# Project Veritas v New York Times
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/project-veritas-v-new-york-times/956633
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [December 25, 2021, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/project-veritas-v-new-york-times/956633 "2021-12-25T18:21:46Z")
**Posts on this page:** 9
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2021, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/project-veritas-v-new-york-times/956633/21 "2021-12-27T22:38:58Z")
How did they get the information? Was that process legal? Remeber, Project Veritas and its principles got raided because they supposedly received the information in a diary from someone who had gotten it illegally (which they dispute).
So how did the Times get its hands on privileged information between PV and their lawyer?
---
### Author:  [@SpacemanSpiff\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpacemanSpiff_II)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2021, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/project-veritas-v-new-york-times/956633/22 "2021-12-27T22:55:18Z")
> [@RitterSport](#):
>
> I think it would be a bad legal strategy for the Times to lie about what they have in an op-ed about this case.
Per my understanding, “what they have” is not in dispute.
The question is whether or not these items have a bearing on the legal case. That is a judgment call, and the NYT is publishing their opinion. The PV lawyers - and apparently the judge in the case - have a different opinion.
---
### Author:  [@Love\_Rhombus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Love_Rhombus)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2021, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/project-veritas-v-new-york-times/956633/23 "2021-12-28T15:59:05Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#):
>
> Nevertheless, we are living in a time of a politicized court system.
I know it’s a hijack, but I feel it would be more accurate to say we’re living in a **more politicized** court system.
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2021, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/project-veritas-v-new-york-times/956633/24 "2021-12-28T17:43:02Z")
Well, “Mr. Dooley” said in 1901 that “the Supreme Court follows the election returns.”
The Court has always been ideological, but I think you need to distinguish between periods of conservatism and periods of outright political one-sidedness.
The two main politicized periods were the active opposition to FDR’s New Deal in the 1930s and today’s Court with the conservatives finally in firm control without a swing vote. The Warren Court went the other way, running ahead of political majorities on issues. It was liberal to conservative eyes, but Warren himself was conservative.
All the Courts since have tried to pull back. It’s somewhat amazing to realize there have only been three Chief Justices since Warren: Burger, appointed by Nixon; Rehnquist, appointed by Reagan; and Roberts, appointed by Bush II. All three had extremely conservative justices but only Roberts presides over a truly politicized Court as a whole.
The court system tends to follow the Court, partially because it establishes precedents and partially because Presidents use it as a feeder system to test judges.
---
### Author:  [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2021, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/project-veritas-v-new-york-times/956633/25 "2021-12-29T15:23:24Z")
An appeals court has ruled that the NYT doesn’t have to immediately give up or destroy their copies, although they are still prevented from publishing them for now.
---
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2021, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/project-veritas-v-new-york-times/956633/26 "2021-12-29T15:46:13Z")
Story here (no paywall AFAICT):
> **[Judge Says New York Times Can Retain Project Veritas Memos, for Now...](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/28/business/media/nyt-project-veritas.html)**
>
> A New York appeals court said the paper did not need to immediately give up or destroy documents related to the conservative group. The paper is still prevented from publishing certain documents.
---
### Author:  [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2021, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/project-veritas-v-new-york-times/956633/27 "2021-12-29T17:43:59Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#):
>
> If I was wandering by their offices and picked up a zip drive and took it over to WaPo, then _I_ may have done something wrong, but would NYT or WaP
How did you happen to « pick up » a Zip drive that happened to contain the relevant documents?
How did you happen to think that the WaPo would be interested in the contents of the Zip drive?
How did you happen to end up in the offices of the WaPo, in a spot where dropping it off would bring it to the attention of someone interested in looking at it?
Once a court order for return of the docs is made, knowingly attempting to subvert that court order could be seen as contempt or obstruction of Justice, even if you’re not a party to the original order. Would depend on the New York law relating to interfering with court orders.
Not meant as legal advice or anything, simply commenting on a question of public interest.
---
### Author:  [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2021, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/project-veritas-v-new-york-times/956633/28 "2021-12-29T18:18:19Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#):
>
> How did you happen to « pick up » a Zip drive that happened to contain the relevant documents?
I plead the fifth. Like I said, _I_ may get in trouble over this, but that’s not my question (at the moment, anyway, should this be less hypothetical, then maybe it would be.)
> [@Northern\_Piper](#):
>
> How did you happen to think that the WaPo would be interested in the contents of the Zip drive?
It seemed newsworthy, and WaPo is a news organization.
> [@Northern\_Piper](#):
>
> How did you happen to end up in the offices of the WaPo, in a spot where dropping it off would bring it to the attention of someone interested in looking at it?
I probably mailed it. I don’t really have time to drive up to Chicago.
If I were in possession of such an object, I would probably look at their reporters, see who I thought would be likely to find it interesting, and ATTN: it to them.
> [@Northern\_Piper](#):
>
> Once a court order for return of the docs is made, knowingly attempting to subvert that court order could be seen as contempt or obstruction of Justice, even if you’re not a party to the original order. Would depend on the New York law relating to interfering with court orders.
And that is more what my question is. If a third party had possession of it, having done nothing themselves illegal in obtaining it, could _they_ be restricted from publishing it. From what you said, it sounds like a third party _would_ be restricted from being able to publish it.
Of course, if it’s already in public, if instead of mailing it to WaPo, I instead made it public myself on my blog, then would there be any point in preventing news organizations from reporting on it?
---
### Author:  [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2021, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/project-veritas-v-new-york-times/956633/29 "2021-12-29T19:03:48Z")
The irony k9bfriender is that is exactly how Project Veritas (as WaPo in you scenario) got into trouble.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/project-veritas-v-new-york-times/956633.md?page=1)