The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Amusing Passage from Gateway Pundit's Motion for TRO to Get Press Credentials
"Meanwhile, if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it, everyone will still tell the public what it sounded like and what it means."
From TGP Communications, LLC v. Sellers (filed Monday, D. Ariz.) [UPDATE Nov. 23, 2022: Motion denied]:
Understandably, the nation is fixated on this election. This is a matter of great national importance, and its importance stretches far beyond Arizona's borders.
It is no surprise that there is great skepticism on one side of the political divide and there is unqualified trust on the other. Society has degraded to the point that many Americans are skeptical of the good faith, the competence, and the bias of governmental institutions. However, this skepticism almost always comes down as a "Red" versus "Blue" issue. If a Republican makes a claim, one can expect "Team Blue" to scream at the top of their lungs that she must be corrupt, or worse. If a Democrat does the same, the "Red Team" is not going to take her statement at face value. We then depend on the press, such as it is, to inform us all so that we can at least hope to know what in tarnation is going on.
Our press is no less divided than our electorate. Our press has descended into a morass of competing partisan reporting that is no longer something Edward R. Murrow or Ben Bradlee would respect. Nevertheless, when the Free Press clause was placed in the Constitution, our national press was possibly even more divided and biased than it is today…. Anyone with any degree of media literacy today would be unlikely to say that we have not returned to our roots. The only difference is that today, the mainstream press operates much like the Party Press of the early Republic, but they try and perpetrate the fiction that it is not so.
Meanwhile, if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it, everyone will still tell the public what it sounded like and what it means. National Public Radio will report that it happened because Donald Trump caused it with a post on Truth Social. This claim would be followed by a two hour exposé on how trees in forests are racist. Fox News will report the same story, but suggest that the tree fell because Hillary Clinton was trying to kill a frog who had information about her being on Epstein's island. Who are we to believe? We are all free to make that choice, but the greater the diversity of voices in the marketplace of ideas, the better informed the public.
The Gateway Pundit is a news and opinion publication of national renown. Founded Publisher Jim Hoft in 2004, The Gateway Pundit has grown into one of the largest and most highly read political blogs in the nation. The Gateway Pundit is ranked as one of the top 150 websites in the US, with an average of 2.5 million daily readers. It is considered by many to be a "conservative" publication, as its editorial staff does tend to the libertarian/conservative side of things. In a national media landscape where conservatives are an endangered species, this is a relative rarity. However, the Gateway Pundit is no less a legitimate journalism organization than the New York Times – which famously lied to the American public, at the behest of those who wanted war in the Middle East, to push the agenda that there were WMDs in Iraq and that dutifully reported on Trump's "Russian Collusion." CNN lied about the "Covington Kids." Rolling Stone lied about "A Rape on Campus." These were knowing lies, not mere mistakes, but Maricopa would certainly permit a New York Times, CNN, or Rolling Stone reporter to cover their actions—because these are politically loyal "Party Papers" as it were. However, the Defendants have decided, using unfettered discretion, to exclude the Gateway Pundit and its reporters from covering the election debacle. The stated reason was:
Thank you for applying for a Maricopa County Press Pass. This email is to notify you that you have been denied a press credential based on the following criteria which is listed on Maricopa.gov:
* #4: You (a) do not avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest and (b) are not free of associations that would compromise journalistic integrity or damage credibility. Therefore, you are not a bona fide correspondent of repute in your profession. If you would like to appeal this decision, please reply to this email stating the reasons it should be reconsidered.
Further, any press conference about the 2022 Election will be streamed to a Maricopa County YouTube channel and you are welcome to view it.
Thank you,
Elections Command Center
These criteria are unconstitutionally vague and reasonable minds could say the same things about the New York Times or CNN or National Public Radio without stretching a bit. Maricopa's decision to exclude the Gateway Pundit is entirely viewpoint based. And thus, both facially and as applied, this regulation must be struck down. With the exigent circumstance of a "hot news" situation, the Gateway Pundit must be permitted to attend press conferences, immediately.
I express no opinion on the merits, but the passage seemed to be worth passing along; its authors are noted lawyers Marc Randazza, David Gingras, and John Burns.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
There shouldn't be any "press credentials".
If a resource is limited it has to be allocated somehow. You can't give 1,000 reporters a tenth of a seat each in a 100 seat venue. You can raise the price of a press pass until only 100 people can afford tickets. You can say first come, first served. You can hold a lottery. You can decide who is worthy.
I like the first come, first served.
I like the first come, first served.
Random drawings would work too.
He said, "You can hold a lottery."
The false claim is, "You can decide who is worthy."
When it's a government entity that "can" gets limited.
This is indeed the issue. Pragmatism/impact over being purely egalitarian. Seems right to me.
Non-barred space for SCOTUS argument is first come first served. It's a horrible system; it's become exclusively a rich-person's game now that they pay line holders.
Lottery is okay in principle, but you run up against the impact thing. Putting news reporters in where the news making happens versus just randos seems wise, if not purely fair.
And how does one then decide who is a journalist and who is just a random rando?
You haven't solved a thing.
Audience size relates to impact. Buzzfeed gets a lot of eyeballs, Nowheresville Weekly Snail Trail does not.
Having Turned off a Trump press conference because the questions were so stupid I wish we could grade reporters on quality, but that's too hard to measure.
I left out pool reporting as a way to allocate resources. Let the media fight among themselves to choose their representatives. This does shut out random bloggers.
The thing about pool reporting is the photos -- you are required to share the license and a lot of brick & mortar media would very much object to that.
The other thing about pool reporting is that (a) everyone can use the pool product and (b) each has to report in turn. Bloggers would love that because they (a) get free product and (b) occasionally get to be the sole person reporting on something with everyone else having to use their copy.
It's one thing if it's a voluntary association, but once the state recognizes the pool as the allocater of access, don't you get the same issues EV mentions above?
BTW, while I don't know if it is mandated or not, every time I have seen a media outlet request permission to bring a camera into a (MA) court, it has included a promise to share the pictures with other media. That (and asking nicely) is how a student newspaper got our picture of a student on trial, much to the chagrin of his friends.
I've pointed out that the solution of abolishing such credentialing is a bad idea.
Yes, figuring out a system to navigate the First Amendment while dealing with the limited resource of access is tricky, but it's also not optional if you want any kind of functional information flow regarding government functions.
Do you seriously believe that that's what we have now?
Yes, we have a system of credentialing now.
You can claim unproved bad faith as many on here like to, but without proof, what it ends up is just being a crank on the Internet.
Gasliightro0, you are such a dishonest shit. You know perfectly well that Bumble didn’t ask whether “we have a system of credentialing now”. He asked if we have what you called “functional information flow regarding government functions.” As this case and your reply to him makes perfectly clear what we actually have is the kind of bad faith congenital to the likes of you.
So what's your better proposal?
"it’s become exclusively a rich-person’s game now that they pay line holders."
That's not a first come-first system. It's a system where the court is wasting public resources.
Agreed that it's not a strict FCFS system, in that the person who waits in line isn't the one who place their posterior in the seat at the S.Ct.
As with politics, it's easy to snipe at deficiencies of a system, and often much harder to provide workable solutions. Bitching about "wasting public resources" is the boring, generic opposite of a useful contribution.
What's your better proposal?
"Bitching about “wasting public resources” is the boring, generic opposite of a useful contribution."
Some dude on the internet didn't like my contribution! Oh noes!
I guess I have to yield to your obvious expertise at non-useful contributions.
The solution to the problem of line-holders selling places in line should be obvious, sell the tickets at market price. If there's going to be a market for tickets, the government should be the one collecting.
That's what the Boston Police did -- although saying that "they know who all the journalists are."
Throw in the fact that the Boston Herald (2nd largest newspaper) no longer has an office and its reporters operate out of their cars, and the line between who is and isn't a journalist gets blurred. I actually was looking for the old BPD policy because they demanded things like proof of full-time employment as a journalist, etc -- and thought EV would enjoy seeing it.
Although the "we know" strikes me as somewhat problematic.
See: https://www.rcfp.org/journals/the-news-media-and-the-law-fall-2010/police-departments-restructur/
Wow. It's always so nice to see the shameless violation of the First Amendment.
Rush Limbo did a bit on this 30 years ago, how the various networks/Papers (remember papers) would cover the end of the world
Wall Street Journal " World to End, Markets to close early"
NY Times: "World to End, see story Section P"
NPR: "World to End, Women and Minorities hardest hit"
USA Today "We're Gone"
guess you had to be there,
Frank
As I recall the joke, the USA Today piece had a sidebar entitled: "World To End. How Do We Feel About It?" And the punch line was the Washington Post headline: "World To End. Reagan Tax Cuts Blamed."
Of course, I heard this quite a long time ago from a fairly prominent Republican. So take it FWIW.
My memory is that it was initially written buy the guy who founded USA Today -- how his competitors would cover the story and how USA Today would.
Because #coward
Can't distinguish Gateway Pundit from the New York Times or Washington Post?
Lathering his rubes;
the disaffected law prof
claims 'I just can't tell'
On a brighter note . . .
"You send me the pictures, I'll send you the war."
Just sayin...
True, there is a big difference in kind, but not one that favors the Times or Post.
The truth matters.
Whose truth?
I'm in the process of writing something on the U-VA shooting and while I am writing about something I saw a uniformed police officer say in a (live) televised press conference, I still have to include the disclaimer that I wasn't there.
Access to the primary data, ability to be physically present, is very important -- particularly for someone like TGP who is going to report on facts that others might ignore as irrelevant.
My topline comment was going to be Actually the funniest line in Prof V's post was
...but it fits better here.
Gateway Pundit?
Wow. EV hits new low.
Maybe now you think he should go back to Mother Russia.
Nah.
I'm glad for him to stay. It's just sort of disappointing to see intelligent people swept up in a cult.
You should invest in a mirror.
Thinking Gateway Pundit is shitty is not a cult.
That is not what bernard11 said. His only reference was to a “cult”.
I offer no opinion as to whether Gateway Pundit is shitty or not.
You wouldn't know "intelligent" if it bit you on your ignorant ass.
"I’m glad for him to stay. It’s just sort of disappointing to see intelligent people swept up in a cult."
Marc Randazza, David Gingras, and John Burns are a cult? Who knew?
bernard11 : "EV hits new low"
Of course he knows what Gateway is. A smell that rank is hard to ignore. The entire quote is a lurid cartoon picture of today's media. But in today's Right you must pay homage to the Crazy. The only available option is to limit the damage to your self-respect as much as possible. Otherwise, you're just one more Liz Cheney.
For example, dropping an phony comment about the media is much preferable to - say - going full Election Denial. As tactic, perfectly understandable! Maybe the poor professor can now go an entire week before the next egregious bow to insanity....
Wait a sec: I'm not supposed to quote what I think is an amusing passage from a motion (in this instance, without even endorsing its merits) because the motion is on behalf of Gateway Pundit?
Never heard of right think?
"Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"
That's where we have gone to again...
Well, two points:
1. You quoted way more than "an amusing passage." The paragraph beginning, "The Gateway Pundit is a news and opinion publication of national renown," doesn't have anything that anyone would regard as amusing.
2. The previous paragraph, with its diatribe against CNN, etc. has a touch of humor, but is basically pretty pointless.
And Gateway Pundit itself is a pretty disgusting purveyor of one lie after another.
"The previous paragraph, with its diatribe against CNN, etc. has a touch of humor, but is basically pretty pointless."
The previous paragraph:
This doesn't have a diatribe against CNN, but it strikes me as quite funny and rather, uh, pointful.
You're right. The attack on CNN comes later.
But it's still pointless. It's nothing but an accusation that all media are partisan all the time, presumably to defend Gateway's practice of constantly spewing out RW lies.
But it’s still pointless.
As is everything you've ever posted. And yet, you never stop.
The point is spelled out later in the text:
"These criteria are unconstitutionally vague and reasonable minds could say the same things about the New York Times or CNN or National Public Radio without stretching a bit."
That sort of thing is OK as parody and some may find it amusing. Is gross exaggeration and caricature compelling as a legal argument?
“ We are all free to make that choice, but the greater the diversity of voices in the marketplace of ideas, the better informed the public.”
Where’s the gross exaggeration?
I dunno; I find that assertion pretty amusing.
The Gateway Pundit, founded by the man universally known as the dumbest man on the Internet (google it!), is a blog that only reports news it makes up.
"Gateway Pundit itself is a pretty disgusting purveyor of one lie after another."
As both an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran, may I ask how many armed conflicts Gateway Pundit has lied us into?
Eugene Volokh : “Wait a sec: I’m not supposed to quote…. (etc)”
Above, someone asks if you’ll post an amusing passage from the Alex Jones defense team next. Personally, I wouldn’t care if you did. But if you then expressed “no opinion on the merits” of Jones-style corrosive fraud, that might raise my hackles.
And the passage you quote above is even more objectionable than AJ-style fringe lunacy because it’s become widely accepted. This country is now full of people who believe (or pretend to believe) there’s no difference between the crudest partisan propaganda and all other media. They’re all functionally the same. It’s an opinion that allows anyone to chose his own reality and ignore any inconvenient fact. It’s the first step towards a nation of people who think an election was stolen on the basis of no evidence at all.
So, yeah, maybe we read too much into your “no opinion”. Maybe it was supposed to be seen as a genial smirk. But me? I think the quote deserves more. I think it’s pretty damn toxic.
Do you ever read the New York Times? Watch CNN, or the major networks? Listen to NPR?
Been watching CNN more now that Trump is out of office. Went there yesterday, oops, Trump announced. Here’s a giant article fact checking him.
Which is fine. But I never see that for others.
“Who don’t exaggerate like that. It is not a partisan call-out,” explained the partisan.
I literally pulled out of CNN a few years back when they got too much like Fox News in the other direction, when Trump gave some speech and within a minute after the end, some CNN talking head reported, not opined, that Trump “refused a mask because he didn’t want to look silly.”
This head was still a regular two days ago in role as reporter.
Sad. They were making progress back to the middle of the road. It’s still time to save yourself, CNN! Disobey your leader ordering you to behave like that!
I'm partial to the NY Post front page headline:
Trump has a near allergic distance from the truth. Just calling him a "liar" all the time is pointless. Fact checking is the best way to counter all the lies he tells. Partisanship aside, I don't think he's even in the same ballpark as your average political truth-stretcher and advantage-taker. He makes Nixon look like a saint when it comes to being trustworthy.
If someone is an exceptionally prolific liar, they should be treated as such.
"This country is now full of people who believe (or pretend to believe) there’s no difference between the crudest partisan propaganda and all other media."
Everyone in this country is certainly entitled to believe that some media is the crudest partisan propaganda and others aren't.
But the issue in this case is whether the government can deny access to journalists based on its opinion of the journalists' viewpoint.
Do you really want the next Trump administration holding press conferences for the Gateway Pundit and OAN and excluding NYT and Wapo?
If you think those are equivalent, you are nuts.
Ah, the famous "you are nuts" doctrine of Constitutional law. How are they not equivalent, for first amendment purposes?
The folks at the National Inquirer and The Onion would be very happy to know that just making shit up is now "journalism" and they can get a press pass.
Of course I'd post amusing passages from the Alex Jones defense team, if I saw them.
As to the no opinion on the merits, the question in the motion isn't whether Gateway Pundit is a great organization -- it's whether the denial of a press pass to Gateway Pundit on the theory that the government is offering is constitutional. I think that's an interesting and complicated question; I may have an opinion on it later, especially when I see the court's analysis (which will be based on the arguments of both sides), but I don't have an opinion on it now.
Professor, do you have a sense for how common it is for government authorities (municipal, county, state) to have criteria like Maricopa county uses? Is Maricopa an outlier or common?
You know the leftists complaining about this are just trying to bully you into cancelling GWP and Alex Jones, right?
Not going along with leftist intolerance is called "EV hits new low". Better start doing what leftists demand or they’ll condemn you some more. Maybe they’ll also start bullying others to condemn you.
Now, wait. You can think there's a massive difference between the NYT and Gateway Pundit. I can think there's a massive difference between the NYT and Gateway Pundit. But there's a legitimate legal question as to whether the government can distinguish between them, and if so, how.
Hey - maybe I'm asking too much. Maybe if Professor Volokh was that political-ignorance-guy, he would have added some distinctions. Because the surest route to political ignorance is willful ignorance, and the quote above is a clarion call to the faithful, blessing their willed ignorance. After all, if every information source is equally tainted, why not pick the one most pleasing?
“ Hey – maybe I’m asking too much.”
It sounds like you're asking for first amendment analysis that’s cluttered by the profs personal view of the credibility of the news source.
Why do you want poor analysis?
Adding distinctions would have hardly distracted from the First Amendment analysis, particularly because no analysis was provided. It's hard to "clutter" something that doesn't exist. If Professor Volokh had offered such input, I wouldn't expect him to mingle thoughts on the toxic and distasteful nature of the subject matter with his legal analysis. But given he didn't, the way was certainly clear. Indeed, the way was clear regardless, as long as the two subjects were kept segregated. I recall the ACLU had no problem expressing their revulsion even while defending the Nazis in Skokie. Obviously he doesn't feel my distaste with the rhetoric in question, a point I concede above.
"Obviously he doesn’t feel my distaste with the rhetoric in question, a point I concede above."
If the rhetoric in question is the argument that the government shouldn't deny journalists access based on their opinion or the government's assessment of their credibility, then I doubt that many people feel your distaste with that rhetoric.
Nor would many people feel distaste over the claim that people have the right to make their own decisions about the credibility of news sources.
Dishonesty by NPR, for example, is the reason that many people on the left wrongly believe that Fox News' lawyers argued that no reasonable viewer would believe that no reasonable person would believe anything that Tucker Carlson said.
Didn’t the email response quoted in the OP describe why they were denied?
I found the facial waiving away of the differences between CNN and the Gateway Pundit rather crazy, myself. CNN and the NYT have, on occasion, published something non-factual so that’s just like a paper that publishes non-factual information as their primary content? CNN, NYT, NPR, and similar journalists post corrections and retractions even without being sued to do so. That right there distinguishes bad actors from good actors, even if the good actors occasionally make mistakes.
"But if you then expressed “no opinion on the merits” of Jones-style corrosive fraud, that might raise my hackles."
Why should people care what your opinion is? You’re just another random internet individual.
"...no difference between the crudest partisan propaganda and all other media."
Hmm. How often do you read or hear a news story about a car man, knife man, hammer man, bat man, fist man, or foot man who has killed, raped, robbed, or assaulted someone? Probably never is my guess. I know you have heard of killers, rapists, robbers, etc. referred to as a gun man. What was that you were saying about propaganda?
Professor Volokh...I think this is your blog, so you make the rules. You quote whatever you like, why-ever you like.
I learn a lot here!
There WERE WMDs in Iraq -- I know someone who was there and found them. He described it as seeing chlorinated cleaner on one side of a shack and something else on the other with the shells in the middle. It's the problem of dual-use chemicals, and there are a lot that make quite a lethal gas if you mix them together.
And you don't premix most WMDs because they start releasing lethal gas(es) the second you do. As I understand it, you fill & fire as quickly as you can. (I also understand that the Iraqis were so scared of the WMDs that they didn't use them.)
Above and beyond this, Saddam Hussein believed that he had WMDs -- a situation not unlike Hitler believing that he had units that did not exist because no one dared to tell him otherwise.
I don't think this was grounds to go to war, and there are dual use chemicals in your local WalMart, but the lie was that Iraq didn't have them.
The courts in Massachusetts were asked to decide whether a man possessed an illegal "infernal machine" when he had various components that would burn or explode if put together in a certain way, but had not put them together.
You mean like those matches I have, and the box you can strike them on?
There are WMDs at the local Walmart. Call Homeland Security
You would be surprised at what a person, with the right knowledge, can come up with from things found at a Walmart or any Hardware store.
Or withOUT the right knowledge who also doesn't bother to read labels. Mixing bleach & ammonia is one thing in Puerto Rico where you have 6" of screen all the way around the bottom of the wall (it kills all the spiders and bugs outside), it is something else when you do it in a R-15 insulated apartment with no open windows.
Before I read this comment YouTube offered me a video on synthesizing C2N14, a chemical so explosive its only value is allowing chemists to talk about how explosive it is. All but one ingredient came from the hardware store. There was one bromine compound that had to be bought on eBay for a few bucks.
Being so explosive it does not make a good weapon. You can make milligram quantities in a lab. ANFO can be made in ton quantities.
It’s been conclusively proven that WMDs in Iraq were the cause of Gulf War Syndrome:
https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-2022/sarin-nerve-gas-gulf-war-illness.html
“Society has degraded to the point that. . . .”
“Our press has descended into a morass of competing partisan. . . .”
Ugh…. we haven't ‘degraded’ or ‘descended’ into anything.
We’ve always been like this – and as I’ve said many times IT’S A GOOD THING.
It used to be that newspapers were OPENLY partisan, to the point where many had (and still have) either "Democrat" or "Republican" in their name. Eg. Foster's Daily Democrat, Springfield Republican.
The Christian News Service (CNS) is very clear that it is writing "from a Christian perspective" and that is valuable because you know where they are coming from. Likewise NPR.
Sure. But the difference between the CNS and the Gateway Pundit is one reports the facts from a Christian perspective and the other doesn't report facts except by accident or out of laziness.
Notwithstanding its use of the word “descended”, that is the point being made in the very next paragraph.
I do not think statements like this, making gratuitous and off-topic allegations that specific organizations like NPR and other named organizations report things they have no actual knowledge of and can’t be trusted, belongs in a judicial opinion.
I have been supportive of judges sometimes having leeway to offer their personal opinions on issues. For example, when a judge upholds a law or passes a sentence, I think it’s OK for the judge to offer a side comment that while the law as it is requires this result, the judge thinks it’s a really bad idea and a result that’s not really just or best for sociefy, and the legislature and/or the Supreme Court should reconsider the matter. And it’s often a good idea to express sympathy for a losing party even when the required result isn’t thought completely unjust.
But I think the sort of gratuitious, trust-me-I’m-savvy-I-know-they’re-all-crooks type of attitude expressed in this opinion is way outside what’s appropriate for a judge to say in a judicial opinion. Nor should a judge offer gratuitous opinions denigrating people and organizations who are not parties to the case and who haven’t been convicted or adjudged guilty of anything, even if he is merely offering an opinion and what he says is not legally defamatory. It doesn’t matter that the judge appears to be attempting to denigrate both red- and blue-leaning organizations even-handedly.
The text is from the plaintiff's motion, not written by the judge. I think the headline has been edited since you posted to make this clear.
I do sometimes edit item when the original is unclear, but in this instance the headline remains unchanged.
For what it’s worth, I also initially thought this was a ruling until I opened the original. Not sure why.
I do not think statements like this, making gratuitous and off-topic allegations that specific organizations like NPR and other named organizations report things they have no actual knowledge of and can’t be trusted, belongs in a judicial opinion.
Then it's a good thing those statements didn't appear anywhere in any judicial opinion. As usual, your penchant for not reading what you're commenting on bites you on the ass. This time you couldn't even be bothered to read the headline.
Counsel is hoping that the judge does not have the guts to say that Team Blue is telling the truth and Team Red is lying.
Or that the judge does say such a biased thing, and that the legislature does have the guts to impeach him for it.
Or at least think of all the headlines he could get out of it....
Is this judicial opinion written in the editorial style becoming more of a thing? Or is it just being quoted more often in the VC?
I think it's the former, actually.
Note that it's a passage from Gateway Pundit's motion for a TRO, not from a judicial opinion.
Oh thank goodness. I had missed that context.
I don't like Judge Ho's style and I have concerns regarding him becoming a trend-setter.
ReaderY: "I do not think statements like this, ... belongs in a judicial opinion.
Sarcastr0: "Is this judicial opinion..."
EV's headline "Amusing Passage from Gateway Pundit's Motion for TRO..." and a scan of the docket lead me to think this is a motion from one of the parties, not an opinion.
ReaderY is infamous for not bothering to read what he's commenting on, while Sarcastr0 is infamous for spouting bullshit.
Yeah, I skipped past that. You are quite correct.
Just another example of government officials -- Maricopa County elections officials in this case -- not even trying to serve the public.
There's no reason for the public to trust elections handled by people like that. If they let their hateful biases guide their decisions to hand out press passes, they'll let those same biases guide their other official actions.
If they want to have their work be accepted as legitimate, they need to encourage their worst critics to observe it. THEN they can say "if this election was rigged, how come Yee Right Wing Journalist didn't report on that?"
"If they want to have their work be accepted as legitimate…"
That’s what a government that serves the public would want. On the other hand, a government that acts as a mafia-style criminal organization must protect itself from the public finding out what it’s doing.
They don’t care if members of the public like you consider them legitimate. They have soldiers to deal with you.
More accurately, they don't care if dishonest members of the public who don't care about the facts and who would never admit those facts' legitimacy even if Jesus appeared and told them that the facts were true claim illegitimacy.
The government can't humor dishonest people who act in bad faith.
"The government can’t humor dishonest people who act in bad faith."
A.k.a. Anyone who isn’t a full-throated leftist America-hater.
We all know Dems in government only act to help themselves and their political allies. They never intend to serve the public, because some people in the public are filthy deplorables or otherwise people who are not like them.
Pretty well written, amusing, and true!
The few times I've stumbled onto the pages of The Gateway Pundit, I think "wow, this seems bonkers," and that's that.
Maybe I stumble there when they are at their most outlandish? I guess I've had a similar reaction to some pieces at WaPo and the like. Anyway, kind of surprised the outlet has such a large readership.
Well visually, the site gave me eye cancer. But some interesting stuff:
On Thursday afternoon, September 30th, at 3:45 PM Eastern the FBI raided Jeremy Brown’s home and arrested Jeremy. The charge is trespassing. The FBI sent 20 vehicles for his arrest. DHS and Pinellas County law enforcement were also present. The FBI was in Jeremy’s home for 5-and-a-half hours looking for evidence.
The FBI searched his house, RV, and trailer. Then they arrested Jeremy and took him away.
Jeremy’s family contacted The Gateway Pundit the next morning.
Jeremy Brown is a Green Beret and former Republican candidate for Congress in Florida’s 14th Congressional District. Brown served in the United States Army from 1992 to 2012 and reached the rank of Special Forces Master Sergeant.
Jeremy Brown NEVER entered the US Capitol on January 6. His actual crime was refusing to be an FBI informant as we describe below.
Not only did Jeremy refuse to work as an FBI informant on January 6th, he went public with photos and audio of the conversations he had with agents.
As we reported months ago, Jeremy Brown refused to be an informant for the dirty FBI — They wanted him to be one of their operatives at the Jan. 6 Trump rallies.
According to an earlier TGP report:
The FBI called Jeremy’s cellphone and asked for a meeting after trying to contact him at his house. Jeremy then met with the FBI agents at a restaurant in Ybor City in December. He told Brandon Gray that 38 seconds into the interview the FBI attempted to recruit him to spy on the Oath Keepers.
Jeremy refused to be an FBI informant so they stormed his home and arrested him on bogus misdemeanor charges months after the Jan. 6 protests.
Jeremy Brown still sits in jail today a year later – an innocent man who committed no crimes.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/11/updated-exclusive-11-facts-dozens-federal-operatives-infiltrated-trump-crowds-january-6th-us-capitol/
"an innocent man who committed no crimes"
I was curious enough to do a little googling and found a couple things. The Tampa Bay Times says, inter alia:
"When federal agents searched his Palm River area home last week, they said they found a short-barrel rifle, a sawed-off shotgun, more than 8,000 rounds of ammunition and two hand grenades"
You can own short barreled guns and, I think, hand grenades with appropriate paperwork, but it seems like he didn't have that paperwork:
"Brown, 47, is charged with entering restricted grounds and possession of unregistered firearms."
...and TaskandPurpose, which isn't exactly a left wing mouthpiece writes (about his traveling to the Jan 6 riots):
"He referred to his RV as “GROUND FORCE ONE” in the chat, offering to pick people up as there were “[p]lenty of Gun Ports left to fill.”
There are some pics there as well. Now, wearing the costume of one's choice isn't a crime, but I gotta say that showing up at protests wearing combat gear, or a black sweatshirt and Guy Fawkes mask, makes me raise an eyebrow.
Good sleuthing. It seems the more interesting facts remain:
1) FBI visited him at his home in advance of J6, and tried to recruit him to spy on people and be an undercover operative. He rebuffed them and later went public with photos and audio, etc;
2) Unrelated to the firearms charges, he is charged with a crime for “entering restricted grounds” on J6 even though he never entered the capitol building.
Side note: the TaskandPurpose piece needs a correction re Brian Sicknick. Remember that whopper mainstream media lie! Hard to remember them all.
I came across the same Tampa Bay Times article.
Thinking of all the times that the VC posts a story about an apparently innocent convict and the usuals pile on for VC not posting all the facts - that is nothing compared to what the Gateway Pungent did in this instance.
There are photos and videos of him in the restricted Capitol grounds.
In addition to his very obvious commission of the crime charged relating to the Capitol, he also seems pretty obviously guilty of committing felony possession of unregistered NFA weapons and explosives, which are the charges he's actually detained on.
Other than that, basically the New York Times!
It's opinion.
Making your opinions sound like factual assertion is bad writing.
Or propaganda.
Happens here all the time.
And it's bad form no matter who does it.
Pointing elsewhere is not an excuse.
I wasn't pointing "elsewhere"; just making a statement of fact.
Guilty mind?
Yeah, no it wasn't. I say something is bad, and you point elsewhere.
I know tu quoque when I see it, don't piss up my leg and tell me it's raining.
I take that careful wording to mean he was outside, consistent with the quoted article.
If that's now the threshold for arresting/charging attendees, DOJ/FBI may never have to look for honest work again.
If he advanced beyond the shattered police barricade, that's probably far enough to get legitimately charged.
(Remember when conservatives were all "law and order" this and "thin blue line" that?)
He was outside, in a place where it was illegal for him to be according to the statute he was charged with violating.
So either Gateway Pundit didn't bother learning the elements of the crime before declaring him innocent, or it was attempting (with, it would seem, some success!) to hoodwink its more credulous readers into thinking that the conduct was lawful when it was not.
Neither one is great!
You're doubling down. TGP said "he never entered the Capitol." He didn't. After presenting a supposed rejoinder to that that actually wasn't, "hoodwink" is a peculiar term to pull out.
That DAs are sending FBI SWAT teams to pick up people who were standing outside the Capitol in a crowd of tens of thousands because they were supposedly on the wrong side of an ad-hoc invisible line, just reinforces how ridiculous, selective, and political these prosecutions have become. "Committed no actual crimes" seems a fully appropriate perspective.
It's funny to see all bootlicking regulars in here on their fainting couches over the GP getting some elevation.
Gateway Pundit gets plenty of elevation. When it occurs at a blog operated by law professors associated with legitimate institutions, it is reasonable to consider that noteworthy and sad.
I believe Prof. Volokh is better than this.
As one of the now 8,000,000 whose vote was diminished by the judiciary's notion of "fair" [meaning biased] elections, I appreciate the author's opinion. [See CNN for now three pollsters who acknowledge that judicial gerrymandering changed the electoral outcome.]
How is faith in the government improved by jurisdictions which cannot count? How is faith in government improved by a judiciary which devines districts to match a "proper" orthodoxy?
But, better, consider that a missile strike against NATO Poland obligates the US to war against the missile launcher, b it Ukraine or Russia: "entangling alliances with none" has less meaning now than it did in World War I! But let's argue "blue" versus "red" rather than that.
Where do you people come up with this stuff? There is no such obligation in any U.S. treaty, including the NATO charter.
And it would be true in both letter and spirit. And that makes GP more accurate than any paper that would knee-jerk deny the story.
I know, right? Thinking, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit..." is a catchy line to use in a defense closing is pretty much the same thing as killing your wife, amirite?
And should not lovers of freedom defend lawyers defending him?
Didn't we go through this in 2016 with Hillary "laughing about defending a rapist"? She was appointed, not volunteered or normal client, everyone deserves full proper legal defense, etc.?
I think that the claim in a motion is being made on behalf of a rando litigant, and not the federal judiciary.
If I tried to come up with the least-fascist-like public figure in the U.S., it'd probably be Prof. Volokh.
"There are no professionals, all the refs are hopelessly and therefore equally biased so get away with what you can."
Huh? You're of the view that the government should be permitted to referee journalism?
Yes!
Wait. Are you talking about law or journalism?
Or professorship, which is where "there are no absolute truths and everything is viewpoint textualism" comes from.
As opposed to the surprise and delight for people fearing a better showing for the Republicans?
That's all you got?
You're literally berating Prof Volokh for quoting a passage that a lawyer wrote because you don't like the client.
It's not a stretch at all.
EV: I express no opinion on the merits, but the passage seemed to be worth passing along; its authors are noted lawyers Marc Randazza, David Gingras, and John Burns.
The quoted Passage: "Meanwhile, if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it, everyone will still tell the public what it sounded like and what it means."