BREAKING: O'Keefe Video #3

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

The National Enquirer was right about John Edwards affair and Tiger Woods affair. That's why it is utterly stupid to dismiss things without first refuting the arguments.

The exception that proves the rule.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

The National Enquirer was right about John Edwards affair and Tiger Woods affair. That's why it is utterly stupid to dismiss things without first refuting the arguments.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

I find a lot of activity around here "stupid" LesMis. Making statements about a fraudulent product from a fraudulent source is not "stupid."

Let's remember, however, that you're defending the use of the Enquirer as a source ... that's quite telling.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

Breitbart have already covered it.
There is no law against a media outlet coordinating with an activist.

Hmmm...When Briebarts Chief Editor is working for Trump...and Briebart covertly worked closely with man disrupting the primaries and even gave him suggestions?

That man shows up on the Proj. Veritas videos claiming to work for the DNC and being responsible for the violent protests at the Chicago Trump event?...and despite him claiming on the video he works for the DNC...He appears nowhere on their publicly disclosed payrolls?

Is that helmet on your avatar impenetrable to all logic and unpalatable reality?

Except Bannon was not working for Trump when the Rubio robot stuff came out.
Source yourself some video evidence of Bannon saying he was working with Trump to coordinate the Rubio Robot efforts. There is no comparison, but I admit it is a clever effort by Hillary's key campaign arm, Politico, to deflect from the FEC violations that Creamer has let out of the bag.

a reply to: Indigo5

A liberal activist and organizer coordinated with reporters from the conservative news site Breitbart during the primaries to cover his disruptions of events for candidates such as Sen. Marco Rubio.

Aaron Black, an associate with Democracy Partners and a former Occupy Wall Street organizer, worked with the pro-Trump site Breitbart, tipping it off about his stunts, exchanging raw video and coordinating coverage, according to a source with direct knowledge of the situation.

Black has resurfaced recently as one of the people featured in undercover video from the Project Veritas group. In the video, he claims to work for the Democratic National Committee. Though he does not appear on their payroll, his bio at Democracy Partners credits him with "working closely with the Democratic National Committee" during the 2012 election cycle. Black in the video says he helped organize protests in Chicago that led to Trump's cancellation of a rally there in March.

According to the source, Black coordinated with Breitbart via email, phone and in person, including when he dressed up as a robot and trolled Marco Rubio’s events. The relationship was described as very friendly. An article subsequently published on Breitbart featured video footage of a physical confrontation between Black and Rubio's New Hampshire campaign chairman.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

There is no other way to take his comment, because you and several others here are blinded by hatred of Hillary Clinton.

The only evidence here is in a fraudulent video from a known fraudster. This is evident to anyone who knows anything about the matter. That is not "opinion" that is a statement of fact based on the statements of the guy who made the videos.

There's nothing here other than something to rile up the far right/alt-right base.

Then please tell me, from a non Clinton hater point of view, what different context you can come up with that explains the words said by Creamer.

You are very quick to deny wrongdoing and place tags on others as Clinton haters, yet have provided no argument against the context at all...here's your chance...GO.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

The National Enquirer was right about John Edwards affair and Tiger Woods affair. That's why it is utterly stupid to dismiss things without first refuting the arguments.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

I find a lot of activity around here "stupid" LesMis. Making statements about a fraudulent product from a fraudulent source is not "stupid."

Let's remember, however, that you're defending the use of the Enquirer as a source ... that's quite telling.

If the National Enquirer had actual undercover video evidence of a claim about Clinton (or Trump or anyone else) from a person very closely connected to them then that would be silly not to take seriously. This is quite different from the nonsense passing as journalism in other sources (similar to the National Enquirer) like Snopes, CNN, Politico et al. Everything they say should be taken for the fiction/comedy that it is, unless there is some hard evidence.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

My opinion is that Hillary did break FEC regulations.

An opinion based on hearsay from a highly-edited video produced by a known hoaxer.

I rest my case.

Based on unedited accusations from a man with the means, motive and connections to give credence to his claim. The case is not yours to rest, or mine. We're offering opinions that at this stage can not be proven to be correct or incorrect. We're not in a court of law, so that's fine.

Since we do not have the unedited footage of this encounter, we cannot put his comments in full context.

a reply to: UKTruth

Right, so essentially, if you trust the source it's okay.

If you don't like it, it's trash.

Got it.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I can't say anything about his comments because they aren't in context. What circumstance was he making them in? Was he under duress of some sort? Was he bragging to impress what he thought was a prospective donor (O'Keefe's usual schtick), etc. etc.

You are right, it is unfair to quantify you generically as a Clinton hater. How do you feel about Hillary Clinton?

O'keefe again?.....how pathetic and sad.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

Breitbart have already covered it.
There is no law against a media outlet coordinating with an activist.

Hmmm...When Briebarts Chief Editor is working for Trump...and Briebart covertly worked closely with man disrupting the primaries and even gave him suggestions?

That man shows up on the Proj. Veritas videos claiming to work for the DNC and being responsible for the violent protests at the Chicago Trump event?...and despite him claiming on the video he works for the DNC...He appears nowhere on their publicly disclosed payrolls?

Is that helmet on your avatar impenetrable to all logic and unpalatable reality?

Except Bannon was not working for Trump when the Rubio robot stuff came out.
Source yourself some video evidence of Bannon saying he was working with Trump to coordinate the Rubio Robot efforts. There is no comparison, but I admit it is a clever effort by Hillary's key campaign arm, Politico, to deflect from the FEC violations that Creamer has let out of the bag.

And see ... there you go again. You're not bandying about your OPINION of anything.

You are making a fallacious statement of fact. So when you get called on doing so again, don't whine that you're only stating your opinion. You aren't.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

My opinion is that Hillary did break FEC regulations.

An opinion based on hearsay from a highly-edited video produced by a known hoaxer.

I rest my case.

Based on unedited accusations from a man with the means, motive and connections to give credence to his claim. The case is not yours to rest, or mine. We're offering opinions that at this stage can not be proven to be correct or incorrect. We're not in a court of law, so that's fine.

Since we do not have the unedited footage of this encounter, we cannot put his comments in full context.

The accusation is unedited. The context might change depending on what else was edited out, but I can't think of anything that would change it, and you said you can't either.

originally posted by: jimmyx
O'keefe again?.....how pathetic and sad.

They never get enough of the fraudsters, do they?

I guess they gave up on the Kangaroo Court in the Congress to do anything to "get" Clinton.

So, they'll use these ludicrous hack-jobs as balm for the wounds of a Trump campaign trash-fire.

a reply to: UKTruth

There is no comparison, but I admit it is a clever effort by Hillary's key campaign arm, Politico, to deflect from the FEC violations that Creamer has let out of the bag.

There you go, speaking in absolutes again.

a reply to: SudoNim

It's still perfectly accurate--just because a video is "heavily edited" doesn't mean that the statements being shown in the video are necessarily out-of-context or irrelevant.

That's the type of thing that an investigation determines, hence my point.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

My opinion is that Hillary did break FEC regulations.

An opinion based on hearsay from a highly-edited video produced by a known hoaxer.

I rest my case.

Based on unedited accusations from a man with the means, motive and connections to give credence to his claim. The case is not yours to rest, or mine. We're offering opinions that at this stage can not be proven to be correct or incorrect. We're not in a court of law, so that's fine.

Since we do not have the unedited footage of this encounter, we cannot put his comments in full context.

Ok...so let's just take his comments at face value. The actual comments themselves were not edited in any way....video and audio are continuous during his comments.

Please provide the narrative, from your perspective, as to how these comments are made in a different context.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

My opinion is that Hillary did break FEC regulations.

An opinion based on hearsay from a highly-edited video produced by a known hoaxer.

I rest my case.

Based on unedited accusations from a man with the means, motive and connections to give credence to his claim. The case is not yours to rest, or mine. We're offering opinions that at this stage can not be proven to be correct or incorrect. We're not in a court of law, so that's fine.

Since we do not have the unedited footage of this encounter, we cannot put his comments in full context.

The accusation is unedited. The context might change depending on what else was edited out, but I can't think of anything that would change it, and you said you can't either.

So even you cast doubt on it's context. Just because you can't think of anything, does not mean...anything.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

My opinion is that Hillary did break FEC regulations.

An opinion based on hearsay from a highly-edited video produced by a known hoaxer.

I rest my case.

Based on unedited accusations from a man with the means, motive and connections to give credence to his claim. The case is not yours to rest, or mine. We're offering opinions that at this stage can not be proven to be correct or incorrect. We're not in a court of law, so that's fine.

Since we do not have the unedited footage of this encounter, we cannot put his comments in full context.

Ok...so let's just take his comments at face value. The actual comments themselves were not edited in any way....video and audio are continuous during his comments.

Please provide the narrative, from your perspective, as to how these comments are made in a different context.

You are asking me to project. That's illogical.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: SudoNim

It's still perfectly accurate--just because a video is "heavily edited" doesn't mean that the statements being shown in the video are necessarily out-of-context or irrelevant.

That's the type of thing that an investigation determines, hence my point.

Perhaps the statements of the creator that he has cut together the raw footage in order to tell the story a certain way would point to the statements being used illegitimately?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

Breitbart have already covered it.
There is no law against a media outlet coordinating with an activist.

Hmmm...When Briebarts Chief Editor is working for Trump...and Briebart covertly worked closely with man disrupting the primaries and even gave him suggestions?

That man shows up on the Proj. Veritas videos claiming to work for the DNC and being responsible for the violent protests at the Chicago Trump event?...and despite him claiming on the video he works for the DNC...He appears nowhere on their publicly disclosed payrolls?

Is that helmet on your avatar impenetrable to all logic and unpalatable reality?

Except Bannon was not working for Trump when the Rubio robot stuff came out.
Source yourself some video evidence of Bannon saying he was working with Trump to coordinate the Rubio Robot efforts. There is no comparison, but I admit it is a clever effort by Hillary's key campaign arm, Politico, to deflect from the FEC violations that Creamer has let out of the bag.

And see ... there you go again. You're not bandying about your OPINION of anything.

You are making a fallacious statement of fact. So when you get called on doing so again, don't whine that you're only stating your opinion. You aren't.

No this was not an opinion.
All facts.