The O'keefe videos

[Venant]

They released the 4th video, Creamer admits to being in daily contact with the Clinton campaign, they accept a $20k wire transfer from an offshore account. Seems like there are plenty of violations of campaign finance laws.

I anticipate people will continue to attempt to discredit this evidence by attacking the creater, but I would ask you whats with Bob Creamer who was convicted for over $1 million in bank fraud doing not only running a super PAC, consulting with the Clinton campaign, and visiting the white house over 300 times. The man is a convicted criminal and is apparently part of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's inner circle, and it really makes you wonder why journalists haven't investigated this guy further.

[zenkai]

They released the 4th video, Creamer admits to being in daily contact with the Clinton campaign, they accept a $20k wire transfer from an offshore account. Seems like there are plenty of violations of campaign finance laws.

I anticipate people will continue to attempt to discredit this evidence by attacking the creater, but I would ask you whats with Bob Creamer who was convicted for over $1 million in bank fraud doing not only running a super PAC, consulting with the Clinton campaign, and visiting the white house over 300 times. The man is a convicted criminal and is apparently part of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's inner circle, and it really makes you wonder why journalists haven't investigated this guy further.

Because Trump saying mean things is more important than widespread corruption.

[Damajin]

They released the 4th video, Creamer admits to being in daily contact with the Clinton campaign, they accept a $20k wire transfer from an offshore account. Seems like there are plenty of violations of campaign finance laws.

I anticipate people will continue to attempt to discredit this evidence by attacking the creater, but I would ask you whats with Bob Creamer who was convicted for over $1 million in bank fraud doing not only running a super PAC, consulting with the Clinton campaign, and visiting the white house over 300 times. The man is a convicted criminal and is apparently part of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's inner circle, and it really makes you wonder why journalists haven't investigated this guy further.

Doesn't make anyone really wonder, actually. Everyone knows why it hasn't been investigated further, the point of difference is in believing that it matters. The it matters a ton camp is pretty much never going to convince the it doesn't matter at all camp, despite the fact that those people know full well the extent of the cover up and the collusion at play here.

[DeadmanWalking]

and your candidate helps rapists get away..

Who is worse out of those two?

The rapist didn't get away, they pled guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence, as is customary for anyone who is accused of a crime. Before you speak try and use that thing called google and inform yourself before you go around talking about stuff you don't know about. God forbid you should not just believe everything you hear and actually look into it for once.

[Jeezy911]

Video with the main source saying "we set up the Chicago Violence, we paid people to do it." Liberals "You can't believe anything in those videos" Wait WUT?

[DeadmanWalking]

They released the 4th video, Creamer admits to being in daily contact with the Clinton campaign, they accept a $20k wire transfer from an offshore account. Seems like there are plenty of violations of campaign finance laws.

I anticipate people will continue to attempt to discredit this evidence by attacking the creater, but I would ask you whats with Bob Creamer who was convicted for over $1 million in bank fraud doing not only running a super PAC, consulting with the Clinton campaign, and visiting the white house over 300 times. The man is a convicted criminal and is apparently part of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's inner circle, and it really makes you wonder why journalists haven't investigated this guy further.

If you get caught committing financial fraud you can't work in banking or investments. Super pacs are not part of the financial system, and anyone can call themselves a super pac if they fill out the proper paperwork, including you and me, which also applies to consultants and white house visitors. If we are going to persecute convicted criminals how about Okeefe? Guy got convicted and pled down to 3 years probation, 100's of hours of community service and a minor fine.
How about him lying to republicans on 3 videos? You guys want to believe someone who has been proven to lie to you on three out of three videos? Because he tells you things you want to hear? Oooookay... Hey... I'm a Haitian prince and I found a bank account in your name for billions.... all it will cost you is $2000 in finders fee and we are solid...

- - - Updated - - -

Video with the main source saying "we set up the Chicago Violence, we paid people to do it." Liberals "You can't believe anything in those videos" Wait WUT?

The problem is Okeefe is known for taking the sentence, "People think we democrats are evil, making up stories that we set up the Chicago Violence, we paid people to do it." then he edits out the context so it says, "We set up the chicago Violence, we paid people to do it." and until he releases all the footage in court as he is currently being sued then nothing he has is worth a damn.

Unless of course you enjoy being lied to, then have at it.

You would think that over the years Okeefe would get better at lying like a 5 year old does over the next 13 years to be a competent lying adult, but no, he gets caught even easier each time because he assumes all democrats are evil and it will be easy to catch them, and when that doesn't happen he edits the videos a lot to get the message he needs to motivate republicans into attacking his percieved enemies. The guys a lying piece of shit criminal and you guys treat him like he is Robin Hood, a Robin Hood who shit in your car and told you a democrat did it.

[Deleted]

They released the 4th video, Creamer admits to being in daily contact with the Clinton campaign, they accept a $20k wire transfer from an offshore account. Seems like there are plenty of violations of campaign finance laws.

I anticipate people will continue to attempt to discredit this evidence by attacking the creater, but I would ask you whats with Bob Creamer who was convicted for over $1 million in bank fraud doing not only running a super PAC, consulting with the Clinton campaign, and visiting the white house over 300 times. The man is a convicted criminal and is apparently part of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's inner circle, and it really makes you wonder why journalists haven't investigated this guy further.

Out of context HURRRRRRRR

- - - Updated - - -

Video with the main source saying "we set up the Chicago Violence, we paid people to do it." Liberals "You can't believe anything in those videos" Wait WUT?

Out of context HURRRRRRR

Did I do good?

[Noxx79]

HURRRRRRRR
HURRRRRRR

You may want to see a doctor about your breathing problem.

Do you see how things can be taken out of context now?
Do you see why it's difficult to believe anything from a guy who has produced nothing from falsehoods? Do you see why a source that has taken $10k from Trump's "Charity" is not a reliable source?

[Edge-]

Out of context HURRRRRRRR

- - - Updated - - -



Out of context HURRRRRRR

Did I do good?

Then O'Keefe would have no issues releasing the raw, unedited footage, no?

Or would it be exactly the same as it's been multiple times before, where his raw, unedited footage showed that he'd manipulated it to misrepresent the context in which questions were responded and proved him to be a liar.

[Deleted]

Alright, guys, we're all conspiracy theorists.
How about this one?

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

Alright, guys, we're all conspiracy theorists.
How about this one?

I'll wait for a full investigate whether it hurts or helps her.

[Venant]

Then O'Keefe would have no issues releasing the raw, unedited footage, no?

Or would it be exactly the same as it's been multiple times before, where his raw, unedited footage showed that he'd manipulated it to misrepresent the context in which questions were responded and proved him to be a liar.

Did you know that less than 5% of the Nixon tapes have been released to the public? By your reasoning, we really don't know if Nixon was involved in Watergate, because we have only been given access to 5% of the taped evidence. I suppose if you can force a president to resign with only 5% of the taped evidence being released, then it is possible to draw conclusions from limited taped comments if they sound extremely incriminating.

[anyaka21]

Alright, guys, we're all conspiracy theorists.
How about this one?

It definitely makes for an interesting watch. Definite disruption of Trump rallies, etc....


Still, my main issue with all of these videos and the leaks, is that they basically show campaign finance illegalities, manipulation, disruption, dirty politics, etc... And while that's completely disgusting, it's still just dirty politics which, in many ways, people expect today. And I think realistically, in the end, they basically become fineable offenses and not campaign destroyers.


What videos like this and wikileaks really need are complete Smoking Gun emails, videos directly from Hillary or even Bill that that show blatant wonton corruption, illegalities, that she planned for this, etc... Maybe stuff she did to help cover for Bills affairs, alleged rapes, links to supposed murders like Seth Rich, the video where Hillary supposed said the 'n' word, etc.... I think that's the only way to take Hillary down.

[Edge-]

Did you know that less than 5% of the Nixon tapes have been released to the public?

And that's relevant to this why?

By your reasoning, we really don't know if Nixon was involved in Watergate, because we have only been given access to 5% of the taped evidence.

Yeah, not the same thing at all. I can't believe that you're even comparing a known and proven liar to two journalists who, IIRC at that point in their careers had nearly impeccable reputations for their work.

I suppose if you can force a president to resign with only 5% of the taped evidence being released, then it is possible to draw conclusions from limited taped comments if they sound extremely incriminating.

Not at all, you're drawing a false comparison given the radically different situations behind the Project Veritas videos and Watergate.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It's hilarious because O'keefe literally edits together people's individual words to make them say what he wants them to say to fit a narrative, and people totally fall for it. Not a single one of his videos ever have in-context, full conversations. Just snips of stuff that sound damning when taken completely out of context.

[Venant]

And that's relevant to this why?

Yeah, not the same thing at all. I can't believe that you're even comparing a known and proven liar to two journalists who, IIRC at that point in their careers had nearly impeccable reputations for their work.

Not at all, you're drawing a false comparison given the radically different situations behind the Project Veritas videos and Watergate.

The thing is, your strategy is clearly to impugn the character of the person who was involved in making these recordings, instead of addressing what was actually in the recordings. You are rehashing the spin that has been approved by the Clinton campaign, which has already tacitly admitted wrongdoing by disassociating from several of the people portrayed in the Veritas tapes.

Now I will ask again, don't you think the media should be investigating Bob Creamer, a convicted felon who has regular contact with both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? He seems like an extremely nefarious figure who may be guilty of a number of illegal activities, activities that his clients seem to be aware of. Is it the job of journalists to investigate corruption in government, or is it their job to be propaganda mouthpieces for corrupt government officials?

- - - Updated - - -

It's hilarious because O'keefe literally edits together people's individual words to make them say what he wants them to say to fit a narrative, and people totally fall for it. Not a single one of his videos ever have in-context, full conversations. Just snips of stuff that sound damning when taken completely out of context.

Many of the conversations portrayed in the videos are rather long, I suppose people should watch the videos for themselves and take into consideration that several of the operatives featured had to resign as a result of these videos. I imagine if the videos were a complete fabrication, wouldn't the Clinton campaign be jumping all over that? I suppose the same reasoning could also apply to the wikileaks emails.

[Garnier Fructis]

Many of the conversations portrayed in the videos are rather long, I suppose people should watch the videos for themselves and take into consideration that several of the operatives featured had to resign as a result of these videos. I imagine if the videos were a complete fabrication, wouldn't the Clinton campaign be jumping all over that? I suppose the same reasoning could also apply to the wikileaks emails.

This thread is like a broken record. The point is raised about the resignations. Responses are given, which are largely ignored. And then a page or two later... we're back to the resignations.

It's like asking a question and then getting an answer, but ignoring and asking the same question 5 minutes later.

[Cthulhu 2020]

This thread is like a broken record. The point is raised about the resignations. Responses are given, which are largely ignored. And then a page or two later... we're back to the resignations.

It's like asking a question and then getting an answer, but ignoring and asking the same question 5 minutes later.

They believe what they want to believe. They live in their own world, where Clinton has control of all the voting machines, and the only reason Trump is going to lose is because of this massive conspiracy where every voting machine, even those owned and overseen by Republicans, are corrupted by the Clinton touch. That clearly, Trump has the support of 60%+ of America, the "silent majority" but Trump is going to lose despite all of these people voting for him because the election is rigged.

Welcome to Trumpista logic. They believe what they want, Trump is the only savior of the US, the US is doomed because our shadow government is going to rig him out of office, etc etc.

These are the people who watch the history channel and believe in every conspiracy aired on there.

[Venant]

This thread is like a broken record. The point is raised about the resignations. Responses are given, which are largely ignored. And then a page or two later... we're back to the resignations.

It's like asking a question and then getting an answer, but ignoring and asking the same question 5 minutes later.

They believe what they want to believe. They live in their own world, where Clinton has control of all the voting machines, and the only reason Trump is going to lose is because of this massive conspiracy where every voting machine, even those owned and overseen by Republicans, are corrupted by the Clinton touch. That clearly, Trump has the support of 60%+ of America, the "silent majority" but Trump is going to lose despite all of these people voting for him because the election is rigged.

Welcome to Trumpista logic. They believe what they want, Trump is the only savior of the US, the US is doomed because our shadow government is going to rig him out of office, etc etc.

These are the people who watch the history channel and believe in every conspiracy aired on there.

So lets just agree that the resignation discussion cancels out the O'Keefe discussion, so what we should really be talking about is the content of the videos.

[Edge-]

The thing is, your strategy is clearly to impugn the character of the person who was involved in making these recordings, instead of addressing what was actually in the recordings.

No, O'Keefe has done that on his own by repeatedly being caught editing his videos to misrepresent what people have said. He's undermined his credibility all on his own, so I don't need a "strategy" to "impugn his character".

You are rehashing the spin that has been approved by the Clinton campaign, which has already tacitly admitted wrongdoing by disassociating from several of the people portrayed in the Veritas tapes.

Not in the slightest, I'm giving historical context behind the creator of the video. His lies are pretty well documented long before this campaign season even started or these videos surfaced. Unless you think the Clinton campaign somehow knew about them years ago and was sending around messaging before O'Keefe had even begun "infiltrating" these groups.

Now I will ask again, don't you think the media should be investigating Bob Creamer, a convicted felon who has regular contact with both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?

Why? Because he plead guilty to tax/banking related felonies and served 5 months many years ago? I mean, sure, but there would need to be a reason for them to look back into him and there would need to be sometime for them to find. If his work is above board (again, Project Veritas videos aren't proof of shit), then I don't see any issue.

He seems like an extremely nefarious figure who may be guilty of a number of illegal activities, activities that his clients seem to be aware of. Is it the job of journalists to investigate corruption in government, or is it their job to be propaganda mouthpieces for corrupt government officials?

Part of it is to keep the government and public officials in check. I'm fine with media looking into him, and if they turn anything up then that's cool. But if they don't find anything credible, I'm sure you'll be right back here claiming that the lack of anything damning is proof that the media are in Democrats pocket and he's surely guilty of worse things lately.