U.S. federal law enforcement has made the move to target operatives from investigative journalist group Project Veritas in addition to its founder, James O’Keefe, on the basis of an investigation into possession of a diary that allegedly belonged to Joe Biden’s youngest daughter, 40-year-old Ashley Biden.
On Nov. 5, Project Veritas posted an article on its website titled FBI and Southern District of New York Raid Project Veritas Journalists’ Homes where founder James O’Keefe states, “I awoke to the news that apartments and homes of Project Veritas journalists, or former journalists, had been raided by FBI agents.”
“It appears the Southern District of New York now has journalists in their sights for the supposed ‘crime’ of doing their jobs lawfully and honestly.”
O’Keefe explains the details of the FBI’s investigation and raid, which he says was predated by a Grand Jury subpoena, “Late last year, we were approached by tipsters claiming they had a copy of Ashley Biden’s diary. We had never met or heard of the tipsters. The tipsters indicated that the diary had been abandoned in a room in which Ms. Biden stayed at the time, and in which the tipsters stayed in temporarily after Ms. Biden departed the room.”
“The tipsters indicated that the diary included explosive allegations against then-candidate, Joe Biden. The tipsters indicated that they were negotiating with a different media outlet for the payment of monies for the diary. The tipsters were represented by attorneys who handled the negotiations with Project Veritas.”
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Check your email to complete sign up
O’Keefe says he did not publish the journal because, after attempting to verify its veracity, “we could not determine if the diary was real, if the diary in fact belonged to Ashley Biden, or if the contents of the diary occurred.”
The statement says, “We attempted to return the diary to an attorney representing Ms. Biden, but that attorney refused to authenticate it. Project Veritas gave the diary to law enforcement to ensure it could be returned to its rightful owner. We never published it.”
The same day, the New York Times published a four-author article about the raid based on information provided by “people briefed on the matter.”
The article says the journal was leaked to the public just a week and a half before the Nov. 3, 2020 Presidential Election and described the raids as “court-ordered searches…one in New York City and one in suburban Westchester County” based on an investigation that is being “handled by F.B.I. agents and federal prosecutors in Manhattan who work on public corruption matters.”
The New York Times conceded that Project Veritas, which is currently suing the publication for defamation, did not publish the diary.
The Times nonetheless insisted on framing the matter with the colorings of a conspiracy theory, stating, “But dozens of handwritten pages from it were posted on a right wing website on Oct. 24, 2020, at a time when President Donald J. Trump was seeking to undermine Mr. Biden’s credibility by portraying his son, Hunter, as engaging in corrupt business dealings.”
NYT appears to be referring to the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop scandal, which was heavily censored in tandem by establishment broadcast and print media and the Big Tech cartel in advance of last year’s landmark election because of its precarious positioning of Joe Biden between Hunter and Chinese Communist Party-affiliated entities.
In his statement, O’Keefe points out a marked problem with the timing of the NYT’s coverage, “But while the Department of Justice requested us to not disclose the existence of the subpoena, something very unusual happened. Within an hour of one of our reporters’ homes being secretly raided by the FBI, The New York Times, who we are currently suing for defamation, contacted the Project Veritas reporter for comment.”
“We do not know how The New York Times was aware of the execution of a search warrant at our reporter’s home, or the subject matter of the search warrant, as a Grand Jury investigation is secret.”
O’Keefe says that the cover letter for the Grand Jury subpoena contained the following verbiage, “The Government hereby requests that you voluntarily refrain from disclosing the existence of the subpoena to any third party. While you are under no obligation to comply with our request, we are requesting you not to make any disclosure in order to preserve the confidentiality of the investigation and because disclosure of the existence of this investigation might interfere with and impede the investigation.”
Relying on its anonymous sources, the NYT revealed awareness of the investigation, “In recent weeks, federal investigators have reached out to at least one person who worked for Project Veritas to question that person about the diary.”
The Times’ article also states that Project Veritas employs the services of a former British spy “to help train its operatives, teaching them espionage tactics such as using deception to secure information from potential targets.”
In September and October, O’Keefe’s outlet published a series of undercover videos targeting Big Pharma and the establishment vaccine-positive narrative, such as obtaining comment from a whistleblower at an HHS-funded hospital who alleged COVID-19 vaccine adverse reactions were both common and underreported, comments from a scientist and a staff member of pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson advocating for the installation of a two-tiered society based on vaccine status, a trio of Pfizer scientists who, in private, sung the virtues of natural immunity and aired concerns about their company’s profit-driven and surveillance-based corporate culture, leaked emails from Pfizer executive showing the company admitting aborted fetal cell lines were used in the development of their mRNA injection, and an FDA economist who repeatedly championed an extreme idea of using blow darts to forcibly inject blacks and low IQ vaccine hesitant Americans.
The Times noted that the “right wing website” that published the alleged Ashley Biden journal is registered to a Wyoming address that is also used by a company registered to the former spy Veritas employed. According to the outlet, O’Keefe was also previously President “of a company that later registered at the same address.”
The next day on Nov. 6, the Times, in another four-author article relying on “witnesses and people briefed on the matter,” reported that the FBI had taken the next step to raid O’Keefe’s personal apartment in Mamaroneck.
“An F.B.I. spokesman on Saturday said that agents had ‘performed law enforcement activity’ at the building, but would not discuss the investigation,” stated the article.
Two residents in the complex who provided their name and eyewitness testimony of the raid were paraphrased as saying the agency conducted a movie-like siege on O’Keefe’s apartment and that “the F.B.I. agents were at the apartment for several hours.”
On Nov. 7, the New York Post Editorial Board published a short position piece titled This Sure Looks Like Biden’s DOJ Persecuting an Opposition Journalist, stating, “You don’t have to be a fan of James O’Keefe’s style of journalism to be worried about how the government is reacting to it.”
“Journalists can’t be prosecuted for publishing stolen material unless they were part of the theft. And the theft in question hardly seems to rise to a federal crime.”
“And shield laws normally mean law enforcement can’t make reporters reveal a thing about their sources, even if they didn’t publish anything.”
The Board continued, “Journalists regularly publish material that has been leaked or even taken — consider the Times running President Donald Trump’s tax returns. Unless the feds know something about Veritas sanctioning the burglary, the diary does not warrant pre-dawn raids. It has all the marks of a political vendetta.”
While Project Veritas made no further statement after the raid on O’Keefe’s personal residence, the same day, the outlet’s YouTube channel uploaded an 8 minutes and 3 seconds-long video where James O’Keefe, dawning a suit, holding a cigar, and sitting in front of a fireplace, read passages from Book 2, Chapter 9 of George Orwell’s semi-prophetic warning of a communist dystopian future, 1984.
The passage quoted begins, “And if it is necessary to rearrange one’s memories or to tamper with written records, then it is necessary to forget that one has done so. The trick of doing this can be learned like any other mental technique. It is learned by the majority of Party members, and certainly by all who are intelligent as well as orthodox. In Oldspeak it is called, quite frankly, ’reality control’. In Newspeak it is called doublethink, though doublethink comprises much else as well.”
Orwell explains, “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt.”
“…since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary.”