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.
Wouldn’t we be better off with a progressive-ized national retail tax? Hell the IRS etc. supposedly eats 25% of the take on compliance and collection.
Then you can’t have this argument.
Also, people would NEVER vote for raising taxes, either.
Oh, blow it out your Rick-hole.
I linked to the TaxProf blog, as did Mitch. While the TaxProf may lean right, I wouldn’t go so far as to call him “an uber-RW GROUP.” He’s been chronicling 260 days worth of news stories directly relating to the IRS scandal you’re so chronically determined to dismiss. So, some of his links go to right wing sites? So what? Because they’re right doesn’t necessarily mean they’re WRONG. But, I suppose that goes back to what Mitch predicted:
– “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 guess I’m just waiting for you to call me racist now.
Either way, blow me, you festering dingleberry.
You are talking about a mind that is weaned on wikipeadia and does not know what +/- is.
Oh, and Holder asked for Stevens case to be dropped after it was discovered prosecutors hid exculpatory evidence and he did not want to retry the case because he knew he had no case. Besides, Steven’s seat was already won by the demoncRAT.
TFS-
You won’t get a national sales tax in place of an income tax. You will get a national sales tax in addition to an income tax. All of the Democrats in congress believe that all of the problems facing the country would be solved if they spent more of the workers’ money. Half of the Republicans in congress believe the same thing.
In Ricks’ World, King Henry the Younger was not responsible for the death of Thomas a’Beckett. Is there a signed parchment ordering his death? Do you have palace visitor logs? No! All you have is hearsay evidence, the vague and disputed recollection of a partisan witness who recalled one whimsical comment taken out of context: “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”
The fact that rogue knights took matters into their own hands is totally coincidental. And “res ipsa loquitur” is shyster lawyer doubletalk.
.
I suspect this will (D’Souza) will be old news by next week. A villain for the left and a martyr for the right. Somethings never change….
Yossarian: “an uber-RW GROUP” refers, not to the Tax Prof, but to Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform (the first link on the Tax Prof page you cited). I am pretty sure that counts as uber RW. Nor did I say that the RW cites cited by the Tax Prof could not be trusted. I pointed out that most were simply RW people complaining about the scandal and thus, assuming it was a scandal. They were not offering any evidence that Obama did something wrong.
Joe: If by “King Henry the Younger” you mean the person called Henry the Young King, no he didn’t suggest any knights kill Thomas Becket. In 1170 Henry the Young King was the 15 year old son on King Henry II. It was not the Young King son, but his father King Henry II who is accused of implicitly ordering the knights to go kill Becket. [Seriously do you people ever bother checking facts? I mean you must argue with each other some times. Are you all this incompetent then or just with liberals?]
As to your analogy, historians dispute whether Henry II intended the murder of Becket, but almost everyone agrees he said something in the general neighborhood of “who will rid me of this meddlesome priest”. So the question is when did Obama say something like ‘when will the IRS crack down on the Tea Party’?
JPA: “Holder asked for Stevens case to be dropped after it was discovered prosecutors hid exculpatory evidence and he did not want to retry the case because he knew he had no case.” Gee that sounds exactly like an honest prosecutor.
“Besides, Steven’s seat was already won by the demoncRAT.” So you want Holder to go back in time and stop the Bush Administration from convicting him?
Given the chance to prove the Obama admin is corrupt you cite an action of the Bush Administration. One which, unlike the NSA, the Obama Administration actually moved quickly and aggressively to rectify. You could not possibly have cited a worse case for your team. Let someone else on your side have the ball, you can’t play this game.
It’s nice when Liberals are predictable. Rogue Knights, I figured that’d be your answer to the martyrdom question, Rick. And that leads us right where I thought it would: the Obama Administration is all rogue, all the time, nobody knows nothing, nobody can prove nothing because nobody saw him do it.
It’s rogue ATF agents, rogue IRS agents, rogue tax audits, rogue Benghazi film protesters, rogue NSA agents tapping Angela Merkel’s phone, rogue agents seizing reporters’ papers . . . hell, we’ve even got rogue forest rangers imprisoning tourists in Yellowstone. Too bad the President has absolutely no control over his own Administration.
But Rick, your All Rogue All The Time defense simply underscores the point we were making: we can no longer trust our own government. It’s out of the President’s control and targeting its own citizens.
Joe: No one suggests the knights acted independently of Henry II. The questions revolve around whether they interpreted his desires correctly or if his statement was a careful provocation or a flash of anger. But you are nowhere near that with Obama and the IRS. What exactly is it that Obama or even Doug Shulman is supposed to have said that caused IRS people in Cinncinnati to target Tea Party groups?
Having failed to answer that question you fall back on the vague non-specific shotgun approach which get boring fast. On the other hand, I am with you on that NSA but think it proves the opposite of your point. The head of the NSA says they never told Obama they were bugging Merkel, but he let them get away with breaking the law so much he should not be surprised they just do whatever they want. You want to round up most senior NSA staff and send em to a dark hole, feel free. If President Cruz does it, I will cheer. But Obama failed on this front. If Obama were half the Chicago politician you imagine, he would have used the Bush admin NSA abuse as a golden opportunity to fire or jail most of the NSA leadership.
But you are nowhere near that with Obama and the IRS.
Largely because the Administration is stonewalling the investigation.
What exactly is it that Obama or even Doug Shulman is supposed to have said that caused IRS people in Cinncinnati to target Tea Party groups?
“Hold up all those Tea Party applications until after the election”.
It’s not that complicated.
The Administration could have ended this scandal eight months ago. Easily.
If Obama were half the Chicago politician you imagine, he would have used the Bush admin NSA abuse as a golden opportunity to fire or jail most of the NSA leadership.
Why? It served his purposes.
No, I’m sorry, Rick, but that just doesn’t wash. You can’t have it both ways.
The impetus for this post was another instance of Democrats using the machinery of government to punish political enemies, ‘another’ because it’s the latest in a long line of abuses that have occurred during President Obama’s watch which raises the question whether they’re occurring because it’s his watch and he’s directing subordinates to do it.
You say NO! There is no proof President Obama is mis-using his power to punish his enemies. He is not evil, he is simply out of the loop, he has no idea what’s going on in his administration, he is as surprised as we to learn that the government is out of control. It’s all those damned rogues causing an endless series of spontaneous mishaps that mysteriously all fall in the same direction without any planning or coordination whatsoever. Poor President Barak “Lemony Snicket” Obama is as much as victim as we.
A. Can you honestly imagine federal bureaucrats acting this way? That instead of having one man gone bad while honest employees carry out his wishes, we have dozens, maybe hundreds of employees gone bad ignoring the one honest man’s wishes? Does that really seem probable to you?
B. Would you actually feel better about the government if they were . . . or would you feel worse?
Rick,
Since you’ve been commenting here a long, long time – and thanks for your patronage! – you may remember when I was railing against Janet Napolitano putting conservative groups on “terror watchlists”. And by conservative groups we’re not talking “Covenant, Sword and Arm of The Lord”, here – we’re talking groups involved with..:
…and many more.
a) Was Napolitano another ‘rogue employee?”
b) Given the congruence between Napolitano’s list and the list that the “rogue” employees in Cincy apparently decided to sandbag – is there not at least a suggestion of a pattern here?
RickDFL. While I stand by my earlier statement that you can blow me, you festering dingleberry, I am curious:
If a Republican administration held executive power right now, and the body of overwhelming evidence indicated the IRS was abusing its power to target panty-wearing liberal organizations–with the not-too-subtle influence of executive office–can you honestly say, without a hint of your trademark obfuscation, that you wouldn’t be outraged? Or are you just that much of a “ends justifies the means” kind of guy?
Mitch:
“stonewalling the investigation” = admission you have no evidence.
““Hold up all those Tea Party applications until after the election”.” That would be a good start, but you don’t have any evidence the ever said something like that. You haven’t earned those quotation marks.
“It served his purposes” Agreed, but if his purposes did not include grabbing the chance to throw a bunch of Bush security state apparatchiks to the wolves, those purposes are not as exclusively partisan as I would expect to see in a Chicago Dem.
Joe: I wouldn’t say Obama was out of the loop on the IRS scandal, because I would never expect the President to be involved in deciding how to evaluate non-profit applications. The idea that every Federal employee works under the personal direction of the President is just silly. If you actually read some the reporting you will actually understand the chain of command and how the institution acted and why some people made some bad calls. I would be more sympathetic if any of you displayed even a passing familiarity with the actual facts of the case. I mean you don’t even have a scenario for who/when/how the Cincinnati office was instructed by nefarious higher ups to target Tea Party groups.
Yossarian: I try to live by the Golden Rule and imagine how I would feel if roles where reversed. The IRS did abuse it’s power, that is why Lois Lerner had to resign. If I thought the problem was further up with the President and I was putting my case to a Republican, I would nail down my evidence rock solid and be sure to never overstate my case. I certainly wouldn’t send them to an AFL-CIO blog post saying it was all the IRS’s fault and highlighting the GOP President’s comments condemning the IRS.
I used to think that the idea of eliminating the income tax was selfish stupidity.
The reality is, the income tax is just another way we misallocate capital (rent seeking and graft, asset bubbles, inefficient government and business entities). So the Fed gooses the GDP until it can’t anymore because the government is running out of money and the banking system is house of cards that is extracting wealth from the productive. It’s a doomsday machine.
Next is the collapse.
Neo Keynesianism / Democrat party / RINOS / Krugman overdone supply side economics = something for nothing fantasy = doom
We are doomed.
Think about it. The *federal* government is 22 to 25% of the economy in dollar terms. It’s power means it controls more than that, too.
The Democrat party won last time primarily by employing the “Kill Mitt Romney” strategy in Ohio. Months of coordinated messaging about his dog transportation scheme, lies about killing someone with cancer, his horse hobby, lies about the nature of his turn around private equity business.
It killed turnout for Romney.
This is how we allocate capital in this country. They take our money at a point of a gun and this is how we allocate capital.
Then we get Obama who is clearly the dumbest central planner the West has ever seen.
Most of us are just inured to it.
Or we get enough graft that we don’t think about it.
Leftists make big money off the system too. They take a cut to “fix” (with more government force) the problems the system creates.
Except it just makes it worse.
Is Rick a Leftist?
I was listening to Sue Jeffers explain how the Lefties want to cram a 100k more people into Minneapolis. The whole thing is laughable.
Is Rick a Leftist?
He’s a union enforcer. You fill in the blanks.
Rick,
You never change, do you?
“stonewalling the investigation” = admission you have no evidence.
Hardly. We have plenty of evidence; we’ve shown you plenty in this thread. We have evidence. We don’t have a conviction. There’s a difference.
““Hold up all those Tea Party applications until after the election”.” That would be a good start, but you don’t have any evidence the ever said something like that.
You’re being obtuse, Rick. The quotes were to set off a phrase, not to indicate it was a direct quote. And I suspect you know it, but this is the sort of obtuse deflect-o-thon that works with your usual constituency.
You haven’t earned those quotation marks.
And you haven’t earned the right to say it. Let’s call it even.
“It served his purposes” Agreed, but if his purposes did not include grabbing the chance to throw a bunch of Bush security state apparatchiks to the wolves,
No, Rick, the security state – which got its jump start under Clinton with the 1993 Crime Bill and the 1996 Counterterrorist Act, btw – is still working away for you guys.
those purposes are not as exclusively partisan as I would expect to see in a Chicago Dem.
You’re deflecting again.
I hear that many unions need the force of legal coercion to preserve their membership. Is this true?
I hear that government unions like to get democrats in power to grow government employment which increases union revenue. Then they use the revenue to empower the democrat party. Is that true?
I am forced to admit that Rick has toed the party line better than expected. I never saw anybody defend an indefensible position longer.
His spirited application of the Bart Simpson defense (I didn’t do it, nobody saw me do it, you can’t prove I did it), coupled with his willingness to believe that the laws of probability have been suspended during the Obama’s administration (all rogues lean Left) reminds me of the absolute confidence of union stewards who convinced Iron Rangers, steel makers, airline mechanics and auto workers there was no proof that demanding endlessly higher wages would cause the company to bankrupt. But “no proof” doesn’t mean “can’t happen,” as thousands of formerly employed union members learned.
Gunrunning to Mexico, Florida and Chicago, EPA guitar seizures, IRS voter suppression, New Black Panther voter suppression, fired Inspectors General and military officers, NSA spying, Pigford payments, FBI seizures, Solyndra, women in combat, IRS enemy audits, Park Service closures, Benghazi filmmakers, Iran nuke deals. There may not be proof President Obama personally directed these things. But does anybody (aside from Rick) doubt it?
Rick – are you enthused that federal agents are out of control? That they answer to nobody? That they can persecute people at will? Because if the “rogue” answer is true, that’s the system you’re defending. Are you glad of it?
“Gunrunning to Mexico”
I was talking to a Mexican guy last night that was very upset about that, and I didn’t prompt the subject.
This is a good article indirectly on central bank economy goosing http://bit.ly/1i164AJ
D’Souza has not yet, so far as I am aware, ever completed a constructive sentence or even a non-declarative one. I’m not sure whether it’s because I am a cosmopolitan elite or a rube, but I just don’t read him.
D’Souza has not yet, so far as I am aware, ever completed a constructive sentence or even a non-declarative one. I’m not sure whether it’s because I am a cosmopolitan elite or a rube, but I just don’t read him.
You’re an elite rube, and he’s written all kinds of great stuff.
His Reagan bio may be the best of the bunch.
The use of an insult as a response is invariably a symptom of a lack of a logical response.
I remember a time, long ago, when Mr. D’Souza sometimes made sense; but he seems to have gone mad with the rest of the American Right in the last 15 years or so.
Dr. Strangelove diagnoses:
The use of an insult as a response is invariably a symptom of a lack of a logical response.
Then, in the same comment, uncorks the following insult:
I remember a time, long ago, when Mr. D’Souza sometimes made sense; but he seems to have gone mad with the rest of the American Right in the last 15 years or so.
Physician, heal thyself.
Emery – when you follow “D’Souza has not yet, so far as I am aware, ever completed a constructive sentence or even a non-declarative one” with “The use of an insult …is invariably a symptom of a lack of a logical response”, why should one not regard “logical response” as “casting pearls before swine?”
Don’t get me wrong – I’m all about logic.
But you constantly insult conservatives. It’s usually vaguely off-handed, and not especially vicious, and I don’t make more of it than you do.
But don’t toss the insults with one hand and then demand decorum with the other.
MBerg:
A post on the degrees of conservative might be an interesting read.