Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?


NY Times Pleads With Court to Drop Project Veritas Lawsuit After Admitting to Inaccuracies in Article About Project Veritas

"Tune in LIVE at as Rich plays the most recent Project Veritas video, which deals with the Clinton Campaign" by Girard At Large is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

Project Veritas released a new video on Tuesday bringing the public up to speed with their lawsuit against The New York Times for their defamatory article attacking Veritas’ September 2020 videos exposing illegal ballot harvesting in Minnesota.

The lawyers for The New York Times filed a “Motion to Dismiss” to try to get the court to dismiss the lawsuit so that they can get away with what they did.

Maggie Astor is the so-called “reporter” for The New York Times who wrote the injurious article, claimed in her story that the Project Veritas videos have “solely” unnamed sources.

“The video then claims that Democratic operatives connected to Ms. [Ilhan] Omar’s campaign paid voters to hand over blank mail-in ballots and filled them out. This would be illegal, but the allegations come solely from unnamed people who speak with Project Veritas operatives in the video and whose faces are not shown,” she said.

In an affidavit, Astor declared that the videos have “many” unnamed sources which is different from “solely” unnamed sources.   You might not think that’s a pretty big deal but in legal terms, it is, because words still mean things even in 2021 when the Biden administration is now banning certain words.

“Many of the individuals featured in the Video were unnamed, and there was no way for me to verify the claims that the unnamed sources purport to make in the Video,” she said.

Astor said she relied on Project Veritas’ “reputation” when making her unfounded claims.

“I know of Project Veritas and, before writing my articles about the Video, I knew that it had a reputation for publishing deceptively-edited videos and had been publicly criticized many times for doing so,” she said.

It has to be said that that that “reputation” was created solely by left-wing outlets like The New York time because Project Veritas is doing the job of journalism that The New York times gave up along time ago.

While arguing to dismiss the case, The New York Times’ lawyers used Wikipedia as a source, which should have had the judge laughing in their faces as Wikipedia is known to be an unreliable source at best and a Woke Supremacy online toolbox for lying about people who are not loyal to the Supremacy.  Everyone knows this but I am willing to bet that the lawyers were hoping that the judge would be sympathetic to the Woke Supremacy and that he or she would accept their bullschtein argument.

“Project Veritas bills itself as a ‘prominent independent journalistic organization,’ but it is described on its Wikipedia page (and just about everywhere else) as ‘an American far-right activist group founded by James O’Keefe that ‘uses undercover techniques to reveal supposed liberal bias and corruption and is known for producing deceptively edited videos about media organizations, left-leaning groups, and debunked conspiracy theories,’” they said.

Even the folks at Wikipedia openly admit that the Wikipedia site is not a reliable source of information.

New York Times’ legal team also labeled Astor’s article an opinion piece to avoid Project Veritas’ charges of defamation.

“Unverifiable expressions of opinion are not actionable and cannot be defamatory,” they said.

Why not? The New York Times is a publisher which means that unlike a platform they have control of what gets published on their pages.  It’s not like this Astor person posted a comment under an article or even an opinion piece.  It was a published and approved opinion piece in the New York Times.  The Times isn’t going to allow just anyone to publish someone on their pages.  It was approved by some editor.

The Woke Supremacy – Fake News Division hates Project Veritas because they do undercover video reporting no different from back in the old days when 60 Minutes would do the same thing, but the thing that stings the Wokers the most is that you can’t argue against a video.  That’s exactly what the Times’ lawyers tried to do by claiming Veritas’ reputation was that they edit videos to take them out of context and that came from the unreliable source, Wikipedia.  That whole lying argument that Veritas edits videos started when Project Verita did undercover reporting and videotaped people in the Politically Correct Death Squad Industry who were selling baby body parts at abortion clinics.  The abortion industry panicked when the videos were made public and so they claimed that Project Verita edited the videos.  The truth of the matter was the videos were hours long and the parts that showed culpability in selling baby parts were cut from those hours-long videos so that people wouldn’t have to sit through hours of videotape to wait for a 1-2 minute exchange. Project Veritas, however, also posted the full video online, but that didn’t stop the lying Woke Supremacists from claiming Veritas edits videos to change the context.  They do not.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.



Patriot Supply

You May Also Like

Border Patrol

News employees who sometimes claim to be journalists are at it again. It’s very well established that most, but not all, so-called “journalists” are...


It’s getting more and more difficult to tell the difference between actual news stories from my favorite satire site, Babylon Bee. My second favorite...


Democrats in Texas pulled a filibuster to “stand up for voting rights” by running away from the Texas legislature to avoid a vote on...

Copyright © 2022 Unite America First. Turbocharged by Adrevv