FEC complaint filed on behalf of Project Veritas

[julius]

If this was actually legit, it would make the news.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

If this was actually legit, it would make the news.

If it's on the internet it's legit.

 

[crandc]

If it's on the internet it's legit.

Of course! Because everything on the internet is true and accurate!!!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Of course! Because everything on the internet is true and accurate!!!

Yes, exactly!

 

[e_blazer]

If this was actually legit, it would make the news.

Like this? http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/polit...obert-creamer-donald-trump-rallies/index.html

 

[julius]

Like this? http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/polit...obert-creamer-donald-trump-rallies/index.html

Well, one article doesn't exactly make this legit. Especially since the group that did this has been shown that they can edit videos to make it sound like they're answering questions they're not. So not really sure if this is a big deal.

 

[e_blazer]

Well, one article doesn't exactly make this legit. Especially since the group that did this has been shown that they can edit videos to make it sound like they're answering questions they're not. So not really sure if this is a big deal.

The standard Clinton campaign response is to say it's discredited because of this guy's past. I get that the guy has had some ethical and legal issues, but I'm not sure how he makes Creamer say the things that he does. It's not like you can just splice word clips together and lip sync the thing. I doubt that much comes of this either other than some GOP bluster, but it's pretty sad that a campaign has to resort to dirty tricks that could risk injuring people due to inciting violence. Did Hillary have first hand knowledge of this crap? I don't know and I doubt that you could pin it on her in a court of law. Is her campaign willing to violate election law by having interactions with a group like these guys? Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

 

[julius]

The standard Clinton campaign response is to say it's discredited because of this guy's past. I get that the guy has had some ethical and legal issues, but I'm not sure how he makes Creamer say the things that he does. It's not like you can just splice word clips together and lip sync the thing. I doubt that much comes of this either other than some GOP bluster, but it's pretty sad that a campaign has to resort to dirty tricks that could risk injuring people due to inciting violence. Did Hillary have first hand knowledge of this crap? I don't know and I doubt that you could pin it on her in a court of law. Is her campaign willing to violate election law by having interactions with a group like these guys? Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

"So, how would you steal from your parents"

"well, what I would do is I would wait until they were gone and then I would go into their dresser and find the coins i know my dad kept in there"

That's the whole point of editing. You can make something appear as you want.

 

[e_blazer]

"So, how would you steal from your parents"

"well, what I would do is I would wait until they were gone and then I would go into their dresser and find the coins i know my dad kept in there"

That's the whole point of editing. You can make something appear as you want.

You can move video clips out of sequence or take them and put them in with other clips where they're out of context, but I don't see how you can convincingly make a person in the clip say something that they didn't say. Given the fact that Creamer quickly stepped down from his post, I'm willing to bet that there's no real dispute that he said the things that are shown in the clips. That said, the clips were certainly obtained under false pretexts and may have been illegally obtained, but that's a different subject.

 

[julius]

You can move video clips out of sequence or take them and put them in with other clips where they're out of context, but I don't see how you can convincingly make a person in the clip say something that they didn't say. Given the fact that Creamer quickly stepped down from his post, I'm willing to bet that there's no real dispute that he said the things that are shown in the clips. That said, the clips were certainly obtained under false pretexts and may have been illegally obtained, but that's a different subject.

They asked someone a question (in the planned parenthood videos) that when shown in full context, wasn't bad.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

"So, how would you steal from your parents"

"well, what I would do is I would wait until they were gone and then I would go into their dresser and find the coins i know my dad kept in there"

That's the whole point of editing. You can make something appear as you want.

Yes, that is clearly what is happening here.

If you said the gay guy was boasting to try to get the cameraman into bed it would have a slight chance of being possible.

 

[julius]

Yes, that is clearly what is happening here.

If you said the gay guy was boasting to try to get the cameraman into bed it would have a slight chance of being possible.

when the whole video is shown, just like the planned parenthood videos, don't be surprised if there was a lot of manipulation.

 

[blue32]

background on everyone thinking James O'keefe is a "criminal".

 

[julius]

background on everyone thinking James O'keefe is a "criminal".

 

[blue32]

 

[julius]

 

[e_blazer]

I don't get Democrats sometimes. Being better than Donald Trump is not a high bar. You don't have to pretend every negative thing posted about Hillary is a pure fabrication. It should be painfully obvious that she is a seriously flawed candidate. She can be seriously flawed and still better than Trump. Go with that.

 

[blue32]

I don't get Democrats sometimes. Being better than Donald Trump is not a high bar. You don't have to pretend every negative thing posted about Hillary is a pure fabrication. It should be painfully obvious that she is a seriously flawed candidate. She can be seriously flawed and still better than Trump. Go with that.

But is she better than Trump for this Country? That's what you got to ask yourself, when looking at ALL of the evidence against both candidates.

 

[julius]

I don't get Democrats sometimes. Being better than Donald Trump is not a high bar. You don't have to pretend every negative thing posted about Hillary is a pure fabrication. It should be painfully obvious that she is a seriously flawed candidate. She can be seriously flawed and still better than Trump. Go with that.

No one pretends that every negative thing posted about her is fake. You should see how democrats and liberals talk about her..this is actually using kid gloves.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

when the whole video is shown, just like the planned parenthood videos, don't be surprised if there was a lot of manipulation.

Manipulation can mean anything. I am curious about it too. Somehow they tricked them into saying they don't bus voters together to avoid a conspiracy charge?

I don't give two shits about planned parenthood other than Democrats attacking Republicans for wanting to defund it. I'm not even pissed if they want to give money to planned parenthood. What irritates me is how they talk about it like it is the DMV or police as a part of government that we have to fund.


Shouldn't Obamacare pay for this anyway?

Ha ha.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

No one pretends that every negative thing posted about her is fake. You should see how democrats and liberals talk about her..this is actually using kid gloves.

Weird, I know a of at least one poster here who acts like righties are sexist for not liking her.

I just wouldn't vote for a Clinton or a Bush. If Jeb was against Hillary I'd write in my own name for crying out loud.

 

[crandc]

@e_blazer , you can't make someone say what they did not (actually you can) but out of context it could be very different. You could say "There is going to be violence" and it could mean planning or concern. The fact that the videos were put together by someone with a criminal conviction and a long record of faking videos means to me he has zero cred. Zero. The fact that someone resigns only tells me that O'Keefe is about wrecking careers and lives of other people. Shirley Sherrod also resigned although the unedited speech showed she had not done or said anything wrong. ACORN was defunded and destroyed although the unedited clip shows the volunteer did not try to help out a pimp. State after state used the pretext of faked videos to defund Planned Parenthood, a pretext because the state administrations already opposed birth control (and abortion which they did not fund anyway), although PP never "sold baby body parts". As a result, HIV has surged in Indiana and there is a huge spike in maternal mortality in Texas.

O'Keefe is a piker compared to Senator Joseph McCarthy. How many lost their jobs due to McCarthy, most of whom never committed a crime?

Now, back to Hillary Clinton. The meme is that everyone is holding their noses to vote for her. That she is only winning because Trump is so bad. It is the "birtherism" of 2016, the way to de-legitimize her before she's elected.

For 30 years there has been a nonstop smear campaign against Hillary Clinton. Before Bill Clinton was sworn in for his first term I saw "Jail Hillary" bumper stickers. For 30 years I've heard she was on the verge of prison. There are organizations whose sole function is to smear Hillary Clinton. There are publishing houses that print nothing but anti-Hillary Clinton books, mostly repeating the same gossip and conspiracy "theories". They have created a caricature of "Hillary" that bears little resemblance to the real person. So ordinary errors are scandals, routine politician behavior are high crimes, and they create crap out of nothing. Hillary wins the debates? Obviously she got the questions in advance. Because a woman could not possibly be smart, informed, prepared. A girl can't win, she cheats. The "pay for play" Clinton Foundation was bogus; the article refuted its own header, the Clintons never made money from the Foundation, but now "pay to play" corrupt enterprise has been glued into the public mind.

IMO it would be quite understandable if she withdrew from public life entirely. But Hillary Clinton has a genuine belief in public service, a real conviction that being part of the process can make a difference. One of her better qualities.

My honest opinion: she is too hawkish and too cozy with big business. I am willing to bet that if she is elected President at some point I will protest her actions. That the relentless attacks have made her overly secretive is understandable but still the wrong response. I think both she and her husband sail too near the wind; they have at times operated just this side of legal. And Bill, if not Hillary, sometimes does things that are not wrong but "look bad"; Loretta Lynch is an old friend and nothing wrong with chatting with her, but boarding her plane while the FBI was investigating emails looked bad.

That's the bad.

But I am not spending my evenings and weekends in an uncomfortable campaign office because she's not Trump or has two X chromosomes. I am someone who has been in the workforce long enough to know the difference between those who get things done and those who just boast. She gets things done. She is smart, knowledgeable, obsessively prepared, follows through on her pledges, really does care about people and their problems, and genuinely wants to do good for others. I agree with her on substantial issues. She is far from perfect but I think will be a damn good president.

Hillary Clinton left office as Secretary of State with a 65% approval rating. She was re-elected to the Senate by a huge majority. When she is in office, people approve of what she does. When she is not, there are no public actions to counter the caricature of "Hillary".

A sincere suggestion, why not go to your nearest campaign office and ask people frankly why they are supporting her? Or come to my Thanksgiving dinner and meet some of us.

Unfortunately House Republicans have already announced they will spend her presidency launching investigation after investigation after investigation. On what does not matter; the point is to obstruct, like 40 votes to repeal Obamacare.

 

[e_blazer]

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, crandc. I've never doubted that you were absolutely sincere in your reasoning for supporting Hillary. However, I can't agree with some of your major points.

First, regarding the Project Veritas recordings, there's no doubt that Creamer and Foval say what they say, and what they say isn't good. Creamer said this when he stepped down:

"We regret the unprofessional and careless hypothetical conversations that were captured on hidden cameras of a regional contractor for our firm, and he is no longer working with us,' Creamer said of Foval.

'While none of the schemes described in the conversations every took place, these conversations do not at all reflect the values of Democracy Partners,' he added. "

So he's taking the position that what was said was all just "hypothetical conversations", which of course doesn't square with the fact that there are news videos of folks in duck costumes at Trump rallies, videos of Zulema Rodriguez doing the crap that she talks about in the Veritas videos, etc.

Creamer was well connected, with White House logs showing hundreds of visits and more than 40 having direct contact with Obama. Of course, there's not much in the way of direct evidence that I've seen that ties Hillary to the scheming other than a quote from Creamer that if the future POTUS wants ducks on the ground, she gets ducks on the ground.

There's definitely more here than can be swept under the rug with a broom labeled "O'Keefe is a crook".

Second, I do not buy the "nonstop smear campaign" defense of Hillary. Has that happened? Sure, that's the ugly side of today's politics in action. Both sides do it and we all know it. But nobody forced Hillary to use a private email server. She did that of her own volition and for reasons that have never been believably explained. Emails are now coming to light via Wikileaks indicating her own staff thought it was a horrible idea. She showed a tremendous lack of judgment, at the very least, and then compounded it by continuously lying about it for months. The FBI investigation showed that, despite her denials, she sent and received classified documents over a nonsecure system, including some that were top secret, thereby exposing that information to foreign governments. She unilaterally deleted 30,000 emails prior to turning the server over to the FBI, saying that they were personal. The FBI later recovered some of these, despite an attempt to scrub the server, and determined that more than 2,000 were in fact government records. In short, I think the record shows that she has exhibited a tendency to try to hide her actions for her own convenience and lie to the American people about those actions.

Looking at her record as Secretary of State, I think it's demonstrable that the world is a much less safe place as a result of her and President Obama's policies. Libya, in particular, sticks in my craw.

Hillary has been around DC for a long time. She has the qualifications that should make her an excellent president. What she lacks, IMO, is an accurate moral compass. I find that to be a flaw that I can't get past.

 

[crandc]

Hi e_blazer

You refer to emails and say not a smear. True.
But she did not kill Vince Foster.
She did not terrorize the White House staff.
She did not vandalize the Oval Office.
She did not wear blackface.
She did not sell weapons to ISIS.
She did not say Christians have to disavow their faith.
She is not taking your guns.
She did not have a lesbian affair or multiple lesbian affairs.
She did not adopt an alien baby.
She did not laugh at a teenage rape victim.
She did not sexually assault a man.
She did not issue a "stand down" order in Benghazi.

Some of these, of course, are more absurd than others but she has been "investigated" for I think every one but the sexual assault, lesbian affair, and alien baby.

Search any web site or on line bookstore.
Or look at this site. Listen to a Trump speech. You'll see a lot of this shit repeated. Ask people here how many they believe.

I'm not saying "vote for her"; if you disagree or consider her unfit that is your choice. But if elected she WILL be the President and unfortunately there are those who have already decided to block everything she may try to do, sight unseen.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

She did not adopt an alien baby.

How do you explain @barfo?

 

[e_blazer]

Hi e_blazer

You refer to emails and say not a smear. True.
But she did not kill Vince Foster.
She did not terrorize the White House staff.
She did not vandalize the Oval Office.
She did not wear blackface.
She did not sell weapons to ISIS.
She did not say Christians have to disavow their faith.
She is not taking your guns.
She did not have a lesbian affair or multiple lesbian affairs.
She did not adopt an alien baby.
She did not laugh at a teenage rape victim.
She did not sexually assault a man.
She did not issue a "stand down" order in Benghazi.

Some of these, of course, are more absurd than others but she has been "investigated" for I think every one but the sexual assault, lesbian affair, and alien baby.

Search any web site or on line bookstore.
Or look at this site. Listen to a Trump speech. You'll see a lot of this shit repeated. Ask people here how many they believe.

I'm not saying "vote for her"; if you disagree or consider her unfit that is your choice. But if elected she WILL be the President and unfortunately there are those who have already decided to block everything she may try to do, sight unseen.

Some of those smears I've heard of and some I have not. None of them have entered into my thought processes as to her suitability for the Oval Office. I will vote Libertarian this election cycle, something I have never done in my life, because I don't view either of the major party candidates as being worthy of my vote. I live in Oregon so the odds of my vote impacting Hillary's chances of getting all of the state's electoral votes are virtually nil. When she is elected, I will have no problem acknowledging her as President and will give her a reasonable chance before criticizing her. As you say, I'm sure that the Republicans will not afford her the same courtesy. I think that the Clinton Foundation will provide ample fodder for the House to turn her four years in office into an endless investigation. Our two-party system is broken, which is another reason I feel good about voting Libertarian. Outside of some bizarre circumstance where neither candidate gets 270 electoral votes, Johnson has zero chance of winning. Helping him get enough votes so that in the next cycle the Libertarian Party is on all of the state ballots automatically would be a good thing for our political system, IMO.

I'd love to meet you and your friends for one of your dinner parties sometime, if I'm still welcome. I don't think Thanksgiving will work, however. Family obligations, you know.

 

[crandc]

Well, e_blazer, I did not expect to convince you. But you said people support Clinton only because she's better than Trump, hell, Greg Oden would make a better President than Trump! At least Oden admitted he screwed up. I'm explaining that there are sound reasons why people support Clinton, enthusiastically. I know you are not going to agree. I appreciate your saying you will accept her as President and give her a fair chance. By all means protest any policy you disagree with; I will. That's our right. But a long way from that to saying, before she's elected, that she should be impeached!

Integrity of elections is a concern for me, although O'Keefe doesn't give a shit. Literally millions of qualified registered voters are being kicked off the rolls, most of them Black and Hispanic:

In one North Carolina county 2 days ago, about 100 people were informed they were de-registered because they had not responded to a mailer, more than 3/4 Black. One was a 100-year old woman who never missed an election.
In Texas, 600,000 people have tried to get the newly mandated IDs, only 600 have been issued.
In Wisconsin the offices issuing the IDs are open only sporadically.

And these were states that WON lawsuits against voter suppression in recent weeks.

Alabama last year passed a law requiring IDs from DMV, then closed DMV offices in every majority-Black county. They also passed a law that right to vote could be revoked due to undefined "moral turpitude". One 70-year-old had her voting revoked because, 20 years ago, she had a conviction for writing bad checks.

In the Dakotas, Native Americans have to travel literally hundreds of miles to vote due to lack of polling places on reservations.

Early voting days have been cut or eliminated, especially evening/weekend, leading to long lines. Some people can't stand in line 4 or 8 hours.

A multi-state effort organized by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is de-registering millions of people, most of them Black and Hispanic. S of S's in multiple states compare voting lists and if they see the same name in two states, even if a different DOB, middle name, spelling, Social Security, they all get de-registered. God help you if you have a name like John Smith or Maria Hernandez. There is no notification and no appeal, people will find out when they go to vote they are no longer registered.

So, yes, integrity of elections is in jeopardy but not due to some supposed shenanigans, not due to nonexistent vote fraud, not due to a rigged system. And I'm seeing damn little outrage from the Breitbart gang, in fact none, they love it! If you can't win, cheat.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Well, e_blazer, I did not expect to convince you. But you said people support Clinton only because she's better than Trump, hell, Greg Oden would make a better President than Trump! At least Oden admitted he screwed up. I'm explaining that there are sound reasons why people support Clinton, enthusiastically. I know you are not going to agree. I appreciate your saying you will accept her as President and give her a fair chance. By all means protest any policy you disagree with; I will. That's our right. But a long way from that to saying, before she's elected, that she should be impeached!

Integrity of elections is a concern for me, although O'Keefe doesn't give a shit. Literally millions of qualified registered voters are being kicked off the rolls, most of them Black and Hispanic:

In one North Carolina county 2 days ago, about 100 people were informed they were de-registered because they had not responded to a mailer, more than 3/4 Black. One was a 100-year old woman who never missed an election.
In Texas, 600,000 people have tried to get the newly mandated IDs, only 600 have been issued.
In Wisconsin the offices issuing the IDs are open only sporadically.

And these were states that WON lawsuits against voter suppression in recent weeks.

Alabama last year passed a law requiring IDs from DMV, then closed DMV offices in every majority-Black county. They also passed a law that right to vote could be revoked due to undefined "moral turpitude". One 70-year-old had her voting revoked because, 20 years ago, she had a conviction for writing bad checks.

In the Dakotas, Native Americans have to travel literally hundreds of miles to vote due to lack of polling places on reservations.

Early voting days have been cut or eliminated, especially evening/weekend, leading to long lines. Some people can't stand in line 4 or 8 hours.

A multi-state effort organized by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is de-registering millions of people, most of them Black and Hispanic. S of S's in multiple states compare voting lists and if they see the same name in two states, even if a different DOB, middle name, spelling, Social Security, they all get de-registered. God help you if you have a name like John Smith or Maria Hernandez. There is no notification and no appeal, people will find out when they go to vote they are no longer registered.

So, yes, integrity of elections is in jeopardy but not due to some supposed shenanigans, not due to nonexistent vote fraud, not due to a rigged system. And I'm seeing damn little outrage from the Breitbart gang, in fact none, they love it! If you can't win, cheat.

Your posts wouldn't sound so insane if you didn't pretend the fake left scumbags were any better than the fake religious right scumbags.

Your corporate masters thank you for your service.

 

[blue32]

This is not surprising.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

This is not surprising.

It says as you MAY know. Deniability is key