Raided
-
So, here's a question:
Back in whenever, Rachel Maddow proudly displayed Trump's tax returns on her show, and boasted that they show he paid no taxes.
How did she get them?
Was her home raided in search of clearly illegally obtained information? Is this as serious as a missing diary? Where was the FBI?
-
So, here's a question:
Back in whenever, Rachel Maddow proudly displayed Trump's tax returns on her show, and boasted that they show he paid no taxes.
How did she get them?
Was her home raided in search of clearly illegally obtained information? Is this as serious as a missing diary? Where was the FBI?
So, here's a question:
Back in whenever, Rachel Maddow proudly displayed Trump's tax returns on her show, and boasted that they show he paid no taxes.
How did she get them?
Was her home raided in search of clearly illegally obtained information? Is this as serious as a missing diary? Where was the FBI?While I'm no fan of MadDog, as I understand it, it's not illegal for her to possess the tax returns, as long as SHE was not the one who stole them. It IS illegal for the person that actually obtained them.
And she is not going to out her source.
-
So, here's a question:
Back in whenever, Rachel Maddow proudly displayed Trump's tax returns on her show, and boasted that they show he paid no taxes.
How did she get them?
Was her home raided in search of clearly illegally obtained information? Is this as serious as a missing diary? Where was the FBI?While I'm no fan of MadDog, as I understand it, it's not illegal for her to possess the tax returns, as long as SHE was not the one who stole them. It IS illegal for the person that actually obtained them.
And she is not going to out her source.
@improviso said in Raided:
While I'm no fan of MadDog, as I understand it, it's not illegal for her to possess the tax returns, as long as SHE was not the one who stole them. It IS illegal for the person that actually obtained them.
That's correct. But, in the context of James O'Keefe, why wasn't her place raided?
And she is not going to out her source.
Judith Miller asks, "Why isn't she in prison?"
-
@improviso said in Raided:
While I'm no fan of MadDog, as I understand it, it's not illegal for her to possess the tax returns, as long as SHE was not the one who stole them. It IS illegal for the person that actually obtained them.
That's correct. But, in the context of James O'Keefe, why wasn't her place raided?
And she is not going to out her source.
Judith Miller asks, "Why isn't she in prison?"
That's correct. But, in the context of James O'Keefe, why wasn't her place raided?
Well.... we all know the answer to that one.
Double standard.
-
-
-
Gee, I wonder how the NYT got these "documents"
Yesterday:
Hours after F.B.I. agents searched the homes of two Project Veritas operatives last week, James O’Keefe, the leader of the conservative group, took to YouTube to defend its work as “the stuff of responsible, ethical journalism.”
“We never break the law,” he said, railing against the F.B.I.’s investigation into members of his group for possible involvement in the reported theft of a diary kept by President Biden’s daughter, Ashley. “In fact, one of our ethical rules is to act as if there are 12 jurors on our shoulders all the time.”
Project Veritas has long occupied a gray area between investigative journalism and political spying, and internal documents obtained by The New York Times reveal the extent to which the group has worked with its lawyers to gauge how far its deceptive reporting practices can go before running afoul of federal laws.
The documents, a series of memos written by the group’s lawyer, detail ways for Project Veritas sting operations — which typically diverge from standard journalistic practice by employing people who mask their real identities or create fake ones to infiltrate target organizations — to avoid breaking federal statutes such as the law against lying to government officials.
The documents show, for example, Project Veritas operatives’ concern that an operation launched in 2018 to secretly record employees at the F.B.I., Justice Department and other agencies in the hope of exposing bias against President Donald J. Trump might violate the Espionage Act — the law passed at the height of World War I that has typically been used to prosecute spies.“Because intent is relevant — and broadly defined — ensuring PV journalists’ intent is narrow and lawful would be paramount in any operation,” the group’s media lawyer, Benjamin Barr, wrote in response to questions from the group about using the dating app Tinder to have its operatives meet government employees, potentially including some with national security clearances.
I'm not drawing any conclusions here, but...
-
Somehow the NYT knew about the diary before Veritas' offices were raided.
-
Two (3?) days after the raid, O'Keeefs's HOME is raided, and his cellphones are confiscated.
-
5 days later, the NYT publishes a story based on "documents" they received.
What a ko-inky-dink.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
-
Gee, I wonder how the NYT got these "documents"
Yesterday:
Hours after F.B.I. agents searched the homes of two Project Veritas operatives last week, James O’Keefe, the leader of the conservative group, took to YouTube to defend its work as “the stuff of responsible, ethical journalism.”
“We never break the law,” he said, railing against the F.B.I.’s investigation into members of his group for possible involvement in the reported theft of a diary kept by President Biden’s daughter, Ashley. “In fact, one of our ethical rules is to act as if there are 12 jurors on our shoulders all the time.”
Project Veritas has long occupied a gray area between investigative journalism and political spying, and internal documents obtained by The New York Times reveal the extent to which the group has worked with its lawyers to gauge how far its deceptive reporting practices can go before running afoul of federal laws.
The documents, a series of memos written by the group’s lawyer, detail ways for Project Veritas sting operations — which typically diverge from standard journalistic practice by employing people who mask their real identities or create fake ones to infiltrate target organizations — to avoid breaking federal statutes such as the law against lying to government officials.
The documents show, for example, Project Veritas operatives’ concern that an operation launched in 2018 to secretly record employees at the F.B.I., Justice Department and other agencies in the hope of exposing bias against President Donald J. Trump might violate the Espionage Act — the law passed at the height of World War I that has typically been used to prosecute spies.“Because intent is relevant — and broadly defined — ensuring PV journalists’ intent is narrow and lawful would be paramount in any operation,” the group’s media lawyer, Benjamin Barr, wrote in response to questions from the group about using the dating app Tinder to have its operatives meet government employees, potentially including some with national security clearances.
I'm not drawing any conclusions here, but...
-
Somehow the NYT knew about the diary before Veritas' offices were raided.
-
Two (3?) days after the raid, O'Keeefs's HOME is raided, and his cellphones are confiscated.
-
5 days later, the NYT publishes a story based on "documents" they received.
What a ko-inky-dink.
Gee, I wonder how the NYT got these "documents"
Yesterday:
Hours after F.B.I. agents searched the homes of two Project Veritas operatives last week, James O’Keefe, the leader of the conservative group, took to YouTube to defend its work as “the stuff of responsible, ethical journalism.”
“We never break the law,” he said, railing against the F.B.I.’s investigation into members of his group for possible involvement in the reported theft of a diary kept by President Biden’s daughter, Ashley. “In fact, one of our ethical rules is to act as if there are 12 jurors on our shoulders all the time.”
Project Veritas has long occupied a gray area between investigative journalism and political spying, and internal documents obtained by The New York Times reveal the extent to which the group has worked with its lawyers to gauge how far its deceptive reporting practices can go before running afoul of federal laws.
The documents, a series of memos written by the group’s lawyer, detail ways for Project Veritas sting operations — which typically diverge from standard journalistic practice by employing people who mask their real identities or create fake ones to infiltrate target organizations — to avoid breaking federal statutes such as the law against lying to government officials.
The documents show, for example, Project Veritas operatives’ concern that an operation launched in 2018 to secretly record employees at the F.B.I., Justice Department and other agencies in the hope of exposing bias against President Donald J. Trump might violate the Espionage Act — the law passed at the height of World War I that has typically been used to prosecute spies.“Because intent is relevant — and broadly defined — ensuring PV journalists’ intent is narrow and lawful would be paramount in any operation,” the group’s media lawyer, Benjamin Barr, wrote in response to questions from the group about using the dating app Tinder to have its operatives meet government employees, potentially including some with national security clearances.
I'm not drawing any conclusions here, but...
-
Somehow the NYT knew about the diary before Veritas' offices were raided.
-
Two (3?) days after the raid, O'Keeefs's HOME is raided, and his cellphones are confiscated.
-
5 days later, the NYT publishes a story based on "documents" they received.
What a ko-inky-dink.
The FBI needs to be shaken, like a terrier with a rat. It is supposed to be apolitical in enforcing the law and the badge used to stand for integrity. If The Resident wants to build back better, I've got a suggestion where to start.
-
-
Want to understand how outrageous Friday’s New York Times coverage of the FBI’s seizure of Project Veritas’s proprietary documents is? Just imagine what the Times would be saying if what is happening to PV were happening to . . . well . . . the Times itself.
What if federal prosecutors had had the temerity to seek, and managed to obtain, court-authorized search warrants against Times reporters, on the allegation that the paper was in possession of evidence of a crime — perhaps even that some of its reporters were somehow complicit in the crime? The screams of bloody murder from West 40th Street would be audible across America.
Sometimes, for example, there is federal-government jurisdiction for robbery — if, for example, stolen items involve federal-government materials or such interstate-commerce items as narcotics. It could be a federal crime to transfer or sell stolen items in interstate commerce. A theft involving a close family member of a high government official (or candidate for high office) could also be part of a bigger scheme; there could be a federal crime if the robbery of his daughter signaled a threat to Biden’s own safety, perhaps, or an effort to blackmail or extort him.
So we’d be getting out over our skis to pronounce that the FBI and federal prosecutors had no business looking into the robbery. Plus, it’s not like the Justice Department went off on its own hook here. A federal district court judge issued a search warrant. That is only supposed to happen if there is probable cause to believe that a federal crime has occurred (or is occurring) and that the location to be searched probably contains evidence of that crime.
All that said, it is not a crime for journalists to come into possession of unlawfully converted documents. And it is to be expected that journalists zealously guard their right to publish such materials — or at least to consider doing so. We see this play out often when Times reporters receive classified leaks from intelligence officials — it being both against the law for government officials to disseminate the information to unauthorized persons, and potentially criminal for the press to publish national-defense secrets (though doubts about constitutionality make such a prosecution highly unlikely).
So why isn’t the press closing ranks around Project Veritas? Because the so-called mainstream media despise PV.
That, too, is to be expected: PV uses against the Left, very much including against left-leaning media, the Left’s own sandbag tactics — e.g., covert investigation, spying informants who pretend to befriend the people they investigate, and selective publication of the fruits of the investigation in order to paint the target in the worst possible light. If Saul Alinsky had been a right-winger, James O’Keefe would be his favorite student. But PV’s unpopularity cannot mean that it does not merit the status of journalist, with all of the free-press protection that status implies.
O’Keefe concedes that PV came into possession of the diary. He says PV elected not to publish it after becoming aware of it through “tipsters.” To the extent that PV had physical custody of the diary, or some part of it, or a copy of it, O’Keefe says, “Project Veritas gave the diary to law enforcement to ensure it could be returned to its rightful owner.”
Regardless of whether that turns out to be a true and complete version of events, it is highly irregular for investigative journalists to be subjected to such intrusive government investigative tactics as search warrants. Furthermore, if what has been reported by the Times is indicative of the scope of the searches permitted by the court, then clearly the warrants were not narrowly tailored to authorize seizure only of evidence related to the stolen diary. To the contrary, the FBI grabbed extensive PV work product and attorney-client communications.
-
Sorry, but we now are a banana republic.
That was the intent of TDS to begin with. Instill enough righteous outrage in the sheeple that they'll choose anything other than the Bad Orange Thing. It worked as perfectly with the FBI as it did with the general public. Very sad to see, but predictable for those of us who understand human nature and culture.
-
Sorry, but we now are a banana republic.
That was the intent of TDS to begin with. Instill enough righteous outrage in the sheeple that they'll choose anything other than the Bad Orange Thing. It worked as perfectly with the FBI as it did with the general public. Very sad to see, but predictable for those of us who understand human nature and culture.
-
-
Yeah but the real problem is a few straggling giggle worthy righties. Just because authoritarian leftist moral panic has taken over our institutions from academia to the FBI doesn't mean we shouldn't be complaining loudest about the dumbest right-affiliated people we can find.
