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.
