Court Overturns Conviction for Memes That Sought to Trick Clinton Voters
The activist, Douglass Mackey, was convicted of conspiracy against rights in March 2023, after federal prosecutors in Brooklyn said that he and other social media users had spread memes on Twitter that falsely claimed that Mrs. Clinton's supporters could vote by texting 'Hillary' to a given phone number in the days before the election.
On Wednesday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit determined that prosecutors had not proved that Mr. Mackey knowingly agreed to join a conspiracy to fool voters.
Mr. Mackey, a Vermont native who graduated from Middlebury College, was sentenced to seven months in prison in October 2023. He had been released on bail as he awaited the outcome of his appeal, and he celebrated the news Wednesday afternoon.
'HALLELUJAH,' Mr. Mackey, 36, posted to his 56,000 followers on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.
Andrew Frisch, a lawyer for Mr. Mackey, said in a statement on Wednesday that 'we are overjoyed that the Second Circuit has vindicated Mr. Mackey and validated the arguments in his defense that we made at trial.'
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
11 minutes ago
- Forbes
Is The U.S. Consumer The Biggest Loser From Trump's Tariff Plan?
Andrew Wilson, Deputy Secretary-General and Global Policy Director at the International Chamber of Commerce, joined Brittany Lewis on "Forbes Newsroom" to discuss President Trump's tariff plan as the United States continues to try to reach trade deals with dozens of other countries. Watch the full interview above.
Bloomberg
11 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Sen. Tillis on Rescissions Package, Not Seeking Reelection
Live on Bloomberg TV CC-Transcript 00:00Does this rescissions package have your hard yes vote? Will it have enough votes to pass in final passage? Yeah. I had actually indicated that I was a lean years before the amendment came out. The main thing that's important about this bill is to make sure that the questions from members who have not yet decided on how they're going to vote get answered. Are there there are commitments that those broad authority that they're providing the administration to make cuts is not going to surprise them in the future. The reason that's important is this is a spiced $9 billion bill. I hate to dismiss the concept of 9 billion, but there's a promise of tens of billions of dollars in rescissions that I hope that we're voting on in the future as a result of some of the government efficiency efforts. And we do not want to erode the support for future rescissions packages by not getting this small one right. It's a great test case, and that's why I'm inclined to support it. This apparently is a test case for some Democrats as well. Senator, it's your point in the grand scheme, $9 billion is a drop in the bucket and a lot of Democrats say you will lose support from any members across the aisle when it comes to crafting a budget for the new fiscal year. Doesn't clawing back congressionally approved funding send the message to Democrats that they can't trust a deal if there is one on spending? I think it's a fair argument, which is exactly what the the advisers, the president's advisers on where these cuts hit really should fit in the category of of fraud or waste or abuse. If you use this with the general support from Republicans to rescind measures that may have been used to negotiate a budget deal in the past, then why on earth would they risk that while on earth would they trust us in the future? So I think getting it right is very important. What I'm talking about our future rescissions votes that I hope that are sent to us and we process like the one before us today. What you're talking about is basic trust. And if we negotiate an appropriate year end appropriations deal that the Democrats feel like they the spirit of that negotiation is not going to be undone with a future rescission. I think that'd be a huge mistake. I can't imagine the president would intuitively want to do it. Hopefully none of his advisers would encourage them that that's a good idea. It's a bad idea. Well, as it may take Democratic cooperation to get appropriations passed, it also will take Democratic cooperation to get crypto legislation through both chambers. As I'm sure you well know, Senator, the House has dubbed it Crypto Week, and yet it seems they're struggling to advance a package of bills, one that would be the genius Act that already passed the chamber, another being the Clarity Act market structure legislation. It seems that the holdouts who did not vote for this procedural advancement are concerned that they cannot make changes to the Genius act that you and your colleagues passed. If they do so, would it be able to pass the Senate once again? Would you do anything if they're able to pass the Clarity Act with it, or would that require change as well? I'm just my Republican colleagues in the House need to hear this. I was one of the four members that teamed up with four Democrats to pass Senate Bill 2155, which was regulatory tailoring for small and regional banks. We had an agreement that that bill wasn't going to change, and we carried it all the way through, over the objections of Sherrod Brown, the chair, and Elizabeth Warren on the Banking Committee. If our House members send an amended bill back to us that doesn't fit, or is it already pre-conference with the Democrats who helped us pass that bill out, they can expect that that bill will never see the light of day. So I respect that they may want to make some changes, but they may want to send that in a separate vehicle to us and go ahead and send the Genius Act to the president's desk. If they don't, then they may own they the responsibility for not getting that done. And it's a great start, but we've got a lot of work to do. And, of course, Senator, you also found yourself on the same side as many Democrats in voting against the president's so-called big, beautiful bill. And it led to a major decision for you to decide to bring your Senate career to a close here. President Trump talked about your vote here. If you didn't hear what he said, let's bring it to our listeners and viewers here on Bloomberg. Tell us. I guess it was an owl, right? He was an owl. And he they said he was brave. He said no to the president, but he resigned the following morning. So anyway, that was terrible, I thought. Senator, weigh in on that as you please. That was from yesterday at the White House, by the way. Have you talked to President Trump? Has he called you or have you called him since that happened? Oh, we haven't spoken since. But the president knew that night before. Number one, that I was a no because I told him personally. And number two, I told him now would be a good time to start looking for my replacement. And it was after that that the president posted that he'd be seeking, you know, interviews for my replacement. But I was pretty clear with the president, unless he forgot that discussion the night before, I noticed he was trying to check to see if I voted no, but I was pretty clear I was going to be a no. The reason I was a no. And the reason it was so difficult for me is the vast majority that Bill I supported. I was here to vote for jobs and tax cuts, and I wanted that back in place. There were a number of provisions. The House bill for the Medicaid market was fine, but here's my challenge to anyone. We have fully released our analysis of the hit of the Medicaid bill that the president signed on July 4th. I would love nothing more than somebody to do the work to discredit the analysis. This this is it words. This is math. We did the math. We have three independent assessments that came to the same conclusion. This is going to be very difficult for states like North Carolina and many others to absorb. We already have a member today. I think it was Josh Hawley who's filing a bill to try and fix the Medicaid damage that he voted on last week. I decided that what we ought to do is go back to the house, Mark, great work, work requirements. The $800 billion in savings. Waste, fraud and abuse. The whole difference between me and the president came down to something that somebody in the White House suggested that the Senate put in the bill that saved 200 billion more dollars. But it's going to cost this country and potentially this party elections next year, in the coming years, as it gets implemented. It just seemed like it wasn't very well thought out. And I think the president was given bad advice to put it into the bill. Well, I wonder, Senator, if we should expect there to be more differences between you and President Trump or the majority leader, for that matter, as you said, when you decided not to seek reelection, that it gives you the freedom to call balls and strikes? Are you still a reliable Republican? Yes. Vote. Yeah. A lot of effort that happens from here. I need to be very clear. I am a transaction person. What I wanted to make clear was that if anybody thought that my decisions are driven by whether or not I can get reelected or get an endorsement, I wanted to take that off the table. That's not how I operate. I am a trained management consultant who looks at everything that we do here through the lens of execution. Will this work? Can the states absorb the change? Is it in the best interest of our country and our party in that order? And in my judgment, it was in every future transaction will not be influenced by this Medicaid vote. Hopefully, we can fix a lot of the damage that occurred by rushing it through for a 4th of July signature. But I'm on to the next transaction and I will do everything I can to try and make the defects in that bill work. Or, like I said, the U.S. government has probably access to more research capability than anyone else. Don't tell me that my estimates are wrong because you believe they're wrong. We provided all this information, the methodology for the impact, disprove it. I'd love nothing more than to know that I was wrong, because that means I don't have a lot of work to do to get North Carolina ready to potentially take 663 people, thousand people, off of Medicaid in a couple of years. Sure. Well, Senator, a lot of people think that that makes you one of the more brave members of the Senate right now. We had Democrats calling this a profile in courage. And I wonder, with that said, what that means when President Trump reaches out, when John Thune reaches out, will this be the same conversation when they need your support for legislation? How does this change your view? The only thing that I've tried to encourage the president, I've seen several and said, look, the president of the United States has a difficult job. He can't possibly be expected to be an expert in any area. What I'm trying to advise him on is that he has people advising him who pretend like they're him when he's not in the office and sometimes are not thinking through policy. I happen to have the rare combination of execution discipline with Fortune 500 companies and 20 years in legislative service, including Speaker of the House. So I've been able to understand the execution maybe a little bit better than other people, certainly people who have never been elected and who have never had a political role before, who advising the president. I'm just simply saying, take my advice for what it's worth, but it may help you look around a few corners. And I think that that's where we'll ultimately end up on this Medicaid provision in an otherwise big, beautiful bountiful. Old baby Bill. Whatever they want to call it. The fact of the matter is, most of the bill is good. I was talking about this one area that it ended up getting into that over $200 billion. We ended up having that sort of a dust up. It doesn't make sense to me. But again, I don't think it was the president's call. I think he had somebody want to put their foot on the accelerator. And I respectfully disagree with that. That was.
The Verge
11 minutes ago
- The Verge
‘Crypto Week' hits a roadblock.
'Crypto Week' hits a roadblock. The House voted against a procedural step to advance a slate of three President Donald Trump-endorsed crypto bills that would regulate stablecoins, determine who can regulate cryptocurrency, and prevent the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency. Thirteen Republicans defied Trump's encouragement to advance the legislation amid disputes about whether the bills should be combined in a vote. It's not clear what happens next, but Crypto Week might not be done just yet.
