TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @Fedsurrection20
@Fedsurrection20 - Burning Bunny
@WesleyHuntTX @RealTomHoman More wins... James Okeefe wins huge 11th circuit win against CNN for their loss and defamation. Nice to hear judges with brains! https://t.co/WGP5wB45W0
Video Transcript AI Summary
We sued CNN for defamation after they falsely reported that Twitter suspended Project Veritas for spreading misinformation, when it was actually for publishing private information. CNN argued in court that there's no difference between promoting misinformation and revealing private information, but the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. A circuit judge even noted his disbelief that a major news organization would downplay the importance of truth. This legal victory is overshadowed by Project Veritas firing me, in part, for spending the money to fight these battles. It's difficult when the organization is now celebrating a victory that they were against, and suing me for the actions that led to it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: One in the eleventh circuit court of appeals in Georgia in a defamation lawsuit against CNN that I filed three years ago. Ed Carnes circuit judge concurring writes this quote, if you stay on the bench long enough, you see a lot of things. Still, I never thought I'd see a major news organization downplaying the importance of telling the truth in its broadcast, but that is what CNN has done in this case. Through its lawyers, CNN has argued this court to adopt the position that under the law, it is no worse for a news organization to spread or promote misinformation than to truthfully disclose a person's address in a broadcast. We had to sue CNN.
I had to go to the federal judge in Georgia. The federal judge had to rule against me. Not sure how that worked. Then I had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not a million dollars, going to the Eleventh Circuit, wait two years, and get this judgment in the eleventh circuit court of appeals. We have a victory in the eleventh circuit court of appeals.
In 02/2021, Anna Cabrera on CNN saying that my Twitter account was then suspended for, quote, promoting misinformation.
Speaker 1: We're starting to see companies crack down to try to stop the spread of misinformation and to hold some people who are spreading it accountable. Brian, for example, Twitter has suspended the account of Project Veritas, a conservative actionist, activist organization. At least that's how they they couch themselves.
Speaker 0: But CNN had contradicted themselves. They reported that I was suspended for violations of policies, including prohibiting sharing of people's private information. We had talked about how that was a direct contradiction. Recall that we had done this story where we went to the community where the Facebook vice president lived and we failed to blur the number on his lamp post. But even CNN goes to people's homes and does local door stops.
Local news reporters do that all the time. And often, they don't blur the number on the lamp post or the number on the house. In fact, CNN's Drew Griffin actually went to this home of this innocent lady in Florida to her trailer home, and he didn't blur any numbers on the home. So we filed this lawsuit and CNN files what's called a motion to dismiss in federal court in Georgia. And in that motion, CNN argues there is no difference between promoting misinformation and failing to blur a number on the lamppost.
Then the federal judge dismisses the lawsuit using all types of mental gymnastics. Now I'm gonna go back and read a quote from this federal judge's order dismissing our lawsuit. This is pretty absurd. Quote, while Project Veritas asserts that CNN statements implying that Project Veritas was banned from Twitter for spreading misinformation maligns its journalistic integrity, at least calling us journalists. The pleaded truth of being accused of violating a policy aimed at protecting individuals from coming to physical harm as a result of their information being shared similarly maligns a journalist professional reputation.
While there is some difference between violating a policy by providing incorrect or misleading information and violating a policy by truthfully providing someone's private information while the judge is drawing a difference there, Quote, the distinction is not enough to make this statement at issue actionable as both violations are similarly damaging to the journalist's reputation, unquote. I then made the difficult decision to spend a lot of money on attorneys filing a huge brief in the eleventh circuit court of appeals trying to overturn what that federal judge did. From this, eleventh circuit court of appeals brief, quote, Anna Cabrera told CNN's national television audience that Twitter had suspended Veritas for publishing and promoting misinformation. But in reality, Twitter had not suspended Veritas for publishing or promoting misinformation. Rather, as Cabrera and CNN had reported just four days earlier, Twitter had suspended Veritas for a decidedly different reason, for publishing truthful but supposedly private information.
Cabrera thus accused Veritas of an act of misconduct, publishing false information when Veritas had in fact engaged in a completely different act by publishing truthful, but supposedly private information. Under a straightforward application of settled law, Cabrera's statement was thus not substantially true, and the district court erred in holding otherwise. That's from page 23 to 24 of this appellate brief that we filed just a few weeks ago in June of twenty twenty two. And now two years later, we have a decision from the eleventh circuit court of appeals. In the eleventh circuit, we next determine whether Veritas as a public figure plausibly alleged that Cabrera published the alleged defamatory statements with actual malice.
Remember, in defamation, because I'm a public figure, I have to prove actual malice. That means I must prove that the person knew they were lying about me. It's a very difficult standard to get above. The circuit court writing in the eleventh circuit, although the district court, that's the federal judge that ruled against us, did not reach the issue of actual malice, Veritas argues that it plausibly alleged actual malice and that its defamation claim should proceed. We agree with Veritas.
The eleventh circuit goes on. Regardless, we need not decide today whether this case imparts a material falsity requirement that considers reputational harm into the first Amendment context because we conclude that Veritas's plausibly alleged that Cabrera's statements were not only false, but materially false. And it is at least plausible that Cabrera's statements malign Veritas's reputation. Then, Ed Carnes, circuit judge concurring, writes this, quote, if you stay on the bench long enough, you see a lot of things. Still, I never thought I'd see a major news organization downplaying the importance of telling the truth in its broadcast, But that is what CNN has done in this case.
Through its lawyers, CNN has argued this court to adopt the position that under the law, it is no worse for a news organization to spread or promote misinformation than to truthfully disclose a person's address in a broadcast. We had to sue CNN. I had to go to the federal judge in Georgia. The federal judge had to rule against me. Not sure how that worked.
Then I had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not a million dollars going to the eleventh circuit, wait two years, and get this judgment in the eleventh circuit court of appeals. We have a victory in the eleventh circuit court of appeals. That's the good news. And now here's the bad news. Project Veritas fired me in part, at least from what they've stated, because I had spent too much money on lawyers.
I made difficult decisions in courts of law. I traveled around the country taking all types of automobiles and planes and trains in order to meet with donors to raise the hundreds of thousands, the millions of dollars needed to make those difficult decisions. Project Veritas Corporation fires me, the chairman, the CEO, and founder, in part for doing the very thing that Project Veritas is now taking a victory lap over. You can't make this stuff up. Oh, and by the way, Project Veritas is still suing me, suggesting that it was wrong for me to do the things that they are now taking a victory lap over me doing.
And we intend to go to jury verdict in that lawsuit. Those depositions are now ongoing. But you have to wonder about the enemy, not that's external. And by the way, this is pretty bad. CNN, the eleventh circuit court of appeals, saying that it's wild for a news organization to suggest that promoting this information is the same as disclosing a person's address.
That's pretty bad, but this is even worse in this country, that they would do this. And I implore you, ask them why they are still exhausting your donor resources to shut me up and shut me down. It's not right. Filing these lawsuits were very difficult. Going to jury verdict in the Democracy Partners case, extraordinarily difficult.
Filing the appeals, extremely difficult decisions that were put on my desk at the time. People ask me, James O'Keefe, do you really want to do this? It's going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. James O'Keefe. You're going to have to travel around The United States and raise that money nights and hotel rooms away from your loved ones.
A hundred hour work weeks spending time in the back of an automobile in the car, in the airports, constantly raising those funds. We're talking millions of dollars to pay libel attorneys and other lawyers to make stuff like this happens. And what does project Veritas do? They fire the guy that raises all the money and forgive me for my passion. But when you have people doing a victory lap over a hard decision that they were against, you have to start asking the question about who the actual enemy is.
Is the enemy the news media? Perhaps. Is it wrong for CNN to say things like they did, the circuit judge point out? Perhaps, but what is even worse? Be careful who you surround yourself with.
This is a victory for the first amendment. This is a victory against fake news. Rarely do you see a circuit court do stuff like this. The eleventh circuit court of appeals. It's a victory.
Will they actually proceed? We'll see. I'm not sure who or how they're going to raise the money to pay all these lawyers without getting some black cars.
@Fedsurrection20 - Burning Bunny
@iluminatibot Here... https://t.co/IIjqHUv8cC
Video Transcript AI Summary
In modern Jewish history, the Balfour Declaration begins with "Dear Lord Rothschild." This letter, sent by the British Foreign Secretary, expressed sympathy for Jewish Zionist aspirations and was addressed to Walter Rothschild, a prominent Zionist. The declaration favored establishing a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine while ensuring the rights of existing non-Jewish communities were not harmed. This moment is seen as extraordinary, marking a significant achievement after 3,000 years of Jewish history. It highlights the remarkable efforts of figures like Chaim Weizmann, who, through charm and persuasion, convinced British leaders to support this cause. The letter underwent five drafts, ultimately compromising but affirming the Jewish community's aspirations. This event is considered one of the most significant in Jewish life over the past millennium.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In modern Jewish history, and it begins with 3 words. Dear lord Rothchild.
Speaker 1: Dear lord Rothchild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of his majesty's government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the cabinet.
Speaker 0: Why was it that this letter was sent by the foreign secretary to your great uncle Walter?
Speaker 2: It's an interesting question because it was primarily a movement from Eastern Europe, but they didn't clarify who was in charge of that movement. And in addition, it was, after all, in Great Britain. So they felt that the Rothschild family, should be the one to whom it was addressed. And Walter was Lord Rothschild, and he was a Zionist. And, those really are the background reasons.
Speaker 0: So Walter received the Balfour Declaration, and I have a copy here. And I wonder if I could possibly ask you to read it for us.
Speaker 2: Yes. Indeed. Yep. I'm going to put on my spectacles to make sure I'm reading accurately. His majesty's government deal with favor the establishment of Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation, yours, Arthur Balfour.
Speaker 0: And here it is, the Balfour declaration. What do you feel when you when you see it here?
Speaker 2: I've genuinely felt it's one of the most extraordinary moments in the history of the Jewish people. If you think it took 3000 years, to get to this. And then you say, how did this miracle happen? It's the most incredible piece of opportunism. I mean, if you think you had an impoverished, would be scientist, Hein Weitzman, who somehow gets to England, meets a few people, including those of my family, seduces them.
He has such great charm and conviction. He gets to Balfour and he unbelievably persuades Balfour and Lloyd George, the prime minister, and most of the ministers that this idea of, the national home for, Jews should be allowed to take place. I mean, it's so so unlikely.
Speaker 0: It it
Speaker 2: And then he's, you know, starts to fight a difficult battle with the British cabinet. And this, letter goes through 5 drafts as you know. And in the end, it comes out as a rather compromising letter. I mean, the essential point is there for, the Jewish community to fasten on to. You have the first bit which promises a national home rather than the national home and then you have the bit that nothing that's to be done should, in any way, harm the Arab community.
But you come back to the big point, which is that this is perhaps the greatest event in Jewish life for 1000 of years. And it's a mirror
@Fedsurrection20 - Burning Bunny
@DefiyantlyFree Lady finds cell phone from illegal migrant on train tracks. The evidence they find on here... Process this has been happening for years! https://t.co/69oatwNhT3
Video Transcript AI Summary
I found a phone on the railroad tracks in Jacumba, California, belonging to a Syrian illegal immigrant. As I explored the phone, I discovered messages indicating he had just entered the U.S. and was walking along the train tracks, aware of immigration nearby. He seemed excited to be in America but uncertain about his next steps. There were missed calls and messages from someone asking about his phone and his brother's whereabouts, suggesting they might be in a detention facility. The messages revealed communication among a group of Arabic individuals discussing their journey and how to navigate their situation. The individual had been traveling since August 11, raising questions about his route to the U.S.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Okay. Check out this phone I found in Jacumba, California on the railroad tracks at the southern border. I picked it up, and it belonged to a Syrian illegal alien. Check out what happens as we start digging into the phone.
Speaker 1: You see what's going on there? I started. Syrian freaking phone. We did for Syria. Yeah.
He's from Syria. Following with my girls. We're already on YouTube. Oh, on Instagram. We've got a message on Instagram.
Okay. I just got into the United States. I just got service. I'm walking on the train tracks right now. Most likely, there's immigration in the front of us.
We're driving from the wall between San Diego and Mexico. He he kinda happy. He was like, we're we're in America. He made but we don't know where we headed to. Message is still coming in.
Oh, they got they got a message.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: Oh, they got a missed call. Oh. And a message. Oh, he's asking him if he got his phone back. Holy.
Hey. He's calling. Remember when I told you he told he's telling him to tell him his brother is with us? Mhmm. So he was like, where where is he?
Did he give you did they give you a form back? Oh, another message from wrong. Okay. Are are they gonna deport him or what? What is he?
So I think they're they're, they they got a buzzed by the immigration, and they're It seems like they've they're still on hold if they're detention. Yeah. They're probably in a a detention facility. Not, like, a 3 day processing. No.
Yeah. Actual. Yes. Yes. That's what it's looking like.
Mhmm. That's big fun. It is fire, I mean. For sure. Is first and not last name.
Speaker 0: Well, we've got a saying.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Very good. Very awesome, Ah. This is a group. Yeah.
I don't know. They're showing. They're telling each other how to get in there and everything. It says all the Arabic people in in Mexico. So he's he's he's been out on the road since August 11.
But the next time, you're saying? Or possibly I wonder where you're traveling to come here. Yeah. I wonder how he got to the
@Fedsurrection20 - Burning Bunny
@MJTruthUltra They HATE our cameras, but they have every inch covered.... but when we try to get it, poof! It basically disappears. Record EVERY interaction with public officials... https://t.co/xX1NHQzVLi
Video Transcript AI Summary
In September 2020, Joe Altman infiltrated an Antifa conference call and encountered Eric Coomer, a top executive at Dominion Voting Systems. During the call, Coomer expressed confidence that Trump would not win the election, claiming, "Don't worry about the election. Trump is not gonna win. I made sure of that." Altman later discovered Coomer's significant role at Dominion, where he served as vice president of engineering and held patents related to ballot adjudication. Coomer, who had a PhD in nuclear physics, was also the director of strategy and security and a shareholder. Altman noted that Coomer's anti-Trump sentiments were evident, and he ensured Dominion's presence in battleground states for the 2020 election. Altman received three folders of screenshots detailing Coomer's troubling profile.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In September 2020, FEC United founder Joe Old man had infiltrated Antifa to uncover journalists who were active members of the Antifa group attacking his company in Colorado. Joe, you infiltrated an Antifa conference call this past September and accidentally came upon a top Dominion Voting Systems executive named Eric Coomer. Describe that call and what it led you to find.
Speaker 1: It was interesting how the how the call started. Someone says, who's Eric? He says, Eric's the Dominion guy. Someone actually said, you know, hey. Go ahead.
Don't tell him to continue speaking. And someone interrupts and says, what are we gonna do if effing Trump wins? And Eric responds, and I'm paraphrasing this, by the way. Don't worry about the election. Trump is not gonna win.
I made effing sure of that. And then they started laughing and somebody says effing right. And so I just put it a simple Google search to start, which was Eric Dominion, Denver, Colorado. And Eric Coomer came up immediately under Dominion Voting Systems.
Speaker 0: Turns out Eric Coomer held a top position at Dominion with a PhD in nuclear physics. Coomer joined Dominion as vice president of engineering and hold several patents with Dominion ensuring users can adjudicate ballots from the machines. The very function Ron Watkins pointed out as a huge red flag. After the election, Altman was sent an article highlighting Eric Coomer from Dominion. Altman started looking into Eric again.
Eric was the director of strategy and security at Dominion and a shareholder in the company.
Speaker 1: When I got into his Facebook page, that's when things really started to kinda come together for me that, you know, that Eric Coomer was this, you know, that he he was not just Antifa. He was, he was responsible for putting his finger on the the, scales of our election.
Speaker 0: And Dominion seemed to be a friendly place for such anti Trump sentiment. Kummer goes on to travel to battleground states all of 2019.
Speaker 1: Whatever they were building too, coming into the 2020 election, that he made sure it happened. He made sure that, that Dominion Voting Systems was in all the battleground states, for the 2020 election.
Speaker 0: Eric shared 3 folders of screenshots capturing the disturbing profile of Eric Coomer.