Q. How to get away with inciting violence? A. Have plenty of flags and friends in high places

We’re exactly two weeks away from the United States’ latest presidential elections. It has become a quadrennial tradition in and of itself to call the elections The Most Important in America’s History, but for once the hyperbole really is justified. The 2016 presidential poll will surely go down in history as America’s most rancorous and divisive – certainly the most violent, if the scenes at some of Donald Trump’s bigotry-flecked rallies have been anything to go by. Trump himself has been pretty blatant at his (at best) ambivalence, and (at worst) condoning, of the violence. Indeed, it is quite a charge sheet that The Donald is building up. Since he imposed himself on as a candidate for the presidency, Trump has managed to (take a deep breath, this may take some time…):

* Incite violence at his rallies, and offer legal support to supporters who are arrested
* Brag about having dodged taxes
* Racially abuse a Supreme Court judge from a Mexican background
* Advocate the execution of the families of Da’esh members (which is a war crime)
* Suggest that gun-ownership activists could assassinate his main presidential rival
* Call for the Russian government to hack the computer account of his political opponent
* Threaten to refuse to recognise the result of the Nov 8th poll, unless he and his party win

In short, Trump has, during his extremely ignoble campaign, proved himself worthy not just of summons and arrest, but immediate CNN-filmed forced frog-marching to the nearest magistrates’ court, several times over. The only question is, why has he not been arrested? The short answer is, because he is rich and powerful enough, because he has an enormous political party behind him (regardless of how uneasy many of the Republican Party’s top brass may be about having him as their presidential nominee), and because his campaign has built up an army of stars-and-stripes-waving supporters who are absolutely crazy about him, and who so love their country that they never tire of chanting “U-S-A, U-S-A” – as if they are in danger of forgetting the name of the country they live in. He is, essentially, untouchable. Untouchable people do tend to be immune from arrest.

It has happened before, of course, and not a million miles away from us, too. The Great Untouchable in UK politics went on, incredibly, to become Prime Minister, albeit for just seven months. What’s more, he was the only British Prime Minister to come from an Ulster background. Yep, you know who I’m talking about…it’s him…he of such charming speeches as…

I can imagine no length of resistance to which Ulster will go, in which I shall not be ready to support them, and in which they will not be supported by the overwhelming majority of the British people… There are things stronger than parliamentary majorities.

In a snide remark to John Redmond’s moderate Irish Parliamentary Party, he stated:

These people in the North-east of Ireland, from old prejudices perhaps more from anything else, from the whole of their past history, would prefer, I believe, to accept the government of a foreign country rather than submit to be governed by honourable gentlemen below the gangway.

…and there was this message to the Ulster Unionist Council on the Glorious Twelfth in 1913…

Whatever steps you may feel compelled to take, whether they are constitutional, or whether in the long run they are unconstitutional, you have the whole Unionist Party, under my leadership, behind you

This man got away with inciting violence...
This man got away with inciting violence…

It has, for over a century, been a contentious point (to say the least) why Andrew Bonar Law, the then Conservative Party leader and Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition (discuss), was not arrested for inciting armed rebellion against the Liberal government of the day. He even went so far as to compromise the monarchy by urging King George V to withhold his royal assent for any Home Rule bill – a tack that had clearly had some effect, since the King did actually urge the prime minister, H H Asquith, to think again about his Home Rule policy. For all Bonar Law’s bleating about how the Liberals were a “Revolutionary Committee” (although the Liberals had nonetheless meticulously followed all the parliamentary rules and conventions at Westminster) that had ‘seized despotic power by fraud‘ (although the Liberals had, in fact, won three straight general elections, fair and square, while their allies in the IPP had topped the poll in Ireland in every election since 1885), for a despotic and revolutionary government the Liberals behaved shockingly meekly when faced with a clear and present threat to their authority. There was, after all, plenty of evidence to back up any hypothetical prosecution of the Tory leader (as well as of UUC leaders Edward Carson and James Craig), and while it is debatable whether there would anyway have been a rebellion in Ulster against a Home-Ruled Dublin government even without his intervention, Bonar Law’s words must surely have emboldened many in the UUC who would otherwise have shied away from the prospect of actually taking pot-shots at His Majesty’s armed forces. Like a certain tanned and toupeed American businessman a century later, Bonar Law was also cynically using bigotry to further his political aims. His fans have claimed that he hated religious sectarianism (citing the fact that he had Catholic friends, like, for example, Lady Ninian Crichton-Stuart…), but nobody who uses such an inflammatory term as “Lundies” in his speeches can honestly be said to be entirely free of bigotry (just as those who claim that Enoch Powell was not racist need to read the Rivers of Blood speech carefully, and take time to look up the word “piccaninnies” in the dictionary). And to those who have argued that the Tories and Unionists were merely bluffing with all the inflammatory speeches, drilling and gun-running (and that it was their way of “persuading” the Liberals to call an early general election), that hardly makes it any more justifiable – not when most would accept that threatening violence is just as reprehensible as committing it.

Roy Jenkins, in his magisterial 1964 biography of Asquith, offered his own assessment of the increasingly dangerous situation in 1912-14:

To lock up the leaders of the opposition would have been a bold stroke for any government. For Asquith it would have been a fatal one. It would have undermined the whole position he was trying to maintain. The House of Commons was the one battleground on which the Liberals always won. It was therefore in their interests to pretend that it was the only one which counted… But the Unionists were tired of an arena in which they always lost. They were only too anxious to appeal to some other authority – to the Lords, to the King, to the streets of Belfast. During 1913 Bonar Law played with alternative ideas of a mass Unionist withdrawal from Parliament and of provoking such constant disorder as to bring its proceedings to a standstill. The arrest of himself or any other Unionist leaders would have given him the perfect excuse for one or other of these courses. Furthermore the effect upon the King and the army, both a little wobbly in any event, would have been catastrophic. Asquith’s stand was on the inviolability of the parliamentary system. To maintain this stand he had to pretend that the system was working normally, even if it was not – and this meant that, whatever they did, he could not lock up his principal opponents.

There is an alternative way of looking at this situation. Whether or not Asquith was properly concentrating on his job, given his publicly known drink problem (it was the stuff of popular songs of the day, and explains where the term “squiffy” comes from) and his unrequited passion for the fiancee of one of his ministers, his failure to lay down the law (which the Tories and Unionists were supposed to respect at all times) served only to appease the bullies who had taken over the Opposition in Westminster, and thus encourage them to take increasingly radical steps in their campaign, further discrediting the parliamentary process in the eyes of growing numbers of nationalists. It was as much the Liberal government’s weakness as Bonar Law’s boldness that was emboldening the Orangemen in Belfast, just as it was enraging the Home Rulers in Dublin. And as I argued in my very first article for Slugger, the authorities’ blatant double standards in dealing with gun-running at Larne and Howth, and the tragic outcome to the latter operation in July 1914, surely set Ireland on the slippery slope to armed conflict, a process that was halted only by the outbreak of an even bloodier war in Europe. Maybe Paul Johnson had a point when he once wrote that ‘Parliamentary democracy itself was, perhaps, saved in the mud of Flanders‘ – although it would have been tactful of Johnson to admit that Britain’s experience of parliamentary democracy has historically been very different from that of Ireland.

Jenkins was right, though, to raise fears about the reliability of the army in the event of an anti-Home Rule insurrection – fears on which a great deal of fuel was piled with the Curragh Mutiny of March 1914. It is yet another reason why Bonar Law appeared to be untouchable. Furthermore, many towns in Ulster, and even parts cities in Britain, such as Glasgow, Liverpool, and Manchester, were bedecked with Union flags as the campaign wore on from Covenant Day (28 September 1912) onwards. Symbols, as any student of politics knows, matter enormously in any issue, and few symbols carry more potency than a flag. Whatever their views on the lawfulness or otherwise of the Unionists’ 1912-14 campaign, plenty of army officers would have felt more than a little queasy about the prospect of raising their rifles at people who considered themselves similarly proud British citizens. It was a theme to which Bonar Law returned in parliament, asking rhetorically whether ‘any prime minister could give orders to shoot down men whose only crime is that they refuse to be driven out of our community and deprived of the privilege of British citizenship.‘ (I’ve often wondered whether the striking miners in England and Wales in 1984-5 might have had a more successful stoppage if they had waved more Union flags around when manning the picket lines…) Such emotional hair-splitting nonetheless emboldened Unionists even further as they continued with a campaign that smacked of sedition and treason – the same kind of sedition and treason on which the Unionist authorities would later have no problem in cracking down when it came from republicans from 1916 onwards.

...while this man still might...
…while this man still might…(Picture: Gage Skidmore)

Fast forward a century, and the flags and violence (or threats thereof) can mainly be seen and heard in the States. The powers that be in both the US and UK take pride in polities in which the rule of law supposedly applies to everyone, but this has not always proved to be the case, and the higher up and more spectacular the threats come from the likelier it is that nobody is held to account. It is not impossible, of course, that papers could be served on Trump for any one of the above offences as soon as the election is over – the swifter the better, before he dusts off his groundless claim about ballot-rigging – but the damage, surely, is already done. Since the Trump juggernaut got underway the Republican Party has had, and squandered, plenty of opportunities to pull the plug on the aspirations of a man and a movement who between them have severely (some would argue fatally) damaged their party’s public image. It has certainly harmed the worldwide public image of America itself – a matter of concern, you would have thought, to everyone in the States, whatever their party colours.

In a public statement to the nation after Canada’s 1970 October Crisis, in which terrorists abducted and then murdered a provincial public official, prime minister Pierre Trudeau justified his government’s controversial use of the War Measures Act (whereby the army was dispatched on the streets of Montreal) thus:

Democracy first must preserve itself…there is ample room for opposition and dissent, but none for intimidation and terror.

It has not always worked out that way. Whether in America, Britain or Northern Ireland, when the rules of the game are so blatantly breached by the high and mighty who are supposed to know better, and are not properly enforced by those who are meant to do the enforcing, is it any wonder why more and more of us are not bothering to turn out to vote – our own way, perhaps, of wondering out loud whether democracy really is worth preserving?

Based in Birmingham, Dan is a journalist, broadcaster and actor.

  • johnny lately

    We get it. Lets brush the wrongdoings of Hilary Clinton and her election campaign under the carpet along with those thousands of leaked emails showing the Clintons to be criminals and parasites of the worst order and the type of people who would stoop to any means necessary in order to access and weild power. All the while Trump is being demonised by a compliant and increasingly biased media that ignores the truth and attempts to dupe the masses that its all a conspiracy by the Russians to undermine Clinton.

    The world is getting weary of the truth according to global corporations who control the media and finance the election campaigns of snake oil salesmen and carpetbaggers like the Clintons who once elected abandon the needs of the people they duped into voting for them and act according to the wises of their financiers by imposing Western style democracy and corruption on the entire planet regardless of the cost in human life and suffering. The threat of Nuclear war and the unimaginable loss of life as a result is being considered by the puppets of those global corporations in order to bring more wealth and control to themselves and the chosen few.

    A vote for Clinton would be like a turkey voting for Christmas.

  • Sir Rantsalot

    Dan, What you are writing about Trump is the most obvious nonsense I have read in a long time, and I read Sluggerotoole !! Your ” * ” points are so twisted from reality, that I’m guessing you must have gone through 3 or 4 or 5 steps, before landing on your best misleading choice of words. Nice work 🙂

    We the public can see exactly what is going on with the desperate controlled propaganda MSM. The US TV news media is in a different league to our quietly biased BBC reporting. The wave of people that are now awake to globalist manipulation is enormous and getting bigger every day. You can watch all of Trumps rallies on YouTube. There are 10s of thousands at them, and thousands more outside because there is no room. Watch any of the recent speeches and you can see him state plainly how this election is about beating the globalist control, via puppet Hillary. The peaceful future of the world depends on stopping Hillary getting into the White House. If she does, then nuclear war will be soon to follow.

  • Sir Rantsalot

    PS, here is the recent hidden camera exposure of senior Democrat election workers telling in their own words how they pay people to go to Trump rallies and cause fights. Have you seen this yet? Nearly 6mil views so far over 1 week online.


  • Roger

    If we talk of violence, for balance mention should be made of Clinton’s stated intention to impose a No Fly Zone (aka Another Libya) on Syria.

  • Sir Rantsalot

    Her statement to respond to cyber attack with military force, is the scariest thing for me. No proof of anything and then just launch an attack on Russia.

  • Erewhon888

    Short form: Hillary had the great idea of sending “ducks” to Trump rallies. Her team expected to capitalise on the likely violence that they could create; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEQvsK5w-jY

  • Erewhon888

    It seems that your prose became mangled as the level of purple was driven higher.
    “In short, Clinton has, during her extremely ignoble campaign, proved herself worthy not just of summons and arrest, but immediate CNN-filmed forced frog-marching to the nearest magistrates’ court, several times over. The only question is, why has she not been arrested? The short answer is, because she is rich and powerful enough, because she has an enormous political party behind her (regardless of how uneasy many of the Democrat Party’s Bernie Sanders’ supporters may be about having her as their presidential nominee), and because her campaign has built up an army of evidence-ignoring supporters who are absolutely crazy, and who so love their impoverishment that they never tire of chanting “I’m with her” – as if they are incapable of doing research or investigation. She is, essentially, untouchable. Untouchable people do tend to be immune from arrest.”

  • Sir Rantsalot

    Going to watch this one tonight. Pity its not on TV, I wonder why ! 🙂

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Thank you Dan for an excellent comparative essay. One correction, Roy Jenkens was perhaps unaware that when the plans became known in London during March 1914 for the UUC/UVF to import sufficient arms to genuinely make a fight of it, there was an attempt to arrest the UUC leaders. Churchill’s plans to send troops to secure important places and arms dumps in the north, with support from the navy and marine companies, all to be commanded by the military’s expert in civil unrest, Sir Nevil Mcready, is very confusingly mentioned in Dangerfield’s book, but is most fully described in Sir James Ferguson’s excellent 1964 book “The Curragh Incident”. It was envisaged that with the pre-emptive arrest of the UUC committee and with possible unrest troops were to be sent from Aldershot, with infantry and artillery being sent from Scotland, to which end the navy was required to keep the landing places around Belfast Lough under Government control. Bangor was earmarked as a naval base should Belfast docks be uncontrollable. Plans needed to be reworked with the unexpected debility of Mcready, due to what was probably a bout off malaria, and with the far less motivated General Friend substituted as commander the delay ensured that the element of surprise essential for success was lost. The Curragh Mutiny followed in direct response to this and put the seal on failure.

    The seriousness with which the actions of the UUC were viewed at the time, and the shock of their recourse to arms against any constitutionalist settlement is all too easily forgotten in the sentimental glow with which this scandalously undemocratic action is viewed today by all shades of Unionism. That the formation of the UVF was the inceptive move in that lawlessness that led to 1916 was noted in the Report of The Royal Commission on the Rebellion in Ireland published that year. The endemic violence throughout Ireland after the Great War is seldom recognised in the north as the direct outcome of Unionism’s rejection of the very mild devolution of the Third Home Rule Bill, and the consequent enlargement of the tiny and marginalised IRB and other separatist bodies as Constitutionalism was seen to fail in the face of violence. The Medievalist Helen Waddell, who had attended Queens College Belfast in 1908, could write in 1916 that “Sir Edward Carson…practically created Sinn Féin” and “What Sir Edward Carson did was to Break down the hold Constitutional government had at last won in Ireland. He proved that a threat of physical force could paralyse ‘government by the will of the majority'” (Corrigin, “Helen Waddell: a Biography”Gollancz, 1986, pp.182-185). All too many people seem to feel that the recent troubles are somehow a stand alone event without clear cause and effect roots in both this inceptive example of lawlessness and the overt lawlessness of those Unionist inspired attacks and assassinations in 1920-22 (sometimes by men in Specials uniform) on local Catholic communities (and against the British army as peacekeeper) which marked the first years of NI itself and fully established the encoding of our communities’ collective default to violent solutions for political problems.

    Your unpacking of the significance of Bonar Law’s mendacious behaviour and of its influence right down to the likes of Trump is a most important and insightful posting for Slugger. Many recent historians of rightist extremism have taken up another outcome of Bonar Law’s reckless support for a recourse to violence in developing Prof. Martin’s question in 1967 “was the UVF the first Fascist army in modern times?” While there are clearly evident differences of detail between Unionism and the continental fascist experience, the inceptive example set for post-war European anti-constitutionalism is indisputable. Richard Thurlow significantly describes how “many fascists also linked the threat of Carson and the Ulster Volunteer force…with the spirit of the BUF [Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists]”. The unwillingness of Unionism to de-couple the concept of the Union from this politically suspect history is a serious weakness which their opponents have mercilessly played to the full.

  • Erewhon888

    You wrote: “the rules of the game are so blatantly breached by the high and mighty
    who are supposed to know better, and are not properly enforced by those
    who are meant to do the enforcing”
    If you have a genuine interest in knowing how far this goes and why voting will not change it you need to watch “The Veneer of Justice in a Kingdom of Crime”
    : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHgbRYgpGGs

  • Jollyraj

    “How to get away with inciting violence?”

    Being a senior figure within irish Republicanism seems to make one fireproof.

  • grumpy oul man

    you are never far away from a bucket of whataboutr,

  • Erewhon888

    If you check the more technical and “agency” related discussion areas, the notion of Russian “cyber attack” is not getting much traction now:

    “the NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency and the NSA’s best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened (“in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union’s command system, which provided the US and its allies with
    real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons”) – says that Russia probably would not have used a “known” hacking method to gather and then leak DNC emails to sway the election.

    Instead – if it were Russia – they probably would have used a
    different, covert method, so people couldn’t see their fingerprints
    (like the U.S. did with the Stuxnet hack).

    Moreover, Binney said that he thought the hack may have been conducted by an NSA employee who was upset at Clinton’s careless handling of America’s most sensitive intelligence.”

  • Jollyraj

    Not really.

    The article, which references NI political history, asks the question: “How to get away with inciting violence?” whilst still being allowed to forge a career in politics. Sinn Fein have turned that into an art. Heck, Gerry Adams (who I’ve often associated in my mind with the late Jimmy Saville) wrote the book on the despicable politics Trump engages in.

  • Erewhon888

    Catherine Austin Fitts was Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, 1989-1990. Responsible for the operations of the Federal Housing Administration, including: annual originations of $50-100 billion of mortgage insurance; servicing of $320 billion of mortgage insurance, mortgages and properties, portfolio analysis and pricing for 63,000 communities etc see her bio at Solari

    In the interview shortly following timestamp 1966, she said:

    “If you look at the hit on Haiti or the hit on black neighbourhoods, the Clintons have been unbelievable, phenomenal in terms of killing, kidnapping, destroying, raping black neighbourhoods.”


    “I’ve written a book, it’s documented, it’s all there it’s all proved.”

    (As due diligence check 124 pages of it at http://www.dunwalke.com/resources/documents/DillonRead_1.112506as.pdf)

    I’m happy to be given pointers to any debunking or refutation of any of her claims since my interest is media distortion not support of any particular politicians.

  • grumpy oul man

    Do you have any comment on unionist flag waving and violence, after all ot happened before the provos existed and went on after they stood down.
    But my dear JR it is whataboutry.
    The most recent examples of flag waving and violence was of course the flegers but you always bring up the IRA. No matter what or who the post is about.
    Of course Big Ian made a career out of inciting violence and flag waving his successor wee Pete done the same.
    However you seem blissfully unaware of this such is your need to mention the RA at every opportunity. Coupled with your need to call anybody who criticizes unionism a Shinner or fellow traveller.
    It is interesting that those damaging working class protestants the most are the flag waving loyalist terrorists but you seem more concerned with having a go at Gerrry and anybody else thats critizes unionisn than you are about the welfare of your own community.
    This is sad but par for the course,

  • grumpy oul man

    because, its one sided propaganda which ignores the actual violence of the Trump supporters.
    You probably wont see it on TV because most channels have standards!

  • Erewhon888

    Well, of course it’s “one sided propaganda”. The issue is why are we getting no proper analysis of the propaganda of both sides with definitive debunking of whatever deserves debunking. Either journalists are too lazy to do any fact checking or the thought of anyone other than the anointed one has led to an “end justifies the means” mentality. Regarding the “actual violence of the Trump supporters”, you may have missed the point that the Democrat strategy was to ensure such violence happened by planning for it, goading likely reactors and arranging media coverage to maximum effect. I would have expected analysis to cover this and tell me whether it was legal but not cricket (or the US sporting equivalent). Ignoring it despite it trending rapidly on multiple forms of social media means the traditional media no longer serve any useful purpose and have effectively no journalistic standards to conform to. The paradox is that their lack of standards means they are no longer trusted collectively and that lack of trust will eventually destroy their viability and business model.

  • grumpy oul man

    There is a lot of truth in whst you say
    Journalists have always been tools of powerful people (with some honourable exceptions) the. Trick is to reconise the agenda of the person who is reporting. He/she may well be truthful and right but remember they have a agenda.
    Ranty has a agenda so he only gives credit to those with the same or similar agendas to the point that he believes that any part of the media peddling a different line is part of a conspricy.
    (If you wish to conspricy theories taken to their highest level then have a look at the profile of a certain Abucs)
    I think a good indicator of honest reporting is a lack of these conspricy theories, and a argument that pass the twin test of been checkable and logical.

  • Sir Rantsalot

    You haven’t a clue. Watch the videos and open your eyes.

  • Simian Droog

    The “Rev” “Dr” Ian Paisley – a man so corrupt you need to quote mark both his “titles”.

  • Erewhon888

    I find that getting to “the truth” or “the facts” with some level of confidence has become nearly impossible despite of or perhaps because of the technology at our disposal. Assuming an agenda and the willingness to use all available tools in support of that agenda, we should logically expect an asymmetry in capability if government is a player in the game. Moving up a level to derivative effects then becomes interesting. If the trope of “conspiracy theory” has been established as pejorative either by happenstance or by deliberate action, then labeling any line of unwelcome inquiry as “conspiracy theory” is sufficient to suppress discussion.

    I wonder if the Turkish governments over the years have dismissed any talk of an “Armenian genocide” as just conspiracy theory. For Americans, could William Shawcross be similarly dismissed for outlandish claims made in his book “Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia”?

  • Erewhon888

    At the meta-conspiracy level there are regular attempts on social media to out the dis-information players and sites with one heuristic being the ratio of outlandish stories placed to bracket an occasional true story. One developing heuristic I use to minimise research time is to look for former insiders with significant and high profile roles with their previous employers.

  • Erewhon888

    An example would be:

    Paul Craig Roberts, (Reagan era insider, associate editor for the Wall Street Journal, etc, http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/pages/about-paul-craig-roberts/)

  • Erewhon888

    Other examples would be:
    Catherine Austin Fitts, (Assistant Secretary of Housing and other senior roles in the Bush administration, etc http://solari.com/about-us/resume/)

  • Erewhon888

    Other examples with embedded links seem to cause anti-spamming deletion so they can wait as the following point is strongest for the two above.

    You might think “so far, so good” as regards “checkable” and “logical”, the attributes you look for as “good indicators” of “honest reporting”. The trend I am noticing that is somewhat disturbing is that in interviews, these and other individuals with impeccable credentials in economics and finance are giving credence to ideas that would normally be considered “fringe” or “conspiracy” or both. Suggestions for refining the efficiency of search for honest reporting are welcome.

  • grumpy oul man

    Eyes wide open, watched video, worried about your state of mind,

  • grumpy oul man

    Certainly not cricket, but Trumps band of rednecks seemed to be proud of the violence and trump could at any time calmed things down.
    It is very reasonable to assume that of the thousands who protested at the trump rally a small percentage where agents provocateurs .
    Also its doubful that those wearing rascist or sexist tee shirts and generally being hate filed pratts were not in the pay of clinton.

  • Erewhon888

    Make your own assessment:

  • Erewhon888

    The original post and general theme of the post concerned those who were “worthy not just of summons and arrest, but immediate CNN-filmed forced frog-marching to the nearest magistrates’ court, several times over. ”

    Despite the complete lack of coverage by “journalists”, some citizens are collating the various disclosures to ask again in the words of the original post why they have “not been arrested”.

    Here is someone’s reddit submission for those who can’t be bothered to do even a preliminary scan of the sources.
    … here is the cliffsnotes:

    -O’Keefe reveals his methods to get all this spicy stuff, a number of Veritas reporters posed as wealthy donors/relatives of wealthy donors/volunteers, etc.

    -This led to clear pay to play evidence where a price tag of some 450k was discussed, Creamer mentions that for the right price, meetings with Hillary and Obama are possible, as well as that he is well connected in the White House.

    -Veritas wires 20 k to look legit. To do this, Veritas set up a secret bank account/shell company incorporated in ******* Belize, which wired the money to AUFC. Since the company and account are not American, and there is nothing confirming that the donor is American either, this leds credence to AUFC taking money from foreign actors. A Veritas investigator builds on this when he introduces another wealthy donor, and remarks that “she is American”, to which Creamer replies that he assumed she was, though he shouldn’t have. Creamer confirms he received the money.

    -Internship is received by donor’s pretend niece as a direct result of this donation.

    -Creamer confirms that he is in contact with the campaign every day and that the campaign directs AUFC activities, which is, well, illegal.

    -Creamer also seems to know about the women going public with Trumps accusations before they come out, though this is not delved upon.

    -In exchange for more donations, Creamer sets up a powerful lawyer to help a pretend Syrian become American.

    -When Veritas started to come out, the money was returned to Veritas as it may be an “illegal overseas donation”. This wasn’t a problem before the vids came out.

    -Creamer also mentions that he is in constant contact with the White House, and the fact that he has been there some 350 times, and met with Obama a whole bunch is also mentioned.


    In the words of the original post: “Untouchable people do tend to be immune from arrest.”

    It also seems that the illegal actions of untouchable people are unreportable.