Support Ricky Vaughn & Other Based Political Dissidents

People on the right are stupid, stupid, stupid. YOU DO NOT SET UP FUNDS ON THE OPEN INTERNET TO FUND THIS. Are you people really that dim???? Don’t try crime—you’re way too stupid for that. You’d probably call ahead and warn the 7 Eleven you are robbing the store or put up a billboard with the time and date. Had the right been in charge in the Old West, or even the Colonies, we’d still be English. Now, I’m not a lawbreaker, but I’m not an idiot either. If I wanted to commit a crime, I’d do it a lot better than the Right does. If you can’t learn how to break the rules, THEN DON’T. And please don’t tell me Ricky didn’t know where this was going—he did. He counted on being “on the right” and a “VICTIM” to get donations. It’s disgusting. The meme on texting your vote for Hillary WAS ILLEGAL and he should go to jail. It was NOT funny, it was racist and an attempt to send votes for Hillary to cyber space. I knew I should have recognized the name of the lawbreaking “victim”.

If you’re going to oppose the government, LEARN HOW BEFORE YOU run in and then cry victim. And don’t try to tell me this is worse or new. IT ALWAYS WAS THAT WAY. Johnson County Cattle wars—kill the annoying little guys who want to mess with your cattle empire. Legal? Seemed to be at the time. Really, the USA was ALWAYS run by the powerful. Sorry the Right are crybaby victims now. But that’s your bad. Don’t like it. Grow a spine. The right would flip off the sheriff and expect nothing to happen because “free speech”. Then bawl, cry “victim” when arrested for speeding because the sheriff hates you. It’s a fantasy and as damaging as anything the left does.

It was not a “meme”, it was something that was intended to look like an official voter information graphic.

The intent was not comedy, but to feloniously interfere with voting. How do we know the intent? From this creep’s own words. His confession to his buddies is part of the government’s evidence.

“If Vaughn’s activities laid [sic] only in joshing”

His activities lay in deliberately attempting to deprive voters of their constitutional rights, for which his is being prosecuted.

Sheri and Lee — Let’s say Mackey was actually trying to interfere with voting, rather than just pranking. Or that it was a prank intended to do so and provable by evidence. And that even in a based society, where Briggs was king, he should be prosecuted, or fined for the offense. Very well. But what we see is not a disinterested concern for the integrity of voting. If that was the case we would have had at least serious investigations into the massive allegations of vote fraud in the last election. But the PTB didn’t want to seriously investigate, and there it was not merely one individual, but potentially a massive conspiracy to interfere with elections. So the selective prosecution of Mackey clearly demonstrates bias in the choice of law enforcement to serve a political agenda.

A similar situation obtains in the case of Antifa, which could easily be designated a domestic terrorist organization and rolled up by the FBI. But instead we get selective prosecutions of deplorables such as the Proud Boys and “White supremicists”. Antifa is left alone because it serves the Overlord’s agenda to have a paramilitary to intimidate its opponents. Examples could be multiplied. Selective enforcement of the laws to further an obvious political agenda fools no one but fools.

“massive allegations of vote fraud”?

Absolutely.

Massive evidence?

Not so much.

Ah, Lee Phillips is back from hiding after TIME exposed the plot…

“It was not a “meme”, it was something that was intended to look like an official voter information graphic.”

Yes, Lee, might not know this, but satire often tries to look the part of what it is making fun of.

This is why comedy skits about Hitler and Nazis try to dress up like them and look and speak the part.

This is why Alec Baldwin dresses up like Donald Trump and stands in what looks a lot like a White House Press Briefing Room.

And it’s also why memes can try to look like the info-graphics they are part of.

Lee Phillips does not actually know that,”His activities lay in deliberately attempting to deprive voters of their constitutional rights.”

Lee Phillips could argue that some people fell for it, the sort that Briggs says, “probably shouldn’t be voting anyway…”

I can believe that! After all, Lee Phillips here is proof positive that he found the jokes convincing. After all we’re talking about the sort of people who are trying to outlaw the ‘OK’ hand sign thanks to an internet joke.

The problem for Lee Phillips and the great Eff Bee Eye is where to draw the line on such things.

I can make a joke next time that (Next Candidate) of (Party) was probably doing (bad thing) with Jeffrey Epstein at Andrew Cuomo’s house on (Social Media). And include a parody image of the NYTimes logo that is close enough to the real thing that it could easily fool a twit. Would that be illegal election meddling?

And if some fools are falling for it, and I guffaw and tell my friends, “Good! Hope more people fall for it!,” is that a ‘confession’? Or is it more sarcasm that Lee Phillips can’t detect, or pretend he can’t because (Next Candidate) of (Party) is Lee’s personal pick and Lee has an invested interest in seeing me taken down for his own personal revelry?

The only thing to do if it is fooling too many imbeciles would be for Twitter to delete the post, just as they did this guy’s.

But can they throw me in jail for ‘fake news’ and posing as an NY Times journalist? Can they prove it? Did I hack the site and give myself a blue checkmark? Such parodies have been done routinely, tried by the ‘authorities’ and naturally failed, or result in nothing more than being banned from a platform. But as Briggs says, the procedure is the punishment.

That’s why right now in Canada, there is a Protestant Pastor who refused to close his church because of ‘COVID(tm)’ and is not spending two months in jail until his trial date where even if they find him guilty, the consequence is not jail time. And why in England a man was labelled and tried as a white supremacist spreading white supremacy online for teaching his dog to say ‘Heil Hitler!’

The prosecution in this case can only have suitable grounds by proving that this guy was posing as some official election channel or representative, which they can’t because he obviously wasn’t. And as the articles up above detail, which Lee Phillips obviously won’t read, there are far too many holes in the prosecution’s case to prove that the ‘suspect’ did anything other than joke, much less prove that he actually caused any harm at all.

But given Lee Phillips fell for this, and seems quite devoted to seeing this guy go down that he claims to have been checking his tweets and images and what he said to his friends (or Lee Phillips simply repeated what some Lefty website claimed, and as we all know, those guys never lie or exaggerate anything, ever!), maybe Lee Phillips can join the prosecution’s side and finally come out of the closet to provide testimony on the record that he actually texted Hillary to that number on election day.

The other problem is that Lee Phillips conveniently omits, or doesn’t understand, is that Mackey was accused with spreading ‘disinformation’, a charge which by the way more often than not results in… nothing! But he was not charged with ‘fraud’ which is what constitutes Phillips claims that he “deliberately attempting to deprive voters of their constitutional rights.” The actual prosecution’s “quotes” are that MacKey tried to “defraud citizens of their right to vote.” So Lee is misquoting them and broadening the accusation to even more absurd levels because nobody’s constitutional rights would be violated by failing to show up at the polling booth because you sent a text or because someone at the voting booth put the “Vote this Way – >” arrow facing the wrong way and Lee Phillips ended up in the bathroom, became confused and then shrugged, flushed his Hillary vote down the toiler and went home.

Now, to be fair for poor Lee, the prosecutors deliberately made it sound big in their “quotes” to the mainstream press for maximum marketing purposes (i.e. spreading deliberate disinformation! Only officially!). So let’s be fair and say that Lee didn’t actually know that, beause he only repeats what the teevee people said to him. Nor does Lee Phillips know that the section of the book they are throwing at MacKey is concerned with trying to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” someone into voting wrongly, none of which Mackey did by putting up joke pictures on the internet, and the prosecution knows it!

So why is the prosecution doing all this? Are they idiots? You must recall, all this showboating was done not to actually result in Mackey being found guilty, they frankly don’t care if he walks; it was done as part of the marketing circus to spread the Russian/White Supremacy voter manipulation/rigging/disinformation angle, and to further the Democrat cause of voting ‘reform’ and push more internet censorship and speech control and prevent Trump from doing anything with endless distraction. The point was to have this story leave an impression in the news media and thus officially dis-inform the public. It was a fine exercise in propaganda. The sort that works on Lee Phillips. But just as with MacKey, it in no way “deprives anyone of their constitutional rights”, because whether it comes from some official, prosecutor, presstitute or a guy on the internet, nobody is at fault for the voter being misinformed. That is his own problem.

If Lee Phillips wants to be consistent, then practically every social media ‘Fact-Check’ is prosecutable for disinformation and (ha-ha) stripping voters of their constitutional rights!

“Massive evidence? Not so much.”

How do you know, Lee? Did you check the machines?

Stop spreading disinformation Lee! You’re violating people of their constitutional voting rights. You’re disagreeing with TIME Magazine! They’re official!

I’m calling the FBI!

Sheri, I’m a bit disappointed in your hot take on this – perhaps you can at least see this as a form of civil disobedience? In the 2020 presidential election, there were at least 20 million ballots cast by lazy unmotivated voters who had no interest in making more than the slightest effort to vote, but “voted” anyway due to circumstances that have been hashed and rehashed in this forum. And now the Demonrats are trying to make those circumstances a permanent fixture of our elections. I sincerely hope that what Mackey did becomes common in future elections (although one could argue that Mackey could easily have found a way to do it anonymously, or via one of the email memes that get forwarded endlessly). You might be right that his motives aren’t completely as portrayed, but I very much like what he did, so I don’t care about his motives.

Here’s a question to ponder – of those Biden voters who got fooled, how many used the vote-by-text method more than once? I would bet all of them did, every last one.

Lee Philips, I can’t tell whether you are just trolling, but you do realize that “there is no evidence” has become a dog whistle in conservatives confirming election fraud, right? There was some funky-smelling stuff that occurred that begs for a plausible explanation, any plausible explanation, and the lack of such, and even the lack of any interest in producing such, is really peculiar.

Anyway, I just donated.

Johnno: What?

Hathaway: I did not say “there is no evidence”. The purpose of quotation marks is to quote someone’s exact words. Your inability to understand the difference between what I said and what you imagine I said is not an excuse to lie about what I said.

>”intended to look like an official voter information graphic.” On Twitter! From Ricky Vaughn! LOL!

Well, you got me there. Nothing is more official than a fictitious name on Twitter informing the public of voting procedures. I mean, if you can’t trust random posts on Twitter–on the internet–who can you trust????????

BTW, does Lee Philips have a clue how Twitter works?? You have to have a Twitter account, and be a follower of Ricky Vaughn. Such so-called ‘felonious interference’ doesn’t just show up in your email inbox randomly and anonymously. Too funny.

Lee: What? Oh, I see, my bad, I put “there is no evidence” in quotes to indicate that the phrase is the dog whistle, not to quote your words. If I had wanted to quote your words, I would have said ‘when you say . . .’, but how are you to know my writing style? Anyway, apologies.

But since you bring it up, I realize now that I did display an “inability to understand . . .”; specifically, your specific choice of the adjective “massive” in qualifying the evidence of election fraud, instead of saying “any evidence of election fraud”, implies that you are admitting there is some evidence of election fraud. Or did I get it wrong again?

As a conservative deep in enemy territory, I find myself speaking in dog whistles. For example, when talking about unusual weather, we say “must be global warming”, and watch the reaction carefully, to determine friend from foe. Other recent ones are “it really is terrible how they treat those homeless people”, and “the governor is really on top of this thing”.

Hathaway: No, I do not believe this is the first election in the history of the world with no voter fraud whatsoever. What a kindergarten this is.

No, Johnno. You’re wrong, there.

It was Scotland.

Ah, but, Phillips:

Hathaway did not say “Phillips said ‘there is no evidence’.”

Lee:

“massive allegations of vote fraud”?

“Absolutely.

Not so much.

Because nobody in the suspected jurisdictions wanted to investigate. That might have been embarrassing for them. But Ricky Vaughn gets the third degree. You did not address my point about how selective prosecution demonstrates law enforcement bias to serve a political agenda.

Lee – Ok, now we are getting somewhere! You believe that the level of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election is somewhere between a small amount, let’s call it background fraud, and something less than “massive”. Reading between the lines, I’ll assume that you don’t believe the level of fraud was large enough to change the outcome. What do you base this belief on?

Personally, I don’t know what to believe about the peculiarities in the handful of close swing states. One side has expounded at length and in great detail about the topic, pretty darn convincingly, actually, and the other side has remained largely aloof from the discussion, speaking only in logical fallacies when they do deign to address the topic. I haven’t searched for a while, let’s take another look . . . hmm, Wikipedia has made an attempt, but it is dominated by “there is no evidence” statements, appeal to authorities with strong vested interests, and several straw-man cases; no attempt to address the meat of my concerns.

To someone genuinely interested in understanding what happened, your “Massive Evidence? Not so much.” statement is less than illuminating. I guess I was hoping to provoke you into feeling a need to support your belief, can’t blame a guy for trying.

One argument I expected to hear made somewhere was something along the lines of “many seemingly unlikely things are actually likely to happen”, as I run across counter-intuitive stuff like that all the time in my job. Praying for Briggs’ forgiveness in advance, I am hoping some academics attempt to model the election results in a manner I can wrap my mind around, to show that randomness can indeed explain the peculiarities. I want to believe I can trust our election process, but I’ve got a long way to go to get there at this point.

As is his wont Matt relies on distortion, misinterpretation, delusion, bias, selective recall, and exaggerated fear to advance his silliness; or did Mike Lindell ghostwrite this…?

The txt prank was a meme on 4chan at the time in 2016.
Should there have been a parody marker like they insisted on the Salon parody twitter account? It was pretty funny…

How do I donate without a credit card?

After Biden’s “win” the Overlords were concerned that the massive allegations of democrat election fraud would undermine the legitimacy of Biden’s dictatorship. So they sent out the order: “Find us a Republican to charge with election fraud!” And all the banana empire’s lackeys and lickspittles, toadies and henchmen, limped into action; FBI, NSA, CIA, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN — searching for the Great White Deplorable election fraudster. The federal mountain labored, and delivered a mouse: some lone dude on Twitter. For Tweets made four years ago.

They don’t make decomposing, comic-opera empires like they used to.

I expect regime propaganda from Lee, but surprised to see it coming from Sheri as well. Both should brush up on some statutes and Constitutional law.

Here’s the relevant statute, 18 USC 241 (passed not too long after the Civil War in response KKK voter intimidation, etc), the Feds are trying to prosecute Vaughn under:

“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—”

Not only is Vaughn a single person, and thus by definition outside the statute, which specifically requires acts of “two or more persons,” but in no sense could posting a joke meme be construed as a conspiracy to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate…” people in the free exercise of their right to vote. And it bears noting that Leftist creators of similar memes aimed toward Trump voters in both 2016 and 2020 have never been prosecuted.

This prosecution is so sloppy it shouldn’t even make it to trial. Shouldn’t survive a pre-trial motion to dismiss for failure to make even a prime facie case under any reasonable reading of the statute forming the basis of the prosecution that a crime was actually committed.

This is purely a political prosecution as part of the regime’s effort after the false-flag op of Jan 6 to truly engage in a conspiracy to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate,” and generally persecute, GOP voters and other dissidents from the illegitimate Biden regime occupying DC.

Dean Ericson:
It is more likely the Ricky Vaughn account was already doxxed and a dossier sitting in a file somewhere, until they thought it was a good time to pull it out.
They might even think the alt-right as it existed at the time had network connections, besides a bunch of bloggers or some nonsense…

In a way that would be correct, Richard Spencer probably does glow in the dark.

After slogging through Professor Volokh article, he finally gets to a making a valid argument.
>>> And to the extent it is a precedent, the breadth of the Mackey indictment is disquieting. For instance, urging the Manchester Professional Firefighters Association to shut down its get-out-the-vote effort (with no threats or incitement of violence, but just advocacy) would be advocacy protected by the First Amendment. But under the trial court’s reasoning that S 241 bans conspiracies “with the specific intent to impede or prevent qualified persons from exercising the right to vote” such advocacy would in fact be a crime. Likewise, picketing outside a party’s headquarters, urging party activists not to show up for the get-out-the-vote effort (perhaps arguing that the party’s candidate has recently been shown to be a crook or a racist), would be a crime, too.
>>> What’s more, S 241 isn’t limited to protecting the right to vote; it applies to “injur[ing]” or “oppress[ing]” people “in the free exercise or enjoyment” of any constitutional right. Say that people try to prevent a public speech at a local university by urging university employees to cancel it. That too would be a conspiracy “with the specific intent to impede or prevent qualified persons from exercising” the First Amendment right to speak, or the right to listen (which the court has held is also protected by the First Amendment).

So, in an America where Truth and equal protection under the law are foremost, then Lee Phillips arguments are for prosecution are on shaky ground until the Feds start prosecuting campus marxists for shutting down conservative speakers.

But, we live in an America much closer to the one Sheri describes. In this America the pharisees (News Media, Hollywood, Academia, Fine Arts, Marketing, HR, NGO’s) and the sadducees (The Deep State) hold people to one standard, that being a double standard, so Demon-Rat politicians and their Overlords are free from prosecution until it is decided that someone needs to be sacrificed for the good of the Cosmos.

Dean: So your argument is not to prosecute anyone if you can’t get them all??? Sounds insane to me. However, if you throw in “right” and “evil government” it might sell. It’s still wrong, though.

Johnno: It LOOKED LIKE A VOTING METHOD. Pure and simple. That’s fraud and an attempt to change the election. Yes, I’ve innocently made comments that people took very seriously, much to the embarrassment of the newspaper I made the cartoon for and to myself (and that was decades ago in the real paper newspaper day). Never underestimate the stupidity and lack of learning in your audience or just plain orneriness. Mock all you want, but words and memes and cartoons have real world consequences and if you lose your house over a “funny meme” showing it as a target for Antifa, remember, you thought this was okay. (Yes, that can happen if someone pulls a picture of your house and makes a meme. Happens all the time with many, many things on the net.)

Milton: No, as noted with Johnno, I KNOW how one can influence, even by accident, people on a hot topic. I guarantee I’m not buying that this was “innocent” at all. It was irresponsible. Again, misuse or misunderstanding of the message is not justification. If I go into a store that was not locked because someone forgot, is that theft??? Not by your definition. The store was open.

Dean: Paranoia runs deep. In most people here, it seems.

Dennis: Interesting statute (and insult). Was the number chosen one because ONE could not accomplish the task when this law was passed? I don’t understand why only voter fraud or interference by TWO counted. Maybe because ONE crooked sheriff or ONE very powerful politician could change an election completely? Didn’t want to anger them, right? Again, the argument seems to be that if one murderer is let go they all must be and that insane. Also, this would apply to the Left, of course. If only ONE person did something, they walk. Because you on the right are always “fair”, correct?

******

I realize there is an abject hatred for the left, to the point of irrational and that the right can break laws and ignore them to “get even” with impunity, but laws are laws. If you break them, you risk jail. Yes, laws are unevenly applied and HAVE BEEN SINCE AMERICA BEGAN. SINCE HUMANITY BEGAN. So why the hissy fits now????? The meme clearly was to mislead and that’s illegal. Maybe they need to apply a different statute, I don’t know. If the same meme were against Trump, you would be shouting to hang the guy who created it. Remember Kathy Griffin? One person, legal behavior. Yet hysteria from the right. America consists of adolescents fighting over anything and incapable of rational thought. Ever doubt it, read the comment sections.

“It LOOKED LIKE A VOTING METHOD. Pure and simple. That’s fraud and an attempt to change the election.”

It is not fraud as defined in law. That it why he’s not being prosecuted for fraud. The prosecutor said the word “fraud” to the press who repeated it. But the same prosecutor isn’t charging fraud. They’re charging him with interference and intimidation using disinformation. And they’re stretching the definitions.

As for “It LOOKED LIKE A VOTING METHOD. ” Whete is the line drawn? If he used a picture of a moon base and some idiots show up at NASA asking for a ticket to the moon and miss election day. Is that also prosecutable?

I understand that people can deliberately claim I’m holding black children hostage and showing them racially insensitive Disney movies in my basememt with a picture of my house that sends a mob my way and then say, “LOL! JUST JOKIN’!”

But that’s still not fraud. I can of course go after them on grounds of actually inciting real violence and there are laws for that. But the guy will most likely get off. And the only thing the law can do is charge the morons who actually came to my house and did shit. So that’s how it works, and as the victim agree that is how it should work. Because it sets a precedent where the government can claim any parody as grounds to lock up anyone conveniently for any comment made in jest or sarcasm. That’s why the law doesn’t rule on such things because otherwise it’d be easily abused.

Sheri: It’s not merely an “interesting statute” in that that may or may not have some bearing on the case, depending on one’s point of view; IT IS THE STATUTE ALLEGED TO FORM THE ENTIRE BASIS OF THE PROSECUTION’S CASE!

And you can’t simply rewrite it or ignore the plain language of the statute because you don’t like some guy’s joke meme, or because you think the rationale for “two” no longer applies in the same manner as it did when the statute was written. Two means two, period. A single person – no matter what acts he engages in – by definition can not commit a “conspiracy” under this statue (unless you’re using some of that newfangled “woke math” which appears all the rage these days).

Further, you’ve completely ignored the other requirement under the statute, that the alleged conspiratorial acts “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate.” This language has always been construed to apply to actual physical acts or threats, not mere words. If I and a friend try our best to convince people to just not vote – because the system is corrupt and rigged anyway, for example – we are not violating section 241.

Interesting statute (and insult). Was the number chosen one because ONE could not accomplish the task when this law was passed?

Because its title is: “Conspiracy against rights”.
Presumably a conspiracy to commit criminal acts.
Conspiracy is a joint effort.
You can’t have a single person conspiracy.

But then, who knows anymore?
There seems to be a penchant for floating definitions.
To quote from the writings of Lewis Carrol:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

@Sheri,

Where I live, such is not against the law, unless you are too close to a polling place. Sample ballots are routinely made and distributed here and none, or should I say nearly none, are fooled into thinking they are official ballots.