Do you have a link to the story?

Why link to shitty quality repost of this when the real video by Mark Rober is here [url redacted]

I could not find a source that would link to videosift, however in my quest I did find a superior live version of the song with some nice 80s fresh vibes.

YouTube link. Start @ 14:33

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdsVAu5iDzc

Nice reads.

The take away is from on of the articles you linked..

https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-secrets-already-fell-wrong-handstrumps-opinion-1733711

"We still do not, of course, know exactly what the FBI found"

You amaze me with you utter gullible nature.

You stupid fuck stick.
Tell me EXACTLY what was FOUND?

Enlighten me with FACTS!

Everyone is speculating and no one has FACTS. NO ONE! ( except you)

I only call out fools like you.
When you are right I agree.
I can't remember you ever agreeing with me.
When you post a bad cop vid I agree
When you post a bad Republican , I agree
You however can never accept that you side can be so wrong at times. Facts do not matter to you, only MSM opinions do. Those are not facts.

Good news Bob, in something of an anomaly, you've got an opportunity to read the truth about this incident on foxnews(I know, it's opposite day in the world):

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-mar-a-lago-search-justified

Link is above, but choice quote from FOX themselves follows:


If this were a mere issue of simply recovering unclassified presidential records, though, there likely never would have been a criminal element to this matter. But buried into those boxes were countless properly marked classified documents. Those documents lacked any markings indicating that Trump had ever declassified them. No actual substantiated evidence indicates Mr. Trump ever declassified them. No one viewing those records would have any reason to view them as anything other than properly classified documents.

The government tried to recover the documents peacefully and quietly. They spent one year discussing the matter with Trump’s staff, and 15 boxes were sent back to NARA in February.

After identifying more missing records, the government returned in June with a subpoena and found more boxes of records that should have been returned. Both times, properly marked classified documents – up to and including documents marked as Top Secret and requiring Sensitive Compartmented Information access eligibility – were located within the boxes.

A Trump lawyer swore out an affidavit promising there were no more documents. The government gathered evidence that the Trump lawyer was not being truthful, and on August 8, 2022, a court-authorized search warrant was executed that, sure enough, located several more classified documents.

That is not an abuse of law enforcement processes. That is how the law works.


Now I'm going to repeat the last statement there for emphasis, but even FOX stated it: That is not an abuse of law enforcement processes. That is how the law works.

thanks for posting this source video. many news stories about Beto swearing, none of which link to the actual source of what was said... lazy reporting.

Was the guy laughing at Beto's comment about an AR-15 being accurate enough to get a headshot at 500ft? That probably is laughable, but still inappropriate during the speech- and certainly not the point of what Beto was saying.

Thanks - worst-case I will just fill it with phrases but provide no extra info (which shows up once you've finished the puzzle), like background info, explanation, link, image, video.

Those are the bits that take the longest. Each phrase can become like a tiny research project. And I don't even know if it's worthwhile. No clue if people read those let alone appreciate them. 😀

Lived near an intersection where one got used to hearing auto crashes. Whenever it sounded like someone dropping a refrigerator off the back of a truck - it was time to call 911.

Know of a house in CA that was hit 7 or 8 times because of the road design. Took years for homeowners to get the officials to improve it.

cut'n'paste link: https://www.google.com/maps/place/7416+Sonora+Ln,+Highland,+CA+92346/@34.1190144,-117.1469675,3a,75y,100.67h,88.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX-h_b08ZKiuka1
iS0G-vfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!4m5!3m4!1s0x80db5538277e87f7:0x21c2d24931e0834!8m2!3d34.119125!4d-117.1480058

it'd be the home to the right of the 'turnaround' area behind the rock (which might have been the homeowners' first solution to the problem - a few deaths just might get officials to take it seriously). Also if you zoom in on the north side of the house, there is a patio doorway. That's the area where it got hit last. Maybe it was easier than fixing the wall?

the high traffic street use to just slope off into a residential street. some folks didn't know the road ended despite some signage. most just travel not knowing it ended couldn't stop in time or missed the turn at high speed.

Lol. I’M narrow minded?!? ROTFLMFAHS!!!

Who told you that?! They lied.

Wiki-Five House Committees (Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform) initiated their own inquiries soon after the attack. The Republicans on these five House Committees delivered an interim report to the Members of the House Republican Conference on April 23, 2013. The interim report, which contains the conclusions of the Republican majority staff, signed only by the five Republican chairmen of those committees and stated "This staff report has not been officially adopted by the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, or the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and therefore may not necessarily reflect the views of their Members," was critical of the Obama Administration's actions before, during, and after the attack. Among dozens of findings, the report states that:

"Senior State Department officials knew that the threat environment in Benghazi was high and that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable and unable to withstand an attack, yet the department continued to systematically withdraw security personnel"
The "[Obama] Administration willfully perpetuated a deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a political demonstration caused by a YouTube video."
"... after a White House Deputies Meeting on Saturday, September 15, 2012, the Administration altered the talking points to remove references to the likely participation of Islamic extremists in the attacks. The Administration also removed references to the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya ..."
"The Administration deflected responsibility by blaming the IC [intelligence community] for the information it communicated to the public in both the talking points and the subsequent narrative it perpetuated."
Democrats on the five committees criticized the report, which they said had been written without Democratic input, as a "partisan Republican" work that was "unnecessarily politicizing our national security".

Also “ Democrats on the committee certainly say this was political and politically constructed. They say there were many witnesses whose testimony wasn't released because it supported the administration and particularly supported Hillary Clinton.”

There were 8 Benghazi investigations, 7 of which were only done as political attacks on Clinton to hurt her presidential run, admitted by McCarthy and others on tape. That’s why, even though their Republican led investigations found no wrongdoing he called it a win against Clinton because the accusations hurt her politically.

You get what you call one point of view because one side, the anti democracy pro-sedition side, refuses to testify, ignores subpoenas, and hides and destroys evidence….the same “side” that boycotted the investigations and refused to authorize a non partisan outside investigation, then whined they weren’t being allowed to participate…the treason side….your side.
They have absolutely been able to present another side…under oath. Trump has an open invitation, as do all his co-conspirators that ignored subpoenas. They refuse, or are incapable.
There have been plenty of Trump officials who did give their point of view, and every one has said Trump was clearly attempting a coup, knew he lost the election early, knew his plots were absolutely illegal, and many quit on Jan 6 when it became obvious he was willing to violently attack America and his own VP intentionally to retain power by any means.
You know this, you just hope someone else is as dumb as you act and can be fooled into believing your nonsense that this is a partisan politically motivated hatchet job, not an investigation into the worst attack against America on the mainland since the Southern Insurrection (otherwise known as the civil war).

good ideas. Moore is fun. 'tho not a fan of text-to-speech videos.

here's a link to a GREAT film of his...https://youtu.be/qgU0I8rl-ps...even the far-gone far-righters had difficulty dissing.

too on point, to the point, that the pointy heads couldn't pinpoint any large flaws.

@toferyu Just fyi, looks like a great video! And we appreciate you being VideoSift member for 13 years!

It's just that the guideline against self-links is at the core of the site, so someone else will need to post your video for you.

Anyone else want to volunteer to re-post this as a NON-self-link, so we can then just point this at that one?

@cloudballoon @moonsammy @StukaFox @BSR ?

It's a good video, and I upvoted, but doesn't this constitute a violation of the "no self link" policy? My understanding was that there's no flexibility on that...
-----

What exactly constitutes a self link?

If your post is not a Sponsored Video (the only allowed way to promote your own content) and any of the following is true about a particular video you are considering submitting, it is a self link, with NO exceptions for any member:

*The video is associated with your account on the video host (i.e., you uploaded it to YouTube, Vimeo, etc.).
*You played any role, no matter how large or small, in any aspect of the production of the video.
*You are in any way responsible for or involved in marketing, promoting, or any other manner of proliferating the video.
*You could receive any form of compensation (monetary or otherwise) as a result of the submission or subsequent views.
*You are somehow represented in the content of the video (whether photographically, artistically, audibly, or metaphorically) without the approval of a site administrator.