Accountability
James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas is a form of ‘political spying,’ judge rules
A federal judge has ruled it “fair” to describe the undercover activities of conservative activist James O’Keefe‘s Project Veritas as “political spying.”
The ruling is related to a lawsuit, filed in 2017, that will be before the court this year. An intern working at a Democratic firm, Democracy Partners, in 2016 was actually working undercover for Project Veritas, recording staffers and catching the firm’s founder, Robert Creamer suggesting that they incite violence at rallies held by then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Creamer stepped down from his role in the Hillary Clinton campaign following this. Democracy Partners and Creamer sued over that footage. In advance of the December-set trial, O’Keefe’s attorneys filed to prevent the plaintiffs from describing the group’s actions as “political spying, but were not successful.
In an Oct. 14 court opinion, though, U.S. District Court Judge Paul L. Friedman ruled that it’s reasonable to describe O’Keefe’s group’s actions in that way. “‘Political spying’ is a fair characterization of the undisputed facts of this case,” Friedman, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote. O’Keefe’s lawyers had argued that Project Veritas operates as journalists.
-
Civilization5 days ago
Election integrity flaws nationwide
-
Civilization3 days ago
Bombshell Paper Ballots Lawsuit
-
Civilization4 days ago
Harris campaign rapidly collapsing
-
Civilization2 days ago
Trump expanding the map
-
Civilization5 days ago
How Trump Kept Biden’s ‘Garbage’ Gaffe From Getting Thrown Out
-
Civilization4 days ago
Trump’s McDonald’s Strategy Is Working
-
Guest Columns4 days ago
In the Grip of Madness
-
Civilization5 days ago
Secret Service Brass Interfered in IG Assassination Probe