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: 12
99
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

No one is claiming that this is a court of law--what these videos should do, though, is show that there is enough evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of all organizations involved, including Clinton herself, to initiate an investigation and obtain evidence that WILL hold up in a court of law.

Dismissing (or, implying that you're dismissing) what is said simply because you do not believe that it will hold up in a court of law is putting an irrational burden on these videos--this is not intended to be judicial evidence, but instead to expose wrongdoing for all to see.

We have to look at it for what it is, not what it isn't.




posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



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


I don't know the entire context. That's the problem.



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.


Still requires belief without proof. That is illogical.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

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?


I don't know.

Do you?



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

That would be perfectly accurate if the video wasn't heavily edited.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: SaturnFX

No one is claiming that this is a court of law--what these videos should do, though, is show that there is enough evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of all organizations involved, including Clinton herself, to initiate an investigation and obtain evidence that WILL hold up in a court of law.

Dismissing (or, implying that you're dismissing) what is said simply because you do not believe that it will hold up in a court of law is putting an irrational burden on these videos--this is not intended to be judicial evidence, but instead to expose wrongdoing for all to see.

We have to look at it for what it is, not what it isn't.



Nicely put. The investigation, if it ever happens, will document further evidence that may or may not progress this to legal avenues.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   

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?


Well....he's a campaign activist, so likely campaigns. But the WH is dodging the question about his visits which puts him squarely on my radar and piques my interest even more.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

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?


I don't know.

Do you?


They were about work, hence working together.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

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?


Well....he's a campaign activist, so likely campaigns. But the WH is dodging the question about his visits which puts him squarely on my radar and piques my interest even more.


Likely, or do you actually know?



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



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


I don't know the entire context. That's the problem.



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.


Still requires belief without proof. That is illogical.


Opinions and belief discussed on an internet forum do not require proof. This is not a court of law, we're allowed to express our opinions given the evidence in front of us.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

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?


I don't know.

Do you?


They were about work, hence working together.


How do you know what the purpose of the visits were?



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



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


I don't know the entire context. That's the problem.



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.


Still requires belief without proof. That is illogical.


Opinions and belief discussed on an internet forum do not require proof. This is not a court of law, we're allowed to express our opinions given the evidence in front of us.


Or lack of evidence, you should say.

I like my opinion to be informed by the known facts. Otherwise, opinions can be merely based on political bias.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

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?


I don't know.

Do you?


They were about work, hence working together.


How do you know what the purpose of the visits were?


Unless all 342 officially logged meetings were about non working issues, then work was discussed, hence they worked together. The purpose of the work is unknown.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



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


I don't know the entire context. That's the problem.



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.


Still requires belief without proof. That is illogical.


Opinions and belief discussed on an internet forum do not require proof. This is not a court of law, we're allowed to express our opinions given the evidence in front of us.


So, state that you're opining, theorizing, speculating, playing with your pet theory that Hillary CLinton is guilty of anything and everything she's accused of ... don't make statements that pretend to factual, evidence-based, assessments of reality.

That'd be a hint.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



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


I don't know the entire context. That's the problem.



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.


Still requires belief without proof. That is illogical.


Opinions and belief discussed on an internet forum do not require proof. This is not a court of law, we're allowed to express our opinions given the evidence in front of us.


Or lack of evidence, you should say.

I like my opinion to be informed by the known facts. Otherwise, opinions can be merely based on political bias.


The evidence is available including Bob Creamer actually telling us on video that Hillary broke FEC regulations. We can interpret differently to form opinion, but evidence is available. I have not seen a single person on this website withold opinions because they don't have all the known facts, including yourself. Nothing wring with that, either in terms of logic, or discussion.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



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


I don't know the entire context. That's the problem.



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.


Still requires belief without proof. That is illogical.


In what context does "Hillary wants ducks on the ground so she gets ducks on the ground" change that statement, knowing that actual Donald Ducks were used for that exact purpose. How does anything you can come up with change the context of Creamer saying it came directly from her and there was conversation of a different campaign but she specifically wanted ducks.

I don't get how you can continually defend this wretch of a human being and her cronies that keep getting outed for their participation in a massive scandal from the top down.

Hell...independent tech analysts (yes more than one) even verified that Brazile outright lied by checking the DKIP email keys and verifying those emails were hers. They even put their money up for anyone that can successfully pass a fake DKIP email key off as authentic.

This entire HRC campaign is just outright corrupt.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

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?


I don't know.

Do you?


They were about work, hence working together.


How do you know what the purpose of the visits were?


Unless all 342 officially logged meetings were about non working issues, then work was discussed, hence they worked together. The purpose of the work is unknown.


You do know that Creamer helped write portions of the ACA, right?

Isn't it more likely her was there for that purpose, or was he and Obama plotting the next round of riots for the DNC?



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

There is no context that will change it, which is why none have been offered. The defence seems to be that he might not have meant it, therefore it can't be true.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



The evidence is available including Bob Creamer actually telling us on video that Hillary broke FEC regulations


Give me the unedited version and I will consider it evidence.



I have not seen a single person on this website withold opinions because they don't have all the known facts, including yourself. Nothing wring with that, either in terms of logic, or discussion.


To speak in absolutes when giving that opinion without all the facts, yes it is illogical.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

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?


I don't know.

Do you?


They were about work, hence working together.


How do you know what the purpose of the visits were?


Unless all 342 officially logged meetings were about non working issues, then work was discussed, hence they worked together. The purpose of the work is unknown.


You do know that Creamer helped write portions of the ACA, right?

Isn't it more likely her was there for that purpose, or was he and Obama plotting the next round of riots for the DNC?


So they were working together then.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



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


I don't know the entire context. That's the problem.



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.


Still requires belief without proof. That is illogical.


Opinions and belief discussed on an internet forum do not require proof. This is not a court of law, we're allowed to express our opinions given the evidence in front of us.


So, state that you're opining, theorizing, speculating, playing with your pet theory that Hillary CLinton is guilty of anything and everything she's accused of ... don't make statements that pretend to factual, evidence-based, assessments of reality.

That'd be a hint.


What needs to take place? A camera in the room with HRC and reamer talking about ducks?

There is no other way to take his comment...she specifically said she wants ducks on the ground so that's what she gets....even after pitching another idea...and low and behold...ducks at Trump campaigns.

I guess the argument could be made that Creamer was lying?



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join