Why won't O'Keefe release the raw footage?

0  2016-10-24 by krom_bom

If the allegations in the video are true, he has evidence of serious corruption at the highest levels of our government.

Doesn't he owe it to his country and fellow citizens to release that footage?

What downside would there be for him to do so?

41 comments

4  sandyravage_ 2016-10-24

"trust me, if the information in these videos were fake, you would tell us" - Chris Wallace.

go ask the Daily Show to air their unedited videos. c'mon man.

0  Aluminoti 2016-10-24

Or the unedited Billy Bush tape

-1  krom_bom 2016-10-24

what are you getting at?

2  Gorkildeathgod 2016-10-24

If this was a court of law they would have to submit the full tape. Source: my ass

1  beefmon 2016-10-24

This O'Keefe thing is starting to sound like a circlejerk. He has been promising to drop a BOMBSHELL on Hillary.

This duck stuff is a stick and carrot move. With all of the shit the Clinton have done the best he can come up with is sending people dressed lick Donald fucking Duck to a rally??? IMO, this is a orchestrated way to say "Bad Hillary!!" without anything too bad getting released to harm her chances.

I would not bet money on the above but that is what it is looking like at this moment.

1  MachNineR 2016-10-24

It would ruin the suspense lol.

0  ridestraight 2016-10-24

He's spent hundreds oh hours working to deliver a visual and audio presentation of criminal activity.

I'm sure if he's pressed or persuaded he will do so on advise from his legal team.

1  krom_bom 2016-10-24

Well to be frank, he doesn't have a good tract record of intellectually honest journalism.

I just want to be absolutely sure, and I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with that.

0  CohenDaBarbarian 2016-10-24

he pushes the boundaries ethical and legal yes. Good for him. If there was no raw footage he would be open to prosecution for both slander and libel.

he needs to protect himself from the criminals he targets. would have

2  krom_bom 2016-10-24

what are you trying to say?

0  CohenDaBarbarian 2016-10-24

when you go up against a Soros investment. Plan for your suicide and protect yourself from litigation by keeping things like raw footage.

2  krom_bom 2016-10-24

So... keep the only evidence that proves you are right from ever being public?

I don't think you are very good at coming up with strategies...

0  CohenDaBarbarian 2016-10-24

well duh. Thsts why i didn't make congress in 98

0  Middleman79 2016-10-24

Can't change clearly stated sentences though can you.

0  krom_bom 2016-10-24

What's your point?

1  Middleman79 2016-10-24

The admissions in the videos are clearly stated and unedited. They can't be mistrued to be from a longer, different meaning sentence.

1  krom_bom 2016-10-24

"I know you would never do anything like this, but please describe to me how someone might do an illegal voter fraud scheme."

VIDEO STARTS

"Well we would first find people to hire, and blah blah blah"

Oh look, an example that took me 3 seconds to think of, where the sentence can be misunderstood OUT OF CONTEXT.

Are you so dense that you don't understand how selective editing can make someone appear to be saying the opposite of what they actually meant?

0  wikileakscompromised 2016-10-24

https://twitter.com/jamesokeefeiii/status/790587517842186241

"This is bizarre. @YouTube is not processing / uploading our Part III! What is going on??"

Maybe too long, or some copyrighted audio in their video that the Youtube algorithm is detecting?

1  krom_bom 2016-10-24

There are about ten thousand different ways to upload data onto the internet. This is probably the weakest excuse I've seen put forward.

0  Middleman79 2016-10-24

It's undercover footage. It's probably months long. The person recording must have earned enough trust for these cunt bags to say what they did in front of them, that takes time. Time that was probably all recorded.

0  krom_bom 2016-10-24

So what's your point? "It's too hard." Is that the best you could come up with?

0  Middleman79 2016-10-24

It's months long. Clearly stated in the second sentence.

0  krom_bom 2016-10-24

When someone asks for unedited footage of an event, they don't want the 6 months of footage leading up to it, they just want the footage of the whole conversation and context.

Did you not realize that, or are you being intentionally obfuscating?

-1  austenten 2016-10-24

Are you saying you need raw footage otherwise it's all fake? There's no raw source files because they are hours upon hours of completely unwatchable footage.

You can not accept that democracy no longer exists, that it's just a rotten rackiteering system?

2  krom_bom 2016-10-24

Are you saying you need raw footage otherwise it's all fake?

Nope.

You can not accept that democracy no longer exists, that it's just a rotten rackiteering system?

Didn't say that either.

0  jaydwalk 2016-10-24

Then what do you want!

0  krom_bom 2016-10-24

Uh, the raw footage? I thought I made that crystal clear.

0  jaydwalk 2016-10-24

and only that will make you 100% sure it's not fake? None of the actually content that can be fact checked or proven...?

1  krom_bom 2016-10-24

If you don't understand that selective editing can make a video seem like it's showing literally the opposite of what really happened, we don't have much to talk about.

I only have two real points- we cannot know for certainty that these videos are genuine, without the unedited footage, and I do not know of a single good reason why O'Keefe would refuse to release the raw footage.

I thought we could have civil discussion regarding this, but apparently I was completely mitsaken.

This post was downvoted to oblivion, and 95% of the post replies are aggressive deflections, and/or accusing me of shilling.

So I guess when /r/conspiracy was mocking CNN, just the other day, for claiming that people had get their wikileaks info from the news instead of right from the source, they were really just exposing a hilarious double standard.

0  jaydwalk 2016-10-24

Well you can go to the whitehouse.gov and look that Bob Creamer did in fact go to the white house tons of times and also met with Obama. Has O'Keefe come out and directly said that he won't release the unedited version?

Also another way to show credibility, no one is denying them that are directly involved and two of the main people lost their jobs.

-1  oroyplata 2016-10-24

That's Paul Krugman up there, and he is one of the most highly decorated economist in the world.

--OP

1  krom_bom 2016-10-24

Dude, I'm struggling to understand what you are trying to imply with your comment.

Care to explain? Why do you think this makes me look bad? Is he Jewish or something? Did he endorse a democrat or something?

I don't know anything about Paul Krugman, the man. I just know him as a famous economist.

0  oroyplata 2016-10-24

I don't know anything about Paul Krugman, the man. I just know him as a famous economist.

--OP

2  krom_bom 2016-10-24

This has got to be the most nonsensical way I have ever been called a shill (I have to assume that is what you are trying to imply).

1  krom_bom 2016-10-24

?

0  krom_bom 2016-10-24

Nice work, digging through my comment history to find me... what?

Saying that a nobel prize winner in economics is... a world renowned economist? Scandalous!

-1  oroyplata 2016-10-24

I have an actually honest question for you-

How will it affect your life and worldview if, hypothetically speaking, HRC turns out to be a halfway decent president?

How will it affect your life and worldview if she is elected, servers two terms, and is never prosecuted for anything, and the world just keeps on going?

I am extremely curious to hear your response.

--OP

1  krom_bom 2016-10-24

Are you alright, dude? You aren't really making any sense.

So you've quote old comments of mine twice now, the first one was me saying a famous economist is a famous economist, and the second was me asking someone a hypothetical question about the election?

What's the deal, bro?

0  FrontPageFirstTry 2016-10-24

they are shills. and they are destroying our discussions.

0  krom_bom 2016-10-24

who are? what do you mean?

1  krom_bom 2016-10-24

If you don't understand that selective editing can make a video seem like it's showing literally the opposite of what really happened, we don't have much to talk about.

I only have two real points- we cannot know for certainty that these videos are genuine, without the unedited footage, and I do not know of a single good reason why O'Keefe would refuse to release the raw footage.

I thought we could have civil discussion regarding this, but apparently I was completely mitsaken.

This post was downvoted to oblivion, and 95% of the post replies are aggressive deflections, and/or accusing me of shilling.

So I guess when /r/conspiracy was mocking CNN, just the other day, for claiming that people had get their wikileaks info from the news instead of right from the source, they were really just exposing a hilarious double standard.