Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHO BREAKS A BUTTERFLY UPON A WHEEL? (The outrageous prosecution of Dinesh DíSouza)
American Spectator ^ | 5.23.14 | Daniel J. Flynn

Posted on 05/26/2014 9:00:34 PM PDT by nickcarraway

Dinesh D’Souza faces more than a year in prison for giving away his money. Guilt lies with the law and not the lawbreaker here.

The conservative author pled guilty to violating campaign finance laws, which is another way of saying he opened up a lemonade stand without a license or ripped the tag off a mattress. The case stems from D’Souza’s 2012 donations through intermediaries to a friend’s senatorial campaign. Congress, made up of incumbents, has placed restrictions of dubious constitutionality on the amount individuals can legally donate to candidates. They haven’t, tellingly, placed any such limits on what they can legally raise or spend on campaigns.

The candidate D’Souza donated to, Wendy Long, lost the fundraising race 40 to 1 and the spending race 15 to 1 to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. She lost the vote race by a mere 3 to 1 margin.

One could say D’Souza foolishly wasted his money on a lost cause. But does his unwise unselfishness really make him a criminal deserving of the penitentiary?

The guilty party, to his credit, admits the facts presented against him. The pursuing party, to their discredit, never explained why they seized on D’Souza’s two illicit donations when much grander transgressions of campaign finance laws by Harry Reid, the Obama campaign, and others have gone unnoticed by federal prosecutors.

D’Souza violated the law. The law violates his rights.

D’Souza has made a few missteps in recent years. A personal scandal, dredged up by men no longer on the payroll of the school he led, forced him from his six-figure job as president of King’s College. Hell hath no fury like an employee scorched.

(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Politics/Elections; US: New York
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 05/26/2014 9:00:34 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Meanwhile, top Obama donation bundler Jon Corzine stole $1.6 billion dollars of legally segregated customer funds and hasn’t so much as been detained for questioning, let alone prosecuted and convicted.

Selective enforcement is a tool of tyrants.


2 posted on 05/26/2014 9:09:56 PM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

‘Meanwhile, top Obama donation bundler Jon Corzine stole $1.6 billion dollars of legally segregated customer funds and hasn’t so much as been detained for questioning, let alone prosecuted and convicted.

Selective enforcement is a tool of tyrants.’
Yep. When you are right you are right.


3 posted on 05/26/2014 9:21:30 PM PDT by Foundahardheadedwoman (God don't have a statute of limitations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Lock Bammy up - already...


4 posted on 05/26/2014 9:24:28 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Totalitarian countries do, that’s who. And if anyone hasn’t noticed, the tools of government have been used more blatantly and aggressively against political opponents in the last 5 years than in any time in US history.

Obama is a personality cult totalitarian.


5 posted on 05/26/2014 9:29:06 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

He admitted to breaking the law.

It maybe selective enforcement, but the law is the law.

If you are going to break it knowingly, even from a sense of conscience, you have to be willing to suffer the consequences.


6 posted on 05/26/2014 9:29:28 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
... but the law is the law.

If we really believe that, let's each of us fine ourselves $1 million, conservatively! ( if I read those highway signs correctly, ) and I wouldn't care to guess how many years in prison.

7 posted on 05/26/2014 9:34:08 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
WHO BREAKS A BUTTERFLY UPON A WHEEL?

Interesting movie based on that.

"The line is usually interpreted as questioning why someone would put massive effort into achieving something minor or unimportant, or who would punish a minor offender with a disproportional punishment."

8 posted on 05/26/2014 9:34:25 PM PDT by upchuck (Support ABLE, the Anybody But Lindsey Effort. Yes, we are the ABLE!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Absolutely true. D’Souza did violate the law. Regardless of the hypocrisy and double standards, he committed a crime and has to deal with the consequences.

It’s unbecoming of D’Souza to say that he’s just being targeted. This may be true, but that doesn’t justify his crime.


9 posted on 05/26/2014 9:36:21 PM PDT by This Just In
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

!


10 posted on 05/26/2014 9:36:23 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun..0'Bathhouse/"Rustler" Reid? d8-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: This Just In

The guilty party, to his credit, admits the facts presented against him. The pursuing party, to their discredit, never explained why they seized on D’Souza’s two illicit donations when much grander transgressions of campaign finance laws by Harry Reid, the Obama campaign, and others have gone unnoticed by federal prosecutors.

Didn't Harry Reid funnel campaign funds to his grand daughter? Didn't Nancy Pelosi engage in insider trading? Hopelessly corrupt!

11 posted on 05/26/2014 9:40:34 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie (The media must be defeated any way it can be done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Strange - I don't remember Little boy king Hussein's campaign organization being prosecuted for taking MILLIONS of illegal overseas political campaign contributions during 2008 or 2012. Obama’s crooked campaign cash-o-matic machine revisited; Updated

– Foreign funny money. Federal election law bans foreign nationals from contributing to American candidates. But during 2008, the Obama campaign was forced to return an illegal foreign donation worth $31,100 made by two brothers in the Gaza Strip, and even mainstream news outlets reported that candidate Obama’s money-handlers had routinely failed to verify citizenship by checking donors’ passports. As the Associated Press reported at the time: “One donor, Tom Sanderson of Canada, made clear his $500 contribution came from a foreign source. He included a note that said, ‘I am not an American citizen!’ Obama’s campaign took the money anyway…”
12 posted on 05/26/2014 9:47:51 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie

The issue in D’Souza’s particular case is not whether or not politicians are corrupt. We know that many of them are, and we see this double standard on display every day.

The issue is whether or not D’Souza committed a crime. He did. Frankly, Conservatives must hold their leaders to a higher standard. D’Souza paraded himself as Conservative voice. He can’t accuse the Left and expect to behave in the same manner as those he’s accusing and be unaccountable.

Dinesh D’Souze commanded thousands of dollars as a speaker. He portrayed himself as a Christian Conservative. We then discovered that he was sleeping with another woman whilst married, and committed crimes. Unlike the Left, he has to own up to those crimes and deal with the consequences.


13 posted on 05/26/2014 9:48:43 PM PDT by This Just In
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Hillary Commits A Felony On Film and NOTHING Happens.

Hillary Clinton commits election and campaign fraud on video.
↑ Click on the image above to see her caught on film committing a felony that should have gotten her 5 years in↑
Federal Prison.

14 posted on 05/26/2014 10:27:01 PM PDT by Fear The People (When the government fears the people, you have LIBERTY.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...
Thanks nickcarraway.
The guilty party, to his credit, admits the facts presented against him. The pursuing party, to their discredit, never explained why they seized on D’Souza’s two illicit donations when much grander transgressions of campaign finance laws by Harry Reid, the Obama campaign, and others have gone unnoticed by federal prosecutors. D’Souza violated the law. The law violates his rights.

15 posted on 05/26/2014 10:27:02 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Foundahardheadedwoman

The real gun show loophole. So many times agencies like the ATF or the FEC will look the other way when convenient. These people get to do private transactions without license of any kinds.

These selective enforcers are accessories to crimes.


16 posted on 05/26/2014 10:30:27 PM PDT by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: This Just In

Selective enforcement invalidates the law on its face. Lincoln made the case against the South on this very argument. If my neighbor has a preferential treatment over me in conducting business, especially polititcal business of statehood by cooking the books, then there is a case for war.


17 posted on 05/26/2014 10:37:52 PM PDT by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

What has the article got to do with wheels and butterflies?


18 posted on 05/26/2014 10:37:53 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lavaroise

So everyone can commit crimes. The law is invalid. Elliot Rodger killed innocent ppl. He didn’t violate the law because the law is invalid.

As you can see, the, “you violate the law with impunity, therefore I can violate the law. After all, there is no law”, logic is absurd.

Our behavior and conduct isn’t governed by those who violate the law. Our actions are determined by God’s law through established codes.


19 posted on 05/26/2014 10:51:44 PM PDT by This Just In
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

Gotta say, I think what he did was wrong and the is right but, it didn’t need to be prosecuted to the extent it was.

Particularly, in light of what we know of the other sinners, who transgressions where so much greater and well known.

Partissan hacks abound with no chexks on their illicit and absolute crimes, the evidence of such being unimpeachable, though the joker in the White House and his lackey AG should be.


20 posted on 05/26/2014 10:52:10 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lavaroise

Boom!

And the law reveals itself to be an ass.


21 posted on 05/26/2014 10:55:49 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

I don’t even think what he did was wrong. Bloomberg spent millions of his own money on various campaigns, including his own and various gun control efforts across the land. (And, I add happily, on unsuccessful efforts to get some recall elections in Colorado to fail.) But somehow those millions are legal, but the little people’s tens of thousands aren’t. Something is obviously wrong in the law, there. Either the millions should also be illegal, or the thousands should be legal. The latter is closer to the idea of limited government.


22 posted on 05/26/2014 10:56:30 PM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Dinesh is a good boy but he seems to have stepped in it.


23 posted on 05/26/2014 11:00:36 PM PDT by mylife (The roar of the masses could be farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0BP1MA2KR8


24 posted on 05/26/2014 11:03:12 PM PDT by mylife (The roar of the masses could be farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

Whoops,Damn you Bill Gates!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5B1hQtoAmQ


25 posted on 05/26/2014 11:06:46 PM PDT by mylife (The roar of the masses could be farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Still doesn’t make any sense, I see no connection!

As far as music i totally gave it up when I was 10 and played in the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchastra and my mother let me quit music lessons.

Never picked up an instrument after that day.

Don’t listen to it and have never bought any and never will!!!


26 posted on 05/26/2014 11:13:27 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
It maybe selective enforcement, but the law is the law.

Leave legal theory to those who understand it.

You just keep the kids off your damn lawn. That's enough for your grasp of the law.

27 posted on 05/26/2014 11:16:26 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

Any how the first link was a muckup.

The second one is the one I wished to post


28 posted on 05/26/2014 11:20:52 PM PDT by mylife (The roar of the masses could be farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: This Just In
Frankly, Conservatives must hold their leaders to a higher standard.

Frankly, I'm glad your type of "Conservative" is dying out. I don't give a damn anymore when thousands of regulations are made each year and its impossible for anyone who isn't an autistic savant to know them all.

29 posted on 05/26/2014 11:21:45 PM PDT by ClaytonP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

Dinesh stepped in it.
Sad tale but there it is.


30 posted on 05/26/2014 11:22:53 PM PDT by mylife (The roar of the masses could be farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

You stumbled into the wrong forum, Clayton. You must have been heading down to the libunderground site.

Just go down the toilet and take a left. Just follow your nose, Clayton. You’ll be in familiar territory in no time.


31 posted on 05/26/2014 11:28:47 PM PDT by This Just In
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: This Just In

Two wrongs don’t make a right, so I tend to agree with you. This is what the left does—make excuses by pointing out something the other side does or did. It gets very old.

The other upsetting thing about this is:How could D’Souza have been so stupid?


32 posted on 05/26/2014 11:51:26 PM PDT by crazycatlady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3159509/posts


33 posted on 05/26/2014 11:56:55 PM PDT by lonevoice (We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Sorry, I cannot support D’Souza on this.

He works full time in the business of politics.

He knew exactly what the law was.

Even worse, he suborned two friends to help him break the law.

He is also a hypocrite.

If a Democrat had done this, D’Souza would have exposed that person and demanded his prosecution.

34 posted on 05/27/2014 1:08:10 AM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

Obama is a personality cult totalitarian.

***
No, Obamugabe is merely the puppet. President Valerie pulls the strings, and whoever pulls her strings is the true totalitarian.


35 posted on 05/27/2014 4:50:35 AM PDT by Bigg Red (1 Pt 1: As he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: This Just In; SoConPubbie

You are both correct about the fact that he did violate the law. The law is being selectively enforced in order to target him, but he did knowingly break it.


36 posted on 05/27/2014 4:54:22 AM PDT by Bigg Red (1 Pt 1: As he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; coloradan; Foundahardheadedwoman; Paladin2; DesertRhino; SoConPubbie; dr_lew; ...
When an unconstitutional “law” is put on the books, selective enforcement follows as the night the day. And all “Campaign Finance Reform” legislation is patently unconstitutional.

Everyone understand that the First Amendment precludes the government from requiring you to obtain a license to speak or to print. No one thinks that The New York Times can be censored by the government. But if the press is free, you have a right to spend your own legally acquired money - to buy a printing press. And, having done so, to be on an equal footing before the law with The New York Times. Now, The New York Times is a corporation. Therefore if you incorporate your printing press business that doesn’t affect your rights to be on an equal footing before the law with The New York Times.

The fact is that the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
is not predicated on the assumption that “the press” is objective or nonpartisan or even non-sectarian. The saying is that in polite company one does not discuss politics or religion - but the First Amendment leaps directly into that thicket by saying that Congress has no business attempting to prevent the people from doing exactly that - at the top of their voices.

The New York Times gets paid by readers, but that money primarily goes to the distribution of the physical paper. Any newspaper makes its money by selling advertising, which is to say, by promoting claims and saying things which it would not do for free. There is no case, therefore, that the newspaper’s money is cleaner than the money you might use to buy and operate a press. You and The New York Times are on an equal footing, morally and legally. Until “Campaign Finance Reform” legislation presumes to say that you have no right to spend all the money you want on promoting any candidates (and suggesting that it would be foolish to vote for others), while implicitly or explicitly carving out an exemption for the establishment press.

Nobody thinks that a newspaper can tell every known truth - and yet, “Half the truth may be a great lie.” Consequently there is no real difficulty for the establishment press - especially acting in concert - to denigrate and disparage candidates - or to “position” them favorably. The ineluctable conclusion is that a “free press” requires actual freedom. And that “no law” does not mean just a little law. So if The New York Times can be a corporation, and if indeed all the “presses” listed in McCain-Feingold can belong to a single organization - as I submit that all of them belong to the Associated Press - there is no constitutional case to be made against you and I acting in concert to promote candidates congenial to us both. Nor any case to be made for limiting to amount of your money, or mine, which we may spend on that project. Whether we ask, “Mother, may I” of the government first, or not.

The Federal Election Commission is unconstitutional, root and branch, and must be voided by SCOTUS. And the Federal Communication Commission is scarcely better suited to a free republic. What business does the government have deciding what is “broadcasting in the public interest” and what is not???? The Fairness Doctrine is a planted axiom of granting the government control over what it pleases the government to call the “public” airwaves. And “fairness” is in the eye of the beholder - and nowhere in the Constitution.


37 posted on 05/27/2014 7:02:47 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion ("Liberalism¬Ē is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: This Just In

The law is about who is to be licensed vs. rights.

D’nesh was not into a business as much as those bureaucrats accessories to treachery are into the business of keeping their pay checks. D’nesh did not pay for his movie to be promoted by said political party he supported.

This was not a Union props to a candidate ... d’nesh movie and works stand on their own legs. No law was violated because no license were really required. This was a simple exercise of a right.


38 posted on 05/27/2014 10:58:58 AM PDT by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion; Vendome

Indeed... The law is about who is to be licensed vs. rights.

D’nesh was not into a business as much as those bureaucrats accessories to treachery are into the business of keeping their pay checks. D’nesh did not pay for his movie to be promoted by said political party he supported.

This was not a Union props to a candidate ... d’nesh movie and works stand on their own legs. No law was violated because no license were really required. This was a simple exercise of a right


39 posted on 05/27/2014 11:00:20 AM PDT by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

You’re absolutely right, as long as you’re talking about the Constitution as it relates to the rights of non-franchised men and women. But what is going on here is the application of the Constitution to corporate entities via the 14th Amendment. And that swaps the relationship of government and governed 180 degrees. Instead of a people of rights granting limited powers to the government, the government grants limited privileges to corporate entities. And the rules by which privileges are granted follow one single requirement - that they benefit the government.

And one of the benefits for the government is to not make this distinction clear, and allow the use of the term “rights” to mean privileges when used in a corporate appliation. And from that, as they say, the wool is pulled.


40 posted on 05/27/2014 12:53:38 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: lavaroise

You’re incorrect. Dinesh D’Souza violated the law. You should read specific which laws he violated. Mr. D’Souza went so far as to admit guilt. He admitted that he broke the law after his violations were discovered.

This issue has nothing to do with corrupt politicians. This case has to do with D’Souza’s crimes. Is he being targeted? I don’t know, but one thing is certain: he violated the law.


41 posted on 05/29/2014 9:03:24 PM PDT by This Just In
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

The Law’s an ass.


42 posted on 05/29/2014 9:08:21 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: This Just In

the ones indicting him should habe been in prison long ago to begin with. He admits guilt because he is naively good. This is all pure politics ... much like the accessories to murder sponsoring “gun free zones” will attack next door farmers’ business and armed protection as being accessories.

So we get now “free speech and free from political donation zones” that are left purposefuly open for wolves to abuse without prosecution, while the rest of the shepherd dogs like D’nesh are rationed from ever getting its reasonably shared government “distributed” share with which he could fight said wolves off.

It is like asking someone to pay their taxes but blocking their business so they run out of money to paid said taxes.


43 posted on 05/29/2014 10:40:10 PM PDT by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson