Last month Hillary Clinton’s campaign busted an attempted infiltration by the scumbags at James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas. The exposure of O’Keefe’s scam was reported by Clinton staff to Time, complete with evidence of the would-be fraud. You might think that after having been revealed and held up to ridicule the deceivers at Project Veritas would back off and lick their wounds. But no.
Devoid of any semblance of shame, O’Keefe just released a video (posted below) produced during the failed infiltration. He contends that he has caught the Clinton campaign accepting donations that are prohibited by law. The only problem with his allegations is that they are not proven to be true by his pitiful video antics.
O’Keefe’s flunkies approached a booth that was selling campaign swag at the site where Clinton announced the launch of her campaign for the Democratic nomination for president last June. He says that while there his “journalist” met a Canadian woman who wanted to by a couple of items, which is prohibited by law because the purchases are donations to the campaign and can only be made by U.S. citizens. In the course of the transaction, O’Keefe’s flunky offered to buy the items for the Canadian woman and the transaction was completed. This is what O’Keefe is now alleging is an epic violation of campaign laws and proof of incorrigible criminality by Clinton (who wasn’t even there). Thank goodness O’Keefe was there to uncover a potentially fraudulent sale of a t-shirt that could very well alter the course of America’s democracy.
More to the point, if any law was broken it was by O’Keefe’s flunky. The campaign is seen in the video advising the Canadian that they cannot sell her anything, just as the law requires. So when the O’Keefee undertook to make the purchase for her, she was the one that allegedly committed a crime. It is unlawful to make a donation in the name of another person who is not legally permitted to make a donation themselves. However, it is not a crime for the person selling swag to accept payment from a valid U.S. citizen, which is what happened.
O’Keefe maintains that he and his flunky did not know the Canadian woman. However, given his history of shameless dishonesty, it would be naive to take his word for that. Especially since the events suggest otherwise. For instance, as soon as the Clinton staffer told her she could not buy the items, O’Keefe’s flunky stepped in to support her and tried to persuade the staff to make the sale. Was it just a coincidence that she was standing next to a Canadian? And why was she there recording it if they weren’t in on this scheme together? If this wasn’t her project, what was? Their partnership was sealed when they agreed to let the O’Keefee buy the items herself.
What’s more, the Canadian made an odd, off-hand threat when denied the sale saying that “When I go back to Canada I will talking about this.” Who would say such thing unless they were involved in the con and attempting to get a rise from their victim? For more proof of collusion, consider how O’Keefe says in the video that “It didn’t take long for these campaign staffers to think they had found a way to skirt the law and take the Canadian woman’s money.” But, as shown in the video, it was the Canadian woman who suggested that the flunky buy the items, not any of the Clinton staffers. That seems a little like it was planned and then blamed on the staff.
The media isn’t taking O’Keefe seriously. At a press conference this morning one reporter asked O’Keefe incredulously “Is this a joke?” In further questioning O’Keefe actually admitted that it was his group that broke the law. He also admitted that the actual amount of the transaction was $30-40.00. That’s significant because the video shows a staffer saying “So it’ll be a total of $75.00.” That’s proof that he edited the video to insert the completion of an entirely different transaction and passing it off as the one with the Canadian woman. That’s typical of his operation where he deliberately edits his videos to produce false representations of what took place.
The whole affair is ridiculous. The notion that a piddling sale of $30.00 is being elevated to some kind of massive campaign corruption scandal is absurd. It would never be prosecuted even if something illegal was done here by the Clinton staffers, which it wasn’t. The only crimes committed were by O’Keefe & Company. And to top it off, O’Keefe’s director of communications at Project Veritas, Daniel Pollack, told the Washington Post that…
“Had [O’Keefe’s flunky] not been there the Canadian woman very well might have asked nicely, and they would have said, ‘sure.’ We don’t know what course this would have taken had our journalist not been there.”
That’s actually a good point. Pollack is conceding that, but for O’Keefe’s interference, who knows what would have happened. Probably nothing at all, because it was the O’Keefee and the Canadian who concocted and carried out the crime. The staffers were clear that no sale would be made to a non-citizen. There is no evidence whatsoever to assume that they would simply have changed their minds. And if O’Keefe’s flunky were actually a “journalist,” she would have kept her mouth shut and waited to see what would happen, and Pollack wouldn’t have to wonder. Instead, she tried to manipulate the situation into a controversy that wasn’t going that way prior to her interference.
But of course, she is an activist, and a dishonest one at that. And the only evidence needed to prove that is that she works for O’Keefe who has been convicted of crimes committed during these phony stings. He also has the distinction of having his work labeled “political disinformation” by Special Prosecutors in Texas. Yes, Texas. And he is still producing political disinformation. Except now even fewer people are paying him any attention. Even Fox News hasn’t touched this one.
News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.