Not coincidentally, Anita Moncrief used to be friends with Reid and other members of ACORN 8., but she's since turned on that organization. Both Gaynor and Malkin write glowing articles about Anita Moncrief. Gaynor lauds her courage.
Anita Moncrief is likeable as well as brave, bright, young, maternal, passionate, artistic, and black. Now, ACORN and the Obama administration must destroy her because Anita's not an ACORN slave and Anita decided to reveal what ACORN and the Obama administration want to conceal.
Meanwhile, Malkin lauds Moncrief's contributions 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.
Both make similar descriptions over and over. Even if the descriptions were true, making this case ad nausea would be inappropriate. Yet, it's much worse because the descriptions are dubious at best. First, there's nothing courageous about anything Moncrief has done. When she work for ACORN affiliate Project Vote, she witnessed all sorts of crimes. Moncrief then decided to falsely apply for a company credit card and then used that card for personal items. She got caught and fired. It was only after she lost her paycheck did Moncrief turn into a "whistle blower". A courageous whistle blower blows the whistle on corruption when they see it. They risk their pay checks, livelihood and careers to do it. Anita Moncrief waited until the paychecks stopped before blowing the whistle. She's the sort of whistle blower that Sammy the Bull Gravanno and Henry Hill were. There's nothing courageous about any of the three.
Furthermore, no one but Malkin and Gaynor consider Moncrief anything but a minor source. Fox News cut ties with her months ago. Because of her fraud and theft, most news organizations are weary of using her as a source of anything. Furthermore, Anita Moncrief was a "development associate" while at Project Vote. In other words, she was a low level staffer. When I asked Wade Rathke about her, he told me her personally and only knew her through media reports. He did however know Marcel Reid and other members of ACORN 8. So, this supposed wealth of information never met or knew the person responsible for turning ACORN into what it is.
Malkin and Gaynor rarely mention her fraud, theft and eventual firing. When they do, it's often quoted as "Anita has always been open and honest about her mistakes"and then there will be a link to Moncrief's own explanation for what she did. In other words, Malkin will laud her openness and honesty and allow Moncrief herself to explain her criminal behavior. That's the sort of one sided and biased reporting that the same Malkin will excoriate when an organization like the New York Times does it.
Worst of all, Gaynor has quoted Malkin in praise of Moncrief and vice versa, and to top it off, Malkin has quoted Gaynor and Moncrief as they attack ACORN 8.
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.
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 Chicago.
Beyond that, since I started this, Gaynor has attacked me on three different occasions. During the course of blog attacks, he's never once provided a link to any of the articles of mine he quotes from so that his audience of four can see if he's taking my words out of context and he's attacked a recently dead blogger named Nancy Armstrong twice. Meanwhile, Ms. Malkin can't decide if Anita Moncrief is or is not a whistle blower. Prior to my reporting, that moniker was used 90% of the time. Since I pointed out that such a moniker applied to Moncrief is dubious at best, Malkin has gone back and forth. First, she's written significantly less about her since I started the expose. (five times in a month plus) Second, she's used that moniker only two of those five times. Malkin has never responded to me directly, and Gaynor claims the two of them never communicate, though on one occasion he appeared to speak on her behalf.
Even if hell does freeze over, Volpe should not expect to win any attention from Ms. Malkin.All while claiming to not know Malkin, Gaynor quotes her repeatedly, has said he's emailed her, has been quoted by Malkin, and is very proud of the fact that Malkin acknowledged him in her book, Culture of Corruption. Of course, they both speak to Anita Moncrief regularly. So, if in fact, he doesn't know Malkin, he ought to take that up with Moncrief since she could have introduced the two of them months ago.
Meanwhile, throughout, I've been emailing all sorts of questions to all three. None have ever responded to any of the questions. So, since none want to answer any of my questions directly, the only thing left is to ask these questions here.
1) (for both Malkin and Gaynor) Do you consider Anita Moncrief the sort of courageous whistle blower like Dr. Gossman, who I featured recently? Dr. Gossman found corruption between his employer, Lahey Clinic, and Medtronics, a medical parts company. He blew the whistle on this corruption and was fired. Or, do you consider Anita Moncrief an opportunistic whistle blower like Henry Hill and Sammy the Bull, who blew the whistle on corruption when it was opportunistic and convenient?
2) Anita Moncrief discovered that email lists were being shared, at least according to her, between ACORN and the Obama administration. ACORN has been accused of voter registration fraud, ERISA violations, tax evasion, union busting of its own employees (all while being in bed with unions), multi million dollar embezzlement by the founder's brother, co mingling of government funds, among a host of allegations. Why do both of you consider her discovery the one that everyone needs to focus on? Even if true, it's a violation that would come with a fine of somewhere in the neighborhood of a million dollars, and that fine would have been paid by the Obama campaign. A source told me that they believe that such lists have been shared by ACORN since the Gore administration. So, this is neither new or shocking. Why are the both of you fixated on it?
3)(this is to Malkin and Gaynor) Do you two communicate? Gaynor says you don't but also says he has emailed you, has quoted you, Malkin has quoted him, and Gaynor is acknowledged in Malkin's book. Of course, both of you speak to Moncrief regularly. That's an awful lot of contact without speaking to each other. Is there a reason why you make all this contact without contacting each other?
4)I've said that Anita Moncrief has exhibited several sociopathic tendencies. For instance, she saw chaos at Project Vote and used that chaos to commit criminality. She once considered Marcel Reid a mentor. Then, she turned on Reid. She also conveniently became a conservative just in time to make two conservative journalists, the two of you, her main sources of media attention. In fact, Gaynor once outed Moncrief in October of 2008 and in that email, that Gaynor shared without Moncrief's permission, Anita Moncrief said that Michelle Malkin "scared" her. She was none too happy with Gaynor then. She was scared of Malkin then. She now considers both her two most loyal journalists.
If I'm right and Moncrief is a sociopath, doesn't everything else make sense. Moncrief didn't have any evolution from a radical to a conservative. She was merely doing it for your benefit and the benefit of others like you. Can't you see that when both of you are no longer useful to her, she'll turn on you the way she turned on Project Vote and Marcel Reid? Goodness, Michael Gaynor has been writing nothing but propaganda on Moncrief's behalf, and where has that gotten him. It's gotten him nowhere. While Moncrief gets invited to appear with Andrew Breitbart and CSPAN and she rubs shoulders with some prominent conservatives, Gaynor, you're still writing on your insignificant site. If I was forced to write propaganda on behalf of someone, I would hope I'd get something in return. You've gotten nothing. Doesn't it appear as though she's played you. That's SOP for a sociopath. Doesn't this chain of events give anyone pause that they've gotten into bed with a sociopath? Has anyone asked Moncrief why she didn't blow the whistle at Project Vote but only waited until after they fired her? Malkin, did you ask Anita Moncrief why she would talk with someone who outed her? Gaynor, did you wonder why someone who you outed suddenly became so cozy with you?
5)Ms. Malkin, you say you've seen and reviewed the evidence that Anita Moncrief has against Project Vote. If that evidence is as strong as you claim, why haven't you released it? Why do you insist on propping up Ms. Moncrief rather than releasing the evidence and allowing it to speak for itself?
6) Ms. Moncrief, upon discovering that Project Vote was working closely, and illegally, with the Obama administration, you went straight to the media. You didn't go to the Justice Department, the Federal Election Committee, or anyone else with subpoena power. Why is that? How did you come upon this evidence? Did you obtain it legally? What do you know about a missing computer at Project Vote?
7) For Mr. Gaynor and Ms. Malkin, what ethical guidelines do bloggers have? For instance, Ms. Malkin, you began featuring Ms. Moncrief on your blog a lot in anticipation of your book's release. Ms. Moncrief provides the only seven pages in the book that anyone can't find through searching the internet. Do you feel you should have shared that conflict with your audience when you began to write obsessively about her? Do you think it's appropriate that you consider Ms. Moncrief a source, an individual you write obsessively about, and an author that you allow to write for your sister site Hot Air? Mr. Gaynor, do you think it's appropriate to release email threads when the other party gives you no permission. When I interviewed Wade Rathke, before the interview began, he wanted to make sure that I wouldn't do the same thing with our emails that you did. Clearly, he never gave you permission. You also released emails of exchanges with Anita Moncrief. Do you feel any ethical bounds to hold private conversations private?
8)Ms. Moncrief, I'm confused as to how you became a conservative. You say it's because of the corruption you discovered in the Obama administration. Are you unaware of the corruption surrounding Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Ted Stevens, George Ryan, Duke Cunningham, and Jack Abramoff? If corruption is your problem, then radicals have no monopoly. The radicals I know are true believers. Normally, it would take a lot more than the discovery of email lists to change their minds. So, how did you become a conservative?
9)Ms. Malkin and Mr. Gaynor, didn't you think it was convenient that this one time radical was suddenly a conservative just in time to speak to two conservatives? (that's you two)
10)Mr. Gaynor, you called me obsessed with Michelle Malkin. I've mentioned her 79 times in 3071 pieces. You've written about Anita Moncrief in about 80% of your pieces since April. You've mentioned Marcel Reid, Michael McCray, and ACORN 8 over one hundred times each. What does that make you about Anita Moncrief, ACORN 8, Marcel Reid and Michael McCray?
11)Ms. Malkin, you've quoted both Michael Gaynor and Anita Moncrief as they've attacked ACORN 8 and members of ACORN 8. You've never even attempted to try and get a response from either. What if the New York Times had quoted Arianna Huffington disparaging you? Are we to believe that such a piece wouldn't be the subject of a front page story on michellemalkin.com? Are we to believe that you wouldn't use such a blind side attack as the subject of an example of how the so called MSM is corrupt? Doesn't that make you no better than the people you criticize?
12)Ms. Moncrief, have you ever had a mentor before? What does it say about you when you turn on your mentor the way you turned on Marcel Reid? My mentor in mortgages hit on not one but two of my former girlfriends, and not only did I forgive him, but frankly, I felt there was nothing to forgive. That's how strongly I feel about the bond between mentor and protege. Why was it so easy for you turn on Marcel Reid and ACORN 8 given what they did for you?
13)Ms. Malkin what makes you think that Fox News uses Anita Moncrief as a source? You know she hasn't appeared there in months. You know that Glenn Beck was furious when he found out third hand that Moncrief committed theft and fraud. You know that Fox News has wanted nothing to do with her since. What makes you think that the Washington Examiner uses her in any serious way? In the article you linked in this piece, she's the third person quoted, behind Marcel Reid and Karen Inman. In fact, you rarely mention them at all in any piece, and when you do, it is to attack them. Are you saying that Anita Moncrief, a low level staffer at Project Vote, knows more about the ACORN scandal than Inman and Reid, two former ACORN board members?
14)to all three, if Anita Moncrief is so critical to the ACORN story, why is it that Wade Rathke only knows of her? Wouldn't it stand to reason that the founder and person singly most responsible for the organization would know Moncrief personally if she's so important to the story?
15)Mr. Gaynor, you claim that ACORN 8 won't run with Moncrief's story because they want to protect President Obama. Some of these folks were board members of ACORN and yet that didn't stop them from blowing the whistle on ACORN, while they were still members of the board. Are you saying that while they have no problem putting ideology aside toward ACORN, they refuse to put ideology aside toward the president?
16) To all three, if Anita Moncrief's information is so solid and critical, why has no one, NO ONE, corroborated it?
17)Ms. Malkin, on June 24th, at 5:06 in the morning, you published a piece in which you corrected an earlier post in which you falsely claimed that ACORN had changed its name. What was so critical about this piece that you wrote it in the middle of the night? You mentioned that you initially got it wrong but never mentioned how you figured out you were wrong. How did you concluded that you were wrong initially and how did that conclusion come to you in the middle of the night? I wrote a piece the evening before that went viral. That piece was finished at 11 PM my time the evening before. I excoriated media like yourself, and mentioned you by name, and called all of you out for getting this very issue wrong. If it wasn't my piece that lead you to conclude that you were wrong initially, what was it? Why didn't you share with the audience how you discovered in the middle of the night that you were wrong initially?
18)Ms. Moncrief, you make a habit of telling your audience you're a SINGLE MOTHER. Why do you insist on doing this? How is your personal life relevant? Do you think that a real conservative would use their personal issues as a tool to draw sympathy? Isn't that something that we usually associate with liberals? Do you understand the tenets of conservativism, including personal responsibility.
19) Ms. Malkin, why have you never criticized Ms. Moncrief for using her child as a prop the way you famously criticized the Frost's for doing the same thing? How is Anita Moncrief drawing symapthy by using her child any different? Isn't this the height of hypocrisy?
20)To Ms. Malkin and Mr. Gaynor, why have neither of you two even attempted to reach out to anyone else in the ACORN story? If you have, don't you find it at all peculiar that Anita Moncrief insists on having her name mentioned as often as possible whereas everyone else insists on remaining quiet. No one else, related to this story, is mentioned by you besides those folks I've confirmed have never talked to you. Wouldn't it make more sense to try and reach out to ACORN, ACORN 8, Greg Hall, and anyone else associated with this, instead of solely relying on Anita Moncrief?