V
Victoria33
Guest
Bad news, I hope something can be done. This news has just hit tonight.
Last edited:
Project Veritas Exposes Ilhan Omar Allies in Alleged Ballot Harvesting Operation in Minnesota
- Status
C
Cathoholic
Guest
I can hear the complaints now.
Breitbart. Trump. Cathoholic. Ignore the content. Excuse-making. Etc. etc.
Breitbart. Trump. Cathoholic. Ignore the content. Excuse-making. Etc. etc.
A
Annie
Guest
Doesn’t count since no one has been convicted…
R
Roselle
Guest
Hope after this video the Minneapolis voting system is investigated by police authorities. That’s one of the main items for this election that many are concerned about, voter fraud, since we are experimenting with wide spread mail in voting.
D
Dovekin
Guest
This is an example of a serious effort by Breitbart. . . . It is still fake news, even though it is not silly.
If you look at the Wikipedia article on Project Veritas, you find this intro:
. . . .
If you look at the Wikipedia article on Project Veritas, you find this intro:
There are other better sources, but this gives a quick summary. It may well be that PV has changed their ways and no longer deceptively edits its videos, but we don’t really know. PV is simply not a reliable source, and Breitbart should have addressed that unreliability. That would have undermined heir message, so we are left with allegations from an unreliable source that reflects the bias at Breitbart.
. . . .
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
We should not believe a right-wing source, but you believe a left-wing source.
D
Dovekin
Guest
There have been a variety of court cases and consent decrees to validate the “deceptively edited” charge, so O’Keefe has effectively confessed that he has done it.
I suppose you could claim he is a liar, so why trust him.
I suppose you could claim he is a liar, so why trust him.
A
Annie
Guest
Maybe you can come up with some of your sources.
Here is Project Veritas on the ACORN videos. interestingly, because the PV people were only pretending and not actually involved in criminal activities, the ACORN people who were advising them could not be prosecuted for aiding or involvement in criminal activity. Had the PV people been actual criminals, some ACORN people could apparently have been investigated for criminal activity.
Here is Project Veritas on the ACORN videos. interestingly, because the PV people were only pretending and not actually involved in criminal activities, the ACORN people who were advising them could not be prosecuted for aiding or involvement in criminal activity. Had the PV people been actual criminals, some ACORN people could apparently have been investigated for criminal activity.
H
Horton
Guest
But look at the Trump tax thread in this forum. They have him convicted and in prison with no real sources at all. Just a NYT article reported on by CNN.
A
Annie
Guest
No, @Dovekin posted a quote from Wikipedia with embedded links to articles about the words they were linked to.
Wrt the first reference in the Wikipedia article, the case was thrown out over a year ago. Ummm, I notice that was not reported in the MSM nor the Wikipedia article.
I don’t really have time to go through the rest of the references…
Wrt the first reference in the Wikipedia article, the case was thrown out over a year ago. Ummm, I notice that was not reported in the MSM nor the Wikipedia article.
I don’t really have time to go through the rest of the references…
D
Dovekin
Guest
The ACORN incident was handled carefully because PV employees were granted immunity in return for full access to the unedited videotapes. The AG report is linked to the PV page you cited. It found no criminal intent by the ACORN employees. Essentially PV’s entrapment scheme failed. The only outcome was the private suit by Juan Vera discussed above.
If you want to argue that the ACORN tapes did not try to show ACORN employees committing crimes, I would be interested in that argument. I am not really sure what other argument you might be making.
A
Annie
Guest
So, one suit arose because PV published without knowing an employee had indeed notified the police. However, the same scenario was filmed in other ACORN offices with different people, some of whom were happy to oblige the pair.
As it is, the subsequent investigation of ACORN did lead to certain conclusions such as a lack of proper training, etc., as well as causing the disbanding and reformation of the group under a different name.
Criminal intent could not be formed because the PV people were not going to go through with the crime.
Were they trying to get ACORN employees arrested and put in jail? Or just expose the organization as corrupt?
As it is, the subsequent investigation of ACORN did lead to certain conclusions such as a lack of proper training, etc., as well as causing the disbanding and reformation of the group under a different name.
R
Rockoh22
Guest
WOw, this is bad stuff. This is not hard to do with the right people. Vote in person. Vote by mail, should be discouraged.
D
Dovekin
Guest
One suit arose because they specifically stated that no ACORN employee called the police. One who had chose to sue. They tried to argue the discussions were not confidential, even though they had agreed they were confidential before starting. Then they argued they were not really journalists. The more I read about them, he slimier they seem.
I do not know that any other ACORN employees were accused. Several offices were cleared by state attorney generals, maybe all, and no money was misdirected by ACORN’s response to PV.
I do not think they succeeded in either of those. All they did was start a baseless smear campaign, fed by manipulated videotapes, that resulted in a public service company disbanding and O’Keefe giving an ACORN employee $100,000 for damages. The only good thing was that the Koch bros. were $100,000 poorer, not that they noticed.
If you want to believe that PV acted honorably and did not edit deceptively, the only thing I can point you to is the record of reports and court cases. The AG’s Report noted that “O’Keefe stated that he was out to make a point and to damage ACORN and therefore did not act as a journalist objectively reporting a story”. if that is the kind of person or organization you want to believe in, good luck with that.
A
Annie
Guest
I have no problem with his overall operation. I think the lines of many jobs have been stretched, and he may have made some mistakes, but I think he has been trying to do good things and do them right. I doubt he has the research and legal staffs of a major media outlet.
1
1cthlctrth
Guest
This appears to be why Democrats love mail-in balloting, along with fighting against voter identification requirements. It gives them greater opportunity for shady voting activity.
Last edited:
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Right or left, there are some credibility issues with Project Veritas specifically from the dramatic editing that it does on the footage and the spin that it puts on stories. One that stands out are when an ex-employee of a company told the company that he was going to kill himself if they tried to stop him from what he was going to release. In response to the expression of self harm, the company to request a wellness check (failure to do so could open up the company to liabilities). Veritas reported the wellness check from the state as the companies way of trying to intimidate and harass him. I’m not saying the name of the person because the repeated troll that has been showing up in CAF this past week has been spamming the forum with certain conspiracy theories that this same person is trying to make go viral.We should not believe a right-wing source, but you believe a left-wing source.
The actual items that this ex-employee was trying to expose to the public was something that the company had already publically disclosed. The difference though was the ex-employee was distributing the information with some other conspiracy theories attached to it.
Does this mean that Veritas is always wrong? No. But the inclination to dramatize can result in them not being taken seriously.
Last edited:
N
Nepperhan
Guest
The O’Keefe fellow is not a responsible journalist and he and his writing lack credibility. He basically starts out with a biased viewpoint and looks for anything that supports his opinion. That’s not the way to discover facts.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Dovekin . . .
This is fallacious argumentation by you dovekin.
This is saying: “This is fake news because I say it’s fake news”.
Did it not occur?
What is FAKE news is the illicit DENIALS of the story.
Dovekin going to another fallacious argument . . . .
This is an ad hominem fallacy.
It basically says “We label this a “right wing” group. Therefore their report has just gotta be wrong!”
As Karl Keating has said in debates by people who made similar errors in logic:
This is not the way to argue.
The wiki post was actually FAKE.
To the readers here, this is the salient hit job against Project Veritas in dovekin’s big revelation quote . . .
For example, those many of us that saw the Planned Parenthood expose’ know that was name-called as “deceptively edited” too.
But you can’t post half-hour segments or multihour segments to a brief news story.
You must take sound bites.
The leftist FAKE NEWS industrial complex never adequately covered prior Project Veritas stories in my opinion.
But when you went to real news sources such as LifeSite News and others, despite having the edited quote videos up, they linked to the FULL video too at Project Veritas website.
In other words you could just see the whole thing yourself and see for yourself if it was “deceptively edited” or not. (Hint: They were not deceptively edited.)
The “deceptively edited” claim is merely parroting Planned Parenthood talking points and Marxist talking points from Bernie’s campaign in other instances that I can think of off hand.
I saw both edited and unedited versions of several Planned Parenthood expose’s.
The edited versions were right-on.
To the readers. I am not going to do the homework here, but if you want (and if Youtube has not censored you from seeing the truth) you can probably check it out for yourself on Youtube or at Project Veritas’ website.
If I recall correctly Planned Parenthood had a PP-friendly judge muzzle the videos, but they may be back up now as that muzzling was only temporary (again if I recall correctly).
Dovekin AFTER proclaiming the story as fake . . . .
This is mere ipse dixit.
This is fallacious argumentation by you dovekin.
This is saying: “This is fake news because I say it’s fake news”.
Did it not occur?
What is FAKE news is the illicit DENIALS of the story.
Dovekin going to another fallacious argument . . . .
This is no argument at all.
This is an ad hominem fallacy.
It basically says “We label this a “right wing” group. Therefore their report has just gotta be wrong!”
As Karl Keating has said in debates by people who made similar errors in logic:
This is not the way to argue.
The wiki post was actually FAKE.
To the readers here, this is the salient hit job against Project Veritas in dovekin’s big revelation quote . . .
They call ANY editing “deceptive”.
For example, those many of us that saw the Planned Parenthood expose’ know that was name-called as “deceptively edited” too.
But you can’t post half-hour segments or multihour segments to a brief news story.
You must take sound bites.
The leftist FAKE NEWS industrial complex never adequately covered prior Project Veritas stories in my opinion.
But when you went to real news sources such as LifeSite News and others, despite having the edited quote videos up, they linked to the FULL video too at Project Veritas website.
In other words you could just see the whole thing yourself and see for yourself if it was “deceptively edited” or not. (Hint: They were not deceptively edited.)
The “deceptively edited” claim is merely parroting Planned Parenthood talking points and Marxist talking points from Bernie’s campaign in other instances that I can think of off hand.
I saw both edited and unedited versions of several Planned Parenthood expose’s.
The edited versions were right-on.
To the readers. I am not going to do the homework here, but if you want (and if Youtube has not censored you from seeing the truth) you can probably check it out for yourself on Youtube or at Project Veritas’ website.
If I recall correctly Planned Parenthood had a PP-friendly judge muzzle the videos, but they may be back up now as that muzzling was only temporary (again if I recall correctly).
Dovekin AFTER proclaiming the story as fake . . . .
Good grief.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Dovekin taking Planned Parenthood’s side here regarding “deceptive editing” . . .
If you are right, I will admit it.
I followed that story long enough to be 99% sure you are wrong.
But I will await your link to O’Keefe’s alleged (by you) “confession” and take it from there.
.
Dovekin about O’Keefe . . .
Prove it. Link to it so I can see it please.
If you are right, I will admit it.
I followed that story long enough to be 99% sure you are wrong.
But I will await your link to O’Keefe’s alleged (by you) “confession” and take it from there.
.
Dovekin about O’Keefe . . .
I will let that statement from Dovekin speak for itself. No comment from me necessary here.
Last edited:
- Status