Rigging the Election – Video III: Creamer Confirms Hillary Clinton Personally Involved

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Jess13, Oct 24, 2016.

  1. Jess13, Oct 24, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2016

    Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #1
    Rigging the Election Part 1 and Part 2 were great, leading to firings and forced resignations of two of Team Hillary’s leading election fraud operatives, Scott Foval and Bob Creamer, and exposing Team Hillary and DNC corruption, election fraud, and instigation of violent anti-Trump riots. Now, just published, Part 3 is simply amazing. Hillary Clinton and Donna Brazile are criminals. Big leap closer to game over (and there is still more to come).




    Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it’s all disguised as a duck. In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. “In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground,” says Creamer in one of several exchanges. “So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground.” It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: “Don’t repeat that to anybody.” The first video explained the dark secrets and the hidden connections and organizations the Clinton campaign uses to incite violence at Trump rallies. The second video exposed a diabolical step-by-step voter fraud strategy discussed by top Democratic operatives and showed one key operative admitting that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years. This latest video takes this investigation even further.
     
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #2
    DEMOCRATS DON'T care, mainly because it's too late to do anything about it.
     
  3. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #3
    We’ll see if they care after James O’Keefe releases the clip showing racist Hillary using “n----r” to harshly disparage a black woman, possibly on Hillary’s birthday this Wednesday, as it hasn’t been published yet but has been announced its publish date is impending.


    Side note: James O’Keefe uses Final Cut Pro X and Safari. :p


    A screen capture from his Twitter an hour ago,
    about YouTube processing issue for the above Part 3

    FCPX & Safari.png
     
  4. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #4
    There is that and this....

    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/concern-grows-over-soros-linked-voting-machines/

     
  5. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #5
    I don't think that word means what you think it means.
     
  6. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
  7. Bobby Corwen macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    #7
    I like him even more now
     
  8. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #8
    Ah yes the cries of "he's not our journalist".
     
  9. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #9
    LOL. Veritas. LOL.

    I wonder if James will put a disclaimer on these videos that Trump is partially bankrolling his production. I doubt it. That might cause dispersions.
     
  10. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #10
    The only rigging I am betting on is come November 9th if/when Trump loses is for him to come out and say, " I told you guys this election is rigged and here is the proof... I ran for the sole purpose of getting my best friend Clinton elected President and it worked!"

    :p
     
  11. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #11
    Hard for this to be taken out of context. Coordinating with a PAC is illegal and these guys flat-out admit that the DNC/Hillary controlled those activities.

    Can't say I'm surprised, though.
     
  12. jerwin, Oct 24, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2016
  13. Jess13, Oct 24, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2016

    Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #13
    Yes, Veritas just exposed Team Hillary and the DNC in three parts thus far with more to come. Veritas who got Scott Foval and Bob Creamer fired and forced to resign through Parts I and II. You would be wise to watch all three.

    And read this, too:


    Is it okay for James O’Keefe’s ‘investigative reporting’ to rely on deception?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...2fd46a-962e-11e6-9b7c-57290af48a49_story.html

    In 2009, he and an associate posed as a pimp and prostitute to infiltrate ACORN, a community social-services agency. The resulting video showed ACORN members offering the pair advice on how to set up a brothel. It also showed outtakes of O’Keefe and his partner dressed in the flamboyant attire of street hustlers, suggesting they had appeared that way when they spoke to the officials. In fact, the footage of the pair in costume was spliced into the video after the ACORN meetings, a fact the video didn’t mention.

    Congress subsequently defunded ACORN, leading to its demise. O’Keefe was later sued by one of his subjects, who claimed his privacy had been invaded by the surreptitious filming; O’Keefe settled the matter for $100,000, admitting no guilt.

    https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/788515421372747776

    JamesOKeefe.jpg


    You have nothing substantive to say in response to election fraud detailed in Part III above, and have no argument.
     
  14. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #14
    False equivalency. Just because he wasn't sued over editing but for privacy doesn't mean he hasn't heavily edited his pieces and/or has mislead the public. So yes - there is an argument. Let me know when he releases unedited recordings.
     
  15. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #15
    You know, on many issues I agree with you, but honestly if you can't parse the ******** that O'keefe peddles....

    Project Veritas is a propaganda tool for conservatives that does nothing but hit jobs. You post about the ACORN issue, but did you ever actually follow what happened there?

    I have no love for Clinton, but I'll stick to the things I should actually be outraged instead of this ******** that just waters down the real problems with her. We all know the DNC is just as corrupt as the GOP, but by all means lets just participate in this nonsense.
     
  16. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #16
    Outlets rarely release their unedited recordings. Can you point me to something in the video that you believe has been taken out of context through the use of editing?
     
  17. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #17
    Yes, again: Nothing substantive to say in response. James O’Keefe is solid on this. Watch Parts 1-3. I repeat: James O’Keefe, thus far with only Parts 1 and 2, has gotten both Scott Foval fired and Bob Creamer forced to resign. Now today, James O’Keefe released Part 3—feat. Scott Foval, Bob Creamer and others—detailing that HILLARY CLINTON herself ordered this coordinated ILLEGAL action and Donna Brazile tried to cover it up. Seriously: WATCH. Haha.
     
  18. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #18
    As someone who has worked on documentaries and video interviews, a lot can wind up on the cutting room floor. Context in the approach of the subject, etc.

    The fact that you take these videos completely at face value surprises me given your skepticism shown elsewhere. But I guess since it feeds your bias, it makes sense. That being said - I don't think this "series" of videos is going to affect the election remotely how you think it might. We're in the home stretch here with people having already made up their minds. Are there those that haven't? probably. But I don't believe it's enough to matter. My analysis, clearly. I don't claim to be an expert. But if you're pro-Trump, nothing much is going to shake that short of him committing a serious crime between now and election. Same for Hillary. And by committing a crime - I mean now - not something coming up from their past.
     
  19. Bobby Corwen macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    #19
    You can go to O'keefes house and watch them.

    Though they are not necessary to deduce the information provided therein.

    All the proof needed for corruption is right there in full audio and video takes of confirmed perpetrators.
     
  20. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #20
    That's a lot of text without actually answering the question.
     
  21. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #21
    You probably believe everything Michael Moore's documentaries say too, right?
    --- Post Merged, Oct 24, 2016 ---
    The answer is nothing specifically because I didn't even get through these. I watched enough to roll my eyes. Now jump on that :)
     
  22. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #22
    What caused you to roll your eyes?
     
  23. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #23
    The editing. The source material. The "producer." His agenda. His past.

    Do you believe these videos will affect the election? Do you believe these videos completely and without any red flags?
     
  24. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #24
    If the editing is bothering you then I would ask my question again. Can you provide an example of something they're discussing that may have been taken out of context through the use of editing?

    For instance, when Robert Cramer says Hillary is responsible for deciding on the ducks, what do you think he is talking about?

    When another operative in another video brags about paying mentally ill people to show up and cause trouble at Trump rallies, what do you think he means by this?

    When another operative in another video brags about an idea to use a woman as bait to get bullied in order to record it, what do you think he means by this?

    If the editing is bothering you then my question is valid. The other concerns have very little to do with the content of the videos. I look forward to your response.
     
  25. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #25
    You're going to be disappointed then. You can try and wrestle me down like a pitbull, but I've already given my opinion on the videos and the producer. I guess you won't answer my questions. That's ok.
     

Share This Page