According to court documents obtained by Wonkette, conservative activist James O'Keefe has agreed to a $100,000 settlement in a lawsuit filed against him by Juan Carlos Vera, a former employee of ACORN. Vera filed the suit against O'Keefe in 2010, alleging O'Keefe had illegally taped their conversation at an ACORN office in California as part of his fraudulent "exposé" of the community activist group.
Vera was one of the ACORN employees portrayed in O'Keefe's videos as offering assistance in setting up a nonexistent child prostitution ring. After his encounter with O'Keefe, Vera contacted the police to report "possible human smuggling," unaware that he had been duped. Vera claims he lost his job as a result of O'Keefe's deception after the conservative's video of their encounter was posted on a Breitbart website.
According to the settlement documents obtained by Wonkette, O'Keefe has agreed to "pay Vera $100,000.00," and that "as part of this settlement O'Keefe states that at the time of the publication of the video of Juan Carlos Vera he was unaware of Vera's claims to have notified a police officer of the incident. O'Keefe regrets any pain suffered by Mr. Vera or his family."
After the ACORN prostitution hoax fell apart, O'Keefe and his Project Veritas group released a series of heavily edited undercover sting videos attempting to document voter fraud, most of which collapsed under scrutiny, sometimes spectacularly so.
In a post at Salon, Brad Friedman reports that O'Keefe's ACORN video partner, Republican activist Hannah Giles, has agreed to pay Vera $50,000.
Discredited conservative filmmaker James O'Keefe released heavily edited videos Wednesday claiming to prove that members of President Obama's campaign team are helping voters engage in voter fraud. In fact, neither of the highly edited videos O'Keefe released shows a single vote being cast, completely undermining his campaign to demonstrate widespread voter fraud.
In the heavily doctored videos, so-called undercover reporters are shown approaching individuals identified as staffers for Organizing for America, Obama's grassroots campaign organization, and other Obama supporters handing out voter registration forms in Texas and New York. The reporters claim they want registration forms because they intend to vote in two states.
No votes were cast, and no voter fraud occurred in either video, yet both doctored films are falsely blasted out under headlines promising a voter fraud expose.
In the first doctored video O'Keefe released in his latest campaign, a woman identified as Houston OFA Regional Field Director Stephanie Caballero is shown talking to a so-called undercover reporter who asks for help requesting an absentee ballot to vote in Florida, where the "reporter" claims to be registered to vote. The "reporter" is heard saying she intends to vote in both Florida and in Texas. The woman identified as Caballero at various times laughs, urges the "reporter" to only vote in Florida, and at one point says, "Come up with like, if anyone checks, say, 'I don't know.' "
Without the full, unedited video, it is impossible to know what any of this is actually in response to. As of publication, O'Keefe has not released the unedited video.
The woman identified as Caballero offers to print off an absentee ballot request form and explains the absentee ballot process, at one point acknowledging that she is not an expert in whether canvassing boards cross check absentee ballots to make sure voters don't vote twice. During what O'Keefe said is a second visit, the so-called reporter allegedly received an absentee ballot request form.
That a person claiming to be eligible to vote in Florida obtained an absentee ballot request form is not shocking. In fact, absentee ballot request forms are available online courtesy of Florida election officials. And printing one off is several steps away from actually voting.
What's important is that O'Keefe has not shown a single vote being cast, let alone a second "double" vote. O'Keefe hasn't even shown a potential voter actually requesting an absentee ballot. At best he's demonstrated printer abuse.
John Fund, on a brief hiatus from lying about voter fraud, writes at National Review Online today that there's a vicious double-standard at play in the media's disparate treatment of Mother Jones' video of Mitt Romney denigrating half the country as incorrigible welfare parasites, and James O'Keefe's series of "sting" videos. "The [Mother Jones] tape was played over and over with no caveats, hand-wringing, or speculation that it might have been doctored," writes Fund, who goes on to complain that O'Keefe routinely faces accusations of video doctoring. This complaint is echoed by O'Keefe himself, who has been busily clucking his tongue about the "double standard amongst professional journalists."
That's utter nonsense. If the media did have any reasons to doubt the video's authenticity, they were quickly put to bed by the Romney campaign itself.
Salon's Alex Seitz-Wald has a good explanation here for why the Romney video does absolutely nothing to vindicate James O'Keefe and his M.O. of crafting elaborate hoaxes to trick private citizens and low-level government employees into saying foolish things. I'd add to it that O'Keefe is an incompetent liar who has been caught doctoring his videos. Many, many, many times. A good run-down of the many deceptions in his various video "stings" was put together by, ahem, Mother Jones. O'Keefe has not earned the presumption of trust. In fact, he's worked doggedly to forfeit it.
The same can't be said of David Corn, whose byline tops the Romney video stories. Yes, he writes from a progressive standpoint and works for a liberal publication. He also has decades of professional experience and a reputation for solid journalism. To put Corn and O'Keefe on the same plane is a huge disservice to the former and an unearned plaudit for the latter.
In the latest of his heavily edited, deceptive videos, discredited conservative activist James O'Keefe claims that he found "union bosses" who "loved the idea" of a company that does nothing but dig holes in the ground and fill them again -- and that those union men said "public officials" would fund such projects. The unedited video, of course, shows nothing of the sort.
The edited video shows workers from the fictional company Earth Supply and Renewal (ESR) meeting with New York union leaders John Hutchings and Anthony Tocci and former NY state assemblyman Ronald Tocci (Anthony's brother). The faux-ESR employees explain that workers at their company dig ditches and then "put [the dirt] right back in the ground," then ask if the union leaders can help them get public funds for their hole-digging, hole-filling operation.
In a series of fast cuts, the union leaders are shown advising the supposed ESR employees to "just call it a jobs program for workers," explaining how they lobby officials, and saying that they are "good with [Sens. Kirsten] Gillibrand and [Charles] Schumer." The video repeatedly shows Hutchings saying, "It's awful hard for anybody to vote against a jobs bill right now" -- the implication being, apparently, that anyone will vote to fund any kind of jobs, even useless ones like repeatedly digging and filling holes.
The Project Veritas press release accompanying the video claims it shows that "UNION BOSSES LOVED THE IDEA!" of funding "a fake company that literally does nothing but dig holes and then put the dirt back," and during the video, O'Keefe claims that "union bosses expressed the willingness of public officials and lawmakers to secure funding for projects just like ours."
But the raw footage of the video shows no such thing. In the raw footage, the union leaders are highly skeptical of Earth Supply and Renewal, and they never promise to help "secure funding" for it.
From James O'Keefe's latest video on "Voter Fraud in America," we learn:
- If James O'Keefe says someone isn't a citizen, you should ask to see their passport.
- If James O'Keefe says someone is deceased, you should ask to see their death certificate.
- If you show up at someone's house with a video camera or call them on the phone, refuse to identify yourself, and demand answers about someone's citizenship, you're probably not going to get a response. (Ambush interview subject to O'Keefe associate: "You haven't told me who you are. You're an 'independent agency'? That's cool. Who are you with?" O'Keefe associate replies "Thank you, sir," and drives off.)
As usual, O'Keefe's videos tell us much more about his deceptive methods and sloppy "journalism" than they do about the subject matter. And as the videos continue to crash and burn, they also tell us quite a bit about his allies in the voter ID movement, who are eager to use his efforts to push for laws that make it harder to vote.
O'Keefe's little lies all serve his big lie: That there is a widespread epidemic of voter fraud in this country that necessitates voter ID laws. Both data and common sense show that this simply isn't the case. But those who seek passage of such laws are apparently willing to use any means necessary, even if it means highlighting the work of an activist who long ran out of credibility.
Indeed, since he began releasing dishonest voter fraud videos in January, O'Keefe has become the toast of the voter ID movement. He has been praised by New Black Panthers Party fabulist J. Christian Adams for having "exposed the truth about voter fraud" and lauded by longtime vote fraudster John Fund ("In Washington, it was child's play for O'Keefe to beat the system"), spoke at the national summit for the Tea Party-backed True the Vote, and appeared with South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson to discuss the need for voter ID.
On at least two occasions, right-wing members of Congress, specifically Reps. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and Steve King (R-IA),have raised O'Keefe's videos during congressional hearings, with King on one occasion questioning FBI director Robert Mueller about the tapes.
When you mischaracterize the status of all three of the voters you are supposedly reporting on, your reporting has no credibility. And with the rest of the voter fraud movement depending on O'Keefe to promote their issue, it's quickly becoming apparent that their own credibility is lacking as well.
In his newest video, conservative videographer James O'Keefe claims that during his organization's latest inept voter fraud sting in North Carolina, "we found ballots being offered out in the name of the dead." Unfortunately for O'Keefe, the person whose ballot his operative sought is actually alive, as is indicated by the raw video his organization posted online.
From the video (at 4:43):
O'KEEFE: We found ballots being offered out in the name of the dead. One man, Michael Bolton, had died April 23, but apparently the Board of Elections didn't get the memo, and his ballot was offered to us on May 8.
In the ensuing video clip, an O'Keefe operative at a polling place tells a poll worker, "The name is Michael G. Bolton." There is then a jump cut, and in the next clip the poll worker is telling the operative to sign or make an mark in the pollbook to affirm his identity. The operative then says he would feel more comfortable if he could show his photo ID, and leaves.
Something very important happens during that jump cut. As the raw video reveals, the poll worker says, "You must be a junior? ... Michael G. Bolton, Jr.?" to which O'Keefe's operative responds: "That would be correct."
Yes, as multiple obituaries for Bolton note, he was survived by, among others, his son Michael Gordon Bolton, Jr. Public records searches using the Nexis database confirm that Bolton Jr. was registered to vote at the same address given to the poll worker by the O'Keefe operative.
This isn't the only error of this sort O'Keefe made. As ThinkProgress noted, the "non-citizen" voter supposedly exposed by the video is actually a naturalized citizen.
And, as we've noted time and time again, the O'Keefe operative being offered a ballot does not show actual voter fraud being committed nor does it prove the existence of a widespread conspiracy to steal an election.
The Union Leader, New Hampshire's most-read newspaper, published an editorial yesterday urging the state House of Representatives and the Governor to approve SB 289, a bill passed by the state senate that would require voters to show photo identification in order to cast a ballot. SB 289, the Union Leader editors argued, is necessary to protect the integrity of New Hampshire's electoral results from the corrupting danger of rampant voter fraud. Their evidence? The work of discredited liar and undercover videographer James O'Keefe, whose attempted investigation of "voter fraud" in New Hampshire last January drew rebukes from election law experts who believed his scheme may have broken the law.
The Union Leader wrote:
Last year, Gov. John Lynch vetoed a voter ID bill, proclaiming, "There is no voter fraud problem in New Hampshire." This year he cannot make that claim with a straight face. The Project Veritas sting on Primary Day in January showed how easy it is to obtain a ballot fraudulently in New Hampshire.
Project Veritas, which is run by O'Keefe, is a surprising source for a mainstream publication to cite, given his history of lies, deception and hyper-partisanship. More importantly, O'Keefe's "sting" in New Hampshire didn't come close to establishing that voter fraud has been committed in New Hampshire at all, much less on any scale that would affect the outcome of an election.
In fact, the specter of a voter fraud epidemic is largely a figment of right-wing imagination. In a 2007 report, NYU's Brennan Center for Justice found that allegations of widespread voter fraud are often exaggerated and that many claims of voter fraud "simply do not pan out." According to the Justice Department, prosecutions for voter fraud are generally few and far between. Even conservative commentator and voter ID proponent Hans von Spakovsky has admitted that there is no "massive fraud in American elections."
Voter ID laws do, however, have the potential to strip fundamental constitutional rights away from many otherwise eligible citizens, especially students, the elderly, and racial minorities. The Brennan Center estimates voter ID laws could exclude millions of eligible voters:
Ahead of the 2012 elections, a wave of legislation tightening restrictions on voting has suddenly swept across the country. More than 5 million Americans could be affected by the new rules already put in place this year -- a number larger than the margin of victory in two of the last three presidential elections.
Unfortunately, the Union Leader -- and legislators in New Hampshire -- are arguing over how strict the law should be, not whether requiring photo identification is a bad idea for the people of New Hampshire.
James O'Keefe has released another video showing his associates visiting polling places in Washington, D.C., and asking for ballots in the name of prominent political and media figures. Once again, the only thing it proves is something that is widely known: The District of Columbia doesn't have a restrictive voter ID law.
Nor does the video change the fact that, leaving aside silly stunts, widespread voter fraud is extremely rare, and there are still legitimate concerns that voter ID laws disenfranchise eligible voters.
The title of the newest YouTube video is " 'Ben Jealous', 'Bill Maher', and 'David Brock' Offered Ballot in Nation's Capitol [sic]":
Actually, you'll have to take O'Keefe's word for that. (I wouldn't recommend it.) In the four-and-a-half-minute video, it's not clear if any ballots are shown at all.
The major stars of O'Keefe's previous videos -- confusing edits, unintelligible audio, and questionably accurate subtitles -- all are back in this edition.
James O'Keefe's Project Veritas has unveiled the latest chapter in its ongoing "voter fraud investigation": a video that purports to show a young man nearly obtaining the ballot of Attorney General Eric Holder. Like O'Keefe's past "voter fraud" videos, however, this video fails to show actual voter fraud being committed, and it doesn't prove the existence of a widespread conspiracy to throw an election. That's because both are extremely rare.
The video shows the man entering a polling place in Washington, D.C., then cuts to the man asking a poll worker, "Do you have an Eric Holder?" After the O'Keefe associate confirms Holder's address, which is censored, the poll worker offers him the voter roll and says, "Please sign your name there." The fake Eric Holder then says he left his ID in the car and leaves.
The video's accompanying blog post on Breitbart.com claims that Project Veritas has "proven" that "voter fraud is easy and simple -- and may be increasingly common in the absence of voter ID laws." A Daily Caller article on the video claimed that Holder "could have himself been disenfranchised by white men because there is no federal voter ID law to protect voters in D.C." from fraud.
This video doesn't prove any of these things. What it shows is a man coming close to committing a serious crime. But even if the man had fraudulently cast a vote under Eric Holder's name, D.C. and federal laws provide a number of protections against fraudulent votes.
First of all, if the imposter had fraudulently cast Holder's ballot, and the real Eric Holder then had shown up to vote and been told his name was already crossed off the list, the real Holder almost certainly could have still voted. Under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, any voter who is told by an "election official" that he or she is "not eligible to vote" must be allowed to "cast a provisional ballot."
Apparently, this is now a point that must be made: You have a constitutional right not to be denied from voting on the basis of race. You do not have a constitutional right to go to R-rated movies, buy alcohol, or purchase Sudafed.
Some of the slower members of the right-wing media have been having trouble with this distinction as it pertains to laws requiring Americans to provide photo identification at the polling place in order to vote. The Justice Department recently struck down such statutes in South Carolina and Texas, saying that the jurisdictions had failed to demonstrate that the laws would not discriminate against and disenfranchise minority voters.
This morning on Fox & Friends, while disparaging DOJ's decision to block Texas' voter I.D. law, co-host Gretchen Carlson said:
[L]et's just take a look at a simple list of what we're required to show I.D. for in general society. To buy cigarettes and alcohol. To purchase an R-rated movie ticket. To even buy Sudafed now. To rent a car, to get a hotel room, and I could go on and on, Mr. Adams, even to get a beach pass in my community, you have to show several forms of I.D.
During the segment, Fox aired this graphic:
Likewise, the James O'Keefe clown show apparently went to Vermont recently, where they attempted to demonstrate why the state should have a voter I.D. law by haranguing bartenders and hotel employees over their "racist" demands that the conservative activists present identification before obtaining drinks or hotel rooms.
But don't take my word that this is a "silly," "flimsy," and "constitutionally incorrect" comparison. Just ask noted GOP hack and New Black Panther fabulist J. Christian Adams.
In 2010, conservative videographer James O'Keefe and three associates pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of entering federal property under false pretenses in connection with an attempted video sting at the office of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu.
Now election officials and election law experts are suggesting that he may be implicated in another illegal scheme. They say that in attempting to create an undercover video showing how easy it is to commit voter fraud, James O'Keefe's associates may have run afoul of those laws themselves.
Those experts and officials are questioning whether the conservative videographers may have violated laws banning individuals from falsely identifying themselves at the polling place and requiring both parties to consent to be videotaped.
In their investigation, the conservative videographers entered polling places, gave the name of recently deceased New Hampshire residents, and were offered ballots by poll workers. In one case, the videographer fled the scene after a poll worker became aware that he was not the deceased voter.
While the videographers were largely careful not to directly assert that they were the deceased voters whose names they were stating, Think Progress noted that in at least one instance, when a poll worker asked a O'Keefe confederate for his name, he gave the name of deceased person.
In addition to potentially putting his accomplices in legal jeapardy, O'Keefe's video largely shows the logical incoherence of the right's voter fraud paranoia and the difficulty of pulling off a large-scale fraud conspiracy.
Discredited fraud James O'Keefe's latest video attempts to prove how easy it is to steal an election without voter ID laws on the books, but actually demonstrates just how difficult it would be to pull off such a plot.
The video presents a compilation of clips from Tuesday's New Hampshire primary elections in which either O'Keefe or a confederate gives a poll worker the name of a recently deceased voter and is offered a ballot. The public policy issue the video actually shows is the need for voting records to be kept up to date in the months before an election. The deceased should not be on the rolls and election officials need to do a better job of keeping those lists clean. But since conservative elites (and donors) are far more interested in voter ID laws that have the effect of keeping Democratic voters from the polls, that's the tack that O'Keefe takes.
What O'Keefe instead suggests is that, because the state does not require voters to present photo identification at the polls, it is simple for individuals to pose as deceased voters, cast ballots in their names, and swing elections. As we've noted, there is little evidence that such schemes actually exist in the real world.
An actual attempt to carry out such a plot would run into the problem shared by all such schemes to steal elections through in-person voters, rather than in the vote counting phase: without knowing how many votes they need to steal to win, conspirators must engage in a very large effort.
As election experts noted when contacted about O'Keefe's video by TPM, actually pulling off a scheme to swing an election through these methods would be extremely complex, a massive undertaking whose size could quickly lead to its discovery:
Election law expert Rick Hasen, who writes the Election Law Blog, joked in an email to TPM that O'Keefe's team should "next show how easy it is to rob a bank with a plastic gun."
"Who in their right mind would risk a felony conviction for this? And who would be able to do this in large enough numbers to (1) affect the outcome of the election and (2) remain undetected?" Hasen wrote.
Other election experts agreed that the video doesn't change the substance of the debate over whether the minimal threat of in-person voter fraud is worth the impact that such laws can have on minority and poor voters.
"The fact that activists can engage in a stunt is not a reason for reform," Samuel Issacharoff, a professor of constitutional law at New York University Law School, told TPM. "It means nothing. Why would anybody want to do this? It proves that they don't update their dead voter information as quickly as they might, but so what? To pull this off on a large scale, you'd need coordination, and presumably somebody would have heard about it."
The bigger the election, the more precincts and deceased voters would be involved and the more conspirators would be needed. Smaller elections mean fewer votes would need to be stolen, but they also mean that there are fewer recently deceased individuals to pose as.
In an election involving a larger number of voters, numerous conspirators would be needed, all willing to risk facing election fraud charges. And indeed, even operating a two-person operation that only seems to have targeted a dozen polling locations, O'Keefe or his associate was caught in the act. The video includes eleven clips in which a conservative videographer is offered a ballot. In one other case, the right-wing operative in question was halted by a poll worker who knew the deceased. Those odds don't bode well for the sort of wide-scale operation such an effort would require if the purpose had been to actually steal the New Hampshire primary.
Moreover, voter ID requirements might present a hindrance to such an effort, but they would in no way stop it altogether. The conspirators would need to obtain fake identification, but if they were willing to devote this level of time and resources to stealing an election and take on such a high level of risk, there is no reason to believe they wouldn't they take that step.
James O'Keefe, a discredited liar with a history of releasing deceptively edited videos that ultimately fail to back up his claims, has released his latest video. This one purports to demonstrate how "Dead People Vote" in New Hampshire, but instead largely shows the logical incoherence of the right wing's voter fraud paranoia.
For years, conservatives have fearmongered about the perils of voter fraud; nearly every election brings with it new claims from the right that Democrats and their ACORN allies are on the verge of stealing elections. While actual examples of such fraud are extremely rare, conservatives have used this hysteria to push through laws in several states requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls in order to vote. Such laws have not yet spread to New Hampshire, where Gov. John Lynch vetoed a voter ID bill last year.
With his last set of videos largely seen as meaningless and pathetic, his fundraising in shambles, and his allies leaving him in disgust, O'Keefe clearly hopes to press this non-issue to revive his standing in the conservative movement. As always, the Daily Caller is happy to help out, already trumpeting the "bombshell video" that they received "exclusively" from O'Keefe.
In the service of this aim, O'Keefe and associate Spencer Meads visited a number of polling locations during the January 10 New Hampshire primaries armed with hidden cameras. At each polling location, the videographer in question would approach a poll worker who was checking in voters and ask the poll worker if a recently deceased voter's name is on the rolls. When the poll worker, assuming that the right-wing operative is presenting themselves as that person, attempts to give them a ballot, the videographer says that they don't have their ID and leaves. O'Keefe provided the Daily Caller the following explanation for the purpose of the video:
In an interview with TheDC on Wednesday, O'Keefe said the exposé shows how voter fraud can be easier to perpetrate when identification isn't required.
"There is fraud going on and our goal is to visualize it for people," he said.
But O'Keefe's claim aside, there is simply no evidence that such fraud occurs more often then, say, community organizations are asked to help set up child sex rings. In a 2007 report, the Brennan Center for Justice reported that there are a "handful" of cases when votes have actually cast in the names of the deceased, compared to thousands of such allegations that ultimately proved fruitless:
Allegations of "dead voters" are also popular, not least for the entertaining pop culture references to be found in the headlines: "Among Voters in New Jersey, G.O.P. Sees Dead People," for example, or "Dead Man Voting." After further investigation, however, these allegedly dead voters often turn up perfectly healthy.
There are a handful of known cases in which documentation shows that votes have been cast in the names of voters who have died before the vote was submitted.
It is far more common, however, to see unfounded allegations of epidemic voting from beyond the grave, with a chuckle and a reference to Gov. Earl Long's quip ("When I die -- if I die -- I want to be buried in Louisiana, so I can stay active in politics.") or Rep. Charlie Rangel's update (same idea, but takes place in Chicago). [Footnotes excised]
Indeed, as John Samples of Cato told TPM, "The big question for policy always was what was the extent of it, and this doesn't solve that question."
While there is no evidence that O'Keefe-style schemes have actually been in use, there is significant evidence that voter ID laws have prevented eligible voters from casting ballots.
James O'Keefe is a name synonymous with pseudo-journalistic dishonesty, criminal acts, and creepy behavior. Now, it appears that people who helped O'Keefe with his schemes have grown tired of dealing with him.
In an article headlined "James O'Keefe's plans derailed by infighting, lack of funding," Politico reports that former associates of O'Keefe and his organization, Project Veritas, are calling out O'Keefe's misbehavior and "lack of professionalism." Project Veritas has responded by threatening to sue them (at least, the ones with whom it hasn't already reached out-of-court settlements). From the article:
"But he'll trample even his best friends to get in front of a camera and present their ideas and work as his own," said the associate ["Simon Templar"], who agreed to talk to POLITICO only to respond to comments from O'Keefe's camp. He asserted that O'Keefe "was frantically desperate to get himself back in the news for something positive" after a spat of bad press over his May 2010 guilty plea to entering a federal building under false pretenses during a botched sting of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and an embarrassing botched sting of a CNN reporter in August 2010.
Templar said that O'Keefe reneged on a promise to credit him and another activist named Oluwaseun "Shaughn" Adeleye for their work on the NPR sting and later threatened to blacklist Templar in the conservative movement if he complained publicly.
Another activist, Nadia Naffe, who worked with O'Keefe on the "To Catch a Journalist" project, backed out last month, before the project was completed, alleging in an email to O'Keefe and the Project Veritas board that O'Keefe treated her disrespectfully.
In response, O'Keefe's attorney, Ben Light, fired off a letter accusing her of "working with others to smear my client's reputation" and threatening a lawsuit. Light said he was also preparing a lawsuit against Templar for breaching a confidentiality agreement.
"These are personal attacks that are just garbage," Light said. "They're not even newsworthy. So we're going to do everything that we can to stop them."
Project Veritas paid a former employee named Izzy Santa a five-figure settlement after she threatened to sue. Santa's settlement included a nondisclosure agreement, and she declined POLITICO's interview requests. She and O'Keefe had a falling out after she tipped off one of his targets, Abbie Boudreau, about a lewd plan to embarrass her. Boudreau was working for CNN on a documentary about O'Keefe and other young conservative activists at the time.
Politico also reports that Project Veritas is having trouble raising money, falling well short of its $600,000 goal and unable to pay O'Keefe's promised $120,000 annual salary.
Of course, anyone who has been watching O'Keefe's career as a right-wing darling could hardly be surprised that things would turn out this way. After the jump, relive the lowlights of O'Keefe's campaign of shoddy, dishonest activism, courtesy of the Media Matters archives.
From a blog post at Andrew Breitbart's Big Journalism:
In a curious nod to James O'Keefe-style guerrilla filmmaking, Steve Kroft of CBS's 60 Minutes turned up at Capitol Hill press conferences yesterday with surprise questions for both House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
Kroft quizzed both about their stock transactions in their respective roles as Speaker.
Kroft's technique caught both off-guard, and suggests that the mainstream media is beginning to learn some tactics from the blogosphere. Kudos.
Really? Asking tough questions of politicians is "O'Keefe-like"? It's not like 60 Minutes hasn't been doing this sort of thing for, oh, the last 40-plus years.
Also, it was hardly a "surprise" that Kroft would ask questions of Pelosi and Boehner since he was doing so at press conferences.
There is one key difference between Kroft and O'Keefe, however: Kroft wasn't trying to deceive anyone about who he is, nor was he surreptitiously taping his subjects in the hope they would say something embarrassing that he could then deceptively edit with the goal of creating a viral YouTube video.
Big Journalism's contention that "the mainstream media is beginning to learn some tactics from the blogosphere" is laughable. It's O'Keefe who borrowed such tactics from the likes of 60 Minutes -- and did such an incompetent, dishonest job of it that 60 Minutes probably doesn't want them back.