‘A nightmare’: GOP election expert says Trump’s plan ‘would almost certainly be unlawful!’
Donald Trump's newest push to reform voting mechanisms is getting poor marks from a fellow Republican in politics.
Trump late Saturday night posted a statement on Truth Social about his plans to change the ways that Americans vote.
"Voter I.D. Must Be Part of Every Single Vote. NO EXCEPTIONS! I Will Be Doing An Executive Order To That End!!! Also, No Mail-In Voting, Except For Those That Are Very Ill, And The Far Away Military. USE PAPER BALLOTS ONLY!!! President DJT," the president wrote.
Stephen Richer, who ran elections in Arizona's largest county and sued Kari Lake for defamation, took apart Trump's plan on X on Sunday.
"For those who want to take this seriously," Richer said, first highlighting Trump's comment about "paper ballots only."
"Some form of paper ballot is used by about 97% of American voters. This represents the high-water mark in the past twenty years," he said. "Why is this important? Because use of paper ballots means that you will always an immutable, auditable paper trail. Worried about hacking? No problem. Just check the paper. Worried about tabulation machines getting the count wrong? No problem. Just check the paper. Worried about electronic Armageddon? Well, at least we still have the unchanged paper ballots."
Tackling Trump's comment that "Voter I.D. Must Be Part of Every Single Vote," Richer said, "Most states require some form of identification to vote. The complication is when we parse it out by type of ID. Does it have to be a photo ID? This poses a problem with a lot tribes. Can it be a signature? (this is what is done for a lot of mail ballots). Will the government issue new IDs? (This is a big no no with civil libertarians)."
On Trump's mail-in voting remark, Richer said, "This was the focus of the President's previous tweet on election administration. As I mentioned two weeks ago, it would almost certainly be unlawful to do this by executive order. And if it was done by Congress, it would represent a significant departure in how we've done election law in the past (largely left to the states). It would also be a humongous administration shift. States like Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Utah, etc. would have to rebuild pretty much their entire in-person voting infrastructure."
Richer then quoted Trump saying, "Except For Those That Are Very Ill, And The Far Away Military," and asked, "Does his caps automatically come on at the beginning of every word? Otherwise it's weird to think he's pressing the upper case button on his phone at the beginning of every word."
"This part represent a bit of a retreat from his absolute ban in his previous tweet. Federal law (UOCAVA) currently requires that military and overseas voters be eligible to vote by some form of remote delivery, beginning 45 days before Election Day. This is not limited to the 'Far Away' military," according to Richer. "It can be military living in the United States. The President's tweet would seemingly attempt to abolish that practice. The 'Very Ill' part seems like an administrative nightmare. Would election administrators require doctors' notes? That seems ludicrous. Doesn't make any exception for the temporarily away (e.g. a heck of a lot of Arizonans aren't in town on Election Day for the primary in the middle of summer). Doesn't make any exceptions for the old. Or for those who can't drive."
Richer also offered to go on MAGA news channel Newsmax, where he said he would explain "the facts as the exist on the ground and why an executive order would almost certainly be unlawful!"
‘I don’t remember’: MN Republican suddenly forgets voting against school safety bill
Following a mass shooting in Minnesota, Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN) insisted he couldn't remember why he opposed a bill to increase school safety.
In a Sunday interview on ABC, Emmer attacked Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) for not giving schools enough resources to prevent a shooting that killed two children in Minneapolis last week.
"It's going to be very important that the schools have the resources," he said.
"You talk about what can be done," host Martha Raddatz noted. "After mass shootings in Buffalo and in Uvalde, Texas, Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. It provided hundreds of millions of dollars for schools to expand mental health services, enhance safety measures. You did not vote for that bill. Why?"
"I don't remember the reasons that I didn't vote for that bill," Emmer replied. "I got to tell you, we did a lot for Uvalde, but you can't replace those children, Martha, you can't. And you can't help that community. We're talking about getting on the front end, Martha. We're talking about we need to have the resources."
"This bill sounds like it might have done that," Raddatz pointed out.
Kash Patel faces deadline to swat down ‘inherently plausible’ drinking allegations
FBI Director Kash Patel has five days to respond to a motion arguing his own public record proves The Atlantic's drinking allegations are 'inherently plausible.'
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan set the Aug. 17 deadline after granting a joint extension request, according to the court docket. The Atlantic filed its motion to dismiss on July 27.
The Atlantic's April story, "The FBI Director is MIA," reported that Patel drank to excess, missed work, and posed a national-security risk. Patel called it false and sued for $250 million.
"Print it, all false, I'll see you in court—bring your checkbook," Patel told the magazine through his spokesman before it published.
The Atlantic's lawyers argue Patel cannot meet the legal standard required of public officials in defamation cases. That standard — called actual malice — requires proof that a publisher knew a story was false or strongly suspected it was, according to the filing.
"The Complaint does not come close to satisfying this demanding constitutional standard," the filing said. "It does not allege a single fact showing that any statement in the Article is false, much less that Defendants had 'serious doubts' or 'actual knowledge of falsity' for any of these statements."
The filing goes further, arguing Patel's own public behavior undercuts his suit, according to the motion.
"The Article itself shows that the Allegedly Defamatory Statements are not implausible," the filing said, "but rather inherently plausible."
The filing said reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick spoke to more than two dozen sources, according to the motion. They included current and former FBI officials, members of Congress, and hospitality workers.
Six sources confirmed that briefings had to be rescheduled because of Patel's alcohol-fueled nights, the motion said.
Nine sources confirmed he panicked when a computer malfunction led him to believe he had been fired, according to the filing.
The story described officials telling Fitzpatrick that Patel's security detail had difficulty waking him on multiple occasions, and that a request was made for specialized breaching equipment — tools normally used by SWAT teams — because he was unreachable behind locked doors, according to the filing.
The filing noted that Patel's drinking was already a matter of public record before the story ran.
In February, Patel was filmed chugging beer in the U.S. men's Olympic hockey team's locker room in Milan. FBI headquarters was simultaneously managing a cartel violence outbreak in Mexico, CNN reported.
Days after The Atlantic published, a 2005 letter from Patel's Florida Bar application — obtained by The Intercept — disclosed he had been arrested twice on alcohol-related charges, once for public intoxication in 2001 and once for public urination after leaving a bar in 2005.
The story's fallout reached Capitol Hill the following month, according to Senate records.
At a May budget hearing, Patel agreed to take an alcohol use disorders test after Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) demanded it. Patel called the allegations "a total farce."
The Atlantic suit is the latest in a long line, according to the motion.
A federal judge in Texas dismissed Patel's defamation suit against MS NOW analyst Frank Figliuzzi the day after Patel filed against The Atlantic. The judge called Figliuzzi's comment about Patel's nightclub visibility "rhetorical hyperbole."
None of Patel's five defamation suits has succeeded, according to the filing.
Patel's response is due Aug. 17. The Atlantic's reply is due Aug. 31.
