BREAKING: O'Keefe Video #3

originally posted by: introvert

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.

This is true and is why an investigation is warranted, IMO, and why I too would like to see the full unedited video.

a reply to: UKTruth

You've stated several times that there have been filings with the FEC regarding this ... stuff.

Do you have a source for that?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?

He doesn't seem to be under duress, especially when he tell the undercover "don't repeat that". He seems to be happily telling his story of how the ducks came to fruition...bragging that it was some amazing plan. Not only once, but again in the meeting with his other staff members.

As far as HRC...I don't like her at all. The corruption from the Clinton's family has been going on for years. Her husband has been proven a liar in court. There are too many issues with her political past and too many coincidences with connections to ignore. The emails with talk from her own campaign about covering things up with the server issue, the lies told by Brazile about passing questions...all things that for some reason are not being asked about directly to Clinton.

The fall out from all of this in the next couple months should paint the picture well....

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

You've stated several times that there have been filings with the FEC regarding this ... stuff.

Do you have a source for that?

Yes, complaints have been filed with the FEC, and yes I do have the written complaint referencing the specific violations.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

You've stated several times that there have been filings with the FEC regarding this ... stuff.

Do you have a source for that?

Yes, complaints have been filed with the FEC.

Do you have a source for that statement?

originally posted by: introvert

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.

Nope...just asking for something other than your argument that the context isn't known.

Either way...I understand why you can't give a narrative at all....there isn't another one to give.

a reply to: introvert

so by your logic if you videotaped me confessing to a murder and telling you what weapon i used and this was actually a person that had been murdered and you showed my confession to someone would they need to see the small talk I made before finally telling you i killed someone and how i did it? would any small talk before i made my confession change or alter it? as far as o'keefe is concerned people who make mistakes can go on to do things in their life just like bob crammer he was a convicted felon and yet he was able to meet with the president at least 40 times. Wonder why the president didn't refuse to meet with him? I mean once a criminal always a criminal right? We can never trust anyone who has screwed up in the past because they are destined to lie the rest of their life right?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

"Doesn't seem to be under duress" ... because you're telepathic? I don't mean that as snarky as it sounds ... you're going off knowledge neither you nor I have.

Keyword: bragging.

So, it wasn't unfair to classify you as a Clinton-hater who buys into the right-wing constellation of anti-Clinton allegations/conspiracies.

There won't be any fallout. This will go to the wayside with the rest of O'Keefe's nonsense, pulled out time and time again by those on the right who put stock in known fraudsters as long as it's anti-Clinton.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

you're right, gryph.....the bar has been set so low that this guy is now an "investigative reporter"....who's next?...David Duke to be the spokesman for Trump's housing and urban renewal plan?.....

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

You've stated several times that there have been filings with the FEC regarding this ... stuff.

Do you have a source for that?

Yes, complaints have been filed with the FEC.

Do you have a source for that statement?

publicinterestlegal.org...

You can find more on their site.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

You've stated several times that there have been filings with the FEC regarding this ... stuff.

Do you have a source for that?

Yes, complaints have been filed with the FEC.

Do you have a source for that statement?

I do...here's the link and if you click on "complaint" in the article you can view the actual filing...enjoy!

FEC Complaint

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

you're right, gryph.....the bar has been set so low that this guy is now an "investigative reporter"....who's next?...David Duke to be the spokesman for Trump's housing and urban renewal plan?.....

Maybe we'll sink as low as Jake Tapper, or Wolf Blitzer... or maybe even sink to the depths of Rachael Maddow!

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

you're right, gryph.....the bar has been set so low that this guy is now an "investigative reporter"....who's next?...David Duke to be the spokesman for Trump's housing and urban renewal plan?.....

Well, here's the thing. I know that Hillary Clinton is a professional politician. That means I have no delusions about her "goodness" or her "honesty" or her "humanitarianism." She's a successful shark in a shark tank for almost 30 years.

Given that, and a pompous windbag who seems more unstable by the day ... I'll choose experience over bluster.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

you're right, gryph.....the bar has been set so low that this guy is now an "investigative reporter"....who's next?...David Duke to be the spokesman for Trump's housing and urban renewal plan?.....

Maybe we'll sink as low as Jake Tapper, or Wolf Blitzer... or maybe even sink to the depths of Rachael Maddow!

Still damning sources, Mr. Teapot?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

"Doesn't seem to be under duress" ... because you're telepathic? I don't mean that as snarky as it sounds ... you're going off knowledge neither you nor I have.

Keyword: bragging.

So, it wasn't unfair to classify you as a Clinton-hater who buys into the right-wing constellation of anti-Clinton allegations/conspiracies.

There won't be any fallout. This will go to the wayside with the rest of O'Keefe's nonsense, pulled out time and time again by those on the right who put stock in known fraudsters as long as it's anti-Clinton.

Got it...so don't research anything, only listen to CNN and put my head in the sand.

Looking forward to O'Keefe releasing the entire footage...he has already said he will and filed a complaint with the FEC....not really a bluff move methinks....

a reply to: UKTruth

Thank you kindly.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Thank you kindly.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

you're right, gryph.....the bar has been set so low that this guy is now an "investigative reporter"....who's next?...David Duke to be the spokesman for Trump's housing and urban renewal plan?.....

Maybe we'll sink as low as Jake Tapper, or Wolf Blitzer... or maybe even sink to the depths of Rachael Maddow!

Still damning sources, Mr. Teapot?

I've not seen any video evidence from them... if they come up with something real, I'd actually listen to them. So far though, they've come up with nothing. To be fair, though, they are more PR spokespeople for Hillary so not really investigative journalists.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I encourage research into the facts of all matters that interest you.

I wouldn't trust CNN for much ... it's corporate media.

When did O'Keefe reverse his stance on release of "the full footage"?

originally posted by: keenmachine
a reply to: introvert

so by your logic if you videotaped me confessing to a murder and telling you what weapon i used and this was actually a person that had been murdered and you showed my confession to someone would they need to see the small talk I made before finally telling you i killed someone and how i did it?

So if you were to murder someone, how would you do it?

If there was voter fraud happening how do you think it would be done?

There are dozens of preludes that can prompt someone to offer you juicy out of context clips once the proper editing is done.

And this is precisely what O'Keefe has been proven to have done in the past.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

you're right, gryph.....the bar has been set so low that this guy is now an "investigative reporter"....who's next?...David Duke to be the spokesman for Trump's housing and urban renewal plan?.....

Maybe we'll sink as low as Jake Tapper, or Wolf Blitzer... or maybe even sink to the depths of Rachael Maddow!

Still damning sources, Mr. Teapot?

I've not seen any video evidence from them... if they come up with something real, I'd actually listen to them. So far though, they've come up with nothing.

Right. As I said. Still damning sources.