Project Veritas Action: Rigging the Election Part 3 - Creamer Confirms Hillary Clinton Involvement
151 replies, posted
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEQvsK5w-jY[/media]
Different and new video from the lovable and media friendly James O'Keefe.
Please to stay on topic like discussing if O'Keefe is a editing con artist or the content of the video.
Also Quack.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51253620]discussing if O'Keefe is a editing con artist[/QUOTE]
There is no if, it's established. There, that discussion can be over.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51253824]There is no if, it's established. There, that discussion can be over.[/QUOTE]
But now the debate is if that invalidates the videos completely.
Wasn't there a thread just a few days ago which had proof that Trump had funded O'Keefe?
[QUOTE=Pascall;51254070]Wasn't there a thread just a few days ago which had proof that Trump had funded O'Keefe?[/QUOTE]
Yeppers, O'Keefe has had some low ass credibility forawhile now.
I still say look at the content and try to tell if there is obvious edits for the most part considering there are lengthy statements to scan through.
I just haven't been able to look at the timestamps that someone posted earlier to see if that somehow isn't breaking Party collusion laws.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51253819]I see no evidence in the video that AFTER August 18, 2016 Hillary or her Campaign ordered the ducks from AUFC.
Before that, it was done by DNC, and I dont think that violates any laws. Before that, Clinton can order it, because thats the DNC, candidate can talk to the party right?
If she had ordered AUFC originally, it wouldve been problematic. But the video says the "concept" (so Hillary asking for it) as devised in May, and it was run by DNC until Aug 18. After which point, AUFC overtook an existing concept, cleanly, no comm with Clinton necessary.
If I got this right, this is grasping at straws. Nice try, O'Keefe.
[B]Wikileaks tier shit content right here[/B]. Next video might be about Hillary telling Creamer that she likes her coffees no milk and little sugar.[/QUOTE]
How are heavily edited videos by a scam artist in any way comparable to word-for-word unaltered leaks of correspondence from within the campaign and DNC?
[QUOTE=Tudd;51254067]But now the debate is if that invalidates the videos completely.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't even bother watching this one. If he has something valid to say, he'll prove it by releasing the unedited tapes (but he won't, he said so) and those will be examined and vetted by others who don't have a reputation for being a confirmed fraud.
Especially since we know he's been paid by Trump. That decapitates any credibility that might've managed to crawl from the smoking wreckage of O'Keefe's reputation.
I mean, maybe the Democratic side of the election has been up to even more shit than is known, okay, it's a possibility. But there is a reason that it's important to consider the source. For example, Adolf Hitler banned fox hunting, believing it to be immoral, and he also banned smoking in public as tobacco was detrimental to the health (of the German people) -- but I don't think anyone upheld Hitler as a shining example of past precedent in the contemporary efforts to pass public smoking bans in various European nations and the UK's recent ban on fox hunting. There's just a little bit of a stigma attached to anything ol' Adolf said, even if we now coincidentally agree with and enact some of his lesser-known policies.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51254264]I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't even bother watching this one. If he has something valid to say, he'll prove it by releasing the unedited tapes (but he won't, he said so) and those will be examined and vetted by others who don't have a reputation for being a confirmed fraud.
Especially since we know he's been paid by Trump. That decapitates any credibility that might've managed to crawl from the smoking wreckage of O'Keefe's reputation.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, you probably should atleast give the intro highlight thing a look. It's pretty funny with the duck thing.
But yeah, it is more than the last two videos of concrete evidence of collusion between the Super PAC, DNC, and Clinton unless what Treb says is true. You got Robert Creamer literally saying they chose to do a certain political activism using DNC funds for his firm because Clinton demanded it.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51254488]To be fair, you probably should atleast give the intro highlight thing a look. It's pretty funny with the duck thing.
But yeah, it is more than the last two videos of concrete evidence of collusion between the Super PAC, DNC, and Clinton [B]unless what Treb says is true.[/B] You got Robert Creamer literally saying they chose to do a certain political activism using DNC funds for his firm because Clinton demanded it.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that what Treb said is this guy's M.O., stitching together footage that, by itself, is not faked, but framed in misleading context that never existed. I [I]assume[/I] it to be the case here before I've even watched a single frame.
If this really happened at a time when cooperation between Hillary's campaign and the DNC/any PACs would be unethical or outright illegal, O'Keefe has a duty to his nation to release the unedited tapes. This would be a near-Watergate level event if true. The unedited footage should reveal enough context to place the footage in time, and that will be the evidence needed to condemn Hillary/the DNC or it will destroy O'Keefe's claims by revealing the lie.
If he doesn't provide the original recordings, what's more probable, that he wants to shield(!) Hillary from the damning evidence that... he personally gathered and revealed... to damage her campaign... OR he's full of shit? Until O'Keefe releases the unedited tapes he can drink paint thinner for all I care.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51254306]
Wikileaks is better than O'Keefe, I'll give that to you. They hit a few targets when they nuke the entire arena. Mysteriously missing Trump.[/QUOTE]
If you can give them stuff on Trump they would publish it. Unless you can prove otherwise
[QUOTE=Sally;51254511]If you can give them stuff on Trump they would publish it. Unless you can prove otherwise[/QUOTE]
He gave two interviews on Fox (Fox and Friends, Megyn Kelly) and said that he has material on Trump but won't release it because he feels it's not more controversial than what comes from Trump's campaign. Which is a horseshit reason. The vast majority of the DNC and Podesta emails have been entirely inconsquential and benign but that didn't stop them from being dropped, and there is no reason why an organization like Wikileaks should make the decision on the publics part about what is and isn't "controversial" enough to know.
The reality is that Assange has a personal grudge with Clinton and releasing information on Trump could hurt his campaign.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51254544]He gave two interviews on Fox (Fox and Friends, Megyn Kelly) and said that he has material on Trump but won't release it because he feels it's not more controversial than what comes from Trump's campaign. Which is a horseshit reason. The vast majority of the DNC and Podesta emails have been entirely inconsquential and benign but that didn't stop them from being dropped, and there is no reason why an organization like Wikileaks should make the decision on the publics part about what is and isn't "controversial" enough to know.
The reality is that Assange has a personal grudge with Clinton and releasing information on Trump could hurt his campaign.[/QUOTE]
And some of the stuff they release have been altered. Of course Wikileaks knows this. I wonder what the Russians promised to make Wikileaks sink this low.
[url]http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/26/1552616/-Russian-Hackers-Altered-Emails-Before-Release-to-Wikileaks[/url]
[url]http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/22/turns-out-you-cant-trust-russian-hackers-anymore/[/url]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npYAqkObLqU[/media]
james o'keef is a propagandist slime
he isn't even attempting to protect the legitimacy of his bullshit. He's just trying to sling as much shit as possible before he gets caught.
I just read the same thing - recommended
[QUOTE=Swebonny;51254975]And some of the stuff they release have been altered. Of course Wikileaks knows this. I wonder what the Russians promised to make Wikileaks sink this low.
[url]http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/26/1552616/-Russian-Hackers-Altered-Emails-Before-Release-to-Wikileaks[/url]
[url]http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/22/turns-out-you-cant-trust-russian-hackers-anymore/[/url][/QUOTE]
Your first link's only evidence of files being tampered with is literally a single spreadsheet called donors.xls that was created by the hackers from an existing list, and is followed by the author's disclaimer, "although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with". The second link has nothing to do with WikiLeaks and is related to the Soros leaks that happened a few months ago, which as far as I'm aware WikiLeaks never even republished.
While the footage of these videos are edited to fit a narrative one cannot ignore that the people in these videos are doing some shady shit and THEY ARE ON VIDEO FOOTAGE SAYING IT
[QUOTE=_Chewgum;51255190]While the footage of these videos are edited to fit a narrative one cannot ignore that the people in these videos are doing some shady shit and THEY ARE ON VIDEO FOOTAGE SAYING IT[/QUOTE]
it's fucking hilarious how people are avoiding the fact.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51255314]it's fucking hilarious how people are avoiding the fact.[/QUOTE]
Because what happened last time people took everything that this guys videos pointed out for fact? ACORN happened.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51255314]it's fucking hilarious how people are avoiding the fact.[/QUOTE]
No, we've dealt with it openly.
Context is king and OKeefe cuts these out of context so you can't know if it was a hypothetical answer or a sarcastic one or what.
But please, ignore history more.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51255045]y:
[url]https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/heres-what-i-learned-about-julian-assange?utm_term=.diA3Z7YDaM#.in8lpzqD4m[/url][/QUOTE]
Seriously?
You are going to criticize people for watching this video and have legit questions about recorded video statements because of the potential of edited narrative.
But then post a Buzzfeed article that creates an equally speculative narrative and just be like, "good read."
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51257007]"Buzzfeed is shit lmao" meme is becoming too much now.
This is Buzzfeed NEWS, writer is James Ball, who writes for Buzzfeed News as well as the Guardian. Also, he worked for Assange.
Do you have anything to say about the writer? I am sure you have not. But the brand is Buzzfeed and they curate clickbait content in their main website so it must be wrong, right?[/QUOTE]
Hey it's not even bad content wise for Buzzfeed, still completely speculative and hearsay tho, it's just that you are still hilariously hypocritical not to see how this might be similar.
Hell, atleast the Project Veritas video is a narrative with video evidence to examine. That piece could just be a disgruntled ex-employee.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51255746]Seriously?
You are going to criticize people for watching this video and have legit questions about recorded video statements because of the potential of edited narrative.
But then post a Buzzfeed article that creates an equally speculative narrative and just be like, "good read."[/QUOTE]
The key difference between the two is that James Ball hasn't been proven to be a liar and a fraud as O'Keefe has, twice. You should take the article at face value; it's one person's story about working with and around Assange at Wikileaks and getting to know him. It could be total horseshit, it could be lightly embellished truth, it could be absolute fact, and I don't blame you for not taking one man's word to heart. But you absolutely cannot compare his article to the Project Veritas videos or anything O'Keefe spawns.
[editline]25th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tudd;51258589]Hey it's not even bad content wise for Buzzfeed, still completely speculative and hearsay tho, it's just that you are still hilariously hypocritical not to see how this might be similar.
Hell, atleast the Project Veritas video is a narrative with video evidence to examine. That piece could just be a disgruntled ex-employee.[/QUOTE]
A narrative that could be carefully constructed with clever editing as his previous videos were. Reading the Buzzfeed article doesn't give me the slightest impression that Ball is a "disgruntled ex-employee", especially considering he is the projects editor for the Guardian, a prestigious British newspaper that who's journalistic integrity and success are way above anything Assange or Wikileaks can aspire to, especially after this election.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51259219]The key difference between the two is that James Ball hasn't been proven to be a liar and a fraud as O'Keefe has, twice. You should take the article at face value; it's one person's story about working with and around Assange at Wikileaks and getting to know him. It could be total horseshit, it could be lightly embellished truth, it could be absolute fact, and I don't blame you for not taking one man's word to heart. But you absolutely cannot compare his article to the Project Veritas videos or anything O'Keefe spawns.[/QUOTE]
Just come on with this shit, they are both speculative and that is the point.
And yes you can easily compare the two and see how they both are painting a narrative.
I mean atleast it wasn't O'Keefe who told Foval and Bob Creamer say those statements. You guys are arguing if the context and edits are misleading, and is a completely valid point, but the statements are video recorded evidence of people who were fired because of it, and thus have more credence than some guy's news blog on Buzzfeed.
So yah, it is hypocritical as shit and one has to bend over backwards to somehow make it not.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51259237]No but Facepunch doesn't like O'Keefe so everything is automatically false.[/QUOTE]
Facepunch generally doesn't like hack frauds who lie to our faces and get innocent people hemmed up with the law and government programs that did good work for their communities shut down.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51259237]Not even the long ass parts where Creamer just admits that Clinton wants ducks so the super PACs arrange for ducks. Which is collusion. And illegal.
Law doesn't matter as long as Trump doesn't get elected.[/QUOTE]
Good luck proving that considering your champion of journalism refuses to hand over any actual evidence of legal wrongdoing :^)
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51259237]I take nothing at face value.[/QUOTE]
Except someone who has lied to your face twice. But hey, you like what he is selling this time, why not let him take you for a ride.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51259237]No but Facepunch doesn't like O'Keefe so everything is automatically false. Not even the long ass parts where Creamer just admits that Clinton wants ducks so the super PACs arrange for ducks. Which is collusion. And illegal.
Law doesn't matter as long as Trump doesn't get elected.
[/QUOTE]
Ah fudge, you are right on that point at the end of the day.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51259307]Just come on with this shit, they are both speculative and that is the point.
And yes you can easily compare the two and see how they both are painting a narrative.
I mean atleast it wasn't O'Keefe who told Foval and Bob Creamer say those statements. You guys are arguing if the context and edits are misleading, and is a completely valid point, but the statements are video recorded evidence of people who were fired because of it, and thus have more credence than some guy's news blog on Buzzfeed.
So yah, it is hypocritical as shit and one has to bend over backwards to somehow make it not.[/QUOTE]
The state elections guy in O'Keefes first video was asked to resign by numerous officials up to and including the Mayor of New York City when he did absolutely nothing wrong other than ranting about voter fraud that doesn't happen. Because one person was fired and another person resigned voluntarily does not constitute evidence of actual wrong doing. The fact that the controversy exists is enough for political groups to cut people like that loose and it absolutely does not lend O'Keefes narrative any more credence than the videos themselves provide. That they are both painting a narrative doesn't make them comparable when one of them is clearly, [I]objectively [/I]far less trustworthy than the other.
You "just come on with this shit" and stop letting yourself get played because he is on your side politically. It's pathetic.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51259362]Like sending people to agitate other people at political rallies in order to [URL="https://assets.dnainfo.com/generated/chicago_photo/2016/03/trump-chicago-protest-1458163017.jpg/extralarge.jpg"]incite violence[/URL].
I agree O'Keefe should release full tapes. But be honest, you still wouldn't believe it.[/QUOTE]
Without context your zinger is completely lost on me.
And no, I wouldn't believe it until experts in the field of film and audio editing confirm that nothing shady is going on. I think that's fair.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51259237]No but Facepunch doesn't like O'Keefe so everything is automatically false.[/QUOTE]
What part of "release the full tapes or it doesn't count as evidence" means "EVERYTHING IS A LIIIIIEEEEEEEE!!!" to you? Actually read the thread before responding next time.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51259307]I mean atleast it wasn't O'Keefe who told Foval and Bob Creamer say those statements. You guys are arguing if the context and edits are misleading, and is a completely valid point, but the statements are video recorded evidence of people who were fired because of it, and thus have more credence than some guy's news blog on Buzzfeed.[/QUOTE]
Being fired isn't a damning sign of guilt.
When I worked for the call center in town it was written into my employment contract that if I was arrested for any reason and that information was published, I could expect to be fired on the spot as the company covered their ass and distanced themselves from even the [I]appearance[/I] of wrongdoing. Never mind if I wasn't charged with anything, if cuffs went on my wrist and work heard about it my job was forfeit.
It'd be pretty fucking astounding if a little shitshop of a call center in a Canadian town had higher standards for brand protection than people involved in the Democratic race for the US presidency. CYA firings happen all the time, whether or not the person is actually guilty.
I haven't even watched the video because, as I stated, O'Keefe's words are absolutely worthless to me. He has no credibility at all with me. If the Democratic party has committed illegal acts they should be held accountable, but until O'Keefe releases the unedited tapes to an unbiased party, or at least one without a documented history of fraud, it's worthless. It's fruit of the poisoned tree and it is below my consideration.
When the raw footage comes out, then we can have an actual discussion about what these statements really meant in the mind of their speaker. If the raw footage proves that the Hillary campaign has been up to illegal collusion, that's the time to charge them and begin the proper justice process. If O'Keefe won't release the raw footage when he has the opportunity to cripple Hillary's momentum with it, it can be assumed to not be worth the bandwidth.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51259362]I agree O'Keefe should release full tapes. But be honest, you still wouldn't believe it.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I see how it is, you've already decided how we'll react. Well, then, you can stop posting since you've already seen the future and can sit back in smug satisfaction, knowing exactly how this 12D Chinese checkers game plays out.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51259307]
So yah, it is hypocritical as shit and one has to bend over backwards to somehow make it not.[/QUOTE]
You know what's actually hypocritical as shit? Denouncing regular journalists who have no apparent history of lying or misleading to create false narratives as "rigged" or "liberal" or "leftist" or "biased" and discounting their facts and opinions based entirely on the fact that they simply oppose your boy Trump then turning around and giving O'Keefe, who has been busted twice for creating fraudulent videos and once for attempting to break into an office, someone who by simple observation is a pathological, serial liar, all the benefit of the doubt in the world.
[editline]25th October 2016[/editline]
More hypocrisy, if you want to talk about Trump; the guy who accuses every media outlet being against him of libel and slander and wants to make sue news outlets for the crime of being critical about him and his campaign but then gives $10,000 to disgraced "guerilla journalist" James O'Keefe.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51259399]
I haven't even watched the video because, as I stated, O'Keefe's words are absolutely worthless to me. He has no credibility at all with me. If the Democratic party has committed illegal acts they should be held accountable, but until O'Keefe releases the unedited tapes to an unbiased party, or at least one without a documented history of fraud, it's worthless. It's fruit of the poisoned tree and it is below my consideration.
When the raw footage comes out, then we can have an actual discussion about what these statements really meant in the mind of their speaker. If the raw footage proves that the Hillary campaign has been up to illegal collusion, that's the time to charge them and begin the proper justice process. If O'Keefe won't release the raw footage when he has the opportunity to cripple Hillary's momentum with it, it can be assumed to not be worth the bandwidth.
[/QUOTE]
Look I get you are not going to watch the video.
But when Rob Creamer says, "In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground. Don't repeat that to anybody." There is no edit/jump cuts.
It is one statement you can look at and then his position to know it points at collusion that would be illegal.
So unless there is some audio/visual manipulation to somehow to account for, you still have these statements.
[editline]25th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51259412]You know what's actually hypocritical as shit? Denouncing regular journalists who have no apparent history of lying or misleading to create false narratives as "rigged" or "liberal" or "leftist" or "biased" and discounting their facts and opinions based entirely on the fact that they simply oppose your boy Trump then turning around and giving O'Keefe, who has been busted twice for creating fraudulent videos and once for attempting to break into an office, someone who by simple observation is a pathological, serial liar, all the benefit of the doubt in the world.
[editline]25th October 2016[/editline]
More hypocrisy, if you want to talk about Trump; the guy who accuses every media outlet being against him of libel and slander and wants to make sue news outlets for the crime of being critical about him and his campaign but then gives $10,000 to disgraced "guerilla journalist" James O'Keefe.[/QUOTE]
I didn't discount what James Ball said at all actually, just mentioned how easily he could be also some dude who simply doesn't like Assange anymore, but I am pointing out how hypocritical yall are ready to post speculative articles or defend them while denouncing others even though you probably have even less actual evidence.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.