James O'Keefe inadvertently corroborates Washington Post story about Roy Moore being a pedophile

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, these people are pieces of human garbage. How pathetic does one need to be to make this their "career?"

I'd love to know who is funding O'Keefe.

Trump Foundation gave him 10K. https://www.salon.com/2016/10/21/donald-trump-foundation-paid-james-okeefe-10000-in-2015-report/

Otherwise, it's murky but not hard to unravel.

https://theslot.jezebel.com/james-okeefe-is-using-dark-money-to-run-his-pseudo-jour-1792061753

I saw a Tweet storm yesterday where someone followed the money. Yeah, the Kochs are involved.

[Anonymous]

Here's the thing about most conservative media:

They operate in ways they fantasize the professional, mainstream media operates: With an agenda and in bad faith.

This is true of Project Veritas and is also true sites like the Daily Caller and Breitbart.

There are exceptions to this -- Weekly Standard, Commentary.

And I don't think the left wing media generally acts in bad faith, although it clearly has an agenda.

[Anonymous]

Derp. (And I thought derp was dead.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nov. 9: Washington Post reports Moore accusations.
Nov. 10: Project Veritas agent emails Washington Post to offer bait.
Nov. 11: Moore says: “There are investigations going on. In the next few days, there will be revelations about the motivations and the content of this article.”


What did Roy Moore know?

And if Roy Moore knew, is it illegal, or just skeevy? Lawyer here, and I’m having trouble seeing illegally, but it seems like it should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nov. 9: Washington Post reports Moore accusations.
Nov. 10: Project Veritas agent emails Washington Post to offer bait.
Nov. 11: Moore says: “There are investigations going on. In the next few days, there will be revelations about the motivations and the content of this article.”


What did Roy Moore know?

And if Roy Moore knew, is it illegal, or just skeevy? Lawyer here, and I’m having trouble seeing illegally, but it seems like it should be.

No legal expert, but might it possibly implicate campaign finance laws here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nov. 9: Washington Post reports Moore accusations.
Nov. 10: Project Veritas agent emails Washington Post to offer bait.
Nov. 11: Moore says: “There are investigations going on. In the next few days, there will be revelations about the motivations and the content of this article.”


What did Roy Moore know?

And if Roy Moore knew, is it illegal, or just skeevy? Lawyer here, and I’m having trouble seeing illegally, but it seems like it should be.

If the voters don't care about the disrespect for the rule of law that got him removed as a judge twice and don't care about his pedophilia, I don't see where they'll get too bent out of shape by his involvement with an organization that would fake a rape allegation in order to discredit sex abuse victims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But no one is examining the very flimsy back stories of the "victims" the Post created.

It's odd how not one of them - not ONE - can describe in any detail at all the inside of Moore's home where all this sex was allegedly happening. Not the color of the carpet, the paint on the walls, what the bathroom looked like - nothing. ZERO details from any of them.

I was in a strangers house for about 1 minute a week ago and can tell you about their living room in detail. But someone who claimed to be raped repeatedly in a home can't provide any details about it, because "it was a long time ago"?

Bullshit.

To my knowledge, no one has claimed Moore raped anyone and to my knowledge, the only one who has claimed to be in his house was the then 14 year old, who in video interviews, did describe his place.

If anything, this Washington Post/Veritas story confirms that the publication researches and fact checks and is in fact, not fake news.

before or after they publish a story?

Don't be an ass. They do solid research and reporting. Far more so than Breitbart or FOX News.

in your most humble opinion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But no one is examining the very flimsy back stories of the "victims" the Post created.

It's odd how not one of them - not ONE - can describe in any detail at all the inside of Moore's home where all this sex was allegedly happening. Not the color of the carpet, the paint on the walls, what the bathroom looked like - nothing. ZERO details from any of them.

I was in a strangers house for about 1 minute a week ago and can tell you about their living room in detail. But someone who claimed to be raped repeatedly in a home can't provide any details about it, because "it was a long time ago"?

Bullshit.

To my knowledge, no one has claimed Moore raped anyone and to my knowledge, the only one who has claimed to be in his house was the then 14 year old, who in video interviews, did describe his place.

If anything, this Washington Post/Veritas story confirms that the publication researches and fact checks and is in fact, not fake news.

before or after they publish a story?

Don't be an ass. They do solid research and reporting. Far more so than Breitbart or FOX News.

in your most humble opinion

Um, this ENTIRE TOPIC proves that the Post does solid research and reporting. They didn't publish Phillips' "story," did they?

[Anonymous]

Is what PV did illegal? There should be consequences for lying and entrapment and paying someone else to make up stories about abuse.

[Anonymous]

"Is what PV did illegal? There should be consequences for lying and entrapment and paying someone else to make up stories about abuse."

I doubt it is illegal. Laws about fake whistleblowers would serve to chill real whistleblowers. I do think the WaPo could sue for actual damages. It cost time and money to sort out the woman's story. And she should pay some punitive damages to make an example out of her. If Veritas is shown to be behind them they should be sued into non existence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing about most conservative media:

They operate in ways they fantasize the professional, mainstream media operates: With an agenda and in bad faith.

This is true of Project Veritas and is also true sites like the Daily Caller and Breitbart.

There are exceptions to this -- Weekly Standard, Commentary.

And I don't think the left wing media generally acts in bad faith, although it clearly has an agenda.

Agree. It also exposes a lot of additional things that conservatives have falsely been assuming and accusing mainstream media of - of making stories up, of lying, et cetera. This story is a clear demonstration that conservatives are absolutely wrong on that. Washington Post and others don't make their stories up and they do a ton of fact checking before they run a story. Conservatives might not like the stories they run, but that doesn't make them "fake."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But no one is examining the very flimsy back stories of the "victims" the Post created.

It's odd how not one of them - not ONE - can describe in any detail at all the inside of Moore's home where all this sex was allegedly happening. Not the color of the carpet, the paint on the walls, what the bathroom looked like - nothing. ZERO details from any of them.

I was in a strangers house for about 1 minute a week ago and can tell you about their living room in detail. But someone who claimed to be raped repeatedly in a home can't provide any details about it, because "it was a long time ago"?

Bullshit.

To my knowledge, no one has claimed Moore raped anyone and to my knowledge, the only one who has claimed to be in his house was the then 14 year old, who in video interviews, did describe his place.

If anything, this Washington Post/Veritas story confirms that the publication researches and fact checks and is in fact, not fake news.

before or after they publish a story?

Don't be an ass. They do solid research and reporting. Far more so than Breitbart or FOX News.

in your most humble opinion

Um, this ENTIRE TOPIC proves that the Post does solid research and reporting. They didn't publish Phillips' "story," did they?

+1000

The fact that they didn't just run with this even though it would have been hugely damaging to Roy Moore, and the fact that they went out of their way to try and verify and fact check is a clear demonstration. Those are facts, not opinions.

[Anonymous]

It's astounding that the right wing blogosphere is trying to spin this as "validating" O'Keefe and that WaPo "went after O'Keefe" is so ludicrous as well. They have it backwards. WaPo didn't go after O'Keefe. O'Keefe went after WaPo. He was trying to take them down. Phillips was working for O'Keefe. He tried, but his lame plan backfired. He isn't in the least "validated" - if anything this proves yet again that O'Keefe and Veritas are nothing but sleazy fraudsters and hoaxers.

[Anonymous]

Hey conservatives, how does it feel to realize your journalists and thought leaders think you are idiots who would fall for this sort of chicanery? That they have to resort to deceit to get you a story?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, these people are pieces of human garbage. How pathetic does one need to be to make this their "career?"

I'd love to know who is funding O'Keefe.

My guess is Koch brothers

Bingo:

http://wapo.st/2BDWe7u

“Project Veritas, an activist group that mounts undercover video stings of liberals and mainstream news organizations, received nearly $1.7 million in donations last year from a giant charity associated with the Koch brothers, according to documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service.”