[ From the aticle:
“During the sentencing hearing, Berman read from a letter submitted to the court by D’Souza’s former wife. In the missive, Suzie D’Souza alleged that her ex-spouse forged her signature on one campaign contribution form, and that he had an “abusive nature.” D’Souza, who was married to the defendant for 20 years, wrote, “In one instance, it was my husband who physically abused me in April 2012 when he, using his purple belt karate skills, kicked me in the head and shoulder, knocking me to the ground and creating injuries that pain me to this day.”
In May, on the eve of trial, D’Souza pleaded guilty to illegally arranging $20,000 in straw donations to the 2012 U.S. Senate campaign of Wendy Long, a New York Republican who was challenging incumbent Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand.
The 53-year-old D’Souza, a close friend of Long, personally reimbursed the straw donors, effectively allowing him to exceed the $5000 limit for individual donors. According to a probation report, D’Souza’s net worth is in excess of $5 million.”
I’d like to know whether the ex-wife brought up any of these charges before this hearing. Did she bring the charges up in her divorce? He just doesn’t seem like a violent man. I’d have to have more proof than an ex-wife’s statement to believe the charges she is making. ]
How in the hell can the evidence/testimony from a case that is still in the courts be used as criterea for sentencing in a case involving totally different laws that were supposedly broken? Sounds like a HUGE case of mis-justice and furthering of an agenda via controlling the narrative and smearing someone’s character using accusations in a ongoing trial not yet settled...
Is the divorce case still going on?
“In response to D’Souza’s plea for leniency, federal prosecutors asked Berman to sentence the convicted felon to 10 to 16 months in prison. “The defendant’s crime is serious and strikes at the heart of our federal election system,” prosecutors argued.”
Maybe he would have been better off taking the 10 months in prison (as long as it was Federal) than having to watch everything he says or does for the next five years. That's a long probation period for not following the McCain Feigold unconstitutional law.
He could easily break one of these unconstitutional laws in the next five years. For instance Robert Kennedy Jr. is trying to make it against the law to question climate change.
“Kennedy admitted, he would cheer the prosecution of a host of “treasonous” figures — among them a number of unspecified “politicians”; those bêtes noires of the global Left, Kansas’s own Koch Brothers; “the oil industry and the Republican echo chamber”; and, for good measure, anybody else whose estimation of the threat posed by fossil fuels has provoked them into “selling out the public trust.” Those who contend that global warming “does not exist,” Kennedy claimed, are guilty of “a criminal offense — and they ought to be serving time for it.”