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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Story here (no paywall AFAICT):
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.
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.)
It seemed newsworthy, and WaPo is a news organization.
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.
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?
The irony k9bfriender is that is exactly how Project Veritas (as WaPo in you scenario) got into trouble.