All of that is bad enough, but newly-unsealed documents released on Wednesday reveal new, sinister depths to the DOJ’s agenda.
Last fall, we warned about a new tool in the arsenal of weapons used by the regime to justify censorship and rolling back the basic rights of Americans. With this new tool, corrupt journalists like Taylor Lorenz can dox, harass, and lie about anyone they want and enjoy total immunity from criticism. Why? Well, if you dare to criticize a journalist like Lorenz, someone, somewhere, might become outraged and decide to commit an act of violence. With this remarkable censorship tool, the media’s attack dog journalists are magically absolved from any criticism because some nut job, somewhere, maybe, at sometime, might act violently upon this criticism.
The tool goes by the name “stochastic terrorism.”
Basically, “stochastic terrorism” is the idea that, when somebody on the right criticizes somebody, they aren’t really just making a political argument. Instead, they are trying to “stoke hatred” in the expectation that some random third party will be “radicalized” and then commit political violence on their behalf.
…
[T]he concept perfectly flows from being a personal attack to being a legal one. The implicit claim behind every complaint about stochastic terror is that dissident speech isn’t really speech, and therefore it doesn’t really deserve protection, because conservatives, or anyone liberals don’t like, harbor a hidden inner desire to inspire violent attacks. Any complaint about the liberals or, more importantly, the Regime, in any venue, can now be dressed up as “violent” speech deserving no constitutional protection.
Back in October, “stochastic terrorism” was just a concept for the media, the blogosphere, and the Twitterati, and it was only a weapon for curbing speech.
But everything moves faster in the digital age. Just five months later, the Biden Department of Justice is using the logic of “stochastic terrorism” to justify stripping core constitutional due process rights from dissident American voices.
In its latest filings, the DOJ reveals that one of the group chats it is currently using as evidence against Mackey contained a person who is now working with the FBI as a federal informant. According to the government, the “Confidential Witness” (or CW) was a pro-Trump, “alt right” leader who pleaded guilty to the same conspiracy to deprive civil rights charges that Mackey faces, and is now collaborating with the government.
In its filings, the government declines to say what CW’s current role with the government is, except that he is “presently engaged in proactive investigations, working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and may engage in additional investigations in the future.” Based on that statement, the government is asking that CW’s identity be kept secret, and that Mackey’s defense team be barred from asking any questions about CW’s current work.
This is a much bolder request than it might seem to the legally uninitiated. The Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees the right of any criminal defendant to “be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Like most constitutional rights, this law is not absolute, but limitations to it have historically been very limited. Courts have long disallowed anonymous witnesses due to the Sixth Amendment, except in extreme circumstances involving violent, organized criminal organizations with the capacity to retaliate against witnesses and their families. And even then, courts have restricted the right to testify anonymously. For instance, in 2014, the U.S. 10th Circuit said this, about the possible danger of retaliation from the ruthless Salvadoran street gang MS-13.
“…a generalized statement about danger — such as anyone who testifies against one of [MS 13’s] members faces danger from [MS-13] — would be insufficient to show that a threat against a witness was actual and not a result of conjecture.” [United States v. Gutierrez de Lopez, 761 F.3d 1123, 1140 (10th Cir. 2014)]
But now, in the Mackey case, the Biden DOJ asserts that its witness’s identity must be hidden, because if not, he might face, wait for it… harassment on the Internet!
The confrontation of accusers defense is a good appeal issue. No disagreement.
Minimizing an organized fraud as a joke is something you should consider when the SEC knocks at your door.
I'll mark you down for against free speech as always.
"Fraud is protected speech" poaster weighs in.
I've always been against speaking with a forked tongue, Tonto.
Speech isn't fraud, fraud is fraud. I lie to you for a financial benefit, and that's fraud. You lie about Russian collusion to influence voters that is protected speech, subject to the libel and defamation rules. You should go to law school.
During a Wednesday House Education Quality Subcommittee, Rep. Ashley Viola Gantt (D) asked McClain if this bill would prohibit girls younger than 6th grade from discussing their periods in school.
Mello just decided he was applying for a 5th grade teaching position with some new ammunition for grooming.
The confrontation of accusers defense is a good appeal issue. No disagreement.
Minimizing an organized fraud as a joke is something you should consider when the SEC knocks at your door.
I'll mark you down for against free speech as always.
"Fraud is protected speech" poaster weighs in.
I've always been against speaking with a forked tongue, Tonto.
Speech isn't fraud, fraud is fraud. I lie to you for a financial benefit, and that's fraud. You lie about Russian collusion to influence voters that is protected speech, subject to the libel and defamation rules. You should go to law school.
Fraud isn't limited to attempts to obtain money, but this isn't common law fraud anyway.
The confrontation of accusers defense is a good appeal issue. No disagreement.
Minimizing an organized fraud as a joke is something you should consider when the SEC knocks at your door.
I'll mark you down for against free speech as always.
"Fraud is protected speech" poaster weighs in.
I've always been against speaking with a forked tongue, Tonto.
Speech isn't fraud, fraud is fraud. I lie to you for a financial benefit, and that's fraud. You lie about Russian collusion to influence voters that is protected speech, subject to the libel and defamation rules. You should go to law school.
The SEC doesn't avail itself of free speech issues either.
Though the pretend lawyer says they are going to come after @Swaye.
Comments
Last fall, we warned about a new tool in the arsenal of weapons used by the regime to justify censorship and rolling back the basic rights of Americans. With this new tool, corrupt journalists like Taylor Lorenz can dox, harass, and lie about anyone they want and enjoy total immunity from criticism. Why? Well, if you dare to criticize a journalist like Lorenz, someone, somewhere, might become outraged and decide to commit an act of violence. With this remarkable censorship tool, the media’s attack dog journalists are magically absolved from any criticism because some nut job, somewhere, maybe, at sometime, might act violently upon this criticism.
The tool goes by the name “stochastic terrorism.”
Basically, “stochastic terrorism” is the idea that, when somebody on the right criticizes somebody, they aren’t really just making a political argument. Instead, they are trying to “stoke hatred” in the expectation that some random third party will be “radicalized” and then commit political violence on their behalf.
…
[T]he concept perfectly flows from being a personal attack to being a legal one. The implicit claim behind every complaint about stochastic terror is that dissident speech isn’t really speech, and therefore it doesn’t really deserve protection, because conservatives, or anyone liberals don’t like, harbor a hidden inner desire to inspire violent attacks. Any complaint about the liberals or, more importantly, the Regime, in any venue, can now be dressed up as “violent” speech deserving no constitutional protection.
Back in October, “stochastic terrorism” was just a concept for the media, the blogosphere, and the Twitterati, and it was only a weapon for curbing speech.
But everything moves faster in the digital age. Just five months later, the Biden Department of Justice is using the logic of “stochastic terrorism” to justify stripping core constitutional due process rights from dissident American voices.
In its latest filings, the DOJ reveals that one of the group chats it is currently using as evidence against Mackey contained a person who is now working with the FBI as a federal informant. According to the government, the “Confidential Witness” (or CW) was a pro-Trump, “alt right” leader who pleaded guilty to the same conspiracy to deprive civil rights charges that Mackey faces, and is now collaborating with the government.
In its filings, the government declines to say what CW’s current role with the government is, except that he is “presently engaged in proactive investigations, working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and may engage in additional investigations in the future.” Based on that statement, the government is asking that CW’s identity be kept secret, and that Mackey’s defense team be barred from asking any questions about CW’s current work.
This is a much bolder request than it might seem to the legally uninitiated. The Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees the right of any criminal defendant to “be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Like most constitutional rights, this law is not absolute, but limitations to it have historically been very limited. Courts have long disallowed anonymous witnesses due to the Sixth Amendment, except in extreme circumstances involving violent, organized criminal organizations with the capacity to retaliate against witnesses and their families. And even then, courts have restricted the right to testify anonymously. For instance, in 2014, the U.S. 10th Circuit said this, about the possible danger of retaliation from the ruthless Salvadoran street gang MS-13.
“…a generalized statement about danger — such as anyone who testifies against one of [MS 13’s] members faces danger from [MS-13] — would be insufficient to show that a threat against a witness was actual and not a result of conjecture.” [United States v. Gutierrez de Lopez, 761 F.3d 1123, 1140 (10th Cir. 2014)]
But now, in the Mackey case, the Biden DOJ asserts that its witness’s identity must be hidden, because if not, he might face, wait for it… harassment on the Internet!
Probably Ray Epps
No one
Not Tucker Not me Not anyone
A weak deflection from 2 years of lies about J6
Pathetic
I've always been against speaking with a forked tongue, Tonto.
Agreed, big government is the worst.
Mello just decided he was applying for a 5th grade teaching position with some new ammunition for grooming.
Though the pretend lawyer says they are going to come after @Swaye.
I don't recall voting for anyone in Florida
And being against Big government isn't in favor of no government
You and H are banging that strawman like it's a drag queen in grade school