BREAKING: O'Keefe Video #3

originally posted by: introvert
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.

Clinton would not need to give the order to execute the activity. The communication on it's own is illegal. Creamer has admitted it. I do not disagree, however, that the full tape (unedited) should be released. I am sure it would be as part of an investigation into the violation of FEC rules that Creamer admitted to and worriedly asked not to be repeated.

Jumping Jesus.

So, if anyone says anything about anybody that is proof that the other party is guilty?

This is absurd.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Jumping Jesus.

So, if anyone says anything about anybody that is proof that the other party is guilty?

This is absurd.

No, in this case it should be investigated given Creamer's role and his direct ties to the people he is unwittingly accusing.
So this is not 'anything' or 'anybody'. It is a claim of an FEC violation and an individual with the means, motives, and connections.

originally posted by: UKTruth

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?

If she said it herself then yes and didn't have any explanation, then yes.

You want an investigation based on hearsay in an edited-video, I'm sure this won't be investigated as the people who released the video don't want that. They want to just stir the pot and get those easily triggered like yourself to get outraged.

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

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?

If she said it herself then yes and didn't have any explanation, then yes.

You want an investigation based on hearsay in an edited-video, I'm sure this won't be investigated as the people who released the video don't want that. They want to just stir the pot and get those easily triggered like yourself to get outraged.

There have already been complaints filed with the FEC, so hopefully there will be an investigation to satisfy the need of the 'easily triggered' people who watched a long time democratic operative with close ties to Clinton admit on video that he was coordinating with her in violation of FEC rules.

a reply to: UKTruth

Why should anyone or anything be investigated based on hacked up videos?

There has been no claim as yet. When there is (and as I and others have said, it would be welcomed) we will see yet another instance of a con-job by young Jimmy O'Keefe.

Your "certainty" of the connections and legal validity are your opinion which might be slightly colored by political bias.

If there is an investigation, I'm sure many truths would come to light. And, I for one would welcome it, although I hate to see another waste of the People's money based on nothing more than the equivalent of tabloidism.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Why should anyone or anything be investigated based on hacked up videos?

There has been no claim as yet. When there is (and as I and others have said, it would be welcomed) we will see yet another instance of a con-job by young Jimmy O'Keefe.

Your "certainty" of the connections and legal validity are your opinion which might be slightly colored by political bias.

If there is an investigation, I'm sure many truths would come to light. And, I for one would welcome it, although I hate to see another waste of the People's money based on nothing more than the equivalent of tabloidism.

The claim came from Creamer himself and complaints have now been filed with the FEC.
Your view of a 'con-job' are your opinion, which I am sure might also be coloured by political bias.

My 'opinion' is that Clinton is guilty and was coordinating in breach of FEC rules, but that is quite apart from saying that an investigation should be carried out to establish the veracity of what Creamer said he was doing.

a reply to: UKTruth

Clinton would not need to give the order to execute the activity.

Herself or someone within the campaign would have to of had been part of the activity in order to implicate the campaign in any wrongdoing.

Creamer has admitted it.

OK. Do you believe that "admission" would stand up as evidence in an FEC investigation? They would have to have evidence of that communication taking place. Hearsay is garbage.

I do not disagree, however, that the full tape (unedited) should be released. I am sure it would be as part of an investigation into the violation of FEC rules that Creamer admitted to and worriedly asked not to be repeated.

Similar to how that entire Planned Parenthood fiasco turned out?

a reply to: introvert

Well the fact a convicted felon had 342 visits to the white house tells me they worked together just a little with the white house knowing he was a felon.


But yeah...he probably cleaned up his act...

a reply to: UKTruth

The claim came from Creamer himself and complaints have now been filed with the FEC

In a highly-edited video that came from a known hoaxer.

My 'opinion' is that Clinton is guilty and was coordinating in breach of FEC rules

That's a pretty big leap in logic considering the evidence, or lack thereof. Confirmation bias is a terrible thing.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: introvert

Well the fact a convicted felon had 342 visits to the white house tells me they worked together just a little with the white house knowing he was a felon.


But yeah...he probably cleaned up his act...

Worked together to do what?

Creamer would be dead before he ever was due to testify.

AOH tend to be suicidal, shooting themselves in the back and what not.

AOH stands for 'Acquaintances of Hillary'.

From what I read in the Podesta emails.... she doesn't have any friends.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

The claim came from Creamer himself and complaints have now been filed with the FEC

In a highly-edited video that came from a known hoaxer.

My 'opinion' is that Clinton is guilty and was coordinating in breach of FEC rules

That's a pretty big leap in logic considering the evidence, or lack thereof. Confirmation bias is a terrible thing.

His words were not edited. Describe the context you think might change what he was saying.

Believing a person so connected to the DNC, when they think they are speaking off the record, is not much of a leap of faith.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: introvert

Well the fact a convicted felon had 342 visits to the white house tells me they worked together just a little with the white house knowing he was a felon.


But yeah...he probably cleaned up his act...

Worked together to do what?

What do you think his 342 visits were about? Social stuff like yoga, weddings, golf and grand children?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

The claim came from Creamer himself and complaints have now been filed with the FEC

In a highly-edited video that came from a known hoaxer.

My 'opinion' is that Clinton is guilty and was coordinating in breach of FEC rules

That's a pretty big leap in logic considering the evidence, or lack thereof. Confirmation bias is a terrible thing.

His words were not edited. Describe the context you think might change what he was saying.

Believing a person so connected to the DNC, when they think they are speaking off the record, is not much of a leap of faith.

How do you know they weren't edited?

Until the unedited video is released there can be no real reason to investigate.

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

The claim came from Creamer himself and complaints have now been filed with the FEC

In a highly-edited video that came from a known hoaxer.

My 'opinion' is that Clinton is guilty and was coordinating in breach of FEC rules

That's a pretty big leap in logic considering the evidence, or lack thereof. Confirmation bias is a terrible thing.

His words were not edited. Describe the context you think might change what he was saying.

Believing a person so connected to the DNC, when they think they are speaking off the record, is not much of a leap of faith.

How do you know they weren't edited?

Until the unedited video is released there can be no real reason to investigate.

His words were not edited. It's very easy to spot if someone has clipped words from different sentences and strung them together. The only question is what else he said in the interaction that has been edited out that might provide a different context. I'd be interested to hear some thoughts on what that different context might be.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

The claim came from Creamer himself and complaints have now been filed with the FEC

In a highly-edited video that came from a known hoaxer.

My 'opinion' is that Clinton is guilty and was coordinating in breach of FEC rules

That's a pretty big leap in logic considering the evidence, or lack thereof. Confirmation bias is a terrible thing.

His words were not edited. Describe the context you think might change what he was saying.

Believing a person so connected to the DNC, when they think they are speaking off the record, is not much of a leap of faith.

How do you know they weren't edited?

Until the unedited video is released there can be no real reason to investigate.

His words were not edited. It's very easy to spot if someone has clipped words from different sentences and strung them together. The only question is what else he said in the interaction that has been edited out that might provide a different context. I'd be interested to hear some thoughts on what that different context might be.

Of course it is, if you say so then it must be true.

All this over Donald Duck'in His Taxes, such a mighty scandal to bring down Hillary .

11 pages only, even the die-hards are not interested in this leak.

Well lookie here Dirty Democrat Tricksters Exposed By James O’Keefe May Be Tied To . . . Donald Trump’s Campaign

So this third video is just Trump trying to incite violence to get attention?

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

The claim came from Creamer himself and complaints have now been filed with the FEC

In a highly-edited video that came from a known hoaxer.

My 'opinion' is that Clinton is guilty and was coordinating in breach of FEC rules

That's a pretty big leap in logic considering the evidence, or lack thereof. Confirmation bias is a terrible thing.

His words were not edited. Describe the context you think might change what he was saying.

Believing a person so connected to the DNC, when they think they are speaking off the record, is not much of a leap of faith.

How do you know they weren't edited?

Until the unedited video is released there can be no real reason to investigate.

His words were not edited. It's very easy to spot if someone has clipped words from different sentences and strung them together. The only question is what else he said in the interaction that has been edited out that might provide a different context. I'd be interested to hear some thoughts on what that different context might be.

Of course it is, if you say so then it must be true.

All this over Donald Duck'in His Taxes, such a mighty scandal to bring down Hillary

.

11 pages only, even the die-hards are not interested in this leak.

In just one day Video 3 has been viewed 1.1m times.
So far nearly 10m views across the 3 videos. I can only hope they are, as you say, all die hards.