Was the Prosecution of Dinesh D'Souza a case of Political Targetting

[cow451]

Actually if the prosecution was solely due to political reasons (that he's been criticizing the parties in power), while the cronies of the party in power gets a pass, then it is grounds for the conviction to be overturned on the basis of enforcement of the statute is being conducted in an unconstitutional manner.

Now, I have to wipe the coffee off my screen.

 

[MachZer0]

Y'all are such a fun fest. Clinton being targeted for his politics did not change the fact that he was guilty and faced the consequences. In fact he and D'Sooza seem to have similar commitments to family values.

You missed the point again which was that Clinton had plenty of defenders, not whether or not he faced the consequences. It was a point about hypocrisy

 

[cow451]

You missed the point again which was that Clinton had plenty of defenders, not whether or not he faced the consequences. It was a point about hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is fine as long as it is the GOP doing it. Gotcha

 

[GarfieldJL]

Hypocrisy is fine as long as it is the GOP doing it. Gotcha

You're just trying to distract from the real issue by taking potshots at Republicans. The issue here is whether or not the Obama DoJ (Democrats), are using the DoJ as a political weapon, where they go out of their way to target high profile individuals that criticize them (such as Dinesh D'Souza), while giving pro-Obama donors a pass when they do the same thing Mr. D'Souza did.

While you don't seem to understand why this issue is important, I do. You know part of the reason why literacy tests to determine voter eligibility were unconstitutional? I'll give you a hint, it's exactly the same reason why I'm questioning the prosecution of Mr. D'Souza.

You know, if the situation were reversed and a Republican Administration and there were grounds to suspect they were using the DoJ as a weapon to target high-profile liberals, you'd be blowing a gasket (probably without even conducting a logical analysis).

In other words, it really looks like you're okay with Government Agencies being used as political weapons, as long as your side is the one doing it.

 

[Veritas]

Regardless of whether what he did was illegal or not (lots of people do what he did and are never arrested or prosecuted), this is just another chapter in the targeting of conservatives via Obama's Enemies List.

 

[vincenticus]

You know, if the situation were reversed and a Republican Administration and there were grounds to suspect they were using the DoJ as a weapon to target high-profile liberals, you'd be blowing a gasket (probably without even conducting a logical analysis).

In other words, it really looks like you're okay with Government Agencies being used as political weapons, as long as your side is the one doing it.

If the DoJ specially selected liberals for investigation into their political contributions (which are public records, so we are not talking invasions of privacy or warrantless searches) and they found illegal activities, I would absolutely support prosecution.

Leave it to the Party of Personal Responsibility to give a conservative a pass for breaking the law, and then proceed to complain that he should have gotten away with it.

 

[GarfieldJL]

If the DoJ specially selected liberals for investigation into their political contributions (which are public records, so we are not talking invasions of privacy or warrantless searches) and they found illegal activities, I would absolutely support prosecution.

What we're talking about is of the equivalent of invasions of privacy and warrantless searches. Laws have to apply equally for both sides, otherwise they are being enforced in an unconstitutional manner.

Leave it to the Party of Personal Responsibility to give a conservative a pass for breaking the law, and then proceed to complain that he should have gotten away with it.

Except the normal punishment given for something like this (given how small the donation actually was), would have been nothing more than a fine, in fact people prosecuted in the past for the same thing where the donation was actually much higher.

Your attempt to drag personal responsibility into this falls flat on its face, when you have liberal legal experts saying the behavior of the government was way out of line.

 

[vincenticus]

What we're talking about is of the equivalent of invasions of privacy and warrantless searches. Laws have to apply equally for both sides, otherwise they are being enforced in an unconstitutional manner.



Except the normal punishment given for something like this (given how small the donation actually was), would have been nothing more than a fine, in fact people prosecuted in the past for the same thing where the donation was actually much higher.

Your attempt to drag personal responsibility into this falls flat on its face, when you have liberal legal experts saying the behavior of the government was way out of line.

Investigating public records is the same as a warrantless search? Your grasp of the legal system never ceases to amaze me.

The government sought punishments provided for in accordance with the law. If you don't like the law, blame Congress. Or, you know, don't commit felonies.

I don't particularly care what "liberal legal experts" think about the issue. I do know that admitted felon Dinesh D'Souza committed a crime and conservatives are upset because no one should have found out.

 

[vincenticus]

None of your post refutes the fact that Dinesh D'Souza was charged within the bounds of applicable law, freely plead guilty to a lesser offense and was sentenced accordingly. Again, if you don't like the law, work on getting it changed. Unless there is some evidence of illegal activity by the government, I have no outrage. Prosecutors have the discretion to bring any charges for which there is sufficient evidence and Preet Bharara did so.

 

[elliott95]

Why do you say that? Was his film banned? Has he been censored in any way?

A person who had criticized the sitting president has been successfully persecuted under American law.
If that does not have a chilling effect on an American's belief in basic freedom of speech, nothing will.

 

[GarfieldJL]

None of your post refutes the fact that Dinesh D'Souza was charged within the bounds of applicable law, freely plead guilty to a lesser offense and was sentenced accordingly. Again, if you don't like the law, work on getting it changed. Unless there is some evidence of illegal activity by the government, I have no outrage. Prosecutors have the discretion to bring any charges for which there is sufficient evidence and Preet Bharara did so.

You mean like prosecuting someone using a law that had to be applied in an ex-post facto manner (something that is expressly prohibitted in the US Constitution)... That's why the Tom Delay conviction was overturned. Are you honestly suggesting Mr. Bharara was acting in an ethical manner when he was prosecuting Mr. Delay?


What's clear here is that you're ignoring the evidence that conflicts with what you would like to believe.

1. Past cases of this nature were the perview of the FEC, not the FBI.
2. Similar cases resulted in fines, not probation, and certainly not prison time like what Mr. Bharara wanted.
3. Mr. Bharara was involved in two other questionable prosecutions where the convictions were overturned (at least one of which involved the law being applied in an ex-post facto fashion)
4. You have former FEC commissioners saying something stinks about all of this.
5. You have legal experts saying the behavior in which the DoJ handled this case was a-typical to say the least.

You're ignoring the evidence because of your personal bias against conservatives. Your complete disregard of the evidence speaks for itself.

A person who had criticized the sitting president has been successfully persecuted under American law.

If that does not have a chilling effect on an American's belief in basic freedom of speech, nothing will.

Agreed, sadly I can't say I'm surprised though.

 

[vincenticus]

You mean like prosecuting someone using a law that had to be applied in an ex-post facto manner (something that is expressly prohibitted in the US Constitution)... That's why the Tom Delay conviction was overturned. Are you honestly suggesting Mr. Bharara was acting in an ethical manner when he was prosecuting Mr. Delay?


What's clear here is that you're ignoring the evidence that conflicts with what you would like to believe.

1. Past cases of this nature were the perview of the FEC, not the FBI.
2. Similar cases resulted in fines, not probation, and certainly not prison time like what Mr. Bharara wanted.
3. Mr. Bharara was involved in two other questionable prosecutions where the convictions were overturned (at least one of which involved the law being applied in an ex-post facto fashion)
4. You have former FEC commissioners saying something stinks about all of this.
5. You have legal experts saying the behavior in which the DoJ handled this case was a-typical to say the least.

You're ignoring the evidence because of your personal bias against conservatives. Your complete disregard of the evidence speaks for itself.

Agreed, sadly I can't say I'm surprised though.

I wasn't aware we were talking about Tom Delay. Would you like to start another thread?

What evidence am I ignoring? Dinesh D'Souza committed the crime for which he was charged. Prosecutors are not required by any law to ignore a crime because it could be handled elsewhere, prosecutors are not required to charge to the least degree possible and atypical does not mean illegal. I don't have much sympathy for someone who admits to a felony and receives a sentence in accordance with that plea.

"Something stinks" and calling something "atypical" are not legal arguments for governmental overreach. If there is evidence of illegal activity with regard to Dinesh D'Souza's case, present it. Otherwise you're arguing on feelings and against prosecutorial discretion, neither of which concern me.

 

[vincenticus]

A person who had criticized the sitting president has been successfully persecuted under American law.
If that does not have a chilling effect on an American's belief in basic freedom of speech, nothing will.

Oh, that's brilliant. Someone makes a film criticizing a public official, commits a felony, and then you guys come running when he or she is properly charged.

Let's not forget that Dinesh D'Souza did commit a crime, admitted to it and plead guilty. He isn't some martyr standing against the evil government, just trying to get his voice out there. He knew what he was doing was wrong, he attempted to hide it and got caught.

Chilling effect? Please, if these threads are any indication, this case has only entrenched his position among his admirers.

 

[GarfieldJL]

I wasn't aware we were talking about Tom Delay. Would you like to start another thread?

I am talking about the prosecutor for the D'Souza case, which happens to be the same prosecutor in the Tom Delay case.

What evidence am I ignoring? Dinesh D'Souza committed the crime for which he was charged. Prosecutors are not required by any law to ignore a crime because it could be handled elsewhere, prosecutors are not required to charge to the least degree possible and atypical does not mean illegal. I don't have much sympathy for someone who admits to a felony and receives a sentence in accordance with that plea.

1. A case of this nature is handled by the Federal Election Commission, particularly due to the size (or rather the lack thereof) of the donation.
2. At this level the punishment of comparable offenses have been fines, not probation, and certainly not prison time like what the prosecutor wanted.
3. As I've already pointed out, the prosecutor has a history of politicizing prosecutions (as a prosecutor he knows better than to apply a law in an ex post facto manner in order to charge someone).

"Something stinks" and calling something "atypical" are not legal arguments for governmental overreach. If there is evidence of illegal activity with regard to Dinesh D'Souza's case, present it. Otherwise you're arguing on feelings and against prosecutorial discretion, neither of which concern me.

If the behavior is sufficiently atypical, than actually it is evidence of government overreach. Furthermore, there is a fine line between prosecutorial discretion and prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutor's behavior in the Tom Delay case (which is relevant since we're looking at the same prosecutor for both the Delay and the D'Souza case), was an example of prosecutorial misconduct.

Now let's get to the Ted Stevens case (which we're looking at the same prosecutor yet again):

On Thursday, nearly three years after the conviction was vacated and after Stevens’ death in a plane crash in 2010, Schuelke’s 500-plus page report laid out in exhaustive detail a narrative of legal bungling and prosecutorial missteps.

None of the prosecutors has been charged with wrongdoing, yet the fallout from the Stevens’ case continues to be felt at the Justice Department and within the Public Integrity Section, the special unit that oversees corruption cases against lawmakers and government officials, as well as on Capitol Hill and back in Alaska. Several of the prosecutors in the case tried to delay the release of the Schuelke report, although U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan — who presided over the Stevens’ trial — and a federal appeals court rejected that request.

“The investigation and prosecution of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence which would have independently corroborated Senator Stevens’s defense and his testimony, and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the government’s key witness,” Schuelke wrote in the summary of his report.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74056.html#ixzz3EGVRUBNx
​

Sen. Ted Stevens Prosecutors Hid Evidence, Report Concludes - ABC News

Care to walk back your comments?

 

[vincenticus]

I guess since you can only talk about other cases, you have no evidence of misconduct in this case. That's good, we're getting somewhere.

For the record, there isn't a fine line between prosecutorial discretion and misconduct. It is a broad line and prosecutors are given great latitude. If the prosecutor had brought unfounded charges however there would be a problem. As it stands, the charges brought against Dinesh D'Souza were supported by the facts and applicable laws, he admitted to committing the charged crimes and he was sentenced.

If there is evidence like in the Tom Delay or Ted Stevens cases, please present it. Otherwise, you're merely speculating.

So no, I'm pretty happy with my comments.

 

[CaDan]

D'Souza lied and lied a lot.

D’Souza Gets 8 Months in ‘Community Confinement Center’

Scroll on down to the sentencing letter from his wife. Note how she indicates he forged her signature on a joint contribution disclosure.

That isn't a case of "Oh, just made a mistake". That's intentional wrongdoing. That's intentional lying. That takes it out of just administrative enforcement by the FEC.

Dershowitz can go pound sand.

 

[GarfieldJL]

I guess since you can only talk about other cases, you have no evidence of misconduct in this case. That's good, we're getting somewhere.

You're deliberately ignoring the fact that all three cases are tied together, because all three cases had the SAME PROSECUTOR!!!!

Presenting a pattern of past misconduct is legitimate grounds to suspect more of the same kind of misconduct.

For the record, there isn't a fine line between prosecutorial discretion and misconduct. It is a broad line and prosecutors are given great latitude. If the prosecutor had brought unfounded charges however there would be a problem. As it stands, the charges brought against Dinesh D'Souza were supported by the facts and applicable laws, he admitted to committing the charged crimes and he was sentenced.

The entire prosecution is evidence of misconduct... If this case were handled in the appropriate manner this case would have been handled by entirely by the Federal Election Commission. How other similar cases are handled, is relevant whether you like it or not.

If there is evidence like in the Tom Delay or Ted Stevens cases, please present it. Otherwise, you're merely speculating.

The problem for you is that the Tom Delay case and the Ted Stevens case are both evidence concerning the D'Souza case. The prosecutor for the D'Souza case, was also the prosecutor that headed up the Tom Delay and Ted Stevens cases.

So no, I'm pretty happy with my comments.

You mean you're happy ignoring the evidence.

---------------------------------------------------------

D'Souza lied and lied a lot.


D’Souza Gets 8 Months in ‘Community Confinement Center’


Scroll on down to the sentencing letter from his wife. Note how she indicates he forged her signature on a joint contribution disclosure.

You mean estranged wife that is potentially in a messy divorce proceding... That isn't exactly the most reliable of testimony for obvious reasons.

That isn't a case of "Oh, just made a mistake". That's intentional wrongdoing. That's intentional lying. That takes it out of just administrative enforcement by the FEC.

If you'd read the article in the OP again, you'd know that what you just said isn't true.

Dershowitz can go pound sand.

Oh because he's not agreeing with the overzealous prosecutorial behavior directed towards conservatives?

 

[vincenticus]

You're deliberately ignoring the fact that all three cases are tied together, because all three cases had the SAME PROSECUTOR!!!!

Presenting a pattern of past misconduct is legitimate grounds to suspect more of the same kind of misconduct.



The entire prosecution is evidence of misconduct... If this case were handled in the appropriate manner this case would have been handled by entirely by the Federal Election Commission. How other similar cases are handled, is relevant whether you like it or not.



The problem for you is that the Tom Delay case and the Ted Stevens case are both evidence concerning the D'Souza case. The prosecutor for the D'Souza case, was also the prosecutor that headed up the Tom Delay and Ted Stevens cases.



You mean you're happy ignoring the evidence.

Suspect the prosecutor all you want. Suspect him real good. Did you come up with any actual evidence of wrongdoing?

Lets see here... Are you suggesting Dinesh D'Souza did not commit the crime for which he was charged? No, he clearly did. Are you suggesting evidence did not exist to convict him of said crime? No, evidence existed. Are you suggesting D'Souza lied when he plead guilty? I would assume not. Did the prosecutor act outside of his authority? No, he prosecutes federal crimes and the judge agreed it was proper, otherwise it would have been thrown out for lack of jurisdiction.

Shame on the prosecutor for those two other cases, but all evidence points to him acting within his legal discretion in this case. Come back when you have evidence of wrongdoing with regard to D'Souza and I'll be happy to shake my fist too.

 

[Savior2006]

Regardless of whether what he did was illegal or not ...

Man, it's always nice when conservatives hold each other to such high moral standards.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Suspect the prosecutor all you want. Suspect him real good. Did you come up with any actual evidence of wrongdoing?

You're honestly trying to tell me that the prosecutor's past behavior isn't grounds to suspect him of continuing the same behavior? Are you joking?

Lets see here... Are you suggesting Dinesh D'Souza did not commit the crime for which he was charged? No, he clearly did. Are you suggesting evidence did not exist to convict him of said crime? No, evidence existed. Are you suggesting D'Souza lied when he plead guilty? I would assume not. Did the prosecutor act outside of his authority? No, he prosecutes federal crimes and the judge agreed it was proper, otherwise it would have been thrown out for lack of jurisdiction.

Except the normal punishment for this (given the small size of the donation) would be a simple fine... -- cruel and unusual anyone?

Shame on the prosecutor for those two other cases, but all evidence points to him acting within his legal discretion in this case. Come back when you have evidence of wrongdoing with regard to D'Souza and I'll be happy to shake my fist too.

Same prosecutor in all three cases, he's an Obama appointee and he knows he's in the running to be Eric Holder's successor.

Means -- Prosecutor

Motive -- Both political motivations + would potentially benefit personally if he manages to silence D'Souza's criticism of Obama.

Opportunity -- A campaign donation case that would normally be handled by the FEC.

-------------------------------------------------------

Man, it's always nice when conservatives hold each other to such high moral standards.

This has more to do with the fact the Obama Administration has a history of using Government Agencies as a political weapon to silence critics (which arguably helped him win re-election).

What you're seeing is perfectly understandable if you'd think about it, when people believe that the government is selectively enforcing the law for political reasons, then it ceases to be whether or not someone is guilty, and instead becomes whether or not the person was gone after because a politician doesn't like what someone is saying about them.

The Obama Administration has seriously damaged the trust that a good percentage of the US population once had in the government, and that damage will take years if not decades to be restored.