If I Was O’Keefe…

 

James O’Keefe was Project Veritas. He has done incredible things. And now, apparently, he is being removed.

But the thing is, the mission Veritas fulfills does not require incredible resources to be successful – it requires good actors, secret cameras, and a few social media accounts.  It does not need to be huge, and it can be built around a single quirky personality.

Now that Veritas has thrown him out, O’Keefe can – and should – start all over, with an organization not in thrall to a board of directors that might be hostile to its mission. Worst case: Veritas folds and O’Keefe succeeds. Best case: there are two organizations doing the same thing, and well.

James O’Keefe: go for it!

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 47 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Skyler (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    I don’t suppose there is an explanation of what y’all are talking about.

    James O’Keefe has broken enormously important stories: from abortion doctors selling human bits off, to Pfizer admitting they try to improve the Covid virus, PV has pioneered a form of exposure journalism that lays the Left bare. It has been incredibly successful, and with very few resources.

    Along the way the founder, James O’Keefe, built the big organization, Project Veritas. It has a board.

    And now the Board, probably in a desire to become a little more normal, has put O’Keefe on leave and is trying to remove him from PV.

    Does that help?

    Not really. Why? Did he have an affair with a worker? What’s the reasoning?

    Apparently, James is a Big Meanie. A millennial or two must have thrown a rod.

    • #31
  2. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    If you own it, you own it.

    If you own it, you get taxed on it.

    A non profit can be controlled without being subject to a rogue board. 

    • #32
  3. aardo vozz Member
    aardo vozz
    @aardovozz

    Limestone Cowboy (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Best case is PV dies. And OK go

    It would very interesting to see what was said at the meeting between O’Keefe and the PV board. Anyone at PV care to.leak the meeting minutes?

    Also, the timing of this just reeks of Pfizer influences following so shortly after O’Keefe’s PV takedown of Pfizer. The admission by the Pfizer exec concerning gain-of-function research exposes Pfizer to staggering revenue losses and potential criminal liability. I’d also be interested in seeing the bank records of the PV board members, and seeing whether whether any of their kids have suddenly been admitted to Stanford or Yale. There’s tens of billions of dollars in play here.

    And yes, I have a nasty suspicious mind.

     

     

    And yet still insufficiently cynical.😎

    • #33
  4. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Skyler (View Comment):

    I don’t suppose there is an explanation of what y’all are talking about.

    Project Veritas Leadership Releases Statement About James O’Keefe (townhall.com)

    “The narrative that is being portrayed by referencing this letter is patently false. James has not been removed from Project Veritas. Nowhere in that letter was there ever a suggestion to remove James from the organization,” Stack wrote.

    “James is the hardest working person I have ever met. Those who know him well know that he will not take time off unless forced to,” he added.

    Stack went on to say the various theories why O’Keefe was being investigated has nothing to do with their recent stings against Pfizer or any candidates running for political office.

    • #34
  5. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Django (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    I don’t suppose there is an explanation of what y’all are talking about.

    Project Veritas Leadership Releases Statement About James O’Keefe (townhall.com)

    “The narrative that is being portrayed by referencing this letter is patently false. James has not been removed from Project Veritas. Nowhere in that letter was there ever a suggestion to remove James from the organization,” Stack wrote.

    “James is the hardest working person I have ever met. Those who know him well know that he will not take time off unless forced to,” he added.

    Stack went on to say the various theories why O’Keefe was being investigated has nothing to do with their recent stings against Pfizer or any candidates running for political office.

    The coup is crumbling?

    • #35
  6. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Percival (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    I don’t suppose there is an explanation of what y’all are talking about.

    Project Veritas Leadership Releases Statement About James O’Keefe (townhall.com)

    “The narrative that is being portrayed by referencing this letter is patently false. James has not been removed from Project Veritas. Nowhere in that letter was there ever a suggestion to remove James from the organization,” Stack wrote.

    “James is the hardest working person I have ever met. Those who know him well know that he will not take time off unless forced to,” he added.

    Stack went on to say the various theories why O’Keefe was being investigated has nothing to do with their recent stings against Pfizer or any candidates running for political office.

    The coup is crumbling?

    I certainly hope so. It’s about time our side won a round or two. 

    • #36
  7. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/founder-james-o-keefe-project-193929323.html

    O’Keefe:

    • #37
  8. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    No reason to ever listen to another thing PV says.

     

    • #38
  9. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    I consider this to be a internecine conflict. If Project Veritas continues to do good work without O’Keefe, well and good. O’Keefe will continue to do what he has done before, probably with some people who leave PV to continue to work for him.

    Could it be that this is a win, win for conservatives?

     

    • #39
  10. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    BREAKING: Project Veritas Board Releases Statement After Removing James O’Keefe and Losing Over 100,000 Followers | The Gateway Pundit

    • #40
  11. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    I’m not sure how to red this, but does this mean PV lost over 132k followers today in one day?

    • #41
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Flicker (View Comment):

    I’m not sure how to red this, but does this mean PV lost over 132k followers today in one day?

     

    Looks like it, but that also appears to be less than 10%.

    • #42
  13. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    I’m not sure how to red this, but does this mean PV lost over 132k followers today in one day?

    Looks like it, but that also appears to be less than 10%.

    So?  That’s a lot of people.  If you want to minimize it, how many days can they do this?

    • #43
  14. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

     

    • #44
  15. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Flicker (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    I’m not sure how to red this, but does this mean PV lost over 132k followers today in one day?

    Looks like it, but that also appears to be less than 10%.

    So? That’s a lot of people. If you want to minimize it, how many days can they do this?

    I unfollowed them.

    • #45
  16. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Flicker (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    I’m not sure how to red this, but does this mean PV lost over 132k followers today in one day?

    Looks like it, but that also appears to be less than 10%.

    So? That’s a lot of people. If you want to minimize it, how many days can they do this?

    Obviously, they can only lose that number for 10 days in a row.  But why assume it would continue at that rate?  I actually wouldn’t be surprised if the number who leave increases for a couple days as more people become aware, but then drops rapidly and their followers reaches a new stable point.  Perhaps down 30% or even 50% or more from the original number, but not down 100% even after weeks or months, let alone 10 days.

    And if James O’Keefe starts up something new, I expect a sizable number of people will be following both.

    • #46
  17. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    I’m not sure how to red this, but does this mean PV lost over 132k followers today in one day?

    Looks like it, but that also appears to be less than 10%.

    So? That’s a lot of people. If you want to minimize it, how many days can they do this?

    Obviously, they can only lose that number for 10 days in a row. But why assume it would continue at that rate? I actually wouldn’t be surprised if the number who leave increases for a couple days as more people become aware, but then drops rapidly and their followers reaches a new stable point. Perhaps down 30% or even 50% or more from the original number, but not down 100% even after weeks or months, let alone 10 days.

    And if James O’Keefe starts up something new, I expect a sizable number of people will be following both.

    O’Keefe went hiking with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over the weekend. Something is in the works.

    • #47
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.