8, 2021, under a case styled as In re: Search Warrant dated Novemin the Southern District of New York. Previous letters to the judge said Project Veritas and O’Keefe individually had obtained “credible evidence that the diary belonged to Ashley Biden” but that neither could “confirm the diary’s authenticity to the degree they required to satisfy their journalistic ethics.” Therefore, they “ never published” the diary or any reports on its contents instead, Project Veritas’s attorneys said the organization handed the material over what they called “local law enforcement in Florida.”Īccording to the subsequent federal court record, Judge Torres appointed a special master to unravel the matter on Dec. The FBI investigation, according to previous court documents, is believed by Project Veritas to have surrounded the connection of that organization to a diary which was purported by its sources to have emanated from the hand of the president’s daughter. (Photo by Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images for GILT.) 6, 2021, the government allegedly “seize journalists’ electronic devices filled with First Amendment-protected materials and attorney-client privileged information.”Īshley Biden and Joe Biden appear at a Feb. In “ pre-dawn raids” at the home of “two former Project Veritas journalists” and founder James O’Keefe on Nov. Project Veritas’s letter to Judge Torres recaps the posture of the matter as follows.
Project Veritas and its staffers deny any allegation of impropriety and insist that they received the documents from sources in their journalistic capacity. 19, 2021, some weeks after the searches on the homes of Project Veritas staffers. “Put simply, even members of the news media ‘may not with impunity break and enter an office or dwelling to gather news,'” prosecutors wrote on Nov. Pointing to the Supreme Court’s “clear and critical distinction” between “stealing documents and disclosing documents that someone else had stolen previously,” the government broke it down to a basic proposition. The Times report sheds new light on a government filing from late last year which argued that the conduct under investigation was not constitutionally protected: “That is, there is no First Amendment protection for the theft and interstate transport of stolen property, and as such no related privilege attaches to materials responsive to the search warrants.” Biden’s property and in transporting stolen goods across state lines.” Department of Justice is examining whether Project Veritas played a role - maybe even a “complicit” one - in “stealing Ms. The missive from Project Veritas comes just a few days after the New York Times recapped what its sources claim to be the story how how the Trump-favored investigative organization came to possess the alleged Biden diary. “Moreover, the government’s diary investigation has included extreme measures that violate the First Amendment and corrode freedom of the press.” “As far as we know, federal law enforcement has never before investigated an abandoned diary,” the Project Veritas attorneys continued in a letter to U.S.
“Because Project Veritas researched a potential news story about what Ashley Biden’s diary recounted about her father, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York has launched a retributive campaign that does violence to the First Amendment,” wrote the attorneys for the organization. The filing involves a contested FBI raid on Project Veritas staffers - a raid which itself surrounded the organization’s receipt of the alleged diary of presidential daughter Ashley Biden. The upshot, urged the attorneys for the organization, is that federal prosecutors may have afforded themselves backdoor-style access to exactly the sort of information a judge ruled should be filtered out from a high-profile federal probe.
#Ashley biden diarey free
In a 45-page Tuesday court filing, attorneys for Project Veritas accused the federal government of conducting an “all-out assault on the First Amendment and free press” by allegedly “circumventing” a review process established by a federal judge for legally protected materials seized from the group. James O’Keefe appears in a Tuesday, Mavideo to complain about material he and his attorneys say the federal government seized from him in violation of the law.