Posted on 04/16/2018 5:25:50 AM PDT by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
“Dinesh’s books & films exposed the corruption in Obama admin and showed how USA would have faired under Hillary Clinton’s leadership”
The crimes committed by the 8 years of the Obama usurpation of the Presidency for PURELY political reasons are legion.
Prosecuting this patriot and letting Clintons/Rice/Holder/Lerner/Huma&herhusband/Holder/Mills (and many others) slide is a travesty of justice and needs to be righted ASAP
#PardonDinesh
#ConvictObamaClinton
should read "fared", not "faired."
Makes sense, tho, and hope it soon reaches the goal.
The fitst amendment does not gave you the right to exceed campaign contributions under the current law...
Im not necessarily disagreeing with you, but if the law is restricting your free speech to contribute as much to whoever you want, get your Congress critter to change it...
I love these fantasy posts where we pretend the world is supposed to be a certain way, but it bumps into reality...
Dinesh did admit he was trying to get around the law. On our side, the ends do not justify the means. Dinesh is doing fine.
There are two distinct issues which should work in favor of pardoning D’Souza:One flaw in McCain-Feingold is the fact that it assays to say who is - hence, who is not - protected by the First Amendment stricture against abridgment of “the freedom of . . . the press.” Basically if you do that you will find yourself listing the membership of the Associated Press. But there is no such thing as a journalism license, and under the Constitution there never should be. It is a violation of freedom of the press for the government to prevent you from creating your own newspaper in your garage. In fact, I argue that “the press” was a particular technology extant in the Eighteenth Century, and in principle the term stands, in the Constitution, for any technology for similar purpose. Recalling that the Constitution itself
- Nobody else has been punished as severely as D’Souza, for the same or worse violation of the “law.”
- More importantly, McConnell v. FEC - a 5-4 SCOTUS decision - was wrongly decided and would probably not survive an appeal to the Roberts Court. If you assume that Roberts and Alito and Gorsuch would vote the way Thomas, Kennedy (and Scalia and Rhenquist FTM) in fact did vote, a rehearing of McConnell v. FEC would result in an overturning of the “law” D’Souza disobeyed.
explicitly contemplates and encourages such innovations.
- Article 1 Section 8.:
- The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .
No one would argue that limiting someone’s ability to buy paper and ink would not abridge their freedom of the press. “Campaign Finance Reform” is all about limiting Dinesh D’Souza’s right to spend his own money in whatever quantity he chooses to promote the candidacy of his friend.
And if that gives Bill Gates more authority to print political ads than it gives me, well - that’s life in a free country. At least spare me the conceit that money which The New York Times spends on politics is pure as the driven snow, whereas the pittance ($20,000! WOW!!!) Dinesh D’Souza ponied up was corrupt whereas the first $10,000 was also pure.
Thanks for the info. Not on Twitter. Will have my daughter sign me up!
Wow. twisted. The First Amendment safeguards freedom of speech against government intrusion. Period.
Im not necessarily disagreeing with you, but if the law is restricting your free speech to contribute as much to whoever you want, get your Congress critter to change it...
You can also get your president to pardon you for being convicted of an unconstitutional law.
I love these fantasy posts where we pretend the world is supposed to be a certain way, but it bumps into reality...
The President is free to pardon. That's real. Again see the Constitution. Why you don't see reality, I don't know.
Hard to imagine anyone given a more unfair prosecution and sentence than Dinesh D’Souza.
Once met him in person and came away with the impression that he’s a very nice guy.
Glad that Dinesh got some measure of payback with his two fine documentaries. BTW, for summer reading, I would recommend any of his books.
How silly! A president can issue a pardon at any point in his administration. There are no specific time restrictions, as long as the pardon is issued while the pardoner holds the title of POTUS. A quick pardon should be done when, as with Dinesh, the history of the alleged crime and punishment is carefully reviewed in the White House and it is determined that a travesty of justice has occurred!
He wasn't tried and convicted. He plead guilty and avoided a trial.
And he wasn't rotting in jail or anything.
Trump is doing things differently, but any other president would have waited until later to keep the focus on more important things.
Thanks for setting the record straight. And the reason why he plead guilty is because he was threatened with more serious charges if he elected to go go to trial!
And most plea deals involve admitting to lesser charges, fearing what the outcome would be if they go to trial on the original charges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.