Skip to comments.Amnesty, but Not for DíSouza
Posted on 02/01/2014 6:01:38 AM PST by smoothsailing
FEBRUARY 1, 2014 4:00 AM
How come no ones worried about bringing Dinesh DSouza out of the shadows? After all, the poor fellow didnt do anything wrong not really. He just wanted to participate fully in our national life, in our democratic process. He didnt want to hide he was forced to take cover by our draconian, inhumane campaign-finance laws.
Mr. DSouzas real crime, the only offense that really matters in Washington these days, is being an Obama critic. Oh, they say he borrowed a couple of peoples names, but his real mistake was doing it in the Wendy Long Senate campaign. For Obama 2008 donors, borrowing other peoples names seems to have been a requirement.
And look, its not like every moment of DSouzas presence in this country has been a violation of law even if it does rub the regime the wrong way. Nor does his day-to-day life ooze identity theft, tax evasion, bank fraud, Social Security fraud, Medicaid fraud, Medicare fraud, food-stamps fraud, and the like. Those crimes, instead, fill out the résumés of our undocumented legions. So ubiquitous is illegal-alien crime that the benumbed Beltway ruling class very much including its Republican-establishment division now just shrugs and says, What difference, at this point, does it make?
Why no difference for them but a life-altering difference for DSouza? Because hes not among the favored outlaws of our law-unto-himself president.
If youre on the team, amnesty does not begin to describe the immunity windfall. Sic the IRS on American citizens in order to frustrate their participation in election campaigns? No worries . . . and no prosecutions, not even for officials who take the Fifth in congressional testimony because they believe answering questions will confirm their criminality. Case closed: No need even to interview the victims, innocent people who were nonetheless intimidated by the prospect of audits, fines, civil lawsuits, criminal prosecution, and, above all, prohibitive legal fees the wages of both compliance and resistance. After all, the victims opposed Obama. As they say at Alinsky, Inc.: We won, get over it.
Benghazi? Remember: The serial derelictions of the presidents duty to protect Americans under siege? Obamas instigation of an unauthorized war with no vital American interests at stake a war that empowered anti-American jihadists? The NATO campaign that abetted the Qaddafi murder notwithstanding the ban on assassinations of heads of state and our governments prior representation that Qaddafi was an important U.S. counterterrorism ally? Oh well . . . as so memorably put between chuckles by Secretary What Difference herself: We came, we saw, he died! On to the minimum wage.
Then theres the gargantuan Obamacare con job: the sedulous administration lying, the willfully false lulling, the laws unconstitutional enactment, the lawlessly imperial waivers, the shameful subsidies to buy off members of Congress and their staffs, the unlawful IRS enforcement in states that declined to participate, the transparent campaign to usher in a single-payer government takeover by breaking the health-care insurance system. It is the most massive fraud in American history, and there will be no investigations or prosecutions. Take heart, though: Republicans have a plan that is right on schedule to repeal Obamacare by, oh, around 2024, the same year Paul Ryans boffo budget plan brings Leviathans ledgers into balance. Oh wait, check that: It turns out the latest Ryan plan relies on Obamacare to balance the budget. Sounds as promising as his new enforcement first . . . make that last immigration plan.
We could go on about faithful execution of the laws, Obama-style: the non-recess recess appointments; the Justice Departments racially discriminatory civil-rights enforcement; the Solyndra green-energy boondoggle, featuring Obamas blatant misrepresentations of a publicly traded companys financial health and his subsequent override of a federal law meant to protect taxpayers the better to shield his cronies from losses when the company inevitably collapsed. (Now thats Obamacare!) But such offenses are not the half of it. What is most breathtaking is the Obama administrations vindictiveness.
In late September 2012, the president and his myrmidons tirelessly labored to deceive the nation into believing the Benghazi Massacre theyd recklessly bungled into was actually caused by an obscure, virtually unseen video the trailer for an anti-Mohammed movie called Innocence of Muslims. Benghazi was not the only context for this duplicitous claim. For years, Obama and Secretary What Difference had colluded with Muslim-supremacist governments (the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) to waive First Amendment protections in deference to sharia blasphemy standards that ban all negative criticism of Islam. Remember Obama at the U.N., just two weeks after our ambassador was murdered, proclaiming to the world that the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
With his Benghazi story exploding, Obama needed a prop someone to make an example of, someone to be sacrificed for the sake of the phony narrative. His minions dutifully set their sights on the hapless Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the Innocence of Muslims producer.
A few years back, Nakoula had opened bank accounts using fake names and stolen Social Security numbers again, crimes of the sort the Obama administration and the Republican establishment think we should overlook when committed by illegal aliens. The sentencing judge thought the crime so minimal that Nakoula spent only a year in jail before being sprung on supervised release i.e., he was, like tens of thousands of former prisoners, free but under light monitoring by a probation officer.
After the Benghazi terrorist attack, it emerged that Nakoula had produced the scapegoat video. In theory, that activity was completely protected by constitutional free-speech principles; in practice, however, the administration was hell-bent on blaming the video and its maker for both the massacre and the violent proclivities of Islamic radicalism. Agents were thus dispatched to arrest Nakoula in the dead of night. He was grilled about making the film meaning: He was interrogated about exercising his First Amendment rights. He was prosecuted for a supervised-release violation culled, in part, out of false statements about the production of the video. After being held without bail as a purported danger to the community, Nakoula was sentenced to another year in prison as much time as hed served for the underlying bank fraud.
Understand, in normal law enforcement this never happens. Agents and prosecutors are supposed to be too busy with real crimes to probe non-suspects over activity that is palpably not criminal. Furthermore, nonviolent criminals suspected of, at best, petty supervised-release violations are not arrested they are given summonses to appear in court on their own recognizance. They are not detained without bail but left at liberty until the court date. And rarely, absent commission of a serious new crime, are they sent to jail on a first supervised-release violation. Instead, the judge gives them a tongue-lashing, warns them to honor the supervised-release terms from now on, and sends them on their way. With jails overcrowded, it often takes three or four violations before a court will finally re-incarcerate a convict.
But you dont get normal law enforcement if you run afoul of Obama and if your torment would have just the right in terrorem effect. Nakoula was too useful to pass up: For Americans, the administration framed him as the villain in its blame the video charade; for Muslims, he became Exhibit A of Obamas plan for people who dare slander the prophet of Islam.
Which brings us back to the unfortunate Dinesh DSouza: not just a prominent conservative and Christian activist, not just a harsh critic of progressivism and the academy, but a highly visible Obama detractor. DSouza is author of the Roots of Obamas Rage and co-producer of the equally controversial film 2016: Obamas America. They purport to trace the presidents politics to the Communism and anti-colonialism of his father. While some commentators found the book insightful, it has also been panned, and not just from the left (see, e.g., Andrew Fergusons scathing review in The Weekly Standard). Still, it was a big bestseller and, in conjunction with the movie, drew the ire of the White House, where youd be better off slandering the prophet of Islam than critiquing Obama.
So now the Obama administration has indicted DSouza for not one but two felony charges, arising out of alleged campaign-finance irregularities. Specifically, he is accused of corruptly reimbursing straw donors to the campaign of Wendy Long, Republican candidate in the New York Senate race contributions DSouza could not lawfully make himself because he was already maxed out at the $5,000 ceiling.
I do not know DSouza well. I have no idea whether he made reimbursements, much less did so willfully. I have no doubt, though, that this is a manifestly vindictive prosecution. The $20,000 amount of the offense alleged is puny a negligible fraction of the Solyndra scam and a figure that would not even register in comparison to the billions lost by victims who were told that if they liked their health-care plans they could keep them. It is the kind of case on which the government routinely declines criminal prosecution, handling, instead, by an administrative fine.
DSouza has no criminal record. Moreover, contrary to myriad voter-fraud violations that Attorney General Holder will not lift a finger to pursue, the transactions at issue posed no conceivable threat to the integrity of the election process: Ms. Long lost by 46 points. As observed by no less than Harvards Alan Dershowitz (an Obama supporter), This is clearly a case of selective prosecution. There would, the professor added, be no room in jails for murderers if the Justice Department made a practice of such prosecutions.
Even more offensive, to my mind, is count two the charge of making false statements to the government. To commit the species of campaign-finance violation alleged in count one, the defendant necessarily must cause the straw donor to file a false contribution report with the Federal Election Commission. That is, you cannot commit the donation offense without simultaneously committing the false-statement offense. For the government to charge both smacks of double jeopardy: being twice prosecuted for the same, single offense.
Why such a heavy-handed indictment? Because Congress deemed campaign-finance violations worth less than $25,000 to be so trivial that a maximum jail sentence of only two years is prescribed (see Title 2, U.S. Code, Sec. 437g(d)(1)(D)). You can also be certain the sentencing guidelines would prescribe no jail time at all. Yet, by gratuitously piling on another felony, Obama and Holder portray DSouza as a serious crook and subject him to the onerous potential of seven years in prison all for an episode that ordinarily would not be prosecuted at all.
As Legal Insurrections Bill Jacobson notes, the 2008 Obama campaign was caught illegally hiding not $20,000 but nearly $2 million in irregular contributions (in addition to dragging its feet on the return of millions more in suspect donations). You probably dont remember that because I know this will shock you the Obama Justice Department didnt prosecute anyone. It was considered a mere hiccup: resolved by a fine considerably smaller than the $500,000 in bail DSouza was forced to post lest he be detained pending trial on his multiple-felony indictment for conduct worth 25 times less that amount.
Persecuting the Lefts foes and foils may be social justice, but it is not justice. And a president who does not dispense justice is not fit to be president.
Obama could not manage a one-car funeral, yet he and his cronies are pushing the lawlessness of a dictatorship of this country.
As Legal Insurrections Bill Jacobson notes, the 2008 Obama campaign was caught illegally hiding not $20,000 but nearly $2 million in irregular contributions (in addition to dragging its feet on the return of millions more in suspect donations). You probably dont remember that because I know this will shock you the Obama Justice Department didnt prosecute anyone.
Yes, 0's Dept of Just Us overlooked those pesky overseas donations.
I don't understand why so many freepers think elections alone will turn our country around.
I WHOLLY agree with you!!!
Our ‘elections’ are scams nowadays anyway. Nothing more than ‘shows’ put on for us to THINK we’re participating.
For practical purposes, Scotus and Obama write the laws we live under. The House doesn’t set or even audit spending, and the Senate is Dear Leader’s rubber stamp. Only the form, the shell, the outward institutions of our republic remain. Their purpose is to condone, to grant credibility, legitimacy to His Will.
Marx cannot be indefinitely grafted onto Madison.
Revolts aren't won by votes.
Obama and Dems know how to scam the donations. They know that they will have to pay a fine for any illegal or over the limit donations when you have a Dem President with a Dem DOJ.
Obama’s campaign turned off their security check on their website which allowed persons with names such as Mickey Mouse Disneyland, Florida to make a donation. They get the infusion of cash up front to buy those ads, TV time, etc. After they win the election, no big deal to pay 500K fine when you pulled in 600 million (as in Obama’s case).
Personally, I think you should forefeit half of your haul. That would make a change.
If our country is to be turned around it must begin at the local level, at the very roots of the tree of liberty.
Looking to Washington is not the answer.
Dinesh DSouza’s history makes me hesitant to come to his defense for the same reason I was hesitant to come to Newt Gingrich’s defense for years after his marital turmoil. I became a Newt supporter at one point last primary season, but Newt had had time to deal with his problems.
Dinesh had a very messy infidelity, divorce, misrepresentation of the facts, and eventual release from Kings College just a little over a year ago.
Do others’ issues get overlooked when it comes to campaign contributions? Sure. Should Dinesh DSouza have his overlooked? If they can be proven, then D’Souza is showing that something is still out of control in his life.
We should be praying for the man. He is so gifted.
I totally agree, we should be praying for this man.
I wasn’t aware of his problems in his personal life. I know he is a Christian and the closer we are to God- the harder the Devil tempts you.
I too was a Newt supporter- but his wife’s wealthy image was hard to over-come as well as divorcing his wife when she had cancer.
There is a psychological term for this. It is called Normalcy Bias. Most people, including Freepers cannot conceive, much less, do what is necessary once the solution is totally outside the established, normal society, methods for a solution.
And now immigration reform. If enacted it turns us into a Third World economy and enables a huge leap towards a pure socialist government. This is the hill to die on for me. If we lose this it's over.
It is the most massive fraud in American history, and there will be no investigations or prosecutions.
I like that. Anyone n The House with the guts to stand up and say it?
I can see Steve Stockman doing it. He's said as much a number of times.