Undercover Footage Shows Clinton Operatives Admit To Inciting "Anarchy" At Trump Rallies

[Keith&Co.]

Then an investigation would show this. If he found something that seems credible from another source then why not investigate.

Why grant it that much credibility?
Seriously, he cries wolf professionally. If he has actual evidence, let him submit that to actual authorities.

Most news reporting is designed to sell copy and can miss some points.

And his reports are designed to promote outrage. Why feed it?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Well I for one would withdraw my vote for Clinton if I hadn't already voted for her and her evil ways. I could go to the county and change my vote, but effort. Killary Klinton kills.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Ah, James O’Keeffe. There's a non-political journalist with outstanding integrity who has never ever edited his videos unfairly.

Knowing he's involved doesn't make me want to jump in and try to sort out the actual facts. I suspect I'd feel like I need to shower again.

Well, he's got a guy on camera taking credit for the violence at that Chicago rally. I don't know what kind of full context could make that not look bad.

And they let Bernie supporters take the blame.

Two birds with one stone I guess?

That's an interesting point. I'm not going to watch the video because of OKeefe though. If someone submits something to the thread with valid evidence extracted from the video I might be interested to read it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Apparently Fovel has just been fired.

People have said things, apparently in the videos. My problem is I've grown so fucking tired of debunking all of their garbage. Allegedly O'Keefe has people admitting to busing (via rental cars) people into Michigan and the like states (though that'd require some serious stuff that would indicate arrests and prison terms were needed) on camera. But once again, I don't trust a damn thing that guy releases after ACORN and Planned Parenthood chop jobs.

 

[ksen]

Apparently Fovel has just been fired.

People have said things, apparently in the videos. My problem is I've grown so fucking tired of debunking all of their garbage. Allegedly O'Keefe has people admitting to busing (via rental cars) people into Michigan and the like states (though that'd require some serious stuff that would indicate arrests and prison terms were needed) on camera. But once again, I don't trust a damn thing that guy releases after ACORN and Planned Parenthood chop jobs.

No, O'Keefe has earned his reputation so I don't blame people for being extremely skeptical.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

O'Keefe accusing Clinton. Reputation for underhanded deeds accusing reputation for underhanded deeds.

Tough one. I'm actually going to be forced to examine the evidence instead of automatically assuming the side that confirms my preconceptions is right.

 

[Keith&Co.]

O'Keefe accusing Clinton. Reputation for underhanded deeds accusing reputation for underhanded deeds.

Tough one. I'm actually going to be forced to examine the evidence instead of automatically assuming the side that confirms my preconceptions is right.

Hardly necessary to evaluate the target before questioning the marksman's range etiquette.
If O'Keefe offered a film showing the sun coming up in the East i'd still want to see the uncut footage...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

O'Keefe accusing Clinton. Reputation for underhanded deeds accusing reputation for underhanded deeds.

Tough one. I'm actually going to be forced to examine the evidence instead of automatically assuming the side that confirms my preconceptions is right.

Hardly necessary to evaluate the target before questioning the marksman's range etiquette.
If O'Keefe offered a film showing the sun coming up in the East i'd still want to see the uncut footage...

O'Keefe with a video showing the sun rising in the East?!?! How in the world did he get to Venus?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Why grant it that much credibility?
Seriously, he cries wolf professionally. If he has actual evidence, let him submit that to actual authorities.

Most news reporting is designed to sell copy and can miss some points.

And his reports are designed to promote outrage. Why feed it?

An unreliable source should be discredited by investigation in the same way a credible source is validated.
- - - Updated - - -

Hardly necessary to evaluate the target before questioning the marksman's range etiquette.
If O'Keefe offered a film showing the sun coming up in the East i'd still want to see the uncut footage...

O'Keefe with a video showing the sun rising in the East?!?! How in the world did he get to Venus?

I think he could have got to Uranus.

 

[repoman]

Does O'Keefe have a dead man's switch in case he shoots himself in the back of the head twice?

 

[Keith&Co.]

An unreliable source should be discredited by investigation in the same way a credible source is validated.

Why?
Does it work that way anywhere in reality? When a kid lies so much you assume that he's lying, do you still investigate his excuses for why he didn't do the homework? OR to you begin to ignore his stories UNLESS AND UNTIL he, himself, can provide better evidence for his claims in the first place?
Professional liars, cryptozoologists, creationists... Let them produce extraordinary evidence for their less credible claims.

 

[laughing dog]

O'Keefe accusing Clinton. Reputation for underhanded deeds accusing reputation for underhanded deeds.

Tough one. I'm actually going to be forced to examine the evidence instead of automatically assuming the side that confirms my preconceptions is right.

It would not surprise me if there are people in Clinton's campaign that pulled such underhanded tricks. I would be surprised if the top person in any Presidential campaign was informed of the actions of such lower level people in the campaign, but it is not unbelievable that a Clinton would not approve such actions beforehand.

But the issue here is O'Keefe's credability. O'keefe has been shown to be a professional liar on a number of occasions. There is no reason to take his word or his "evidence" as factual until it has been vetted by other sources.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

O'Keefe accusing Clinton. Reputation for underhanded deeds accusing reputation for underhanded deeds.

Tough one. I'm actually going to be forced to examine the evidence instead of automatically assuming the side that confirms my preconceptions is right.

It would not surprise me if there are people in Clinton's campaign that pulled such underhanded tricks. I would be surprised if the top person in any Presidential campaign was informed of the actions of such lower level people in the campaign, but it is not unbelievable that a Clinton would not approve such actions beforehand.

But the issue here is O'Keefe's credability. O'keefe has been shown to be a professional liar on a number of occasions. There is no reason to take his word or his "evidence" as factual until it has been vetted by other sources.

So we have a professional liar accusing a professional liar, and someone with no credibility accusing someone with no credibility. Gee.

 

[laughing dog]

It would not surprise me if there are people in Clinton's campaign that pulled such underhanded tricks. I would be surprised if the top person in any Presidential campaign was informed of the actions of such lower level people in the campaign, but it is not unbelievable that a Clinton would not approve such actions beforehand.

But the issue here is O'Keefe's credability. O'keefe has been shown to be a professional liar on a number of occasions. There is no reason to take his word or his "evidence" as factual until it has been vetted by other sources.

So we have a professional liar accusing a professional liar, and someone with no credibility accusing someone with no credibility. Gee.

If you understand why it makes little sense for anyone to take your point seriously, why are you complaining?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hardly necessary to evaluate the target before questioning the marksman's range etiquette.
If O'Keefe offered a film showing the sun coming up in the East i'd still want to see the uncut footage...

O'Keefe with a video showing the sun rising in the East?!?! How in the world did he get to Venus?

I think he could have got to Uranus.

Are you not aware that the sun rises in the west on Venus? (Not that you can see it through the clouds.)

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So we have a professional liar accusing a professional liar, and someone with no credibility accusing someone with no credibility. Gee.

If you understand why it makes little sense for anyone to take your point seriously, why are you complaining?

I know why my point isn't being taken seriously - one no-credibility professional liar with a reputation for underhanded deeds is on the right side and the other no-credibility professional liar with a reputation for underhanded deeds is on the wrong side. Therefore one no-credibility professional liar with a reputation for underhanded deeds is to be believed while the other no-credibility professional liar with a reputation for underhanded deeds is to be completely disregarded.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It would not surprise me if there are people in Clinton's campaign that pulled such underhanded tricks. I would be surprised if the top person in any Presidential campaign was informed of the actions of such lower level people in the campaign, but it is not unbelievable that a Clinton would not approve such actions beforehand.

But the issue here is O'Keefe's credability. O'keefe has been shown to be a professional liar on a number of occasions. There is no reason to take his word or his "evidence" as factual until it has been vetted by other sources.

So we have a professional liar accusing a professional liar, and someone with no credibility accusing someone with no credibility. Gee.

We know that Clinton has at least sometimes told the truth. There is no precedence of that with O'Keefe. Additionally, O'Keefe didn't get Clinton on camera, so we are talking several degrees of separation in addition to many potential layers of edits.

 

[blastula]

Does even have anything more than talk in the videos?

 

[laughing dog]

If you understand why it makes little sense for anyone to take your point seriously, why are you complaining?

I know why my point isn't being taken seriously - one no-credibility professional liar with a reputation for underhanded deeds is on the right side and the other no-credibility professional liar with a reputation for underhanded deeds is on the wrong side. Therefore one no-credibility professional liar with a reputation for underhanded deeds is to be believed while the other no-credibility professional liar with a reputation for underhanded deeds is to be completely disregarded.

You have gotten it wrong. One can logically disbelieve person A's claims about Person B without coming to a conclusion about Person B. Saying O'Keefe does not merit serious consideration does not mean one thinks the claims are necessarily untrue - it means you don't think they merit acceptance as true.

I certainly believe that in a campaign with 1000s of volunteers and paid workers that some are capable of engaging in underhanded tricks. As I said, I would not find it surprising if the allegation that some of Clinton's workers did engage in underhanded tricks. And, as I wrote, I would be surprised if any candidate for POTUS was aware of what all the workers did or if they were told or even asked, but I do not find unbelievable. Now, if someone with a credible record can validate some or all of these claims, then there is a real story. But IMO,
1) one would have to a fool to take O'Keefe's claims as valid given his proven track record of lying for partisan reasons, and
2) if true, this is a minor story in the grand scheme of the election that really sheds little new light on HRC as a person or candidate.

 

[Derec]

I guess Hillary was right that there was a "basket of deplorables". She just lied about whom they support ...