ProjectVeritas

NYT Complains Court Used ‘Erroneous Premise’ in Attempt to Justify Litigation Misconduct as Justice’s Ruling Nears • Back in November 2021, The New York Times published memos written by Project Veritas’ lawyers in the very defamation case against The New York Times. On Christmas Eve 2021, Justice Charles Wood of the NY Supreme Court ordered the Times to return the confidential legal memos, calling the Times’ reporting, “hit and run journalism” which necessitated “court intervention to protect the integrity of the judicial process.” • In an appeal, The New York Times argued the New York Supreme Court’s order is, “an extraordinary prior restraint,” a term of art for when the government attempts to take actions to prevent speech. • In a new video breaking down the case, Project Veritas Founder and CEO James O’Keefe cites the non-profits attorney, Libby Locke, who argues “In sum, the Supreme Court concluded, correctly, that The Times’ own representations … ‘unquestionably’ demonstrated ‘concomitant prejudice to [Veritas].’ • A ruling is expected soon. [NEW YORK – Aug 3, 2022] The Appellate Division is expected to rule soon on whether the lower court was right to prevent the New York Times from republishing the privileged legal memos of their litigation opponent. The New York Times is appealing a New York Supreme Court order issued on Christmas Eve which required them to return and cease any republication of legal memos written by Project Veritas’ attorneys who historically defeated the paper’s attempts to dismiss a defamation suit brought on by Project Veritas. In their appeal, The New York Times argued the lower court’s order violated the First Amendment and was “an extraordinary prior restraint” while also arguing they get to publish the privileged memos “even if the Times acted improperly.” In a new video breaking down the case, Project Veritas Founder and CEO James O’Keefe cited Veritas’ attorney, Libby Locke, who hit back against these claims: The only thing ‘extraordinary’ about this dispute is the conduct of the [New York] Times. The true gravamen of The Times’ argument is that, as a media outlet, it is entitled to special treatment and that it should not be subject to the same rules of practice and conduct that any other litigant appearing before the New York Supreme Court is held to. The NYT also tried to argue the memos had no relevance to the ongoing litigation, another claim corrected by Locke in the latest response brief: ‘The Times’ story also specifically referenced the ongoing litigation between The Times and Veritas and stated that the privileged memoranda gave The Times ‘new insight’ into the ‘workings’ of Project Veritas and how it uses tactics ‘outside of mainstream reporting techniques’…In moving to dismiss Veritas’ defamation complaint, the Times asserted as a defense that Veritas is a libel-proof plaintiff because of its history of using ‘sting operations and entrapment tactics’ A ruling in the case is expected soon.

NYT Attorneys Argue Words Don’t Have ‘Precise Meaning That is Readily Understood’ In Latest Attempt to Avoid Discovery in Defamation Case • In an update regarding its defamation suit against the New York Times surrounding footage of illegal ballot harvesting in Minnesota, Project Veritas revealed that in their appellate brief, the New York Times’ attorneys argued that neither the words “deceptive” nor “verifiable” has a “precise meaning that is readily understood.” • In their appeal, the NYT’s attorneys also responded to the New York Supreme Court’s suggestion that a reader might read the news section of the New York Times expecting news, the Times argued “the lower court offered no support for its conclusions or the novel obligation it created.” This argument contradicts the Times’ own policies which prohibit reporters from injecting their opinion into stories as Project Veritas’ attorney, Libby Locke, argued in a response. • Also notable was an attempt by lawyers for the Times to decry the use of anonymous sources despite the Project Veritas video in question naming sources and the fact that the New York Times uses anonymous sources so often that it penned an editorial called “Why does the New York Times use anonymous sources?” • The New York Times’ Motion to Dismiss Project Veritas’ defamation lawsuit was denied by the NY Supreme Court and the NYT has opted to appeal that decision. The suit stems from a decision by the paper to write five articles calling Project Veritas’ report on Minnesota ballot harvesting “deceptive” despite the video showing incontrovertible proof of illegal ballot harvesting. Despite seemingly admitting error in court filings, the New York Times still has not corrected the articles. [NEW YORK – JULY 27, 2022] Project Veritas has revealed notable filings in their ongoing defamation suit with the New York Times which should raise some eyebrows including the argument that neither the words “deceptive” nor “verifiable” have a “precise meaning that is readily understood.” In the aftermath of a September 2020 Project Veritas report which showed footage of illegal ballot harvesting in Minnesota, the New York Times wrote five articles saying the report was “deceptive” and not “verifiable.” Because you can see countless ballots on video and subjects of the investigation are heard expressing indifference to violating laws with respect to ballot harvesting, Project Veritas asked the New York Times to correct the articles, but the Times refused.. This resulted in a lawsuit which successfully survived a motion to dismiss causing the NYT to appeal. There have been notable moments throughout the suit such as lawyers for the Times citing Wikipedia, the NYT publishing confidential legal memos prepared by Project Veritas’ attorneys of record in the suit , and New York Supreme Court Justice Charles Woods writing: “The Articles that are the subject of this action called the Video ‘deceptive,’ but the dictionary definitions of ‘disinformation’ and ‘deceptive’ provided by defendants’ counsel … certainly apply to [the New York Times’] failure to note that they interjected their opinion in news articles as they now claim.” The Times continues to argue the news pieces were merely non-actionable opinion, claiming that “[n]either the word ‘deceptive’ nor the word ‘verifiable’ has a precise meaning that is readily understood.” The Times also pushed back on Justice Wood’s contention that reporting news in the news section (as opposed to opinion) is a “novel obligation” which the “lower court offered no support for.” In a response, Project Veritas’ Attorney Libby Locke explains that the New York Times themselves created this so-called “novel obligation:” The substance and context of the statements – in particular the fact that they appeared in Times news stories where The Times’ own policies prohibit reporters from injecting their opinion – could allow a reasonable reader to conclude that the statements were conveying facts about Veritas. In a video reviewing the merits of the lawsuit, Project Veritas Founder and CEO James O’Keefe closed with a line from Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch criticism of the notable media defamation case, New York Times v. Sullivan: the published falsehoods are on a scale so great, “it has come to leave far more [Americans defamed] without redress than anyone could have predicted.” Stay tuned as we wait for the Appellate Division to decide the future of this case.

Project Veritas Takes CNN to 11th Circuit Court in CNN Defamation Case • Project Veritas is appealing a decision from a federal judge who sided with CNN’s request to dismiss a defamation case against them despite that judge agreeing that there was a difference between the facts and what CNN reported. • Last year, Project Veritas sued CNN for defamation after claiming the journalist organization was suspended from Twitter for “misinformation,” despite CNN knowing that Project Veritas was suspended for inadvertently displaying a lamppost with a house number (but nothing else) on it. • In a video breaking down the decision to appeal the judge’s decision in this suit, Project Veritas Founder and CEO, James O’Keefe, attributed the dismissal to “flawed caselaw” and “mental gymnastics.” • Federal Judge Steve Jones’ decision: “While there is some difference between violating a policy by providing incorrect or misleading information and violating a policy by truthfully providing someone’s private information... the distinction is not enough to make the statement at issue actionable as both violations are similarly damaging to the journalist’s reputation.” • Project Veritas has appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and their lawyers argue that accusing a journalist of publishing something false is substantially different, and damaging, than accusing a journalist of publishing the truth. [NEW YORK – JULY 20, 2022] Project Veritas announced in a new video that they have appealed Federal Judge Steve Jones’ decision to dismiss a defamation suit against CNN. Project Veritas’ defamation suit against CNN stems from the network’s knowingly false claim that the nonprofit journalist organization was suspended on Twitter because of “misinformation.” In reality, Twitter banned Project Veritas because the organization inadvertently failed to blur a lamppost in a video posted to the platform. CNN knew this. Days before CNN’s false broadcast aired, CNN Business’ Brian Fung correctly reported the facts, citing the Twitter policy and even sought comment from a Twitter spokesperson. Even anchor Ana Cabrera tweeted the correct facts out, but days later, Cabrera incorrectly stated on-air that Project Veritas was banned for spreading misinformation while CNN anchor Brian Stelter, who hosts a show called Reliable Sources, backed her up during the same show segment. In their Motion to Dismiss Project Veritas’ lawsuit, CNN defended their publication of false information. In his decision, Federal Judge Steve Jones agreed that CNN misreported the facts yet sided with CNN’s motion to dismiss. In a video breaking down the decision to appeal the judge’s decision in this suit, Project Veritas Founder and CEO James O’Keefe attributed the dismissal to “flawed case law” and “mental gymnastics.” Judge Jones’ decision was based on his interpretation of harm: While there is some difference between violating a policy by providing incorrect or misleading information and violating a policy by truthfully providing someone’s private information... the distinction is not enough to make the statement at issue actionable as both violations are similarly damaging to the journalist’s reputation. When now-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch served on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, he criticized the approach this district court has taken in saying a lie is equally damaging as the truth. Such an approach “… asks courts to compare harms flowing from statements on radically different matters that may even be incommensurable,” wrote Gorsuch in Bustos v. A & E Television Networks. As noted in American Muckraker, Neil Gorsuch highlighted the media’s propensity for libel in a recent criticism of New York Times v. Sullivan saying that the published falsehoods are on a scale so great, “it has come to leave far more [Americans defamed] without redress than anyone could have predicted.” Project Veritas has appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on similar merits, and its lawyers argue that accusing a journalist of publishing something false is substantially different, and damaging, than accusing a journalist of publishing the truth. From the Project Veritas Appellate Brief: Cabrera thus accused Veritas of an act of misconduct (publishing false information) when Veritas had in fact engaged in a completely different act (publishing truthful but (supposedly) private information). Under a straightforward application of settled law, Cabrera’s statement was thus not ‘substantially true,’ and the district court erred in holding otherwise…The district court’s opinion makes clear that in holding Cabrera’s defamatory statement ‘substantially true,’ it is fundamentally misconstrued the substantial truth inquiry. Rather than comparing the ‘gist or substance’ of Cabrera’s statement of the true facts, the district court compared the magnitude of harm that it believed Veritas suffered from Cabrera’s defamatory statement to the magnitude of harm it believed Veritas would have suffered if Cabrera had instead reported the truth.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (“RCFP”) has, once again, filed in support of Project Veritas demanding transparency from the Department of Justice. Almost a year and a half removed from the November of 2021 FBI raids at the homes of Project Veritas journalists, which prompted mass outrage from groups like the ACLU, the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, and the RCFP, the government continues to opt for secrecy. Just a month after the raids, Magistrate Judge, Sarah Cave, who signed the warrants against Project Veritas, denied the RCFP request to unseal the affidavits. Then, on May 13, 2022 the ACLU felt compelled to join the fight and wrote a letter to Federal District Court Judge Analisa Torres. In that letter, the ALCU wrote, “Even if Judge Cave's order were correct when it was issued, the light subsequently shed on the government's investigation may have diminished the need for continued secrecy with respect to substantial portions of the search warrant materials, making redaction more feasible than it might have appeared previously.” Now, the RCFP has appealed the denial to Federal District Court Judge, Analisa Torres. The government, once again, argued against both the RCFP’s and the ACLU’s request to unseal the affidavits that led to the FBI raids. In a new video, Project Veritas founder and CEO, James O’Keefe, dissects the government’s argument that have been able to identify any instance in which a federal court granted the extraordinary relief they seek. O’Keefe notes, “Well, that's because it never f**king happened before. Of course, there's no instance. You've never raided the New York times. You've never raided CNN. Because that's not allowed under United States law. You broke the law so egregiously, and then you say, ‘there's never been an instance where we've done this before.’ That's tautological.” Additionally the in their new filling, RCFP rejected the argument that an “ongoing investigation” is enough to justify keeping the government's misdeeds hidden from the public. “When the government resists disclosure of search warrant materials, courts have generally required it to submit evidence and argument specifically addressing the factual circumstances at hand,” RCFP argued. The government’s position is, “The requirement that a court makes specific findings supporting sealing does not mean that the findings must be unique to that particular case.” The government also argued, “There's a vast gulf between a news outlet reporting a particular fact and the government disclosing that fact.” The RCFP argued in response, “Much of the reporting on the government's investigation appears to be based in part on disclosures made by the government itself to members of the news media, See, Adam Goldman and Michael S. Schmidt, How Ashley Biden’s Diary Made Its Way to Project Veritas, N.Y. Times (December 16, 2021), https://nyti.ms/3rZSetJ (stating that the Times’s reporting was based on ‘[e]xtensive interviews with people involved in or briefed on the investigation’ as well as “a review of court filings, police records, and other material . . . .’”). At the end of Project Veritas’ new video O’Keefe ends with this: Does it not matter that unsealing the affidavit is likely to prove the government violated the law in raiding me and my journalists and would prove Project Veritas’ innocence? What are they hiding? Why are they afraid of this affidavit being unsealed? And just who are they protecting? Now, federal judge Torres must decide if the government can simultaneously disclose only their favorite details of their ‘super-secret investigation’ to the New York Times, while simultaneously shielding their unconstitutional actions from the public's view. For federal judge Torres to rule against Project Veritas, and to rule against the press itself, as well as the ACLU and the Reporters Committee would be the greatest authoritarian power grab by the government in United States history.

Jacobin Mag Columnist and Morehouse Adjunct Professor Ben Bergus is interviewed backstage by James O’Keefe over his deceptive edit omitting use of the N word toward a student by a teach who is also a union member. In the interaction, Burgus is less concerned by the use of racist language toward black students as he is with O’Keefe exposing people affiliated with unions.

New information from an exclusive report from the Daily Mail casts new doubt over the legitimacy of the government’s targeting of Project Veritas. According to the report, the diary belonging to Ashley Biden was not stolen. Which begs the question, why is the government still investigating a news media organization?

EXCLUSIVE: Leaked Video of Elon Musk’s Address to Twitter Employees About ‘Essential’ Nature of Free Speech, Voting Republican, and ‘Evolving’ Twitter • Project Veritas has published the recording of an internal Twitter company-wide meeting wherein Elon Musk addressed thousands of Twitter employees and answered questions moderated by Twitter CMO, Leslie Berland. • “I think it's essential to have free speech,” Musk said on the call after describing his affinity for Twitter. He added that “multiple opinions” should exist on Twitter to “make sure that we’re not sort of driving a narrative.” • On the call, Musk was asked about his political leanings, his plans for layoffs and the direction of the company. • Musk described his political views as “moderate” noting that he traditionally has voted democrat but voted republican this week for the first time in his life, voting for Congressional Candidate Mayra Flores in Florida. He said he believes most of the world favors moderate politics but that the far left and right should be able to voice their frustrations on Twitter. • Musk also discussed his vision for Twitter saying that traditional news media is “negative” and that they “almost never” get it right. He added that bots, spam and multi-account users must be contained. “I think an important goal for Twitter would be to try to include as, as much of the country, as much of the world as possible,” Musk added. • Musk notes that he’s “not hung up on titles,” but he certainly wants to be the one driving the product change at Twitter. • Musk reacted to the news of Project Veritas publishing the recorded meeting on Twitter, by posting “Exactly.” [SAN FRANCISCO– JUNE 16, 2022] Project Veritas has published another recording of an internal Twitter all hands meeting wherein Elon Musk addressed thousands of employees for the first time since news broke of his plans to acquire the company. On the call, Musk described his affinity for Twitter and said the platform was best for “getting a message out” but noted that he was concerned about the platform as it currently stands, reiterating previous statements he’s made about bots, spam, and censorship. “I think it's essential to have free speech,” Musk said in response to a question about his highly publicized goal to bring free speech to the platform. When pressed about what that might mean in the context of animal abuse, sexual content and offensive tweets, Musk maintained his stance. “I think there's also, there's freedom of speech and freedom of reach, so I think people should be allowed to say…pretty outrageous things that are within the balance, the law, but, but then they don't, you know, get amplified,” Musk added. Throughout the call, Musk spoke highly about Twitter but emphasized his vision for expanding the tech giant to be inclusive of more users. “I think an important goal for Twitter would be to try to include as, as much of the country, as much of the world as possible,” Musk said speaking to employees including CEO, Parag Agrawal. On the call, Musk was asked about a wide range of matters including his political leanings, his plans for layoffs and whether remote employees would be required to return to the office. Musk described his political views as “moderate” noting that he traditionally has voted democrat but voted republican for the first time in his life, voting for Congressional Candidate, Mayra Flores, in Texas. He said he believes most of the world favors moderate politics but that the far left and right should be able to voice their frustrations on Twitter. At one point, Musk was asked if he would be taking over CEO duties of the company. Musk’s answer was that he “wants to make sure the product evolves rapidly.” In response to the Project Veritas’ leak of the company-wide zoom, Musk commented “exactly.”

Almost 15 years ago, Hannah Giles and I went into ACORN offices across the country posing as a prostitute and pimp to expose the organization for what it was proven to be: DEEPLY AND IRREDEEMABLY CORRUPT. We went to ACORN offices in Baltimore, Washington D.C., New York, and other cities. We exposed their employees telling Hannah and I how to commit tax fraud and get away with underage prostitution rings. ACORN and its Corporate Media allies attempted to play the story down when we launched the first video. They still tried to play it down when we launched a second video. By the time the third video came out, they knew their defense of the indefensible was doomed. In honor of that bombshell investigation, which led to Congress pulling hundreds of millions of tax-payer dollars from ACORN, we produced a Vintage Veritas video to remind you of the impact the truth can have in politics and society at large. This story proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Project Veritas stories self-effectuate accountability. Skeptics try to tell me that “nothing ever happens” to the corrupt people we expose. They question our resolve and our desire to see justice delivered. Let this be a reminder to everyone – and a warning to the corrupt actors in 2022 – that you WILL be held accountable for your actions. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.