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: 5
99
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Clinton and the DNC are deplorable.

Hopefully these traitors are put behind bars.




posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5



How to put this?...

I had facts.

You have some deflection about a cartoon character.


+3 more 
posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
This video also directly implicates Donna Brazile as head of DNC. She will have to resign now.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SaturnFX




protesting to disrupting levels sucks and is scummy
but is it illegal?


Not sure of the exact law, but I keep hearing that it is illegal to coordinate with SuperPACs.

According to this article, punishment for coordination between candidates and outside groups is rare, but I think this level of coordination, and the methods that were being used, are quite unprecedented.



Unless the candidate is personally at the meetings and personally telling them what to do...it isn't illegal.

Here is a better article on the issue.

It’s bold, but legal: How campaigns and their super PAC backers work together



A close reading of FEC regulations reveals that campaigns can do more than just publicly signal their needs to independent groups, a practice that flourished in the 2014 midterms. Operatives on both sides can talk to one another directly, as long as they do not discuss candidate strategy. According to an FEC rule, an independent group also can confer with a campaign until this fall about “issue ads” featuring a candidate. Some election-law lawyers think that a super PAC could share its entire paid media plan, as long as the candidate’s team does not respond.



This is basically O'Keefe's whole argument...but it's not illegal...and he doesn't even have proof of any collusion. All he has is, "Clinton liked the duck idea".


I think it is hilarious how far O'Keefe is stretching for this.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
This video also directly implicates Donna Brazile as head of DNC. She will have to resign now.


Implicates her in what?

She isn't prohibited from coordinating with Super PACS.


+1 more 
posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

Then why did Wasserman-Schultz resign?



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT




Creamer implicates Hillary in breaking FEC campaign laws by saying it was her idea and that she and her campaign illegally and directly coordinated her plan with a PAC.


It's not illegal, not at all.

This is why you won't see this reported anywhere except by Alex Jones and Hannity...and other fringe conspiracy/anti-Hillary sites.

Unless the Clinton campaign came up with the entire plan and handed it to the PAC...nothing illegal was done. Just because Creamer may have heard Clinton say she likes the idea, doesn't mean a thing.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

Creamer says that the word came from the top (Hillary) about which way to go with the idea.... whether Uncle Sam or Donald Duck.
Hillary can not legally direct the operations of a political action committee.

Meaning that her decision to use Donald Duck was illegal collusion with a PAC.


You have a videographer that literally has been prosecuted before for creating grossly out of context hit-pieces through excessive editing.

Who refuses to release full footage.

And a video that is literally and directly LINKED and FUNDED by Trump (illegal two ways..his foundation and coordinating outside political activity)

At the end of all that..if O'Keefe by some miracle is showing the truth...

Then you have a slap on the wrist for Hillary saying "I like the Duck idea"...

Whilst their are dozens of documented FEC complaints about the Trump Campaign illegally doing the same thing..including funding the Veritas Project!

So..THOSE...are the facts...

This is unproven stuff, from a known fraudulent source and even if true, pales in comparison to the current FEC complaints against Trump.

Good luck with the Donald Duck thing..



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kruphix

Then why did Wasserman-Schultz resign?


It had absolutely nothing to do with PACs and it had nothing to do with anything illegal.

It had to do with the appearance of the DNC chair picking favorites...that isn't something the DNC wants to project.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

"creating grossly out of context hit-pieces through excessive editing"

sounds like msm... if they can do it, why cant he?


+1 more 
posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix



Unless the candidate is personally at the meetings and personally telling them what to do...it isn't illegal.


False.


“This criminal conspiracy involves the knowing and willing creation of coordinated expenditures from prohibited corporate sources,” said the Project Veritas complaint filed by Benjamin Barr, who previously served as counsel to two FEC chairmen.
www.washingtontimes.com...



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
.
edit on 24-10-2016 by burntheships because: dbl post



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: butcherguy

Creamer says that the word came from the top (Hillary) about which way to go with the idea.... whether Uncle Sam or Donald Duck.
Hillary can not legally direct the operations of a political action committee.

Meaning that her decision to use Donald Duck was illegal collusion with a PAC.


You have a videographer that literally has been prosecuted before for creating grossly out of context hit-pieces through excessive editing.

Who refuses to release full footage.



It was a misdemeanor. So if you've ever had a traffic infraction you are as much a criminal as O'keefe.

And are you really willing to sit through hours and hours of footage? Probably not, so get off that lame horse.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: queenofswords

Don't bother. They can't really be that thick. They just pretened to be because right now they think the machine works for them.


I never said anything like that.

Those are YOUR words and YOUR thoughts.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: kruphix



Unless the candidate is personally at the meetings and personally telling them what to do...it isn't illegal.


False.


“This criminal conspiracy involves the knowing and willing creation of coordinated expenditures from prohibited corporate sources,” said the Project Veritas complaint filed by Benjamin Barr, who previously served as counsel to two FEC chairmen.
www.washingtontimes.com...


It's not false and the video isn't showing anything about coordinated expenditures.

Keep reaching though.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: butcherguy

Creamer says that the word came from the top (Hillary) about which way to go with the idea.... whether Uncle Sam or Donald Duck.
Hillary can not legally direct the operations of a political action committee.

Meaning that her decision to use Donald Duck was illegal collusion with a PAC.


You have a videographer that literally has been prosecuted before for creating grossly out of context hit-pieces through excessive editing.

Who refuses to release full footage.



It was a misdemeanor. So if you've ever had a traffic infraction you are as much a criminal as O'keefe.

And are you really willing to sit through hours and hours of footage? Probably not, so get off that lame horse.



The people he sets-up in the video would very much like a chance to "sit through hours of footage"...they have actually demanded it.

O'Keefe has refused to release broader or unedited footage to ANYONE..cuz it doesn't fit his story.

Love a liar if it works you and strokes your world view..

Otherwise, answer why he won't post the undoctored footage anywhere for anyone's perusal.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: butcherguy

Creamer says that the word came from the top (Hillary) about which way to go with the idea.... whether Uncle Sam or Donald Duck.
Hillary can not legally direct the operations of a political action committee.

Meaning that her decision to use Donald Duck was illegal collusion with a PAC.


You have a videographer that literally has been prosecuted before for creating grossly out of context hit-pieces through excessive editing.

Who refuses to release full footage.



It was a misdemeanor. So if you've ever had a traffic infraction you are as much a criminal as O'keefe.

And are you really willing to sit through hours and hours of footage? Probably not, so get off that lame horse.



The people he sets-up in the video would very much like a chance to "sit through hours of footage"...they have actually demanded it.

O'Keefe has refused to release broader or unedited footage to ANYONE..cuz it doesn't fit his story.

Love a liar if it works you and strokes your world view..

Otherwise, answer why he won't post the undoctored footage anywhere for anyone's perusal.


Because the public has a short attention span and wants the cliff notes, not days of footage to sift through. By that same logic, none of you wanted the unedited footage of the Trump Tapes. you were more than happy with it.

Has Creamer and Foval demanded it after being fired/resigning?



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: queenofswords

Don't bother. They can't really be that thick. They just pretened to be because right now they think the machine works for them.


I never said anything like that.

Those are YOUR words and YOUR thoughts.


But have you THOUGHT it? I would think so given what you've CHOSEN in the past few weeks.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Baaahahahahaaa!!!!




posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Why have Creamer and Foval been let go if they did nothing wrong?
They know they've been caught cheating...and now they've fingered Hillary & Donna B. [shudder].




top topics



 
99
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join