Advertisement

When the story broke about Project Veritas employees and founder James O’Keefe being raided by the FBI Saturday morning in a purported search for Ashley Biden’s diary, our first question was, “Did they take the electronics?”

Sure enough, the diary search seems to have been a pretext, at least in part, to take the electronics.

The FBI found privileged communications between Project Veritas and their attorney from several years ago, with PV asking for legal opinions regarding their journalistic activities. It seems the Bureau leaked these to THE NEW YORK TIMES, which apparently is illegal –- yes, even when the FBI does it, but since when have they cared? –- and the NYT reported on it, which as far as we know also is illegal.

Oh, and it gets shadier. The NYT happens to be in litigation with Project Veritas or a story they did in 2020 about a PV video alleging voter fraud in Minnesota. Wonder if they saw any attorney-client communications about that?

https://thelibertydaily.com/criminal-collusion-fbi-illegally-leaked-privileged-project-veritas-communications-and-the-ny-times-illegally-reported-on-them/

Adam Goldman and Mark Mazzetti wrote a piece for Thursday’s NYT called “Project Veritas and the Line Between Journalism and Political Spying,” which they say shows “how the conservative group worked with lawyers to gauge how far its deceptive reporting practices could go before running afoul of federal laws.”

So, let me get this straight. Reporters discuss with their attorneys on how to get information for their stories without breaking the law. Stop the presses!!

Ironically, the one who might have run afoul of the law is THE NEW YORK TIMES, as it has written about communications covered by attorney-client privilege. The materials are a series of memos written several years ago by Project Veritas attorney Benjamin Barr about how to do things such as mask identity and infiltrate groups without breaking federal law. This is actually the style of undercover reporting that investigative journalists used to do all the time; you know this if you watched 60 MINUTES and other prime time news shows in their long-ago heyday.

“The documents give new insight into the workings of the group,” the NYT story says, “at a time when it faces potential legal peril in the diary investigation –- and has signaled that its defense will rely in part on casting itself as a journalistic organization protected by the First Amendment.”

Note to the NYT: Project Veritas is a journalistic organization protected by the First Amendment.

And being a journalistic organization, they chose not to do a story on Ashley Biden’s diary because they couldn’t confirm it was hers. NATIONAL FILE published 112 pages of it, in October 2020, but Project Veritas left it alone.

“Most news organizations consult regularly with lawyers,” the NYT story says, “but some of Project Veritas’ questions for its legal team demonstrate an interest in using tactics that test the boundaries of legality and are outside of mainstream reporting techniques.”

So, whatever they thought they might need to do to get a story, they were running by their attorneys first to make sure it was LEGAL and didn’t interfere with national security. Hey, NYT (and FBI), there is nothing wrong with “demonstrating an interest.” And according to James O’Keefe and his lawyer Paul Calli, who appeared in an interview with Sean Hannity, they DID nothing wrong. This would imply denial of one of the allegations in the search warrant, transporting stolen goods [the diary] across state lines.

“Mr. O’Keefe likes to describe himself as a crusading journalist exposing wrongdoing, targeting liberal groups and Democrat politicians,” says the NYT.

Note to the NYT: That’s exactly what O'Keefe is. And thank God for that, as the mainstream media aren’t interested in doing the job. They show a remarkable lack of curiosity, especially when it comes to wrongdoings within their own party.

In their story, Goldman and Mazzetti admit that they passed along some of these Project Veritas memos to Bill Grueskin, a professor at the Columbia School of Journalism, formerly with the WALL STREET JOURNAL and BLOOMBERG NEWS. He said that these memos provided “pretty good advice” but that “the undercover nature of Project Veritas’ work was more problematic.”

Did this expert think it might be “problematic” that he was reading privileged attorney-client legal advice?

“Every newsroom I’ve ever worked in has basically said undercover journalism was unacceptable,” Grueskin said. On the contrary, we used to see a lot of this type of sting, with shaky undercover cameras inside purses and such. That was long before cameras were virtually everywhere, as they are now. Why do I get the feeling that the real objection to Project Veritas is not their tactics but their targets?

Project Veritas issued a statement saying it “stands behind these legal memos and is proud of the exhaustive work it does to ensure each of its journalism investigations complies with all applicable laws” and that their work “reflects Project Veritas’ dedication to the First Amendment, which protects the right to gather information, including about those in power.”

James O’Keefe got himself an outstanding attorney, Harmeet Dhillon, and she appeared on Tucker Carlson’s FOX NEWS show Thursday evening with a shocking story about how the FBI conducted their raid. She said they showed up at his door with “a battering ram,” “threw him out into the hallway,” put him “in handcuffs” and “took his phones.”

She said he had a lot of privileged information on his phones, including communication with “by my count, four dozen different lawyers over the years.” She can’t say with certainty how these NYT reporters got the information, but “can say that they got it in a way that is illegal and unethical.

She described this as a situation in which either the U.S. Attorney’s office or the FBI was tipping off the NYT to each of the raids on Project Veritas’ current and former employees. “We know that because minutes after these raids occurred, we got calls from THE NEW YORK TIMES,” she said. She described the story they ran as “a hit piece.”

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything this low from THE NEW YORK TIMES before, to publish people’s private legal communications,” she said. She then said what we'd concluded independently: “All it proves is that Project Veritas is an honest and thoughtful journalistic organization that sought legal advice” before running with their stories. We would add that perhaps THE NEW YORK TIMES could do a better job of that.

Finally, the FBI may have found a treasure trove of private stuff on those phones besides the attorney-client material. Dhillon said there was confidential source information, “including sources in the Biden administration and in corporate America.” There was also donor information, which is protected by the First Amendment. So why did the FBI take those phones? Still think all they were after was that diary?

On Thursday, Project Veritas was able to get a federal judge to order the FBI and the Southern District of New York to stop looking at the phones. But that sure sounds like locking the barn door after the horse is gone.

I told you about the man who claimed that activists were secretly photographing the jurors to intimidate them to vote guilty or face retaliation. It’s not clear whether that was true or these stories are related, but the judge announced that someone had been caught secretly recording the jury. The video was deleted.

https://www.westernjournal.com/judge-makes-huge-announcement-rittenhouse-trial-jury-members-filmed/

Rittenhouse did something most lawyers advise against and took the stand in his own defense. That can get you into big trouble if you’re facing a sharp, competent prosecutor. Luckily for him, that’s hardly the case here. This prosecutor actually thought he’d hit on a “Perry Mason” moment by asking Rittenhouse why he was running toward a fire with a fire extinguisher in his hand.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2021/11/10/we-just-may-have-the-dumbest-moments-in-the-rittenhouse-trial-n473324

The judge blasted the prosecutor for making a “grave constitutional violation” by mentioning Rittenhouse giving up his right to remain silent in front of the jury.

https://www.westernjournal.com/rittenhouse-judge-blasts-prosecution-says-made-grave-constitutional-violation/

Afterward, the prosecution rested its case, and the judge dropped one minor charge of breaking curfew.

https://www.westernjournal.com/judge-drops-charge-kyle-rittenhouse-case-state-rests-case/

Even some liberal commentators are admitting that their certainty that this wasn’t self-defense has been shaken. You can tell the trial is going badly for the prosecution because liberal media outlets are resorting to attacking the judge and calling him a white supremacist (he was appointed by a Democrat) so that if Rittenhouse is acquitted, they can blame it on him being coddled by a racist judge and not on the evidence and testimony.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/11/11/the-talking-points-go-forth-on-the-rittenhouse-trial-as-liberals-struggle-to-cope-n473658

Sadly, a lot of people who actually rely on these people for accurate news (which is like relying on Ben & Jerry for diet tips) may be misinformed enough to riot over the alleged “racist verdict” in a trial that was decided on the evidence and had nothing to do with race (Rittenhouse and all three people shot are white.) And while that might be terrible for America, the cities where it happens, and the people and businesses that will suffer, it will give more video footage to the irresponsible, biased media outlets that lit the fuse that set off the bomb. Is it any wonder polls show Americans trust the media less than almost anyone other than Congress?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/355526/americans-trust-media-dips-second-lowest-record.aspx

The CDC comes under scrutiny

November 12, 2021

With tens of millions of Americans having already had COVID-19, a lot of people question why the CDC refuses even to discuss a natural immunity exception to vaccine mandates. The agency claims that vaccination boosts immunity even for those who’ve already had COVID, but that relies on one study from Kentucky that’s contradicted by other studies.

But the agency is now coming under new criticism after admitting in a response to a Freedom of Information Act request that it doesn’t have a single case on record of an unvaccinated person who previously had COVID spreading the disease to anyone else.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/11/11/the-cdc-gives-the-entire-game-away-on-covid-19-natural-immunity-n474019

As the linked article notes, “fact-checkers” are already rushing to stem the damage by insisting that this is not proof that people with natural immunity don’t spread COVID, just that the CDC isn’t keeping such records. That’s true, but it also obscures the important point.

The bombshell news here is that the CDC, which Americans are told to depend on as a reliable source for all the latest information on COVID, hasn’t even bothered to gather any data on one of the most important and contentious issues: the relative effectiveness of natural immunity. If they had, they might reach the conclusion that recovered people don’t need “vaccine passports” or to comply with vaccine mandates. This revelation makes them look more concerned with pushing an agenda than with amassing the most accurate data and being transparent about it. It only feeds the skepticism of those who already distrust the CDC. They’re not going to convince more people to get a shot in the arm by continually shooting themselves in the foot.

By the way, if you want to know more about the various studies and the arguments for and against natural immunity, this recent video by a professor of pharmacology summarizes it all pretty objectively.

https://youtu.be/Lz7fZOfPf8M

Biden is in denial

November 11, 2021

Joe Biden may be President of the United States, but judging from his response when he was asked about his dismal poll numbers, he must be running for Queen of Denial.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-brushes-off-lagging-poll-numbers-talks-supply-issues

While the latest USA Today/Suffolk poll shows him at a historically low 38% approval, he insisted his polls were on par with Clinton’s and Obama’s and that he just saw a poll that had him at 48%. I assume he means the latest CNN poll (of course), but even that one shows 58% of respondents say he’s not paying enough attention to the most important problems. I checked the Real Clear Politics roundup of the latest 13 polls. Even including the Democrat-friendly ones, his average approval rating is 42.8%.

Still, Biden brushed off the question, saying, "But look, the point is I didn't run because of the polls." Darn good thing!

But that was only the tip of the denial iceberg. He also blamed his low ratings on Americans being anxious about COVID. He said, "Even though we've created almost six million jobs since I came into office, we're in a situation where people don't, I mean they don't feel it right now. They don't feel it." (Note: allowing businesses that were artificially shut down by the government to reopen and people to go back to work is not “creating” jobs.)

He went on, “Gas prices are up, exceedingly high…That's why I have the Attorney General taking a look at whether or not these gas companies are gouging people." Yeah, that’s the reason why gas is so expensive! Those same gas companies that were charging $1.89 a year ago suddenly realized they could gouge customers after he coincidentally declared war on the domestic fuel industry.

https://www.westernjournal.com/biden-responds-skyrocketing-gas-prices-thinking-shutting-another-american-pipeline/

Supply chain problems? That’s all just COVID, man. But don’t worry, because with the passage of the $1.2 trillion “infrastructure” bill (about $110 billion of which goes to actual infrastructure), widespread infrastructure projects will begin in "the matter of weeks."

I’m old enough to recall the last time Congress voted to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on “shovel-ready jobs.” Several years later, even Obama later had to admit there were no “shovel-ready jobs.” Because of all the green regulations and red tape that Biden wants to make even worse, no major infrastructure projects could launch without a decade’s worth of environmental studies first.

I’m sure he’ll find a way to ignore this poll, too: USA Today asked people what was the one thing they wanted to see President Biden do in the next year. The top answer was “Resign/retire/quit.”

Rittenhouse Trial Update

November 11, 2021

If the jury in Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial doesn’t vote to acquit, he’ll likely have excellent grounds for appeal on jury intimidation. A man claiming to be a friend or relative of George Floyd released a video that went viral, claiming activists were taking photos of jurors in the courtroom so they could retaliate if they didn’t vote to convict.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/11/07/george-floyd-friend-claims-rittenhouse-jurors-are-being-tracked-and-photographed-n1530548

(Incidentally, the George Floyd/racism aspect of this case is a bit bizarre, considering Rittenhouse and the three men he shot are all white.)

Even if that video is nothing but Internet bluster, the very idea of such a threat might be enough to scare jurors out of being impartial, and that should be obvious grounds for an appeal.

However, despite the local bias against Rittenhouse (two-thirds of potential jurors said they’d already decided he was guilty), if the jurors are impartial, I don’t see how they vote any way other than acquittal on self-defense. The prosecution’s case has blown up in their faces so many times, you’d think the D.A. was Wile E. Coyote. Their “star witness” contradicted their narrative of Rittenhouse chasing the men down (they chased him down.) FBI surveillance video also contradicted it. Another witness testified that one of the men shot was acting aggressive and threatened to kill him and Rittenhouse.

On Monday, the prosecution called to the stand the only agitator shot by Rittenhouse who survived. He claimed he was running toward Rittenhouse to save him from the other two who were attacking him, and that he yelled at one to stop hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard. But the defense attorney forced him to admit, “with the benefit of hindsight,” that that wasn’t true. He also got him to admit that he was advancing on Rittenhouse and pointing a pistol at him when Rittenhouse shot him. The state’s case imploded so thoroughly, a prosecutor was caught on camera face-palming (burying his face in his hand in frustration.)

https://www.westernjournal.com/game-changer-witness-admits-pointed-gun-rittenhouse-moved-shot/

The defense also pointed out that that guy is suing the city for $10 million in damages, but he didn’t mention in his filings that he was carrying and pointing a gun at the time he was shot.

The jurors might fear riots if they don’t vote guilty, but Nick Arama at Redstate.com offered an alternative: the defense could ask the judge for a directed verdict.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2021/11/09/directed-verdict-and-big-problems-for-the-prosecution-in-the-rittenhouse-case-n472233

That means the judge could rule that no jury could possibly be convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and throw out some or all of the charges. The mainstream media aren’t covering the terrible job the prosecutors are doing, but if there are riots, their bias could be a contributing factor. Anyone who riots over Rittenhouse being acquitted definitely wasn’t informed about what's going on in that courtroom.

This might be the most important article you’ll read all week.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/11/british-muslim-cia-operative-and-author-i-posed-daniel-greenfield/

The Democrats, news media, social media, Big Tech and other allies of the left have been far too successful in clamping down on free speech by conservatives. By accusing people who question their views and narratives of spreading “misinformation,” “disinformation,” “hate speech” or whatever other negative buzzwords they can apply to non-leftist views, they’ve succeeded in censoring anyone who questions shady election procedures; discusses the origin or medical treatments for COVID or any problems with the vaccines or mask mandates; or criticizes BLM, Antifa, Critical Race Theory or schools that push any of it. Next, they’re going to make it verboten to question apocalyptic climate change claims.

And who is behind much of this push to destroy free speech and silence any voices that dissent from leftist orthodoxy? Investigative journalist Daniel Greenfield has been digging into the background and organization of one of the leftwing cable channels’ favorite pompous talking heads, British leftist Imran Ahmed of the far-too-influential “Center for Countering Digital Hate.” And how legit is that? As Greenfield puts it, if you liked the dubious Brit material in the Steele Dossier, "you'll love the Center for Countering Digital Hate."

This is the group whose claims about rightwing “hate speech” and “disinformation” are cited by Senate Democrats and Big Tech in their endless quest to criminalize conservative speech. Read what Greenfield has unearthed about the sleazy background and secretive funding, staff and even address of this organization that’s being granted more power over Americans’ speech than the First Amendment. Learn how their next mission, one they’re already succeeding at, is to get Big Tech to censor any skepticism of the movement to confiscate and redistribute the world’s wealth in the name of “climate change.”

And speaking of climate change, see if you don’t feel a sudden chill at reading this quote from Ahmed:

“We can’t suppress anyone’s opinion or their ability to express their opinion, but what we can do is create costs for their speech."

In short, make Americans so afraid of what it might cost them to speak their minds that they censor themselves. Imposing “costs” on speech is by definition the antithesis of free speech.

Read it all, and then demand to know why American media outlets and social media companies are handing over power over our speech to this shady, censorious propagandist? Americans fought a Revolution so that we could express our thoughts freely without fear of retribution from a pompous tyrant with a British accent. Why are we allowing one to take that fundamental right away from us now?