• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court bars New York Times from publishing Project Veritas memos in move called ‘unconstitutional’

Mycroft said:
It does to the court.
Click to expand...

Did you know that evidence that is obtained by methods which result in the refusal of the courts to allow the admission of evidence is actually admissible in American courts PROVIDED that the evidence came into the hands of the American law enforcement personnel through legal means?

The only "exclusion" is if it is an American investigative agency, acting in the United States of America, against Americans - there is absolutely no prohibition against the admission of evidence obtained by torture PROVIDED that the torture is NOT specifically illegal where it was carried out AND providing that the evidence was legally transmitted to an American law enforcement agency.
 
Roadvirus said:
So you don't care that some shit FBI agent is leaking, to a news outlet, the personal info of a suspect in a criminal case all for the sake of a few bucks?

You would definitely make the perfect employee for Buzzfeed or New York Slimes.
Click to expand...

Well, they didn't object when the "suspect" was Ms. Clinton so why should they object now?

PS - Please provide your evidence that it was the FBI that did the "leaking". [NOTE - "I don't think it could have been anyone else." does NOT constitute evidence.]
 
Roadvirus said:
How do you know they stole it? Do you have proof that we don't know about?
Click to expand...
How do I know? Because Project Veritas acknowledged that it once had possession of the diary, according to the Washington Post article in post #1. We know that Ms. Biden didn’t willfully give it to Veritas, so they must have obtained it illegally.
 
Schism said:
"You can't put the genii back in the bottle."

This the premise from which the left operate in every situation: We will break the law, take the slap on the wrist, then use our illegally-gained information to smear, tar, and fabricate lies.

Remember the screaming of the lambs when Hillary's emails "were stolen"?
Click to expand...

Do you remember when Hilary emails was stolen and Trump was telling Russia to release them to all them cheering fans?

I do.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Did you know that evidence that is obtained by methods which result in the refusal of the courts to allow the admission of evidence is actually admissible in American courts PROVIDED that the evidence came into the hands of the American law enforcement personnel through legal means?

The only "exclusion" is if it is an American investigative agency, acting in the United States of America, against Americans - there is absolutely no prohibition against the admission of evidence obtained by torture PROVIDED that the torture is NOT specifically illegal where it was carried out AND providing that the evidence was legally transmitted to an American law enforcement agency.
Click to expand...
yawn...

Did you know I don't give a shit?

But you know who does? The judge. And I'm thinking he knows a hell of a lot more about American law than you do.

You are dismissed.
 
Fletch said:
Then you cant reject the idea that it came from the place that had them--the FBI
Click to expand...
I didn't reject that idea. But similarly you and Fish cannot reject the idea that O'Keefe leaked it.

O'KEEFE DID IT!!!
 
humbolt said:
Since no one else has access to the information but the FBI
Click to expand...
You're just making up more facts and asserting them as true.... It's kind of sad. I'd bet a lot of money many/several people at PV had access to those memos over the years. Looked to me like routine stuff that should have been forwarded to the 'operatives' to guide them as they did their thing, and if that happened, who knows how many people might have the memos. Most of the time those kinds of documents come from insiders, whistleblowers. Why do you believe that cannot be the case here and jump straight to the DEEP STATE BIDEN!!! CORRUPT!!! BS?
humbolt said:
, perhaps you should offer evidence that it wasn't. You'll have to ask the NYT, and they aren't talking...yet.
Click to expand...
It's your claim and your burden to prove, not mine. I don't have any idea how NYT came into the documents.....and neither do you, which is the point.
 
JasperL said:
Do you approve of making up facts and asserting them as true based on no evidence of any kind?
Click to expand...
You know another supporter of law enforcement
 
JasperL said:
O'Keefe leaked the documents so they were NOT stolen.
Click to expand...
Based on his previous shenanigans that is certainly within the realm of possibility
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Uhhhmmmm - because the person who tipped the FBI off made more than one copy of the documents before giving any of them to the FBI in order that the FBI could obtain a search warrant in order to determine if the documents that they had been given were NOT fakes?
Click to expand...
So accepting stolen property. Got it.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Does that apply to Ms. Biden's diaries?
Click to expand...
If it applies there then it applies to the NYT. That didn't work out for you how you thought it would, did it?
 
JasperL said:

Whistleblowing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Seems you're unaware of this term. It's by far the most likely source...., but my bet is O'Keefe did it so you guys could whine and claim he's the victim of a corrupt FBI, etc.
Click to expand...
A whistleblower isn't someone who takes a private entities and then gives it to the media. That's just corruption.
 
Fishking said:
A whistleblower isn't someone who takes a private entities and then gives it to the media. That's just corruption.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should read the link. You seem very confused and unfamiliar with a pretty common term.
 
smallvoice said:
EVERYONE should question the NYT ethics.
Click to expand...
Oh really? Get back to us when O’Keefe asks the people he says negative things about for comment, much as the NYTimes does.
 
MTAtech said:
How do I know? Because Project Veritas acknowledged that it once had possession of the diary, according to the Washington Post article in post #1. We know that Ms. Biden didn’t willfully give it to Veritas, so they must have obtained it illegally.
Click to expand...

Or obtained it legally from someone who obtained it illegally - which is "receiving stolen property" when the person transferring it to the recipient can not provide a rational explanation of how they obtained the property legally in the first place.
 
Mycroft said:
yawn...

Did you know I don't give a shit?
Click to expand...
Of course you don't. Especially when the truth doesn't quite line up with what you want reality to be.
Mycroft said:
But you know who does? The judge. And I'm thinking he knows a hell of a lot more about American law than you do.
Click to expand...
Indeed that is quite possibly the case.

However, on that particular point I AM well aware of the American jurisprudence since it was established in a case where the RCMP obtained evidence using tactics which are not permissible in the United States of America, then turned that evidence over to the American law enforcement people pursuant to a legally valid agreement between Canada and the United States of America, and then, when the evidence was objected to as "being obtained in violation of the Defendant's Fifth Amendment Rights, the court ruled that the Defendant did not have any "Fifth Amendment Rights" outside of the United States of America and that, since [1] the evidence had been obtained by means that were legal in Canada, and since [2] the evidence was obtained by the US law enforcement agency in a completely legal manner, and since [3] the Defendant did NOT have any "Fifth Amendment Rights" when the evidence was obtained, then [4] the evidence was admissible EVEN THOUGH it would NOT have been admissible had it been obtained by the American law enforcement agency in the United States of America had the American law enforcement agency used the same methods to obtain it.

PS - Did you know that the US law that prohibits interception of communications between Americans when both of them are in the United States of America UNLESS a search warrant has been obtained does NOT apply to the Canadian CSE (mainly because the CSE does NOT operate in the United States of America. And, did you know that the CSE has an "information exchange agreement" with the American intelligence agencies? And did you know that if the CSE obtains evidence by intercepting communications between Americans who are both in the United States of America, that evidence can be given to the American intelligence agencies and they can then legally share it with American law enforcement agencies, AND that that information can be admitted into court as evidence.

PPS - The CSE is prohibited from intercepting communications between Canadians when both of the parties are in Canada without a search warrant - but ... see above with changes of agencies.
Mycroft said:
You are dismissed.
Click to expand...

Well, at least I don't have to stay after school because I haven't done my homework (or even bothered to open the required textbook).
 
Fishking said:
So accepting stolen property. Got it.
Click to expand...

And any prosecution would hinge on whether or not the person "obtaining" the documents did so PRIMARILY for the purpose of "blowing the whistle" on "unacceptable" conduct.
 
This is a lot of fun but no matter what documents are released and what thosedocuments say, it will make little difference to the adherents of Project Veritas. This whole thing is covered by the truest words Trump ever spoke, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"

Project Veritas speaks to cultists, so truth, facts, murders, and such are fake news.
 
JasperL said:
You're just making up more facts and asserting them as true.... It's kind of sad. I'd bet a lot of money many/several people at PV had access to those memos over the years. Looked to me like routine stuff that should have been forwarded to the 'operatives' to guide them as they did their thing, and if that happened, who knows how many people might have the memos. Most of the time those kinds of documents come from insiders, whistleblowers. Why do you believe that cannot be the case here and jump straight to the DEEP STATE BIDEN!!! CORRUPT!!! BS?

It's your claim and your burden to prove, not mine. I don't have any idea how NYT came into the documents.....and neither do you, which is the point.
Click to expand...
I seem to have a better understanding of the events, so I'll just stick with the leak from the FBI. You can vontinue to cast about, fishing for someone else. Just the sequence of events alone strongly points to the FBI. You've narrowed it down to "someone". Great job.
 
humbolt said:
I seem to have a better understanding of the events, so I'll just stick with the leak from the FBI. You can vontinue to cast about, fishing for someone else. Just the sequence of events alone strongly points to the FBI. You've narrowed it down to "someone". Great job.
Click to expand...
If your understanding includes any evidence, you can link it, but we both know you don't have anything but baseless speculation.

There's exactly as much evidence O'Keefe leaked these memos, and it fits the facts nicely. So I'll "stick with" that.
 
JasperL said:
If you have evidence the FBI illegally handed over that information, show your work.
Click to expand...
Dream on. Query: have you ever seen him substation any of his wild, spurious claims?
 
Nickyjo said:
Interesting that defenders of O’Keefe are questioning the NYTimes’ journalistic ethics.
Click to expand...
The NY Times hasn't had journalistic ethics for a long long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom