Hmm , the thing with video is you still only see what the producer wants you to see, in the context in which they wish to present it, and even then without further supporting evidence, you don't know what you're told you're seeing is what you're seeing.
Now when the producer of said videos has a history such as that of project Veritas and James O'keefe -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas -
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Project_Veritas - then it's pretty much certain that there are a helluva lot more reliable sources of evidence to be found.
Of course you could lay claim as you do to video being more reliable than a bunch of talking heads, such as that which we see on Fox or CNN, and in general I'd probably agree with that, but hey, that's not exactly a high bar to set.
Their basic MO is to target low level employees ( who may or may not be who they say they are ) and through various means lead them into saying something incriminating or immoral, and then attempt to expand that to apply to the entire organisation they are attempting to "sting".
You throw enough mud, you'll get enough to stick, and that'll lead to an investigation. I'll tell you what'd be telling, and that is that should an investigation commence, that James Okeefe fronts up to the investigators, supplies his video as evidence, and signs his name to the fact that it is a true and full account of what happened.
If it is indeed a true and full account, he should have no qualms with exposing himself to potential indictment through providing a false statement should it turn out it is neither a true, nor full account.
I wouldn't be holding your breath waiting for that to happen though mate.
