I also find it interesting that during the failed Mary Landreiu operation Breitbart claimed O'Keefe was not a paid employee of his yet here O'Keefe is publishing his response to a supposedly independent plot he was involved in on Breitbart's website. Why didn't O'Keefe request a press conference or use his own company's website to issue a statement?
Anyway, here is O'Keefe's statement with some original commentary:
Now that I’ve had a chance to watch CNN’s “Right on the Edge” documentary, I’m happy to comment. I apologize for not saying anything sooner, but don’t want to comment until I have all the facts at my disposal.Although he liked it, O'Keefe claims he had no intention of actually pulling off the plan. He does, however, state that it would have been justified because Boudreau was trying to metaphorically "seduce" him for his story, whatever that means. He also claims that he was repulsed by the language and symbolism in the memo he liked, which is easy to say when it didn't happen.
As you can imagine in our line of work, we get lots of leads, ideas, schemes and “punked” style plans sent to us all the time. If you were to roam through my personal emails there are many outrageous plans, some parts of which I may approve of in principal with an “I like it” in an email thread. But I may well object to a host of things about the plan, though I like the objective.
When the CNN idea was pitched to me, I’ll admit that I liked the basic absurdity of meeting Abbie Boudreau on a boat and the idea of counter-seduction satire executed in a tame, humorous, non-threatening manner. After all, as all liberal reporters do, she was trying to “seduce” (a metaphor) me so she could get more for her story. It would be fun, I thought, to turn the tables in jest. However, I was repulsed by the over-the-top language and symbolism that was suggested in the memo that was sent to me, and never considered that for a moment.
In my version, the reporter was never going to be placed in a threatening situation. She would have had to consent before being filmed and she was not going to be faux “seduced” unless she wanted to be. If a CNN reporter would be willing to engage in such a folly, it might even be more newsworthy than Rick Sanchez’s firing. (CNN also has Elliot Spitzer on payroll. He’s done more outrageous things than anything I’ve ever gotten in my in-box).O'Keefe claims things would have been different had he actually engaged in the seduction plot and then makes the assertion that she wouldn't have been "faux 'seduced'" if she didn't want to be. O'Keefe makes it sound as if he is nothing more then an equivalent to a Daily Show correspondant doing a segment on Jon Stewart's popular cable show, even though he tries to pass off his stories as real hard-hitting news. Let me just say that a Daily Show correspondant has much more credability then O'Keefe ever will.
O'Keefe then goes on to attack the network the professional (remember Breitbart's comments) reporter works for by name-dropping Rick Sanchez and then pointing out that CNN has hired Elliot Spitzer as proof that what he is doing is okay because Spitzer has done far more worse things, although when you think about it, the comparison doesn't really hold water. O'Keefe tries to be taken seriously as an "investigative reporter" yet he engages in stupid little plots involving hacked up secret video tapes while Spitzer is a talking head for a news channel. Had Spitzer videotaped himself as a pimp trying to get housing for his slew of prostitutes (instead of getting caught being a john) and then subsequently cut up the tape to make it look like the organization on video was actually offering assistance, then I might agree with O'Keefe, but right now I see his mention of Sanchez and Spitzer as a mere deflection from his own failures.
The sexually explicit document CNN is now “reporting” on was never going to be implemented as written. She saw how I was dressed that day, with my usual blazer and collared shirt. In the document she reported as being “authentic,” I was supposed to have been dressed with my chest exposed, slicked backed hair, with gold chains. That ought to have been a red flag the document was not a reflection of my true intentions. Ms. Boudreau was never going to be put in the bizarre situations outlined in the document CNN reported. There were no mirrors, sex tapes, blindfolds, fuzzy handcuffs, posters of naked women, or music. Sorry, you were not going to see my face saying the words “Bubble Headed Beach Blonde who comes on at 5” into a video camera. Those are Don Henley lyrics – and we know, thanks to Chuck DeVore, how much Henley loathes parody.
I do believe that Izzy Santa, who came to Ms. Boudreau with the documents and the story, was simply trying to protect me and the organization from a dangerous and objectionable plan, one sent to me in my personal emails that she assumed, wrongly, and probably due to my own lack of communication to her, that I was going to implement. Nothing in the document was implemented.O'Keefe again claims he was never going to implement the plan as written and claims that because he was dressed in his trademark blazer he was obviously not goinnt ot try to faux seduce Boudreau, but how was Boudreau to know that when O'Keefe's own assistant, Izzy Santa, freaked out over the plan and warned the reporter? Boudreau wrote in her article that when she arrived to O'Keefe's "office," there was no office - only a boat where she was warned by Santa that O'Keefe was inside waiting with "strawberries and champagne."
Who's lying - O'Keefe, Santa, or Boudreau? My money is on O'Keefe.
I never wanted to be part of a CNN documentary because I know that CNN claims to be fair minded yet is not. Their pursuit of a non-story based on a document I neither produced, nor followed, confirms what we already know: “The most trusted name in news” can’t be trusted. Look at their reporting.If that was the case then what was with the correspondance between Boudreau and O'Keefe planning on an interview, and if we take O'Keefe for his word, a normal interview with no faux seducing to take place?
CNN has falsely reported on every major investigation we’ve ever been a part of. For example, on September 10, 2009 CNN broadcasted we were “basically thrown out“ of the ACORN offices we visited. We weren’t. When the other tapes were released, it was shown we were not “thrown out” of any offices. (We’re still waiting on their correction.) On June 1st, 2010, CNN falsely reported we “plead guilty following an attempt to tamper.” We didn’t and they issued a correction. Now this.Here O'Keefe attacks CNN yet again by claiming they lied in their reporting of "every major investigation" he created, citing thie coverage of his edited ACORN tapes where CNN claimed he was "basically thrown out" of the offices he visited. O'Keefe fails to mention that CNN reports from that day point out that ACORN officials stated that O'Keefe and his accomplice, Hannah Giles, tried thier scheme at other ACORN offices and failed, and that when CNN tried to contact O'Keefe to get information regarding the events, he refused to respond.
As for the second incident O'Keefe mentions, notice how he doesn't indicate what that is a reference to - his plot to do something to Mary Landrieu's telephones and his subsequent arrest. O'Keefe plead guilty to misdemeanor charges of entering federal property under false pretenses, and as Fox News and Big Government reported at the time, those false pretenses involved "trying to interfere with phones at Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office."
Notice a trend? When O'Keefe illegally videotaped ACORN workers, he claimed he never really did anything wrong. When O'Keefe was caught earlier this year trying to get into Senator Landrieu's telephone cabinet, O'Keefe claimed they were never really going to do anything wrong. When O'Keefe got caught trying to "faux seduce" a CNN reporter, O'Keefe claimed he was never really going to do anything. Seems like O'Keefe gets into a lot of trouble never really doing anything wrong.
I provided CNN with a clear statement that the document in question was objectionable. Still, they sent their “Special Investigations Unit” out in a failed attempt to discredit me. They do this not because they want to get to the truth, but because they are threatened by a bunch of independent journalists with video cameras uncovering the stories that they went to J-School to find.I find it hypocritical that he would object to a story because he objected to the material - I'm sure ACORN found his and Giles' videos objectionable yet they still ran with it. I also find O'Keefe's anger towards real journalists to be interesting.
Abbie Boudreau and Scott Zamost need to start worrying about – and covering – real abuses that are actually happening at Planned Parenthood, ACORN, or in Charlie Rangel’s office. They need to start producing the type of investigations young people with shoestring budgets and flair are investigating.First, remmber Breitbart stated Boudreau and Zamost were acting professionally. Secondly, look at O'Keefe's mention of his budget - last time I checked O'Keefe was bankrolled by Peter Thiel, one of the founders of PayPal and an early investor in Facebook, to the tune of $30,000 - a pretty big budget for a pimp (dressed in thrift-store digs), a prostitute (dressed in her Sunday's best), and a secret videotape.
And with all that CNN bashing and talk about not doing anything wrong, O'Keefe promises to continue making his "investigative journalism" projects.
I can assure my supporters and my misguided adversaries that Project Veritas will continue to work to produce the investigative reports that CNN and others in the mainstream media have failed to deliver. It’s time to get back to work. Projects will be released soon. That inbox is getting full again.
And you never know what bizarre idea I’m going to need to reject next . . .
Sadly, most of O'Keefe's fans support him. Sure there are a couple of supporters wanting a real explanation, but there are not many, and in the end they give O'Keefe the benefit of the doubt. What is really sad is the attacks against Boudreau by the people at Big Government, with some commenters equating her to a "mobster."
Of course O'Keefe is lying and it is not even a close call. He admits Izzy Santa saved his bacon. Fine. Then why was she terminated? When one of my employees does a good job, I give them a raise and a promotion. I guess in the wingnut world, you get terminated. The real tragedy is the lemmings on the Big sites for the most part, do not care. As long as O'Keefe goes after all the Marxists, socialists and any other individual they consider to be a threat in their sick minds, they are willing to look the other way.ReplyDelete
I had read an article stating Izzy Santa was removed from her position but still employed by O'Keefe's company. Basically, nothing O'Keefe says adds up.ReplyDelete
He claims he wasn't going through with the plan but everything surrounding the event points to the plan. He claims he didn't want to be interviewed but all the back-and-forth emails between him and Boudreau prove otherwise and instead of admitting anything, O'Keefe just attacks the character of CNN and its employment - I know Eliot Spitzer and Rick Sanchez are easy targets but considering Breitbart's comments, O'Keefe has some additional explaining to do...
Also, saw your comments on Big Government! Very interesting. The people on Big Government are the perfect definition of "sheeple."ReplyDelete
The only reason she may still be an "employee" is he wants to keep her quiet. Her name was taken off the website and she has not spoken with the press. His response is the typical right wing hack job. Two wrongs somehow make a right and if you do not like the message, attack the messenger.ReplyDelete
It is interesting. He scrubs all information of her from his website. Sounds as if he is doing some damage control and trying to regain the narrative. A little bit of revisionism was in order! Before you know it he will start claiming Santa was a volunteer or intern and that she was the one who crafted the plan...ReplyDelete
Then we will find out she was a CNN mole!