Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why Won’t the Project Veritas Board Resign?
My general understanding is that James O’Keefe, founder and (now former) president of Project Veritas, fired a recently hired executive when that executive raised criticisms about O’Keefe’s leadership. The “fired” executive then organized an effort to keep his job and brought complaints to the Board of Directors. (I’m skipping details on the two entities — 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) — that constitute PV.)
The board confronted O’Keefe and was unhappy with how the meeting went, so it “suspends” him pending an “investigation” of the “fired” executive among other complaints. The suspension then leaked onto the internet. Big donors to PV were concerned about what was happening. One big donor, whose interactions with O’Keefe were included by someone else in the “complaints,” denied the truthfulness of that complaint.
After the “investigation,” the board met with O’Keefe again. O’Keefe said either you (the board) resign,s or I do. Classic power play by the “indispensable man.” And why shouldn’t they? They backed the guy O’Keefe fired, and now at least part of the supposedly abused staff has posted a video supporting O’Keefe. So you have a broken and crippled organization. The guy that 99% of America assumes is PV has taken his ball and is offering a new contact point for tips about corruption. Your donors (those not on the Board, at least) are not opening their wallets to you.
Is the merchandise at the PV gift shop so valuable for you to hold on to? Whether you completely approved of O’Keefe’s management or not, wasn’t PV achieving what it was designed to do? Weren’t you already in 80-20 territory — whatever “improvement” you were looking for in the organization’s mission, it was going to cost too much to get it?
If your objective is to continue exposing corruption on the Left, which serves it better: having O’Keefe build again from scratch while your phones go silent, or leave and give PV back to O’Keefe? You’ve made the only point you are ever going to make: O’Keefe is a ________ (you fill in the blank), and if he doesn’t change his ways, then ________ (you fill in the blank). Is it your fiduciary obligation to stay and dismantle PV?
What part of this makes sense? The staff that didn’t stand up for O’Keefe is acting like the dispute between the Board and O’Keefe has nothing to do with them, and they will press on “leaving the door open” for O’Keefe’s return? Is that a repudiation of the board?
Why would you ever stay on the board under these circumstances?
Published in General
Exactly. For the left, “gotcha” journalism has been around for decades . . .
To say nothing of Prince Harry.
Seems like “an Op” doesn’t it? Or at least an interesting premise for a book.
Because Pfizer is Le Pouvoir, political parties and things like Planned Parenthood are not.
Krugman has a girlfriend?
Maybe; who knows?
He does have a wife, and people speculate she writes some of the columns.
You would think if there really were abuse of staff going on that the legacy media would be all over it. But it’s been crickets. Sure looks like a power play.
It will be interesting to see if PV staff start moving over to O’Keefe’s new organization as their contracts at PV expire.
I heard the theory at Ace of Spades years ago. It was a surprise that he had a girlfriend.
Some women would only care that he has a Nobel Prize they can show off to their friends, no matter how bogus it was.
Like the Soviet housewife’s washing machine.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67454688/project-veritas-v-okeefe/
Contract of adhesion? Seems like employment agreement paras. 15 & 16 are the key complaints and basis for injunctive relief.
Translation?
Potential relevant provision of 15 is full time work. Perhaps his dabbling in song and dance interfered.
Potential relevant provision of 16 is a very strict restriction on, inter alia, hiring people who leave after him.
Also, the remark about “contract of adhesion” is a reference to agreements where the terms are onerous and heavily favor one party. Courts tend to find ways of not strictly enforcing those kinds of contacts. Basically the plaintiff (Project Veritas) has asked for the death penalty for OMG saying O’Keefe has to cut ties with all former PV employees and disgorge contributions from former PV donors. The counter argument is that PV breached O’Keefe’s agreement, thus vitiating those provisions. I don’t think PV has any other play, otherwise they just have to close up shop. But who would give them money in the future? Progressives to aim the PV lens on progressive targets?
I also assume that some big money supporter of the current Project Veritas is helping behind the scenes.
One of the most important things in our society which is not allowed to stand without ruthless unrelenting opposition is any individual who does decent journalism.
If you doubt me, try and ask Julian Assange about this matter.
Identify a respected institution, kill it, gut it, and wear it as a skin suit while demanding respect.