BREAKING: O'Keefe Video #3

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

..and?

a reply to: UKTruth

You were whining and complaining about it above.

I pointed out you do it with regularity, and you just keep proving that I'm right.

That's all.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

You were whining and complaining about it above.

I pointed out you do it with regularity, and you just keep proving that I'm right.

That's all.

Assess the evidence, not the source.
I must admit to breaking that rule for Snopes, but that is fair as they are 100% proven to be a propaganda site, with every piece they have ever written laced with Democrat bias.

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.

Bannon was working closely with the ?actor? that falsely claimed he worked for the DNC (despite him not being anywhere on their publicly disclosed finances and payroll etc. etc.) in the Veritas video and had incited violent protests in Chicago at the Trump Rally.

Put that together with Trump's Foundation showing payments to O'Keefe?..

And yes...Bannon bragged about advising Trump long before he officially came on board.

Don't hurt yourself ignoring reality here...

originally posted by: Indigo5

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.

Bannon was working closely with the ?actor? that falsely claimed he worked for the DNC (despite him not being anywhere on their publicly disclosed finances and payroll etc. etc.) in the Veritas video and had incited violent protests in Chicago at the Trump Rally.

Put that together with Trump's Foundation showing payments to O'Keefe?..

And yes...Bannon bragged about advising Trump long before he officially came on board.

Don't hurt yourself ignoring reality here...

Come on!, There's nothing but conjecture in all of that. The fact is Bannon was not working for Trump then. Come back with a video and then you have some comparative material to work with. It's just not in the same ball park and not even illegal/against FEC rules as we're discussing wrt Clinton.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How is that so hard to understand and accept.

Pollyanna would be eaten alive at this level of International Politics. Idealism is a nice word, not much else.

It's a hard core, I scratch your back, you scratch mine, cut throat business.

I think some watch too many movies.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How is that so hard to understand and accept.

Pollyanna would be eaten alive at this level of International Politics. Idealism is a nice word, not much else.

It's a hard core, I scratch your back, you scratch mine, cut throat business.

I think some watch too many movies.

Why does politics have to be a cut throat business full of lies, deceit, smearing and personal interest? I could just as easily say that life is unfair so we should stop deluding ourselves with this equal rights nonsense.

a reply to: UKTruth

I can't speak for Annee ... but sure, the questions that you're asking are big ones ... why can't we all just get along?

Why can't we be honest with each other and do what we say we will do?

Why would any of us want more money/possessions/etc. than we can use?

Imagine ....

Imagine there's no countries ... that's not that hard to do ... and then there'd be nothing to kill or die for ... everybody living life in peace.

Sound familiar?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How is that so hard to understand and accept.

Pollyanna would be eaten alive at this level of International Politics. Idealism is a nice word, not much else.

It's a hard core, I scratch your back, you scratch mine, cut throat business.

I think some watch too many movies.

Why does politics have to be a cut throat business full of lies, deceit, smearing and personal interest? I could just as easily say that life is unfair so we should stop deluding ourselves with this equal rights nonsense.

In all (I think) animal Hierarchies there is a power ruler (or rulers). We are animals. It's in our nature.

Man is the one animal that does have awareness to change that. But, I think we still need to evolve more before that's gonna happen.

"Imagine" great words.

a reply to: Gryphon66

An investigation, which would look at the uncut footage, would reveal that--again, hence my point.

Just because multiple instances of recording of people making statements have to be cut and spliced in an order to show what's going on does not mean that the editing misrepresents the truth.

Personally, I'm going to reserve judgment either way, but the statements as shown in the video are pretty effing damning...and, sadly, not surprising. There's no reality in which I would believe that campaigns don't directly communicate and conspire with superPACs, even though laws forbid it.

The reality is, will they get caught? It seems one side has been caught, but we'll wait and see if this is the case.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

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.

I'm sure I could think of a few things, but I'd rather wait and see everything in it's full context. That is a must when you are dealing with known liars and hoaxers.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Sure. ANOTHER investigation. Based on ANOTHER fabricated video.

Why not, it'll be good fodder for a few news cycles ...

At what point are we going to come back to reality and agree that facts are facts?

James O'Keefe is a KNOWN fraudster. He's been caught MULTIPLE times, and has admitted that he cut these videos together not to relate the truth but TO TELL A STORY.

Sure, let's have another investigation. That's all the government does anymore. More government interference in people's lives.

a reply to: Gryphon66

As has been mentioned before (and possibly in this thread), a broken clock is correct twice every day.

This could be one of those times, and when it deals with election fraud, it's worth looking into. If you disagree, that's fine.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Sure. ANOTHER investigation. Based on ANOTHER fabricated video.

Why not, it'll be good fodder for a few news cycles ...

At what point are we going to come back to reality and agree that facts are facts?

James O'Keefe is a KNOWN fraudster. He's been caught MULTIPLE times, and has admitted that he cut these videos together not to relate the truth but TO TELL A STORY.

Sure, let's have another investigation. That's all the government does anymore. More government interference in people's lives.

Hillary Clinton is a KNOWN liar and has been caught MULTIPLE times. That does not stop people voting for her, and indeed actively fighting her corner. We all assess people differently.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

I can't speak for Annee ... but sure, the questions that you're asking are big ones ... why can't we all just get along?

Why can't we be honest with each other and do what we say we will do?

Why would any of us want more money/possessions/etc. than we can use?

Imagine ....

Imagine there's no countries ... that's not that hard to do ... and then there'd be nothing to kill or die for ... everybody living life in peace.

Sound familiar?

Sure does - and he was killed for it (sort of). My point is that we either accept the way things are or we don't, but selectively condoning one awful reality of our society, whilst fighting the good fight for another seems a little odd. We have to take things one step at a time of course, but lets not condone and accept the things we haven't quite got around to sorting out yet.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well I can't remember everything and everyone, but there are also others newer to the board that probably have no clue who he is either. Just hard to read such a statement without seeing something to back it up. People have been going ham with it ever since the election threads started flying.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well I can't remember everything and everyone, but there are also others newer to the board that probably have no clue who he is either. Just hard to read such a statement without seeing something to back it up. People have been going ham with it ever since the election threads started flying.

Well, I wasn't asking you to remember everything and everyone, but the first thing I do when I question a statement on here is look it up myself. Then, if I can't find any corroborating or dismissive evidence, I ask the claimant to back their stuff up.

So, given what you now know ... what's your perspective on the matter?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Gryphon66

As has been mentioned before (and possibly in this thread), a broken clock is correct twice every day.

This could be one of those times, and when it deals with election fraud, it's worth looking into. If you disagree, that's fine.

Yeah, that was my response to another poster who wanted to cite the successes of the National Enquirer as a source.

What merits investigation? I mean, complaints have been filed with FEC so I'm sure there will be one, and if that turns up nothing, five or six in the Republican House ... but really, are you saying that every frivolous, claim should be investigated?

That's the purpose of government?

Alright, as you say, that's your opinion.

originally posted by: UKTruth
I must admit to breaking that rule for Snopes, but that is fair as they are 100% proven to be a propaganda site, with every piece they have ever written laced with Democrat bias.

According to who exactly? Funny how you ignore the fact that they show sources....