| Ashley Biden
Diary Was Abandoned Project Veritas Told
Court As US Wants Warrant Secret
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Nov 29 –
In the litigation triggered by
the seizure of cell phones
from Project Veritas' James
O'Keefe related to the diary
that may or may not be Ashley
Biden's, O'Keefe on November
15 asked U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of
New York Judge Analisa Torres
to order the prosecutors to
"inform
the court if the government -
including the FBI or any other
governmental agency - leaked
Project Veritas's
attorney-client privileged
memoranda to the New York
Times" and "identify who at
the government is responsible
for the previous
leaks."
The request
includes message to O'Keefe
asking for comment and says
"the New York Times' repeated
use of information
demonstrably leaked to it by
the government renders the New
York Times little more than
the government's press
secretary."
The US
responded asking to be granted
until November 19 to respond.
And on November 19 DOJ did
respond, with the argument
that Project Veritas did not
just "passively receive" the
diary they say was stolen, but
in essence stole it. It's hard
to know - the US Attorney's
Office has redacted large
parts of its response.
On November 22,
Project Veritas replied to
Judge Torres, stating that "on
or about September 3, 2020, a
tipster called news outlet
Project Veritas and left a
voice mail [which] indicated
that a new occupant moved into
a place where Ashley Biden had
previously been staying and
found Ms. Biden's diary and
other personal items: 'The
diary is pretty crazy. I think
it is worth looking at'...
including an overnight bag
with the 'B.Biden Foundation'
logo."
On November 29
the assigned Magistrate Judge
Sarah L. Cave held a
proceeding and Inner City
Press covered it, live tweeted
thread here:
Magistrate Cave:
Your request is under common
law, and not on 1st Amendment?
AUSA
Silverman: They wrongly claim
there is an increased public
right to this document [the
warrant].
AUSA Silverman:
The argument being made today
cannot succeed. Counsel
reference that now that the
government has confirmed the
existence of the
investigation, these less
basis for withholding the
warrant. We disagree. No
public charges have been filed
[yet]
AUSA: As in the
8th Circuit case, redactions
are not practicable here.
Every page shows our
procedures. The government
rests.
Magistrate Cave:
Mister Silverman, you're
saying it should be sealed
until charges are brought and
discovery made? AUSA: It's not
unsealed
AUSA: Media
interest should not be taken
into account. [Apparently the
Office's position in US v.
Maxwell, too, with them fine
with no call-in line.]
AUSA: As long as
your Honor's decision doesn't
refer to material in the
warrant, no reason it
shouldn't be public
Magistrate
Judge Sarah L. Cave: Thank you
for your arguments. We are
adjourned.
[Inner City
Press will remain on alert
for, and will report, her
decision]
We'll have more
on this - watch this site.
Inner City Press
will stay on the case(s).
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a
month helps keep us going and grants you
access to exclusive bonus material on our
Patreon page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2021 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
