[1] http://www.infowars.com/expose-rapist-bill-clinton-win-5k/
Infowars does not hide it - it is on their website.
Clinton campaign's plots/schemes would have remained unknown to the public, if not for Wikileaks.
I encourage anyone reading to watch the video, acknowledge it's biased and draw your own conclusions.
You can't edit words into someone's mouth.
I think this is the soundest advice here. The formatting of the video makes it obvious that there is a partisan motivation behind this investigation. However, the video also provides a certain amount of raw and non-processed evidence that can be judged on their own merits.
I know you're trying to be dismissive with your glib comment but let me tell you: I do hold him to the same standard and I find him to be a jackass.
That doesn't change the fact that James O'Keefe is a convicted criminal (attempted to wiretap Sen. Mary Landrieu's office).
It also doesn't change the fact that he heavily edited the ACORN video to skew the story, nor that they were humoring him and reported his nonsense to the police. Conservatives wanted to believe his lies so they did.
O'Keefe has zero credibility.
As a simple example, in a narrative film I'll cut from angle to another when actor A takes a drink from a glass of water. The reason I want to cut is that I have begun to feel bored by shot #1 already for whatever reason - actor A may not be that good looking, or not a great actor, or the scripted dialog may be dull, whatever. It's boring, and that means you the viewer will be bored with it soon too. But I can't just cut away or you'll know what I'm up to. I'll wait until actor A engages in a physical movement and your visual cortex will quietly paper over the transition for me. Hmm, Actor A drank from the glass at different times during different takes, and the action of drinking doesn't line up with the dialog? No problem, I'll just cut briefly to a shot of actor B reacting to actor A (and by exploiting the Kuliekov effect, I can significantly change the meaning of the scene depending on what facial expression I choose to show on actor B) and then I'll cut back to actor A talking again from the new angle.
You would be surprised how many movie scenes depicting two people in a room were shot across 2 different days with the actors never actually meeting in person. Likewise you would be astonished at the number of ways the same footage could be combined to tell radically different stories. I have made edits where I have run pieces of footage backwards and not even the director noticed until I pointed it out. Don't think you can't be fooled by even a semi-skillful editor, your brain has been trained in how to watch TV and movies probably from infancy, and while it is not too hard to break free of that training, nor is it hard for others to manipulate your pre-existing mental reflexes.
The hidden video he released today looks incontrovertible. One can only imagine all the other things these dark political operatives do if they were willing to discuss what they did so explictly with people they presumably don't know well.
Could you elaborate on the Kuliekov effect? Couldn't find anything related with a quick google search.
I remain in awe of the state apparatus, and the cynical brilliance required to run it all (assuming there is such a central clique).
I mean, how brilliant you have to be to hire a person that would go to reddit to ask about how to cover up your tracks? Or claim you forgot everything about it when asked, including seeing documents that bear your signature? A five year old could do such performance.
I'd discount some of the paranoia around the FRB, but the modern monetary system appears to be a very very clever way of herding a population; really if you control the banks, you essentially control a population (since loans become the only way to obtain currency). Taxes then for instance would be superfluous were it not necessary to bring a currency into circulation and to avoid inflation (and thus avoid seditious movements).
I've been trying to find mathematics that describes the banking system, but it appears there are none (other than such hand-wavy deductions).
This is like in football (soccer) where it's against the rules to grab your opponent inside the box when they're taking a free kick on your goal but everyone is doing it anyway, it becomes pointless to complain and moan about it. The same goes for hand-checking in basketball and I'm sure you could find analogies in American football as well.
Of course, everyone knows that in a presidential race, things get pretty heated up. However, the violence of the conflict between the two campaigns goes well beyond the violence I anticipated. It seems that everything is now fair game.
More importantly, it is clear that there is a huge collusion between the mediatic and political sphere. Again, on a magnitude that goes well beyond what was suspected. Finally, it is quite disturbing - again, from a contemplative PoV - that high-ranking party officials and a candidate themself actually take an active role in this. Before watching this, I would have expected some shady consulting firm running through an ocean of intermediaries and headed by a "special advisor" to some high-ranking DNC official. No, in fact the hierarchy height is much smaller.