Hard Headed Woman .

Once again Tommy’s remarks are easily debated.

Tommy wrote: “That event wasn’t a political town hall, either, but rather, an educational forum about credit card debt.”

Are you serious? Every single time a politician does anything, it’s freakin political. Don’t be so naive dude; you’re smarter than that…right?

Tommy wrote: “The Congresswoman’s explanation for asking that there be no taping is entirely reasonable.”

Are you serious? You find that “reasonable.” She is a public servant, we pay her salary and she works for the people. A voter in her district should be able to film every damn thing she says.

You are just another liberal apologist Tommy, the same as the right-wingers that whined about those that questioned Bu$h. I’m sorry to say it, but you’re obviously a partisan and not an unbiased journalist – if there is such a thing.

Tommy wrote:

“this is further evidence that the plain old “lamestream media” still has a considerable leg up on their activist counterparts…”

Yeah, like when NBC news edited a tape to tell it’s audience that a racist white guy was holding a gun at a tea-party rally when the guy they showed was actually a black dude. Or, when Dan Rather used obviously doctored paperwork to try and change the outcome of the 2004 election. Or, the way Tommy & his friends call every person & every situation they disagree with a form of “racist” or “racism” with no evidence to back it up. Yep, you lamestream media types are a true bastion of honesty in reporting.

LOL…..lonestar just schooled Tommy.

And what’s really funny is that Tommy is saying that while these “Tea Partiers” have the right to protest, they shouldn’t have done it there. And where does Tommy stand on the Ground Zero Mosque?

Aaron Gardner said:
And what’s really funny is that Tommy is saying that while these “Tea Partiers” have the right to protest, they shouldn’t have done it there. And where does Tommy stand on the Ground Zero Mosque?

BINGO

Teabaggers will still appreciate the effort made by the scumbag Breitbart in spite of its dishonesty.

Very well said lonestar77

Furthermore, she could have asked the thug working at the library to back off her constituent…. if indeed he did not work for her… but she chose to let that punk attempt to intimidate people who had every right to be there and ask any fkn question they wish to ask of their elected official.

It’s quite clear Tommy wrote this article just so he could use the word ” Breitbarted “.

Tommy Christopher is spinning this a bit too hard. OTOH, the comments from ‘partier types above are instructive. Not only do they think fallacies are arguments (tuquoque), but they’re incapable of learning. Instead of realizing the problems with the video – and with the lame questions that the ‘partier asked – they enable further stupidity.

If you’re smart, sane, mainstream and you want to hold pols accountable in a smart, sane, mainstream, civil, and highly effective way, see my comments:

http://24ahead.com/n/10173

If you’re a ‘partier/libertarian type, don’t bother: we know you can’t learn how to do things in better ways.

Remember this? The outrage of a politician running away. Maybe that big dude was just checking for head lice.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/sharron-angle-runs-away-from-reporters-reporters-retaliate-with-hilariously-spiteful-segment/

Tommy will FOREVER be smarting from the beat-down Andrew gave him.

Hey Tommy, just wondering if you have any comment to this:

Correction Request: Tommy Christopher, Mediaite

In the article “Andrew Breitbart’s Video ‘Evidence’ Of Lying Congressmen Is Anything But” published August 6th at Mediaite, author Tommy Christopher makes a number of factual errors and unverifiable claims that ought to be corrected or clarified. The problematic sentences are identified in block quotes with explanations of the errors beneath each quote:

http://bigjournalism.com/retracto/2010/08/11/correction-request-tommy-christopher-mediaite/

On Thursday, August 12, I was there at the meeting with Representative Melissa Bean (IL-8) that was held at the Round Lake Library. The meeting was billed as a Financial Education seminar to teach citizens how to manage their credit card debt. What happened at this meeting was anything but educational. During the meeting, which I attended, citizens started to ask questions about jobs, government spending and the federal deficit. As you can see from the video, every time a citizen would attempt to ask a question, Melissa Bean’s THUG, who we were told worked for the Round Lake Library, would walk over to that person and hover over them to intimidate them. This is exactly what was shown in the video even though it has been edited. The THUG was not bending down to reading anything. He was bending over a person who was asking Bean a question to intimidate her. I was about 6 feet away and saw it all. This Thug exhibited the same behavior which went on during the course of the entire meeting without Bean saying a word about the blatant intimidation she knew her constituents must be feeling.

It is obvious from Bean’s obfuscation that she chose this type of forum so she would not have to answer any direct questions about her voting record. Instead of having an open Town hall forum where citizens are free to have a dialogue with their Representative, Bean chose to have a representative from the Illinois State Treasury come in and lecture her constituents on how they should pay down their credit card debt and start saving. How ironic when the Federal Government has spent over 13 Trillion dollars and the majority of the states are on the verge of bankruptcy.

I, along with many others in attendance, felt that every attempt to ask Bean a question was either “shut down” by Bean personally or through the intimidation tactics of her THUG. Is this the type of “transparency” we were promised? Why does Bean feel that Thuggery is acceptable?

If you don’t approve of Bean’s tactics, please DONATE to Joe Walsh her opponent at http://walshforcongress.com/ Bean is well financed and Walsh isn’t. Money for Joe will help Bean go in November!

Here’s Tommy’s idea of a ‘fair and balanced’ headline…..

“Greta Van Susteren Doesn’t Seem To Care If Arizona Law Is Constitutional Or Not – UPDATE”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/greta-van-susteren-doesnt-seem-to-care-if-arizona-law-is-constitutional-or-not/

Let me know if you want the link to the absolute smack-down of his BS. (j$p)

Thanks for your comment, Jean. I for one can’t wait for Tommy’s reply. Of course, he’ll have to get out from under his desk first.

Any comment, Tommy? Any at all?

JeanWTPUSA said:
On Thursday, August 12, I was there at the meeting with Representative Melissa Bean (IL-8) that was held at the Round Lake Library

That won’t matter to the ones here who already have their minds made up with the help of a fair and balanced headline by Tommy Christopher.

You’re biased… they are not.

Another deceptive story by Tommy Christopher. He just can’t tell the truth.

MichelleF said:
Hey Tommy, just wondering if you have any comment to this:

Correction Request: Tommy Christopher, Mediaite

Really, Tommy, are you just going to let the bullshit you posted stand uncorrected? Do you maintain any sort of intellectual or journalistic standards? Most people, even weasels, will at least try to walk back lies once they get caught. You seem to be the anti-Jefferson: Bullshit with boldness, even the existence of racism!

tommy is too busy shooting his wad on helen thomas’ nameplate to get the facts straight

Oh, wait. Tommy answered my question in the post and I missed it the first time:

When you’ve got no name to protect, the facts don’t matter so much.

Good point, Tommy.

Tommy, are you just going to let the bullshit you posted stand uncorrected?
This is standard fare about this board lately; Dan must be on vacation or he has simply thrown in the towel on honesty from his employees.

Go figure.

Besides, Tommy is auditioning for a job on MSNBC, so we have to give him a break — see how many lies he can tell and then let them stand.

Andrew Not So Breitbart is a POS lying punk. Don’t worry about the wingnuts here, Tommy, they’re just trying to practice their Breitbarting.

bill umad?

Bill Adkins said:
Andrew Not So Breitbart is a POS lying punk. Don’t worry about the wingnuts here, Tommy, they’re just trying to practice their Breitbarting.

The failure to address a single substantive point is par for the course, and one of the reasons venturing into the comments here is mainly an exercise in pointing this out. Thanks for helping out a little.

JeanWTPUSA said:
On Thursday, August 12, I was there at the meeting with Representative Melissa Bean (IL-8) that was held at the Round Lake Library.

You had your say, both in the video and in my article. Your video is deceptively edited, robbing your account of any credibility. The fact that there’s only one shot of the guy “standing over” anyone, and you freeze it after a fraction of a second, indicates strongly that the very next shot in the unedited video would have told a different story. I’d be happy to see the full tape, if you’ll provide it.

lonestar77 said:
Tommy wrote:

“this is further evidence that the plain old “lamestream media” still has a considerable leg up on their activist counterparts…”

Yeah, like when NBC news edited a tape to tell it’s audience that a racist white guy was holding a gun at a tea-party rally when the guy they showed was actually a black dude. Or, when Dan Rather used obviously doctored paperwork to try and change the outcome of the 2004 election. Or, the way Tommy & his friends call every person & every situation they disagree with a form of “racist” or “racism” with no evidence to back it up. Yep, you lamestream media types are a true bastion of honesty in reporting.

Yes, those exceptions prove the rule. The conservative practice of “Breitbarting” is the rule, rather than the exception. Thanks for helping to prove my point.

Aaron Gardner said:
And what’s really funny is that Tommy is saying that while these “Tea Partiers” have the right to protest, they shouldn’t have done it there. And where does Tommy stand on the Ground Zero Mosque?

There’s nothing in here about any protest.

Tommy Christopher said:
You had your say, both in the video and in my article. Your video is deceptively edited, robbing your account of any credibility.

I wouldn’t be running around crowing about credibility with a track record like yours, Tommy.

For example, in that sinister freeze-frame, the so-called “thug” appears to be reading something that’s being shown to him by an audience member.

He was just bowing to her! Um, I mean he was picking something up off the floor!

Tommy Christopher said:
The failure to address a single substantive point is par for the course, and one of the reasons venturing into the comments here is mainly an exercise in pointing this out. Thanks for helping out a little.

Here’s some substantive points for you.

“at a town hall meeting”

This was not a town hall meeting. It was a seminar on finance reform and credit card debt. If it were a town hall meeting, members of the audience asking questions unrelated to the topic at hand would have been appropriate.

“When introduced to actual facts, this bit of video chicanery folds up like an origami umbrella.”

Where are these actual facts you speak off? The entire article was pretty thin on facts, long on opinion, and the only actual (presumably accurate) fact that had any bearing on the authenticity of the video was:

“Sources familiar with the event tell Mediaite that the ‘thug’ from the video was not ‘hired’ by Rep. Bean, but is a library employee who was responsible for security at the event.”

“For example, in that sinister freeze-frame, the so-called “thug” appears to be reading something that’s being shown to him by an audience member.”

It’s plainly obvious that he’s leaning over and speaking in a low voice, presumably asking them to stop being disruptive. It’s safe to assume he didn’t say anything intimidating, or it would have made the final cut, but he certainly doesn’t appear to be reading something. You can see his mouth moving before the video freezes…or are you conceeding that he’s a thug and, as such, has to move his mouth to read? At about 1:15 in the video, you can see a first person perspective of the skinny guy with glasses doing the same thing to the cameraman: leaning over and speaking quietly (and respectfully).

“According to one source, the video doesn’t show instances of constituents asking the guy with the video to pipe down so they can hear the presentation they came to see.”

At about 5:25 on the video, you can hear someone “shushing” the questioner.

“The Congresswoman’s explanation for asking that there be no taping is entirely reasonable.”

The videographer agreed to turn the camera off when people started telling personal stories, which was what she requested the taping be stopped for.

From the Round Lake Area Public Library website:

“Library personnel are not available to move equipment or operate equipment, make photocopies, or other such services.”

Why was a library employee acting as security if library personnel are not available to provide services during meetings?

“That event wasn’t a political town hall, either, but rather, an educational forum about credit card debt.”

Close, but no. The credit card debt part was a presentation by another speaker. The Congresswoman’s segment was about Wall Street Reform.

Those guys were being disruptive douchebags, and this wasn’t an appropriate place to ask the questions they were asking. The Congresswoman and the staff at the library were quite patient, since they didn’t throw them out or call the police. The “thug” wasn’t behaving in a particularly intimidating way, and if having a guy lean over and talk quietly to you intimidates you, you’re a pussy. The video is a non-event, but you managed to get an awful lot wrong in such a short article about it.

“Sources familiar with the event tell Mediaite that the “thug” from the video was not “hired” by Rep. Bean, but is a library employee who was responsible for security at the event. ”

who are these so called sources tommy? god you are such a fucking hack…

Tommy says: “Yes, those exceptions prove the rule. The conservative practice of “Breitbarting” is the rule, rather than the exception. ”

Bull. Keep up with this BS, Tommy C. Your credibility is shot, and you know it.

Where’s your response to the request for retraction on your hit piece on the Breitbart video, Tommy?
http://bigjournalism.com/retracto/2010/08/11/correction-request-tommy-christopher-mediaite/#IDComment92603325

Where’s your integrity? Breitbart never said Rep. John Lewis was lying in that article. Who’s lying? We all know who is lying – and it isn’t Andrew Breitbart.

No honor – no integrity – no honesty. Anyone reading anything at all written by Tommy C. knows now that it’s nothing more than a Media Matters fantasy – bought & paid for by the Dem party.

Conservatives . Don ‘ t let yourselves be CHRISTOPHERED .

Constantly said:
“Sources familiar with the event tell Mediaite that the “thug” from the video was not “hired” by Rep. Bean, but is a library employee who was responsible for security at the event. ” who are these so called sources tommy? god you are such a fucking hack…

From the NYU Journalism Handbook:

“On background” is a kind of limited license to print what the source gives you without using the source’s name. But most veteran reporters will not use “on background” information until they can verify it with other sources. People try to go “on background” when their information is very sensitive, which is to say, the information is likely to cause a stir. “On background” means the source’s name does not appear in the story. In effect it confers anonymity on your source, but allows you to work with the information the source has provided.

Using unnamed sources is ethical and legitimate when the information is verified with more than one source. Even the line about people telling the questioners to pipe down, which is attributed to only one unnamed source, is verified in the video (though apparently Tommy didn’t catch it).

Dave Be said:
From the NYU Journalism Handbook:
.

everyone knows tommy never took a course on journalism, so i stand by my hack statement lol

lonestar77 says:

Yeah, like when NBC news edited a tape to tell it’s audience that a racist white guy was holding a gun at a tea-party rally when the guy they showed was actually a black dude.

More Liberty says:

LOL…..lonestar just schooled Tommy.

Unfortunately, for LONERstar, and his cheerleader, (MS)NBC didn’t edit any tape of a black man holding a gun at a tea party. They showed CELL PHONE footage of a black man holding a gun, while Contessa Brewer was discussing the abundance of white people at the rally with guns (which there was), and lack of African Americans (which there was). There was no “editing” done.

Tommy Christopher says:
August 16, 2010 at 7:24 pm (Quote)
Mediaite Staff

“Yes, those exceptions prove the rule. The conservative practice of “Breitbarting” is the rule, rather than the exception. Thanks for helping to prove my point.”

Weak. Very, very weak. Besides those weren’t “exceptions”, they were things I came up with after brainstorming for about 3/4 of a second. I could list about 1000 more but we both know there’s really no need for that. You hate the conservative media because they do the job of exposing the left that the left-wing MSM has refused to do. Your side is no longer able to skate by. I can see how that would anger you but all I can really say is tough shiite.

“LONERstar”. Ooh, good one. And it was in bold to boot! Next time throw in one of those smiley face thingies. Bwahahahahahaha.

TC, looks like you’re having a bad day, so I won’t add to it. Go home, have some good Scotch, take a reality pill, and consider the possibilities for tomorrow.

ProgLib said:
There was no “editing” done.

Then there was no editing done to the Shirley Sherrod tape, either. Which there wasn’t. But then, Breitbart didn’t loop his favorite 5 seconds of that tape to the exclusion of everything else, like MSNBC did.

lonestar77 said:
The conservative practice of “Breitbarting” is the rule, rather than the exception.

What the hell does that even mean?

Tom,
You wrote:
“Your video is deceptively edited, robbing your account of any credibility. ”

As someone who has taken journalism…
How do you know that their video was edited deceptively?
You, yourself, say that you haven’t seen the full tape. So how do you know?

The answer is easy. You don’t know. Which makes for lousy journalism when you say that someone’s video was deceptively edited. For that matter, it opens you up to charges of libel. No newspaper editor would have let you write that without having seen the full video themselves.

That, in itself, is not the only thing troubling to me.
The fact is that you’re defending the idea that politicians shouldn’t be asked questions about controversial legislation that they passed if they are at an event that they planned of a differing nature.
You’re one of many pseudo journalists who have gone from the age of ‘question authority’ into the world of ‘question authority, as long as the proper authorities give you the proper forum to question them’.

Of course, we WOULD ask the authorities questions about health care if they HAD forums on health care. But as it is, they decided to stop doing that after they received a lot of inconvenient questions and outright opposition to their bill.

So what did they do? They passed the bill anyway.
And in light of that, a few of us would like to ask our representatives questions like:
‘What the f were you thinking?’, or ‘why did you pass a bill that your constituents were clearly against?’

You defended this as being a forum about credit cards, and explain that there were experts there on credit cards.
Great. Then Melissa Bean being there is…
(say it with me)
Political.
She was not needed for the credit card forum. Clearly, she was there to gain political points. As such, the minute that she appeared, she should be open to questions from her constituents. Unless, of course, she wants to hold a health care forum.

One last point:
I can’t believe that anyone in the media is defeinding her asking people to turn off their cameras.
Its a public event. People were not sharing stories of child abuse, but about credit cards. Unless they were giving out their social security numbers, Melissa had not place in asking people to turn off their cameras. The idea that a public forum held by a politician meant to inform people about their credit cards should be off record? Ridiculous.
I hope to God that you don’t turn your camera off in a public forum just because the politician asks you to.
That too, would be crappy journalism.

Apostrophe jones says:
August 16, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

Conservatives . Don ‘ t let yourselves be CHRISTOPHERED .

Tommy only wishes he had as much influence…unfortunately for Tommy, his inability to report truth and fact have made him even more meaningless not only round these parts, but pretty much everywhere.

Funny that Dan doesn’t seem to be too concerned with the honesty of the reports on his board. Ah well, it’s the MSNBC way — truth and fact get thrown out the window while innuendo and falsehoods rule the day.

MSNBC (mediaite) = meltdown.

I don’t take seriously anything TC writes. He’s the Keith Olbermann of print “journalism”. Enough said.

ronke a said:
I don’t take seriously anything TC writes. He’s the Keith Olbermann of print “journalism”. Enough said.

LOL….yeah like those softballs he threw at that New Black Panther thug

ChicagoJohn said:
Tom,You wrote:“Your video is deceptively edited, robbing your account of any credibility. ” As someone who has taken journalism…How do you know that their video was edited deceptively?You, yourself, say that you haven’t seen the full tape. So how do you know? The answer is easy. You don’t know. Which makes for lousy journalism when you say that someone’s video was deceptively edited. For that matter, it opens you up to charges of libel. No newspaper editor would have let you write that without having seen the full video themselves. That, in itself, is not the only thing troubling to me.The fact is that you’re defending the idea that politicians shouldn’t be asked questions about controversial legislation that they passed if they are at an event that they planned of a differing nature.You’re one of many pseudo journalists who have gone from the age of ‘question authority’ into the world of ‘question authority, as long as the proper authorities give you the proper forum to question them’. Of course, we WOULD ask the authorities questions about health care if they HAD forums on health care. But as it is, they decided to stop doing that after they received a lot of inconvenient questions and outright opposition to their bill. So what did they do? They passed the bill anyway.And in light of that, a few of us would like to ask our representatives questions like:‘What the f were you thinking?’, or ‘why did you pass a bill that your constituents were clearly against?’ You defended this as being a forum about credit cards, and explain that there were experts there on credit cards.Great. Then Melissa Bean being there is…(say it with me)Political.She was not needed for the credit card forum. Clearly, she was there to gain political points. As such, the minute that she appeared, she should be open to questions from her constituents. Unless, of course, she wants to hold a health care forum. One last point:I can’t believe that anyone in the media is defeinding her asking people to turn off their cameras.Its a public event. People were not sharing stories of child abuse, but about credit cards. Unless they were giving out their social security numbers, Melissa had not place in asking people to turn off their cameras. The idea that a public forum held by a politician meant to inform people about their credit cards should be off record? Ridiculous.I hope to God that you don’t turn your camera off in a public forum just because the politician asks you to.That too, would be crappy journalism.

Well said CJ…. I just wonder, if that had been John Boehner, what would Tommy have said about it? If these were (R)’s ducking their constituents would he be holding their feet to the fire? I mean, this is still a ‘representative’ government, right?

The fact is, Tommy and the rest of the LSM shills for the (D) party in general (and Obowma in particular) have been neglecting their duties for quite a while. Everything is viewed through a political lens and a one-way filter and everbody with a FAIR AND BALANCED bone in their body knows it.

The whole bunch of those biased hypocrites are all going down the crapper together and they are lost and desperate. Have you noticed all the frantic fumbling about in search of a ‘narrative’?? Like a thirsty blind man in the desert…. LMAO!

Who is dictating the narrative? Is it Robert Gibbs ‘crazy like a (stoopid) fox’? Is it the Great and Wonerful Obozo, who is welcome at (D) campaign functions like rain is welcome at a parade? Is it the ‘professional left’, who is not at all happy with the lack of expediency and urgency with which this administration is running the Country into the ground?

I’ll answer the question for folks like Mr. Christopher so they won’t be distressed. Perhaps it will help them relax, take a deep breath and reevaluate…. and quit grasping at straws. After all, what little credibility they have left hangs in the balance. They have proven themselves to be incapable of objectivity and unwilling to fake it. They have become less and less relevant to ACTUAL issues that matter to Americans as they have been relegated to the sidelines as the leftwing cheerleaders that they are. Now they are entertainers… court jesters…. buffoons.

So… here’s the question….”Who is dictating the narrative?”

And… here’s the answer….. “The Truth”.

Lies are being dragged out into the light of day by everybody from Congressmen to Common Sense Grandma’s. The Truth is more readily available and abundant in America today than ever before because of We The People. It’s the biggest and best development of the new millenium.

Which brings me to the reason why the (D)’ s and the LSM are like a thirsty blind man in the desert. It’s perfectly understandable that they find themselves frantically fumbling about in search of a narrative (or any other lifesaver) … lost in the wilderness that is ‘The Information Age.’

During those ‘awful 8 years’ of Bush Bush Bush… technology thrived. The difference between when Clinton left office and when Obama took office was night and day. The left grew accustomed to being the BASHER and in the process set the bar really really low. Now they are finding out how much harder it is to be the BASHEE… especially when they have to abide by the BASHER example that THEY set!

Many cliches apply… “It’s much easier to burn down a barn than to build one”. “What comes around goes around”. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”. “Be careful what you wish for.”

But my favorite… (it may not be a cliche but it should be)…. is about the dog who finally catches the car….

NOW WHAT?

Tommy Christopher said:
Aaron Gardner said:
And what’s really funny is that Tommy is saying that while these “Tea Partiers” have the right to protest, they shouldn’t have done it there. And where does Tommy stand on the Ground Zero Mosque?

There’s nothing in here about any protest.

Tommy, don’t act like a weasel with me, ok? I don’t want to have to call Caleb over to properly spank your bottom.

You said:

As a member of the press, I’m all in favor of holding politicians accountable, and I get the value of the impromptu interview, but we don’t have the right to disrupt others’ attempts to avail themselves of government resources.

Now, you may have used “interview” where I used “protest” but the premise is the same.

You are, and always have been a rank hypocrite. This doesn’t change the fact that you do an amazing karaoke version of Baby Got Back. Alas, you’ve chosen to write about politics instead of sticking to what you know.

Aaron Gardner said:
Now, you may have used “interview” where I used “protest” but the premise is the same.

If you don’t already know the difference between a protest and an interview, I doubt explaining will do any good, but I’ll give it a shot anyway.

In an interview, the interviewer asks the interviewee questions, to hear their point of view. In a protest, the protester expresses his point of view to the target of the protest. If the protesters were outside picketing and chanting, nobody would have any problem with that. Instead they were inside and disrupting the presentation. I’m not unsympathetic to people that feel that taxes are too high and spending is too high, but if I’d been in charge of security at that event, I would have asked those guys to leave, and called the police if they refused.

So when did Tommy Christopher quit acting to become a “journalista”? I guess that when “Life Goes On” was canceled, ole Corkey had to find another paycheck.

Here is the RAW Video footage of the Bean Thuggery video that was just posted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMt1ZlIb79A

Tommy, you will see from the Raw footage that just has been released that the Thug wasn’t reading anything. This is about the blatant intimidation. Bean knew her constituents were feeling the intimidated and didn’t say a word. I don’t care if the Thug worked for the library, for Bean or for the Boy Scouts. Bean could have stopped the Thuggery at any time! She even “chuckled” when it happened. Bean chose this forum so she would not have to answer any questions about her voting record. Instead of having an open Townhall forum where citizens are free to have a dialogue with their Representative, Bean chose this format. Why???? People that are saying that the audience was disruptive don’t know what took place because they weren’t there. For the first 1/2 hour of the meeting, during the Thug shots, Bean was talking about the recently passed Financial Reform Legislation and opened the forum to Q&A, but every time Bean would get a question shed didn’t like, in would come the Thug. Many who attended this meeting attended other events where they did not have the time to ask Bean questions.

Even though the the Treasury finally did it’s credit card/debt reduction Powerpoint, what you see on the video is a period of time when Bean opened the forum to questions. You can’t blame her constituents for asking their representative questions, especially when Bean started the dialogue herself. The same applies to the Treasury representative that was talking about credit card debt. Some of his Power point slides had missing, incomplete or confusing information. He took questions from the audience to clarify certain points, but when the questions continued, the Thug would come around the room to intimidate people.

Keep in mind that the way Bean filled this meeting hall at the Library was to “robocall” her constituents. She never publicized this meeting, it was not on her web site, nor were any of the other “Financial Literacy” forums she has held this August Recess. This tells me that Bean was hoping for a low turn out so she wouldn’t be bombarded with questions. If you keep holding meetings only a few people know about, chances are good that you won’t get bombarded with questions. As one commenter suggested, why did Bean even have to show up at this meeting at all? Why not just have the Treasury schedule it?

If you are the people’s representative, but don’t plan on taking ANY questions from your constituents, then don’t hold a PUBLIC MEETING. BTW, Illinois Open Meetings Act, like many other states, allow anyone to video or tape record any activity that occurs at a public meeting. To deny a citizen the right to tape a public meeting is a violation of the law. So, for those of you who are saying that cameras should have been turned off, please educate yourself! This was not a private one on one “debt and credit card reduction” consultation, this was an OPEN MEETING!

Bean is part of the Washington “power elite.” She took Charlie Rangal’s dirty money and refuses to give it back, even though its the “right” thing to do. She doesn’t care about her constituents and is afraid to debate her opponent Joe Walsh. And, worse of all, she is AFRAID to face her constituents in an open Town hall meeting format. You would think that after the first two or three “Financial Literacy” seminars, which had no THUG, but left her audience feel cheated by the lack of dialogue, she would have changed her meeting format. But, no!! Not Bean, even though people were just as frustrated in her previous meetings, she keeps holding meetings like this with the same type of format so she could frustrate her constituents even further.

However, Bean’s conduct or lack of action at this meeting in relation to the THUG was disgraceful. She must have learned from her previous meetings that she needed to have someone present to intimidate constituents so they would “shut the hell up.” No one deserves a Thug in their face when they are just trying to gain information from their elected representative. We know that Bean and her staff, the same guy who is in someone’s face asking him to turn off the camera, had a closed door meeting with the Library Director (seen 1st on camera) and the library security (thug) prior to the event. What instructions were given to the Thug is still unknown, but WE are making a concerted effort to find out.

I have a feeling that the THUG will soon be thrown under the bus. As for the Library Director, again, the man you see at the beginning of the video, you can expect more to be released in regards to his public statements about the “real” reason he allowed the Thuggery to take place. In due time Christopher…..you will see more RAW footage. Until then, you should not jump to conclusions about the Editing of the video. There are enough eyewitness accounts and video…..yes, Raw footage, to substantiate what actually happened.

Its a very sad day for our Republic indeed.

JeanWTPUSA said:
If you are the people’s representative, but don’t plan on taking ANY questions from your constituents, then don’t hold a PUBLIC MEETING. BTW, Illinois Open Meetings Act, like many other states, allow anyone to video or tape record any activity that occurs at a public meeting. To deny a citizen the right to tape a public meeting is a violation of the law. So, for those of you who are saying that cameras should have been turned off, please educate yourself! This was not a private one on one “debt and credit card reduction” consultation, this was an OPEN MEETING!

I don’t think you have a grasp of the law here. It’s probably not your fault; I’m sure you picked up this factoid somewhere and trusted the source. The open meetings law defines “meeting” as “any gathering of a majority of a quorum of the members of a public body held for the purpose of discussing public business.” That’s not what a public forum is. Also, the law applies only to “public bodies” at the state level. If, for some reason, the US Congress were to conduct a meeting in Illinois instead of Washington, they would not be subject to this law. You’re correct that people have the right to record a statuatorily defined open meeting, but you have no idea what the statuatory definition of an open meeting is. The rest of your argument isn’t worth my effort.

Dave Be,

I clarified this with the Illinois Attorney General’s office. You can call them if you would like. The open meetings laws were written to be interpreted extremely broadly. Any meeting in a public place using tax dollars or public employees that is open to the public which is what this forum was, is considered an open meeting.

Dave Be,

Also, to add to one of your earlier comments when you mentioned that the Library did not call the police on the “disruptive” audience members. FYI: two police officers were already there on standby. Why? We’re still trying to find out why two police officers were requested to be present at a “Financial Literacy” meeting at a PUBLIC LIBRARY.

Dave Be said:
I don’t think you have a grasp of the law here. It’s probably not your fault; I’m sure you picked up this factoid somewhere and trusted the source. The open meetings law defines “meeting” as “any gathering of a majority of a quorum of the members of a public body held for the purpose of discussing public business.” That’s not what a public forum is. Also, the law applies only to “public bodies” at the state level. If, for some reason, the US Congress were to conduct a meeting in Illinois instead of Washington, they would not be subject to this law. You’re correct that people have the right to record a statuatorily defined open meeting, but you have no idea what the statuatory definition of an open meeting is. The rest of your argument isn’t worth my effort.

What’s that I hear? Oh yeah… crickets.

Dave Be said:
You’re correct that people have the right to record a statuatorily defined open meeting, but you have no idea what the statuatory definition of an open meeting is. The rest of your argument isn’t worth my effort.

‘no idea’, huh? Sounds like you owe Jean an apology. Whaddayasay Dave?

Sure look like Mr. SmartyPants got his ass handed to him.

FearMonger said:
What’s that I hear? Oh yeah… crickets.

Can’t a guy get some sleep?

FearMonger said:
‘no idea’, huh? Sounds like you owe Jean an apology. Whaddayasay Dave?

Nope, see below. You backed the wrong horse here bud.

JeanWTPUSA said:
I clarified this with the Illinois Attorney General’s office. You can call them if you would like. The open meetings laws were written to be interpreted extremely broadly. Any meeting in a public place using tax dollars or public employees that is open to the public which is what this forum was, is considered an open meeting.

There is a FAQ available online from the IL Attorney General here http://foia.ilattorneygeneral.net/pdf/FAQ_OMA_Government.pdf

I’ll paste a few salient parts. Sorry to everyone but Jean and Fearmonger for how much space this is going to take up.

“Public Body” – The Open Meetings Act defines “public body” to include “all
legislative, executive, administrative or advisory bodies of the State, counties, townships,
cities, villages, incorporated towns, school districts and all other municipal corporations,
boards, bureaus, committees or commissions of this State, and any subsidiary bodies of
any of the foregoing including but not limited to committees and subcommittees which
are supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, or which expend tax revenue, except the
General Assembly and committees or commissions thereof.”
Under OMA, “public body” also includes tourism boards and convention or civic center
boards located in counties that are contiguous to the Mississippi River with populations
of more than 250,000 but less than 300,000. OMA specifically provides that “public
body” does not include a child death review team, the Illinois Child Death Review Teams
Executive Council established under the Child Death Review Team Act, or an ethics
commission acting under the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act.

A US Representative is not a public body by this definition.

“Meeting” – The Open Meetings Act defines a “meeting” to include “any gathering,
whether in person or by video or audio conference, telephone call, electronic means (such as, without limitation, electronic mail, electronic chat, and instant messaging), or other
means of contemporaneous interactive communication, of a majority of a quorum of the
members of a public body held for the purpose of discussing public business or, for a
5-member public body, a quorum of the members of a public body held for the purpose
of discussing public business. Accordingly, for a 5-member public body, 3 members of
the body constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of 3 members is necessary to adopt
any motion, resolution, or ordinance, unless a greater number is otherwise required.”

For the meeting to qualify as a meeting by this definition, it would require a quorum of the US House of Representatives to be present. There was one member.

What type of “public body” is covered by OMA?
The “public bodies” covered by OMA include all legislative, executive, administrative or
advisory bodies of:
 the State
 counties
 townships, cities, villages, or incorporated towns
 school districts
 all municipal corporations
“Public bodies” also includes all committees, subcommittees and subsidiary bodies of
public bodies. Examples of “public bodies” include everything from park district boards
to city councils to civic commissions. “Public bodies” includes, but is not limited to, any
entity that is supported in whole or in part by tax revenue or which expends tax revenue.

Note the absence of the federal government. An attempt to include the federal government under this law would be a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

How many members of the public body have to be present at a “meeting” before
OMA requirements apply?
A “meeting” under OMA is a gathering of a majority of a quorum of the members of a
public body for the purpose of discussing public business. For example, for a 7-member
board with a quorum of 4, a majority of the quorum would be 3. Under OMA, 5-member
bodies have a 3-member quorum and require the affirmative vote of 3 members to adopt
any motion, resolution, or ordinance, unless a greater number is otherwise required.

This is a reiteration of the quorum requirements. I include it despite the duplication because the question that’s being answered is “How many members of the public body have to be present at a “meeting” before
OMA requirements apply?”

When and how does a notice of a regular meeting have to be provided by a public
body?
At the beginning of each calendar or fiscal year, every public body must create and make
available to the public the schedule for regular meetings that year, including the dates,
times, and locations of the meetings. Notice shall be given by posting a copy of the
notice at the principal office of the body holding the meeting or, if no such office exists,
at the building in which the meeting is to be held. If the public body has a website
maintained by its own full-time staff, then notice of all meetings must also be posted on
that website.

This section pertains to the public notice requirement of the law. I include it here because the Congresswoman does not have such a schedule available to the public, nor is she required to.

May a member of the public record an open meeting?
Yes. Any member of the public can record the meeting by tape, film, or other means,
subject to some reasonable restrictions.

There’s the part that says members of the public can record. Again, this applies only to statuatorily defined public meetings, not this event.

Your claim that you clarified this with the AG’s office is not credible. I’d give you the benefit of the doubt and say you probably spoke to someone who didn’t know what they were talking about, but the rest of the first post I responded to leads me to believe that you don’t have a problem bending the truth when it suits you.

JeanWTPUSA said:
Also, to add to one of your earlier comments when you mentioned that the Library did not call the police on the “disruptive” audience members. FYI: two police officers were already there on standby. Why? We’re still trying to find out why two police officers were requested to be present at a “Financial Literacy” meeting at a PUBLIC LIBRARY.

I don’t know why there were police already there, but that seems to me to show that the presenters were even more patient than I thought, since they’d only have to ask the police present to escort the disruptive audience members out, rather than call them.

Dave Be,

You’re so thick-headed. You have spent so much time and effort in trying to prove me wrong its laughable. Here is a video of one of the “Financial Literacy” seminars put on by the Illinois Treasury Department, the same department that conducted that portion of the seminar at the Melissa Bean event. As you can see from the video, the meeting was OPEN to the PUBLIC and was video taped by NBC News. If you’re so sure that citizens at the meeting did not have a right to video tape the event, maybe we should call the police and file a criminal complaint against NBC. Citizen journalists are the NEW MEDIA and we are not going away. http://www.treasurer.il.gov/programs/financial-education/about-us.aspx
CHECKMATE!

JeanWTPUSA said:
You’re so thick-headed. You have spent so much time and effort in trying to prove me wrong its laughable. Here is a video of one of the “Financial Literacy” seminars put on by the Illinois Treasury Department, the same department that conducted that portion of the seminar at the Melissa Bean event. As you can see from the video, the meeting was OPEN to the PUBLIC and was video taped by NBC News. If you’re so sure that citizens at the meeting did not have a right to video tape the event, maybe we should call the police and file a criminal complaint against NBC. Citizen journalists are the NEW MEDIA and we are not going away. http://www.treasurer.il.gov/programs/financial-education/about-us.aspx
CHECKMATE!

Haha, that they allowed people to tape a meeting does not mean that they’re required by law to do so. Read the law. Your logic is hilarious.

Required by law? Laws are not written to cover every conceivable scenario? You can’t be that dense! In regards to PUBLIC MEETINGS, there are two types of public forums: traditional and dedicated. Traditional public forums are public places where speech is traditionally allowed without regulation from the government, such as parks, sidewalks, and streets. Dedicated public forums are places where speech has not been previously allowed but then proactively opened up by a government entity. While a government entity may not be required to allow the public to speak in such a location, once the government entity opens up the forum for speech, a limited or dedicated public forum has been created and the speaker enjoys the full protection of the First Amendment. For example, neither the Federal nor Illinois Constitution requires local governments to allow public comment at meetings. When public comment is allowed, the forum has been converted to a limited or dedicated public forum and free speech and other protections under the U.S. Constitution apply.

The Constitution says nothing about “freedom to videotape.” You said:

JeanWTPUSA said:
BTW, Illinois Open Meetings Act, like many other states, allow anyone to video or tape record any activity that occurs at a public meeting. To deny a citizen the right to tape a public meeting is a violation of the law.

As far as freedom of speech goes, freedom of speech, contrary to popular belief, is not unlimited. You’re not free to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. You’re not free to threaten to harm someone. Paste the part of the Illinois Open Meetings Act that talks about traditional and dedicated public forums and your right to videotape them or admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.