The Business of Election Fraud

[Virgil Showlion]

Some video releases from James O'Keefe at Project Veritas--a Republican PAC--have been making waves recently.

As many of you know, Mr. O'Keefe is a freelance journalist dedicated to proving (among other things) the existence of large-scale election fraud in the US. His past submissions have ranged from not-terribly-compelling to ridiculous, but he seems to have hit his stride this time around.



In the video, undercover reporters interview three individuals (out of seven total that are the focus of the series) whose "career" (for lack of a better word) is orchestrating election fraud at a mass scale. The video claims the individuals are generously bankrolled by George-Soros-backed PACs, and the claim appears to be backed up by data from the FEC.

This version of the video is 16 minutes long. The first minute is the blitz "highlight reel", followed by an introduction, which you can skip. The meat is in the latter 15 minutes, where interview subjects discuss at length how to commit fraud cheaply, and in a way that can't be detected or proven.

The process isn't simple. It involves small teams of people working in concert, shell corporations, logistical planning, and a fair bit of cash. The video focuses on the ins and outs of three specific schemes managed by three (alleged) career fraudsters.

I'd be interested in posters' thoughts on the video, not Mr. O'Keefe himself or his past exposees. I'd also politely ask that anyone wishing to comment on the video watch at least half (8 minutes) of it to get a good sense of what's being said, how much editing is occurring, whether the facts in evidence support the conclusions, etc.

Finally, I'd like to remind one particularly forgetful poster: remember our agreement.

What say you of the video?

[kadee79]

James Edward O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is an American conservative political activist. He has produced secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some selectively edited, with figures and workers in academic, governmental and social service organizations, purportedly showing abusive or alleged illegal behavior by representatives of those organizations. He gained national attention for his release of video recordings of workers at ACORN offices in 2009, his arrest in early 2010 at the office of then-U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) in a failed attempt to record staff conversations, and the release of videos of conversations with two high-ranking, now former, NPR executives in 2011.

Due to his videos of ACORN workers allegedly aiding a couple in criminal planning, the U.S. Congress voted to freeze funds for the non-profit. The national scandal resulted in the non-profit also losing most private funding before investigations were completed. In March 2010, ACORN was close to bankruptcy and had to close most of its offices.[1] Shortly after, the California State Attorney General's Office and the US Government Accountability Office released their related investigative reports. The Attorney General's Office found that O'Keefe had misrepresented the actions of ACORN workers and that the workers had not committed illegal actions. A preliminary probe by the GAO found that ACORN had managed its federal funds appropriately.[2][3]

O'Keefe gained support from conservative media and interest groups. In 2009, the late Andrew Breitbart commissioned the activist (then 25 years old), for the option to publish new videos exclusively on BigGovernment.com. In June 2010, O'Keefe formed a 501(c)(3) organization, Project Veritas with the stated mission to "investigate and expose corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud and other misconduct."[4]

O'Keefe pled guilty in 2010 to one misdemeanor count of entering a federal building under false pretenses.[5]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe


   

[djAdvocate]

i am not going to watch at least 8 minutes, but i have researched this area thoroughly.

let us know if you want comments from anyone uninterested in dissecting Mr. O'Keefes "work".

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 18, 2016 20:48:02 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

James Edward O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is an American conservative political activist. He has produced secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some selectively edited, with figures and workers in academic, governmental and social service organizations, purportedly showing abusive or alleged illegal behavior by representatives of those organizations. He gained national attention for his release of video recordings of workers at ACORN offices in 2009, his arrest in early 2010 at the office of then-U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) in a failed attempt to record staff conversations, and the release of videos of conversations with two high-ranking, now former, NPR executives in 2011.

Due to his videos of ACORN workers allegedly aiding a couple in criminal planning, the U.S. Congress voted to freeze funds for the non-profit. The national scandal resulted in the non-profit also losing most private funding before investigations were completed. In March 2010, ACORN was close to bankruptcy and had to close most of its offices.[1] Shortly after, the California State Attorney General's Office and the US Government Accountability Office released their related investigative reports. The Attorney General's Office found that O'Keefe had misrepresented the actions of ACORN workers and that the workers had not committed illegal actions. A preliminary probe by the GAO found that ACORN had managed its federal funds appropriately.[2][3]

O'Keefe gained support from conservative media and interest groups. In 2009, the late Andrew Breitbart commissioned the activist (then 25 years old), for the option to publish new videos exclusively on BigGovernment.com. In June 2010, O'Keefe formed a 501(c)(3) organization, Project Veritas with the stated mission to "investigate and expose corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud and other misconduct."[4]

O'Keefe pled guilty in 2010 to one misdemeanor count of entering a federal building under false pretenses.[5]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe


   

I bet he can read, though.

I'd be interested in posters' thoughts on the video, not Mr. O'Keefe himself or his past exposees. I'd also politely ask that anyone wishing to comment on the video watch at least half (8 minutes) of it to get a good sense of what's being said, how much editing is occurring, whether the facts in evidence support the conclusions, etc.

[emma1420]

If I suggested you watched half of one of Michael Moores documentaries would your opinion of his work not be influenced because of who he is?

I will not grant views to a video created by someone who manipulated video and information to specifically advocate for his political agenda. 

Especially, when the Washington Post reported two years ago, that there there were 31 cases of  potential voter fraud from 2000 to 2014, when more than one billion votes were cast.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 18, 2016 21:47:23 GMT -5 emma1420 said:

If I suggested you watched half of one of Michael Moores documentaries would your opinion of his work not be influenced because of who he is?

I will not grant views to a video created by someone who manipulated video and information to specifically advocate for his political agenda. 

Especially, when the Washington Post reported two years ago, that there there were 31 cases of  potential voter fraud from 2000 to 2014, when more than one billion votes were cast.

I've watched several of Mr. Moore's documentaries. I've discussed their merits and shortcomings both in conjunction with my opinion of Mr. Moore and independent of it.

There were 31 cases of potential voter fraud from 2000 to 2014 and there are only 31 homosexuals in the entire nation of Iran.

This is a video going into explicit detail on how to successfully commit large-scale election fraud without being caught or detected. The FEC's presumed competency at detecting fraud is precisely what's being attacked.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 18, 2016 22:06:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 18, 2016 21:47:23 GMT -5 emma1420 said:

If I suggested you watched half of one of Michael Moores documentaries would your opinion of his work not be influenced because of who he is?

I will not grant views to a video created by someone who manipulated video and information to specifically advocate for his political agenda. 

Especially, when the Washington Post reported two years ago, that there there were 31 cases of  potential voter fraud from 2000 to 2014, when more than one billion votes were cast.

I've watched several of Mr. Moore's documentaries. I've discussed their merits and shortcomings both in conjunction with my opinion of Mr. Moore and independent of it.

There were 31 cases of potential voter fraud from 2000 to 2014 and there are only 31 homosexuals in the entire nation of Iran.

This is a video going into explicit detail on how to successfully commit large-scale election fraud without being caught or detected. The FEC's presumed competency at detecting fraud is precisely what's being attacked.

yeah, Emma got that wrong.  there were 31 KNOWN cases, not 31 potential cases.  and this is a very specific type of fraud.  the kind that voter ID laws are designed to stop: IN PERSON voter fraud.

edit: if you don't want me commenting any further, Virgil, let me know, and i will delete my posts.

i don't want to ruin your fun.

[Opti]

Virgil, the video is not well made enough for me to discuss it like it was abstract art or a credible documentary. I watched just over 6 minutes of it, and after I realized he looped some footage, i.e. played it twice to make a point ... I decided that was it for me.

Good video explains. This is not good video. There is no establishing of how he decided on tracking down the first person and why. We don't even get treated to the discussions that presumably happened so there might be plausible reasons person number one is even "talking about voter fraud". This guy is known. His videos are all sledge hammer setup videos. Why would anyone be talking to him unless of course they want to feed him lies to spread?

Now if you believe in your heart of hearts in person voter fraud is a thing and a big one, this video might be for you. It skips all worthwhile background so the viewer could get a feel of the sincerity of the speaker or viewer. It just goes to some supposed meat, obviously filmed with bad "spy" cams, making it feel like Blair Witch Project meets Donald Trump the film-maker. (Yeah I think he was likely funded by Trump or other RW outfits to produce this. TG, at least Michael Moore is a good enough film-maker to tell a full story and be willing to let viewers see him try to set things up.)

[djAdvocate]

incidentally, the word "journalist" has a very specific meaning, much like the term "engineer" does.

i don't believe you ascribed it correctly in the OP.

[Opti]

The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's, work somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions.

Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible.

Clinton campaign statement,


"While Project Veritas has been known to offer misleading video out of context, some of the language and tactics referenced in the video are troubling even as a theory or proposal never executed," Zac Petkanas, a spokesman for Clinton's campaign, said in a statement. "We support the Democratic National Committee's appropriate action addressing this matter and look forward to continue waging a campaign of ideas worthy of our democratic process."

www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/18/1584147/-Who-is-Scott-Foval-and-why-is-he-saying-terrible-stuff

Yes, Daily KOS, but they all said what I was thinking, only more clearly.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 18, 2016 22:10:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 18, 2016 22:06:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I've watched several of Mr. Moore's documentaries. I've discussed their merits and shortcomings both in conjunction with my opinion of Mr. Moore and independent of it.

There were 31 cases of potential voter fraud from 2000 to 2014 and there are only 31 homosexuals in the entire nation of Iran.

This is a video going into explicit detail on how to successfully commit large-scale election fraud without being caught or detected. The FEC's presumed competency at detecting fraud is precisely what's being attacked.

yeah, Emma got that wrong.  there were 31 KNOWN cases, not 31 potential cases.  and this is a very specific type of fraud.  the kind that voter ID laws are designed to stop: IN PERSON voter fraud.

edit: if you don't want me commenting any further, Virgil, let me know, and i will delete my posts.

i don't want to ruin your fun.

If you want to discuss the schemes in the video and their relevance (or lack thereof) to the voter ID issue, I'd love your input.

Oct 18, 2016 22:18:53 GMT -5 Opti said:

Virgil, the video is not well made enough for me to discuss it like it was abstract art or a credible documentary. I watched just over 6 minutes of it, and after I realized he looped some footage, i.e. played it twice to make a point ... I decided that was it for me.

Good video explains. This is not good video. There is no establishing of how he decided on tracking down the first person and why. We don't even get treated to the discussions that presumably happened so there might be plausible reasons person number one is even "talking about voter fraud". This guy is known. His videos are all sledge hammer setup videos. Why would anyone be talking to him unless of course they want to feed him lies to spread?

Now if you believe in your heart of hearts in person voter fraud is a thing and a big one, this video might be for you. It skips all worthwhile background so the viewer could get a feel of the sincerity of the speaker or viewer. It just goes to some supposed meat, obviously filmed with bad "spy" cams, making it feel like Blair Witch Project meets Donald Trump the film-maker. (Yeah I think he was likely funded by Trump or other RW outfits to produce this. TG, at least Michael Moore is a good enough film-maker to tell a full story and be willing to let viewers see him try to set things up.)

It's not a professional-quality job by any means, and I agree with you that it would be nice if it provided more detailed backgrounds on the interview subjects, but:

1. there's at least some meat here; I don't care how much splicing ultimately took place, you don't get this without a great deal of incriminating source material
   
   
2. this video is one of a series of videos, and not the first in the series; I believe an earlier video introduces Mr. Foval and provides some background about him; the other two men are introduced in this video
   
   
3. the video is 15 minutes (probably 12 minutes longer than 95% of viewers are willing to watch) and the vast majority of that is just raw footage, cutting from highlight to highlight; I think we can forgive a bit of editing
   

I'm sure sites on both sides of the aisle will pick up the video and vet it in the next few days. There will be plenty of opinions over how widespread the problem is, whether the schemes being described actually work, etc.  I did do a quick Internet-wide search before I posted the OP. The video release was today, hence there's not much by way of support/debunking.

I'm not swearing by it, especially given Mr. O'Keefe's reputation, but I do think it's worth examining. This is the closest thing to real journalism we get anymore.

[Opti]

Crack conservative investibator James O'Keefe, known most famously for his series of "stings" against liberal or just not-conservative targets featuring cobbled-together tapes reedited to appear scandalous, has done it again. His "team" has been hot on the heels of proving that maybe George Soros is connected to "radical agitprop movement," because reasons, and describes to patron news outlet Brietbart how he and his fellow band of merry geniuses really managed to stick it to ... themselves?

I posed as a Hungarian businessman who was interested in knowing more about the foundation’s work. Once I obtained the meeting, I was going to determine what efforts they were behind, so I could fund them.
So I left this individual a voicemail, but I forgot to hang up the phone. I thought the call was finished, and my team and I started discussing plans to make more phone calls to the Open Society Foundations as well as to organizations like [it]. And all of this was being recorded on a voicemail [message]. There may have been conversations with my staff pertaining to the Soros foundation.

www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/21/1528986/-In-latest-sting-conservative-investibator-James-O-Keefe-catches-himself

He's not a journalist, he's an investibator.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 18, 2016 22:43:43 GMT -5 Opti said:

www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/18/1584147/-Who-is-Scott-Foval-and-why-is-he-saying-terrible-stuff

Yes, Daily KOS, but they all said what I was thinking, only more clearly.

If they release the full and unedited footage, are you going to watch it?

I agree with you they should. Give 'em a week.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 18, 2016 22:55:17 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 18, 2016 22:10:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yeah, Emma got that wrong.  there were 31 KNOWN cases, not 31 potential cases.  and this is a very specific type of fraud.  the kind that voter ID laws are designed to stop: IN PERSON voter fraud.

edit: if you don't want me commenting any further, Virgil, let me know, and i will delete my posts.

i don't want to ruin your fun.

If you want to discuss the schemes in the video and their relevance (or lack thereof) to the voter ID issue, I'd love your input.

Oct 18, 2016 22:18:53 GMT -5 Opti said:

Virgil, the video is not well made enough for me to discuss it like it was abstract art or a credible documentary. I watched just over 6 minutes of it, and after I realized he looped some footage, i.e. played it twice to make a point ... I decided that was it for me.

Good video explains. This is not good video. There is no establishing of how he decided on tracking down the first person and why. We don't even get treated to the discussions that presumably happened so there might be plausible reasons person number one is even "talking about voter fraud". This guy is known. His videos are all sledge hammer setup videos. Why would anyone be talking to him unless of course they want to feed him lies to spread?

Now if you believe in your heart of hearts in person voter fraud is a thing and a big one, this video might be for you. It skips all worthwhile background so the viewer could get a feel of the sincerity of the speaker or viewer. It just goes to some supposed meat, obviously filmed with bad "spy" cams, making it feel like Blair Witch Project meets Donald Trump the film-maker. (Yeah I think he was likely funded by Trump or other RW outfits to produce this. TG, at least Michael Moore is a good enough film-maker to tell a full story and be willing to let viewers see him try to set things up.)

It's not a professional-quality job by any means, and I agree with you that it would be nice if it provided more detailed backgrounds on the interview subjects, but:

1. there's at least some meat here; I don't care how much splicing ultimately took place, you don't get this without a great deal of incriminating source material
   
   
2. this video is one of a series of videos, and not the first in the series; I believe an earlier video introduces Mr. Foval and provides some background about him; the other two men are introduced in this video
   
   
3. the video is 15 minutes (probably 12 minutes longer than 95% of viewers are willing to watch) and the vast majority of that is just raw footage, cutting from highlight to highlight; I think we can forgive a bit of editing
   

I'm sure sites on both sides of the aisle will pick up the video and vet it in the next few days. There will be plenty of opinions over how widespread the problem is, whether the schemes being described actually work, etc.  I did do a quick Internet-wide search before I posted the OP. The video release was today, hence there's not much by way of support/debunking.

I'm not swearing by it, especially given Mr. O'Keefe's reputation, but I do think it's worth examining. This is the closest thing to real journalism we get anymore.

yeah, i don't think i can do that.  my family is practicing music tonight, so i can't hear videos.  so, i guess i will pass.

you didn't answer my question: do you want me to delete my posts?

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 18, 2016 22:57:25 GMT -5 Opti said:

Crack conservative investibator James O'Keefe, known most famously for his series of "stings" against liberal or just not-conservative targets featuring cobbled-together tapes reedited to appear scandalous, has done it again. His "team" has been hot on the heels of proving that maybe George Soros is connected to "radical agitprop movement," because reasons, and describes to patron news outlet Brietbart how he and his fellow band of merry geniuses really managed to stick it to ... themselves?

I posed as a Hungarian businessman who was interested in knowing more about the foundation’s work. Once I obtained the meeting, I was going to determine what efforts they were behind, so I could fund them.
So I left this individual a voicemail, but I forgot to hang up the phone. I thought the call was finished, and my team and I started discussing plans to make more phone calls to the Open Society Foundations as well as to organizations like [it]. And all of this was being recorded on a voicemail [message]. There may have been conversations with my staff pertaining to the Soros foundation.

www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/21/1528986/-In-latest-sting-conservative-investibator-James-O-Keefe-catches-himself

He's not a journalist, he's an investibator.

I can live without the gag articles, Optimist.

[Opti]

It's not a professional-quality job by any means, and I agree with you that it would be nice if it provided more detailed backgrounds on the interview subjects, but:

1.there's at least some meat here; I don't care how much splicing ultimately took place, you don't get this without a great deal of incriminating source material


2.this video is one of a series of videos, and not the first in the series; I believe an earlier video introduces Mr. Foval and provides some background about him; the other two men are introduced in this video


3.the video is 15 minutes (probably 12 minutes longer than 95% of viewers are willing to watch) and the vast majority of that is just raw footage, cutting from highlight to highlight; I think we can forgive a bit of editing





I'm sure sites on both sides of the aisle will pick up the video and vet it in the next few days. There will be plenty of opinions over how widespread the problem is, whether the schemes being described actually work, etc. I did do a quick Internet-wide search before I posted the OP. The video release was today, hence there's not much by way of support/debunking.


I'm not swearing by it, especially given Mr. O'Keefe's reputation, but I do think it's worth examining. This is the closest thing to real journalism we get anymore.

No, no, no. This has nothing to do with real journalism. I think someone said it fairly well in one of the URL's I posted. You can get a lot of outlandish shit if you mix sales folks missing good BS detectors with someone who likes to play someone very wealthy who is looking to buy X. Journalists report the story, they do not create or set up conditions to make the story. O'Keefe is a story maker.

The video is so badly vetted and setup, there is no way to tell if they are selling crap they do, don't do, or pretend they might do for money.

[Opti]

Oct 18, 2016 22:58:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 18, 2016 22:43:43 GMT -5 Opti said:

www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/18/1584147/-Who-is-Scott-Foval-and-why-is-he-saying-terrible-stuff

Yes, Daily KOS, but they all said what I was thinking, only more clearly.

If they release the full and unedited footage, are you going to watch it?

I agree with you they should. Give 'em a week.

No I won't watch it. Odds are he did not tape what he should have taped, so it will be a waste of time and annoying as well. I aspire to be a film-maker. This guy is a baiter who just happens to use film as a medium to pretend to prove what he believes is true.

He and others are totally ruining film as a medium and taking setup stories to places they should never go. Only useful thing about it is as a cautionary tale to those who would sell anything to make a sale. Your dumb ass visage may appear in one of these videos sometime soon.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 18, 2016 22:58:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 18, 2016 22:55:17 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

If you want to discuss the schemes in the video and their relevance (or lack thereof) to the voter ID issue, I'd love your input.

It's not a professional-quality job by any means, and I agree with you that it would be nice if it provided more detailed backgrounds on the interview subjects, but:

1. there's at least some meat here; I don't care how much splicing ultimately took place, you don't get this without a great deal of incriminating source material
   
   
2. this video is one of a series of videos, and not the first in the series; I believe an earlier video introduces Mr. Foval and provides some background about him; the other two men are introduced in this video
   
   
3. the video is 15 minutes (probably 12 minutes longer than 95% of viewers are willing to watch) and the vast majority of that is just raw footage, cutting from highlight to highlight; I think we can forgive a bit of editing
   

I'm sure sites on both sides of the aisle will pick up the video and vet it in the next few days. There will be plenty of opinions over how widespread the problem is, whether the schemes being described actually work, etc.  I did do a quick Internet-wide search before I posted the OP. The video release was today, hence there's not much by way of support/debunking.

I'm not swearing by it, especially given Mr. O'Keefe's reputation, but I do think it's worth examining. This is the closest thing to real journalism we get anymore.

yeah, i don't think i can do that.  my family is practicing music tonight, so i can't hear videos.  so, i guess i will pass.

you didn't answer my question: do you want me to delete my posts?

Leave your posts.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 18, 2016 23:03:05 GMT -5 Opti said:

It's not a professional-quality job by any means, and I agree with you that it would be nice if it provided more detailed backgrounds on the interview subjects, but:

1.there's at least some meat here; I don't care how much splicing ultimately took place, you don't get this without a great deal of incriminating source material


2.this video is one of a series of videos, and not the first in the series; I believe an earlier video introduces Mr. Foval and provides some background about him; the other two men are introduced in this video


3.the video is 15 minutes (probably 12 minutes longer than 95% of viewers are willing to watch) and the vast majority of that is just raw footage, cutting from highlight to highlight; I think we can forgive a bit of editing





I'm sure sites on both sides of the aisle will pick up the video and vet it in the next few days. There will be plenty of opinions over how widespread the problem is, whether the schemes being described actually work, etc. I did do a quick Internet-wide search before I posted the OP. The video release was today, hence there's not much by way of support/debunking.


I'm not swearing by it, especially given Mr. O'Keefe's reputation, but I do think it's worth examining. This is the closest thing to real journalism we get anymore.

No, no, no. This has nothing to do with real journalism. I think someone said it fairly well in one of the URL's I posted. You can get a lot of outlandish shit if you mix sales folks missing good BS detectors with someone who likes to play someone very wealthy who is looking to buy X. Journalists report the story, they do not create or set up conditions to make the story. O'Keefe is a story maker.

The video is so badly vetted and setup, there is no way to tell if they are selling crap they do, don't do, or pretend they might do for money.

You're being too critical.

Stings, entrapment, set-ups, interviews under phony pretenses, etc. don't invalidate a hit piece.

Editing might, but I stand by my earlier statement that no amount of editing could turn something decent and above-board into this.

[Opti]

Oct 18, 2016 23:25:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 18, 2016 23:03:05 GMT -5 Opti said:

No, no, no. This has nothing to do with real journalism. I think someone said it fairly well in one of the URL's I posted. You can get a lot of outlandish shit if you mix sales folks missing good BS detectors with someone who likes to play someone very wealthy who is looking to buy X. Journalists report the story, they do not create or set up conditions to make the story. O'Keefe is a story maker.

The video is so badly vetted and setup, there is no way to tell if they are selling crap they do, don't do, or pretend they might do for money.

You're being too critical.

Stings, entrapment, set-ups, interviews under phony pretenses, etc. don't invalidate a hit piece.

Editing might, but I stand by my earlier statement that no amount of editing could turn something decent and above-board into this.

I'm not being critical enough. Yes it is possible to make legit setup videos and have them report what is really happening. Then there are O'Keefe videos where the setups are so ludicrous and beyond reality its unclear what they really "show".

I have listened to sales people sell things we don't have yet in order to get the sale. I can only imagine what a sales person might say to get a sale they think is huge. It easily could be things that they do not do, do not anticipate doing in the future, but something they feel the buyer wants. I only made it 6 minutes in, but logically it seemed crazy to one, even do in person voter fraud, and two to go to the lengths described to commit it. There are lots of unregistered voters in every state. Why go to the expense, trouble, and weird logistics of getting people from out of state to drive in rented cars to polling places? While some polling places might have poll workers going in and out occasionally to the parking area, primarily voters are vetted inside the polling place. A busload of voters would be obvious because they came in a big wave, especially suburban or rural polling places. Urban polling places might be used to people from busses coming in, which might stick out if the bus disgorged them at the polling place instead of near it. But again, why do in person fraud? This is 2016. Mail fraud or computer fraud is easier. The important thing is voter registration, not transportation. The Clinton campaign's official statement basically said 'this makes no sense, but it is worrisome even if its crazy ass unproved theory.'

Some scammers prey on people who want to believe they have won lots of money. Some will do stupid things to get it. O'Keefe does similar scams. The only difference is he sets them up to "prove" a point. What he invariably gets is stupid people hooked who will say anything to get the big money he pretends to offer. No amount of good film-making could fix that either. He gets people to say remarkably stupid things because of his out of the ordinary setups. What this "proves" about what really happens is at best debatable. From my point of view basically its the best liars behind the camera in search of what will turn out to be the best gullible liars in whatever hit piece area he is looking for. Proof of fraud is you know actual proof. Not someone selling you on something you do not know whether its ever been done before or not.

[zibazinski]

If there's any election fraud it's the huge amount of mail in votes. Those should only be allowed in rare cases as in out of the country or in the hospital. I was actually encouraged to get a mail in vote. Normally I need to show up with my ID and that is how it should be. I'm feeling very concerned about this.

[Opti]

Good entrapment videos are things like what local TV stations used to do. They'd film part of a viewer's story, how they got rooked over by a local business, and then the expose reporter would try to create similar conditions to see if the story was repeatable. If it was, and the gotcha was on tape, they would negotiate on the viewer's behalf to fix the over-charge, incomplete service, or whatever it is. They started from a real place of what someone said had actually happened. And they always had some documentation in form of bills & letters as proof.

That formula you will never see in O'Keefes videos unless he grows a decent soul. He's not going to film the roundtable discussions of who they would choose to target and the brainstorms used to create scenarios with maximum potential to film outrageous audio. You won't see the films of those he fished for, but didn't take the bait. You won't even see the massive setup and interactions with the chosen targets who did take the bait. And, most importantly, you will never see concrete proof that whatever OMG audio they manage to get, *HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN RL AT LEAST ONCE*. Yes its a big enough point that I needed all caps. This loser got everyone stirred up enough with the PP videos that massive amounts of taxpayer money were wasted proving the audio on the video did not match reality. But for many gullible people, future video subjects perhaps, they see the audio as proof instead of outrageous talk that needs to be proved in some way. And those idjuts  wrote laws based on basically bad documentary improv.

This travesty will follow the same well worn path. Being him, he's filmed none of the important set up and plans for his video. Not sure if he's even honest enough to put up whiteboard discussions showing what individuals they chose and why. Did they have *ANY* rumors or found voter fraud that they wanted to follow up on *OR, did they go the whole cloth route, assuming it exists and just picking the most likely organizations they think they can sell their crazy 'I want to buy rigged votes, kind sir'  'what can u do to help me?'

[Opti]

I might have this board help craft a Go Fund Me for this. I think the only way to show how bad O'Keefe videos are is to show how they would be done right. Lots more film, plus all the necessary grunt work to find targets and get an idea of what normal players/employers look and act like. Then hopefully expose what might be used out there and why. With some real video trail, not just outlandish words. Actions, consequence, actions, consequence - stuff documentary films usually document.

I'm sure outlandish big fish stories of voter fraud that were not proven, would make a great close for the film once the credits start rolling.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 19, 2016 5:10:11 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

If there's any election fraud it's the huge amount of mail in votes. Those should only be allowed in rare cases as in out of the country or in the hospital. I was actually encouraged to get a mail in vote. Normally I need to show up with my ID and that is how it should be. I'm feeling very concerned about this.

precisely.  until the GOP addresses the absentee voting issue, where fraud is probably 1000x more likely, i will not be convinced that they are actually interested in the problem of voter fraud- only in rigging elections.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 19, 2016 4:48:12 GMT -5 Opti said:

Oct 18, 2016 23:25:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You're being too critical.

Stings, entrapment, set-ups, interviews under phony pretenses, etc. don't invalidate a hit piece.

Editing might, but I stand by my earlier statement that no amount of editing could turn something decent and above-board into this.

I'm not being critical enough. Yes it is possible to make legit setup videos and have them report what is really happening. Then there are O'Keefe videos where the setups are so ludicrous and beyond reality its unclear what they really "show".

I don't think this one qualifies. That's why I posted it.

I only made it 6 minutes in, but logically it seemed crazy to one, even do in person voter fraud, and two to go to the lengths described to commit it. There are lots of unregistered voters in every state. Why go to the expense, trouble, and weird logistics of getting people from out of state to drive in rented cars to polling places?

People stick with what they know; they stick with what they've done before, what they've been trained to do.

It's quite possible the men in the video "learned the trade" from veterans of the craft, who in turn learned from their mentors, going back to an era where voting was a very different game and busing people in to vote was the easiest way to rig it.

Don't change what works. You'll screw up; you'll get caught.

But again, why do in person fraud? This is 2016. Mail fraud or computer fraud is easier. 

Perhaps, but it still requires skill and it's obviously not these fellows' competency.

O'Keefe does similar scams. The only difference is he sets them up to "prove" a point. What he invariably gets is stupid people hooked who will say anything to get the big money he pretends to offer. No amount of good film-making could fix that either. He gets people to say remarkably stupid things because of his out of the ordinary setups. 

These guys plainly talking about busing people across state lines, setting up shell corporations, avoiding liability, maintaining plausible deniability is not "people saying stupid things". Talking at length about "[screwing] legal and ethics", what matters is getting the job done--at any cost--is not "people saying stupid things".

There is actual meat here.

Oct 19, 2016 6:00:41 GMT -5 Opti said:

Good entrapment videos are things like what local TV stations used to do. They'd film part of a viewer's story, how they got rooked over by a local business, and then the expose reporter would try to create similar conditions to see if the story was repeatable. If it was, and the gotcha was on tape, they would negotiate on the viewer's behalf to fix the over-charge, incomplete service, or whatever it is. They started from a real place of what someone said had actually happened. And they always had some documentation in form of bills & letters as proof.

I agree that the video is deficient in many ways. Having said this, however:

1. this isn't a sting by a professional news agency on a mom-and-pop dry-cleaning service; it's not something that can easily be set up, and we have to respect the realistic limits on Mr. O'Keefe's resources
   
   and
   
   
2. Mr. O'Keefe could procure unedited footage of people actually being bused en masse to vote illegally, and there's no doubt in my mind that you'd still be completely dismissive of the footage ("How do we know who they're voting for?", "How do we know they're really out of state?", "How do we know this car rental receipt is real?" ...).  It's plainly impossible to rule out the million and one ways a video documentary might be doctored.
   

At some point we have to weigh the unlikelihood of the video content against the degree of sophistication and underhandedness needed to doctor the footage, and for me, this specific video passes that balancing test.

And, most importantly, you will never see concrete proof that whatever OMG audio they manage to get, *HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN RL AT LEAST ONCE*.

The FBI and CIA--massive federal agencies--have serious problems catching crooks in flagrante delicto. I think we can give a penniless, one-man NGO a break, no? This kind of footage is the realistic limit of what he can procure with his resources.

This loser got everyone stirred up enough with the PP videos that massive amounts of taxpayer money were wasted proving the audio on the video did not match reality. 

A man named Daleiden was behind the PP videos. O'Keefe's only foray into that field is a few over-the-phone PP "stings" in 2007 that derailed and got almost no attention.

As for the PP videos, the outrage on the right was over the fact that what the interview subjects were doing wasn't illegal.

Did they have *ANY* rumors or found voter fraud that they wanted to follow up on *OR, did they go the whole cloth route, assuming it exists and just picking the most likely organizations they think they can sell their crazy 'I want to buy rigged votes, kind sir' 'what can u do to help me?'

Maybe you should ask him. You obviously care. Personally I don't find it relevant as long as the interview subjects aren't actors and are employed by the groups/agencies the video claims they are.

[Opti]

b.Mr. O'Keefe could procure unedited footage of people actually being bused en masse to vote illegally, and there's no doubt in my mind that you'd still be completely dismissive of the footage ("How do we know who they're voting for?", "How do we know they're really out of state?", "How do we know this car rental receipt is real?" ...). It's plainly impossible to rule out the million and one ways a video documentary might be doctored.

You are correct. There would need to be an entire chain of evidence presented for me to believe it. Unlike you, I find this scheme so outlandish, I do not feel its anything but usual salesman honeyed lies for the rich fish. People can try to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge or a rental space on Craigslist for a very reasonable price. Of course in the end it turns out it was just a story to part you from your money.

The difference between me and you is you believe there is measurable and important in person voter fraud and I do not. You are primed to buy any story that fits the scenario. I am not.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 19, 2016 12:39:03 GMT -5 Opti said:

b.Mr. O'Keefe could procure unedited footage of people actually being bused en masse to vote illegally, and there's no doubt in my mind that you'd still be completely dismissive of the footage ("How do we know who they're voting for?", "How do we know they're really out of state?", "How do we know this car rental receipt is real?" ...). It's plainly impossible to rule out the million and one ways a video documentary might be doctored.

You are correct. There would need to be an entire chain of evidence presented for me to believe it. Unlike you, I find this scheme so outlandish, I do not feel its anything but usual salesman honeyed lies for the rich fish. People can try to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge or a rental space on Craigslist for a very reasonable price. Of course in the end it turns out it was just a story to part you from your money.

The difference between me and you is you believe there is measurable and important in person voter fraud and I do not. You are primed to buy any story that fits the scenario. I am not.

If "primed to buy" means I'm willing to entertain the notion that the men in the video have actually carried out the fraud schemes they're describing, then I suppose I am.

This is the kind of work I'd expect from a poorly-funded one-man operation. Its sole purpose is to make a prima facie case for elections fraud and (it's reasonable to assume) inspire people to risk chipping in a few bucks to finance something of higher quality and greater scale.

I admit it takes a degree of faith in the producer, but with the MSM being as useless as it is, this is really the only thing we've got left.

I don't donate to political causes, but if I did, and I didn't come across a compelling debunking of this video in future, I'd be tempted to donate a few bucks myself. I can't say that of any of Mr. O'Keefe's past work, but this piece thus far seems worth it.

[Opti]

Oct 19, 2016 13:05:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 19, 2016 12:39:03 GMT -5 Opti said:

You are correct. There would need to be an entire chain of evidence presented for me to believe it. Unlike you, I find this scheme so outlandish, I do not feel its anything but usual salesman honeyed lies for the rich fish. People can try to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge or a rental space on Craigslist for a very reasonable price. Of course in the end it turns out it was just a story to part you from your money.

The difference between me and you is you believe there is measurable and important in person voter fraud and I do not. You are primed to buy any story that fits the scenario. I am not.

If "primed to buy" means I'm willing to entertain the notion that the men in the video have actually carried out the fraud schemes they're describing, then I suppose I am.

This is the kind of work I'd expect from a poorly-funded one-man operation. Its sole purpose is to make a prima facie case for elections fraud and (it's reasonable to assume) inspire people to risk chipping in a few bucks to finance something of higher quality and greater scale.

I admit it takes a degree of faith in the producer, but with the MSM being as useless as it is, this is really the only thing we've got left.

I don't donate to political causes, but if I did, and I didn't come across a compelling debunking of this video in future, I'd be tempted to donate a few bucks myself. I can't say that of any of Mr. O'Keefe's past work, but this piece thus far seems worth it.

O'Keefe is not a one man operation though. Project Veritas applied for and got charity status. When he applied, his estimated income was $120,000.00 .(Granted in 2011) Sounds like I need to change what I do.

www.documentcloud.org/documents/96774-project-veritas.html

[Opti]

Virgil, I think its important to note what lengths this guy is willing to go to set people up to get video on them. I think the term investibaitor might be too kind.

From the Wiki page -

Patrick Moran (2012)

On October 24, 2012 a video was released showing Patrick Moran, son of then-U.S. Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), and a field director with his father's campaign, discussing a plan to cast fraudulent ballots, which was proposed to him by someone who posed as a fervent supporter of the campaign.[100] The person he was speaking with was a conservative activist with O'Keefe's Project Veritas, and was secretly recording the conversation.[101] Patrick Moran resigned from the campaign, saying he did not want to be a distraction during the election, stating:


"t no point have I, or will I ever endorse any sort of illegal or unethical behavior. At no point did I take this person seriously. He struck me as being unstable and joking, and for only that reason did I humor him. In hindsight, I should have immediately walked away, making it clear that there is no place in the electoral process for even the suggestion of illegal behavior, joking or not."[101]

Abbie Boudreau (2010)

In August 2010, O'Keefe planned a staged encounter with the CNN correspondent Abbie Boudreau, who was doing a documentary on the young conservative movement. He set up an appointment at his office in Maryland to discuss a video shoot.[76] Izzy Santa, executive director of Project Veritas, warned Boudreau that O'Keefe was planning to "punk" her on the boat by trying to seduce her—which he would film on hidden cameras.[76][77] Boudreau did not board the boat and soon left the area.[76][77]

CNN later published a 13–page plan written by O'Keefe mentor Ben Wetmore.[78] It listed props for the boat scheme, including pornography, sexual aids, condoms, a blindfold and "fuzzy" handcuffs.[76][77][79] When questioned by CNN, O'Keefe denied that he was going to follow the Wetmore plan, as he found parts of it inappropriate.[7

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe

Given the above, how can I or you possibly know whether the in person voter fraud was something proposed initially by a Project Veritas staffer or hire, or by the person who was filmed saying it?

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 19, 2016 13:14:09 GMT -5 Opti said:

Oct 19, 2016 13:05:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

If "primed to buy" means I'm willing to entertain the notion that the men in the video have actually carried out the fraud schemes they're describing, then I suppose I am.

This is the kind of work I'd expect from a poorly-funded one-man operation. Its sole purpose is to make a prima facie case for elections fraud and (it's reasonable to assume) inspire people to risk chipping in a few bucks to finance something of higher quality and greater scale.

I admit it takes a degree of faith in the producer, but with the MSM being as useless as it is, this is really the only thing we've got left.

I don't donate to political causes, but if I did, and I didn't come across a compelling debunking of this video in future, I'd be tempted to donate a few bucks myself. I can't say that of any of Mr. O'Keefe's past work, but this piece thus far seems worth it.

O'Keefe is not a one man operation though. Project Veritas applied for and got charity status. When he applied, his estimated income was $120,000.00 .(Granted in 2011) Sounds like I need to change what I do.

www.documentcloud.org/documents/96774-project-veritas.html

$120K/yr. is decent income for... what? Three people?

That's assuming he's working out of his home, he has zero capital costs, and "income" refers to yearly income as opposed to a one-time disbursement.

He's doing about what I expect a man and 2-3 volunteers can do in a year with $120K.

Organizing a complete sting, getting footage of the fraud in progress, storyboarding, editing and mastering it to a professional standard, building a website to host the unedited footage and all supplementary documents and data, running a campaign to get enough attention to justify the expense, you're looking at $2 million easily.

Be reasonable.