Is Project Veritas Action a trustworthy source?

Before this goes any further I'd just like to say that I'm not asking because I'm in support of Hillary and think they're untrue or asking because I'm in support of Trump and think they are true. I'm not looking for something to just confirm what I already believe.

I am asking because I genuinely do not know and figured that there are people more informed about this topic than I am. Not to mention this will be a good thing to talk about, as it is a bad idea to just say that the videos released by Project Veritas Action are completely false or completely true without some sort of evidence or explanation to back up either viewpoint.

So this is me asking anyone who is viewing this thread if Project Veritas Action is a trustworthy information source when it comes to this election and the two main candidates of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. For any claims or arguments you make for either side, I would appreciate some kind of source to back it up so that I or others can check it out too and argue for or against that claim. Thank you.

The only argument that Project Veritas is not trustworthy is that James O'Keefe is a "convicted criminal" (he was convicted of using false pretenses to get into a federal building for a story) which in my opinion is just a sign of good journalism, so I think it is very trustworthy.

I wouldn't immediately discount it, but generally James O'keefe has had a checkered past

Bump

Can't fathom any reason why it would not be. It's just videos of scumbags telling the truth.

I don't advise looking to CV for advice on this subject

Where would you advise I look? I have done some independent research on my own about this but I am only one person with admittedly my own biases that I might not be aware of.

@aros001: I couldn't say where you should look. But CV is largely biased towards Trump. Most places you look for info on this subject will probably either tell you it's obviously true or obviously false.

Everywhere is bias, at least on comic vine people are regular enough for you to realize what those bias are.

I'm going to safely guess you are not a Trump supporter, you could have a look at that video and see if it seems sound. You may not like it but but this is the ugly side of politics.

I don't believe either Hillary or Trump are really that bad compared to politicians of the past, the huge amount of old media and social media just let's us see the really ugly side like never before and by that I also mean people exaggerating how bad things are and then echoing that back and forth.

@dextersinister1: Comic Vine is biased towards Trump. The majority of people who discuss politics in Off-Topic support Trump and the responses to this thread are evidence of that.

My response was just advice to be skeptical when swarms of people start coming in and saying that this thing is obvious, indisputable, etc etc.

This isn't exactly independent journalism after all.

@aros001: Well, the guy behind it (O'Keefe) has a long reputation and track record of making deceptive videos where he edits them in such a way to support his agenda by distorting what people say and what actually happened. He's also a convicted criminal who's been caught trying to sneak into places he cant be and sending other people who lie about who they are.

He was also paid $10.,000 by Trump (through illegally using his charities money).

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-foundation-paid-activist-filmmaker-james-o-keefe-n670381

So, is he a trustable source? Absolutely not.

What does that have to do with this thread?

5:17 - 6:22

"$12 million dollars given from the King of Morocco to the Clinton Foundation. And in return for that, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton go speak there. Now let me ask you a question. You think that's it? Are you naive enough to think that's it? Why would you give somebody $12 million dollars? Here's the answer. When you want something from them.

Hillary Clinton isn't president yet, but when she's president you bet your sweet ass she's gonna do something. She's done it before whenever Bill went to various Gulf States, and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, would turn around and approve weapons deals. "Oh look at that, a weapons deal worth billions of dollars was just approved for the Gulf State that my husband took money from." What a coincidence!

"Oh, no! They just want to do charity." This is what the Clinton partisans said. There are millions of charities on the planet. This guy [referring to Arab/Gulf State leaders] is a leader of a country, if he wants to he could just start spending money on his own people. That's charity. But nooo, give it to the Clinton Foundation cause you want favors in return. They have no answer to it."

Kyle nails it.

That has nothing to do with this thread.

But to your claim, seems like it's Trump supporters who are living in a fantasy world. Trump keeps telling people that the polls are rigged and that he's actually going to win... and his less-than-intelligence supporters are parroting it without even a thought.

I see another election like 2012 when Romney and his idiotic supporters thought he was going to win in a landslide, but he actually got crushed.

Yes, I've heard about the selective editing and this was the main reason why I asked, to see what people other than myself knew about this. Though like Keenko pointed out lying to get the story is not necessarily a sign of being non-trustworthy so long as the story itself is not being lied about.

True, but it depends on what that deception is. If you lie to get a job somewhere so that you can see what's going on and report on it... fine. If you lie to people to get them to act in ways or say things that they normally wouldnt... not so much. This is what O'Keefe does.

O'Keefe single handedly destroyed the ACORN group that did a lot of good work, all because he lied and made false videos. He did the same thing to NPR, Planned Parenthood, and others. The guy has no morals or even close to any journalistic integrity.

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

@willpayton:

If you lie to get a job somewhere so that you can see what's going on and report on it... fine. If you lie to people to get them to act in ways or say things that they normally wouldnt... not so much. This is what O'Keefe does.

I disagree. It's far easier to get shitty people to admit to doing shitty things by fooling them into thinking you are equally bad. I think it's a realistic and reliable way to get information on people.

I gotta read more into the ACORN thing but I know there is way more to it than you're implying.

This commentery is a lot of misdirection and obsfucation as per the usual, You definitely can trust O'keefe.

However you should never ever trust any of the following pseudo-journalists listed below as they have been exposed as colluding with the clinton campaign to directly undermine freedom democracy and truth. I would not trust the related news agencies they represent either:

“As these internal documents demonstrate,” the Intercept reported, “a central component of the Clinton campaign strategy is ensuring that journalists they believe are favorable to Clinton are tasked to report the stories the campaign wants circulated.

“At times, Clinton’s campaign staff not only internally drafted the stories they wanted published but even specified what should be quoted ‘on background’ and what should be described as ‘on the record.’”

Traitors.

Some people will say things that they know arent true just to impress others, or to cover up their own insecurities, or for many reasons. People will even walk into police stations and confess to crimes that they didnt commit just to get some attention or fame. So getting someone to say some words is meaningless, especially when you dont disclose how you got them to say those words. All you have to do is turn on the television to see a lot of people saying words that have nothing to do with reality.

In fact, this actually happened in the ACORN case, where O'Keefe caught a guy admitting to all kinds of things on video. Only problem was... that the guy only said those things to play along with O'Keefe and immediately went to the police afterwards.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/03/08/james-okeefe-pays-100000-to-acorn-employee-he-smeared-conservative-media-yawns/#34379a743a78

O'Keefe was later forced to pay the guy $100,000. But the damage was done to ACORN.

You can also read the report on ACORN, which found:

"The released videos offer no evidence of a pattern of illegal conduct by ACORN employees. In fact, out of the three videos involving ACORN employees, at least two involve extenuating circumstances."

I'm not implying anything, I'm just laying out the facts. O'Keefe is a convicted criminal who has been caught multiple times putting out lies through tapes that are highly edited in specific ways to distort the truth and slander innocent people.

Lmfao it's raw footage... Ad hominem circumstantial is hilarious.

Even better, let's get the Clinton News Network to interpret these videos for us like they do for the Wikileaks. We're not allowed to look at any of this stuff unless it's through them.