May 3 Conference: “The Future of Press Freedom: Democracy, Law, and the News in Changing Times”

I’m looking forward to attending and speaking at this Knight First Amendment Institute conference on Friday (live and online).

I’ll be presenting my paper, From Bloggers in Pajamas to The Gateway Pundit: How Government Entities Do and Should Identify Professional Journalists for Access and Protection.

One of the faux journalists that I write about from The Gateway Pundit, is featured in this new article from Sam Levine at The Guardian, Workers at far-right site Gateway Pundit feared credibility issues, filing shows.

Share this:

“Trump Again Vows Mass Deportations and Won’t Rule Out Political Violence”

NYT:

Former President Donald J. Trump told Time magazine in an interview published Tuesday morning that if elected in November, he would deploy the U.S. military to detain and deport migrants and permit states to decide whether to prosecute those who violate abortion bans, while hedging on the possibility of political violence after the 2024 election….

Mr. Trump also brushed aside questions about political violence in November by suggesting that his victory was inevitable. But when pressed about what might happen should he again lose the election, he did not dismiss the possibility outright and did not proactively say anything to deter supporters from again resorting to it.

“I think we’re going to win,” he said. “And if we don’t win, you know, it depends. It always depends on the fairness of an election.”

A Biden campaign spokesman, James Singer, argued that Mr. Trump’s stated plans were unconstitutional and anti-democratic. “Trump is willing to throw away the very idea of America to put himself in power,” Mr. Singer said in a statement.

Mr. Trump and his allies have already laid the groundwork to advance their ideological agenda, and many of their preparations have been reported by The New York Times and other outlets.

Still the Time interview, which includes transcripts, offered a rare chance to hear Mr. Trump describe his policy views in his own words….

Share this:

“Inside the far-right plan to use civil rights law to disrupt the 2024 election”

LAT:

At a diner just off the freeway north of Sacramento, a mostly white crowd listened intently as it learned how to “save America” by leaning on the same laws that enshrined the rights of Black voters 60 years ago.

Over mugs of coffee and plates of pot roast smothered in gravy, attendees in MAGA and tea party gear took notes about the landmark Voting Rights Act and studied the U.S. Constitution. They peppered self-proclaimed “election integrity” activist Marly Hornik with questions about how to become skilled citizen observers monitoring California poll workers.

The nearly 90 people gathered in the diner in February were there to understand how they can do their part in a plan to sue California to block certification of the 2024 election results unless the state can prove that ballots were cast only by people eligible to vote.

If any votes are found to be ineligible, Hornik explained, then all voters are being disenfranchised — just like those decades ago who couldn’t vote because of their race.

“If we think our right of suffrage … has been denied or diluted, we have to stop that immediately. We have to stop it right in its tracks,” said Hornik, co-founder of a group called United Sovereign Americans, which is led by a man who helped push former President Trump’s baseless challenges to Joe Biden’s election in 2020.

The two-hour meeting at the Northern California diner — one of several similar presentations that have taken place across the country in recent months — is part of the group’s plan to file lawsuits in multiple states alleging voters’ civil rights are violated by errors on the voter rolls. The goal is to prevent states from certifying federal elections in 2024 until substantial changes are made to election processes.

What United Sovereign Americans has planned is a legal long shot. But election experts worry that if even one sympathetic judge rules in their favor, it could sow doubts about the integrity of a presidential rematch between President Biden and Donald Trump.

“Sometimes the whole point is to whip up enough smoke that it seems like a fire,” said Justin Levitt, a former deputy assistant attorney general who specializes in voting rights.

The group’s legal arguments rely on faulty interpretations of federal election law and are likely to fail in court, according to Levitt and other experts who believe the group’s evidence ofvoter registration fraud is overstated and inaccurate.

United Sovereign Americans is part of a cottage industry of far-right election deniers that has sown disinformation since Trump lost his reelection bid. The group aims to scrutinize elections with a legal strategy that can “throw massive amounts of sand in their gears,” Hornik said during a February presentation in Orange County.

Share this:

“Trump: ‘Marco has this residency problem.'”

Marc Caputo for The Bulwark:

COULD IT WORK? Probably. Rubio would have to establish residency or “inhabitance” out of state if he wants a shot on Trump’s ticket. He’s willing to do that, according to those familiar with his thinking, just as Dick Cheney did in 2000 when he moved in July of that year from Texas to Wyoming so that he could join then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush’s ticket. A trio of Texas residents sued in federal court, but Bush-Cheney prevailed.

“It is very hard for anyone to be able to sue and challenge the electors’ votes before the fact, because the candidate could always establish inhabitancy before the electors vote. And after they vote, it is really a matter for Congress to determine,” said Derek T. Muller, a University of Notre Dame law professor and an expert in election law.

Another expert in election law, Ohio State University’s Edward B. Foley, agreed that Congress would ultimately decide the issue of Rubio’s inhabitancy under the Electoral Count Reform Act, which made it harder to successfully object to electoral votes.

“It’s up to Congress to sustain the objection and it takes a majority vote in both chambers to sustain one,” Foley said. “So you tell me the political likelihood that the Senate would disqualify Rubio from being vice president when he was a senator before he ran for vice president. I don’t think this is really enforceable in court. I think this is enforceable only in Congress.”

Foley said he could nevertheless see officials in states like Colorado, which unsuccessfully attempted to block Trump from the ballot under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Disqualification Clause, try to challenge a Trump-Rubio ticket under the Twelfth Amendment….

Share this: