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

[CaDan]

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

But it was evidence available to the prosecution, which would provide the grounds for a criminal rather than civil administrative proceeding.

D'Souza is a lying, forging adulterer. He's not just some dummy who forgot to fill out his forms properly. That is the sort of intentional misconduct that tends to take things out of the realm of civil and administrative fines.

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

The one from January of this year? When D'Souza was calling in all his contacts to drum up support for this selective prosecution defense? Written before the Court decided his argument was without merit in May of this year?

Oh, that article. Yeah, I read it. I also read the brief of the United States submitted in opposition to the motion. Skip ahead to page 10.

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

No, because he's a Zionist hack who hasn't done anything of worth since the von Bülow case.

 

[CaDan]

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.

Considering D'Souza hasn't shut his lying adulterous mouth all year, the cunning plan doesn't seem to be working.

You sure seem to be able to hear his adulterous lies with no problem.

 

[GarfieldJL]

For some reason it isn't letting me quote CaDan's post...

CaDan, I already pointed out that people need to reread the article in the OP (because the comparible case not only included potential forgery, it also included using a company credit card to make a political donation).

That case is the one that resulted in the $50,000 fine (and the person that did that was a lawyer (which I don't think D'Souza is lawyer)).

Considering D'Souza hasn't shut his lying adulterous mouth all year, the cunning plan doesn't seem to be working.


You sure seem to be able to hear his adulterous lies with no problem.

I find it amusing that liberals bash people for something of this nature when they championed the proverbial king of adultry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs

 

[vincenticus]

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?



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



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.

No, I said go ahead and suspect him. Cases are not won on suspicions though, you need evidence.

If you think punishments for felony campaign finance crimes are too harsh, take that up with Congress.

Well you appear to have the case all figured out. Now unfortunately, you still need actual evidence, because you're just continuing to speculate. Which is probably why no actual lawyer is taking up poor Dinesh D'Souza's case for prosecutorial overreach under your theory.

 

[CaDan]

For some reason it isn't letting me quote CaDan's post...

OBAMA!!111!!!!

CaDan, I already pointed out that people need to reread the article in the OP (because the comparible case not only included potential forgery, it also included using a company credit card to make a political donation).

Read it. Full of lies in support of an adulterous liar.

In contrast to the torrent of lies, here's a list of prosecutions brought by the United States:

See, e.g., United
States v. Jenny Hou and Oliver Pan, 12 Cr. 153 (RJS)(S.D.N.Y.)
(defendants charged with straw donor fraud in connection with
Democratic candidate for New York City office with Pan responsible
for eight donors totaling approximately $8,000 in matching funds);
United States v. Albert Baldeo, S1 13 Cr. 125 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y.)
(defendant charged with conduit contribution fraud for soliciting
approximately $15,000 in straw donations from seven individuals for
a Democratic candidate for New York City office); United States v.
Diana Durand, 13 Mag. 724 (E.D.N.Y.) (defendant charged with conduit
contribution fraud for soliciting $14,000 in straw donations from
two individuals with whom she was friends and one individual to whom
she was related for a Republican candidate for the U.S. House of
Representatives); United States v. Sant Singh Chatwal, 14 Cr. 143
(ILG) (E.D.N.Y.) (defendant pleaded guilty for making $188,000 in
straw donor campaign contributions to three Democratic candidates
for federal office, including the offices of the President, Senator,
and Member of the House of Representatives); see also cases cited
infra below.

You can go read the brief for the cases infra and maybe pull them yourself.

The lying adulterer D'Souza made all the arguments y'all are making here last spring and lost. Decisively. He couldn't prove it then to the Court--why do y'all think you can prove it now to anyone outside your bubble?

 

[CaDan]

I find it amusing that liberals bash people for something of this nature when they championed the proverbial king of adultry:
Clinton, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman... - YouTube

They're just adorable when they post the Clinton vids!

 

[vincenticus]

For some reason it isn't letting me quote CaDan's post...

CaDan, I already pointed out that people need to reread the article in the OP (because the comparible case not only included potential forgery, it also included using a company credit card to make a political donation).

That case is the one that resulted in the $50,000 fine (and the person that did that was a lawyer (which I don't think D'Souza is lawyer)).



I find it amusing that liberals bash people for something of this nature when they championed the proverbial king of adultry

I'm not sure why you're having trouble with this. Prosecutors can change people as the evidence fits. Just because a case was handled a certain way a decade ago doesn't mean they are required to do the same today.

Again and again, the evidence fits the crime for which Dinesh D'Souza was charged. He plead guilty to said crime. As it stands, the case was handled legally and properly.

A person cannot be legally untouchable because they criticize the government, and that is what you are suggesting. Assuming government misconduct when Dinesh D'Souza clearly committed the crime for which he was charged is ludicrous.

 

[GarfieldJL]

In contrast to the torrent of lies, here's a list of prosecutions brought by the United States:

See, e.g., United
States v. Jenny Hou and Oliver Pan, 12 Cr. 153 (RJS)(S.D.N.Y.)
(defendants charged with straw donor fraud in connection with
Democratic candidate for New York City office with Pan responsible
for eight donors totaling approximately $8,000 in matching funds);
United States v. Albert Baldeo, S1 13 Cr. 125 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y.)
(defendant charged with conduit contribution fraud for soliciting
approximately $15,000 in straw donations from seven individuals for
a Democratic candidate for New York City office); United States v.
Diana Durand, 13 Mag. 724 (E.D.N.Y.) (defendant charged with conduit
contribution fraud for soliciting $14,000 in straw donations from
two individuals with whom she was friends and one individual to whom
she was related for a Republican candidate for the U.S. House of
Representatives); United States v. Sant Singh Chatwal, 14 Cr. 143
(ILG) (E.D.N.Y.) (defendant pleaded guilty for making $188,000 in
straw donor campaign contributions to three Democratic candidates
for federal office, including the offices of the President, Senator,
and Member of the House of Representatives); see also cases cited
infra below.

United States v. Jenny Hou and Oliver Pan
http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pre...v. Xing Wu Pan and Jia Hou S1 Indictment .pdf
Problem for your argument is that this case basically involved money laundering...

United States v. Albert Baldeo
http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pre...aldeoComplaintPR/Baldeo, Albert Complaint.pdf
Except this case involves mail fraud, obstruction of justice, etc.

United States v. Diana Durand
Diana Durand Pleads Guilty in Michael Grimm Straw Donor Scheme | New York Observer
At most 12 months in jail and the prosecutor was angling for probation, also the candidate was facing charges as well, and the money of the donations wasn't hers...

United States v. Sant Singh Chatwal
Hotel magnate pleads guilty to U.S. campaign contribution scheme | Reuters

Problem with you bringing up this case is that D'Souza didn't commit witness tampering...

Did you honestly do ANY research on the background of the cases before you presented them?

1. The donations were entirely D'Souza's own money
2. He did not work for the campaign in question
3. He did not commit mail fraud
4. He did not engage in witness tampering
5. He did not engage in obstruction of justice

Seriously if you're going to present other cases as examples, it's a pretty good idea to make sure there aren't other charges in these cases (like mail fraud) which D'Souza wasn't accused of.

 

[CaDan]

United States v. Jenny Hou and Oliver Pan
http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pre...v. Xing Wu Pan and Jia Hou S1 Indictment .pdf
Problem for your argument is that this case basically involved money laundering...

United States v. Albert Baldeo
http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pre...aldeoComplaintPR/Baldeo, Albert Complaint.pdf
Except this case involves mail fraud, obstruction of justice, etc.

United States v. Diana Durand
Diana Durand Pleads Guilty in Michael Grimm Straw Donor Scheme | New York Observer
At most 12 months in jail and the prosecutor was angling for probation, also the candidate was facing charges as well, and the money of the donations wasn't hers...

United States v. Sant Singh Chatwal
Hotel magnate pleads guilty to U.S. campaign contribution scheme | Reuters

Problem with you bringing up this case is that D'Souza didn't commit witness tampering...

Did you honestly do ANY research on the background of the cases before you presented them?

1. The donations were entirely D'Souza's own money
2. He did not work for the campaign in question
3. He did not commit mail fraud
4. He did not engage in witness tampering
5. He did not engage in obstruction of justice

Seriously if you're going to present other cases as examples, it's a pretty good idea to make sure there aren't other charges in these cases (like mail fraud) which D'Souza wasn't accused of.

He forged his wife's signature on campaign disclosures. If he sent it through the mails, that's mail fraud; if he sent it via the internet, that would be wire fraud. The US attorney held off on presenting that, so there is a good case to be made that the adulterous liar D'Souza was, in fact, undercharged.

The adulterous liar D'Souza got a normal Guidelines sentence for his offense, although the Court noted he showed no real signs of remorse.

D'Souza's defenders have a dilemma here, since there is no dispute he committed the offense. Either:

(1) He is too dumb to understand campaign finance laws, although he gave lots of money (so why are y'all paying attention to anything he says?); or

(2) He's just a liar (so why are y'all paying attention to anything he says?).

 

[Savior2006]

He forged his wife's signature on campaign disclosures. If he sent it through the mails, that's mail fraud; if he sent it via the internet, that would be wire fraud. The US attorney held off on presenting that, so there is a good case to be made that the adulterous liar D'Souza was, in fact, undercharged.

The adulterous liar D'Souza got a normal Guidelines sentence for his offense, although the Court noted he showed no real signs of remorse.

D'Souza's defenders have a dilemma here, since there is no dispute he committed the offense. Either:

(1) He is too dumb to understand campaign finance laws, although he gave lots of money (so why are y'all paying attention to anything he says?); or

(2) He's just a liar (so why are y'all paying attention to anything he says?).

Don't you know that anytime a conservative does something bad it's really the fault of liberals because of "reasons?"

 

[USincognito]

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?

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

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

I'm not seeing any evidence of this. Could you provide a citation?

 

[createdtoworship]

as this article suggests:

Obama nemesis Dinesh D’Souza learns punishment

many democrats who observe similar law breaking tactics simply get a slap on the hand. IT really is about as "illegal as jaywalking." According to the article.

 

[CaDan]

Don't you know that anytime a conservative does something bad it's really the fault of liberals because of "reasons?"

I don't think he's even a "conservative". He's a grifter, sucking money out of conservatives.

 

[vincenticus]

as this article suggests:

Obama nemesis Dinesh D’Souza learns punishment

many democrats who observe similar law breaking tactics simply get a slap on the hand. IT really is about as "illegal as jaywalking." According to the article.

According to the article:

"Supporters of D’Souza see a double standard, maintaining Eric Holder’s Justice Department typically ignores similar technical violations in contributions to Democratic Party campaigns."


Is there actual evidence of this happening? This article seems heavy on accusations but light on facts. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I'm also not going to just take their word for it.

 

[FreeinChrist]

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.

Wow, that letter was eye-opening! So he kicked his wife in the head once and was engaged to another while still married to her - not even being separated her. He forged her signature.

D'Souza is scum in my opinion.

 

[FreeinChrist]

He forged his wife's signature on campaign disclosures. If he sent it through the mails, that's mail fraud; if he sent it via the internet, that would be wire fraud. The US attorney held off on presenting that, so there is a good case to be made that the adulterous liar D'Souza was, in fact, undercharged.

The adulterous liar D'Souza got a normal Guidelines sentence for his offense, although the Court noted he showed no real signs of remorse.

D'Souza's defenders have a dilemma here, since there is no dispute he committed the offense. Either:

(1) He is too dumb to understand campaign finance laws, although he gave lots of money (so why are y'all paying attention to anything he says?); or

(2) He's just a liar (so why are y'all paying attention to anything he says?).

Interesting!

 

[USincognito]

Is there actual evidence of this happening? This article seems heavy on accusations but light on facts. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I'm also not going to just take their word for it.

It's from Wing Nut Daily. They're not big on facts.

 

[createdtoworship]

He forged his wife's signature on campaign disclosures. If he sent it through the mails, that's mail fraud; if he sent it via the internet, that would be wire fraud. The US attorney held off on presenting that, so there is a good case to be made that the adulterous liar D'Souza was, in fact, undercharged.

The adulterous liar D'Souza got a normal Guidelines sentence for his offense, although the Court noted he showed no real signs of remorse.

D'Souza's defenders have a dilemma here, since there is no dispute he committed the offense. Either:

(1) He is too dumb to understand campaign finance laws, although he gave lots of money (so why are y'all paying attention to anything he says?); or

(2) He's just a liar (so why are y'all paying attention to anything he says?).

Is it okay for democrats to get away with this by a slap on the hand, but then republicans to be singled out and sentenced?

https://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/Dinesh-D'Souza

D'Souza: 'I've Got a Big Smile on my Face'

Obama nemesis Dinesh D’Souza learns punishment

obama is also accused of fraud (at least D'souza isn't a politician that took a public oath) but goes unpunished and unsentenced:

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/02/10981697-top-obama-campaign-donor-accused-of-fraud

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politi...-foreign-fraudulent-donors-to-obama-campaign/

 

[NightHawkeye]

Is it okay for democrats to get away with this by a slap on the hand, but then republicans to be singled out and sentenced?

https://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/Dinesh-D'Souza

D'Souza: 'I've Got a Big Smile on my Face'

Obama nemesis Dinesh D’Souza learns punishment

The lesson for Democrats is just beginning.

 

[createdtoworship]

The lesson for Democrats is just beginning.

especially since obama campaign received donations from foreign nationals. On his campaign site he willingly removed the three digit security code from the donation site, so that anyone in the world could donate and their would be no way to track it.

Report: Obama Campaign Accepts 16x More Donations via Erroneous Zip Codes than Romney

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...bamas_illegal_foreign_campaign_money_loophole


I believe the donation fraud I linked to in the last post was over 2X the amount of d'souzas. (50k). I am not saying what d'souza did was right, and I believe he deserves his punishment, but lets punish both sides. Lets be fair. I am sick of the media supporting the liberals, while a minority support traditional values.

and lets not forget the recent unfoldings of obama's fast and furious:

http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/judge-gives-holder-fast-furious-ultimatum/

controversy over Democrat Eric Holder (soon to resign-senior legal advisor to Barack Obama during Obama's presidential campaign and one of three members of Obama's vice-presidential selection committe)

http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/gohmert-holder-enabled-boston-marathon-bombings/

lets not forget the triple strike out of Democrats in california:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ing-badly-scandals-taint-party-in-a/?page=all

and many more where that came from:
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/107...-news-medias-bridgegate-mania-look-like-joke/