Undercover Planned Parenthood Videos Were Altered, Analysis Finds

[Quetzal]

Real = actual. Not just some state level buddy of Planned Parenthood saying "you're good dude don't worry about it we aren't going to even really look at the case". Which is what happened here in Colorado.

There have been various investigations all over the country, are they all invalid in your opinion?

 

[Granite]

Real = actual. Not just some state level buddy of Planned Parenthood saying "you're good dude don't worry about it we aren't going to even really look at the case". Which is what happened here in Colorado.

Not investigating at all--which is what happened in Colorado--isn't the same as actually investigating. Are the states that actually performed and already wrapped their investigations and found nothing somehow complicit in a cover up? Or was there legitimately nothing to find?

 

[aikido7]

All they need is the meme. The clickbait. The headline. Once the meme is in place it's virtually impossible to ever undo it.

Bill Sammon, who was FOX's news editor in Washington, D.C., finally admitted it was he and he alone who made up the meme of "Obama as a socialist" and concocted it as a "whacky joke."

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/29/bill_sammon_socialism/

...and you will not find this factual evidence on the FOX network. Ever.

 

[Jose Fly]

Pretty simple really. The "real investigation" will be the one that shows PP breaking the law. All investigations that don't aren't "real".

How hard is that to understand?

 

[Nazaroo]

So: Is everyone involved in these investigations lying, or incompetent? Every last one? Or is there simply nothing to find here?

The situation is a little complicated, but not that much.

There is no way any abortionists are going to en masse start turning each other in,
any more than the mafia or the Bandittos Motorcycle Club will.

Look at similar situations elsewhere:

its likely that less than 10% of rapes are successfully solved. Why?

The majority of rapists are cops.

 

[Granite]

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/28/9217323/planned-parenthood-tapes-edited

It appears the editing may be more substantial than previously thought and even the transcripts aren't reliable.

None of this is holding up to scrutiny. At all.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

There have been various investigations all over the country, are they all invalid in your opinion?

The videos are still being released. What type of investigation at this point do you think could have actually taken place?

 

[jeffblue101]

So far, all state investigations have turned up zero evidence of wrongdoing. If there's a conspiracy or cover up at work, or at least an effort to help PP get away with something, the scale and scope of this is mind boggling.

Except in florida where PP performed illegal abortions or in missouri where abortionist where caught using tax payer funds for abortions and performing abortions without the proper licesnes or in georgia where PP gave two abortions to the same underage girl who was rapped in a 4 month period. Yep sounds like a perfectly legal operation to men :vomit:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/28/9217323/planned-parenthood-tapes-edited

It appears the editing may be more substantial than previously thought and even the transcripts aren't reliable.

None of this is holding up to scrutiny. At all.

Did you watch the videos???

What type of editing caused the lady to exclaim... "Oh look another boy" as she chopped it up in the petri dish?

What type of editing caused the lady from Stem Express to say... "The technicians freak out when we send them an intact head"?

What type of editing caused the lab tech to say... "We cut through the babies face to get to the brain"?

 

[shagster01]

Except in florida where PP performed illegal abortions or in missouri where abortionist where caught using tax payer funds for abortions and performing abortions without the proper licesnes or in georgia where PP gave two abortions to the same underage girl who was rapped in a 4 month period. Yep sounds like a perfectly legal operation to men :vomit:

This is the medical establishment you all support through big pharma and complain about me using medicine that God grows out of the dirt.

 

[shagster01]

Except in florida where PP performed illegal abortions

What difference is there, to you, between a legal abortion and an illegal one?

 

[Jose Fly]

What type of editing caused the lady to exclaim... "Oh look another boy" as she chopped it up in the petri dish?

What type of editing caused the lady from Stem Express to say... "The technicians freak out when we send them an intact head"?

What type of editing caused the lab tech to say... "We cut through the babies face to get to the brain"?

And which one of those are illegal?

 

[Quetzal]

The videos are still being released. What type of investigation at this point do you think could have actually taken place?

Doesn't mean they cant investigate the others that have been released. Which, it appears, is happening as we speak.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

And which one of those are illegal?

That's all you care about??

Those things don't horrify you?

 

[jeffblue101]

And which one of those are illegal?

Well PP has a real problem with "another boy" part since they dedicated a large portion of their report trying to refute it. :chuckle:

 

[Quetzal]

That's all you care about??

Those things don't horrify you?

The topic at hand is if the evidence presented against PP is illegal in nature. As it stands, there is nothing and the "evidence" is in question for validity and consistency. We shall see what happens as we move forward.

 

[Granite]

The topic at hand is if the evidence presented against PP is illegal in nature. As it stands, there is nothing and the "evidence" is in question for validity and consistency. We shall see what happens as we move forward.

Thus far there's no evidence they're profiting from any kind of organ-selling scheme, which is specifically what this video campaign's attempted to prove.

Videos shot under false pretenses with fake IDs by people with ties to violence which are selectively edited might be construed by reasonable observers are horribly counterproductive and damaging to the pro-life movement. If someone were attempting to sabotage pro-lifers by making them look as dishonest as possible they might attempt such a publicity stunt.

 

[Jose Fly]

That's all you care about??

That's the question at hand in this thread.

Those things don't horrify you?

Not really. If you work in any medical field, there are lots of things that go on that would come across as horrific to the public. My wife started her career at a nursing home and the stories she would tell me about the things they had to do were disgusting to me. But to her, that's just the nature of the field.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thus far there's no evidence they're profiting for any kind of organ-selling scheme, which is specifically what this video campaign's attempted to prove.

Actually, I don't think that was the point of the videos at all. Their intent was to rile up the conservative base, play to the "Ewwww gross" factor, and translate that into political action (defunding PP).

Whether or not PP actually broke any laws was never really a concern.

 

[jeffblue101]

The topic at hand is if the evidence presented against PP is illegal in nature. As it stands, there is nothing and the "evidence" is in question for validity and consistency. We shall see what happens as we move forward.

Stop making stuff up undercover videos are peferctly legal in the court of law
http://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/memorandum-law-admissibility-tapes-and-transcripts

RECORDED CONVERSATIONS ARE ADMISSIBLE
IN EVIDENCE IF RECORDED WITH THE PERMISSION
OF ONE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVERSATION
In a criminal prosecution, taped conversations between the defendant and another which were recorded without the defendant's knowledge or consent but with the consent of the other party are admissible and do not violate the defendant's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971); Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427 (1963); United States v. Caracci, 446 F.2d 173 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 881 (1971). The consent of one party to the conversation eliminates any claim of illegality as to the recording per se even when the government had participated in the recording. United States v. Fanning, 477 F.2d 45 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1006 (1974). The Fourth Amendment does not protect "a wrongdoer's misplaced belief that a person to whom he voluntarily confides his wrongdoing will not reveal it." Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 302 (1966). Where it is proper to testify about oral conversations, taped records of those conversations are admissible. Lopez, 373 U.S. at 387. See also United States v. Conroy, 589 F.2d 1258, 1264 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 831 (1979) ("If the informant may reveal the conversation at a later time, he may contemporaneously transmit it to third persons").

TAPE RECORDINGS OF CONVERSATIONS
ARE ADMISSIBLE ONCE THE GOVERNMENT
LAYS THE PROPER FOUNDATION
The controlling authority in this Circuit on the authentication of tapes is United States v. Biggins, 551 F.2d 64 (5th Cir. 1977). In Biggins, the Fifth Circuit held that the party introducing a tape into evidence has the burden of going forward with sufficient evidence to show the recording is an accurate reproduction of the conversation recorded. In a criminal trial, generally this will require the government to show: (1) the competency of the operator; (2) the fidelity of the recording equipment; (3) the absence of material deletions, additions, or alterations in the relevant part of the tape; and (4) the identification of the relevant speakers. Id. at 66. Although this is the preferred foundation, there are not strict particularized standards governing the admissibility of tapes since the purpose of the inquiry is to establish and ensure the accuracy of the recording.