Clinton Campaign/DNC Coordinated w/Organizations To Incite Violence at Trump Events

[rmt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY#t=39

[rmt]

Less views than likes - Google holding down the count? Does it get to Facebook/social media if it reaches a certain number of views?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Amazing how deep O'Keefe was able to infiltrate. This is indefensible what the DNC is doing. Wonder how the resident Dems will spin this.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Less views than likes - Google holding down the count? Does it get to Facebook/social media if it reaches a certain number of views?

s3jjFuqguws

[rmt]

Sorry - don't know much about social media - no Facebook, twitter - couldn't even LIKE the video as I don't have an account.

[Spurminator]

Less views than likes - Google holding down the count?

Views cap off on new videos. THe number will be updated tomorrow.


Does it get to Facebook/social media if it reaches a certain number of views?

No. It gets to Facebook/social media if someone posts it there.

[Spurminator]

So, inciting violence means having people show up at rallies to be dicks and knowing that Trump supporters and staff will overreact.

Did I miss something or is that all?

Here's the solution: Don't overreact.

[TheSanityAnnex]

So, inciting violence means having people show up at rallies to be dicks and knowing that Trump supporters and staff will overreact.

Did I miss something or is that all?

Here's the solution: Don't overreact.
You could just watch the video.

[Spurminator]

You could just watch the video.

I'm trying.

Oh hey, now we found out Super PACs are bullshit.

[clambake]

is it playing dirty?

[Spurminator]

Finished.


Here's the solution: Don't overreact.

[vy65]

Finished.

You're blaming the victim, so to speak.

That said, I don't think this is technically illegal. Just a dick move.

[Spurminator]

That said, I don't think this is technically illegal. Just a dick move.

Politics is dirty. I never said I liked it. I'm surprised this is the big reveal that O'Keefe fans were so excited about though, I think he could have edited together a much more juicy controversy.

[spurraider21]

You're blaming the victim, so to speak.

That said, I don't think this is technically illegal. Just a dick move.
Odd case where the victim of an act of assault is the violent actor.

[Spurminator]

And I don't really understand how I'm blaming the victim, so to speak. These people should grow a pair instead of resorting to violence when they're annoyed. Isn't that, basically, the motto of the entire Trumptroll cybersphere?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Less views than likes - Google holding down the count? Does it get to Facebook/social media if it reaches a certain number of views?

One conspiracy wasn't enough I guess.

[rmt]

It is deceptive - feeding the narrative that it is Trump supporters who are violent - when they plant people to incite violence. Hillary complains about the violence that goes on at Trump's campaigns and the media laps it up. That 69 year old woman with oxygen tank - a plant - smh (not that I condone any violence). And they coordinate with Hillary's campaign and DNC - everyday at 1 o'clock.

[vy65]

Odd case where the victim of an act of assault is the violent actor.


And I don't really understand how I'm blaming the victim, so to speak. These people should grow a pair instead of resorting to violence when they're annoyed. Isn't that, basically, the motto of the entire Trumptroll cybersphere?

I know they're not actual victims. Blaming the victim was the easiest short hand way of putting it that I could think of. My point is that your shifting the responsibility from the person inciting violence to the person reacting -- which misses the point. My take from the video is that these people are being sent out there to incite violence. It might be easy. But to say don't "overreact" or "don't be annoyed" kinda misses the point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

By the reckoning of the conservatives here, Gandhi was victimizing the British by his form of nonviolent protest.

[vy65]

I'm no election law expert, but the video also mentions laws that prevent campaigns from interfering with each other. Regardless of the reaction, that would still make the incitement itself problematic.

[FromWayDowntown]

And I don't really understand how I'm blaming the victim, so to speak. These people should grow a pair instead of resorting to violence when they're annoyed. Isn't that, basically, the motto of the entire Trumptroll cybersphere?

I remember when the Republican Party ran around and screamed and yelled about the virtues of personal responsibility for your actions, demanding that those who acted foolishly (no matter the extenuating circumstances) pay the price for their actions. After all, they said, you can't be provoked into doing something stupid unless you choose to be provoked; and if you choose to be provoked, they said, what followed was your own fault.

Those were the good old days.

[vy65]

By the reckoning of the conservatives here, Gandhi was victimizing the British by his form of nonviolent protest.

Jesus fucking christ you're a moron

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm no election law expert, but the video also mentions laws that prevent campaigns from interfering with each other. Regardless of the reaction, that would still make the incitement itself problematic.

What do SuperPAC mean?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Jesus fucking christ you're a moron

Brilliant response, Crayola. Nonetheless, Gandhi's protests included several provocative acts that spurred the British to violent reprisal.

[Spurminator]

I know they're not actual victims. Blaming the victim was the easiest short hand way of putting it that I could think of. My point is that your shifting the responsibility from the person inciting violence to the person reacting -- which misses the point. My take from the video is that these people are being sent out there to incite violence. It might be easy. But to say don't "overreact" or "don't be annoyed" kinda misses the point.

I get where you're coming from but I think it's the whole point. The campaign is doing this because they know they can, and it will amplify a negative characteristic. If they couldn't count on people getting violent at these rallies, they wouldn't bother. So it's not like the narrative is just fabricated from nothing.

[FromWayDowntown]

But to say don't "overreact" or "don't be annoyed" kinda misses the point.

Unless, of course, you can be a grown up and ignore people who are sent into a location just to annoy you. I know lots of people who've been in plenty of situations in which others around them were acting in inflammatory or provocative ways and somehow they realized that being annoyed doesn't mean that you get to resort to violence.

It's a silly move by the Clinton campaign if it's actually happening, but (of course) it's also managed to reveal that the guy who is atop the GOP ticket is perfectly willing to call for physical violence against those who disagree with him and that some of his supporters will gladly rally to that call.

[rmt]

Here you have proof from their own mouths that they incited and shut down the Chicago Trump rally - interfering with Trump's 1st amendment rights and with thousands' to hear him/shut down highway and still you guys see nothing wrong.

[vy65]

Unless, of course, you can be a grown up and ignore people who are sent into a location just to annoy you. I know lots of people who've been in plenty of situations in which others around them were acting in inflammatory or provocative ways and somehow they realized that being annoyed doesn't mean that you get to resort to violence.

It's a silly move by the Clinton campaign if it's actually happening, but (of course) it's also managed to reveal that the guy who is atop the GOP ticket is perfectly willing to call for physical violence against those who disagree with him and that some of his supporters will gladly rally to that call.

I agree that people should be mature, and ignore people that enter into a location who have been sent for the sole purpose of agitation. I am not defending the Trump supporter's response. We are in agreement that it is absolutely, 100% the wrong thing to do in the situation.

I also believe that the people being sent to, by this Foval guy's admission, incite violence are just as bad than the rednecks punching the guy in the planned parenthood t shirt.

I don't see how the agitator is blameless here. Maybe you don't believe they are. But calling one person violent and the other person silly doesn't seem a fair characterization of the situation.

[vy65]

I get where you're coming from but I think it's the whole point. The campaign is doing this because they know they can, and it will amplify a negative characteristic. If they couldn't count on people getting violent at these rallies, they wouldn't bother. So it's not like the narrative is just fabricated from nothing.

I think you're right. But that's pretty sad. The purpose of constitutional features like the First Amendment is to use speech to combat bad ideas. This video is depressing because it shows people giving up on discourse, debate, free flow of ideas, etc... and resorting instead to poking rednecks in the eye.

[Spurminator]

I just hope this revelation causes conservatives to finally get on board with shutting down Super PACs so we can regain some transparency in political campaigns.

(It won't)

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't see how the agitator is blameless here. Maybe you don't believe they are. But calling one person violent and the other person silly doesn't seem a fair characterization of the situation.

If the agitator doesn't do anything other than speak, then I might not call him blameless, but I do see that as being an exercise of freedom and political speech at a certain level, at least for as long as it remains non-violent. If the agitators get violent, then I'd absolutely agree that they're at fault, too.

And I don't know that even with all of that, I'd call the agitator blameless; I just don't think pure agitation justifies a physically violent response. Like I say, I think the tactic in general is silly, but in this election, it's proven to be somewhat effective.

Any suggestion that a violent response to non-violent agitation is in any way justified is nonsense.

[FromWayDowntown]

n/m

[vy65]

If the agitator doesn't do anything other than speak, then I might not call him blameless, but I do see that as being an exercise of freedom and political speech at a certain level, at least for as long as it remains non-violent. If the agitators get violent, then I'd absolutely agree that they're at fault, too.

And I don't know that even with all of that, I'd call the agitator blameless; I just don't think pure agitation justifies a physically violent response. Like I say, I think the tactic in general is silly, but in this election, it's proven to be somewhat effective.

Any suggestion that a violent response to non-violent agitation is in any way justified is nonsense.

But they're not showing up to rallies to have a sit-down debate over Roe. They're sent for the purpose of inciting violence. Again, the onus is on the responder to not react with violence, but you're not fairly characterizing the situation depicted in the video by saying its peaceful citizens exercising their first amendment rights vs. mean nasty trump supporters.

I think I can agree, in the abstract, that the first person to throw a punch may be more to blame for the ensuing violence. But I think the blame is a lot more even than you're depicting. Especially since this isn't some organic demonstration of citizen's democracy, but seems to be coming, in some form by the DNC. The level of direction from the DNC, whatever it might be, distinguishes this situation for me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you can be goaded into assault through speech then you are a weakminded fool that is dangerous.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But they're not showing up to rallies to have a sit-down debate over Roe. They're sent for the purpose of inciting violence. Again, the onus is on the responder to not react with violence, but you're not fairly characterizing the situation depicted in the video by saying its peaceful citizens exercising their first amendment rights vs. mean nasty trump supporters.

I think I can agree, in the abstract, that the first person to throw a punch may be more to blame for the ensuing violence. But I think the blame is a lot more even than you're depicting. Especially since this isn't some organic demonstration of citizen's democracy, but seems to be coming, in some form by the DNC. The level of direction from the DNC, whatever it might be, distinguishes this situation for me.

Gandhi sent his followers on the salt march despite threat of violent protest from the British. The "know your place" standard is shit.

[FromWayDowntown]

But they're not showing up to rallies to have a sit-down debate over Roe. They're sent for the purpose of inciting violence. Again, the onus is on the responder to not react with violence, but you're not fairly characterizing the situation depicted in the video by saying its peaceful citizens exercising their first amendment rights vs. mean nasty trump supporters.

I think I can agree, in the abstract, that the first person to throw a punch may be more to blame for the ensuing violence. But I think the blame is a lot more even than you're depicting. Especially since this isn't some organic demonstration of citizen's democracy, but seems to be coming, in some form by the DNC. The level of direction from the DNC, whatever it might be, distinguishes this situation for me.

Oh, so the calculation of the provocation somehow diminishes the extent to which the violent responder is actually responsible for his own bad choice? I'm not trying to suggest that anyone is particularly justified in this situation. But at a basic level, the right to oppose a candidate is fairly fundamental constitutional exercise (even if the opposition's choices for expressing that viewpoint are calculated); the response to opposition by resorting to violence is fairly fundamentally a criminal assault.

I'm not sure what difference the level of discourse makes here, frankly. Even Presidential debates at this point aren't sit-down discussions of the merits of policies.

[vy65]

Oh, so the calculation of the provocation somehow diminishes the extent to which the violent responder is actually responsible for his own bad choice?

No. Not what I said. In fact, I said that, in the abstract, I can agree that the violent responder may be more to blame for the ensuing violence. My point is that you're not fairly representing the situation by depicting the people who were sent for the purpose of inciting violence by pretending that they're a part of an organic peaceful protest. The video's allegation is that they were sent to start a fight -- I don't know how someone who is sent to incite a fight is somehow blameless for the resulting violence. Is that your position?


I'm not trying to suggest that anyone is particularly justified in this situation. But at a basic level, the right to oppose a candidate is fairly fundamental constitutional exercise (even if the opposition's choices for expressing that viewpoint are calculated); the response to opposition by resorting to violence is fairly fundamentally a criminal assault.

I have my answer then -- and we're agreed. Although there may be some issue with a campaign directing individuals to incite violence at the Trump rally's. But that determination is above my pay-grade.


I'm not sure what difference the level of discourse makes here, frankly. Even Presidential debates at this point aren't sit-down discussions of the merits of policies.

The point I'm making is about intent, that's all.

[FromWayDowntown]

The point I'm making is about intent, that's all.

I still don't know what the level of discourse has to do with any of this. Are you saying that the agitators would somehow be more justified if they were sitting at tables offering to have genuine policy discussions with people whose first response to them is violence?

I can intend to express myself politically without first having to demonstrate my policy bona fides or an interest in engaging in an actual debate with someone. We don't only protect well-supported political speech or only that speech that comes from people with real policy chops.

[vy65]

I still don't know what the level of discourse has to do with any of this. Are you saying that the agitators would somehow be more justified if they were sitting at tables offering to have genuine policy discussions with people whose first response to them is violence?

I can intend to express myself politically without first having to demonstrate my policy bona fides or an interest in engaging in an actual debate with someone. We don't only protect well-supported political speech or only that speech that comes from people with real policy chops.

There is a level of culpability to someone who goes to a political event, intending to provoke another person into physical violence, who says volatile shit to accomplish that goal, and gets into a fight. That person has a level of culpability that is not present for someone who merely protests as a form of free expression or to have an actual debate because the agitator had the intent of starting a fight while the other did not.

I'm making no claim about showing your bona fides before speaking -- that's irrelevant. This isn't about the (evidentiary, policy-based, etc...) support of said speak. It's about intent. There is no politically useful benefit to the incite-to-violence component of the agitator's speech -- and -- I have a much harder time having sympathy for someone who goes to a Trump rally to start a fight and succeeds in doing so.

[CosmicCowboy]

There is a level of culpability to someone who goes to a political event, intending to provoke another person into physical violence, and who says volatile shit to accomplish that goal. That person has a level of culpability that is not present for someone who merely protests as a form of free expression or to have an actual debate.


I'm making no claim about showing your bona fides before speaking -- that's irrelevant. This isn't about the (evidentiary, policy-based, etc...) support of said speak. It's about intent. There is no politically useful benefit to the incite-to-violence component of the agitator's speech -- and -- I have a much harder time having sympathy for someone who goes to a Trump rally to start a fight and succeeds in doing so.

Bottom line is still, the first one to shove or throw a punch started the fight no matter what the verbal provocation. It was stupid for Trump to encourage it and it was stupid for his followers to do it.

[pgardn]

There are a lot of POed people from both parties. Remember the Bernie folks. There is a legitimate disgust aimed at entrenched politicians. The Trump folks are feeling like what some minorities have felt. Welcome.

What has me interested is since the elections are rigged (I take this to mean set up to be predetermined), and one candidate has called for "vigilance" at polling stations, what happens when Trump supporters see other Trump supporters getting hauled out of voting sites because they violate basic rules.

The guy in my neighborhood who shows up at the voting site wearing an elephant mask always stays the "right" distance away and does not harass people. Is he now supposed to pretend to trample people under heavy elephant feet...

[pgardn]

If the agitator doesn't do anything other than speak, then I might not call him blameless, but I do see that as being an exercise of freedom and political speech at a certain level, at least for as long as it remains non-violent. If the agitators get violent, then I'd absolutely agree that they're at fault, too.

And I don't know that even with all of that, I'd call the agitator blameless; I just don't think pure agitation justifies a physically violent response. Like I say, I think the tactic in general is silly, but in this election, it's proven to be somewhat effective.

Any suggestion that a violent response to non-violent agitation is in any way justified is nonsense.

All they have to do is coax others into violence by directing a legit plan as I understand it.

"Pick up those chairs and smack those guys on the head"

[ElNono]

There is a level of culpability to someone who goes to a political event, intending to provoke another person into physical violence, who says volatile shit to accomplish that goal, and gets into a fight. That person has a level of culpability that is not present for someone who merely protests as a form of free expression or to have an actual debate because the agitator had the intent of starting a fight while the other did not.

How do you gauge that though, without trying to read minds? Different people react differently to provocation. Unless there's an actual, direct threat of violence, I figure it would be pretty difficult to ascertain. I mean, at least criminal intent is not novel and has been certainly prosecuted before, but it's probably among the most difficult cases to prove.

EDIT: Didn't watch or read anything from OP, just picked up this discussing from the vy/FWD back and forth.

[vy65]

How do you gauge that though, without trying to read minds? Different people react differently to provocation. Unless there's an actual, direct threat of violence, I figure it would be pretty difficult to ascertain. I mean, at least criminal intent is not novel and has been certainly prosecuted before, but it's probably among the most difficult cases to prove.

EDIT: Didn't watch or read anything from OP, just picked up this discussing from the vy/FWD back and forth.

In general, it's definitely a hard thing to do. You'd have to piece the facts and circumstances together to infer intent. Which can have some problems. But that's all academic in this case: the video has democratic organizers saying they send plants to Trump protests to incite violence, so intent is a foregone conclusion in this case.

[FromWayDowntown]

In general, it's definitely a hard thing to do. You'd have to piece the facts and circumstances together to infer intent. Which can have some problems. But that's all academic in this case: the video has democratic organizers saying they send plants to Trump protests to incite violence, so intent is a foregone conclusion in this case.

I'm not even sure I can go with you here. There were many, many people in the mid-to-late 1960's who attended political events specifically to non-violently agitate opponents on any number of deeply political issues without any real expectation or intention to engage in a meaningful discussion of issues. They were met with the violence they likely expected for their agitation. I'm not sure that it would be correct to simply assume that their presence alone in those circumstances justifies putting part of the blame for the resulting violence upon them based on their choice to agitate.

[vy65]

I'm not even sure I can go with you here. There were many, many people in the mid-to-late 1960's who attended political events specifically to non-violently agitate opponents on any number of deeply political issues without any real expectation or intention to engage in a meaningful discussion of issues. They were met with the violence they likely expected for their agitation. I'm not sure that it would be correct to simply assume that their presence alone in those circumstances justifies putting part of the blame for the resulting violence upon them based on their choice to agitate.

Do you disagree that the agitators sent to Trump's rallys were sent for the purpose of inciting physical violence. If so, why is your example of peaceful protest relevant?

I don't have much sympathy for people who would peacefully troll their political opponents. But I do have far more sympathy for them than the agitators who were deployed to essentially start a fight as claimed in the video.

Again, it is the intent to start a fight that sets this apart for me and makes me feel that the agitators bear some culpability (albeit not as much as the person throwing the punch).

[vy65]

Put another way, I don't see anything non-violent here (in the same sense as a 60s protest). Knowingly sending plants to start fights at Trump rally's seems a different sort of animal than those who authentically tried some form of non-violent protest.

[FromWayDowntown]

Do you disagree that the agitators sent to Trump's rallys were sent for the purpose of inciting physical violence. If so, why is your example of peaceful protest relevant?

I don't have much sympathy for people who would peacefully troll their political opponents.

I'm not sure that I'm willing to assume that all dissenters or even all agitators at Trump rallies went there with violence in mind. My point, though, is that you seem to say that unless people go there intending to engage in a real discussion of issues, their presence isn't really political; that they're at fault (to some extent) if violence befalls them. If that's true, then it seems that you must believe that the protesters of the 1960's, who were decidedly non-violent and who were never going to actually engage in a discussion of issues with those they opposed -- at least not in the circumstances where they voiced that opposition -- were somehow at fault for the violence used against them.

If that's true, I would vehemently disagree. That sort of a view lets the jackasses who actually engage in violence off the hook way too easily. Ultimately, if there's violence it happens because those who elect violence have chosen that.

[FromWayDowntown]

Put another way, I don't see anything non-violent here (in the same sense as a 60s protest). Knowingly sending plants to start fights at Trump rally's seems a different sort of animal than those who authentically tried some form of non-violent protest.

If all they're doing is vehemently voicing opposition to Trump and Trump supporters without engaging in violence themselves (even if they're sort of hoping that the other side will go there), how is it any different really?

Other than perhaps that you choose to agree with one group and disagree with the other . . . .

[vy65]

I'm not sure that I'm willing to assume that all dissenters or even all agitators at Trump rallies went there with violence in mind.

Let me stop you there. I am only speaking to those agitators sent for the purpose of inciting violence. These agitators were the subject of the video -- so I've been operating under the assumption that they are the people we've been discussing. I think it's fair to say that there were some people (for whom protestor is probably a better word) who went to Trump rallies for the purpose of protesting Trump. These would be people who were not intentionally deployed by Foval et al. and who ostensibly had a non-violent (or at least non-incitement) purpose in mind.

I see fault with the agitators. I do not see fault with the protestors. I'm curious if you disagree with this.


My point, though, is that you seem to say that unless people go there intending to engage in a real discussion of issues, their presence isn't really political; that they're at fault (to some extent) if violence befalls them. If that's true, then it seems that you must believe that the protesters of the 1960's, who were decidedly non-violent and who were never going to actually engage in a discussion of issues with those they opposed -- at least not in the circumstances where they voiced that opposition -- were somehow at fault for the violence used against them.

I think this is easily answered above. I have no problem with non-violent 'non-engagement.' I question its efficacy, but I don't see any problem with Trump protestors who non-violently protest a rally while refusing or not-intending to have any sort of real or substantive engagement with the pro-Trump crowd.

However, I see those who go to Trump rallies for the purpose of inciting violence as falling within this non-violent group. As alleged in the video, the agitators are there not for any sort of expressive purpose (as the non-violent protestor is). They're just there to start a fight. I don't think that you can group those two groups together and I see no value to viewing a person who goes to a rally for the purpose of starting a fight as blameless.


If that's true, I would vehemently disagree. That sort of a view lets the jackasses who actually engage in violence off the hook way too easily. Ultimately, if there's violence it happens because those who elect violence have chosen that.

Again, I agree that the person who throws the first punch bears the most responsibility for violence. But I think it ridiculous to completely exonerate from all blame a person who attends a Trump rally to solicit a fight.

[vy65]

If all they're doing is vehemently voicing opposition to Trump and Trump supporters without engaging in violence themselves (even if they're sort of hoping that the other side will go there), how is it any different really?

Other than perhaps that you choose to agree with one group and disagree with the other . . . .

I don't think that's what they're doing. The video spoke to training sessions given to people solely for the purpose of teaching them how to start a fight. These aren't innocent people voicing political opposition. They're there to start a fight.

You're free to disbelieve the video. But if you accept it at face value, your characterization of the agitators as people who simply disagree with Trump supporters is inaccurate.

[boutons_deux]

Protesting, heckling, "free assembly" are not violent

Trash INCITES his asshole supporters to react violently against the protesters.

[DMC]

So if I put on a "Fuck Trayvon" shirt and walk down MLK blvd in X city and get knocked the fuck out, those people who did it should have better restraint?

Do you folks feel the same way about the black folks being shot by cops because they "overreacted" to being stopped and searched?

This forum is a neat little microcosm of the issues in this country politically; party lines cause folks to turn a blind eye to corruption as long as it benefits them. You can see it with the refusal to acknowledge or even watch the video, but to give a tu quoque response instead.

[HI-FI]

So if I put on a "Fuck Trayvon" shirt and walk down MLK blvd in X city and get knocked the fuck out, those people who did it should have better restraint?

Do you folks feel the same way about the black folks being shot by cops because they "overreacted" to being stopped and searched?

This forum is a neat little microcosm of the issues in this country politically; party lines cause folks to turn a blind eye to corruption as long as it benefits them. You can see it with the refusal to acknowledge or even watch the video, but to give a tu quoque response instead.
Cosigned. Also when these protests were happening, people were blaming Trump (including Republicans like Cruz) for saying his words were causing violence. Now you have proof of how leftists are paid to instigate shit and people are like "well ...uh....it's only words."

[pgardn]

So if I put on a "Fuck Trayvon" shirt and walk down MLK blvd in X city and get knocked the fuck out, those people who did it should have better restraint?

Do you folks feel the same way about the black folks being shot by cops because they "overreacted" to being stopped and searched?

This forum is a neat little microcosm of the issues in this country politically; party lines cause folks to turn a blind eye to corruption as long as it benefits them. You can see it with the refusal to acknowledge or even watch the video, but to give a tu quoque response instead.


Absolutely they should.


They should also be arrested.

Overreacting... Using deadly force should be reserved for extreme situations. When the cops or innocents lives are in immediate danger then the use of deadly force is justified IMO. These are not nice neat encounters for the most part so this can of course be very difficult.

[DMC]

Cosigned. Also when these protests were happening, people were blaming Trump (including Republicans like Cruz) for saying his words were causing violence. Now you have proof of how leftists are paid to instigate shit and people are like "well ...uh....it's only words."
People treat politics like a sporting event. They won't ever say their guy flops, or that he traveled or that the refs swallowed their whistle on your own team. In politics, the reason they behave this way is because the soccer fan mentality of their constituents allows them a free pass. Then the other party tries to have them jailed for something trite.

Why can't people condemn shitty behavior regardless who its from? When are folks going to realize that Trump and the Clintons are better friends than either will ever be with you? They've lined each others pockets for decades, this little show is just a distraction. The real fuck over came against Bernie Sanders. Everyone's blinded by the slight of hand though.

[ElNono]

I don't think that's what they're doing. The video spoke to training sessions given to people solely for the purpose of teaching them how to start a fight. These aren't innocent people voicing political opposition. They're there to start a fight.

You're free to disbelieve the video. But if you accept it at face value, your characterization of the agitators as people who simply disagree with Trump supporters is inaccurate.

I caught up and watched the video, and besides the obvious campaign law violations, you could argue they could easily be charged in violation of 18 USC 373 and 2101.

Obviously, you would need more than a guy talking into a camera, but if it's as brazen as described, you would think it shouldn't be difficult to dig up some evidence (ie: phone call traces).

More than intent, I think a more solid case can be brought under conspiracy.

[DMC]

^Those two won't be employed for long. Never mind the election being around the corner.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So if I put on a "Fuck Trayvon" shirt and walk down MLK blvd in X city and get knocked the fuck out, those people who did it should have better restraint?

Do you folks feel the same way about the black folks being shot by cops because they "overreacted" to being stopped and searched?

This forum is a neat little microcosm of the issues in this country politically; party lines cause folks to turn a blind eye to corruption as long as it benefits them. You can see it with the refusal to acknowledge or even watch the video, but to give a tu quoque response instead.

I would expect those that assaulted you to be criminally prosecuted and they would be if caught. Not sure what you think you are proving here. The violence at BLM rallies has been universally condemened.

[rmt]

^Those two won't be employed for long. Never mind the election being around the corner.

It doesn't matter to them - mission accomplished - the impression of violence/Trump rallies already baked in for the general population. Some on this board - going on and on defending this pre-planned, coordinated, trained, paid behavior - smh.

[boutons_deux]

Trash encouraged violence, his assholes complied, his assholes also threaten violence to any who opposes Trash, will intimidate voters as Trash requested

None of this has anything to do with Dems

[DarrinS]

Obnoxious loud music warning


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMux_UHmpvc

[boutons_deux]

Is Trump Urging His Gun-Toting Supporters To Break Voter Intimidation Laws?

Donald Trump is engaging in an unprecedented campaign of voter fraud fear-mongering. Not only is he putting Americans’ trust in the bedrock of U.S. democracy at risk, but what he has urged his supporters to do -- in stump speeches across the country -- would, if carried out, likely be a form of illegal voter intimidation (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/trump-election-intimidation-minority-voters/504014/).

“The idea that people would be standing outside the polls with guns, or even inside the polls with guns, clearly has the potential to turn people away.

There’s a long history of this,” said Deuel Ross, an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which is very active in voting rights litigation.

His group plans to be observing elections in Georgia, Texas, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina.

“These are places with a history of voter intimidation and also very liberal gun laws,” Ross said.

The Voting Rights Act includes a provision that prohibits any attempt to “intimidate, threaten, or coerce” a person trying to vote, and there's a section of the federal criminal code banning voter intimidation as well.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/is-trump-urging-his-gun-toting-supporters-to-break-voter-intimidation-laws?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

[DMC]

I would expect those that assaulted you to be criminally prosecuted and they would be if caught. Not sure what you think you are proving here. The violence at BLM rallies has been universally condemened.

You didn't answer the question. Typical for you. Should the black person who hit me have better restraint?

[DMC]

It doesn't matter to them - mission accomplished - the impression of violence/Trump rallies already baked in for the general population. Some on this board - going on and on defending this pre-planned, coordinated, trained, paid behavior - smh.
No it matters. This isn't a summer gig for them. No one will hire them knowing they blab to whomever they meet in a bar.

[boutons_deux]

"violence/Trump rallies already baked in for the general population"

The Dems forced Trash's supporters to sock, rough up anti-Trash people?

Trash and his goonish, thuggish supporters are gonna get the electoral reaming they're asking for.

[DMC]

You pretend like you don't know this fuck stains history of presenting edited videos to slobbering mongoloids, no offense. The op along with her brother ducks, are the two stupidest people on this entire site (which so you know is not a good thing).

and to answer your question, anyone who physically assaults someone should be have better self control. However, the racist piece of shit that confronts them should as well. Don't start nothing won't be nothing, almost all the time. So don't pretend you're innocent when you provoke people

Doesn't matter. If campaign people are made aware of it they'll pull anchor on these guys. Appearance of impropriety is almost as bad as impropriety.

[pgardn]

It doesn't matter to them - mission accomplished - the impression of violence/Trump rallies already baked in for the general population. Some on this board - going on and on defending this pre-planned, coordinated, trained, paid behavior - smh.

Who are the some on THIS board?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You didn't answer the question. Typical for you. Should the black person who hit me have better restraint?

If I am saying that he should be held criminally responsible I would expect people who have graduated HS to have the requisite critical thinking skills to figure it out. You need it spelled out for you?

[Spurminator]

It doesn't matter to them - mission accomplished - the impression of violence/Trump rallies already baked in for the general population. Some on this board - going on and on defending this pre-planned, coordinated, trained, paid behavior - smh.

You're mistaking our lack of a hyperbolic reaction as defense. It's dirty politics and we should do something about it. We can start with banning SuperPACs.

But this reveal isn't really a game changer to this election.

[DMC]

If I am saying that he should be held criminally responsible I would expect people who have graduated HS to have the requisite critical thinking skills to figure it out. You need it spelled out for you?
Or you could stop being a twat and answer the actual question. Nah that'll never happen.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Or you could stop being a twat and answer the actual question. Nah that'll never happen.

I'm more than satisfied with the current state of you not being able to figure it out. You are wondering if I think they should have restrained themselves? I'm stating that I consider it a criminal act.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You're mistaking our lack of a hyperbolic reaction as defense. It's dirty politics and we should do something about it. We can start with banning SuperPACs.

But this reveal isn't really a game changer to this election.
How about organized voter fraud?

O'Keefe video #2
hDc8PVCvfKs

[Spurminator]

How come not even The Intercept has written about part 1? Are they in the tank for HRC too?

I'll wait for someone else to vet part 2 before wasting my time again.

[TheSanityAnnex]

How come not even The Intercept has written about part 1? Are they in the tank for HRC too?

I'll wait for someone else to vet part 2 before wasting my time again.

Or you could just watch the video. This one is truly damning.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Just read Google is actively suppressing both videos. Doesn't show up as trending in the US. Login with VPN from outside US and yesterday's video is trending at #3.

[Spurminator]

Or you could just watch the video. This one is truly damning

You said that about the previous video and every email dump so far. Pretty sure you also thought his PP video was damning. I'll wait.


Just read Google is actively suppressing both videos. Doesn't show up as trending in the US. Login with VPN from outside US and yesterday's video is trending at #3.

Or maybe it's not trending in the US but it's trending outside of the US.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You said that about the previous video and every email dump so far. Pretty sure you also thought his PP video was damning. I'll wait. Hopefully Glenn Greenwald watches it and can break it down for you.

In the meantime: "Americans United for Change has always operated according to the highest ethical standards," said Brad Woodhouse, President of Americans United For Change. "Scott Foval is no longer associated with Americans United for Change."




Or maybe it's not trending in the US but it's trending outside of the US.no, actively being suppressed.

[SnakeBoy]

How come not even The Intercept has written about part 1? Are they in the tank for HRC too?

I'll wait for someone else to vet part 2 before wasting my time again.

No vetting needed. O'keefe plant and Foval guy hatch a theoretical voter fraud scheme in a bar, O'Keefe plant takes the scheme to Bob Creamer who says he won't touch that with a 10 foot pole but he gives the O'keefe plant the names of some hispanic activist's that he could talk to, O'Keefe plant then pitches the scheme to the Hispanic activist and he says yeah that is something we could think about for 2018 if Trump wins.

First video was more damning imo. This one is pretty meh.

[TheSanityAnnex]

No vetting needed. O'keefe plant and Foval guy hatch a theoretical voter fraud scheme in a bar, O'Keefe plant takes the scheme to Bob Creamer who says he won't touch that with a 10 foot pole but he gives the O'keefe plant the names of some hispanic activist's that he could talk to, O'Keefe plant then pitches the scheme to the Hispanic activist and he says yeah that is something we could think about for 2018 if Trump wins.

First video was more damning imo. This one is pretty meh.
You miss the part where Foval said they've been bussing in voters for 30 years?

[SnakeBoy]

You miss the part where Foval said they've been bussing in voters for 30 years?

That's a guy talking shit in a bar.

[rmt]

Did someone post this earlier? NYC Democratic Election Commissioner, "They Bus People Around to Vote"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0

[pgardn]

Did someone post this earlier? NYC Democratic Election Commissioner, "They Bus People Around to Vote"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0


wtf?

What does a burka have to do with anything? So if I were to wear a giant Sombrero in NY I could get a voter ID?

What is this?

[TheSanityAnnex]

https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/PVA-FEC-Complaint.pdf

October 18, 2016
Office of the General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20463
Re: Complaint Against Hillary for America, the Democratic National
Committee, Democracy Partners, Americans United for Change, and other
known and unknown individuals and groups.
To Whom It May Concern:
Complainant
The Public Interest Legal Foundation (“PILF”) is a non-profit educational and legal foundation
dedicated to protect the right to vote, preserve the Constitutional framework of American
elections, and educate the public on the issue of election integrity. As part of its mission, PILF
gathers and analyzes information regarding potential violations of federal and state election laws
and informs the public about these violations and concerns.
This complaint is filed on behalf of the Public Interest Legal Foundation by Joseph A.
Vanderhulst, Legal Counsel with PILF at 209 West Main Street, Plainfield, Indiana 46168,
pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1).
Respondents
Hillary for America
(Committee ID C00575795)
P.O. Box 5256
New York, NY 10185-5256
Jose H. Villarreal
Treasurer, Hillary for America
P.O. Box 5256
New York, NY 10185-5256
Democratic National Committee
430 South Capitol Street Southeast
Washington, DC 20003
Democracy Partners
1250 Eye Street, NW, Ste. 250
Washington, DC 20005
Bob Creamer
Strategist, Democracy Partners
1250 Eye Street, NW, Ste. 250
Washington, DC 20005
Americans United for Change
P.O. Box 34606
Washington, D.C. 20043
202-470-6954
Scott Foval
National Field Director, Americans United for Change
P.O. Box 34606
Washington, D.C. 20043
202-470-6954
Voces de la Frontera Action
1027 S. 5th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53204
Tel. 414-643-1620
Unknown Groups and Individuals Associated with Respondents
Summary
This complaint is based on information and belief that respondents have engaged in public
communications, campaign activity, targeted voter registration drives, and other targeted GOTV
activity under 11 C.F.R. 100.26 and 11 C.F.R. 114.4 at the request, direction, and approval of the
Hillary for America campaign committee and the Democratic National Committee in violation of
11 C.F.R. 109.20 and 11 C.F.R. 114.4(d)(2) and (3).
Complainant’s information and belief is based on findings from an investigation conducted by
Project Veritas Action and their published reports regarding the same, as well as on news
sources.
“If the Commission, upon receiving a complaint . . . has reason to believe that a person has
committed, or is about to commit, a violation of [the FECA] . . . [t]he Commission shall make an
investigation of such alleged violation . . . .” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2); see also 11 C.F.R. §
111.4(a).
Facts and Violations
Alien Registration Drives
On information and belief based on published reports and findings from an investigation by
Project Veritas Action, several groups including Americans United for Change and Voces de la
Frontera Action and other unknown groups have engaged in voter registration drives and other
GOTV activity during the 2016 election cycle. These activities potentially registered persons
who were not citizens. This activity is regulated under 11 C.F.R. 114.4.
On the same information and belief, these voter registration drives and other GOTV activity
were coordinated with DNC and HFA by express communication through agents of Democracy
Partners and The Foval Group. These communications resulted in coordination of voter
registration activity in violation of 11 C.F.R. 114.4(c)(2) and (d)(2)-(4) by all parties involved.
Also, because they were coordinated with a political party or campaign, there voter registration
activities deliberated targeted demographic groups because they were statistically more likely to
support a particular party or candidate in violation of 11 C.F.R. 114.4(c)(2) and (d)(2)-(4) by all
parties involved.
Paid Protesters
As reported in several news sources, disruptions, including incidents of violence, have occurred
at rallies held by the Trump for President campaign. Based on published reports, these
disruptions were instigated by paid professional protestors arranged by third party groups at the
coordination and direction of agents of Democracy Partners and The Foval Group at the request
and approval of agents of DNC and HFA.
On information and belief based on published reports and findings from an investigation by
Project Veritas Action, these disruptions include the payment of protesters “wherever Trump and
Pence are going to be.” Based on these reports, it appears that all violent disruptions at Trump
for President campaign rallies have been executed by paid protesters trained and instructed in
their speech and conduct to advocate against Trump and in support of Clinton.
On information and belief based on the same source, agents of DNC and HFA communicated
with the third party groups and individuals engaging in the activity and content through agents of
Democracy Partners and The Foval Group in order to request and approve the communications.
Through a direct chain of communication, this constituted coordination under 11 C.F.R.
109.21(d)(1)-(5).
Other Public Communications and Campaign Activities
On information and belief based on published reports, all public communications as defined in
11 C.F.R. 109.21(c) done by Americans United for Change, including the activities described in
Exhibit A, were done at or with the direction, approval, suggestion, or after material discussion
regarding the timing, content, and audience of the communications, of the DNC and Hillary for
America campaign.
Conclusion
Upon information and belief, and based upon the facts set forth above, Respondents Hillary for
America, the Democratic National Committee, Democracy Partners, Americans United for
Change, and their agents, named and unnamed above, have, each of them, individually and
collectively, violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, and must be held
accountable and liable for their unlawful actions.
On behalf of PILF, I hereby request an investigation into whether the respondents identified
above, or any other related parties, have violated federal campaign finance laws. The information
uncovered by this investigation, including this initial complaint, will be used by PILF to educate
the American people about the laws governing our elections and current and potential threats to
election integrity.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please contact me if you have further
questions.
Respectfully submitted,
PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION
Joseph A. Vanderhulst
Legal Counsel
I hereby affirm and state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Joseph A. Vanderhulst
Subscribed and sworn to me on this day of , 2016, by Joseph A.
Vanderhulst, President and General Counsel of Public Interest Legal Foundation.
Notary Public

[clambake]

potentially?

can't believe i read that just for potentially.






thanks

[DMC]

I'm more than satisfied with the current state of you not being able to figure it out. You are wondering if I think they should have restrained themselves? I'm stating that I consider it a criminal act.

Twat did you say? I cvnt hear you.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You said that about the previous video and every email dump so far. Pretty sure you also thought his PP video was damning. I'll wait.



Or maybe it's not trending in the US but it's trending outside of the US.Trending #1 on Youtube.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=james%20okeefe

[TheSanityAnnex]

Second head rolled

Bob Creamer done with the DNC
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/788484460652167168

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/10/18/undercover-video-democratic-operatives-griffin-tell-lead.cnn

[Spurminator]

Hopefully Glenn Greenwald watches it and can break it down for you.

In the meantime: "Americans United for Change has always operated according to the highest ethical standards," said Brad Woodhouse, President of Americans United For Change. "Scott Foval is no longer associated with Americans United for Change."

Well, yeah, he discussed work secrets with a stranger at a bar. What an idiot.

[Spurminator]

Trending #1 on Youtube.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=james%20okeefe

Where did you get that from your link? I don't think you understand how Google Trends works.

Here is a Google Trends link comparing James Okeefe with "Cat Videos". Enjoy.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=james%20okeefe,cat%20videos

[Spurminator]

no, actively being suppressed.

I just went to YouTube. In America. Here's what my "Recommended Videos" screen looks like.

http://i.imgur.com/NXnNumg.png

Here's what "Trending" looks like:
http://i.imgur.com/DSu5TsE.png

:cry suppression :cry

[TheSanityAnnex]

I just went to YouTube. In America. Here's what my "Recommended Videos" screen looks like.

http://i.imgur.com/NXnNumg.png

Here's what "Trending" looks like:
http://i.imgur.com/DSu5TsE.png

:cry suppression :cry
I already said it was trending #1 on YouTube. But thanks for the screen cap.


"Work secrets" lol

[Spurminator]

I already said it was trending #1 on YouTube. But thanks for the screen cap.

So then you're no longer saying it was repressed.

What was the Google Trends link supposed to show us?

[Splits]

So then you're no longer saying it was repressed.

What was the Google Trends link supposed to show us?

it was a conspiracy until TSA exposed it on ST political forum and then they removed the suppression algorithm

[ducks]

The polls however are not showing that, but Ablin noted that the polls and betting forums are not perfect. "I will say for the Brexit vote, the betting sites had 85 percent chance of Britain remaining before Brexit. But who knows," he said. The U.K. voted by a slim majority to leave the European Union by a slim margin.

[ElNono]

yeah, that 2nd video nowhere near as the 1st one.

[DMC]

it was a conspiracy until TSA exposed it on ST political forum and then they removed the suppression algorithm
Which was naut times naut equals double naut

[DMC]

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/10/18/undercover-video-democratic-operatives-griffin-tell-lead.cnn
Funny CNN pounced on that, nothing at Fox. I guess they are weary, probably jumped all over the ACORN deal before it went south.

[CosmicCowboy]

key operative in a Democratic scheme to send agitators to cause unrest at Donald Trump’s rallies has visited the White House 342 times since 2009, White House records show.

Robert Creamer, who acted as a middle man between the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee and “protesters” who tried — and succeeded — to provoke violence at Trump rallies met with President Obama 47 times, according to White House records. Creamer’s last visit was in June 2016.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/exposed-dem-operative-who-oversaw-trump-rally-agitators-visited-white-house-342-times/#ixzz4NXEVB5k0

[TheSanityAnnex]

yeah, that 2nd video nowhere near as the 1st one.

by itself no, but then add in this leaked email from today. With the timing of these it looks like O'Keefe and Wikileaks are working together.

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18755

btw From:[email protected]
To: [email protected] Date: 2008-03-14 14:52
Subject: btw John and khalid came up with 50k from seiu for the bus - for now - perhaps a little more later - ffa's pump priming is already helping - thank you Brad Woodhouse, President Americans United for Change 202-470-5858 202-251-5669 (cell) [email protected]

seiu= service employees international union
ffa = funds for America
Amy was executive director for ffa, previously worked for seiu

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

I knew they weren't real bernie bros sorry FKLA

[ElNono]

by itself no, but then add in this leaked email from today. With the timing of these it looks like O'Keefe and Wikileaks are working together.

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18755

btw From:[email protected]
To: [email protected] Date: 2008-03-14 14:52
Subject: btw John and khalid came up with 50k from seiu for the bus - for now - perhaps a little more later - ffa's pump priming is already helping - thank you Brad Woodhouse, President Americans United for Change 202-470-5858 202-251-5669 (cell) [email protected]

seiu= service employees international union
ffa = funds for America
Amy was executive director for ffa, previously worked for seiu

On the 1st video you had people actually admitting to committing alleged illegal acts. On the 2nd, they there's no such admission. There's actually rejection to participate in such scheme until it's legally reviewed.

That email doesn't change an iota of that. That's not to say that they didn't try to pull that shit, but there's no evidentiary value there (legally, for conspiracy theorists, anything goes I suppose).

[spurraider21]

so this fuck was aware of this going on for months and chose to wait until a few weeks before the election to expose it instead of coming out earlier and preventing future incitements from happening?

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.wkow.com/story/33431165/2016/10/19/wisdoj-looking-into-statements-made-by-madison-political-operative-in-undercover-video

:cry Foval :cry

[TheSanityAnnex]

so this fuck was aware of this going on for months and chose to wait until a few weeks before the election to expose it instead of coming out earlier and preventing future incitements from happening?
Media would bury and the public would forget. Waiting until now has the most impact.

[spurraider21]

Media would bury and the public would forget. Waiting until now has the most impact.
in the meantime he allowed further trump supporters to be baited into attacking :lol

and lmao, such effect this video has had on voters/polls

[ElNono]

in the meantime he allowed further trump supporters to be baited into attacking :lol

and lmao, such effect this video has had on voters/polls

the problem is that eventually the unedited video comes out, and the ruse runs it's course. Not to say there's no damning stuff on the 1st video, but the source has a long history of sketchy 'reporting'...

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://i67.tinypic.com/2njldth.jpg

[pgardn]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/breitbart-liberal-activist-230255

Breitbart involved.
Went after Rubio and Ted...

Wingnuts coordinate

[DarrinS]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/breitbart-liberal-activist-230255

Breitbart involved.
Went after Rubio and Ted...

Wingnuts coordinate


I guess Trump can stop whining about how Bernie was treated.