The O'keefe videos

[Garnier Fructis]

You did. Someone posted it yesterday in the Trump thread claiming that Youtube was censoring the video because the view count wasn't updating in real time. Seriously.

I'm pretty sure it's been posted in both megathreads. Many times.

[Stormdash]

Some case? You mean the case explicitly brought up due to that video? This video is true, but you cannot be bothered to read what courts actually ruled? This is all you had to do:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asso...for_Reform_Now

Actually, as an attorney, I just knew implicitly that, no, nobody "ruled it was false", and indeed, reading that very, very friendly wiki history, it is just so. Just as the Florida SA who decided not to prosecute Lewandowski doesn't constitute a legal finding that he was falsely accused, so also various attorneys general not prosecuting on the basis of those tapes don't constitute a legal finding. The tapes value in criminal prosecution would be debatable and problematic for a number of reasons. And obviously, to say the least, any attempted prosecution would be a very annoying press case. But the point of the expose was not prosecution it was... well, to expose, and it did that capably. As said, the tapes of ACORN personnel being shady as hell about voter registration, or applications for housing, and the icky implications about human trafficking, even when released unedited didn't suddenly exonerate the personnel from being shady as hell, nor reveal them to have been actors, or their words to have been changed outright. It was what it was.

Yeah, he did... that wasn't even an actual aborted fetus in the video. It's why Feorino got so much shit for it. Planned Parenthood released their financial records before and after his video and it included nothing that he claimed was in it... yes, down to the part where he doesn't actually show an aborted fetus, but implies that's what it is.

Their financials are well organized enough to make sure that it didn't show as profit, no surprise there. But the discussion was entirely damning for anyone who has been in the business of any widget or done any accounting -- there aren't any more or less valuable "bits" if the only money you are taking in is for administrative and transportation costs like PP was claiming. Yet there she was, between munches of arugula, speaking about the resale value of organs.

Link please...

The point of course being to demonstrate the obvious and basically untraceable vulnerability in a voting system where participation is based on the honor system and nothing else.

[sarahtasher]

Why post this in Liberal-Champion? These people will always ignore any evidence that their party could ever do any wrong doing and insult you to hell and back instead of engage in dialog. Post this in media where it will reach more independents, not CTR shills.

As opposed as casually dismissing every non-Trump POV as ''lamestream'', isn'it ?

[Garnier Fructis]

Actually it's only progressive traitors like yourself who ignore what's right in front of your fucking face.

Oh, fuck off with the no true progressive nonsense.

[sarahtasher]

Scott Foval is explaining how to incite violence at Trump rallies. Yes or no.

Even for someone who is not fluent in English, Foval sentence is about provoking a reaction from someone. A bog-standard tactic in politics, and one that Trump proved very vulnerable too. You have a word for this, amongst your colleagues....trigger.

[Ghier]

Almost certainly for having been caught on tape, not for anything he was saying. Get rid of him to begin marginalizing the content.

Holy crap, are people really this delusional? That's scary.

Exactly what I thought when I read it.

[Garnier Fructis]

The point of course being to demonstrate the obvious and basically untraceable vulnerability in a voting system where participation is based on the honor system and nothing else.

The great irony of the clip is that they basically recorded themselves committing voter fraud.

[Endus]

https://youtu.be/45QKsgitMCs

O'keefe must be the best video editor in the world.

The problem you folks are having in making any of this credible is that Scott Foval isn't a part of the DNC.

1> Americans United for Change is not a part of the Democratic political machine. They're an independent group and in no way controlled or run by the Democratic Party.
2> Scott Foval was fired over this, so AUC is clearly not supporting this behaviour.
3> The kind of incitement he's talking about isn't even criminal; he's merely getting his people to create situations that marginally provoke a violent response. Those violent responses are FAR worse than anything Foval was encouraging. He was talking about provocation on the level of "wear a Planned Parenthood shirt and stand outside the Trump rally". That's so seriously nothing that it's ridiculous that you folks are trying to make this a "thing".

That's why this is a non-story that nobody cares about outside the far-right. There's no grand conspiracy uncovered, here, which is what O'keefe is arguing, and for which he has no real evidence.

[sarahtasher]

Actually it's only progressive traitors like yourself who ignore what's right in front of your fucking face.

That sentence would make way more sense if not coming from the side that fly the flag of the traitors.

And I'm not even speaking of the rebellions subjects against his Majesty King Georges III. As a Canadian, I'm a super non traitor (the bit about Georges III is a joke)

[AndaliteBandit]

and the icky implications about human trafficking, even when released unedited didn't suddenly exonerate the personnel from being shady as hell, nor reveal them to have been actors, or their words to have been changed outright. It was what it was.

The AG's Report was released on April 1, 2010, concluding that the videos from ACORN offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Bernardino had been "severely edited." The report found there was no evidence of criminal conduct on the part of ACORN employees nor any evidence that any employee intended to aid or abet criminal conduct. It found that three employees had tried to deflect the couple's plans, told them ACORN could not offer them help on the grounds they wanted, and otherwise dealt with them appropriately. Such context was not reflected in O'Keefe's edited tapes. The AG's Report noted that "O'Keefe stated that he was out to make a point and to damage ACORN and therefore did not act as a journalist objectively reporting a story". It found no evidence of intent by the employees to aid the couple.

The AG's report confirmed that ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera, shown in O'Keefe's video as apparently aiding a human smuggling proposal, had immediately reported his encounter with the couple to a Mexican police detective at the time to thwart their plan.

[Deleted]

From the first video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY), 12:03 to 12:30:

Scott Foval: "You remember the Iowa state fair thing where Scott Walker grabbed the, umm, sign out of the dude's hand..."
Journalist: "Uhhuh."
Scott Foval: "...and then the dude gets kind of roughed up right in front of the stage,"
Journalist: "Yeah."
Scott Foval: "right there on camera?"
Journalist: "Yeah."
Scott Foval: "That was all us. The guy that got roughed up..."
Journalist: "Yeah."
Scott Foval: "...is...is...my counterpart who works for Bob."
Journalist: "And the...and that was like...like ahh...storyboarded? That him getting roughed up <mumbling>?"
Scott Foval: "We scenarioed it."

---

One take, no edits. The context isn't clear here?

[NineSpine]

The great irony of the clip is that they basically recorded themselves committing voter fraud.

Yeah, but if you got five million people to do that, and only ask for the ballots of other people they somehow know aren't going to show up, and none of those people were rat you out, you could steal an election!

- - - Updated - - -

The problem you folks are having in making any of this credible is that Scott Foval isn't a part of the DNC.

1> Americans United for Change is not a part of the Democratic political machine. They're an independent group and in no way controlled or run by the Democratic Party.
2> Scott Foval was fired over this, so AUC is clearly not supporting this behaviour.
3> The kind of incitement he's talking about isn't even criminal; he's merely getting his people to create situations that marginally provoke a violent response. Those violent responses are FAR worse than anything Foval was encouraging. He was talking about provocation on the level of "wear a Planned Parenthood shirt and stand outside the Trump rally". That's so seriously nothing that it's ridiculous that you folks are trying to make this a "thing".

That's why this is a non-story that nobody cares about outside the far-right. There's no grand conspiracy uncovered, here, which is what O'keefe is arguing, and for which he has no real evidence.

Sadly, this should end this thread, but won't.

[sarahtasher]

Ah, the good old ''we call the other side liars, but they are not liar when they say something to us'' (AKA, Foval lies all the time, but say the truth in this video)

In a worse case scenario, Foval is saying that the protester was a Democrat activist and that the planned reaction was for him to be beaten up in front of the cameras. You mean, you are surprised to lean that Trump crowds are very easy to trigger (boy, I love that word) and look foolish in fronts of cameras ?

[Stormdash]

The AG's Report was released on April 1, 2010, concluding that the videos from ACORN offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Bernardino had been "severely edited." The report found there was no evidence of criminal conduct on the part of ACORN employees nor any evidence that any employee intended to aid or abet criminal conduct. It found that three employees had tried to deflect the couple's plans, told them ACORN could not offer them help on the grounds they wanted, and otherwise dealt with them appropriately. Such context was not reflected in O'Keefe's edited tapes. The AG's Report noted that "O'Keefe stated that he was out to make a point and to damage ACORN and therefore did not act as a journalist objectively reporting a story". It found no evidence of intent by the employees to aid the couple.

The AG's report confirmed that ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera, shown in O'Keefe's video as apparently aiding a human smuggling proposal, had immediately reported his encounter with the couple to a Mexican police detective at the time to thwart their plan.

You might have missed the point -- first principles; a prosecutors decision to prosecute or not, nor any accompanying explanation, is not a legal finding of law or fact. Those only happen in court. Ergo, nothing was ever "proven false" because nothing was brought into the place where things are proven at all.

[Machismo]

From the first video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY), 12:03 to 12:30:

Scott Foval: "You remember the Iowa state fair thing where Scott Walker grabbed the, umm, sign out of the dude's hand..."
Journalist: "Uhhuh."
Scott Foval: "...and then the dude gets kind of roughed up right in front of the stage,"
Journalist: "Yeah."
Scott Foval: "right there on camera?"
Journalist: "Yeah."
Scott Foval: "That was all us. The guy that got roughed up..."
Journalist: "Yeah."
Scott Foval: "...is...is...my counterpart who works for Bob."
Journalist: "And the...and that was like...like ahh...storyboarded? That him getting roughed up <mumbling>?"
Scott Foval: "We scenarioed it."

---

One take, no edits. The context isn't clear here?

Does that mean you are trying to say that people shouldn't be held responsible for their actions?

[Deleted]

Does that mean you are trying to say that people shouldn't be held responsible for their actions?

Why would it mean that?

[Machismo]

You might have missed the point -- first principles; a prosecutors decision to prosecute or not, nor any accompanying explanation, is not a legal finding of law or fact. Those only happen in court. Ergo, nothing was ever "proven false" because nothing was brought into the place where things are proven at all.

Things can be proven outside of a courtroom.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would it mean that?

It means that someone sought to troll others into getting violent and petty, and they were successful. Good for them.

[NineSpine]

You might have missed the point -- first principles; a prosecutors decision to prosecute or not, nor any accompanying explanation, is not a legal finding of law or fact. Those only happen in court. Ergo, nothing was ever "proven false" because nothing was brought into the place where things are proven at all.

Except for the part where O'Keefe had to pay a $100K settlement to Juan Carlos Vera.

[Stormdash]

Things can be proven outside of a courtroom.

Not legally so, no they can't. It's called the court of public opinion because it's not the court of law, after all. And note, no explanation there why anybody was ever being humored at all in those discussions about where to stash their underage prostitutes being trafficked into the country. It's a sketchy person who would or organization that would tolerate people who would do anything other than kick them the hell out of the office.

[Endus]

From the first video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY), 12:03 to 12:30:

Scott Foval: "You remember the Iowa state fair thing where Scott Walker grabbed the, umm, sign out of the dude's hand..."
Journalist: "Uhhuh."
Scott Foval: "...and then the dude gets kind of roughed up right in front of the stage,"
Journalist: "Yeah."
Scott Foval: "right there on camera?"
Journalist: "Yeah."
Scott Foval: "That was all us. The guy that got roughed up..."
Journalist: "Yeah."
Scott Foval: "...is...is...my counterpart who works for Bob."
Journalist: "And the...and that was like...like ahh...storyboarded? That him getting roughed up <mumbling>?"
Scott Foval: "We scenarioed it."

---

One take, no edits. The context isn't clear here?

It's plenty clear. But, to reiterate that context;

1> This is a staff member (Scott Foval) for Americans United for Change. He's not a part of the DNC or in any way affiliated with or managed by that campaign, even if his employer is supporting it.
2> Nothing they would have done in this situation would have been illegal or even questionable.
3> Literally all he's describing is putting their people into positions where they're open to being assaulted, and marked out (by having signs/wearing shirts/etc) that identify them to the crowd as supporters of their political enemies. It's bait, yes. But the actual actionable behaviour is on the part of those who were baited. That Foval may have planned the circumstances in no way justifies their response to it.

If I slap on a "Fuck Trump" T-shirt and go stand outside a Trump rally and shout anti-Trump slogans, and a bunch of Trump supporters come over and assault me, the only one who's done anything wrong is the Trump supporters.

Same applies if it's a "Fuck Hillary" shirt and it's a Hillary rally, instead, for that matter.