James O’Keefe, President of Project Veritas, returns to Whiskey Politics to discuss muckraking in the age of mainstream media’s activist journalism. James shares his unlikely inspiration from Orwell, Chomsky, and even Alinksy. His new book American Pravda, My Fight For Truth In The Era Of Fake News is now available and highly recommended as it combines the thrilling escapades of a spy novel with the unvarnished truth of the state of corrupt, biased media. We cover CNN, Twitter, how journalists are abdicating the FBI Memo story for politics, and some incredible stories you probably didn’t hear about in the media, as well as who and what is the next giant target for James and his dedicated team.

Follow Whiskey Politics on Ricochet at WhiskeyPolitics.net, and our Facebook page, and follow Dave on Twitter and subscribe to iTunes where your 5-star rating will be greatly appreciated!

See James O’Keefe at Saving California on March 17th at the Burbank Marriott. Get tickets here. 

Out Music: 1984, David Bowie

Subscribe to Whiskey Politics in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsor!

Podcast listeners: Now become a Ricochet member for only $2.50 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 12 comments.

  1. Member

    Wonderful interview, Dave. Many don’t realize that James is a serious intellectual, and you and he were able to unpack the philosophy and history of journalism quite beautifully. It was especially satisfying to hear the righteous indignation in his voice as he describes what it’s like to fight the propagandists in the media and deep state. We should be especially grateful that James has the tenacious qualities of a hero; willing to struggle, suffer and sacrifice for a cause that is just.

    • #1
    • February 6, 2018 at 10:41 am
    • 4 likes
  2. Member

    If I remember correctly, when Project Veritas did their NYT expose the Times picked up a bunch of subscribers using O’Keefe as their bogeyman: “This monster is attacking us! Help us!”

    One wonders if their recent OpEd piece isn’t a marketing ploy.

    • #2
    • February 6, 2018 at 11:18 am
    • 1 like
  3. Contributor

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    If I remember correctly, when Project Veritas did their NYT expose the Times picked up a bunch of subscribers using O’Keefe as their bogeyman: “This monster is attacking us! Help us!”

    One wonders if their recent OpEd piece isn’t a marketing ploy.

    They use FNC and conservatives as a honing siren resulting in many of their enraged readers frothing at their keyboards, only satiating themselves by triple-clicking the continued bias like Pavlovian mutts. This ‘opinion’ piece was bush-league. My son’s high school newspaper writes better articles. The only value to this dreck is the NY Time’s at least showed their m.o.; how our betters dispense what is their determined truths. This wasn’t journalism. This was a not so subtle political hit-piece under the cover of a technology column. But we’re now the enlightened ones. We’re on to you biased media. We’re on to you.

    • #3
    • February 6, 2018 at 12:48 pm
    • Like
  4. Member

    The really sad thing is that the NYT still can do good journalism if it wants to. Mostly it doesn’t, and so sooner or later they’ll lose the capability too.

    • #4
    • February 6, 2018 at 1:09 pm
    • Like
  5. Member

    Great interview, Dave. O’Keefe is doing great work.

    Since he is often under attack, he needs to be especially fastidious about accuracy. In his discussion of facts at about 24:30, he makes the following statement:

    This FBI guy McCabe apparently based the whole warrant off of that Steele memo… that is a fact, that is a fact. [emphasis added]

    Unfortunately, this is not accurate. The Nunes memo states that the Steele memo “…formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application.” That is quite different from saying that the warrant application relied solely on the Steele memo. Arguably, the assessment that the Steele memo was essential is a judgement, not a fact.

    That O’Keefe selected this as his signature fact undermines his credibility — not for me but for any informed person who is not sure what to think of him. Remember, your most important audience is not the converted; it’s the undecideds. And if you say something that does not square with the facts, while loudly proclaiming to be all about the facts, well…

    • #5
    • February 6, 2018 at 1:33 pm
    • 1 like
  6. Contributor

    drlorentz (View Comment):
    Great interview, Dave. O’Keefe is doing great work.

    Since he is often under attack, he needs to be especially fastidious about accuracy. In his discussion of facts at about 24:30, he makes the following statement:

    This FBI guy McCabe apparently based the whole warrant off of that Steele memo… that is a fact, that is a fact. [emphasis added]

    Unfortunately, this is not accurate. The Nunes memo states that the Steele memo “…formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application.” That is quite different from saying that the warrant application relied solely on the Steele memo. Arguably, the assessment that the Steele memo was essential is a judgement, not a fact.

    That O’Keefe selected this as his signature fact undermines his credibility — not for me but for any informed person who is not sure what to think of him. Remember, your most important audience is not the converted; it’s the undecideds. And if you say something that does not square with the facts, while loudly proclaiming to be all about the facts, well…

    Thanks, DrL.

    Didn’t McCabe tell Congress that the FISA warrant would not have been granted without the use of the dossier?

    • #6
    • February 6, 2018 at 1:48 pm
    • Like
  7. Coolidge

    I bought the book and admire most of what Mr. O’Keefe does but it was a mistake to take up the cudgels for Roy Moore. I hope he learnt from it.

    • #7
    • February 6, 2018 at 3:51 pm
    • 1 like
  8. Member

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    drlorentz (View Comment):
    Great interview, Dave. O’Keefe is doing great work.

    Since he is often under attack, he needs to be especially fastidious about accuracy. In his discussion of facts at about 24:30, he makes the following statement:

    This FBI guy McCabe apparently based the whole warrant off of that Steele memo… that is a fact, that is a fact. [emphasis added]

    Unfortunately, this is not accurate. The Nunes memo states that the Steele memo “…formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application.” That is quite different from saying that the warrant application relied solely on the Steele memo. Arguably, the assessment that the Steele memo was essential is a judgement, not a fact.

    That O’Keefe selected this as his signature fact undermines his credibility — not for me but for any informed person who is not sure what to think of him. Remember, your most important audience is not the converted; it’s the undecideds. And if you say something that does not square with the facts, while loudly proclaiming to be all about the facts, well…

    Thanks, DrL.

    Didn’t McCabe tell Congress that the FISA warrant would not have been granted without the use of the dossier?

    I was not aware of that. Do you have a link? This is not what O’Keefe said, btw. I quoted him exactly above. O’Keefe’s statement indicates that the Steele memo was the only basis for the warrant. Frankly, that’s not credible and it’s contradicted by the Nunes memo. If we see the warrant application and the Steele memo the only thing in it, then O’Keefe is right. Or if the FISC judge says, “I would never have issued the warrant without that convincing Steele dossier.” Right now, O’Keefe has no way of knowing if either of these is true or not. Hence, his statement is not a fact, it’s a conjecture.

    Look, O’Keefe even says, “It’s in a transcript somewhere. Maybe they’ll make the transcript public.” He’s telling you right there that he’s made a guess about a transcript he has never seen but is hoping will be made public some day. That’s pretty much the epitome of a conjecture.

    Within the span of 45 seconds, O’Keefe said the word “fact” about five times. If you’re gonna pick a fact to make your case about the dishonest media, you’d better be sure it’s an unassailable fact, not just someone’s opinion or conjecture.

    • #8
    • February 7, 2018 at 8:52 am
    • Like
  9. Contributor

    L, it was reported everywhere: “The memo states that in December 2017, then FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” from the FISA court “without the Steele dossier information.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/02/house-memo-states-disputed-dossier-was-key-to-fbi-s-fisa-warrant-to-surveil-members-team-trump.html

    • #9
    • February 7, 2018 at 10:56 am
    • Like
  10. Member

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):
    L, it was reported everywhere: “The memo states that in December 2017, then FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” from the FISA court “without the Steele dossier information.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/02/house-memo-states-disputed-dossier-was-key-to-fbi-s-fisa-warrant-to-surveil-members-team-trump.html

    So you understand that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought… without the Steele dossier information” is different from “based the whole warrant off of that Steele memo,” right? The first statement says that the dossier was essential, in agreement with the Nunes memo I quoted way up in comment #5. The second statement is that it was the only thing used in the application. This is exactly why I asked you to find the quote from McCabe; it doesn’t support Mr O’Keefe’s statement. By all accounts, there was other supporting material in the application.

    Whether one part or another of the application was essential is a matter of opinion, not fact. Only in an alternative history could we know if the warrant would have been granted based on other information that was presented or that would have been presented had the Steele dossier not existed. The FBI was looking for a reason to conduct the surveillance and it is my opinion that they would have found other supporting material to seek a FISA warrant even without the dossier. All the evidence from the FBI love birds, etc. supports this opinion. But, hey, that’s just my opinion.

    • #10
    • February 7, 2018 at 12:21 pm
    • Like
  11. Thatcher

    When I listen to O’Keefe, I’m reminded of Mike Wallace. Does anyone remember the beginning days of 60 Minutes? Because of his aggressive reporting style, 60 Minutes became the program to watch on Sunday night. Thank you for this great interview Dave, and thank you James O’Keefe for the work you do!

    • #11
    • February 7, 2018 at 4:23 pm
    • 2 likes
  12. Coolidge

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    The really sad thing is that the NYT still can do good journalism if it wants to. Mostly it doesn’t, and so sooner or later they’ll lose the capability too.

    Yes, he only beats the children when he’s drunk , otherwise he’s a wonderful father.

    • #12
    • February 8, 2018 at 6:34 am
    • 1 like