The issue as I see it is that unless everyone involved is held personally accountable, nothing will change.
Even if NYT has to pay a fairly hefty sum, they'll probably still walk away thinking it was worth it because they discredited Veritas at a critical point before the election and because the damage to Veritas is done.
"This ruling means Project Veritas will now be able to put New York Times reporter Maggie Astor and New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet under oath where they will be forced to answer our questions. Project Veritas will record these depositions and expose them for the world to see."
i seem to remember lying under oath is a chargeable offence...perhaps the goal is not the oath but to create political theater of some sort under veritas's control and use that as a focal point for a barrage of articles to what end i can only speculate as in the last line.
The issue as I see it is that unless everyone involved is held personally accountable, nothing will change.
Even if NYT has to pay a fairly hefty sum, they'll probably still walk away thinking it was worth it because they discredited Veritas at a critical point before the election and because the damage to Veritas is done.
That's from the article, it is his goal.
i seem to remember lying under oath is a chargeable offence...perhaps the goal is not the oath but to create political theater of some sort under veritas's control and use that as a focal point for a barrage of articles to what end i can only speculate as in the last line.