handles bookkeeping, payroll accounting and other financial management services for ACORN and its many affiliates. And ACORN Housing doesn't even use CCI anymore, as it now does its accounting in-house, Kest said.

Bottom line, we don't see any evidence that ACORN Housing has transferred money to ACORN for voter registration, so we think it's incorrect for Bachmann to link federal money that ACORN Housing might receive with the more controversial voter registration activities performed by sister organization ACORN.

Even more ridiculous is the suggestion that ACORN or any of its affiliates might actually get $8.5 billion in federal tax dollars.

Vadum said his report has been misrepresented by many on that point.

"The key word here is eligible," Vadum said. "Eligible is a pretty expansive word. I made it clear they are not going to get that full amount."

Yes, he made that point in the Washington Examiner. But when Bachmann says ACORN could get that amount, it assumes the group would get every single dime in the stimulus for fixing up abandoned homes. And remember, they said they don't even have plans to apply for any of it.

"We think it's a great program," Kest said. "But that's not money we are applying for."

And they'd also need to get every single dollar allocated through the CDBG program. That's beyond preposterous. Those grants are allocated to thousands of organizations around the country to perform very specific community development projects.

"These are competitive grants for very specific projects," Kest said."The money can only be used for the project you bid for. It can't go to voter registration. If you've ever had any experience with grant funding from the federal government, they do a good job of making sure the money is used for the purposes it was intended. You can't use the money for any other reason. You can't transfer the money to other vehicles for other purposes."

Charges of voter registration fraud by members of ACORN during the 2008 elections are a serious matter. Investigators allege ACORN employees tried to fraudulently register thousands of ineligible voters. Among them, one Mickey Mouse.

But Bachmann's statement is irresponsibly misleading on several levels. She says the group under indictment for voter registration fraud could tap into billions of federal dollars. In fact, none of the federal money can be used for voter registration activities.

An affiliate like ACORN Housing could conceivably apply for a grant to build an affordable housing project, or to buy, fix and sell abandoned homes, but that's exactly what the money would have to be used for. Suggestions that one of the affiliates might funnel money to ACORN for political activity is, so far, unsubstantiated conjecture. And then there's the matter of trying to make a splash by throwing out the massive $8.5 billion number, suggesting ACORN "could get" it, as in all of it. That's absurd. We rule Bachmann's statement False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/21/michele-bachmann/bachmann-claims-acorn-has-access-85-billion-federa/

This and several other fact check like organizations say the same thing....

No stimulus money to ACORN...Just more Republican FEARMONGERING- because they got left by Bush with their pants down and their wand in their hand... :wink: :lol:

Hypocrit--What stimulus grant money do you have proof ACORN has got so far :???:

If they apply for- and receive any stimulus money- that only opens them up easier for the Feds to investigate their books to see how it was spent....

If there was all this evidence of ACORNS illegal activity with government money-and since they've previously received federal funding -why didn't the Bush Justice Department indict them :???:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
No stimulus money to ACORN...Just more Republican FEARMONGERING- because they got left by Bush with their pants down and their wand in their hand..

Can you tell us how much funding the 200+ organizations that are affiliates of CCI are eligilble for?

Project Vote, ACORN Institute, ACORN Housing Corporation and the ACORN American Institute for Social Justice included financial transactions with Citizens Consulting Incorporated on their tax documents.

I wouldn't be too worried about what Bush didn't do, you should be more worried about what can be done.

Pretty hard to change history, easier to make changes in the present, so problems are not worse in the future.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
No stimulus money to ACORN...Just more Republican FEARMONGERING- because they got left by Bush with their pants down and their wand in their hand..

Can you tell us how much funding the 200+ organizations that are affiliates of CCI are eligilble for?

Nope--Now quit dodging the question--Hypocrit--What stimulus grant money do you have proof ACORN has got so far :???:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
No stimulus money to ACORN...Just more Republican FEARMONGERING- because they got left by Bush with their pants down and their wand in their hand..

Can you tell us how much funding the 200+ organizations that are affiliates of CCI are eligilble for?

Nope--Now quit dodging the question--Hypocrit--What stimulus grant money do you have proof ACORN has got so far :???:

We may never know how much funding ACORN gets. Contrary to Zer0's promise of transparency on the Stimulus, the website showing the expenditure grantees won't be available until maybe 2010?

It's all a sham to get money to the Unions anyway. They are the ones who call the shots at ACORN and at Zer0.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
No stimulus money to ACORN...Just more Republican FEARMONGERING- because they got left by Bush with their pants down and their wand in their hand..

Can you tell us how much funding the 200+ organizations that are affiliates of CCI are eligilble for?

Nope--Now quit dodging the question--Hypocrit--What stimulus grant money do you have proof ACORN has got so far :???:

None, does that mean some of their affiliates (Ratke) will not be getting any?

Before they get any funding, do you think they should be investigated?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Can you tell us how much funding the 200+ organizations that are affiliates of CCI are eligilble for?

Nope--Now quit dodging the question--Hypocrit--What stimulus grant money do you have proof ACORN has got so far :???:

None, does that mean some of their affiliates (Ratke) will not be getting any?

Before they get any funding, do you think they should be investigated?

Nope- unless you believe every private organization that receives government funds or contracts should be investigated before they receive it... :???:
That would mean not only every Halliburton type-but every small contractor- and 99% of the farmer/ranchers in the country would have to be investigated....

But I do believe in tough oversight on how the money is spent- and where it goes...And if evidence surfaces of mishandling then thorough investigations and indictments if the evidence show exists...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Every organization with connections to Ratke, CCI and CSI should be invetigated before they recieve any taxpayer money.

Why do you have a problem with investigating known crooks, and their connections?

Have you lost all sense of integrity?

Here are four facts that suggest that there might be a line between them:

* Dale Rathke embezzled money from ACORN totalling about $950k. Apparently, commitments have been made to return about $210k, for a total of $740k still missing.
* Barack Obama's campaign paid ACORN, via a political consulting affiliate, $830k, but ACORN says that they only received $80, leaving $750k unaccounted for.
* Dale Rathke embezzled this money in the period of 1999-2000, when Barack Obama was running for US Congress with the backing of SEIU Local 880 and ACORN. SEIU Local 880 is basically ACORN controlled. Rathke even filed the LM-2 form with the Department of Labor in 2000, signing it as "Treasurer", which I have previously written about.
* Obama, ACORN, SEIU 880, and Rep. Danny Davis, appeared to act together in a number of local political engagements.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Every organization with connections to Ratke, CCI and CSI should be invetigated before they recieve any taxpayer money.

Why do you have a problem with investigating known crooks, and their connections?

Have you lost all sense of integrity?

Here are four facts that suggest that there might be a line between them:

* Dale Rathke embezzled money from ACORN totalling about $950k. Apparently, commitments have been made to return about $210k, for a total of $740k still missing.
* Barack Obama's campaign paid ACORN, via a political consulting affiliate, $830k, but ACORN says that they only received $80, leaving $750k unaccounted for.
* Dale Rathke embezzled this money in the period of 1999-2000, when Barack Obama was running for US Congress with the backing of SEIU Local 880 and ACORN. SEIU Local 880 is basically ACORN controlled. Rathke even filed the LM-2 form with the Department of Labor in 2000, signing it as "Treasurer", which I have previously written about.
* Obama, ACORN, SEIU 880, and Rep. Danny Davis, appeared to act together in a number of local political engagements.

You forget the presumption of innocence :???:

Have they been convicted... :???: If this Ratzke guy embezzled the money- was he charged... :???: Convicted :???:
If he embezzled this money during 1999-2000- why didn't the Bush DOJ investigate him- convict him- and throw him in the slammer :???:

Or could this all be like Rep Bachmanns BS- unsubstantiated conjecture- and more FEARMONGERING so the Repubs can take the center of attention off the abysmal failure to the economy they let happen while they were at the helm :???:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Every organization with connections to Ratke, CCI and CSI should be invetigated before they recieve any taxpayer money.

Why do you have a problem with investigating known crooks, and their connections?

Have you lost all sense of integrity?

Here are four facts that suggest that there might be a line between them:

* Dale Rathke embezzled money from ACORN totalling about $950k. Apparently, commitments have been made to return about $210k, for a total of $740k still missing.
* Barack Obama's campaign paid ACORN, via a political consulting affiliate, $830k, but ACORN says that they only received $80, leaving $750k unaccounted for.
* Dale Rathke embezzled this money in the period of 1999-2000, when Barack Obama was running for US Congress with the backing of SEIU Local 880 and ACORN. SEIU Local 880 is basically ACORN controlled. Rathke even filed the LM-2 form with the Department of Labor in 2000, signing it as "Treasurer", which I have previously written about.
* Obama, ACORN, SEIU 880, and Rep. Danny Davis, appeared to act together in a number of local political engagements.

You forget the presumption of innocence :???:

Have they been convicted... :???: If this Ratzke guy embezzled the money- was he charged... :???: Convicted :???:
If he embezzled this money during 1999-2000- why didn't the Bush DOJ investigate him- convict him- and throw him in the slammer :???:

Or could this all be like Rep Bachmanns BS- unsubstantiated conjecture- and more FEARMONGERING so the Repubs can take the center of attention off the abysmal failure to the economy they let happen while they were at the helm :???:

If he had not been guilty, he would have not paid a penny back:

from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/us/09embezzle.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Every organization with connections to Ratke, CCI and CSI should be invetigated before they recieve any taxpayer money.

Why do you have a problem with investigating known crooks, and their connections?

Have you lost all sense of integrity?

You forget the presumption of innocence :???:

Have they been convicted... :???: If this Ratzke guy embezzled the money- was he charged... :???: Convicted :???:
If he embezzled this money during 1999-2000- why didn't the Bush DOJ investigate him- convict him- and throw him in the slammer :???:

Or could this all be like Rep Bachmanns BS- unsubstantiated conjecture- and more FEARMONGERING so the Repubs can take the center of attention off the abysmal failure to the economy they let happen while they were at the helm :???:

If he had not been guilty, he would have not paid a penny back:

from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/us/09embezzle.html

So why didn't the Bush DOJ indict him- and throw him in the slammer :???:
Or didn't that fit the Bush's aura of throwing out the rule of law for all corporate entities, banking/financial institutions, and CEO types.... :???:
 
Top