New York Times Blocked By Court From Publishing DOJ Leaked Project Veritas Materials

The New York Times was temporarily stopped last week by a judge from publishing material obtained from internal private documents owned by Project Veritas.

Justice Charles Wood of New York’s Westchester Supreme Court ruled against the Times after the paper ran a story last week including details obtained from a seizure of Project Veritas documents. Project Veritas is a conservative media outlet that has enraged many progressive and Democrat interests through investigative journalism that has exposed media and government misconduct over the last several years.

The order prohibits the paper from publishing any “privileged materials” belonging to Project Veritas pending the further orders of the court following a court hearing scheduled by Justice Woods on Tuesday.

One of Project Veritas’ lawyers proposed that the Department of Justice leak the outlet’s private documents in arguing for the order. The leak would have occurred after the government seized them during raids of the homes of three journalists who work for Project Veritas earlier this month.

The DOJ obtained warrants to search for and seize the documents as part of an FBI investigation into the alleged theft of a diary belonging to Joe Biden’s daughter. After investigating it, James O’Keefe, founder and leader of Project Veritas, said publicly that his outlet was given the diary but decided not to report on or use the journal.

The outlet also turned the diary over to law enforcement agents. It denied that it was involved in publishing any details related to or obtained from the journal. In its case against the Times that led to the restraining order, Project Veritas said that the paper circumvented the legal process of discovering documents and published documents otherwise protected by the attorney and client relationship as a vindictive attempt to harm and embarrass a “litigation adversary.”

The Times has reportedly said it plans to challenge the restraining order, saying it is “unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent.”