Project Veritas took NYT to court. They hoped to get the case thrown out of court. When that failed, they had to answer some questions. Their answers were … interesting.
This all goes back to a story from October of 2020, when a whistleblower brought some video to the attention of Project Veritas. In that video, a guy was boasting (in English and in Somali) that he had all kinds of absentee ballots.
For some reason, the New York Times was expressly claiming that Project Veritas was spreading disinformation about the election, and ‘making claims without evidence’.
Once they were forced to answer questions under oath, they made an awful lot of statements about the things they did not know. If they are the people who publish ‘all the news that’s fit to print’ you might think they would have some more substance to their answers than ‘I don’t know’.
The paper that refuses to correct the article is correcting the statements made in the article in revisions … of the lawsuit.
Project Veritas is not interested in settling. This is going to a jury. The Times is demanding the right to publish opinion as fact while other outlets, including USA Today and FaceBook use the Times’s supposed ‘opinion’ statements as the rationale behind discrediting and ‘fact-checking’ them.
Did you know that one of the sources the Times didn’t even bother to follow up with before dismissing this story was — wait for it — a source the Times already had a relationship with?
This story isn’t going away any time soon.
And considering who is at the center or this story about election malfeasance — a certain Squad Member from Minnesota — that could break very badly for the Democrats narrative about election security being motived by a desire to suppress.