One of the reasons why we can expect the Right to continue to flout both the facts and the law is that our government does not hold them accountable when they violate the law.

Consider the recent report released by CA AG Jerry Brown [PDF]:

O’Keefe and Giles received immunity from prosecution in exchange for providing the full, unedited videotapes. As a result, we did not determine if they violated California’s Invasion of Privacy Act when they recorded the ACORN employees.

The question arises as to why it was necessary for the CA AG to grant immunity in exchange for the voluntary release of the unedited videotapes? Since O'Keefe and Giles conducted their little phony sting inside CA, CA had jurisdiction to subpoena the unedited videos. The privilege against self-incrimination would permit O'Keefe & Giles to refuse to testify but it would not give them the right to withhold documentary evidence --- the unedited videotapes.

Brown, at the request of a Republican governor, investigated ACORN and found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by that community organization; yet he shielded the right wing slime balls who were at the heart of this fraudulent scam, preventing their prosecution from what appears to be criminal violations of CA Penal Code 632?

What's wrong with this picture?

Nice of her to drop by the party....hey, all the booze is gone and the sun's comin up. Raiche, sweetheart, you missed it. Maybe if you had cranked up your hyper partisan mirror of Fox when it coulda done some good a needed org. could still be helping those in need.

At least now she should harp on those Democrats who so quickly bought the scam and voted to defund the bedrock of their base.

Or at least make a stink about o'keefe's next crime, trying to bug a senator. Looks like the "phone-repair-four" are going to be allowed to slink away back to their holes with some bullshit plea bargain deal when any third grader can see that some very high-scum were their funders and directors.

so maddow used to be insightful and stand up like bradblog and she's now more into shooting the wounded two monthes later on the battlefield. ironic that she draws such fire from the kabuki puppets owned by murdoch. what's it gonna take to get maddow and olberman and all to start doin their job again when it matters to do their job?

Brad. You've been her guest on air america when she was worth more to us right? have you contacted her on this one yet?

ps. nice call camu and ernest. wonder what civil litigation ought to be available to redress harms wrought.

Dear Camus and Renzo,

Yes, you have legitimate complaints with the timing of her reporting, but c'mon!!!

If, when you finally get a big, beautiful, no holds-barred hunk of the behavior you've been starving for, the main thrust of your response is more Grumplestiltskin than cartwheels of joy, I don't know who or how you're trying to motivate. Anyone?

In my opinion, if you want more of a certain type behavior--Grumplestiltskin ain't the most effective motivational tool in the toolbox.(For instance, notice how my own Grumplestiltskin back at you probably doesn't make you feel so good or kindly towards me or like doing what I'm urging).

My unsolicited suggestion would be finding in your heart something on the other side of the Grumplestiltskin-Joy Spectrum.

Sure she said all the right things but forgot to mention the BradBlog and all it did to track down the NYT editors and get them to make their retractions. As lame as they were! Time for Brad to be on with Rachel and set things straight.

ACORN founder Wade Rathke and journalist John Atlas were interviewed on KPFA Pacifica radio this morning. Listen here:
http://kpfa.org/archive/id/59979
(ACORN discussion starts at 01:10:20)

Yeah, I noticed that she didn't call out the huge role of the Democratic in crushing ACORN. Republican this, Republican this, Fox News this, Fox News that. The Democratic Part and the New York Times played a huge role in aiding and abetting this crime against the poor. Didn't Obama sign the bill that crushed ACORN via prosectution without fair trial, or did I get that wrong?

(Excuse my typos.)

actually Lasagna, you're one of my faves here for doing just that. do we need to change it to grumpllasagna?

perhaps some context will help. I've listened to and loved Maddow since her first day. She is genius and she is knowingly holding back. Which is something she regularly railed against in her early days at air america. and she used that phrase "shooting the wounded" herself if memory serves.

The reason I know it's conscious on her part is I remember when the campaign started in earnest around 2006, she let us know that her tone and coverage of events would change. she acknowledged that she was a political commentator and not a journalist. she also let us know that she was a left leaning progressive and that the best she felt she could do in viable political parties was the DNC and that she was going to do her best to support them and not hamstring them.

Where I first took issue with that was when she flipped back and forth on Hillary. most progressive talkers on radio did the same. in fact it's real similar to what they've done on health care.

yeh at the beginning they were all over trashing the junk proposed (that finally got put through) and screamed about rahm's refusals and shut downs of single payer, or killing anti-trust immunity for health insurers, or buy-in-to-medicare, or..... and then all the sudden even Dennis Kucinich is talking all nice and taking credit for putting thru this historic change (that even he still can't say is good - just historic).

So yeh, she's doing what she considers a good job supporting her party and maybe that's needed considering FAUX news' running the RNC. Personally it's the whole reason I read THE BRADLEY FREIDMAN. He seems to understand that if you gotta lie (or at least mislead) in order to govern, you aren't governing anyway.

Perhaps that's why misleading is not the same as leading.

btw. thank you Brad. the constant and immediate honest puts us all forever in your debt. whether we know it or not.

thank you too lasagna. keep on. grmplrenzuko.

The Republicans have got such big heads and they are so overconfident that it doesn't surprise me that they keep getting caught with their pants down. Rachel stays on them and I hope she never lets up. GRRRRR!

Trust me?

http://www.youtube.com/w...YHOA&feature=channel

(especially for Des!)

Renzo-

Love "grumpllasagna".

Thanks for the context. Always helpful, and beautifully stated.

Jeannie Dean #11":

That's one funny video!

This Maddow segment just verifies what has been happening for many years now: the left wing presents things which ALWAYS turn out to be fact in the end. Why would anybody want anything else but facts to use up their time with.

And she's right: it is fun to debate politics. How about a little less sports and more honest, and fun politically honest debates on our airwaves. It's got to be a moneymaker.

Oh you mean kind of like MSNBC editing video on a regular basis to make their politically leaning point and then getting caught like this?
http://www.youtube.com/w...v=hZdTk4InmA4&fmt=18
Editing out that the man in question is in fact black but instead pushing their narrative that whites like him are dangerous to Obama.

The hypocrisy of people like Maddow is incredulous when they are the ones that exaggerate, sensationalize, and mischaracterize for the sake of political gain and misinformation that bolsters their weak arguments.

I know ya'll are waiting for just ANY crumb of truth to come forth from MSM, but this ain't it. Maddow desperately wants us to think there is a DIFFERENCE in America between the two parties, when anyone with a sliver of consciousness left can see that THERE IS NONE. If Arlen Specter can switch parties just like that without a single change in his positions, what more proof do we need???? Joe Lieberman keeping all his committee assignments?Does that convince you yet? This so-called journalist Maddow is an enabler of the worst sort. It's good cop bad cop and both cops are the criminals.

Ya'll got fooled again. She's not on your side. She's on theirs- the war criminal side.

@ Earnest (#1)

I agree with you whole-heartedly.

Giles and OKeefe should NOT be allowed to walk on this. I mean, they did actively libel and slander ACORN, and by way of that, caused it to be destroyed. This was a malicious, unjust and unnecessary assault aimed at using misinformation to butcher an entity that hardly deserved it.

This malicious campaign did indeed effect the lives of real people, and not just those shown on the tapes. There are also those who relied on ACORN for a means to acquire some economic stability in their lives. These are real Americans, coping with real poverty, and trying to make the best they can from it. OKeefe and Giles attacked all of them.

So they shouldn't be allowed to walk, and turning in evidence of what they falsely described as "serious crimes" ought not be dependant on their receiving immunity for breaking the law AND libeling well-meaning people.

However, the segment you quoted does continue in stating that " If the circumstances meet the requirements of the Act, the ACORN employees may be able to bring a private suit against OKeefe and Giles for recording a confidential conversation without consent.”

Page 17 of the document makes it clear that Giles and Okeefe did, indeed break the law. And in the last 2 pages of the report (ps 23-24), Brown states in no uncertain terms that the videographers deliberately misrepresented the facts with the intent to damage ACORN. So the individuals libeled by Hannah, james and Andy should have the right to file suit against them... I sincerely hope they do.

But even in that case, its clear that OKeefe is pretty well-connected at this point.
He’s got Peter Thiel in his back pocket, and the entire Tea Party movement, with its supporters, its politicians, it’s talking heads etc... all deify Okeefe. Considering that a VERY expensive attorney was whisked to his side in New Orleans and got him a sweet deal, its certain that Okeefe would have some high-rolling council if he were taken to court.

But he should go to court, and explain why he decided to knowingly misrepresent the truth, to lie and libel as if in a frenzy, and what was his intention by doing so.

And I don’t know if you’ve seen the pic of him, andy and Rove palling around at the Fox studios.
Outside of being members of the “Leadership Institute”, Rove and Okeefe also share the habit of inventing lies to create disasters.

Granted, Karl has a far bloodier pair of hands, and a pack of lies that have shattered entire countries, but I imagine Okeefe was just using ACORN as target practice. I’m sure he has far grander schemes in mind, and judging by the way he assaults the poor, I’m sure he’d be pleased as punch to achieve the loathsome body-count that Rove has.

In both cases, even after both Karl and James have been proven untrustworthy, shadey and malicious liars, they get away with it. That just is not right at all.

Also, I dont know why some of the posted comments reflect anger or disappointment at Maddow. No offense to anyone here, but I dont think attacking Maddow is really that fair, nor does it really seem relevant.

Personally, I really like Rachael. I just think she's great! And I honestly do think she should totally be applauded for her commentary as per the broadcast above. I mean, what she's saying is something that really needed to be said for a VERY, VERY long time!

Only now, that can be stated as fact (as per the evidence represented by the unedited videos and the investigations) rather than as a hypothesis which blowhards like Breitbart, or bold-faced liars like OKeefe, could try to argue away.

I mean, many other media sources just sort of mumbled out the truths revealed by Brown’s report, or by the other investigations which scrutinized the ACORN videos. But Rachael at least asked people to THINK about the consequences of those truths. And I think she did so both eloquently and pointedly.

At least she's giving the investigation a segment on her show, and talking about it. I for one, am glad she has.

The only people who should be taken to task here are the actual authors of the lie. Even more than a spineless coward like Clark Hoyt, THEY need to be held accountable. THEY need explain themselves.

A well meaning reporter like Maddow does not deserve to be held accountable for the ugly campaigns initiated by Okeefe, Breitbart, Giles and their unquestioning followers.

The trolls aren't liking this post. We're actually getting links to sites that feature commentary by Brent Bozell.

Anyone who thinks Climategate is a GOP scam is an FN idiot. I'm going to put Maddow and Freedman on that list. Maddow would love for ClimateGate to go away and probably would also love for the planet to stop cooling soon. Neither will happen. Dream on liberal morons.

Here is the truth. Ask the liberal B to try explaining all of this away!!!

in response to #14 which was by xracerx:

First of all, who cares if he was black. The black guy that was on msnbc didn't know that the other guy, who you are talking about, was also black. You could only see part of his body and legs. So he was speculating that this sort of thing would not happen with a white president, it would not be tolerated at all. Can you imagine that sort of thing happening under Bush? They kicked people out of speeches for bumper stickers! In any case, it doesn't appear that this was a planned thing, although it is weird that they didn't show that the guy was black. I'm pretty sure that commentator wouldn't have said that if he knew the guy was black in the video, so you do have somewhat of a point. However that same theory had been floating around for sometime, that an undercurrent of racism had something to do with people thinking they need to intimidate the government like that. Certainly some of that behavior was related to racism. Probably not that guys behavior, though, lol. p.s. I am not going to type in African American 5 times, so hopefully referring to someone as "black" is not offensive. I don't think it is... It sure is easier to type.

It already has been explained Mark. The "trick" is a common scientific term for something clever not deceptive. Say for instance finding out an object's mass through the displacement of water, a common tool you would learn in any elementary school classroom, yet a trick. Those who don't understand science shouldn't be commenting on it.

Hi #19. I think this explains it away.

Thank you for playing.

If you rearrange the letters in Mark E. Gillar, it spells "Lame Liar".

With a couple of letters left over.

:D

Hey nineteen.....we got nothing in common

we cant talk at all.....

the Cuervo Gold, the fine Colombian

Dear Mark E. Gillar @ # 19,

Very impressive site you linked.

1. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley's real name is Christopher Walter. For some reason he likes to call himself Third Viscount Monckton of Benchley. You tell me.

2. He has no training in science whatever.

3. Since that piece you cite came out last December further examinations, which form the basis of Rachel's opinion on this, have completely refuted the notion that this "expose" undermines in any way the scientific consensus of human induced climate change aka global warming.

4. They're fucking with your mind.

5. You're letting them.

Lord Monckton good lord, not this kook again. This is the guy who thought we should quarantine all those with aids from the rest of the population, permenantly.

Don't Hate on Maddow, sure she could do more, take on different emphasis...she has never touched vote count security for instance, and she actually seems smart enough to understand the problems...but Maddow does more than any other lame stream media, where would we be without her?

Now do I wish broadcast media and big time newspapers did more than Maddow does, YES. That Maddow is about all we have in broadcast media is sad. We should have many voices, not just Dems and Repubs...

If you trolls and true Repubs think liberals are lying and Dems are always wrong, I would suggest you read what Dems, liberal blogs, progressive radio etc was saying in 1999-2005, and what Repubs, conservatives said during same time period and see who turned out to be more truthful, more accurate...The only one to speak out strongly against sell out to Wall Street sellout bill Gramm-Leach (that repealed bank regs around since depression) was a Dem, Dorgan, who predicted bill would result in huge bailout in 10 years, Dems said Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and even W admitted that, liberal bloggers said right away that W statement in his Sof Union address that Saddam tried to get yellowcake nuke material was wrong and based on "intelligence" that had already proven false by CIA, there were no WMD's, war did not pay for itself, war was much much more difficult than sold to us, liberals complained we were not focused on real problem spot, Afghanistan, ....what liberals reported and predicted came true, the crap the conservative were slinging was lies and are in ash heap of history.

And once again, with time, Acorn crap is proved to be lies.

Conservatives have policy and idea differences, but what I don't get is, if they are compelling, why does Beck, Rush, fox news always have to lie to promote their ideas...hey, argue for small government, go for it, isn't that compelling enough, who wouldn't want to pay less taxes? but you don't stop there, you have to lie about Acorn, you have to lie about healthcare...that tells me that the Repubs can't handle the truth.

When I have wrongly predicted something, I can admit it and adjust my thinking, we I get new facts that conflict with my ideas, I can change my ideas. I thought the Iraq surge would do little good, I was wrong...I think the jury is still out if Iraq will be functional state but the surge gave enough quiet allow great progress. But everyother belief and prediction I had/made in past 10 years has been accurate and conservatives have been wrong or have outright lied, something I have not needed to do to be right/win an argument...but if you conservative trolls insist on clinging to your facts, then where are all those Nazi's taking their your guns?, hasn't happened yet has it? As Rachel says, you have been had, Fox has played your bleeding heart emotions and they have to lie to you to get you to believe the crap they are selling

I laugh at the republicans saying they will take back the congress, when all this is going to be thrown back in their faces in 7 months.

Karen @ 27--

I don't think you were wrong about the surge.

Am trying to freecycle a large liferaft, as it is clear our beloved AG Jerry 'Moonbeam' Brown has morphed into the Governator's mini-men except when the real perpetrators are running rampant. Brown is a pathetic do-nothing AG, and he'll be a worse Governor. Yet what are our options? Poizner? Whitman? Geez, Gavin 'where's my mirror' NEWSOM is starting to seem an attractive option in comparison to this line-up of gargoyles! I think the California dream has died, and all we've got to look forward to is the delightful stench of the rotting carcass-kinda like a dead whale on the beach. Big, fat, and no way to move it or escape the odor of rot, except to leave the vicinity. Hey, anyone got an extra liferaft hanging around?!

to Cauldron (comment #15)

Sadly but very truthfully... I'm afraid you're absolutely correct. The hypocrisy, posturing, mischaracterizations, and exaggerations come from both of the two main parties.

SreeBee @16 wrote:

However, the segment you quoted does continue in stating that " If the circumstances meet the requirements of the Act, the ACORN employees may be able to bring a private suit against OKeefe and Giles for recording a confidential conversation without consent.”

That merely means that the impoverished victims of O'Keefe's and Giles's fraudulent scheme have a right to initiate a civil action against these two miscreants --- placing the financial burden on the impoverished victims to file suit, when it is the state, and only the state, which could have and should enforced its criminal statute, Penal Code 632.

Query: If someone from the Left had engaged in the same conduct, do you think they'd have received immunity merely to turn over documentary evidence which the state had a right to subpoena?

Hi Ernest,

Please dont misunderstand me, I agree with you 100%.

And yes, i agree that poor people would have a very slim chance against someone like O'Keefe, who keeps the likes of Peter Thiel in his back pocket.

I just hope that the ACORN workers (or at lease SOMEBODY) can and do file suit against OKeefe (I'm channeling what good I can for Katherine Conway Russel, whose home phone number and address have already been circulated online by OKeefe's minions, and who has been subject to far too much threatening and unwarrented harassment as a result.)

But I do agree with your response.

Poor people trying to defend themselves against the high-rolling council that O'keefe employs would find themselves in quite an up-hill battle... for all his "poor little match-girl" shtick, O'Keefe is far better funded than most school lunch programs, and has support from powerful people like Karl Rove and Steve King. He certainly could afford council to get him as sweet a deal as he got in Louisiana.

And in answer to your question, I dont think anyone on the left would have the same privileges as OKeefe if the tables were turned... I mean, I know non-violent, peaceful anti-war prostestors who are doing time for much, much less.

Its really quite sad.