Project Veritas founder reacts to being permanently banned from Twitter.
Project Veritas released a music video taking aim at the 'Oligarchy' as part of the debut of a new initiative from the outlet.
'Twitter, CNN/Zuck is working with Dorsey/Oligarchy,' the lyrics go, referring to CNN president Jeff Zucker and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. 'Is it make-believe/Was it what you wanted them to see/Oligarchy.'
'Do you print lies/Does [Times executive editor] Dean Baquet cry/Oligarchy.'
O'Keefe, who is seen dancing and taking a sledgehammer against TV sets, is apparently expanding his court battles on behalf of others with Project Veritas Legal.
'Have you been defamed? Project Veritas Legal. Defending the defamed,' its website page reads before providing an email address for inquiries.
Last month, O'Keefe filed a defamation lawsuit against Twitter after the tech giant permanently suspending him for allegedly using fake accounts, something he vehemently denied, while critics accuse Twitter of retaliation as his ban was put in place during Project Veritas' #ExposeCNN campaign that embarrassed the liberal network.
He also launched a separate lawsuit against CNN after anchor Ana Cabrera falsely claimed on-air that Twitter had banned Project Veritas over the spread of 'misinformation' when in reality the suspension was over an alleged private information policy violation.
Project Veritas filed another suit against the Times over a report published last fall claiming that the reporting from the right-wing guerilla outlet was 'deceptive,' 'false,' and 'with no verifiable evidence.'
In March, a New York judge denied the paper's motion to dismiss the suit.
'The facts submitted by Veritas could indicate more than standard, garden variety media bias and support a plausible inference of actual malice,' Supreme Court Justice Charles Wood ruled last week. 'There is a substantial basis in law to proceed to permit the plaintiff to conduct discovery and to then attempt to meet its higher standard of proving liability through clear and convincing evidence of actual malice.'
Wood elaborated, 'If a writer interjects an opinion in a news article (and will seek to claim legal protections as opinion) it stands to reason that the writer should have an obligation to alert the reader, including a court that may need to determine whether it is fact or opinion, that it is opinion.'