“Veritas”… Will Have To Wait, For A Speaking Indictment — To Learn More: USDC Mag. Judge.

So it seems pretty clear that all Project Veritas (and James O’Keefe) really want to do, at bottom, here — is distract from the fact that… they are caught. Again — in one of their ill-thought out schemes. But this time, it looks like felonies were committed.

The boys were hoping to learn “early” who all (some of whom are or were likely inside Project Veritas’ own inner circle) turned on them. Who dimed them out.

But that will not happen — as an able USDC Magistrate decided today. That’s a 19 page published opinion, out of Manhattan. Here’s a bit:

…Judge Torres also addressed the Nov. 19 Motion on the merits, and found that Project Veritas and O’Keefe “‘cite[] no precedent — and the Court is aware of no authority — for the proposition that the Fourth Amendment (or any other constitutional or statutory provision) gives a person who has not been charged a right to review a search warrant affidavit during an ongoing investigation….’”

[T]he Court [also] is attentive to the fact that the Government is investigating potential criminal activity relating to the transmission of personal information about a private citizen, who happens to be the daughter of President Biden. In Amodeo II, the Second Circuit noted that “[c]ourts have long declined to allow public access simply to cater ‘to a morbid craving for that which is sensational and impure.’” 71 F.3d at 1051 (quoting In re Caswell, 18 R.I. 835, 836 (1893)).

The Second Circuit thus reminded district courts that they “have the power to insure that their records are not ‘used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal,’ and have ‘refused to permit their files to serve as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption.’” Id. (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). While the Court does not suggest that RCFP’s interest is of a prurient character, it does note that, given the details about Ms. Biden’s personal information included in the Materials, “the privacy interests of innocent third parties” — including the victim of the alleged criminal activity — is an important countervailing factor against granting public access. Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050–51 (internal citation omitted)….

So the affidavits will not be unsealed. Not at least until well-after the speaking indictment is unsealed, and a standard DoJ press conference (and perhaps, perp walk) occurs.

Sorry O’Keefe — you’re “Coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs,” now.

Out — grinning….