News

WATCH: Project Veritas Suggests Hillary Clinton Was Involved in Idea to Protest Donald Trump Rallies

The new video from James O’Keefe suggests that Hillary Clinton was involved in a plan to have protesters in Donald Duck costumes follow around Donald Trump on the campaign trail.

In the video, Robert Creamer, founder of Democracy Partners, speaks to an undercover journalist about the idea over the summer to have protesters in Donald Duck costumes show up at Trump rallies, pressuring the Republican candidate to release his tax returns and saying that he was “ducking” by not putting them out. Creamer appears to say that this idea went all the way up to Hillary Clinton and her campaign, although at the time it was believed that only the Democratic National Committee was involved.

“And in the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground, so by God, we will get ducks on the ground,” Creamer says.

Creamer then tells the journalist not to repeat this to anyone. In a separate interview in the video, Creamer says, “We originally launched this duck because Hillary Clinton wants the duck.” Later, Scott Foval, field director of Americans United for Change, talks about the possibility of Donald Trump supporters assaulting the Donald Duck mascots, with O’Keefe’s clear implication being that Foval wanted violence to take place. But that isn’t really that clear from what Foval says, as it seems he’s just generally talking about the potential danger of putting someone in the costume and opening them up to potential assault.

In another clip featured in Project Veritas’ video, Creamer seems to be talking about the fact that the original idea was to have people in Uncle Sam costumes follow around Trump with signs that read, “I want you to release your tax returns,” but Creamer goes on to say that he received a call from the Clinton campaign and was told that Hillary Clinton wanted to use Donald Duck mascots instead.

It is not a revelation that the Democratic National Committee was involved in the Donald Duck idea. Back in August, it was reported that the DNC dropped this Donald Duck heckler concept and handed it over to Americans United for Change because they were worried about a copyright issue. What O’Keefe’s video reveals is that Hillary Clinton may have coordinated with the DNC and with Americans United for Change, a 501(c)(4), on this idea. That could potentially be considered a violation of Federal Election Commission laws.

O’Keefe says in the video, “Federal campaign law experts have told us, ‘the ducks on the ground are likely public communications for purposes of the law. It’s political activity opposing Trump, paid for by Americans United for Change funds but controlled by Clinton and her campaign.'”

None of the raw footage from any of these videos has been released, and James O’Keefe has in the past deceptively edited interviews to create a false narrative that fits his agenda, so it can’t be determined at this time how accurate the video is. It’s notable that O’Keefe’s editing is incredibly choppy, meaning viewers should be a bit skeptical about what context this conversation originally took place in.

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

1 comment

  1. Except it is not illegal. 504(c)(4) organizations can coordinate with campaigns, directly contribute to campaigns, send out mailers directly advocating for a candidate, etc., so long as election activity is a minority of its expenditures. Think Tea Party groups, not SuperPacs.

    You will notice that the attorney quote does not say it is illegal, only that it is public communication that must be considered a political expenditure by the organization.