Remember the Trump event in Chicago that was shut down by "protesters"

Politifacts is biased. Snopes is biased.

The only true facts are the ones that come out of conspiracy theorists, I mean Trump supporters mouths!

 

Since O'Keefe is a criminal and known fraud who's produced fraudulent videos making claims before, the media would be fools to give him any publicity until they can see the complete and unedited footage. If that was released, there might be something about which to talk. Right now, we have a video from a known fraud and criminal in O'Keefe.

In fact O'Keefe himself was arrested on conspiracy to commit voter fraud.

 

Oh yes.. Lets watch O'Keefe in all his glory try and commit voter fraud

I wouldn't say he really 'tried' persay... he could have pulled it off if he really wanted to

 

This is bad news for Al Gore

 

He's a convicted criminal, and made his fame for fraudulent videos paraded out as something they weren't. Posting videos of him doesn't help prove anything. The words by the people in the initial video are potentially disturbing. But because of the source we have no idea about them. If I saw complete and unedited footage, there might be something worth investigating.

 

It is late, I have the flu and haven't slept.... but I don't see anything criminal or really unethical in that video. Protest groups ARE well organized often and traditionally have had ties to political groups. The riots in Milwaukee for example were largely fanned by special interest groups from Chicago.

So wearing a Planned Parenthood shirt or claiming Trump sucks is sufficient get a reaction of violence out of the crowd and that justifies the crowds response? The purpose of protesting IS to get a response.... be it getting the police to turn the hose on you in Birmingham or waiving a banner in front of Walker.

Also, what the hell do you think the "predator" heckles at Hillary Clinton were? A single unorganized person that did it on the whim? What about the heckles of Bill Clinton at rallies, from the first row?

Protests are organized and funded and used to get a reaction from the crowd that is excessive.

The level of nativity by some in this thread is grin worthy.

 

So much wrong in this post. Protesting is not inciting violence. That's just called inciting violence.

 

Protesting IS inciting a response by it's very nature.

The "fault" lies with the person/group that responds with violence... not someone wearing a Planned Parenthood shirt or an elderly lady heckling a politician in the front row.

 

I think the crybabies here should pay more attention to their candidate undermining democracy in this country than propaganda videos.

These alt-right posters are so off the rail its getting to the Iraqi minister of disinformation level.

 

Oh, well then. RL has vouched for it's authenticity. It must be true then.

 

I understand being skeptical of O'Keefe, but I believe the basic premise of the story. Political parties use plants to cause havoc at opposition events. The guys getting punched at Trump rallies were probably hoping for it. The guys who get beat up by some BLM protesters because he's wearing a Trump shirt were probably hoping for it. Probably too many voters are falling for the trick, and probably the media hasn't done a good enough job getting people wise to the tricks. My only beef with this video is that O'Keefe wants to make out like this is just a Clinton thing -- that she somehow built this whole protest industry herself. And, as a partisan himself, he's using his expose to just try to manipulate people in the other direction.

 

I talked to Donald Segretti and he thinks these guys are amateurs.

 

Even if this is possibly edited, I can't really understand how you could take anything said in the video not at it's literal context. The footage and what was said in the conversations seemed fairly straightforward, and there wasn't much that gave me the notion this was "edited" footage imo.

Who knows though, it's possible.

I'm just doubtful.

 

I tend to agree. But, given the transgressions of this same guy in the past, I think it's fair to (a) be skeptical because we know he's willing to do unethical things, and/or (b) require more transparency as punishment for his past unethical tricks. His journalism 'credit score' is pretty low right now. How much credibility do you want to lend him, knowing he has defaulted in the past?