Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Part 4 – Project Veritas Exposes The Wire Transfer
Now *this* is more like it! Wire transfers, Belize drop offs, dogs and cats drinking together. Kickin’ it old school!
Published in General
I recall it was a check to/from Mexico that blew up the CREEP back in Watergate. This makes Nixon look like a piker by comparison. I read that book 20 years ago; memory is dim. I’m hopeful something comes of this; my cynicism tells me nothing will.
This is the best video yet IMO. Devastating.
Donald Duck appeared to be the Howard the Duck denouement. I’ve worked on enough forensic investigations and corporate malfeasance cases to get a sense of when the trail is going warm or cold and that Duck didn’t seem to hunt (something Brett Baier noticed the other night on Fox News) but this one feels like I’m back in the good old days.
I think the final point of the video is undercut a bit by the fact that they returned the money. I mean in the end the campaign did the right thing didn’t they?
Possibly, but if you’re videoed completing an illegal transaction and then return it, especially when you’re associating with convicted fraudsters, I think you’ve attracted the attention of the authorities.
But … but … but … but …. Trump!
Oh I still think its devastating. They mention the wire transfer from foreign banks numerous times. The point is undercut, not eliminated.
The bigger worry would be a state or federal investigator muttering “I wonder what the hell else they’ve been doing and who else we don’t know about.”
I would say Bob looks like he’s fallen off the 2005 wagon.
They only returned the money after they were exposed in the first video, so I don’t think that exonerates them at all.
Unfortunately Schakowsky has no real competition and will glide once again to reelection.
Sure, but unless you`re Marion Berry snorting coke on VHS or Beta, video of you accepting bags of cash or talking about accepting bags of cash is usually something people can`t “unsee“
Is that the actual timeline?
This link to the Project Veritas site has bank transfers and other documentation; this link contains email correspondence that goes until Oct. 14.
And Hillary is pretending that she wants to reduce the influence of money in politics..
Great video!
From HistoryCommons:
Naw, forget him. let’s talk about McMullin.
Tastes like chicken; looks like crow.
Anyone else find their attention span has been made so short by the Internet that they can’t commit to a 17-minute video? (Please tell me I’m not the only one.)
What’s the tl/dr version?
It doesn’t help that much of this video rehashes content from his previous videos. I don’t want to second guess O’Keefe who is much better at this than I could ever be, but I feel like one video with all the details would have worked better.
Main Feed Condor! That attracts extra eyeballs. Well done!
Kind of buried all the way at the end. They gave the group a $20k donation (with promise of more) that had all sorts of red flags that was not a legal donation. One of their other plants (ostensibly the niece of the donor) was immediately given a job. Later when Brad Woodhouse, head of the group found out they might release videos, he returned the donation because it looked like it might come from a foreign source, something they were previously unconcerned by.
Cliff notes.
Couple things on that. One is that you’re right on this; it would seem that returning the money matters, and it does.
However.
What did they do with money while they had the float?
Should Willie Sutton have been absolved had he returned the money? You’re not making that argument, but watch these guys.
Eric Hines
The authorities attracted here, though, are Loretta Lynch and James Comey.
Eric Hines
Hey, I think the fact that they took the money in the first place is damning enough, but depending on the timeline involved either someone knew this was a plant and was going to hurt them politically, or someone whose job it is to review these transactions did the right thing. I think that matters. The problem is that O’Keefe ends the video with innuendo instead of laying out the facts of the timeline – that undercuts his overall journalistic message.
They made a particular point on the ‘niece’ getting hired, while I assume that sort of thing happens all the time. I’m wondering if she figures in an upcoming video, based on access that the internship produced.
That’s part of restitution, and it’s worth considering seriously at sentencing time. It’s not, though, relevant to the commission of the crime (assuming arguendo that crime this is). Assume that someone whose job it is to review these transactions did the right thing. That’s good for him, and he should not be punished. But the organization, and its principles, still did the proximate deed, without which this individual need never have interceded.
Eric Hines
“Do you believe the Creamer is an endangered species?”
This is what I could quickly piece together as the significant points:
I think this came out as separate videos for several reasons: suspense, not wanting to blow their cover, gather material for FEC complaint, and they seem to be editing on the fly. From the ending of this video, there is more to come.