Dinesh D'Souza indicted for violating U.S. election law
Well, I guess "Obama's America" will be happening in a different way for Mr. D'Souza. Sorta reminds me of my assertion that conservatives are right...the END is coming but not in the way they think:)
I have to keep reminding myself that I need to be patient with jack wagons like this. Sooner or later, they get exactly what they deserve.
22 comments:
Bharara is an Obama appointee.
No, no politics involved in this at all. Just like there isn't any in the DoJ investigating Christie about the bridge.
Refresh my memory - weren't you all outraged over the Bush Admin handling of some DoJ issues with some very touchy political aspects? I sure do seem to recall that - but then your outrage usually only works in one partisan direction, doesn't it?
I find more amusing that D'Souza resigned from his job over the issue of becoming engaged while still married (but separated).
Funny how Mark didn't include any links. Well here's one:
'2016: Obama's America' Filmmaker Indicted for Violating Campaign Finance Laws
So what was he indicted for?
According to the indictment, D'Souza donated $20,000 to Long's campaign by aggregating the money from various people and falsely reporting the source of the funds.
Wait, so he filed incorrect paperwork?!? And that's what has Marxy Mark jumping up and down with glee?
Granted, he apparently broke the law by doing this, and he will be punished for it, but it's a relatively minor infraction. On the other hand, Marxy Mark went to the wall defending wholesale felony voter registration fraud by Acorn. Not to mention forceful arguments against laws to prevent multiple voting, and the like.
Yep, no hardcore partisanship here. No sirree. It's just your imagination. Nothing to see here. All is well! </heavy sarcasm>
Being On The Wrong Side of A Rabid Progressive Regime…
Report: New York Investigators Obtain Fraudulent Ballots 97 Percent of Time
New York City’s Department of Investigation (DOI) has just shown how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. Its undercover agents were able to obtain ballots for city elections a total of 61 times — 39 times using the names of dead people, 14 times using the names of incarcerated felons, and eight times using the names of non-residents. On only two occasions, or about 3 percent of the time, were the agents stopped by polling-place officials. In one of the two cases, an investigator was stopped only because the felon he was trying to vote in the name of was the son of the election official he was dealing with.
Ah, now they are all innocent and victims of a totalitarian state, hmm? Well, it is true that they are innocent until proven guilty so perhaps we might want to wait until we hitch our wagons to their stars..
defending wholesale felony voter registration fraud by Acorn.
Show me the federal indictments against ACORN. In fact, why don't you start here and explain to me how all the sources listed here are wrong, including the California AG's office and the GAO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now#2009
Mark, you were recently shown those convictions. (I can't seem to find that comment thread. Can anybody help?) But as usual, you've pulled out Standard Response #7:
--------------------
#7 The "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions he's already jumped to.
--------------------
Here's one instance when you were shown almost two years ago.
And here is when you spent two freakin' weeks actively refusing to clearly condemn vote fraud. And even then you hedged and weaseled.
The evidence is crystal clear that you are not honest on this subject. And Standard Response #7 is your favorite tactic to use in continuing that dishonesty.
From the link...
In September 2009, conservative activists Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe publicized selectively edited[87][88][89] hidden camera recordings through Fox News and Andrew Breitbart's website BigGovernment.com.[9] ,
On December 7, 2009, the former Massachusetts Attorney General, after an independent internal investigation of ACORN, found the videos that had been released appeared to have been edited, "in some cases substantially". He found no evidence of criminal conduct by ACORN employees, but concluded that ACORN had poor management practices that contributed to unprofessional actions by a number of its low-level employee
On March 1, 2010, the District Attorney's office for Brooklyn determined that the videos were "heavily edited" and "many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister",[101] and concluded that there was no criminal wrongdoing by the ACORN staff in the videos from the Brooklyn ACORN office.[102][103]
On April 1, 2010, an investigation by the California Attorney General found the videos from Los Angeles, San Diego and San Bernardino to be "heavily edited,"[9] and the investigation did not find evidence of criminal conduct on the part of ACORN employees.
The evidence is crystal clear that you were duped by a liar. You believe what you want to believe because your emotions about the issue got the better of you. O'Keefe is a convicted criminal and yet you still approve of him and support him. That says alot about your integrity.
Again, show me the federal indictments against ACORN. And, since your brought it up, show me the statistical evidence of just how often voter fraud happens and the more common type of voter fraud (absentee balloting).
…many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context…
That's a lie and you know it.
Are you accusing all three AG offices of lying? Yes or no?
I think it's pretty hilarious that his thing is called Project Veritas when there is no veritas in his videos. I also think that it's amusing (and I didn't know this) that ACORN reorganized under other groups. So, your dreams of stopping the following:
-Predatory lending and affordable housing
-Living wages
-Katrina relief
-Education
-Voter registration
-Gun control
-Home Defender Program
will have to be put on hold, I'm afraid.
At the end of the day, though, none of this really matters. O'Keefe will end up doing something so incredibly despicable (even worse than the CNN dildo thing and the rape barn) that he will lose his remaining cult members, including you:)
Of course, prosecutors can often get a ham sandwich indicted. It will be interesting to see the results of the trial. You know, that whole pesky innocent until proven guilty thing.
More comparisons
Here is an appropriate comment:
" Is the prosecution of Dinesh d’Souza politically motivated?"
Is water wet? Does a bear poop in the woods? Are Barack Obama and Eric the Red rat bastard commies?
Given how the Holder [in]Justice Department blatantly looks the other way when Democrats violate election law, the only thing I can add to that comment is, "Yep."
Now we've sunk to linking the comments section of a right wing blog for argument support? OK, well then this acceptable...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dinesh-dsouza-campaign-finance-indictment
You flatter D'Souza unnecessarily.He's a congenital liar and a known fraud.
If he said the sky was blue, you'd have to look out the window before you could agree with him.
See? Just the same:)
Meanwhile, perhaps you can enlighten us all on what's behind Obama's prosecution of Dennis Rodman...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/24/u-s-investigating-dennis-rodman-for-busting-sanctions.html
…for argument support?
::: sigh :::
No, Mark. Do I have to explain everything to you in minute detail 20 times before you even begin to admit that I might be explaining something?
I thought it was an apt observation, so I shared it. ("Good words") The link is just proper attribution.
The link to Kevin's blog was an actual argument because he compares election law actions by this Administration.
You've been linking to left-wing blogs ever since you showed up at TSM, so why shouldn't I link to "right-wing" blogs?
…for argument support?
::: sigh :::
No, Mark. Do I have to explain everything to you in minute detail 20 times before you even begin to admit that I might be explaining something?
I thought it was an apt observation, so I shared it. ("Good words") The link is just proper attribution.
The link to Kevin's blog was an actual argument because he compares election law actions by this Administration.
You've been linking to left-wing blogs ever since you showed up at TSM, so why shouldn't I link to "right-wing" blogs?
…what's behind Obama's prosecution…
How 'bout that anthrax, eh?
Otherwise known as the red herring fallacy.
How is Dennis Rodman a red herring? Seems to me you like to pick and choose your "prosecutions" depending upon your emotions and bias.
Meanwhile, during the last two presidential elections, the Obama campaign deliberately disabled the zip code checks for donations on their web site so they could accept illegal foreign donataions.
It doesn't get more purely partisan than that: engaging in lawfare against conservatives while knowingly and willfully breaking the exact same laws they're using the justify their campaign of harassment.
So much for less is more:) I also don't see any links showing where the IRA targeted liberal groups as well. Did you check your sources for bias? Apparently not.
Here's what I don't get....if there is a plot, why O'keefe, D'Souza and McConnell? These guys are not power players in the conservative movement. I'd think you'd go after bigger fish than that if it truly were politically motivated.
So much for less is more:)
What'sa matter, Mark? Afraid of a little reading? Or is your argument much like Stalin's "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic"? Either way, your response is totally irrelevant, especially since that much is necessary to demonstrate the pattern of abuse.
I also don't see any links showing where the IRA targeted liberal groups as well. Did you check your sources for bias? Apparently not.
You're really beating the heck out of Standard Response #7 this week!
--------------------
#7 The "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions he's already jumped to.
--------------------
That particular link QUOTED the IRS Inspector General.
In a letter sent late Wednesday and released Thursday, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George said that just 30 percent of groups with the word “progressive” in their name were put through special scrutiny for tax-exempt applications, but 100 percent of groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or “9/12” in their name were subjected to invasive questioning.
“TIGTA concluded that inappropriate criteria were used to identify potential political cases for extra scrutiny — specifically, the criteria listed in our audit report. From our audit work, we did not find evidence that the criteria you identified, labeled “Progressives,” were used by the IRS to select potential political cases during the 2010 to 2012 time frame we audited,” Mr. George said.
Did you get that, Mark? 30 percent vs. ONE HUNDRED frickin' PERCENT!!! That's not an "edited" quote, not an "out of context quote". That's complete, unequivocal sentences. And not from some conspiracy theorist nut or some low level employee's wife's second cousin on great-great-grandma's side, that is from the HEAD of the IRS's OWN INVESTIGATION!!!
And of course, you've "conveniently 'forgotten'" that the head of that division ADMITTED targeting conservative groups. While she blamed it on "overzealous" workers in Cincinnati, it was soon discovered that this targeting was happening all over the country and that the orders were coming from Washington DC (which is what the Inspector General proved). It's even been discovered that there is a video of her explaining how she was under pressure to "do something" about conservative groups.
"So everybody is screaming at us right now 'Fix it now before the election. Can't you see how much these people are spending?'"
— Lois Lerner, October 19, 2010
And of course, you "conveniently" "missed" that Cuomo, Schumer, and de Blasio have explicitly and openly targeted conservatives.
You're not fooling anybody, Mark. Time to remove those industrial strength ear plugs and eye blocks. They're making you look like a hardcore partisan idiot.
Afraid of a little reading?
Not at all. Please post more lunacy from inside the bubble. The more you write, the more insecure you appear.
They're making you look like a hardcore partisan idiot.
Considering I have explained, on several occasions, the issues I have with the left and you have not offered any complaints/flaws regarding right wing ideology or some points on the left you may support, this statement is complete nonsense. I challenge you to do so.
Again, why go after small fish like these three guys?
The more you write, the more insecure you appear.
Now that is an interesting comment from someone who blogs.
Post a Comment