What is new, is you defending this illicit behavior? Why is that?
3 Likes
Yeah…letting our imbalance of trade with China get larger and larger and larger is no big deal, is it? I don’t understand your POV right now but IMO…it’s bizarre.
3 Likes
BAM…hammer…meet nail.
2 Likes
Yes, the DOJ letter is consistent with the continuing war on the First Amendment. Only state-controlled oligarch-owned organizations friendly to the regime are allowed to operate freely.
Mainstream “news” consists of state-approved propaganda. Reports are based on government press releases and approved leaks from anonymous sources. Commentary is provided by former officials from the CIA/FBI/NSA etc.
Government control and coercion of tech monopolies allows for official censorship using private corporations. If that fails to shut down dissent, then the DOJ/FBI will find a pretext to harass the offenders.
This description of Russian media has a lot of parallels to the situation in the US:
Although the constitution provides for freedom of speech, vague laws on extremism grant the authorities great discretion to crack down on any speech, organization, or activity that lacks official support. The government controls, directly or through state-owned companies and friendly business magnates, all of the national television networks and many radio and print outlets, as well as most of the media advertising market . . .
Attacks, arrests, office raids, and threats against journalists are common and authorities actively targeted journalists outside of Moscow throughout 2020. Ivan Safronov, who had worked as a Kommersant and Vedomosti correspondent, was arrested in July, and charged with “spying for the West.” In September, Ingushetia authorities sentenced journalist Rashid Maisigov to three years in a regime colony for drug possession. He had reported on local protests and the persecution of activists.
Real journalism is under attack.
4 Likes
…and here’s a long time veteran of CNN that says you’ve been sheoplized by the troughs and are simply regurgibleating what they fed you.
4 Likes
That is hilarious. A video of a guy who worked for CNN and then gets a job as an executive producer with Project Veritas and then does a video praising them.
1 Like
Going all the way back to the ACORN thing… O’Keefe used edits to change the intent of what actually happened to tell a different story.
O’Keefe ruined Juan Carlos Vera in his “sting” by selectively editing the footage ( that was illegal to record in the State of California) to make it look like Vera was in fact helping O’Keefe and his partner when the facts are that Vera did not help them and also immediately called the police and passed on the information of O’Keefe’s visit to the police.
O’Keefe lost in court on that one.
There are many many many many instances of O’Keefe doing things like this because their tactic is to not expose any truth but to gin up outrage and if it comes out later that what they did was false… the supporters have moved on to the next outrage.
I doubt he is how you described. You been watching toooooo much Faux News.
1 Like
Squirrels 
love acorns
1 Like
Keep your eye on the bubble, bro.
Victimhood is well know in some left of center circles.
1 Like
Maybe shiney objects.
1 Like
The Left loves Baghdad Bobbing, nothing to see!
The seriousness of the charges only applies when they are accusing.
2 Likes
I wish I could like this post 10 times.
…for 25 years.
1 Like
That’s all there is…unless you’ve got something else? Even in that, there was no conviction. It was an agreement to end the legal proceedings. Now…your turn. If he’s so baaa, baaa, baaad…show us all your long list of grievances?
You know how you guys got all upset over Nick Sandmann and how that incident is proof that CNN is basically a network of lies?
Why not apply that same rigor to James O’Keefe?
He did the same thing in the NPR thing. So much so that even The Blaze called him on it.
In fact… that is the last time that O’Keefe willingly released the unedited video alongside the edited footage because when people watched the full footage they saw how O’Keefe edited things to take them out of context.
Here’s your article and the meat of it. Notice the description labeling O’keefe “a serial prankster”? That’s the author clearly displaying his slanted opinion as he writes his piece. Notice at the end, he insinuates his conclusion but doesn’t have the evidence for it to be proof. What you do have is enough evidence from O’keefe that those at the top either resigned or were fired?
When The Daily Caller released tapes last week showing NPR executive Ron Schiller calling the Tea Party “racist,” he quickly resigned; NPR’s CEO was ousted soon after. But the 11-minute snippet of Schiller footage, released by serial prankster James O’Keefe, was clipped from a two-hour conversation. And when editors at Glenn Beck’s conservative website The Blaze — an unlikely NPR ally — looked at the tape’s full context, they found Schiller’s remarks, while still objectionable, less inflamatory than once thought. Did O’Keefe use deceptive cutting to make Schiller seem extra-extreme?
1 Like
So the answer is no.
The same rigor that is applied to the Nick Sandmann incident will not be applied to James O’Keefe.
Good to know.
Correct. You have nothing. All you’re doing is regurgibleating the nonsense you’ve been fed.
1 Like
