Led by James O’Keefe, truth-telling Project Veritas exposes corruption, fraud and other criminality in high public and private places by no-hold’s barred journalistic investigations.
It “engage(s) in litigation to protect, defend and expand human and civil rights secured by law.”
It “specifically (focuses on) First Amendment rights, including promoting the free exchange of ideas in a digital world; combat(ing) and defeat(ing) censorship of any ideology; promot(ing) truthful reporting; and defend(ing) freedom of speech and association issues including the right to anonymity.”
Its journalism as it should be standards are polar opposite how MSM press agents for wealth, power and privilege operate — notably like the self-styled newspaper of record NYT.
On major domestic and geopolitical issues, it features state-approved fake news over the real thing.
The NY State Supreme Court and NY State Appellate Division of the Supreme Court earlier ruled that the Times cannot “publish private and privileged communications of Project Veritas’ attorneys representing (PV in its) defamation case against” the broadsheet.
Times executive editor, Dean Baquet falsely called the prohibition “unconstitutional (sic).”
He ignored illegal FBI raids on PV journalists — real constitutional breaches left unexplained by the Times.
PV sued the Times for defamation in response to “libelously label(ing) a September 2020 video, exposing ballot harvesting in Minnesota as ‘deceptive.’ ”
On Christmas eve, PV reported the following ruling on its lawsuit:
Citing unprotected by law “hit and run journalism,” the NY Supreme Court ruled against the NYT as follows:
The broadsheet “may have ‘improper(ly)’ obtained PV’s attorney-client memos before publishing them ‘ahead of the deadline it had set.’ ”
The Times was ordered to:
“(1) return the memos to PV;”
“(2) destroy all copies of the memos it has, including removing them ‘from the internet.’ ”
“(3) retrieve copies of the memos it provided to third parties including Columbia Journalism Professor Bill Grueskin;”
“4) not use the memos in PV’s defamation lawsuit against the Times; and”
“(5) confirm its compliance within 10 days.”
The court said that “the Times is perfectly free to investigate, uncover, research, interview, photograph, record, report, publish, opine, expose or ignore whatever aspects of Project Veritas its editors in their sole discretion deem newsworthy, without utilizing Project Veritas’ attorney-client privileged memoranda.”
At the same time, it said that memos are not a matter of public concern.
They’re “typical, garden variety, basic attorney-client advice that undoubtedly is given at nearly every major media outlet in America, including between the Times and its own counsel.”
The court’s ruling “is no defeat for the First Amendment.”
“For it would indeed be a pyrrhic victory for the great principles of free expression if the Amendment’s safeguarding of the media’s nearly unfettered right to broadcast issues concerning public affairs were confused with the attempt to constitutionalize the publication of the private, privileged communication that is presented here.”
“The Times’ ‘shot across the bow’ of their litigation adversary cries out for court intervention, to protect the integrity of the judicial process.”
“(T)he court in its discretion must fashion an appropriate sanction that will adequately redress the violation.”
PV stressed that the court “could not sit back and let the Times run roughshod over the attorney-client privilege so sacrosanct in our society.”
Defending what’s indefensible, Times editors dubiously claimed the following:
Falsely calling PV a “conservative sting group that traffics in hidden cameras and fake identities to target liberal politicians and interest groups, as well as traditional news outlets (sic),” they vowed to continue their quest for injustice by appealing the NY Supreme Court’s ruling.
Targeting PV by the Times is part of its longstanding opposition to truth and full disclosure on major domestic and geopolitical issues.
It wants PV falsely discredited and silenced in support of fake news it features exclusively at the expense of journalism as it should be.
Instead of supporting speech, press and academic freedom, the Times seeks the right to reinvent what the First Amendment is all about in pursuit of wanting no restraint on publishing fake news over the real thing — including its support for diabolical interests over the rule of law and general welfare.
A Final Comment
PV attorney Libby Locke slammed the Times, saying it long ago forgot “the meaning of journalism it claims to espouse, and has instead become a vehicle for the prosecution of a partisan political agenda.”