Obama critic indicted for campaign-finance fraud, obstruction

posted at 8:41 am on January 24, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

This strange announcement came last night from the US Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York. Author and conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza, who produced the documentary 2016: Obama’s America that went after Barack Obama in the middle of the last election cycle, has been indicted for allegedly pushing $20,000 in straw-man contributions into a Senate race in New York that was hopeless from the start:

In 2012, the Election Act limited both primary and general election campaign contributions to $2,500 for a total of $5,000 from any individual to any one candidate. In August 2012, D’SOUZA directed other individuals with whom he was associated to make contributions to the campaign committee for a candidate for the United States Senate (the “Campaign Committee”) that totaled $20,000. D’SOUZA then reimbursed those individuals for the contributions. By directing the illegal contributions to be made, D’SOUZA also caused the Campaign Committee to falsely report to the FEC the sources and amounts of those contributions to the campaign.

D’SOUZA, 52, of San Diego, California, is charged with one count of causing $20,000 in illegal campaign contributions to be made to a candidate for the United States Senate in calendar year 2012, which carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison. He also is charged with one count of causing false statements to be made to the FEC in connection with the illegal campaign contributions, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

The Indictment is the result of a routine review by the FBI of campaign filings with the FEC by various candidates after the 2012 election for United States Senator in New York. Mr. Bharara praised the investigative work of the FBI.

A routine review, eh? At the very least, the report raises a few questions. The race, although not specified, appears to be the Senate election between Kirsten Gillibrand and Wendy Long in New York, in which Long lost to Gillibrand by forty-five points (72% to 27%). Why would D’Souza try to push illegal contributions in the low five figures and risk criminal prosecution in a race where tens of millions of dollars were spent, and where the challenger was utterly doomed? For that matter, why use straw men when D’Souza could have just bundled for Long instead, or set up a PAC?

On the other hand, the response from D’Souza’s defense team sounds as if there’s something to explain:

But his lawyer, Benjamin Brafman. released a statement to reporters saying that D’Souza’s efforts to help a friend running for the Senate in 2012 was “at most” an “act of misguided friendship.”

“Mr. D’Souza did not act with any corrupt or criminal intent whatsoever,” Brafman said in the statement. “He and the candidate have been friends since their college days, and “at worst, this was an act of misguided friendship by D’Souza. . .It is important to note that the indictment does not allege a corrupt relationship between Mr. D’Souza and the candidate.”

The indictment did not name the Senate candidate in the case. But it appears to be Wendy Long (R), who lost overwhelmingly in 2012 to incumbent Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat. Long raised less than $1 million for her long-shot campaign.

Campaign contribution limits are counterproductive and ultimately the cause of more corruption than they prevent. They should be eliminated, and replaced with full transparency on contributions that aggregate higher than $200 (the same limit as exists now) on campaign websites that will allow voters to see clearly who funds these campaigns. Until those laws change, though, we are bound to follow them. If D’Souza violated the law, then he’ll have to be held accountable … but it will be interesting to see in court how the feds “routinely” decided to look into his activities after producing 2016.

Ace counts this among quite a few “coincidences” involving critics of this administration.

Update: Via Instapundit, Ann Althouse expresses my thoughts on this succinctly:

I think it [the defense response] looks pretty much like a confession that D’Souza committed the criminal acts. What’s the defense? That he’s a good person who meant well and enjoyed camaraderie with the beneficiary of his illegal acts? I don’t think campaign finance laws work that way, but maybe I’m wrong. Personally, I avoid campaign finance because I think the law is set up to snag people on all sorts of weird details. I’m troubled by that, because it means that you can’t run for office unless you have plenty of legal advice, so how do you begin to run for office? It’s really oppressive. But if there’s going to be oppression like that, it can’t be an out that you didn’t mean to violate any law, can it?

I agree, if the investigations into the law don’t turn into selective prosecution for political purposes. How many of these cases involve Obama boosters rather than critics? How did prosecutors decide to look into D’Souza’s activities in the first place?

That is the real problem with creating these kind of Byzantine structures. It makes it easy to create criminals, and then those in power can use prosecutorial discretion to choose their targets. I don’t know that this is what happened here, but that’s the danger that this system of finance “reform” creates.

Update: Big thanks to the Drudge Report for the link — and they have another that reminds us the DoJ only charged a John Edwards donor with a misdemeanor for the same crime. That indictment came from the Bush administration in 2007, though, regarding the 2004 election.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Sorry Ed…there are no coincidences in this administration…

PatriotRider on January 24, 2014 at 8:46 AM

Dark days for the Republic.

Skywise on January 24, 2014 at 8:46 AM

Year 10 and counting with Conservatives/Republicans NOT
realizing who and what we are up against….

ToddPA on January 24, 2014 at 8:46 AM

Everything associated with this POS President is crooked, criminal, a lie, or a scandal.

easyt65 on January 24, 2014 at 8:50 AM

OK, singling people out for political views is wrong, unconstitutional and even contemptible, but that defense becomes a whole lot weaker if D’Souza’s actually guilty.

morganfrost on January 24, 2014 at 8:52 AM

It sounds like the government may be right. This time.

cozmo on January 24, 2014 at 8:52 AM

Mark O’Mara, call your office pronto.

platypus on January 24, 2014 at 8:53 AM

It would be one thing if everyone, irrespective of party affiliation and political philosophy, were held to the letter of the law. As we know, however, that is not the case. The litany of gross negligence and criminal activity by those on the left is long and ugly – yet few are ever charged with anything. Someone on the right blows their nose the wrong way: an indictment.

This is the most thuggish administration I’ve seen in my lifetime…. and, as someone who was around during the Nixon and LBJ administrations – that’s saying something.

pbundy on January 24, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Obama is responsible for *every* criminal activity conservatives engage in? This is absolutely insane. Dinesh D’Souza was a fraud long before he released his flopumentary that influenced the 2012 election in exactly zero precincts outside of Idaho (though thank God for it, I hear Mitt might’ve lost the state without it). But for some reason, the President has targeted someone who accomplished zip, zero, stingy-with-dinero in terms of actually influencing the election? D’Souza was fired from his position at Kings College, is that also because of Obama? D’Souza is a horrible writer whose books are filled with half truths and bereft of citations, is that Obama’s fault? Dude is a huckster, just deal. Y’all are a mess.

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Ace counts this among quite a few “coincidences” involving critics of this administration.

I was a kid during the so-called “McCarthy era” and in my opinion the climate of fear is more pervasive now.

Part of me feels like keeping my head down. How many posts on Hot Air before they notice?

I’m damned if I’m going to live that way though.

Drained Brain on January 24, 2014 at 8:54 AM

Holy crap. Yet Black Panthers with clubs, intimidating voters, gets a pass.

Dongemaharu on January 24, 2014 at 8:55 AM

OK, singling people out for political views is wrong, unconstitutional and even contemptible, but that defense becomes a whole lot weaker if D’Souza’s actually guilty.

morganfrost on January 24, 2014 at 8:52 AM

It sounds like the government may be right. This time.

cozmo on January 24, 2014 at 8:52 AM

Let’s get serious here. Does anybody think Citizens United is as far as the law should go? There’s a serious question whether any of the law in this area is constitutional.

This is a witch hunt, which is just about the only thing this group of clowns is qualified to do.

platypus on January 24, 2014 at 8:57 AM

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Just shut up, libby.

avagreen on January 24, 2014 at 9:00 AM

Instapundit:

ANN ALTHOUSE: Is the prosecution of Dinesh d’Souza politically motivated? Is there anything this administration does that isn’t politically motivated?

From the comments:

It’s a violation of federal campaign financing law to accept donations from non-US citizens as I understand it.

During both the 2008 & ’12 campaigns, Obama’s web site solicited small donations below the threshold for name and address reporting (200?), and, more interestingly, disabled the credit card country of origin information.

No curiosity by the mainstream media or the DOJ.

[What] we are seeing is the “Chicagoization” of national government, whereby the Democrat party uses the power of government to destroy political opponents.

Drained Brain on January 24, 2014 at 9:01 AM

has been indicted for allegedly pushing $20,000 in straw-man contributions into a Senate race in New York that was hopeless from the start:

Hopeless from the start? That should’ve been the tagline to D’Souza’s attempts to influence the 2012 election.

Is 20,000 that amount of money he illegally funneled to his friend, or that number of New Yorkers who saw that film of his. What was the name of it again? It was in an out of so many worst of 2012 lists to fast, one can’t hardly be asked to remember the title.

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 9:04 AM

Ace counts this among quite a few “coincidences” involving critics of this administration.

But apparently abuse of power is only wrong if it involves inconveniencing the inmates of NJ getting across the GWB quick enough that they don’t have cause to bitch about lane closures.

Happy Nomad on January 24, 2014 at 9:05 AM

Dude is a huckster, just deal. Y’all are a mess.

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Nothing you type on this website regarding this topic
has any credibilty…reason:

IRS TARGETING OF TEA PARTY GROUPS.

You start decrying that, and then you may have a
scintilla of credibilty.

Oh, and spare me the “there was no proof of IRS targeting”

You’re a mess….

ToddPA on January 24, 2014 at 9:08 AM

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Obama is responsible for *every* criminal activity conservatives engage in?

I just want to point out before we go too much further into your rant, that the only time Obama was mentioned in the entire article was in pointing out that the individual was a critic of Obama. It does not implicate Obama directly in this. But the US Attorney’s Office is a DoJ construct, and we’ve all seen the way Eric Holder runs the DoJ.

But for some reason, the President has targeted someone who accomplished zip, zero, stingy-with-dinero in terms of actually influencing the election?

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Apparently you missed the part where the article is not terribly swift in defending D’Souza’s actions, and the part where it points out that D’Souza was not the first to feel the heavy hand of government on him, nor will he be the last.

It’s not about the man, it’s about an emerging pattern.

The Schaef on January 24, 2014 at 9:11 AM

“If D’Souza violated the law, then he’ll have to be held accountable…”

This is complete and utter crap, and I don’t use more accurate language only to avoid the content-filter.

When Statists enact a multitude of arbitrary laws & regulations – malum prohibitum, not malum in se – such laws have no moral force whatever. Such laws cannot be justly enforced, and do not merely permit, but were designed to facilitate political persecution of the ruling clique’s opponents.

BCrago66 on January 24, 2014 at 9:12 AM

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 8:53 AM

The problem is selective enforcement of law based on political persuasion.
That should terrify everyone, regardless of their politics.

justltl on January 24, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Oh, and spare me the “there was no proof of IRS targeting”

ToddPA on January 24, 2014 at 9:08 AM

The irony of this kind of defense, is that when the Dems released the IRS papers “proving” that progressive groups were targeted equally, the papers themselves demonstrate that everyone with a TP-sounding name was stalled on c3 and c4 applications and forwarded to Washington, while progressive-sounding groups were processed with a footnote that maybe they might not be eligible for c4 (no mention of c3).

The “exonerating evidence” specifically proves the allegations.

The Schaef on January 24, 2014 at 9:14 AM

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Where’s the investigation into ACORN?

rbj on January 24, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Obama at the UN: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”

Marco on January 24, 2014 at 9:15 AM

When Statists enact a multitude of arbitrary laws & regulations – malum prohibitum, not malum in se – such laws have no moral force whatever. Such laws cannot be justly enforced, and do not merely permit, but were designed to facilitate political persecution of the ruling clique’s opponents.

BCrago66 on January 24, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Or when they need a political scapegoat. Imprisoning an American for a YouTube video in order to set a bogus narrative about Benghazi comes to mind.

Happy Nomad on January 24, 2014 at 9:16 AM

Yeah, what a weird story. Sounds like it might have just been an amateurish screw up. It’s not difficult to get tangled up with the law.

That said, D’Souza is, at best, an idiot who runs, wittingly or unwittingly, interference for the global jihad. Can’t say I’m going to shed many tears over this.

WhatSlushfund on January 24, 2014 at 9:16 AM

When Statists enact a multitude of arbitrary laws & regulations – malum prohibitum, not malum in se – such laws have no moral force whatever. Such laws cannot be justly enforced, and do not merely permit, but were designed to facilitate political persecution of the ruling clique’s opponents.

BCrago66 on January 24, 2014 at 9:12 AM

hence doma’s demise.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Why am I not surprise that libby wants to puke all over this thread. He’s like Pavlov’s dog, lol

22044 on January 24, 2014 at 9:21 AM

I just want to point out before we go too much further into your rant, that the only time Obama was mentioned in the entire article was in pointing out that the individual was a critic of Obama.

*scrrrt on 22s*

A: Dinesh D’Souza has many titles outside of “Obama critic” so you can pretend that Ed chose it randomly if you want to. The rest of us will live in reality.

B: All the commenters afterwards have indicated they get the implication of the headline.

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 9:22 AM

D’SOUZA, 52, of San Diego, California, is charged with one count of causing $20,000 in illegal campaign contributions to be made to a candidate for the United States Senate in calendar year 2012, which carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison. He also is charged with one count of causing false statements to be made to the FEC in connection with the illegal campaign contributions, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

Which will D’Souza get,the 5 year or the 2 year sentence?

docflash on January 24, 2014 at 9:23 AM

This is a witch hunt, which is just about the only thing this group of clowns is qualified to do.

platypus on January 24, 2014 at 8:57 AM

No Shinola. The left is total hypocrites about this. Look at the stupid trolls here doing it.

We have to be consistent. Whether through ignorance, or malice, if D’Souza is guilty he needs to be prosecuted.

cozmo on January 24, 2014 at 9:24 AM

None of this should come as a surprise. During the 2008 campaign when conservative radio and tv talk show hosts were critical of Obama, he demanded that the Department of Justice put a stop to the criticism. At the time it seemed ludicrous that a candidate would even suggest such a thing. Now we see that is exactly what he intended and is doing since elected.

iamsaved on January 24, 2014 at 9:24 AM

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 9:22 AM

The thread below this one is upset you don’t have interest in posting on it slave.

Bmore on January 24, 2014 at 9:25 AM

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Obama is responsible for *every* criminal activity conservatives engage in? This is absolutely insane. Dinesh D’Souza was a fraud long before he released his flopumentary that influenced the 2012 election in exactly zero precincts outside of Idaho (though thank God for it, I hear Mitt might’ve lost the state without it). But for some reason, the President has targeted someone who accomplished zip, zero, stingy-with-dinero in terms of actually influencing the election? D’Souza was fired from his position at Kings College, is that also because of Obama? D’Souza is a horrible writer whose books are filled with half truths and bereft of citations, is that Obama’s fault? Dude is a huckster, just deal. Y’all are a mess.

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Girl, literally no one cares…..

libfreeordie on January 14, 2014 at 9:02 AM

Bitter Clinger on January 24, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Hopeless from the start? That should’ve been the tagline to D’Souza’s attempts to influence the 2012 election.

Yeah, how dare someone make a movie showing what a fraud obama is. How dare they!!!!

Is 20,000 that amount of money he illegally funneled to his friend, or that number of New Yorkers who saw that film of his. What was the name of it again? It was in an out of so many worst of 2012 lists to fast, one can’t hardly be asked to remember the title.

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 9:04 AM



The film has grossed over $33.45 million in the United States, making it the fourth highest-grossing documentary (domestically) since 1982.[1][3]

It surpassed your hero’s movies: Sicko, An Inconvenient Truth, Bowling for Columbine, and Capitalism: A Love Story. And gee, can’t imagine why libtard movie critics didn’t give it two thumbs up.

You need to check your wig, girl. You look even dumber than usual.

HumpBot Salvation on January 24, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Tick tock tick tock tick tock. How much will Americans take?

Rational Thought on January 24, 2014 at 9:30 AM

The problem is selective enforcement of law based on political persuasion.
That should terrify everyone, regardless of their politics.

justltl on January 24, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Eh, when you’re speaking Truth To Power in the name of Social Justice then anything goes.

Sure, Dog Eater is breaking the law with DeathCare, but hey, it’s about bigger needs so oh well.

Bishop on January 24, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Maybe he’s guilty. But with the amount of money involved and the nature of the blowout election, this would not have even surfaced except for the movie.

Prison time aside, the monetary cost versus the amount of free exposure D’Souza will get is cheap advertisement for his book.

obama may be giving D’Souza a gift.

davidk on January 24, 2014 at 9:32 AM

I don’t know what’s sillier – the idea that Obama has anything to do with this – or the idea that to silence an anemic and meaningless critic, he would somehow trick that person into flagrantly and stupidly breaking an obvious law, for which he’ll likely face some fine.
Yea…silenced forever! /

D’Souza just got handed the scipt for his new film and outline for his new book, which many of you will buy via a ‘click here’ ad on Hot Air.

verbaluce on January 24, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Ace counts this among quite a few “coincidences” involving critics of this administration.

I was a kid during the so-called “McCarthy era” and in my opinion the climate of fear is more pervasive now.

Part of me feels like keeping my head down. How many posts on Hot Air before they notice?

I’m damned if I’m going to live that way though.

Drained Brain on January 24, 2014 at 8:54 AM

Agree. I’m going to go out fighting.

This criminal enterprise we have in the WH must be fought at every opportunity! And, not in a passive way:
~ Intelligent voting,

~doing the needed research and then using this knowledge with continuous posting on sites to educate and combat the false information being put out,

~praying for God’s help!,

~ community organizing by writing letters/phonecalls to those that have any influence,

~contributing to conservative causes/peoples,

~talking to /educating friends, family, neighbors (the ones that will listen),

~active encouragement to those that are/have contributing to our freedoms (soldiers, vets, politicians, political causes….even these people being persecuted). Again, by letters or phonecalls.

~praying for God’s help!,

~getting involved in local politics (for those whose health allows)

whatever each one of us can do.

And, then praying for God’s help!

avagreen on January 24, 2014 at 9:33 AM

The problem is selective enforcement of law based on political persuasion.
That should terrify everyone, regardless of their politics.

justltl on January 24, 2014 at 9:14 AM

I’ve pointed out to my (very) liberal family that if they don’t like the idea of a Republican President/Congress/DoJ/whatever having certain powers, than they shouldn’t support a Democrat having them.

I’ve never received an answer from them, but they do tend to look like they actually thought about it for a few seconds. I’m hoping if I point it out often enough that it will start sinking in a little further over time, maybe enough that they’ll actually understand what I’m saying.

LibraryGryffon on January 24, 2014 at 9:35 AM

for his movie.

davidk on January 24, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Agree. I’m going to go out fighting.

This criminal enterprise we have in the WH must be fought at every opportunity! And, not in a passive way:
~ Intelligent voting,

avagreen on January 24, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Not just voting – run for local offices. If you can stomach it, work with the local political committees.

LibraryGryffon on January 24, 2014 at 9:38 AM

Bmore on January 24, 2014 at 9:25 AM

The idiot trolls here are incapable of the thought processes necessary to handle that thread.

This one taxes libby’s brain to the max just to enter and look as stupid as he does.

Must be all the dope he did at Greenhill Academy. Or maybe he always has been a dope.

cozmo on January 24, 2014 at 9:40 AM

What’s the big deal, it’s not like he got $500 million to create an non-operational website.

HumpBot Salvation on January 24, 2014 at 9:43 AM

Must be all the dope he did at Greenhill Academy. Or maybe he always has been a dope.

cozmo on January 24, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Its called The Greenhill School, are you *sure* you are familiar with Dallas private school culture?

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 9:44 AM

I’ve pointed out to my (very) liberal family that if they don’t like the idea of a Republican President/Congress/DoJ/whatever having certain powers, than they shouldn’t support a Democrat having them.

I’ve never received an answer from them, but they do tend to look like they actually thought about it for a few seconds. I’m hoping if I point it out often enough that it will start sinking in a little further over time, maybe enough that they’ll actually understand what I’m saying.

LibraryGryffon on January 24, 2014 at 9:35 AM

I hear this argument a lot, but it’s a pipe dream. If a Republican president were acting illegally as Zero is doing, or were running a criminal enterprise out of its justice department as his clown holder is doing, the democrat media would be hysterical, democrats would be screaming for impeachment, liberal judges would be slapping the president left and right, and the media would be saying he deserves to be impeached. Public opinion would soon follow. A democrat president will never, ever be turned on by the press, any move to impeach or otherwise stop the abuse of power will be met with a massive wall of defense by the media, and public opinion will soon follow. A GOP president will NEVER get away with this kind of abuse of power, because the media won’t let him, and any future dem president now knows that he or she WILL get away with it. Vote democrat, you’ll get fascism from here on out. The cat’s out of the bag. That’s just a fact. Unfortunately, most democrat voters enjoy fascism. Until they don’t anymore. Buy then it’s usually too late for them…and us.

Rational Thought on January 24, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Meanwhile, Putin takes notes.

OldEnglish on January 24, 2014 at 9:45 AM

cozmo on January 24, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Sleep deprived as well. Up late it was, posting reefer madness at QOTD. Did you get snowed on much?

Bmore on January 24, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Too bad we can’t have Issa’s committee investigate this. D’Souza could sleep like a baby until the cows come home.

Akzed on January 24, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Whether through ignorance, or malice, if D’Souza is guilty he needs to be prosecuted.

cozmo on January 24, 2014 at 9:24 AM

As I said upthread, there is a serious question of whether laws restricting speech are constitutional. A conviction under an unconstitutional law is a nullity, as if it never happened (legally speaking).

Any decent attorney will challenge the law on its face, and if that fails, challenge the law as applied to D’Sousa. Only after those two hurdles are overcome will there be a trial.

It is nowhere near black and white, yet.

platypus on January 24, 2014 at 9:45 AM

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Most of us call it academy because like the sporting goods store, you can buy what you need (diploma) at Greeenhill.

That an idiot like you went there, proves the point.

cozmo on January 24, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Bmore on January 24, 2014 at 9:45 AM

No snow and went to bed early so I missed libby puking up QOTD. As soon as rush hour is over, must deliver application for daughter to TAG high school for next year. And Skyline, she hasn’t made up her mind.

cozmo on January 24, 2014 at 9:48 AM

platypus on January 24, 2014 at 9:45 AM

That is why I wrote prosecuted.

cozmo on January 24, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Most of us call it academy because like the sporting goods store, you can buy what you need (diploma) at Greeenhill.

That an idiot like you went there, proves the point. we never got close enough to campus to actually read the sign.

cozmo on January 24, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Fixed it for you.

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 9:53 AM

I don’t know what’s sillier – the idea that Obama has anything to do with this – or the idea that to silence an anemic and meaningless critic, he would somehow trick that person into flagrantly and stupidly breaking an obvious law, for which he’ll likely face some fine.
Yea…silenced forever! /

D’Souza just got handed the scipt for his new film and outline for his new book, which many of you will buy via a ‘click here’ ad on Hot Air.

verbaluce on January 24, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Yeah, it’s not like obama is the CEO of the country, the figure head for his political party or sets the tone for everyone in his administration. And we all know government employees put aside their political ideology when carrying out their official duties.

And it’s not like there is a history of gov’t entities like the DOJ, IRS and EPA solely focusing on one political ideology during obama’s term while ignoring others. Just a coincidence I’m sure.

HumpBot Salvation on January 24, 2014 at 9:53 AM

That is why I wrote prosecuted.

cozmo on January 24, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Yep. And I looked in vain for the edit button so I could remedy my late comprehension of what is on the screen. :)

platypus on January 24, 2014 at 9:54 AM

cozmo on January 24, 2014 at 9:48 AM

Good deal. Brrr…….

Bmore on January 24, 2014 at 9:54 AM

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 9:53 AM

I thought cozmo was one of your buds. Apparently not. He’ll be crushed.

platypus on January 24, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Fixed it for you.

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 9:53 AM

Yes dear. That is the best your limited faculties are capable of.

cozmo on January 24, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Obama is responsible for *every* criminal activity conservatives engage in? This is absolutely insane. Dinesh D’Souza was a fraud long before he released his flopumentary that influenced the 2012 election in exactly zero precincts outside of Idaho (though thank God for it, I hear Mitt might’ve lost the state without it). But for some reason, the President has targeted someone who accomplished zip, zero, stingy-with-dinero in terms of actually influencing the election? D’Souza was fired from his position at Kings College, is that also because of Obama? D’Souza is a horrible writer whose books are filled with half truths and bereft of citations, is that Obama’s fault? Dude is a huckster, just deal. Y’all are a mess.

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 8:53 AM

D’Souza? Is that you?

gwelf on January 24, 2014 at 9:56 AM

C’mon, I don’t think there’s any question he was targeted because of his film. How can anyone look at how this admin has operated over the last several years and yet point to byzantine campaign finance laws? If he had made a film praising the One, does anyone honestly believe they would’ve even reviewed his donations? Anyone?

I do not understand why there is not more outrage about this. I don’t think it’s overstating it in the slightest to say that we’re not that far removed despotic regimes that throw dissidents in prison. Just BELOW this post, we’ve got news that the IRS is targeting those in the entertainment industry that don’t kiss Obama’s hiney, now this…at what point do you see enough smoke to say there’s a fire, here?

changer1701 on January 24, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Most of us call it academy because like the sporting goods store, you can buy what you need (diploma) at Greeenhill.

I believe that’s called class warfare….

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 10:00 AM

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Even worse than your first attempt.

Nah, we like to be correct when we denigrate a school. If we lied like you we would still say that about Smoo. They straightened up…sorta.

Like I wrote before, you prove what I wrote about Greenhill.

cozmo on January 24, 2014 at 10:04 AM

When we’re talking about a campaign that spent in the millions and presidential races that now spend upwards of a billion, it seems awfully, awfully unlikely that a random check would have found $20K in illegal contributions. That seriously strains credulity right there.

deadrody on January 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 8:53 AM

I don’t mind when the law is upheld, I just wanted it applied equally. Your side doesn’t. What about those scores and scores of articles about Democrat corruption over the years and… nothing… Heck, Charlie Rangel did FAR MORE than this conservative and … [crickets].

I’d take you seriously if you actually cared about corruption. But you’re just partisan.

dominigan on January 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM

C’mon, I don’t think there’s any question he was targeted because of his film. How can anyone look at how this admin has operated over the last several years and yet point to byzantine campaign finance laws? If he had made a film praising the One, does anyone honestly believe they would’ve even reviewed his donations? Anyone?

I do not understand why there is not more outrage about this.

changer1701 on January 24, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Really ? You don’t understand ? Be serious already. The entirety of the mainstream media is cheerleading for the Democrats and Obama and you can’t figure out why there isn’t more outrage over this ?

For one thing, the media won’t cover it, and if they do, it will be about how terrible this corrupt supporter of Republicans is. THAT is why there won’t be any outrage.

deadrody on January 24, 2014 at 10:10 AM

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 8:53 AM

I don’t mind when the law is upheld, I just wanted it applied equally. Your side doesn’t. What about those scores and scores of articles about Democrat corruption over the years and… nothing… Heck, Charlie Rangel did FAR MORE than this conservative and … [crickets].

I’d take you seriously if you actually cared about corruption. But you’re just partisan.

dominigan on January 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM

well said

gwelf on January 24, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Like I wrote before, you prove what I wrote about Greenhill.

cozmo on January 24, 2014 at 10:04 AM

I’ll continue to “prove it” with my well paying job in a beautiful part of the country.

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 10:11 AM

A: Dinesh D’Souza has many titles outside of “Obama critic” so you can pretend that Ed chose it randomly if you want to. The rest of us will live in reality.

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 9:22 AM

That 2016: Obama’s America was just a little side project he was working on. It’s not like it grossed more than An Inconvenient Truth and Bowling for Columbine. Oh wait./

blammm on January 24, 2014 at 10:12 AM

But for some reason, the President has targeted someone who accomplished zip, zero, stingy-with-dinero in terms of actually influencing the election?

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Yes, that’s exactly right. I’m sure it had zero effect. And yet the Narcissist-in-chief couldn’t have that kind of dissent. Yes, exactly. Maybe you are starting to catch on. I suppose you actually don’t think Obama and his shills had (or HAVE as it appears to this day) the IRS targeting conservatives.

deadrody on January 24, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Here are some reviews of Greenhill:

Posted May 25, 2013
Report it
My children attended Greenhill through high school. The education was excellent and, in some cases, provided by teachers who had better training and knowledge than college professors. Some worked as professors part-time. The environment, however, was unpleasant and unethical. Students were not taught a sense of right and wrong but rather that money can buy whatever you want. The coaches were terrible, taking gifts and money to let certain players play. The leadership set a bad example, with many knowing about extramarital affairs. In short, I believe that your child can get an excellent education at Greenhill, but I do not believe that your child will learn the more valuable things — respect, honesty, justice and hard work.
—Submitted by a parent

Write your own review
Posted April 1, 2013
Report it
Worst school ever. Snobby is an understatement. Parents are the worst. Students are a close second. $$$$$$$$$$$ That is the mission statement of Greenhill.

Write your own review
Posted April 6, 2012
Report it
GH school is not worth the tuition charged. On top of the tuition, parents are “encouraged” to donate and volunteer. The school seems to be sparsely staffed and relies heavily on parent volunteers. Watch out for the tennis moms who battle for grunt work positions in order to please the school and garner favor. While there are great teachers, many mediocre. A few are down right horrible, and the school does nothing about it. many of the kids need to be tutored and are pulled out from class during the school day by visiting tutors. The school’s “creative” curriculum fails to teach basic concepts. Lots of children are put on ADD medication at an early age. There seems to be lots of behavior problems as well. While many are drawn by the diversity sell, it simply means is that there are lots of conflict. The school is made up of predominantly Jewish children, with some Hindu’s, Asian’s, Africans, and atheist to round out the supposedly diversity. On a positive note, the new website does look spiffy, and the campus is beautiful. The upkeep must be $$$$.
—Submitted by a parent

Patriot Vet on January 24, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Whether through ignorance, or malice, if D’Souza is guilty he needs to be prosecuted. cozmo on January 24, 2014 at 9:24 AM

No, you see, if/when he is prosecuted it will be determined at that time whether or not he is guilty.

Akzed on January 24, 2014 at 10:15 AM

The US Attorney’s office would have a field day in Illinois looking at campaign irregularities. C’mon, take a peek at the donations to the Democrats here. I dare you.

They don’t call us Madiganistan for nothing.

Our Illinois Attorney General is Lisa Madigan and her father is the very powerful and entrenched House Speaker Michael Madigan. Surprisingly, she has found no political corruption in the state.

Other state attorneys general investigate political corruption and legislative perks, or at least they call attention to these matters. But not little Lisa. Her daddy still might make her governor, or mayor, someday.

C’mon. Take a peek at who is donating to whom and how they’re covering their tracks. I double dog dare you.

Fallon on January 24, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Patriot Vet on January 24, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Right. Which is why there’s always a waiting list…

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Remember when liberals didn’t care about election fraud because it never happened. The dead and fictional voting and donating wasn’t a concern. Just trumped up nonsense.

Wait – a conservative may have committed election fraud! Now we care!

/libtards

gwelf on January 24, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Right. Which is why there’s always a waiting list…

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Yeah, to change schools apparently.

Patriot Vet on January 24, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Really ? You don’t understand ? Be serious already. The entirety of the mainstream media is cheerleading for the Democrats and Obama and you can’t figure out why there isn’t more outrage over this ?

For one thing, the media won’t cover it, and if they do, it will be about how terrible this corrupt supporter of Republicans is. THAT is why there won’t be any outrage.

deadrody on January 24, 2014 at 10:10 AM

I’m talking about the lack of outrage on our own side, which is why I referenced blaming campaign finance law structure. Of course I know why nobody cares beyond that.

changer1701 on January 24, 2014 at 10:32 AM

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 10:11 AM

libfreeordie = affirmative action just like his preezy.

BeachBum on January 24, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Just BELOW this post, we’ve got news that the IRS is targeting those in the entertainment industry that don’t kiss Obama’s hiney, now this…at what point do you see enough smoke to say there’s a fire, here?

But… but… Superbowl!!!

/bread and circuses

Rethuglican on January 24, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Speaking professionally (I happen to be an attorney, and have had some exposure to campaign finance law), allow me to tell you the superficial reason it exists, the only real reason it exists, and the only real effect it has.

The superficial reason Campaign Finance Law exists: So that image conscious politicians from both parties can pretend they’re “doing something” about an issue that the public cares about, while in fact they’re leaving the door open to endless amounts of cash for themselves, from any source, provided that an indecipherable and incredibly dense set of “mother may I?” rules are followed.

The only real reason Campaign Finance Law exists: To provide employment for an army of lawyers and other professional consultants, since it takes years of study to fully understand the ins, outs, ups, and downs of the system it exists. Remember, lawyers wrote these laws. This is how we keep our bread buttered.

The only real effect Campaign Finance Law has: Professional Pols, who have an army of lawyers and consultants on staff, whose only job is to navigate this labyrinth, have no problem at all getting as much money as they want from any source. And remember, everyone who touches the money along it’s journey through the system gets to take a cut – the more complicated the system is, the more high paid lawyers and consultants get to live off the gravy train.

But woe to the naive novice, or to the layman who thinks he can jump in and act like one of the professionals! There are a thousand pitfalls and snares set up SPECIFICALLY to catch any amateur who tries to get in on the game! That’s what got Dinesh D’Souza – he apparently was naive enough to think that this was supposed to be an honest, well intentioned system, that would forgive an honest mistake It isn’t – not even close.

And who would push for prosecution? Not just his political enemies, but any of the tens of thousands of “professionals” who make a nice 6 figure salary from keeping the system exactly as it is. And you do that by severely punishing any amateurs who think they can horn in on the game.

Call it professional discourtesy.

Tom Servo on January 24, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Anybody heard fom the FBI investigation into the Benghazi scandal..?

d1carter on January 24, 2014 at 10:36 AM

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 8:53 AM

You’re sounding pretty shrill there, princess. Bordering on hysterical.

Get a grip.

Solaratov on January 24, 2014 at 10:46 AM

The polling fir,m and now D’souza. Hmmm. Message? Don’t knock The Wun.

Herb on January 24, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Anybody heard from the FBI investigation into the Benghazi scandal..?

d1carter on January 24, 2014 at 10:36 AM

The FBI is right on top of that…as soon as they get clearance from the Libyan government to access the consulate building.

But maybe they’re really, really busy with the investigation into the IRS intimidation of Conservative groups. There are, after all, 292 groups to interview.

/s/

Solaratov on January 24, 2014 at 10:50 AM

I was a kid during the so-called “McCarthy era” and in my opinion the climate of fear is more pervasive now.

Drained Brain on January 24, 2014 at 8:54 AM

I believe you.

David Blue on January 24, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Another innocent victim of Zero’s tyranny.

This guy makes Stalin and Mao look like amateur hour.

How soon do the famines start in the red states?

Pablo Honey on January 24, 2014 at 10:55 AM

obama is rounding up his enemies list

ConservativePartyNow on January 24, 2014 at 10:58 AM

that film of his. What was the name of it again? It was in an out of so many worst of 2012 lists to fast, one can’t hardly be asked to remember the title.

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 9:04 AM

You know exactly what the name is. And you hate that you cannot refute a single word of it. You just blindly hate it because it casts a rather jaundiced eye on your love and worship object.

And…”can’t hardly….”? Trouble using proper English, princess? Or are you just poorly educated?

I’ll bet you thank whatever gods you worship every day for the miracle of affirmative action. It got you away from selling your butt on street corners and into a cushy “job” for which you are totally unqualified.

Solaratov on January 24, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Tom Servo on January 24, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Thanks. I get it now.

David Blue on January 24, 2014 at 11:01 AM

And it’s not like there is a history of gov’t entities like the DOJ, IRS and EPA solely focusing on one political ideology during obama’s term while ignoring others. Just a coincidence I’m sure.

HumpBot Salvation on January 24, 2014 at 9:53 AM

You’re free to imagine all you want from such a paranoid place.
But even IF Obama and the admin were out to get this guy, rest assured that they’ve done so weakly – and only after Dinesh did something royally stupid and corrupt.

verbaluce on January 24, 2014 at 11:02 AM

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 8:53 AM

TL;dr – I don’t like what he says so he deserves prosecution.

I eagerly await 3 years from now when you’ll be justifiably prosecuted for your ideology.

You’ll go quietly I presume, right?

Oh yeah… Michael Moore should’ve been brought up in charges for going to Cuba…

Skywise on January 24, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Yet Black Panthers with clubs, intimidating voters, gets a pass.

ama on January 24, 2014 at 11:05 AM

Well that’s the reason congress produced 10s of thousand of pages so that on average each of us commit 3 felonies a day, so that the govt can go after their critics and enemies. I rather see us back under the law as it was in our country’s 1st 100 years where personal disputes were settled with a duel. Put up or shut up.

AH_C on January 24, 2014 at 11:07 AM

… Dinesh D’Souza was a fraud long before he released his flopumentary that influenced the 2012 election in exactly zero precincts outside of Idaho …

libfreeordie on January 24, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Sounds like, from his own statement, D’Souza is guilty as charged — I won’t argue that. But the issue of selective enforcement remains. There is a clear pattern of targeting conservatives by multiple agencies in this sorry administration.
And “flopumentary“??? This movie, like most documentaries, doesn’t pull in “Avengers” kind of money, but D’Souza’s film is listed as the 2nd highest-grossing political documentary ever. (Source) So, you can knock off the screeching hyperbole, sister.

KS Rex on January 24, 2014 at 11:08 AM

verbaluce on January 24, 2014 at 11:02 AM

LOL, you’re a phucking moron. We’re talking about a long list of politically based actions by the obama administration..not just D’Souza. But since you’re cool with it….I can’t wait for when the shoe is on the other foot.

I find it interesting that the FBI had time to investigate this but hasn’t had the time to interview ONE of the Tea Party groups that the IRS targeted.

And no one here is defending D’Souza or his actions…but typical of you to miss the point entirely.

Outside of brainfree, you truly are one of the biggest morons that post here.

HumpBot Salvation on January 24, 2014 at 11:09 AM

We have to be consistent. Whether through ignorance, or malice, if D’Souza is guilty he needs to be prosecuted.

cozmo on January 24, 2014 at 9:24 AM

“Straw-donor cases have been brought against prominnent individuals from time to time. For example, in 2011, a prominent Los Angeles attorney, Pierce O’Donnell, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of making $20,000 in donations to the presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards and reimbursing straw donors. ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/conservative-author-and-pundit-dinesh-dsouza-charged-in-campaign-finance-case/2014/01/23/69c67ee4-848a-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html

MISDEMEANOR!!
Same amount…but to a leftist.

Solaratov on January 24, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Speaking of illegal campaign contributions, let’s not forget this:

The Obama re-election campaign has accepted at least one foreign donation in violation of the law — and does nothing to check on the provenance of millions of dollars in other contributions, a watchdog group alleges.

Chris Walker, a British citizen who lives outside London, told The Post he was able to make two $5 donations to President Obama’s campaign this month through its Web site while a similar attempt to give Mitt Romney cash was rejected. It is illegal to knowingly solicit or accept money from foreign citizens

.

Kataklysmic on January 24, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4