Project Veritas sting exposes fake NYT Jan 6 “Insurrection” mythology
WASHINGTON — In case you missed the story this week, Project Veritas (PV) dropped yet another undercover video of a liberal of the left exposing the truth behind a false political narrative carefully crafted by the mainstream media. This latest Project Veritas sting confirms that the protests of January 6, 2021 simply did not constitute an insurrection. This remains true despite the lies of progressive Capitol Hill Democrats and their MSM fellow travelers. This is where Project Veritas enters the picture. This actual news organization captured New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning National Security Correspondent Matthew Rosenberg on video contradicting his own sorry part in the paper’s key January 6 mythologies.
As if this latest truth bomb was not bad enough, PV promises this is just part 1 of their latest exposé, with a second part to drop soon. This followup video will further reveal the ties between alleged professional journalists and their Deep State “sources.” But perhaps the term “handlers” would better describe these arguably seditious Deep State co-conspirators.
Major highlights of this Project Veritas sting video include the following (occasionally redacted) comments in which Rosenberg
Contradicts his own January 6 reporting: “There were a ton of FBI informants amongst the people who attacked the Capitol.”
States that “It was like, me and two other colleagues who were there [January 6] outside and we were just having fun!”
Admits: “I know I’m supposed to be traumatized, but like, all these colleagues who were in the [Capitol] building and are like ‘Oh my God it was so scary!’ I’m like, ‘f*ck off!’”
Tells fellow reporters “I’m like come on, it’s not the kind place I can tell someone to man up but I kind of want to be like, ‘dude come on, you were not in any danger.’”
Angrily denounces “These f*cking little dweebs who keep going on about their trauma. Shut the f*ck up. They’re f*cking b*tches.” NOTE: Likely a direct reference to bawling anti-Trump US Representative Adam Kinzinger (RINO-IL). Kinzinger will not run for a seat in Election 2022, as the state’s grateful Democrat bigwigs gerrymandered him out of his seat.
Admits that [his co-conspirators] “were making too big a deal [out of January 6.] They were making this an organized thing that it wasn’t.”
Boldly concludes“Will I stand by those comments? Absolutely.”
But wait! There’s more!
Also of interest, and perhaps of benefit to those falsely imprisoned in Washington, D.C., after January 6, Rosenberg made the following damning admission.
“[T]here were a ton of FBI informants among the people who attacked the Capitol.”
This contradicts Rosenberg’s previous reporting in which he characterized the MAGA supporters’ assertions that there were FBI informants in the crowd as a “reimagining of Jan. 6.”
It also proves what many Americans believe about the Deep State/media cabal. Namely, liberals and leftists are habitual liars. Score another point for this important Project Veritas sting operation.
More contradictions, anyone?
But this was not the only time Rosenberg’s comments to Project Veritas contradicted his own earlier published words. On one hand, he told a PV journalist that he regarded January 6 as “no big deal.” Yet in another article he wrote, he claimed that downplaying the events of that day would constitute “the next big lie.”
This references President Trump’s claim that a widespread conspiracy stole the 2020 election by fraudulent means. The Democrats and their bed buddies of the media immediately labeled this a “Big Lie” as they ignored and gaslighted all available evidence to the contrary.
But soundbites of Rosenberg, published Tuesday, March 8, show him saying, “It’s not a big deal as they [media] are making it because they were making too big a deal. They were making this an organized thing that it wasn’t.”
More Project Veritas sting revelations
Project Veritas founder and CEO James O’Keefe revealed that Rosenberg drafted his article, “The Next Big Lies: Jan 6 was No Big Deal, or A Left-Wing Plot,” around the same time as Rosenberg was making contradictory statements to a PV undercover reporter. Rosenberg also admitted to that same undercover reporter that January 6 was “fun.” This contradicted his reporting that January 6 was “a violent interruption to the transition of power in American history.”
“It was like, me and two other colleagues who were there outside and we were just having fun,” he later recollected in the PV interview. He appears to make fun of his two New York Times colleagues in one soundbite where he says, “I know I’m supposed to be traumatized, but like, all these colleagues who were in the [Capitol] building, and are like, ‘Oh my God it was so scary!’ I’m like, ‘f*ck off!’” He then concludes, “I’m like come on, it’s not the kind place I can tell someone to man up but I kind of want to be like, ‘dude come on, you were not in any danger.’”
In another teaser video, James O’Keefe pursues NYT reporter Mark Mazzetti who has nothing to say:
Oddly, one of the most interesting aspects of this video clip appears in its description. Here, O’Keefe offers 12 rules every ethical news journalist should follow.
Ethical Values: Twelve Rules
#1 – Truth is paramount. Our reporting is fact-based with clear and irrefutable video and audio content. Truth is paramount. We never deceive our audience. We do not distort the facts or the context. [And we] do not “selectively edit.”
#2 – We do not break the law. We maintain one-party consent when recording someone is inherently moral and ethical. We never record when there is zero-party consent. In areas where we are required to have consent from all parties, we seek legal guidance regarding the expectation of privacy’s impact on our right to record.
#3 – We adhere to the 1st Amendment rights of others. During our investigations, we do not disrupt the peace. We do not infringe on the 1st Amendment rights of others.
#4 – The Zekman Test. The undercover investigations we pursue are judged by us to be of “vital public interest” and “profound importance.” The Zekman Test is our baseline. Undercover investigative reporting is necessary because “…there’s no other way to get the story…” Whereas the Society of Professional Journalists allows for undercover techniques, if undercover techniques are necessary to expose issues of vital public importance; we believe they are not only allowed but required.
#5 – We Protect the Innocent When Possible – Embarrassing private details are not to be investigated. We stay away from irrelevant embarrassingly intimate details about private citizens personal lives. We look for individual wrong-doing and judge its public importance. The irrelevant religious or sexual dispositions of our targets are not to be investigated.
#6 – Transparency. Our methods & tactics must be reasonable and defensible. We use the “Twelve Jurors on Our Shoulder” rule. The work has to be done with such a degree of integrity that it can withstand scrutiny in both law & ethics. We are comfortable with transparency. We must be willing to be ready to disclose our methods upon publication.
#7 – Verifying and Corroborate Stories – Evaluate the impact on third parties and Newsworthiness of Statements Alone.We consistently consider the probable truth or falsity of statements, examine any reasons to doubt the veracity of underlying assertions, and whether the assertions are newsworthy. When possible, we will confirm with our subjects that their statements captured on video are accurate & truthful. At the very least, we will give our subjects an opportunity to elaborate and/or respond. In all matters, we rely on the 1st Amendment to protect our ability to publish newsworthy items after our internal deliberations. On whether there is an obligation to ensure the veracity of statements made on video, 1.) consider whether the remarks may potentially impact an innocent third party. (Factors in support of releasing the content) and 2.)The Newsworthiness of the statement alone by itself. (Factors against releasing the content).
#8 – Raw Video. In certain circumstances, we may release the “raw” video to the press and or the public. But as a rule, we do not.
#9 – Subject Anonymity. We investigate & question sources before promising anonymity. Once we confirm, we will do everything in our power to protect the identity of our confidential sources.
#10 – Being Accountable. Admit mistakes & correct them promptly.
#11 – We do not manufacture content. We do not put words in our investigative subjects’ mouths. We do not lead the horse to water. Our purpose is to elicit the truth.
#12 – With Great Power comes Great Responsibility.
To follow ongoing developments in the never-ending January 6 controversy, stay tuned to the Project Veritas website for their second video in this series. And consider donating to this organization for the good work they do. Project Veritas is a registered 501(c)3 organization.
NOTE: PV does not advocate specific resolutions to the issues raised through its investigations.
About the author:
Mark Schwendau is a conservative Christian patriot and retired technology professor (CAD-CAM and web development). He prides himself on his critical thinking ability. Schwendau has had a long sideline of newspaper editorial writing where he used the byline, “bringing little known facts to people who want to see the truth. Mark is on alternative free speech social media platforms after lifetime bans from Facebook and Twitter and shadow bans from Instagram and Fox News commenting.
His website is www.IDrawIWrite.Tech
Follow Mark on:
Follow CommDigiNews at