I received this today from James O’Keefe, reporting on Project Veritas’ lawsuit against the New York Times, and am inclined to share.
Late last year, The Times accused us of deception and a “coordinated disinformation campaign.” So, we sued.
The Times begged the Court to dismiss the case. However, Justice Charles D. Wood DENIED The New York Times’ Motion to Dismiss this lawsuit, stating “here there is a substantial basis in law and fact that” The Times’ reporters “acted with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that the statements in the Articles were false or made with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not.”
Now, we get to depose The New York Times, and it will be glorious:
The Times thought they could get away with labelling our Minnesota ballot harvesting video “deceptive” – the same video where ballot harvester Liban Mohamed was recorded bragging about hundreds of ballots in his car and how money is everything in a campaign:
When we sued, The Times argued their “deceptive” label was just an “unverifiable expression of opinion” and asked the Court to dismiss the case.
Justice Wood had to teach Journalism 101 to these corrupt Mainstream Media hacks:
It is that simple.
“If a writer interjects an opinion in a news article… it stands to reason that the writer should have an obligation to alert the reader … that it is opinion.”
Justice Wood called the failure to do so a “disinformation” and “deceptive”:
There it is.
“The dictionary definitions of ‘disinformation’ and ‘deceptive’ provided by [The New York Times’] counsel … certainly apply to [Times’ reporters’ Maggie] Astor’s and [Tiffany] Hsu’s failure to note that they injected their opinions in news articles[.]”.
The Times went further, however, arguing that in effect they are entitled to lie about Project Veritas because – WAIT FOR IT – the Mainstream Media and Big Tech don’t like us exposing them.
Justice Wood apparently did not appreciate The Times’ reliance on other media articles, a simple Google search, and a Wikipedia entry (yes… Wikipedia):
Did you catch that? The New York Times, even with its submission of a 45-page motion, three sworn statements, 66 exhibits, and three additional briefs/letters to court, was not able “to prove that the reporting by Veritas in the Video is deceptive.”
Justice Wood has done something that I thought I might never see again in this benighted land. He has held power to the standard of truth. The NYT citing Wikipedia in a court case is just the cherry on top of this fine sundae.
Andrew would be very proud.