BUSTED: New Hampshire Primary Election Day Official “I Think Voting Any Democrat is Wise”; ‘Bernie and Buttigieg Top 2’; Deputy Election Moderator Admits “Not Everyone Attended Training” When it Comes to Poll Station Officials
Beth Hunter, New Hampshire Election Official: “I Think Voting Any Democrat is Wise”; “I Don’t Watch a Lot of TV Because I was Campaigning – I was Keeping Up on it…Whoever is Nominated I’m Going to be Campaigning for Them.”
Tina Gifford, New Hampshire Election Deputy Moderator: “We’ve Had Training, But Not Everyone Attended Training. A Lot of the Volunteers Didn’t Attend Training.”
Beth, “Almost in Tears” When President Trump Awarded Rush Limbaugh the Medal of Freedom During the State of the Union Address; “This Can’t be Happening.”
Confronted by James O’Keefe, Beth Claims She Shouldn’t Have Talked About Rush Limbaugh; States She is Not Familiar with New Hampshire Laws Against Electioneering; Claims She Did Not Know She was Breaking the Law.
(Derry, NH) After a series of Project Veritas investigations conducted across the state of New Hampshire yesterday, Project Veritas journalists uncovered an election official, Beth Hunter, at the polling location for Ward 01 and Ward 04 in Derry, NH opening up about her political inclinations and illegally influencing voters on Election Day. According to the state’s law, election officials are prohibited from influencing a citizen’s vote in favor of a candidate or political party. After a state-wide effort in New Hampshire by the Project Veritas team to expose electoral corruption, these exclusive undercover recordings show Beth admonishing Donald Trump’s decision to award Rush Limbaugh the Medal of Freedom while also telling undercover journalists that ‘voting for any Democrat is wise.’ Upon being confronted for making these statements, Beth admits she shouldn’t have talked about Limbaugh while performing her role as an election official but claimed she was unaware about breaking or even knowing the New Hampshire law against electioneering.
In a conversation with Project Veritas journalists at the Gilbert Hood Middle School Ward 01 & 04 Polling Station, Beth reveals and openly discusses where her political allegiances are:
BETH: “Last night it was Bernie and Pete Buttigieg – he’s a nice guy. There you go. I can only tell you what’s on the TV…”
JOURNALIST: “But can you tell me if that’s wise or not?”
BETH: “Oh, I think it is. I think voting any Democrat is wise.”
BETH: “I have to tell you I was almost in tears on who gave that award to that radio…”
JOURNALIST: “Limbaugh- he’s disgusting.”
BETH: “Oh my gosh. This can’t be happening; this can’t be happening.”
JOURNALIST: “Didn’t watch it.”
BETH: “I don’t watch a lot of TV because I was campaigning – I was keeping up on it, so and whoever is nominated I’m going to be campaigning for them.”
We have asked New Hampshire election officials what “Beth’s” capacity was while she was acting for the state at the Derry, New Hampshire polling location. Mary Till responded to Project Veritas’ request prior to publication and confirmed that “Beth Hunter was volunteering to work as a greeter at Gilbert H. Hood Middle school from 2:30 to 8 p.m.”
Electioneering at the Polling Place.
“No election officer shall electioneer while in the performance of his official duties. For the purposes of this section, “electioneer” shall mean to act in any way specifically designed to influence the vote of a voter on any question or office. Any person who violates this provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Project Veritas President James O’Keefe tracked down Beth and asked her about her statements. These are the responses Beth provided to Project Veritas:
JAMES O’KEEFE: “Are you allowed to get political as an election judge?”
JAMES O’KEEFE: “But was it ‘getting political’ by talking about Rush Limbaugh?”
BETH: “Yeah, when they asked me about it. I guess I shouldn’t have replied to them, huh.”
JAMES O’KEEFE: “You shouldn’t have talked about Rush Limbaugh?”
BETH: “No, I guess not.”
JAMES O’KEEFE: “Are you aware of what the laws are in New Hampshire?”
JAMES O’KEEFE: “Is that an excuse to break the law?”
BETH: “I didn’t know I was breaking the law.”
James O’Keefe also spoke with Tina Gifford, who’s role as a New Hampshire Election Deputy Moderator is to train and oversee election officials at the poll station:
TINA GIFFORD, NH ELECTION DEPUTY MODERATOR: “I am the Deputy Moderator.”
JAMES O’KEEFE: “…she was telling us who to vote…uh, this Beth individual…we believe that that’s a violation of the state law…she told us that she doesn’t know what the law is…so that may be something you want your people to know…so whether she’s a volunteer or a public employee, she probably should know what the law is.”
TINA GIFFORD, NH ELECTION DEPUTY MODERATOR: “We’ve had training, but not everyone attended training. A lot of the volunteers didn’t attend training.”
The roles and responsibilities of an election Moderator in New Hampshire, and in every state, exist in order to ensure that the many moving parts of our elections process comply with the law. In an article published in the New Hampshire Bar Journal titled, “The Role of the Moderator as an Election Official,” attorney Charles F. Tucker wrote:
[t]he most interesting part of the moderator’s role (is) to be the enforcer of what may be categorized as “the rules” to encourage, if not guarantee, fair elections.
Electioneering is a perennial issue. The moderator is given the ability to restrict electioneering from an area ten feet in width from the public way to the door of the polling place. The Selectmen are in charge of arranging the polling place. The Moderator is in charge of generally overseeing the conduct of voting.
Attorney Tucker went on to write:
The author has had occasion to assist an elderly person who requested assistance in voting and asked the moderator, “Who should I vote for?” The moderator replied, “I cannot give you any advice in that regard.” The voter replied, “I don’t know any of these people or what they stand for, somebody has to tell me how to vote.” The moderator replied, “Well, there is no one who can help you do that in the voting booth at this point.” The voter replied, “But I always vote, it’s my civic duty.” The author suggested that she not vote on any of the questions on this occasion and turn her ballot in unmarked, with advice that next year she figure it out before she came in and perhaps mark a sample ballot which she would be allowed to bring into the voting booth as a guide.
Attorney Tucker concluded:
In summary, this moderator thoroughly enjoys playing this role as a part of the democratic process and recommends it to others who want to do something to help keep the process strong.
Evidently, Attorney Tucker’s practice and procedure has not been adopted uniformly in New Hampshire.
As the 2020 election cycle continues, Project Veritas will increase its investigations into poll station malfeasance in order to ensure American citizens can vote freely and without influence from poll station officials. Voters must be able to cast their ballots without interference from any third party, including those in charge of organizing and overseeing the voting booths.
Late Tuesday, Twitter suspended James O’Keefe’s account, saying a post violated Twitter rules for “posting private information.”
The tweet in question was sent on January 22 and was a retraction request to WAPO reporter Dave Weigel who had inaccurately reported about our #Expose2020 Sanders campaign investigation. Weigel said the subjects of our investigations were campaign volunteers, not true.
To prove the inaccuracy our Tweet linked to page found on the Federal Election Commission website showing the “volunteer” was in fact a paid staffer of the Sanders campaign. The Post reporter retracted his story. The information we reported is in the public domain, there is nothing “private” about it.
In fact, Kyle Jurek is a paid campaign staffer. And his radical comments were news,
KYLE JUREK, SANDERS CAMPAIGN FIELD ORGANIZER: If Bernie doesn’t get the nomination or it goes to a second round at the DNC Convention. F*cking Milwaukee will burn.
KYLE JUREK, SANDERS CAMPAIGN FIELD ORGANIZER: The billionaire class. The f*cking media, pundits. Walk into that MSNBC studios, drag those motherf**kers out by their hair and light them on fire in the streets.
After our release, the COO of the Bernie Sanders campaign ordered his staffers to avoid saying anything that would “reflect poorly” on the campaign. Too late.
Share this URL and this screenshot of James locked account with the hashtag #FreeOKeefe!
Project Veritas Action Fund Defends Citizens’ First Amendment Rights for Undercover Secret Recording in First Circuit Court of Appeals
Project Veritas Action Fund (PVA) Appeared in the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to Challenge the Nation’s Broadest Recording Law—Section 99 of Massachusetts Law.
PVA Argued that Undercover Recordings are at the core of citizens’ First Amendment Rights.
Massachusetts is the Only State in the Country to Outright Ban All Secret Audio Recordings.
Eleven States have Found Ways to Respect Both the First Amendment and Privacy Concerns; PVA Expects the Same from the Massachusetts Legislature.
The ACLU’s Sister Lawsuit was Also the Subject of the District Court Judge’s Decree and Appeared in Court with PVA, Focusing its Arguments Solely in Favor of Secretly Recording Police Officers.
(Boston, MA) Project Veritas Action Fund appeared in the US First Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit yesterday to challenge Section 99 of Massachusetts law. This is a law that broadly restricts any sort of undercover recording.
PVA argues that, as a result of this law, the American public will miss out on newsworthy information derived from such recordings. Further, PVA states that Section 99 infringes on citizens’ First Amendment rights.
There are eleven states that believe it is the legislature’s responsibility to provide some level of privacy protection in conversations, but Massachusetts is the only state to fully apply privacy protections without consideration for the citizen’s right to secretly record. PVA argued that Massachusetts, like those eleven states, should narrow its law.
PVA has asked the court to strike down the Section 99 law ‘facially’, that is to declare it entirely void. PVA wants the court to allow the Massachusetts legislature a chance to go back to the drafting table and write a new law that complies with the First Amendment.
According to PVA’s attorney Ben Barr’s observation of the oral argument, it appeared that all of the judges (including former US Supreme Court Associate Justice, David Souter) expressed real skepticism about the Constitutionality of the Massachusetts law—referring to it as “sweeping too broadly” in several of their questions.
Ben Barr also observed that the specific line of questioning examines the state’s interest in securing privacy against the means the state employs to secure that privacy. In this case, an outright ban is simply too suppressive of speech and narrower tools could be used to protect truly private conversations.
In addition, the judges hinted that individuals were free to guard their own privacy—such as removing a discussion to a truly private place—instead of needing a law that simply prohibits newsgathering of items disclosed in public.
Here are a few of the exchanges between PVA Attorney Ben Barr, Judge Barron, and Judge Selya:
Ben Barr: Massachusetts makes a mockery of the most effective form of newsgathering, undercover journalism, by denying citizens the right to be able to go out into public, and to be able to gather information in the most effective way possible, that is, secret audio recording.
Judge Barron: What do you mean by “public?”
Ben Barr: I mean a place in particular where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. It brings me to the truly exceptional nature of Section 99.
Judge Barron: Just so I get it straight with the idea that everybody in this courtroom right now would have a First Amendment right to record these proceedings?
Ben Barr: Yes.
Judge Barron: That’s your position?
Ben Barr: Yes.
Judge Barron: Do you have a narrower position?
[laughter among those present]
Judge Selya: Commonwealth has an interest in protecting the privacy of conversations. Everyone has some sort of right to the privacy of their conversations, full stop. And you can disagree with that as a matter of policy, but you’ve got to figure out why that’s wrong as a matter of Constitutional law…
Ben Barr: Primarily, it amounts to the tailoring and overbreadth issue, Judge Selya, while there is a legitimate governmental interest in protecting conversational privacy and 11 states have worked out test to do that. On the other end of the Constitutional equation is a right to be able to acquire information in public and report on that to the American people. So, being able to record a bribe occurring with a police officer on a…
Judge Selya: But Massachusetts is talking not only about governmental privacy, they’re talking about the privacy of all participants in these conversations, which typically take place between a government official and a private citizen.
Ben Barr: Yes, and actually as was noted by Judge Barron earlier, it is entirely capable that government officials and individuals are able to safeguard their own privacy. If they have a confidential conversation, or an informant, they’re able meet in a private place. We are not alleging the right to be able to invade doctors’ offices or police stations…
Judge Barron: Yeah, but you are saying that if I think that I’ve taken precautions, that I sometimes might sit on a bench in the park and speak in what I think is in pretty confidential tones with someone else, and you’re saying but I’m at risk of someone having a recording device, and if I didn’t notice it, that can then be sent all over the place, right?
Judge Selya: I want you to note that even in his hypotheticals, Judge Barron sees himself sitting on a bench.
Judge Selya also addressed Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General, Eric Haskell:
Judge Selya to MA Assistant Attorney General Eric Haskell: Meeting with a confidential informant, if it’s done in public, what’s wrong with that being recorded? If the police officer wants that meeting to be truly confidential, the police officer can control where the meeting is held. Easy enough to hold it in private.
Judge Selya to MA Assistant Attorney General Eric Haskell: You’re saying that if John Doe comes along, sees a police officer conversing with a politician, for example, they both have their backs turned to him, he holds out, in plain view of everybody, a tape recorder and turns it on, or a cell phone, and turns on the recording function, alright? They have their backs turned, but it’s in plain view to anyone who wants to walk. Everyone in the Boston Common sees it, except maybe the two people who were talking, and you’re saying that is, or isn’t, a violation of the statute?
The ACLU had a more limited vision of how to tackle the Massachusetts recording law.
Representing the ACLU was Jessie Rossman, who said that “They focus exclusively on police officers, who, unlike other officials, are armed by the state and have the authority to take people into custody.”
After the hearing, Ben Barr said:
“We were pleased that the court held the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to accountability. This law is an outright ban on the most effective form of newsgathering—undercover journalism—and deprives the public of important information. It is difficult to imagine it surviving today’s review before the First Circuit.”
“If the First Amendment means anything, it means that citizens possess the power to hold accountable those in power. In 2020, using smartphones and digital recording devices to uncover political hypocrisy and self-dealing is the most effective means to do so and should be protected by the First Amendment.”
Project Veritas Action Fund will never cease fighting for Americans’ Constitutional rights. It is imperative that individual citizens are allowed to perform their First Amendment right to report on public and private corruption. For many citizen journalists, undercover recording is the most effective way of delivering newsworthy facts to the public.
Project Veritas Action To Challenge Massachusetts Unconstitutional Law At First Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday In Boston
On Wednesday January 8th, 2020 Project Veritas Action Fund Will Present Oral Argument in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Support of the First Amendment.
In March of 2016, Project Veritas Action Fund (PVA) Challenged Massachusetts’ Recording Law in Order to Cement Constitutional Protection for Undercover Recording.
In Federal District Court, PVA Won the Right to Secretly Record Government Officials Doing Their Work in Public.
The Decision in PVA v. Conley (now Rollins)* Became the First Case in United States History to Hold That Secretly Recording Government Officials Conducting the Public’s Business in Public is Protected by the First Amendment.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Has Appealed the District Court’s Decision Granting PVA the Right to Secretly Record Public Officials Doing Their Work in Public.
PVA is Challenging the District Court’s Denial of the Right to Record Non-Public Officials When They Have No Expectation of Privacy.
(Boston, MA) Project Veritas Action Fund made First Amendment history in December of 2018 when the Massachusetts law prohibiting undercover recording of public officials was ruled unconstitutional: “[T]he Court holds that [Massachusetts law] may not constitutionally prohibit the secret audio recording of government officials…”
At issue was Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 (“Section 99”), which criminalizes the willful “interception”* of any “communication.”
The battle began two years ago, when PVA filed a federal lawsuit alleging the Massachusetts law prohibiting secret recordings of public officials and citizens was unconstitutional. Today, 39 states allow filming without both parties consenting. Massachusetts is one of eleven states that restrict undercover journalists from recording without consent.
Even with PVA’s initial victory, the case is not yet over. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has appealed the court’s ruling that resulted in PVA’s initial victory.
The court said it did not have enough information to rule on the constitutionality of secretly recording private citizens. So PVA appealed.
The PVA Team (represented by Ben Barr) will be attending the hearing in Boston on January 8th, 2020, which is open for the public to attend. A decision from the Court of Appeals is not expected to be delivered for several months.
Project Veritas and Project Veritas Action Fund will never cease fighting for Americans’ constitutional rights. It is imperative that individual citizens are allowed to perform their 1st amendment right to report on public and private corruption. For many citizen journalists, undercover recording is the most effective way of delivering newsworthy facts to the public.
*This case has gone from PVA v. Conley to PVA v. Rollins due to the change in the District Attorney for Suffolk County office holder.
In a decision that showed the influence of the abortion industry, a Federal Court in California found David Daleiden guilty and awarded Planned Parenthood approximately $2.2 million for Daleiden’s work exposing the abortion industry, including the potentially illegal sale of aborted baby parts.
Planned Parenthood did not contest the accuracy of Daleiden’s undercover video reports. They sued him for trespass and other alleged illegal methods he and his colleagues used to conduct the investigation.
Prior to the jury deciding the case, the judge ordered the jury to include in its verdict that Daleiden had, in fact, trespassed. This, coupled with some evidentiary rulings that went against Daleiden, left him in a precarious situation with respect to what the jury could rely on to decide his fate.
Some journalists and supporters of Project Veritas have described this verdict as a blow to undercover journalism. That’s an opportunistic, and wrong, conclusion. This civil lawsuit was never about undercover journalism. The jury verdict represents a simple affirmation of basic law: when you sign a document agreeing that you will or won’t do something, you are bound by it. The allegations against Daleiden and his associates include that they signed some event applications and Non-Disclosure Agreements which allegedly prevented Daleiden from conducting his undercover investigation. The jury found that Daleiden had made agreements in those applications and NDAs that he violated.
Project Veritas undercover journalists will continue their intrepid pursuit of the truth unencumbered by this decision. Project Veritas journalists do not sign binding documents that purport to prohibit them from accomplishing their goal. Courts and juries will have a difficult time looking past a written agreement to keep things secret, regardless of the subject matter exposed by the undercover journalist. People who want to keep things secret have third parties sign written agreements to keep things secret.
Various states threatened and squeezed the Daleiden defendants with criminal prosecution. The result of these prosecutorial threats was that the defendants had to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when questioned in civil depositions. The result was that, in the civil case, the jury was allowed to draw an adverse inference that the defendants did something wrong and this clearly negatively impacted the defense and influenced the jury and the verdict.
Project Veritas has never asserted the Fifth Amendment in response to any questions posed by those who have sued us. Project Veritas runs from nothing, stands by its reporting, and abides by the law. We have been sued eight times and have not lost a single case. Victory has come through an extremely rare Directed Verdict, through Summary Judgement, through a Motion to Dismiss and through two Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“Anti-SLAPP”) Motions.
Nevertheless, we recognize the real injustice here is the unequal application of the law. This case is, undoubtedly, ideologically motivated. David Daleiden would be a national hero if he had done the same thing to an organization supporting animal cruelty, and California prosecutors would have exercised discretion, favoring the public’s right to know the facts he brought to light. Imagine if he exposed puppies being aborted and their body parts sold illegally. The verdict against Daleiden for investigating the abortion of human babies and the sale of baby parts clearly demonstrates the power of the abortion industry. This case was never about the legality or importance of undercover journalism.
Peter Breen, Counsel for David Daleiden, said he didn’t do this, “for profit or for personal gain. He did it for the paramount public purpose of letting Americans know” what was going on. “The Planned Parenthood lawyers? They stated that the case is about ‘protecting the brand.’ But what is it that hurt the brand? The very words spoken by Planned Parenthood personnel on those videos is what hurt the brand.”
We must never forget that, in a democratic republic, the right to know information is of paramount importance. Justice is supposed to be blind, but we sadly we live in a country where, increasingly, there is lack of equal justice under the law as it pertains to the FirstAmendment. This is particularly so in California where these types of investigations are needed more than ever.
This verdict will, undoubtedly, be appealed on many different grounds, so this case is far from over.
Editors Note: Project Veritas is publishing the writing below at the request of the ABC news insider who gave us the Amy Robach tape.
This was submitted to us in light of the actions taken against those wrongfully identified as involved in the leaking of the tape and the reactions of ABC news to their spiking of the story on Jeffrey Epstein.
To my fellow man:
I came forward with this information bearing no motives other than to have this information public. I did not and do not seek any personal gain from this information whether it be financial or otherwise and will always decline. When I became aware of this moment, I had the same reaction as many of you did. Anger, confusion and sadness. I care not about petty political quarrels and only hope for the best in all of us.
To my fellow ABC News employees:
I’ve walked the halls experiencing similar feelings we are all having right now. All of you regardless of your own personal differences in one form or another do an outstanding job. I sincerely enjoy working with each and every one of you and will continue to do so throughout our careers.
To those wrongfully accused:
It is terrible that you have been lashed out at by the company. I know some may put the burden of guilt on me, but my conscience is clear. The actions of the company towards you are the result of their own and not anyone else. The public outcry, from coast to coast, of all people, creeds, and political affiliations, is clear. I have not one doubt that there will always be support for you, and you will have prosperous careers. For neither you, nor I, have done anything wrong.
To Amy Robach:
You are the only person deserving of an apology. I am most certainly sorry. Not for my actions or for this to center around you, but for what is clear to have happened. When I first stumbled across this, my initial reaction was outrage. But this soon turned towards empathy. I can not imagine doing all the hard work to only have it shelved. If the past few years have taught us anything, it is the truth that some of us have endured many hardships in this industry. From the spiking of stories regarding prominent and powerful people in this world, and to yours. I believe you are an outstanding reporter and have done such tremendous work in the community as well.
To ABC News:
I sit right here with you all in complete shock. I, like many, are at a loss for words on how this has been handled. Instead of addressing this head-on like the company has in the past, it has spun into a mission of seek-and-destroy. Innocent people that have absolutely nothing to do with this are being hunted down as if we are all a sport. I challenge all of you to actually look inwards and remember why this company engages in journalism. We all hold the First Amendment at the foundation of this company, yet forget its history, its purpose, and its reasoning for even coming into existence to begin with. How lost we are… yearning to be found. I went to Project Veritas for the sole reason that any other media outlet else would have probably shelved this as well. I thank all of them, and James, for seeking truth.
We are all human and mortal, creatures of mistakes and redemption.
The road to redemption favors no soul.
Project Veritas has obtained EXCLUSIVE statements from ABC News and Amy Robach on the bombshell #EpsteinCoverup story released one hour ago.
Stay tuned for updates from Project Veritas as this story is rapidly evolving.
[VIDEO] Leaked Insider Recording From ABC News Reveals Network Executives Killed Bombshell Story Implicating Jeffrey Epstein
“I’ve Had This Story for Three Years… (ABC) Would Not Put It on The Air” says Good Morning America Breaking News Anchor, and 20/20 Co-Anchor Amy Robach. “It Was Unbelievable… We Had – Clinton, We Had Everything…”
Robach: “We Had Her Whole Allegations About Prince Andrew…I Got a Little Concerned About Why I Couldn’t Get On.”
Amy Robach Describes How She Interviewed a Woman Who Had the Courage to Come Forward “Years” Ago About Epstein: “She Had Pictures, She Had Everything. She Was in Hiding for Twelve Years. We Convinced Her to Come Out. We Convinced Her to Talk to Us.”
Robach Details ABC’s Initial Response to Her: “Who’s Jeffrey Epstein? No One Knows Who That is. This is a Stupid Story”
Robach: “Now it’s All Coming Out … I Freaking Had All Of It…”
(New York, NY)Newly revealed footage leaked by an ABC insider has exposed how network executives rejected allegations against Jeffrey Epstein years ago, even though there was content regarding the merit of those claims in-hand.
Amy Robach, ‘Good Morning America’ Co-Host and Breaking News Anchor at ABC, explains how a witness came forward years ago with information pertaining to Epstein, but Disney-owned ABC News refused to air the material for years. Robach vents her anger in a “hot mic” moment with an off-camera producer, explaining that ABC quashed the story in it’s early stages. “I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts (Now Virginia Guiffre) [alleged Epstein victim]. We would not put it on the air. Um, first of all, I was told “Who’s Jeffrey Epstein. No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.”
She continues, “The Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways.”
Robach goes on to express she believes that Epstein was killed in prison saying, “So do I think he was killed? 100% Yes, I do…He made his whole living blackmailing people… Yup, there were a lot of men in those planes. A lot of men who visited that Island, a lot of powerful men who came into that apartment.”
Robach repeats a prophetic statement purportedly made by Attorney Brad Edwards “…[T]here will come a day when we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known,” and Disgustedly Robach states “I had it all three years ago.”
Project Veritas intends to continue its investigation into corruption in the Mainstream Media. We encourage that Brave insiders at these organizations come forward with any information they have, so that the public knows what is really going on within these media companies.
CNN President Jeff Zucker refuses to answer questions on #ExposeCNN when confronted by Project Veritas reporter Eric Spracklen today in the Atlanta airport. No comment on Preisdent Trump’s threat to sue the network for bias and his employees allegations of sexual misconduct by Steve Brusk.