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.
-
Civilization2 days agoCOVID Cover-Up: Hiding Star Researcher Ralph Baric’s Ties to Global Pandemic
-
Civilization12 hours agoThe SAVE Act Won’t Close the Door – Only an Amendment Will
-
Civilization4 days agoFinancial Compellence in the Iran Campaign
-
Guest Columns5 days agoShutdowns Persist Because Congress Pays No Price
-
Civilization3 days agoPolitical Violence and the Willful Self-Deception of the Left
-
Executive4 days agoCalifornia’s Problems Take Center Stage in Tense Debate
-
Civilization3 days agoUSSS Chief Says Hilton Site Was ‘Set Up Perfectly,’ Critics Disagree
-
Education4 days agoWaste of the Day: TBT — Golf With Imagination