New O’Keefe video: Sure, says NPR exec, we can hide a donation from a Muslim Brotherhood front group from the government; Update: Exec was wrong about our donations policy, says NPR; Update: NPR releases e-mails showing it questioned donation

posted at 4:50 pm on March 10, 2011 by Allahpundit

Just make the donation anonymous, and voila — no Islamist fingerprints!

Oh, also, they’re liars:

Kasaam follows up by asking: “The fact that NPR is not only a tax-exempt organization, but also receives direct contributions from the government — does that invite some sort of government oversight or government examination of contributions, et cetera?”

Liley answered: “They have audited our programs at times and, I think, as part of that, they can look at our audited financials. If you are concerned in any way about that, that’s one reason you might want to be an anonymous donor. And, we would certainly, if that was your interest, want to shield you from that.”…

Following their phone calls, Liley checked with NPR’s senior management, and sent an e-mail to the man posing as Kasaam saying MEAC was cleared to make an anonymous donation of $5 million…

That e-mail directly contradicts NPR’s public statements issued in the wake of O’Keefe’s first video. “The fraudulent organization represented in this video repeatedly pressed us to accept a $5 million check, with no strings attached, which we repeatedly refused to accept,” NPR spokeswoman Dana Davis Rehm said in NPR’s official response.

Proof (or at least compelling evidence) that my theory about Vivian Schiller’s firing is sound? Maybe Liley came clean to management about her e-mail exchange with “Kasaam” after the first video was released and the board of directors figured immediate action was necessary to limit the damage. Although in that case, er, why would they issue any statements insisting that they “repeatedly refused” to accept Kasaam’s check? That only makes them look worse in hindsight.

Incidentally, O’Keefe’s post on this at his “Project Veritas” website ends with the words, “More to come . . .” Exit question: Why on earth would Liley believe that an Islamist group like the Brotherhood would blow a cool five mil on a media outlet that caters mainly to smug urban progressive moral relativists? Actually, wait. That makes sense, doesn’t it?

Update: Credit where it’s due: Instead of attacking O’Keefe, 22 NPR hosts and reporters have published an open letter condemning Ron Schiller’s remarks. Among the signers are Mara Liasson and Nina Totenberg.

Update: Dave Weigel previews the left’s spin on this: Yes, accepting a donation anonymously from the Muslim Brotherhood may be “not ideal,” but anonymous donations and the MB itself are all perfectly legal in the U.S. That’s great, but it was just a month ago that Bob Mueller and James Clapper went before a House committee to describe the Brotherhood’s support for terrorism and what a takeover in Egypt might mean. Granted, NPR quietly taking millions from a group like that wouldn’t be nearly as sinister as, say, Fox News taking millions from the Koch brothers, but still — maybe a little sinister, yes?

Update: John Hayward, a.k.a. Doctor Zero, wonders: Wasn’t the idea of private groups with political influence accepting money from shadowy, sinister donors a big issue in the midterms for Democrats?

Update: New damage control from a very busy NPR public affairs department.

NPR released a statement condemning Liley’s statements in the video.

“The statement made by Betsy Liley in the audio tapes released today regarding the possibility of making an anonymous gift that would remain invisible to tax authorities is factually inaccurate and not reflective of NPR’s gift practices. All donations – anonymous and named – are fully reported to the IRS. NPR complies with all financial, tax and disclosure regulations.”

Liley, who was caught on the initial videotape laughing at the suggestion that NPR was sometimes called National Palestinian Radio, was placed on administrative leave with Ron Schiller on Tuesday afternoon.

Update: Someone on Twitter asks a good question: Isn’t Liley NPR’s “Senior Director of Institutional Giving”? How could she possibly be wrong about their donations policy?

Update: A point in NPR’s favor: Newly released e-mails show Vivian Schiller apparently explained to “Kasaam” after his call with Liley that no, they couldn’t shield the donation from the IRS. They could keep it anonymous for public purposes, but not for the feds. Quote:

I spoke to Ibrahim. He says they ARE a 501c3. And then he added… “I think”. I told him we would need to know for sure AND we would need to look at the 990 as we do for any first time donor. He stressed that they want confidentially and I told him what Joyce told me – that it would not need to be reported in the public part of the 990 but it would need to be reported to the IRS, including the name of the donating institution. He had questions on all of the above which I said I simply don’t have the expertise to answer but that one of our lawyers could. He repeated again that they want to deliver the check. I said that’s very generous but we really need to sort out these issues first. He said is there a problem – and I said I don’ know till we can see the 990. He seemed a bit worried that there was some subtext to our hesitation.

Other e-mails show NPR’s counsel politely informing “Kasaam” that he’d have to prove his group was a genuine 501(c)(3) organization before they could accept a check. The big questions, then: Why didn’t NPR’s “Senior Director of Institutional Giving” set Kasaam straight on that? And why, as Weigel notes in his post linked above, was NPR set to accept a donation from a Muslim Brotherhood front provided they were willing to go ahead with it knowing the feds would see it?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Y-not on March 10, 2011 at 6:39 PM

O.K., thanks.

a capella on March 10, 2011 at 7:10 PM

she didn’t really mention that at all. She should have made it clear to these guys that anonymity doesn’t mean that the funds don’t get reported, but again, she thought she was dealing with people that were actually donating money in good faith and not people that were playing gotcha.
Elaborating a little further – Because she thought they were good faith donors, I’m thinking she assumed they were misspeaking when they were talking about “hiding” the money and were talking about remaining anonymous. Like I said, you have to remember that she doesn’t know she’s on tape here, she just thinks she’s trying to assure these guys that they will remain anonymous.

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Then why isnt NPR striking this tone and posture???

Because its BS – and illegal. You cannot “think someone misspoke” about hiding a donation from the IRS. Both parties are culpable – NPR for not reporting and the “anonymous donor” for not reporting. And the knowledge of a camera or not has nothing to do with legality.

What you are assuming is directly opposite what occurred and the response from NPR themselves, hence you being mocked.

Odie1941 on March 10, 2011 at 7:11 PM

When does the shocking news break….

That Liley’s a REPUBLICAN!!!

Just kidding…..

IndieDogg on March 10, 2011 at 7:11 PM

You can’t spell ‘corruption’ without NPR.

ajacksonian on March 10, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Wait. Where does the group say they want to hide the money?

Don’t they just say they don’t want the government to know it came from them. And she responds:

Liley’s e-mail addressed the MEAC representatives’ concerns about government audits: “The audits of our governmental grants are conducted by the same firm we hire to do our NPR financial audit.”

Where are you guys seeing that they wanted to make sure the money was hidden? I only see them not wanting the government to know the money came from *them*.

MayBee on March 10, 2011 at 7:12 PM

she just thinks she’s trying to assure these guys that they will remain anonymous.

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 7:01 PM

You surely are useful. Idiot.

Wow you are always here when I come here. Pathetic.

No the lady knew exactly what they effin meant.

CWforFreedom on March 10, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Watching the Left collapse on itself is awesomely awesome!

jawkneemusic on March 10, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Boy, you really summed it up. Anonymous donations from Christians or Jews are fine – Muslim groups shouldn’t be treated equally, huh. After all, Muslims did the 9/11 attacks.

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 6:09 PM

It’s not the fact that it’s a religious group at all – it’s the fact that they were pretending to be a FRONT GROUP for the Muslim Brotherhood – which is an Islamo Fascist organization the promotes terrorism and a worldwide Caliphate.

I’m … unaware of any similar Christian or Jewish organization like that. Although – I suppose NPR would graciously accept a contribution from Rev. Wright – or perhaps Louie Farrafawcet.

HondaV65 on March 10, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Where or where is GrowFins and crew?

Crickets

Knucklehead on March 10, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Obviously, hiding behind Miss Piggy’s skirt…

PatriotRider on March 10, 2011 at 7:15 PM

Where are you guys seeing that they wanted to make sure the money was hidden? I only see them not wanting the government to know the money came from *them*.

MayBee on March 10, 2011 at 7:12 PM

He didn’t say that, he said “shield” the money – I’m responding to you guys while doing like 3 other things, sorry.

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 7:01 PM

She should not have even been talking to any group pretending to be a front group for the MB … she should have hung up the phone.

She didn’t – and now she’s reaping the consequences of her actions.

HondaV65 on March 10, 2011 at 7:16 PM

NPR is being held over the side of a bridge by one ankle. It’s time to let go and let it meet the sweet pointy rocks below.

madmonkphotog on March 10, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Odie1941 on March 10, 2011 at 7:11 PM

You do realize you are dealing with a useful idiot of the highest order right?

It’s not the fact that it’s a religious group at all – it’s the fact that they were pretending to be a FRONT GROUP for the Muslim Brotherhood – which is an Islamo Fascist organization the promotes terrorism and a worldwide Caliphate.

HondaV65 on March 10, 2011 at 7:14 PM

PR knows it. She just has a very warped view and she is useful too.

CWforFreedom on March 10, 2011 at 7:17 PM

I’m responding to you guys while doing like 3 other things, sorry.

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Maybe you should go attend the three other things you’re doing because you’re not doing a good job playing a “sea lawyer” here.

I mean – I have never seen such “tap dances” around technicalities.

She’s an idiot – and so is NPR … and they are getting what they deserved. O’Keefe didn’t put any words in their mouth – if they had hung up the phone the minute they realized this was a front group for MB they’d have no problems.

Yet their GREED for money has gotten them in trouble!

Again.

HondaV65 on March 10, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 7:01 PM

She didn’t give a damn about anything other than getting their hands on that $5M.

ladyingray on March 10, 2011 at 7:19 PM

NPR released a statement condemning Liley’s statements in the video.

“The statement made by Betsy Liley in the audio tapes released today regarding the possibility of making an anonymous gift that would remain invisible to tax authorities is factually inaccurate and not reflective of NPR’s gift practices. All donations – anonymous and named – are fully reported to the IRS. NPR complies with all financial, tax and disclosure regulations.”

Funny the tards are arguing with the wrong people. Call NPR.

CWforFreedom on March 10, 2011 at 7:19 PM

What is killer about this is it is NO surprise to those with a brain.

winston on March 10, 2011 at 7:20 PM

l. She should have made it clear to these guys that anonymity…

I’m thinking she assumed they were misspeaking when they were talking about “hiding” the money and were talking about remaining anonymous.

, she just thinks she’s trying to assure these guys that they will remain anonymous.

Jesus….Just go back to the ‘This doesn’t merit a response’ hore$hit.

BigWyo on March 10, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Does NPR answer the right question? I don’t think the whole donation being invisible was at issue. I thought just the donor was to be anonymous.
MayBee on March 10, 2011 at 6:35 PM

This.
Either NPR is trying to get everyone to look “this” way instead of the “other” way (that NPR was willing to hide the donor’s identity from the PUBLIC, not the IRS), or they’re just idiots. Neither makes them look good.

Plus, they’re completely ignoring the fact that the e-mail from Liley to the “donors” said that she had spoken with SENIOR MANAGEMENT, and they told her it was OK….

TeresainFortWorth on March 10, 2011 at 7:20 PM

What is killer about this is it is NO surprise to those with a brain.

winston on March 10, 2011 at 7:20 PM

No … what is truly killer is the fact that this ain’t the last tape.

I’ll be interested in Proud RINO’s defense of future tapes – as well as the whole affair eventually.

But, I think – PR will fade from this discussion … just my prediction.

HondaV65 on March 10, 2011 at 7:22 PM

No … what is truly killer is the fact that this ain’t the last tape.

No, what’s really killer is you have people like Proud Potato Head on here trying to defend these pri*$s.

BigWyo on March 10, 2011 at 7:27 PM

PR has a difficult task : Defending the indefensible.

CWforFreedom on March 10, 2011 at 7:28 PM

Proud Rino-
Where does he say “Shield the money”? I hear and see him saying
“It sounded like you were saying NPR would be able to shield us from a government audit, is that correct?”

MayBee on March 10, 2011 at 7:30 PM

I’m aware of the loophole but was unaware that charities had to refuse money if they thought a tax loophole was involved. Do you have a link or something? I’m curious.

I’m headed out the door, but I will see if I can find it when I’m back.

What I’m using are the ethical standards for fundraisers, not legal obligations. You might check AFP (association of fundraising professionals) for their ethical guidelines.

However, I’m pretty sure it is also illegal for a charity to serve as a “money launderer” (using that term very loosely). For instance, donors can’t set up scholarship funds in universities (non-profit ones) and then be the ones to decide who gets the scholarship funds (although families try to do this on occasion). You can’t avoid gift taxes on payments to your friends/relatives by making a tax-deductible “gift” to a non-profit which you then direct to your friends/relatives.

As I said earlier, I don’t know the details of what O’Keefe’s sham organization was purporting to do, but I know from experience that when (ethical) fundraisers from (ethical) organizations are confronted with anything even remotely fishy, they back off. Happened to my husband recently.

Also, I should say that often the donors are not trying to be fishy. They just get an idea in their heads of a way to make a gift that produces some favorable result for them and naively try to do it.

Finally, I really think that a big part of what happened at NPR was that this particular development officer (Liley) did a very sloppy job. She didn’t even vet the organization to confirm it was legit. That’s ridiculously sloppy. Unless (which is possible, I suppose) O’Keefe got to the Sr. VP directly and he (the SVP) set up the meeting, the damned thing never should have happened. You don’t waste a SVP’s time talking to a donor who has not been “qualified.” So Liley is toast.

Y-not on March 10, 2011 at 7:38 PM

Also, I don’t have a feel for NPR’s charitable contributions, so I’m not sure where $5 M would fall on the percentages quoted above. But remember that corporate (and foundation) support probably also counts as “public” support. So it’s probably a big number. Not sure about that, though.

Y-not on March 10, 2011 at 6:39 PM

You are correct. Corporate and foundational support does count as “public” support. And it’s a very big number. If you register at Guidestar, you can take a look at NPR’s Form 990 and see just how big.

Lynn B. on March 10, 2011 at 7:46 PM

I wonder what the Soros money bought…?

d1carter on March 10, 2011 at 7:51 PM

That was a typo, btw. I meant that the fake Islamofacist organization was trying to do the tax dodge, but NPR was willing to help them.

Y-not on March 10, 2011 at 6:41 PM

“Kasaam” wasn’t pretending to try to do a tax dodge. What he clearly was implying was that he wanted the gift to stay off the government’s radar and avoid calling attention to his organization’s activities. That should have been a big flashing red light but instead it was a-ok with Betsy.

So glad to see that NPR is publicly disavowing this practice. ~

Lynn B. on March 10, 2011 at 7:53 PM

It’s amazing what one brilliant wiseacre with a camera can accomplish. I’m thinking…Senator O’Keefe sounds good?

ronsfi on March 10, 2011 at 6:36 PM

This guy is too valuable at what he does to corrupt him in that way. Heh!

silvernana on March 10, 2011 at 7:56 PM

The popcorn is spilling down my shirt, and my buttery fingers are slipping on the keys.

More, please.

Must have more.

Grace_is_sufficient on March 10, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Perhaps someone can explain how an anonymous donor can be anonymous if NPR is sitting across the table from the person? Is that legal?

“My name is M’balz Es-hari and these are my colleagues, Haid d’Salaammi and Hous bin Pharteen. Greetings. We wish to make an anonymous donation to you from us, who you don’t know.”

kurtzz3 on March 10, 2011 at 8:03 PM

I wonder what the Soros money bought…?

d1carter on March 10, 2011 at 7:51 PM

Obviously not Michael Moore.

The price per pound was too high.

ajacksonian on March 10, 2011 at 8:03 PM

The statement made by Betsy Liley in the audio tapes released today regarding the possibility of making an anonymous gift that would remain invisible to tax authorities is factually inaccurate and not reflective of NPR’s gift practices. All donations – anonymous and named – are fully reported to the IRS. NPR complies with all financial, tax and disclosure regulations.

Is Stalin running NPR? This “answer” is not related to the question at all.

Of course “anonymous gift that would remain invisible to tax authorities” is true, it’s simply listed as “anonymous”.

faraway on March 10, 2011 at 8:04 PM

Granted, NPR quietly taking millions from a group like that wouldn’t be nearly as sinister as, say, Fox News taking millions from the Koch brothers, but still — maybe a little sinister, yes?

Ha! The Koch Brothers help fund NOVA. I noticed this last week as I was channel surfing. They’ve been doing this dirty deed for awhile now.

Buy Danish on March 10, 2011 at 8:05 PM

Down with shadowy money! It’s all Karl Rove’s fault!11!

Oh, the donation is to NPR? Never mind….

Good Solid B-Plus on March 10, 2011 at 8:29 PM

PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler talking about the pesky Koch Brothers funding of NOVA in a Sept 2010 story. Snip:

When the first segment of the three-part NOVA series “Becoming Human” aired last month it was actually a re-broadcast. It originally aired in 2009 and, as I said initially, I can’t recall any complaints at the time. But, in an apparent coincidence, just before the re-broadcast, an extensive article by Jane Mayer about the brothers David and Charles Koch appeared in The New Yorker magazine. Then came an immediate follow-up blast by columnist Frank Rich in The New York Times at the Kochs, their fossil-fuel industries and their alleged role that Romm describes, in the New Yorker article, as “big-time polluters, who are underground funders of action to stop efforts to deal with this threat to humanity,” meaning the man-made, carbon dioxide-producing elements of global warming and climate change.

Apparent coincidence, hahahahahaha. Some have been wondering how the Kochs were elevated to their current status as Big Devil and methinks this provides a clue.

Buy Danish on March 10, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Buy Danish on March 10, 2011 at 8:29 PM

The progs couldn’t defend their patron Nazi stooge George Soros, so they tried to find his equivalent on the right. They failed miserably obviously, but in their minds it’s just more of the ‘they all do it’ meme that has worked for them for decades.

slickwillie2001 on March 10, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Has Congress defunded NPR yet?

I love the earlier post: You can’t spell “corruption” without NPR…

Khun Joe on March 10, 2011 at 8:40 PM

I guess Conservatives are trying to kill jobs. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME.

/s

WoosterOh on March 10, 2011 at 8:56 PM

However, I’m pretty sure it is also illegal for a charity to serve as a “money launderer” (using that term very loosely). For instance, donors can’t set up scholarship funds in universities (non-profit ones) and then be the ones to decide who gets the scholarship funds (although families try to do this on occasion). You can’t avoid gift taxes on payments to your friends/relatives by making a tax-deductible “gift” to a non-profit which you then direct to your friends/relatives.
Y-not on March 10, 2011 at 7:38 PM

You can if you are a Democrat. See Johnson, Eddie Bernice.

OOPS! Sorry, she just stole the scholarships for her friends and family, she didn’t actually pay for them.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on March 10, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Nothing seems to be reflective of anything over there at NPR Land. Somebody misspoke, it’s not reflective, doesn’t represent, that’s not our policy.. blah blah blah ha ha ..hee. hee! By gosh this is such good stuff.

Urban Infidel on March 10, 2011 at 9:17 PM

I love it.
Yesterday they were bragging that they turned it down, but it seems like they only turned it down because in the end the group couldn’t prove they were legit (because they weren’t).

But….they were worried the group would think there was a subtext to their hesitation!

MayBee on March 10, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Blahblahblahblahblah. STFU.

Grow Fins on March 10, 2011 at 9:39 PM

Well, Weigel pretty much pooh-poohs the idea that accepting a check from the Muslim Brotherhood was bad:

The problem comes in if you think NPR shouldn’t accept donations from a group that admits it was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and whose representatives worry about Jewish control of the media.
But that leads to another problem. Project Veritas, which filmed this, has an appeal to donors on its website. It doesn’t have a list of donors. This is an odd line of attack of NPR unless PV is willing to reveal the names of everyone and every group who gives it money. It doesn’t have to! Neither, of course, does NPR.

He decides the big problem-the Muslim Brotherhood – somehow leads to wondering about Project Veritas’s donors.

MayBee on March 10, 2011 at 9:43 PM

How does the NPR staff and other liberals keep things straight?

Citizens United decision is bad.

Accepting 5 million dollars anonymously from a Muslim Brotherhood front group is good.

slp on March 10, 2011 at 9:44 PM

And why, as Weigel notes in his post linked above, was NPR set to accept a donation from a Muslim Brotherhood front provided they were willing to go ahead with it knowing the feds would see it?

NPR motivated by Greed? I wonder how many other iffy donations they’ve accepted under the rubric of “anonymous”.

Buy Danish on March 10, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Update: A point in NPR’s favor:

a correction is perhaps due?

this is quite embarrassing.

sesquipedalian on March 10, 2011 at 10:12 PM

this is quite embarrassing.
sesquipedalian on March 10, 2011 at 10:12 PM

They were concerned with technicalities, not any ethical quandary about accepting Big Bucks from the Muslim Brotherhood.

Buy Danish on March 10, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Can somebody tell me how, exactly, what Ron Schiller said differs from what these NPR reporters say EVERY FREAKING DAY on the air?

logis on March 10, 2011 at 5:22 PM

I noticed that too. Well at least the outrage, and faked outrage, should make accusing the Tea Party of being racists, politically incorrect from now on.

Of course that would be in a world not run be demented leftists. We will see what happens in our world.

petunia on March 10, 2011 at 10:17 PM

So… will we be seeing this on The Colbert Report?

Hmmn?

perries on March 10, 2011 at 10:17 PM

They were concerned with technicalities, not any ethical quandary about accepting Big Bucks from the Muslim Brotherhood.

Buy Danish on March 10, 2011 at 10:15 PM

the “technicality” is that they have to let the irs, and therefore the public know the list of their donors (nonprofits publish their 990s). these two were fundraisers trying to appease a potential large donor by agreeing with whatever they say. this is how things get done. a multi million $ donation from the mb would have never gone through.

this video is a dud, and the top of this post should be corrected.

sesquipedalian on March 10, 2011 at 10:26 PM

Yesterday they were bragging that they turned it down, but it seems like they only turned it down because in the end the group couldn’t prove they were legit (because they weren’t).

Exactly. They were all set to take the money – just waiting on an agreement from legal counsel – until it turned out that there was no money, because the group was fake.

Real high ground they’re perching on there.

Missy on March 10, 2011 at 10:30 PM

this is how things get done.

It sure is.

They don’t care who they take money from, as long as all the logistics are worked out by the little people.

Missy on March 10, 2011 at 10:31 PM

Update: Credit where it’s due: Instead of attacking O’Keefe, 22 NPR hosts and reporters have published an open letter condemning Ron Schiller’s remarks.

Credit for what? A desperate attempt to survive?

So, like you, we were appalled by the offensive comments made recently by NPR’s now former Senior Vice President for Development.

And if you believe that, then I’ve got a slightly used bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

RadClown on March 10, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Blahblahblahblahblah. STFU.

Grow Fins on March 10, 2011 at 9:39 PM

Losin it loser.

Sesquipigalian

Useful idiot and propagandist.

CWforFreedom on March 10, 2011 at 11:48 PM

So there’s another wrinkle that I’m not sure has been brought up yet. My husband said that as of a couple of years ago Homeland Security legislation requires all charities to certify – each year – that they have not accepted funds from groups that promote violence/hatred or from groups that might have terrorist ties. (I’m not getting it verbatim, but it’s been a long day so I’ll have to dig further tomorrow.) Before he signed said form at his last organization he did a two-month audit — that’s how seriously it is taken. Pleading ignorance is not sufficient. You have to show due diligence.

Y-not on March 11, 2011 at 12:06 AM

And for a pledge at the $250 level, you can get the coffee cup, a tote bag, and the fake black beard.

Dhuka on March 11, 2011 at 12:42 AM

NPR: Useless idiots

Roy Rogers on March 11, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Isn’t it illegal to record a phone call if the other party doesn’t know it’s being recorded?

Mark1971 on March 10, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Only in a “both party’s notified” state. DC is only one party, and so is Texas where O’Keefe called from.

44Magnum on March 11, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Other e-mails show NPR’s counsel politely informing “Kasaam” that he’d have to prove his group was a genuine 501(c)(3) organization before they could accept a check. The big questions, then: Why didn’t NPR’s “Senior Director of Institutional Giving” set Kasaam straight on that? And why, as Weigel notes in his post linked above, was NPR set to accept a donation from a Muslim Brotherhood front provided they were willing to go ahead with it knowing the feds would see it?

Hmm. As much as I dislike NPR’s suckling at the Government teat, this may have a less nefarious implication. If Liley had been cc’d on the e-mail to “Kassam”, then one might assume that she believed that “Kassam” understood the conditions for the gift. So NPR may well be clean on the legality side of things, having informed the prospective donor that there is no hiding from the Feds. As for the propriety side of things, that’s an entirely different question. I’ve always wondered about the sources of the “anonymous gift” that NPR occasionally says has funded a particular program.

But Liley is no stranger to off the record contributions:

“We also got an $8 million gift,” Liley said. “I don’t know if you remember this; about two years ago a number of institutions, higher ed institutions, all with women as presidents, got donations that ranged from $5 million to $12 million. They were never identified who the gifts were from, but they totaled about $80 million dollars.”

I can see why a donor, making such a set of discriminatory contributions, might want to remain anonymous. She is probably slightly smarter than my liberal neighbor, who once announced to a group of neighbors that she’d looked long and hard to find the right blackfolk to rent to.

unclesmrgol on March 11, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Hous bin Pharteen

A silent, but deadly killer.

mnealtx on March 11, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Drain the swamp.

wildweasel on March 13, 2011 at 12:16 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3