The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Douglass Mackey Convicted for Vote-by-Tweet Meme
Here's the E.D.N.Y. U.S. Attorney's Office press release:
Douglass Mackey, also known as "Ricky Vaughn," was convicted today by a federal jury in Brooklyn of the charge of Conspiracy Against Rights stemming from his scheme to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote. The verdict followed a one-week trial before United States District Judge Ann M. Donnelly. When sentenced, Mackey faces a maximum of 10 years in prison….
In 2016, Mackey established an audience on Twitter with approximately 58,000 followers. A February 2016 analysis by the MIT Media Lab ranked Mackey as the 107th most important influencer of the then-upcoming Presidential Election.
As proven at trial, between September 2016 and November 2016, Mackey conspired with other influential Twitter users and with members of private online groups to use social media platforms, including Twitter, to disseminate fraudulent messages that encouraged supporters of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to "vote" via text message or social media which, in reality, was legally invalid. For example, on November 1, 2016, in or around the same time that Mackey was sending tweets suggesting the importance of limiting "black turnout," the defendant tweeted an image depicting an African American woman standing in front of an "African Americans for Hillary" sign.
The ad stated: "Avoid the Line. Vote from Home," "Text 'Hillary' to 59925," and "Vote for Hillary and be a part of history." The fine print at the bottom of the deceptive image stated: "Must be 18 or older to vote. One vote per person. Must be a legal citizen of the United States. Voting by text not available in Guam, Puerto Rico, Alaska or Hawaii. Paid for by Hillary For President 2016." The tweet included the typed hashtag "#ImWithHer," a slogan frequently used by Hillary Clinton. On or about and before Election Day 2016, at least 4,900 unique telephone numbers texted "Hillary" or some derivative to the 59925 text number, which had been used in multiple deceptive campaign images tweeted by Mackey and his co-conspirators.
Several hours after tweeting the first image, Mackey tweeted an image depicting a woman seated at a conference room typing a message on her cell phone. This deceptive image was written in Spanish and mimicked a font used by the Clinton campaign in authentic ads. The image also included a copy of the Clinton campaign's logo and the "ImWithHer" hashtag.
For my reservations about the case, see here; for the judge's opinion rejecting Mackey's First Amendment defense, see here. Congratulations to prosecutors Erik D. Paulsen, F. Turner Buford, and William J. Gullotta, who won the conviction. Thanks to my colleague Prof. Rick Hasen (Election Law Blog) for the pointer.
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
Anyone stupid enough to have believed this is obviously too stupid to be allowed to vote.
Y party members vote on tuesday
X party members vote on Wednesday
Obvious joke
Eastern district of NY
CA 2
But russian hoax is okay
just noting Hillary's involvement with the false documentation provided to the FBI was substantially deeper than the simple filing of a false police report.
Note away, dickwad. It was McCain and the Republicans who did that.
“McCain and the Republicans”
LMAO Fucking idiot:
Joe_dallas
Didn't read the opinion.
Doesn't know the facts.
Obvious idiot.
A kind of literacy test, right?
You failed it.
People generally did, that's how they were designed.
As I recall, the Court said that literacy tests were (constitutionally!) OK, so long as they were honestly administered. (Not that they were, of course.) They were actually prohibited by statute, under Congress' 'time, place, and manner' power.
Administering them honestly would remove the point of administering them.
Not disagreeing with that. Just remarking that honest literacy tests aren't actually unconstitutional.
Well what a fucking relief it is to know that.
#ImWithHim
Are you sure? Some of you are stupid enough to believe Trump, which could be equally disqualifiying. Did more people not vote because Trump bad-mouthed postal voting (while voting by post) than because of this ad?
You’re the Commie retard still pushing the, “TRUMP KIDNAPPED MUH MAILBOXES” shit, dumbfuck.
Are you telling me with a straight face, assuming you can straighten your face, that Trump did not badmouth postal voting?
No more than any election expert before 2020. Nobody takes postal voting as not being quite susceptible to fraud.
Election experts *all* said vote by mail was quite susceptible to fraud before 2020?
You…might want to look into things before you just say them. I know it's more boring than just making up stuff you want to be true, but it saves you humiliation.
Yes, they did. Voting by mail only has always been viewed as inherently insecure. Not sure where you missed the memo, but that is a you issue there/
Inherently insecure compared to what?
Voting in person.
The same people who claim voting in person is fraudy claim postal voting is even fraudier. No evidence has yet been produced for either proposition.
Nobody says voting in person is "fraudy".
Not requiring any ID to vote is unbelievably laden with fraud, however.
Not sure why Leftists such as you seem unable to actually provide the ACTUAL arguments of those who disagree with you.
Nobody says voting in person is “fraudy”.
Tell that to those who want like 3 forms of ID. Or who object to souls to the polls, or who object to early voting.
It's all bullshit, of course, but at least have the self respect to try and keep track of your own side's bullshit.
'Nobody says voting in person is “fraudy”.'
Wow you missed a LOT of drama round the 2020 election.
Trump isn't an election expert.
And just who is an "election expert"?
I'm sure somebody is. Not Trump.
Makes sense, you are after all stupid enough.
Well, you are, but we'll let you vote anyway.
Exactly, and anyone stupid enough to have a password a teenager can guess, like Sarah Palin, deserves to have their email hacked.
Right. Sarah Palin. Spelled “H-I-L-L-A-R-Y”.
You're not allowed to disallow dump people from only one side from voting.
this is pure Trotsky and Lenin bolshevikism. I know you can't say that but it is what it is...the bolshies have taken over our DOJ and much of DC.
I'm pretty sure that there is no intelligence threshold for voting privilege ... although it has been tried in the past.
Welcome to twenty-third century American idiocy wherein political re’tards consider themselves worthy of telling everyone else in the world how to live. We are being led by characterless imbeciles. (The rest of the world knows it with the exception of collaborators in Europe.)
Criminalization of jokes! I feel safer already.
What’s being prosecuted here the conduct: the conspiracy to deprive rights. The speech was integral to the conduct, but the speech itself is not being prosecuted.
The "conspiracy" is entirely speech.
Pretty it up however you want, this a Democrat prosecuting a political opponent before a Democrat judge about a joke.
“Political opponent”
I think you misspelled shitposting felon/alt-right loser. This is the hill you want to die on?
Then again— this is the party of a tacky, venal, libertine louche (and dare I say douche?) from Astoria, Queens— my capacity to be surprised by Bob and his fellow travelers diminishes daily.
Interesting political debate.
Republicans: There's no way Democrats are dumb enough to fall for that!
Democrats: No, no, we totally are!
An interesting defence is 'people are too stupid to fall for our fraud and if they are that stupid they don't deserve to vote.'
That may be true in a natural justice sense, but not in a legal sense. There are quite a lot of things (usually characterised as what people "deserve") which fall into that category...
Isn't that almost the same excuse FOX gave for lying about the last presidential election and associated conspiracies? Or the excuse that Kraken lawyer gave?
Saying that he deserves to be railroaded because he is "a felon" is like that joke about a guy that kills his parents and then asks the court for mercy because he is an orphan.
As for the rest of your accusations against him ("shitposting," "alt-right"), that's pretty subjective, isn't it? If we let you railroad him today, tomorrow you'll call us "shitposting alt-right losers," and railroad us.
“shitposting alt-right losers,”
If by 'tomorrow' you mean the last ten years or so.
Sure, Commie.
You are safe then, nothing you say is every funny.
Eastern District of New York.
I'm sensing a pattern.
Oh? What else has transpired there recently you object to?
Please don’t tell me you’re just confused about jurisdictions!
So you can put up signs saying “Vote Here” with fake voting booths and just claim you are pulling a prank?? I don’t see this as any different than prosecuting the teenager that guessed Palin’s email password…internet makes certain things easy that are obviously illegal in the physical world.
Nice strawman.
Really? How so?
Yes.
Up until you present a ballot to the voter that purports to be, and a reasonable person would believe to be, an official government issued ballot. Or, perhaps even until you accept it in the "ballot box" without telling them "Hey, it was a joke but thanks for signing up for my newsletter".
Certainly it would be fine if a prankster made sure their HOA's election corresponded to the date of a general election and upon being handed a ballot the voter got a ballot with a list of valid HOA candidates (presumably all named Karen) and the checkin process insured that the voter lived in a home under the thumb of the HOA.
Would "[the other party's voters] vote on Wednesday" joke be illegal? The notion that you can "tweet" your vote is equally obviously a joke. If someone falls for the joke, that's their stupidity and they are obviously not a "reasonable person".
It wasn't intended as a joke; it was intended to affect the actual votes in the election. We don't know for sure that it did, but the intent coupled with the act were apparently enough for conviction.
But you're also reading a "reasonable person" standard into the law which is not there.
Or are you just "joking"?
I don’t see it as any different than Republicans wanting a teenager to spend life in prison for guessing Sarah Palin’s email password. The teenager could have just told a foreigner the password and he wouldn’t have gotten in trouble.
Trump makes "jokes" like this all the time, and a large percentage of Americans believe them.
So are you suggesting he should be prosecuted for that?
Of course he wants to see us prosecuted by evil vile Democrat monsters for whatever they can.
Ok, ignoring this, back to my world of adults.
*world of adult children who think that entitles them to sex WITH children
Are you going to tell more stripper stories?
Only if he commits a crime in so doing.
No special laws for special people...
Except not, and you’re a lying idiot.
Shall we discuss Biden's discussions of his history?
Poe's Law comes with criminal penalties?
Technical question: why/how does telling someone something that is incorrect ‘deprive’ them of their right to vote?
To me, deprive is physically keeping them from showing up to vote or threatening them with harm if they vote, or taking their ballot from them so their vote isn’t counted.
Anybody who voted by text (did anybody, for real?) is still able to vote in person, they still have the right to vote. If texting a vote doesn’t count, they the person still has a vote and can do so.
What am I missing?
“According to the Complaint, at least 4,900 people texted the number. “
How many did not vote?
I have no idea. Do you? More importantly, how does this fact factor into the conspiracy analysis?
So, you’re an idiot with no argument. Cool.
Seems important to provide an actual victim. If nobody believed it and chose to not vote outside of a tweet...then it seems like a violation of his First Amendment rights. But the USA is no longer opposed to purely political prosecutions.
I don't think "deprive" is even in the statute. Rather it makes it a crime "to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person … in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution"
Which of those verbs happened here? I guess I could read ...
If you thought you had voted— but you hadn’t… would that be “injury”?
Who did that happen to because of this meme?
Is it necessary to successfully murder someone to be charged with attempted murder?
Can you square that with your "If you thought you had voted..." comment?
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
The injury is the denial of the right to vote. This defendant was conspiring to do that, and indeed a jury found he attempted to do so. It doesn’t matter if the scheme is successful.
Think about it like this. I find out where you live. I’ve decided this country is better off without you. I buy a rifle and wait outside your house— but fire and miss as you come out the front door because I’m a shitlib and not “armed and fabulous”.
Only civil liability on my part for nicking your house? After all, you weren’t actually injured.
Your example included physical action that, if applied to me rather than missing, would have physically altered my existence and deprived me of my rights.
To make the example more apt to this case let's try this:
You go outside my house. You shout a hex at me that is supposed to render me dead. It fails to yield the desired result, but you did in fact, via speech, attempt to deprive me of my rights. The failure, however, did not have any impact on my rights. I am still alive and can continue to live... even though I believed what you did was reliable. Turns out I was fooled but retained my rights. Turns out you were fooled and your speech failed to create a victim.
So you are guilty of a crime?
Wut? This is statutory. Point me to the anti
hex act. Inchoate crimes are still crimes. Hexing is not a crime. Your reliance on “physical action” is misplaced. No harm need result— the dirty deed is attempting to deprive.
Oh, come on, in the context it’s pretty obvious the statute is talking about injuring somebody in order to stop or punish their exercise of a right, not BY tricking/persuading them to not exercise it. Remember, trying to get somebody to not exercise a civil right is itself a civil right, so long as you don't do something criminal in the effort!
Just to make this clear, under THIS interpretation of the statute, you could prosecute half the gun control movement, because they regularly make false statements about firearms to stop people from buying them.
Hell, you could criminalize bad book reviews!
Cool justification of thoughtcrimes, dumbfuck.
"Is it necessary to successfully murder someone to be charged with attempted murder?"
It'd be necessary to provide somebody who was actually almost murdered. Then to prove the defendant was the one who did it. But the first part is pretty key.
I think that is the theory, yes.
You’re not missing anything. It obviously doesn’t deprive anyone of any rights.
It’s another example of Democrats getting together to lynch an American. It’s something we see all the time now.
“Lynch”
This is pretty tone deaf given the history of actual lynching in this country. I rather suspect the deafness is the point— after all, not being a complete asshole has never been a core American value if we’re being honest
Lynch is entirely apt. You are (at least) wrong.
Again: assholeness turning out to be a true patriot core tenet
Name calling means you have no arguments. Bark as much as you want.
Ben, you are correct. Voting is not a right. It is a sovereign power. If you interfere with a member of the joint sovereignty in the exercise of that power, expect any angry sovereign to punish you.
What do you think the right term of imprisonment would be? Certainly not the max. How about one presidential term—4 years.
Democrat suppression polls and voting day "malfunctions" cause actual election interference.
Weird how not a single person in the Democrat DOJ says a peep about those.
https://media.patriots.win/post/kEQWpwrPxgVD.png
I guess it’s just (D)ifferent when (D)emocrats (D)o it.
https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1641923569687965698
But we've been reliably informed that anyone who falls for something like that is too stupid to vote!
Haha jk prosecute away, though I suspect how high she was on that list of 'election influencers' will play a part.
She's so loved by Democrats in and out of the DOJ, she's running for office.
https://twitter.com/mskristinawong
Well now you've got dirt on her that I'm sure will be pivotal.
Pivotal to who? The Democrat DOJ? lol they don't go after Democrats.
843,000 views is not tiny.
Depends. Were they before the election or since?
Given that it is a screenshot of that date --- not after.
D'oh!
Oh! the "Voter Fraud" that never happens!!
Bad week for the clingers: Fox's Dominion debacle, Trump's (first) indictment, Ricky Vaughn's conviction, Disney's magic trick for DeSantis, Elon Musk's bumbles and stumbles, Mike Pence's court-ordered compliance, Stormy Daniels' nonstop mockery of MAGA losers . . .
Great week for America!
We get it, Jerry, Indictments (and Convictions) are old hat for you,
https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2011/11/readers_digest_indictment.html
Let's go to the Video!!!!!!
The indictment alleges that former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky used The Second Mile — the charity he founded in 1977 — to get access to and molest boys, "many of whom were vulnerable due to their social situations."
Eight children are listed as alleged victims, but not every one testified before the grand jury. In some cases, witnesses and information about incidents did not come forward for several years.
Many of the alleged incidents happened in the Lasch Building, the football building on Penn State’s campus. The incidents are alleged to have occurred both before and after Sandusky retired from Penn State in 1999.
This reminds me of the time frank “Epstein island” drackman drugged up cheryl Crowe in italy. Totally above board btws. Did I mention Ted Kennedy?
So, a bunch of failed/failing showtrials and the whore who had to pay Trump for defaming him crawled out of her rock.
Pretty pathetic, even for you.
This is pretty outrageous. I've seen this type of joke made countless times. Are there any decent people still on the left who don't agree with this?
There are no decent Democrats. They aren't even people.
“Not even people”
Maybe some kind of sub-humans perhaps? Please say more!
It's usually more amusing if you just let them encourage each other.
I'm not embarrassed by my opinion of Democrats, just like I'm not embarrassed by my opinion of Nazi's, Communists, Marxists, or Jews (BIRM).
It's built upon empiricism.
Nor should you be, although I rather imagine you don’t say such things to people in real life. But you should! I like to know whom to avoid
Sub-subhumans is more apt.
Except there absolutely nothing about it to suggest that it's a joke.
Even a minimal perusal of the complaint would disabuse anyone of the notion that their primary object was comedy. But of course that’s too much for this crowd
At least this un-American right-wing asswipe will have the supportive words of the Volokh Conspiracy's fans to provide solace during his term of incarceration.
Anybody have any thoughts concerning how guys like this fare in general population?
Based on their usual "projection" motivation, I'd say pretty well!
There is to everyone except braindead Communist trash who want to murder and imprison everyone who embarrasses, criticizes or disagrees with them.
Weird how that works out.
'It is a joke you fucking scum' is what you often hear just after a really good joke has been told.
The thought of actual legal consequences for their actions has more than a few right-wingers struggling with bunched undies.
I can tell you something you haven't seen:
The opinion.
Otherwise, I doubt even you would be dumb enough to come here complaining about it allegedly being just a 'joke.'
That’s some stupid fucking “because we said so” horseshit, even for Maoist trash.
My latest email blast indicates Team Trump has raised over 4 million dollars in the last 24 hours!!!
Be honest, which one of you huckleberries has been handing over his or her hard-earned lucre? I know Bob is good for 20… Jimmy the Dane gave so much he can’t afford internet anymore sadly.
Donations to Trump get you on the Democrat IRS watchlist.
Yikes! I would hate to lose access to your insights. Please use crypto for your own safety
Testifying as a GOP witness at a Congressional hearing gets you a visit from the IRS.
I stopped donating to him roughly a couple weeks before the 2020 election, as I figured any further donations wouldn't be spent on getting him elected. At this point, if I were going to donate to anybody, it would be DeSantis; Trump is too old for the office now, and I don't think he learned anything from his time in office, probably a symptom of that.
33% of the country doesn't appear to have learned anything from his last term in office either. Bad news for DeSantis. Do you think he'll go "independent" and try to get elected anyway? The Republican voters might appreciate the choice between bumbling but entertaining authoritarianism and effective but boring authoritarianism.
All I'm seeing is appeals to incredulity, or appeals to disenfranchisement is good actually.
Not gonna cut it. This was a judgement call, and insisting it was a slam dunk in your direction needs more than 'I've seen similar jokes and I wasn't fooled.'
And saying those who were fooled shouldn't vote is just being immoral. Hating our democracy post Jim Crow is also not gonna cut it.
Cmon sarc: objectively pro Jim Crow was absolutely a square I had on my bingo card for the huckleberries on this thread. I’m just surprised we’re not at “inchoate crimes are unconstitutional“ but it’s Friday and early yet
Not shocked democrats applaud political prosecutions and are against the first amendment.
Meanwhile the DNC is suing in 3 states to keep a 3rd party off the ballot. Elias is seeking to keep uncharged GOP off ballots under theory if insurrection.
Is there anything you wont defend the left doing?
In Arizona they have 500 affidavits of votes not counted because the state transferred their voting district to vacation homes. People deprived of actual votes for an action they did not take.
Yet you sit here clapping like a trained leftist seal because your perceived enemies are jailed.
Good work.
Let's go further.
In polling, multiple polls, 5% of Biden voters stated they would not have voted for him of they knew the laptop was real. Joe, hunter, the media, ex CIA officials all lied about the laptop. A lie like you claim here. People were deprived of knowledge prior to an election. Should they all be charged?
Youre cheering some awful shit here. Silence your enemies and you will go along with any justification for it.
“would not have voted for him“
But not voted at all? Because they thought they were voting but didn’t?
Youre cheering some awful shit here. Silence your enemies and you will go along with any justification for it.
I'm cheering consequences for someone who fucked with our Democracy.
Unsurprised you see it as political persecution. I figure you think hangnails are a liberal plot against you.
“Democracy” here in the Left-Wing sense meaning “totalitarian dictatorship”, of course.
Because you’re a free speech hating sack of Communist dogshit, and all.
Citizens who want to vote get to vote. This is totalitarian dictatorship?
Do you smell toast?
Did Hillary, Perkins Coie, and the FBI fuck with out Democracy with the Steele Dossier?
Possibly. Unfortunately, there were no such prosecutions.
But why didn’t Trump even try to prosecute any of them? Four years of control of the DOJ wasn’t enough? He just forgot?
In polling, multiple polls, 5% of Biden voters stated they would not have voted for him of they knew the laptop was real.
If those polls exist they're wrong.
Put anything on a poll and 5% of people will select it. The only way Hunter Biden's laptop would have had an impact is if there were actual emails incriminating Joe Biden (not the cherry picked examples that seem to imply something presented without the follow up where that implication is destroyed).
Still mad a lame ratfucking didn't work.
Elias would like to have anyone who ever voted for Trump barred from voting. He would have been a proud member of Lavrentiy Beria's team.
We already have the regime's opponents being prosecuted on trumped-up charges*. The torture chambers can't be too far behind.
* Well, more like charges based on an incredible stretch of laws that, strangely, seem to only get enforced against Democrats' opponents.
"Avoid gun store lines. Sign up from home to receive a rifle. Text 'Boogaloo' to 59925 and get your free AR-15."
If someone posts that on Twitter, do you think it could plausibly be described as an attempt to "injure" people in the free exercise of their second amendment rights under the Constitution? What if they sit at home, waiting and waiting for that rifle to show up, but it never does?
Dismissal wouldn't be a slam dunk?
This is a great comment but for the existence of the KKK act.
I expect the equivalent for the 2nd amendment any day now. See the nra case discussed recently.
This is a really off analogy.
You order a gun from a fraudulent site, you wait a while and then get a gun.
You think you voted, you wait a while and your chance to vote goes away.
Sarcastr0, can you tell me if you were as willing for the Black Panthers in Philly in 2008 to be prosecuted for voter intimidation? Were you upset that no one was prosecuted for attempting to intimidate people to keep them from voting?
Well, there's a deep cut. Still being a dumbass about that one, eh?
If a judge had found them guilty of voter intimidation, I certainly wouldn't have been like 'I wasn't intimidated, therefore this must be reversed' because that would be dumb, and I have a sense of shame.
They did not even show up in court for the hearing. They would have been found guilty by default...except Obama's people decided to stop the case at that point.
...because, well, their actions helped Obama.
Yep. That's about the level of drivel I expected from you. Thanks for not disappointing me!
Yo I answered your question sincerely.
If you want to stay angry, fine, but dunno what else you wanted from me.
He’s a racist, hypocritical, Commie shitstain, so No.
Actually, it’s YOUR bullshit side that’s supposed to provide proof that a joke forcibly deprived people of acting, beyond “Wah wah wah how dare you offend your Communist masters”.
Good news on that front if you read the opinion, as well as a number of the posts above! Or is the judge also a Communist?
He is a Florida resident. Where did he post the offending memes? I guess NY is becoming the go to jurisdiction for charging unpopular people who offend Democrats. I wonder if this conviction will survive on appeal.
The process is the penalty
The idiot MAGAt response to this conviction is boringly predictable.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-leaders-turned-american-legal-system-against-political-opponents
In your Tablet article you question the decision to prosecute Mr. Mackey. If you think that what the prosecutors are doing here is wrong, why congratulate them for doing it successfully?! Will you still be congratulating them when they send Donald Trump to prison? Tucker Carlson? If you yourself are successfully railroaded, will you put up a post congratulating the prosecutors, right before they take you away in handcuffs?
One supposes it’s like congratulating the opposing coach for defeating your team. Which is better than saying the game was rigged, the refs played favorites, or denying that the rules are legitimate.
"Silence is a fence around wisdom" - Avot, 3:13
John McCain fathered an out of wedlock black baby.
You can vote for Hillary and skip the lines by texting 55465.
These two things are not the same! Even if the top is protected (after all we don’t criminalize ALL lies) the bottom is different. Why? Because the McCain statement is a lie trying to get someone to decide not to vote. The hilary statement fools someone into not voting when they think they have.
And like I said at the top, anyone so unaware of how to vote and stupid enough to believe this doesn't deserve to vote.
Yes, I know, you’ve said it repeatedly
Personally, I encourage Mr. Bumble and his peers to vote by Prayer. After all, he certainly doesn't trust those fraudulent election administrators so isn't it better to put his trust in Almighty God?
If he's so lacking in Christian Faith as to not trust God, well, why should he be allowed to vote? Yes, definitely Vote by Prayer.
Arguably, many people don't "deserve" the rights they have.
Is that to be your crucible?
And as we expect in the Biden era of using the "justice" system to crush political opponents, a woman who posted identical memes, but aimed at Donald Trump and Trump voters, was not in the slightest bothered by the Department of "Justice".
Wouldn't that have been the job of the Trump DOJ?
History of the U.S. Presidency (1976-present):
1976-1980 Jimmy Carter 1980-1990 St. Ronaldus Magnus 1990-2003 Bill Clinton 2003-2016 Barack Obama
Nov. 8, 2016 Donald Turnip
2016-present Joe Biden
What “Turnip DOJ”? He only had the one day!
It fits within conventional fraud because it used deception to deprive people of something of value. And while it didn’t use a trademark in a commercial sense, and may not have been a statutory trademark appropriation, it nonetheless used someone’s persona and distinctive mark in a way designed to create false impression of origin. I don’t see why that can’t be constitutionally prohibited.
This just isn’t a case of prohibiting abstract lying. This is a case of deceptively misappropriating things that belong to others, and using lies to take things of value from others. Clearly constitutional. Not protected by the First Amendment.
Nothing was taken. Nobody was prevented from voting by a tweet. But you already know this.
This post is so stupid. It's not fraud in any criminal sense. The dude sent out a false meme. It didn't deprive anyone of anything. And it certainly doesn't fall under the statute.
“Congratulations to prosecutors Erik D. Paulsen, F. Turner Buford, and William J. Gullotta, who won the conviction.”
Insane. Does the author also congratulate other successful perpetrators of injustice? There's a very long list.
This is an absolute joke of a prosecution in front of an absolute joke of a judge. And you're congratulating the prosecutors. In a just world, they would spend the rest of their lives in prison. Even if you think the statute covers this, there isn't notice to the average person that these memes would violate it.
Society does not have the right to expect Mr. Massey to meekly submit to this outrage.
Apparently the question of whether a statement is too ridiculous to believe depends on whether it favors the same party that the judge belongs to.
Welcome to the banana republic.
REASON... you assisted in this??
The whole functioning of the federal government right now is a ruse that you have to call. Raise the authority of the federal government that is operating against the will of the people as expressed by the legal and righteous votes cast, but not counted. People, you are living the life of a slave and if it doesn’t feel that way yet, wait.
https://twelveround.com/blog/the-grand-illusion
What victim?
What victims?
perkins coi
You may have misunderstood Bumble's comment.
It was a joke, an internet variation of the hoary GOP Tuesday/Dem Wednesday joke.
And a woman supporting Clinton did the same thing...where is the Stasi on her? And Dems never talk about supressing ethnic voters all the time in their strategy meetings? Seriously...bolsheviks are the threat today
Queenie, again expressing her love for authoritarian statism. When has a political campaign for candidate X not sought to depress turnout for candidate Y, even using lies and manipulation to do so?
Bumble's comment says it's okay to defraud voters if you succeed.
Who's laughing now?
Telling that joke is 5 years in a Democrat Gulag now.
...and how many "victims" came forward claiming that they voted by text?
So, the people who claimed Trump was a Russian stooge --- did they commit election fraud by providing well-known false info to effect an election?
How about Dan Rather's TANG memos before the 2004 election? Should he have been jailed?
Poe's law is that remarks intended as jokes will be taken seriously.
Naturally I presume the jury was correct until they show me clearly that it wasn't.
Just because you’re stupid enough to believe whatever bullshit you make up doesn’t magically make it so.
No it doesn't.
So it was a victimless crime?
Of course it does. He's praising it for weeding out stupid voters.
Ooh ... more might makes right
Breaking laws makes you convicted of conspiracy against rights.
Did it weed out any voters?
Oh look, it is Ricky Boy's Lindsey Graham to his defense.
Actually the potential maximum is more like 10
Oh no, one of your three jokes turns out to violate peoples’ voting rights. Very on brand, though.
Voting Republican may soon be a crime in all 159 states. And the 21 member US Supreme will uphold the law 15 to 6.
4,900 people texted the number.
“According to the Complaint, at least 4,900 people texted the number. “
Trolls, or people who really were tricked into not voting? Any evidence that it's the latter?
I would tend to infer the former, because I doubt anybody would really be dumb enough to fall for this. You may have less faith in Democratic voters than I do, though.
Can you define “inchoate” for me?
Maybe a hypothetical would help you.
Can a person be charged with attempted murder if the victim lives?
It’d be crazy if 49,000 right-wing shit-posting trolls texted the right-wing shitposter voter fraud number and helped get the shitposter fraudsters criminally convicted.
I'm not sure what that has to do with whether or not Bumble's comment was victim blaming.
But to be clear, the argument is that the meme was so unlikely to fool anyone that we should infer that it wasn't intended to.
Certainly, the court and the jury disagreed, although it's possible that they just wanted to punish him for his political views or perceived racism.
“that we should infer that it wasn’t intended to.“
You could infer that. Or you could read the complaint for evidence of intent, which I’m positive you won’t do
You're probably right.
I am certain! Have a blessed day!
Nige 13 hours ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
4,900 people texted the number."
any evidence that those 4,900 did not vote
Which part is a fantasy?
Including the ones that saw this meme.
It irks some people all right:
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/27/jason-brennans-democracy-a-guided-tour/?comments=true#comment-9987056
(Note that, while I expressed agreement with his assessment of the "savvyness" [sic] of the electorate, I rejected his proposed solution.)
Pretty sure Democrats were not in charge of the executive branch on December 9, 2008.
Actually it’s “Anyone who is stupid and evil enough to imprison people over free speech is the real focus here”.
Which is you, you worthless, victim-blaming, totalitarian trash.
Yeah, I'm down with that sort of "Anybody stupid enough to think that joke was real shouldn't be voting in the first place." principle.
Just as we need to be able to do things that a reasonable man would not respond to with violence, and not end up in legal jeopardy, we need to be able to make jokes a non-moron wouldn't take seriously without such jeopardy. It's ridiculous to force everybody to restrict themselves to communications even an idiot wouldn't misconstrue.
It’s not a crime, you totalitarian cunt.
I'm analogizing between a "reasonable man " standard, and a proposed "not a moron" standard.
I don't think we should be required to limit our speech, our jokes, to what even an idiot wouldn't take seriously. To preface every jibe with "This is a joke!"
You're just ignorant of actual events that actually occurred and actually deprived 1000s of their right to vote.
You seem to be conflating the way people make jokes about that sort of thing, with that being a joke. There's no indication it was a joke.
Black Panthers did that in 2008. Obama chose to let them go, even though they clearly did it and did not even contest the charges.
When those people misinterpreting how guns work are passing laws based on it ... seems dramatically more damaging.
You have to prove I knew you'd be there and was attempting to harm you. Otherwise, it's an illegal discharge of a firearm (a crime in and of itself) and I'd be punished under that.
https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1641907970547097603/photo/2
There's one. From the same election.
They physically were outside intimidating people from going inside.
I guess that is not as bad as a sign.
That's the whole "Knew you'd be there and was trying to harm you" part of the first sentence.
Using your logic, I could be out hunting and be charged with attempted murder.
Try and do better.
You’re new around here.
Hello!
Also: fuck off.
Forgive me for being all 'trust but verify', but my twitter-google-fu is weak: is there a 2016ish source for that? All the sources I found were related to the contemporary case, and as a disciple of St. Ronnie, I like to find primary sources for controversial topics.
Well, he is right that you are a totalitarian or supporter of totalitarianism. You always have been.
Trump’s Russian connections weren’t an issue in 2016 and by the time 2020 came round his Russian connections and his lies about them were well established. His obvious deference to Putin alone was public knowledge.
You jail Dan Rather for being duped, you end up jailing most of Fox News for knowingly telling falsehoods.
Have your doctor adjust your meds.
"Trump’s Russian connections weren’t an issue in 2016"
Are you 6 years old? You couldn't have been more than 5 yrs old in 2016 and not heard the smears involving it. FFS.
"You jail Dan Rather for being duped, you end up jailing most of Fox News for knowingly telling falsehoods."
You are aware he stands by those memos to this day, right?
it must be killing you to see the Big Red Machine moving west and taking out all those "game changing" German Leopards. President Trotsky...opps Zelinsky is the man the neocons and neolibs wet dream for the leader to finally beat the modern Nicolas/Stalin.
Will Zelinksy be on a speaking tour of Ivy League colleges in a year or at the Clinton Institute between his jetting from the $100M dollar homes in Geneva, Nice, and the Caymans?
Have your mechanic adjust your carburetor.
I do my own mechanical work.
Then tell yourself to adjust your own carburetor. And give yourself an oil change while you're at it.
Nice comeback Queenie, but you forgot to say something about his mother.
Feel free to look one up.
Search term since:2016-11-08 until:2016-11-09 @mskristinawong vote text yields her original tweet embedding the video.
Come to think of it, it actually is a Commie trick. Using it imparts a kind of durability to communist ideology which communist practice tends to undermine.
Did the voices in your head tell you to say that?
Dumb is the 4000 plus who texted their "vote" if they actually thought they were voting and of course this decision.
Would that help with your car maintenance?
Hs Russian connections didn't become a major issue til after the elction. We were talking about elections.
That's Dan Rather's tragedy.
So in other words, no.
Thanks! That's legit all right.
(for my fellow twit-illiterates, that search seems to be a twitter search, not a google search)
You can at least argue with a straight face her tweet is less likely to confuse voters - she doesn't give a phone number to text your vote to, so to follow her advice you'd have to start looking for the right phone number, and since you can't find one you'd have to resign yourself to the inconvenience of going to the polls.
In any event, thanks for the primary source. Seeing the actual video is more informative than just the screenshot.
Yeah, I'm still ramping up on twitter search myself and there may well be a more elegant approach, but since I had the exact date etc. I just brute-forced it.
Agree re lack of phone number, but on the other hand she also suggested voting on Wednesday, which has the same potential for harm as text voting if relied on.
"but on the other hand she also suggested voting on Wednesday"
Good point!
You're right; lies and manipulation which don't also violate a law are, sadly, commonplace.
A very valuable voter!
You're talking about failure to prosecute. That is not the same thing as whether the law itself prohibits such "dirty tricks".
Too difficult!
Any "laws" he broke shouldn't be on the books in the first place.
If this law is not enforced against people who physically interfere with other people's voting (Black Panthers), but is enforced against someone like Mr. Mackey, you don't see anything wrong here? Like, maybe, the whole idea is to have as many criminal laws as possible, and then to selectively apply them to our opponents only?
“Anybody stupid enough to think that joke was real shouldn’t be voting in the first place.”
Can we extend that to "Anybody stupid enough to believe a word Donald Trump says shouldn’t be voting in the first place?"
or,
"Anybody stupid enough to think Democrats are running a pedophilia ring out of a pizza place shouldn’t be voting in the first place.”
He SHOULD be allowed to conspire to deprive people of ther votes!
That McCain was, at best, Roidham’s useful idiot makes what point, exactly?
Only fucking idiots think they can get away with saying that McCain represented Republicans, so that "Republicans... did that". Quite apart from his TDS, McCain was also, of course, only one of Roidham's channels for made-up disinformation.
No fraud took place. Nor were there any known “victims”. (D) voters were of course being derided, but they earn that. As of course you do all the time.
They should have been. It's certainly insecure here in WA, and we've been doing it forever.