Many cases that should make it to court, never see the light of a court room. There are many reasons for that, but one of the most prominent is that a “suspect” is “under the influence,” at the time off the crime, or plainly too terrified of the legal process, with verdicts adjudicated in the court of public opinion well in advance of their testimony. Simply put: all Americans are propagandized in advance to not stand up against such pre-judicial abuse.
And cases that do make it to court face the task of overcoming subtle and debilitative pre-judicial assaults on their ‘state of mind’ or ‘mens rea.’ One of the most common defenses that negates a proper showing of mens rea is that a suspect is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and so they are guilty in the least of negligence.
But today, we know with certainty that other factors influence any criminal defendant, but also that the insight of these influences is inhibited by the pre-judicial nature of what is called crime in the first place, as most crimes are engendered male- but under the influence of what, exactly? Are there influences as powerful as drugs, alcohol, or pharmaceutical drugs? There have been novel criminal defenses that invoke ifluence, but not directly-like the case of Lorena Bobbit in the heyday of late model “feminism”- who was under the influence of rage-an irresistible impulse.
But what is influence anyways?
Only one thing is certain in our modern era of social media and whole life control, via intelligence agency manipulation of the internet and mass media: even the most mundane and boring interactions are under the influence of our own agents of social control, and foreign governments, and then, that, mediated by ‘local commercial, social, and political interests,’ that exploit people based on profiles in ‘dossier’s,’ and internet cookies alike; an these profiles are politically charged, and biased by nature.
I propose herein, that”influence” is in fact, a case factor in any proceeding henceforth that should ever make it to an American court room, as influence operations are designed b their very nature to undermine free will- that any individual who has ever been subjected to an intel agency onslaught against them individually, or as a member o a group, has suffered harm, an been manipulated against due process insight-and that, often for years in advance of any charge against them.
Here is a starting point for criminal defense attorney’s, civil plaintiffs, or other interested parties to look into influence, and it’s power over individual choices:
Under the Influence of propaganda operations: America at a cross roads of truth and lies: how does that affect mens rea, legal motives, options, culpability, and intention, in the age of full court surveillance that is capable of targeting individuals for specilized ye hidden campaigns of influence?
Influence Operation: “Russian Hackers,” and the U.S. Election of 2016
WASHINGTON — American intelligence officials have concluded that the president of Russia, Vladimir V. Putin, personally “ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election,” and turned from seeking to “denigrate” Hillary Clinton to developing “a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”
The conclusions were part of a declassified intelligence report, ordered by President Obama, that was released on Friday. Its main determinations were described to Mr. Trump by the nation’s top intelligence officials earlier in the day, and he responded by acknowledging, for the first time, that Russia had sought to hack into the Democratic National Committee’s computer systems. But he insisted that the effort had no effect on the election, and he said nothing about the conclusion that Mr. Putin, at some point last year, decided to aid his candidacy.
The report, a damning and surprisingly detailed account of Russia’s efforts to undermine the American electoral system and Mrs. Clinton in particular, went on to assess that Mr. Putin had “aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.”
The report described a broad campaign that included covert operations, including cyberactivities and “trolling” on the internet of people who were viewed as opponents of Russia’s effort. While it accused Russian intelligence agencies of obtaining and maintaining “access to elements of multiple U.S. state or local electoral boards,” it concluded — as officials have publicly — that there was no evidence of tampering with the tallying of the vote on Nov. 8.
But the declassified report contained no information about how the agencies had collected their data or had come to their conclusions. So it is bound to be attacked by skeptics and by partisans of Mr. Trump, who see the review as a political effort to impugn the legitimacy of his election. Intelligence officials have rejected that view.
The report, reflecting the assessments of the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and the National Security Agency, stopped short of backing up Mr. Trump on his declaration that the hacking activity had no effect on the election. “We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election,” the report concluded, saying it was beyond its responsibility to analyze American “political processes” or public opinion.
The intelligence agencies also concluded “with high confidence” that Russia’s main military intelligence unit, the G.R.U., created a “persona” called Guccifer 2.0 and a website, DCLeaks.com, to release the emails of the Democratic National Committee and of the chairman of the Clinton campaign, John D. Podesta.
When those disclosures received what was seen as insufficient attention, the report said, the G.R.U. “relayed material it acquired from the D.N.C. and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks.” The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, has denied that Russia was the source of the emails it published.
The report makes clear that Mr. Putin favored Mr. Trump in part because he had previous success dealing with “Western political leaders whose business interests made them more disposed to deal with Russia” — it named a former Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, as an example — and in part because he viewed Mr. Trump as a more likely ally in forming Russia’s version of a counterterrorism coalition against the Islamic State. Mr. Trump described his eagerness to do so in an interview with The New York Times in March 2016.
The report also stated that Russia collected data “on some Republican-affiliated targets,” but did not disclose the contents of whatever it harvested.
The report’s introduction called the public document a summation of “a highly classified assessment.” The classified version, officials say, comes in two forms — one for Congress and another, called a “compartmentalized” report, for select members of Congress and top officials of the incoming and outgoing governments.
…follow this link to learn more.