So, what if I told you that a book was about to be published by a thief, a fraud, and an opportunist that turned on everyone that helped them when it benefitted them? It's likely the public would have no stomach for such a book. What if I told you I was going to publish a book by a naive radical that found the courage to become a whistleblower and so began a philosophical journey in which they found God and Conservatism? Now, that's a book you'd likely want to read.
That's what's at stake for Anita Moncrief. Depending on how you present her story, you could view her as the first or the second. Her future in writing depends entirely on crafting an image that is much more alligned with the second and not the first. So what someone may say. That's Anita Moncrief's problem. Unfortunately, it's now everyone's problem. That's because two journalists, Michelle Malkin and Michael Gaynor, have spent the last six months systematically crafting Anita Moncrief's image so that it's more like the second version. As a result, they have perpetrated a fraud on their readers, and thus on the American people. They have committed a journalistic fraud of the magnitude and scale that's difficult to compare.
Back in 2007, Anita Moncrief was working for Project Vote. There she witnessed a lax environment in which rules weren't always followed. She was struggling for money as she was a recent SINGLE MOTHER. So, one day she decided to falsely apply for a company credit card and she used that credit card for personal items. Soon enough, Project Vote figured out her theft and fraud and they fired her FOR CAUSE. She then turned on her former employer and began reaching out to media telling them that Project Vote was sharing email lists with the Obama administration. Upon being fired, Anita Moncrief befriended Marcel Reid. Reid was a former board member at ACORN. Reid took Moncrief under her wing and acted as a mentor to her. In fact, when Moncrief first began writing herself, Reid would often proof read her work. Reid often helped open doors for her. For instance, Reid helped Anita Moncrief give testimony to Darrell Issa's committee that investigated ACORN.
Marcel Reid helped to form the group, ACORN 8. In the spring of this year, Anita Moncrief asked Reid and ACORN 8 to get behind her in her expose of the connection between ACORN/Project Vote and the Obama administration. ACORN 8 asked for documentation. The documentation she provided too dubious for ACORN 8 to get behind. The group had decided that they would only attack ACORN with accusations they had incontrovertable evidence to back up. They asked Moncrief for more. She refused to give any more and so they refused to back her up. Then, it became public that Moncrief had committed theft and fraud and ACORN 8 cut ties completely.
After this, Moncrief turned on ACORN 8 and Marcel Reid specifically. She's spent the last seven months attacking Reid. Now, when I say that, this means that Anita Moncrief will attack her herself. She'll have Michael Gaynor attack her and she'll have Michelle Malkin attack her. Prior to April, Michael Gaynor had written about Anita Moncrief a handful of times. Michelle Malkin had written about her once. Since then, Malkin has written about her almost thirty times and Gaynor too many times to count. Every time, Moncrief is painted in a glowing fashion. Beyond that, Malkin and Gaynor will attack enemies of Moncrief, like ACORN 8, mercilessly. Here's a few examples from Gaynor.
The ACORN 8 are out to take control of ACORN from the current ACORN leadership by comparing ACORN to the United States Marines, claiming ACORN is a wonderful organization and criticizing the current ACORN leadership as a corrupt cabal that hijacked ACORN.
Michael McCray, ACORN 8 spokesperson: "In a way ACORN is like the 'Marines'. ACORN will go into areas where few (if any) traditional organizations will go and organize chapters. ACORN will protest, demonstrate and fight institutions which more traditional organizations shy away from – like banks, corporations and high ranking politicians. So if you are a poor or working class person and you have a serious grievance against the 'establishment' but you can’t call Johnnie Cochran – you better call ACORN. They are the only chance you have."
Bulletin for Mr. McCray: Comparing ACORN to the America's heroic Marines is malicious and Mr. Cochran is dead
On that, Ms. MonCrief and the ACORN 8 were and still are in full agreement. But Ms. MonCrief wants real reform, a thorough housecleaning and truth, transparency and accountability BY ACORN, not just within ACORN.and finally...
Ms. MonCrief does NOT want ACORN to continue to be "an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party" with different people in control.
Glenn Beck does not want ACORN to be a huge Democrat scandal...but it is and former lifelong Democrat Ms. MonCrief is not pretending otherwise!
As to Ms. Reid's selective targeting, look at the complaint filed with the United States Justice Department by the ACORN 8, dated January 7, 2009 and posted at the ACORN 8 website (http://www.acorn-8.net/).
It was Ms. MonCrief who came forward to testify in the Pennsylvania ACORN case
last October. It was Ms. MonCrief who set up her own blog as Election Day 2008 came near and produced illuminating post after post despite reasonable fear.
Ms. MonCrief grew disillusioned as the Age of Obama unfolded and became an ex-liberal. Ms. MonCrief told truths that the ACORN 8 did not want made public as well as supported the ACORN 8 to the extent that they too worked to expose ACORN corruption. Even the ACORN 8 acknowledged that Ms. MonCrief was a genuine whistleblower.
The first paragraph of a statement issued by the ACORN 8 National Spokesperson Michael McCray reads as follows: "On behalf of the National Board of the ACORN 8, we are all saddened by and express great concern due to the ACORN court action filed against whistleblower Anita Moncrief. While we do not express an opinion on the merits of ACORN’s complaint; we as reform advocates decry the tactic of suing whistleblowers – especially, low to moderate income people who do not have the financial means to effectively fight back in courts of law. Moreover, this is yet another example of why congress must enact strong corporate, government and tax-payer funded whistleblower protection laws."
Here's a few examples of Michelle Malkin doing it.
Michael Gaynor noted at the time in response to McCray: “Tellingly, Mr. McCray did NOT complain about keeping the information from prosecutors and the public. Perhaps that is because ACORN 8 leaders also kept important information from prosecutors and the public and put off the possibility of legal action to protect then presidential candidate Obama’s election prospects. Incredibly, Mr. McCray essentially claimed that bad leadership is ACORN’s only problem. Mr. McCray admitted that the ACORN 8 are out to replace the current ACORN control group, but the ideological difference is limited…Mr. McCray and the ACORN 8 did not complaint that ACORN has functioned wrongfully as an unofficial arm of the Democrat Party for many years. Instead, Mr. McCray celebrated ACORN’s “effectiveness” and complained only about ACORN leadership corruption.
Anita MonCrief has a related must-read in the Hot Air Green Room on “How NY23
Revealed the Republicans’ ACORN Problem.” Excerpt:
ACORN is a Democrat scandal and it is hard to separate one from the other. Corruption is the overriding theme and it comes mostly from the left. Another particularly odd pairing continues to be the radical reformers of ACORN and top Conservatives and Republicans. The ACORN 8, a group of former ACORN board members, have formed a Scozzafava-like partnership with the Republicans. In attempting to expose ACORN, some appear to have ignored key facts and overlooked a pattern of withholding key information to coincide with opportunistic timing aimed at aiding Democrats. An example of this is the complete removal of two longtime Obama ACORN cronies from a complaint filed with the United States Justice Department last January by the ACORN 8. Madeline Talbot is described by Stanley Kurtz of the National Review Online as “the woman who first drew Obama into an alliance with ACORN.” And Keith Kelleher is Talbot’s husband, the Chief Organizer of SEIU Local 880 in Chicag0
Now, at least Michael Gaynor attacks ACORN 8 directly. Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin is nothing short of a journalistic coward. She can't bring herself to attack them herself so all she does is quote others in attacking ACORN 8. Who does she quote, Michael Gaynor and Anita Moncrief?
Beyond attacking her enemies (Gaynor also makes a habit of attacking Fox News which cut off Moncrief as soon as word of her theft was discovered and Malkin attacks the New York Times which never ran with her story), both write about Anita Moncrief as though she were a hero. Here's a few examples from Gaynor.
Ms. MonCrief is an ex-radical feared by both the Obama Adminstration and ACORN since Ms. MonCrief publicly became a whistleblower and a voluntary witness in a case against ACORN last October and even more since she became an ex-radical this year.
Why are the Obama Administration and ACORN (and others) afraid of Ms. MonCrief.
President Obama and ACORN must be delighted that O'Reilly did not pursue Ms. MonCrief's statement on his show last June that for years ACORN has been "an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party" or--gasp!--the relationship between Obama and the his presidential campaign and ACORN.
Ms. MonCrief is much braver, bolder, fresher and smaller, but O'Reilly fans can take some solace: he's much...taller
It just got even better for America: Ms. MonCrief and BigGovernment.com teamed up. Exposing ACORN as a criminal enterprise willing to facilitate prostitution, child prostitution, child abuse, bank fraud, tax fraud and illegal immigration was fantastic, but the ACORN political corruption that put Obama in the White House and Democrats in charge of Congress with big majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives working to "fundamentally change" America is worse.
To demonstrate that, Ms. MonCrief and her knowledge and evidence are essential
Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin has worked tirelessly trying to balloon Anita Moncrief's relevance to the ACORN story.
Former ACORN/Project Vote worker Anita MonCrief — the independent whistleblower who worked closely with NYTimes reporter Stephanie Strom on exposing ACORN financial shenanigans last year before Times editors “cut bait” just weeks before Election Day — informed Strom that the true figure was $5 million.
MonCrief also reported the $5 million figure to Warner Todd Huston in April 2009.
I’m reprinting in full one of Anita’s blog posts from February 6, 2009 during the stimulus debate to show how comprehensive her knowledge is of ObamACORN’s money-shuffling operations and political cunning. The Left is going to pour as much money into shutting her up as needed. Who is going to help Anita fight?
All of this information is readily available on the Internet, and MonCrief continues to expose ACORN’s tentacles and thuggery at her own blog here despite Project Vote’s litigious efforts to shut her down. News outlets including the Examiner and Fox News have relied on her whistle-blowing testimony and reporting for months —
including her knowledge of ACORN’s Muscle for Money program & the H&R Block shakedown, and ACORN’s gala for Democrats in New York in June to celebrate its 39th anniversary.
On top of this, both scold any and all media for not giving Moncrief air time. This includes Fox News, the New York Times, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. The problem is that both make it an open and shut case. It's anything but that. Moncrief's evidence is inconclusive. It's not a smoking gun. If it were, Michelle Malkin would have posted it long ago. Furthermore, there's an unclear chain of evidence. Anita Moncrief may have gotten to this evidence illegally. There's a computer missing from Project Vote and Moncrief's evidence is electronic. Moncrief is the only one making these charges. They aren't corroborated by anyone. That's exactly what Wade Rathke told me a couple days ago. He didn't just deny her charges but told me that Anita Moncrief is the only one making these charges.
Furthermore, Anita Moncrief was a development associate. That means she helped a senior level staffer develop reports. Her duties mostly included getting coffee, lunch and doing whatever the senior staffer told her. Such a person should not be the main source for anyone and they aren't for anyone but Malkin and Gaynor. Fox News hasn't worked with Moncrief since they discovered the theft. The D.C. Examiner uses her for quotes but relies on others for the main source of information. In other words, Malkin is flat out lying when she claims that Anita Moncrief is any media sources main source but her own.
Put yourself into the shoes of any media. We have an admitted fraud, and thief with an axe to grind. That's the only evidence you have of a connection between Obama and ACORN. Would you go with that story? In fact, the only two journalists staking their reputations on Moncrief are Malkin and Gaynor. They do so while rarely mentioning the theft and fraud. They totally down play that while pumping up her image. In fact, in presenting Moncrief they only present the image of a crusading whistle blower that should be taken seriously by all.
That brings us to the present. This is the fifth piece I've published on this corrupt relationship. Since I started, what's happened is a cat and mouse game between me, Gaynor, Moncrief, and Malkin. For instance, in response to attacks on Malkin, Michael Gaynor would attack me. Then, I pointed out that calling Anita Moncrief a whistle blower is inaccurate. So, the last three times Michelle Malkin has referred to her she hasn't called her a whistle blower. Everytime I have pointed this out, I have used a different example of a real whistle blower. Most recently, Dr. David Gossman, who worked at Lahey Clinic in Boston, noticed that the relationship between his employer and the medical device firm Medtronics was inappropriate. He reported this relationship to the administration. He was then fired by Lahey Clinic. Anita Moncrief did no such thing. She had no problem with the corruption at her employer while she received a paycheck. It was only when that paycheck ended that she had problems. I've pointed this out and low and behold, the last three times Michelle Malkin has written about Moncrief, she hasn't used that term. (she used about ninety percent of the time before I pointed it out)
Then, I pointed out that Michael Gaynor has been obsessed with Anita Moncrief so for two weeks he didn't write about her at all. Then, in the last week, Gaynor wrote about about her three times following that. Finally, as I pointed out that referring to Moncrief's contribution to the overall ACORN story is inaccurate, Malkin has also stopped doing that. In fact, the last three times, all Malkin has done is linked to things Anita Moncrief has written and glowingly introduced her pieces.
Anita MonCrief has a related must-read in the Hot Air Green Room on “How NY23
Revealed the Republicans’ ACORN Problem.” Excerpt
Of course, that excerpt includes an attack by Moncrief on ACORN 8. In it, she compares the Republican relationship to Scozzafava to ACORN 8's relationship to ACORN. ACORN 8 has done no work in New York 23, endorsed no candidate and I don't believe they even have anyone that lives in the district. There's absolutely no reason to include them in a piece on New York 23, unless it's nothing but an excuse to attack them. To me, writing a political piece that's nothing more than an excuse to attack your enemies is trash not a "must read" but that's subjective.
Meanwhile, at the same time Michelle Malkin has conspicuously stopped referring to Moncrief as a whistleblower, Michael Gaynor wrote a long piece of work defending that monikor as used in relation to Moncrief. He never mentions me by name and in fact it's unclear just reading the article why Gaynor is so insistent on defending the monikor whistle blower applied to Anita Moncrief. What he doesn't tell the audience is that not only did I question its use multiple times but I emailed all three asking for clarification on the matter the day before. Low and behold, the next day he defends Anita Moncrief as a whistle blower. Here's how he starts it.
Whistleblower (The Free Dictionary): "One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority."
Of course, by that definition Sammy "the Bull" Gravanno, Henry Hill, and Benedict Arnold were also all whistle blowers. In fact, they were more whistle blowers than Moncrief. Moncrief never took her evidence to DOJ, the FEC, or any other governmental agency. Unless you consider Michelle Malkin, Michael Gaynor and the New York Times "authority" even by that definition Anita Moncrief isn't as much of a whistle blower as Henry Hill, Sammy the Bull and Benedict Arnold. More than that, every time either of them use it, they do it in an attempt to paint her as courageous. Unless they're also willing to say that Sammy the Bull and Henry Hill are also courageous, then both need to make it clear in what context they are using this term. (Moncrief has been a witness in a case against ACORN in Pennsylvania but she didn't bring her evidence forward, she just testified. Furthermore, the case was eventually dismissed and that's something that neither Gaynor nor Malkin mention when they point this out)
Here's what we have. I am no psychiatrist however Anita Moncrief's behavior exhibits far too many of the characteristics of a sociopath. When she was at Project Vote, she saw criminality and chaos and saw it as an opportunity to commit criminality. That's the behavior of a sociopath. Then, as soon as they fired her, she turned on them. She found Marcel Reid and soon as Reid stopped serving her purpose, she turned on her. She went from being a self described radical to a self described conservative at the very moment she began communicating with two conservative journalists. She refers to herself as a SINGLE MOTHER over and over knowing that such a description creates sympathy. Michael Gaynor once outed her (he outed her as a whistle blower in October of 2008) At the time, she was furious with Gaynor but now has no problem at all with him. Of course, he writes nothing but glowing articles about her. She once said she was "scared" of Michelle Malkin but now has no problems with her just as she conveniently has discovered a new found conservatism.
As for Michael Gaynor, here's all you need to know about him. Earlier this week, he contacted Wade Rathke, former founder of ACORN, and they communicated by email. Then, without getting Rathke's permission, he printed the entire exchange whole cloth on his blog. That's not the first time he's done that. He published an email exchange between himself and Anita Moncrief in 2008. Moncrief didn't give him permission to do that either. That's simply classless.
Of course, Michelle Malkin herself is no stranger to publishing email exchanges without permission. She calls them document drops. There's little in these emails that's newsworthy. One is an email chain in which members of Project Vote are discussing strategy. It's unclear how that's newsworthy. In another, Stephanie Strom discusses the ACORN story with Anita Moncrief. In that, Strom mentions things about the ACORN story that are interesting. So what? These emails aren't newsworthy. She didn't receive permission from Strom or Project Vote to release them, and they are merely titilating and show her as someone with a good enough source to get emails. (for full disclosure, I have released emails from time to time but they've always had some newsworthiness. I've never released an email simply to do it)
More than that, Malkin is a coward. She's never responded directly to me. Instead, she's simply changed her writing in a subtle way in response to things I've said. It's really worse than that. The big, bad, conservative blogger is being puppeteered by both Anita Moncrief and myself. Anita Moncrief tells her what to write and I tell her what not to write. Since Malkin hooked up with Moncrief, she's written about her 29 times on her blog. That's 29 times in just under six months. All of it is glowing and it's helped raise the profile of Anita Moncrief. Then, after I pointed out that Moncrief is not a whistle blower, she stopped calling her a whistle blower. When I pointed out that Anita Moncrief hasn't had that much of a contribution to the ACORN story, Michelle Malkin stopped doing that as well. In other words, she allows two people with significantly less reach to pull her strings.
Furthermore, when she wants to attack someone that she sees as beneath her, she won't do it herself. She'll quote someone like Michael Gaynor or Anita Moncrief and let them attack those folks. That way the attack is one degree away from her. Yet, she allows vicious attacks on her sites on individuals and groups without ever trying to contact them for comment. She's never asked ACORN 8 or any of their members to defend themselves. (I've emailed all three multiple times and received no response to any of my questions)
What this story really comes down to are the lies, misrepresentations, and misleading statements and articles. Forget the corrupt relationship where three people are constantly using each other to benefit themselves. What's important are the series of lies told by Michelle Malkin and Michael Gaynor. They rarely talk about Moncrief's theft and fraud as they praise her endlessly. They claim that Anita Moncrief has been behind most of what has been revealed regarding ACORN when she was in a position to get coffee at ACORN. They claim that the information she has on ACORN is overwhelming and thus people aren't giving it more attention because of their own corruption. In reality, her information is questionable and it hasn't been verified by anyone but her. They've done all this in an attempt to craft an image of Anita Moncrief. If they were PR people, that would be fine, but instead, they are journalists. They have no business crafting an image. They certainly can't lie to do it.