Douglass Mackey found guilty of election interference(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Douglass Mackey found guilty of election interference
https://twitter.com/EDNYnews/status/1641896694529904648
60 comments
This is the criminal meme in question: This is the criminal meme in question: https://d2eehagpk5cl65.cloudfront.net/img/q60/uploads/2021/0...
10 years in the slammer for that? Beyond absurd
10 years in the slammer for that? Beyond absurd
Calling it a meme is disingenuous. What's the joke?
They made a posts across multiple platforms, and conspired with others to spread the false message. There was a pretty clear goal of disenfranchisement.
They made a posts across multiple platforms, and conspired with others to spread the false message. There was a pretty clear goal of disenfranchisement.
[deleted]
Who did it disenfranchise? Is there a single person? Let me answer this. no way in hell was anyone fooled by this meme.
'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.'
- from the DOJ press release
- from the DOJ press release
Did DOJ produce anyone that was harmed by this meme? How many of the 4,900 "unique" numbers were other twitter followers who were in on the gag or recognized it for the obvious joke that it is?
No. There isn't a single person who was disenfranchised by this internet meme.
Dont you think a large number of those were people in on the joke, and texted as a way of upvoting? Or people who knew they weren't eligible to vote (too young, not registered, not a citizen) who thought maybe a text vote would allow them to be counted without the verification normally needed? The idea that Hillary Clinton lost 4900 legitimate votes is not even alleged, let alone proven.
Doesn't mean a single one believed they were voting and skipped the polls due to this.
This is a bizzare take. They were tricked, but also not tricked at the same time?
Seriously what’s going on with multiple people in this thread?
crystal clear attempt to trick people into not voting
“Doesn’t count because no one fell for it” (as if that excuses it anyways…)
“Well actually 4900 people fell for it”
“ALL 4900 OF THOSE WERE JUST PEOPLE JOKING AND I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I PULLED IT OUT OF MY BUTT”
“Doesn’t count because no one fell for it” (as if that excuses it anyways…)
“Well actually 4900 people fell for it”
“ALL 4900 OF THOSE WERE JUST PEOPLE JOKING AND I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I PULLED IT OUT OF MY BUTT”
I don't actually know if intent is sufficient in this case. So maybe if nobody actually fell for it (or they did, but the government didn't bother to submit any evidence of this) then that would excuse it in law. 4900 people might have texted the number, but maybe half of them didn't have a vote, and the other half figured it out later and ultimately did vote. Maybe not, but if you have a sworn statement from someone that they didn't vote because of this, then there's no ambiguity about whether the harm actually occurred.
[deleted]
[deleted]
A meme is not a crime.
“It’s just a joke bro” the ultimate criminal defence.
The prosecution established the defendant’s intent to reduce the turnout of black voters “ For example, on November 1, 2016, in or around the same time that Mackey was sending tweets suggesting the importance of limiting “black turnout,””
That’s mens rea.
The prosecution established the defendant’s intent to reduce the turnout of black voters “ For example, on November 1, 2016, in or around the same time that Mackey was sending tweets suggesting the importance of limiting “black turnout,””
That’s mens rea.
Something being a meme does not make it a crime, but a crime being a meme does not make it legal.
Democrats have a highly sophisticated harvesting system. A ballot is worth about $7 and each ballot is cross referenced weeks leading up to and weeks following an election to ensure each one is turned in. If a voter doesn't want to vote, people show up at their door to assist them. In 2022 ballot curing was introduced to ensure that each ballot is filled out correctly. In addition to ballot curing, and harvesting, committees exist to judge voter intent. Given the economic incentives, political incentives, and very sophisticated partisan elections teams within Boards of elections, its unlikely a single person wasn't able to vote. Rather than 4,900 victims, how about they come up with a single name a single individual who wasn't able to vote. That person doesn't exist.
[deleted]
“ 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.”
“A February 2016 analysis by the MIT Media Lab ranked Mackey as the 107th most important influencer of the then-upcoming Presidential Election.”
Attempting to do a crime is still a crime.
I don't think this is true for all crimes. If I punch you that's assault. If I try to punch you and miss, that's not the crime of attempted assault. It can in some circumstances be other crimes, but not attempted assault (which afaict generally isn't a thing).
I'm going to unregister to vote, opt out, and just let this thing collapse on itself. The United States is turning into an absolute joke. When I was a kid, we didn't have political crimes, these days this is turning into a scary place.
I’m sorry it offends you that someone attempting coordinated election fraud was convicted by a jury based on significant evidence.
meh, didn't effect the outcome. I don't care who wins elections. China is going to win while people like you eat one another.
So you would only call it a crime if it was successful? Mackey clearly tried to trick folks into thinking they had voted by text. He sent thousands of these scam messages. He set up an infrastructure for doing this and sending it to folks likely to fall for it. You don't do that if it is just a joke.
A meme is not a crime.
Not inherently, no. But it's also not automatically not a crime.
Please read the DOJ release https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer...
Obviously absured.
Though FYI he hasn't yet been sentenced; 10 years is the maximum he could get.
Though FYI he hasn't yet been sentenced; 10 years is the maximum he could get.
What I don't understand: Is it established in the law whether intent is enough in this case for there to be a crime, or is actual harm required?
Lots of people are saying either "No evidence that any votes were lost" or "He obviously had mens rea." As far as I can tell, both of these statements are probably true. Sometimes in law, intent is enough to create a crime, and sometimes it isn't. For example, attempted murder is a crime, but attempted assault is not (although sometimes attempted _aggravated_ assault is). So, is it established that intent is sufficient for a crime in this particular case or not?
Note that when I say "no evidence" I mean that I don't think the government lawyers submitted any evidence (like a sworn statement by somebody who said that they got fooled and subsequently did not vote because they thought they already had) that anyone was deprived of a vote. I don't mean that there's no rational basis to believe that anyone was deprived.
Lots of people are saying either "No evidence that any votes were lost" or "He obviously had mens rea." As far as I can tell, both of these statements are probably true. Sometimes in law, intent is enough to create a crime, and sometimes it isn't. For example, attempted murder is a crime, but attempted assault is not (although sometimes attempted _aggravated_ assault is). So, is it established that intent is sufficient for a crime in this particular case or not?
Note that when I say "no evidence" I mean that I don't think the government lawyers submitted any evidence (like a sworn statement by somebody who said that they got fooled and subsequently did not vote because they thought they already had) that anyone was deprived of a vote. I don't mean that there's no rational basis to believe that anyone was deprived.
Please read the DOJ press release before opining in this thread https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer...
Did this person get charged too?? This tweet is still up!
https://twitter.com/mskristinawong/status/795999059987173377
https://twitter.com/mskristinawong/status/795999059987173377
Original charges summarized here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/social-media-influencer-charg...
tl;dr A Twitter troll published posts encouraged people to vote by SMS or tweet (which isn't possible). Example: https://am23.mediaite.com/lc/cnt/uploads/2021/01/Fake-Clinto...
"Mackey has been found guilty by a jury of his peers of attempting to deprive individuals from exercising their sacred right to vote for the candidate of their choice" - U.S. Attorney Breon Peace
---
I just...cannot...understand.
If you tweet something incorrect about privacy laws, are you depriving people of their right to privacy?
If you tweet something incorrect about firearm laws, are you depriving people of their right to bear arms?
If you tweet something incorrect about religious laws, are you depriving people of their right to religious expression?
"Mackey has been found guilty by a jury of his peers of attempting to deprive individuals from exercising their sacred right to vote for the candidate of their choice" - U.S. Attorney Breon Peace
---
I just...cannot...understand.
If you tweet something incorrect about privacy laws, are you depriving people of their right to privacy?
If you tweet something incorrect about firearm laws, are you depriving people of their right to bear arms?
If you tweet something incorrect about religious laws, are you depriving people of their right to religious expression?
I'm sure it wasn't you who did it, but cropping the example to remove some of the salient information is misleading, and it seems you were taken in. From the DOJ press release (duplicating the criminal complaint):
[...] 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.
Certainly, this was amusing to those involved in it, and the basic idea is defensible as a joke. But if you keep adding layer upon layer of detail to make your joke more plausible, while also demonstrating intent by making an electronic record of your conversations where you say that your goal is to get fewer people to vote, the excuse starts to wear thin.
Admittedly, the people who fell for this and were deceived into 'voting' by text or thinking that they were signing up for campaign messages may have been a bit stupid. But the whole point of putting advisories and disclaimers in the fine print is to provide people with a credible channel of information that's independent of the exhortation in an advertisement. It's like the difference between teasing someone for being naive and actively exploiting them.
[...] 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.
Certainly, this was amusing to those involved in it, and the basic idea is defensible as a joke. But if you keep adding layer upon layer of detail to make your joke more plausible, while also demonstrating intent by making an electronic record of your conversations where you say that your goal is to get fewer people to vote, the excuse starts to wear thin.
Admittedly, the people who fell for this and were deceived into 'voting' by text or thinking that they were signing up for campaign messages may have been a bit stupid. But the whole point of putting advisories and disclaimers in the fine print is to provide people with a credible channel of information that's independent of the exhortation in an advertisement. It's like the difference between teasing someone for being naive and actively exploiting them.
There were multiple images created. AFAIK it wasn't cropped. Source: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/right-wing-twitter-trol...
This is more like going to people's homes and collecting their ballots than anything you've posted. You've eliminated all nuance in your replies.
If you think you see a fire in a crowded building and you say something, even if there isn't a fire, it's way different than going into a building and causing chaos because you want to cause chaos
If you think you see a fire in a crowded building and you say something, even if there isn't a fire, it's way different than going into a building and causing chaos because you want to cause chaos
You're not aware of the general difference between lying and fraud? You think all forms of deception are either all legal or all illegal, and that's how granular our laws are?
Are you not in support of, or not aware of contexts like medicine, commerce, elections being sensitive enough to have laws around false or fraudulent behavior?
I still don't understand what you don't understand. Twitter is supposed to be a free square for crime?
Are you not in support of, or not aware of contexts like medicine, commerce, elections being sensitive enough to have laws around false or fraudulent behavior?
I still don't understand what you don't understand. Twitter is supposed to be a free square for crime?
> You're not aware of the general difference between lying and fraud?
Fraud is a financial crime, and Mackey was not convicted of fraud.
Fraud is a financial crime, and Mackey was not convicted of fraud.
Forget the constitution. Did you even read the law?
Look at it this way: laws aren't domain-specific. Doing a crime by tweet might sound "funny" to you, but scamming ppl by phone or in person or via tweet is all the same crime.
There is a mens rea element though isn't there? If you post this with the intent of preventing people from voting versus posting something you think is factual versus posting something with the intent being to make a joke. The first would be illegal, the second wouldn't, the third maybe (if you had reason to believe that people would interpret it as being factual prior to your posting it).
The logic that I can follow is you cannot vote twice; by believing that you can vote by text and follow through with that action you have been "deprived" of your right to vote.
> “What Mackey allegedly did to interfere with this process – by soliciting voters to cast their ballots via text – amounted to nothing short of vote theft."
> Mackey conspired with others to use social media platforms, including Twitter, to disseminate fraudulent messages designed to encourage supporters of one of the presidential candidates (the “Candidate”) to “vote” via text message or social media, a legally invalid method of voting
> “What Mackey allegedly did to interfere with this process – by soliciting voters to cast their ballots via text – amounted to nothing short of vote theft."
> Mackey conspired with others to use social media platforms, including Twitter, to disseminate fraudulent messages designed to encourage supporters of one of the presidential candidates (the “Candidate”) to “vote” via text message or social media, a legally invalid method of voting
It can be hard to understand complex legal issues. Let me explain.
He was convicted of US Code 18 Section 241 which describes 2 or more people conspiring to deprive victims of their constitutional rights.
Simply tweeting something that is false wouldn't count, and it seems that even intentionally tweeting misinformation wouldn't break this law unless you were conspiring with others to do it.
He was convicted of US Code 18 Section 241 which describes 2 or more people conspiring to deprive victims of their constitutional rights.
Simply tweeting something that is false wouldn't count, and it seems that even intentionally tweeting misinformation wouldn't break this law unless you were conspiring with others to do it.
> even intentionally tweeting misinformation wouldn't break this law unless you were conspiring with others to do it.
Okay, but it has to break some law. You can't be convicted of conspiracy if you're conspiring to do something which is legal. If you actually completed the act you and the other conspirators planned, and this act was not a crime, then your conspiracy can't be a crime either.
Okay, but it has to break some law. You can't be convicted of conspiracy if you're conspiring to do something which is legal. If you actually completed the act you and the other conspirators planned, and this act was not a crime, then your conspiracy can't be a crime either.
Well now it totally makes sense
Where does this meme say you can vote by SMS? It says "Vote from home", which is definitely possible given all the mail-in voting in 2020. I "voted from home" in 2020, and so did a lot of other people.
In the bottom left? Where it specifically asks you to "Text 'Hillary' to 59925"?
That doesn't say "text to vote". It says, as you note, "Text 'Hillary' to 59925". This just looks like ambiguous/poorly worded campaign copy. Is that illegal, though? Apparently there's another image with additional text on it?
It is, at the very least, impersonation.
And https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35395239 (https://d2eehagpk5cl65.cloudfront.net/img/q60/uploads/2021/0...) is even more explicit about their intent to defraud.
And https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35395239 (https://d2eehagpk5cl65.cloudfront.net/img/q60/uploads/2021/0...) is even more explicit about their intent to defraud.
I guess I’m not following (and that second link is broken for me).
Suppose I create a positive meme about a campaign, which obviously happens a lot. Is that still “impersonation”? I find what Mackey did really unsavory and gross but I’m not really understanding what the principle being applied here actually is. Are meme/jokes/absurdities about political campaigns not legal?
Suppose I create a positive meme about a campaign, which obviously happens a lot. Is that still “impersonation”? I find what Mackey did really unsavory and gross but I’m not really understanding what the principle being applied here actually is. Are meme/jokes/absurdities about political campaigns not legal?
Hm, I tried mirroring it now then... https://imgur.com/0znBo7v
Anyway, they are both clearly designed to imply an affiliation with the campaign. It's one thing to state that you support X, it's another thing to claim that you are speaking for or represent them.
Anyway, they are both clearly designed to imply an affiliation with the campaign. It's one thing to state that you support X, it's another thing to claim that you are speaking for or represent them.
And claiming this in obvious satire is now illegal? 2024 is coming up real quick, so everyone probably needs to understand the ground rules that this case changed.
And what happens when you text to 59925? Did you read the whole thing? Would a busy person, who lives in an area likely to have hours long lines to vote be relieved to text that number and receive a reply that says "Thanks for Voting" bother to look further?
Is your point that only busy people (and Clinton voters) are stupid enough to think you can vote by text, therefore they were disenfranchised by this meme?
That argument was found to be implausible, beyond a reasonable doubt, by a jury of his peers.
I tried to take this post down and to not have two on the same topic but the time window to do so had expired. Sorry for the confusion.