Paul Calli, an attorney for Project Veritas, dismissed Sandler’s claims, calling any notion that the group is a spy operation a “conspiracy theory.”
The remarks came during opening statements in the case – Democracy Partners vs. Project Veritas — in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman. The case centers on Project Veritas’ elaborate 2016 efforts to use false identities and concocted narratives to place an intern – Allison Maass under the pseudonym “Angela Brandt” – in the offices of Democracy Partners in September 2016, in the very turmoil of the presidential election that year. competition. Another Project Veritas staffer – Daniel Sandini posing as “Charles Roth” – ingratiated himself with Democracy Partners via a donation to a progressive group and laid the groundwork for “Brandt’s” internship.
Project Veritas is defending itself against charges of fraudulent misrepresentation and illegal wiretapping in connection with its activities, which resulted in reels of videotape containing free speech by the Democratic agents. The case could clarify the scope of the First Amendment in protecting intrusive newsgathering activities — especially those that have fallen out of favor with mainstream journalists.
“What was Project Veritas investigating, exactly?” Sandler asked.
In his address to jurors, Sandler argued that the plaintiffs in the case — Creamer, Democracy Partners and Democracy Partners member Strategic Consulting Group (SCG) — lost a lot of money in contracts and other damages (more than a million dollars, according to the original complaint) as a result of the sting. After the Project Veritas report was published on the Internet, for example, AFSCME canceled a contract with SCG for telephone banking and other services. This decision was not entirely prompted by the embarrassing excerpts from the Project Veritas videos, Sandler suggested. A “substantial factor”, he said, was that the company allowed Project Veritas to infiltrate the organization and “compromise” its information.
This distinction is central to the case, which seeks damages arising from the actions of Project Veritas that preceded publication of the videos, i.e. the alleged false statements and the allegedly illegal wiretapping. Had Democracy Partners filed a defamation suit, the legal analysis would have focused on the impact of the content of the videos, although as this blog previously explained, such a claim would have had to overcome a higher evidentiary hurdle. .
Project Veritas scoffs at the idea that its infiltration sparked a financial meltdown among Democratic operatives. “This case is about news reporting,” Calli said in her opening statement, noting that after the videos were released, “their clients wanted nothing to do with them. [Creamer and Foval] — because of their words,” not because of the methods used to record them.
“Nobody put words in Scott Foval’s mouth,” Calli said. “No one forced Bob Creamer to meet again and again” with a Project Veritas staff member. Maybe so, although Project Veritas was much more than a passive player in this series of events: for example, “Roth” offered a cockamamie voter fraud scheme to Creamer at a dinner party in August 2016. .
Under cross-examination Thursday afternoon, Calli asked Creamer why he didn’t raise any red flags internally about “Roth” after he made such a proposal. “I thought it was well-intentioned,” said Creamer, who earlier noted that he considered “Roth’s” idea “dumb” and unworkable. In another round of questioning, Calli sought to undermine Democracy Partners’ claim that the infiltration had compromised the group’s confidential information. He pointed out that Creamer told “Roth” about an upcoming operation in which a Democratic agent would dress up as “Donald Ducks” to draw attention to Trump’s dodging of his tax returns.
“Do you think Secretary Clinton, who you worked for, would have been happy for you to release” this plan to someone outside the organization? Calli asked. Creamer replied that he didn’t believe he was “broadcasting” anything, although he conceded, after another round of prodding from Calli, that there was “no doubt I should have been more discreet”.
Creamer’s testimony underscored how dizzying it can be to be the victim of a hidden camera operation. He told the jury how he walked out of a meal at a downtown restaurant with a man who turned out to be a Project Veritas agent. As they left the scene, the man fled, and a Sinclair Broadcast Group news crew approached with questions about the statements captured on the Project Veritas tapes. (A Sinclair reporter later told Creamer that Project Veritas provided a first look at the raw footage of the sting, according to the complaint.)
It’s no wonder, then, that the exchanges between Calli and Creamer became testy, requiring multiple interventions from Friedman. At one point, the two men found themselves at an impasse on the difference between “I don’t know” and “not to my knowledge”. After Creamer was reprimanded by Friedman for his disquisitional responses to Calli’s questions — the Democratic operative seemed to view his appearance as an open-mic court exit — he replied, “Sorry, your honor.” Calli replied, “No, you’re not.”
The judge also criticized Calli, who came alive in her questioning of Creamer. “I don’t know what you’re doing with those gestures!” Friedman thundered. “To ask questions.”
Tension also mounted in the hallway outside the courtroom. Before the opening statements, Calli exchanged a few sour remarks with New York Times reporter Adam Goldman, who, along with his colleagues, has published several articles on Project Veritas. (Times employees were also the target of stings from Project Veritas, and Project Veritas sued the Times for defamation.)
“To what do we owe this honor? Calli asked Goldman about her presence. The reporter replied that he wanted to check the procedure and mentioned the “profane emails” he had apparently received from Calli in recent months. Calli made a jocular reference to the “ethical” stories Goldman produced for The Times and called the work “gutless.”
“Paul, I have nothing to say to you,” said Goldman, who instructed Calli to “go back inside” and waved his hand in the direction of the courtroom. “Who do you think you are?” Calli replied.
In his opening statement moments later, Calli praised Project Veritas’ undercover work and compared it to other outlets. As he made the comparison, Calli seemed to be looking directly at Goldman, who was in the back of the room taking notes.
