BREAKING: O'Keefe Video #3

a reply to: Vasa Croe

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.

As we have learned for the previous Okeefe videos, editing can change context quite a bit.

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.

Because it's fun. Right Wingers are easy to debate.

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.

Deflection from the topic.

This entire HRC campaign is just outright corrupt.

Then why haven't we seen corruption charges filed?

originally posted by: introvert
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.

I have not spoken in absolutes.

Summary:
There is evidence in the video that Hillary Clinton broke FEC rules.
I believe that an investigation should be carried out to determine if she did or not.
Bob Creamer has the means, motive and connections to give some weight to the evidence beyond just a random person saying something.
My opinion is that Hillary did break FEC regulations.


You have already admitted you can think of no context that would change the meaning of Creamers words. You must therefore believe that he is, as I said, unknowingly accusing Hillary Clinton of FEC violations.

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: 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.

Yes, but most likely not on this particular issue, as was implied.

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.

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: 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.

Yes, but most likely not on this particular issue, as was implied.

I was responding to your question 'How do you know they were working together'. My bad, I'd assumed you were off on a 100% proof they worked together line of thinking.

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.

originally posted by: UKTruth
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.

The ONLY context in which his statements are taken out of context is if he outright lied. Trouble is, nobody on their team has denied it and the WH is avoiding it.

My guess as to the reason for the silence is that they fear if they deny it, another video or email will come out proving they lied.

O'Keeffe seems, like wiki leaks, to be giving them just enough room to hang themselves, waiting for a response of denial to release another confirmation of lies.

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.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: UKTruth
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.

The ONLY context in which his statements are taken out of context is if he outright lied. Trouble is, nobody on their team has denied it and the WH is avoiding it.

My guess as to the reason for the silence is that they fear if they deny it, another video or email will come out proving they lied.

O'Keeffe seems, like wiki leaks, to be giving them just enough room to hang themselves, waiting for a response of denial to release another confirmation of lies.

I think he has 3 more videos...
If he was lying it doesn't actually change the context of what he said, only the veracity of it.
I think the idea that he was lying is actually one that I am surprised has not been pushed more. The defence seems to be more about editing and a previous charge against O'Keefe for trespassing in order to gain his footage.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

THIS is VERY interesting and seems to fit well with some of the theories you have been proposing?

Worthy of it's own thread for whoever wants to look closely at it.

Breitbart coordinated with liberal activist and organizer who disrupted GOP primary campaign events
www.politico.com...

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.

The article goes on to include a statement from Briebart where they acknowledge having close communication with him etc.

a reply to: Indigo5

Might need to get some video evidence of that one, at least according to a source close to the situation.

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.

Or one could say there is nothing here that will rile up the far-left base.

Your portrayal of O'Keefe is unbalanced by the way. He's no saint, but it does smack of a pretty standard political tactic to discredit the source rather than address the evidence.

a reply to: Indigo5

Breitbart have already covered it.
There is no law against a media outlet coordinating with an activist.
Democracy partners have also refuted Politico's characterisation in a statement.

Looks like Politico are trying to lead a daring escape from the damning evidence of Clinton breaking FEC regulations.

originally posted by: UnifiedSerenity
a reply to: Indigo5

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

Do you hold that same standard to Hillary who won't release her speeches but were released by Wikileaks and shows she says on thing to Wall Street and another to the "stupid voters"..... her words.

She never said it...but ironically your claiming she did kinda proves the fiction correct if not true.

the the complete, searchable archive of WikiLeaks' leaked DNC e-mails includes no messages matching the ones quoted

...


This story was just a bit of fiction that originated with Scorched Earth News, which is a fake news site and not a legitimate news outlet of any description.

SNOPES:
www.snopes.com...

Or if you are going to double down on Stupid BS and go nutter on the facts Snopes provides...then just please link to the wikileaks where she says it?

a reply to: Indigo5

Snopes is a discredited propaganda site.

a reply to: UKTruth

Britebart denies they coordinated with anyone.

Source

a reply to: UKTruth

My portrayal? I've made one comment about him: he's a fraudster.

Nope, when a source has proven itself time and time again to be disreputable, stating that fact isn't "damning the source." Perfect example would be quoting The National Enquirer as a reputable source on ... well, anything.

Besides that, Mr. Teapot, you damn sources all the time. Hypocrisy doesn't look good on you.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

Snopes is a discredited propaganda site.

My point is proven.

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?

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.