Project Veritas: Hillary Clinton paid for violent anti-Trump protestors

By Jay Stephens

Talk about an October Surprise.

Conspiracy theorists have long accused the Clinton campaign of colluding with the Democratic National Committee and the mainstream media to rig the 2016 presidential election. Leaked DNC emails from earlier this year illustrate how the Clinton machine did just that against Bernie Sanders in the primaries, and Wikileaks has been providing ample evidence all week about the MSM’s role in pandering to the Clinton agenda.

Now, with the release of Rigging the Election – Video I from James O’Keefe of Project Veritas, we have compelling video evidence that Hillary Clinton paid people to incite violence at Trump rallies.

The 16-minute video features secretly-recorded conversations with Scott Foval of the Foval Group, where he explains the convoluted system through which Hillary Clinton’s campaign pays his company to do “the shit on the ground” at Trump events. “Anarchy,” he says, is the goal.

Foval makes disturbing comments about how to incite rage from Trump supporters, how to make them look violent, and how hiring mentally ill, homeless, or “union guys” to agitate Trump supporters works the best. The altNews staff highly recommends watching the full Project Veritas video.

Did Hillary Clinton pay for violent anti-Trump protestors?

It sure looks like it.

Aaron Black, a “DNC Rapid Response Coordinator,”  is seen in the Project Veritas video explaining how he helped disrupt a Trump rally in Chicago last March:

“So the Chicago protest when they shut all that, that was us. It was more him (Bob Creamer, founder of Democracy partners) than me, but none of this is supposed to come back to us, because we want it coming from the people, we don’t want it to come from the party.  So if we do a protest and if it’s branded a DNC protest, right away the press is going to say partisan. But if I’m in there coordinating with all the groups on the ground and sort of playing field general but they are the ones talking to the cameras, then it’s actually people. But if we send out press advisories with DNC on them and Clinton campaign it doesn’t have that same effect.”

The Chicago protests Aaron Black is referring to are the violent scuffles that erupted after anti-Trump agitators instigated Trump supporters inside and outside of a scheduled rally. Trump canceled the event altogether out of security concerns, and the resulting confrontation between anti-Trump protesters and Trump supporters as they left the facility resulted in two injured copsextensive property damage, and a puzzling new mainstream media narrative about how violent Trump supporters are.

The rest of March was populated with new and old incidents popping up on the web about anti-Trump protestors being “attacked” at Trump rallies. The media, Democrats, and Republicans near-unanimously condemned Trump for using rhetoric that “incited violence.” While Marco Rubio was asking the media to report the “truth” about professional protesters being paid to disrupt Trump, most dismissed such suspicions as conspiracy. Now, we have the evidence.

 Why is this a big deal?

Aside from the obvious legal and ethical issues of an opposition political party funding fake political agitators to disrupt an opponent’s political event and incite their supporters – consider the strategic timing of the chaos in Chicago.

The rally was March 11th. In March 2016, Super Tuesday had just come to pass and the general election race was finally in sight for both Clinton and Trump. The primary season had exposed chaos on both sides of the established political aisle, and the mainstream media had just begun taking Trump seriously as a candidate, bracing themselves for a potential presidency.

Things were getting real.

Direct attacks on the character of Trump supporters was still limited, though. The mainstream media machine had just begun covering the “anti-Trump protesters” appearing at Trump rallies across the country, and videos of them being pushed out of rallies by “violent” Trump supporters started trickling onto the web. Trump even joked about punching one in the face and paying the legal fees of whomever did, but none of that was enough to adequately divide the American public.

The establishment needed something bigger; an event – or preferably, a movement – that could irrevocably associate Trump and his supporters with violence, racism, and hate. The opportunity to manufacture such a reaction presented itself when Trump scheduled a rally in Chicago, where – if the Project Veritas video is to be believed – a multiethnic group of protestors was strategically paid, trained, and sent to incite violence by the Clinton campaign.

If the Clinton campaign funded this clash in Chicago, they created two successful illusions – the existence of an organic anti-Trump protest movement, and the idea that most Trump supporters are violent racists.

But if the Clintons and the DNC pulled this off, the media is just as guilty for not reporting on this trail.

If you don’t think that such a media manipulated paradigm  has consequences, take a look at the North Carolina GOP office firebombed over the weekend.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*