Thread by @Farrier105

@philllosoraptor @JackPosobiec Actually, the do not have a good case against him since he did not perform any of the acts that the statute defines as violations. When investigating in the early stages, the agent has to match the elements of the crime to the conditional statements (IF-THEN-ELSE logic).

@philllosoraptor @JackPosobiec When reading the statute, 18 USC 241, we see that ONE of the following acts must be performed:
Injure OR
oppress OR
threaten OR
Intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege

@philllosoraptor @JackPosobiec 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

@philllosoraptor @JackPosobiec on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

THEN you have a violation. Is there a violation here in what Mackey did?

@philllosoraptor @JackPosobiec We can start with the second part of the statute as it is the easiest, dealing with someone going about in disguise on the highway, or in the premises of the victim, to use force to either punish the victim for exercising a right, or coerce him into not exercising the right.

@philllosoraptor @JackPosobiec No, Mackey did not wear a disguise on a highway or in the premises of any of the potential victims, therefore the second paragraph does not apply to what Mackey did. Some will argue the MEME is a disguise, but, no, the actor must appear to the victim IN PERSON, wearing a

@philllosoraptor @JackPosobiec disguise on either a highway (impeding the victim's use of the thoroughfare to terrorize him) or in the victim's own home, to terrorize him. If this sounds like the KKK, that is exactly against whom this statute was written. We are not dealing with that kind of violation.

@philllosoraptor @JackPosobiec So, let's go back to the first paragraph and deal with the four actions, Injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate one by one, since it only requires ONE to be the case for a violation to have been committed.

It is obvious that Mackey did not THREATEN, nor did he intimidate...

@philllosoraptor @JackPosobiec ...anyone, so those two can be eliminated. Also, there is nothing in the affidavit for arrest warrant that alleges Mackey physically INJURED anyone. This leaves OPPRESS.

@philllosoraptor @JackPosobiec I tried the Law.com Legal Dictionary and came up empty for a definition. The only ones that could possibly be construed as a legal definition in WEBSTER'S were: "weigh heavily on the mind" and "keep down by cruel, unjust use of authority."

@philllosoraptor @JackPosobiec Neither of the above definitions fits what Mackey did. So, this statute does not fit at all. Mackey should not be prosecuted under it. Mackey used DECEPTION to convince people to text their vote to some electronic reception point. There is nothing in this statute about...

@philllosoraptor @JackPosobiec ...the use of deception and ruse to thwart the exercise of voting rights. Is there a federal statute that does this? Not that I could find. Only a bill stuck in committee, S.1834. The fact that lawmakers wrote a bill like DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AND VOTER INTIMIDATION tells us...

@philllosoraptor @JackPosobiec it is useless to look for one. They didn't have such a statute. That was why the S.1834 was written a few Congresses ago. The DOJ is using an old (1948) anti-KKK statute in order to prosecute Mackey when, with only 4,850 POSSIBLE votes grifted from possible victims, in

@philllosoraptor @JackPosobiec MULTIPLE jurisdictions, and many of those possible votes in the EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, which HILLARY WON, we have the Bill Barr Rule hanging over the prosecution, which runs like this:

@philllosoraptor @JackPosobiec IF there was no widespread fraud (4850 nationwide votes ONLY) AND
IF the fraud does NOT affect the outcome of the election
THEN the fraud is not important enough to even investigate, since there is ALWAYS "some" fraud.

I think this covers everything.

@philllosoraptor @JackPosobiec @threadreaderapp Please unroll.