The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Project Veritas Says Feds Secretly Accessed Its Emails"
UPDATE 3/24/2022: Added link to government's response.
From Politico (Josh Gerstein):
In November, the FBI conducted predawn raids at the home of Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe and the homes of two other individuals who worked with the group. The agents acted with warrants that allowed them to seize phones and computers to search for evidence of trafficking in interstate property [apparently related to an investigation into the alleged theft of Ashley Biden's diary -EV].
The raids generated controversy in some circles because Project Veritas identifies itself as a news organization and the use of search warrants against journalists and news outlets is extremely rare due to Justice Department policies and a federal law passed in 1980 to limit such investigative steps.
After the raids, U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres agreed to a request by the group to put in place a special master to review the information on the seized devices to ensure that prosecutors did not get access to emails, text messages and other records that might be subject to attorney-client privilege or other legal protections.
However, in a letter Tuesday to a federal judge overseeing aspects of the probe, Project Veritas' attorneys said they recently learned that that for nearly a year before last November's raids prosecutors used gag orders to keep quiet other steps taken in the diary probe, including grand jury subpoenas and court-ordered seizures of all of the emails O'Keefe and several colleagues kept in particular accounts over a three-month span in 2020.
The ACLU, while saying it "deplore[s] Project Veritas' deceptions," and noting that the details of the government investigation aren't fully available, adds:
[W]e're concerned that the precedent set by this case could have serious consequences for press freedom. We're deeply troubled by reports that the Department of Justice obtained secret electronic surveillance orders requiring sweeping disclosure of "all content" of communications associated with Project Veritas email accounts, including attorney-client communications.
Compounding these concerns, the government suppressed information about the existence of the electronic surveillance orders even after the investigation became public knowledge and the district court appointed a special master to supervise prosecutors' access to Project Veritas' sensitive materials. The government must immediately suspend its review of the materials obtained pursuant to its electronic surveillance orders and fully disclose the extent of its actions, so that the court can consider appropriate relief.
You can see many of the filings in the case here.
UPDATE 3/24/2022: The government responds in this filing; an excerpt:
Despite the motion's bluster, the Movants cite no legal authority to justify the relief they seek, because there is none, and the accusations of Government misconduct are baseless. Put simply, the Government did not mislead the Court, and the subjects of a grand jury investigation are not entitled to information about that investigation or to dictate how the Government should conduct that investigation during its pendency. Instead, the Movants can raise these issues if there is an indictment filed charging them in connection with the investigation, or they can seek civil relief if they believe they have a claim of a constitutional or statutory violation that provides for individual rights of action against the Government. The Government does not respond to each and every accusation in the Movants' letter both because now is not the juncture to litigate these issues and because doing so would impair the integrity of the ongoing grand jury investigation. For the following reasons, the motion should be denied….
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Isn't that really going to piss off the judge?
I expect a sternly worded ruling that imposes no sanctions and provides no relief.
Right. Judge should hold a hearing, and if true dismiss the indictment with prejudice as a sanction. But such judges do not exist anymore.
What indictment?
I think anything less than contempt charges that involves jailtime for every person involved and referral to the bar for every lawyer is insufficient to prevent this from happening in the future.
Even dismissal is insufficient as the investigation itself is a severe punishment.
Dismissal of what? This is a lawsuit brought by Project Veritas against the government.
I was referring to dismissal of any future charges involving the Biden Diary.
The judge who ordered the special master over the Veritas information should be the one most offended. He was ordering protection of information, and yet the cat had already ben out of the bag for some time.
"I find the government in contempt and order it pay a fine of $1000 to itself."
Why would it?
How dare they expose corruption, racism and trafficking of body parts!
Hm. Some commenters here argued that the short span of time between the FBI's raid and the NYT's publication of PV's attorney-client privileged communications meant that the FBI couldn't have leaked those emails to the NYT, because there was not enough time for the FBI to do that.
Oops.
Don't you mean, "Some commenters here argued that the mere fact that the NYT published these things right after the raid meant that the NYT's info must have come from the raid.
Oops."
You're right David. They could have instead come from the Feds secretly reading the e-mails BEFORE the raid, then leaking them.
I don't think it really helps you though.
Or they could have come from a million other sources. The only "evidence" any of you cited that the NYT got the info from the FBI was the temporal proximity between the FBI raid and the newspaper story. Now you don't even have that.
"Or they could have come from a million other sources."
There are a million other souces with access to the materials?
I remember saying at the time that they likely got the emails from a separate subpoena of the email provider, and that's how the Times got the emails so soon after the raids.
But No! The people that knew were claiming it was absurd to think the Times was fed (pun intended) its information from the FBI.
Back on Dec 27th someone with the initials of DN did say:
"Once more: not only is there no evidence that the FBI leaked them, but the timing makes it incredibly unlikely."
And further references to Faraday bags and encryption and conspiracy theories, etc.
But someone with a little more sense (yes, me) said:
"They probably got the documents from his email, and they had subpoena'd the contents of his email before the raid."
To which someone with even more sense (Sarcastro) replied:
"Think whatever crazy scenario you want, but that's not going to stand up in court."
I'm a trust but verify kind of guy: link to previous thread.
Kazinski's memory checks out.
Well of course my first comment was from memory, the second comment was cut and paste.
And now… there's still no evidence that the FBI leaked them.
But the timing works out a little better now doesn’t it?
If the NYT got the documents from another source independent of the FBI and had no idea what the FBI was doing, I can imagine the FBI being pretty upset that the Times tipped off PV to the fact someone had a leak from a source that could access their emails, or a mole. But either way the FBI would be very upset.
But once the FBI had completed all their raids secured whatever they needed, then they can lift the embargo on the leaked documents and both the FBI and the Times are happy.
It’s a little too neat to be happenstance, and you know that as well as I do.
Kazinski, you seem to assert the FBI, as an institution, as a matter of policy, leaked, for political purposes. Is that what you really mean? Or does your presumption encompass a possibility that someone inside the FBI, contrary to policy, at personal risk, leaked the information. Seems like that latter supposition would not support your advocacy as well as the former one. On what facts do you distinguish the possibilities?
I'm not sure a total lack of institutional control is a better explanation.
Who in the FBI would have access to the data? If they do not the name of every single person who has that level of access, perhaps some massive penalties should be issued.
"And now… there's still no evidence that the FBI leaked them."
The FBI was one of a few sources with access to the materials.
There are too many unknowns for a proof by deduction here.
You've got nothing except that you want to believe.
Why didn't you just cut and paste your comment from the last thread when I said the FBI probably subpoena'd the documents from the PV's email provider?
"Think whatever crazy scenario you want, but that's not going to stand up in court."
Seems to encapsulate 90% of the content of your comments these days.
I'm sure you said the same thing about Hunter's laptop too.
We don't actually know that. The bottom line is that we have no idea who had access to these years-old materials.
The timing does, in fact, make it extremely unlikely that the government was the source of the leak.
The timing of the DOJ subpoena of PV's emails and the Times publishing of the documents right after the FBI raid makes it unlikely the FBI/DOJ was the source?
The timing of those events makes it pretty much dead certain.
Kazinski, seems like even your version of the case involves at least a couple of tiers of sketchy-looking people, wandering around trying to monetize whatever it is we are talking about. Why doesn't that give you pause?
Nothing to see here move along.
Defund The FBI!!!!!!!!!!!
I mean....maybe?
There are a set of people in the FBI who have been put there as political officers. People who have never really been FBI agents.
Perhaps a new law. FBI senior officials must have at least 10-15 years as FBI agents before being put in charge.
I don't know if that would help. I'd like to think we could have a professional federal investigative bureau, and obviously they are capable of outstanding instances of great work.
But they are also more than capable of showing the worst excesses possible (short of summary executions and disappearances, I hope).
A short jog down memory lane:
J Edgar's use of the FBI as political blackmail branch.
The Hounding and persecution of MLK.
Watergate, playing both sides with their own agenda
Co-intelpro and targeting of the Black Panthers
Shooting an Unarmed Vicky Weaver with an 18 month old babe in Arms.
Richard Jewell
The Anthrax investigation and Stephen Hatfield
The FBI crime lab scandal (probably the largest and most egregious scandal)
The Russiagate hoax
The Whitmer "kidnapping" plot
The Hillary email coverup
Jan. 6th
The Hunter Biden Laptop coverup
Now the Project Veritas harassment, and feeding attorney client information to a private litigant, the NY Times.
With a record like that, even if you could save it, how would you even start?
The FBI claims it had no agents in the crowd on 1/6. The crowd walked from the White House to the Capitol right past the J Edgar Hoover Building, headquarters of the FBI. Thousands of agents could have intervened and backed up the Capitol police. If the FBI didn't have agents in that crowd, they certainly deserve to be defunded.
What’s funny is that more of the BLM violence were false flags than 1/6.
Everyone in Trump’s State Department didn’t use State email—what foreigner is going to correspond with a State official over official email?? So asinine.
And RussiaGate was a coup attempt by Bush loyalists that Trump foolishly surrounded himself with…Trump has no one but himself to blame for his early appointments like Tillerson and Rosenstein and McGahn.
Given no federal investigative bureau is authorized by the Constitution, I don't have any real desire to keep it. It's existence is unconstitutional.
The fact that its history is just a continuous series of scandals and fuckups, and that its few 'success' stories are generally 'war on drugs' activities or glorified prostitution stings just makes it worse. (You also left out obvious things like Waco).
That list barely scratches the surface. Go back to the very beginning and start there. The Palmer Raids really show us exactly what the FBI would become.
It needs to be abolished.
Well, you could start by not making things up, like you did about the above.
Just once I would like to see any member of the Federal Class held accountable for their lawbreaking.
Just once. That would be nice.
What law do you believe was broken?
You could make a case for contempt of court, maybe?
And how would one do make it, exactly?
If the FBI asked for much email in O'Keefe's account, plus that if their HR director, plus those of other journalists, without some mechanism to exclude privileged emails, then I think they constructively did intend to collect privileged communications. The likelihood that the OV people were communicating with their lawyers was too easy to foresee.
Sorry, that should have been elsewhere.
I didn't think you were allowed to subpoena attorney-client communications. I can't tell you which law that is, but the FBI seems to have broken it here.
Even granting your mistaken premise, since there's no indication that the government issued subpoenas for anything except subscriber information, and since the FBI doesn't have the power to subpoena anything, I'm going to have to disagree.
"However, in a letter Tuesday to a federal judge overseeing aspects of the probe, Project Veritas' attorneys said they recently learned that that for nearly a year before last November's raids prosecutors used gag orders to keep quiet other steps taken in the diary probe, including grand jury subpoenas and court-ordered seizures of all of the emails O'Keefe and several colleagues kept in particular accounts over a three-month span in 2020."
That certainly sounds like they had the actual text of the emails, not just subscriber information.
I mean, obviously a judge issued the subpoena (and shouldn't have), and given the context of the FBI raid I'd assumed it was the FBI that asked for that subpoena. Maybe it was the justice department. I'd say whomever asked was wrong to subpoena it and wrong to ask for a gag order to cover it up. Was it 'illegal'? My non-lawyer understanding is that attorney-client privilege is derived from the constitution, so intentionally acting to breach it would be unconstitutional. I can't tell you if they actually violated a statute, but sanctions would certainly seem appropriate.
1. The Project Veritas letter, which is linked in the post, describes the processes they're aware of. There is one subpoena, which is for subscriber information.
2. Subpoenas aren't issued by judges.
3. Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the government can't obtain the content of emails with a subpoena.
4. Attorney-client privilege is not derived from the constitution.
5. Even Project Veritas does not allege that the government intentionally sought privileged materials.
Other than that, great comment!
Wait, what? From their letter:
You are slicing that salami awfully thin. Without seeing the order(s) in question, how do you know the FBI took any measures at all to avoid capturing privileged communications? If they sought ask emails with certain keywords, for example, or just all emails in an account, it is foreseeable that they would get privileged emails.
Project Veritas is alleging that the government obtained privileged communications, and they could very well be right.
They're not alleging that the government did so intentionally, which is what Squirrelloid claimed had happened, and was the thing that Squirrelloid believed was illegal.
If the FBI (or some other government investigators) asked for much email in O'Keefe's account, plus that of their HR director, plus those of other journalists, without some mechanism to exclude privileged emails, then I think they constructively did intend to collect privileged communications. The likelihood that the PV people were communicating with their lawyers was too easy to foresee.
I mean, your first three points all seem like merely asshole ways to say "you meant warrant or other compulsory process, not subpoena". If you're going to pick nits, you should be clear about what you're doing.
Surely there are laws against political spying on presidential campaigns then attempted entrapment of campaign staffers.
Right? That can't be legal.
Project Veritas is not a newspaper or corporate news media show so does any law, the First Amendment, or any Constitutional protections really apply here?
(Says so many people).
I think those protections have been applied (by courts) to bloggers and people who post on twitter/tick tock ie people who aren't newspapers or corporate news media shows
Also, there's no First Amendment limitation where bad journalists lose their protection. There may be specific things Veritas did that were unprotected (that's for the government to prove), but that doesn't mean that their FUNCTION isn't journalistic. It's not a great analogy but the supermarket tabloids sometimes publish some very bad journalism: defamation, stuff that is inadequately sourced, invasions of privacy, etc. But that doesn't mean that they lose the right to ever assert any constitutional or statutory privileges. They're still journalists, and unless the specific thing the journalist is doing is in the realm of the unprotected, they can still claim legal protections.
CindyF, you may be stuck on a weak right-wing talking point—about how the left views journalism.
Identity does not define who is, and who is not, a journalist. It is journalistic practice which defines a journalist—a journalist remains one while practicing journalistic activity. The associated activities of publishing, the practice of journalism, and expression of opinion through media, are protected by press freedom. The activities are protected, the people only insofar as what they do escapes government interference by right.
Thus, any argument against Project Veritas as legitimately journalistic activity depends on what Project Veritas does. In general, it looks pretty journalistic, although their style of journalistic practice has also raised questions about whether intentional deceptions (and sometimes journalistic-looking lawbreaking) warrant the label of journalistic activity.
Time to impeach Biden!
Given that the alleged malfeasance started months prior to Biden's inauguration, is Biden the right person to impeach?
Have you never met Jimmy the Dane before? Why let pesky facts get in the way of a good rant?
If you were under the impression that the Justice Department and FBI were operating as the Democrats' goon squad, this episode should allay your fears.
It seems dubious that the alleged theft of the diary of the President's daughter merits FBI involvement, much less warrants to spy on emails and dawn raids on reporters' homes.
Can you imagine that happening when the Pentagon Papers were leaked? Of course you can't, because Richard Nixon, John Mitchell, and J. Edgar Hoover were never as unscrupulous as the current bunch in charge.
I admit I can't imagine the FBI getting a warrant for emails in 1971.
Instead, Nixon got his White House Plumbers to burglarize the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist looking specifically for doctor-patient privileged files. That is worse than what PV claims the FBI has done.
The Plumbers weren't pretending they were doing something legal. And they went to prison for it.
No, it's worse when taxpayer-funded "law enforcement" agencies decide to become the partisan enforcers of one political party. Much worse.
Oh, and for those of you inclined to believe Project Veritas's claims about the underlying story: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/20/us/politics/project-veritas-ashley-biden-diary.html?searchResultPosition=2
No version of the story has been proven, but this certainly calls into question PV's claim that they were just innocent journalistic bystanders who were offered this diary and nobly chose not to use it and oh-my-god-how-could-they-have-been-investigated-for-theft-based-on-that?
For those of you inclined to believe the New York Times, remember that they recently fired one editor and forced another to resign because those editors concluded a US Senator had earned a spot on the editorial page.
Remember that the NYT now accuse people of spouting "Russian misinformation" for saying the same things they were saying as recently as last year.
Remember that they overstated the number of US children hospitalized due to COVID-19 by a factor of 15.
Remember that they only in the last week admitted that Hunter's laptop really was Hunter's laptop.
Remember that they still refuse to return either the Pulitzer for falsely accusing the Trump campaign of colluding with Russia, or for Walter Duranty's pro-Soviet propaganda.
And then remember to renew your tithe to Pravda on the Hudson.
DMN said a source is disputed.
Your response is that the dispute is disputed, so you should uncritically believe said source.
Even leaving aside how tendentious your criticisms of the NYT are, that's not how this works.
That's dishonest lick-spittlery even for you, S_0. Where did I say anything remotely like "you should uncritically believe said source"?
The NYT is still facing a defamation lawsuit from PV, so they have an incentive to poison the jury pool, even beyond their track record of being strangers to fact.
Your entire point seems to be arguing in favor of believing PV.
Do you disagree with that thesis?
You should answer my question first. Then I might be able to explain where you began to misunderstand my point.
In fact, they did nothing of the sort.
Not that this has anything to do with anything.
Oh, and the Trump campaign did collude with Russia, as determined by both the nonpartisan Mueller investigation and the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigation.
The NYT cannot return something they do not have. They have had the entry on Duranty's Pulitzer appended to mention it's fraudulent.
Let us assume Project Veritas stole the diary of the daughter of a presidential candidate who had not been a federal employee for four years.
Where is the federal crime? And even if you can arguably find one, does it justify wiretaps, email intercepts, and raids of employees' homes? It would be the height of naivete to believe the government's actions weren't politically motivated.
They really just want to hang around in real news organization bathrooms and compete in real news organization sports.
The overlap with respect to Project Veritas fans and Volokh Conspiracy fans seems substantial.
What "deceptions" is the ACLU referring to?
The one where O'Keefe (not Project Veritas and prior to Project Veritas' existence) made a comedic video in which he wielded a cane and top hat, but it wasn't clear that he didn't have a cane and top hat in other parts of the video?
More likely some of these:
https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/columnists/brian-dickerson/2016/08/03/dickerson-voter-impersonator/87993508/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/james-okeefe-accidentally-stings-himself
Or
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/has-james-okeefe-accidentally-stung-himself-again
https://time.com/4006454/hillary-clinton-video-project-veritas/
Or maybe https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/if-james-okeefe-and-project-veritas-tried-get-paper-print-lie-are-they-really-serving/
Eugene,
Can you explain why the FBI would be involved in this case at all? I can think of no crime committed in a journalistic enterprise being given material, stolen or otherwise. So...why would the FBI raid them at all? Seems odd to do so for no actual crime. Calling somebody in a story for verification/denial of the claim seems to be basic professional standard behavior.
damikesc, I do not think I have ever before heard of a journalist trying to verify a story by calling the story's target under a false name, and misrepresenting his intention, while saying nothing about his journalistic intent. Whatever it is, doing it that way is not, ". . . basic professional standard behavior." It is criminal-looking behavior which may not actually be illegal, because it is so bizarre that no lawmakers ever anticipated anyone would do it.
Wait, are you really suggesting that if lawmakers had "anticipated" it that it would be a federal crime to give a false name and intention during an act of journalism?
Maybe what you consider to be your complete vindication is not doing that, like everyone says.
Or, maybe it's everyone else who is lying to you and you're proven right once again.
I would lean towards a fake. It just sounds too on the nose.
The fact that Hunter would have the laptop makes sense, even if we can question the story of how it was made public. He had to conduct business somehow.
However, a private diary where she reveals how her father molested her? Why would such a thing even exist in a format that could be stolen? That sounds unlikely. It sounds like a trap that's easily falsifiable, planted to discredit their enemies.