Did Project Veritas use its possession of the diary of Ashley Biden as “leverage” with which to “extort” President Biden? The fifth New York Times story on Project Veritas and the Ashley Biden diary includes this passage under a suggestive heading:
Using the Diary as Leverage
Less than a month before Election Day, in an Oct. 12, 2020, email that Project Veritas included in a court filing, [PV founder] Mr. [James] O’Keefe told his team that he had made the decision not to publish a story about the diary, adding: “We have no doubt the document is real” but that reactions to its publication would be “characterized as a cheap shot.”
But Project Veritas was still trying to use the diary as leverage. On Oct. 16, 2020, Project Veritas wrote to Mr. Biden and his campaign that it had obtained a diary Ms. Biden had “abandoned” and wanted to question Mr. Biden on camera about its contents that referred specifically to him.
“Should we not hear from you by Tuesday, October 20, 2020, we will have no choice but to act unilaterally and reserve the right to disclose that you refused our offer to provide answers to the questions raised by your daughter,” Project Veritas’ chief legal officer, Jered T. Ede, wrote.
In response, Ms. Biden’s lawyers accused Project Veritas of threatening them as part of “extortionate effort to secure an interview” with Mr. Biden in the campaign’s closing days.
In an email he sent out to PV subscribers yesterday, O’Keefe quoted the message sent by Times reporter Michael Schmidt requesting comment on his story: “We’re doing a story about Ashley Biden’s diary and the ongoing federal investigation. Here are some specific questions we have for Project Veritas. If you want to comment or answer any of these questions we’d appreciate responses by the end of the day.”
O’Keefe responds to the Times story and its coverage on left-wing cable in the video below. He doesn’t seem too choked up by the criminal implications that pervade the Times story.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.