Seven months huh? That’s awful.Justice prevails eventually. Unfortunately this person had to spend time in jail based on a political prosecution/persecution.
Anyone ignorant enough to believe this obvious joke meme should hide their head in shame.
I suspect a lawsuit will be (rightly) forthcoming.
by Ella Lee - 07/09/25 1:52 PM ET
"
A federal appeals court on Wednesday threw out a right-wing influencer’s conviction for spreading misinformation online about ways to vote in the 2016 presidential election in an attempt to stifle Democratic turnout.
A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed Douglass Mackey’s conviction and directed a lower court to enter a judgment of acquittal, after determining that trial evidence failed to prove he joined others in a conspiracy to influence the election.
Mackey was sentenced to seven months in prison after a jury found him guilty of attempting to trick individuals out of exercising their right to vote by posting memes falsely suggesting that supporters of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton could vote by text.
In one instance, he posted an image showing a Black woman standing in front of an “African Americans for Hillary” sign that read: “Avoid the Line. Vote from Home,” “Text ‘Hillary’ to 59925” and “Vote for Hillary and be a part of history.” It said the post was paid for by Clinton’s campaign and included her campaign slogan, “#ImWithHer.”
Trial evidence showed that approximately 5,000 people ultimately texted the keyword “Hillary” to the number. However, the appeals court noted, “about 98 percent” of those people received an automated warning that the code was not associated with the Clinton campaign."
Glad you agree that wrongful imprisonment is bad.Seven months huh? That’s awful.
Thoughts and prayers.Glad you agree that wrongful imprisonment is bad.
Sad to see you support illegal fraud to rig an election.Glad you agree that wrongful imprisonment is bad.
Apparently it’s legal to trick people into thinking they can vote from home as long as you do it on your own.It does seem suspect that trying to trick people into not voting is OK. But I suppose that's what it is.
It wasn't illegal, as the appeals court decided, and as you acknowledge in your very next post two minutes after this one.Sad to see you support illegal fraud to rig an election.
Yeah, so if you want to try to trick people into not voting, then don't try to coordinate it with others and it's OK.Apparently it’s legal to trick people into thinking they can vote from home as long as you do it on your own.
Sure, let’s make it consistent, you can rob a bank as long as you do it by yourself!It wasn't illegal, as the appeals court decided, and as you acknowledge in your very next post two minutes after this one.
If you have a problem with the statutory language and what it does and does not prohibit, I suggest you properly pursue a remedy through your elected representatives, not on the back of someone who didn't violate the letter of the law.Sure, let’s make it consistent, you can rob a bank as long as you do it by yourself!
Oh it’s great to defraud voters and rig the election, as long as we don’t take notes on our criminal conspiracy, we’ll get off scott free in court!If you have a problem with the statutory language and what it does and does not prohibit, I suggest you properly pursue a remedy through your elected representatives, not on the back of someone who didn't violate the letter of the law.
Glad you agree that wrongful imprisonment is bad.
Again, should you take issue with what the statute prohibits, your problem is properly addressed through Congress.Oh it’s great to defraud voters and rig the election, as long as we don’t take notes on our criminal conspiracy, we’ll get off scott free in court!
If you say so (without evidence).Your objections to the jack boots are selective.
If you have a problem with this, address it through Congress, as they explicitly limited the statute's applicability to conspiracies.Yeah, so if you want to try to trick people into not voting, then don't try to coordinate it with others and it's OK.
Yeah, likely. Though it does seem that some have not philosophical/moral objections to large scale, though singular, attempts to defraud the election.If you have a problem with this, address it through Congress, as they explicitly limited the statute's applicability to conspiracies.
Oh well, then. That's how changes to the law get made.Yeah, likely.
What he did wasn't illegal. That doesn't mean it was moral or right. It just wasn't illegal. And "defraud the election" is a prety extreme label to slap on a couple Twitter posts telling people they can vote from home.Though it does seem that some have not philosophical/moral objections to large scale, though singular, attempts to defraud the election.
It wasn't a couple, and the affects of social media are far beyond what the founder's dealt with. They're called influencers for a reason, lol.Oh well, then. That's how changes to the law get made.
What he did wasn't illegal. That doesn't mean it was moral or right. It just wasn't illegal. And "defraud the election" is a prety extreme label to slap on a couple Twitter posts telling people they can vote from home.
Oh, you got me. It was two tweets and a retweet. It's, like, 50% worse!It wasn't a couple,
So... that prevents Congress from writing a statute that covers what you wish it covered, but doesn't?and the affects of social media are far beyond what the founder's dealt with.
Oh well. The statute doesn't have a special carveout holding "influencers" to a higher standard.They're called influencers for a reason, lol.
IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM, CALL YOUR CONGRESSPERSON.But yes, we got it. So long as you don't talk to someone, you can attempt to defraud an election.
No, what would be a crime is pretending to represent a social security office to deprive them of their rights.Again, should you take issue with what the statute prohibits, your problem is properly addressed through Congress.
It's also arguable he didn't violate the terms of the statute at all, conspiracy or not. Simply lying about something is hardly going to "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate" someone "in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Shit, under your expansive interpretation of this statute, lying to someone about where the Social Security office is located would be a crime.
Well, did this guy pretend to be a voting booth? No. So you have no problem here, good day.No, what would be a crime is pretending to represent a social security office to deprive them of their rights.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?