Even The ACLU Condemns Raid On Project Veritas

The Real News Feed homepage has 60 new headlines every 24 hours - click here to see it.

Two Project Veritas locations were raided.

Then Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe’s home was raided.

His notes were leaked to The New York Times.

– Project Veritas sues the NYT.
– The FBI raids O’Keefe’s home.
– NYT knows about raid immediately.
– FBI steals O’Keefe’s reporter notes.
– NYT publishes what his notes were.

This is nuts. The FBI is LEAKING O’Keefe’s privileged info to the NYT.

Helloooo deep state.

— Liz Wheeler (@Liz_Wheeler) November 12, 2021

Project Veritas then got a huge court win further exposing how wrong the raid was.

BREAKING! The federal court has just ordered the DOJ to STOP extracting data from our client, journalist James O’Keefe’s phone, and ordered a hearing. Counsel for Project Veritas asked the court to do this yesterday! pic.twitter.com/nBrmf4myuj

— Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) November 11, 2021

Now, we have this.

Even the ACLU had to defend Veritas saying “the precedent set in this case could have serious consequences for press freedom.”

Of course, they also had to bash Project Veritas.

The @ACLU has to say how disgusting they find Project Veritas so that their liberal donors don't get angry, but at least they issued a statement recognizing how dangerous DOJ/FBI's actions against them could be for press freedom and demanded disclosures:https://t.co/hlDZYvxAwj

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 14, 2021

From ACLU:

The following is a statement from Brian Hauss, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, in response to reports of an FBI raid on Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe:

“Project Veritas has engaged in disgraceful deceptions, and reasonable observers might not consider their activities to be journalism at all. Nevertheless, the precedent set in this case could have serious consequences for press freedom. Unless the government had good reason to believe that Project Veritas employees were directly involved in the criminal theft of the diary, it should not have subjected them to invasive searches and seizures. We urge the court to appoint a special master to ensure that law enforcement officers review only those materials that were lawfully seized and that are directly relevant to a legitimate criminal investigation.”