The O'keefe videos

[sarahtasher]

Things can be proven outside of a courtroom.

If someone show up at a Trump rally with an Obama t-shirt in the hope of provoking a reaction that will be taped to make the Republicans look foolish (hint : we guessed that long ago, thank you, we are not stupid), it's not only illegal to savagely beat him up, it's playing the card he want.

[Machismo]

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.

It doesn't have to be legally binding, especially when the entire point of this is political propaganda.

[NineSpine]

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.

Except for the fact that the AGs report addressed that and explained that the workers' handled it appropriately. They didn't just decline to press charges. They issued a report detailing these things.

[Stormdash]

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

You don't "have" to pay settlements, you "have" to pay awards in court. You choose to pay settlements if you decide the costs of litigation aren't worth what the case can be dispensed with out of court. That doesn't always mean the party paying a settlement thinks they'd lose, by the by; sometimes it means they'd rather have the time than the money, the time spent in litigation. I don't make anything of settlements unless they are (rarely) accompanied by some documented admission of liability.

[Machismo]

If someone show up at a Trump rally with an Obama t-shirt in the hope of provoking a reaction that will be taped to make the Republicans look foolish (hint : we guessed that long ago, thank you, we are not stupid), it's not only illegal to savagely beat him up, it's playing the card he want.

Exactly, people are responsible for their own actions. Those who want to try to play the victim card, because they reacted aggressively in response to a troll.. are fucking fools.

[anyaka21]

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.

Problems with this is that

1) he was fired over this. Or in other words, distancing themselves from him. So, no, I don't think it's they didn't support his behaviour, it was that he got caught.
2) The problem isn't necessarily what he was doing was illegal, but they/he was doing it purporsefully to generate that negative publicity and to take away other political candidates, and add that he talked about shutting down a Trump rally completely.
3) I definitely don't consider myself far right, and I'm interested.
4) I would agree that the 2nd video really doesn't say anything, its all talk. However, I think it does show them completely okay with the idea of voter fraud, not that they did it.

[Stormdash]

Except for the fact that the AGs report addressed that and explained that the workers' handled it appropriately. They didn't just decline to press charges. They issued a report detailing these things.

How many ways do I need to say it? The AG could have said they were chosen by God at ACORN to do as they wish and are therefore above her mortal faculties to prosecute, it still wouldn't make the decision not to prosecute the same as a legal finding of guilt or innocence.

[NineSpine]

You don't "have" to pay settlements, you "have" to pay awards in court. You choose to pay settlements if you decide the costs of litigation aren't worth what the case can be dispensed with out of court. That doesn't always mean the party paying a settlement thinks they'd lose, by the by; sometimes it means they'd rather have the time than the money, the time spent in litigation. I don't make anything of settlements unless they are (rarely) accompanied by some documented admission of liability.

So let me get your standards straight:

When it's what you want to be true, a heavily edited video of a non-issue is damning, irrefutable evidence, and nothing more is needed. However, when it's what you DON'T want to be true, the only acceptable evidence is a formal criminal conviction of a person?

[AndaliteBandit]

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.

Ah. So since the FBI declined to prosecute Hillary Clinton, that must mean that there's no proof that she did anything wrong. That sort of thing can only be proven in court, after all.

[NineSpine]

How many ways do I need to say it? The AG could have said they were chosen by God at ACORN to do as they wish and are therefore above her mortal faculties to prosecute, it still wouldn't make the decision not to prosecute the same as a legal finding of guilt or innocence.

Nobody cares, except you, that it isn't the same as being found guilty of a crime (but I LOVE the idea that you pretend to be an attorney and just said a court declares people "innocent").

[Stormdash]

So let me get your standards straight:

When it's what you want to be true, a heavily edited video of a non-issue is damning, irrefutable evidence, and nothing more is needed. However, when it's what you DON'T want to be true, the only acceptable evidence is a formal criminal conviction of a person?

False choices are fun! I've never conflated what is or isn't personally convincing to an observer with what is legally recorded as a finding of fact or finding of law by the processes of our courts. To wit; OJ obviously killed those people. Legally, he only probably did.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody cares, except you, that it isn't the same as being found guilty of a crime (but I LOVE the idea that you pretend to be an attorney and just said a court declares people "innocent").

Pretend what? Member FL bar since 2014, JD in 2009.

[NineSpine]

False choices are fun! I've never conflated what is or isn't personally convincing to an observer with what is legally recorded as a finding of fact or finding of law by the processes of our courts. To wit; OJ obviously killed those people. Legally, he only probably did.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretend what? Member FL bar since 2014, JD in 2009.

I hope you get a lot of your clients found "innocent". Fraud.

[Deleted]

It's plenty clear.

Well...yeah. I was trying to make that point since there were several people in the thread dismissing everything in those videos simply by saying that they were made by O'Keefe, who's supposedly a liar, and who has therefore obviously edited everything and there's no clear context anywhere.

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.

Well, this isn't obvious. We don't know the behind-the-curtains affiliations of those people. I'm sure you can admit that certain people are in contact with certain other people and messages get sent through certain backchannels even when they shouldn't be. Of course that's all speculation and so on, but honestly, some of that stuff does go on and does happen.

Also, does it really matter whether he's a part of the DNC or not? If a force like this goes around tainting the process by inciting violence (which they did, as he admitted to it), then the process it tainted. It doesn't matter who did it. It's now a tainted process that can't be trusted to be fair, at least not so far as not having any people, and their votes, be influenced by these kinds of operations and tactics.

There were forces much like this group tainting the primaries against Sanders as well.

2> Nothing they would have done in this situation would have been illegal or even questionable.

Yeah, I'm not sure if it's illegal. I'd hope inciting violence is illegal when it's a systematic effort like this by a large group, and not just a single person mouthing off to someone. As for it being questionable, of course it is, and on that we'll just have to disagree.

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.

I'm not excusing the people who turn to violence, but I'm also not going to agree that inciting that violence is in any way excusable, and if it's not illegal, then your laws are wrong. As I said, we'll just have to disagree here.

[AndaliteBandit]

Problems with this is that

1) he was fired over this. Or in other words, distancing themselves from him. So, no, I don't think it's they didn't support his behaviour, it was that he got caught.

Juan Carlos Vera was fired from his job at ACORN after the release of O'Keefe's video, even though he didn't do anything wrong.

[Endus]

Problems with this is that

1) he was fired over this. Or in other words, distancing themselves from him. So, no, I don't think it's they didn't support his behaviour, it was that he got caught.
2) The problem isn't necessarily what he was doing was illegal, but they/he was doing it purporsefully to generate that negative publicity and to take away other political candidates, and add that he talked about shutting down a Trump rally completely.
3) I definitely don't consider myself far right, and I'm interested.
4) I would agree that the 2nd video really doesn't say anything, its all talk. However, I think it does show them completely okay with the idea of voter fraud, not that they did it.

1> All being fired means is "you're making us look bad", it doesn't mean his behaviour was illegal.

2> So? That's basically the goal of PACs and the like. They were going negative rather than positive, is all. It's not even dishonest, since he's not responsible for the attacks on his provocateurs. Blaming AUfC because Trump supporters were violent-minded enough to take the incredibly marginal bait is missing the point.

3+4> The point here is that, at best, you can be angry at Scott Foval. The videos don't prove a damn thing that goes any higher than that, or that anything illegal's actually happened.

[Deleted]

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.

The fact that you would dismiss this out-of-hand as you have done is just further proof that the story is completely legitimate and exposes HRC and the DNC for the completely contemptible and corrupt fucks that they are.

[Edge-]

Juan Carlos Vera was fired from his job at ACORN after the release of O'Keefe's video, even though he didn't do anything wrong.

People don't understand that people are often fired not because they did something wrong, but because others think they did something wrong and that started a controversy that could damage the company/organization, even if there is no wrongdoing occurring.

The fact that you would dismiss this out-of-hand as you have done is just further proof that the story is completely legitimate and exposes HRC and the DNC for the completely contemptible and corrupt fucks that they are.

Genuinely curious, how did you connect those dots?

[NineSpine]

The fact that you would dismiss this out-of-hand as you have done is just further proof that the story is completely legitimate and exposes HRC and the DNC for the completely contemptible and corrupt fucks that they are.

Interesting, since this guy worked for neither HRC or the DNC, but since we can now take every activist group and place their actions at the hands of the party they support, I can't wait to hear your condemnation of the RNC for the actions of the KKK.

[Wewlad]

Problems with this is that

1) he was fired over this. Or in other words, distancing themselves from him. So, no, I don't think it's they didn't support his behaviour, it was that he got caught.
2) The problem isn't necessarily what he was doing was illegal, but they/he was doing it purporsefully to generate that negative publicity and to take away other political candidates, and add that he talked about shutting down a Trump rally completely.
3) I definitely don't consider myself far right, and I'm interested.
4) I would agree that the 2nd video really doesn't say anything, its all talk. However, I think it does show them completely okay with the idea of voter fraud, not that they did it.

Thanks for smashing that pathetic attempt at rationalization.

EDIT: Oh look, he's back with more lies. The birddogging was acknowledged by DNC emails. GG.

[Deleted]

Genuinely curious, how did you connect those dots?

For me, Endus is always on the complete opposite side of reality when it comes to anything political. I am diametrically opposed to him in every conceivable way when it comes to politics so when I see him post what he does I can be assured that in reality the exact opposite is actually the truth.