Mojo2
Gold Member
- Oct 28, 2013
- 6,210
- 1,026
- 190
- Thread starter
- #21
What reason would Obama have to suddenly go after Dinesh D'Souza? Most Americans don't even know who he is. Because he was debating Bill Ayers? Who cares? It just never crossed the minds of some Republicans that one of their darlings could possibly have done something wrong. They have to jump to the most extreme of conspiracy theories instead.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uuh9k6Ttsm0&list=PLayGa5hBBtwSgYmgtD0xKxpXWYB0s5psE]Dinesh D'souza Analyzes Predictions from "2016: Obama's America" in Late 2013 - YouTube[/ame]
This guy has Obama's number.
And if Ayers were to say in such a public forum. as Dartmouth would be, what he'd admitted to two individual reporters on separate occasions, though ambiguously kiddingly, that he (Ayers) had actually penned Obama's autobiography, well, Obama would be toast.
If it was important enough to him to orchestrate so many people's silence until now, it's just as important that he maintain their silence.
And he has magical powers of getting people to do things HIS WAY after meeting with them.
Maybe D'Souza couldn't be approached privately so Obama is sending this shot across D'Souza's bow and in public so EVERYONE will get the message.
And he is uncaring of who knows he is sending a threat to either of the participants in the debate.
If his thinly veiled warning had a message, it might be something like this, from Obama to Ayers AND D'Souza:
"Talk about anything you want in your Dartmouth debate. But don't mention my name involving anything more than just routine anti-Administration allegations. If you do, I know how to make you sorry you ever crossed me. You think an indictment is bad? I can make you go away, like *that*."
Dinesh D'Souza is getting exactly what he asked for. Don’t mess with the President unless you are walking as straight a line as the pope. D’Souza hasn’t!
Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything Is a Crime
I. The Problem with Prosecutorial Discretion
Attorney General (and later Supreme Court Justice) Robert Jackson once commented: “If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows he can choose his defendants.”4 This method results in “[t]he most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.”5 Prosecutors could easily fall prey to the temptation of “picking the man, and then searching the law books . . . to pin some offense on him.”6 In short, prosecutors’ discretion to charge—or not to charge—individuals with crimes is a tremendous power, amplified by the large number of laws on the books.
Prosecutors themselves understand just how much discretion they enjoy. As Tim Wu recounted in 2007, a popular game in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York was to name a famous person—Mother Teresa, or John Lennon—and decide how he or she could be prosecuted:
It would then be up to the junior prosecutors to figure out a plausible crime for which to indict him or her. The crimes were not usually rape, murder, or other crimes you’d see on Law & Order but rather the incredibly broad yet obscure crimes that populate the U.S. Code like a kind of jurisprudential minefield: Crimes like “false statements” (a felony, up to five years), “obstructing the mails” (five years), or “false pretenses on the high seas” (also five years). The trick and the skill lay in finding the more obscure offenses that fit the character of the celebrity and carried the toughest sentences. The, result, however, was inevitable: “prison time.”7
With so many more federal laws and regulations than were present in Jackson’s day,8 a prosecutor’s task of first choosing a possible target and then pinning the crime on him or her has become much easier. If prosecutors were not motivated by politics, revenge, or other improper motives, the risk of improper prosecution would not be particularly severe. However, such motivations do, in fact, encourage prosecutors to pursue certain individuals, like the gadfly Aaron Swartz, while letting others off the hook—as in the case of Gregory, a popular newscaster generally supportive of the current administration.
This problem has been discussed at length in Gene Healy’s Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything9 and Harvey Silverglate’s Three Felonies a Day.10 The upshot of both books is that the proliferation of federal criminal statutes and regulations has reached the point where virtually every citizen, knowingly or not (usually not) is potentially at risk for prosecution. That assertion is undoubtedly true, and the consequences are drastic and troubling.
Columbia Law Review ? Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything Is a Crime
And what does the "Ham Sandwich" in the title refer to?
It's a "...longstanding aphorism that a good prosecutor can persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich."
D'Souza may or may not be guilty. But we KNOW there have been several notable examples of someone critical of this admininistraytion all of a sudden being COINCIDENTALLY chosen for IRS audits. Two come to mind right away.
Sarah Palin's dad (a retired school teacher) and noted neurosurgeon Benjamin Carson.
Anyone can be imprisoned if Obama's prosecutors want to get you.
And heaven help you if they do.
The guy who made the video critical of Muslims got sent to prison because he was being used by Obama and Hillary as the scapegoat for Benghazi. Oh, sure. He was ALSO behind in his child support or something but why send him away when they did?
He was their Ham sandwich.
We ALL should be fucking alarmed about everything that's happening in this country.
This shit has NEVER happened like this before.
And if they can do it to D'Souza they can do it to you.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392
Last edited: