FBI raid on Project Veritas founder’s home sparks questions about press freedom

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  3 weeks ago  •  31 comments

By:   By JOSH GERSTEIN

FBI raid on Project Veritas founder’s home sparks questions about press freedom
The action against James O’Keefe has prompted concern about the Biden administration’s commitment to the First Amendment.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The Biden administration’s effort to establish itself as a committed champion of press freedom is facing new doubts because of the Justice Department’s aggressive legal tactics against a conservative provocateur known for his hidden-camera video stings.

A predawn FBI raid last weekend against Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe and similar raids on some of his associates are prompting alarm from some First Amendment advocates, who contend that prosecutors appear to have run roughshod over Justice Department media policies and a federal law protecting journalists.






Adding to the drama surrounding the brewing court showdown: It stems from a politically sensitive investigation into the alleged theft of the diary of President Joe Biden’s daughter Ashley.








That document made it into the hands of O’Keefe’s organization, Project Veritas, which never published anything on the subject and eventually turned the document over to police.










An ensuing federal investigation resulted in the FBI raid on O’Keefe’s home in Westchester County, N.Y., at 6 a.m. last Saturday to seize his cell phones pursuant to a court order. O’Keefe says he stood handcuffed in his underwear in a hallway as almost a dozen agents — one carrying a battering ram — searched for the phones.

The politically fraught episode is shaping up as an early test of the vows from Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland to show greater respect for the media and to back away from the confrontational, often hostile approach favored by former President Donald Trump and his administration.

“This is just beyond belief,” said University of Minnesota law professor Jane Kirtley, a former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “I’m not a big fan of Project Veritas, but this is just over the top. I hope they get a serious reprimand from the court because I think this is just wrong.”
O'Keefe’s lawyers complained to a federal judge this week that the raid unfairly denied him the legal protections afforded to journalists.

"The Department of Justice’s use of a search warrant to seize a reporter’s notes and work product violates decades of established Supreme Court precedent," O’Keefe lawyer Paul Calli wrote to prosecutors.

O’Keefe’s lawyers are demanding that the court appoint a special master to supervise the review of the information on his phones, which they contend contains sensitive details about confidential sources, as well as privileged communication with Project Veritas’ attorneys.

Such a process is uncommon, but has been used in recent years to sift through information seized in federal investigations into two of Trump’s personal attorneys, Michael Cohen and Rudy Giuliani.

On Thursday, Manhattan-based U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres issued a one-page order giving prosecutors one day to confirm they have "paused [their] extraction and review of the contents" of O’Keefe's cell phones. Torres — an appointee of President Barack Obama — has not yet ruled on O’Keefe’s request for a special master, who is typically a retired judge.

Project Veritas was facing a jury trial in Washington next month in the suit brought by Democracy Partners, a Democratic consulting firm it infiltrated, but on Thursday, a judge postponed the trial due to the raids and the unfolding legal fight over them.

At the center of the gathering legal storm is a pivotal question: Is O’Keefe a journalist in the eyes of the law?

O’Keefe’s attorneys insist that despite his evident political bent and his unorthodox — sometimes deceptive — tactics, he qualifies as a journalist under a federal statute and Justice Department regulations aimed at sharply restricting the use of search warrants and similar steps against members of the media.

Prosecutors insist they’ve complied with those requirements, but have thus far been cagey about whether or not they’re treating O’Keefe as a member of the press.

“The Government hereby confirms that it has complied with all applicable regulations and policies regarding potential members of the news media in the course of this investigation, including with respect to the search warrant at issue,” prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan wrote Monday in a letter to O’Keefe’s lawyers obtained by POLITICO.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last month, Garland was asked who qualifies as a journalist under Justice Department policies. “It’s very difficult to make that kind of definition,” he said.

O’Keefe is certainly not a typical journalist. Indeed, several of his outfit’s major hidden-camera exposés have been directed at employees of major news organizations such as CNN and NPR, seeking to paint them as left-wing activists. (At least one such attempt was foiled in 2017 when Washington Post reporters suspected they were being set up and effectively turned the tables on O’Keefe’s operatives.)

While many of O’Keefe’s tactics are unsavory, they are far from unknown in the mainstream press. Hidden-camera stings and undercover reporting have fallen out of fashion at most traditional news organizations, but they were once a staple of network television news magazines.

In the 1970s, the Chicago Sun-Times bought a rundown bar and rigged it out with hidden cameras, successfully capturing city inspectors demanding bribes. NBC’s popular and controversial series, “To Catch a Predator,” revolves around hidden-camera stings.

O’Keefe’s rather overt political agenda is also in line with a long American tradition of advocacy journalism. And many conservatives view mainstream news outlets as pervasively liberal in their worldview even as most claim to be neutral in their reporting.

Some of O’Keefe’s practices do seem highly unusual. A poorly redacted pleading filed in the civil suit Project Veritas was set to face trial on next month indicates that O’Keefe encouraged a colleague to tell potential donors they could provide “input” on the timing of release of Project Veritas’ work, raising the specter that O’Keefe was essentially operating under the direct control of political benefactors.

“Real news organizations — whether Fox News, the New York Times or any other recognized media outlet — do not go to their donors, or advertisers, and ask for their ‘input’ on when stories should be run,” attorneys for Democracy Partners said in  the court filing .

Kirtley, the Minnesota law professor, warned against denying legal protections to Project Veritas based on its political outlook or its tactics. She also noted that Trump repeatedly accused mainstream media outlets of both unethical practices and of having a political ax to grind.

“Trump’s been saying that about the New York Times for seven years,” she said. “It’s very dangerous to try to categorize people doing journalistic-type work, even if they’re not doing it the way I would do it or the way the mainstream media would do it or the way ethical journalists would do it,” Kirtley said.

Another First Amendment advocate, Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, also said the raids on Project Veritas were worrying.

“I don't personally like Project Veritas at all, but imagine this was a liberal org under Trump. Not a good precedent,” he  wrote  on Twitter.

However, legal experts cautioned that even if Project Veritas and O’Keefe qualify as journalists under the law or Justice Department policy, that did not give them license to violate the law.

“If they’ve got evidence that [Project Veritas] has broken the law, then we’re in a completely different world here,” Kirtley said.

Precisely how the Biden daughter’s diary came into the organization’s possession is unclear, but there have been no public indications thus far that — if the diary was stolen — the conservative group planned the theft or helped carry it out.

Court papers provided to the Project Veritas founder when his phones were seized last weekend indicate that his devices were taken as part of an investigation that prosecutors are conducting into potential conspiracy to traffic stolen goods across state lines, as well as accessory-after-the-fact and misprision of a felony.

Precisely what the government told U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Cave to get the warrant used to seize O’Keefe’s phones is unclear and remains under seal.

But the bare-bones outline of the investigation contained in the warrant has fueled the concerns of First Amendment advocates because the Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that media outlets cannot be held liable for publishing information that may have been obtained illegally, as long as they themselves obtained the material legally.

Project Veritas’ lawyer, Calli, acknowledged in an interview on Fox News’ “Hannity” last week that O’Keefe’s group “agreed to pay money for the right to publish” the purported Biden diary. Calli said lawyers for the sources assured Project Veritas that the diary had been obtained lawfully, but the group’s only information on how it was obtained came from the sources.

Calli told the court in a letter earlier this week that the sources told Project Veritas they obtained the diary after Ashley Biden abandoned it at a home in Delray Beach, Fla.

Lawyers tracking the case say the publicly available facts suggest two possibilities: the Justice Department deemed O’Keefe did not qualify as a journalist under DOJ guidelines and federal law known as the Privacy Protection Act, or concluded that he was a member of the media, but that Project Veritas’ personnel may still have committed a crime.

Some language in the warrant suggests prosecutors are examining whether a bidding process for the diary violated laws against fencing stolen items.

However, Calli insists that even if the FBI suspects O’Keefe or others of crimes, Justice Department policy required prosecutors to negotiate for Project Veritas’ materials rather than seizing them.

“The principles that informed this guidance are no less applicable where the news-gathering activities focus on the President’s daughter,” Calli wrote in the motion seeking a special master.

Emails obtained by POLITICO show prosecutors declined to tell Calli whether the Project Veritas searches were approved by a Justice Department committee that oversees investigations impacting the news media.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan declined to comment on the office’s handling of the inquiry. A Justice Department spokesperson also declined comment.

Over the past six months, Biden and Garland have introduced extraordinarily protective policies toward the press, protections so robust that some national security professionals have raised concerns. However, the fight with Project Veritas raises questions about how broadly the new administration intends to apply those robust protections.

“This is really a test in this administration of whether they’re going to put their money where their mouth is,” Kirtley said. “If they’re trying to be seen as great champions of press freedom, this is a pretty bad way to start.”







Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

Please don't tell me that Politico, Fox and the New York Post will be the only ones to speak out against this violation of the Constitution by the Biden regime.


In his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Merrick Garland promised not to allow the Department of Justice to become politicized.

He obviously lied to Congress.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

I'm looking for someone who cares about James O'Keefe.  (This may take some time.) 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago
I'm looking for someone who cares about James O'Keefe. 

That's okay, I am still looking for a progressive liberal who cares about the Constitution. And isn't infected.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago
I'm looking for someone who cares about James O'Keefe. 

Tex beat me to it!    I'm looking for someone who cares about the Constitution.

Maybe in about a year's time we'll again hear the cries of don't prosecute your political enemies. At that time I won't be listening!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago
"I'm looking for someone who cares about James O'Keefe.  (This may take some time.)"

I imaging you'll still be waiting next week at this time.

James O'Keefe a journalist?  jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
3  Dismayed Patriot    3 weeks ago

Those like O'Keefe who deceptively edit their videos to make it seem like something was said or is happening that isn't and continually lie about those who they claim they are reporting on aren't journalists or 'press'. They are worthless pieces of shit using underhanded and deceptive methods to push their worthless opinions that they know would never get any support or attention if they were truthful.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3    3 weeks ago

This has nothing to do with any film or an edit of empty space. This is about a totalitarian regime that is making a mockery of the Constitution.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
3.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    3 weeks ago
This has nothing to do with any film or an edit of empty space

Of course it does, that's how the holier than thou O'keefe operates, the end always justifies the means.

This is about a totalitarian regime that is making a mockery of the Constitution.

That's just a conspiracy theory in empty space.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.1    3 weeks ago
Of course it does

Really?  

Even University of Minnesota law professor Jane Kirtley, who doesn't like Veritas had enough honesty to call it what it was - WRONG!

"O'Keefe’s lawyers complained to a federal judge this week that the raid unfairly denied him the legal protections afforded to journalists."  This is a clear case of freedom of the press.

And I think in the end the Constitution will prevail.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
3.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    3 weeks ago
Even University of Minnesota law professor Jane Kirtley, who doesn't like Veritas had enough honesty to call it what it was - WRONG!

Oh gee whiz a professor thought it was wrong. Cry me a river

Maybe the warrant was for something different like receiving obviously stolen property?

Editing government documents again?

Duh?

Maybe they are confiscating phones to see how innocent or guilty O'Keefe is or isn't.

Ya know, doing their jobs...investigating.

In the end, who knows?

Remember, even Texan Grand Jurors cleared Planned Parenthood and indicted Project Veritas agents

for tampering with government documents and evidence.

O'Keefe is a known cheater, liar and manufacturer of fake news.

He doesn't meet the definition of a credible journalist.

We shall see if SCOTUS defends lying in the press like they defend hate speech.

Free speech does not mean free rein.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.3    3 weeks ago
Oh gee whiz a professor thought it was wrong. Cry me a river

She and most of the universe.


Maybe the warrant was for something different like receiving obviously stolen property?

Editing government documents again?

Duh?

Very similar to when Obama spied on journalist James Rosen and got away with it:




Maybe they are confiscating phones to see how innocent or guilty O'Keefe is or isn't.

Ya know, doing their jobs...investigating.

Like Peter Strzok did.


In the end, who knows?

Just muddy the waters?


Remember, even Texan Grand Jurors cleared Planned Parenthood and indicted Project Veritas agents

for tampering with government documents and evidence.

You keep referring to that, as if it takes away O'Keefe's rights as a journalist.


O'Keefe is a known cheater, liar and manufacturer of fake news.

So now it's smear time? What's the matter, did he expose Planned Parenthood for selling body parts & lying about it? Whatever you want to call him, he still has rights.


He doesn't meet the definition of a credible journalist.

Neither do those who won pulitzers for writing a lying tale of Russian collusion. Or those who misrepresented such stories as the 2016 election, Rittenhouse, Covington, vaccines, "bounties on US soldiers, the lab-leak theory, Jussie Smollett, the Pulse shootings, the Atlanta shootings, the Hunter Biden laptop, inflation and the Steele Dossier. 


We shall see if SCOTUS defends lying in the press like they defend hate speech.

Hate speech falls under free speech. That's another argument for another day.


Free speech does not mean free rein.

Nope. Either Lady Justice is blindfolded or she is unjust.  Garland is nothing but a leftist thug, still hurting from not getting a Supreme Court appointment.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
3.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    3 weeks ago
She and most of the universe.

Lol .... yeah, i like it when professors have a liberal viewpoint they are to be blindly trusted at all times and when they have a more "conservative" viewpoint their opinion is never to be trusted.

The hypocrisy of the left pervades once again ....

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
3.1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.3    3 weeks ago
SP wrote: O'Keefe is a known cheater, liar and manufacturer of fake news".
Do you have any credible evidence of that?

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
3.1.7  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    3 weeks ago

All of that verbiage just to smear Garland?

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
3.1.8  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.7    3 weeks ago

Garland has no problem smearing himself.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
3.1.9  Sparty On  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.8    3 weeks ago

Thank God he didn't get on the SCOTUS ...... big bullet dodged there .....

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3    3 weeks ago

"Those like O'Keefe who deceptively edit their videos to make it seem like something was said or is happening that isn't and continually lie about those who they claim they are reporting on aren't journalists or 'press'. They are worthless pieces of shit using underhanded and deceptive methods to push their worthless opinions that they know would never get any support or attention if they were truthful."

Wasn't he the one who went 'undercover' as a pimp or something at some Planned Parenthhood?

Journalist, yeah, my big fat ass.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
3.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3    3 weeks ago

The edited videos were still very incriminating.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @3.3    3 weeks ago
"The edited videos were still very incriminating."

OF course they were!  jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

That's why they were edited that way.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
4  Sparty On    3 weeks ago

Liberals and this admin want to party like it’s 1984 ....... it will be fun watching this one backfire on them as well.

Popcorn ready to pop.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @4    3 weeks ago
Liberals and this admin want to party like it’s 1984 ..

Yes Sir!

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
5  Nowhere Man    3 weeks ago

What's new? Hillary used the FBI to attempt to trash her political opponent, (with the complete cooperation of the sitting president) Obama himself used the IRS to go after his political opponents... Biden's administration doing the same exact thing?

Who would have thunk? {chuckle}

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @5    3 weeks ago

Donald Trump fabricated his 2011birtherism conspiracy, 2 1/2  years after the state of Hawaii had officially announced that Obama's original birth certificate was safe and sound in the state archives and had been inspected. 

As part of this hoax Trump announced he had sent detectives to Hawaii (a complete sham).

Why didnt this sorry episode end Trump's political career forever? 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
5.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    3 weeks ago

You mean the heavily photo-shopped one that listed Obama's father's race as "African"?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

Is that what trumpturd's detectives found in Hawaii?

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
5.1.3  bccrane  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    3 weeks ago
Why didnt this sorry episode end Trump's political career forever? 

That is a very good question, but you may not like the answer.  Hillary wanted a run against who she was going to have the best chance of winning against, so between the media beating up on Trump while ignoring the rest of the field and Hillary, gave people reason to get behind Trump as an in your face to the media, and the open primary states, like Michigan, where the democrats voted on the republican side to vote up Trump as to Hillary's request (or DNC) to run against the easiest possible one to beat.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  bccrane @5.1.3    3 weeks ago

Nobody beat up on trumpturd - unless telling the truth is 'beating up on' someone.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
6  Snuffy    3 weeks ago

I find it very disheartening how much partisan politics is playing into this. There's no honest journalism left in this country anymore yet Project Veritas and O'Keefe are being attacked by the left only due to their right-leaning reporting. I have no doubt had the FBI performed a pre-dawn raid on Chris Cuomo, those on the left would have been up in arms over the injustice of a right-wing managed FBI attacking the press.

This really seems like an attack on the Freedom of the Press.  Which in my mind will only make the press even more partisan. I believe the press being even more partisan is worse than re-electing President Trump. We need the press to be honest and ethical in order to help keep the powerful in check but that has been missing for many years as the powerful also have the money to buy what they want including the "loyalty" of the press.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @6    3 weeks ago

What do project veritas and O'Keefe have to do with honest and journalism?  ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  

They aren't press.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
7  Greg Jones    3 weeks ago

The  Democrats continue their attempts to Russianize the United States

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8  Texan1211    3 weeks ago

Even the ACLU has come out against this horrific abuse of power by the Biden Administration's Justice Dept.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

zuksam
Nowhere Man


45 visitors