Social Media Influencer Charged with Election Interference
justice.govFor example, on Nov. 1, 2016, Mackey allegedly tweeted an image that featured an African American woman standing in front of an “African Americans for [the Candidate]” sign. The image included the following text: “Avoid the Line. Vote from Home. Text ‘[Candidate’s first name]’ to 59925[.] Vote for [the Candidate] and be a part of history.” The fine print at the bottom of the 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 [Candidate] for President 2016.”
that seems reasonably open-and-shut "very naughty, no, bad, don't do that!"
There's also
"The complaint alleges that 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 Election, ranking his account above outlets and individuals such as NBC News (#114), Stephen Colbert (#119) and Newt Gingrich (#141)."
Other sources show this is the code
The meme in question: https://twitter.com/squid_o_the_day/status/13544897278319697...
For those that didn't quite understand this (like me ..):
The person in question posted large amounts of images like this
- fraudulently said it was paid for by the campaign to elect the candidate
- specifically targeted people of colour that supported a non-conservative candidate
- told those people that they could text a number to vote instead of vote (which is not valid), and to avoid voting in person afterward
- therefore resulting in several thousand votes probably not being counted since they never voted, based on carrier logs
yeah I went in expecting to disagree, but then agreed wholeheartedly.
That's no different than setting up a "voting booth" in a black neighborhood so they don't go to a real voting booth. 100% deserve jail time for that.
Yeah. Some things you don't joke about. Not like that at least
Like, yeah, you don't make "fake pretend money" that looks like the real thing and get away with it.
We've finally entered the age of illegal memes.
> We've finally entered the age of illegal memes.
Well, we’ve always been in the age of illegal memes in the sense relevant to the item in question, to wit, “but, I use a meme” has never been a defense to a crime.
>ironically the joke meme the rеtard stalinists are now hysterically pretending was "еlection interference" is basically how they interfered with this еlection.
Trolling aside, what does this outburst mean in relation to the image?
The tweet is an example of what seems to be the right's favorite method of argument of late:
Decontextualize the subject to the point where it can be equated to something the left has done/previously supported.
Here, the left voted by mail in larger numbers than the right. That's how they interfered with the election, supposedly. Just like the sign is recommending voting from home.
See also: BLM riots are the same as an insurrection, Obama started family separation at the border.
Decontextualizing is just the norm on the internet. I don't think it's a favorite tactic of "the right" as much as it's just something everyone does when having short arguments online. A recent example I noticed is how the Parler deplatforming was boiled down to "it's a private company denying service just like what that cake shop did".
A nuanced and evenhanded discussion just isn't conducive to our neutered attention spans or the desire for upvotes and clap-back repartee.
> ironically the joke meme the rеtard stalinists are now hysterically pretending was "еlection interference" is basically how they interfered with this еlection.
Unfortunately, I'm not fluent in Clickbaitian. Will someone who is please translate?
The squid tweeter is pretending that legal voting by mail in 2020 is equivalent to setting up a fake "vote by txt" system under fraudulent pretenses in 2016.
The announcement is dated: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 (today)
> Douglass Mackey, aka Ricky Vaughn, 31, of West Palm Beach, was charged by criminal complaint in the Eastern District of New York. He was taken into custody this morning
So he was taken into custody this morning. (today)
> As alleged in the complaint, between September 2016 and November 2016, in the lead up to the Nov. 8, 2016, U.S. Presidential Election, Mackey conspired with others to . . .
They're only now dealing with something that happened over four years ago?
Am I missing something?
> They're only now dealing with something that happened over four years ago?
“The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine”.
> Am I missing something?
Yes, the history of the crime and related events related in the complaint linked fromm the press release. Compressing a bit:
The various Twitter accounts used in 2016 were under false names, a Congressional Candidate for whom Mackey worked outed Mackey as connected to the “Ricky Vaughn” the accounts in late 2018, the FBI interviewed that candidate and a documentary filmmaker who has interviewed “Ricky Vaughn” in 2018 and confirmed the identity in late 2020. There's lots of stuff not directly germane to the charges against Mackey about the narrative left out, but there was presumably more investigation to attempt to identify others involved because several co-conspirators are listed only by Twitter IDs.
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but to spell it out: one good hypothesis might be that the victor in the election in question left office last week and doesn't control the justice department anymore. The same guy fired one FBI director and two attorneys general during the same term.
This case seems to be based on a handful of public tweets and some phone records that can be trivially subpoenaed. It's clearly been ready for years, and was likely suppressed internally.
Not sarcasm. Your reply was informative. I hadn't considered (although I should have) that the candidate in power would have interfered with the prosecution of this. Thanks.
A case like this doesn’t go from 0 to 100 in a week.
I think that's parent's point. The case was stuck at "99" (like the old IE progress bar) internally, and only now has it been permitted to reach "100"
The Complaint details the key connection being made between the pseudonym and the real person in a podcast appearance by a Congressional Candidate in 2018, and key FBI investigative activities occurring in October 2020, so it's not like it has gotten to 99 before Trump was in office and then Trump’s DOJ sat on it until Biden came into office.
One note of context: Ricky Vaughan (this persons alias) was the name of Charlie sheens rebellious character in Major League.
A leftwing "comedian" did the same thing, directed at Trump voters:
https://twitter.com/mskristinawong/status/795999059987173377
When is the FBI coming for her?
And where are the "it's a private company" censorship apologists now? The slope is slippery after all.
Is everyone else thinking what I'm thinking? Did Trump suppress this investigation for 4 years?
It might not have been active suppression but a chilling effect on investigations of this kind.
> chilling effect
The only "chilling effect" is people facing ten years in prison for memes.
> Did Trump suppress this investigation for 4 years?
The key FBI interviews, per the Complaint, were conducted in fall of 2020. So, no.
I love that the filing begins with "A Florida man was arrested this morning..."
Florida Man strikes again!
What exactly is the code or law that is being broken here?
Don't get me wrong - guys like this should be shutdown. By who is altogether another debate.
The govt rarely loses when they bring cases like this - so they probably think they have a pretty airtight case. Any background or clarification would be helpful - as both the press release and complaint are scant on details.
EDIT: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241 << this says "2 or more persons" to be a conspiracy.
> this says "2 or more persons" to be a conspiracy.
And the complaint includes 4 co-conspirators identified by Twitter IDs. Conspiracy doesn't require the other co-conspirators to be charged simultaneously, or at all, it only requires that they exist.
It says right in the complaint:
Title 18, United States Code, Section 241
If you read the complaint, it describes more than one conspirator.