Home » D’Souza versus other campaign finance cases

Comments

D’Souza versus other campaign finance cases — 7 Comments

  1. Of course this is a case of politically motivated prosecution/persecution. The greater the punishment, the longer it remains on the radar screen, the greater the intimidation of conservatives, which is what this is really all about. That and removing an arrow (D’Souza’s documentaries) from the right’s playbook.

    I cannot think of one area where the left is not attacking the right. It’s a comprehensive, ‘full court press’ (basketball term). Designed to disrupt, disorganize and neutralize the right’s every effort.

    It is IMO, far too comprehensive to be anything less than a planned strategic offensive. Lots of bit players and a cast of many characters (Obama, Hillary, Holder, etc) but the man behind the curtain is George Soros.

    “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States. For my agenda to advance, I need to have America come down in a controlled descent, not a complete crash.” – George Soros

  2. About who those straw donors were — I found this in a Newsday article:

    Cohen [the assistant U.S. attorney prosecuting the case] said D’Souza had a person he lived with and a person he employed each give two $5,000 contributions in the names of themselves and their spouses, and promised to repay them.

  3. This one of the ever expanding efforts of the messiah to ‘burn the witches’ who question my holiness.

  4. So are we finally seeing the submerged iceberg is this still only 10% of the Left’s operations?

    I think with one more Fast and Furious operation (this time packing and detonating nukes under a false flag), should raise it above 10%.

  5. neo-neocon: But O’Donnell was allowed to plead guilty to misdemeanors and got by with basically a wrist slap.

    After being charged with three felonies.

    neo-neocon: But so far I have found no evidence his actions involved a corporation, corporate funds, or co-workers or employees.

    Ann addressed this above.

  6. Zach:

    I’m answering you in case some non-trolls come across this thread and are interested in my response.

    In the D’Souza case he has been charged with more serious offenses than in almost all similar cases, as the Dominic Gentile quote I offered in the post makes clear. O’Donnell’s initial charge is probably the only exception, where O’Donnell was charged with a felony offense for a similar money amount involving straw donors, although he was allowed to plead guilty to only a misdemeanor.

    However, there are several important differences between O’Donnell and D’Souza that point to the reasons why O’Donnell’s case was actually more serious and should have been treated more seriously than the D’Souza case. The first is that O’Donnell’s violations involved quite a few employees, not just one.

    By the way, O’Donnell’s lawyers alleged that O’Donnell was the victim of politically-motivated retribution by the Bush administration because he was an outspoken critic of Bush, and he was being charged so much more seriously for offenses which were usually handled with a slap on the wrist. If that’s true—and we don’t know at this point if it was true or false (although he certainly was a relatively minor and obscure critic of Bush, as opposed to the far more public and vocal D’Souza re Obama)—it would have been wrong on the part of the Bush administration, but it would argue even more strongly that the D’Souza AND O’Donnell charges were BOTH politically motivated.

    However, as I already said, O’Donnell involved many more employees (the quote is ” the contributions of $2,000 per person were made primarily by employees of O’Donnell’s law firm and some of his family members ,” and since the total was $26,000 it’s obvious that more than one employee was involved, most likely up to 10 or so). What’s more, the O’Donnell case was distinguished from the D’Souza case by the fact—which was probably very important in the legal sense—that this was a second violation for O’Donnell. That would mean that the authorities might have been scrutinizing him more carefully in the first place not for political reasons but because he had already pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge for a very similar (although even greater) violation a few years earlier, involving 26 individuals who were employees, and a larger total sum of money ($50,000). That would mean that O’Donnell could be expected to be treated more harshly than D’Souza, for whom this would be a first violation, and a more minor one at that.

    I think the facts make it clear that these two cases are very different.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>