Pro-Trump 'troll' who spread Hillary text-to-vote memes in 2016 has conviction tossed by appeals court
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit on Wednesday unanimously voided the conviction of Douglass Mackey on federal conspiracy charges and remanded the case back to the U.S. Court in the Eastern District of New York to enter a new judgment of acquittal.
The unanimous three-judge panel said in their ruling that "no rational jury" could have found that Mackey, 36, "knowingly" joined others in an illegal conspiracy aimed at influencing the outcome of the 2016 election or depriving people of their right to vote.
"The jury's verdict and the resulting judgment of conviction must be set aside," Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston wrote.
The verdict is a win for Mackey, a self-styled right-wing influencer and self-described "troll," who amassed roughly 58,000 followers on Twitter in the run-up to the 2016 election.
Mackey, who used the handle "Ricky Vaughn," used his account to post false information designed to support then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, including memes designed to look like Hillary Clinton ads that told voters they could submit their ballots via text message.
Mackey was convicted in 2023 on conspiracy charges and sentenced to seven months in federal prison.
The three-judge panel ruled Wednesday that Mackey's posts, including the false memes he posted, were not sufficient evidence to prove that he had violated U.S. conspiracy laws, "even assuming that he did so with the intent to injure other citizens in the exercise of their right to vote," they said.
"The government was obligated to show that Mackey knowingly entered into an agreement with other people to pursue that objective," Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston and Judges Reena Raggi and Beth Robinson wrote. "This the government failed to do."
The decision was praised by Mackey, who immediately posted on social media about the verdict.
"HALLELUJAH!" Mackey said on X after the appellate court ruling on Wednesday. Mackey proceeded to thank God, his family, wife, lawyers and others who supported him during the trial in subsequent posts. He then threatened to pursue legal action over his conviction.
"Now we sue," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
8 minutes ago
- CNBC
Russia shrugs off Trump's threat of 'very severe tariffs'
President Donald Trump may have expected a Russian shudder of fear to greet his threat of "very severe tariffs" on the country if it didn't agree a ceasefire in Ukraine. Instead, his comments appear to have prompted a collective public shrug. Calling Trump's statements "very serious," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday that Russia needs "time to analyze" them. But investors in the Russian capital who had been gearing up for tougher measures instead embraced a 50-day grace period on tariffs set by Trump on Monday and the Moscow Stock Exchange was up by 2.7% after it opened Tuesday morning. Oil prices also fell by more than $1 after the announcement, hinting that investors don't think Trump will follow through on his threat to impose the tariffs. Trump "did not announce any immediate anti-Russian measures or the confiscation of illegally blocked Russian assets," Leonid Slutsky, a prominent nationalist politician, said on Telegram Tuesday, adding that the president was trying to balance Western support for Kyiv while avoiding a confrontation with the Kremlin. Trump announced the levies along with the shipment of new weapons to Ukraine during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at the White House on Monday. His comments came as a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) made its way through Congress. If passed, it would seek to impose 500% tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil and gas. Praising Trump's announcement, Graham and his bill's co-sponsor, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) said in a statement that "the ultimate hammer to bring about the end of this war will be tariffs against countries, like China, India and Brazil, that prop up Putin's war machine by purchasing cheap Russian oil and gas." However, Konstantin Kosachev, the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Federation Council, the upper house of the country's parliament, said Graham's bill made "no sense." In 50 days, "how much can change both on the battlefield and in the mood of those in power both in the U.S. and in NATO?" he added. And former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, a hardliner who frequently issues over-the-top threats, called Trump's threat a "theatrical ultimatum" in a post on X. "We're going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days, tariffs at about 100%," Trump said, without providing further details. After the announcement, a White House official said Trump's threat of 100% tariffs was referring to Russian goods, as well as secondary sanctions on other countries that buy its exports. The president's comments signal a marked shift in tone over his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, for whom he has long shown admiration. "I've known him for a long time. We've always gotten along well," Trump said back in March. Many Western countries have have cut most of their own financial ties to Moscow during since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of its smaller neighbor, triggering the first major land war in Europe since World War II. Still, buyers of Russia's crude oil like China and India have continued financing Moscow's war chest with hundreds of billions of dollars through business with the world's third-largest oil producer. "It's about tariffs on countries like India and China that are buying their oil," Matt Whitaker, the U.S. ambassador to NATO told reporters Monday after Trump's announcement. "And it really is going to, I think, dramatically impact the Russian economy." Trump's threats of secondary tariffs are "never going to go anywhere" as long as he is unwilling to impose costs on Moscow directly, Keir Giles, a senior fellow at the London-based Chatham House think tank, told NBC News Monday. The tariffs also risk upending delicate China-U.S. trade talks, according to Liu Baocheng at Beijing's University of International Business and Economics. The "unilateral imposition of punitive trade creating new and unnecessary complications," Baocheng said, adding that the 100% secondary tariffs intended to pressure Moscow could instead "severely backfire by undermining global economic stability and fragmenting international cooperation." Most concerning, Baocheng added, was that the threat comes at a delicate juncture in U.S.-China trade relations, where secondary tariffs on Chinese companies or sectors that import Russian goods "would seriously damage the fragile momentum of dialogue." Trump's tariff agenda has also raised the stakes for India, which has been negotiating a trade deal with Washington to see tariffs on goods from India drop below 20%. India's External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar told reporters Tuesday that his country had "been in touch" with Graham over its concerns and interests on energy and security. Elsewhere, Europe's chief negotiator Maroš Šefčovič told reporters in Brussels on Monday that a 30% tariff on European goods would have a "huge impact on trade." "It will be almost impossible to continue trading as we are used to in a transatlantic relationship," Šefčovič said.
Indianapolis Star
21 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Vote to defund public media nears. Where do Indiana's Jim Banks and Todd Young stand?
Ahead of a vote that could defund the country's NPR and PBS stations, one of Indiana's two Republican U.S. senators has vocally supported the legislation, while the other hasn't stated where he stands. By the end of the week, the U.S. Senate must vote on a $9.4 billion package of federal spending cuts. That rescissions bill would include $1.1 billion slashed over the next two years for stations that are part of National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service. Indiana's nine representatives voted along party lines when the U.S. House passed the bill on June 12. Since taking office, President Donald Trump has sought to defund public media, asserting it has a liberal bias that thwarts fair coverage. NPR and PBS have repeatedly refuted these claims, and NPR is suing his administration on First Amendment grounds. U.S. Sen. Jim Banks of Indiana is among Republicans who have joined Trump in condemning public media and calling for a dismantling of the federal support system created by Congress in the 1960s. However, this bill could test Republicans' slim Senate majority. Not everyone in the Republican caucus is on board with the public media cuts. If passed, cuts will most intensely impact small and rural public radio and television stations more than major cities and NPR at large. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota say they are particularly concerned about their rural communities losing access to critical and sometimes life-saving news coverage. In a July 10 Truth Social post, Trump threatened not to endorse Republicans who attempt to preserve public media funding and "allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting." In Indiana, some of the small and rural stations could close if the federal bill passes, Executive Director Mark Newman said. Last week, a cohort of statewide journalists was told they would be laid off following the state's zeroing out of its $7.4 million in public media support. "If that other shoe drops, that's going to have some significant impact," Newman previously told IndyStar. "That's really going to change things even more dramatically." Banks has earned a reputation as one of Trump's most vocal supporters in the Senate. He, too, has repeatedly called to eliminate federal money for public media. In an X thread from early June, he was especially critical of stories about Hunter Biden's legal battles, a debunked COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory, and research related to race and the LGBTQ community. Earlier this year, Banks authored the Defund NPR Act, a separate bill that would bar federal dollars from going to NPR directly or indirectly. The bill has not moved since it was sent to committee in February. 'Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to fund NPR's liberal propaganda," he said in a previous news release. "If NPR can't stay afloat without government funding, that tells you all you need to know about the quality of their news." While Banks has loudly supported public media spending cuts, Young has not spoken publicly about his opinion. Spokesperson Matt Lahr said Young "is still reviewing the legislation" in response July 14 to an IndyStar question about his position on public media spending cuts. When the House passed the bill in June, spokesperson Leah Selk told the Chicago Tribune that Young was having conversations with stakeholders. The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
CNBC
38 minutes ago
- CNBC
Rep. Jason Smith: 'Moments away' away from several trade deal opportunities
House Ways and Means chairman Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss Trump's endgame on tariffs, the lack of trade deals and much more.
