Trump used his foundation to fund guerrilla filmmaker James O’Keefe - Polidicks

[quote]In Wednesday’s presidential debate, Donald Trump claimed that new videos proved that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had “hired people” and “paid them $1,500” to “be violent, cause fights, [and] do bad things” at Trump rallies. He was referring to videos released this week by conservative activist James O’Keefe that purport to show pro-Clinton activists boasting of their efforts to bait Trump supporters into violent acts. The videos offer no evidence that Clinton or Obama were aware of or behind the alleged dirty tricks. Still, Trump claimed the videos exposed that a violence at a March Chicago rally was a “criminal act” and that it “was now all on tape started by her.” Trump neglected, however, to mention his own connection to the videos, released by James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas tax-exempt group. According to a list of charitable donations made by Trump‘s controversial foundation (provided to the Washington Post in April by Trump’s campaign), on May 13, 2015, it gave $10,000 to Project Veritas.[/quote] [img_thumb]https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*cSyrsB3xr39zqRodc_8f3Q.jpeg[/img_thumb] SOURCE: [url]https://thinkprogress.org/trump-funded-james-okeefe-53015c2f44b6#.uo8fz0k89[/url]

Oh what a lovely conflict of interest!

well well well

[QUOTE=Jarokwa;51236665]not very surprising[/QUOTE] Genuinely surprised here. As bad as Trump is i wouldnt have guessed he would sink to using other people's charity to fund a disgraced fraud like O'Keefe

You can just tell this is going to be a good one.

James O'Keefe is the most influential yellow journalist of the modern era. He literally has falsified evidence time and time again to push an agenda. It doesn't surprise me that Trump's donating money to Project Veritas. He seems to love dishonest journalism that falsifies entire narratives and makes up controversy, like Alex Jones and O'Keefe. Unless it's focused against him, and it's a true narrative, by a reputable journalist, using unedited recordings. Then it's libel and he should be able to sue for defamation. Pathetic thin-skinned hypocrite, really.

Would have been great if this was revealed before the debate, would have given Hillary a solid defense for it

[QUOTE=.Isak.;51236732]James O'Keefe is the most influential yellow journalist of the modern era. He literally has falsified evidence time and time again to push an agenda. It doesn't surprise me that Trump's donating money to Project Veritas. He seems to love dishonest journalism that falsifies entire narratives and makes up controversy, like Alex Jones and O'Keefe. Unless it's focused against him, and it's a true narrative, by a reputable journalist, using unedited recordings. Then it's libel and he should be able to sue for defamation. Pathetic thin-skinned hypocrite, really.[/QUOTE] How about on the video when Bob Creamer said that Hillary knows whats going on trough the chain of command.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51236723]Genuinely surprised here. As bad as Trump is i wouldnt have guessed he would sink to using other people's charity to fund a disgraced fraud like O'Keefe[/QUOTE] Off all the people, you are one surprised? That's the most shocking part of this story.

[QUOTE=Axelius;51239813]How about on the video when Bob Creamer said that Hillary knows whats going on trough the chain of command.[/QUOTE] That doesn't count because I don't like O'Keefe. Just ignore the fact that Creamer resigned and Foval was dismissed, it's all faked and voter fraud doesn't exist. [editline]21st October 2016[/editline] Kind of like how the Democrats and Clinton still can't even get their story straight on the leaks. It's probably doctored, but we refuse to confirm/deny because it's stolen.. Which implies that it's true, and we've fired people because of it.. But it's probably fake. And stolen. Next question!

[QUOTE=Axelius;51239813]How about on the video when Bob Creamer said that Hillary knows whats going on trough the chain of command.[/QUOTE] Yeah but he doesn't say WHAT she knows through the chain of command. This filmmaker is notorious for taking out of context statements and stringing them together in a way that pushes an agenda without regard for actual intended meaning. If you just listen to what O'Keefe TELLS you Creamer meant without thinking critically, you've already fallen for it. You have to take every single clip on its own and only consider what the person is saying in that continuous clip, because O'Keefe is a fraud and will take any opportunity to mislead you.

People trusting the word of a man who has repeatedly been caught outright fabricating video evidence is, frankly, pretty fucking gross. Anything O'Keefe puts out has absolutely zero merit or credibility. If you still give any credence to his bogus propaganda, you're a fool.

[QUOTE=srobins;51239982]That doesn't count because I don't like O'Keefe.[/QUOTE] this is incredibly dishonest whether or not someone likes o'keefe doesn't change the fact he's notorious for manipulating footage [quote]Just ignore the fact that Creamer resigned and Foval was dismissed, it's all faked and voter fraud doesn't exist.[/quote] disclaimer: no, i'm not saying foval and creamer are innocent. i'm not saying this is an exact, step by step recreation of the ACORN scandal. with that said, i don't think this should go unmentioned [quote]In 2013 O'Keefe agreed to pay $100,000 to former California ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera for deliberately misrepresenting Mr. Vera's actions. On the basis of the selectively edited videotape which O'Keefe released, Vera appeared to be a willing participant in helping with O'Keefe's plan to smuggle young women into the United States illegally. However, authorities confirmed that Mr. Vera immediately contacted them about O'Keefe and that he had also encouraged O'Keefe to share as much information as possible about his scheme and gather further evidence of O'Keefe's purported illegal activities, which could then be used by prosecutors to bring charges against O'Keefe for attempted human trafficking. [B]Due to O'Keefe's release of the dubiously edited video, intentionally designed to "prove" that ACORN employees were ready and willing to engage in illicit activities, Mr. Vera lost his job and was falsely accused of being engaged in human trafficking.[/B] O'Keefe noted that he "regrets any pain" caused by his reckless actions, though O'Keefe's lawyer dismissed any claimed injury incurred by Vera and stated that the payment was a "nuisance settlement".[/quote]

[QUOTE=srobins;51239982]That doesn't count because I don't like O'Keefe. Just ignore the fact that Creamer resigned and Foval was dismissed, it's all faked and voter fraud doesn't exist. [editline]21st October 2016[/editline] Kind of like how the Democrats and Clinton still can't even get their story straight on the leaks. It's probably doctored, but we refuse to confirm/deny because it's stolen.. Which implies that it's true, and we've fired people because of it.. But it's probably fake. And stolen. Next question![/QUOTE] Remember when O'Keefe fabricated things and got people fired before? Even though he was lying? I DO!

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51240040]People trusting the word of a man who has repeatedly been caught outright fabricating video evidence is, frankly, pretty fucking gross. Anything O'Keefe puts out has absolutely zero merit or credibility. If you still give any credence to his bogus propaganda, you're a fool.[/QUOTE] but bda, if [URL="http://i.imgur.com/0fvTNjG.png"]fake evidence[/URL] suits my agenda then its justified to pretend that it isn't a lie and use it regardless to fit my needs and will.

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51240016]Yeah but he doesn't say WHAT she knows through the chain of command. This filmmaker is notorious for taking out of context statements and stringing them together in a way that pushes an agenda without regard for actual intended meaning. If you just listen to what O'Keefe TELLS you Creamer meant without thinking critically, you've already fallen for it. You have to take every single clip on its own and only consider what the person is saying in that continuous clip, because O'Keefe is a fraud and will take any opportunity to mislead you.[/QUOTE] Tell me what the greater context is for these full, uncut quotes: [quote=Scott Foval][B]Foval: [/B]The campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, the Foval Group goes and executes the shit on the ground.[/quote] [quote=Bob Creamer][B]Creamer: [/B]Wherever Trump and Pence are gonna be, we have events. And we have a whole team across the country that does that. Both consultants and people from the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party apparatus and people from the campaign, the Clinton campaign.[/quote] [quote=Scott Foval][B]Foval: [/B] Priorities (Clinton SuperPAC) is a big part of this too. The campaigns and DNC cannot go near Priorities, but I guaran-damn-tee you that the people who run the super PACs all talk to each other and we and a few other people are the hubs of that communication. [B]Reporter:[/B] So you're kind of like intermediaries between the super PACs and the DNC. The DNC, they can't talk to each other? Okay, but you guys are kind of like.. [B]Foval:[/B] We're consultants so we're not the official entity and so those conversations can be had between consultants who are working for different parts, yeah.[/quote] [quote=Scott Foval][B]Foval:[/B] The thing that we have to watch is making sure there is a double blind between the actual campaign and the actual DNC and what we're doing. There's a double blind there. So they can plausibly deny that they knew anything about it.[/quote] [quote=Bob Creamer][B]Creamer:[/B] We have a call with the campaign every day to go over the focuses that need to be undertaken.[/quote] [quote=Zulema Rodriguez][B]Rodriguez:[/B] I just had a call with the campaign and the DNC. Every day at one o'clock.[/quote] At the very least we know the DNC and the Clinton campaign are involved, you really think Hillary is blissfully unaware of what is going on within her own party and campaign after everything that has already come out?

[quote]Foval: The thing that we have to watch is making sure there is a double blind between the actual campaign and the actual DNC and what we're doing. There's a double blind there. So they can plausibly deny that they knew anything about it.[/quote] I like how one of your quotes is Foval explicitly saying "The DNC doesn't know about the stuff we're doing"

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51240044]this is incredibly dishonest whether or not someone likes o'keefe doesn't change the fact he's notorious for manipulating footage disclaimer: no, i'm not saying foval and creamer are innocent. i'm not saying this is an exact, step by step recreation of the ACORN scandal. with that said, i don't think this should go unmentioned[/QUOTE] I'm aware that O'Keefe is a misleading propagandizing mongoloid, I just think there's plenty of uncut footage to support the majority of what is being drawn from his videos in this case. I was suspicious at first but after watching the videos and paying close attention to the editing.. I mean, they really dug their own grave in this case, imo. The clip about Hillary knowing what's going on through chain of command is cut like three times, so I'm happy to disregard that snippet. The at-length, uncut conversations about committing voter fraud, hiring homeless psychotics and union workers to perform acts of violence, and coordinating with the DNC, Clinton campaign and super PACs to make all this happen seems pretty irrefutable, especially considering the parties involved are getting fired or resigning. You should watch the videos with a skeptical eye but can't deny unedited footage and audio. [editline]21st October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Helix Snake;51240133]I like how one of your quotes is Foval explicitly saying "The DNC doesn't know about the stuff we're doing"[/QUOTE] Double blind as in facilitating communications through third parties and using a chain of command so that the involved parties can "plausibly deny" that they knew anything about it. You don't "plausibly deny" something you genuinely didn't know about in the first place.

[QUOTE=srobins;51240134]especially considering the parties involved are getting fired or resigning..[/QUOTE] You are deliberately ignoring the other times this happens when it was proved to be a fraud. Shirley Sherrod was fired and ACORN was closed down over clips that were proven to be misleadingly edited. This is brought up every time and you ignore it.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51240150]You are deliberately ignoring the other times this happens when it was proved to be a fraud. Shirley Sherrod was fired and ACORN was closed down over clips that were proven to be misleadingly edited. This is brought up every time and you ignore it.[/QUOTE] I haven't ignored it I just genuinely haven't had anybody bring that up to me, it's a good point and I'll take it. Edit: Oh, I just totally missed the point of Zukriechens post, nevermind

[QUOTE=srobins;51240156]I haven't ignored it I just genuinely haven't had anybody bring that up to me, it's a good point and I'll take it.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I thought you were in the other topics about the James O'Keefe videos. It was mentioned in every topic I've seen. [editline]21st October 2016[/editline] In that case srobins I want to bring up the thing I mentioned in another topic: if someone goes into great length and detail about something but James O'Keefe has no footage of them straight up saying they did it or that it happened, that's pretty good evidence that it didn't. No one would talk in that much detail about something they're trying to hide from the person they're talking to, and O'Keefe has no reason not to ask a question that leads to them saying that it legit happened. This might not apply to the video we're talking about but it applies perfectly to the video where they talk about committing voter fraud using buses. This is why you can't trust O'Keefe. The guy is a genius when it comes to misleading people and you might not be able to think of all of the ways he could possibly do it. Even in situations where he has minutes of uncut footage of someone going into specific detail, can be used to push a narrative that didn't actually happen.

[QUOTE=srobins;51240134]I'm aware that O'Keefe is a misleading propagandizing mongoloid, I just think there's plenty of uncut footage to support the majority of what is being drawn from his videos in this case. I was suspicious at first but after watching the videos and paying close attention to the editing.. I mean, they really dug their own grave in this case, imo. The clip about Hillary knowing what's going on through chain of command is cut like three times, so I'm happy to disregard that snippet. The at-length, uncut conversations about committing voter fraud, hiring homeless psychotics and union workers to perform acts of violence, and coordinating with the DNC, Clinton campaign and super PACs to make all this happen seems pretty irrefutable, especially considering the parties involved are getting fired or resigning. You should watch the videos with a skeptical eye but can't deny unedited footage and audio. [editline]21st October 2016[/editline] Double blind as in facilitating communications through third parties and using a chain of command so that the involved parties can "plausibly deny" that they knew anything about it. You don't "plausibly deny" something you genuinely didn't know about in the first place.[/QUOTE] Irrefutable? Those short quotes with weak context by low-level operative telling about super convoluted machinations to do [I]something[/I] are the best proof that Clinton is responsible for organizing violence in opposing rallies. And that operating parties really not knowing what each other is doing is aggravating evidence? Seriously?

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51240161]Sorry, I thought you were in the other topics about the James O'Keefe videos. It was mentioned in every topic I've seen. [editline]21st October 2016[/editline] In that case srobins I want to bring up the thing I mentioned in another topic: if someone goes into great length and detail about something but James O'Keefe has no footage of them straight up saying they did it or that it happened, that's pretty good evidence that it didn't. No one would talk in that much detail about something they're trying to hide from the person they're talking to, and O'Keefe has no reason not to ask a question that leads to them saying that it legit happened. This might not apply to the video we're talking about but it applies perfectly to the video where they talk about committing voter fraud using buses. This is why you can't trust O'Keefe. The guy is a genius when it comes to misleading people and you might not be able to think of all of the ways he could possibly do it. Even in situations where he has minutes of uncut footage of someone going into specific detail, can be used to push a narrative that didn't actually happen.[/QUOTE] That's fair, but even the clips in the voter fraud video seem hard to take out of context. Like this: [quote=Scott Foval] It's easy for the Republicans to say, 'well they're bussing people in'. Well you know what? We've been bussing people in to deal with you fuckin' assholes for fifty years and we're not going to stop now, we're just going to find a different way to do it. [/quote] What else could he be trying to say? The only context I can think of somebody saying "we've been bussing people in and we're going to continue bussing people in" would be if he's maybe quoting somebody or talking from the perspective of another group, but then he goes on to say he was raised that way himself. I just don't see what other context something like this could be taken from. [editline]21st October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Vlevs;51240213]Irrefutable? Those short quotes with weak context by low-level operative telling about super convoluted machinations to do [I]something[/I] are the best proof that Clinton is responsible for organizing violence in opposing rallies. And that operating parties really not knowing what each other is doing is aggravating evidence? Seriously?[/QUOTE] I'm not saying Clinton is sitting in a swivel chair wringing her hands and barking orders at her underlings demanding that they get at least 40 people arrested at Trump's next rally, I'm saying I think there's a fair indication that the DNC and Clinton campaign are aware of what their consultants are doing. They're not paying them to knit "I'm With Her" sweaters.

[QUOTE=srobins;51240256]That's fair, but even the clips in the voter fraud video seem hard to take out of context. Like this:[/QUOTE] Any time they take a quote like that and separate it from the quotes that it's supposedly in the context of, you should always, ALWAYS be skeptical. If that was part of the later voter fraud conversation, why didn't he include it there?

[QUOTE]Foval: The campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, the Foval Group goes and executes the shit on the ground. [/QUOTE] Meaningless. "Executes shit" could mean literally anything. [QUOTE]Creamer: Wherever Trump and Pence are gonna be, we have events. And we have a whole team across the country that does that. Both consultants and people from the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party apparatus and people from the campaign, the Clinton campaign. [/QUOTE] "We go to trump rallies" That's what he's saying. He's not saying anything about what they're doing there. O'keefe is telling you they're inciting violence, this quote certainly isn't. They could be protesting or just observing them to see what techniques Trump is using or what appeals to his constituents. They COULD be inciting violence, but he's not saying that so we don't have evidence of it. [QUOTE]Foval: Priorities (Clinton SuperPAC) is a big part of this too. The campaigns and DNC cannot go near Priorities, but I guaran-damn-tee you that the people who run the super PACs all talk to each other and we and a few other people are the hubs of that communication. Reporter: So you're kind of like intermediaries between the super PACs and the DNC. The DNC, they can't talk to each other? Okay, but you guys are kind of like.. Foval: We're consultants so we're not the official entity and so those conversations can be had between consultants who are working for different parts, yeah.[/QUOTE] This does seem sketchy. It's bad, it's exploiting campaign finance loopholes. We also already knew they were doing this sort of shit and it has nothing to do with inciting violence or voter fraud or anything like that. [QUOTE]Foval: The thing that we have to watch is making sure there is a double blind between the actual campaign and the actual DNC and what we're doing. There's a double blind there. So they can plausibly deny that they knew anything about it.[/QUOTE] Again, seems kind of sketchy, but not evidence of any of the points actually being claimed. We don't know what he's talking about. [QUOTE]Creamer: We have a call with the campaign every day to go over the focuses that need to be undertaken.[/QUOTE] They're communicating about...something. That's not even relevant, don't know why you put that on there. [QUOTE]Rodriguez: I just had a call with the campaign and the DNC. Every day at one o'clock.[/QUOTE] Again, communicating about something, but that's not incriminating at all. None of these are evidence of voter fraud, or inciting violence, or anything like that. If you assume that O'Keefe is telling you the truth you might be able to twist it into sounding like that, but if you're skeptical of the snippets of video from the man famous for lying to people through snippets of video then you can see that none of these are proof of what he's claiming.

[QUOTE=srobins;51240256]The only context I can think of somebody saying "we've been bussing people in and we're going to continue bussing people in" would be [...][/QUOTE] Why do you assume that you'd be able to conjure up the context via thought? I feel like this is a shared problem with everyone that argues the videos' authenticity. Personally I have no idea whether it's mostly true or completely fabricated, but the posts I see here definitely show a lack of understanding for the whole point: [QUOTE=srobins;51240109]Tell me what the greater context is for these full, uncut quotes:[/QUOTE] The whole point is that we [I]can't say anything without the context[/I]. We can't just deduce the context, we need to see it. Either the video is fabricated and we can't do shit to find the real meaning. Or, what we saw does represent the truth, but then one would wonder why the unedited footage hasn't been released alongside the edits, to disprove the skeptics.

[QUOTE=srobins;51239982]That doesn't count because I don't like O'Keefe. [/QUOTE] People don't like O'Keefe which is true but you are being monstrously disingenuous by leaving it there instead of going on to say "and also because he was caught twice doctoring and cutting footage". To see someone who is ostensibly on the left, someone who is so righteously indignant at the way the DNC treated Bernie to the point of endlessly exaggerating the scandal, blindly defend someone who got ACORN shut down and made fake propaganda targeting Planned Parenthood is fucking sad. I guess the ends justify the means as long as it eventually finds it's way to Clinton though right? If it hurts the DNC then it's by default good and shouldn't be questioned, right? [QUOTE=srobins;51239982]Just ignore the fact that Creamer resigned and Foval was dismissed,[/QUOTE] Neither of which are incriminating on their own. [QUOTE=srobins;51239982]it's all faked and voter fraud doesn't exist.[/QUOTE] Prove voter fraud exists in anything but astronomically small quantities.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;51236732]James O'Keefe is the most influential yellow journalist of the modern era. He literally has falsified evidence time and time again to push an agenda. It doesn't surprise me that Trump's donating money to Project Veritas. He seems to love dishonest journalism that falsifies entire narratives and makes up controversy, like Alex Jones and O'Keefe. Unless it's focused against him, and it's a true narrative, by a reputable journalist, using unedited recordings. Then it's libel and he should be able to sue for defamation. Pathetic thin-skinned hypocrite, really.[/QUOTE] Trump's basically a flabbier Vladimir Putin with a bad spray-on tan and less style now, isn't he?

[QUOTE=srobins;51239982]Kind of like how the Democrats and Clinton still can't even get their story straight on the leaks. It's probably doctored, but we refuse to confirm/deny because it's stolen.. Which implies that it's true, and we've fired people because of it.. But it's probably fake. And stolen. Next question![/QUOTE] Don't forget it's all President Lincoln's fault too. So far, nobody has had a single word to say about how these videos have been doctored or manipulated in any way (the closest was the thing with the old lady but I highly doubt O'Keefe would jeopardize his legitimacy in that way). And the video series isn't even complete yet.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51241711]Don't forget it's all President Lincoln's fault too. So far, nobody has had a single word to say about how these videos have been doctored or manipulated in any way (the closest was the thing with the old lady but I highly doubt O'Keefe would jeopardize his legitimacy in that way). And the video series isn't even complete yet.[/QUOTE] Have you read this thread, or any of the other threads on this topic? Because the problems with the videos have been explained numerous times. Are you approaching this topic with the pre-existing belief that the videos are true? In that case, is it possible that your bias is making you unable to objectively read the explanations people have given you? Why do you think O'Keefe would not want to jeopardize his legitimacy? Do you believe that he is a legitimate filmmaker? Have you read the posts in this thread and other threads on this topic that have explained how he has repeatedly lied several times and gotten people falsely accused and fired over it? Do you still think O'Keefe is trustworthy? Why?