Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, July 09, 2025

NEW YORK -- A federal appeals court on Wednesday overturned a self-styled right-wing propagandist's conviction for spreading falsehoods on social media in an effort to suppress Democratic turnout in the 2016 presidential election. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ordered a lower court to enter a judgment of acquittal for Douglass Mackey, finding that trial evidence failed to prove the government's claim that the Florida man conspired with others to influence the election. Mackey, 36, was convicted in March 2023 in federal court in Brooklyn on a charge of conspiracy against rights after posting false memes that said supporters of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton could vote for her by text message or social media post

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This certainly has the appearance of Mackey being targeted as a political enemy.

#1 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-07-09 09:12 PM | Reply

Lets get on it... can we roll this one up to 69 for Lee?

#2 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-07-09 09:21 PM | Reply

#3!

#3 | Posted by YAV at 2025-07-09 09:22 PM | Reply

#69-5!

#4 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-07-09 09:26 PM | Reply

... posting false memes that said supporters of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton could vote for her by text message or social media post ...

Why would an apparent social media influencer want to post those types of comments in the first place?

Does this decision now make it OK to do so?

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-09 09:26 PM | Reply

62 more to go!

#6 | Posted by YAV at 2025-07-09 09:29 PM | Reply

62 more to go!

Weak this one is. Hopeful I am not.

#7 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-07-09 09:31 PM | Reply

96 Tears

www.youtube.com

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2025-07-09 09:34 PM | Reply


@#8

? & The Mysterians.

Wow, it's been years since I've heard that one.


#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-09 09:42 PM | Reply

#5. 1st Amendment

#10 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-07-09 09:43 PM | Reply

@#1 ... This certainly has the appearance of Mackey being targeted as a political enemy. ...

If this is so certain to your current alias, please explain why, with evidence.

thx.

#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-09 09:47 PM | Reply

@#10 ... 1st Amendment ...

So, the 1st Amendment allows a person apparently to actively influence an election?

That's not what the Court ruled.

As your current alias states in its summary, the case was tossed out because of a lack of evidence.

So, now, please explain why the 1st Amendment covers this type of behavior?


thx.

#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-09 09:52 PM | Reply

" If this is so certain to your current alias, please explain why, with evidence.

thx.

#11 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2025-07-09 09:47 PM | FLAG: "

When an appeals court remands the lower court unanimously due to "lack of evidence" it's a strong indication the case should not have ever been brought. That's why it looks like it was a political prosecution.

#13 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-07-09 10:11 PM | Reply

@#13 ... When an appeals court remands the lower court unanimously due to "lack of evidence" it's a strong indication the case should not have ever been brought. ...

I do not disagree with that. But, thank-you for answering some random question, but that's not the question I asked.

But I do note your current alias did not answer the question I asked, what evidence is there about the targeting?

How does your current alias know this was targeting?



#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-09 10:30 PM | Reply

#14. I said it "looks like targeting". To me that's what it looks like. If Mackey sues, and wins, you will have the proof you are asking for. Right now I'm giving my opinion of this.

#15 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-07-09 11:02 PM | Reply

@#15 ... I said it "looks like targeting". To me that's what it looks like. ...

Point taken.

So, your current alias no evidence of targeting, aside from how it thinks it looks.


#16 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-09 11:16 PM | Reply

Correct.

#17 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-07-09 11:22 PM | Reply

Bwahaha. ---- off, dolt.

#18 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-07-10 01:20 AM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort