Brooklyn Prosecutors Clear ACORN of Wrongdoing

The District Attorney’s office in Brooklyn has concluded a four-month investigation into ACORN based on the infamous tapes by James O’Keefe and has cleared the organization of wrongdoing.

Brooklyn prosecutors on Monday cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing after a four-month probe that began when undercover conservative activists filmed workers giving what appeared to be illegal advice on how to hide money.

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.

[…]

“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.

“That investigation is now concluded and no criminality has been found.”

Given O’Keefe’s current legal problems and the refusal on the part of O’Keefe or Big Government to release the unedited ACORN tapes to the media, I think that it’s safe to say that ACORN workers were not, in fact, giving legal advice to promote sex trafficking.

Can we get back to real problems now?

UPDATE (James Joyner):  See my follow-up, “Charles Hynes, ACORN Scandal DA, Has ACORN Ties?

FILED UNDER: Crime, Law and the Courts, US Politics,
Alex Knapp
About Alex Knapp
Alex Knapp is Associate Editor at Forbes for science and games. He was a longtime blogger elsewhere before joining the OTB team in June 2005 and contributed some 700 posts through January 2013. Follow him on Twitter @TheAlexKnapp.

Comments

  1. Gustopher says:

    Real problems like where am I going to get legal advice for my sex trafficking hobby?

    That aside, I would like to see ACORN take the offensive, and sue the little weasel until he is back living with his parents.

  2. James Joyner says:

    I’d be leery of drawing too many conclusions from an exoneration by Hynes, a longtime Democratic pol with a Caribbean law degree.

  3. Alex Knapp says:

    I’d be leery of drawing too many conclusions from an exoneration by Hynes, a longtime Democratic pol with a Caribbean law degree.

    Does Hynes have a history of making politically-motivated exonerations? No. Is St. John’s University School of Law an accredited U.S. Institution? Yes. Has he prosecuted Democratic politicians successfully in the past? Yes.

    I’d be leery of besmirching someone’s good name and accusing them of bias without evidence to support those accusations.

  4. Brian says:

    @James…Caribbean law degree line a joke, yes?

  5. Michael says:

    James, I have to agree with Alex here. Did you read the article you linked to? It certain paints Hynes as the exact opposite of a prostitution-friendly Democratic tool.

    I’m also more than a little put off by your derogatory “Caribbean law degree” comment. Do you similarly dismiss law degrees from the Universities of Puerto Rico and Hawaii, just because they happen to be on islands as well? Maybe we should just write off opinions from people with mere “Alabama law degrees” while we’re at it.

  6. James Joyner says:

    I’d be leery of besmirching someone’s good name and accusing them of bias without evidence to support those accusations.

    Fair enough. A quick glance at his career struck me as someone who’s a typical machine politician — especially the bizarre Fire Commissioner appointment with no apparent history of expertise in either management or fire control. But you’re right: He’s successfully prosecuted Democrats and recused himself in a case against a former opponent.

  7. anjin-san says:

    A quick glance at his career struck me as someone who’s a typical machine politician

    You have reached a stature as a blogger where you should take more than a quick glance before you trash someone. You have guys like me and bithead to handle jumping to conclusion and hyperbole…

  8. steve says:

    Dont worry, they will find some other way to keep the base riled up.

    Steve

  9. anjin-san says:

    “They edited the tape to meet their agenda,” said the source.

    And here perhaps, lies the real story.

  10. Billb says:
  11. Steve Plunk says:

    So not enough evidence to prosecute. That doesn’t mean they aren’t corrupt. The tapes still show us a agency worthy of contempt that receives a great deal of our tax money. The pattern repeated itself in many of their branches so it seems to be rather commonplace to skirt around the edges of the law.

    So far O’Keefe is in limbo while ACORN has proven what it’s up to. O’Keefe is barely more than kid and got the better of what some consider a venerable community organizing group. Isn’t that the real issue? ACORN being so corrupt a college kid can make them look bad.

  12. Alex Knapp says:

    Steve,

    So your argument is (a) ACORN is overwhelmingly corrupt BUT (b) there’s not enough evidence to convict anyone in ACORN of a crime?

    I’m not sure that I follow that logic.

  13. Wayne says:

    Anjin
    James did not trash the DA. He just said caution should be taken because …. How often have we seen liberals said much worst because a study was partially paid for by tobacco or energy companies or liberals questioning statement because of someone’s background? Many times they go much future than that.

    As for ACORN, even if they didn’t technically break the law which is still within question, what they did was unethical, immoral, and repulsive. Do any of you disagree? Either way I don’t want my tax money going to them.

  14. Steve Plunk says:

    Alex, If you can’ understand how ACORN can be corrupt yet there not be enough evidence to prosecute criminally I can’t help you. It’s a pretty basic understanding and it might be expected since it was a college age kid, not the police, collecting evidence.

  15. Steven Donegal says:

    But since all that has been shown is O’Keefe’s heavily edited docudrama, how does one know that Acorn was corrupt or unethical or immoral or repulsive? If Breitbart or O’Keefe were to make the unedited video available, perhaps we would have an answer, but since that is not likely to happen, we can each use our own confirmation bias to come to the appropriate conclusion.

  16. spago says:

    Alex,

    Follow BillB’s link…Patterico has a nice round-up.

  17. floyd says:

    Sound policy…. trust any unindicted left wing organization. Especially if cleared of wrong-doing in Brooklyn![lol]
    According to the above article, the investigation was narrowly focused on the James O’Keefe activity. What about widespread voter fraud, among many other things?
    Talk about strain at a gnat and swallow a camel![lol]