Turns out the DiFi video is a fake.

[leftofcool]

Some one took all 6 parts of the original video and edited it. As it also turns out, there are people who know who did the editing.

[elleng]

1. 'Some one' shopped around where?

[PatSeg]

2. K&R

[melman]

3. lol

No it's not.

[leftofcool]

4. Yep it is

You might want to look at the real video instead of the 15 minute edited one

Link to tweet

[melman]

5. No it's not

I've seen the full video. The other one is still not fake. There's nothing in it that didn't happen/isn't in the full one. Not fake.

[leftofcool]

10. It's all about context and Justice Dems not showing the full context of everything said

But of course, there are people who will fall for anything as long as it includes bashing good Democrats. You know, like Hillary's emails.

[Mr. Quackers]

45. I'm confused

I watched both versions, what "context" am I missing?

[Demsrule86]

52. So it was them. I dislike them...they take money from republicans...earning their pay I guess.

[George II]

65. And yet we have people here defending them and the phony video.

[mcar]

67. I shouldn't be

But I'm surprised at this.

[watoos]

77. I need a list of "good" Democrats.

I admit that I am easily fooled.

[More_Cowbell]

12. It can be a lie to omit part of the truth

Suppose someone says "I like eating shepherds pie" and you leave off the "pie."

[Tucker08087]

24. You know how we say we love it when they eat their own?

The other side has that same expression. Make sure you use a napkin and wash your hands after your order of propaganda.

[SunSeeker]

35. "No it snot."

See how dropping a couple tiny parts changes the meaning?

[lapucelle]

36. It's worse

Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception.

[Demsrule86]

51. It was a bullshit attack on Feinstein...and video editing made is misleading at best.

Here comes the ratfucking ...done to divide us.

[PatSeg]

60. Editing a video can be very deceptive

This was the tactic that James O'Keefe used over and over again to try and undermine Democrats. Even Fox News does it and their audience usually falls for it.

[George II]

71. It's not "fake" but it's doctored. It doesn't portray the entire discussion...

Try this - I say:

"I think Hillary Clinton is great and think Donald trump is an asshole."

That can be doctored, without even changing the order of any words, to read:

"I think Hillary Clinton is an asshole."

NOTHING in that second statement is "fake", but it sure isn't what I intended to say.

Got it?

[PatSeg]

11. Thank you

When will we Democrats learn not to fall for the right-wing dirty tricks? With a major election coming up, we need to be a lot sharper than we have been in the past. The attacks are going to be nonstop and relentless. They are counting on us being gullible and reactive.

[DURHAM D]

18. AOC's campaign staff put up the edited video -

not exactly right wing.

[leftofcool]

19. Her staff along with some group calling themelves "justice Dems"

[yardwork]

53. Unforgivable.

[DURHAM D]

72. Good morning yardie.

I see there are some DUers starting new threads and posting more lies about DiFi this am. Looks like the idea is that it does not matter if the video was edited, we are just supposed to be thinking about the poor kids and how awful a senior Democrat acted.

My takeaway is that it is a good way to make note of the ratfuckers who have been here for awhile.

[yardwork]

86. No surprises, unfortunately.

[PatSeg]

56. And did AOC's staff get suckered as well?

It appears it is now a New York Times story.

Though the staff may have put up the video, did THEY edit it or did they fall for it like a lot of people did?

[George II]

61. If they're going to edit a video and post is as "genuine", what exactly are they?

The two top members of her campaign staff are co-founders of Justice Democrats.

[Cha]

26. yes it was EDITED..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[George II]

64. lol, yes it is.

[SidDithers]

6. Yup...

The Justice Dems have no more credibility than James O'Keefe.

Sid

[leftofcool]

8. And they are just as stupid

[DURHAM D]

9. This

[R B Garr]

23. Yes, they are totally out of control. This looks like an ethics

violation. Horrible phony tactics.

[Cha]

27. Not to me they don't. What's their stupid end

game with this crap?

[yardwork]

48. There's a reason for that.

[George II]

63. That's saying a lot!

[oasis]

7. The truth shall set you free.

Stay awake Democrats. There will be more shit stirring in the months ahead.

[PatSeg]

14. Exactly

They are counting on us being reactive and eating our own. The next two years are going to rough and we need to stay focused.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

13. WTF? I thought this was going to be a cool forum in support of Democrats when we need it most?

Yikes!

[PatSeg]

15. Old habits die hard

We just need to keep reminding people who the opponents are.

[PatSeg]

16. P.S. Welcome to DU!

[leftofcool]

17. That ship sailed with Hillary

[SFnomad]

31. It's cute how naive you are

I mean that in a jocular fashion. Yes, this place should be a forum in support of Democrats when we they need us most. It sadly, rarely lives up to its ideals.

Welcome to DU, hopefully this place doesn't make you jaded and bitter.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

32. I'm already jaded and bitter. LOL.

I'd hoped this place would be a bit of relief.

Naive is an understatement.

[SFnomad]

33. If you're already jaded and bitter, you're going to fit right in ... LOL. n/t

[yardwork]

49. Kind of like Oberlin College?

[appal_jack]

20. Excerpt / fake

Pretending that DiFi's conduct here was something other than awful does no one any favors.

-app

[Cha]

28. You're Wrong.. no one is "pretending" anything..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[TeamPooka]

30. so you're saying you didn't watch the whole video....

[appal_jack]

74. Ah, the Covington Catholic strategy... nt

[TeamPooka]

76. So you're saying the edited video is the authentic video?

[appal_jack]

82. Why are you so intent to put words in my mouth?

Two times now, "So you're saying..."

I have my own words, thank you very much.

-app

[TeamPooka]

84. because of your diversions and false equivelence.

[Hekate]

21. KnR

[ProudLib72]

22. So more bullshittery by our friends?

You know our "friends" who just want us to know the "truth"?

[The Wielding Truth]

25. If it's not the whole truth then the meaning can not be rendered.

[RandySF]

29. I will not jump to conclusions until we hear more

But it would be a shame if Justice Democrats were behind it. because they have a strong enough platform to not need these tactics/

[obamanut2012]

46. As proven in another thread, they are

The Justice Democrats and Cenk.

[GoCubsGo]

47. Cenk. That figures.

Some things never change.

[Scurrilous]

34. K&R

[Roy Rolling]

37. The Correct Term, I Believe

The video was deceptively edited.

It was edited to disproportionately highlight only a narrow segment that doesn't accurately represent the entirety of the conversation.

Not "fake". The clip was too simple. Too clumsy. Too crude to represent the entire exchange honestly.

[Alea]

38. I watched it all. Both versions

The editing isn't the problem. They both show basically the same thing. The problem is the way this group of people, especially the kids, came together to try to force Difi into a corner and commit her vote, or make her look bad if she didn't.

To be clear, I'm not blaming the kids. Adults put this meeting together.

[Hortensis]

41. Bingo. Feinstein said up front Democrats already have plans

but there was no interest in what those are. Absolutely blame foolish adults, who I'm sure have no more idea about what the Democrats are doing than the children.

[loyalsister]

42. That's called citizen lobbying

When I have worked with non profits to advocate for bills, we visited house and senate members and the groups agreed "get a commitment" was one of the main goals.

[yardwork]

50. Did you bring a group of twelve year olds to make your case?

[loyalsister]

80. I didn't

But other people and groups have done advocacy training with kids in support of teachers. A senator who thinks they are above hearing outrage from interested citizens has no business in public service.

[Ms. Toad]

83. So what makes you think the adults brought their children to make the adults' case?

I was not lobbying at age 12, but I was already politically active. I had already engaged in one act of civil disobedience (supported by my parents, but they were unaware of my plans until I informed them). At age 12, I lobbied the school (and won) on a 1st amendment issue related to the Vietnam war - and did volunteer work for a presidential campaign. Again - with my parents support, but I was not carrying water for them. My first lobby visit was not until age 18 - but that was largely a function of distance, not lack of inclination (or the maturity to engage in such activities). I lived 100 miles from state legislative offices & 1500 miles from the US Congress.

I've watched the entire video (as well as the snippet). Nothing I see in the visit itself suggests the adults were using the kids to make the adults' case.

I do have questions about the edited version - it was carefully edited to include the portions that appeared condescending and irritated. I would not be surprised if adults did the editing - which is inappropriate.

[Ms. Toad]

59. Editing is the problem.

It omits criticial context.

If you watch the full version, it is a decent lobbying meeting between citizens and their senator - absent one (edited out) fact - that the meeting was unscheduled, but squeezed in to permit the kids to deliver the letter. That explains what feels like impatience on her part - she had another meeting scheduled that permitted time for a quick letter delivery, but not for a full debate.

Also edited out of the shortened version is the discussion of talking points - typically you have a clear liimited purpose, a specific ask (vote for the Green Climate Bill), and talking points that get discussed in the meeting. All of the discussion between the kids and Seantor Feinstein was edited out. There was discussion. She did listen, and then (at the end) explained her position (pretty typical in a lobbying visit). She also made sure each child was given a copy of the legislation she sponsored, invited them to read it and ask her questions if things didn't make sense, and explained why she didn't currently plan to (but didn't rule out) voteing as they had asked.

The problem is precisely the editing - that cuts out all of the normal back and forth in the lobbying visit, and the fact that the visit was not scheduled. Omitting the former makes the kids seem more demanding and Feinsten more arrogant; omitting the latter removes an explanation for some of the feeling of impatience on her part.

I blame whoever edited the video and cut out critical context from what is otherwise not much different from lobbying visits I've been on with adults. Kids are perfectly capable of being politically active in middle school and high school, but I suspect an adult edited the tape.

[mcar]

68. Thank you for this description of the entire video

[SunSeeker]

39. Was it Justice Dems who edited that video?

If they did, they certainly did their credibility no favors. Worse, they hurt their (and our) cause - the move to a sustainable future.

[Hortensis]

43. Believe what the actions say. Climate's not their main cause,

power is. It's the nature of this type of leftists to always oppose whoever has the power on their "side" (never them), and in the process they develop whole belief systems, along with a great deal of frustrated hostility, to explain it to themselves.

Like this action: In 2016, the JD type of of Sanders' primary voters (1/4 of the total) voted half for Republicans and half third party against Democrats! This in an election where Democrats were planning the most progressive advances since the New Deal. The main "rationale" seemed to be along the lines that Democrats (not the Republicans!) needed to be destroyed before the nation could advance.

Btw, the Sanders/JD types also supported a Sanders plan to have the superdelegates betray their duty by illicitly making Sanders the nominee over the large-majority vote winner. That got exactly 0 support outside this deluded group, of course, but the bizarre righteousness of their imagining oversetting democracy itself was necessary and good shows how differently they think.

But try, try again. This cause never dies, only weakens in good times and flares in bad.

[yardwork]

54. Good summation of what we're up against.

I had reserved judgment of AOC but this stunt disgusts me. This is beyond a rookie mistake.

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. Your analysis of the 2016 primary vote has significant flaws

NOTE: This is in response to a discussion point raised in the post I am responding to. There is no re-fighting of anything in my post below because I have nothing negative to say about any of our candidates past or present.

No doubt some significant number of voters fit your description, but you seem to assume that all of the voters who supported Sanders in the primary but voted for someone other than Clinton in the General were "JD types". Further you seem to assume that no "JD types" voted for Clinton in the General. Both of those assumptions are not supported by facts. Sanders easily won the West Virginia primary in 2016, whereas Clinton did the same in 2008. However the Republicans ran away with the state in the General both times. Both Clinton in 2008 and Sanders in 2016 won many primary votes from people who were the furthest thing from "JD types", and those voters make up the bulk of those who did not later vote Democratic in the Fall. That is just an example, it was true in many states. Meanwhile Clinton had her PUMAs in 2008 and Sanders had his Bobs in 2016. Primary defectors happen all the time and they come in many stripes for many reasons. On the whole IMO the vast majority of "JD type" voters in 2016 voted for Clinton in the General, tho0ugh in many cases without much enthusiasm. I do not conflate "JD types" with "Bernie or Busters", though obviously there are some overlaps between those groups.

[Hortensis]

70. The other 3/4 were mostly sensible Democrats who apparently

wanted to demand more, though of course some must have truly believed Sanders could have delivered. And probably a few voted resentfully as a poor second choice, instead of happily as pollsters said by far most did, BUT that identifies the huge difference between them and those who betrayed the principles they hid behind.

That other, betraying quarter of course includes various types leaning toward dysfunction and even extremism, but definitely including the JD sorts whose purpose IS dissension from the main.

The bottom line is, dissenters must dissent or lose their political identify and purpose for existence.

Manufacturing excuses for this inexcusable reason for helping elect, and possibly re-elect Trump is their thing. Happily, they're not allowed on DU.

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. Thanks for a real discussion

We may not be in full agreement on every point, but close enough for Democrats

[Hortensis]

75. :) Must be nice to discuss politics in small countries

where exceptions to every statement aren't almost literally too many to identify, much less choose among. Imagine living where most people really did know something about what was being discussed.

Btw and fwiw, WV still has a lot of southern conservatives who register Democrat. Their local reps are conservative blue dog Dems, of course, but WV's conservative Dems equally of course vote reliably Republican for president.

A striking example of that is from two WV precinct exit polls that revealed that 39% and 44% respectively of Sanders' primary voters said they had absolutely no intention of voting for Sanders in the general. THOSE Dems were WV conservatives trying to knock the stronger candidate out.

(Stupid jerks. Just imagine what would be happening in coal country by now if our giant redevelopment plans were 2 years in...)

[quickesst]

40. Everyone....

.....who watched the AOC edited video and immediately jumped on the hate Feinstein train, and continued riding that hate train after watching the full video reminds me of another group of people who continue to defend what reasonably cannot be defended. I wonder who that could be.

[liberalmuse]

44. It's okay for people to reserve opinion.

While waiting for more information. Especially in this climate. We’re dealing with mountains of right wing and foreign propaganda. Also, look at the source of the information and prime those bullshit meters.

We also have agents of disinformation right here in plain site on DU. I’m guessing many of the “outraged” in these situations are masquerading as liberals to help nudge the more pliable among us into unwittingly helping them spread the outrage. I saw this shit on Twitter and closed the tab. My bullshit meter was pinging which means time to do some research while holding off on an opinion.

It’s also important to focus on the many voices of reason and caution on our side who immediately posted undoctored evidence so people can judge for themselves. They tend to get drowned out. Thanks to the people upthread who took the time to do that. I have nothing for people who drop a turd in the pot and little else.

[PatSeg]

57. Absolutely, thank you

We need to remind one another and ourselves every day what kind of opposition we are facing. We've seen what they could do before and yet so many fall into the same old traps.

There is nothing wrong with taking a breath and waiting before we pass judgment on anything we see and hear these days. I remember some really good Democrats who had no problem throwing Al Franken under the bus before all the information was available.

[Ms. Toad]

58. Edited is different from fake.

The video was heavily edited - and the worst parts of the full conversation were combined into one edited clip.

[samnsara]

62. i like difi..im glad to see this was an edited tape.. i never believed she was

..anything except appropriate with those kids.

My GAWD the post (everywhere) were so awful towards her...what a knee jerk feeding frenzy! And why is it always directed toward females? esp OLDER females? of which I am one!


CAN WE ALL PINKY PROMISE TO NOT EAT OUR OWN???

[mcar]

66. Ratfcking.

We have to be aware and make sure of facts before reacting.

[rockfordfile]

69. Who on this site would have believed that was real to begin with?

That should tell you something about them.

[VarryOn]

78. I've decided that whenever any video of supposed bad behavior is relased...

NEVER TRUST IT! Always wait for the unedited version.

[samnsara]

79. i wanna know who did it....

….I didnt believe it in the first place but who had the bright idea of using little kids to get their propaganda out? shame on them. which side are they on?

'WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?'

[WeekiWater]

81. Deception is a lie.

They beat that into us in business school. Justice Democrats are a deceptive organization.

[Gothmog]

85. The video was edited

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

87. From Senator Feinstein

Link to tweet

?s=20