It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

BREAKING: O'Keefe Video #3

page: 10
99
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

When you say things such as you have it helps to have a source to back it with...in fact half the posts in this thread...mostly from one side have been sourceless...kinda telling to someone who has no dog in the race and just watches for giggles




posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 02:04 AM
link   
This whole thing is turning into a waste of tax payer dollars. We pay for the grid to run this propaganda and pay for these congressional hearings and now someone needs to be held responsible and pay the middle class tax payer back for all this #. Last time I went to court the loser paid the court fees.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 05:15 AM
link   
The evidence that needs to be explored is video taped admission of coordination with Hillary Clinton and Dona Brazile to manage paid political protests. That is illegal. We have a known associate of the Democratic party (and Obama also) openly admitting it and telling the undercover reporter 'not to tell anyone'.

It's really that simple. Mr Creamer has some explaining to do and I would welcome an investigation, though I doubt the law will apply to Hillary - again.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Gryphon66

When you say things such as you have it helps to have a source to back it with...in fact half the posts in this thread...mostly from one side have been sourceless...kinda telling to someone who has no dog in the race and just watches for giggles


Gee thanks for the tip.

O'Keefe's statement that he won't release the unedited version of his "work" is well known in this discussion and has been referenced in multiple threads on the topic. I myself have linked it several times, however, since you ask so nicely ...

Daily Banter
Media Matters

Time Magazine

James O'Keefe is a known video fraudster. It is my OPINION that if there was a court case on any matter depicted in these absurd videos, that discovery would include the unedited footage, which, as noted, would tell a different story.

Now, any of that could have been easily picked up from the multiple discussion on these fraudulent videos here, from past discussions on O'Keefe's con-jobs, etc. As well, a simple Google search would have shown the same things.

Typically, a "source" is required here to substantiate controversial or questionable statements. The fact that O'Keefe is a fraud is common knowledge EXCEPT among those exhibiting a cult-like denial of reality in these matters.
edit on 25-10-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Format



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
The evidence that needs to be explored is video taped admission of coordination with Hillary Clinton and Dona Brazile to manage paid political protests. That is illegal. We have a known associate of the Democratic party (and Obama also) openly admitting it and telling the undercover reporter 'not to tell anyone'.



Indeed. Without some more concrete evidence, that is mere hearsay.


originally posted by: UKTruth
It's really that simple. Mr Creamer has some explaining to do and I would welcome an investigation, though I doubt the law will apply to Hillary - again.


Thus far, propaganda aside, the laws have applied equally to Clinton. Director Comey made it clear that no one has been tried in 99 years on the basis of the "interpretation" of the law that the Republicans are so anxious for, and that to do so would be a miscarriage of justice.

James Comey is one of the few Republicans that still apparently hold themselves to a standard of decency.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:26 AM
link   
I'm a little late to this party, so can anyone tell me what was found in this last video?

It was supposed to be a "bombshell". What have we learned?



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

"Collusion" between the Clinton Campaign, the DNC and a SuperPac.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

It's sad state of affairs......showing the USA has some kind of bad joke.

I'm fed up with this political issue....can't escape this crap.

So America is the leader of the free world? Freaking joking right?

The American people need to take back their country from these disgusting self serving trash.
It's a joke America...your political system is a joke...your politicians are a joke....stop believing your own BS...wake up....just has bad here!




posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: introvert

"Collusion" between the Clinton Campaign, the DNC and a SuperPac.


What kind of "collusion"?



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth
The evidence that needs to be explored is video taped admission of coordination with Hillary Clinton and Dona Brazile to manage paid political protests. That is illegal. We have a known associate of the Democratic party (and Obama also) openly admitting it and telling the undercover reporter 'not to tell anyone'.



Indeed. Without some more concrete evidence, that is mere hearsay.


originally posted by: UKTruth
It's really that simple. Mr Creamer has some explaining to do and I would welcome an investigation, though I doubt the law will apply to Hillary - again.


Thus far, propaganda aside, the laws have applied equally to Clinton. Director Comey made it clear that no one has been tried in 99 years on the basis of the "interpretation" of the law that the Republicans are so anxious for, and that to do so would be a miscarriage of justice.

James Comey is one of the few Republicans that still apparently hold themselves to a standard of decency.


It's a lot more than hearsay - one of people involved admitted it on video and asked that it not be repeated.
The very same person has been at the Whitehouse 342 times in the last 8 years.
There is enough to warrant an investigation and I would hope the FEC are looking at this.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

It is exactly hearsay. The source being "one of their own people" makes no difference.

Without corroborating evidence from other sources, it's hearsay ... it's simply what the term means UK.

Sure, sure, let's have another investigation. Every one in the last 20 years has turned up exactly squat on Clinton, but sure, let's investigate something else based on the efforts of a known fraudster who admits that he edited the material to alter the story.

It's fine to use the government for overreach as long as it benefits the Republican agenda, right?



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

From the OP:



It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it’s all disguised as "a duck.

In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. “In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground,” says Creamer in one of several exchanges. “So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground.” It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: “Don’t repeat that to anybody.


Yes, you read that correctly.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



It's a lot more than hearsay - one of people involved admitted it on video and asked that it not be repeated.


Admitted what?



The very same person has been at the Whitehouse 342 times in the last 8 years.


Not sure what that has do with anything.



There is enough to warrant an investigation and I would hope the FEC are looking at this.


IF it does warrant an investigation, I welcome it. That would force PV to provide unedited footage; footage they are very set against releasing.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: introvert

From the OP:



It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it’s all disguised as "a duck.

In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. “In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground,” says Creamer in one of several exchanges. “So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground.” It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: “Don’t repeat that to anybody.


Yes, you read that correctly.


So you are right in saying it's just hearsay. I thought more may have come out that expands on the OP. Guess not.

Lot of context we are missing here. We need to see the unedited footage before any claims can be made.
edit on 25-10-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



It's a lot more than hearsay - one of people involved admitted it on video and asked that it not be repeated.


Admitted what?



The very same person has been at the Whitehouse 342 times in the last 8 years.


Not sure what that has do with anything.



There is enough to warrant an investigation and I would hope the FEC are looking at this.


IF it does warrant an investigation, I welcome it. That would force PV to provide unedited footage; footage they are very set against releasing.


He admitted that the idea for the protest came directly from Hillary Clinton. What 'context' are you looking for?
What he said he was doing is illegal, that funds were being appropriated on political activity according to Hillary Clinton's wishes.
No amount of obfuscation changes that fact.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



He admitted that the idea for the protest came directly from Hillary Clinton. What 'context' are you looking for?


And where was that proven to be true? Where is the proof that the order came from Clinton?



What he said he was doing is illegal, that funds were being appropriated on political activity according to Hillary Clinton's wishes. No amount of obfuscation changes that fact.


What fact? Where is the proof of what you claim?



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



He admitted that the idea for the protest came directly from Hillary Clinton. What 'context' are you looking for?


And where was that proven to be true? Where is the proof that the order came from Clinton?



What he said he was doing is illegal, that funds were being appropriated on political activity according to Hillary Clinton's wishes. No amount of obfuscation changes that fact.


What fact? Where is the proof of what you claim?


Creamer said it - on tape....and asked that it not be repeated. This is evidence of wrong doing (and it is indeed a fact that he said it), not proof of wrong doing. An investigation would dig deeper and determine guilt or innocence.

If you walk into a police station and say you shot someone, you are not proven guilty, but an investigation would ensue.

So, let's have the investigation. Complaints have already been registered with the FEC. Let's see what happens.
edit on 25/10/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



It's a lot more than hearsay - one of people involved admitted it on video and asked that it not be repeated.


Admitted what?



The very same person has been at the Whitehouse 342 times in the last 8 years.


Not sure what that has do with anything.



There is enough to warrant an investigation and I would hope the FEC are looking at this.


IF it does warrant an investigation, I welcome it. That would force PV to provide unedited footage; footage they are very set against releasing.


He admitted that the idea for the protest came directly from Hillary Clinton. What 'context' are you looking for?
What he said he was doing is illegal, that funds were being appropriated on political activity according to Hillary Clinton's wishes.
No amount of obfuscation changes that fact.


Trump says he "grabs women by the pussy", what he said he was doing is illegal. Why aren't you calling for an investigation into that?

Why is it suddenly different?
All that hype and all that comes from it is hearsay.

Zero proof whatsoever that Hillary Clinton has done anything illegal. There's your fact.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



It's a lot more than hearsay - one of people involved admitted it on video and asked that it not be repeated.


Admitted what?



The very same person has been at the Whitehouse 342 times in the last 8 years.


Not sure what that has do with anything.



There is enough to warrant an investigation and I would hope the FEC are looking at this.


IF it does warrant an investigation, I welcome it. That would force PV to provide unedited footage; footage they are very set against releasing.


He admitted that the idea for the protest came directly from Hillary Clinton. What 'context' are you looking for?
What he said he was doing is illegal, that funds were being appropriated on political activity according to Hillary Clinton's wishes.
No amount of obfuscation changes that fact.


Trump says he "grabs women by the pussy", what he said he was doing is illegal. Why aren't you calling for an investigation into that?

Why is it suddenly different?
All that hype and all that comes from it is hearsay.

Zero proof whatsoever that Hillary Clinton has done anything illegal. There's your fact.


It is indeed a fact that Trump said that - though not the topic. I am sure an investigation will ensue when the individual cases come to court. There is also the reality that many, including yourself, have presumed him guilty. Id assume, therefore, you'd be happy to dispense with the investigation and call Hillary guilty too?

edit on 25/10/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



Creamer said it - on tape....and asked that it not be repeated. This is evidence of wrong doing (and it is indeed a fact that he said it), not proof of wrong doing.


We have the words (hearsay) of someone in a video that has been highly-edited and does not offer everything in it's natural context. Very flimsy evidence, at best.

Also, he said that Clinton wanted ducks on the ground, but did not say she gave the order to do so.



An investigation would dig deeper and determine guilt or innocence.


An investigation collects and verifies evidence. Judges and juries decide guilt or innocence.



So, let's have the investigation. Complaints have already been registered with the FEC. Let's see what happens.


I think we already know what's going to happen.



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join