Feds reportedly raid Project Veritas-linked apartments over Ashley Biden’s diary

[Valin]

1 hour ago, Geee said:

ACLU warns of 'precedent' set by DOJ raid of Project Veritas: 'Serious consequences'

The ACLU warned the raids 'could have serious consequences for press freedom'

 

“Project Veritas has engaged in disgraceful deceptions, and reasonable observers might not consider their activities to be journalism at all."

Cite examples that the likes of 60 Minutes etc etc etc have not engaged in.

 

"Nevertheless, the precedent set in this case could have serious consequences for press freedom. Unless the government had good reason to believe that Project Veritas employees were directly involved in the criminal theft of the diary, it should not have subjected them to invasive searches and seizures. We urge the court to appoint a special master to ensure that law enforcement officers review only those materials that were lawfully seized and that are directly relevant to a legitimate criminal investigation.”

 

I'm still trying to understand why they felt they had to Raid these places. What Legal (as opposed to Political) reason they had. What they expected to find?

[Geee]

1 hour ago, Valin said:

 

I'm still trying to understand why they felt they had to Raid these places. What Legal (as opposed to Political) reason they had. What they expected to find?

Nothing to do with Ashley Babbitt I suspect. I don't think they can legally use anything else they find if the search warrant only covers the diary, but hey

who follows the law anymore when it comes to government agencies. 

[Valin]

@Geee

Update

The O’Keefe Project: Josh Gerstein reports

Scott Johnson

Nov. 15 2021

The New York Times has run four stories on the FBI raids predicated on the alleged theft of Ashley Biden’s diary. The FBI has executed two raids on James O’Keefe and others associated with Project Veritas in the case.

O’Keefe says Project Veritas was never able to authenticate the diary and that it had nothing to do with its theft, if that is what it was. We can infer that the FBI has authenticated it, but we remain unsure how its theft became a federal case. Despite the numerous reporters and researchers the the Times has lavished on its four stories, the details remain opaque in critical respects.

We learned from the fourth Times story that both FOX News and the Times now have a copy of the FBI search warrant — the Times got it courtesy of FOX News — but we have yet to see the warrant ourselves. FOX News asked the Times for a comment on the allegations of O’Keefe’s counsel that the Times was tipped to the raids. What did the Times say? They don’t tell us. As I say, the stories are opaque in critical respects.

Over the weekend Project Veritas emailed out Josh Gerstein’s Politico story on the FBI’s raids. Gerstein’s story takes up the aspect of the case that implicates press freedom. Gerstein’s story suggests that he too has reviewed the search warrant (e.g., “Some language in the warrant suggests prosecutors are examining whether a bidding process for the diary violated laws against fencing stolen items”). Gerstein has also reviewed relevant emails:

(Snip)

 

[Valin]

The O’Keefe Project: The search warrant

Scott Johnson

Nov. 16 2021

The search warrant under which the FBI raided James O’Keefe and seized his cell phones is in circulation. FOX News has a copy. A FOX News producer gave a copy to the New York Times and asked whether the FBI had tipped the Times to the raids on O’Keefe and other Project Veritas associates. The Times didn’t say in its story reporting the question from FOX News, but I believe the Times declined to respond (see Newsweek story quoted below).

It turns out that the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press also has a copy. By letter dated November 15 — posted here on Scribd and embedded below — the RCFP has asked the court to unseal the search warrant application and affidavit. The application and affidavit necessarily set forth evidence that the court found to make out probable cause supporting issuance of the warrant. The RCFP letter appends the redacted search warrant as Exhibit A. (Thanks to Roger Kimball for help in digging out the RCFP letter and search warrant yesterday.)

(Snip)

Seeking the latest news on the case, I turn to Harmeet Dhillon on Twitter. Harmeet just tweeted out Paul Bond’s Newsweek story “James O’Keefe’s Attorneys Demand Leakers be Identified in Case involving Ashley Biden’s Alleged Diary.” Harmeet pulls this quote from Bond’s story:

Quote

While O’Keefe has said he wasn’t able to verify the diary belonged to Ashley Biden, or that she wrote what is on its pages, the search warrant repeatedly refers to “Ashley Biden’s property” or her “stolen property,” though without ever using the word “diary.” The search warrant also does not indicate when the property was reported as stolen, who reported the alleged crime or when and where it was reported. Nor does the search warrant allow for the possibility that the “property” may have been lost or misplaced.

Bond’s story raises the government-Times connection in a way that the Times itself does not. Bond reached out to the Times, but was told that the newspaper does not discuss its sourcing. The DoJ and the FBI did not respond to Newsweek’s request for comment.

(Snip)

[Valin]

 

[Valin]

Nov. 16 2021

_____________________________________________________________________________________

A Leak To The New York Times? A leak would presuppose the DOJ/FBI didn't know who gave this to the New Your Times (a former newspaper). I would make a sizeable wager that this was planned and at a High Level at DOJ/FBI.

I know this sounds like I'm some sort of tin foil hat wearing conspiracy kook. Thing is in the last year I've started talking Alex Jones lessons.

[Valin]

When DU thinks you've gone a step too far, You've Gone A Step Too Far

[Valin]

Instagram users say mentions of Project Veritas or James O’Keefe are being blocked

[Geee]

Judge Demands Answers From New York Times Over Publishing Project Veritas' Privileged Docs

 

The judge in the defamation suit filed by Project Veritas against the New York Times has ordered the paper to provide justification for their publishing of privileged documents that the New York Times allegedly received from either the FBI or Department of Justice. These documents were allegedly acquired by federal law enforcement officials in several pre-dawn raids on the homes of Project Veritas reporters just last week. The New York Times published these documents, despite already being embroiled in a defamation lawsuit with Project Veritas.

[Geee]

House Judiciary ranking members demand Garland answer for raid on Project Veritas

[Valin]

2 hours ago, Geee said:

House Judiciary ranking members demand Garland answer for raid on Project Veritas

What do you think the chances are they will respond?  Actually what are the chances Jim Jordan, James Comer, and Ron Johnson actually thought Merrick would respond?

[Geee]

2 hours ago, Valin said:

What do you think the chances are they will respond?  Actually what are the chances Jim Jordan, James Comer, and Ron Johnson actually thought Merrick would respond?

Like everything g else - its all about the optics.

[Valin]

 

[Valin]

The O’Keefe Project: Notes toward an update

Scott Johnson

Nov. 21 2021

The story of the FBI raid on James O’Keefe and others associated with Project Veritas in the matter of Ashley Biden’s diary should be big news. The New York Times has devoted four stories to it, but the Times has a bone to pick with O’Keefe. The Times stories throb with hostility to Project Veritas and thrill to his humiliation. I have put in a request for an interview with Project Veritas attorney Harmeet Dhillon, whose publicist wrote us offering to arrange it, but I have struck out so far.

(Snip)

Seeking to follow developments in the Project Veritas story I have found Twitter a valuable resource. Below are tweets related to recent developments.

(Snip)

[Valin]

Nov. 23 2021

____________________________________________________________

"The New York Times, a former newspaper"

Andrew Klavan

[Geee]

New York judge extends ban on keeping New York Times from publishing material about Project Veritas after conservative group accused feds of 'leaking' secret communications

• A New York judge extended a ban on Tuesday keeping the New York Times from publishing or seeking certain materials concerning Project Veritas
• Justice Charles Wood extended ban from November 18 to December 1
• The ban is part of a 2020 defamation lawsuit Project Veritas, a conservative activist group, filed against the newspaper after they published a report that fall
• In September 2020, The New York Times claimed Project Veritas used 'no verifiable evidence' when accusing Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of voter fraud 
• Project Veritas, led by James O'Keefe, has used what critics view as deceptive tactics to expose what it describes as liberal media bias 
• The New York Times published an article discussing memos by a Project Veritas lawyer that the group said were protected by attorney-client privilege 
• O'Keefe's home was raided by the FBI earlier this month; his lawyer claims the DOJ tipped off and leaked documents to The New York Times about the raid  

[Valin]

24 minutes ago, Geee said:

New York judge extends ban on keeping New York Times from publishing material about Project Veritas after conservative group accused feds of 'leaking' secret communications

• A New York judge extended a ban on Tuesday keeping the New York Times from publishing or seeking certain materials concerning Project Veritas
• Justice Charles Wood extended ban from November 18 to December 1
• The ban is part of a 2020 defamation lawsuit Project Veritas, a conservative activist group, filed against the newspaper after they published a report that fall
• In September 2020, The New York Times claimed Project Veritas used 'no verifiable evidence' when accusing Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of voter fraud 
• Project Veritas, led by James O'Keefe, has used what critics view as deceptive tactics to expose what it describes as liberal media bias 
• The New York Times published an article discussing memos by a Project Veritas lawyer that the group said were protected by attorney-client privilege 
• O'Keefe's home was raided by the FBI earlier this month; his lawyer claims the DOJ tipped off and leaked documents to The New York Times about the raid  

 

Comments

"GregG200, Pittsburgh, United States, about 7 hours ago

Remember O'Keefe is a convicted felon... He's no journalist.

58  6

 

alerob, DALLAS, United States, about 3 hours ago

3 12

yeah, so is Hunter Biden.....he is no artist...just a grifter from a grifter family. But, getting back to the New York Slimes.. it has become the Pravda of the Government. Just an instrument of the government. Its only value is the travel section on Sunday."

[Valin]

HISTORY HISTORY HISTORY

How The FBI Raid On Project Veritas Helped Protect The New York Times

The FBI's raids on Project Veritas had the effect of protecting not just the Biden family but also The New York Times. It's yet another episode in a long history of the FBI and New York Times wildly abusing their power.

Joy Pullmann

December 1, 2021

(Snip)

The FBI Has Been Politicized From Its Origins

From its very beginning, the FBI was racked with abuse of power. The FBI’s own history notes that “In the early twenties, the agency was no model of efficiency. It had a growing reputation for politicized investigations. In 1923, in the midst of the Teapot Dome scandal that rocked the Harding Administration, the nation learned that Department of Justice officials had sent Bureau agents to spy on members of Congress who had opposed its policies.” Spy on members of Congress — who are supposed to control the FBI.

The infamous J. Edgar Hoover who took the helm after that scandal kept secret police files on his political opponents and used them unlawfully, including to keep multiple presidents from firing him and to manipulate U.S. senators. That’s called “blackmail.”

(Snip)

The NYT Has Propagandized For Tyrants For a Century

As Ashley Rindberg writes in this year’s “The Grey Lady Winked,” The New York Times has a long history of pimping propaganda for totalitarians and tyrants. It’s about as old as the FBI’s institutional history of using police powers for politics instead of justice, dating back to at least the 1920s.

The New York Times published reams of positive and Pulitzer Prize-winning press for Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, and now Xi Jinping and Joe Biden. It is quite literally a propaganda mouthpiece for mass murderers and tyrants.

Rindberg’s book documents that, and I won’t reprise his work here. Suffice it to say, The New York Times chose to prioritize manipulating readers over reporting the truth long ago, while very successfully claiming to do the opposite.

(Snip)

Take a step back for a second and imagine the power of being able to blackmail any American, member of Congress, or the president. That’s the power to control government itself. Consider also that the power to determine what the public knows also confers massive political power in a democratic republic. Control public opinion, and you control the country.

This is what the FBI and New York Times have done in the past century, sometimes in concert. That’s why the FBI raiding an antagonist of its longtime information operations partner, and possibly leaking information obtained in that raid to that partner, is no surprise at all.

As long as such ops keep working, there will be more government-media joint information operations designed to keep control of the United States well out of voters’ hands.

 

 

[Geee]

Judge declines to unseal records about raid on Project Veritas founder

Magistrate cites privacy interests of Biden’s daughter Ashley in probe about alleged theft of her diary.

 

A federal magistrate judge in Manhattan has turned down a bid by a journalism advocacy group to make public details about the legal basis for an FBI raid last month on the home of a conservative activist and hidden-camera video producer.

The FBI seized cellphones in the early-morning, Nov. 6 raid on the apartment of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe in Mamaroneck., N.Y., as part of an investigation that appears to center on the alleged theft of a diary belonging to President Joe Biden’s daughter, Ashley Biden.

[Valin]

 

[Valin]

Dec. 10 2021

[Geee]

Biden administration sources and conservative donors targeted in FBI raids on Project Veritas, attorney says

FBI raids against Project Veritas appear to be part of a "political witch hunt" meant to root out secret government sources and conservative donors, according to an attorney for the conservative group.

Harmeet Dhillon told Fox News host Tucker Carlson this week the Justice Department knew Project Veritas did not have a diary belonging to Ashley Biden, the youngest daughter of President Joe Biden, when FBI agents scoured multiple locations tied to the group last month. That effort was part of an investigation into its disappearance, which included a search of the home of founder James O'Keefe.

[Valin]

NY Supreme Court Delivers a Beat Down to the New York Times in Project Veritas Case

Bonchie

Dec 24, 2021

(Snip)

Regardless, shortly after the raids happened, privileged memos between Project Veritas and its lawyers were leaked by the DOJ or FBI to the Times in an obvious attempt to sabotage the lawsuit and further harm O’Keefe’s operation.

The judge in the case demanded answers, and he apparently wasn’t happy with the ones he received. A decision came down today that represents an absolute beat down of the Times’ arguments and includes an order for them to destroy all the memos in their possession — most of which haven’t been published yet.

Here’s Jared Ede, the Chief Legal Officer for Project Veritas, breaking down the ruling.

Quote

How did NYT obtain the memos? Poss. "improper means" : "The Times incredibly admitted that here 'no apparent bribery was used to obtain the memoranda.' … [PV] has met its burden of showing [the memos] were obtained by irregular means, if not both irregular and improper means."

— Jered Ede (Project Veritas Chief Legal Officer) (@Jtaylorede) December 24, 2021

 

The Times/corp. media argued prior restraint. Wrong. "The Times is perfectly free to investigate, … publish, opine, expose or ignore whatever aspects of Project Veritas its editors in their sole discretion deem newsworthy, without utilizing [PV's a/c] privileged memoranda."

— Jered Ede (Project Veritas Chief Legal Officer) (@Jtaylorede) December 24, 2021

(Snip)

 

Remember, this is the New York Supreme Court we are talking about, one of the more liberal bodies in the country. Yet, they simply weren’t buying the idea that it’s proper for the government to illegally leak privileged memos to a news organization about a defamation case that the same news organization is embroiled in.

(Snip)

 

 

[Valin]

The O’Keefe Project: The Times restrained

Scott Johnson

December 25, 2021

James O’Keefe and Project Veritas are suing the New York Times for defamation. O’Keefe and former Project Veritas associates were recently raided by the FBI in connection with the loss of Ashley Biden’s diary. FBI/national security reporters from the team that brought us the Russia hoax seem to have a pipeline into the investigation. They have reported on it with pornographic glee. I have covered it in a series of posts that are accessible here. All in all, it’s an important and disturbing story.

(Snip)

Hoping to add something to what can be gleaned from the court’s opinion, I asked Project Veritas for comment. Last night I was provided this statement attributed to James O’Keefe:

The New York Times has doxed our sources, published our private attorney-client communications, and, after losing a Motion to Dismiss in which the New York Supreme Court said the terms “disinformation” and “deceptive” certainly applied to the Times’ reporting practices as to Project Veritas, was forced to admit they lied about the status of Minnesota law in an article that remains uncorrected to this day. The Times is so blinded by its hatred of Project Veritas that everything it does results in a self-inflicted wound.

The NYT editorial board characterized this as “dangerous.” What’s dangerous is printing the other side’s lawyer memos in an ongoing legal dispute. What’s dangerous is their September 2020 defamatory article being defended as “unverifiable expression of opinion,” in their answer to our defamation complaint, while that same article was used in a “fact-check” by USA Today to have our Minnesota video removed from Facebook. What’s “dangerous” is the NYT acting as an ombudsman for the Department of Justice when the FBI raids my journalists’ homes and seizes our reporter notes. What’s “dangerous” is the NYT attacking judges personally each time we win, an act that demonstrates they think they’re above the law. Executive editor Dean Baquet admitted, “We don’t get religion.” Their actions indicate they think they’re God.

(Snip)

I will not be surprised if the Times prevails on its appeal of the ruling. Putting the legal merits of the ruling to one side, however, the court’s opinion is most interesting for its development of the facts. Resting on the First Amendment, as in its long editorial, the Times ain’t talking.

In one case O’Keefe and Project Veritas are under investigation in connection with the loss of Ashley Biden’s diary. In a second case Project Veritas is itself the victim of a misappropriation of privileged memoranda that somehow landed with the Times. In the former we have a federal case featuring FBI raids under the supervision of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and accompanying leaks to the Times. In the latter we have Project Veritas fending for itself in the lawsuit against the Times.

 

[Valin]

Court Rules in Favor of O’Keefe’s Project Veritas

G. McConway

December 25, 2021

(Snip)

Justice Charles Wood wrote, “The court finds that Project Veritas has met its burden of showing that the subject memoranda were obtained by irregular means, if not both irregular and improper means.”

“Like the attorney-client privilege, the First Amendment is vital to our republic, but also has limits.

“‘For even though the broad sweep of the First Amendment seems to prohibit all restraints on free expression, this Court has observed that freedom of speech does not comprehend the right to speak on any subject at any time.”

Quote

Christmas came early for our @dhillonlaw clients #projectveritas #jamesokeefe today! NY Trial court issued devastating opinion ruling that the @nytimes improperly obtained and published its litigation adversary’s non-waived privileged communications: pic.twitter.com/fdgxWiEjdM

— Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) December 24, 2021

(Snip)

Source: Daily Caller