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.
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.
NJO: Ugh. The first sentence of the second paragraph, with its weasel switch to plural pronouns, "our, we, us."
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).
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
.
NJO: Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
On August 10, a week before the meeting, James sent an email to three people: Project Veritas staffer Izzy Santa, Jonathon Burns of St Louis Tea Party, and author of the "CNN Caper" document Ben Wetmore, asking "Ben, you think I could get her on the boat?"
It should be noted that James has known Ben Wetmore since c.2005 when Wetmore was a staffer and field representative for Morton Blackwell's Leadership Institute, and that James had worked with Wetmore a number of times prior to this incident, and that James had described Wetmore as "a mentor of mine; a genius" in September 2009.
On August 13, four days before the meeting, James sent an email to Izzy Santa, saying "Please go to fedex and print out pleasure palace graphic on large banner - needs to be ready by late tonight - if possible..."
Here's the graphic:
On August 14, three days before the meeting, he sent another email to Izzy Santa, saying "Could you come down Tuesday for the CNN operation - I'll need another person around." The "CNN Caper" document written by Ben Wetmore refers to the plan as an "operation" five times.
On August 17 at 8:04AM, Izzy Santa sends an email to an unknown party, attesting that "James has staged the boat to be a palace of pleasure with all sorts of props, wants to have a bizarre sexual conversation with her."
At about 12:30PM on the same day, Abbie Boudreau meets Izzy Santa in the vicinity of the house and boat being used by James O'Keefe, and then a short time later, in the same place, encounters James O'Keefe. By Boudreau's account, Santa again claims that James is planning to "gag" CNN, and again attests that props are on the boat, this time specifying "strawberries and champagne." Also, by Boudreau's account, James asks her (Boudreau), "What are you ashamed of?" The idea of the female journalist having some sort of shame attached to her -- which is the disgusting theme of the second part of the CNN Caper document -- would appear to loom in James' mind here.
The "strawberries and champagne" are new details not mentioned in the document, which suggests that 1) the plan to get Boudreau on the boat and humiliate her using props was still on, and that 2) the specifics had been revised somewhat. That second point is what James focuses on in the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs, that the document "was never going to be implemented as written." He has notably less to say about what, exactly, was going to be implemented -- indeed, it's almost as if he's trying to deflect attention away from that by bringing up stupid shit like hairstyle discrepancies and lyrics and such -- but the gist has already been made clear: Grudge against CNN; Boat staged with suggestive props; "James O'Keefe Pleasure Palace"; Get female CNN reporter on boat; Shame On Her.
At the very least, James' statement that "Nothing in the document was implemented" does not sit well in agreement with his request to Santa to print out the Pleasure Palace graphic. One might even say that when he said that "Nothing in the document was implemented", he was doing that thing vulgarly known as "lying." And if I was counting, I might also say he was using passive voice to defocus attention from his personal agency in this thing that he did here which he then lied about in this lie that he told here.
I could also mention Boudreau's observations that Santa's lip was shaking and that she had some dirt on her face. This strongly suggests to me that someone may have just assaulted her. It's very disappointing that Boudreau and her crew did not, apparently, follow up on this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 . . .
