I question this anonymous source

PajamasMedia has posted a story from an anonymous election lawyer about the Tan Nguyen indictment. However, I think this anonymous lawyer needs to relook at the history of the case.

For Spanish readers, here is the original letter. For those who lack the education in Spanish, the "damning" portion translates as follows:

You are being sent this letter because you were recently registered to vote. If
you are a citizen of the United States, we ask that you participate in the
democratic process of voting. You are advised that if your residence in this
country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a
crime that could result in imprisonment, and you will be deported for voting
without having the right to do so.

The backstory, according to the LA Times article previously linked, was that the original letter in English had "green-card holders", which was translated into Spanish as "emigrados", which translates back into English as "immigrants".

Of course, green card holders cannot vote, so the original English draft was correct. However, immigrants can, so long as they are U.S. citizens. It is important to make such a syntactical distinction. An immigrant is anyone whose country of origin is different than the one they currently reside. An illegal immigrant is one who resides illegally in a country not of their origin. A legal immigrant is one who resides legally in a country not of their origin. Legal imigrants include not only people who have green-cards and similar documentation, but also people who have become citizens through the naturalization process. Therefore, the bolded is vague and confusing to someone who has earned citizenship but may have been an immigrant to the country. Therefore, the letter was intimidating to some Latino voters.

It is true that no criminal intent was discovered (archived LA Times article). However, this current GOP case is about whether Nguyen obstructed the investigations. I won't comment on this, as I am neither interested in that allegation nor does it affect me in my current geographical location.

However, what i do find entertaining is the overall conspiracy tone of the article. I note that if it weren't for our favorite knight in tin-foil armor, I probably would not have even noticed it. How much of reality do these sycophants have to do in order to justify their nuttery?

_