NY AG: Time to Shred Constitution and Prosecute D'Souza a Second Time for Same Crime

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's still double jeapordy, turd.

Wrong. Dang you are embarrassing. You always get like this...you're wrong, and now it's time to throw a little fit. Every day, same thing.

The supreme Court has rules on this. Go look it up.

"Nuh uhn!" isn't an argument, moron. The SC is a gang of political hacks. The claim that prosecution for the same crime by state and federal government isn't double jeapordy doesn't pass the laugh test.

Haha...stage 4 of the daily fit....when the facts of the world don't align with your idiotic fetishes, it's because everyone else is lying or engaged Ina vast conspiracy 9r incompetent.


And it is never because you are ignorant and delusional.

Of course not.

Prove it isn't double jeapordy, moron. That's a case that you just can't make.

Prove what isn't? Huh? I don't have to prove anything to an ignorant, squawking buffoon like you. The supreme Court ruled on this, and this is why some States have laws like the one at issue in new york. Duh, dummy ..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once again, that is merely your opinion without facts.

You don't like Obama and his peers.

OK.

 

[bripat9643]

That's still double jeapordy, turd.

Wrong. Dang you are embarrassing. You always get like this...you're wrong, and now it's time to throw a little fit. Every day, same thing.

The supreme Court has rules on this. Go look it up.

"Nuh uhn!" isn't an argument, moron. The SC is a gang of political hacks. The claim that prosecution for the same crime by state and federal government isn't double jeapordy doesn't pass the laugh test.

Haha...stage 4 of the daily fit....when the facts of the world don't align with your idiotic fetishes, it's because everyone else is lying or engaged Ina vast conspiracy 9r incompetent.


And it is never because you are ignorant and delusional.

Of course not.

Prove it isn't double jeapordy, moron. That's a case that you just can't make.

Prove what isn't? Huh? I don't have to prove anything to an ignorant, squawking buffoon like you. The supreme Court ruled on this, and this is why some States have laws like the one at issue in new york. Duh, dummy ..

Prove prosecuting D'Souza for the same crime isn't double jeapordy. I don't give a flying fuck what they SC says. It often rules that black is white and up is down.

 

[Dschrute3]

Is this the same NY AG rapist? Or is this another corrupt pervert Democrat AG replacement? Either way, NY is flucked. The Communists are decimating it. And D'Souza was a political prisoner. Most Americans think we don't have them in the US. But D'Souza is proof we do. He made the Dictator Hussein Obama's 'Enemies List' by making his documentary. No documentary, no prosecution. I feel for the dude. I'll be prayin for him.

 

[Avatar4321]

]

D’Souzas crime was speaking out against obama.

D'Souzas GROSSLY violated campaign finance laws. Yes, thats a crime. A crime he PLED GUILTY TO.

D'Souza enters guilty plea

At the court hearing Tuesday, D’Souza admitted he knew what he did was against the law.

“I knew that causing a campaign contribution to be made in the name of another was wrong and something the law forbids,” D’Souza said, “I deeply regret my conduct.”

I know. The truth bothers you guys.

Dinesh D’Souza: A behind-the-scenes look at my presidential pardon

In 2012, in an attempt to help my longtime college friend Wendy Long, who was running as a Republican for the U.S. Senate in New York, I asked two of my associates to donate $10,000 apiece to her campaign. Then I reimbursed them. In doing so, I broke the law by exceeding the campaign finance limit.

Now it is an open secret that campaign finance limits are regularly transgressed just about every election season. Yet such cases are rarely prosecuted. In general, the government only goes after chronic or repeat offenders, or after those who break the law with corrupt intent, seeking to buy favors or obtain some sort of quid pro quo.

Consider the recent case of liberal comedian Rosie O’Donnell, who has acknowledged exceeding the campaign finance limits on five separate occasions, in five separate jurisdictions.

While O’Donnell’s motives were not corrupt, she certainly is a repeat offender. Consequently, there are five times more reasons to prosecute O’Donnell than there were to prosecute me.

No corruption or quid pro quo was even alleged in my case. In fact, candidate Wendy Long didn’t even know that I had contributed $30,000 instead of the allowable limit of $10,000.

How, then, did the decision to prosecute me come about?

Some clues are contained in my FBI file. A congressional oversight committee tried for well over a year to get this file. The FBI, then under since-fired Director James Comey, refused on familiar pretexts: claims that my file would reveal confidential sources, contained information that would jeopardize the bureau’s work, blah, blah, blah. Finally, the FBI relented and provided a redacted version of the file.

The file reveals that as soon as the FBI learned about my situation – how it found out is still unclear – the agency allocated $100,000 to investigate case involving $20,000 of political contributions. This by itself is odd.

The oddity, however, disappears with another revelation in the file. The FBI from the outset red-flagged me as a prominent conservative critic of the Obama administration.

Why is this information about my political views even in my file? How is it relevant? The obvious answer is that the FBI was signaling to the Obama Justice Department – in other words, to Attorney General Eric Holder – that here was a political adversary that the Obama team might want to go after.

And that’s why the FBI was so reluctant to give up the file. It didn’t want the Republicans in Congress to discover the bureau’s corrupt modus operandi.

The stage was set for my prosecution, carried out by the Department of Justice and directed by Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Bharara tweeted Thursday that while President Trump has the right to pardon anyone he wants to, the fact is that I voluntarily pleaded guilty to a felony violation. Bharara’s logic is clear: why would someone who did not intentionally break the law publicly confess that he broke the law?

Here’s why: Bharara’s prosecutors charged me with exceeding campaign finance limits. But when they learned that I might plead not guilty, they threatened to add a second charge. What, you might wonder, was this second violation? What else did I do wrong?

Turns out, nothing.

The second charge I was threatened with was called filing a false document. Evidently, I did this by not revealing that I was the source of the contributions made in the name of my associates. In other words, this charge was just another way of describing the first charge.

The difference, however, is that the first charge carried a maximum of two years in federal prison, while the second charge carried up to five years. The bottom line was that the federal government was threatening me with a sentence so severe it would ruin my life.

Then members of Bharara’s team said that if I pleaded guilty to the first charge, they would drop the second. They bludgeoned me into submitting to a lesser sentence rather than risk complete professional and personal destruction.

While this is a standard tactic used by prosecutors – it is the single factor that explains why federal criminal cases have a conviction rate approaching 100 percent – it’s important to realize that the government is pressuring not only the guilty, but also the innocent to plead guilty.

I find it almost comical to see Bharara put on a straight face and present the outcome of strong-arm bullying as “voluntary” confession. One has to be utterly naive to fall for such deceit.

He was prosecuted because he was an Obama opponent. If he was a Democrat he would have been fined at worst or ignored. His FBI file would not have noted his politics otherwise. They wouldn't have wasted $100,000 for a prosecution over $20,000 with no quid pro quo.

Get your head out of obamas rear and stop denying what's obvious to anyone who is honest

 

[Crepitus]

You kids need to think here.

Did you really know what he was convicted of?

If not, look it up.

Then ask yourself: if he had done this to contribute to Hillary Clinton would you still say he deserves a pardon?

Be honest.

When you start putting people away for same crime that donated to Hilly ...not to mention Hilly herself and Holder...get back to me

Her's wasn't a straw man donation. Using others names shows intent to decieve. She didn't do that.

Of course she did, you lying douchebag. What other reason could there be for using five different forms of her name and four different addresses?

That was not mentioned in the the linked article.

Do you have proof "you lying douchebag"?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Probably one of the most lawful pardons of all.

 

[AntonToo]

]

D’Souzas crime was speaking out against obama.

D'Souzas GROSSLY violated campaign finance laws. Yes, thats a crime. A crime he PLED GUILTY TO.

D'Souza enters guilty plea

At the court hearing Tuesday, D’Souza admitted he knew what he did was against the law.

“I knew that causing a campaign contribution to be made in the name of another was wrong and something the law forbids,” D’Souza said, “I deeply regret my conduct.”

I know. The truth bothers you guys.

Dinesh D’Souza: A behind-the-scenes look at my presidential pardon

In 2012, in an attempt to help my longtime college friend Wendy Long, who was running as a Republican for the U.S. Senate in New York, I asked two of my associates to donate $10,000 apiece to her campaign. Then I reimbursed them. In doing so, I broke the law by exceeding the campaign finance limit.

Now it is an open secret that campaign finance limits are regularly transgressed just about every election season. Yet such cases are rarely prosecuted. In general, the government only goes after chronic or repeat offenders, or after those who break the law with corrupt intent, seeking to buy favors or obtain some sort of quid pro quo.

Consider the recent case of liberal comedian Rosie O’Donnell, who has acknowledged exceeding the campaign finance limits on five separate occasions, in five separate jurisdictions.

While O’Donnell’s motives were not corrupt, she certainly is a repeat offender. Consequently, there are five times more reasons to prosecute O’Donnell than there were to prosecute me.

No corruption or quid pro quo was even alleged in my case. In fact, candidate Wendy Long didn’t even know that I had contributed $30,000 instead of the allowable limit of $10,000.

How, then, did the decision to prosecute me come about?

Some clues are contained in my FBI file. A congressional oversight committee tried for well over a year to get this file. The FBI, then under since-fired Director James Comey, refused on familiar pretexts: claims that my file would reveal confidential sources, contained information that would jeopardize the bureau’s work, blah, blah, blah. Finally, the FBI relented and provided a redacted version of the file.

The file reveals that as soon as the FBI learned about my situation – how it found out is still unclear – the agency allocated $100,000 to investigate case involving $20,000 of political contributions. This by itself is odd.

The oddity, however, disappears with another revelation in the file. The FBI from the outset red-flagged me as a prominent conservative critic of the Obama administration.

Why is this information about my political views even in my file? How is it relevant? The obvious answer is that the FBI was signaling to the Obama Justice Department – in other words, to Attorney General Eric Holder – that here was a political adversary that the Obama team might want to go after.

And that’s why the FBI was so reluctant to give up the file. It didn’t want the Republicans in Congress to discover the bureau’s corrupt modus operandi.

The stage was set for my prosecution, carried out by the Department of Justice and directed by Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Bharara tweeted Thursday that while President Trump has the right to pardon anyone he wants to, the fact is that I voluntarily pleaded guilty to a felony violation. Bharara’s logic is clear: why would someone who did not intentionally break the law publicly confess that he broke the law?

Here’s why: Bharara’s prosecutors charged me with exceeding campaign finance limits. But when they learned that I might plead not guilty, they threatened to add a second charge. What, you might wonder, was this second violation? What else did I do wrong?

Turns out, nothing.

The second charge I was threatened with was called filing a false document. Evidently, I did this by not revealing that I was the source of the contributions made in the name of my associates. In other words, this charge was just another way of describing the first charge.

The difference, however, is that the first charge carried a maximum of two years in federal prison, while the second charge carried up to five years. The bottom line was that the federal government was threatening me with a sentence so severe it would ruin my life.

Then members of Bharara’s team said that if I pleaded guilty to the first charge, they would drop the second. They bludgeoned me into submitting to a lesser sentence rather than risk complete professional and personal destruction.

While this is a standard tactic used by prosecutors – it is the single factor that explains why federal criminal cases have a conviction rate approaching 100 percent – it’s important to realize that the government is pressuring not only the guilty, but also the innocent to plead guilty.

I find it almost comical to see Bharara put on a straight face and present the outcome of strong-arm bullying as “voluntary” confession. One has to be utterly naive to fall for such deceit.

He was prosecuted because he was an Obama opponent. If he was a Democrat he would have been fined at worst or ignored. His FBI file would not have noted his politics otherwise. They wouldn't have wasted $100,000 for a prosecution over $20,000 with no quid pro quo.

Get your head out of obamas rear and stop denying what's obvious to anyone who is honest

Nope, he broke the law and admitted as much. Justice was served.

This is not rocket science, so why can’t you get it?