The Justice Department's tactics remind Dershowitz of the words of Stalin's secret police chief, Lavrentiy Beria, who said, "Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime."
"This is an outrageous prosecution and is certainly a misuse of resources," charged Dershowitz. "It raises the question of why he is being selected for prosecution among the many, many people who commit similar crimes. This sounds to me like it is coming from higher places. It is hard for me to believe this did not come out of Washington or at least get the approval of those in Washington."
January 30, 2014
"This is clearly a case of selective prosecution for one of the most common things done during elections, which is to get people to raise money for you."
"If they went after everyone who did this, there would be no room in jails for murderers," says Alan Dershowitz (about the prosecution of Dinesh D'Souza).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
115 comments:
Umm...so is he admitting D'Souza is guilty? Because that sounds like a bad tactic.
Well, of course it is.
Dershowitz is one of the few liberals with the fortitude to get his dander up over an injustice to a conservative. May G_d bless him.
Analyzing politicians, one must challenge oneself to think the worst.
Alan Grayson doesn't have a problem with that.
But most people do. Someone says "hey, that felony arrest warrant against D'Souza sounds political", and the average response is no, that couldn't be, wouldn't be, no cat in a hat would let it be.
With Obama, one must challenge oneself. It might be, could be, maybe is even worse than you can imagine.
Given that Gillibrand beat Long in the New York U.S. Senate race 72.18% to 26.35%, isn't there an issue of materiality?
How could the $20,000 involved have possibly influenced the outcome of that election?
The IRS was busy but Holder had an opening in his schedule. To the gulag D'Souza!
Umm...so is he admitting D'Souza is guilty? Because that sounds like a bad tactic.
But Obama. Discuss!
Of course he is being prosecuted for his political views. Of course he is. You would have to be willfully blind to not see that.
But is Dershowitz playing for some kind of jury nullification here, or trying to get the charges to be dropped? Because I agree with tim -- it sounds like he is admitting his client is guilty.
The Justice dep. has a "zero tolerance".... for Republicans....
Never mind my earlier post--I thought from the blurb that Dershowitz was his attorney.
So, as garage mahal accurately points out, we should focus on the far more important issue of the political motivation behind the prosecution. Because that's where the real problem is--the chilling effect, the punishing of political participation.
I don't think Dershowitz can admit D'Souza is guilty- he is just a spectator.
It's weird when you think about bundlers,family contributions (with just one wage earner) and celebrities who perform concerts for candidates. The differences between that and this seem marginal.
Umm...so is he admitting D'Souza is guilty? Because that sounds like a bad tactic.
But Obama. Discuss!"
We used to think the sheriff was honest and ethical but then again that was before The Chicago Outfit took office. Now what about all those unverified credit card charges Obama took in both elections? Or all of Hillary's bundlers? Somehow Holder can't be bothered to look in to this millions but he has the time for a few grand in an election no Republican could ever win.
Remember in Obama's first presidential election he had a legal hit squad to go after campaign opponents using election law.
It was led by Anita Dunn's husband, who I think is currently in the administration.
Oh, please, let us be adults. "Bundling." Let us admit what it is. It is the process by which politicians of all stripes get around the campaign-finance laws that are obvious offenses to our Constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly.
Don't let's be McCain and Feingold. Let's grow up a little bit.
How much do you think Springsteen, Bon Jovi, and Anna Wintour put into Obama's reelection bid? Not via cash donation, but by personal outlay?
Obama had Russ Feingold's group and many other liberal groups investigated by the IRS. JUST.TO.COVER.HIS.TRACKS
You'd have to be pretty much blind not to see that. Derp.
garage mahal, I'm not blind, and I didn't see that. What the heck are you writing about?
Selective enforcement of the law for political purposes is called corruption. The idea is to make the law so overly complicated that just about anything done will be illegal. Then you aim the enforcement arm at the enemies of the state. It's favorite
tactic of petty dictatorships and one party states everywhere.
Dear Lord that Dershowitz guy is one smart puppy.
Let's not forget that a John Edwards supporter who did the exact same thing, for the exact same amount of money was only charged with a misdemeanor.
Obama had Russ Feingold's group and many other liberal groups investigated by the IRS. JUST.TO.COVER.HIS.TRACKS"
That's called a squirrel. That isn't where the big bucks where coming from.
If the DoJ is against whatever exactly D'Souza did, they should have picked out a Democrat doing the same thing and prosecuted them as a pair.
That would have been more believable and would not have contributed to further destroy our faith in the integrity of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Once again the Mahal fella is defending the indefensible - that would be The One's justice dept.
Hey Garage, did you happen by the Philly voting site in 2008 where the New Black Panther party was holding a billy club educational symposium? Not there? Didn't see it? You are not alone, Eric Holder didn't see it either.
As general counsel for the 2008 campaign, Bauer asked the Justice Department to investigate the officers and donors of American Issues Project after it ran a negative ad about Obama.[5].
After this, Baur joined the administration. He then left the administration to work for Obama's reelection.
But yeah, this would be completely in the fashion of the Obama team.
After all, the Obama administration wantde movies like D'Souza's to be illegal. Of course they'd go after it.
Dershowitz said this?
hmmmmm
I thought the claim against D'Souza is not that he bundled cash (perfectly legal and common) but that he reimbursed other donors for their donations (not legal, though perhaps common).
It's one of those areas that makes me despise all the campaign finance laws. There are so many legal ways around them, and many more illegal but very hard to trace ways around them. If your employer pressures you to donate to a favored political candidate, that's legal (except in some particular circumstances based on the nature of your employer). If your employer pressures you to donate to a favored candidate, AND gives you the money to do so expressly for that purpose, that's illegal. If your employer pressures you to donate to a candidate, and gives you a bonus in the precise amount of the donation it wants you to make, but doesn't expressly tie the bonus to the donation? Probably legal, but gives politically-oriented prosecutors some leeway to screw your life over.
So I'm curious, what exactly is D'Souza alleged to have done?
garage mahal, I'm not blind, and I didn't see that. What the heck are you writing about?
This paranoid wingnut fantasy that Obama is going after two-bit looney bins like D'Souza. The IRS asked Russ Feingold's group for more info, just like conservative groups. Of course the IRS asking liberal groups for more info never bothered conservatives, they just pretend it never happened. Because Obama lives rent free in their heads 24/7.
garage mahal, so you think there's nothing at all to the contention that the Obama administration is targeting conservatives with the powers of supposedly non-political departments like the IRS and the DOJ?
Again, liberal groups were "targeted". Did you not know that?
garage mahal, let's try Wikipedia.
I don't want to go all Al Gore on you and say the science, or in this case the case, is settled. But if you think this was not a one-sided political thing, you're living in a dreamworld.
garage mahal, I'm not blind, and I didn't see that. What the heck are you writing about?
This paranoid wingnut fantasy that Obama is going after two-bit looney bins like D'Souza. The IRS asked Russ Feingold's group for more info, just like conservative groups. Of course the IRS asking liberal groups for more info never bothered conservatives, they just pretend it never happened. Because Obama lives rent free in their heads 24/7."
And Lois Lerner takes the fifth. Just like some mobster in front of a Senate investigation. It's The Chicago Way!
The Justice dep. has a "zero tolerance".... for Republicans....
Oh come on. As we learned in the earlier thread, there was an almost an identical case involving an Edwards supporter during the Bush administration.
The lesson should be high profile donors should think twice about doing something so transparent and stupid.
So when law professors teach Constitutional Law now, do they just stand in front of a blank chalkboard?
The liberal groups were not subjected to the same level of scrutiny. There is no defending some of the information requested of the tea party groups. If those questions were asked of progressive groups, there's no excuse for that either.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/irs-delayed-action-on-progressive-groups-too
They told me if I voted for Romney there would be selective political prosecutions, and they were right.
Render is that the ever popular "everybody does it" excuse?
I do know one thing for sure. Illinois voters needed to know all about Jack Ryan's divorce back in 2004.
Freder- the "nearly identical" case of which you speak did not bring felony charges.
Sorry I meant Freder. Damn auto correct!
Surely Obama could just decide not to enforce this law.
In the early 1970s, Republicans (many of whom were actually quite liberal, including Nixon) were forced to confront the fact that the President was a partisan jerk who would use almost any power of government to destroy his opponents.
Today, who among Democrats will rise to that challenge?
I'm still interested to know how that "routine" FBI review of campaign contribution reports uncovered this.
But if you think this was not a one-sided political thing, you're living in a dreamworld.
You're admitting liberal/non-conservative groups were targeted?
There need not be a conspiracy controlled from the White House. In fact, these people don't know enough about the government to control much of anything.
On top of that, Obama makes a practice of appointing weak and ineffectual cabinet secretaries and agency heads, and the lower echelons run wild, since they know there is no one minding the store.
Today, who among Democrats will rise to that challenge?"
None. And none ever will.
But if you think this was not a one-sided political thing, you're living in a dreamworld.
You're admitting liberal/non-conservative groups were targeted?
1/30/14, 11:20 AM"
Really? They cherry pick a few liberal groups that they know will pass a smell test so they can fake impartiality. Next.
It's genius they'd pick Feingold's group. Of course he would welcome it.
Cue Dershowitz audit in 5, 4, 3.....
So, according to Garage, Dershowitz is a paranoid wingnut? I guess the tea parties are the ones with the big tent, then....
On top of that, Obama makes a practice of appointing weak and ineffectual cabinet secretaries and agency heads, and the lower echelons run wild, since they know there is no one minding the store.
The filibusters are defeated. Take back the Senate. Harry Reid is the enabler of this mess.
You make the President pay at the ballot box. People are going to jail when the Senate is no longer controlled by the Democrats.
If they're looking to get you, try not to do things that will let you get got. If he broke the law, then fine, bring down the hammer. But: The Worm Turns.
Freder- the "nearly identical" case of which you speak did not bring felony charges.
As I explained and linked (so I am not going to do it again, look it up yourself), the initial indictment was for three felonies. It was plead down to a misdemeanor. The judge rejected the first plea deal as too harsh (six months in jail), but approved a sixty day jail term (along with probation and a fine).
[Which brings up an interesting side point. What is the point of laws that solely exist to pleaded down? No one is going to stand for a -- what was it, $1,000,000 fine and 5 some years in jail? -- for bundling $20,000? This law, currently, is solely a bludgeon in the hands of the government.]
You got this Dershowitz quote from NewsMax!? I wouldn't be surprised if the quote is fabricated out of whole cloth.
NewsMax makes up shit all the time. It is not a reputable source.
This law, currently, is solely a bludgeon in the hands of the government.
Not if you don't violate it. And you either have to be extremely arrogant or stupid to violate it. We should not reward either arrogance or stupidity.
If you don't like the law, change it.
"Not if you don't violate it."
-- Actually, some people who violate it get a slap on the wrist. Others are fined into the poor house.
Derpowitz
The fundamental point is that everyone posting on this forum is, right now, guilty of something. Perhaps your tax returns are not letter-perfect. Perhaps you in violation of a housing code.
It doesn't matter. In our over-regulated society, we're breaking a law and probably dozens.
So, don't attract attention. Don't get someone annoyed who has the power to run an investigation, because they'll find something.
The law may be blind, but enforcement no longer is.
Actually the system is designed in such a way as to make not violating it very difficult. Which makes selective enforcement a dangerous weapon for any government to have.
Time to move the US Constitution to the Fiction shelves.
tim maguire said...
Umm...so is he admitting D'Souza is guilty? Because that sounds like a bad tactic.
What do you mean? As far as I know, Dershowitz doesn't represent D'Souza. He might not have even met him. I believe Dershowitz is only commenting on the case.
As it says above, everybody's guilty of sumpin'.
Since you can't possibly obey the law, you have to be the last one to stop clapping.
It's like a liberal Kristalnacht
Dershowitz: It is hard for me to believe this did not come out of Washington or at least get the approval of those in Washington.
This completely misunderstands the environment. The advantage of staffing with activists is that they don't need direction or approval to act. The leviathan is more effective if each tentacle acts somewhat independently. This both (1) allows much more to be accomplished, and (2) compartmentalizes damage in case of a backfire.
garage, no liberal groups were not targeted. Liberal groups went through the process as they were supposed to. Only conservative groups were singled out for extraordinary (and, at least a few times, illegal) examination and delay.
This isn't even a debating point. Both sides admit it. So why do you persist?
tim maguire said...
Only conservative groups were singled out for extraordinary (and, at least a few times, illegal) examination and delay.
For this statement to be true there would have had to have been a successful prosecution of IRS staff.
Garage is correct and has wiped the floor with you guys on this thread.
Bob Ellison said...
garage mahal, I'm not blind, and I didn't see that. What the heck are you writing about?
I'm not sure he even knows. When reality meets up with the cartoon he has running in his head anything can come out his keyboard.
Only conservative groups were singled out for extraordinary (and, at least a few times, illegal) examination and delay.
That's just simply not true.
AReasonableMan said...
tim maguire said...
Only conservative groups were singled out for extraordinary (and, at least a few times, illegal) examination and delay.
For this statement to be true there would have had to have been a successful prosecution of IRS staff.
Uh. Eric Holder?
F0x - hen house - guarding
Garage is correct and has wiped the floor with you guys on this thread.
That's funny.
"For this statement to be true there would have had to have been a successful prosecution of IRS staff."
-- Something can be illegal and not prosecuted.
anything can come out his keyboard.
Like, facts that you are unable to refute?
garage mahal said...
Of course the IRS asking liberal groups for more info never bothered conservatives.
garage is trying to obscure:
(1) that Tea Party groups were subjected to more scrutiny by claiming if any leftist group was asked for information it's ok that all conservative groups were, and
(2) ignoring that the approvals for Tea Party groups were held for years while the leftist groups were approved.
It's hard to image anyone honestly believing that because one lefty organization was asked questions everything must have been fine.
(1) that Tea Party groups were subjected to more scrutiny by claiming if any leftist group was asked for information it's ok that all conservative groups were, and
Read the link. All conservative groups were not subjected to extra scrutiny. I swear to God you guys know nothing about this issue.
Read the link. All conservative groups were not subjected to extra scrutiny. I swear to God you guys know nothing about this issue.
I didn't claim all conservative groups were targeted, I claimed your theory of absolution holds that it would be fine were it so.
It's always amusing the person most desperate to deflect attention from the facts is whining about others's knowledge.
For this statement to be true there would have had to have been a successful prosecution of IRS staff.
You are forgetting that Eric Holder is the Attorney General, and is willing to do what it takes to keep the Obama Administration out of trouble. You are essentially saying that since the DoJ would need to prosecute any IRS employees who engaged in illegal conduct, and since the department is not about to prosecute any of them for political reasons, that their conduct was, thus, not illegal, even if it violated federal statutes.
Keep in mind that this is the same DoJ that failed to prosecute mega bundler Jon Corzine for overseeing the misappropriation of more than a billion dollars of customer money, and in order to investigate IRS wrongdoing, appointed another Obama donor to oversee the investigation. Time after time, AG Holder has shown himself to be more interested in protecting the Obama Administration than in pursuing justice.
Regarding the IRS scandal, consider if the situation were about arrests for crimes. Consider a town that is 50% African-American. The police chief is white. The arrest rates for speeding are 95% for African-Americans.
Garage would be saying that the police chief is not racist because, hey look, they arrested one white guy too!
That logic would never fly on the Left, so why do they suddenly espouse it in regards to the IRS scandal?
Aaron,
To complete the circle he would then complain your criticism isn't valid because not every African American was arrested.
Yeah, like the Obama administration hasn't been connected with all this -- a reminder, from the testimony of Elizabeth Hofacre, who coordinated “emerging issues” cases for the IRS out of Cincinnati, where tax-exempt applications are examined -- two excerpts:
Question: I just want to be clear. When you sent these letters out, the letters that Carter Hull [Exempt Organizations technical attorney in Washington] approved, and you would get responses from the taxpayers, all of those responses you would then forward on to Carter Hull?
Answer: That is correct.
Q: Is that unusual?
A: Very unusual. I have never known of an agent to do that in the past or to this time.
Q: Even for other Emerging Issues?
A: I am not aware of any.
****
Q: Okay. Do you always need to go through EO Technical to get assistance on how to draft these kind of letters?
A: No, it was demeaning.
Q: What do you mean by “demeaning”?
A: Well, I might be jumping ahead of myself, but essentially — typically, no. As a grade 13 [federal employee], one of the criteria is to work independently and do research and make decisions based on your experience and education, whereas in this case, I had no autonomy at all through the process.
Q: So it was unusual for you to have to go through EO Technical to get these letters?
A: Exactly. I mean, exactly, because once he provided me with his letters I used his letters and his questions as a basis for my letters. I didn’t cut and paste or cookie cut. So then once I developed my letters from the information in the application, I would email him the letters. And at the same time he instructed me to fax 29 copies of the 1024 so he could review my letters to make sure that they were consistent with the 1024 application.
Q: Was that practice consistent with any other Emerging Issue?
A: I never have done that before or since then.
I didn't claim all conservative groups were targeted,
Ah, yes, it was a hypothetical. "by claiming if any leftist group was asked for information it's ok that all conservative groups were, and
"Derpowitz"
Says the retard who barely graduated from high school.
How is that new John Doe probe going, jackass?
Any day now right?
Oh, hai, loser. How's that fake law practice coming along?
Come, let us be adults.
The national government has abused its power. Why did it do that?
Don't get stuck on stupid.
@Bob
The job of the IRS *is* to scrutinize any application seeking tax free status.
It isn't really right but one hopes that when the Republicans next win control of the White House they kick the living shit out of any Democrat that raises his head above the surface. That's for openers.
Well lets see if the Republicans do well in November and if they do so if they have the stones to start serious investigation in both chambers that would lead to special prosecutors to investigate and prosecute if the evidence warrants it. Using the Scooter Libby standards there would be a lot of Obama Administration people looking at criminal charges. But the Democrats shouldn't be too fearful as is it looks like the Republican leadership really doesn't want to win in November never mind start getting serious on all of the criminality in this Administration.
Garage, IRS officials publicly announced that Tea Party groups were inappropriately targeted. And yes, 100% of groups with the term "Tea Party" were illegaly denied for 3 years their access to the non-profit status. The number of Tea Party groups which were discriminated against was nearly 300. The number of left-wing groups that were delayed is in low 2-digit. Clearly, IRS implemented a policy which targeted conservative groups.
And if you don't believe that, well, this is called "disparate impact". Clear sign of political machinations.
Blogger garage mahal said...
@Bob
The job of the IRS *is* to scrutinize any application seeking tax free status.
1/30/14, 5:13 PM"
true dat. they should be equally vigilant of left wing orgs as well. There job is also to render a decision in 270 days, a problem that the IRS under Lois " I Take The Fifth" Lerner wouldn't resolve.
"The job of the IRS *is* to scrutinize any application seeking tax free status. "
IRS allows NAACP to be a tax-free organization, and yet, it openly runs political ads. Why would the new Tea Party groups be denied the same civil rights as NAACP?
The IRS has already admitted to targeting tea party and conservative groups for inappropriate scrutiny and has issued an apology. There's no question this happened. That ship has sailed.
garage, the lefty organization on that web site were those approved. Many of the Tea Party groups were never approved after years of inquirers band harassment of the principles.
Second Lois Lerner took the 5th amendment. Why if it was OK ?
Third; Eric Holder has plenty of expertise on illegal campaign contributions. Where did he get it ?
Marc Rich.
as a fugitive from justice, he was pardoned by Bill Clinton in the last hours of his administration. What many don’t recall is that Attorney General Eric Holder, who was then a deputy attorney general, was instrumental in securing Rich’s pardon.
Then there is the matter of Al Gore's Buddhist Temple trip
From the Buddhist temple to Johnny Huang to Charlie Trie and “no controlling legal authority,” the last four years are a tangled mess of alleged wrongdoings that hover over this administration. What follows below is a guideline to the scandals that have most directly affected Gore over the last four years, a Gore scandal guide for dummies:
The IRS has already admitted to targeting tea party and conservative groups for inappropriate scrutiny and has issued an apology
Yea I don't think the IRS ever apologized for targeting liberal groups. Nobody, and I mean nobody can throw a hissy fit like the right.
There are tons of laws selectively enforced in this country. Likewise there are tons of laws where the punishment seems remotely related to the crime. Does a partisan get a pass because the executive is on the other side? The real lesson here is to stop giving the feds more weapons. The Stalin quote is not specific to this case. It articulates the consensus view of both parties.
I remember when Conde Naste got Ars Technica. I didn't stop because they got it but I found that I for the most part stopped. I have a feeling the same will be true for Volokh and the Washington Post. It's already a million times more annoying.
Alan Dershowicz is an honorable man. He is always said to be a liberal, but he is of the old pre 1968 definition of liberal. He is also pro life.
Garage. The idea is for both the left and the right to push back against the govt's use of its unlimited power to coerce. It is not a tit for tat discussion but one which progressives as well as right wingers should agree on.
Unless, of course, you approve.
"Nobody, and I mean nobody can throw a hissy fit like the right."
Oh, I don't know. How about Gibson Guitars?
Gibson is commemorating its own persecution by producing a special “Government Series II Les Paul” model celebrating the return of its materials, complete with “fingerboards… made from solid rosewood returned to Gibson by the US government.”
Instead of talking about some BS scandal that is going nowhere why not discuss how the Repubs are planning to sell the Tea Party down the river with immigration reform. That is a much more entertaining topic.
There is indeed evidence that Tea Party groups were unfairly targeted by the IRS. The fact that the Holder Justice Department has decided not to prosecute is irrelevant.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/irs-auditor-reaffirms-conservatives-not-liberals-w/?page=all
Alan Dershowitz is by no means a "righty throwing a hissy fit.
It is not a tit for tat discussion but one which progressives as well as right wingers should agree on.
Negative. Right and left should agree these money laundering operations blessed by the IRS must end.
On topic: Appeals Court allows secret probe into recall elections to proceed.
Let's take a closer look at those .....docs?
"Blogger garage mahal said...
It is not a tit for tat discussion but one which progressives as well as right wingers should agree on.
Negative. Right and left should agree these money laundering operations blessed by the IRS must end."
Bullshit !
I put up with a lot from you garage in the interest of civility but this is a lie.
The Tea Party is teaching people how to participate in politics, like telling them how local committees work. The Democrats, with Organizing for America and other phony outfits, like ACORN for example, can't tolerate that. Nobody should know how politics works but the left.
The True the Vote lady got interested after being an election judge and observing vote fraud. I know there is no vote fraud as long as the Democrats win, garage. That politician in Milwaukee was just checking tire pressure.
The lie that the Tea Party was involved in money laundering is similar to the lie that donations are "tax exempt." For a guy who knows about tax web sites, you sure seem ignorant about the subject. An organization can accept donations, which are NOT deductible to the donor, but which are considered a taxable income to the organization. If it is mostly education oriented, as the Tea Party is, they should not be taxable income. The taxes were paid once by the donor. What you want, for the conservative organizations only, is exemption for labor unions and leftist outfits like OFA, but double taxation for anyone who disagrees with Obama.
Let's keep in mind, as we consider this matter, that the law D'Souza is accused of violating is transparently unconstitutional.
What Jupiter just said.
garage mahal said...
anything can come out his keyboard.
Like, facts that you are unable to refute?
like I said before.
Get some.
How has Dershowitz reached this stage of his career without knowing that all laws are selectively enforced?
The comments are full of misinformation. Althouse could do a service and correct much of the misonformation, as it is clear that her readers read her, but also are heavily misinformed. I suspect she knows it would detract from her readership were she to inform her readers on these topics. Red meat for the win; dissapointing for someone of her intellectual ability.
"The comments are full of misinformation."
OK by me. Let's hear the law from a law professor.
D'Souza should have known that Obama would be after him. When you live in a totalitarian state, you have to be more careful.
Real freedom is for children and free societies. We have neither.
Cliff. Back it up.
Well Bob, there is so much misinformation in these 10 plus comments it would be a full time job to correct all of them. The most relevant is that D'Souza's prosecution is unprecedented. I wish the law professor running the blog would take it upon herself to inform her readers rather than throw red meat to the wolves.
For instance, one of the more recent similar prosecutions involved a donor to a key Obama ally- who was initially charged with far more than D'Souza.
http://m.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/harvey-whittemore-be-sentenced-monday-campaign-finance-scheme
It's also worthwhile to review the summary of justice's enforcement of campaign law, which shows that this prosecution is far more common than Althouse and commentors claim.
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/pin/docs/2012-Annual-Report.pdf
The difference, as I can tell, is that when liberal donors are prosecuted there is no coordinated outrage about the prosecution.
That the law professor would throw the red meat to the wolves and neglect to inform her readers and explore the history of similar prosecutions is dissapointing.
Sorry, 100 plus comments, not ten.
Cliff, "unprecedented" appears in your most recent comment first.
That's a nice justice.gov PDF you linked to, but it doesn't even succeed in taking down the other straw man you erected.
Oh, and I just have to ask about "coordinated outrage". My secret decoder ring must be on the fritz, because it didn't tell me to be mad about this. It just seemed obvious to me, as it does to Alan Dershowitz.
mm...so is he admitting D'Souza is guilty? Because that sounds like a bad tactic.
As Instapundit has pointed out, there are so many laws on the books that EVERYBODY breaks laws. And ignorance of the law isn't a defense.
garage mahal, I'm not blind, and I didn't see that. What the heck are you writing about?
A repeatedly told lie that Progressive groups had the same level of scrutiny as conservative groups.
For instance, one of the more recent similar prosecutions involved a donor to a key Obama ally- who was initially charged with far more than D'Souza.
It also involved more than 6 times the money...
Post a Comment