ACORN

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Provide an un-biased link and I would be glad to read it. Although I note you state "allegedly" so that may make your comments nothing more than hearsay.

Read the source document, the Bush administration's DoJ IG report on the firing of the US Attorneys....the juice on Iglesias starts at page 182. It is hard to be more definitive since the key parties involved (Rove, NM members of Congress) refused to cooperate with the investigation, which in itself did not serve the public interest.

The character assassination of Iglesias...The White House stating publicly that he was fired for poor performance, despite having the highest internal review ratings, and for being absent too often, which was the result of his being in the National Guard and called to duty. As noted in the DoJ IG report, the pressure to fire Iglesias was political.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Read the Bush administration's DoJ IG report on the firing of the US Attorneys....start at page 182.

The character assassination of Iglesias...The White House stating publicly that he was fired for poor performance, despite having the highest internal review ratings, and for being absent too often, which was the result of his being in the National Guard and called to duty.

You will not hear me defend the Bush Admin and anything to do with the DOJ.

Tell me again what this has to do with ACORN?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Tell me again what this has to do with ACORN?

Start at page 182 of the report:

With respect to the allegation that an ACORN worker was responsible for a significant number of false voter registrations, the FBI identified and interviewed the worker in question. As a result of the investigation, the USAO and the Public Integrity Section jointly concluded that there was insufficient evidence of criminal intent on the subject’s part to justify prosecution. Iglesias told us that he viewed this case as the strongest one to come out of the Task Force, but that the evidence nevertheless did not justify going forward with a criminal prosecution.

Iglesias also told us that when the Task Force began, he sincerely believed it would develop cases worth prosecuting. Contemporaneous e-mail records show that Iglesias encouraged his staff to pursue the Task Force cases, and that he believed the USAO needed to send a zero-tolerance message about voter fraud. Iglesias told us that in the final analysis, however, he concluded that there was insufficient evidence in any of the cases the Task Force reviewed to support criminal prosecution by the USAO or state authorities.

...Iglesias said that sometime in 2005, while many of the Task Force investigations were still pending, he heard from a friend who had connections in the New Mexico Republican Party that the party was unhappy with his handling of voter fraud cases. Iglesias said he felt unable to respond directly to such reports and knew he could not provide information about ongoing investigations. However, he said he wanted to get the message out to his fellow Republicans that he would prosecute “provable” voter fraud cases but would not bring a case unless it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. His friend agreed to pass the message along, but Iglesias later heard that many people in the Republican Party were still upset with him.

Next thing you know, pressure from New Mexico Republicans and complaints to the White House and Iglesias is fired with baseless charges (poor performance and frequent absence from the job)

[DanaC]

Yehbut, most people now look on FOX as a corrupt organisation and mouth piece for the Right disguised as a news outlet. They are completely partisan. Doesn't stop people who share their outlook adhering to their reports as the truth. Most organisations which have anything to do with the political landscape are partisan. From the news media to the third party organisations who try to outreach communities with messages of engagement.

I have seen a great deal to make one wonder at the organisation, but most of it doesn't seem to point to an organisational attempt to act against the spirit of democracy. It seems to point to individual instanvces of malpractice. The difference between Acorn and other, equally partisan groups involved in similar roles is that they are being subject to much more media and legal scrutiny. Unlike the evangelical organisations, Acorn barely has to sneeze and the spotlight instantly swings to it.

[TheMercenary]

That is really a strawman deflection of the practices of what ACORN has been accused of in this election process and hence then. Bush and that admin is no longer in charge. Maybe there was insufficient evidence at that time. An interesting note of history. Obviously that is no longer the case.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Yehbut, most people now look on FOX as a corrupt organisation and mouth piece for the Right disguised as a news outlet.

Really? "corrupt organization"? Disguised as a news outlet? Last time I checked they were a news outlet. Shall we look at the studies which unbiasedly looked at what side of the issues most major news outlets in the US support?

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...UCLA-6664.aspx

They are completely partisan. Doesn't stop people who share their outlook adhering to their reports as the truth.

There is a fine line between reporting and propaganda, you have to read between the lines and examine whether or not how the report is phrased changes the bottom line of the information.

Most organisations which have anything to do with the political landscape are partisan. From the news media to the third party organisations who try to outreach communities with messages of engagement.

True. And ACORN did more than "outreach' of unbiased political engagement.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

An interesting note of history. Obviously that is no longer the case.

I would suspect that for Igleasias it was more than "an interesting note of history" - not that character assassination of a public servant by the highest elected officials in the manner it was done to Iglesias comes close to putting an innocent man to death...but still unconscionable, IMO

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I would suspect that for Igleasias it was more than "an interesting note of history" - not that character assassination in the manner it was done to Iglesias comes close to putting an innocent man to death...but still unconscionable, IMO

Another strawman deflection of the subject. We are not talking about Capital Punishment, that is another thread.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Another strawman deflection of the subject. We are not talking about Capital Punishment, that is another thread.

I would suspect that for Iglesias it was more than "an interesting note of history" - character assassination of a public servant by the highest elected and appointed officials in the country in the manner it was done to Iglesias is still unconscionable.

Better?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I would suspect that for Iglesias it was more than "an interesting note of history" - character assassination of a public servant by the highest elected and appointed officials in the country in the manner it was done to Iglesias is still unconscionable, IMO.

Better?

Not important:

he concluded that there was insufficient evidence in any of the cases the Task Force reviewed to support criminal prosecution by the USAO or state authorities.

Tell me again what this has to do with the accusations against ACORN today?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not important:

That lack of empathy rears its head again.

Tell me again what this has to do with the accusations against ACORN today?

Tell me why a discussion of ACORN should occur in a vacuum and not include compelling evidence of the political nature of the attacks against ACORN.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Tell me why a discussion of ACORN should occur in a vacuum and not include compelling evidence of the political nature of the attacks against ACORN.

Deflection again. You still have not told me why any of what happened under Bush and the failure of them to find any wrong doing by ACORN at that time important. We investigated various criminal organizations for years before they ever found that stuck. The Mafia is a good example. This is no different with this organization. Someone founds some threads and started to pull on them, now they are being exposed. Why are you so concerned, do you know or have you ever worked for ACORN yourself? Is that why you are such a staunch defender of them?

Nope...never worked for ACORN.

My interest is "truth, justice and the American way!"

That includes "innocent until proven guilty" before characterizing an organization as "criminal" or comparing it to the Mafia.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

That lack of empathy rears its head again.

You do love the strawman argument. So you get to assign feelings of empathy on to what others think on the internet. Fantastic powers you have.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

My interest is "truth, justice and the American way!"

As long as it is the "America" as you get to define it.