↓
 
Home » The bell tolls not just for D’Souza

The bell tolls not just for D’Souza

The New Neo Posted on by

The D’Souza case: a warning to all who would challenge or offend Obama. You’ll be next.

The activities with which he’s charged are unlikely to have been uncovered in a “routine review,” as John Hinderaker writes at Powerline:

Here is a prediction: the four [Republican] senators will never get coherent answers to their questions. In particular, they will never get a truthful answer to question number four, “How and why was this particular review initiated?” I think the U.S. Attorney’s claim that D’Souza’s prosecution resulted from a “routine review” of FEC filings by FBI agents was a lie, for these reasons: 1) I don’t believe that the FBI carries out such “routine reviews.” 2) Routinely reviewing FEC filings would be a colossal waste of time for FBI agents. 3) A “routine review” of filings relating to the New York Senate race in question would not have generated any suspicion with regard to D’Souza. The violation with which he is charged would not have been revealed by a “routine review,” but would have required further digging to discover relationships between D’Souza and the friends for whom he allegedly reimbursed campaign donations. 4) Felony prosecutions for the sort of violation with which D’Souza is charged are unheard of. 5) If the FBI conducted a “routine review” of contributions to President Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns, particularly online donations, they would find many obvious violations, like my contribution in the name of “Illegal Contributor,” residence, Stillwater State Prison, Stillwater, Minnesota”“a donation that was returned by the Obama campaign after I wrote about it here on Power Line. Mine was one of many contributions to the Obama campaign, the illegality of which would, in fact, be disclosed by a “routine review.” Yet there have been no prosecutions arising out of any such investigation, because there has been no such investigation.

And here’s an excellent comment to Hinderaker’s post:

This stuff is scary and I suspect it chills the enthusiasm of backers of conservative causes and candidates. Even more scary is the fact most of the media haven’t covered it. I suspect the percentage of Americans who know about the political prosecution of D’Souza, the federal attack on Gibson Guitars, the multiple federal bureaucracies bullying Catherine Engelbrecht and others is very small. Without heavy news coverage of these events and the potential public outcry it “should” generate, there is little hope of stopping this stuff. Are there NO Democrats who are appalled by this or are they just as scared as the Republicans or are they all totally in the tank for a totalitarian leftist government (or should I say regime)?

I think it’s option 3 for most Democratic pundits and politicians: “totally in the tank.” For regular liberal folk, most are just not aware. But I fear that if they were to become aware they would shrug, because it’s done by their guys. “Taking the gloves off” and all that.

It turns out that most people aren’t that concerned with their own liberty, until they really and truly lose it. Even then, not enough are concerned.

Obama has a long, long history—in fact, his entire political history—of using legal means to destroy and/or discourage his opponents. By “legal” I don’t just mean “not against the law;” I mean using the legal system and the law itself, as in lawsuits or challenges to petition signatures (scroll down to the second comment at the link to find the text of the article I’m talking about). I also mean legal proceedings initiated by others, which Obama can use to harm his opponents by making sure that hidden and private information that is potentially embarrassing (for example, sealed divorce proceedings) becomes public.

Obama has always been dangerous in just this fashion. Too bad Americans haven’t paid much attention to his history.

Comments

The bell tolls not just for D’Souza — 57 Comments

  1. “I think it’s option 3 for most Democratic pundits and politicians: “totally in the tank.” For regular liberal folk, most are just not aware. But I fear that if they were to become aware they would shrug, because it’s done by their guys. “Taking the gloves off” and all that.

    It turns out that most people aren’t that concerned with their own liberty, until they really and truly lose it. Even then, not enough are concerned.”

    Yes. Liberalism, at base, rests upon willful denial. They don’t want to know, as long as it isn’t too personally inconvenient.

  2. Remember Dr. Ben Carson the distinguished black neuro-surgeon who had the temerity to critise ObamaCare to the great one’s face at a banquet? He and his family members suddenly found themselves being audited by the IRS. Chicago Gangster government at its finest.

  3. Liberals of all sorts are such utter scum. It doesn’t matter if they are “know nothings” or just asleep… they are still scum.

    “it took
    a nipponized bit of
    the old sixth

    avenue
    el;in the top of his head:to tell

    him”

    And they WILL be told.

  4. i was going to answer
    but there was a knock at the door
    so i didnt answer
    as i did not want to be no more…

  5. Utter scum? Despite being greatly misguided, some of the finest human beings I know are liberals. If ignorance and unawareness are all that are needed to qualify as utter scum, then there is no hope for the human race. And what degree of ignorance and unawareness defines such as all that is needed to qualify as utter scum?

  6. Neo

    Obama has a long, long history–in fact, his entire political history–of using legal means to destroy and/or discourage his opponents. By “legal” I don’t just mean “not against the law;” I mean using the legal system and the law itself, as in lawsuits or challenges to petition signatures.

    Neo, it appears that the Chicago Tribune article,”Obama Knows His Way Around a Ballot,” about how he won his first primary Soviet-style by getting all his opponents off the ballot, has disappeared down the rabbit hole. You originally cited it years ago with the original Chicago Tribune link [April 3,2007]. Several months ago, because it was no longer available at its original Chicago Tribune website address, you cited it using your current link at “challenges to petition signatures,” which at the time led to a PDF of the original Trib article at forums.megagames.com.

    At the time, I used Advanced Google Search to look up the article at the Chicago Tribune website, and found it, at a different address:
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,3156264,full.story

    At the time, I saw this merely as a website reorganization. That new address is no longer valid. When I used Google Advanced search on the Trib website, a quote from the article led to – crickets. Also note that when I searched on the Trib website without Google assistance, there is no statement from the Trib saying that the article is there, but behind a paywall. Pay up if you want to read it. No such statement.

    At the Megagames site is the following message: MegaGames Forum is closed. Please use the comments areas on MegaGames.com

    Web Archive didn’t archive the April 3, 2007 edition of the article at the Trib website. The most complete quotation of the article I have found is as follows.

    The day after New Year’s 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

    There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city’s South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama’s four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

    Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

    But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

    A close examination of Obama’s first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

    One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama’s petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

    “Why say you’re for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?” Askia said. “He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?”

    In a recent interview, Obama granted that “there’s a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn’t create barriers to people getting on the ballot.”

    But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents’ signature sheets. “To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up,” Obama recalled……
    At the time, though, Obama seemed less at ease with the decision, according to aides. They said the first-time candidate initially expressed reservations about using challenges to eliminate all his fellow Democrats.

    “He wondered if we should knock everybody off the ballot. How would that look?” said Ronald Davis, the paid Obama campaign consultant whom Obama referred to as his “guru of petitions.”

    In the end, Davis filed objections to all four of Obama’s Democratic rivals at the candidate’s behest.

    While Obama didn’t attend the hearings, “he wanted us to call him every night and let him know what we were doing,” Davis said, noting that Palmer and the others seemed unprepared for the challenges.

    I am quoting as much of the Trib article as is available on the startthinkingright website, less it also disappear down the rabbit hole.

    I would also suspect that Obama operatives are also behind the disappearance of the article sat the Megagames website. Like they say, you aren’t paranoid if they are really out to get you.

    http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/a-closer-look-at-obama-candidate-of-hope-and-change/ Copy paste of Trib article “Obama Knows His Way Around a Ballot.”

  7. Are there NO Democrats who are appalled by this or are they just as scared as the Republicans or are they all totally in the tank for a totalitarian leftist government (or should I say regime)?

    I think it’s option 3 for most Democratic pundits and politicians: “totally in the tank.” For regular liberal folk, most are just not aware. But I fear that if they were to become aware they would shrug, because it’s done by their guys. “Taking the gloves off” and all that.

    It turns out that most people aren’t that concerned with their own liberty, until they really and truly lose it. Even then, not enough are concerned.

    Neo, you are a lawyer and a therapist, right?

    Could you relate the modern run-of-the-mill liberal’s moral sensibilities to any schema we might have encountered in school? Say Kohlberg’s?

    But then again, what’s the point of such exercises. Such exercises presume some kind of common evaluative framework. And, if moral nihilism, values relativism, and materialistic determinism, are the intellectual presuppositions lurking behind the formation of the modern progressive individual’s moral sensibilities, what relevance could an evaluative remark with normative sounding overtones like ” … not enough are concerned”, have?

    Anyway, my guess is that you didn’t mean that more of your everyday liberal friends should have an attraction to freedom. But merely that a large and even predominant portion of the citizenry simply no longer have such interests as would preserve the regime of political and personal economic liberty we once knew.

    What does an ensconced bureaucrat or a legacy wealth metrosexual male care about the freedom to farm or mine or run a machine shop?

    He only cares that those doing so should do so in a way that pleases and benefits him – insofar as they are socially permitted to engage in such activities at all.

    In other words, the world and all in it exist to serve him. And why not, given his assumptions about reality?

    He takes it as a given that his desires are not judged and arbitrated by an objective reality and moral framework independent of his will; but rather that it is the case that his will to make the world conform to his unevaluated and in principle un-evaluatable urges, politically generates what is to be stipulated as right and wrong for all others.

    I don’t see how such matters can be worked out according to any principles of right reason; when only instrumental reason is taken as real, and the entire notion of objective values, and possibly even reality, are tossed aside by one of the parties to the potential conversation

  8. Geoffrey Britain Says:
    February 24th, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    “I think it’s option 3 for most Democratic pundits and politicians: “totally in the tank.” For regular liberal folk, most are just not aware. But I fear that if they were to become aware they would shrug, because it’s done by their guys. “Taking the gloves off” and all that.

    It turns out that most people aren’t that concerned with their own liberty, until they really and truly lose it. Even then, not enough are concerned.”

    Yes. Liberalism, at base, rests upon willful denial. They don’t want to know, as long as it isn’t too personally inconvenient.”

    To leverage off of a semi-pun: at base they deny everything but the will. Including the reality of the coherent or perduring self.

    Which then puts to logically interesting question the origin of and the very meaning of a will to some end; or even just a will to power per se.

    For in deconstructing further, we are confronted with the question of who, or what exactly – in this evolving locus of appetites which we once called, or thought of as, a moral individual – is it that is doing the willing?

  9. These links appear to have the complete April 2007 Chicago Tribune article about Obama getting his opponents off the ballot in his first primary for the Illinois legislature, though the article is no longer called “Obama Knows His Way Around a Ballot.”

    http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-790845 Note that an embedded link didn’t work for me- it directed me to the CNN homesite. The CNN website cited the below website:

    Against Obama Website

    http://againstobama.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/old-school-dirty-politics-of-obama/ Above but not embedded.

  11. GK, that would appear to be it. Guess I don’t know my way around a website as well as Barack Obama knows his way around a ballot. 🙂

  12. Anybody else watching House of Cards? (No spoilers, please!) I am, and in conjunction with the many news stories of this sort appearing lately it’s a very paranoia-inducing experience. Yes, it’s only a TV show, and its portrait of unscrupulous political climbers is sometimes rather over-the-top–or at least one hopes it is–but much of it is too plausible for comfort.

  13. DNW,

    The left posits that only the will of the collective has any validity or even existence. And of course, the elite merely ‘serve’ the collective will.

    Once you decide to abandon reality in favor of ideology, reason and logic are merely tools to be applied when advantageous and denied, when equally advantageous.

  15. When the Leftist alliance or their Islamic allies nuke an American city, who will believe it wasn’t the fault of certain anti Leftists that are to blame?

    Things will then work predictably from there.

  16. Gringo:

    I thought the link I put up there was still good, but I see that it’s not. This is another link to the text of the article (it appears in the second comment to the post at the link).

    It really is the great disappearing article, isn’t it?

  17. Ray says, “There are so many laws today that federal judge Alex Kozinski says everyone is a federal criminal.”

    This is true, but when laws are arbitrary, do no apply to the ruling class, and often are outright unconstitutional; a free person has a choice: buckle under or go about your business while quietly subverting the law. We are beyond the rule of law during the age of the vast Obama-MSM hegemony. F*&^ them. There will be unintended consequences to their vanity.

    And, the same goes for the CFR. The messiah’s regime has added about 12,000 pages to the CFR. Everyone is in violation of some regulation every single day. Again, f*&^ them. They deserve no quarter. I hate to admit it, but I am looking forward to a military coup d’état.

  18. We are the opposition in the Ukraine. We are the opposition in Venezuela.

    We simply must accept that we are fighting an enemy, the enemy of the people, and that enemy is called the Democrats and their minions wherever they are (MSM or whatever).

    If that is not accepted there is no chance to defeat them.

    The hopeful side is they can be defeated if we fight, if we get infrastructure support, if we burst the illusions they thrive on.

    You’re next? Next? There is no next. Next is now. It’s now they are enslaving and impoverishing us. It’s now they are gutting our minds, bodies, hearts and spirits.

  19. parker Says:
    February 24th, 2014 at 7:23 pm

    I hate to admit it, but I am looking forward to a military coup d’état.

    I don’t hate to admit it. I’ve been saying it openly ever since he took office.

  20. I very much agree with Mike.

    (I liked his view the first I sawer it.)

    Know the Enemy. Period. Fight and Destroy. Period.

    If the RINO’s don’t understand this, then they have no use. We must, at the least, occupy them.

    I am very puzzled at Sowell’s push for unity with the fifth column RINO’s. Here’s a fact, Dr. Sowell: We have never won with them. We will definitely not break that streak now.

    I don’t get how he doesn’t get it.

    The tolling bell rings. The sound is a divide, and by not knowing the divide, the RINO’s declare, by their cowardice, their allegiance.

    It may not be treachery on their part, and it may be tragedy on our part, but the time of 1776 has come again.

  21. Remember how desperate the times were in the beginning of the Revolutionary War.

    No supplies. No victories. A bigger than life enemy.

    Yet the Plan unfolded.

  23. parker:
    I hate to admit it, but I am looking forward to a military coup d’état.

    Would you really like the military that called Major Hasan’s massacre of 13 innocents at Fort Hood an example of “workplace violence” running things?

  25. Of course, Obama has been purging the military of “unreliable” officers, just as all dictators do.

    The time for a coup was five years ago.

    Amy was beautiful once upon a time, underneath all the tattoos and drugs. I shed tears when she died, even though I could see it coming from miles away.

  26. This is, apparently, what the majority of Americans want. They are willing to defer their liberty to a minority interest which promises them money, sex, and ego gratification without responsibility. This immature outlook is exemplified by the demand to normalize abortion and other dysfunctional behaviors. Americans are regressing to a primitive state of mind, where they demand, and are offered, an intelligent designer (i.e. minority rule) to manage their lives.

    The demand to normalize abortion can be perceived as a need to prevent competition by a younger child. The adult “child” does not want to compete for the favor of the father and mother with a younger sibling, or, in this case, a daughter or son.

  27. Neo,

    In the context of the above comments, I’m reminded of the reviews by yourself:

    (http://neoneocon.com/2010/08/08/defying-the-abyss-a-witness-to-the-nazi-takeover/)

    and David Foster:

    (http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/11181.html)

    …of Sebastian Haffner’s powerful memoir, “Defying Hitler”.

    I read the book specifically because of the above two reviews, and recommend it to others.

    I’m slightly comforted by the proverb, “This too shall pass.”

    But, how long; how long?

  28. I was thinking today as I was working how in school they made a big deal about Hammarabi’s written code. With both modern legislation and Bureaucratic regulation being so long that even the lawmakers don’t read it all, we effectively have the opposite of Hammarabi’s code. No one can be expected to keep up with it, yet it is there waiting to strike!
    Consider how the EPA has quietly been making it harder to LEGALLY work on houses built before 1978-requiring liscences that cost hundreds of dollars for contractors to disturb ANY paint-including installing windows.
    http://www2.epa.gov/lead/renovation-repair-and-painting-program

  29. “Would you really like the military that called Major Hasan’s massacre of 13 innocents at Fort Hood an example of “workplace violence” running things?”

    This did not come from the Pentegon, it was a talking point dictated by the messiah through the SOD sock puppet. And, no, I don’t want the Pentegon running things… I simply think there may/will come a time when the Morsi in the White House must be caged by extra-constitutional means. When a house is burning the most important thing is to put out the fire. Afterwords the cause of the fire can be investigated.

  31. Michael in Pennsylvania thinks this too (Our Federal dictatorship) shall pass, in the fullness of time.
    I disagree. The big take on the political history of humans is the Enlightenment and its derivatives, including the founding of America, are one-off aberrations. They have not been seen before, nor will anything like them re-emerge in the future. It is now technologically impossible to organize and to rebel successfully against a state as powerful and with as broad a reach as ours. Those who think so are Star Wars dreamers.

  32. Oh, Don Carlos, the Leftoids who run Google were just on our State-run television “news” tonight assuring us that, with the Internet in place, tyranny is now impossible!

    I Kid You Not. Saw it on Scott Pelley’s clownshow.

    My Polish friend who survived under Communism then joined Solidarity in their rebellion said that the way you survive under a totalitarian regime is this: “you keep your head down and hope to escape Their notice; you concentrate on your own personal work.” That’s it.

    And she said, sadly, that she hated to see America drifting Leftward. She was embarrassed to admit she’d voted for Obama, and added, All her Polish friends vote Republican. I pressed her to explain her vote, but she wriggled off the hook somehow. She doesn’t like the RC Church; she’s an academic, etc. — but I think that, like too many of our homegrown product, they just believe IT CAN’T HAPPEN IN AMERICA; what, are you NUTS? don’t be silly! of course not!

    But we are not immune, alas. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. And if any of us on this little blog come to the attention of the regime, well…. it’s been nice knowin’ ya.

    I hate the people who’ve done this to our country. Not doing due diligence is one thing, but willful blindness is another, and we’re getting into that territory.

  33. Historical footnote: Still working my way through The Last Lion (Vol. II). Stanley Baldwin is Prime Minister (Conserv.); it’s 1935. Hitler has already repudiated the Versailles Treaty and is rearming at a blistering pace.

    But: the Times of London, firmly in the cowards’ camp, hastens to assure the English that Hitler is a very sound man, really; nothing to worry about! and Baldwin is going around England smoking a very English pipe and reassuring everyone there’s nothing to worry about — Germany not only is not a threat, she’s a bulwark against Bolshevik Russia.

    At this point, the Hitler-Stalin Pact is only a couple of years away. Churchill is near despair, because he is the only one of note who sees the gathering danger — a band of a few British patriots gather around him, but they’re greatly outnumbered by the fearful and the complacent.

    I never thought I’d live to see these dark times in America, I have to say. It grieves me greatly. We are in the hands of a thug regime, and too many of our fellow citizens are no longer Americans in any meaningful sense of the word.

  35. If I had said many or any of the things here, in 2008, it would have been crazy talk.

    So I’m glad to see it break through the 3%.

    http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/02/an-open-letter-to-men-and-women-of-new.html

    3% is all that is needed, really. It doesn’t matter if the majority of Americans are weak and want to be taken care of. They can be taken care of by the winners, so long as people agree to give up voting and other benefits of autonomy in exchange for government payments.

    What moves large amounts of people in a democracy are individuals and minorities. The idea that the majority decides anything in a democracy is erroneous and a result of Leftist democrat like propaganda. A nation full of autonomous individuals isn’t a democracy, but rather a nation full of kings.

  37. The Left seems to like calling themselves the 99% now.

    http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/11/01/358761/oakland-police-we-are-99/#

    It’ll be their 99% against our 3%. Our 3% against their 1% born to rule aristos. Their 1% against the 99% of retarded mass zombies.

    The internet will also only be free for another generation or two. I forsee that once they get enough resources to put a tax on the net, they’ll control it about as much as they control the economy in the US. If you are part of a friendly Regime company like Google, providing them access and encryption keys to finding anti Regime dissidents, you’ll be given free access and low payments for the net. If you are part of the Kulak brigade, you’ll be charged 10 dollars per gigabyte you download, and 50% surcharge tax on everything you order online.

  38. D’Souza’s attorney is saying it was “an act of misguided friendship”. That would seem to admit to the basic facts. If so, then he may have committed a crime.

  39. Geoffrey Britain Says:
    February 24th, 2014 at 5:32 pm

    DNW,

    The left posits that only the will of the collective has any validity or even existence. And of course, the elite merely ‘serve’ the collective will.

    Once you decide to abandon reality in favor of ideology, reason and logic are merely tools to be applied when advantageous and denied, when equally advantageous.

    “The collective”, that is to say a collection of elements which have on the leftist view no enduring individual identity which can in themselves produce a coherent or meaningful will, are then considered, as a class of virtual zeros, to somehow sum up to a general will.

    Weightless, not merely light, they are imagined as adding up to tons. Sort of an inverse fallacy of composition. How many zeros add up to 1?

    And if it were somehow believed to be true that the general will was real, while the individual was not, what reflexive value or relevance has that general will for the existence of what is taken to be an illusory individual?

    But as you say: what care the left for logic? I’ve seen militant progressives on Ed Feser’s site unequivocally deny the law of non-contradiction. That such a denial turns virtually everything they say into propositional nonsense, does not seem to faze them in the least.

    It’s much like the way their denial that there is a “there there” to a human being, does not seem to strike them as in anyway logically impinging their own claims to deserve treatment as coherent beings with a real and meaningful existence. Though, of course, they have just moments previous denied the underlying or enabling premise to the entire class of men; of which they are presumably a part.

    I wonder if political progressives really are even mentally conscious in the way normal people are.

    When I consider them as they so often are, the notion of the liberal man as a fleshy but essentially mindless carapace operating on an evolutionarily developed autopilot, does seem capable of application.

  40. Zachriel:

    That’s not the issue.

    Read the linked article and you’ll see what’s actually the point here.

  42. Zachriel:

    There are many more issues than that.

    The amount of the donations in question. How they were discovered, and why.

  43. Neo, I’m pretty sure Zachriel understands. Just another poster with an agenda of protecting the left/Obama.

  45. DonS: Just another poster with an agenda of protecting the left/Obama.

    If the Obama Administration broke the law, they should be held accountable, as should D’Souza.

  46. Zachriel:

    The Obama administration breaking the law is a major event, and quite different from a minor issue with D’Souza that involves a $20K contribution which at most should be handled by a fine, and would be handled that way with virtually any other person, if it was even considered worthy of punishment at all in the first place.

    Prosecutors have discretion in terms of charging people. They should use that discretion wisely and proportionately, not as political retaliation. The facts of the D’Souza case so far make it rather clear it’s political retaliation.

  48. Zimmer boy here, for those that don’t know, has been sighted ravaging various blogs and publishing sites with his peculiar religious sermons and Leftist backed crusades against… well, you know what they are against.

    The tactic generally concentrates on a few, crowd sources together a response back team from the various comments, derails the comment section so that they can use it to rebuff the primary point of the article or blog post, and generally expend the life essence of anti Leftists.

    That Zimmer has migrated here, suggests Legal Insurrection and other places booted/banned the self proclaimed angel of Messiah Hussein here.

  49. Z-Team
    If the Obama Administration broke the law, they should be held accountable, as should D’Souza.

    Tell me another one. The Obama Administration’s application of the law tends to follow the saying of a Latin American caudillo:

    “Para mis amigos todo, para mis enemigos la ley”
    For my friends, everything, for my enemies, the law.

    Ask the New Black Panther Party, for starters.

  51. neo-neocon: The Obama administration breaking the law is a major event

    Well, if proven, it would be a major event.

    neo-neocon: and quite different from a minor issue with D’Souza that involves a $20K contribution which at most should be handled by a fine, and would be handled that way with virtually any other person, if it was even considered worthy of punishment at all in the first place.

    We just cited a case which involved a Democratic donor sentenced to prison under a Democratic Administration.

  52. Zachriel:

    “If proven” is understood; I was following your hypothetical. However, I very strongly suspect that if the authorities ever looked into the contributions on Obama’s 2008 website they would find so many irregularities it would make your head spin. However, it has never been investigated, so if that particular tree fell in the forest no one has been able to hear it.

    And the Danielczyk case is not parallel to the D’Souza case at all. The similarity is that campaign contributions were involved. However, the Danielczyk case involved direct corporate contributions (which have been banned for a century) and approximately ten times as much money as with D’Souza, and many many many more people:

    Prosecutors had accused Danielczyk and Biagi of lining up individual donors to contribute to former secretary of state Clinton’s senate and presidential campaigns in 2006 and 2008, then reimbursing them with money from Galen. They used at least 35 other employees or friends to disguise more than $186,000 in contributions, then paid back the so-called straw donors with money from Galen’s corporate coffers, court filings show.

    The Danielczyk case was of much greater scope and seriousness.

    The D’Souza case should be more in line with the O’Donnell case, actually. Here are the facts in O’Donnell:

    O’Donnell was indicted in 2007 and charged with arranging “conduit contributions” to John Edwards’ presidential campaign. O’Donnell was accused of working with an unnamed co-conspirator to solicit contributions for Edwards from employees from O’Donnell’s law firm, with the promise to reimburse them for the contributions. In all, O’Donnell and his co-conspirator raised $26,000 in conduit contributions, according to the grand jury’s indictment.

    But O’Donnell was allowed to plead guilty to misdemeanors and got by with basically a wrist slap. And in fact, it was his second campaign finance offense, not his first (see this).

  53. Zachriel Says: blah, blah, yadda

    The day of quietly slitting throats and burning down the house at 2 AM approaches. It will not be fragrant and you will need to lift the hem of your skirts to avoid the blood and shit, to your peril it is on the event horizon. Keep on pushing and find out what happens when you push too hard. (Candy from babies.)

  54. Btw, one of the reasons those of us who know Zimmer boy here replaces its name is because whenever Z gets uppity, zit starts using the royal “we” in comments. That’s how you know it is miffed.

    Also, it kept asking us at another blog to use its FULL angelic name. So it was easier to refuse by tacking on some completely different. Since Zimmerman acquired the name of “Z-man”, Zimmer boy is now this guy’s label.

    Gringo calls it the Z team because of similar incidents in the past.

  55. neo-neocon: But O’Donnell was allowed to plead guilty to misdemeanors and got by with basically a wrist slap.

    O’Donnell pleaded after having been charged with three felonies. That seems to directly undermine your point.

  57. I’ll immediately seize your rss feed as I can’t to find your e-mail subscription link or e-newsletter service.
    Do you have any? Please permit me understand in order
    that I may subscribe. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑