Merged Project Veritas strikes again / More evidence...

[logger]

Ok, that's news to me. I didn't know conservatives didn't drive cars or used air conditionning. I guess you learn things every day.

I guess you didn't get it.

 

[logger]

He will never show the raw footage.

What would the raw footage show, the perps saying "just kidding"?

 

[Tony Stark]

What would the raw footage show, the perps saying "just kidding"?

The deceptive editing that O'Keefe is infamous for.

 

[logger]

The deceptive editing that O'Keefe is infamous for.

And what would that look like?

 

[Tony Stark]

And what would that look like?

Probably similar to his other deceptively edited videos.

 

[logger]

Probably similar to his other deceptively edited videos.

Meaning what would exonerate these perps, and don't forget two of the main characters were fired.

 

[Spindrift]

And what would that look like?

Complete sentences.

 

[Tony Stark]

Meaning what would exonerate these perps, and don't forget two of the main characters were fired.

Meaning they were deceptively edited like all of his videos. Can't tell you how exactly without the raw footage. Which he will never provide for obvious reasons.

 

[logger]

Complete sentences.

And those complete sentences would exonerate them? Perhaps they could get their jobs back.

 

[Tony Stark]

I would fire people that allowed themselves to be recorded by James O'Keefe too if I was a political operative.

 

[logger]

Meaning they were deceptively edited like all of his videos. Can't tell you how exactly without the raw footage. Which he will never provide for obvious reasons.

Agreed, there should be an investigation, then he'll have to turn them over.

Would'nt you agree, there needs to be an investigation?

 

[Tony Stark]

Agreed, there should be an investigation, then he'll have to turn them over.

Would'nt you agree, there needs to be an investigation?

Sure. I would love for him to be exposed as a fraud yet again.

 

[logger]

I would fire people that allowed themselves to be recorded by James O'Keefe too if I was a political operative.

I don't think it was him doing the recording, any bombastic corrupt lib could be caught in this.

 

[Tony Stark]

I don't think it was him doing the recording, any bombastic corrupt lib could be caught in this.

Or someone that works for him.

 

[logger]

Sure. I would love for him to be exposed as a fraud yet again.

Me too, hopefully one will take place.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Agreed, there should be an investigation, then he'll have to turn them over.

Would'nt you agree, there needs to be an investigation?

Absolutely not. He has zero creditability following the planned parenthood videos.

 

[Belz...]

I guess you didn't get it.

Oh, I get it. You're still the mask. Have you become the mask?

 

[Meadmaker]

It seems to me that he's got the goods on Hillary. No doubt about it. I know about the editing and all that, but no matter how you edit it, it seems clear that the people are coordinating with Hillary on a communication, and that is clearly illegal.

Lock her up!

Right?

No. Coordination between PACs and candidates isn't actually illegal. What it would mean is that the cost of the communication would have to be listed as a campaign contribution and would count against Hillary's federal spending limits.

So, if the duck suits were purchased with PAC funds, then the cost of duck suit rental should be listed as a campaign contribution. If the duck suits were purchased or rented with private funds, i.e. the PAC recruited people to rent duck suits, but didn't rent them for the people, it isn't likely that there would be a sufficient connection to trigger the reporting requirements.


I'm kind of a political junkie, and I had never heard of this whole duck suit campaign. I'm guessing that it involved some pretty small dollar values.

This is not a bombshell. It might amount to some duck droppings.

Here's a publication of the FEC that describes the legalities:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/indexp.shtml

And here's a link to an article describing how all the candidates do this sort of thing:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a78210-1539-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html

And I'll bet that if we peruse the Citizens United decision, the same reasoning that is applied there will probably throw into question the laws regarding collaboration between candidates and PACs. I think I'll read the opinion and see if it does.

ETA: After quick reading of Citizens United, I don't think anything applies. It would certainly be a stretch. It would depend, though, on how close the cooperation was, and that could be exaggerated by the deceptive editing that we know is common for O'Keefe. Basically, if it was no more than "Hillary likes the duck suit idea", then it's clear. If it was significantly more, as made to appear in the film, then it probably would have to be listed as a campaign contribution.

 

[logger]

Absolutely not. He has zero creditability following the planned parenthood videos.

I don't know about his credit ability but many news sources have ruined their credibility and they're still operating. Not investigating but operating.

What these videos will show is what leftist do, it fits their pattern of win at all cost and the corrupt moral nature that controls them

Much of this is discounted from leftists and certain libertarians because of who brings it, again so completely typical of the left.

 

[Spindrift]

I don't know about his credit ability but many news sources have ruined their credibility and they're still operating. Not investigating but operating.

What these videos will show is what leftist do, it fits their pattern of win at all cost and the corrupt moral nature that controls them

Much of this is discounted from leftists and certain libertarians because of who brings it, again so completely typical of the left.

Classic right wing gibberish. All the words do appear to be English, but the manner in which they are strung together leaves them devoid of meaning and content.