Obama continues to work through his enemies list. Historian and author Dinesh D’Souza is being indicted today on a piddly campaign finance charge:
D’Souza first learned he was being investigated in the middle of 2013, several months after 2016 had earned $33 million at the box office and become the second-most-popular political documentary in U.S. history. The film included an interview with Obama’s half-brother, George Obama, who was mildly critical of the president.
Molen says D’Souza is being singled out for “an alleged minor violation” in the same way the IRS reportedly targeted conservative Tea Party groups for retribution. “In light of the recent events and the way the IRS has been used to stifle dissent, this arrest should send shivers down the spines of all freedom-loving Americans,” Molen says.
D’Souza was in San Diego working on his next film and book, each to be called America, when he was informed he was about to be indicted and that he should fly to New York and turn himself in to authorities. The indictment came late Thursday, according to those with knowledge of the situation.
Look for a lot more of these political prosecutions in the next two years.
When people say “there’s no difference between the parties”, just answer “George W. Bush didn’t sic the IRS and the FEC on their opponents. And I really doubt Mitt Romney would have, either”.
UPDATE: The WaPo reminds us that John Edwards donor, accused of the precise same crime for the exact same amount, was prosecuted for a misdemeanor.
Straw-donor cases have been brought against prominnent individuals from time to time. For example, in 2011, a prominent Los Angeles attorney, Pierce O’Donnell, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor chargest of making $20,000 in donations to the presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards and reimbursing straw donors.
Just saying.
UPDATE 2: John Hinderaker at Power Line – an actual lawyer – on the Obama Administration’s larger pattern of gangster behavior.
Further proof that the Democratic party has become a neo-Nazi organization, with the IRS being turned into their Brown Shirts and Gestapo. I guess that makes Holder’s joke of a department, their SS unit.
Certainly, the Obama Administration features the worst of Chicago Machine politics (Oh, you want to support the opponent of the Machine’s candidate for ward boss? How about the sanitation department forget to pick up your garbage for a month or two? Then city health inspectors shut you down for the increase in rats? Yeah, didn’t think so.) and have graduated to using the IRS, EPA, FCC, SEC, DoJ, etc. as their loyalty enforcement arm. That said, I saw this at Althouse’ blog…
“Mr. D’Souza did not act with any corrupt or criminal intent whatsoever…. He and the candidate have been friends since their college days, and at most, this was an act of misguided friendship by D’Souza.”
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2014/01/is-prosecution-of-dinesh-dsouza.html
If a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, it doesn’t surprise that a motivated prosecutor can indict with great fanfare a political opponent for some violation, intentional or not, of the many murky campaign finance laws.
If that prosecutor is looking for criminal charges there was this campaign run by a person running for President that openly took foreign donations. If what ever is being charged here then they should be consistent and charge that campaign. So what if it’s President Obama!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Wikipedia is such a gold mine of information.
The indictment comes from Preet Bharara, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York – home of Democrat Presidential candidate Hiliary Clinton – a man who went to Columbia and Harvard and was appointed to this job by another Columbia/Harvard guy – President Obama, in 2009.
Prior to being US Attorney, Bahara worked for the Senate investigating President Bush for firing 7 hold-over US Attorneys who refused to press investigations into Democrat wrong-doing, a trumped-up controversy for which Pres. Bush was exonerated.
These facts are Not evidence that the Democrats are once again misusing the impartial machinery of government to engage in political prosecution aimed at supressing donations to Republicans in an effort to tilt the playing field to give Hilary an advantage. These facts are meaningless coincidences.
From what I’ve heard of D’Souza, I’m reluctant to have him on my team–he was caught a couple of years back by the staff of World magazine as he was, while still married to his first wife, being a “little more than close” to another woman. Somehow despite this he attained the presidency of “The King’s College”, a Christian school based in the Empire State Building, if I remember correctly.
So he’s a person of, shall we say, somewhat flexible morality and ethics to begin with. Influential, but of flexible ethics. And so the question for me is what documents supposedly prove this, and how the FEC/DOJ got them–and if they got them honestly (e.g. with proper deference to the 4th Amendment), are they applying the same standard to Democrats as well?
And if he’s done this “misunderstanding”, well, I’ve got to ask; how on earth has D’Souza been in DC and its surroundings for the past 30 years without figuring out how to avoid leaving a clear paper trail? Again, if the FEC/DOJ have a case, we are talking about some serious stupid here.
Or, put differently, the apparent fact (thanks Joe Doakes) that the prosecutors also appear to have rather flexible ethics doesn’t in itself mean that D’Souza ought to be off the hook.
I’m with bikebubba on this. If D’Souza committed the violation he should be prosecuted – though it is an excellent idea to closely scrutinize how the evidence was collected and how the prosecution will be conducted. We can’t rail against a feckless DOJ for not prosecuting voter fraud and then say that if one side gets away with it then the other side should get a pass as well. It is certainly fair, however, to point out how one-sided the DOJ’s ardor is. We can’t do that, though, if we are also dismissing any violations D’Souza may have incurred.
I don’t know jack about this or election law at all, but in general I prefer the government be merciless when election cheating is done knowingly.
The voter ID thing makes me crazy; why can’t we be as secure as Europe? We have the money to do it, clearly.
Perhaps Mr. D’Souza was unaware that using “straw donors” to fund a campaign was illegal.
Off of Drudge “pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges” http://wapo.st/1eKocxr
Perhaps you meant to type: Look for a lot more of these political PERSECUTIONS.
Good thing 2016 made a boatload of money and he can afford some excellent counsel…and perhaps the trial can expose more of this administrations corrupt persecution tactics and other constitutional violations.
The mere fact of the attempt to silence dissent at every turn indicates complete inability to debate based on facts or in any way, shape or form defend an agenda or policies.
I agree with the pro-prosecution sentiment. Of course, only if the facts clearly show misconduct, and with disregard for the “I didn’t know any better.” defense. If charged and found guilty, leniency can take place when applying the sentence.
The main topic does scare me though. This administration seems quite bloodthirsty and thin skinned. The right-wing idiots who parrot the “… but he’s a nice guy” mantra are only trying to soften the potential blow. He is the real-life version of Rod Serling’s all-powerful 6-year-old boy Twilight Zone character.
I doubt that Bill Clinton was nearly as vindictive. Certainly not the Bushes, Reagan, or President Jimmy Carter. While president, Carter and his wife Rosalyn seemed particularly kind and trustworthy. Not so his current persona.
Unfortunately, even if innocent, the Obama administration has the unlimited ability and funds to pretty much destroy even the most innocent enemy. We can only hope that his vindictiveness remains transparent to all …
Mitch tries a little sleight of hand. Yes the Edwards donor plead guilty to misdemeanors while Mr. Souza has been indicted for felonies with penalties of up to a whole five years. But anybody with half a brain knows defendants often allowed to plead guilty to lesser crimes to avoid trial. The apples-to-apples question is for what crimes was the Edwards donor indicted?
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/25/local/me-odonnell25
“O’Donnell is charged with three felonies and faces a maximum of 12 years in prison if convicted of all counts, according to prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles.”
So the Orwellian Obama administration goes deep into the Chicago playbook to indict a Republican, for what Mitch calls “the precise same crime”, more that 50% less severely.
It is Democrats who should be appalled at this politically motivated coddling of a Republican criminal.
As usual, you mischaracterize what D’Souza did, and you mischaracterize the politicizing of the DOJ under Bush, where it was Bush appointed highly conservative attorneys who objected to the Bush administration trying to bring charge where there was no valid evidence to do so.
Ah, the conservative capacity to lie, apply a double standard to their own conduct, and to condone abuses and over-reaches of government while giving lip service to the opposite.
D’Souza has a good chance of going to trial under a conservative judge appointed by prior administrations. You overlook the checks and balances in the justice system that are part of the fairness built-in (when it suits you).
The reality is that the U.S. Attorneys have an excellent success rate — upwards of 90% convictions — precisely because they stick to the law, and don’t take on cases that they cannot win or should not prosecute.
Just because an attorney was appointed by Obama does not in fact indicate that there was any directive from the administration to prosecute, much less prosecute unfairly, nor is there any evidence that this attorney has EVER demonstrated any partisan political prosecution, not before, not now.
Your guy got caught doing something illegal (allegedly). He doesn’t even appear to deny this. Too bad for him — he SHOULD be prosecuted, fair and square.
Your silly hype about Chicago playbooks is B.S., nothing more nothing less, nothing of merit. Just another one of your whiny right wing myths.
DG,
You need to go back to the thread about Sherman and respond to me.
Do it now.
Until you answer to that, I’m done reacting to your drivel.
Everyone BUT DG – who needs to answer for her scabrous claim earlier in the week before she’s allowed to play with the adults.
It’s entirely possible that D’Souza did something illegal.
But in the wake of the IRS scandal, I do not trust this administration to enforce the law fairly.
Nor should anyone who’s not addled by pro-Obama partisanship.
I’m not a campaign finance lawyer so I have no professional opinion on the merits of the case. Even if the indictment is justified, it looks bad. As Mitch and Hinderocker point out, Americans can no longer trust their own government to be a neutral enforcer of laws; instead, the Obama Administration has made law enforcement a political tool.
Think of it this way: if some Provincial Prosecutor in Cuba announced that a prominent Castro critic had been indicted, would anyone doubt it was political payback? That’s the level we’re being dragged down to.
.
DG, no one lied, and there is no double standard. The allegation is just that…an allegation. If he did commit a crime he should be held accountable.
However, one only need to question whether this would have even happened had he not made a completely factual, not to mention fantastic documentary critical of Barack Obama.
Now, the articles of impeachment of Richard Nixon included the use and attempted use of government agncies to to target political dissidents…and rightly so.
The double standard is that the same not happen to this president.
“Even if the indictment is justified, it looks bad.”
Or perhaps, if you reexamined many of the other conspiracies you imagine Obama has done, you would find they are just as flimsy and insubstantial as the charge that D’Souza was targeted for some sort of unfair payback.
Or perhaps, if you reexamined many of the other conspiracies you imagine Obama has done
Nothing “flimsy and insubstantial” about the IRS scandal, Rick. The leadership of your party is using the full weight of the federal government to shut my party up.
“your party is using the full weight of the federal government to shut my party up”
No we are not. But feel free to try to prove it. I suspect your evidence will be as flimsy and and insubstantial as this case.
How about an apology to your loyal readers for trying to pass off a plea deal as equivalent to an indictment?
RickCCCP, the FBI report that “exonerated” IRS agents did not even have a single bit of evidence from any of the groups improperly examined by the IRS. Most of the documents requested by Congress have not been provided, and those that have are generally redacted to the point of unreadability.
Yes, your President is using the powers of the government to squelch opposition, and shame on you for not waking up to it.
No we are not.
Really? Putting conservative groups through years of scrutiny to get tax-exempt status that liberals get in months (as in 2-3 of them) didn’t happen?
Sorry, Rick. I realize you’re a party line guy, and your line is not to recognize any problem. But the pattern is there, and it’s not even a little ambiguous.
No we are not. But feel free to try to prove it.
Those two sentences next to each other defy the laws of logic to a degree that they implode in on one another such that a void is formed that looks suspiciously like the inside of Dog Gone’s cranium.
How about an apology to your loyal readers for trying to pass off a plea deal as equivalent to an indictment?
You’re picking an insignificant nit to deflect from the real point; your party is abusing the power of government.
I know – it’s not really “evil” if it’s your party doing it, is it?
Sorry, Rick, but the self righteous indignation of you and Lap Dog, doesn’t have any credibility here! Every time your side gets caught with their hands in the cookie jar, it’s OK, huh? Hypocrite!
How about an apology to your loyal readers for trying to pass off a plea deal as equivalent to an indictment?
You’re right. An apology is in order.
Dear readers: I’m sorry that the vote of RickDFL – who thinks a plea deal is mutually exclusive of an indictment, rather than a response to a real or threatened one – counts as much as yours does.
I’m sorry that our society has spawned a class of people who believe their ends justify their means.
I’m sorry that I didn’t do more to keep the DFL – the party that’s just waiting for a RICO suit – out of office. I won’t make that mistake again.
Bubba, “Yes, your President is using the powers of the government to squelch opposition, and shame on you for not waking up to it.” Exactly!
And why is he? Because history and fact don’t support his Marxist agenda (Lest you scoff at the Marxist reference Rick and DG, pick up a copy of Obama’s own book, he essentially declares himself a Marxist…and his agenda clearly clarifies it) and he can’t debate and win.
So what is a tyrant to do? Attempt, as tyrants will, to silence truthful and fact-based opposition.
Rick,
The more I read your response, and the comment to which you responded, the more I realize how wrong you are.
The plea deal was in response to a prosecution, which was in followed an indictment.
Nothing I wrote was factually inaccurate.
It’s you who should apologize. Not that I’d ever expect it.
Rick DFL wrote: “But feel free to try to prove it.”
It well could be that a special prosecutor will get that done. It will never happen with the scandalous Holder AG office!
Tom Delay was indicted. Ted Stevens was indicted. Nope… not politically motivated… nothing to see here… Rick(+/-) – discuss… Oh, sorry, you have not graduated to a class where you can correctly answer what 2+ 2 adds up to. Nevermind…
Lots of rhetorical thunder but a noticeable lack of concrete specific charges of wrong doing. In fact, most of you seem to have moved on to the ‘the lack of evidence is proof of the cover-up’ stage of paranoid thinking.
Mitch to his credit gets close to the general area of evidence. “Putting conservative groups through years of scrutiny to get tax-exempt status that liberals get in months (as in 2-3 of them) didn’t happen?” I don’t know. Show me some evidence.
Mitch:
“Nothing I wrote was factually inaccurate.” I didn’t say you were factually inaccurate, I said you were misleading, which is worse.
Instead of comparing the severity of O’Donnell indictment to the D’Souza indictment, you compared the severity of O’Donnell plea deal to the D’Souza indictment. That is misleading because the plea deal is almost always less severe than the original indictment. Instead of showing that O’Donnell was treated more leniently, as you suggest, the facts show that D’Souza, so far, has been treated more leniently.
Lots of rhetorical thunder but a noticeable lack of concrete specific charges of wrong doing.
Yes, because 260 days of evidence of wrong doing just doesn’t quite cut it with you: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2014/01/the-irs-scandal-19.html
Lessee…..Rick apparently doesn’t know that Lois Lerner, former IRS employee, confessed to exactly what Mitch said.
Rick, please don’t vote or breed. Please.
JPA: “Ted Stevens was indicted” . . . by the Bush Administration DOJ on July 29, 2008. He was found guilty before Obama even took office. In fact it was the Holder DOJ that filed a “Motion of The United States To Set Aside The Verdict And Dismiss The Indictment With Prejudice”. And it was the Holder DOJ that “replaced the entire trial team, including top officials in the public integrity section.”
So you see why I am skeptical.
Lots of rhetorical thunder but a noticeable lack of concrete specific charges of wrong doing
Only if you’ve had your head under a rock for the past nine months.
Let’s see: Lois Lerner (a bit Obama supporter), admitted that conservative groups got extra scrutiny – that’s in their own words. Lerner tried to fob it off on minions in Cincinnati, but the story doesn’t pass the sniff test. Lois Lerner retired just ahead of a demand for her ouster, a move that smacks of falling on the sword, especially since she – whose only job was to grant or deny non-profit statuses – met repeatedly directly with President Obama more often than did Kathleen Sibelius (odd, considering Sibelius was delegated with Obama’s main policy initiative, while Lerner was pretty much a low-ranking minion).
The TaxProf has been chronicling the scandal, day by day, although I’m sure you’ll get smacked with a belt if you are found to have read any of it.
Yossarian: So this is the first link on the page you sent.
http://www.atr.org/ways-irs-lost-public-trust-a8081
There first bullet point says “The IRS’ targeting of political groups prompted President Obama to deem the actions “intolerable and inexcusable,” the President continued to say, “I have zero tolerance for any action that could undermine public confidence in the impartial and non-partisan administration of the tax code”.”
So your own link says the IRS did something wrong, not President Obama.
Try harder next time.
I’ll invite everyone BUT RickDFL to read this next bit.
Any bets on his response?
– “Some of your links are to Faux News! Therefore I’m going to disregard everything!”
– “What? A blogger? They’re not journalists! I’m going to disregard everything!”
– “I detect a hint of racism”
Any other predictions?
Any other predictions?
Pettifoggery, which is what he’s been wielding throughout the thread. He’ll also make distinctions that would make Bertrand Russell’s head spin. And then he’ll demand another apology.
Mitch:
“especially since she – whose only job was to grant or deny non-profit statuses – met repeatedly directly with President Obama”
Click on the link. It is a story, not about Lois Lerner, meeting with Obama, but Doug Shulman, the head of the IRS meeting with Obama. More importantly, the story is based on a complete misreading of White House logs. Shulman was cleared, which does not mean he went, to be in the White House, not necessarily to meet with Obama.
You can read all about it here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/the-fake-story-about-the-irs-commissioner-and-the-white-house/276399/
Any other predictions?
RickDFL to reprise the role Claude Raines made famous in “Casablanca”…
Captain Renault: I’m shocked… shocked to find that gambling is going on in there.
Young Employee: Your winnings sir.
Captain Renault: Thank you very much.
QUOTE: Now, the articles of impeachment of Richard Nixon included the use and attempted use of government agncies to to target political dissidents…and rightly so.
Didn’t Nixon just wonder out loud about this stuff? No action? Just asking.
The Tom Delay thing was disgraceful.
Mitch:
“The TaxProf has been chronicling the scandal”
Today’s chronicle includes 10 links. 6 are stories about Republicans complaining about the IRS scandal. One is a story about a former IRS official speculating on the impact, One seems like a generic story about a RW groups application, which seems to do a pretty good job of explaining the non-profit status law, One is Yossarian’s link for a RW group that actually blames the IRS not President Obama. And lastly one is a link to a USA Today editorial that reads : “But for all the efforts to portray the targeting as a Watergate-size scandal, a report by the Treasury inspector general for tax administration found no evidence of high-level political manipulation. Instead, the problem appears to have stemmed from bungling managers and complex rules that effectively force IRS employees to define political speech.”
That is your best shot?
None of the links include evidence Obama directed the IRS to treat GOP leaning groups differently.
There’s more info on meetings out there.
But let’s cut to the chase, Rick; many conservative groups were targeted for extreme scrutiny. Even the IRS admits this. They were denied non-profit status during the height of the 2012 campaign – right when they needed it most (to avoid being targeted by niggling campaign finance laws designed to restrict free speech).
Even IF this repression doesn’t go to the top (and it does, but that’s for a later discussion), that fact bespeaks a culture of contempt for dissent in the Administration…
…that fits in perfectly with the left’s many, many other repressions of conservative dissent (see: campus speech codes).
Shulman did meet Obama four times, and other senior members of the Administration many, many more times…
…after 132 members of Congress contacted him about the sandbagging of conservatives’ non-profit statuses, and the bizarre demands for information from them.
Rick, you might not admit that had this same level of evidence been leveled against George W Bush you’d have been out in the streets with a union-printed “Bushitler” sign, but I’m pretty sure we both know it’s true.
None of the links include evidence Obama directed the IRS to treat GOP leaning groups differently.
Gosh, one gets the feeling RickDFL won’t be satisfied unless we present visual evidence of Obama wearing a monocle, twirling a handlebar mustache with one hand and pressing a big red “IRS HARASSMENT” button with the other. Short of that, all other evidence stacked to the moon won’t sway his tiny little mind.
Mitch: “many conservative groups were targeted for extreme scrutiny” Agreed. That was wrong. That is why Lois Lerner revealed the fact, apologized for it, and resigned on account of it. A Democratic administration took action to protect the rights of the Tea Party.
“fact bespeaks a culture of contempt for dissent in the Administration” No. It bespeaks the post-Citizens United wild west of campaign finance and the difficulty of policing the requirement that non-profits be non-partisan.
“Shulman did meet Obama four times” which is not surprising and not your original charge. Do you begin to see why it is hard to take the wild charges flying around here seriously?
“Bushitler” Seriously? For the record, Bush was not Hitler. He is not even the worst U.S. President (Buchanan)
Yossarian: You should aim to just stop shooting the puck in your own net. Your “evidence” starts with an uber-RW group that clearly thinks there is nothing to be gained by claiming Obama directed the IRS to target RW groups and would rather use the scandal to just beat up on the IRS as an independent actor.