Project Veritas has been subverted, board ousts Founder James O'Keefe
This story is bizarre considering James O'Keefe and his work are the very lifeblood of Project Veritas, did Pfizer have something to do with it?
Join WeBull today, deposit ANY AMOUNT and get free stocks! Click here.
UPDATE: James O’Keefe is confirmed to have been formally shown the door at Project Veritas. For anyone who has donated money to Project Veritas, consult legal representation in the event that the company will not refund your charitable contributions. Based on Virginia law, where Project Veritas is based, the state of the company has morphed as a result of the ouster of James O’Keefe. This is solicitation of funds under false pretenses. Explore all your legal options.
Timing is everything.
What do I mean? Well, look at the Project Veritas scandal going on right now. James O’Keefe, the literal founder and head of Project Veritas, has been placed on paid leave while the board of directors for the company decides what to do after allegations of ‘creating a hostile work environment’ surfaced from some overly sensitive employees in the company. Those foundlessly entitled employees aired their grievances in a memo demanding accountability for O’Keefe for running the company he founded as he sees fit.
That 11-page memo has been making the rounds after it was sent to the Project Veritas Board of Directors. The memo, filled with entitled whining from 16 disgruntled Project Veritas employees, reads like letters from a tight-assed Homeowners’ Association, describing O'Keefe as a "power-drunk tyrant" who is no better than the people Project Veritas works to expose for their crimes in the first bullet point, delineating the start of the written struggle session.
Other anecdotal grievances of dubious origins are aired in subsequent bullet points, each one presumably sourced from one of the disgrunted Project Veritas employees.
In the next bullet point, a request is made to hold O'Keefe accountable for allegedly damaging important relationships inside and outside of the company. O'Keefe is accused of bullying two more journalists, Spencer Meads and Eric Cochran, to the point that they left the company. Apparently O'Keefe even called Meads a pussy. And Meads proved him right, if O'Keefe did in fact say that, by leaving the company. Investigative journalism separates the wheat from the chaff, after all.
Many of the complaints follow that same theme, maintaining a rather similar whiny tone to each. Almost as if all of them were written by the same author, but I can’t prove that. Still, reading each one made me picture a rainbow-haired college student at UC Berkeley bloviating about nitpicky grievances to which they have assigned way more importance than is pertinant, given the subject matter.
This memo certainly didn't need to be 11 pages long when writing "Please punish James O'Keefe for being a meanie" would have sufficed, given its contents.
James O'Keefe's only 'crime' is that he is an unapologetically passionate individual, and the people complaining about him simply couldn't handle it. I can attest to his passion after having spoken to him in Twitter Spaces personally. He does strike me as the type of guy to carefully micromanage everything rather than trusting that his team will do things correctly. It's quite understandable considering the amount of work that goes into each story, and the stakes are always massively high not to screw it up. When failure is not an option, very few leaders are going to be calm and collected. That isn't how real life works.
Still, I don't see that as a black mark against him. I have no idea how the pressure of running Project Veritas feels, and I don't think any of the employees, past or present, complaining about him truly understand O'Keefe's burden, either. It takes a special individual to do that kind of work, and each one of the complaints against him just solidify that fact, in my eyes.
He has every ounce of my respect, and I will never support this move against him.
Under O’Keefe, many stories that would never have seen the light of day were exposed, from literal grooming activities from school officials, to Fauci’s perjury, to Pfizer’s head of R&D admitting that Pfizer is ‘directing the evolution’ of covid-19, effectively creating new variants, aka conducting highly illegal gain-of-function research. The list goes on.
Naturally, the traditional trainwreck mainstream media has written Project Veritas’ pivotal work off with weak and desperate excuses such as accusing them of selective editing of their pieces to maximize the impact. A spurious accusation since Project Veritas doesn’t deal in nuance, the people they expose say explicitly what their dastardly deeds are, and describe them in detail. I find it hard to consider that to be ‘selective editing’.
But let’s entertain that stupidity for a moment. If Project Veritas does ‘selectively edit’ their videos, are they the only news organization to employ this practice?
Of course not. Hello pot, meet kettle.
I guess it’s only okay to edit footage if you’re from CNN or some other fake news outlet. Rules for thee but not for me, as per usual.
There doesn’t appear to be any evidence of Project Veritas under James O’Keefe doing these things, however. But critics of the organization seem to expect an unedited raw footage dump every time they release a story, which those same critics would then take and selectively edit to fit whatever narrative they want to portray in order to mute the impact of these bombshell exposes for which Project Veritas under O’Keefe’s leadership is known. The real reason for the baseless accusations is that the evidence presented by O’Keefe’s company is irrefutable.
The current leadership of Project Veritas, however, is much less laudable. And one suspicious character in particular sticks out to me. A veritable snake in the grass who makes the timing of O’Keefe’s suspension make a lot more sense.
So why attempt to oust O’Keefe now? The timing is far too suspicious because it comes on the heels of the bombshell expose of Pfizer’s Jordan Trishton Walker, who spilled the beans on the inner workings of the company's covid-19 research. But you start to get the picture when you look into Daniel Strack, Executive Director of Project Veritas.
Daniel Strack has been with Project Veritas for 11 months now, but if you take a quick glance at his LinkedIn profile, you'll see that his resume also includes 16 years in Goldman Sachs. He was a Vice President of the company for 13 years and 2 months, and a Managing Director for 2 years and 11 months.
What does Goldman Sachs have to do anything, you ask? Well, they hold a significant stake in Pfizer, to the tune of 21,929,530 shares. At the time of writing this, at a share price of $43.88, Goldman Sachs' position in Pfizer is worth $962.3 million.
It isn't a stretch to imagine that Strack still has buddies in Goldman Sachs, possibly even buddies in Pfizer. You don't think they would've phoned in a favor? Especially considering the sheer power and influence those two companies have. It's remarkable that they didn't have O'Keefe whacked, considering the implications of a scandal regarding Pfizer developing what amounts to literal bioweapons. "Allegedly". There, I said it.
Actually, it's not alleged at all. Pfizer admitted that it's true.
“In a limited number of cases when a full virus does not contain any known gain of function mutations, such virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells,” said Pfizer in the statement they released in response to the Project Veritas expose.
That's pretty cut-and-dry to me. But I digress.
The point is, when messing with powerful industries like the pharmaceutical industry, you’re bound to make some very well-connected enemies, and I firmly believe that James O’Keefe has done just that.
For my money, nothing else explains the actions being taken against him by his own company. And if O’Keefe goes, there is no Project Veritas. Imagine how happy leftists who have gotten burned repeatedly by O’Keefe and Project Veritas would be.
The donors to Project Veritas, however, aren’t standing idly by and watching, they’re taking action.
On Thursday, a cease and desist letter was sent to the board of directors for Project Veritas by the Troutman Pepper Law Group, who are taking action on behalf of donors who disagree with the Board’s actions.
In the letter, the donors contend through their legal representation that the removal of James O’Keefe from his position as Founder and CEO of Project Veritas represents a deviation from the original mission of the organization that violates the trust of the donors by altering the structure of the Project Veritas entities and their Boards which threatens to endanger the charitable status of those entities. It will also upset the very manner in which the organization is operated which, understandably, would likely diminish the quality of Project Veritas’ future efforts going forward.
"By taking or threatening to take these actions, the Board is straying from its roots and the express purpose for which it raised considerable funds from the public, including our clients,” the letter states.
”We are concerned that the Board may already be acting in violation of Virginia charitable solicitation and trust law and ask that the Board refrain from taking further actions to fundamentally undermine the purposes for which Project Veritas was established. We also ask that funds donated to Project Veritas be preserved and not spent for purposes not contrary to those for which they were solicited."
The letter specifically points to Va. Code § 57-57(L) and Va. Code § 57-57(N).
Va. Code § 57-57(L) states: “No person shall employ in any solicitation or collection of contributions for a charitable purpose any device, scheme or artifice to defraud or obtain money or property by any misrepresentation or misleading statement.”
In this context the donors feel that by going forward with the aforementioned actions, that it will be tantamount to Project Veritas’ Board of Directors defrauding them as they will have received funding under false pretenses.
Va. Code § 57-57(N) states: “No person shall use or permit the use of the funds raised by a charitable solicitation for any purpose other than the solicited purpose or, with respect to funds raised by general appeals, the general purposes of the charitable or civic organization on whose behalf the solicitation was made.”
This means that if the money that the donors gave to Project Veritas is not utilized in the manner they have come to expect, the qualities of that expectation, of course, being demonstrated by the existing body of work by Project Veritas under O’Keefe’s leadership, then the Board will have violated the aforementioned law, as they will have utilized donor funds in a manner that doesn’t represent the intended purpose of the funding they provide.
It is clear from the resounding support that O’Keefe has received from this significant group of donors that if he does have to leave Project Veritas, their money goes with him. And you can bet he will come back with a vengeance.
After all, ousting the man won’t destroy his mission or the idea behind it. Project Veritas under another banner would still represent the original mission and idea with which James O’Keefe started, and as wiser men than me once said: Ideas are bulletproof.
What's the actual evidence that the Pfizer guy is actually an R&D executive and not a secretary?