Finally, I think we are ignoring the obvious question here. Who in their sane mine would believe that Mr. O'Keefe is a "pimp" who wants to illegally import some underage "sex slaves" to turn tricks for his political campaign? Come on, the guy looks like a skinnier version of Kenneth the Page from 30 Rock. Not to mention that his outfit screams "I am not in a legitimate business", while his, he looks like he's in High School and his accent and well spoken words belie his geekiness to the max! Finally, as this story is SOOOO BIG, and this information is SOOO DAMAGING, I sincerely doubt that anyone who works for ACORN would have this conversation with a geeky boy who is clearly pretending to be something they are not. After all, doesn't this woman proclaim to be an expert in "not getting caught", having killed her husband and gotten away with it. With our modern forensic technology, getting away with murder is pretty hard, therefore, she must be pretty wily and street-wise by now, right? As a criminal, using her street smarts, she is going to tell a perfect stranger who just walked in off the street wearing their grandmother's ancient chincilla jacket (probably smelling of mothballs), carrying an old-timey granny cane of bamboo (at least he didn't use the aluminum one he found first) all about murdering her husband, how she didn't get caught in her prior adventures as a call-girl and madam while she helps him set up tax free funding for his political campaign by helping him arrange to launder his money made from a brothel staffed by underage sex slaves from Central and South America? How many federal felonies is that, anyway? Nope, I don't believe it, I just don't see the logic in this and I think, at least for the video I saw, that this woman was a paid actress who came in off the streets, and who probably was a Ho herself. (There are other inconsistencies that bother me, as well.)
Mr. O'Keefe, with all due respect, I think you are lying about the origins of this tape. A story such as yours is just too fantastical to believe. To persuade me, you must provide concrete proof that would stand up in court and be "beyond a reasonable doubt" and, I'm sorry, my doubt is "reasonable" and this evidence just doesn't take that doubt away. As a word of advice, when you are doing an expose piece, you need to be sure your documentation and evidence is complete. This includes what we Attorneys call the "foundation" and "authentication" of the evidence. This includes being sure that you not only get the outside of the building, but you film the entrance you make into the office. Try to catch all those who help you on tape, capturing you journey from reception to interview area, panning as wide as possible. Try to catch the person you are speaking with on camera as they come into the room. Try to record the day and time the interview is occurring and strive to include video that shows the observer in the context of the interview, like a backdrop of the company logo. Be sure to film your egress from the building as well, making sure to catch the same items you filmed coming in and trying to include identifying scenes like stationary, calendars, wall plaques, logos, etc while including the person who shows you out as well. Make sure the person you interview identifies themselves on camera, providing a spelling of the last name. Finally, try and get some validation of your claim to do business with them, get a personal business card on camera, copies of documents, anything concrete, that way you have verified that the person who gave you the card is truly representing the company, organization, etc. you claim to be exposing. If possible, make a return appointment, even if you don't intend to keep it, making the appointment confirms there is a mutually understood commercial arrangement at play. Mr. O'Keefe, if these videos are true, go back out, use smart techniques and land this whale of a story. If you do that, being careful to authenticate and validate your evidence, you erase any reasonable doubt there is.

I AM NOT TRYING TO OFFEND ANYONE, MERELY EXPRESSING A VIEWPOINT. If I did offend you, I apologize.

I love to see corruption and graft ferreted out, as well, however I have some doubt as to the validity of these films. I know that most on here are conservative, and my position is unpopular among the conservatives, but please patiently hear me out and don't read this if you think it will offend you. I watched the first film pinned to the biggovernment. com page, the one from a lady in San Bernadino, CA, I her name was something like Kaelke. She was talking with Mr. Keefe about how to funnel the money into his "political campaign" and she calls the conservatives the "far right-wing liberals". I find it hard to believe that anyone working for ACORN would call the right-wing "liberals". I also have doubts that these offices were ACORN. During the beginning, the woman appears to be in an office, but there is nothing on the walls to identify the office as "ACORN" and, after the cool song and the slammin bod of the chic, the office is identified as being at 1490 D Street in San Bernadino, CA. However, during the beginning, when Mr. O'Keefe is setting up the "take down", he talks with a "neighbor" at a mailbox clearly marked as #415. How on Earth can an office located over ten blocks away in San Bernadino, CA be "neighbors", in the commonly known meaning of the word as so geographically close you could see what they're doing without leaving your house? Not possible.