- Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi)

❌ À propos de FreshRSS
Il y a de nouveaux articles disponibles, cliquez pour rafraîchir la page.
À partir d’avant-hierProject Veritas

Trump Campaign CNN Lawsuit Relies on Project Veritas Reporting

Par Eric Spracklen

President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign committee filed a federal defamation lawsuit in the District Court of Northern Georgia with a petition that quotes extensively from Project Veritas reporting.

“Thanks to our brave insider Cary Poarch, we were able to expose the active bias Jeff Zucker, the chairman of Warner Media News and Sports and the president of CNN Worldwide, has ingrained in the culture of that once-proud organization,” said James O’Keefe, the founding CEO of Project Veritas.

The lawsuit said: “Cary Poarch, a CNN employee in the Washington, D.C. bureau, states in the Project Veritas footage that CNN “purports to be facts first, and that’s clearly not the case.”

O’Keefe said Poarch took tremendous professional and personal risks to expose Zucker’s mandates to attack the president and how its leftwing culture dominates and informs its reporting.

“The Trump campaign cites us for two pages of a nine-page document because we were able to report that even CNN staffers were upset about the anti-Trump mandates put out by Zucker every morning in conference calls Cary recorded and we made public,” he said.

The lawsuit was triggered by a CNN report that stated that the Trump campaign sought help from the Russians in the 2020 election cycle, according to the filing.

“CNN clearly had a malicious motive in publishing the defamatory article and acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Extensive public information, known by and available to CNN, confirms that the campaign has not sought Russian help in the 2020 election and has made no statements about seeking any such help,” the campaign said.

The campaign further alleged: “CNN’s actions show willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression and that entire want of care which raises a presumption of conscious indifference to the consequences, and accordingly the Campaign is entitled to an award of punitive damages against CNN.”

Defamation is the deliberate damaging of a reputation and the Trump campaign used quotes from Project Veritas reporting to establish that CNN was motivated by animus.

“It is not entirely surprising that CNN would publish such blatantly false statements about the Campaign. There is extensive evidence that CNN and its writer, Larry Noble, are extremely biased against the Campaign. This evidence includes, among other things, undercover video footage taken by the Project Veritas news organization in which CNN staff members admit on camera that CNN’s coverage is extremely biased against the Campaign, the administration, and Republicans in general.”

Here is another example the campaign cited from Project Veritas reporting that speaks directly to how CNN connected the president to Russia:

“In the Project Veritas footage, Nick Neville, a media coordinator at CNN, admits that CNN’s chief executive, Jeff Zucker, has a personal vendetta against the president. John Bonifield, a supervising producer at CNN, states in the Project Veritas footage that CNN’s coverage regarding Russia’s alleged interference with the 2016 election was “mostly bullshit” and that the president “is probably right to say…you are witch-hunting me.”

Project Veritas’ recording of Christian Sierra, a CNN media coordinator, which was also cited by the Trump campaign exposed how everyday workers at the company recognized that Zucker’s directives were unrelated to the news.

“Christian Sierra, a Media Coordinator at CNN, states in the Project Veritas footage that Mr. Zucker wanted impeachment to be the top story every day, that “everyone at the network” complains about the amount of such coverage, and that CNN’s “Democratic interviews are like softballs, compared to the Republicans.”

O’Keefe said one reason why Project Veritas reporting can be cited in court documents is that PV does not use anonymous sources. “We record what people actually say as they actually say it. What we recorded at CNN proved that the outlet had reneged on their mission to report the news without bias.”

Read the full lawsuit here:

EXCLUSIVE STATEMENT TO PROJECT VERITAS: ABC News Suspends Political Correspondent David Wright After He Is Caught on Undercover Video Identifying Himself as a ‘Socialist’ And Admitting the Network Spikes News Important to Voters.

Par Eric Spracklen

ABC News: Veteran Reporter ‘Reassigned Away from Political Coverage When He Returns’
Are you a Democratic Socialist? Wright: ‘More than that I would consider myself a socialist’
James O’Keefe: ‘We commend David Wright for his honesty’; ‘No one should be suspended from their job for truth-telling’

[Washington—Feb. 26, 2020] ABC News gave an exclusive statement to Project Veritas after ABC was shown the undercover video of veteran ABC News Correspondent David Wright describing himself as a “socialist” and complaining that his bosses refuse to give President Donald Trump credit.

This is the exclusive statement given to Project Veritas by ABC News: “Any action that damages our reputation for fairness and impartiality or gives the appearance of compromising it harms ABC News and the individuals involved. David Wright has been suspended, and to avoid any possible appearance of bias, he will be reassigned away from political coverage when he returns.”

Wright was covering the New Hampshire primary for “Nightline,” when he revealed his frustrations with his bosses for refusing to cover President Donald Trump fairly and not giving voters fair coverage of the presidential campaign.

The veteran reporter was asked by an undercover journalist if he was a Democrat Socialist, the ABC reporter replied: “Oh yeah. More than that I would consider myself a socialist; like I think there should be national health insurance. I’m totally fine with reigning in corporations, I think they’re too many billionaires, and I think there’s a wealth gap–that’s a problem.”

Wright said he and other members of the mainstream media were confused by Trump: “We’re in this awkward moment…we have this f**king president, and we can’t figure out how to challenge him.”

James O’Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas voiced support for suspended ABC News senior political correspondent David Wright, who the network sanctioned for identifying himself as a socialist to Project Veritas undercover reporters recording him in a hotel bar.

“We commend David Wright for his honesty,” said James O’Keefe, who founded Project Veritas in 2010. “No one should be suspended from their job for truth-telling.”

O’Keefe said Wright was honest about what about the mainstream media, especially the big networks.

Project Veritas will continue to investigate corruption in the Mainstream Media and our ABC News Insider is still operating inside the company, O’Keefe said. “We encourage Brave Insiders within these media organizations to come forward with any information they have, so that the public knows what is really going on inside these companies.”

Insiders can contact Project Veritas at or send us a secure Signal message 914-653-3110.

BREAKING: Senior ABC Correspondent David Wright on Hidden Camera: How ‘Bosses Don’t See an Upside’ for Reporting News; ‘The Truth Suffers’; Says ABC Doesn’t ‘Give Trump Credit for What Things He Does Do’; ABC News Producer: New Yorkers Nee

Par Eric Spracklen
David Wright, ABC News Political Correspondent: “We Also Don’t Give Him [Trump] Credit for What Things He Does do…I Feel Terrible About it, I Feel That the Truth Suffers, the Voters Are Poorly Informed…Our Bosses Don’t See an Upside in Doing the Job We’re Supposed to do.”
David Wright: “In Television, We Have Lost Any Sense of Context.”
Wright: “We Don’t Hold Him [Trump] to Account. We Also Don’t Give Him Credit for What Things He Does Do.”
Are You a Democrat Socialist? Wright: “Oh yeah. More than that I would consider myself a socialist; like I think there should be national health insurance. I’m totally fine with reigning in corporations, I think they’re too many billionaires, and I think there’s a wealth gap–that’s a problem.”
Wright: “You Can’t Watch ‘Good Morning America’ Without a Disney Princess or a Marvel Avenger Appearing.”
Wright: “We’re in This Awkward Moment…We Have This F**king President, and We Can’t Figure Out How to Challenge Him.”
To Andy Fies, ABC News Producer: “People in New York Are Constantly, I Think, Fascinated by, ‘How Can People Like Donald Trump?’…You Know, Well F**k! Cross the Hudson Now and Then, and Come Out and Spend Some Time, and You’ll Hear Why!”
Fies: Real People, Practical Issues? “Those things aren’t TV-friendly.”

[This post contains video, click to play]

A senior political reporter for ABC News covering the presidential campaign told a Project Veritas undercover journalist his network is unable both to provide relevant news to Americans and function as a commercial enterprise, and the commercial imperative wins in the end.

This report is the second phase of Project Veritas’ ongoing investigation into ABC News—following up on the insider-provided tape of news presenter Amy Robach’s hot-mic lament that her ABC News bosses spiked her comprehensive report on Jeffrey Epstein.

“We would not put it on the air,” Robach said. “It was unbelievable what we had, Clinton, we had everything.”

ABC News tried but could not find the Project Veritas insider and the insider continues to gather damaging information from behind the network walls.

The two newsmen, ABC News Correspondent David Wright and ABC News Producer Andy Fies, were recorded in New Hampshire are long-time veterans of ABC News and spoke from the perspective of covering multiple political cycles—where they have watched the degradation of their network’s integrity and commitment to news gathering.

Wright is a Buffalo-native was recorded speaking at a bar at the Doubletree Hotel in Manchester, during coverage of that state’s first in the nation primary. Throughout the conversation, the graduate of both Harvard and Oxford said he was frustrated with how the media and Democrats have been unable to take on Trump.

“We’re not disciplined enough to cut [Trump] off and we second-guess ourselves because we’re sensitive to the accusation that we’re in the tank for the Democrats. And so that enables them, and so we enable them. And every time we take the bait on it and that’s what he wants,” he said. “It’s totally and abusive relationship. He’s [Trump’s] the nightmare spouse that you can’t win an argument with.”

Q: “Why don’t you like him?”

Wright: “Cause he’s a dick.”

Besides his personal animus for the president, the reporter said he was firmly a man of the left.

Q: “Would you consider yourself a Democrat Socialist?”

Wright: “Oh yeah. More than that I would consider myself a socialist; like I think there should be national health insurance. I’m totally fine with reining in corporations, I think they’re too many billionaires, and I think there’s a wealth gap–that’s a problem.”

The ABC News reporter was covering the New Hampshire Primary for “Nightline,” the same role he had for the 2016 presidential campaign. He also covers Capitol Hill and the White House and is best known for his in-depth reporting of the clerical abuse scandal in his hometown.

As a national political reporter at a legacy broadcaster, Wright said he feels left behind by the new digital media.

“We live in a moment where people live in echo chambers and the truth suffers and, in an effort, to compete, we’ve become an echo chamber ourselves. We’ve been in the mainstream media we have an effort to match the zippy news cycle with responding to the latest tweet and trying to keep pace with the desperate pace of it all.”

The desperate pace means reporters like him lose focus, he said.

“As a result, we’re easily distracted and that means that we don’t bring focused attention to something that could make a difference,” he said. “I think, some of that at least in the place that I work [ABC News], and places like it, is that we’ve, with Trump we’re interested in three things: the outrage of the day, the investigation, and of the palace intrigue of who’s backstabbing whom. Beyond that, we don’t really cover the guy [Trump].

Wright said no one could stop Trump from dominating the news cycles every day. “The first story is the big story, about Trump. And it’s about whatever outrageous thing he said or tweeted about, and it’s about, or it’s about this effort to unseat him, or it’s about, you know, ‘Today we found anonymous’ or ‘Who’s he [Trump] throwing out of the White House today/’ or ‘Who’s blowing the whistle and stabbing him [Trump] in the back?’”

Trump’s domination of the media also leads to reporters not reporting the positive stories about the president. “We don’t hold him [Trump] to account. We also don’t give him credit for what things he does do.”

Q: “How do you feel about it though?”

Wright: “I feel terrible about it. I feel that the truth suffers, the voters are poorly informed, and people don’t have the opportunity to tune into whatever they want to here. It’s like there no upside in, or our bosses don’t see an upside in doing the job we’re supposed to do which is to speak truth to power and hold people to account.”

Fies voiced similar criticisms about where the media stands today. He blasted New York elites for their confusion regarding Trump’s support, and also called out the media for not caring about issues that matter to voters.

“I mean the people in New York go and hangs out – I mean people in New York are constantly, I think, fascinated by; how can people like Donald Trump? How can people understand – you know, well f**k! Cross the Hudson now and then, and come out and spend some time, and you’ll hear why! You know? And I still think that we, we still don’t understand voters. right?,” the Chicago-based producer said.

“So, you know, real people, you know, talk about practical issues, when they’re thinking about a candidate; ‘I want to go back to the workforce,’ or ‘I can’t afford childcare’ or ‘I need medical care for whatever.’ Those things aren’t TV-friendly. We want to focus on impeachment, we want to focus on the big sh*t going on, but the things that help people make up their minds are little sh*t,” he said.

At another point in the conversation with a Project Veritas journalist, Wright pulled another ABC News employee, Drew, into the discussion and asked him: “Would you say we feel guilty about picking up Trump and pumping up–how we cover this stuff and giving Bernie a free pass?”

“Who do you feel we give Bernie a free pass?” Drew replied.

“He’s saying there was a lot of hemming and hawing last time around, that there was a lot of soul-searching in 2016 of like, how did we fuck this up?” said Wright.

The Project Veritas journalist pressed Wright on Sanders.

Q: “Well, what I mean is anything being done differently – well frankly we put it right with diagnosing the problem on the Democratic side. I mean do you see what I mean about Bernie?”

Wright: “Yeah, I think, you now, Bernie is very old and I think he doesn’t want to admit that. Bernie is also I think he- like he believes in the movement that he started. And, he did really, he was John the Baptist; you know but he doesn’t need to be a messiah.”

He went on to say that he puts his hope on Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D.-Mass.) to be the practical choice for president. “Setting aside my professional dispassion, I worry that if he’s [Sanders] elected, he’s not going to get anything done. Because he hasn’t gotten anything done. Where I do think Warren taking those same issues could get something done.”

Sanders won the New Hampshire Primary with 26 percent of the Democratic ballots cast with Warren finishing fourth with 9 percent.

REPORTER: Christian Hartsock

BUSTED: New Hampshire Primary Election Day Official “I Think Voting Any Democrat is Wise”; ‘Bernie and Buttigieg Top 2’; Deputy Election Moderator Admits “Not Everyone Attended Training” When it Comes to Poll Station Officials

Par Eric Spracklen
Beth Hunter, New Hampshire Election Official: “I Think Voting Any Democrat is Wise”; “I Don’t Watch a Lot of TV Because I was Campaigning – I was Keeping Up on it…Whoever is Nominated I’m Going to be Campaigning for Them.”
Tina Gifford, New Hampshire Election Deputy Moderator: “We’ve Had Training, But Not Everyone Attended Training. A Lot of the Volunteers Didn’t Attend Training.”
Beth, “Almost in Tears” When President Trump Awarded Rush Limbaugh the Medal of Freedom During the State of the Union Address; “This Can’t be Happening.”
Confronted by James O’Keefe, Beth Claims She Shouldn’t Have Talked About Rush Limbaugh; States She is Not Familiar with New Hampshire Laws Against Electioneering; Claims She Did Not Know She was Breaking the Law.

[This post contains video, click to play]

(Derry, NH) After a series of Project Veritas investigations conducted across the state of New Hampshire yesterday, Project Veritas journalists uncovered an election official, Beth Hunter, at the polling location for Ward 01 and Ward 04 in Derry, NH opening up about her political inclinations and illegally influencing voters on Election Day. According to the state’s law, election officials are prohibited from influencing a citizen’s vote in favor of a candidate or political party. After a state-wide effort in New Hampshire by the Project Veritas team to expose electoral corruption, these exclusive undercover recordings show Beth admonishing Donald Trump’s decision to award Rush Limbaugh the Medal of Freedom while also telling undercover journalists that ‘voting for any Democrat is wise.’ Upon being confronted for making these statements, Beth admits she shouldn’t have talked about Limbaugh while performing her role as an election official but claimed she was unaware about breaking or even knowing the New Hampshire law against electioneering.

In a conversation with Project Veritas journalists at the Gilbert Hood Middle School Ward 01 & 04 Polling Station, Beth reveals and openly discusses where her political allegiances are:

BETH: “Last night it was Bernie and Pete Buttigieg – he’s a nice guy. There you go. I can only tell you what’s on the TV…”

JOURNALIST: “But can you tell me if that’s wise or not?”

BETH: “Oh, I think it is. I think voting any Democrat is wise.”


BETH: “I have to tell you I was almost in tears on who gave that award to that radio…”

JOURNALIST: “Limbaugh- he’s disgusting.”

BETH: “Oh my gosh. This can’t be happening; this can’t be happening.”

JOURNALIST: “Didn’t watch it.”

BETH: “I don’t watch a lot of TV because I was campaigning – I was keeping up on it, so and whoever is nominated I’m going to be campaigning for them.”

We have asked New Hampshire election officials what “Beth’s” capacity was while she was acting for the state at the Derry, New Hampshire polling location.  Mary Till responded to Project Veritas’ request prior to publication and confirmed that “Beth Hunter was volunteering to work as a greeter at Gilbert H. Hood Middle school from 2:30 to 8 p.m.”

Electioneering at the Polling Place.

No election officer shall electioneer while in the performance of his official duties. For the purposes of this section, “electioneer” shall mean to act in any way specifically designed to influence the vote of a voter on any question or office. Any person who violates this provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Project Veritas President James O’Keefe tracked down Beth and asked her about her statements. These are the responses Beth provided to Project Veritas:

JAMES O’KEEFE: “Are you allowed to get political as an election judge?”

BETH: “No.”

JAMES O’KEEFE: “But was it ‘getting political’ by talking about Rush Limbaugh?”

BETH: “Yeah, when they asked me about it. I guess I shouldn’t have replied to them, huh.”

JAMES O’KEEFE: “You shouldn’t have talked about Rush Limbaugh?”

BETH: “No, I guess not.”

JAMES O’KEEFE: “Are you aware of what the laws are in New Hampshire?”

BETH: “No.”

JAMES O’KEEFE: “Is that an excuse to break the law?”

BETH: “I didn’t know I was breaking the law.”

James O’Keefe also spoke with Tina Gifford, who’s role as a New Hampshire Election Deputy Moderator is to train and oversee election officials at the poll station:



JAMES O’KEEFE: …she was telling us who to vote…uh, this Beth individual…we believe that that’s a violation of the state law…she told us that she doesn’t know what the law is…so that may be something you want your people to know…so whether she’s a volunteer or a public employee, she probably should know what the law is.”
TINA GIFFORD, NH ELECTION DEPUTY MODERATOR:We’ve had training, but not everyone attended training. A lot of the volunteers didn’t attend training.

The roles and responsibilities of an election Moderator in New Hampshire, and in every state, exist in order to ensure that the many moving parts of our elections process comply with the law.  In an article published in the New Hampshire Bar Journal titled, “The Role of the Moderator as an Election Official,” attorney Charles F. Tucker wrote:

[t]he most interesting part of the moderator’s role (is) to be the enforcer of what may be categorized as “the rules” to encourage, if not guarantee, fair elections.

(1) Electioneering

Electioneering is a perennial issue.  The moderator is given the ability to restrict electioneering from an area ten feet in width from the public way to the door of the polling place.  The Selectmen are in charge of arranging the polling place. The Moderator is in charge of generally overseeing the conduct of voting. 

Attorney Tucker went on to write:

The author has had occasion to assist an elderly person who requested assistance in voting and asked the moderator, “Who should I vote for?”  The moderator replied, “I cannot give you any advice in that regard.”  The voter replied, “I don’t know any of these people or what they stand for, somebody has to tell me how to vote.”  The moderator replied, “Well, there is no one who can help you do that in the voting booth at this point.”  The voter replied, “But I always vote, it’s my civic duty.”  The author suggested that she not vote on any of the questions on this occasion and turn her ballot in unmarked, with advice that next year she figure it out before she came in and perhaps mark a sample ballot which she would be allowed to bring into the voting booth as a guide.

Attorney Tucker concluded:

In summary, this moderator thoroughly enjoys playing this role as a part of the democratic process and recommends it to others who want to do something to help keep the process strong.

Evidently, Attorney Tucker’s practice and procedure has not been adopted uniformly in New Hampshire.

As the 2020 election cycle continues, Project Veritas will increase its investigations into poll station malfeasance in order to ensure American citizens can vote freely and without influence from poll station officials. Voters must be able to cast their ballots without interference from any third party, including those in charge of organizing and overseeing the voting booths.

BREAKING: Twitter LOCKS DOWN James O’Keefe’s Account

Par Eric Spracklen

Late Tuesday, Twitter suspended James O’Keefe’s account, saying a post violated Twitter rules for “posting private information.”

The tweet in question was sent on January 22 and was a retraction request to WAPO reporter Dave Weigel who had inaccurately reported about our #Expose2020 Sanders campaign investigation. Weigel said the subjects of our investigations were campaign volunteers, not true.

To prove the inaccuracy our Tweet linked to page found on the Federal Election Commission website showing the “volunteer” was in fact a paid staffer of the Sanders campaign. The Post reporter retracted his story. The information we reported is in the public domain, there is nothing “private” about it.

In fact, Kyle Jurek is a paid campaign staffer. And his radical comments were news,

KYLE JUREK, SANDERS CAMPAIGN FIELD ORGANIZER: If Bernie doesn’t get the nomination or it goes to a second round at the DNC Convention. F*cking Milwaukee will burn.

KYLE JUREK, SANDERS CAMPAIGN FIELD ORGANIZER: The billionaire class. The f*cking media, pundits. Walk into that MSNBC studios, drag those motherf**kers out by their hair and light them on fire in the streets.

After our release, the COO of the Bernie Sanders campaign ordered his staffers to avoid saying anything that would “reflect poorly” on the campaign. Too late.

Twitter needs to get real. Tweet @jack @twitter @twittersupport @twittersafety right now and demand they unlock James’ account.

Share this URL and this screenshot of James locked account with the hashtag #FreeOKeefe!

Thank you.

Project Veritas Action Fund Defends Citizens’ First Amendment Rights for Undercover Secret Recording in First Circuit Court of Appeals

Par Eric Spracklen
Project Veritas Action Fund (PVA) Appeared in the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to Challenge the Nation’s Broadest Recording Law—Section 99 of Massachusetts Law.
PVA Argued that Undercover Recordings are at the core of citizens’ First Amendment Rights.
Massachusetts is the Only State in the Country to Outright Ban All Secret Audio Recordings.
Eleven States have Found Ways to Respect Both the First Amendment and Privacy Concerns; PVA Expects the Same from the Massachusetts Legislature.
The ACLU’s Sister Lawsuit was Also the Subject of the District Court Judge’s Decree and Appeared in Court with PVA, Focusing its Arguments Solely in Favor of Secretly Recording Police Officers.

[This post contains video, click to play]

(Boston, MA) Project Veritas Action Fund appeared in the US First Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit yesterday to challenge Section 99 of Massachusetts law. This is a law that broadly restricts any sort of undercover recording.

PVA argues that, as a result of this law, the American public will miss out on newsworthy information derived from such recordings. Further, PVA states that Section 99 infringes on citizens’ First Amendment rights.

There are eleven states that believe it is the legislature’s responsibility to provide some level of privacy protection in conversations, but Massachusetts is the only state to fully apply privacy protections without consideration for the citizen’s right to secretly record. PVA argued that Massachusetts, like those eleven states, should narrow its law.

PVA has asked the court to strike down the Section 99 law ‘facially’, that is to declare it entirely void. PVA wants the court to allow the Massachusetts legislature a chance to go back to the drafting table and write a new law that complies with the First Amendment.

According to PVA’s attorney Ben Barr’s observation of the oral argument, it appeared that all of the judges (including former US Supreme Court Associate Justice, David Souter) expressed real skepticism about the Constitutionality of the Massachusetts law—referring to it as “sweeping too broadly” in several of their questions.

Ben Barr also observed that the specific line of questioning examines the state’s interest in securing privacy against the means the state employs to secure that privacy. In this case, an outright ban is simply too suppressive of speech and narrower tools could be used to protect truly private conversations.

In addition, the judges hinted that individuals were free to guard their own privacy—such as removing a discussion to a truly private place—instead of needing a law that simply prohibits newsgathering of items disclosed in public.

Here are a few of the exchanges between PVA Attorney Ben Barr, Judge Barron, and Judge Selya:

Ben Barr: Massachusetts makes a mockery of the most effective form of newsgathering, undercover journalism, by denying citizens the right to be able to go out into public, and to be able to gather information in the most effective way possible, that is, secret audio recording.

Judge Barron: What do you mean by “public?”

Ben Barr: I mean a place in particular where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.  It brings me to the truly exceptional nature of Section 99.

Judge Barron: Just so I get it straight with the idea that everybody in this courtroom right now would have a First Amendment right to record these proceedings?

Ben Barr: Yes.

Judge Barron: That’s your position?

Ben Barr: Yes.

Judge Barron: Do you have a narrower position?

[laughter among those present]

Judge Selya: Commonwealth has an interest in protecting the privacy of conversations. Everyone has some sort of right to the privacy of their conversations, full stop. And you can disagree with that as a matter of policy, but you’ve got to figure out why that’s wrong as a matter of Constitutional law…

Ben Barr: Primarily, it amounts to the tailoring and overbreadth issue, Judge Selya, while there is a legitimate governmental interest in protecting conversational privacy and 11 states have worked out test to do that. On the other end of the Constitutional equation is a right to be able to acquire information in public and report on that to the American people. So, being able to record a bribe occurring with a police officer on a…

Judge Selya: But Massachusetts is talking not only about governmental privacy, they’re talking about the privacy of all participants in these conversations, which typically take place between a government official and a private citizen.

Ben Barr: Yes, and actually as was noted by Judge Barron earlier, it is entirely capable that government officials and individuals are able to safeguard their own privacy. If they have a confidential conversation, or an informant, they’re able meet in a private place. We are not alleging the right to be able to invade doctors’ offices or police stations…

Judge Barron: Yeah, but you are saying that if I think that I’ve taken precautions, that I sometimes might sit on a bench in the park and speak in what I think is in pretty confidential tones with someone else, and you’re saying but I’m at risk of someone having a recording device, and if I didn’t notice it, that can then be sent all over the place, right?

Judge Selya: I want you to note that even in his hypotheticals, Judge Barron sees himself sitting on a bench.


Judge Selya also addressed Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General, Eric Haskell:

Judge Selya to MA Assistant Attorney General Eric Haskell: Meeting with a confidential informant, if it’s done in public, what’s wrong with that being recorded?  If the police officer wants that meeting to be truly confidential, the police officer can control where the meeting is held.  Easy enough to hold it in private.

Judge Selya to MA Assistant Attorney General Eric Haskell: You’re saying that if John Doe comes along, sees a police officer conversing with a politician, for example, they both have their backs turned to him, he holds out, in plain view of everybody, a tape recorder and turns it on, or a cell phone, and turns on the recording function, alright?  They have their backs turned, but it’s in plain view to anyone who wants to walk.  Everyone in the Boston Common sees it, except maybe the two people who were talking, and you’re saying that is, or isn’t, a violation of the statute?

The ACLU had a more limited vision of how to tackle the Massachusetts recording law.

Representing the ACLU was Jessie Rossman, who said that “They focus exclusively on police officers, who, unlike other officials, are armed by the state and have the authority to take people into custody.”

After the hearing, Ben Barr said:

“We were pleased that the court held the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to accountability. This law is an outright ban on the most effective form of newsgathering—undercover journalism—and deprives the public of important information. It is difficult to imagine it surviving today’s review before the First Circuit.”

“If the First Amendment means anything, it means that citizens possess the power to hold accountable those in power. In 2020, using smartphones and digital recording devices to uncover political hypocrisy and self-dealing is the most effective means to do so and should be protected by the First Amendment.”

Project Veritas Action Fund will never cease fighting for Americans’ Constitutional rights. It is imperative that individual citizens are allowed to perform their First Amendment right to report on public and private corruption. For many citizen journalists, undercover recording is the most effective way of delivering newsworthy facts to the public.

Project Veritas Action To Challenge Massachusetts Unconstitutional Law At First Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday In Boston

Par Eric Spracklen
On Wednesday January 8th, 2020 Project Veritas Action Fund Will Present Oral Argument in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Support of the First Amendment.
In March of 2016, Project Veritas Action Fund (PVA) Challenged Massachusetts’ Recording Law in Order to Cement Constitutional Protection for Undercover Recording.
In Federal District Court, PVA Won the Right to Secretly Record Government Officials Doing Their Work in Public. 
The Decision in PVA v. Conley (now Rollins)* Became the First Case in United States History to Hold That Secretly Recording Government Officials Conducting the Public’s Business in Public is Protected by the First Amendment.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Has Appealed the District Court’s Decision Granting PVA the Right to Secretly Record Public Officials Doing Their Work in Public.
PVA is Challenging the District Court’s Denial of the Right to Record Non-Public Officials When They Have No Expectation of Privacy.

[This post contains video, click to play]

(Boston, MA) Project Veritas Action Fund made First Amendment history in December of 2018 when the Massachusetts law prohibiting undercover recording of public officials was ruled unconstitutional: “[T]he Court holds that [Massachusetts law] may not constitutionally prohibit the secret audio recording of government officials…”

At issue was Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 (“Section 99”), which criminalizes the willful “interception”* of any “communication.”

The battle began two years ago, when PVA filed a federal lawsuit alleging the Massachusetts law prohibiting secret recordings of public officials and citizens was unconstitutional. Today, 39 states allow filming without both parties consenting. Massachusetts is one of eleven states that restrict undercover journalists from recording without consent.

Even with PVA’s initial victory, the case is not yet over. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has appealed the court’s ruling that resulted in PVA’s initial victory.

The court said it did not have enough information to rule on the constitutionality of secretly recording private citizens.  So PVA appealed.

The PVA Team (represented by Ben Barr) will be attending the hearing in Boston on January 8th, 2020, which is open for the public to attend. A decision from the Court of Appeals is not expected to be delivered for several months.

Project Veritas and Project Veritas Action Fund will never cease fighting for Americans’ constitutional rights. It is imperative that individual citizens are allowed to perform their 1st amendment right to report on public and private corruption. For many citizen journalists, undercover recording is the most effective way of delivering newsworthy facts to the public.

*This case has gone from PVA v. Conley to PVA v. Rollins due to the change in the District Attorney for Suffolk County office holder.


Guilty Verdict Against David Daleiden as Abortion Industry Flexes its Muscle

Par Eric Spracklen

In a decision that showed the influence of the abortion industry, a Federal Court in California found David Daleiden guilty and awarded Planned Parenthood approximately $2.2 million for Daleiden’s work exposing the abortion industry, including the potentially illegal sale of aborted baby parts.

Planned Parenthood did not contest the accuracy of Daleiden’s undercover video reports. They sued him for trespass and other alleged illegal methods he and his colleagues used to conduct the investigation.

Prior to the jury deciding the case, the judge ordered the jury to include in its verdict that Daleiden had, in fact, trespassed. This, coupled with some evidentiary rulings that went against Daleiden, left him in a precarious situation with respect to what the jury could rely on to decide his fate.

Some journalists and supporters of Project Veritas have described this verdict as a blow to undercover journalism. That’s an opportunistic, and wrong, conclusion. This civil lawsuit was never about undercover journalism. The jury verdict represents a simple affirmation of basic law: when you sign a document agreeing that you will or won’t do something, you are bound by it.  The allegations against Daleiden and his associates include that they signed some event applications and Non-Disclosure Agreements which allegedly prevented Daleiden from conducting his undercover investigation. The jury found that Daleiden had made agreements in those applications and NDAs that he violated.

Project Veritas undercover journalists will continue their intrepid pursuit of the truth unencumbered by this decision. Project Veritas journalists do not sign binding documents that purport to prohibit them from accomplishing their goal. Courts and juries will have a difficult time looking past a written agreement to keep things secret, regardless of the subject matter exposed by the undercover journalist. People who want to keep things secret have third parties sign written agreements to keep things secret.

Various states threatened and squeezed the Daleiden defendants with criminal prosecution. The result of these prosecutorial threats was that the defendants had to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when questioned in civil depositions. The result was that, in the civil case, the jury was allowed to draw an adverse inference that the defendants did something wrong and this clearly negatively impacted the defense and influenced the jury and the verdict.

Project Veritas has never asserted the Fifth Amendment in response to any questions posed by those who have sued us.  Project Veritas runs from nothing, stands by its reporting, and abides by the law. We have been sued eight times and have not lost a single case. Victory has come through an extremely rare Directed Verdict, through Summary Judgement, through a Motion to Dismiss and through two Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“Anti-SLAPP”) Motions.

[This post contains video, click to play]

Nevertheless, we recognize the real injustice here is the unequal application of the law. This case is, undoubtedly, ideologically motivated.  David Daleiden would be a national hero if he had done the same thing to an organization supporting animal cruelty, and California prosecutors would have exercised discretion, favoring the public’s right to know the facts he brought to light.  Imagine if he exposed puppies being aborted and their body parts sold illegally. The verdict against Daleiden for investigating the abortion of human babies and the sale of baby parts clearly demonstrates the power of the abortion industry. This case was never about the legality or importance of undercover journalism.

Peter Breen, Counsel for David Daleiden, said he didn’t do this, “for profit or for personal gain. He did it for the paramount public purpose of letting Americans know” what was going on. “The Planned Parenthood lawyers? They stated that the case is about ‘protecting the brand.’ But what is it that hurt the brand? The very words spoken by Planned Parenthood personnel on those videos is what hurt the brand.”

We must never forget that, in a democratic republic, the right to know information is of paramount importance. Justice is supposed to be blind, but we sadly we live in a country where, increasingly, there is lack of equal justice under the law as it pertains to the FirstAmendment.  This is particularly so in California where these types of investigations are needed more than ever.

This verdict will, undoubtedly, be appealed on many different grounds, so this case is far from over.

ABC Insider: Why I, alone, released the Amy Robach Epstein tape.

Par Eric Spracklen

Editors Note: Project Veritas is publishing the writing below at the request of the ABC news insider who gave us the Amy Robach tape.

This was submitted to us in light of the actions taken against those wrongfully identified as involved in the leaking of the tape and the reactions of ABC news to their spiking of the story on Jeffrey Epstein.


By Ignotus,

To my fellow man:

I came forward with this information bearing no motives other than to have this information public. I did not and do not seek any personal gain from this information whether it be financial or otherwise and will always decline. When I became aware of this moment, I had the same reaction as many of you did. Anger, confusion and sadness. I care not about petty political quarrels and only hope for the best in all of us.

To my fellow ABC News employees:

I’ve walked the halls experiencing similar feelings we are all having right now. All of you regardless of your own personal differences in one form or another do an outstanding job. I sincerely enjoy working with each and every one of you and will continue to do so throughout our careers.

To those wrongfully accused:

It is terrible that you have been lashed out at by the company. I know some may put the burden of guilt on me, but my conscience is clear. The actions of the company towards you are the result of their own and not anyone else. The public outcry, from coast to coast, of all people, creeds, and political affiliations, is clear. I have not one doubt that there will always be support for you, and you will have prosperous careers. For neither you, nor I, have done anything wrong.

To Amy Robach:

You are the only person deserving of an apology. I am most certainly sorry. Not for my actions or for this to center around you, but for what is clear to have happened. When I first stumbled across this, my initial reaction was outrage. But this soon turned towards empathy. I can not imagine doing all the hard work to only have it shelved. If the past few years have taught us anything, it is the truth that some of us have endured many hardships in this industry. From the spiking of stories regarding prominent and powerful people in this world, and to yours. I believe you are an outstanding reporter and have done such tremendous work in the community as well.

To ABC News:

I sit right here with you all in complete shock. I, like many, are at a loss for words on how this has been handled. Instead of addressing this head-on like the company has in the past, it has spun into a mission of seek-and-destroy. Innocent people that have absolutely nothing to do with this are being hunted down as if we are all a sport. I challenge all of you to actually look inwards and remember why this company engages in journalism. We all hold the First Amendment at the foundation of this company, yet forget its history,  its purpose, and its reasoning for even coming into existence to begin with. How lost we are… yearning to be found. I went to Project Veritas for the sole reason that any other media outlet else would have probably shelved this as well. I thank all of them, and James, for seeking truth.

We are all human and mortal, creatures of mistakes and redemption.

The road to redemption favors no soul.




BREAKING: ABC News and Amy Robach RESPOND to Project Veritas BOMBSHELL #EpsteinCoverup Story

Par Eric Spracklen

Project Veritas has obtained EXCLUSIVE statements from ABC News and Amy Robach on the bombshell #EpsteinCoverup story released one hour ago.


Stay tuned for updates from Project Veritas as this story is rapidly evolving.

[VIDEO] Leaked Insider Recording From ABC News Reveals Network Executives Killed Bombshell Story Implicating Jeffrey Epstein

Par Eric Spracklen
 “I’ve Had This Story for Three Years… (ABC) Would Not Put It on The Air” says Good Morning America Breaking News Anchor, and 20/20 Co-Anchor Amy Robach. “It Was Unbelievable… We Had – Clinton, We Had Everything…”
Robach: “We Had Her Whole Allegations About Prince Andrew…I Got a Little Concerned About Why I Couldn’t Get On.”
Amy Robach Describes How She Interviewed a Woman Who Had the Courage to Come Forward “Years” Ago About Epstein: “She Had Pictures, She Had Everything. She Was in Hiding for Twelve Years. We Convinced Her to Come Out. We Convinced Her to Talk to Us.”
Robach Details ABC’s Initial Response to Her: “Who’s Jeffrey Epstein? No One Knows Who That is. This is a Stupid Story”
Robach: “Now it’s All Coming Out … I Freaking Had All Of It…”

[This post contains video, click to play]

(New York, NY)Newly revealed footage leaked by an ABC insider has exposed how network executives rejected allegations against Jeffrey Epstein years ago, even though there was content regarding the merit of those claims in-hand.

Amy Robach, ‘Good Morning America’ Co-Host and Breaking News Anchor at ABC, explains how a witness came forward years ago with information pertaining to Epstein, but Disney-owned ABC News refused to air the material for years. Robach vents her anger in a “hot mic” moment with an off-camera producer, explaining that ABC quashed the story in it’s early stages.  “I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts (Now Virginia Guiffre) [alleged Epstein victim]. We would not put it on the air. Um, first of all, I was told “Who’s Jeffrey Epstein.  No one knows who that is.  This is a stupid story.”

She continues, “The Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways.”

Robach goes on to express she believes that Epstein was killed in prison saying, “So do I think he was killed? 100% Yes, I do…He made his whole living blackmailing people… Yup, there were a lot of men in those planes. A lot of men who visited that Island, a lot of powerful men who came into that apartment.”

Robach repeats a prophetic statement purportedly made by Attorney Brad Edwards “…[T]here will come a day when we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known,” and Disgustedly Robach states “I had it all three years ago.”

Project Veritas intends to continue its investigation into corruption in the Mainstream Media. We encourage that Brave insiders at these organizations come forward with any information they have, so that the public knows what is really going on within these media companies.

BREAKING: CNN President Jeff Zucker CONFRONTED by Project Veritas in ATL airport

Par Eric Spracklen

[This post contains video, click to play]

CNN President Jeff Zucker refuses to answer questions on #ExposeCNN when confronted by Project Veritas reporter Eric Spracklen today in the Atlanta airport. No comment on Preisdent Trump’s threat to sue the network for bias and his employees allegations of sexual misconduct by Steve Brusk.

Part 4: #MeTooCNN Video Exposes Alleged Sexual Misconduct by CNN Exec and Possible Cover-Up by Senior CNN Management

Par Eric Spracklen
Rick Saleeby, Senior Producer of The Lead with Jake Tapper, States Steve Brusk, CNN Politics Supervising Producer, Made ‘Advances’ on Female Employees During ‘Social Gatherings’ and Would “Put His Arm Around Them, Try and Touch Their Leg.”
Saleeby Believes That Steve Brusk is “Protected by Certain People…Like Other Higher Ups” Within CNN.
Rick Saleeby Recalls Incident with a Young Female Colleague: “She Had a Skirt on. I Could See the Hand. I Like Grab Her. It Looked Like I Was Being the Assaulter Because I Grabbed Her So Aggressively…to Keep Her from Him.”
Saleeby: “He Had Already Been Accused of the Things Prior… Which I Found Out…”
Saleeby Acknowledges the Gravity of the Situation: “I’ll Tell You This, In the Climate That’s Going Now, He Definitely Would Have Been Fired.”
Nick Neville, Media Coordinator at CNN, Says It is “Open Knowledge” That a Female Colleague Got a Job Working with Steve Brusk That “Appeared Out of Nowhere,” “…It Was Never Posted Online…”
Neville Refers to Allegedly Untoward Behavior from Brusk With the Young Female Employee: “…I Mean, He Emails All of Us, But He Would Email and Was Very Friendly to Her. And Then She Just Like Got a Job Like Working on His Team and She Was Like, Oh, It’s Hush-Hush. The Job Was Never Posted Anywhere.”
Neville: “…I Just Thought It Was a Little Strange.”
Christian Sierra, Media Coordinator at CNN, Continues: “That’s Unethical…That’s Unethical.”
Steve Brusk Tells Project Veritas Journalists to Speak with CNN’s PR Team About Sexual Misconduct Allegations; When Approached in DC, Refuses to Watch Footage.
Rick Saleeby and Jake Tapper Refuse to Speak with Project Veritas Journalists in DC When Approached for Comment.
Project Veritas Calls CNN President Jeff Zucker’s Office for Comment on Last Week’s Multiple Releases Regarding Anti-Trump Bias in the Network; Zucker’s Administrative Assistant Replies: “We Don’t Have Any Comment, Thanks for Calling.”

[This post contains video, click to play]

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) Last week, Project Veritas began releasing #ExposeCNN videos showing bias against the President, certain Democratic Presidential candidates, as well as the dissatisfaction of several longtime employees with the network’s current state.

Today, we are releasing Part IV exposing CNN’s attitude towards sexual harassment and assault allegedly happening within the network.

Steve Brusk Has Allegedly Gotten Away With Sexual Misconduct

When speaking about CNN Politics Supervising Producer and White House Unit Supervising Producer/Coverage Manager, Steve Brusk, ‘The Lead with Jake Tapper’ Senior Producer Rick Saleeby said: “…he would like make advances if there was a social gathering and they were drunk… Put his arms around them, try and touch their leg. Try and build up emails to the level where he would get flirty and inappropriate.”


According to Saleeby, there was a social gathering where a twenty-one-year-old woman was getting drunk and Steve Brusk allegedly saw an opportunity to make sexual advances on her. Saleeby says: “So, like, there is this girl that was twenty-one. She’s actually a good friend of mine. She had just gotten hired after being an intern…And she was getting…There was a going away party for a co-worker. We were all having a really good time…She was very well liked. We were getting drunk. He started like staying close to her…Arm around her.”

Saleeby went on to describe the scene with more details: “She had a skirt on. I could see the hand. I like grab her. It looked like I was being the assaulter because I grabbed her so aggressive…To keep her from him. Like go around her and go Come over here and looked at him because I could flatten him…It was like…I wouldn’t do it because then I would be the one who got fired…He would have absolutely been like ‘get in a cab with me later.’”

Saleeby states that he found out later that there had allegedly been prior accusations against Brusk: “Because she was drunk. He had his arm around her. And in the setting like any other time ever, they barely speak…But he was like, trying to like, touch her thigh…He had already been accused of the things prior…Which I found out…Which I found out later.”

“People Have Gotten Away With a Lot” at CNN, Suggests Staffer

Rick Saleeby admits: “I’ll tell you this, in the climate that’s going now, he definitely would have been fired…The whole “Me-Too” movement. People are afraid to do sh*t…I mean he has been at CNN for like twenty years…People have gotten away with a lot of sh*t.”

In another instance, Nick Neville, CNN Media Coordinator said: “I will just say this, because this is open knowledge, it’s not like a Me Too thing, but there was this other girl who was like an NA (News Assistant), I feel like we basically had the same level of experience…And a job just kind of like appeared out of nowhere…And it was never posted online, and this girl always worked pretty closely with Steve, like all of us on the desk would help Steve out with stuff…But this other girl works pretty closely with him and he would email her, I mean, he emails all of us, but he would email and was very friendly to her. And then she just like got a job like working on his team and she was like, oh it’s hush-hush. The job was never posted anywhere. I was like, what is it?…I just thought it was a little strange…Was there an agreement? What happened there?…Like I’m saying, that’s open knowledge, but it just kind of like goes along with what he said.”

In the same conversation, Christian Sierra, CNN Media Coordinator responded to Neville’s story: “That’s unethical. That’s unethical.”

Steve Brusk is Allegedly Protected by ‘Higher Ups’ Within the Network

When Rick Saleeby was asked why no action has been taken against Steve Brusk’s sexual misconduct, Saleeby responded: “…he is protected by certain people there…Value him or like him. I don’t even know, I can’t…Like other higher ups there. This is not an unusual thing in companies.”

Project Veritas Reaches Out to CNN Employees for Comment

As a result of the audio and video recording acquired by Veritas journalists and CNN insider Cary Poarch, Veritas journalists approached Steve Brusk, Jake Tapper and Rick Saleeby in Washington, D.C., in order to ask for comment on our Expose CNN series and the Brusk allegations.  Project Veritas also reached out to Matt Dornic, Vice President of Communications and Digital Partnerships at CNN.  Neither Jake Tapper nor Rick Saleeby commented, but Steve Brusk said:

“I, I, I don’t. Um but uh, I’ll let our PR people talk to you about that”…“No, sir. I’m happy to put you in touch with our PR people.”

Call to CNN President Jeff Zucker’s Office

In an attempt to get comment from Jeff Zucker on the released materials, Project Veritas received the following response from Zucker’s administrative assistant in a phone call: “We don’t have any comment, thanks for calling.”

We need your help as we continue to hold CNN accountable.  If CNN Politics Supervising Producer Steve Brusk has sent you inappropriate messages or behaved inappropriately around you, tell us about it.  We will protect your identity.  Email or send us an encrypted Telegram message at 914-653-3110.

Project Veritas intends to continue its broader investigation into corruption in the Mainstream Media. We encourage the public to push for transparency within these Media organizations in order to get to the truth about any potential cover-ups of misconduct or inappropriate activity.


CNN Part 4 Coming Soon

Par Eric Spracklen

[This post contains video, click to play]

This week, Project Veritas released a three-part series exposing CNN. Millions of people have viewed and shared this content. And, yet, CNN and their leadership have remained silent so far.

Why is CNN so quiet?

I can tell you this, though.

Our next video (CNN Part 4) will be coming out next week. It features serious charges leveled against Senior Executives.

And when it comes out, CNN won’t be able to ignore it.

President Donald Trump and his 2020 campaign have just sent CNN President Jeff Zucker a letter indicating they intend to file legal action against CNN to seek compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, injunction relief, reimbursement of legal costs and all other legal and equitable remedies, to the maximum extent permitted by law. View the entire four page letter HERE.

Stay tuned…


Par Eric Spracklen
Manager of Field Operations at CNN Patrick Davis Complains “We Could Be So Much Better Than What We Are.”
“I Haven’t Listened to a 9AM (Rundown) Call in About 15 Years…Just, I Can’t Listen to It,” Explains Davis, “It’s All Just a Bunch of Bullshit.”
Field Production Supervisor at CNN Gerald Sisnette: “The Only Way This Will Go Away is When He (Trump) Dies. Hopefully Soon.”
“They Sold Themselves to the Devil. It’s, It’s Sad.” Laments Floor Manager at CNN Mike Brevna.
“We Used to Cover News,” Complains Senior Field Engineer at CNN Scott Garber, “We Used to Go Out and Do Stories.”
Zucker Admits to Being Personally Responsible for Impeachment Coverage: “I Am the One Saying We Should Just Stay on Impeachment.”
Conflict is What Sells,” Explains CNN Media Coordinator Christian Sierra, “Create Clicks, Get More Money.”

[This post contains video, click to play]

(WASHINGTON, D.C.)  On Monday, October 14, 2019 Project Veritas released the first of its Expose CNN series about the inner workings and candid observations of CNN employees and executives as captured with a hidden camera by CNN Insider Cary Poarch.  The first report was followed by Part II in the series on Tuesday, October 15, 2019 where Cary had casual conversations inside CNN regarding the candidates for the Democratic nomination for President.

Today, we are releasing Part III exposing the network’s movement away from objective newsgathering and towards partisan advocacy.

According to James O’Keefe, President of Project Veritas, “CNN has made a conscious decision to focus almost exclusively on the impeachment of President Trump at the expense of covering legitimate news around the world.”

CNN Coverage Used to Be Different

According to CNN insider Cary Poarch, I want to chase the facts, like the motto that CNN put out earlier this year, ‘the facts first,’ that’s what I want the news to be. That’s what it should be. That’s what it used to be.”  It appears a number of CNN staffers agree:

Patrick Davis, Manager of Field Operations at CNN: “…I hate seeing what we were and what we could be and what we’ve become. It’s just awful…I mean, we could be so much better than what we are…And the buck stops with him (Zucker).”

“I haven’t listened to a 9AM call in about 15 years. I just stopped,”complains Manager of Field Operations at CNN Patrick Davis, “Just, I can’t listen to it. It’s all bullshit. It’s all just a bunch of bullshit. And I wish that wasn’t the case.”

Scott Garber, Senior Field Engineer at CNN: “We used to cover news. We used to go out and do stories…But Trump is more important.”

Adia Jacobs, CNN Technical Operations Supervisor: “When Zucker took over it wasn’t until Trump that we ended up being all Trump all the time.”

Nick Neville, CNN Media Coordinator: “He (Zucker) basically said f**k all the other stories.”

Mike Brevna, Floor Manager at CNN:It’s the Trump Network, dog. It’s like everything is all Trump…they not even thinking about anybody else. They sold themselves to the devil.” 

Gerald Sisnette, Field Production Supervisor at CNN: “This is a story that’s not gonna go away…The only way this will go away is when he (Trump) dies. Hopefully soon.”

Patrick Davis, Manager of Field Operations at CNN: “And you learn it in journalism school, we’re supposed to be middle of the road, that’s our job. Now it’s just infotainment is all it’s become. There is no true media news outlet.”

Undercover video reveals covering ‘conflict’ increases the network’s income (creating clicks) and CNN, under network President Jeff Zucker’s direction, has become the ‘all Trump all the time’ network.

Jeff Zucker, CNN President: “So, my point here is, I know there’s 7,000 impeachment stories that – Look, I am the one that’s saying we should just stay on impeachment, but when, you know, when a story of this magnitude comes up (referring to the story of alligators and snakes in a moat and shooting immigrants in the legs) and you can objectively say, you’re out of your mind. You should do it and say you’re out of your mind.”

Christian Sierra, CNN Media Coordinator: “…conflict is what sells, nobody wants to hear one-minute canned statements…Because conflict drives clicks…create clicks, get more money.”

Poarch concludes: “I want CNN and any other outlet to basically return to what they once were, where hey, we tune in to get our facts. We can make up our minds left, right, center, whatever. Cool, and we go on with our lives. I don’t want anyone to basically, you know, be spun into believing or programmed into believing one way or the other. That’s not what I’m about and that’s why I’m coming forward.” 

Project Veritas intends to continue its investigation into corruption in the Mainstream Media. We encourage brave insiders at these organizations to come forward with any information they have, so that the public knows what is really going on within these media companies.

Contact: PV Media
Phone: 914-908-2300

BREAKING: CNN Media Coordinator states ‘Jeff Zucker goes into the control room while Jake Tapper is interviewing Kellyanne Conway’; tells Executive Producer to skip commercials, extend 7 minute interview to 25 minutes to “just f**king nail her”

Par Eric Spracklen

[This post contains video, click to play]


In a new clip that we released today, CNN Media Coordinator, Christian Sierra, recounts a story about Jeff Zucker, stating:

 “Jeff Zucker goes into the control room while Jake Tapper is interviewing Kellyanne Conway…”

Sierra says Zucker orders Tapper: “Keep going, keep going, keep going!” and tells the Executive Producer to skip commercials, extend 7-minute interview to 25 minutes…

Sierra on Zucker’s control room command: “Just f**king nail her!”

Zucker personally ordered CNN host Jake Tapper to press Kellyanne Conway in a live TV interview.

Jake Tapper corroborated this information HERE.

Part 2: CNN Leadership and Staffers Reveal True Sentiments; Network Picks Favorites Among Democratic Candidates on Eve of Debate

Par Eric Spracklen
CNN Senior Justice Correspondent Evan Perez Says, ‘Joe Biden Has a Problem’ Because of his Son’s Foreign Business Dealings; “It Looks Bad. It Smells Bad.”
CNN President Jeff Zucker Pushes Kamala Harris’ Demand to Take Down Trump’s Twitter Account; “I Think it’s a Good Segment…Not Going to Happen, But it’s a Good Talking – it’s a Good Segment.”
Zucker on Harris: “She is Also Retooling Her Struggling Campaign.”
CNN Media Coordinator Christian Sierra Says Network is Less Fair to Andrew Yang and Amy Klobuchar, “They’re Pro-Top Contenders.”
Sierra: “I Think They Like Warren a Lot” “…They Don’t Like Tulsi Gabbard”
CNN Media Coordinator Nick Neville Says “People Would Change the Channel” if Network Broadcasted a Biden Rally.
CNN VP and Political Director David Chalian Believes That Andrew Yang Will Not Become the Democratic Nominee for President.
CNN Insider Cary Poarch: “I Actually Came to CNN a Registered Democrat. I Campaigned and Voted for Bernie in the Primaries of the 16’ election;” “…All That I Thought I Knew and Hoped to be at CNN Was False.”
Poarch: “It’s an Unwritten Rule That if You Are Center, Center Right, or Heaven Forbid, Full Right Republican Trump Supporter, Then You Are Not Welcome at CNN.”
Insider Cary Poarch Wants ‘Free and Fair Election’ and Not ‘Some Ideology Shoved Down My Throat;’ Wants CNN to ‘Get Back to the Facts and Get Back to Reporting the News.’

[This post contains video, click to play]

(Washington, D.C.) On Monday, October 14, 2019 Project Veritas released Part 1 of a series of recordings provided by a brave CNN Insider who blew the whistle on rampant bias at the network. The story, with substantial social media attention and cable news coverage, to include a tweet from President Trump, provides video footage highlighting the personal vendetta of CNN President Jeff Zucker against POTUS, as well as evidence of bias across the network.  CNN Insider Cary Poarch further detailed his concerns against the network on national television last night.

In Part 2 of our #ExposeCNN series, Poarch exposes candid opinions and unguarded comments from various employees and executives including CNN President Jeff Zucker, CNN Vice President and Political Director David Chalian, and CNN Media Coordinator Christian Sierra.

Cary Poarch, who wants CNN to “get back to the facts and get back to reporting news,” used a hidden camera to record conversations over several months.

Poarch was able to participate in the daily 9AM meetings where CNN President Jeff Zucker talked to the staff and gave them their daily guidance.

One day the 9AM meeting included an exchange between CNN President Jeff Zucker and CNN Vice President and Political Director David Chalian about the viability of Democratic candidate Andrew Yang:

Jeff Zucker, CNN President:“David, are we taking Andrew Yang seriously enough?”

David Chalian, Vice President and CNN Political Director:“Yeah, I mean, I think we – I don’t know why we wouldn’t take him – you know, most of these candidates seriously. We should definitely be looking at why Andrew Yang is resonating…Do I think he’s a likely nominee? No, I don’t.”

In another 9AM meeting, Zucker pushed for the use of some on-air reporting time designed more for ratings than for reporting news when he noted that CNN should do a segment on Democratic candidate Kamala Harris’ call for President Trump’s Twitter account to be suspended:

Jeff Zucker, CNN President: “It’s not going to happen, but I think it’s a good segment in the show… Not going to happen, but it’s a good talking – it’s a good segment.” 

In a discussion about why Democratic candidate Joe Biden’s campaign rally isn’t broadcast in its entirety, a CNN employee indicated that decisions seem to be based on ratings:

Nick Neville, CNN Media Coordinator: “They probably think it’s boring… people would change, people would change the channel.”

CNN is hosting tonight’s Democratic Presidential Primary Debate, and a lot of discussion took place with various CNN employees about CNN’s treatment of several of the candidates.

CNN’s Media Coordinator Christian Sierra explained that by focusing on just a few candidates the network treats others unfairly:

CNN Insider: “Who is CNN unfairer against right now on the debate?”

Christian Sierra, CNN Media Coordinator: “Um, I think probably Yang and Klobuchar. One of the lesser ones. Just cause they’re going to talk about Biden more Warren and Sanders. They’re not going to mention others.

they want to cover the people who are on the top. They don’t want to cover the bottom.”

CNN Insider: “So, who does he (Zucker) want to be president?”

Christian Sierra, CNN Media Coordinator: “Here’s the thing, I don’t know. I think he (ZUCKER) wants a democrat but I don’t think he has any particular favorite. Well, ‘cause here’s the thing, he donated before to Kamala Harris when she was running for Senate in California. Um, but, I think he kind of likes Pete, but I can tell he also likes Biden and Warren.”

CNN Insider: “You think he likes Biden?”

Christian Sierra, CNN Media Coordinator:“I think so.”

But according to a candid comment from CNN Senior Justice Correspondent Evan Perez, Biden has a problem:

Evan Perez, Senior Justice Correspondent: “Now I’ll tell you this. Joe Biden has a problem. Because his son was trading in his name. It looks bad. It smells bad. It’s not illegal. Nothing is illegal about it… How do you go and say that Donald Trump is the person?  Get him out of here, and convict him, when your son is doing the sameshit.”

As for some of the other candidates:

CNN Insider: “Who does CNN like?”

Christian Sierra, CNN Media Coordinator: “I think they like Warren a lot.

They don’t like Tulsi. They don’t like Tulsi Gabbard.

Because she supports, Assad and she’s not taking a conventional route when it comes to one policy, stuff like that.”

CNN Insider Cary Poarch said, “I just want us to have a free and fair election. That’s what it’s all about. Like we get an information presented to us. We can, we can pull the lever for whoever we want. Again, left, right center, whatever. That’s the American dream. That’s what it should be. I don’t need to have some ideology shoved down my throat. That’s twisted in a way.”

Project Veritas intends to continue its investigation into corruption in the Mainstream Media. We encourage brave insiders at these organizations to come forward with any information they have, so that the public knows what is really going on within these media companies.


Contact: PV Media
Phone: 914-908-2300

CNN Staffer Admits Racial Bias – Part 2

Par Eric Spracklen

[This post contains video, click to play]

In the second Project Veritas insider video segment covering racial bias and it’s effect on coverage at CNN, Media Coordinator Christian Sierra, states, “I think that shootings in poorer areas or, um, minority communities don’t get as much coverage as if they were to happen in a white area.”

Insider Cary Poarch questions his statement, “ So, CNN doesn’t cover the shooting that happened in a black neighborhood the same that they would cover a shooting in a white neighborhood?”

Sierra responds “I think if, unless if were looking a mass, if you’re a mass shooting like if it were like 20 people killed, they would cover it.” “But if there were like two people killed, like in a gang related violence shooting, they’re not gonna really care.”

CNN Staffer Admits Racial Bias – Part 1

Par Eric Spracklen

[This post contains video, click to play]

Oh hidden camera, CNN Media Coordinator Christian Sierra admits that the network bias extends past Donald Trump…race enters into the decision on story content.

Sierra hypothesizes,” A white kid gets shot at Princeton University. He’s walking, he’s visiting his big brother who’s a student there, he gets shot in the head. He gets killed. We’re going to get coverage on that because, OH MY GOD, WE HAVE TO PUT THE PRECIOUS LITTLE WHITE BOY.”

Insider Cary Poarch responds, “But three people get shot in Newark?”

Sierra responds, “NOBODY CARES. Nobody. Nobody cares. Maybe unless it happens on Cory Booker’s block!”

PART 1: CNN Insider Blows Whistle on Network President Jeff Zucker’s Personal Vendetta Against POTUS

Par Eric Spracklen
Cary Poarch, Who Works at CNN’s Washington DC Bureau, Says: “I Decided to Wear a Hidden Camera…to Expose the Bias”
Records Zucker’s 9AM Daily Rundown Calls
Zucker Emphatically States Fox News is “Beyond Destructive for America”
Zucker to Staffers: “Impeachment is the Story,” Ignore Other Stories
Employees Ordered by Zuckerto ‘Knock Off’ Their Friendliness Towards Lindsey Graham
 Nick Neville, CNN Media Coordinator: “Jeff Zucker…has a Personal Vendetta Against Trump,” “…Then You Get on the 9AM Call and the Big Boss, Jeff Zucker, F**king Tells What to Do”
 Neville: It’s About ‘Ratings,’ “…It’s, Like, They Pulled Names Out of a Hat and It’s Like We’re Watching the Gameshow Network”
CNN Floor Manager Mike Brevna: “It’s the Trump Network, Dog…They Sold Themselves to The Devil”
Brevna Recalls Colleagues ‘Sobbing,’ And Says The “Office Was Like a Funeral” After Trump Election Victory
CNN Media Coordinator, Christian Sierra, Confesses CNN Prepares ‘Softball Interviews’for Democrats Compared to Republicans, and Suggests “Anti-Trump Crusade” After 2016 Election
Top Network Executive David Chalian Says Republicans are ‘Delusional, Defiant, or Silent’ With Regards to Trump’s Impeachment Story
CNN Floor Director Hiram Gonzalez: “…We Created This Monster…Media Created the Trump Monster”

[This post contains video, click to play]

(Washington, D.C.) A brave CNN insider came to Project Veritas to expose anti-Trump bias at the cable giant. Cary Poarch, who works at CNN’s Washington D.C. Bureau, tells Project Veritas “I decided to wear a hidden camera…to expose the bias running rampant” at the network. Poarch documented CNN’s bias for months; recording undercover footage of numerous long-term employees, some of which talk about Jeff Zucker’s anti-Trump agenda. In the video are Nick Neville, Christian Sierra, Hiram Gonzalez, David Chalian, and Mike Brevna. These employee’s positions range from media coordinator to high-ranking executives. I decided to secretly record the 9:00am rundown call meetings with senior management and executives, says Poarch. In the recordings, Zucker details his expectations for CNN’s coverage and very matter-of-factly states “impeachment is the story.”

Impeachment Push 


Jeff Zucker has served as president of CNN Worldwide since 2013. In recordings of daily phone calls, Zucker directed staffers to push the impeachment narrative.

“I want to stay with this, our top, top – our own reporters, our own political analysts, the top, the top [unintelligible] we have. Okay, so make sure we’re doing that. All these moves are moves towards impeachment. So, don’t – don’t lose sight of what the biggest story is.”

Attacks on Fox News and Republicans

In one 9AM rundown call, Zucker and another executive disparage Republicans about Trump and attack FoxNews:

I think what’s going on in America now is really fundamentally result of years of fake news, conspiracy nonsense from Fox News that has taken root in this country…”

Zucker continues, “The fake conspiracy nonsense that Fox has spread for years is now deeply embedded in American society and at the highest levels of the Republican elected officials as we’ve seen…and frankly that is beyond destructive for America…”

CNN’s Vice President & Political Director David Chalian on Republicans:

I think as big of a story as big of a story as what President Trump has done here is the Republican’s sort of either delusional or defiant or silent responses.” 

 Zucker: CNN Employees Must ‘Knock Off’ Friendliness Towards Graham


Yeah, so I just want to say on the Lindsey Graham front, I know that there’s a lot of people at CNN that are friendly with Lindsey Graham. It’s time to knock that off and it’s time to call him out.”

CNN Media Coordinator Details How Zucker Runs the Network; Describes ‘Gameshow’


Nick Neville, a CNN Media Coordinator, also opened up to our insider. Neville tells our insider who really controls CNN’s programming, and how much top-down control Zucker exerts:

Like, there are a lot of people who are out here trying to play like, just do what they think is the best journalistic integrity. Then you get on the 9am call and the big boss, Jeff Zucker, f**king tells what to do….”

“Jeff Zucker- basically president of CNN has a personal vendetta against Trump. Your own biases are gonna be there. They’re going to seep into what you think, they’re gonna seep into what you say, so if Jeff Zucker like blatantly hates Trump, and he runs CNN (which he does), it’s not gonna be positive (for you guys)…no I mean it’s not gonna be positive for Trump. He hates him. It’s gonna be negative!”

The CNN Media Coordinator goes on to lament his own network’s debate preparation format, connecting it to their push to prioritize ratings:

“But then you have higher up executives, like Zucker and other people, who are saying, “Well, we gotta make profits.” So, you end up with things like- I don’t know if you heard this, but this week they had like a fucking gameshow to, like, decide what dates they’re, it’s gonna be this debate.”

CNN Floor Manager Describes Election Night Despair at CNN


Mike Brevna, Floor Manager, CNN: “The election- Yeah, I came in at about ten or eleven o’clock that night…. And as I started walking towards this person, as I got closer, I could hear her sobbing …. People were like, in shock.”

CNN Floor Director Shares His Perspective on the Cause of Trump’s Political Ascension

Hiram Gonzalez, Floor Director, CNN: “Between you and I, we created this monster and now we’re eating him full plate every single day. Media created the Trump monster.”

CNN Media Coordinator Confesses to Network Bias


Christian Sierra, a CNN Media Coordinator, describes the mood inside CNN after Trump’s election victory:

“That day, man, when I came in, everyone was silent. Nobody wanted to talk. I’m like, like the mood was just so sour the whole day…It was a f**king dreary day. I bet at Fox it was like euphoria.”

When questioned about how the CNN anchors feel about Trump, Sierra unloads: “Cooper hates him;” “Don Lemon hates him;” “Cuomo doesn’t like him;” and Tapper “doesn’t like him either.”

Sierra goes on to admit to our insider that:

“…MSNBC is tougher on Republicans, and we’re tough on the Republicans too. More than so than the Democrats. Our Democratic interviews are like softballs, compared to the Republicans… if you notice like every time, we ask questions to Republicans, like it’s always a little tougher than when we do get the Democrats.”

Project Veritas intends to continue its investigation into corruption in the Mainstream Media. We encourage brave insiders at these organizations to come forward with any information they have, so that the public knows what is really going on within these media companies.

Contact: PV Media
Phone: 914-908-2300

On the Eve of the CNN Insider blowing the whistle on his own network…

Par Eric Spracklen


By James O’Keefe

“It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” – Samuel Adams.

This week, a CNN insider will blow the whistle and through Project Veritas will release dozens of recordings made of officials at the highest levels of CNN, revealing a political agenda, bias and misconduct hidden from public view.

This series of tapes — which we think will be the biggest story of the year for Project Veritas — blends two extraordinary series of events; a brave insider secretly recording at work and a hard-hitting piece of hidden camera muckraking into one of the supposed “most trusted names in news.”

A major aspect of this story is the heroic actions of an insider.

By far, the most often asked question (and most important) is “What can I do?”  There is a new genre of answer—you can wear a hidden camera and blow the whistle on your employer through Project Veritas. This new movement, which we are calling “Be Brave. Do Something” is enabling citizens to become catalysts for reform. It is the modern incarnation of what Jack Anderson once described as “the sirens of Greek mythology, who, by their seductive singing, enticed unknowing wayfarers to abandon the cramped boredom of safe passage for a hazardous try at strange excitements and gratifications.”

If Project Veritas is the siren, the wayfarers this year have included two Google employees, a Facebook subcontractor and a Pinterest engineer who gave up their salaries and careers for the public’s right to know. We’ve had the privilege to entice these angels, knowing full well an army of grateful citizens are behind them. Project Veritas supporters have their backs no matter what as long as they stand up for what is true and important for the public to know.

“This was an act of atonement. An attempt to make my conscience clear,” said Zach Vorhies, who leaked us the “Algorithmic Unfairness’ document inside Google.

“Are we going to just let the biggest tech companies decide who wins every election from now on?” said Greg Coppola, who lost his job inside Google speaking out.

“I felt the public had a right to know,” said the Facebook insider who was fired for taking screenshots of them “Deboosting” videos for political reasons.

“For me there was no other option. I could go through the comforts of life, but what are we saving our ammo for,” said Eric Cochran, the Pinterest engineer, who was escorted out the building. “They can stop one man, but they can’t stop all of us.

And so it was destiny that the CNN wayfarer met me in the Spring by a happenstance, inspired by the actions of the others who came before him, I received a simple answer as to why: “I started at CNN with a dream to work in media, but my dream had become a nightmare,” With that, a hidden camera began to record…well…everything.

In our current media landscape, people are famous figures for notoriety. Celebrity is a big name. Hero is a big man. So there is a new breed of heroes – the sort that Daniel Boorstin spoke about in his book The Image: “In our world of big names, our true heroes tend to be anonymous. In this life of illusion and quasi-illusion, the person of solid virtues who can be admired for something more substantial than his well-knowness often proves to be the unsung hero: the teacher, the nurse, the mother, the honest cop, the hard worker at lonely, underpaid, unglamorous, unpublicized jobs.

“These anonymous heroes become part of the Veritas army.”

And then there is the act of investigating the media itself. Critics and political marketing industry operatives will rush to condemn this series of tapes with broad platitudes on how any efforts are “anti-journalist.” We’ve heard “The truth is more important than ever,” “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” and so forth. But behind the veneer of “holier than thou” sanctimonious attitudes are some ugly truths about the 4th estate.

But they are not new gathering. And our press isn’t truly free.

In fact, based upon what the people in these tapes say, it’s no longer even doing legitimate news gathering.

The media has become an industrial system of production that manufactures consent. This is true whether said by Noam Chomsky, James O’Keefe, or Glenn Greenwald. Political implications aside, the media has become an organ of propaganda that is only about commercialism, clicks, ratings, power and influence and political advocacy. All the while, the press evades scrutiny by appealing to rights afforded by the 1st amendment, while adhering to none the accompanying duties.

Big Tech and Big Media Corporations have more power than all three branches of government, but who holds them accountable? Who watches the watchmen?  And why is it so important somebody holds them to account? Because doing their jobs is required in a Democracy.

The public’s right to know make all other rights in our society possible, because our government exists with the consent of the governed, and this consent must be informed. People will make their own decisions when they are properly informed.

Real journalism shouldn’t only be discourse, moral judgments, and conclusions. It shouldn’t have to engage in relentless speculation, punditry and stenography, opining to the masses. It should not abuse participation in advocacy work for anonymous leakers where sources in government get to set the agenda.

Investigative reporters (the real ones) have the duty to go beyond what somebody wants us to publish. What journalists ought to do is simply engage in the empirical method — to a degree so real — that the resulting truths transfix and anesthetize. When people are able to see what is happening, it becomes more real. We show that transgressions are in fact transgressions. The way to achieve proper reforms is to precisely capture reality.

On the Economic side, there is no question that much of corruption is due to economic pressures. Real truth finding often is a loss-leader in any business sense, and that’s why it is almost completely extinct from commercial news gathering. Being “the tip of the spear” often puts us in an exposed position where the results of our work reverberates into embarrassment, resignations, deeply penetrates the fabric of people’s lives and violates social boundaries. That means litigation, retaliation and economic pressures. “Many of the large media companies are fully integrated into the market, and for the others, too. The pressures of stockholders, directors, and bankers to focus on the bottom line are powerful.”

The first step towards reforming the system is accurately reporting reality that shakes people awake with moral indignation. But in the digital era, with streaming visuals, hard to refute, we’re able to cut through propaganda like a hot knife through butter, trusting the power of free people to make the best policy decisions if they are equipped with the truth.  We break down the barrier between the realms of how public officials behave in public and private, and therefore tackle the great lie.

It seems like most of the people who are supposed to govern are busy staring into a TV camera. “One correspondent with one cameraman [can] become as important as twenty senators,” as David Halberstam once wrote. They are protected from any public scrutiny. They demonstrate Sanctimonious, holier-than-thou smugness. Journalists are no longer about public service, and in private, they will change the subject if you talk about democracy dying in darkness. It’s really about commercialism, clicks, ratings, power and influence.

It’s not just politicians who kowtow to the cable news order and to the power it yields, it’s the wealthiest man in the world saying that his most proud accomplishment was purchasing his woke, clickbait farm.

Jeff Bezos wrote on the Medium: “Even though The Post is a complexifier for me, I do not at all regret my investment. The Post is a critical institution with a critical mission. My stewardship of The Post and my support of its mission, which will remain unswerving, is something I will be most proud of.”

This man who has built the most powerful company on earth is most proud of the fact he bought a newspaper which isn’t going to earn him any money.

But make no mistake: for Bezos, this isn’t about informing the masses, it’s about power and influence.

So, in a country governed by public opinion, and where public opinion is largely governed by the press, isn’t it critical to understand what governs the press?

And this is why Project Veritas will be exposing CNN this week.



[This post contains video, click to play]

10 Years Ago Today: Census Bureau Cuts Ties With ACORN

Par Project Veritas

(New York, NY) – In September of 2009, journalists James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles released a series of undercover videos exposing Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (“ACORN”).

On September 12th of 2009, two days after the release of the first installment of the video series, the United States Census Bureau ended its “partner” relationship with ACORN.  In a letter to the president of ACORN, Acting Director of the Census Bureau, Robert Groves, wrote that ACORN had become a “distraction.”

According to an article in The Wall Street Journal, the Census Bureau partnered with ACORN to publicize and encourage participation in the 2010 Census.

The termination of the Census Bureau’s partnership in ACORN would be the first instance in a string of bad luck for the organization.  Later in 2009, ACORN would lose all federal funding and in 2010 ACORN would shut its doors permanently after filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

You can watch the full recap of the 2009 ACORN series HERE.



The ACORN Sting, 10 Years Later

Par Project Veritas

[This post contains video, click to play]

By James O’Keefe

A decade ago, I was experimenting with an “old” genre of journalism.  It was a merger of Andy Bichlbaum’s agitprop street theater group “The Yes Men,” meets Mike Wallace meets Borat.

After combining ideas from Tom Wolfe’s “Mau Mauing the Flak Catchers,” Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, and studying Hunter S. Thompson’s work, I was inspired to change the world. This strange brew of inputs ultimately lead me to undercover investigative journalism. Rush Limbaugh would later describe what we do as “getting them on video tape being who they are. Therefore, no explanation is required.” This new frontier of journalism became my life’s work.

It started in college with a Gonzo campaign to ban the breakfast cereal Lucky Charms from Rutgers dining halls because it was an “affront” to Irish-Americans everywhere. Later, my gang of merry pranksters headed to Boston to ask citizens if they would “Adopt A Loving Gitmo Detainee.”

Next came a shocking phone call to a Planned Parenthood office. Posing as a donor I suggested, “The less black kids out there the better.” The Planned Parenthood worker said, “We’ll accept the money.”

But what ultimately created the movement that would become Project Veritas was a Facebook message from an inspired young woman I had never met. After a string of messages, she stated almost as an afterthought, “P.S. have you ever done undercover stuff with ACORN housing?” 

To be honest, I didn’t even know what ACORN was.

The Start of ACORN Exposed

The Start of ACORN Exposed

There’s an unwritten rule in journalism you are not supposed to investigate organizations that “help people.” But after reading about ACORN corruption cloaked with good intentions, we decided to investigate how far their willingness to break the law would go.

The job fell to 20 year-old scantily clad Hannah Giles and I, then 24.  She would play the part of the prostitute and I the pimp.  Together we would bring down ACORN and expose the corrupt mainstream media.

It lead John Stewart of the Daily show to declare: “You’re telling me that two kids from the cast of High School Musical 3 can break this story with a video camera and their grandmother’s chinchilla coat, and you’ve got nothing?! Investigative media – where the hell were you?”

Jon Stewart Covers ACORN Videos

Jon Stewart Covers ACORN Videos

For two months, Hannah and I visited nearly a dozen offices around the United States playing the role of a pimp and prostitute, eliciting statements from various ACORN workers about an outlandish situation involving 13 underage El Salvadoran prostitutes.

Time after time, ACORN employees gave Hannah and I advice on how to evade tax law, avoid the police, bury the illicit money it the ground and declare the underage sex workers as “dependents” on our tax returns.

Baltimore ACORN Workers

Baltimore ACORN Workers

I was so broke we bought our props from a dollar store. I didn’t have a car, so I borrowed my sister’s beat up 2001 Grand Marquis.  I took the Chesapeake Bay Bridge route to Washington D.C. simply because the tolls were a few dollars less than the shorter drive on I-95.

After Baltimore, we knew we had something . . .

Tanja Thompson, Baltimore ACORN Worker: “Independent artists, you could be that. Your business is a performing artist, so stop staying prostitute.”

We were shaking with excitement when we watched the footage in my sister’s old car. But we didn’t quite know where to go with the story. Instinctively, I knew the mainstream media would not cover it…but who would?

I didn’t have many connections, but one lead to a man who would change my life, Andrew Breitbart. He had a penchant for publicity and knowledge on how to ‘hack the media.

James, Andrew Breitbart & Hannah Giles

James, Andrew Breitbart & Hannah Giles

When I showed Andrew the clips on my barely functioning ACER laptop , his immediate response was, “This story will embarrass The New York Times.”

NYT Apologizes

The New York Times Apologizes for Weak ACORN Coverage

History,” (i.e. Google and Wikipedia) does not do justice to our elaborate video release strategy. We had anticipated the response of the first release, “one rogue employee.” Predictably, the talking heads on television played right into our hands. A CNN pundit stated on September 10th, with no evidence,“[t]his film crew tried to pull this sham at other offices and failed.” What they didn’t know was that there were half a dozen more bombshells to come.

From September 10th, 2009 through September 16th, we fought with people that buy ink by the barrel, using a Chinese water torture” video release strategy. At first glance the story seemed to be about corruption in a quasi-government group. But in the end, what the story really exposed was how the mainstream media had abdicated their responsibility to be a free and independent press. They were now in the news suppression business.


With their tail between their legs, the New York Times did apologize on September 26th in a piece entitled, “Tuning In Too late.” The managing editor admitted having been “slow off the mark.” The Times ombudsman criticized one of his own reporters for leaving out important facts.  Brooklyn was the third office we visited, where an ACORN employee told us to bury our ill-gotten gains in a tin can in the ground and “put grass over it.”  The Times ombudsman chided the reporter, “I think he should have included New York.”

Wolf Blitzer Covers ACORN

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Covers ACORN Videos


News Ticker Outside of Fox News HQ In Manhattan

News Ticker Outside of Fox News HQ In Manhattan

The day the Brooklyn tape dropped, the Senate voted 83-7 to defund ACORN. The righteous indignation brought by the tapes created a sphere of political consensus unheard of in Washington.

One Beltway reporter described “The stunning, total defeat of ACORN” as “truly an extraordinary series of events.” It was “an important moment in the development of alternative media sources, and official Washington responded before most of the establishment press did.” President Obama, signed the bill stripping ACORN of federal funds passed by a Democratically controlled House and Senate. I’m not even sure the Republicans have the will do that either then, or now.

There was no education or preparation that could have prepared me for the tsunami that followed. I lost 10 pounds on my already gaunt frame in the first week. I barely slept.

James O'Keefe On Fox

James O’Keefe On Fox With Glenn Beck

In the ensuing days, government organizations like the IRS and the Census Bureau cut ties with the organization prompting an avalanche of headlines. The cultural significance of the story was memorialized in episodes of South Park, The Jay Leno Show and the Daily Show.

My fight wasn’t over. There were the 75 phone calls from CNN that came all at once and did not allow me to make an outgoing call. “Don’t pick up the phone,” Andrew implored. He warned they were just trying to personalize the story, attack the messenger and avoid the substance.

A Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post reporter was forced to print a retraction when she suggested that our motivation to expose ACORN was race related.  She wrote that we went after ACORN because they help drive voter registration in black communities. The Post had to print a retraction which read: “Although ACORN registers people mostly from those groups, the maker of the videos, James E O’Keefe, did not specially mention them.”

Another retraction from the Post would come 10 years later, when they inaccurately reported the ACORN videos were proven “false.”

Washington Post Retraction

Washington Post Retraction

There would be a blizzard of attacks against our methods and against our editing, trying to impugn our character. The networks that played the ACORN tapes, first Fox, vetted the raw evidence. And if you’re no fan of Fox’s editorial guidelines, how about The New York Times, Their Pulitzer Prize winner, Clark Hoyt, went through all of the raw evidence and issued a devastating response to the critics:

Acorn’s supporters appear to hope that the whole story will fall apart over the issue of what O’Keefe wore: if that was wrong, everything else must be wrong. The record does not support them. If O’Keefe did not dress as a pimp, he clearly presented himself as one: a fellow trying to set up a woman — sometimes along with under-age girls — in a house where they would work as prostitutes. In Washington, he said the prostitution was to finance his future in politics. A worker for Acorn Housing, an allied group, warned him to stay away from the brothel lest someone “get wind that you got a house and that your girlfriend is over there running a house of women of the night. You will not have a career.” 

The videos were heavily edited. The sequence of some conversations was changed. Some workers seemed concerned for Giles, one advising her to get legal help. In two cities, Acorn workers called the police. But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context. Harshbarger’s report to Acorn found no “pattern of illegal conduct” by its employees. But, he told me: “They said what they said. There’s no way to make this look good.”

There was one defeat. In 2013, I settled a lawsuit with one ACORN employee, who filed a claim that I had violated his privacy rights.

Project Veritas would achieve some justice six years later when we overturned a similar privacy law in Massachusetts, where a Federal judge argued “secret recording is a fundamental right.”

Then in 2019,  a Federal Judge in North Carolina delivered a historic directed verdict in a defamation case. The judge wrote, “if citizens and the media are handcuffed by a fear of liability, that’s detrimental to political discourse, it is detrimental to society as a whole, and it is detrimental, really, to our fundamental freedom….If I’ve gotten this wrong, and the Fourth Circuit says that this is not what the law is, I hesitate to think where the First Amendment is going in this country.”

Doing undercover investigative journalism gets you flak when you effectively and devastatingly expose something. When you do investigative reporting, somebody gets hurt. But what must never be forgotten is that the results will ultimately benefit society. In a democracy, the people’s right to know is necessary if they are to make informed decisions. Legendary reporter Jack Anderson once wrote, “I seem to do my best work when everybody hates me.”

The new sacred cows are media and big tech. The plan, to investigate them. Because sacred cows like every other institution, need to be held accountable. Now is the time to act. 10 years ago, the ACORN story was a couple kids with a video camera and an idea that changed the course of history.

And that’s why, at Project Veritas, 10 years later, the best is yet to come.

Google “Machine Learning Fairness” Whistleblower Goes Public, says: “burden lifted off of my soul”

Par Staff Report
 VIDEO: “the police began looking for me…”
Google Sent Threatening Letter to Google Insider Zachary Vorhies: “they knew what I had done and that letter contained several demands”
HUNDREDS of Internal Google Documents Leaked to Project Veritas… news blacklist, “human raters,” YouTube CEO video…
Google Insider Wants More Insiders to Blow Whistle: “people have been waiting for this Google Snowden moment where somebody comes out and explains what everybody already knows to be true”
 “I felt that our entire election system was going to be compromised forever, by this company that told the American public that it was not going to do any evil”

[This post contains video, click to play]

The internal Google documents are available here.

(San Francisco) A Google insider who anonymously leaked internal documents to Project Veritas made the decision to go public in an on-the-record video interview. The insider, Zachary Vorhies, decided to go public after receiving a letter from Google, and after he says Google allegedly called the police to perform a “wellness check” on him.

Along with the interview, Vorhies asked Project Veritas to publish more of the internal Google documents he had previously leaked. Said Vorhies:

“I gave the documents to Project Veritas, I had been collecting the documents for over a year. And the reason why I collected these documents was because I saw something dark and nefarious going on with the company and I realized that there were going to not only tamper with the elections, but use that tampering with the elections to essentially overthrow the United States.”

(Do you work in Big Tech? Project Veritas would love to hear from you.

In June of 2019, Project Veritas published internal Google documents revealing “algorithmic unfairness.” Vorhies told Project Veritas these were documents that were widely available to full-time Google employees:

“These documents were available to every single employee within the company that was full-time. And so as a fulltime employee at the company, I just searched for some keywords and these documents started to pop up. And so once I started finding one document and started finding keywords for other documents and I would enter that in and continue this cycle until I had a treasure trove and archive of documents that clearly spelled out the system, what they’re attempting to do in very clear language.” 

Vorhies walks towards police with phone in hand.


Shortly after the report including the “algorithmic unfairness” documents was published, Vorhies received a letter from Google containing several “demands.” Vorhies told Project Veritas that he complied with Google’s demands, which included a request for any internal Google documents he may have personally retained. Vorhies also said he sent those documents to the Department of Justice Antitrust Division.

(Project Veritas is hiring. If you want to become an undercover journalist, apply here!)

After having been identified by an anonymous account (which Vorhies believes belongs to a Google employee,) on social media as a “leaker,” Vorhies was approached by law enforcement at his residence in California. According to Vorhies, San Francisco police received a call from Google which prompted a “wellness check.”

Vorhies described the incident to Project Veritas:

“they got inside the gate, the police, and they started banging on my door… And so the police decided that they were going to call in additional forces. They called in the FBI, they called in the SWAT team. And they called in a bomb squad.”

“[T]his is a large way in which [Google tries to] intimidate their employees that go rogue on the company…”

Partial video of the incident was provided to Project Veritas. San Francisco police confirmed to Project Veritas that they did receive a “mental health call,” and responded to Vorhies’ address that day.

“Google Snowden moment”

Project Veritas has released hundreds of internal Google documents leaked by Vorhies. Among those documents is a file called “news black list site for google now.” The document, according to Vorhies, is a “black list,” which restricts certain websites from appearing on news feeds for an Android Google product. The list includes conservative and progressive websites, such as and The document says that some sites are listed with or because of a “high user block rate.”

Another newly published document titled “Fringe ranking/classifer: Defining channel quality” lists an example ranking of various news sites, including CNN and FOX News. A document titled “Fake news & other fringe: Trashy recap” reveals that videos are rated by multiple “human raters.”

One internal Google document labelled “coffee beans” appears to show Google employees discussing diversity hiring practices. A related internal thread of communications also shows an apparent discussion about the “coffee beans” document, where one Google employee expresses concern that the document appears to “misrepresent Google’s hiring practices in a way that could raise legal questions…”

Another thread of internal Google documents shows Google employees discussing President Donald Trump’s infamous “covfefe” tweet, and a proposed plan to change the Google translation of the term.

“You’re going to be a hero”

Vorhies told Project Veritas that he hopes more insiders at Google decide to go public and discuss big tech abuses.

“My message to those that are on the fence is I released the documents. They can go in, they can see everything that Google is doing and then they can see the scale of it. Because I think that there’s a lot of engineers that have a hint that things are wrong, but they don’t understand the colossal scale that it’s at. And so for those people, I say, look at the documents, take the pulse of America, see what’s happening and come and tell the world you know what you already know to be true.”

(Big tech insiders can reach out to Project Veritas here to help expose similar newsworthy wrongdoing.)

Project Veritas requested comment from Google on this story but did not receive a response at the time of this publication.

Leaked documents

Below is an index of internal Google documents Project Veritas received from the Google insider. Each folder can be downloaded by clicking on the links in the table. Project Veritas has not re-named any of the files, but did arrange the documents into the downloadable folders below.

Fake News
Hiring Practices
Leadership Training
Machine Learning Fairness
Psychological Research
Misc and Video
If you work at a big tech company, you can contact Project Veritas below.
Email us via Protonmail:

Send your tips via email to For more security, register for a free protonmail account which allows for end-to-end encryption. Make your free protonmail account here.

UPDATE: Google Engineer Who Went Public Placed on Administrative Leave

Par Staff Report

Greg Coppola, the senior Google engineer who spoke to Project Veritas in an on-the-record interview about alleged bias in Google News and Google Search, has been placed on administrative leave, Project Veritas has learned. This is a developing story, check back for updates.

If you support Coppola and want to send a strong message to other tech insiders, you can donate to his GoFundMe here.

Watch the original video here:


Current Sr. Google Engineer Goes Public on Camera: Tech is “dangerous,” “taking sides”

Par Staff Report

UPDATE: Project Veritas has learned that Greg Coppola has been placed on administrative leave by Google. 

Insider: “It’s time to decide, do we run the technology, or does the technology run us?”
“I really don’t buy the idea that big tech is politically neutral.”
 “Are we going to just let the biggest tech companies decide who wins every election from now on?”
 “I look at search and I look at Google News and I see what it’s doing and I see Google executives go to Congress and say that it’s not manipulated. It’s not political. And I’m just so sure that’s not true.”
 “I have a PhD, I have five years’ experience at Google and I just know how algorithms are. They don’t write themselves. We write them to do what we want them to do.”

Watch the Interview Here


(New York City) Project Veritas has published an on-the-record interview with an insider who works at Google named Greg Coppola. This video interview follows a series of insider Google reports, including internal Google documents, recently published by Project Veritas which exposed political bias, “algorithmic unfairness,” and the use of “blacklists” at YouTube.

Coppola is a senior software engineer at Google who works on artificial intelligence and the Google Assistant:

COPPOLA: I’ve been coding since I was ten [years old.] I have a PhD, I have five years’ experience at Google and I just know how algorithms are. They don’t write themselves. We write them to do what want them to do.”

(Other brave individuals who feel compelled to expose wrongdoing they witness can contact Project Veritas by sending an encrypted email to

“that can be dangerous…”

The insider spoke with Project Veritas because he wants people to be aware of his concerns about technology companies’ ability to influence politics:

COPPOLA: “Well I think we’re just at a really important point in human history. I think for a while we had tech that was politically neutral. Now we have tech that really, first of all is taking sides in a political contest, which I think, you know, anytime you have big corporate power merging with political parties can be dangerous. And I think more generally we have to just decide now that we kind of are seeing tech use its power to manipulate people. It’s a time to decide, you know, do we run the technology, does the technology run us?”

Coppola believes that Google’s political motivations have compromised the integrity of the company’s Search and News products:

COPPOLA: “I think we had a long period, of ten years, let’s say, where we had search and social media that didn’t have a political bias and we kind of got used to the idea that the top search results at Google is probably the answer. And Robert Epstein who testified before Congress last week, um, looked into it and showed that, you know, the vast majority of people think that if something is higher rated on Google Search than another story, that it would be more important and more correct. And you know, we haven’t had time to absorb the fact that tech might have an agenda. I mean, it’s something that we’re only starting to talk about now.”

Asked about Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s testimony to Congress in December 2018, where Pichai said Google’s algorithms are politically unbiased, Coppola said:

COPPOLA: “First of all, I report to Sundar of course. And I have a great deal of respect for him as a manager. I work on the Google Assistant, which really doesn’t have a political bias. Google Assistant is things like, hey, Google, set an alarm for nine AM, play some music, that type of stuff… I think it’s, you know, ridiculous to say that there’s no bias. I think everyone who supports anything other than the Democrats, anyone who’s pro-Trump or in any way deviates from what CNN and the New York Times are pushing, notices how bad it is.”

(Internal documents from big tech companies can be sent to Project Veritas via secure email at

“it was just a chance to work with the best computer scientists in the world”

According to Coppola, the company became more political just before the last presidential election:

COPPOLA: “I started in 2014. 2014 was an amazing time to be at Google. We didn’t talk about politics. No one talked about politics. You know, it was just a chance to work with the best computer scientists in the world, the best facilities, the best computers and free food. I think as the election started to ramp up, the angle that the Democrats and the media took was that anyone who liked Donald Trump was a racist… And that got picked up everywhere. I mean, every tech company, everybody in New York, everybody in the field of computer science basically believed that. A small number of people do work on making sure that certain new sites are promoted. And in fact, I think it would only take a couple out of an organization of 100,000, you know, to make sure that the product is a certain way…

Coppola pointed out that he believes most Google employees are not politically-driven in their work, and that the company is actually very protective of its users’ private data despite public criticism of the company:

COPPOLA: “Most people’s job [at Google] is not political and doesn’t involve politics. I mean there’s a vast number of systems and a lot of them have nothing to do with politics like processing natural language… In fact, I would say that Google actually concerns of the assistant is taking much longer to build the assistant than it would otherwise need to because there is such a respect at Google for privacy and for user data. And I hope you leave this in and I hope people realize that there is really, I would say as an insider at Google there is a lot of interest put in taking care of people’s data and conversely it means that, you know the list of reputations of mappings from new site to some number representing their credibility is probably something I can access.”

The insider expressed concern about going public, but also offered solutions for how to remedy allegations of political bias at Google:

COPPOLA: “I think the biggest problem here is just the overall lack of transparency that we have in our products today. Um, for example, if we had open source software, we would know why each answer was arrived at.”

COPPOLA: Yeah, I mean, I have a job that pays well and has other benefits like working with very intelligent coworkers and really at the forefront of computer science. The Google Assistant is probably the most advanced artificial intelligence system anywhere in the world. Then for someone like me who’s been coding since I was a kid, um, it’s hard to find a job that pushes me to the limits the way working at Google does. But I guess I just, you know, I look at search and I look at Google News and I see what it’s doing and I see Google executives go to Congress and say that it’s not manipulated. It’s not political. And I’m just so sure that’s not true. That it’s, you know, it becomes a lot less fun to work on the product. So it affects you that much. Yeah, definitely. I mean, the thing about Google is if you leave, um, you know, any other salary at any other company will be lower. Hmm. So I do think it’s a sacrifice.”

COPPOLA: “I just want to say to all the non-programmers that I really don’t buy the idea that big tech is politically neutral, and I think we need to start incorporating that into whatever strategy we use to have a democracy going forward.”

Project Veritas will continue to investigate political bias at big tech companies. Insiders at technology companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter can contact Project Veritas via encrypted email at

(Big tech insiders can reach out to Project Veritas by sending an email to to help expose similar newsworthy wrongdoing.)


President Trump Thanks Project Veritas Tech Investigations at White House Social Media Summit

Par Staff Report

[This post contains video, click to play]

On July 11th, 2019, during the Social Media Summit at the White House, President Trump thanked James O’Keefe and Project Veritas for investigating big tech companies. Below is a transcript of the remarks President Trump made:

“We have censorship like nobody has any understanding or nobody can believe. When you see the Google executives, together, and one of their executives decides to… there he is, stand up please! How good… what a great job. Somebody said he’s controversial. He’s not controversial, he’s truthful. He’s truthful. That was a great job. That was one of many. Thank you very much.”

“I’ve watched some of these scenes that have been taped and got through talented people by the way, that have gotten to the public where you see the hatred about our party about our people about our voice. And you see, that’s the collusion.”

“They were totally against me… We didn’t know how far its gets until we, until we had certain of our friends and geniuses that broke into board rooms, you know, got them right in the middle of a meeting. That was incredible, what a service you do, okay? You don’t get credit for it, you should get credit for it.”     

Project Veritas Re-Uploads Google Exposé Taken Down By YouTube Ahead of White House Social Media Summit

Par Staff Report
 Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent “Trump situation” in 2020 on Hidden Cam
 Google “is bent on never letting somebody like Donald Trump come to power again.”
 Google Exec Says Don’t Break Us Up: “smaller companies don’t have the resources” to “prevent next Trump situation”
 Insider Says PragerU Content Suppressed, Targeted As “Right-Wing”
 LEAKED Documents Highlight “Machine Learning Fairness” and Google’s Practices to Make Search Results “fair and equitable”
Trump Supporters “do not agree with our definition of fairness.”
Original Video Link And Documents:
View the video on YouTube here.

(Washington, D.C.) — Hours before attending the Social Media Summit at the White House, Project Veritas has re-released a report on Google which includes undercover video, leaked documents, and testimony from a Google insider.  The report shows a Google executive discussing Google’s plans for the 2020 elections, making reference to “prevent[ing]” the next “Trump situation.”

Project Veritas founder and CEO James O’Keefe was invited to the Social Media Summit at the White House shortly after the initial release of the report. President Trump reacted to the video during an interview with FOX Business host Maria Bartiromo, saying,

“They should be sued. What’s happening with the bias, and now you see it with that executive yesterday from Google the hatred for Republicans.”

O’Keefe accepted the invitation and released a statement:

“If legendary muckrakers like Lincoln Steffens and Ida Tarbell can work alongside Teddy Roosevelt to expose and reform Big Oil — Project Veritas can be synergistic with the Trump administration to pull back the curtain surrounding Big Tech.”

The report includes undercover footage of longtime Google employee and Head of Responsible Innovation, Jen Gennai saying:

“We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like, happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again.”

“We’re also training our algorithms, like, if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?”

Gennai is the head of “Responsible Innovation” for Google, and works on artificial intelligence (A.I.) projects.  In the video, Gennai says “break[ing] up Google” would be a bad thing for political reasons:

“Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.”

Using Artificial Intelligence For A “fair and equitable” State

Google Exposed

According to a Google insider, “Machine Learning Fairness” is one of the many tools Google uses to promote a political agenda.  Documents leaked by a Google informant elaborate on Machine Learning Fairness and the “algorithmic unfairness” that AI product intervention aims to solve. The document partially reads:

“… it may be desirable to consider how we might help society reach a more fair and equitable state, via either product intervention or broader corporate social responsibility efforts.”

Gennai independently confirmed that a Google A.I. projects works towards “fairness:”

“The reason we launched our A.I. principles is because people were not putting that line in the sand, that they were not saying what’s fair and what’s equitable so we’re like, well we are a big company, we’re going to say it.” – Jen Gennai, Head Of Responsible Innovation, Google

Anti-Conservative Bias

Another internal Google document Project Veritas published shows Google employees calling conservative commentators “nazis:”

“…if we understand that PragerU, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro et al are nazis using the dog whistles… I don’t think correctly identifying far-right content is beyond our capabilities. But if it is, why not go with Meredith’s suggestion of disabling the suggestion feature?”

Document recreated by Project Veritas for clarity. The original can be viewed by clicking on this image.

Other internal Google documents Project Veritas received show aspects of Google’s News products. Gennai explains that “conservative sources” and “credible sources” don’t always coincide according to Google’s editorial practices.

“We have gotten accusations of around fairness is that we’re unfair to conservatives because we’re choosing what we find as credible news sources and those sources don’t necessarily overlap with conservative sources …”

The insider shed additional light on how YouTube demotes content from commentators like talk-show host Dave Rubin and independent journalist Tim Pool:

“What YouTube did is they changed the results of the recommendation engine. And so what the recommendation engine is it tries to do, is it tries to say, well, if you like A, then you’re probably going to like B. So content that is similar to Dave Rubin or Tim Pool, instead of listing Dave Rubin or Tim Pool as people that you might like, what they’re doing is that they’re trying to suggest different, different news outlets, for example, like CNN, or MSNBC, or these left leaning political outlets.”

Project Veritas has published a series of internal Google documents and intends to continue investigating abuses in big tech companies. Silicon Valley insiders can share their stories with Project Veritas through their Be Brave campaign.

Other insider investigations can be viewed here:

 (Big tech insiders can reach out to Project Veritas here to help expose similar newsworthy wrongdoing.)


LEAK: Googlers Petition “to end Google’s business with Breitbart,” One Thousand Employees Co-Signed

Par Staff Report
Over 1,000 Google Employees Co-Signed Letter to Target Breitbart as “prohibited content”
Letter: “Dear Sundar…” Googlers Ask For “Removal of from AdSense” and “Blocking of all Google-served ads on”
Google Employees Proactively Review Against “hate policies”
Insider at Google Discusses Documents in Video Interview

[This post contains video, click to play]

(San Francisco) Project Veritas has received and published documents from an insider at Google. The documents show Google employees discussing a letter asking Google leadership “to end Google’s business relationship with Breitbart.”  This is the fifth release in a series of document releases from insiders at Google.

According to the documents, the letter was co-signed by over one thousand Google employees. Breitbart News has published similar materials which reportedly show a group at Google “sought to strike at Breitbart News’ revenue by kicking the site off Google’s market-dominating ad services.”

(Do you work in Big Tech? Project Veritas would love to hear from you.)

Said Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe:

“Google basically says they are impartial publishers of content and therefore are not liable for any content they publish. But these documents show that they are anything but impartial.” 

One of the documents Project Veritas has published shows an internal Google email:

“… I’m sure most of you are aware of the extreme sexism that articles and comments on Breitbart disseminate. For this and many other reasons, my colleagues and I have drafted an internal letter to leadership asking them to end Google’s business relationship with Breitbart and enforce AdSense policies on prohibited content.

Please consider. And if you do agree, please ask others to sign. Our goal is to send the letter to company leadership tomorrow for their consideration. So far, 1186 Googlers have co-signed the letter…”

Another document Project Veritas has published shows a Google email that reads:

“Anyone want to hold their nose and look through for hate spe[e]ch?”

In that same document, another Googler wrote:

“… When sufficient violations have been found we’ll take action at the site level.”

The petition, titled “It’s Time to Remove Breitbart from AdSense,” is addressed to Google CEO Sundar Pichai. A portion of it reads:

“… Concerned Googlers have come together to ask for the: 1. Removal of from AdSense 2. Blocking of all Google-served ads on…”

Said Breitbart New’s Alex Marlow in response to a request for comment on this story:

“This is more confirmation that Google is staffed by many left-wing activists with a totalitarian, un-American desire to silence, defund, and de-platform those with whom they politically disagree,”

A Google insider explained to Project Veritas that the documents show a Google effort to damage Breitbart News for political reasons:

“They are unhappy with the election and they are unhappy with the narratives that are being put out there that contradict the mainstream media’s narrative.”

James O’Keefe will attend the Social Media Summit at the White House this week and plans to discuss Project Veritas’ recent insider Google reports.

Project Veritas intends to continue investigating abuses in big tech companies and encourages more Silicon Valley insiders to share their stories through their Be Brave campaign.

 (Big tech insiders can reach out to Project Veritas here to help expose similar newsworthy wrongdoing.)

White House Invites James O’Keefe to Social Media Summit on Heels of Veritas’ Google Exposé

Par Staff Report

(Washington, D.C.) – Project Veritas founder and CEO, James O’Keefe, has been invited to the White House’s Social Media Summit after Veritas published an investigative report showing political bias at Google.  The Social Media Summit will take place in Washington, D.C. on July 11, 2019.

“If legendary muckrakers like Lincoln Steffens and Ida Tarbell can work alongside Teddy Roosevelt to expose and reform Big Oil,” said James O’Keefe, “Project Veritas can be synergistic with the Trump administration to pull back the curtain surrounding Big Tech.”

Project Veritas recently released documents from a Google insider that show bias against conservatives.  In the first of four releases, Veritas obtained hidden camera footage of a Google executive, Jen Gennai, talking about the company’s plans to “…prevent the next Trump situation.

The Google executive also explained the importance of preserving the size of Google:

“Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.”

President Trump, Senator Ted Cruz, Congressman Dan Crenshaw, and other political leaders cited the Project Veritas Google report in hearings and in the media.  The investigation and supporting documents were mentioned in several Congressional hearings on Capitol Hill in June.

After Project Veritas published the Google expose, the video was removed from YouTube and Vimeo.  The full investigation and subsequent document releases can be viewed here:

The Google exposé was the third in a series of video investigations featuring insiders from Pinterest, Facebook, Google, and YouTube.  Each of them have stepped forward to help Project Veritas expose some of the largest companies in Silicon Valley.

New insiders in tech, government, media and education can reach out to Project Veritas at


Pinterest Insider Joins Project Veritas

Par Project Veritas
Insider Eric Cochran

James O’Keefe and Pinterest Insider Eric Cochran

(New York) – Former Pinterest insider, Eric Cochran, has joined Project Veritas to support its efforts in recruiting insiders in technology, media, government, and education.  In his role with Project Veritas, Cochran will help manage Veritas’ nationwide network of sources and recruit new insiders.

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe, said:

“I am excited to have Eric working with us to encourage more people to blow the whistle on corruption, fraud, and abuse.  With his experience in outing injustice in Big Tech, he will be an invaluable resource in assuring the trust of future Veritas insiders.  Eric is an inspiration and I am proud that he will work with Project Veritas to inspire others to come forward.”

Cochran explained why he choose to join Veritas after he was fired from his job at Pinterest for leaking documents to Project Veritas:

“I’ve decided to work with Project Veritas because I want to continue to make a positive impact in our country and culture.  Insiders will play a major role in exposing the injustices of our world and they’ll help hold the most powerful Big Tech and other organizations accountable for their actions.  I am looking forward to emboldening more insiders to speak the truth.”

Since the beginning of its Be Brave campaign, Project Veritas has released four investigations featuring insiders:

Cochran is the second tech insider who has joined Project Veritas following a termination by their employer.  Other insiders can securely contact Project Veritas at



Project Veritas Sends Google Letters to Congress

Par Staff Report

Project Veritas sent a letter to several Members of Congress informing them about Project Veritas’ investigation of Google that raises some concerns regarding Google’s possible improper intervention in Federal elections which may violate laws like the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).

The letter is a follow up to Project Veritas’ latest investigative report which includes undercover video of Google officials, leaked internal Google documents and emails, and statements provided by a Google insider.

We sent versions of the letter to several members of Congress:

  • Senator Ted Cruz
  • Rep. Louis Gohmert
  • Senator Elizabeth Warren
  • Senator Mike Lee
  • Senator Josh Hawley
  • Senator Richard Blumenthal
  • Senator Ed Markey
  • Rep. David Cicilline
  • Rep. Steve King
  • Rep. Jim Jordan
  • Senator Mark Warner
Read the letter we sent to Senator Ted Cruz below:


LEAK: New Google RESIST Doc Shows “Internal Beginner’s Guide To Protesting,” “Resist@Google”

Par Staff Report
 Newly leaked doc shows coordination of protest through internal “” group
 Suggested signs include, “Resist,” “No Ban No Wall,” “#NoMuslimBan #No Wall”
 EXAMPLE CHANT: “From Palestine to Mexico, All the walls have got to go”

The full document can be accessed HERE.

(New York) — Project Veritas has obtained a document from an insider at Google which appears to show internal suggestions of how to protest political events.

Said Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe:

“This document leak is the fourth in a series of leaks from inside Google and their subsidiary, YouTube.  This new document appears to show internal coordination of political protests which contradicts Google’s public statements that they are politically neutral.  More tech insiders are coming forward and we will continue to work with them to expose the secrets of Silicon Valley.”

(Do you work in Big Tech? Project Veritas would love to hear from you.)

The document, labeled “The Beginner’s Guide to Protesting (#GooglersUnite)”, states it was created to:

“assemble best practices and ensure that everyone feels comfortable and pumped about marches/protests.”

The document includes politically-charged “Example Chants”:

In the section titled the “Do’s and Don’ts”, the document tells readers that they should not “feel obligated to stop at crosswalks” and that the “point is to disrupt.”

The full document can be accessed HERE.

Google executive Jen Gennai’s said in response the first of four Project Veritas Google reports:

“Google has repeatedly been clear that it works to be a trustworthy source of information, without regard to political viewpoint. In fact, Google has no notion of political ideology in its rankings.”

More insiders can securely share their stories with Project Veritas at  Project Veritas seeks impactful stories from insiders in technology, government, media, and education.

(Do you work in Big Tech? Project Veritas would love to hear from you.)
Document Below:


Par Staff Report
 Blocked terms include “Abortion is murder”, “Repeal the 8th,” “Irish Catholic,” “Pro-life”
 Ireland’s 8th Amendment Protected The Right to Life of Unborn
UPDATE: Breitbart News obtained a response from YouTube: “… In the midst of the Irish referendum on abortion, our systems brought authoritative content to the top of our search results for abortion-related queries. This happened for both pro-choice and pro-life queries, there was no distinction.” 

(New York) Project Veritas has obtained a document from an insider at YouTube which appears to show the manipulation of political content in an Irish elections.

The document entitled, “youtube_controversial_query_blacklist,” seems to show a series of blacklisted terms by YouTube.  These terms include phrases that are directly related to the referendum that occurred in May of 2018 to repeal the 8th Amendment in Ireland.

The 8th Amendment, which was successfully repealed in May of 2018, was an amendment to the Irish Constitution that recognized the right to life of the unborn.




Said Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe:

“On Monday Project Veritas released a viral investigation that raised questions of Google’s interference in American elections.  This new document shows their subsidiary, YouTube, appeared to have attempted to influence elections in Ireland.”

These documents seem to corroborate Breitbart’s 2018 story that exposed YouTube’s black list.

The newly leaked document contradicts Google executive Jen Gennai’s public statement that:

“Google has repeatedly been clear that it works to be a trustworthy source of information, without regard to political viewpoint. In fact, Google has no notion of political ideology in its rankings.”

Project Veritas’ Google investigation has elicited responses from President Donald Trump and has been discussed in Senate and Congressional hearings.

Insiders can securely share their stories with Project Veritas at  Project Veritas seeks impactful stories from insiders in technology, government, media, and education.

Rep. Crenshaw Grills Google Executive Over LEAKED Email Published by Veritas

Par Staff Report

On June 26 2019, during a US Homeland Security Hearing, Texas Congressman Dan Crenshaw questioned Mr. Derek Slater, Google Global Director of Information Policy over revelations of a leaked email Project Veritas published yesterday. Said Rep. Crensaw:

“According to those emails, the emails say, given that Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Dennis Prager are Nazis, given that that’s a premise, what do we do about it?”

You can watch a video clip of the hearing here:

[This post contains video, click to play]

A partial transcript of the hearing is available below:

From Texas for five minutes. Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you Mr Chairman and thank you for some of some of the thoughtful discussion on how you combat terrorism online and there’s where the debates to be had there. Um, and there’s, there’s good questions on whether some of this content provides education so that we know of the bad things out there or whether it’s radicalizing people. Those are hard. Those are hard discussions to have and I don’t know that we’re going to solve them today. But the problem is is that the testimony doesn’t stop there. The, the policies at your social media companies do not stop there. It doesn’t stop with the clear cut lines of terrorism and terrorist videos and terrorist propaganda. Unfortunately, that’s not exactly what we’re talking about. It goes much further than that. It goes down the slippery slope of what speech is appropriate for your platform and the vague standards that you employ in order to decide what is appropriate.

And this is especially concerning given the recent news and the recent leaked emails from Google, they show that labeling mainstream conservative media as Nazis is a premise upon which you operate. It’s not even a question. According to those emails, the emails say, given that Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Dennis Prager are Nazis, given that that’s a premise, what do we do about it? Two of three of these people are Jewish, very religious Jews. And yet you think there are Nazis. It begs the question, what kind of education people at Google have to, they think that religious Jews are Nazis. Three of three of these people had family members killed the Holocaust, Ben Shapiro’s is the number one target of the alt right. And yet you people operate off the premise that he’s a Nazi. It’s a pretty disturbing and it gets to the question, do you believe in hate speech? How do you define that or do you, can you give me a quick definition right now? Is it written down somewhere? Google, can you give me a definition of hate speech?

Yes. So hate speech again, as updated in our guidelines now extends to, uh, uh, superiority over protected groups to justify discrimination, violence, and so on based on, uh, a number of defining characteristics, whether that’s a race, sexual orientation, veterans.

Do you have an example of Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson, Dennis Prager engaging in hate speech. Give one example off the top of your head.

So, congressman, we evaluate individual piece of content based on that content rather than based on the speaker.

Okay, let’s, let’s get to the next question. Do you believe speech can be violence? All right, though there’s, there’s not, not can you incite violence that is very clearly not protected, but can speech just be violence. Do you believe that speech that isn’t specifically calling for violence can be labeled violence and therefore harmful to people? Is that possible?

Congressman, I’m not sure I fully understand the distinction you’re drawing. Certainly, again, incitement to violence or things that aren’t urgent, dangerous behavior. Those are things that would be against our policies.

Here’s, here’s, here’s the thing. When you call somebody a Nazi or you can make the argument that you’re inciting violence and here’s how, as a country, we all agree that Nazis are bad. We actually invaded an entire continent to defeat the Nazis. It’s normal to say Hashtag punch a Nazi because there’s this common thread among this in this country that they’re bad and that there yeah, evil and that they should be destroyed. So when you’re operating off of that premise and it’s frankly, it’s a, it’s a good premise to operate on. Well, what you’re implying then is that it’s okay to use violence against them when you label them, when one of the most powerful social media companies in the world labels people as Nazis, you could make the argument that’s inciting violence. What you’re doing is wholly irresponsible. It doesn’t stop there. Well, a couple of years ago it was also made clear that you fact check system is blatantly targeted conservative newspapers. Do you have any comments on that? Are you aware of the story? I’m talking, about?

I’m not familiar with necessarily the specific story, congressman. I am aware that from all political viewpoints, we sometimes get questions of this sore. I can say that our fact check labels generally are done algorithmically based on a mark up and follow up on our policies

for the, for the record, they specifically target conservative news media and often times they don’t even, they have a fact check on there that doesn’t even reference the actual article. But Google makes sure that it’s right next to it. So as to make people understand that that one is questionable even though when you actually read through and it has nothing to do with it. Um, you know, a few days ago and this goes to Miss Bikert, uh, one of my constituents posted photos on Facebook of Republican women, daring to say that there are women for Trump. Facebook took down that post right away with no explanation. Is there any explanation for that?

Without seeing it,It’s hard for me to apply and that doesn’t violate our policies, but I’m happy to follow up on this specific example with you.

Thank you. Listen here, here’s what it comes down to. If we don’t share the values of free speech, I’m not sure where we go from here. You know, this practice of silencing millions and millions of people, it will create wounds and divisions in this country that we can not heal from. This is extremely worrisome. You’ve created amazing and platforms. We can do amazing things with what, what these companies have created, but if we continue down this path, it’ll tear us apart. You do not have a constitutional obligation to enforce the First Amendment, but I would say that you absolutely have an obligation to enforce American values, and the first amendment is an underpinning of American values that we should be protecting until the day we die. Thank you, and thank you for indulging me, Mister chairman. Thank you.

Veritas Fights Back: Attorneys Send Letter to YouTube

Par Staff Report

We are fighting back.

YouTube, owned by Google, has removed our video news report of insider information that is critical of Google. Below is a letter we sent to YouTube demanding they restore our video.

Social media sites like YouTube, Facebook and Pinterest enjoy a protection from lawsuits regarding the content posted on their platform providing they do not censor the posts. YouTube is obviously censoring our news report under the guise of some unidentified privacy complaint. In other words they used one unidentified complaint to prevent the public from learning the information the Google insider courageously provided.

At the core of this issue is an undeniable fact: Big Tech is brazenly censoring investigative journalism with impunity.

Senator Cruz Grills Google Executive Over Insider Story

Par Staff Report

On June 25 2019, during a US Senate Committee hearing, Texas Senator Ted Cruz questioned Ms. Maggie Stanphill, Director of Google User Experience over the findings of Project Veritas’ recent investigative report featuring insider testimony, undercover video of a Google executive, and leaked internal documents. Said Senator Cruz:

“Well I think these, these documents raise very serious questions about political bias.”

You can watch a video clip of the hearing here:

[This post contains video, click to play]

Below is a partial transcript of the exchange between Senator Cruz and Ms. Stanphill.

CRUZ: Are you familiar with the report that was released yesterday from Veritas, that included a whistleblower from within Google that included videos from a senior executive at Google, and it included documents that are reportedly internal powerpoint documents from google.

GOOGLE: Yes I heard about that report in news.

CRUZ: Have you seen the report?

GOOGLE: No I did not.

CRUZ: So you didn’t review the report to prepare fr this meeting?

GOOGLE: It’s been a busy day and I have a day job which is Digital Well-being at Google so I’m trying to make sure…

CRUZ: Well I’m sorry that this meeting is impinging on your day job.

GOOGLE: It’s a great opportunity thank you.

CRUZ: One of the things in that report and I would recommend people interested in political bias at Google watch the entire report and judge for themselves, there’s a video from a woman Jen Gennai, it’s a secret video that was recorded, Jen Gennai as I understand is the head of responsible innovation for google. Are you familiar with Miss Gennai?

GOOGLE:  I work in user experience and I believe that AI group is somebody is somebody that works on AI principles. But it’s a big company and I don’t work directly with Jen.

CRUZ: Do you know her or no?

GOOGLE: I do not know Jen.

CRUZ: As I understand that she is shown in the video saying, and this is a quote, “Elizabeth warren is saying that we should break up google. And like I love her, but she is very misguided. Like that will not make it better. It  will make it worse. Because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do, will be charged with preventing the next trump situation. It’s like a small company cannot do that.” Do you think its Google’s job to quote, “prevent the next trump situation?”

GOOGLE: Thank you senator. I don’t agree with that. No sir.

CRUZ: So a different individual, a whistleblower identified simply as an insider at Google with knowledge of the algorithm, was quoted on the same report as saying, google is quote “bent on never letting someone like Donald Trump come to power again.” You think its google’s job to make sure quote “somebody like Donald Trump never comes to power again?”

GOOGLE: No sir I don’t think that is Google’s job and we build for everyone including every single religious belief, every single demographic, every single region, and certain every single political affiliation.

CRUZ: Well I have to say that certainly doesn’t appear to be the case. Of the senior executives at Google, do you know a single one that voted for Donald Trump?

GOOGLE: Thank you senator. I’m a user experience director and I work on google digital well-being, I can tell you we have diverse use…

CRUZ: Did you know of anyone that voted for Trump.

GOOGLE: I definitely know of people that voted for Trump.

CRUZ: Of the senior executives at Google.

GOOGLE: I don’t talk politics with my workmates.

CRUZ: Is that a no?

GOOGLE: Sorry is that a no to what?

CRUZ: DO you know any senior executives, even a single senior executive at the company that voted for Donald Trump?

GOOGLE: as the digital well-being expert I don’t think this is in my purview to comment… I definitely don’t know…

CRUZ: Let’s talk about one of the PowerPoints that was leaked. The Veritas report has Google internally saying “I propose we make machine learning intentionally human centered and intervene for fairness.” Is this document accurate?

GOOGLE: Thank you sir, I don’t know about this document so I don’t know.

CRUZ: Okay I’m going to ask you to respond to the committee in writing afterwards as to whether this PowerPoint and the other documents are included in the veritas report, whether  those are  accurate. And I recognize that your lawyers may want to write explanation, you’re welcome to write all the explanation that you want but I also want a simple clear answer is this an accurate document that was generated by google. Do you agree with the sentiment expressed in this document?

GOOGLE: No sir I do not.

CRUZ: Going to read you another, also in this report, it indicates that Google according this whistleblower, deliberately makes recommendations if someone is searching for conservative commentators, deliberately shifts the recommendations so instead of recommending other conservative commentators it recommends organizations like CNN or MSNBC or left leaning political outlets. Is that occurring?

GOOGLE: Thank you sir, I can’t comment I can’t comment on search algorithms or recommendations given my purview as Digital Well-being lead. I can take that back to my team though.

CRUZ: So is it part of Digital Well-being for search recommendations to reflect the where user wants to go than deliberately shifting where they want to go?

GOOGLE: As a user experience professional, we focus on delivering on user goals. So we try to get out of the way and on the task at hand.

CRUZ: So a final question, one of these documents that was leaked explains what Google is doing and it has a series of stamps, training data, collected and classified, algorithms are programmed, media are filtered ranked and aggregated, and that ends with, people, parenthesis, like us, are programmed. Does Google view its job as programming people with search results?

GOOGLE: Thank you senator. I can’t speak for the whole entire company, but I can tell you that we make sure that we put our users first in design.

CRUZ: Well I think these questions, these documents raise very serious questions about political bias.

BREAKING: New Google Document Leaked Describing Shapiro, Prager, as ‘nazis using the dogwhistles’

Par Staff Report

(New York) – Project Veritas has obtained a newly leaked document from Google that appears to show a Google employee and member of Google “transparency-and-ethics” group calling conservative and libertarian commentators, including Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro, “nazis.”  Project Veritas received this document after the release of its investigation into Google through the “Be Brave” campaign at

Other big tech insiders can contact Project Veritas HERE.

The email apparently was sent as part of the Google “transparency-and-ethics” group internal communications and suggests that content from PragerU, Jordan Peterson, and Ben Shapiro should be disabled from the “suggestion feature.”

“…if we understand that PragerU, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro et al are nazis using the dog whistles…”
Google Redacted

Click to see larger image.

“I don’t think correctly identifying far-right content is beyond our capabilities. But if it is, why not go with Meredith’s suggestion of disabling the suggestion feature?”

After the release of our Google investigation, Google Senior Executive Jen Gennai posted on Medium saying:

“Google has repeatedly been clear that it works to be a trustworthy source of information, without regard to political viewpoint. In fact, Google has no notion of political ideology in its rankings.” – Jen Gennai, Head of Responsible Innovation at Google

The leaked document appears to contradict Jen Gennai’s claim that Google has “no notions of political ideology in its search rankings.”

Google Redacted

The video was pulled down by YouTube yesterday citing “privacy violations.”  Viewers can still watch the video in the following places:

Additional insiders can share their stories with Project Veritas securely at  Project Veritas plans to continue recruiting insiders in technology, government, media, and education.



Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent “Trump situation” in 2020 on Hidden Cam

Par Staff Report
BIG UPDATE: YouTube has REMOVED the video from their platform. The video is still available on this website page.
UPDATE 1: Congressman Louie Gohmert issued a statement, saying “Google should not be deciding whether content is important or trivial and they most assuredly should not be meddling in our election process. They need their immunity stripped…”
UPDATE 2: Google executive Jen Gennai RESPONDED to the video, saying, “I was having a casual chat with someone at a restaurant and used some imprecise language. Project Veritas got me. Well done.” 
Insider: Google “is bent on never letting somebody like Donald Trump come to power again.”
Google Head of Responsible Innovation Says Elizabeth Warren “misguided” on “breaking up Google”
Google Exec Says Don’t Break Us Up: “smaller companies don’t have the resources” to “prevent next Trump situation”
Insider Says PragerU And Dave Rubin Content Suppressed, Targeted As “Right-Wing”
LEAKED Documents Highlight “Machine Learning Fairness” and Google’s Practices to Make Search Results “fair and equitable”
Documents Appear to Show “Editorial” Policies That Determine How Google Publishes News
Insider: Google Violates “letter of the law” and “spirit of the law” on Section 230


(New York City) — Project Veritas has released a new report on Google which includes undercover video of a Senior Google Executive, leaked documents, and testimony from a Google insider.  The report appears to show Google’s plans to affect the outcome of the 2020 elections and “prevent” the next “Trump situation.”

The report includes undercover footage of longtime Google employee and Head of Responsible Innovation, Jen Gennai saying:

“Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.”

Jen Gennai

Said Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe:

“This is the third tech insider who has bravely stepped forward to expose the secrets of Silicon Valley.  These new documents, supported by undercover video, raise questions of Google’s neutrality and the role they see themselves fulfilling in the 2020 elections.”

Jen Gennai is the head of “Responsible Innovation” for Google, a sector that monitors and evaluates the responsible implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies.  In the video, Gennai says Google has been working diligently to “prevent” the results of the 2016 election from repeating in 2020:

“We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again.”

“We’re also training our algorithms, like, if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?”

Google: Artificial Intelligence Is For A “fair and equitable” State

According to the insider, Machine Learning Fairness is one of the many tools Google uses to promote a political agenda.  Documents leaked by a Google informant elaborate on Machine Learning Fairness and the “algorithmic unfairness” that AI product intervention aims to solve:

Google Exposed

Click to enlarge

Google Exposed

Click to enlarge

The insider showed Google search examples that show Machine Learning Fairness in action.

Google Machine Learning Fairness

Click to enlarge

“The reason we launched our A.I. principles is because people were not putting that line in the sand, that they were not saying what’s fair and what’s equitable so we’re like, well we are a big company, we’re going to say it.” – Jen Gennai, Head Of Responsible Innovation, Google

The Google insider explained the impact of artificial intelligence and Machine Learning Fairness:

“They’re going to redefine a reality based on what they think is fair and based upon what they want, and what and is part of their agenda.”

Determining credible news and an editorial agenda. . .

Additional leaked documents detail how Google defines and prioritizes content from different news publishers and how its products feature that content.  One document, called the “Fake News-letter” explains Google’s goal to have a “single point of truth” across their products.


Google Exposed

Click to enlarge

Another document received by Project Veritas explains the “News Ecosystem” which mentions “editorial guidelines” that appear to be determined and administered internally by Google.  These guidelines control how content is distributed and displayed on their site.

Google Exposed

Click to enlarge

The leaked documents appear to show that Google makes news decisions about what news they promote and distribute on their site.

Comments made by Gennai raise similar questions.  In a conversation with Veritas journalists, Gennai explains that “conservative sources” and “credible sources” don’t always coincide according to Google’s editorial practices.

“We have gotten accusations of around fairness is that we’re unfair to conservatives because we’re choosing what we find as credible news sources and those sources don’t necessarily overlap with conservative sources …” 

The insider shed additional light on how YouTube demotes content from influencers like Dave Rubin and Tim Pool:

“What YouTube did is they changed the results of the recommendation engine. And so what the recommendation engine is it tries to do, is it tries to say, well, if you like A, then you’re probably going to like B. So content that is similar to Dave Rubin or Tim Pool, instead of listing Dave Rubin or Tim Pool as people that you might like, what they’re doing is that they’re trying to suggest different, different news outlets, for example, like CNN, or MSNBC, or these left leaning political outlets.”


Internal Google Document: “People Like Us Are Programmed” 

An additional document Project Veritas obtained, titled “Fair is Not the Default” says “People (like us) are programmed” after the results of machine learning fairness.  The document describes how “unconscious bias” and algorithms interact.

Click to enlarge

Veritas is the “Only Way”

Said the insider:

“The reason why I came to Project Veritas is that you’re the only one I trust to be able to be a real investigative journalist.  Investigative journalist is a dead career option, but somehow, you’ve been able to make it work.  And because of that I came to Project Veritas because I knew that this was the only way that this story would be able to get out to the public.”

“I mean, this is a behemoth, this is a Goliath, I am but a David trying to say that the emperor has no clothes. And, um, being a small little ant I can be crushed, and I am aware of that. But, this is something that is bigger than me, this is something that needs to be said to the American public.”

Project Veritas intends to continue investigating abuses in big tech companies and encourages more Silicon Valley insiders to share their stories through their Be Brave campaign.

As of publishing, Google did not respond to Project Veritas’ request for comment.  Additional leaked Google documents can be viewed HERE.

Other insider investigations can be viewed here:

 (Big tech insiders can reach out to Project Veritas here to help expose similar newsworthy wrongdoing.)

Reporter: Christian Hartsock

TIP OF THE SPEAR: Veritas Insiders Take On Next Tech Giant

Par James O'Keefe

On Monday, Project Veritas will launch our next investigation into the most powerful entities in the world, and it won’t be anything like what the scientist in this scene experienced.

In a recent series called Chernobyl, the head of the KGB confronts a dissident scientist for telling the truth.  The KGB Chairman asserts the power of the state and argues that it would be impossible to resist with heroism:

KGB Chairman:

“You’re one of us, Legasov. I can do anything I want with you.  But what I want most is for you to know that I know. You’re not brave.  You’re not heroic.  You’re just a dying man who forgot himself.”


“I know who I am, and I know what I’ve done.  In a just world, I’d be shot for my lies, but not for this, not for the truth.”

KGB Chairman:

“Scientists and your idiotic obsessions with reason.  When the bullet hits your skull, what will it matter why?

“…Your testimony today will not be accepted by the State. It will not be disseminated in the press.  It never happened.  No, you will live, however long you have, but not as a scientist, not anymore.  You’ll keep your title and your office, but no duties, no authority, no friends. No one will talk to you.  No one will listen to you.  Other men, lesser men, will receive credit for the things you have done.  Your legacy is now their legacy.” 

“…You will remain so immaterial to the world around you that when you finally do die, it will be exceedingly hard to know that you ever lived at all.”


“What if I refuse?”

KGB Chairman:

“Why worry about something that isn’t going to happen?”

Something that isn’t going to happen. As Lord Acton once said, “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Those in power often believe that they are above the law, that resistance is futile.

This was on the mind of the Big Tech insider who is the subject of our next story.  As I was recently dropping him off at his hotel room, he was worried about whether his efforts would make a difference. He was even afraid for his life.

He was waiting for our call for a long time. He desired the truth to be disseminated, but he had given up some hope.

I told him we were pursuing the story endlessly since our recent phone call. I told him about all the specific sources and undercover work that we had done; spending 25% of our time treasure and talent working for the last two years trying to expand upon the truth of what he had recently told Project Veritas.  We also obtained confidential internal documents corroborating what he told us.  I showed these documents to my team, endlessly expressing their importance, and informed him it was my main mission for the last year.

Upon hearing all that we had done, without knowing about it or being given an update for a year, he burst out into tears and hugged me profusely.  It was like a valve within him was released and the tears came pouring.  He knew at the moment everything was going to be okay.

“This will have made all the difference now.  It doesn’t matter what I do next in my life, everything else is a bonus after this.  They won’t be able to hurt me now.  They won’t be able to put me in an information box.  With what I’ve gone through, I will not be irrelevant, it will not be in vain.” 

These stories wouldn’t be possible without brave insiders who were willing to blow the whistle and sacrifice everything. 

Before this launch, I want to explain why these brave souls are coming to us…

The common theme among the people coming to us is that they have a “justice complex.” Their love of their country and of the truth is so strong, they are willing to overcome fear of retaliation against their reputation, against their family, and the fear of losing their careers.

Friends, a movement of heroes is coming forward, and we haven’t seen anything like this since the time of the Boston Tea party.

People have had enough of the media’s misrepresentations, omissions, and lies. Oligarchs want to put information into a box and it is motivating the citizen journalist to take action.  To be brave.  To do something.


Citizen journalists have a long tradition of being motivated by a deep thirst for truth and justice.

Thomas Jefferson said society needed newspapers more than they needed government.  He also thought every man must be capable of reading the news.  Jefferson saw a civil responsibility in everyone because every person must engage with reality.

Journalism shapes the way that people consider important issues.  It builds moral consensus and creates what investigative journalist Ida Tarbell called, “righteous indignation.”

Publishing the truth about public and private institutions is crucial because politics is downstream from culture, and culture is downstream from the media itself.

It is the journalist’s responsibility to assist in creating an informed public that can hold the government accountable. When the media fails to inform the public –- as they have for decades –- the government isn’t held accountable.  Citizen journalists are then required to find the truth for themselves.

The synthetic nature of current media packages doesn’t challenge the status quo but reinforces it.  Many news outlets may have started out to pursue the truth, but the cult of personality, aggregation, and opinion is far more monetizable than intrepid investigations that shake core assumptions.

Today’s crisis is that mass media has become an industrial system of production that manufactures public consent.  The end goal is ratings and political influence, not the pursuit of truth.  They seek to bury the truth because it shatters the narratives and illusions that are necessary to continue their ratings.

Most responsible journalists know this.  It’s been said in different ways by Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky and by President Trump when he talks about “Fake News.”  Even a CNN producer that Project Veritas covertly filmed admitted that the Russia-Trump collusion story was “bulls**t” and that it was done “for ratings.”

“All the nice cutesy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school you’re just like, that’s adorable… This is a business.” – John Bonifield, CNN

Legendary muckraker Lincoln Steffens spent a lifetime documenting the “shame of the cities,” and his realization was that true reform begins at home.  Citizens cannot rely upon their elected representative or favorite newspaper.  Individuals must take reform upon ourselves.

To that end, Daniel Boorstin, former Librarian of the United States Congress, wrote:

“In our world of big names, our true heroes tend to be anonymous. In this life of illusion and quasi-illusion, the person of solid virtues who can be admired for something more substantial than his well-knowness often proves to be the unsung hero: the teacher, the nurse, the mother, the honest cop, the hard worker at lonely, underpaid, unglamorous, unpublicized jobs.” — Boorstin

For these reasons, we, the citizens, not the media or those elected in government, must be the tip of the spear.  Citizens must toss themselves into the arena to expose the truth.

You don’t have to be a big name to change the world, you can wear a camera and be a part of the Veritas Army.

Regardless of the consequences, our country desperately needs more people to speak up and do something brave.

But people are afraid…

Most People Are Afraid

When you ask, “what can I do,” you know that if you challenge the forces of conformity, the system will come down upon you — and it’s only getting worse.

The paradox is that what’s required is service and sacrifice from the salt of the earth person who has no interest in being in the spotlight.

Most people worry about the negative reaction of speaking up.  Shaking up society with citizen journalism requires a moral courage that sometimes seems too hard.

Nobody comes away unscathed but there is a silver lining: the arc of the moral universe is long, and it bends toward justice.

The cost of not acting is far greater than the cost of action.

The alternative is a world that Andrew Breitbart told me about: a world where citizens are on a leash, dancing to the tune of those who hold them captive, a world resulting from the inaction of feckless moral cowards.  Taken to the extreme — this devolves into a dystopia like the one described in The Gulag Archipelago where citizens sell out their own brothers and sisters to save themselves from retaliation by the state.

More modern examples of this are the media institutions that garnish praise, and the tech overlords that have monopolized information, determining which opinions are allowed to be found in a search.  Even worse, a world where these tech companies are hiring journalists to bribe or squash any dissenting voices.

Time-and-time again Veritas is attacked in every way, and from every angle imaginable, and time-and-time again we have refused to be leashed or to dance to the tune of the palace guard whose efforts seek to break our will and shut us down.

As someone who is attacked more than most presidential candidates, I know exactly what this is like.  Here are just a few of my own personal experiences.

Dean Baquet and The New York Times

In the Fall of 2017, Veritas released a four-part investigation into The New York Times.  This series uncovered a Times employee who admitted that his reporting wasn’t objective.

Another Times employee revealed her politically biased agenda against President Trump.  She scolded the Vice President for having religious views.  And yet another employee, with over 20 years at the Times, admitted that everyone there “hates Trump.”

After the Times terminated one of the employees that our journalists filmed, the head of the NYT, Dean Baquet, called me despicable at an event that aired on CSPAN.  He said that Veritas was “despicable” and “isn’t journalism.”

Dean Baquet

James O’Keefe confronting the Times’ Dean Baquet in 2017

To have the god of the journalism world unequivocally chastise you with an ad hominem attack was not as hard for me as it may have been hard for others.  He publicly said what he had to say.

A year later, things became more interesting when I saw Dean Baquet at a conference at the Duquesne University National Conference on the First Amendment.

At the conference in Pittsburgh, there was a dinner for top journalists at a nearby restaurant.  At the event, the President of the University invited me to attend to offer some remarks.

Some of the people there did think that what Project Veritas does is journalism.  Sitting nearby was Marty Barron, the Executive Editor of the Washington Post along with some other big names in media.

The conference represented for me, quite literally the “seat at the table!”  I felt proud to be in a room with all these distinguished journalists, and slightly ashamed that I was proud, given how we had skewered their sacred cows at one time or another.

There was even Sreenath Sreenivasan, one of the Deans of Columbia Journalism who I had confronted with a microphone in 2011 as part of our “To Catch a Journalist Series.”  At the time, Sree stood up from his chair and started filming me.  There were sneers and jeers against what I had done at the time; Columbia Journalism students all mocking me with delight, looking for an angle to protect their esteemed faculty.

This time, Sree smiled awkwardly when he saw me, looked slightly uncomfortable and gave me a wet noodle handshake.  We made small talk about what he’s doing now, and he pivoted to the man standing next to me.

I decided to approach the Times’ Dean Baquet to say hello, and it was me that was nervous.  I had expected Baquet to feign friendliness in a social and collegial type of way.  Maybe with his voice lowered, to be gently adversarial.

Or perhaps to say, “You got us good with that Nick Dudich story” and shake my hand, maybe even offer a slight bit of praise notwithstanding whatever criticisms he had about us.   He and I were, after all, in a room celebrating the 1st Amendment.

But when I walked up, Mr. Baquet grimaced and quickly turned his back to me.  He didn’t even want to acknowledge my presence and couldn’t even look me in the eye.

The Executive Editor of The New York Times tells C-Span I’m despicable, then apparently is ashamed to acknowledge my existence.  All of this while sitting in a conference acknowledging our rights to inform our fellow citizens.  “He doesn’t even think I’m human,” I thought privately.

In that moment, Mr. Baquet and I were both grappling with different but equally profound realizations.  On my end, I had to come to grips with the fact the supposed paragon of investigative-journalism “All the News that’s Fit to Print” would never even give me the time of day.

I will confess before that moment, there was still a tiny but dwindling part of me that wanted recognition from press I sought to hold accountable.  Perhaps it was at a 40% level a decade ago when I started, lower than most.  That morning it was probably down to 4%, but that piece still existed, hanging by a thread.

I read The New York Times every morning in college.  As big and powerful as he was, he was not used to others holding him accountable.  He couldn’t grapple with an institution, Project Veritas, or the leader of it, personifying the supposed values he cherishes, that he is supposed to espouse, at a 1st Amendment conference no less!

If he truly did publicly adhere to at least some of his principles, he would have nothing by which to fear.  The unwillingness to engage was emblematic of the Old Guard’s view of the world.

Integrity would have demanded the acknowledgment of my presence at the conference and a discussion of the merits of what we had done that led him to “deal with” his own employee’s misconduct.  But not for Project Veritas, he would have taken no disciplinary action against Nick Dudich.  Therefore, the merits of our investigative journalism should be self-evident to a man who does these sorts of things for a living.

Faced with this ultimate irony and confronted by me as the leader of Project Veritas quite literally standing next to him; he could do nothing but wince, hoping I would walk away.   There was no camera filming his insecurities, so he didn’t have to pretend.   In that moment, he was no longer the head of the Old Grey Lady.  He wasn’t even, as the saying goes, a former hero who now became a competitor.

He was just a man in a restaurant.

My hand still extended, I withdrew it.  The 4% within me that sought the praise was reduced to zero.

And with that, my collar had come completely off.

This isn’t the only example.

The Grueling Coordinated Attack from New York’s Attorney General and the Media

Another one happened in the Fall of 2017 as Veritas was attacked by many news outlets that our journalists have exposed (CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times).

The sudden increase in negative news emboldened the now-disgraced former New York Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, to unleash an audit of Project Veritas.  His reasoning was that Veritas needed to be audited because of a missed-checkbox on a form from nine years ago.  While that checkbox was immediately corrected — nine years ago — it was the justification that Schneiderman needed to begin saber rattling, and it quickly set off a chain reaction.

As unbelievable as this may sound, Schneiderman’s office actually sent our audit letter to The NY Daily News before they even sent it to us.  As a result, journalists were calling us and asking for comment before I had even received anything from the AG office.

The NY Daily News published this misleading front-page headline that I had lied “about conviction”:

Daily News

It didn’t stop there. The supposed “investigation” encouraged others to come after Project Veritas.

I soon learned that Tom Bridge, the Associate General Counsel of Fidelity Investments, was refusing to pass along donations from our supporters.  Fidelity was refusing to honor our donors’ intent and they sought to justify it on the basis of saber rattling from an Attorney General.

At the time, I thought to myself: What’s next?  Is the power company going to cut our power because it’s considered politically unsavory to supply us with electricity?  Is the bank going to take away our accounts because they disagree with our editorial decisions?

Our donors stood their ground, telling Fidelity that they would close their accounts if their intentions weren’t honored.

One donor told me, “You must be doing something right James.  I’m getting calls from The New York Times on my home phone!”

That matter was quickly resolved, and Fidelity realized that Project Veritas had done nothing wrong.

But of course, the media felt compelled to try to stop Project Veritas.

National news outlets — including The Times, Buzzfeed, and The Daily Beast — called many of our donors in order to shame them to stop supporting us.  But our donors weren’t afraid, they saw the existential nature of our fight and ultimately doubled their commitments.

To top it all off, other Attorneys General suddenly started sending us audits as well.  All of this over a missed check box from nine years ago, that was corrected nine years ago.

The Attorney General of New York apparently did compromise his own principles, and he resigned a few months after in disgrace after a sexual harassment report surfaced.

Teachers Union President Sues for “Selective Editing”

Veritas recently had to spend $350,000 in legal fees to defend our name for exposing the truth.  In June of 2016, Project Veritas released a video where Steve Wentz, President of the Wichita Teachers Union, made outrageous comments about how he treats students that give him trouble.  Here’s what he said:

“You want to kick my ass?  You really think I’m a motherf**ker?  Son, go for it.  I’ll give you the first shot.  But be sure to finish what you start because if you don’t, I guarantee you, I will kick your f**king ass.”

In response to our video, Wentz filed a 66-page lawsuit and told the Wichita Eagle the video is, “a lie and it is something that needs to be addressed.”

Veritas fought back and prevailed.  Federal Judge G. Kendall Sharp recently granted a summary judgment in favor of Project Veritas and threw out the lawsuit.  She found that:

“Notably, many of the alleged defamatory statements made by Project Veritas and O’Keefe, both in the Wentz Video and the written content, are recitations of Wentz’s own admitted actions and statements.”

“…Defendants did not commit defamatory acts against Wentz and did not illegally record conversations…”

Steve Wentz lied about us, but we won.  Our defense was worth every penny.  We could have settled this case out of court.  But that is not what we do.  We fight, and we fight for the First Amendment and for truth.

I can assure you right now; that we will never surrender our principles.  So, help me God, we will never settle frivolous lawsuits.

TSA Harassment: “Do you think what you did was funny?”

Whenever you take on larger-than-life forces, exposing them visually and morally, they tend to react in ugly ways.

In 2014, Project Veritas was ahead of the curve on the immigration debate, exposing our nation’s frail border security.

While many politicians merely talk about our border, the flow of drugs and gangs, and the effects of illegal immigration; Project Veritas instead decided to go film it and do something.  I dressed up as notorious terrorist Osama bin Laden and crossed the Rio Grande into the United States from Mexico with cameras rolling.

The viral video significantly embarrassed the Department of Homeland Security and other politicians who insisted that the border was safe.  At the time, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was quoted saying, “the border is secure.”

Following the video’s release and its use in United States Senate debates, I was detained by US Customs and Border Protection (CPB) every time I would enter the country.  At first, CBP agents wouldn’t even tell me why I was being detained.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act requests filed by Judicial Watch, I learned that CBP was “unable to locate or identify any responsive records” regarding our detentions.  However, episodes continued.

“Do you think what you did was funny?” asked one CBP agent after detaining me.  “Are you done with this stuff?”

Another asked me to unlock my cellphone, which contained sensitive information about our work, the names of sources and methods. Eventually, an agent asked me if I had ever “passed the border in disguise?”

They prodded some more, “You’re like a shock reporter.  You basically go to the extremes to prove a point?”  They said they didn’t want me “to pull a fast one” on them.  They even asked me if I would support Donald Trump for President.

How could they justify doing this to a journalist?

I saw their computer screen which said: “Subject is an amateur reporter engaged in publicity stunts including unlawfully entering the United States dressed like an ISIS terrorist and crossing the Rio Grande dressed like Osama bin Laden.”

It was outrageous.  My team was detained and questioned for being journalists by government agents.  They would never do this to The New York Times or NBC News.

New Hampshire Attorney General Uses False Pretenses

Just this year, authorities in New Hampshire took issue with Project Veritas and the first amendment.  We released video of a New Hampshire man admitting to double-voting in a general election (a Class B Felony,) and we showed this footage to officials in the New Hampshire Attorney General’s office.

The investigator that I showed the video to, Robert Sullivan, seemed perplexed and even uninterested in our findings.  My team and I decided to leave to show the footage to New Hampshire legislators.  Shortly after leaving, the investigators called us back to their office.

After asking some routine questions about the video, one of the investigators handed my executive producer and I subpoenas to testify before a Grand Jury about “the operations of Project Veritas”.

They had lured us back to their office under false pretenses to serve us with subpoenas!

Apparently, showing state authorities who are responsible for preserving the integrity of our elections evidence of voter fraud earns journalists — not the self-admitted double-voter — a subpoena.

NH Attorney General

James O’Keefe showing voter fraud confession to investigators in the New Hampshire AG’s Office

The subpoena made the rounds in local media, as did the voter-fraud admission that our team caught on camera.  My team and I wouldn’t take abuse from the authorities laying down, however.  Our grassroots supporters in New Hampshire called and emailed the investigators who served us hundreds, if not thousands of times.  They eventually shut down their phone line and email account.

When tyrants harass and intimidate you, the worst thing you can do is roll over.  You must stand up to them because they only survive if their prey is fearful.  In the end, the double-voter was issued a felony arrest warrant by Attorney General Gordon MacDonald, and our findings were validated.

Who else can tell these stories?

These kinds of challenges would break most organizations.

Project Veritas deals with many behind-the-scenes battles on a regular basis.  It’s brutal but it’s just turbulence.

You, too, may be hated by the people you want to love you when you do this.  Your allies will not want to rock the boat.  They want to be loved by the op-ed boards at the big papers.  They want Facebook ad revenue and they want their book reviewed positively by The New York Times.

As Rush Limbaugh once told me, one of the toughest things to accept is that being hated is a sign of success.

You will find that when you no longer crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, when you realize that you’re not really leashed, you are free to accomplish the mission.

There are some things more important than having the approval of the press.  Things like character and moral courage.

Project Veritas is the vehicle that gives people the inspiration to act and be a change agent, catalysts for citizen empowerment and the inspiration to do it.  You and I, Project Veritas, are the answer to the question, “What can I do?”

No one demonstrates this better than our insiders and informants.  Our Facebook insider, who decided to put her job on the line to expose censorship of conservatives at the platform, was willing to go public because she felt “the public had a right to know.”

Her example has inspired many other insiders to come forward in media, Silicon Valley, and education.

Our Pinterest insider chose to go public stating:

“There is a huge bystander effect inside Silicon Valley… I could go through life, and I could live in the comforts of life, and I could go on for eighty years, and then make money, do the formula of life, and then I’ll just fall to ashes. And I think that’s how a lot of people live their lives. This is something, no matter what happens, no matter what I lose, it’ll mean something after I’m gone. What are you saving up your ammo for? This is the moment that matters. This is what I’m going to do with my life, this is how I make an impact on this world. I’m going to get ten more people to do what I did.” – Eric Cochran, Pinterest Insider

These are modern day American heroes, men and women of great moral courage.  Our country needs more people like these fighting for truth.

There will certainly be obstacles, and they may stop one man, but they can’t stop an army.  All it takes is a few.

Be Brave,

James O’Keefe
Project Veritas
Founder & CEO


It’s Official: Pinterest Insider Terminated

Par Staff Report

Project Veritas has confirmed that the insider featured in our Pinterest report, Eric Cochran, has been fired from his job at Pinterest.  Through interview testimony and documents leaked to Project Veritas, Cochran exposed Pinterest’s censorship tactics to suppress Christian, pro-life, and conservative content.

In the letter dated June 18th, Pinterest confirmed Cochran’s termination and informed him that his final day at Pinterest is June 19th.  According to Cochran, he was escorted out of Pinterest’s offices in San Francisco without reason after the report was published by Veritas.

Pinterest Letter Veritas

Those who would like to show their support for Cochran and his bravery can give to his campaign on GoFundMe.

Eric Cochran is the second big tech insider to share a story with Project Veritas.  Veritas plans to publish additional reports featuring insiders from Silicon Valley.  Insiders in tech, media, education, and government can contact Project Veritas HERE.