The O'keefe videos

[Edge-]

Oh well send me to the gallows because I didn't specify that Paula was harrassment instead of assault. They are both pretty reprehensible aren't they? Anyone that would do either is morally bankrupt.

He was not guilty of either. He settled. Just like Trump has. Again, unless you're making the argument that settling a case is an admission of guilt (which it's not), in which case that doesn't bode well for Trump with all the lawsuits he's settled over the years.

[zenkai]

Source

Two Democratic operatives are out of a job after a controversial conservative activist released undercover footage showing discussions of "busing" in voters and inciting violence at Republican rallies.

Scott Foval, the national field director of Americans United for Change, was booted on Monday and Democracy Partners head Robert Creamer announced on Tuesday he was “stepping back” from efforts to elect Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

“I am unwilling to become a distraction to the important task of electing [Hillary] Clinton, and defeating Donald Trump in the upcoming election,” Creamer said in a statement.

The Democratic National Committee also disavowed the schemes discussed in the video.

“The practices described in the video by this temporary sub-contractor do not in any way comport with our long standing policies on organizing events, and those statements and sentiments do not represent the values that the Committee holds dear,” DNC interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile said of Foval in a statement on Tuesday.

The undercover “Rigging the Election” videos, produced by controversial activist James O’Keefe, total over 32 minutes and were released in two, edited portions on Monday and Tuesday. An undercover filmmaker posing as a donor is seen attempting to engage Foval and Creamer in discussions of voter fraud and other schemes. Creamer doesn’t bite, but Foval fills the filmmaker in on supposed plots and implicates Creamer.

[callipygoustp]

Scott Foval, the national field director of Americans United for Change, was booted on Monday and Democracy Partners head Robert Creamer announced on Tuesday he was “stepping back” from efforts to elect Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

O'keefe has done some questionable things in the past, and who knows, maybe he did some questionable things here in order to get the conversations on film, but that doesn't excuse what was said. That kind of behavior should absolutely positively be punished as it undermines, imo, the base values of our election process.

[NineSpine]

Oh well send me to the gallows because I didn't specify that Paula was harrassment instead of assault. They are both pretty reprehensible aren't they? Anyone that would do either is morally bankrupt. Maybe if you can't read messages on a forum without getting so upset; you should turn the computer off and walk outside for a little while. I couldn't care any less if you think I am embarrassing myself.

Equating physically assaulting someone with making a rude and offensive proposition to them is what is morally bankrupt here.

[Deleted]

B-b-but Trump says bad things about women.

[Affixiation]

[video=youtube;b24Yq1Ndnjo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b24Yq1Ndnjo[/vdeo]

B-b-but Trump says bad things about women.

Ohhhhhhh noooooooooooooo

[Blur4stuff]

This video isn't going to convert any Clinton votes to Trump. It's essentially masturbation material for Trump supporters.

O'keefe has been busted too many times before lying, deceptively editing videos, and outright breaking the law. Even if he catches someone saying something wrong, he can't be trusted and it taints anything he does.

He wants to make sensationalist videos for attention and money.

[NineSpine]

B-b-but Trump says bad things about women.

And sexually assaults them... and rapes them... and creeps on naked 15 year olds.

[Xandrigity]

Look at the lemmings scramble ha ha ha ha *popcorn*

[Orbitus]

Look at the lemmings scramble ha ha ha ha *popcorn*

Yeah I know. The Trump lemmings that want to go off the cliff with Trump really are scrambling to find ANYTHING they can to try to say that Clinton is rigging it.

[QwertySham]

No, that isn't how it works. For example, I can ask you to tell me who you work for, and get a couple of sentences about who that is and what you do for them. Then I can ask you to hypothetically tell me how someone could do some illegal activity related to your job. I simply paste those two answers together, and what people see is you say "I work for this person, and this is what I do" and it sounds like it includes the hypothetical answer I asked you for.

That would imply that the editor would be using a jump cut. These are, for the most part, full clips of a discussion. You can't just add the pieces together without words being de-synced or seeing a jump cut/transition.

While there is some piecing together, most of the clips are a good length to not need a jump cut to make a narrative. The intention is clear.

[Venant]

The third video was just released, looks like he is making the case for Hillary Clinton issuing orders directly to a super PAC and violating laws in regards to coordination between campaigns, political parties and PACs

[TZucchini]

The third video was just released, looks like he is making the case for Hillary Clinton issuing orders directly to a super PAC and violating laws in regards to coordination between campaigns, political parties and PACs

Why won't he release the full, unedited videos?

[zenkai]

This video isn't going to convert any Clinton votes to Trump. It's essentially masturbation material for Trump supporters.

O'keefe has been busted too many times before lying, deceptively editing videos, and outright breaking the law. Even if he catches someone saying something wrong, he can't be trusted and it taints anything he does.

He wants to make sensationalist videos for attention and money.

I find it funny how one side says "oh it's not true!" but when the shoe is on the foot, "it's all true!"

[Kujako]

Why won't he release the full, unedited videos?

Because then they wouldn't say what he wants them to.

[Venant]

Why won't he release the full, unedited videos?

Because then they wouldn't say what he wants them to.

Well, if you are looking spend hundreds of hours going through evidence, wikileaks is releasing several thousand documents every day. Its likely that this guy has hundreds of hours of footage.

- - - Updated - - -

release the unedited videos, let people see what was said, why is that so hard?

If he releases it to say, Fox news, will you trust their authentication?

[Garnier Fructis]

Well, if you are looking spend hundreds of hours going through evidence, wikileaks is releasing several thousand documents every day. Its likely that this guy has hundreds of hours of footage.

He's not releasing it because in the past, when we had access to the full footage it very quickly became apparent that O'Keefe was full of shit lying and on purpose.

That is why he's not releasing the full videos. Everything else is flimsy justification.

[Venant]

He's not releasing it because in the past, when we had access to the full footage it very quickly became apparent that O'Keefe was full of shit lying and on purpose.

That is why he's not releasing the full videos. Everything else is flimsy justification.

Would you even sit down and watch his full footage, or would you trust the corporate media to 'watch' it and then write articles about it that are approved by the Hillary Clinton campaign?

[Garnier Fructis]

Would you even sit down and watch his full footage, or would you trust the corporate media to 'watch' it and then write articles about it that are approved by the Hillary Clinton campaign?

I'd watch it. Because there's nothing more satisfying then telling people just how provably wrong they were and how foolish they were to fall for it.

[Venant]

I'd watch it. Because there's nothing more satisfying then telling people just how provably wrong they were and how foolish they were to fall for it.

And have you gone through the wikileaks documents?