Obama-Appointed Judge Rejects First Amendment Claim in Project Veritas Case

A federal judge has made a landmark decision in the case involving Ashley Biden’s abandoned diary, rejecting Project Veritas’s First Amendment argument. This decision could have serious implications for the future of freedom of the press and the protection of journalistic sources.

The case involves two individuals who found Ashley Biden’s diary at a halfway house and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit interstate transportation of stolen property. These guilty pleas were used to put pressure on James O’Keefe and Project Veritas, turning the screws on them in the legal battle.

The diary, which was found by Aimee Harris at a halfway house in Palm Beach and later sold to Project Veritas for $40,000, contained shocking revelations about Ashley Biden’s relationship with her father, Joe Biden. In a January 2019 entry, Ashley Biden recalled how she used to shower with her father, Joe Biden, and suggested it may have contributed to a sex addiction. This raised serious concerns about the appropriateness of their relationship during Ashley’s formative years.

US District Judge Analisa Torres, an Obama appointee, explained that Project Veritas’s First Amendment claims were “inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent.” She also emphasized that they couldn’t claim they were protecting the identity of a confidential source after two individuals publicly pleaded guilty.

This decision sets a dangerous precedent for the protection of journalistic sources and the freedom of the press. Criminal prosecutors may soon get access to over 900 documents related to the alleged theft of Ashley Biden’s diary, after the judge rejected Project Veritas’ First Amendment claim.

Attorney Jeffrey Lichtman, representing Project Veritas, stated that they are considering appealing the judge’s ruling. He argued that the government’s investigation seems aimed at stifling the press from investigating the President’s family, rather than vindicating any real interests of justice. It is a worrying sign for the future of investigative journalism and the protection of sources.

This legal battle raises important questions about the role of the press in holding those in power accountable, and the need to protect journalistic sources. The outcome of this case will have a significant impact on the future of journalism and the ability of the press to report on matters of public interest without fear of reprisals.

It is essential to uphold the principles of freedom of the press, and to ensure that journalists have the ability to protect their sources and report on matters of public concern without fear of persecution. The outcome of this case will be closely watched by journalists and press freedom advocates across the country.


Hot News