Mission Veritas’ founder, James O’Keefe, refers to Maass and others who conduct the stings as journalists. Vowing an enchantment, he mentioned the jury verdict endangered hidden-camera work by a variety of journalists.
“The jury successfully dominated investigative journalists owe a fiduciary obligation to the themes they’re investigating and that investigative journalists might not deceive the themes they’re investigating,” mentioned O’Keefe, who was named as a defendant within the go well with and sat on the protection desk in the course of the trial. “Journalism is on trial, and Mission Veritas will proceed to combat for each journalist’s proper to information collect, examine, and expose wrongdoing — no matter how highly effective the investigated social gathering could also be. Mission Veritas is not going to be intimidated.”
A Miami-based lawyer who represented Mission Veritas, Paul Calli, argued in the course of the trial that the group’s actions have been a part of “the best American custom known as muckraking.”
“The race is lengthy. The combat continues as a result of this case implicates basic First Modification points,” Calli mentioned Thursday. “The parents on my left desire to disregard that reality and can spike the ball and have a good time on Twitter as a result of on this case the journalist isn’t somebody they ‘like’ or agree with and as a substitute uncovered the smooth white underbelly of their social gathering. We’ll see what the end line brings.”
U.S. District Courtroom Decide Paul Friedman, who oversaw the weeklong trial, may nonetheless impose punitive damages associated to a wiretapping violation discovered by the jury. Nevertheless, the jury dominated for Mission Veritas on one declare that Maass illegally recorded a gathering she wasn’t social gathering to.
Friedman can be nonetheless contemplating motions that Mission Veritas and the opposite defendants made in the course of the trial that the Democratic corporations and Creamer did not show any authorized violation by the group.