"Love Him, Hate Him, You Don't Know Him"

[Sawbriars]

The guy who made the movie about Obama has been indicted. Shades of Stalinist Russia Much?


How much more of this sort of stuff are The American People prepared to tolerate........from the IRS taking revenge on teapartiers, to the snooping by the NSA, the purging of Generals for political reasons....to the egregious behavior of Christie's cohorts..........the signs are everywhere.......our freedoms are being eroded.

'2016: Obama's America' Filmmaker Indicted for Violating Campaign Finance Laws - The Hollywood Reporter

 

[occupied]

Seems the guy broke the law, what's your problem? You think the indictment is politically motivated? Maybe, maybe not, but if guilty do you not see anything wrong with what he did?

 

[AquaAthena]

The guy who made the movie about Obama has been indicted. Shades of Stalinist Russia Much?


How much more of this sort of stuff are The American People prepared to tolerate........from the IRS taking revenge on teapartiers, to the snooping by the NSA, the purging of Generals for political reasons....to the egregious behavior of Christie's cohorts..........the signs are everywhere.......our freedoms are being eroded.

'2016: Obama's America' Filmmaker Indicted for Violating Campaign Finance Laws - The Hollywood Reporter

Yes, it is off the charts, with that kind of tyranny. Anyone should read D`Souza's first book on Obama, as I have, and you will KNOW from Obama's own mouth, what he want's to do to this country. The Roots of Obama's Rage.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Seems the guy broke the law, what's your problem? You think the indictment is politically motivated? Maybe, maybe not, but if guilty do you not see anything wrong with what he did?

Michael Moore has broken many laws making his movies, so shouldn't he be behind bars too? Oh wait...

Get lost kidd

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Seems the guy broke the law, what's your problem? You think the indictment is politically motivated? Maybe, maybe not, but if guilty do you not see anything wrong with what he did?

Michael Moore has broken many laws making his movies, so shouldn't he be behind bars too? Oh wait...

Get lost kidd

What laws has Michael Moore broken?

 

[hjmick]

I find it curious that he faces federal charges...

Straw-donor cases have been brought against prominent 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.

Conservative author and pundit Dinesh D'Souza charged in campaign finance case - The Washington Post

 

[RandallFlagg]

The guy who made the movie about Obama has been indicted. Shades of Stalinist Russia Much?


How much more of this sort of stuff are The American People prepared to tolerate........from the IRS taking revenge on teapartiers, to the snooping by the NSA, the purging of Generals for political reasons....to the egregious behavior of Christie's cohorts..........the signs are everywhere.......our freedoms are being eroded.

'2016: Obama's America' Filmmaker Indicted for Violating Campaign Finance Laws - The Hollywood Reporter

I'm sure that when he authored this movie, he knew that there was a distinct possibility that the KGB would soon be on his trail.

Welcome to the brave new world. Obama and his "Secret Police"

 

[occupied]

Seems the guy broke the law, what's your problem? You think the indictment is politically motivated? Maybe, maybe not, but if guilty do you not see anything wrong with what he did?

Michael Moore has broken many laws making his movies, so shouldn't he be behind bars too? Oh wait...

Get lost kidd

That does not answer the question, do you or anyone else here for that matter, see anything wrong with what the guy allegedly did?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Seems the guy broke the law, what's your problem? You think the indictment is politically motivated? Maybe, maybe not, but if guilty do you not see anything wrong with what he did?

Yeah, and in mother Russia, seems as though one half million political dissenters "broke the law" as well.

-Or-

How about we allow Barry to send his "secret police" after you for commenting on a message forum?

Hell, you've done nothing wrong, right?

 

[Mojo2]

Seems the guy broke the law, what's your problem? You think the indictment is politically motivated? Maybe, maybe not, but if guilty do you not see anything wrong with what he did?

Nope.

It is a case of selective prosecution against a political opponent.

This is absolute proof Obama is lawless and will do whatever the fuck he wants to do to assert control over America and the American people.

And by doing it so blatantly he has concluded no one is going to stop him.

Do you know how outrageous this is?

Federal authorities accuse D'Souza of donating more than is legal to the campaign of Wendy Long, who ran in 2012 for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton but lost to now-Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. Long, though, is not mentioned in an indictment obtained by THR on Thursday.

Insiders say D'Souza has been friends with Long since they attended Dartmouth College together in the early 1980s. According to the indictment, D'Souza donated $20,000 to Long's campaign by aggregating the money from various people and falsely reporting the source of the funds. But Gerald Molen, a co-producer of 2016, says the charge is politically motivated.

"In America, we have a long tradition of not doing what is commonly done in too many other countries -- criminalizing dissent through the selective enforcement of the law," Molen tells THR.

STORY: Jeffrey Katzenberg's Secret Call to Hillary Clinton: Hollywood's 2016 Support Assured

D'Souza first learned he was being investigated in the middle of 2013, several months after 2016 had earned $33 million at the box office and become the second-most-popular political documentary in U.S. history. The film included an interview with Obama's half-brother, George Obama, who was mildly critical of the president.

Molen says D'Souza is being singled out for "an alleged minor violation" in the same way the IRS reportedly targeted conservative Tea Party groups for retribution. "In light of the recent events and the way the IRS has been used to stifle dissent, this arrest should send shivers down the spines of all freedom-loving Americans," Molen says.

D'Souza was in San Diego working on his next film and book, each to be called America, when he was informed he was about to be indicted and that he should fly to New York and turn himself in to authorities. The indictment came late Thursday, according to those with knowledge of the situation.

D'Souza's upcoming film America is due in theaters July 4 and is co-produced by Molen, who won a best picture Oscar for Schindler's List, and Gray Frederickson, who won a best picture Oscar for The Godfather Part II. D'Souza wrote and stars in the film, which is directed by John Sullivan. The filmmakers emailed a statement to THR vowing to release the film on schedule.

FILM REVIEW: 2016: Obama's America

"We believe this is an unfortunate misunderstanding arising out of Dinesh D'Souza's desire to help the uphill campaign of a friend," the statement reads. "There was no intent to do anything illegal or corrupt in any way. This will have no impact on the film America, which will be released on the Fourth of July this year as previously announced. Filming is on schedule and D'Souza will continue to lead the enterprise."

Sources say D'Souza has been cooperating with authorities. He will surrender Friday for processing and be arraigned in the Southern District of New York.

Benjamin Brafman, an attorney for D'Souza, tells THR that his client "did not act with any corrupt or criminal intent whatsoever ... at worst this was an act of misguided friendship by D'Souza."

Molen added: "When American citizens begin to suspect that people are being arrested for alleged minor violations because of their vocal dissent against their elected representatives or rulers, it breeds disrespect and contempt for the law and suspicion of those officials. … If this unfortunate action against Dinesh is intended to deter the release of his upcoming film, America, that effort will fail."

Email: [email protected]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/print/673670

 

[Mojo2]

seems the guy broke the law, what's your problem? You think the indictment is politically motivated? Maybe, maybe not, but if guilty do you not see anything wrong with what he did?

yeah, and in mother russia, seems as though one half million political dissenters "broke the law" as well.

-or-

how about we allow barry to send his "secret police" after you for commenting on a message forum?

Hell, you've done nothing wrong, right?

bingo!!!

 

[occupied]

Seems the guy broke the law, what's your problem? You think the indictment is politically motivated? Maybe, maybe not, but if guilty do you not see anything wrong with what he did?

Yeah, and in mother Russia, seems as though one half million political dissenters "broke the law" as well.

-Or-

How about we allow Barry to send his "secret police" after you for commenting on a message forum?

Hell, you've done nothing wrong, right?

WTF are you even talking about? Am I to assume you find our campaign finance laws too strict?

 

[KNB]

So get out your guns, Republicans, and stand up for D'Souza's rights. Why are you all such pussies? You KNOW this trial is a farce, you KNOW that Obama is a Socialist Kenyan Marxist with ties to al-Qaeda through Jeremiah Wright, and you KNOW that there were WMD in Iraq.

What are you waiting for? Brandish your beloved firearms to protect Dinesh D'Souza and all Americans from Obama's obvious Nazi regime.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Seems the guy broke the law, what's your problem? You think the indictment is politically motivated? Maybe, maybe not, but if guilty do you not see anything wrong with what he did?

Yeah, and in mother Russia, seems as though one half million political dissenters "broke the law" as well.

-Or-

How about we allow Barry to send his "secret police" after you for commenting on a message forum?

Hell, you've done nothing wrong, right?

WTF are you even talking about? Am I to assume you find our campaign finance laws too strict?

I'll bet you one thousand dollars (to the charity of your choice) right here and now - that all charges are mysteriously dropped within a year. This is political retribution, pure and simple.

You refuse to see it because of your "boy" - that communist piece of shit Obama.

Care to take the bet? My Charity is the Wounded Warriors. Yours?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yeah, and in mother Russia, seems as though one half million political dissenters "broke the law" as well.

-Or-

How about we allow Barry to send his "secret police" after you for commenting on a message forum?

Hell, you've done nothing wrong, right?

WTF are you even talking about? Am I to assume you find our campaign finance laws too strict?

I'll bet you one thousand dollars (to the charity of your choice) right here and now - that all charges are mysteriously dropped within a year. This is political retribution, pure and simple.

You refuse to see it because of your "boy" - that communist piece of shit Obama.

Care to take the bet? My Charity is the Wounded Warriors. Yours?

The charges aren't going to be dropped, he's already essentially admitted his guilt.

He's going to take a plea, and settle.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Seems the guy broke the law, what's your problem? You think the indictment is politically motivated? Maybe, maybe not, but if guilty do you not see anything wrong with what he did?

Michael Moore has broken many laws making his movies, so shouldn't he be behind bars too? Oh wait...

Get lost kidd

What laws would those be?

Hmmm?

LOL

 

[occupied]

Yeah, and in mother Russia, seems as though one half million political dissenters "broke the law" as well.

-Or-

How about we allow Barry to send his "secret police" after you for commenting on a message forum?

Hell, you've done nothing wrong, right?

WTF are you even talking about? Am I to assume you find our campaign finance laws too strict?

I'll bet you one thousand dollars (to the charity of your choice) right here and now - that all charges are mysteriously dropped within a year. This is political retribution, pure and simple.

You refuse to see it because of your "boy" - that communist piece of shit Obama.

Care to take the bet? My Charity is the Wounded Warriors. Yours?

Don't be a dumbass, what the hell are they supposedly revenging for? It's not like he cost the man an election or even a single vote, Conservatives occasionally do break the law, I know it's hard to believe but sometimes dummies just fuck up and leave a paper trail and it is that simple.

 

[Mojo2]

Seems the guy broke the law, what's your problem? You think the indictment is politically motivated? Maybe, maybe not, but if guilty do you not see anything wrong with what he did?

Any good prosecutor can indict anyone today. In fact the saying they can even indict a ham sandwich indicates just how much a decision to prosecute can be one of personal or partisan discretion.

Not good for our society or our idea/ideal of justice.

Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything Is a Crime

July 2013

Glenn Harlan Reynolds*

Introduction

Prosecutorial discretion poses an increasing threat to justice.

The threat has in fact grown more severe to the point of becoming a due process issue. Two recent events have brought more attention to this problem. One involves the decision not to charge NBC anchor David Gregory with violating gun laws. In Washington D.C., brandishing a thirty-round magazine is illegal and can result in a yearlong sentence. Nonetheless, the prosecutor refused to charge Gregory despite stating that the on-air violation was clear.1 The other event involves the government’s rather enthusiastic efforts to prosecute Reddit founder Aaron Swartz for downloading academic journal articles from a closed database. Authorities prosecuted Swartz so vigorously that he committed suicide in the face of a potential fifty-year sentence.2

Both cases have aroused criticism. In Swartz’s case, a congresswoman has even proposed legislation designed to ensure that violating a website’s terms cannot be prosecuted as a crime.3 But the problem is much broader. Given the vast web of legislation and regulation that exists today, virtually any American bears the risk of being targeted for prosecution.

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.

The result of overcriminalization is that prosecutors no longer need to wait for obvious signs of a crime. Instead of finding Professor Plum dead in the conservatory and launching an investigation, authorities can instead start an investigation of Colonel Mustard as soon as someone has suggested he is a shady character. And since, as the game Wu describes illustrates, everyone is a criminal if prosecutors look hard enough, they are guaranteed to find something eventually.

Overcriminalization has thus left us in a peculiar place: Though people suspected of a crime have extensive due process rights in dealing with the police, and people charged with a crime have even more extensive due process rights in court, the actual decision of whether or not to charge a person with a crime is almost completely unconstrained. Yet, because of overcharging and plea bargains, the decision to prosecute is probably the single most important event in the chain of criminal procedure.

II. Checks on Prosecutorial Discretion

Despite the problems described above, most of us remain safe. Prosecutors have limited resource and there are political constraints on egregious overreaching.11 And presumably, most of the time prosecutors can be expected to exercise their discretion soundly. Unfortunately, these limitations on prosecutorial power are likely to be least effective where prosecutors act inappropriately because of politics or prejudice. Limited resources or not, a prosecutor who is anxious to go after a political enemy will always find sufficient staff to bring charges, and political constraints are least effective where a prosecutor is playing to public passions or hysteria.12

Once charged with a crime, defendants are in a tough position. First, they must bear the costs of a defense, assuming they are not indigent. Second, even if they consider themselves entirely innocent, they will face strong pressure to accept a plea bargain—pressure made worse by the modern tendency of prosecutors to overcharge with extensive “kitchen-sink” indictments: Prosecutors count on the fact that when a defendant faces a hundred felony charges, the prospect that a jury might go along with even one of them will be enough to make a plea deal look attractive. Then, of course, there are the reputational damages involved, which may be of greatest importance precisely in cases where political motivations might be in play. Worse, prosecutors have no countervailing incentives not to overcharge. A defendant who makes the wrong choice will wind up in jail; a prosecutor who charges improperly will suffer little, if any, adverse consequence beyond a poor win/loss record. Prosecutors are even absolutely immune from lawsuits over misconduct in their prosecutorial capacity.13

III. Better Approaches to Prosecutorial Accountability

So how to respond? Although this brief Essay cannot begin to address all of the possibilities, it can serve as the beginning of a much-needed discussion. As this Essay indicates, the decision to charge a person criminally should itself undergo some degree of due process scrutiny. Short of constitutional due process scrutiny, however, it is time to look at structural changes in the criminal justice system that will more successfully deter prosecutorial abuse.

Traditionally, of course, the grand jury was seen as the major bar to prosecutorial overreaching.14

The effectiveness of this approach may be seen in the longstanding aphorism that a good prosecutor can persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.15

Grand jury reforms—where grand juries still exist—might encourage grand jurors to exercise more skepticism and educate them more.16 But grand juries are not constitutionally guaranteed at the state level, and reforming them at the federal level is likely to prove difficult.

Columbia Law Review ? Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything Is a Crime


Do you get that???

"...virtually any American bears the risk of being targeted for prosecution."

 

[Mojo2]

WTF are you even talking about? Am I to assume you find our campaign finance laws too strict?

I'll bet you one thousand dollars (to the charity of your choice) right here and now - that all charges are mysteriously dropped within a year. This is political retribution, pure and simple.

You refuse to see it because of your "boy" - that communist piece of shit Obama.

Care to take the bet? My Charity is the Wounded Warriors. Yours?

Don't be a dumbass, what the hell are they supposedly revenging for? It's not like he cost the man an election or even a single vote, Conservatives occasionally do break the law, I know it's hard to believe but sometimes dummies just fuck up and leave a paper trail and it is that simple.

You are being intentionally obtuse.

As opposed to your usual UN-intentional obtusity.

 

[Freewill]

Seems the guy broke the law, what's your problem? You think the indictment is politically motivated? Maybe, maybe not, but if guilty do you not see anything wrong with what he did?

500,000 dollar bond certainly seems to be outrageously high. Me thinks it was politically motivate, yes.