Lateo.net - 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

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.

Intimidation 

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 newsbusters.org and mediamatters.org. 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.

Censorship
Politics
Fake News
Hiring Practices
Leadership Training
Machine Learning Fairness
Partisanship
Psychological Research
Everything.zip
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 veritastips@protonmail.com. 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 VeritasTips@protonmail.com.)

“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 VeritasTips@protonmail.com)

“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 VeritasTips@protonmail.com

(Big tech insiders can reach out to Project Veritas by sending an email to VeritasTips@protonmail.com 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: https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam
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 Breitbart.com from AdSense” and “Blocking of all Google-served ads on Breitbart.com”
Google Employees Proactively Review Breitbart.com 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 Breitbart.com 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 Breitbart.com from AdSense 2. Blocking of all Google-served ads on Breitbart.com…”

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 VeritasTips@protonmail.com.

###

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 VeritasTips@Protonmail.com.

###

 

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 “Resist@Google.com” 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 Resist@Google.com 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 VeritasTips@protonmail.com.  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:

BLACKLISTED: LEAKED YOUTUBE DOC APPEARS TO SHOW ELECTION INTERFERENCE

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 VeritasTips@protonmail.com.  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:

Crenshaw:
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.

Crenshaw:
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?

Google:
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.

Crenshaw:
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.

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

Crenshaw:
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?

Google:
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.

Crenshaw:
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?

Google:
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

Crenshaw:
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?

Bickert:
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.

Crenshaw:
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 VeritasTips@protonmail.com.

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 VeritasTips@protonmail.com.  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.”

Scientist:

“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.”

Scientist:

“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.

 

❌