Minnesota charged both myself and fellow journalist Cam Higby with two felony counts in retaliation for our bombshell investigative report on voter vouching laws that we did back in August.
We stand by our reporting.
The charges are an attempt to criminalize investigative journalism. The charges are an attempt to distract from what our reporting exposed as insecure elections in Minnesota. Now, this has become a landmark 1st Amendment case where everyone’s right to speak truth to power has just been put on the line.
Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty led a press conference regarding these charges.
“Today we are charging two individuals, James O’Keefe and Cameron Higby, with felony counts of unlawful voting and identity theft,” Moriarty said.
She also said that Cam and I could do some local jail time for our investigative reporting.
We received a charging document that lists two felony counts.
- Count I: Identity Theft – knowingly misrepresented his identity in applying for a voting ballot
- Count II: Unlawful Voting – knowingly misrepresented his identity in applying for a voting ballot
Two counts with the exact same justification beneath each count.
In our report, we clearly stopped and walked out of the polling places to avoid even touching a voting ballot.
Moriarty even said it herself. She admitted that my and Higby’s intent was to act as investigative reporters.
“A group of people were attempting to cast doubt on the state’s vouching system,” Moriarty said. “I think it’s pretty clear they did not intend to vote.”
Moriarty also said there is no such thing as undercover journalism when looking into election loopholes.
“If you identify as a journalist, there is no such thing as undercover investigation in the polling place,” Moriarty said. “You have to identify yourself as a journalist in the polling place, which they did not.”
Moriarty is wrong as a matter of constitutional law. The 1st Amendment allows reporters to show up on Election Day and ask questions at polling booths.
But don’t take my word for it. In 2012, former Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder went under oath in Washington, D.C. discussing an almost identical investigation asking if the polling official has Eric Holder’s ballot at a precinct on primary day there.
“What I drew from that video was that [O’Keefe] was very careful not to say that he was Eric Holder, not to actually get a ballot. He didn’t do the kinds of things that would have subjected him to criminal prosecution,” Holder said.
In today’s press conference, Moriarty points out this distinction, too.
“So, there’s a difference between intent to vote and intent to apply for a ballot,” Moriarty said. “The application of a ballot is a multi-step process. I can’t anticipate what [O’Keefe and Higby’s] defense is. I’m sure we’ll hear from them.”
Our defense is the shield of the 1st Amendment to hold government accountable to the people.
We didn’t apply for a ballot; we were there talking to election clerks, posing hypotheticals, and getting answers so that Americans could know what was happening in the elections.
Many people in the United States did not even know about vouching for eight, and this investigative report educated them.
By the way, we conducted training and specifically told each journalist never to sign an affidavit, never to procure a ballot, never to even touch a ballot.
We even did exercises training the journalists to say “the name is” rather than “my name is.” We were very intentional about what we were there to do, namely was to inform the public.
Moriarty admitted that we stopped short of signing any oath or carrying out any fraud.
“Both men stopped short of signing the oath we all sign before receiving our ballot,” Moriarty said.
The reporters in the room questioned Moriarty on what exactly we’re being prosecuted for.
“Does that give them a way to say that we didn’t commit a crime because we didn’t take it all the way?” and followed up with, “Can you explain why you think it’s still a crime?”
So again, what exactly are we being prosecuted for? What is this really about? Make no mistake, this is about prosecuting the press, and this isn’t the first time something like this has happened to me.
In New Orleans, LA, they falsely accused me of a felony and later admitted there was no felony. The U.S. attorneys involved in that case were eventually disbarred. The federal prosecutor was so furious about this case that he literally threw my book at me.
“You’re a nasty, little, cowardly spud,” prosecutor Jim Letten said. “You are scum! I recused from your case!”
Then there was the case when the FBI came knocking at my house. Agents stormed into my home and unlocked my phone to get access to my Signal in order to intimidate me and to intimidate the sources that come to me.
It was such a landmark First Amendment case that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed amicus, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press came to my defense.
I have been to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the constitutionality of Oregon’s recording laws. Got a reversal there. I went up to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Massachusetts there. We won a partial victory.
In another civil case, Shirley Teter v. O’Keefe, I won at directed verdict. For that case, there were six pro-bono lawyers representing the plaintiff, who stated, “We’re not paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign or by the Democratic Party or anything like that.” The federal judge pointed out the unsolicited statement only raised further questions, and ordered them to pay my legal fees.
I have been sued so many times and have had so many criminal threats made against me that even the media that hates me is forced to acknowledge that I have established legal 1st Amendment precedent throughout the nation.
We also overturned a jury verdict against me in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last month before a panel of judges, which were appointed by Democrats. We convinced the panel to side with the 1st Amendment, creating a new standard for undercover journalism across the board.
It’s now called the “O’Keefe Principle.” On publication injury when undercover journalism is involved.
The politics of fear and weaponized lawfare don’t seem to work against me. It never has. Actually, it has always backfired against the people who come after me.
Why is that? It’s because what’s at issue here is not actually political; it’s fundamental. This is about whether citizens still have a right to ask questions of their government servants, and such a fundamental right will always prevail if you do not cower at their threats.
And the thing about me is – I never settle.
Most people find lawsuits stressful. The process becomes a form of punishment, but not to me. I actually love this process.
I enjoy this process. I’m going to have fun with this process. Because it allows me to expose injustice at the highest levels.
There is nothing as sweet as justice, and there is nothing as motivating as injustice. And in this case, they have put your right to speak on the line. Everything we believe in as Americans has been put on the line.
But it does seem to indicate the direction of where our country is going.
I recognize that we’re well past the point of being completely divided in this country, but this case isn’t about what divides us; it’s about what unites us. What unites us is so much stronger than what divides us. Because the right to question authority and educate people matters to people on all sides.
Ironically, Moriarty put out a statement on social media and restricted the comments section on her official X government account, which violates the 1st Amendment.
And now, I’m summoned to appear before the Hennepin County judge on Monday, Nov. 16th, just four days after our Citizen Journalism Gala, where we’ll host many people who don’t all agree with each other on public policy. And yet, each of them all stands united behind the 1st Amendment.
That’s why I’m calling on all Americans, and not just independent journalists, but especially those in the mainstream or legacy media institutions, to stand with us for the right to freedom of speech.
And to send a message to the prosecutors in Minnesota that politics of fear will not prevail in the United States of America.
