originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I've got it playing while I'm trying to work on something else...
SO far I'm gathering they tried to hire & bust some violent provocateurs in a sting, and got busted, so now the Great White Huma Abedin & Turk Dude
are trying to spin it as if they literally were going to send them out to do it? And that this somehow equates tot he Paid Riot Squad's that Hillary
deployed tot he Trump rallies?
And now all of the sudden riots are unacceptable???
Your confirmation bias is pretty strong when it comes to O'Keefe isn't it?
"they tried to hire & bust some violent provocateurs in a sting"
Let's break that statement down:
The people who didn't
take money to be violent provocateurs are labeled "violent provocateurs" and James O'Keefe et al, who have a long and
well documented history of malfeasance are presumed to be acting in good faith.
It's not surprising because you've missed absolutely no opportunity to say "Paid Riot Squads" over the last few months since the last Project Veritas
(hilarious name considering he's a serial hoaxer) videos came out. You even capitalize it! The videos didn't reveal any "Paid Riot Squads" at all
though did they?
- Scott Foval said he that he has trained (unpaid) protesters to aggressively "bird dog." Which is what? Shouting phrases at people entering/existing
rallies or even just wearing the right t-shirt. Remember his words?
"I mean honestly, it is not hard to get some of these assholes to pop off. It’s a matter of showing up, to want to get into the rally, in a Planned
Parenthood t-shirt. Or, Trump is a Nazi, you know. You can message to draw them out, and draw them to punch you."
That's not a "Paid Riot Squad." #1 they weren't paid, #2 they weren't starting riots though that one senior woman (Shirley Teeter) did say the right
triggering phrase to the wrong person and get assaulted for it. He also admits that over "the past 20 years" he's paid off some "crazy" homeless
people for (whatever crazy stunt) with meals and a shower I think it was? Having no direct bearing on this election. (or fitting the bill of "Paid
Riot Squad") It stinks, it's unethical and it's clearly training people to incite others to flip out so that they can be caught on camera doing so but
it's not "PRS" nor is it new or something one side does exclusively.
Specific details of the allegations can be read in
cited examples include holding signs that say "Nope" with an unflattering picture of Donald Trump. That's a PSR to you but Infowars + Roger Stone
paying bounties to disrupters wearing shirts with a picture of Bill Clinton and the word "Rape" are somehow not PSRs but rather an innocent
- As to the statements of Aaron Minter (aka Aaron Black) who you'll notice is not named in the above complaint (convenient isn't it?) and who is has
since come out was working in conjunction with Breitbart, of which Project Veritas (which also received funding from Donald Trump) is a subsidary for
all intents and purposes, to "bird dog" Marco Rubio while dressed as a robot. His statements in the clip:
"So the Chicago protest when they shut all that, that was us. It was more him [Bob Creamer] than me, but none of this is supposed to come back to us,
because we want it coming from people, we don’t want it to come from the party. So if we do a protest and it’s a DNC protest, right away the
press is going to say partisan. But if I’m in there coordinating with all the troops on the ground and sort of playing the field general but they
are the ones talking to the cameras, then it’s actually people. But if we send out press advisories with DNC on them and Clinton campaign it just
doesn’t have that same effect."
Given the levels of violence at the Chicago rally, this is clearly the more serious and more like to fit the description of a "riot." However, what is
this O'Keefe-through-Breitbart (or is it Breitbart-through-O'Keefe? Hmmmm...) associate confessing to? "Coordinating with all the troops on the ground
and sort of playing the field general."
What does that mean to you? It seems clear that he's saying he coordinated with various activists groups to organize a large scale protest. What's
missing from the "Paid Riot Squad" narrative is that there's no indication that any of the protesters were paid. So now we have "Riot Squad." Clearly
"riot squad" implies two things: 1) a group trained for a particular purpose ("squad") and 2) that the purpose of this group is to riot. Do Minter's
words support that? No. It's also interesting that he throws Creamer under the bus right at the beginning of his statement but I digress — there's
no indication from the statements that the activists groups were trained for riotous conduct or that there was even an expecation of such behavior. In
other words, not only is there no evidence of the protesters being paid, there's no evidence of the existence based on these statements of even a
single "riot squad" let alone multiple "Paid Riot Squads."
I'll give my thoughts on these new shenanigans in the next post.