Today it was announced that ACORN will not face prosecution in Brooklyn.
“On Sept. 15, 2009, my office began an investigation into possible criminality on the part of three ACORN employees,” Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes said in a one-paragraph statement issued Monday afternoon.
Should anyone be surprised? The Brooklyn DA is a member of the ACORN/Working Families Party. That means he signed their pledge, and worked for their endorsement.
Speaking of just saying, an unidentified member of “law enforcement” dropped this unsubstantiated charge:
While the video by James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles seemed to show three ACORN workers advising a prostitute how to hide ill-gotten gains, the unedited version was not as clear, according to a law enforcement source.
“They edited the tape to meet their agenda,” said the source.
Any chance they want to be specific about how exactly James and Hannah did that? If it’s true, then the anonymous law enforcer should press charges, or lose his or her job.
UPDATE: Some people want to quibble about membership in ACORN and SEIU’s Working Families Party, versus endorsement. This distinction doesn’t hold water. When a candidate accepts the endorsement/nomination of a political party, they become a de facto member of that party. Do skeptics want to make the argument that Republican candidates are not Republicans? Or that Democrat candidates are not Democrats? If a candidate accepts the endorsement of the Working Families Party, and the Democrat Party, they are members of both parties.
The Working Families Party has never been shy about how stringent its endorsement process is. You have to seek the endorsement and make a commitment to the party.
Interestingly, they are doing it by claiming Hynes is also a Republican and a Conservative, and therefore his relationship with ACORN’s Working Families Party is meaningless.
Media Matters arrives at this conclusion because Hynes ran unopposed in his district. That means he ran on EVERY line on the ballot. In the Progressivestan that is Media Matters, this somehow negates the fact that his relationship with the Working Families Party creates the appearance of a conflict of interests in the ACORN case.
This is a fallacy which we will address by way of analogy: If a judge owns shares in (or accepts campaign contributions) from both Coke and Pepsi, that doesn’t negate the appearance of a conflict of interests in a case involving either soda manufacturer. Media Matters would argue that ownership in, or contributions from both companies make them impervious to conflicts of interest with either. Interesting logic.
Does anyone else see a pattern of a Progressive blind spot when it comes to the appearance of a conflict of interests? Most Progressives don’t seem to see a conflict of interests between government ownership of car manufacturers, while at the same time regulating the competition. They also can’t appear to grasp the conflict of interests inherent in a government “competing” with the insurance industry – which they regulate. But we digress.
Even more fascinating is the comment section at Media Matters, where they are kicking around the fantasy of stripping Founding Bloggers of our constitutional right to free speech. Now that’s Progressive for you!
by For.America.2600 (March 02, 2010 10:13 pm ET)I would love to see libel cases brought up. Freedom of speech has its boundaries and people need to realize that words have consequences.Reply Report Abuseby Kikabi (March 02, 2010 10:19 pm ET)
Agreed. I’m tired of these people getting away with this sh&%#@.
It doesn’t matter what other lines Hynes ran on. The DA has a direct relationship with ACORN’s Working Families Party. That creates the appearance of a conflict of interests regarding the ACORN case.
How revealing that the Progressive reaction embodied in the comments above is to strip us of our freedom to make this observation. How inconvenient the 1st amendment is when applied to non-progressive thoughts.