Posted on 06/04/2018 2:39:06 PM PDT by Texas Fossil
Miss Piggy is protecting the hog wallow. The Swamp.
We need a bigger pump to drain the swamp and thin the herd quicker.
Headshake.
I think someone needs to expose her for what she does, but personally I’m not interested in seeing more of her.
Thanks, good article.
It explains the law well and it’s application to D’Souza’s case and the judges motive and it’s roots with Schneiderman.
There is no limit to what the ComDems will do to promote their continuing joint power.
Yes, it is just more ComDem Insanity. Their little world is being destroyed by President Trump and they have totally lost their minds.
At some point, the issue of the Federal Courts will have to be addressed.
It is time for a serious look beginning with the 9th Circus. And apparently with the SD of NY.
Note, the center of the insanity is in large cities that are controlled by the totally corrupt Communist Democrat political machines.
I knew there was a reason that I never wanted to be a Lawyer or an Accountant:
Remember Supreme Court Rule 308
Interlocutory Appeals When Faced with Potentially Dispositive Legal Questions
https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iadtc.org/resource/resmgr/imported/PublicationPDfs/22.3.34.pdf
Welcome to the “Land of the Bureaucrat”, headshake.
Yes, she looks and acts like the type to advocate a ‘Revolution’.
Headshake.
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.
Yes. Tyrants never change.
Franklin motto 1st seal committee: “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”
It just shows how deep the ComDems go to protect the hog wallow they live in.
The Judge was inspired by recently resigned, NY AG Schneiderman’s letter.
This could lead to an endless loop: 2nd pardon -> triple jeopardy law change -> 3rd pardon, etc, ad nauseum.
Or could one pardon cover multiple convictions?
Thanks for that link. And yeah right D’Souza funneled couple of thousand more than allowed to a college friend’s campaign is such a big deal, but the millions funneled to Obama campaign by foreigners is no big deal.
Why is it all liberal women look like ugh x 10? In addition New York you want secede adios no loss.Next I suggest the NY AG read the 5th amendment to the US Constitution after all she did vow to support and defend the Constitution. Since she refuses to defend the constitution impeach her from office....
You got that 100% right.
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).
Nope. While opinions, even legal ones, are like a certain body part, the Constitution says “these United States”. As opposed to a different country. In the Founding Fathers view the States were to be more powerful than the Federal government. To limit POTUS to Federal crimes, which at the time of the writing of the Constitution were practically nonexistent, would be ridiculous.
> In the Founding Fathers view the States were to be more powerful than the Federal government. <
Right. And that’s why the president’s power to pardon was limited to federal crimes only. The Founders did not want to give the president the power to interfere in state matters.
I just suppose we’ll have to disagree on this one. But if you take a look at presidential pardons since Washington (I have), they have all been for federal offences (treason, piracy, post office robberies, etc.).
I would love to see anything in the writings of the Founders that supports that statement. Go ahead and read the Federalist papers and find something.
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.