Skip to comments.Dinesh D'Souza: I Won't Be Intimidated by Campaign-Finance Charges
Posted on 02/02/2014 12:06:08 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Dinesh DSouza, the conservative commentator and filmmaker, says he won't be intimidated by his indictment earlier this month on campaign-finance charges.
"Im going to proceed with my work and my ideas and the film will be unimpeded by what's going on, DSouza told The Daily Caller.
DSouza, 52, was referring to his forthcoming documentary film "America," which is scheduled to be released July 4.
He also directed the 2012 film critical of President Barack Obama, "2016: Obama's America." It is the highest-grossing documentary of all time with a take of more than $33 million.
DSouza was indicted by a federal grand jury on Jan. 23 on charges of using straw donors around August 2012. He is accused of reimbursing people whom he had directed to contribute $20,000 reportedly to the New York Senate campaign of Republican Wendy Long, a longtime friend, who was handily defeated by Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand in last November's election.
His lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, has contended that D'Souza's actions were "at worst," an act of misguided friendship toward the candidate.
D'Souza was charged in the indictment with one count of making illegal contributions in the names of others, and one count of causing false statements to be made.
Federal law in 2012 limited primary and general election campaign contributions to $2,500 each, for a total of $5,000, from any individual to any one candidate.
D'Souza has pleaded not guilty to the charges and remains free on $500,000 bail.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
This $500,000 bail is said to be excessive for this type of legal charge against someone. I’ve heard that accused murderers have been let out on lesser amounts of bail. If true, then we have to really wonder about the motivations here.
Ironically, the arrest confirms the thesis of the book and movie. Obama is a third world tyrant.
My first reaction to this was anger. Typical Eric Holder and his Injustice Department.
But after reading those sale figures, I wonder whether the Dummocrats in office may have miscalculated. $500,000 is a huge and unprecedented bail for the “crime” involved. But the publicity may increase the take of the new movie by even more. It’s pretty good publicity for the people who are going to want to watch the movie. Kind of like all those nasty attacks on The Passion of The Christ, which probably doubled or tripled the number of viewers.
D’souza is being indicted by the feds which means a 90% conviction rate. This will be acheived via witness tampering, jury intimidation, and fake documents. This is despite the fact that the “persecutors” must prove intent to commit fraud by a reasonable doubt.
There is no question that we are in a police state and hardening tyranny. The US has an incarceration rate that exceeds all nations. We are at 743/100,000! China is 120-218, Canada is 117. Even adjusting for more minorities compared to Canada, I’m sure that this is still way out if line. The reason is longer sentencing.
What the regime is doing is taking a “tough on crime” meme and using it against their political opponents and potential opponents. This is absolutely sickening and will not stop until the people are roused out of their coma.
But what's the Constitution between friends?
Yet, these scoundrels run the risk of making DDS into a martyr.
July 4th - premiere of “America”, his new movie.
Grab a bunch of fence-sitting pals and GO SEE IT...!
And we thought that after Hitler and Goebbels, all the Nazis were gone. Guess we were wrong.
Remember that guy who called himself “Thomas Payne”? What happened to him?
Free on bail and free to make another movie.
IMHO the correct defense is to contest the constitutionality of the law(s) in question. Campaign finance laws presume to draw a distinction between the press and the people. That is, between people who own presses, and people who dont own a press yet.
The Roberts Court hasnt ruled on CFR yet - and McConnell v. FEC was a 5-4 ruling with Justice Kennedy in the minority. Get agreement from Alito and Roberts, hold Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas, and you are home free.
Revolt is coming.
Yet a supporter of John Edwards gets off on lesser charges.
It actually looks like he committed the ‘crime’.
What’s significant is that others doing so have got a slap on the wrist at best. D’Souza’s being treated like the guy with the Benghazi film trailer.
Exactly which crime? He may have violated the law, but I think its a stretch to think that there was intent to deceive; its unlikely that there was fraud.
This is an important point on several levels. First, this case illustrates that compliance with campaign laws is exceedingly difficult, putting anyone that wants to engage in politics at risk for prosecution. Not only are campaign finance laws difficult to follow, but laws and regulations governing business, land, food, health care, etc. also expose anyone engaging such productive activities at risk. But most concerning is the conflation of a regulatory violation with fraud. The feds seem to think that any and all violations must be fraudulent unless proven otherwise; the feds want to infer intent so they can put “bad” people away. And the feds get to decide who is “bad”
So now, in the new tyranny, intent is inferred if you are on the wrong side.
I have no case but that this is a matter or excessive, politically-motivated prosecution. And most campaign finance laws ought not to exist at all.
But anyone in the political pundit business to the degree he has been clearly knows that there are limits to individual contributions, and if he was reimbursing people contributing in their own name as a way to get around the law—as outwardly appears to be the case—it is hard to argue that deception with intent to circumvent the law was not intended.
Enforcement of these laws is generally a joke. That’s why you see so many campaigns violate them: at worst they’ll be required to pay a little money back after their candidate is safely in office.
So on the one hand, you have laws that shouldn’t exist, secondly you have selective enforcement, third you usually have mickey-mouse consequences when they’ve been broken, and last, in contrast, you’ve got a clear case of excessive prosecution here.
Still, I don’t see why deception and fraud weren’t part of what he’s alleged to have done.
“case” = doubt