Friday, February 24, 2023

Time for Some Truth

Col. Jessup: You want answers?

Kaffee: I think I'm entitled to….

Col. Jessup: You want answers?




Jeff Childers has written a post at his Coffee & Covid blog regarding the saga of James O’Keefe and the Project Veritas board: VINCIT OMNIA VERITAS – “truth conquers all things.”  The points on which I will focus, which Childers examines in great detail:

From what I can tell, James is NOT just operating on instinct. I think he deliberately tested the theory of whether Project Veritas has been infiltrated, by asking the Project Veritas Board to resign. When every single traitorous one of them refused, James had his answer. It doesn’t MATTER whether it was Pfizer, the CIA, the FBI, Russia, Fauci, or even Putin himself. The company has been compromised.

From the time this story broke, in the back of my mind I kept thinking: How did such a board get in place?  Important questions to be asked:

·         What is the history of each board member (beyond and before their role at Project Veritas)? 

o   As Steve Bannon suggested, the board has a fiduciary duty to show us they don’t have any connection with Pfizer or anybody from Pfizer.  Or, I will add, any other conflicted connection.

·         When was each member brought on to the board? 

o   Per Charlie Kirk, some new board members were recently added.

·         What are the procedures for approving new board members?  

·         Who, or what committee, nominates and approves board members? 

o   Who is on the committee?

·         What are the terms of service for board members?

·         Are the board’s actions consistent with the governing documents?

·         Who was responsible and involved in setting up the governing documents? 

In other words, how did such a board get put in place and get such control that they could remove the founder and motive force behind the organization?

Further, there are allegations of misappropriation of funds.  What is the situation regarding the audit committee of the board and the annual audit of the financial statements – to include the necessary federal filings?

Finally, how much of the financial support comes from what percentage of the donor base?  If the concentration is high (therefore, leverage), who are the major donors and what is their background and history?

These kinds of questions should be asked and answered.  Many of these questions can be answered by gaining access to the organizing documents, minutes of board meetings, etc.  As Project Veritas is a donor-supported organization, I believe the donors have standing to ask.  Much of this might also already be publicly available.


All aspects of corporate governance and authority must be addressed and investigated in this situation.  As you all know, investigating current news stories is not my strong suit.  I usually blunder on such things.  But I know the questions to ask, and I know there are many people out there really good at figuring out how to answer such questions.

There are many angles to this story.  I have focused on one.  But I think the answers to these questions will shed light on the many other aspects.


  1. The best resolution is that donor money follows James O'Keefe quickly and completely. Then James has the capital he needs to continue his work. Hopefully he learns his lessons and doesn't put himself in such a dangerous position. Evil men are out to get him because he is a threat.

    1. The thing is O'Keefe knows very well the dangerous position he is in. He has paid via many aggressive acts by the state against him.

      He needs a wingman, apparently. Someone he can trust who will ensure that the governance apparatus that surrounds what he does is not at the same time the enemy.

  2. You lost me at Charlie Kirk.

  3. Board member of a long-standing “fellow traveler” non-profit, and a corporate attorney here. James needed better legal advice in the beginning. I’ve been having conversations with executives in this space and the smarter ones among them are acutely aware of the takeover risks presented by hostile actors, and the need to implement protections.

    James could have arranged for controlling voting shares for himself and one or two trusted others. Many non-profits that care about succession are doing this carefully; it’s not just conservative and liberty-oriented ones (although it’s critical that those ones do so).

    It’s a shame how it went down.

    1. Many, many moons ago, I read something in one of Gary North's writings (if my memory serves me correctly) about a method by which cults or outside organizations could literally take over Christian churches against the will of their parishioners. He may have used the Masons as an example. They would simply infiltrate the ranks over time, becoming voting members, and when enough were in, by virtue of majority vote, simply pack the board, sack the pastor, change the constitution, and take over the physical plant for their own purposes. Anyone who objected would be shown the door.

      Denominationally-affiliated churches might have some protection against this, but independents and non-denominational groups would be hung out to dry under this scenario.

      What would be the best way to make sure that didn't happen?

    2. Roger, all I can suggest is church discipline regarding membership. If the new people trickle in, will they be able to hide their true colors long enough such that eventually they will have a majority? Once their true colors come out, then normal discipline processes take over.

      That's my two cents.

  4. Enjoy reading your posts. Title on this one was appropriate, as well as dialogue from 'A Few Good Men'. If you're interested, here is some truth, the rabbit hole goes deeper than most folks think.