reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Did you leak a letter to the Washington Post about me? You're the chief of staff, right? I’m James O’Keefe. You’re friends with the reporter, Yvonne Wingate Sanchez. Did you leak the letter? No, there was no leak. How did the Washington Post get it before I did? I don’t know how they knew. The letter was released under public records law. I haven’t received it yet. Your office seems to be working with the media to target journalists. It was released legally. But how did the Washington Post know to request it? There are many ways they could have found out. So someone in your office leaked it? No, that’s faulty logic. You’re saying someone knew about the letter and told them? I have other matters to attend to. You’re busy writing letters threatening journalists. This is about good versus evil in this country. The Wellness Company offers a first aid emergency kit to help you take control of your health. Order now and save 15% with code OMG.

The speakers describe raids on their houses by the FBI and the violation of their privacy through secret warrants and surveillance of their emails. They highlight the government's overstepping and violation of their press freedom, with the ACLU and reporters committee requesting the unsealing of affidavits. The speakers discuss the classification of news media as a sensitive investigative matter and the violation of laws protecting reporters' notes. They mention the depletion of funds by Project Veritas but introduce a tax-deductible organization called Private Citizen for legal defense. They urge donations to support journalists' rights and emphasize the importance of the First Amendment.

The speaker reports a federal judge ruled in their favor, allowing them to continue deposing individuals and request comments on their reporting about Project Veritas. The speaker states this is a victory for the Amendment. The speaker says Project Veritas argued that the speaker was intimidating witnesses, but the judge noted the speaker wants them to talk. The speaker says this is an epic moment because people claim their journalism harms people. The speaker acknowledges claims of threats or anonymous comments against people, but asserts the public has a right to know information under the Amendment. The speaker says they will report more on this ruling after obtaining the court transcript.

I'm here investigating the administrative state. I confronted a former FBI special agent and current advisor to the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon. I questioned him about potential ethical conflicts, including fundraising activities and his work with retired generals. He became angry, called me names, and accused me of fraud and lying. I'm operating within my First Amendment rights as a journalist, but he claimed I needed his permission to record him, which isn't true in Washington D.C. He was visibly upset, and at one point even cried. I believe he lied about his activities and shared sensitive information. It's concerning to see such political behavior from government officials.

Detectives went to the home of an undercover journalist after the vice president of State Farm filed a criminal complaint related to the State Farm insurance story. The vice president was fired from State Farm for what he said on hidden camera. The complaint is allegedly over the Illinois eavesdropping law, but the recording was made where there was no expectation of privacy, making this a First Amendment issue. The speaker believes this is an attempt to intimidate the team. The organization is seeking a defense attorney in Cook County, Illinois, and requests that lawyers email legal@okeifmediagroup.com. The speaker asserts they did not break the law and will support their reporters.

I have some breaking news. State Farm has just informed us that they've fired their vice president. This follows a video where he stated that California residents shouldn't build in the desert and admitted to being biased against white people, expressing a desire to hire more Hispanic and Latino individuals. Gina Morse Fisher, the corporate communication specialist at State Farm, stated that these assertions are inaccurate and don't represent State Farm's views. They also don't reflect their position regarding the victims of the California tragedy or their hiring practices. The individual in the video is no longer affiliated with State Farm. It makes you wonder if other insurance executives feel the same way, though they'd never say it on the record.

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

James O'Keefe shares a video of someone banging on his front door. He opens it to find a stack of documents, which turns out to be a federal lawsuit filed by Project Veritas against him. O'Keefe expresses surprise and questions what the lawsuit aims to achieve. He mentions that Project Veritas had a significant amount of money when he left but has apparently spent it all without raising much more. O'Keefe also reveals the names of the lawyers involved in the lawsuit, expressing his confusion and concern about their efforts to silence journalists.

Okay, so I'm talking with Carl Winfield from the Financial Times about a video I made. I wanted to clarify his pronouns to make sure I accurately describe him. Then I asked why he was focusing on State Farm, when other carriers have similar practices. This is the third video in a series, and I investigate anyone committing fraud or corruption. Winfield questioned the video's suggestion of bias and brought up Fisher Investments' advertisement in the video. I noted that the Financial Times also runs ads. Then Alex Bruce, the head of Fisher Capital joined the call. Winfield was not interested in hearing from him, as his story is about State Farm, not Fisher Capital. I mentioned State Farm's statement about terminating the employee in the video.

Speaker 0 raises concerns about AB 26-24, asserting it is a direct violation of the First Amendment and would hinder exposing fraud, including cases involving immigrants. They claim the bill would hinder investigations and public-interest reporting. Speaker 1 responds that legislative counsel checks the constitutionality of all bills and notes the speaker works on fraud issues, citing prior work on the budget subcommittee. They say Mia Bonta is involved through her role in pushing the bill, and remind that investigations into fraud are long-standing and handled by the attorney general. Speaker 0 alleges that Mia Bonta, who is described as the wife of the California attorney general, pushed the bill that would impede exposing fraud, and notes the bill would make it illegal for someone to go after fraud, particularly referencing immigrants and Armenians in California. They contend the bill is an assault on First Amendment rights. Speaker 1 counters that the claim is a misinterpretation of the bill and reiterates that constitutionality is reviewed with counsel. They maintain that the attorney general handles fraud investigations, framing the issue as ongoing and within established procedures. Speaker 0 asserts that the bill’s effect would be to criminalize publication of images recorded in public, and asks whether the government has the right to punish journalists for filming in public space. Speaker 1 again says this interpretation is incorrect, labeling it a misinterpretation of the legislation. They emphasize that the bill’s purpose is examined by ledge counsel and lawyers, and maintain that the First Amendment is a central consideration in their work. Speaker Rivas interjects and asks for their position on the Stop Nick Shirley Act AB 26-24, but Speaker 1 says they do not know anything about it. Speaker 0 reiterates concerns about potential conflicts of interest, suggesting there is clear evidence of a relationship between Mia Bonta and her husband, the attorney general, and states that these people won’t answer questions.

Detectives went to the home of an undercover journalist after the vice president of State Farm filed a criminal complaint, apparently related to the State Farm insurance story. The vice president was fired from State Farm for what he said on hidden camera. The complaint is allegedly over the Illinois eavesdropping law, but the recording was made where there was no expectation of privacy, raising a First Amendment issue. The speaker believes this is an attempt to intimidate the team. They are seeking a defense attorney in Cook County, Illinois, and request attorneys to email legal@okeifmediagroup.com. The speaker asserts they did not break the law and will support their reporters against a powerful insurance company.

The speaker, James O'Keefe, attended a school board meeting in New Jersey to discuss an equity audit. However, the board did not allow recording of the meeting, which O'Keefe violated. The board called the police on him while he was speaking. O'Keefe revealed a hidden camera device and stated that he intended to distribute similar devices to promote transparency. The board found this unusual. O'Keefe questioned the police officer about being called to the meeting, and the officer confirmed that his supervisor instructed him to come because O'Keefe was speaking as a journalist.

Is this seat taken? Actually, that person works for me. You work for BlackRock, right? Yes, but I don’t consent to being recorded. This is New York; it’s a one-party consent state. I’m not comfortable with that. You mentioned that BlackRock buys politicians. I didn’t say that. But you implied that BlackRock controls the president’s wallet. No, I’m just a low-level employee. But you did say it on video. I was just trying to impress someone. We’ll be looking into others at BlackRock too. Please don’t touch me. I’m not touching you. Why is war exciting? I’m going to the police station. What will you tell them? To make you stop following me. He’s inside the police station now, talking about our conversation regarding Ukraine and recruiting at BlackRock. He claims he’s just a recruiter and denies his previous statements.

The New York Times is preparing a critical article about James O'Keefe and O'Keefe Media Group, alleging violations of voter privacy and intimidation laws. O'Keefe argues that his organization has explicitly advised against illegal activities, providing guidelines to ensure lawful citizen journalism. He criticizes the reporter, Ken Basinger, for misrepresenting their efforts and for using misleading language. O'Keefe emphasizes that they have created resources to help citizens navigate complex recording laws and that their campaign is legal. He asserts that they are committed to First Amendment rights and plans to continue their citizen journalism efforts, regardless of the negative portrayal by the media. O'Keefe also mentions a partnership with the Citizen Journalism Foundation to promote civic engagement. He concludes by expressing confidence in their mission and the legality of their actions.

The conversation centers on Brian Harpole’s defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens and the intricate legal and political connections alleged to underpin it. Key points: - The lawsuit: Speaker 0 notes that ex Charlie Kirk security chief’s defamation suit against Candace Owens involves detailed accusations, and that Harpole’s legal team is connected to Dillon Law Group. The theme is that the suit represents a coordinated strategic response rather than a simple claim of harm. - Law firm and leadership: The law firm handling Harpole’s case is Dillon Law Group. Its founder is Harmeet K. Dillon, who Speaker 0 claims is associated with the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and has shifted to “Israel Rights Division.” Dillon Law’s inception is said to have occurred in 2006 in San Francisco, with a mission to provide strategic responsive credit. - DOJ and political ties: The discussion emphasizes a DOJ connection, suggesting Harmit Dillon’s influence persists through her official role and leave status, and alleging she advocates for stricter anti-Semitism speech laws that could silence journalists like Candace Owens. - Daily Wire and personnel connections: The same Dillon Law Group previously represented The Daily Wire in a two-year arbitration, and the firm also hired Jacob Roth, an Orthodox Jewish attorney with civil rights expertise, who is Ben Shapiro’s brother-in-law (married to Abby Shapiro). This is framed as a “Shapiro tie” and a possible “attack by proxy.” - Implications of the family and DOJ ties: The argument posits that Ben Shapiro’s relationship to the firm and to Harpole’s attorney (Zachary Stoner, who allegedly worked for Dillon Law Group) creates a network linking high-level DOJ influence, family ties, and Conservative media figures to launch a legal offensive against Owens. - Discovery and evidence: A central theme is that discovery will allow Candace Owens and her team to obtain material such as video footage, text messages, and deposition testimony from involved parties. Speaker 2 discusses the potential to compel deposition of individuals like Terrell Farnsworth, Mikey McCoy, and Erica Kirk, and to obtain their text messages to challenge the “no conspiracy” claim. - The alleged purpose of the lawsuit: Candace Owens suggests the filing is a PR stunt used to place claims in a legal document as facts, inviting people to quote the lawsuit as truth. The claim is that Harpole’s lawsuit is used to push back on Owens, with the suggestion that it is intended to chill free speech. - Specific claims in the complaint: The complaint accuses Owens of describing Kirk’s security team as shady and of disseminating a credible tip about Harpole’s attendance at a classified meeting with senior government officials at a US Army base (Fort Huachuca). Owens reportedly could not confirm the report, and there was an implication that Harpole’s presence at such a meeting is false. - Admissions and counterpoints: Owens had reached out to Harpole prior to featuring Mitch Snow on her podcast, attempting to verify details and seek comment. Harpole allegedly warned that Owens would be sued if she interviewed Snow. The discussion notes that a deposition could verify whether Mitch Snow’s claims about seeing Harpole and Erica Kirk at Fort Huachuca are accurate. - Overall assessment by participants: The speakers see the lawsuit as a high-stakes move leveraging billionaire backing (alluding to Alex Jones’ lack of billionaire backers) to fuel the confrontation, with a focus on the discovery process as a potential reveals of new evidence. - Additional points: The complaint asserts that Owens’ statements harmed Harpole’s professional reputation and business, and that his claims of emotional distress were caused by Owens’ public remarks. It also questions why Harpole did not publicly respond to Owens’ inquiries about his whereabouts and activities on the contested dates.

Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1 about serving a restraining order against a newsroom, asking if they’ve ever done so against a journalist. Speaker 1 responds that he isn’t sure, and notes he may have served someone without knowing their occupation. Speaker 0 emphasizes the newsroom’s First Amendment rights, saying it prohibits restraining orders against reporting what people say, calling it a fundamental constitutional right. Speaker 1 explains the document is “a court order signed by a judge Mhmm. Out of Miami. All we're doing is serving to you.” Speaker 0 pushes back, implying the situation is serious and indicating they want to speak with the judge involved. Speaker 1 points to the restraining order and says, “It’s all yours,” and that Speaker 0 is responsible for everything in the restraining order. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for being there and mentions he will tell the courts about video of a man saying he wants to kill him. Speaker 1 says he has no idea about that claim. Speaker 0 reflects on the state of the country, stating, “One of the problems in this country is that we're in a constitutional crisis,” and shares personal views that they report people breaking the law, and that those people are never held accountable. He says he’s the one who’s brought to court, arrested, and sued, while “the American people are just pissed off.” He acknowledges Speaker 1’s role and expresses being upset and discouraged. Speaker 0 speaks about maintaining hope despite oppression, noting that people look up to him and that he’s the one who keeps getting held accountable. He asks Speaker 1 to understand what he’s saying. Speaker 0 asserts that something must change “not for my sake, but for our children's sake,” and reiterates the constitutional crisis claim. Speaker 0 recognizes that Speaker 1 is simply doing a job but shares his frustration and desperation, asking why he should continue if it only brings pain, punishment, and abuse. Speaker 0 concedes there’s nothing Speaker 1 can do and that they are in this country’s current situation, acknowledging the police presence bringing him to court and questioning why he should keep going.

Is this seat taken? Actually, that person works for me. Live from the Bronx, I'm James O'Keefe with OMG. You work for BlackRock, right? Yes, but I don’t consent to being recorded. You don’t have to; it’s a one-party consent state. I’m not interested in talking if you’re recording. You mentioned that BlackRock buys politicians. I didn’t say that. I’m just a low-level employee. But you did say it on video. No, I didn’t. You said it’s not about who the president is, but who controls the wallet. I’m nobody. I was just trying to impress someone. We’ll expose more people at BlackRock. I’m going to the police station to ask them to stop you from following me. James O'Keefe here, outside the police station, where the BlackRock executive is discussing my presence and denying his previous statements about Ukraine and buying politicians.

Leaking information jeopardizes the lives of law enforcement officers. We will find and prosecute anyone who does so. This will not deter us from our mission to make America safe, as directed by the President. Our Chicago lawsuit made it clear: violating the law will result in prosecution by the Department of Justice.

They assert that recording is not illegal and proceed with filming. They question why their information is being taken down, and are told, “Because we have a nice little database.” A statement follows, “He is considered a domestic terrorist.” The exchange ends with, “So We're videotaping you? Are you crazy?”

Hidden camera footage shows the FBI raiding the home of a Project Veritas journalist last November. This invasion of First Amendment rights is alarming for journalists nationwide. The government targeted Project Veritas, following our lawful acquisition of materials related to Ashley Biden's diary in 2020, which we chose not to publish and returned to local law enforcement. This raid is part of a broader effort to intimidate and silence journalists, but Project Veritas remains committed to defending our rights and those of all journalists. More revelations about the SDNY's attacks on journalism are forthcoming, and we will continue to fight for our First Amendment protections.

I'm a journalist investigating the administrative state. I confronted a former FBI special agent, now an advisor to the joint chiefs at the Pentagon, about his political activities and fundraising efforts with retired generals. He became angry, called me names, and accused me of fraud and being a liar. He even claimed I needed his permission to record him, despite being in a one-party consent state. He denied saying things that I have on tape, including discussing plans after Trump wins. I questioned the ethics of his political involvement as a Pentagon advisor, and I asked him whether he thought it was appropriate to share sensitive information with strangers, even joking about whether I was a Russian spy.

A leaked, edited undercover video posted by O'Keefe Media Group features Hayden Kirkpatrick, formerly VP at State Farm, discussing the Palisades fire victims and Bay Area residents. Kirkpatrick claims the footage was from a Tinder date. The video, potentially lacking context due to splicing, is controversial. The outlet that published it was founded by James O'Keefe, formerly of Project Veritas, which has faced lawsuits over misleading undercover content. The controversy arises as State Farm continues to drop policies, prompting questions about orchestration.