Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is the sting that made their name:


https://www.projectveritas.com/investigation/acorn/



Since then, it's been revealed they're not above selectively editing their videos.



I'm not sure I trust them entirely. On the other hand, you get the occasional sound bite that no amount of context could justify.



What I get from this, is that the media industry is a VERY dirty business, and O'Keefe is probably as dirty as any of them.


This is worrysome, since ideally, you want the people you side with to police their own at best. Or you want an unbiased watchdog group with the integrity, clout, and connections to keep everyone honest, at worst.


Seems we have neither of those.

I feel like one can't run their mouth about Veritas and then fully trust places like CNN or MSNBC, that is a fact Jack.

I feel Veritas does good work. Of course be skeptical of it all, but still it is not wise to dismiss it outright.

Of course Veritas is about a billion times more credible than CNN and MSNBC but then, that's not really sayin' much is it? LOL.

No, but really, the people who are a part of Veritas are actual heroes.

So they tried to plant a story in a newspaper but got found out. Edited videos in order to deceive people and got found out. Broke into a politicians office and got caught and arrested. Tried to seduce a TV reporter with the hope of filming it.

That O'Keefe guy doesn't exactly do himself any favours, does he?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So they tried to plant a story in a newspaper but got found out. Edited videos in order to deceive people and got found out. Broke into a politicians office and got caught and arrested. Tried to seduce a TV reporter with the hope of filming it.

That O'Keefe guy doesn't exactly do himself any favours, does he?

No more favors than cnn,MSNBC, correct!

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So they tried to plant a story in a newspaper but got found out. Edited videos in order to deceive people and got found out. Broke into a politicians office and got caught and arrested. Tried to seduce a TV reporter with the hope of filming it.

That O'Keefe guy doesn't exactly do himself any favours, does he?

nope, but trumpers choose to forget all that "fake news", because their feelings matter a lot

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So they tried to plant a story in a newspaper but got found out. Edited videos in order to deceive people and got found out. Broke into a politicians office and got caught and arrested. Tried to seduce a TV reporter with the hope of filming it.

That O'Keefe guy doesn't exactly do himself any favours, does he?



His ethics are non existent.


That doesn't change the fact there's no way he could make up some of the things people have said, like in that Acorn example. "Yeah, tell those kiddies being trafficked to keep their mouths shut."

@surt I'm sure you'll start a thread about it. In the meantime let's try and keep one thread on topic for at least 1 page.

I don't need to start a thread nobody has been sad enough to disagree. I won't be starting a "water is wet"thread either

And given your lack of consistency in calling out off topic posts my advice is: dont

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
@surt I'm sure you'll start a thread about it. In the meantime let's try and keep one thread on topic for at least 1 page.

awww let the baby derail the thread and have his way

Kids just say the word we will make this about your hypocrisy. Or we can move on

Some advice if you aren't hypocrites: move on

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
awww let the baby derail the thread and have his way

Like when he lets you derail threads?

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't need to start a thread nobody has been sad enough to disagree. I won't be starting a "water is wet"thread either

And given your lack of consistency in calling out off topic posts my advice is: dont

Calling it out in literally every single thread would take a lot of time. Maybe you could do it on my behalf seeing as you're here more than me.

Thanks.

.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Calling it out in literally every single thread would take a lot of time. Maybe you could do it on my behalf seeing as you're here more than me.

Thanks.

.

Yeah bro u just post often enough to only talk about the other side doing it. Believable.

And do not worry kiddo I will indeed call out the hypocrisy

Originally posted by Silent Master
Like when he lets you derail threads?

only when my back hurts and I haven't slept well

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Calling it out in literally every single thread would take a lot of time. Maybe you could do it on my behalf seeing as you're here more than me.

Thanks.

.

So you admit that bash does it so often that it'd take all your free time to call him out?

Lol. That excuse makes more sense than lying and claiming to never see it

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah bro u just post often enough to only talk about the other side doing it. Believable.

And do not worry kiddo I will indeed call out the hypocrisy

"The other side". Lol. I don't watch CNN or MSNBC and only know about the things Project Veritas have done by reading about them to reply to this thread

In your mind I have sides when it comes to them.

Okay I believe you

Originally posted by Silent Master
So you admit that bash does it so often that it'd take all your free time to call him out?

And you
And Surt
And Rob

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
And you
And Surt
And Rob

It's like song lyrics

The longest song ever written. Goes on for years.

Jim Morrison wrote it while on peyote

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
And you
And Surt
And Rob

Why are you deflecting?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Why are you deflecting?

What have I deflected from?

Basically I will say this: they have done good work. Mistakes have been made. Like with pretty much all media these days: I will look into what they are saying and not take anything at face value.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The longest song ever written. Goes on for years.


No, that's ths song'

0U2zJOryHKQ

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So they tried to plant a story in a newspaper but got found out. Edited videos in order to deceive people and got found out. Broke into a politicians office and got caught and arrested. Tried to seduce a TV reporter with the hope of filming it.

That O'Keefe guy doesn't exactly do himself any favours, does he?

Is this the same group who edited a video to make it appear that Planned Parenthood was selling "baby parts" on the black market?

Originally posted by Robtard
Is this the same group who edited a video to make it appear that Planned Parenthood was selling "baby parts" on the black market? I think you are a tard...

Originally posted by Robtard
Is this the same group who edited a video to make it appear that Planned Parenthood was selling "baby parts" on the black market?

Same guy.


Not that he proved jack, but it would not surprise me if at least some centers had black market ties, given how stem cells are worth a lot of money to Big Pharma.

What a loser.

Big Pharma could easily get illegal fetal matter from China.

Originally posted by Robtard
Is this the same group who edited a video to make it appear that Planned Parenthood was selling "baby parts" on the black market?

No I think that was a different group.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controve
rsy

Originally posted by Robtard
What a loser.

Big Pharma could easily get illegal fetal matter from China.

Originally posted by cdtm
This is the sting that made their name:


https://www.projectveritas.com/investigation/acorn/



Since then, it's been revealed they're not above selectively editing their videos.



I'm not sure I trust them entirely. On the other hand, you get the occasional sound bite that no amount of context could justify.



What I get from this, is that the media industry is a VERY dirty business, and O'Keefe is probably as dirty as any of them.


This is worrysome, since ideally, you want the people you side with to police their own at best. Or you want an unbiased watchdog group with the integrity, clout, and connections to keep everyone honest, at worst.


Seems we have neither of those.


I'm mixed. They are agenda ridden, for sure. They doctor their vids and content to fit their agenda.


They try to show us stuff going on that we might not be able to see but you can't trust any of it. If you're so shitty that a reasonable person has to double check your "facts" before believing them, perhaps it is time to get rid of the company and start fresh.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you're so shitty that a reasonable person has to double check your "facts" before believing them, perhaps it is time to get rid of the company and start fresh.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/3o7rbR6Kj0t3N2Dyec/source.gif

You hurt his feelings.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm mixed. They are agenda ridden, for sure. They doctor their vids and content to fit their agenda.


They try to show us stuff going on that we might not be able to see but you can't trust any of it. If you're so shitty that a reasonable person has to double check your "facts" before believing them, perhaps it is time to get rid of the company and start fresh.

The irony is one of their "stings" involved seeing if a news outlet published unsubstantiated stories without checking into the source first. The story they tried to plant ended up being rejected by the WaPo because they checked it first. Then PV end up not only publishing unverified stories, but actively try to falsify the allegations first before publishing.

I'm not a fan of Project Veritas, my first exposure was their videos on the Abortion clinics, with the claim that fetuses were callously sold for profit, however their videos were clearly doctored and taken out of context. I think their work is effective for some policy that Republicans want to enact, as it gets people riled up rather well. Some may consider that fair play partisan tactic, from my POV their work crosses a line into the unethical.

Interesting there is an in-depth discussion of James O'Keefe and Project Veritas by a youtuber that came out a few days ago.

8buQLy1dWD8

It's very long, but if one has time it might be worth a watch.

It's true Project Veritas shouldn't even be needed, but alas it is and I'm glad they are around. Just like CNN and MSNBC, they don't always get it right.

Originally posted by Blakemore
I think you are a tard... still makes sense.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's true Project Veritas shouldn't even be needed, but alas it is and I'm glad they are around. Just like CNN and MSNBC, they don't always get it right.


No, they don't...but they get it right a hell of a lot more than CNN and MSNBC do who outright lie on an almost daily basis lol.

And if people are going to complain about Veritas editing videos I sure do hope they also complained when CNN edited videos to try to make Trump look bad.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm mixed. They are agenda ridden, for sure. They doctor their vids and content to fit their agenda.


They try to show us stuff going on that we might not be able to see but you can't trust any of it. If you're so shitty that a reasonable person has to double check your "facts" before believing them, perhaps it is time to get rid of the company and start fresh.


Do you think they'd sink to lying outright about their flaws?


Or are their lies only in the service of exposing those flaws?


E.g., they'd go to any measure or tell any lie to prove they don't fact check a story, but would never lie about whether they actually fact checked a story.

Originally posted by Surtur
And if people are going to complain about Veritas editing videos I sure do hope they also complained when CNN edited videos to try to make Trump look bad.


Also, the thing with them editing that undercover PP video was not underhanded. They didn't actually change anything. Just cut out the unnecessary parts. If they hadn't, the video would've been up being probably five or six hours long and honestly, who has the patience to sit thru that? They didn't change any of the relevant parts.

Everyone edits their videos to some degree or another. Everyone who makes a you tube video, for instance, edits it to some degree. Editing videos is not something unheard of, ffs.

These crybabies on here that are still b*tching about it are just upset because they know the video helped expose what monsters the people who work at PP are and no amount of spin or yelling from them is ever gonna change that. The video being edited to cut out the irrelevant parts doesn't change that and never will no matter what anyone says. Period.

These same people whining over that video being edited were the same people accusing PJW of altering that video a while back showing where one of Trump's former employees/bodyguards/whatever had to restrain a reporter who kept trying to get past him and into Trump's face to pester him w/more questions after Trump basically said "no more questions" and was leaving the WH briefing room.

All Watson did was zoom in on the video to show that the guy wasn't "manhandling" her (which is what I think she accused him of doing and hurting her; it happened years ago so the exact details are hard to remember) and all the Trump-haters accused him of "altering" the video. Oh yeah, the exact word they used was "doctoring" the video. Zooming in is not changing or "doctoring" it though.

And the worst of it is no one wanted to challenge this Abe Rosenthal.


Why not? Was he the Godfather of media? Does he ruin careers on a whim? Do facts mean whatever he says they do, because no one would dare get on his bad side?

If people like this Abe Rosenthal exist today, the media has bigger problems then Trump. It's tin pot dictators like this who ruin everything.

LOL@"one of the most respected newspapers out there."

It's a failing paper and has been for a while now. I feel sorry for you if you actually genuinely believe what you just said there. Perhaps a decade ago that might've been true but not anymore.

They started to really go down downhill during the 2016 election cycle and they just keep on falling.

NYT used to be respected, but Trump forced them to behave deranged.

The only use I would ever have for a clearly biased left-wing rag like the NYT is as a litter box liner for my cats lol. I suppose I could also use it as toilet paper if I ever ran out of tp lol.

Originally posted by Surtur
NYT used to be respected, but Trump forced them to behave deranged.


Yeah, I remember when during the 2010 election cycle, after Trump won a certain state in the primaries (can't remember which one exactly, some place in the northeast), the butthurt people at NYT posted a picture of Trump supporters as being clowns or zombies or something similar. But nah, they were and are clearly totally and completely unbiased.

I actually love outlets like CNN and the New York Times. I really do. They make it so easy to counter any claims of "the media isn't the enemy". They make it so easy to counter claims of "TDS isn't real".

And strangely enough they get mad over being called the enemy and fake news lol. This is like a guy getting mad for being called racist and then immediately putting on a white robe with a pointy hat while exclaiming "I'm off to lynch some black folk!".

Originally posted by Surtur
I actually love outlets like CNN and the New York Times. I really do. They make it so easy to counter any claims of "the media isn't the enemy". They make it so easy to counter claims of "TDS isn't real".

And strangely enough they get mad over being called the enemy and fake news lol. This is like a guy getting mad for being called racist and then immediately putting on a white robe with a pointy hat.


The thing is, I think they know damn well that the "news" they put out is BS, at least when it comes to political matters, but they just don't give a damn because their brainwashed audience who're all consumed with TDS just loves it and eats it up. It's ratings over real journalism for them.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
The thing is, I think they know damn well that the "news" they put out is BS, at least when it comes to political matters, but they just don't give a damn because their brainwashed audience who're all consumed with TDS just loves it and eats it up. It's ratings over real journalism for them. dur

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
The thing is, I think they know damn well that the "news" they put out is BS, at least when it comes to political matters, but they just don't give a damn because their brainwashed audience who're all consumed with TDS just loves it and eats it up. It's ratings over real journalism for them.

I think it is 50/50. I think some of it they know is bullshit and I think other times they think to themselves "well this sure sounds like something trump would do!" and then repeat it without fact checking it.

Though as bad as these lying outlets are those who clap them on the back when they fix their lies are almost as bad.

Originally posted by Surtur
I think it is 50/50. I think some of it they know is bullshit and I think other times they think to themselves "well this sure sounds like something trump would do!" and then repeat it without fact checking it.

Though as bad as these lying outlets are those who clap them on the back when they fix their lies are almost as bad.


That's the thing though, a lot of the time they don't even bother with fixing them. They usually just move on to creating some more lies rather than correcting their old lies.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
That's the thing though, a lot of the time they don't even bother with fixing them. They usually just move on to creating some more lies rather than correcting their old lies.

And sometimes when they do fix things they do stealth edits, which are shady as hell.

Other times they fix things, but the number of people who see the updated version is nowhere near as high as the number who saw the original. This is especially true when a reporter tweets out something and then issues a tweet to correct.

Originally posted by Surtur
And sometimes when they do fix things they do stealth edits, which are shady as hell.

Other times they fix things, but the number of people who see the updated version is nowhere near as high as the number who saw the original. This is especially true when a reporter tweets out something and then issues a tweet to correct.


Exactly.

Originally posted by Surtur
And sometimes when they do fix things they do stealth edits, which are shady as hell.

Other times they fix things, but the number of people who see the updated version is nowhere near as high as the number who saw the original. This is especially true when a reporter tweets out something and then issues a tweet to correct.

That's very similar to what leftist complaints about the mainstream media are as well. I don't even think they do it on purpose, I just think they are mediocre corporate shills that were selected for the way they think, and that way is a dumbass pseudo-social neo-liberal way.

Originally posted by cdtm
Do you think they'd sink to lying outright about their flaws?


Or are their lies only in the service of exposing those flaws?


E.g., they'd go to any measure or tell any lie to prove they don't fact check a story, but would never lie about whether they actually fact checked a story.

For some reason, I can't comprehend how to respond.


Probably because I don't agree with your questions (because I'm stupid).


Project Veritas is interested in proving their agendas and they lie and use underhanded methods to get to the finish line. That's how I can answer your question.

I haven't eaten yet, today, so my brain doesn't work. Saturdays are pizza days and I skip breakfast to wait for the lunch time pizza to arrive.

They also edit videos on YouToob.

Originally posted by dadudemon
For some reason, I can't comprehend how to respond.


Probably because I don't agree with your questions (because I'm stupid).


Project Veritas is interested in proving their agendas and they lie and use underhanded methods to get to the finish line. That's how I can answer your question.

I haven't eaten yet, today, so my brain doesn't work. Saturdays are pizza days and I skip breakfast to wait for the lunch time pizza to arrive. nice re pizza, I am on my carnivore/keto diet. It's going well.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Project Veritas is interested in proving their agendas and they lie and use underhanded methods to get to the finish line.


Which is why I'm perplexed when a place like CNN gets upset at them. They have so much in common. It's like calling your identical twin ugly.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The longest song ever written. Goes on for years.

1_47KVJV8DU

Sure, they clearly hace an agenda.


What I'm asking is if you think their agenda is to expose them, or to make them look bad.


Two very different things. Edward Snowden may be many things, but he probably wasn't a liar. That doesn't change the fact he broke many laws, and endangered a lot of lives.

Snowden is a hero.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
1_47KVJV8DU

https://media.tenor.com/images/b85413b368392ba78e647438f2366d46/tenor.gif

Originally posted by cdtm
What I'm asking is if you think their agenda is to expose them, or to make them look bad.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EKvpZjfU8AAZtFP.png

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/retracto-no-313-stamford-advocate-clarifies-how-it-repeated-11-year-old-lie/



Looks likw the oft-repeated "selective editing" lawsuit was never about editing. They got sued for invasion of privacy.


At leaat in the case cited.

Citing Project Veritas in an investigation of Project Veritas is like using the bible to prove the veracity of the bible.

Or taking Biden/his campaign's word without doing an independent investigation.

Originally posted by cdtm
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/retracto-no-313-stamford-advocate-clarifies-how-it-repeated-11-year-old-lie/



Looks likw the oft-repeated "selective editing" lawsuit was never about editing. They got sued for invasion of privacy.


At leaat in the case cited.

I laughed, I wonder how the usual suspects will spin this.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Citing Project Veritas in an investigation of Project Veritas is like using the bible to prove the veracity of the bible.


There was a retraction.


A biased source does not make the article a lie.

Yeah I was gonna shut Adam down there but I figured you should get to do the honors. I wonder if he even read the article or just read the title. But wait he couldn't have read the article because he'd have known there was a retraction.

I swear if a place like The Daily Wire told these folk the sky is blue they'd be like "lol yeah right, alt right news source".

Originally posted by Silent Master
Or taking Biden/his campaign's word without doing an independent investigation.

It is a good thing he ordered all of the records opened, and Reade immediately retracted her statement that she filed a complaint then, isn't it?

Originally posted by cdtm
There was a retraction.


A biased source does not make the article a lie.

Would you let someone charged with a crime investigate that crime? Try and think a little bit.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is a good thing he ordered all of the records opened, and Reade immediately retracted her statement that she filed a complaint then, isn't it?

He didn't order all the records open, why lie?

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah I was gonna shut Adam down there but I figured you should get to do the honors. I wonder if he even read the article or just read the title. But wait he couldn't have read the article because he'd have known there was a retraction.

I swear if a place like The Daily Wire told these folk the sky is blue they'd be like "lol yeah right, alt right news source".

LOL at you thinking you have ever shut anything down.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is a good thing he ordered all of the records opened, and Reade immediately retracted her statement that she filed a complaint then, isn't it?

Lol senate rejected his request, as I'm sure this man involved in government for decades knew they would.

But you tried

Originally posted by Silent Master
He didn't order all the records open, why lie?

^This, he made a request that IMO he knew would be denied.

Originally posted by Surtur
^This, he made a request that IMO he knew would be denied.

All the records would include the University of Delaware archive and he flat out refused to have them even searched for her name.

And I'm not sure why "he asked for the records to be released" is somehow a proper response to people taking his word without an investigation lol.

And remember this guy who was in the Senate from 1973 until 2009 apparently wasn't aware at all that it was against the law to release these records.

And I also need to point out an actual investigation into the allegations would involve more than looking at those records anyways. So again I wonder why somehow would feel it valid to note in the face of the claim of people believing Biden without investigation.

Originally posted by Silent Master
He didn't order all the records open, why lie?

Biden sent a letter to the Secretary of the Senate asking her to release any documents related to a possible complaint made by Reade.

Reade then stated that she did not explicitly accuse Biden of sexual assault or harassment in her complaint, only to later state that she did not file a complaint at all.

She then cancelled a television appearance to discuss it, because she does not want to further incriminate herself in case she gets sued.

Nice try, troll.

Based off my skimming of this thread, is it basically just five pages of "b-but CNN and MSNBC"?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Biden sent a letter to the Secretary of the Senate asking her to release any documents related to a possible complaint made by Reade.

Reade then stated that she did not explicitly accuse Biden of sexual assault or harassment in her complaint, only to later state that she did not file a complaint at all.

She then cancelled a television appearance to discuss it, because she does not want to further incriminate herself in case she gets sued.

Nice try, troll.

Why lie?

And yes lies of omission are lies. Or are you just uninformed?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Biden sent a letter to the Secretary of the Senate asking her to release any documents related to a possible complaint made by Reade.

Reade then stated that she did not explicitly accuse Biden of sexual assault or harassment in her complaint, only to later state that she did not file a complaint at all.

She then cancelled a television appearance to discuss it, because she does not want to further incriminate herself in case she gets sued.

Nice try, troll.

All the records would include the University of Delaware archive and he flat out refused to have them even searched for her name.

Why did you lie?

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol senate rejected his request, as I'm sure this man involved in government for decades knew they would.

But you tried

Yet, it caused Reade to retract her statement that she filed a complaint, even though she worked in the Senate for decades, and should have known better, right?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet, it caused Reade to retract her statement that she filed a complaint, even though she worked in the Senate for decades, and should have known better, right?

She didn't retract her statement, why are you lying?

Originally posted by Surtur
Why lie?

And yes lies of omission are lies. Or are you just uninformed?

Originally posted by Silent Master
All the records would include the University of Delaware archive and he flat out refused to have them even searched for her name.

Why did you lie?

Then why did Reade retract her statement in the face of such an obvious lie?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Then why did Reade retract her statement in the face of such an obvious lie?

She didn't.

Why are you lying?

Originally posted by Silent Master
All the records would include the University of Delaware archive and he flat out refused to have them even searched for her name.

Why did you lie?

He lied by omission via not divulging she pushed back on the story claiming the complaint didn't refer to sexual assault and said it wasn't true.

He also lied by saying she didn't go on Fox because she didn't wanna incriminate herself. Via her own words: she tried avoiding an appearance on Fox for a long time because she was afraid people would try to say she is playing politics. No other outlet would have her on so she agreed to go on Fox, then cancelled because she was getting death threats.

Originally posted by Silent Master
She didn't retract her statement, why are you lying?

Yes, she did. She claimed that she filed a sexual harassment complaint. Then she said she filed a complaint, but did not mention sexual harassment. Then she said she went to file the complaint, started filling out the information, and changed her mind, and did not file it after all. She keeps changing her story when people call her bluff. It is going to be really embarrassing for you retards when she loses a defamation lawsuit.

If Ford can defame people I don't see why Reade can't.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yes, she did. She claimed that she filed a sexual harassment complaint. Then she said she filed a complaint, but did not mention sexual harassment. Then she said she went to file the complaint, started filling out the information, and changed her mind, and did not file it after all. She keeps changing her story when people call her bluff. It is going to be really embarrassing for you retards when she loses a defamation lawsuit.

She said that while she didn't use that specific term, she believes that the actions she described were sexual harassment in nature.

Why are you so dishonest?

Originally posted by Silent Master
She said that while she didn't use that specific term, she believes that the actions she described were sexual harassment in nature.

Why are you so dishonest?

I've noticed that in the past whenever someone is making a sexual assault allegation and their behavior didn't quite match up to how we think they'd behave...this was usually shrugged off by the left, they'd quote some expert talking about how trauma makes survivors do weird things.

Now this doesn't seem to apply. Heck people have bashed Reade for praising Biden. Now, when Harvey Weinsteins victims continued to sleep with and praise him we were told trauma does weird things. But then...the democrats weren't going to lose any real political power by turning on Weinstein. It's the same reason they turned on Franken.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Citing Project Veritas in an investigation of Project Veritas is like using the bible to prove the veracity of the bible.

In this particular case, did they link to the court docs? If they did, no, that's wrong. They can comment on their own court docs if they want.

Someone tell me if they linked to their court docs. Either Adam_Poe is spot-on or he's only partially correct.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In this particular case, did they link to the court docs? If they did, no, that's wrong. They can comment on their own court docs if they want.

Someone tell me if they linked to their court docs. Either Adam_Poe is spot-on or he's only partially correct.


Where's the doubt?


That it was deceptive editing? That they're lying about it never having been called deceptive editing?


I haven't tried to hunt the court docs down, but is this something we can see? And if not, wouldn't concerned parties force a retraction real quick?

If people don't believe the retraction why would they believe the accusations of deceptive editing?

Originally posted by cdtm
A person who signs an nda to a supermarket, then reveals that they mix in dated potatoes salad to the press, is unethical for ignoring the nda.


But I'm all for ignoring integrity if it picks up dirt valuble to the general public.


In the same way, I'm fine with lieing, cheating, and stealing if it reveals a politician is a liar, cheat, or thief, because it often takes underhanded tactics to catch people in a compromising position. Like my wife who had no idea about a hidden camera when I caught her sleeping with her ex.



I'm of course lying, but that should explain my position and personal morality.


I can't tell if you're serious. Is your story about the ex-wife and her ex true? If so, that sucks. Sorry that happened.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I can't tell if you're serious. Is your story about the ex-wife and her ex true? If so, that sucks. Sorry that happened.


I was being facetious to make a point.


But your well meaning sympathy is appreciated.

Originally posted by cdtm
I was being facetious to make a point.


But your well meaning sympathy is appreciated.

The ex she slept with?

Albert Einstein.

Einstein wouldn't get it.

Don't you know? All genius's are autistic.

Inside the Project Veritas Plan to Steal the Election

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Inside the Project Veritas Plan to Steal the Election makes sense. They will fail this time people are polarised.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Inside the Project Veritas Plan to Steal the Election

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-republic/

Originally posted by Silent Master
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-republic/

I'm not sure how trying to get Trump reelected means they are trying to "steal" the election. Is The Lincoln Project(funded mostly by democrats) trying to steal the election by trying to get Biden elected?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Inside the Project Veritas Plan to Steal the Election

Odd did you think it was wrong when the FBI/ Clinton/McCain/DNC had plans to steal the election from Trump and an insurance policy in case he won?

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Odd did you think it was wrong when the FBI/ Clinton/McCain/DNC had plans to steal the election from Trump and an insurance policy in case he won? The Blaze interprets it like that im sure.

"Interprets it like that". LOL


As if it isn't what actually happened.

Oh leftists...

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
The Blaze interprets it like that im sure.

Can you point out to me what illegal activities Project Veritas is getting up to in order to "steal" the election?

Whirly is a brainwashed chronic narcissist

You may be right, Seeing as he just agreed with the New Republic which has a worse rating than the Blaze. a site he constantly makes fun of.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You may be right, Seeing as he just agreed with the New Republic which has a worse rating than the Blaze. a site he constantly makes fun of.

And he's never even been able to point to an article the blaze fabricated.

His reasoning for hating it is literally just "Cuz Surtur".

I posted about a black teen that had been murdered and his first reaction was along the lines of "lol blaze right?"

In an interview this week with federal agents, a Pennsylvania postal worker walked back his allegation that a supervisor had tampered with mailed ballots.

A two-hour recording shows that Richard Hopkins recanted claims he had made in a sworn affidavit that top Republicans cited over the weekend as potential evidence of widespread election irregularities and fraud.

Hopkins told federal investigators on Monday that the allegations in his affidavit were written by Project Veritas. He repeatedly expressed regret for signing the initial affidavit because he was not fully aware of its contents.

Hopkins, a self-described libertarian who said he voted for President Trump, was offered $25,000 by Project Veritas to bolster unproven allegations of widespread voter fraud by stating he witnessed election improprieties in Pennsylvania.

When an agent from the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General asked Hopkins if he stood by his sworn statement that a supervisor "was backdating ballots" mailed after Election Day, Hopkins answered, "No."

Hopkins told investigators that he had no direct knowledge of any directive to backdate ballots, nor did he witness anyone manipulate a ballot. He agreed to sign a revised statement that undercut his earlier affidavit, and a document stating that his revised statement was not coerced.

Hopkins was suspended without pay, pending the completion of the investigation. He insisted that he made the allegations in good faith, because he believed a federal investigation into voter fraud was warranted.

"A two-hour recording shows that Richard Hopkins recanted claims he had made in a sworn affidavit that top Republicans cited over the weekend as potential evidence of widespread election irregularities and fraud."

Hopkins told federal investigators on Monday that the allegations in his affidavit were written by Project Veritas. He repeatedly expressed regret for signing the initial affidavit because he was not fully aware of its contents. -snip



Oh lordy, don't these Republicans look like complete imbeciles. Good job torpedoing your own claims by not doing a shred of validation. Too good.