Members of the New York State Attorney General's office pose for a recent photo.
The ComDem's behind this are pure evil. Disgusting filth.
They are the ones destroying the rule of law to satisfy their blind hate of all who disagree with them.
Products of 8 years of the ObamaNation.
I am so sick of these Demons.
Putting her in front of a firing squad would be a service to this country.
The Obamanation is the pile left from the obamaroid.
WTF is that fat, deluded butch talking about??? D’Souza served his sentence. The pardon clears D’Souza’s record. Miss Piggy needs a serious comeuppance.
With an order of fries...
Uhm - good luck with that task, Mr. DA - unless you think it possible to rewrite the U.S. Constitution.
Of course, the NY scumbag will likely attempt to impose state charges, ex-post-facto - which, had he done so in the first place, then no federal pardon would have been possible.
However, I don’t now if it is legally permissible in this case to impose state penalties.
I thought for sure this was just ‘hype’. So, I did a google search. Goodness gracious - this is for real!
“The New York Attorney General is so angry over the presidential pardon of Dinesh that she wants to get rid of double jeopardy to go after him again. “
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmLthd5Bvf4
Sic semper tyrannis
Dinesh has lived in California since 2012 when he left Kings College in NY.
Doubt NY State would be able to bring any state charges against him.
Uneven application of the law is a bit of a problem in the New York area. Preet Bharara, if you recall, is the fired NY US Attorney who on 01/23/2014 indicted and later prosecuted filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza. As a result, D’Souza found himself imprisoned for 8 months in a “community confinement center” with 5 years probation for “having pled guilty to violating the federal campaign election law by making illegal contributions to a United States Senate campaign in the names of others.” Among his other penalties: Weekly counseling sessions and a $30,000 fine. According to the court documents and outlined by the FBI, D’Souza
“caused two close associates to contribute $10,000 each to the Long Campaign with the understanding that he would reimburse them for their contributions and that he did reimburse them. D’SOUZA also admitted that he knew that what he was doing was wrong and something the law forbids.”
Put simply, D’Souza pleaded guilty to using “straw donors” to funnel political contributions to the 2012 Senate campaign of New York’s Wendy Long, in excess of prescribed limits of $5,000 from any individual. D’Souza was also charged with one count of “making false statements” (that quote should ring loudly) and he did, in fact, lie to the Long campaign, resulting in false FEC filings by the campaign.
But this writer is not questioning D’Souza’s guilt. Far from it: It was a boneheaded thing to do. In reality, this writer is questioning the equal application of the law by partisan members of the prior administration - evidence of which is conclusive - forging a clear pattern of misusing the government as a political weapon. Take a look at this cross-section of similar cases spanning the 20 years which D’Souza’s plea:
>Then US Attorney General Janet Reno declined to appoint an independent counsel to investigate Chinese donations in the 1996 election - echoing allegations of then-President Clinton’s Chinese collusion - juxtaposed against the current scandal we know as Russian collusion targeting Trump. This is aptly-outlined by the National Review’s headline, “Not All Foreign-Influence Scandals Are Created Equal”...a very prescient observation.
>Barack Obama’s 2008 election campaign was beset with charges of foreign influence and millions of dollars in illegal donations; Obama for America was fined a mere $375,000 for thousands of illegal donations. No charges were ever brought against any group or individual.
>Nevada developer Harvey Whittemore in 2013 faced up to 15 years in prison for 4 felonies as a result of his illegal campaign contributions in Harry Reid’s 2007 reelection; he served 21 months of a 2 year sentence.
>Rosie O’Donnell has been revealed to have exceeded campaign contribution limits, with no penalty or investigation.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign is alleged (via FEC Records) to have illegally funneled over $80 Million through state Democratic parties to circumvent fundraising limits.
>Planned Parenthood was merely-assessed a civil fine for undisclosed donations they explained as an “accounting oversight”.
>A Boston law firm pays their staffed attorneys “bonuses” on the basis of their political donations; no wrongdoing was ever investigated.
The list goes on & on, with the latter 4 cases dating to the 2016 election alone. The last case in the list, ironically, is a mirror of D’Souza’s, save for the clever use of bonuses by the law firm’s principals (they reimbursed their employees for the political donations). There is case after case of uneven application of the law in an area where is it nearly impossible for the layperson to know all of the laws. Again, this writer does not dismiss D’Souza’s wrongdoing, but his being targeted in the wake of the production and July 20, 2012 release of his documentary “2016: Obama’s America” is a matter of curious timing. Given the scandalous nature of the New York area US Attorney’s outlined herein (e.g. Schneiderman), it becomes clear that,
1. Political donation laws are far too complex,
2. Who you are dictates whether you may or may not be targeted for penalties,
3. Nearly impossible hurdles exist to prosecute public corruption cases,
4. Ethics is a word long-disassociated from public office.
The reality is, tragically, that one man’s outrage is another man’s euphoria; this is the fruit of our 2-party system and itself also used as a weapon. In the wake of President Trump’s pardoning of Dinesh D’Souza, I provide others’ experience juxtaposed against that of D’Souza as examples of biased objectivity even in the face of clear violations of the law. Ironically, it was under Preet Bharara’s leadership when in early 2017 it was decided - and announced shortly after Bharara’s firing - that there would be no criminal charges in the fundraising investigation of New York Mayor Bill de Blasio...the irony not only being the announcement’s similarity to Comey’s of the Clinton investigation (Bharara’s office also granted immunity to several key “donors/witnesses”) but the fact that de Blasio was accused of “influence-peddling”.
Sound familiar?
The case of Dinesh D’Souza should merit extreme scrutiny in the face of the actions of other members of the same administration (coincidentally?) having initiated their “investigation” of Trump & associates, particularly considering the lack of attention focused upon the activities of John Podesta and allegations of the Clinton Foundation’s own influence-peddling (and many other cases too numerous to list here).