This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It'd likely be several crimes - using official insignia without permission, probably some kind of trademark violation, likely mail fraud, etc. The content of the envelope wouldn't really add much. None of this happened in this case. This is like somebody being prosecuted for peacefully protesting against a politician and you'd say "there should be a line somewhere - if he murdered him, dismembered the body, liquified it in acid, and set his house on fire - that should be a crime, right?" Yes, it should be. Nothing like that happened though.
No there isn't. There's evidence they contacted the number. That's not proving any crime, and definitely not the one that was insinuated. It used to be that the crimes have to be proved. Not "well, he did something that we could imply that might be connected to something else", but the actual deed that is criminal.There was no proof for that. Even if there was, it'd be very questionable it is a crime - at least there should be a proof of criminal intent, if I just tell you "you know they cancelled elections?" and you believe it, it's not a crime. But they didn't do even the minimal thing. Because they didn't need to - finding a friendly jury which will convict anybody who is politically opposed to them is, apparently, much easier.
You saying "would have" as if it were established they didn't. There's no single case where it was proven any of those people din't vote the normal way. You just assumed that - because it couldn't be The Powers screwed up that badly, could it? Yes, it could.
No, there wasn't, and they didn't even try that hard to do it. Probably because they counted on people assuming what they had is enough - and indeed, as we see, it was. Don't complain when you get a friendly local policeman show up at your door for a joke on twitter - after all, somebody could take it seriously - you see, 3 people liked it! - and that could mislead him into voting for a wrong person (not Democrat), and that's election interference. Hope you like them bananas.
That'd require using the actual official insignia, and as far as I know, it didn't happen.
No, but I have reporting that clearly indicates there was no proof of any case of not voting as a result of that and the prosecution relied on messages to the number alone. Of course, as we all know, reporting can be false - and if you provide reliable reporting to the contrary, I will re-evaluate my opinion. So far it didn't happen.
More options
Context Copy link
There is a brief discussion of some of the evidence that was presented here, but the source is one-sided so it does not include any contrary evidence.
It appears that the defendant testified, so it is always possible that the jury thought he was lying.
I'm curious what ground you see for an appeal.
But he was convicted of conspiracy, which does not require a completed crime, nor any harm or even, in re this particular statute, an overt act (though there clearly was one here). The jury instructions are here - see page 34 et seq. And see US v. Gonzalez, 906 F. 3d 784, 792 (9th Cir 2018) [" In order to convict Gonzalez and Ayala of violating § 241 based on the first object of the charged conspiracy, the government had to prove: (1) that two or more persons agreed to deprive Carrillo of his right to be free from the use of excessive force, and (2) that Gonzalez and Ayala knowingly joined the agreement and intended to deprive Carrillo of his right to be free from the use of excessive force."].
But where is your authority for your claim that the statute requires a specific, named victim? If that were required by the statute, then the indictment would have been successfully set aside, because it didn't name a specific victim either. It says, in its entirely:
Yet there was no motion to set aside the indictment on that ground, was there?
And, I have only looked briefly, but here are some cases stating that, as a rule, no specific victim need be identified in a conspiracy prosecution:
US v. Haddy, 134 F. 3d 542 (3rd Cir 1998) [“Haddy and Wynn also argue that their convictions should be reversed because the government did not prove that investors actually relied upon fraudulent and manipulative practices in purchasing or selling the subject securities. . . . Rule 10b-5 also prohibits deceptive devices "as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors." Under this regulation, the SEC is authorized to prohibit deceptive acts that it concludes would have deleterious effect on the integrity of the securities market and on investor confidence. See 15 U.S.C. § 78b (purpose of Exchange Act is "to insure the maintenance of fair and honest markets"). This clear language obviates the necessity of identification of a specific victim who acted upon the deception.”]
US v. Tum, 707 F. 3d 68 (1st Cir. 2013) [“the Supreme Court has said in another context that the government in a conspiracy case need not prove the identity of a specific victim, unless the statute underlying the conspiracy charge so requires. See Feola, 420 U.S. at 672-73, 684, 686-93, 95 S.Ct. 1255 (affirming a conviction for conspiring to assault a federal officer even though the defendant had no idea that the victim was a federal officer). So the key to the conundrum lies in the statutory language of the act that the judge found Tum and HHCS had conspired to infract — the wire-fraud act. As we said many pages ago, the core elements of wire fraud are a scheme to defraud involving an interstate communication by wire. Conspicuously missing from this list is any requirement that the schemers know the identity of the fraud victim. The same is true for the mail-fraud statute, see 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the elements of which mirror the wire-fraud statute in relevant respects, so cases dealing with one statute are helpful in dealing with the other. See, e.g., Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 25 n. 6, 108 S.Ct. 316, 98 L.Ed.2d 275 (1987). Critically, 76*76 one of our mail-fraud cases flatly rejected the idea that the government is obliged to prove that the defrauders intended to defraud a specific victim, reasoning that the mail-fraud act "requires only that there be a scheme to defraud...." United States v. Royal, 100 F.3d 1019, 1030 (1st Cir.1996) (citing, most relevantly, Sawyer, 85 F.3d at 723). We see no reason for a different result in wire-fraud cases.[6] And because the fraud victim's identity is not an essential element of wire fraud, neither is it an essential element of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. See, e.g., Feola, 420 U.S. at 686, 696, 95 S.Ct. 1255 (holding that a conspiracy conviction requires proof of the same mental state as the substantive offense itself)."]
State v. Lane, NC: Court of Appeals 2011 (unreported case) ["A defendant may be convicted of conspiracy where no specific victim was targeted at the time the agreement to commit the unlawful act was made. See, e.g., State v. Roberts, 176 N.C. App. 159, 167, 625 S.E.2d 846, 852 (2006) (upholding a conspiracy conviction where the indictment stated that defendant agreed with two other people to rob "someone" that evening); State v. Dalton, 122 N.C. App. 666, 673, 471 S.E.2d 657, 662 (1996) (upholding a conspiracy conviction where defendants agreed to rape "someone," before starting their search for a specific victim)."]
Which makes a lot of sense; since a conspiracy does not require a completed crime, of course there will often not be a specific victim yet. I worked on a case once in which a client and his friend agreed to go out and kill the first black guy they met. They eventually found one, and killed him, but if they had been caught while out looking for a victim, they could not be convicted of conspiracy because there was no specific victim yet? That doesn't seem right.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link