A New York judge upheld his order for The New York Times to return documents they obtained about communications between the conservative activist group Project Veritas and the group's lawyers.
In his Friday ruling, Justice Charles Wood ordered The Times to immediately give back all physical copies of their Project Veritas documents and destroy any electronic copies the newspaper has, as they were protected by attorney-client privilege.
Wood also argued that The Time's story regarding the documents were of no 'general interest and of value and concern to the public.'
A.G. Sulzberger, publisher of The Times, said the news outlet would seek a stay of the ruling and would appeal it on First Amendment grounds.
'This ruling should raise alarms not just for advocates of press freedoms but for anyone concerned about the dangers of government overreach into what the public can and cannot know,' Sulzberger said in a statement. 'In defiance of law settled in the Pentagon Papers case, this judge has barred The Times from publishing information about a prominent and influential organization that was obtained legally in the ordinary course of reporting.'
The judge's order came as part of a defamation lawsuit filed against The Times by Project Veritas leader James O'Keef.
The group came under federal scrutiny in relation to the alleged theft of the diary of President Joe Biden's daughter Ashley, which the group considered publishing but never did. The group admitted to being in possession of the diary at some point but claim to have since handed it over to authorities.
Portions of the diary were published by National File, a right-wing website, which said they were provided by a frustrated employee of a media outlet that passed on them. Project Veritas denies any connection to the publication of the diary.
It has objected to a November 11 New York Times article that drew from memos from a Project Veritas lawyer, and purported to reveal how the group worked 'gray area between investigative journalism and political spying' using its lawyers to 'gauge how far its deceptive reporting practices can go before running afoul of federal laws.'
O'Keefe and the group have been heavily criticized for allegedly using deceptive tactics to expose what it describes as liberal media bias.
Elizabeth Locke, a lawyer for Project Veritas, said: 'Today's ruling affirms that The New York Times's behavior was irregular and outside the boundaries of law.
'The court's thoughtful and well-researched opinion is a victory for the First Amendment for all journalists and affirms the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship,' Locke added.
O'Keefe and Project Veritas have alleged that The Time's story is meant as nothing more than a smear campaign against the group. Following Friday's ruling, O'Keefe said, 'The Times is so blinded by its hatred of Project Veritas that everything it does results in a self-inflicted wound.'
The group had been suing over a September 2020 The Times article describing a video it released that alleged voter fraud connected to the campaign of U.S. congresswoman Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat.
The New York Times reported that the allegations made in the video were made: 'through unidentified sources and with no verifiable evidence.'
Theodore Boutrous Jr., a lawyer who represents media outlets, told The Times the ruling was 'way off base and dangerous. It's an egregious, unprecedented intrusion on news gathering and the news gathering process,' Mr. Boutrous said. 'The special danger is it allows a party suing a news organization for defamation to then get a gag order against the news organization banning any additional reporting. It's the ultimate chilling effect.'
Dean Baquet, The New York Times' executive editor, previously said Wood's November 18 order to stop newspaper set a 'dangerous precedent,' while the newspaper has said courts might find prior restraints acceptable only 'rarely,' such as to protect national security.
The New York Times had not faced any prior restraint since 1971, when the Nixon administration unsuccessfully sought to block the publication of the Pentagon Papers detailing U.S. military involvement in Vietnam.
An attorney for O'Keefe aso accused the Department of Justice of tipping off The New York Times about recent raids on current and former employees, while suggesting federal prosecutors may have also leaked the group's legal communications.
The FBI conducted raids at O'Keefe's New York home and those of others connected to Project Veritas this month, seizing two of O'Keefe's cell phones, among other items.
Days later The New York Times published a report based on memos from the group's lawyer, revealing his legal advice on the group's use of false identities and undercover filming, tactics that are eschewed by most modern journalists.
Later that day, a federal judge ordered the DOJ to stop extracting data from the phones, granting a request from O'Keefe's legal team made the day before for an independent party to be appointed to oversee the review of the confiscated devices.
****************************************************
What Does the Separation of Church and State Mean?
The SCOTUS hearing the FBI's religious spy case begs the question
On November 8, 2021, the Supreme Court heard arguments for a case that has serious ramifications for religious and civil liberties in the United States. FBI v. Fazaga will determine to what extent, under section 1806(f) of FISA, a US District court can review contested surveillance that is protected under state secrets privilege.
In an effort to sift out potential terror threats, the FBI began investigating Muslims in 2006 under Operation Flex. In one particular instance of this operation, the FBI paid an informant to attend the Islamic Center of Irvine and surrounding mosques in Southern California. The informant collected surveillance in the vast majority of his interactions with the Muslims in these communities. The FBI didn’t even have cause to single out any of these mosques, nor was the information tasked with following anyone suspected of criminal wrongdoing.
Unable to find any evidence of illegal activity after well over a year, the informant began to speak of “jihad and armed conflict”. Not wanting any part of what the informant was selling, uneasy community members soon reported him, ironically, to the FBI and filed a restraining order against the informant. After the informant went public, Fazaga and his fellow plaintiffs filed a suit claiming unlawful searches and religious discrimination.
State secrets privilege was invoked over surveillance gathered on Fazaga and his fellow plaintiffs. State secrets is an evidentiary rule that allows the withholding of evidence from legal proceedings, based on the government’s claim that revealing the evidence would be a risk to national security.
A large portion of Fazaga’s case against the FBI hinges upon the evidence deemed a state secret. Unable to weigh the evidence, the US District Court that first heard the case threw out most of Fazaga’s claims for that reason. On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court reversed the decision.
What’s at the heart of this case is the relationship between section 1806(f) of FISA and the state secrets privilege. 1806(f) says that if the Attorney General files an affidavit claiming certain evidence would threaten national security if disclosed, then the US district court can review the orders and applications for the electronic surveillance in camera (in a private session without the public) and ex parte (without an improper party being present) to see if the surveillance was legally conducted.
The FBI claims that 1806(f) of FISA has no clear language on whether it supersedes state secrets privilege.
Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the FBI, evidence considered state secrets privilege could be immune to 1806(f) of FISA. This type of evidence would usually be dismissed, and lawsuits contingent upon such evidence would likely be thrown out entirely. US District judges would have their hands tied by this Supreme Court case.
State secrets privilege could provide far more cover for the US government to spy on its citizens in the event of a ruling favorable to the FBI.
United States v. Reynolds, the first Supreme Court case to officially recognize state secrets privilege, said that the state secrets doctrine should not be “lightly invoked.” However, its invocation has increased in recent decades. With no official system of checks, the courts have given federal agents an immunity hall pass.
Depending on the outcome, this case could open the flood gates to more government spying. It is no coincidence that a lawsuit posing a serious challenge to the state secrets doctrine has to do with religious discrimination.
In the wake of 9/11, Muslim Americans have been high on the list of religious groups of concern to the US government and it has resulted in many instances of discrimination. Glenn Greenwald has previously covered how the FBI has concocted similar schemes in the past. Since 9/11, roughly the FBI has paid 15,000 informants $3.3 billion to spy on Muslims. Yet this case should concern everyone, particularly any religious person.
Though it has been Muslim Americans at the forefront of this issue, there is no reason to think that Christian, Jewish, or Hindu Americans (or any other religious group) are exempt from government spying either. It’s not entirely outside the realm of possibility where the government would be interested in spying on these groups.
This fact is illuminated by recent examples during the pandemic. Many states barred or forcibly altered religious gatherings during the pandemic, and often granted much more lax restrictions on other non-religious social gatherings. In some cases, police have even shown up to shut down church gatherings. The outcome of this Supreme Court case could allow the government more cover to carry out such surveillance, leaving the victims of unlawful surveillance with little to no chance at restitution.
This is a clear violation of the separation of church and state, and an attack on the rights of Americans to practice their beliefs without being spied on. This is a great affront to one of our founding principles—religious freedom.
What’s more, is that this case can also chip away at our right to a fair trial if the government can entrap individuals and suppress the evidence in a court of law. FBI v. Fazaga could establish a legitimate check on the state secrets privilege and it almost seems like common sense. One could easily see it work out where a judge could review evidence under state secret privilege and maintain an oath to secrecy. This way national secrecy isn’t under threat AND an element of fairness and justice is maintained in lawsuits.
But, like most instances of state secrets privilege is invoked, we are at the mercy of the government to decide.
https://catalyst.independent.org/2021/12/14/separation-church-state/
************************************************Marjorie Taylor Greene tears into Republicans for tweet celebrating Kwanza and calls it a 'fake religion created by a psychopath'
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene hit out against College Republicans for a tweet wishing a Happy Kwanzaa, calling it a 'fake religion created by a psychopath.'
'Wishing you a happy and prosperous Kwanza,' the national group for conservative college students wrote on Twitter on Sunday.
'Stop. It's a fake religion created by a psychopath,' Greene, a Georgia Republican, wrote back on Twitter. 'You aren't bringing in new voters, you are turning them away. People are tired of pandering and BS.'
Kwanzaa is a secular festival of African American culture celebrated each year from Dec. 26-Jan. 1.
Founded in 1966 by activist and Black Power movement figure Maulana Karenga, it is based on African festival traditions as a way to 'give blacks an alternative to the existing holiday of Christmas and give blacks an opportunity to celebrate themselves and their history, rather than simply imitate the practice of the dominant society,' according to Karenga.
It is said to celebrate the seven principles of Kwanzaa- unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity, and faith.
Karenga was placed on the FBI's watch list under its COINTELPRO program, which had been tasked with surveilling and disrupting revolutionary political groups. Karenga was later arrested and thrown in prison for assaulting two female members of his black nationalist organization, a charge which he denied and said was manufactured to derail him as a political figure.
Even former President Trump, who Greene closely allies herself with, issued a statement celebrating the beginning of the festival during his first year in office.
'Today marks the first day of Kwanzaa, a weeklong celebration of African American heritage and culture. Together, let us celebrate during this joyous time the richness of the past and look with hope toward a brighter future,' Trump said.
'As families and friends join to light the Kinara, Melania and I extend our warmest wishes for a joyful holiday season and a prosperous year to come,' he said.
College Republicans did not respond to Greene's attack, instead retweeting past Kwanzaa messages from other prominent Republican accounts, including the Republican National Committee, the Texas GOP, the Manhattan GOP, Ohio GOP, Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., and Trump's White House.
**************************************************
Another Democrat switches to GOP
A Texas Democrat switched his affiliation to the Republican Party over the party’s left-leaning embrace of defunding the police policies and “chaos” on the southern border.
State Rep. Ryan Guillen announced in a Monday press conference that he would seek reelection to his south Texas seat as a Republican, saying the Democratic Party’s far-left values are no longer in line with his own.
Specifically, Guillen cited his now-former party’s backing of defunding the police and the compounding crisis at the southern border under President Biden.
“Friends, something is happening in South Texas, and many of us are waking up to the fact that the values of those in Washington, D.C., are not our values, not the values of most Texans,” Guillen said.
“The ideology of defunding the police, of destroying the oil and gas industry and the chaos at our border is disastrous for those of us who live here in South Texas,” he continued.
The former Democrat had won his seat by nearly 17 points in the 2020 election and has served in the Texas House for almost two decades. Guillen’s switch is a win for Republicans as the party pushes to gain traction along the historically blue border.
Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan joined Guillen at his announcement in Floresville.
“John Lujan’s upset victory earlier this month in a district with a majority Hispanic population already proved that Texans are fed up with the failures of Democratic leadership and Ryan Guillen’s party switch makes that fact all the more clear,” Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) president Dee Duncan said in a Monday statement.
“Today’s Democrat leaders are so focused on appeasing their fringe-left base by putting teachers’ unions ahead of parents, pushing socialist tax and spending schemes, and fighting for open border policies, that even elected officials in their own party cannot support their radical agenda anymore,” Duncan continued.
Duncan said the Republicans “welcome” Guillen to the party “with open arms and look forward to working with him” as he works with his new GOP colleagues “to deliver solutions for the people of his district.”
https://uafreport.com/mark/breaking-rockstar-democrat-switches-to-republican-party-2/
****************************************My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment