Posted in

Conviction for man who posted an anti-Hillary Clinton meme is overturned

by thebesig••62

Douglass Mackey posted an anti-Hillary Clinton meme in 2016 calling on her supporters to “text their votes in.” It was clearly a joke, similar to a joke ran by both sides calling on the opposing side to cast their votes on Wednesday due to expected voter numbers on Tuesday. Unfortunately, the Biden administration went after him. Mackey ended up getting convicted but he appealed it. Even Democrat appointed judges on the appellate court disagreed with the conviction. They sent the case back to the lower court with the order to immediately dismiss the charges.

From The Post Millennial:

Douglass Mackey, who was prosecuted by the Biden administration over a meme, has seen his conviction tossed by the Second Circuit Court of appeals. Mackey broke the news on X, saying in all caps “Breaking: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has thrown out my conviction for lack of evidence. The case has ben remanded to the district court with orders to immediately dismiss.”

“Praise God,” Mackey added, who had been sentenced to 7 months in federal prison after his conviction. After his March 2023 conviction, the appellate court sided with Mackey that December and dropped the prison sentence until the appeal had been completed.

Mackey was prosecuted after sharing a meme during the 2016 election season that joked Hillary Clinton supporters should text in their vote. It was a joke, but Biden’s Department of Justice under Attorney General Merrick Garland accused him of election interference. Despite their claim, they could not provide evidence that anyone had been fooled by the meme into thinking that they should text their vote. This lack of evidence was not concerning to the DOJ, who also suggested that Mackey was racist because of the meme.

Those memes were the basis of the jury verdict in the Eastern District of New York that convicted him of “conspiring to injure citizens in the exercise of their right to vote.” The Second Circuit wrote that “the mere fact that Mackey posted the memes, even assuming that he did so with the intent to injure other citizens in the exercise of their right to vote, is not enough, standing alone, to prove a violation of Section 241. The government was obligated to show that Mackey knowingly entered into an agreement with other people to pursue that objective.”

Additional Reading:

Emmons, L. (2025, July 9). BREAKING: Meme maker Douglass Mackey’s conviction unanimously THROWN OUT by appellate court. The Post Millennial. Link.

You might also like

Love capitalism? STFU about gas prices

Our political salvation

Social Security’s Finances: Follow Up on a Question

62 thoughts on “Conviction for man who posted an anti-Hillary Clinton meme is overturned”

    1. Remember back when Biden tried to use this case to justify making a Department of (un)Truth? Good times.

  2. With some of the shit I posted back then I’m surprised I’m not sitting in a federal pen…along with the rest of you criminals.

    1. Oh come on, everyone knows you can’t text in votes. You have to send them by email.

    4. I’ve never posted anything here offensive to anyone.
      God knows I’ve tried.

      1. I find it offensive that a nebbish like you frequents this site.

        (How’s that? No thanks necessary, always glad to help.)

        1. I had to look up the word “nebbish”.
          That was refreshing. Thanks for the support.

      2. Oh, don’t worry; I’ve been pretty much offended just by you being here. You’re doin’ jus’ fine.

    5. “With some of the shit I posted back then”

      I still post stuff that would get me convicted in some of our “freedom-loving” allies that we are pledged to support with American blood.

        1. I also cling to my guns. Or would. If they hadn’t been swept into Mexico during the San Pedro flood of 2013.

          1. Mine were all with me in that 10ft row boat out on Lake Michigan in those 8 ft waves, the boat swamped and I was lucky to walk to shore. Those metal things were swept away.

  3. 1st Amendment is not a suggestion. People who do not think so will know what the 2nd amendment is should they succeed in banning free speech and free thought.

      1. No, it is not freedom of speech. The 1st amendment doesn’t protect from committing perjury when under oath during legal proceedings or during congressional hearings (though the enforcement of the latter is admittedly spotty). Pleading the 5th is acceptable in preventing perjury, but it may void any agreements you made to the prosecutor for your testimony. Bottom line: these particular exceptions have been in place since the inception of our country. Freedom of speech is and ought to be guaranteed and protected outside court and halls of congress. Unlike the time Musk was proven to be a liar when he claimed himself to be a free speech absolutist, I am not in respect to what the law says. In areas where the law is silent, free speech.

      2. Was the good Dr offered a pardon on senile Joe’s way out the door? Did he accept said pardon? Someone needs to explain to him that pleading the 5th is no longer on the table.

        2. Hey wait, it supposedly was okay to break Attorney-Client privilege when it came to the persecution of Donald Trump, but with Biden I bet they’ll throw the ACME® Victim Card™ because he’s so old and feeble now, the same double standard that he was too feeble to stand trial while at the same time ALL of his decisions and signatures were legit!

          1. What has Joe unknown, and when did he not know it?

            The disbarred John Dean turns 87 this year.

            Some people get to make others suffer way past their due.

  4. Anyone that may have been coerced into “texting” their vote for anyone is too stupid to be allowed to vote.

  8. This is the DOJ that was a part of the administration that didn’t know how to define “woman”!

    Right?

    1. Well, a certain Black woman jurist didn’t, cuz she is not a biologist. But she is apparently smart enough to be a Supreme Court justice. We never got the approved definition in law school, but even back in junior high, I knew that a “woman” was an adult female human being.

      1. I wish that they would have asked her right then; “can you define what a biologist is”?

  10. So a jury of his peers convicted him for making a joke. That’s not very reassuring.

    1. Yep.

      And even if they didn’t get him found guilty, the process itself is punishment.

      Sick of these genocidal pedo lizard people.

      1. We’ll break you out. Just don’t complain if the cake has a metallic taste. It will be fortified with iron for health reasons.

    3. Consider the source, the jury was made up of New Yawkers. They are as about as fair-minded as a jury in the District of Criminals. IIRC, every New Yawk jury was happy to convict Trump of the bullshit charges and lawsuits against him. I think most of that shitty has TDS, just like the San Fransicko.

      1. ^^^Excellent point. Jury of one’s peers in NY doesn’t instill confidence in the judicial system, especially when the case represents a political axe to grind

      1. Yep. And they’ll deserve all the pain and anguish that will come with it

    1. I’m doing one of your quotes Anonymous, ‘Its okay when the Dems do it” Hope I’m not plagerizing, forgive me if I am..See you Later Alligater

  12. Not to nitpick, but appellate court’s decision does not order the trial court “to immediately dismiss the charges.” The appellate court’s decision directs a reversal of the judgment of conviction and orders the trial judge to enter a judgment of “acquittal.” This bars any effort to refile any such charges, which a dismissal without prejudice would not preclude. The full reversal means legally that Mackey was found not guilty, as a matter of law.

    In any event, the entire case and the jury verdict were bullshit. The fundamental legal reason is that a “criminal conspiracy” is an agreement between two or more persons to engage in some criminal activity and thereafter some overt act to carry out criminal activity. The court decided the case on the point that there was no evidence that Mackey ever agreed with anyone to interfere in voters’ rights to vote for the Hildabeast. Personally, I find the idea that anyone could reasonably believe that they could vote by text message or purport to do so is absurd. But this is Garland’s lawfare by his corrupt DOJ. I note that the commencement of the case started just two days after Gropey Joe was sworn in as our pretend president. Remember, the prosecution is the punishment for wrong-think.

    1. I’m glad someone here can break down the nuance of law in an easy to understand way for those of us who don’t have any type of firm grasp on the legal word salads.

    2. As a proud and defiant member of the Bernath Victim Association™ I know that defense can cost moola that could be better spent (coulda bought a nice PPK or Colt SAA). I sure hope he is made whole.

    3. I should add that the trial judge should have granted a JNOV, judgment notwithstanding the verdict following the jury’s guilty verdict, as there was insufficient evidence of any agreement (conspiracy) on the part of the defendant. In fact, Mackey took the stand and testified he never communicated with anyone about his intent to post his meme of voting by text message. The prosecution could not prove otherwise; its witnesses who posted similar memes admitted they never spoke or otherwise communicated with Mackey about the subject meme. One dumb bitch even copped a plea to the same offense and then the corrupt US attorney put her on the stand to testify against Mackey. But she had to admit she never communicated with him about the meme. The whole case against Mackey was trumped up bullshit lawfare. Every DOJ attorney involved in this farce should be fired.

    4. “Not to nitpick…”

      Please do. I enjoy learning new stuff and unlearning wrong stuff.

  13. The only headline I want to see in re of The Bitch of Benghazi is “Hillary Clinton has been convicted!” or “Today’s headlines include the obit of Hillary Clinton!”

      1. I do not condone desecrating graves, but I may make an exception in her case.

        1. “Desecrating”? Nay, it’s merely deep watering, irrigation to help keep the grass healthy and the daisies blooming!

Comments are closed.