Campaign Finance

Conservative Pundit D'Souza, Convicted for Giving Money to Friends For Illegal Motives, To Undergo Court-Ordered "Therapeutic Counseling"

|

It's not enough to do the court-ordered time for giving money to your friends for motives the state has decided are felony crimes when that motive is to support a political candidate–this is the land of the free where political participation is near-sacred, and one can participate in the electoral process only with a narrow set of state-approved methods, and don't you forget it, and don't you disagree with it either.

The punishment imposed in the case of conservative pundit and anti-Obama filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza show you must also agree that it is good you were convicted, apparently.

From Reuters:

D'Souza, 53, was ordered by U.S. District Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan to live in a center, which would allow him to leave during non-residential hours for employment, for the first eight months of a five-year probationary period.

Berman also ordered D'Souza to perform one day of community service a week during probation, undergo weekly therapy and pay a $30,000 fine.

D'Souza, a frequent critic of U.S. President Barack Obama, admitted in May to illegally reimbursing two "straw donors" who donated $10,000 each to the unsuccessful 2012 U.S. Senate campaign in New York of Wendy Long, a Republican he had known since attending Dartmouth College in the early 1980s….

Prosecutors had sought a 10-to 16-month prison sentence, rejecting defense arguments that D'Souza was "ashamed and contrite" about his crime and deserved probation with community service.

They cited statements D'Souza made in media interviews after his guilty plea, where he discussed being "selectively" targeted for prosecution….

"I'm not sure, Mr. D'Souza, that you get it," Berman said before announcing the sentence. "And it is still hard for me to discern any personal acceptance of responsibility in this case."

Daily Beast refers to the legally imposed therapy in quotes from the court as "therapeutic counseling." Forced therapy for enemies of the regime: it's not just for our sinister enemies abroad anymore in this better, more peaceful post-Cold War world.

Have you ever maxed out on your legal contributions to a political candidate? Have you ever given or loaned money to a friend? Better make sure that friend hasn't also given money to that candidate, or you could be opening yourself to federal investigations into your motives in the giving or knowledge of their giving.

This may require a fairly officious level of investigation into your life and papers, but hey, you might have broken the law and this is a nation of laws, lots and lots of laws that you might have broken. And if you broke them, you better understand that you broke them and accept responsibility. It's the American way.

I blogged a few months back about how D'Souza's admission of "guilt" didn't amend my belief that the charges were a miscarriage of true justice.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Rebel Groups Claim Civilian Casualties in U.S. Airstrikes in Syria, Obama Criticized for Salute of Marine, Romney Could Run for President Again

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How many lights do you see Mr. D’Souza?

    1. Well there are two over there, and two over there…

      So, five.

      1. Common Core math solves the Picard dilemma!

  2. Then only want to help the poor man come to terms with his treason against the state.

    Is that so wrong?

    1. Hopefully he can flee from China, or Russia, or whatever shitty tinpot totalitarian hellhole he is stuck in and make it back to the USA where we don’t punish people because of their political views.

  3. Forget the reeducation camps. The reeducation couches await.

    1. And some of the drugs are REALLY good…

  4. Sounds like a very good deal to me man, I like it.

    http://www.CryptAnon.tk

  5. Banana Republic petty dictator tactics by a thin skinned coward.

    Holder and Obumbles are snickering about this I am sure.

  6. He can do a documentary on how the criminal justice system is in bed with the offender counseling industry.

  7. Staggers the mind that this man’s life has been fucked up over a measly 20,000 bucks. The infinitesimally decrepit nature of law has to be the eighth wonder of the world.

    In no way under any common-sense reality does the punishment fit this man’s so-called crime.

    1. So I suppose you want to live in a country whose president is so weak he can’t even fuck with his detractors.

      1. Yes. Exactly.

        1. like SOMALIA?

          1. Detractors and presidents who kill them don’t live long in Somalia.

            1. Neither do ROADZ

    2. I know, although stealing $20K shouldn’t just be swept under the rug like…oh, wait…he voluntarily gave away $20K of his own money?

      I guess I’d need to hear the victim’s testimony before I could make any judgement…

      1. Who is the victim here?

        1. I’m not sure…but certainly the justice system wouldn’t imprison a man, fine him, force him to do “community service”, and put him on probation for five years if there were no victim…

          1. Who’s the victim if a vagrant spends the night under a tree on your lawn? The grass?

            1. I don’t know, ask the government who arrest vagrants for being on public property.

              1. I’m asking about private property. He sleeps and leaves in the morning. Who’s the victim?

                1. The owner of the property. He has lost the use of that space that she has purchased. Now answer a member of the public being arrest for being on public property by our glorious government.

                  1. Now answer a member of the public being arrest for being on public property by our glorious government.

                    The public is everyone except any individual member of the public. So when a member of the public is on public property, they’re preventing everyone else from using it. They’re obstructing the public, since the public is everyone except them.

            2. What the fuck are you blathering about?

              1. (Above comment in response to Tony’s baffling non-sequitur.)

            3. Who’s the victim if a vagrant spends the night under a tree on your lawn? The grass?

              Tony, I know that you think you have a zinger here, so let me help you through this.

              In a libertarian society, if I came out and wanted to enjoy my property and saw a vagrant on it, I would be the victim. I spent money on my land for various reasons, probably including privacy and the view. If this person is interfering with that, then I am a victim.

              Now if that person goes on the property in the dead of night, and leaves without me knowing, then I still am a victim. In purchasing the property, I have license to exclusive use of that property until a certain time. If someone else is using it, they are denying me the exclusive use.

              Now the actual harm in the latter versus the former case is smaller, and you can argue approaches zero (but doesn’t reach it) in the latter.

              What is really interesting is that in a more libertarian society, the likelihood that a vagrant would be punished in the latter case is lower than in today’s society where we pay public servants to cruise around harassing people.

              1. I don’t know about zinger, but we’re all being very cavalier about the law here (because one of your own broke it?). I’ve described a crime that is de facto victimless. But you guys, as libertarians, support the full strength of communal violence to uphold that law (to the exclusion of most others).

                Because you personally like property and the idea of property, and you personally don’t give a shit about election integrity because you never win elections and/or your guys are the more ruthless cheaters.

                1. So no answer to your god government beating the shit out of homeless people for being poor?

                  1. I certainly don’t support that. Did I say I did? I’m Team Firefighter.

                    1. But the law is the law when it comes to giving money away.

                2. “But you guys, as libertarians, support the full strength of communal violence to uphold that law ”

                  Where has anyone said that?

                  I’m calling you a liar.

                  1. No shit. If somebody is on my property against my wishes, I want them to leave, not go to jail. My preference would be that I be allowed to use the tax dollars I currently pay for police protection to hire my own security service, who I could call to do things like kick people off my property.

                3. “But you guys, as libertarians, support the full strength of communal violence to uphold that law (to the exclusion of most others).”

                  Why are you group-labeling? I don’t support homeless people being mistreated by anyone and I certainly don’t condone them being subjected to communal violence.

                  Should NOTHING be done about a vagrant coming onto your property if you have children and a wife? Are all vagrants like Johnny Appleseed? Of course not. Some homeless folks are genuinely stuck in a life rut and should be offered help and sustenance until they get back on their feet- if they don’t, at least require them not to shit everywhere and to treat other humans as they wish to be treated- respectfully. Too much to ask?

                  For someone with a supposedly alternative worldview you are remarkably quick to stereotype en masse’ with very simplistic rationales.

                  How any of this has anything to do with D’Souza is beyond me.

                4. I’ve described a crime that is de facto victimless.

                  Except it isn’t de facto victimless as I described above.

                5. I’ve described a crime that is de facto victimless.

                  Well, no, not at all actually. You’ve redefined the term “victimless” and then made an abjectly retarded analogy based on that redefinition of terms where no analogue actually exists. The only thing is you really fucking suck at semantics and you also can’t comprehend the position you are attempting to refute well enough to deconstruct it, so you can’t even pull off that variety of mendacity. We deserve better trolls.

            4. If a pleasant homeless fellow knocked on my door and politely asked to sleep under one of my trees for the night I’d let him. I’d make him breakfast and coffee in the morning and send him on his way, tho. I know nothing about the fellow and it’s just basic common sense to protect what is yours.

        2. That’s easy. The politicians who didn’t receive his donations.

  8. “And it is still hard for me to discern any personal acceptance of responsibility in this case.”

    But, enough about Benghazi.

  9. When an incumbent loses, it’s like Satan tearing the wings off Baby Jesus.

    They just want to keep democracy safe from wrong-thinking interlopers.

  10. “I’m not sure, Mr. D’Souza, that you get it,” Berman said before announcing the sentence.

    I’m pretty sure D’Souza and other film makers are starting to get it judge. Not so sure you do.

    1. “You were not put on this earth to ‘get it’, Mister Burton D’Souza!”

      /Lo Pan

  11. Thoughtcrimes against the State must be dealt with harshly. Otherwise, the proles might lose their belief in the benevolence and majesty of governmnt.

  12. “Forced therapy for enemies of the regime”

    Calm down Susan. We have election laws in this country. I realize that you guys think that a billionaire being able to buy all of Congress is the height of Jeffersonian liberty, but the actual intent of the FEC and election law is to support some measure of integrity in our democratic process.

    It’s not Obama’s fault that conservatives tend to be lawless democracy hating cheats.

    1. It’s not Obama’s fault

      Is that phrase pasted to your clipboard, or do you just type it with flawless muscle memory, like Mark Price shooting a free throw?

      1. I’m not the one who brought him into this. As if the “regime” would feel singularly threatened by the likes of Dinesh D’Souza. How does it do the “regime” any good to feed conservatives’ bottomless gaping maw of a persecution complex?

        1. They smeared the name of one of their most credible critics.

          How fucking stupid are you Tony?

        2. The regime self-evidently did feel threatened by the likes of Dinesh D’Douza.

          Sometimes circumstantial evidence is pretty self-evident, like a fly in the soup.

          1. Being a victim is currency for these folks, as you’re demonstrating now. The real McCarthyism going on is conservative attempts to insulate themselves from charges of wrongdoing by positing conspiracies around every corner. Think the IRS might be a little gun shy about questioning the nonprofit status of conservative political groups after the scandal they made up?

            1. Considering that 83% of the groups they target are conservative and they have media cover, I’d say probably not.

            2. Nice way to dodge the assertion; sometimes silence speaks more than words.

            3. …the scandal they made up

              I’m really going to love throwing that back in your smug, retarded face when the same thing happens to left wing groups under a Republican president and you’re on here crying about it like baby who’s lost the tit.

    2. Don’t look it in the eyes etc.

    3. “but the actual intent of the FEC and election law is to support some measure of integrity in our democratic process.”

      The guy ‘improperly’ gave 20,000 bucks to a political campaign.

      You’d be not a smidgen more intellectually improved than the religious nitwits in the Colonial period with their excessive punishments over deviation to believe that this man’s sentence fits his ‘crime’.

      1. He gave money in someone else’s name and lied to the FEC. It’s not exactly burning down a village but it is against the law. I’m merely pushing back against the implication that Barack Obama ordered the criminal justice system to take D’Souza out. But where would you all be without paranoia and a persecution complex? That’s the exoskeleton of conservatism.

        1. He gave money in someone else’s name and lied to the FEC. It’s not exactly burning down a village but it is against the law.

          The left doesn’t have a monopoly on civil disobedience.

          1. If that’s what you think this is, then what are you bitching about?

            1. Not sure, I’m still thinking about that poor vagrant sleeping under my tree.

              1. now I haz a sad 🙁

        2. Yeah! Whose money does he think it is? His? Don’t make me laugh. We are all property of the collective. I can’t wait until we all get government issue accounts and can only buy things approved by our case workers. Only then are we free to not worry about if we should buy 1 apple or 2. Forward comrades to the utopia of letting our betters control every aspect of our lives.

          1. All property is theft, FM.

            Well, except Tony’s. His property is his, and fuck you if you want to use it. But your property, well that’s theft. Because you’re not going to let Tony use it. What’s his is his and what’s yours is his.

            1. +1 Other people’s property is theft

          2. I’m not really commenting on the value of the law, just on the paranoid and unsubstantiated claim that this was a political hit job. If Obama really thought it were worth his time to do that kind of thing, wouldn’t he go after someone who mattered?

            1. Shorter Tony: Die straw man! Die!

            2. wouldn’t he go after someone who mattered?

              Like who?

              1. Limbaugh? How hard would it be to dig up some underage prostitution or drug trafficking on that fat fuck?

                1. Does he even have a show anymore?

                  1. He’s a comedy segment of the Al Sharpton show, as far as I know. For those whose sense of humor skews toward the rapey.

                    1. Really? That can’t be real.

                2. Does limbaugh matter? He has 0 power. Why not go after Fatso, Jeb Bush or Romney?

                  1. The entire Republican party has spent the last 20 years trying not to get on Limbaugh’s shit list. That’s what they’ve been doing instead of governing. That is not only power–he’s the most powerful force in the party.

                    1. Limbaugh? How hard would it be to dig up some underage prostitution or drug trafficking on that fat fuck?

                      The entire Republican party has spent the last 20 years trying not to get on Limbaugh’s shit list. That’s what they’ve been doing instead of governing. That is not only power–he’s the most powerful force in the party.

                      And on top of being a rapist shadow puppeteer single-handedly controlling an entire political party in charge of 1/3 of the federal government, the guy is a paranoid conspiracy theorist!

                    2. *The entire Republican party has spent the last 20 years trying not to get on Limbaugh’s shit list. *

                      Child, please. If that were the case, the “Party” would have never nominated Romney, McCain OR Bush.

        3. I could give a single fuck about D’Souza but I will always remain skeptical of punishments that reflect clear bias whether relating to pigs choking to death fat black dudes or ninnies improperly giving a few bucks to a political campaign.

          In the D’Souza case he broke a law. But to assess his punishment in light of his victimless and mundane crime it clearly rises to the level of outrageous abuse of the legal system.

          I see spite written all over this and, frankly, if Tony gave 20k through two of his friends to an Obama campaign and a Republican judge who gets his boner liquid from fucking with progressives sent you to ‘therapy’ and five years probation I’d be just as ticked off at the judicial wrongness and critique it accordingly.

        4. Barack Obama probably didn’t order the justice dept to take him out. His hyperpolitical minions probably did it on their own, which shows why we shouldn’t have democrat presidents.

          1. We shouldn’t have democrat presidents (whatever that phrase means) because of paranoid bullshit you just made up.

            Ah truly the intellectual heft of conservatism hasn’t diminished since Buckley.

        5. I have to agree with Tony that D’Souza was incredibly stupid to think he could get away with a campaign finance law violation. He knew, or as a public policy wonk, should have know what he did violated the law. And, as a conservative rather than a genuine libertarian, he should have felt an obligation to obey the law even if he did not like it.

          I have to agree with everybody else that D’Souza’s prosecution was politically motivated. I could be persuaded otherwise, though, if Holder’s “Justice” Department would lift a finger to put Obama’s chief campaign fund bundler, Jon Corzine, behind bars for stealing $11,000 from me.

    4. I failing to see how his reimbursements undermined the integrity of the election. Long’s opponent had far more money than she did. There’s no evidence that Long knew anything about this, so it couldn’t be a quid pro quo. Please explain.

      1. forget it – it’s Tonytown

      2. “I failing to see how his reimbursements undermined the integrity of the election.

        It’s irrelevant. It’s a monetary vapor. Twenty thousand dollars is pennies to an average political campaign.

      3. The law is intended to uphold the integrity of elections. Whether it actually does so is irrelevant.

    5. the actual intent of the FEC and election law is to support some measure of integrity in our democratic process

      The intent is to stop anyone outside the political class from being bankrolled by a rich donor or two.

      1. Let’s be purely theoretical for a moment. Why should one billionaire have more of a say over public policy than one poor person?

        1. Your billionaire doesn’t have more say unless he bribes your government official. I don’t see how poor people picking which lawyer gets the position of bribe recipient changes the calculus. The problem is having power vested in a government versus the people retaining sovereignty.

          1. The problem is legalizing bribery and calling it free speech. Every billionaire has more say, not least because he can probably get the president on the phone. Nothing unseemly needs to even be hinted at for the rich to have more influence over government. It’s naturally going to happen. Which is why, unless you are ok with a natural slide into plutocracy, democracy and individual liberty must be protected by strong law.

            Government, when working properly, is the agent working on behalf of the non-powerful to push back against the power that exists in the private sector. Which is why libertarians hate it.

            1. Government is controlled by the wealthy special interests, and that is a problem.

              The solution is to give more power to the government so it can control the wealthy special interests that control it.

              And if that doesn’t work, the solution is to give government even more power so it can control the wealthy special interests that control it.

              And if that doesn’t work, the solution is to give government even more power so it can control the wealthy special interests that control it.

              And if that doesn’t work, the solution is to give government even more power so it can control the wealthy special interests that control it.

              And if that doesn’t work, the solution is to give government even more power so it can control the wealthy special interests that control it.

              And if that doesn’t work, the solution is to give government even more power so it can control the wealthy special interests that control it.

              And if that doesn’t work, the solution is to give government even more power so it can control the wealthy special interests that control it.

              .
              .
              .

            2. Wow, and you’re accusing others of being paranoid, while you shit your pants about the big-bad billionaire!

            3. It is only bribery if the recipient of said funds wields political power. You’ll notice that D’Souza’s favored candidate didn’t win the election.

            4. push back against the power that exists in the private sector

              What power?

              The power to provide goods and services, and hope people buy them?

              The power to hire people to provide those goods and services?

              Yeah, those private sector entities are terrible!

              1. Yes in places with no labor laws, children work in factories because they want to.

                1. So those evil business owners snatch children off the street and force them to toil in the factories?

                  Are you seriously that stupid?

                  Why do you hate poor families so much that you would use force of government to prevent their children from contributing to the family’s welfare?

                  Why do you hate the poor?

                  1. A sophisticated civilization taxes the rich so that poor children don’t have to work in sweatshops. If that’s market distortion then I guess I’m a dirty Marxist. Now let’s ask the poor which system they think favors them. Oh we can’t, because the poor don’t have any political voice, because speech is money now.

                    1. Society and government are not the same thing.

                      You’re saying that a sophisticated society has a government that uses force to redistribute money from the wealthy to the poor, ensuring that those poor are dependent upon the government because they are prohibited from bettering themselves on their own.

                      Yet I’m the bad guy because I wouldn’t use force to prohibit the poor from bettering themselves.

                      Again, why do you hate the poor?

                    2. Who’s talking about prohibiting the poor from doing things? Only you with your reliance on strawmen.

                      Yes, a sophisticated society has a government that redistributes wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Period. Name me a sophisticated society that doesn’t do this.

                    3. Who’s talking about prohibiting the poor from doing things?

                      You are the one who supports child labor laws that prohibit children of poor families from working.

                      Just like you support minimum wage legislation which prohibits young and low skilled workers from selling their labor below some arbitrary rate, prohibiting them from supporting their families.

                      So again I ask, why do you hate the poor so much that you support using force of government to prohibit them from supporting their families?

                    4. A rich civilization is productive enough that kids don’t have to work. Sophistication has nothing to do with it. That’s why child labor was almost completely eliminated in the US before the government decided to run to the front of the parade. That’s also why in Malaysia, after do good idiots like you convinced the government to ban child labor, most of those kids either went into black market jobs like prostitution or starved.

                    5. The richest society can be even more productive by employing children for pennies. Or enslaving them for that matter.

                    6. Our society would be much more productive if children were allowed to work. Seriously. Would a poor family be better off paying some camp to babysit their kid during the summer, or letting the kid work some menial job for a couple bucks an hour?
                      You seriously believe the poor family is better off paying money instead of taking money in, and that the kid is better off not learning a work ethic early in life.

                      Why do you hate the poor?

                    7. Or enslaving them for that matter.

                      lolwut?

                      Unbacked assertion is unbacked.

        2. Why shouldn’t a billionaire be allowed to spread a politician’s message to the people and then let the people decide who gets their vote?

          Why do you prefer that all politicians be political insiders who host dinner after dinner to raise funds for their election?

          Why do you prefer to be ruled by a political class, rather than allow some maverick to jump into the ring with the help from a few wealthy donors?

          1. Your brain is literally in the shape of a pretzel, huh? Some maverick? You realize that this person’s goal is to become part of the political class…

            The real problem is not Ross Perots on a mission from crazytown, it’s industries buying off politicians to gain favors from government. Your air-tight solution, I know, is to take out the middleman and let the industry take what it wants without having to bother.

            1. Government is controlled by the wealthy special interests, and that is a problem.

              The solution is to give more power to the government so it can control the wealthy special interests that control it.

              And if that doesn’t work, the solution is to give government even more power so it can control the wealthy special interests that control it.

              And if that doesn’t work, the solution is to give government even more power so it can control the wealthy special interests that control it.

              And if that doesn’t work, the solution is to give government even more power so it can control the wealthy special interests that control it.

              And if that doesn’t work, the solution is to give government even more power so it can control the wealthy special interests that control it.

              And if that doesn’t work, the solution is to give government even more power so it can control the wealthy special interests that control it.

              And if that doesn’t work, the solution is to give government even more power so it can control the wealthy special interests that control it.

              .
              .
              .

              1. The progressive religionists of the proles are oblivious to the fact that more government power will simply be exploited by the wealthy to make themselves more wealthy.

                The progressive religionists of the elite love this fact.

            2. You do know that Perot is a Democrat, don’t you? If he’s on a “mission from crazytown” then it’s a Democrat’s Crazytown.

        3. I didn’t know billionaires got extra votes in this country.

          1. There’s one hiding in Tony’s closet to snatch off his tinkle if he plays with it.

            His mother told him so and he still believes it.

        4. The typical billionaire is far more likely to have a stake in any random public policy matter than the typical poor person. His opinion is far more likely to be informed by facts, and analytically rather than emotionally formulated, even though his opinions are likely to align with his interests. His staff, or his lobbyists, have the time, training, and talent to express the facts and reasoning in a coherent manner. So, even though the billionaire’s opinion should be viewed skeptically, his expression of the fact situation and rationale leading to his decision is more likely to at least be interesting. Some poor people are well-informed, and use reason to formulate their opinions. Some are even able to articulate the relevant facts and reasoning. (That type of poor person does not stay poor very long unless he wants to. I’ve been there.) However, the typical person — poor or otherwise — emotes and will speak freely in a Jay-walking interview if given the opportunity. Their opinions are not interesting. They are only valuable as a resource to be exploited, which is why politicians of all varieties hire opinion pollsters.

    6. Well, at least Tony is being honest enough to admit that the purpose of campaign finance law is to ensure that his favored team will win. I do find the whole “but he started it!” justification a little unsophisticated, though.

    7. We have election laws in this country.

      Well, if it’s the law, then burn him. After all, we know we don’t have any unjust laws, nor any that violate the basic tenets of the constitution (you know that really old, hard to understand document)?, right?

    8. Why do I have the impression that billionaires aren’t limited at all by these campaign finance laws, but little people like D’Souza are the ones who get punished?

      You seem to think that these laws work, but if they do, then why do we hear endless cries for campaign finance reform?

      (Of course, usually these cries are from Union types, who are angry that a group of people will gather together and collect donations to support candidates and laws that compete with the messages that the Unions are trying to put out…and it’s not stifling free speech at all, amirite? Because evil corporations are bad, and Unions are pure as the wind-driven snow…)

      1. Come to think of it, I have the feeling that you, Tony, are excited by the potential gun control laws that the likes of Bloomberg and Bill Gates are pushing (both billionaires), yet you would anxiously pass laws to prevent the activities of the National Rifle Association, which only has money as donated by its 5 million members (which, if each member donated an average of $100 per member per year, wouldn’t be sufficient to make the NRA a billionaire organization!).

        Of course, because the number of members of the Bloomberg/Gates coalition is at best hundreds of people, and at worst 2, which means that the NRA has a certain voting power that Bloomberg and Gates aren’t likely to get close to achieving; this is an example of how the poor can have a voice that will hopefully drown out the rich and connected.

  13. It’s not Obama’s fault that conservatives tend to be lawless democracy hating cheats.

    When a citizen attempts to put forth his views on candidates and issues, it’s lawlessness, but when incumbent politicians use the full might of the government to squelch political competition, that’s democracy.

    1. No, I’m totally against what Republicans are doing to democracy.

      1. Certainly, Republicans are no improvement on Democrats in their haste to ruin the open society.

        1. Republicans are no improvement on engorged ticks. I’m glad P Brooks is upset about their gerrymandering and attempts to suppress the franchise.

          1. A frank admission, but why the name calling? “Democrats” is much more civil than “engorged ticks”.

      2. Firstly, we don’t have a democracy.
        Secondly, Republican gerrymandering came after decades of Democratic gerrymandering. If you were honestly concerned with the health of our republic, then you wouldn’t qualify gerrymandering as Republican. Since you did qualify it, I’m convinced that your concern is not with gerrymandering but with Republican gerrymandering messing up prior Democratic gerrymandering.

  14. President Faultless spends a million dollars or so from the “public” till to eat lunch at the UN, and spout a bunch of apocalyptic nonsense about the environment, and that’s democracy; citizens making counterarguments, with their own money, are guilty of high crimes against the State.

    1. AND treason, Late PB. I think it’s high crimes AND treason. The bastards.

      1. Such extremists are in need of therapeutic counseling and re-education. According to Robert Kennedy, Jr. their leaders should get three hots and a cot for crimes against humanity, though others favor a good Nuremberg hanging. (I don’t know which camp Tony is in on this.)

  15. I don’t know the man but why would you ever confess to a crime unless you believe the law is unjust and want to be a martyr?

    1. He clearly prefers 5 years probation and governmental ‘therapy’ to prison. Can you blame him? Martyrs have an atrocious track record regarding political change, especially in the age of cats playing the goddamn piano.

      1. Can’t you cop a plea but still maintain your innocence?

  16. We’re so fucked at this point. It’s over.

    1. The executive order to rob companies was a real blow to any optimism I might have had. We have a emperor now with a a vanity congress for appearances.

  17. I’m no fan of D’Souza but this is just straight out of Kafka. Of course he’s not “getting it” – he didn’t do anything wrong.

    1. Look, the law is the law, and if you break the law, you have to be punished. This is a hard fact that people like D’Souza and David Gregory have had to learn the hard way.

      1. I confess that I had to look that up.

        If you carry water for Obama, you can get away with arcane, victimless felonies like violations of D.C. gun control laws.

  18. I’m glad P Brooks is upset about their gerrymandering and attempts to suppress the franchise.

    Allow me to clarify my position on “gerrymandering”. Voting districts should be constructed of contiguous counties, in their entirety.

    “Suppressing the franchise” should consist of limiting voting to one citizen, one time.

    hth

    1. If you have to have an I.D. to fucking drive it is ZERO stretch to require one for voting.

      1. We license drivers so that we can be reasonably assured that they know what they’re doing when they’re driving. There is, on the other hand, no problem to be solved by licensing voters–except the problem of too many people voting in demographics that don’t favor Republicans.

        1. I see your point. Driving can have dangerous consequences, where voting for people who have the ability to throw you in rape cages and bomb brown people has no consequences.

        2. except the problem of too many people voting in demographics that don’t favor Republicans.

          Like that vagrant who is sleeping under my fucking tree right now. Come on buddy! Will you get up already?!?

        3. “except the problem of too many people voting in demographics that don’t favor Republicans.”

          How would a voter I.D. bother anyone voting in demographics that don’t favor Republicans? It would lend immense validity to those who kick Republican ass in an election.

          What better way to stop the incessant bullshit in every election of Republicans crying about dead people voting a gazillion times? And, it’d put some goddamn lawyers out of biz who investigate this shit every election.

          And, since you are supposed to legally (you do like laws, remember?) be a certain age and NOT dead when you vote it should be in the interest of everyone that a voter can prove their status. Correct?

          1. Since in-person voter fraud is a practically nonexistent problem, and since to make the system fair we’d have to spend lots of money ensuring that every eligible voter gets an ID for free and with no hassle, it’s an odd thing for a bureaucracy-hating libertarian to endorse.

            1. I live in a society created by neoconservatives and progressives together. I have no choice BUT to own a license to drive and by extension it would cause me only slightly more irritation to be ID’d to vote.

              It is far more odd that a bureaucracy-embracing progressive ideologue is now free and open and concerned about government spending about citizen action that actually does impact everyone- voting.

              A driver in a car impacts relatively few people- if any at all.

            2. Since solving made up problems regarding election integrity with massively expensive bureaucracies is precisely what you’re defending here, it’s an odd thing for a democracy-loving progressive to oppose.

            3. Yeah, Al Franken and the Washington State gubernatorial elections had NO problem whatsoever.

              Finding the needed spare ballots in a car trunk lends such an air of legitimacy, don’cha know.

        4. We license drivers so that we can be reasonably assured that they know what they’re doing when they’re driving.

          Wrong. You can buy and drive pretty much any car you want without a license. You only need a license to use taxpayer funded roads.

  19. I bet if D’Souza had discovered some Democrat doing the same “straw donor” stuff, he would have eagerly complained to the government about it.

  20. Came here to see Bo call out Doherty and anyone/everyone in the commentariat who agreed with him for obvious socon crypto-Republican bias. All I got was Tony D-grade shitposting, even by Tony standards. I am disappoint.

  21. Wouldn’t it be more efficient to just start opening up camps where people like Mr. D’Souza can be sent to be re-educated? That would be far more efficient than going after enemies of the state in this piecemeal, one at a time fashion.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.