Posted on 01/26/2014 11:24:17 AM PST by DagnyTaggar
On Friday, conservative scholar Dinesh D’Souza pleaded not guilty to charges that he violated campaign finance laws. The filmmaker behind the anti-Obama documentary “2016: Obama’s America” was released on $500,000 bond, which some — even in the legal community — argue was excessive.
We looked into these claims and uncovered a number of violent and disturbing offenses that resulted in bail amounts less than D’Souza was required to put up. While it’s not a comprehensive list by any means, here are nine cases where violent suspects had to put up less for bail than D’Souza:
In 2007, a Chicago judge set bail for former convict Darnell Richmond at $400,000 on charges that he robbed or attempted to rob four people, raping one of them, just three months after he was released from prison, the Chicago Tribune reports.
That was after Richmond’s bail was increased from $150,000, when he was accused of only two counts of attempted robbery. He was later indicted for additional attempted robbery charges and sexual assault.
(...)
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Accused of a $20,000 ‘illegal’ campaign donation problem (who the hell understands the whole law anyway?) and they give him a half a million dollars bail????
Obviously, exposing King Obama is a far more serious crime. In another three years, just how far will Obama go?
To the liberals, someone such as D’Sousa is more dangerous than these other criminals. Someone who tells unflattering stories about Obama and Obama’s goals is a criminal in their eyes.
But he had the temerity to make a film decrying”The Fuehrer”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don’t you get it? It’s because he’s a Conservative and made movies about Conservatism. To make a movie about 0bama is blasphemous if it’s not done to worship 0bama.
It's pretty obvious the administration has doubled down on political assassinations, and others like Fuddy. Breitbart, Schwarz, Tom Clancy, Kyle, Okrent, etc., etc.. Even Dr. Ben Carson was audited by the IRS right after his speech critical of 0bamacare at the Prayer Breakfast. Who's next?
2016 made $33 million.
On July 4th his new film “America” will premiere and I heard it is even better.
Hmmmm ..?? I can’t help but wonder if the dems are really beginning to panic over 2014 - and the repubs take-back of the Senate.
If that happens, it will mean the end of the extreme over-reach of the WH. Of course, that doesn’t seem to have stopped the EO’s so far.
But, I think the backlash may be even harsher than we know .. but I still wonder if the dems can read the tea leaves - and realize that the House will not become liberal, but will become strengthened even more by many more Tea Party people.
Thus, Shummer’s rant .. his over-reacting seems to indicate the left is really-really in trouble.
A one-hundred percent political prosecution. Or, more appropriately, persecution.
How much was Sandy Berger’s bail ?
It’s just the Obama regime picking on uppity “little brown people” again. It happens all of the time. Stay on the plantation! PERIOD!
Where will Americans go that need political asylum?
And can continue free speech.
The soviet union had the KGB. The USA has the IRS. One made you disappear, the other takes away your money.
We live in a fascist dictatorship.
| Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 | Receipts & Pledges to-date: $23,952 | |||
|
||||
| Woo hoo!! And the first 28% is in!! Thank you all very much!! | ||||
Armed robbers, rapists, and murderers are generally liberals, democrats, or socialists. It’s no surprise they get better treatment than a known republican.
To the gallows, I hope.
D’Souza should plead that “campaign finance reform” is speech/press regulation and is unconstitutional on that count alone. Also, that the special treatment of named newspapers amounts to an unconstitutional “title of nobility” which excludes citizens who do not own a press yet, tho they in principle have the right to start one subject to no regulation. And finally, that the named institutions essentially amounts to a list of members of the Associated Press, which was held by SCOTUS to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1945 and is a cabal of self-interested people in any event.Note that the SCOTUS majority that upheld McCain-Feingold in McConnell v. SEC included Sandra Day O’Connor but did not include Kennedy. Therefore, if Alito and Roberts rule with the conservatives who were in the minority in McConnell, McCain - and possibly all “campaign finance reform" would be overturned.
Far from being a Quixotic venture, raising the possibility of the overturning of the FEC racket might even concentrate the mind of Eric Holder enough to cause him to back down from prosecuting the case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.