Project Veritas talks with former FBI

703 Views | 23 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by BearForce2
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
First half of the video talks about the FBI's case re: Project Veritas, the 2nd half of the conversation is more eye opening. It talks about the intelligence gathering half of the FBI and their ability to attain secret warrants and gather information on anybody just in order to store that information.



DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Project Veritas - Wikipedia
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

Project Veritas - Wikipedia

Co-Founder Larry Sanger: Wikipedia is "Badly Biased"
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger conducted his own bias analysis of the website, saying Wikipedia is "badly biased."

"The days of Wikipedia's robust commitment to neutrality are long gone," co-founder Larry Sanger told Fox News in Feb. 2021. "Wikipedia's ideological and religious bias is real and troubling, particularly in a resource that continues to be treated by many as an unbiased reference work."

"Wikipedia can be counted on to cover not just political figures, but political issues as well from a liberal-left point of view," Sanger writes. "No conservative would write, in an abortion article, "When properly done, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine," a claim that is questionable on its face, considering what an invasive, psychologically distressing, and sometimes lengthy procedure it can be even when done according to modern medical practices."

Wikipedia Criticized for Neutrality Policies that Omit Information

Wikipedia says that it does not present certain minority views or claims in order to "avoid a false balance." This new policy has been criticized by Sanger, who says it means Wikipedia is no longer neutral. Wikipedia states that it seeks to avoid legitimizing certain information and will omit it. In this way, Wikipedia adheres to an elite bias or perhaps a majority-belief bias.

Wikipedia's policy states, "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance" (emphasis ours):
Quote:

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MinotStateBeav said:

DiabloWags said:

Project Veritas - Wikipedia

Co-Founder Larry Sanger: Wikipedia is "Badly Biased"
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger conducted his own bias analysis of the website, saying Wikipedia is "badly biased."

"The days of Wikipedia's robust commitment to neutrality are long gone," co-founder Larry Sanger told Fox News in Feb. 2021. "Wikipedia's ideological and religious bias is real and troubling, particularly in a resource that continues to be treated by many as an unbiased reference work."

"Wikipedia can be counted on to cover not just political figures, but political issues as well from a liberal-left point of view," Sanger writes. "No conservative would write, in an abortion article, "When properly done, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine," a claim that is questionable on its face, considering what an invasive, psychologically distressing, and sometimes lengthy procedure it can be even when done according to modern medical practices."
Yet you ignore Project Veritas 's long history of altering and selectively editing videos and forging documents.
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

MinotStateBeav said:

DiabloWags said:

Project Veritas - Wikipedia

Co-Founder Larry Sanger: Wikipedia is "Badly Biased"
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger conducted his own bias analysis of the website, saying Wikipedia is "badly biased."

"The days of Wikipedia's robust commitment to neutrality are long gone," co-founder Larry Sanger told Fox News in Feb. 2021. "Wikipedia's ideological and religious bias is real and troubling, particularly in a resource that continues to be treated by many as an unbiased reference work."

"Wikipedia can be counted on to cover not just political figures, but political issues as well from a liberal-left point of view," Sanger writes. "No conservative would write, in an abortion article, "When properly done, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine," a claim that is questionable on its face, considering what an invasive, psychologically distressing, and sometimes lengthy procedure it can be even when done according to modern medical practices."
Yet you ignore Project Veritas 's long history of altering and selectively editing videos and forging documents.

So, did the FBI raid O'Keefe for altering and editing videos or...
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MinotStateBeav said:

Wikipedia's policy states, "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance" (emphasis ours):
Quote:

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

I don't have a problem with this policy. Old-school encyclopedias would not have entertained any of these theories either.
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

MinotStateBeav said:

Wikipedia's policy states, "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance" (emphasis ours):
Quote:

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

I don't have a problem with this policy. Old-school encyclopedias would not have entertained any of these theories either.


Maybe for the Earth is flat, but when you are dealing with political issues or hot button contentious issues, presenting something though the lens of just your political view makes what you write, propaganda.

ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MinotStateBeav said:

sycasey said:

MinotStateBeav said:

Wikipedia's policy states, "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance" (emphasis ours):
Quote:

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

I don't have a problem with this policy. Old-school encyclopedias would not have entertained any of these theories either.


Maybe for the Earth is flat, but when you are dealing with political issues or hot button contentious issues, presenting something though the lens of just your political view makes what you write, propaganda.

ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory
Please explain to me what is incorrect or improperly omitted here.
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It isn't a conspiracy theory. Hunter was on the board of Burisma making something like 50k/month for what? I guess those Ukrainian oil companies just needed a junkie with no business experience in the oil/gas field.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MinotStateBeav said:

It isn't a conspiracy theory. Hunter was on the board of Burisma making something like 50k/month for what? I guess those Ukrainian oil companies just needed a junkie with no business experience in the oil/gas field.
The conspiracy theory is that this had anything to do with Biden's actions as VP in Ukraine. Why should an encyclopedia entry entertain those ideas?
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

MinotStateBeav said:

It isn't a conspiracy theory. Hunter was on the board of Burisma making something like 50k/month for what? I guess those Ukrainian oil companies just needed a junkie with no business experience in the oil/gas field.
The conspiracy theory is that this had anything to do with Biden's actions as VP in Ukraine. Why should an encyclopedia entry entertain those ideas?
Well we know Biden threatened Ukraine to deny a billion bucks from Ukraine unless they fired their prosecutor who just so happened to be investigating Burisma. We know this because Biden said it, he said the prosecutor was "corrupt" lol.

edit: not answering anymore about this, no point in derailing a topic we know you hate for political reasons.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

MinotStateBeav said:

It isn't a conspiracy theory. Hunter was on the board of Burisma making something like 50k/month for what? I guess those Ukrainian oil companies just needed a junkie with no business experience in the oil/gas field.
The conspiracy theory is that this had anything to do with Biden's actions as VP in Ukraine. Why should an encyclopedia entry entertain those ideas?
Only a willful disregard for facts would cause someone to pretend that Biden's very well understood enactment of official US policy to reduce corruption in Ukraine by pressuring them to remove a bad prosecutor - who wasn't doing his job and, for example, wasn't investigating Burism - would somehow have been designed to help Hunter.

Rob Portman wrote a letter to Poroshenko requesting Shokin be fired (and Ron Johnson and others on both sides of the aisle signed). Were those Republicans in cahoots with Hunter too? What about all of the other countries around the world who wanted the prosecutor sacked?

It's this aversion to actually understanding facts that makes all of these claims so risible and undercuts any pretense that this is a reasonable concern. Hunter Biden is a dirtbag but there's zero evidence of Biden wrongdoing in Ukraine. Trump and Rudy on the other hand did act corruptly in Ukraine but with nary a peep from Republicans or MAGAts, because they can only pretend to care about corruption when they can corruptly project onto democrats.

And while I'm here, you have got to be kidding me to expect anyone to believe a single thing that Project "Veritas" said. The dude is a criminal and a disgrace. No serious person cares what he says or what "evidence" he pretends to dredge up. He's up there with Dinesh D'souza.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MinotStateBeav said:

sycasey said:

MinotStateBeav said:

It isn't a conspiracy theory. Hunter was on the board of Burisma making something like 50k/month for what? I guess those Ukrainian oil companies just needed a junkie with no business experience in the oil/gas field.
The conspiracy theory is that this had anything to do with Biden's actions as VP in Ukraine. Why should an encyclopedia entry entertain those ideas?
Well we know Biden threatened Ukraine to deny a billion bucks from Ukraine unless they fired their prosecutor who just so happened to be investigating Burisma. We know this because Biden said it, he said the prosecutor was "corrupt" lol.
We also know this was a policy goal shared broadly within the US government (including Republicans) and also by European allies, and that Biden was delivering on that shared policy in his role as a US government representative.

So yeah, you sound like a conspiracy theorist here.
GoOskie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm all for shedding light on government abuse, specifically in regards to the FBI (COINTELPRO), but using PV as a source is not the way to go.

kelly09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GoOskie said:

I'm all for shedding light on government abuse, specifically in regards to the FBI (COINTELPRO), but using PV as a source is not the way to go.


What is?
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

MinotStateBeav said:

It isn't a conspiracy theory. Hunter was on the board of Burisma making something like 50k/month for what? I guess those Ukrainian oil companies just needed a junkie with no business experience in the oil/gas field.
The conspiracy theory is that this had anything to do with Biden's actions as VP in Ukraine. Why should an encyclopedia entry entertain those ideas?
Only a willful disregard for facts would cause someone to pretend that Biden's very well understood enactment of official US policy to reduce corruption in Ukraine by pressuring them to remove a bad prosecutor - who wasn't doing his job and, for example, wasn't investigating Burism - would somehow have been designed to help Hunter.

Rob Portman wrote a letter to Poroshenko requesting Shokin be fired (and Ron Johnson and others on both sides of the aisle signed). Were those Republicans in cahoots with Hunter too? What about all of the other countries around the world who wanted the prosecutor sacked?

It's this aversion to actually understanding facts that makes all of these claims so risible and undercuts any pretense that this is a reasonable concern. Hunter Biden is a dirtbag but there's zero evidence of Biden wrongdoing in Ukraine. Trump and Rudy on the other hand did act corruptly in Ukraine but with nary a peep from Republicans or MAGAts, because they can only pretend to care about corruption when they can corruptly project onto democrats.

And while I'm here, you have got to be kidding me to expect anyone to believe a single thing that Project "Veritas" said. The dude is a criminal and a disgrace. No serious person cares what he says or what "evidence" he pretends to dredge up. He's up there with Dinesh D'souza.

+1
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They keep trying to hide the truth and at the same time denying the ugly history
Tell someone you love them and try to have a good day
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

MinotStateBeav said:

DiabloWags said:

Project Veritas - Wikipedia

Co-Founder Larry Sanger: Wikipedia is "Badly Biased"
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger conducted his own bias analysis of the website, saying Wikipedia is "badly biased."

"The days of Wikipedia's robust commitment to neutrality are long gone," co-founder Larry Sanger told Fox News in Feb. 2021. "Wikipedia's ideological and religious bias is real and troubling, particularly in a resource that continues to be treated by many as an unbiased reference work."

"Wikipedia can be counted on to cover not just political figures, but political issues as well from a liberal-left point of view," Sanger writes. "No conservative would write, in an abortion article, "When properly done, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine," a claim that is questionable on its face, considering what an invasive, psychologically distressing, and sometimes lengthy procedure it can be even when done according to modern medical practices."
Yet you ignore Project Veritas 's long history of altering and selectively editing videos and forging documents.

You ignore your long history of posting statements without evidence.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GoOskie said:

I'm all for shedding light on government abuse, specifically in regards to the FBI (COINTELPRO), but using PV as a source is not the way to go.



Should the whistleblower have gone to POLITICO instead? It took a conservative media outlet to expose the FBI in their plot to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer.
RBGBerkeley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MinotStateBeav said:

sycasey said:

MinotStateBeav said:

It isn't a conspiracy theory. Hunter was on the board of Burisma making something like 50k/month for what? I guess those Ukrainian oil companies just needed a junkie with no business experience in the oil/gas field.
The conspiracy theory is that this had anything to do with Biden's actions as VP in Ukraine. Why should an encyclopedia entry entertain those ideas?
Well we know Biden threatened Ukraine to deny a billion bucks from Ukraine unless they fired their prosecutor who just so happened to be investigating Burisma. We know this because Biden said it, he said the prosecutor was "corrupt" lol.

edit: not answering anymore about this, no point in derailing a topic we know you hate for political reasons.
This was fact checked and found to be false by USA Today but I guess they are not as a reliable source as the Meme?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/21/fact-check-joe-biden-leveraged-ukraine-aid-oust-corrupt-prosecutor/5991434002/
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RBGBerkeley said:

MinotStateBeav said:

sycasey said:

MinotStateBeav said:

It isn't a conspiracy theory. Hunter was on the board of Burisma making something like 50k/month for what? I guess those Ukrainian oil companies just needed a junkie with no business experience in the oil/gas field.
The conspiracy theory is that this had anything to do with Biden's actions as VP in Ukraine. Why should an encyclopedia entry entertain those ideas?
Well we know Biden threatened Ukraine to deny a billion bucks from Ukraine unless they fired their prosecutor who just so happened to be investigating Burisma. We know this because Biden said it, he said the prosecutor was "corrupt" lol.

edit: not answering anymore about this, no point in derailing a topic we know you hate for political reasons.
This was fact checked and found to be false by USA Today but I guess they are not as a reliable source as the Meme?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/21/fact-check-joe-biden-leveraged-ukraine-aid-oust-corrupt-prosecutor/5991434002/

They fact checked the "fact checkers" and found newly released State memos that undercut Democrats' Ukraine impeachment story. This is not your father's USA Today and the Project Veritas youtube video was not a meme.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/biden-boomerang-newly-released-state-memo-casts-doubt
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:

GoOskie said:

I'm all for shedding light on government abuse, specifically in regards to the FBI (COINTELPRO), but using PV as a source is not the way to go.



Should the whistleblower have gone to POLITICO instead? It took a conservative media outlet to expose the FBI in their plot to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer.
This is a very cool story!
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:

RBGBerkeley said:

MinotStateBeav said:

sycasey said:

MinotStateBeav said:

It isn't a conspiracy theory. Hunter was on the board of Burisma making something like 50k/month for what? I guess those Ukrainian oil companies just needed a junkie with no business experience in the oil/gas field.
The conspiracy theory is that this had anything to do with Biden's actions as VP in Ukraine. Why should an encyclopedia entry entertain those ideas?
Well we know Biden threatened Ukraine to deny a billion bucks from Ukraine unless they fired their prosecutor who just so happened to be investigating Burisma. We know this because Biden said it, he said the prosecutor was "corrupt" lol.

edit: not answering anymore about this, no point in derailing a topic we know you hate for political reasons.
This was fact checked and found to be false by USA Today but I guess they are not as a reliable source as the Meme?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/21/fact-check-joe-biden-leveraged-ukraine-aid-oust-corrupt-prosecutor/5991434002/

They fact checked the "fact checkers" and found newly released State memos that undercut Democrats' Ukraine impeachment story. This is not your father's USA Today and the Project Veritas youtube video was not a meme.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/biden-boomerang-newly-released-state-memo-casts-doubt

You know this prosecutor was only in office for about a year, right? Opinions on him would have soured very quickly if he got fired that soon. Positive encouragement from several months prior doesn't mean a whole lot.

And again, it was not just the US who wanted him out, it was also most of the EU. Do they give a crap about Hunter Biden?
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kelly09 said:

GoOskie said:

I'm all for shedding light on government abuse, specifically in regards to the FBI (COINTELPRO), but using PV as a source is not the way to go.


What is?

Project Veritas

Revolver News

https://www.revolver.news/2021/06/federal-foreknowledge-jan-6-unindicted-co-conspirators-raise-disturbing-questions/
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.