Tag Archives: Allison Maass

How Conservative Activists From Project Veritas Catfished Twitter

How Conservative Activists From Project Veritas Catfished Twitter
By Kashmir Hill
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/03/how-conservative-activists-catfished-twitter/

Mo Norai has worked in Silicon Valley for a decade. He’s done stints at Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Apple, but only as a contract worker, meaning he has missed out on the tech giants’ storied perks, benefits and job security. So when he was approached last April by a recruiter from a company called Tech Jobs Box about a full-time job, he was intrigued.

A woman named Kelly Dale contacted him via LinkedIn promising that “salary and benefits would be competitive.”

“It really hooked me,” Norai told me last month.

After a brief phone conversation, Dale said he seemed like a great candidate and set up in-person interviews with her colleague and an investor in the company. Those went well and for four months last year, Norai thought he had a new job. He was in regular communication with his new colleagues, meeting up with them for dinner, drinks, and a baseball game, but they kept pushing his start date back, saying they were securing office space and finalising funding.

But in fact, there was no job. Tech Jobs Box wasn’t a real company. Kelly Dale and the rest of his new “colleagues” were actually operatives for Project Veritas, a conservative investigative group founded by James O’Keefe that specialises in secretly recording people. It’s perhaps best known for catalyzing the downfall of ACORN, a low-income advocacy group that lost its federal funding after Project Veritas released undercover videos of the group’s employees counseling a sex worker and her “pimp” (a disguised O’Keefe).

Project Veritas traditionally targets politicians, government agencies, and media organisations, but decided to go after Silicon Valley last year because of its perceived biases against conservatives. “Big tech companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter have become media monopolies and they are censoring people,” said O’Keefe by phone.

In January, Project Veritas released three videos about Twitter’s content-moderation practices that feature hidden camera footage of nine current and former Twitter employees – one woman and eight men, including Norai. They even secretly filmed Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey by having an operative pose as a homeless person and confront him at a Blue Bottle coffee shop.

The videos don’t contain blockbuster information. The employees reveal that there aren’t a lot of conservatives at Twitter; that Twitter tries to make spammy content less visible on the platform; that many of the sock puppet Twitter accounts banned in the last year posed as Trump supporters; and that Twitter would cooperate, as required by law, in any investigation of President Trump by handing over his private Twitter messages. The most surprising part was a former engineer’s claim that Twitter historically “shadow banned” users. (A “shadow ban” means that a user’s content on a platform can’t be seen and the user doesn’t realise it.)

Project Veritas points out that Senator Ted Cruz cited their videos while questioning tech companies during a hearing about content moderation, terrorism, and Russia in January.

“The individuals depicted in these videos were speaking in a personal capacity and do not represent or speak for Twitter,” said a Twitter spokesperson by email, pointing me to a page that explains how and why Twitter accounts are censored or made less visible. “Twitter does not shadowban accounts. We do take actions to downrank accounts that are abusive, and mark them accordingly so people can still click through and see this information if they so choose.”

While Project Veritas’s findings weren’t particularly shocking, how they were obtained was. Project Veritas didn’t just fake-recruit its targets, it fake-seduced them. Many of the male employees were secretly recorded while on dates at dimly-lit restaurants, sipping wine. Based on the number of times he appears in the videos in different locations and dress, one security engineer, Clay Haynes, appears to have been enamoured enough with the operative pumping him for information to go out with her at least three times. All of the Veritas operatives’ faces are blurred, but you can see his date’s jangly bracelets and long blond hair. It’s unclear just how far the seduction of Haynes went, but they became serious enough to go on a double date to Morton’s Steakhouse with her friend, a disguised James O’Keefe.

“NO ONE should have to experience this,” said Haynes via Facebook message. Haynes, who is still employed by Twitter, ultimately opted not to talk to me at the company’s request.

Beyond the questionable journalistic ethics of exploiting people’s desires for work and love, Project Veritas’s tactics broke the law, says John Nockleby, a professor who specialises in privacy at Loyola Law School-Los Angeles. While consent laws for recording conversations vary from state to state, California is a two-party consent state, meaning you have to tell someone if you’re recording them, or face up to a year of jail time and a $US2,500 ($3,240) fine. “You’re allowed to do video in a public place without getting consent, but not take audio, unless it’s someone like a politician giving a speech to a crowd,” Nockleby told me by phone. “In California, even in a public place, if you’re audio recording without consent, that’s not legal.” In California, even in a public place, if you’re audio recording without consent, that’s not legal.

O’Keefe, who paid a $US100,000 ($129,600) settlement in 2012 to an ACORN employee who sued him over California’s law against surreptitious recording, expressed the belief that his operatives are allowed to record people in public places, like bars, restaurants or a conference room where a door is open.

“We have a number of lawyers who handle compliance for us. California is a two-party state but we can operate in areas where there are no expectations of privacy,” said O’Keefe by phone. “With the Twitter story, we did not break the law. Period.”

In a follow-up email, a Project Veritas spokesperson pointed to an exception in the law for circumstances in “which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.”(Norai says the door to the conference room where his interviews took place was closed.)

The story Silicon Valley likes to tell about itself is that it conquered the world by making it more open and connected, and by getting strangers to trust each other. Project Veritas exploited that ecosystem of connection and trust to wage its year-long investigation, turning the tools that Silicon Valley created against it. In a phone interview, O’Keefe declined to reveal how many undercover journalists were involved or how much it spent on the operation, saying only that it “was very expensive” because travel and lodging in San Francisco “was outrageous.” (Project Veritas doesn’t seem to be having money problems; its budget has nearly doubled every year, according to financial filings. O’Keefe says it raised more than $US7 ($9) million in 2017.) He said he couldn’t talk about his group’s methods because the investigation of tech companies is ongoing. Google and Facebook employees should beware. The investigation of tech companies is ongoing. “We still have active investigators out in the field,” said O’Keefe.

“We still have active investigators out in the field, which is why I can’t reveal the techniques used to gather information,” he told me. “I wish these companies would be honest about what they are doing. Unfortunately, we live in a society where there is so much dishonesty that it requires undercover work.”

In other words, deceit requires more deceit. I was able to unearth some of the group’s methods of deception: It sent targets messages on LinkedIn and dating apps, built false identities on social networks, and operated a fake start-up out of a WeWork blocks from Twitter’s headquarters.

The larger revelation of the project is not that Twitter is biased against conservatives; it’s that Silicon Valley has given strangers who bear you ill will all the tools they need to infiltrate your life. Our identities are scattered across the web on multiple platforms, giving people countless ways to make contact with us as well as dossiers of what we do, whom we like, and where we go.

The Twitter targets, who had been secretly recorded at parties, in bars, on first dates, and during job interviews, only found out about the deception on January 11, when the first Project Veritas video, titled “UNDERCOVER VIDEO: Twitter Engineers To ‘Ban a Way of Talking’ Through ‘Shadow Banning,’ Algorithms to Censor Opposing Political Opinions” went live.

“You’re on the national news talking about Twitter,” a friend told Mo Norai via Facebook message after the first video was published. Norai had no idea what she was talking about at first. “You know I don’t work at Twitter anymore, right?” he sent back.

Then he went to Project Veritas’s site and watched the video. “Oh fuck, this is bad,” he thought.

In the videos, Norai is dressed formally, wearing a tie and a black suit vest, his long hair pulled back in a ponytail. Norai’s experience at tech companies is in content moderation — deciding, essentially, what speech needs to be taken down. He’s removed spam from iTunes and reviewed posts as a contractor for Facebook. He was hired as a contract worker at Twitter after the Paris attacks in November 2015 because terrorism results in increased offensive postings on social networks. “We were warned it was going to be grisly,” Norai told me.

He was there for just three months, and was gone by March 2016, months before Trump became the Republican presidential nominee. Having “Content Review Agent” for Twitter on his LinkedIn résumé, though, made him a target of Project Veritas. Vaporware,a successful strategy for many a start-up in Silicon Valley, also works well for deceptive investigative operations.

Norai had two interviews with the fake start-up, which was allegedly going to make content recommendations to people based on their location and buying patterns. He says he typed the company’s name into a search engine and didn’t find anything. (Vaporware, a successful strategy for many a start-up in Silicon Valley, also works well for deceptive investigative operations.) “It seemed weird but I met the people,” Norai told me. “They said they wanted to start a start-up. It made sense it wasn’t in existence yet.”

Both his interviews were in May. Kelly Dale, the supposed recruiter, said the office was in downtown San Francisco and gave Norai an address on Mission Street. When Norai got there, it turned out to be a WeWork co-working space, which, again, is not that strange. Lots of early-stage start-ups are based out of WeWorks around the country, because they offer easy plug-and-play office space. The WeWork-Civic Center that Project Veritas used rents office space for as little as $US780 ($1,011) per month.

I went to the WeWork last month – it’s a seven-minute walk from Twitter’s headquarters, in a stylish building on an otherwise seedy street in San Francisco’s Tenderloin district – and asked for Tech Jobs Box. The receptionist recognised the name, but said they weren’t there anymore. She wouldn’t say how long they were there or how many people came in to meet with them. WeWork declined to answer any questions about the fake company that rented space from it.

Norai’s interviews were with a doughy-faced guy who introduced himself as Eric Williams. A grey-haired “investor” named Dan, who Norai later discovered was Dan Sandini, a known operative of Veritas, came to the second interview, the one posted online. Dan and Eric said they lived on the East Coast but wanted to recruit talent in the Bay Area.

Norai thought the interview questions were odd. They asked him theoretical questions about how he might have dealt with tweets from aggressive Trump supporters.

“The political questions were strange but I just thought it was because they weren’t from here,” said Norai, a life-long Californian who grew up in the East Bay.

Norai hadn’t worked at Twitter during the bulk of the 2016 campaign, nor had he dealt with Trump-related content moderation. But his theoretical comments were presented as if from experience. Project Veritas’s habit of presenting comments out of context is part of why people question the credibility of their videos. James O’Keefe says Project Veritas recently formulated a code of ethics that includes “not breaking the law” and not deceptively editing videos or “putting words in people’s mouths.”

After Norai’s interview ended, Eric and Dan took him out for celebratory cocktails at two swanky San Francisco bars, Local Edition and the View. They said Norai was hired. At the View, Norai took out his phone to Snapchat the moment. Dan protested and asked Norai not to put it online. “I just thought he didn’t want to look silly because I gave him cat ears,” said Norai. ”Current or prior Facebook or Twitter experience preferred.”

When Eric came back to town in June, he invited Norai to a Giants game with two other men, who said they were Department of Justice lawyers. The four men sat behind home plate, and Eric asked for Norai’s help in recruiting other people for the start-up. Afterwards he sent him job descriptions for two positions: “software engineer, machine learning” and “spam operations.” “Current or prior Facebook or Twitter experience preferred,” the listings read, suggesting Facebook may get the Veritas treatment next. Norai put Eric in touch with two friends who had experience at Twitter and Facebook, respectively.

The night ended at bars again. After drinks at the Starlight Room, Norai got on the train home to the East Bay. “It felt like we’d established a friendship,” said Norai.

He never saw any of them again. At some point, Norai tried to email Kelly Dale and it bounced. Eric told him she’d gotten married and had a new email address, which made little sense given that her email was “kelly@techjobsbox.com.” A few months later, Eric’s number stopped working. Dan told him Eric had been let go. Still jobless months later, Norai began to wonder if it had been some kind of scam. He decided to take a contract work position at Facebook last September.

When the Project Veritas video came out in January, he found out exactly what kind of scam it was. The videos didn’t include the two friends he put Eric in touch with.

“I hope it’s over. I really hope it’s over,” Norai told me.

In January, an investigator from Twitter reached out to him to ask if he had known he’d been filmed and asked whether he’d been contacted on Tinder or other dating apps, as others had been. While Norai says he mostly worries about potential professional damage, he also bears psychological scars from the episode. He says he’s paranoid now about meeting new people, and worries when a phone is out during an interview because it could be secretly recording him. He didn’t feel comfortable with me until I showed him my driver’s licence.

“Kelly Dale,” left. Allison Maass, right, who left Project Veritas last year to work for Circa News.Screenshot: LinkedIn and Circa

He asked me if I’d ever done anything like this before, which was an uncomfortable question, because I have. A couple years ago, I created a nonexistent business — the Freakin’ Awesome Karaoke Express, or F.A.K.E. — and made it a website as well as accounts on Twitter, Facebook and Yelp, in order to explore the fake reputation economy. I do believe that some stories can only be told well by going “undercover,” and while I hate to admit it, part of me is impressed by all the work that Project Veritas put into its Twitter exposé. Many a journalist knows it can be hard to get people who work at tech companies to talk. But their specific tactics were deplorable and cruel. They didn’t go undercover to find out how an industry actually works; they went undercover to exploit people’s vulnerabilities in the pursuit of information that could have been unearthed with a more traditional journalistic approach.

O’Keefe disagrees with that sentiment. “It’s hard to get [tech companies] to be honest on the record. You call them as a journalist and they say they don’t do it. We got tipped off to shadow banning and set out to confirm it. And we basically confirmed it,” he told me by phone from an Uber. “Sometimes that’s when you’re most honest, when you’re being recorded in private.”

Twitter disputes the honesty of the investigation. “We deplore the deceptive and underhanded tactics by which this footage was obtained and selectively edited to fit a pre-determined narrative,” said a spokesperson by email. “Twitter is committed to enforcing our rules without bias and empowering every voice on our platform, in accordance with the Twitter Rules.”

Since the Twitter investigation was published, Project Veritas hasn’t done much to cover its tracks. Kelly Dale’s LinkedIn profile is still up, with over 200 followers and claims that Dale worked at CUNY and went to Pace. Neither have records of her for obvious reasons: She doesn’t exist. According to Nexis’s people search engine, there are no Kelly Dales who live in Massachusetts. The profile photo looks to me like it belongs to Allison Maass, who did not respond to a media inquiry sent via LinkedIn. Maass left Project Veritas last year to work for Circa, an online media group owned by the media behemoth Sinclair Broadcasting, which famously requires its television stations to air conservative news daily, and is currently trying to expand its footprint by acquiring Tribune Media. Project Veritas and Sinclair Broadcasting have collaborated in the past.

Tech Jobs Box has an anemic LinkedIn page with banal stock art and a link to a website that doesn’t exist. It only recently established a Twitter account, joining the network in October.

Leaving behind the traces of abandoned identities is pretty common for Project Veritas, said Lauren Windsor, an executive producer at the web show Undercurrent who was working at Democracy Partners when the group of political consultants was infiltrated by Project Veritas in 2016. After Democracy Partners realised it had been duped and secretly filmed by an intern named “Angela Brandt,” who was in fact Allison Maass, Windsor began preserving evidence for a million-dollar lawsuit against the group. She realised it would be useful to publish that evidence – photos and details of faked identities — to help others avoid the same fate. In January, she published an online dossier with the photos and known aliases of over 150 Project Veritas operatives.

Graphic: ProjectVeritas.exposed

When shown a photo of “Eric Williams,” Windsor recognised him from another Project Veritas operation and sent me photos of him filming activist group Voces de la Frontera in Milwaukee in 2016.

Many of Project Veritas’s recent stings haven’t gone very well. Investigations into the Washington Post and the Soros Foundation were spectacular failures. But even if Project Veritas’s methods are crude and “amateurish” as the New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer put it, Windsor warns that it is a force to be reckoned with.

“They have gotten a lot of funding. They have been on a recruitment surge to try to staff up before 2018,” she said by phone. “I think they’re a real threat to media and political organisations, and, most importantly, to candidates.”

O’Keefe echoes that. “We have an untold amount of people inside organisations and they don’t know that,” he told me. “We are going from the smash-and-grab to the long con.” We are going from the smash-and-grab to the long con.

Windsor says the group’s techniques are “inhumane.” “They see themselves as being at war with the Left but the [people they secretly film] are real people despite how much Project Veritas dislikes them politically,” she said. “A lot of people [who are infiltrated and secretly filmed] have described the experience to me like psychological rape. It felt like that to me. They’re destroying lives and it’s really important to expose their political espionage as much as possible.”

Windsor has been training liberal groups how to spot a Veritas operative, mainly by thoroughly researching the online identity of anyone who offers free help or dangles the offer of donor money. If their online footprint is thin, it can be a clue. But there are, of course, legitimate reasons why someone might have a thin online footprint, so it’s not a sureproof solution.

I don’t actually have any sureproof solutions for you. We could ask social media companies to try to protect us from deceivers by authenticating people’s identities – Tinder could require users’ driver licenses; LinkedIn could ask for business records in order to list a new workplace — but that would simply invite a different sort of dystopia. We’re never going to be able to completely eradicate fake bots on Twitter or faked videos or con men on dating sites. Trolls will always find a way.

Maybe just keep in mind that, despite Silicon Valley marketing to the contrary, being in a more open and connected world has downsides. Project Veritas may not be particularly great at spycraft, but with enough manpower and enough online information at its disposal and enough hidden cameras in enough places, it will compromise people and organisations in damaging ways, fairly or unfairly. It’s the real-life manifestation of the faceless algorithms and unknown data brokers that scrape our profiles for information and constantly sit in the backgrounds of our browsers tracking everything that we do. Instead of using it to serve you Instagram ads for shoes, they’re trying to take down your organisation. You will just be a casualty along the way.

Project Veritas seemingly caught feeding false Moore accusations to Washington Post

Project Veritas seemingly caught feeding false Moore accusations to Washington Post
By Cristiano Lima
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/27/project-veritas-moore-washington-post-261023

Project Veritas, an organization run by conservative activist James O’Keefe, appears to have been get caught trying to pass false sexual misconduct allegations against Senate candidate Roy Moore to The Washington Post, extending its history of deploying deceptive tactics to try to ensnare news organizations in controversy.

The newspaper reported Monday that a woman who falsely told its reporters she had been impregnated by the embattled GOP candidate as a teenager was seen entering the offices of the organization in New York, seemingly tipping the group’s hand in its efforts to bait The Post into publishing uncorroborated accusations against Moore.

After a series of interviews with the woman, The Post report said, the newspaper opted not to publish the explosive yet unverified claims. It noted that during the meetings, the purported accuser repeatedly solicited the reporters for opinions on whether her claims would damage Moore in Alabama’s special election on Dec. 12.

Moore, a former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, is locked in a struggle for political survival after a spate of recent allegations of sexual misconduct with minors when he was in his 30s.

Project Veritas released a series of videos Monday depicting interactions between Post reporters and O’Keefe at the group’s headquarters. In several clips, Post reporters can be seen approaching members of Project Veritas. The members ignore the reporters’ questions, instead hinting at a string of damaging videos the organization promises to reveal.

Project Veritas later on Monday began posting unverified interactions between the organization and members of The Post. The videos refer to the newspaper as the “American Pravda,” a reference to the news arm of the former Soviet Union.

Led by O’Keefe, the organization is known for carrying out hidden-camera interviews in which it looks to lure members of established news outlets into making supposedly compromising ethical statements. It has been criticized for deceptively editing footage to misrepresent the subjects’ comments.

In 2010, O’Keefe was sued for his videos involving members of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) purportedly discussing illegal activities. O’Keefe later apologized for the series and paid $100,000 in a settlement.

O’Keefe was commissioned in 2009 by Andrew Breitbart, founder of the popular conservative news site currently led by former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.

Bannon and Breitbart News are among Moore’s staunchest political allies and defenders.

Court green-lights Democrats’ suit against Project Veritas

Court green-lights Democrats’ suit against Project Veritas
A federal judge rejects the bid by James O’Keefe venture to dismiss a suit over an undercover operation during 2016 campaign.

By Josh Gerstein
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/04/project-veritas-lawsuit-democrats-324976

A federal judge has turned down a bid by the conservative undercover video producer Project Veritas to throw out a lawsuit filed by Democratic organizations and activists it had targeted during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The suit, filed in June and seeking more than $1 million in damages, alleges that Project Veritas and its founder, James O’Keefe, sent an intern using a false name to infiltrate the offices of the Democracy Partners consulting group about two months before the 2016 general election, in an effort to turn up dirt on the group’s operations countering some of Donald Trump’s rallies.

The intern, who called herself Angela Brandt, allegedly used a fake résumé to get the internship and brought video and audio devices into the activists’ offices, where planning was underway for events aimed at “bracketing” Trump appearances.

In October 2016, Project Veritas released some of the videos and various documents online, contending that the events were actually aimed at inciting violence at Trump rallies. One Democratic activist involved in the work, Bob Creamer, resigned, and another, Scott Foval, was fired.

In her ruling Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle said the suit could proceed because Creamer, Democracy Partners and a related company called Strategic Consulting had plausibly asserted that Brandt — whose real name is said to be Allison Maass — trespassed by entering the group’s offices after making false representations about her background and intentions.

Project Veritas’ lawyers argued that making unauthorized recordings did not undercut the fact that Maass was granted permission to be in the Democratic consultants’ offices, but the judge disagreed.

“The complaint alleges that Maass obtained her job — and thus the consent to enter Democracy Partners’ office — through misrepresentation,” wrote Huvelle, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. “Under these circumstances, plaintiffs’ ‘consent’ does not bar a claim for trespass.”

The conservative outlet’s attorneys also contended that any damages Creamer and the firms incurred were not the result of trespassing or trickery, but because of the underlying conduct that the sting exposed. Huvelle, however, said it wasn’t for her to decide what led to any damages Creamer or the firms incurred.

“It is well established that under District of Columbia law that ‘proximate cause is generally a factual issue to be resolved by the jury,’” Huvelle wrote.

Huvelle also left open the possibility that the defendants’ conduct violated the D.C. Wiretap Act, despite the fact that Maass appears to have been present during the recordings and typically D.C. law requires consent from only one person involved in a conversation to record it.

A spokesman for Project Veritas, Stephen Gordon, downplayed the judge’s ruling.

“Our belief is that this is a carefully crafted lawsuit which may have survived the motion to dismiss but will fail in the end,” Gordon said. “As the case proceeds, our attorneys will show the entire case is nothing more than an attempt to retaliate against Veritas for exposing Democracy Partners’ dirty political operation.”

A lawyer for Creamer and the Democratic firms, Joseph Sandler, welcomed the decision.

“We are pleased that the court has decided to let this important case to proceed and to allow our clients, who were really injured by the tactics and actions of Project Veritas, to pursue all of their claims,” Sandler said. “We look forward to proving that Project Veritas’ tactics were not merely dishonest and underhanded but violated the legal rights of the people affected — people who were doing nothing more than participating in the political process by legitimately helping candidates and causes in which they believed.”

The judge’s decision Thursday does not resolve the case or guarantee that it will go to trial, but it does open the door to the discovery process, during which both sides will be able to demand records and take testimony from individuals with insight into the events in dispute.

The ruling comes following considerable public tumult for Project Veritas in recent months, including The Washington Post’s high-profile exposure in November of a concerted effort by the group to persuade the newspaper to report on a fabricated rape allegation against Roy Moore, the Alabama Republican who lost his bid for a U.S. Senate seat last month. The blow-up also revealed weeks of undercover recording by Project Veritas apparently aimed at trying to get Post reporters to display political bias or say unflattering things about Trump.

Isn’t it funny? Project Veritas and James O’Keefe apparently have a problem with any news reporter having any kind of political bias or saying unflattering things about Traitor Trump. But? They Project Veritas and James O’Keefe had no damn problem with all the political bias and unflattering things that Reich-Wing Repugnant news organizations said against President Barack Obama or President Bill Clinton. Talk about bias and hypocrisy on the part of James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas huh?

Atheist Militants Rising

Many of Project Veritas’ stings have led to litigation.

The organization did score a legal victory last month in Michigan, after a federal judge lifted a restraining order that had blocked the group from publishing videos and other information it gathered during an undercover infiltration of a local union chapter of the American Federation of Teachers.

‘Sting’ Video Maker James O’Keefe Project Veritas Hit with $1 Million Federal Lawsuit

‘Sting’ Video Maker James O’Keefe Hit with $1 Million Federal Lawsuit: The lawsuit, filed by Democracy Partners, accuses Project Veritas of fraudulently gaining access to their property and illegally recording conversations.
By Bethania Palma
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/06/03/james-okeefe-federal-lawsuit/

James O’Keefe of Project Veritas

On 1 June 2017, James O’Keefe and (a well-known maker of “sting” videos) was named as a defendant in a federal lawsuit seeking $1 million in damages. The lawsuit accuses his Project Veritas activist organization of “trespass; fraudulent misrepresentation; and civil conspiracy” in the production of a series of videos he made leading up to the 2016 presidential election, for which one of his employees infiltrated a Democratic consulting firm posing as an intern.

The lawsuit, filed in Washington, D.C. on behalf of Democracy Partners, Strategic Consulting Group and Robert Creamer, accuses O’Keefe and his two nonprofit organizations Project Veritas and Project Veritas Action Fund —  along with his operatives Allison Maass and Daniel Sandini — of using false pretenses to gain access to Democracy Partners, a Washington, D.C.-based political consulting firm that was a subcontractor for the Democratic National Committee. As a result of their activities, the firm lost multiple contracts.

According to Stephen Gordon, a spokesman for Project Veritas, there was no wrongdoing. In an e-mailed statement, Gordon told us:

Our undercover journalists operated within the spirit, intent and letter of the law.  In this case, our undercover journalist was welcomed, as a volunteer, into the Democracy Partners’ offices, was handed a card access key for the entire office area and was voluntarily provided with a computer login, all without ever being asked by Democracy Partners to sign any form of a non-disclosure agreement.

The lawsuit alleges that Creamer was introduced in late June 2016 to a man using a pseudonym (later identified as Sandini) who presented himself as a potential donor to a non-profit Creamer had done work for. In mid-July 2016, Sandini told Creamer he had a niece named “Angela Brandt” who wanted to do volunteer work for Democratic candidates.

On 21 September 2016, Project Veritas employee Allison Maass (posing as “Angela Brandt”) began working for Democracy Partners as an intern after providing falsified biographical and work history information. Per the lawsuit, she carried:

…at most or all times a camera and audio recording devices which were concealed and not visible to anyone talking or meeting with her in the Democracy Partners’ offices.

According to court documents, Maass, posing as the intern Brandt, was given full access to Democracy Partners’ building, a computer sign-on and wireless password, and was privy to conversations and information deemed confidential and proprietary by the firm. Some of the documents she took from Democracy Partners were published by Project Veritas and audio she recorded wound up as part of a four-part video series called “Rigging the Election.”

The lawsuit says the videos were released just before the 2016 presidential election:

On her first day of work, Maass was also asked to provide a resume. She provided a fabricated resume on September 22, 2016 that used the fake name, “Angela Brandt” and omitted her employment with Project Veritas, her real work history, her work for other conservative news outlets that oppose the candidates and projects SCG and Democracy Partners work with, and her real educational background degree. Instead, it provided an entirely false and fabricated work history and education.

Democracy Partners relied on this fabricated resume, and the trust Maass steadily gained through her volunteer work related to the Republican National Convention and the ongoing interest she expressed in gaining further advocacy and campaign-related experience, to continue Maass’s internship and give her assignments. Had Maass provided her real employment history and educational background, she would never have been hired and her internship would have been immediately terminated. …

During the course of her internship, Maass was included among the recipients of highly confidential emails, and in confidential discussions in in-person meetings and on conference calls; and she was sent confidential documents. She was given the phone number and private access code for client conference calls. She was also brought to confidential client meetings. These calls, emails and documents all contained confidential business information which Creamer told her was confidential and not to be shared with anyone with whom she had not been instructed to share it.

Maass provided a number of these confidential documents and emails to PV and PVAF. PVAF then published them on its website under the heading “VeritasLeaks” on or around October 26, 2016. The website states “Here are some supporting documents for the Democracy Partners videos we have been releasing.”

The lawsuit also accuses O’Keefe of “selectively editing” the videos, and then drawing misleading conclusions from the footage included in his series:

The video was heavily edited and contained commentary by O’Keefe that drew false conclusions from the selectively edited videos, to charge that Plaintiffs were involved in a conspiracy to incite violence at rallies for then-candidate Donald Trump, and falsely implied that the ongoing work in planning and implementing the bracketing events was part of that conspiracy. The purpose of this video, and all of the videos, was falsely to portray the Democratic Party and progressive organizations as being engaged in unethical and illegal activity.

Democracy Partners’ attorney Joseph Sandler accused O’Keefe and company of being “modern day Watergate burglars.” Sandler told us:

To misrepresent yourself, and lie and submit fake resumes to get access on false premise to confidential information and tape surreptitiously on top of it — real journalists don’t do that. This illegal conduct has done real damage and we’re trying to hold them accountable for the damages they caused.

In a statement sent to reporters, O’Keefe said:

We are on the right side of the law and will not stop exposing the truth. Right now, the Attorney General of Wisconsin is still investigating possible criminal charges against [operative] Scott Foval. This lawsuit further justifies the need to drain the swamp. Our army of guerrilla journalists, which grows daily, will continue to expose the malfeasance and corruption committed by these organizations. …

We will not be intimidated. We will not be silenced. We will find out who is funding this lawsuit. We will never stop exposing the truth. We will not back down.

The videos purport to show Democracy Partner employees, including Foval, a Madison activist, talking about potentially illegal activities, such as voter fraud and causing chaos at campaign rallies for then-candidate Donald Trump. When they were initially released, Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel said they showed “apparent violations of the law”.

As of late April 2017, local news media in Wisconsin reported that Schimel’s office had released contradictory statements about whether or not the investigation was ongoing. We were unable to reach the office on the afternoon of 2 June 2017 to inquire about the current status of the probe. Foval gave an interview to a local publication on 18 May 2017, in which he said the things he discussed in the video were “hypothetical” and not real scenarios — an explanation panned by Project Veritas’ executive director in the same article.

Project Veritas maintains that these videos were not misleading. Gordon pointed to a passage in the first video in which an Scott Foval tells O’Keefe’s employee that he had planted people in the crowd at a rally for Republican Wisconsin Governor (and former presidential candidate) Scott Walker to cause a commotion. At the 12-minute mark of the video, Foval says:

Remember the Iowa state fair thing where Scott Walker grabbed the sign out of the dude’s hand and then the dude gets kind of roughed up right in front of the stage right there on camera? That was all us.

Foval was fired shortly after the videos were released; Creamer had released the following statement at the time:

We regret the unprofessional and careless hypothetical conversations that were captured on hidden cameras of a temporary regional contractor for our firm, and he is no longer working with us. While, none of the schemes described in the conversations ever took place, these conversations do not at all reflect the values of Democracy Partners.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., three men, Paul Kuhn, Colin Dunn, and Scott Charney, each pleaded guilty to one count of  misdemeanor conspiracy to commit assault after they were caught in a separate sting video produced by Project Veritas in which they discussed plans to disrupt an event leading up to President Trump’s 20 January 2017 inauguration. All three signed what is referred to as a deferred sentencing agreement — if they perform 48 hours of community service and abide by the law the guilty plea will be withdrawn and the case will be dismissed at the time of sentencing.

Here is a link to Democracy Partners lawsuit against Project Veritas.

https://theintercept.com/document/2017/06/01/democracy-partners-lawsuit-james-okeefe-project-veritas/