BREAKING: @nytimes BEGS New York Supreme Court to Dismiss @Project_Veritas Defamation Lawsuit; Admits to Article Inaccuracies While Under Oath!

#ExposeNYT

I. @nytimes changes story

@MaggieAstor claims in original article that "allegations come SOLELY from unnamed people"; now reverses course and acknowledges that "MANY of the individuals featured in the video were unnamed."

#ExposeNYT

II. Unnamed sources for me, not for thee

@MaggieAstor claims @Project_Veritas #BallotHarvesting video was "deceptive" because she couldn't "verify" unnamed sources. Lawyers now ADMIT that "using unnamed sources is a common journalistic practice and generally accepted"
#ExposeNYT

III. @Wikipedia based bad "reputation"

Responding to our defamation suit, @nytimes General Counsel and Reporter @MaggieAstor rely on @Wikipedia to say @Project_Veritas has bad "reputation."

@Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is not a reliable source."

#ExposeNYT

IV. "Unverifiable" Opinion Section?

Fact-Checkers cite @MaggieAstor false reporting featured in the NYT A Section; Millions notified; @nytimes lawyers now claim her reporting was "Unverifiable expressions of opinion" and "are not actionable and cannot be defamatory."

#ExposeNYT

V. Double standards are their only standards

@nytimes lawyers ADMIT in their own legal motion that they have 'Departed from professional standards'

#ExposeNYT

Support our fight: http://projectveritas.com/donate