It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Obama’s America" director Indicted on campaign finance fraud charges - another critic punished!

page: 3
21
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

UnBreakable
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Unfortunately this will be business as usual for the forseeable future for any susequent POTUS (unless we get a real third party individual that isn't beholden to underhanded activities of the Rs and Ds).


Unfortunately, through a couple generations of total apathy to political events by the general population which followed many generations of 'meh' so/so caring beyond a vote every 2-4 years? I tend to agree... This is what we'll likely see.

This also gives truth and definition to the saying "We get the Government we both earn and deserve". When we don't care to complain? The ones in power notice...and take it as tacit permission, if not approval to do more of it. They've been faithful to that, if nothing else.

Our collective fatalism and apathy have very likely defined our own downfall as a nation. It's just sad to see it happen in such a short span of time for the final fall from where we were just over a decade ago. So much..so fast.

edit on 24-1-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Yep, we are waist deep in quicksand, seemingly to have rapidly sunk over the last decade. We either will sink the rest of the way or thrown a rope and pull ourselves out. We do have a say in what follows, but as you point out there is a great deal of apathy.
85% of John Q. Public just doesn't care and thinks someone else will take care of the problem. Too bad they aren't as aware or realize a greater sense of urgency as a majority of members that reside here on the ATS community.
edit on 24-1-2014 by UnBreakable because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
This type of election fraud seems pretty easy to pull off - which leads me to believe (know) it has to be more rampant and in much larger dollars. If the administration is so hellbent on flushing it out, Why aren't more people being arrested for it?



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Republican or Democrats you shouldn't incourage this type of fascists behavior. It's called selectively enforcing laws. They will pick losers and winners depending who r the political enemies and lobbyists. That's why they write laws that are so long no one can understand them all so they can choose what to implement to punish people they don't like.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Firstly $20,000 isn't a hell of alot of money.A Beverly Hills house wife can spend that in minuits,shopping.What im Really wondering about is did the IRS dig this up and gave the info to DOJ enabling them to file charges?I wouldn't be surprised and truly wonder if one day we won't be able to speak freely on sites like this anymore...
edit on CSTSatpm6561 by TDawg61 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Maluhia
This type of election fraud seems pretty easy to pull off - which leads me to believe (know) it has to be more rampant and in much larger dollars. If the administration is so hellbent on flushing it out, Why aren't more people being arrested for it?




You're absolutely right that it is easy to pull off and VERY hard to prosecute. In those few cases where the evidence is overwhelming, even written down in black and white, the only thing needed to have a couple of jury members who are true party believers---no matter which party is represented.
You're also correct that it is rampant. I saw it firsthand when I ran in a statewide campaign.

But even before I agreed to run in that campaign...I knew about the part the unions played. This happened in my state.
nlpc.org...



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by diggindirt
 


Thanks for the info. I believe it bolsters the argument that this is political payback.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   

jjkenobi
A donor for John Edwards (DEMOCRAT) was found guilty of the same thing and slapped on the hand with a misdemeanor. But the rules never apply to liberals.




Straw-donor cases have been brought against prominnent individuals from time to time. For example, in 2011, a prominent Los Angeles attorney, Pierce O’Donnell, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor chargest of making $20,000 in donations to the presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards and reimbursing straw donors.


Wash. Post


Mr. O'Donnell was actually indicted on three fellonies, facing more serious charges than D'Souza faces: articles.latimes.com...

Typically, when one accepts a plea agreement, one pleads guilty to reduced charges. Given that D'Souza has essentially admitted to violating law (without ill intent, his lawyer claims), I would not be surprised to see him accept a similar plea agreement. This is hardly a case of different rules applying to different people.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


Those r two different cases. One was about accepting gifts. The other is making campaign donation of $20g. This is clearly selective enforcement because there are hundreds of people making donations in hundred thousand and millions going unregulated. Remember the laws are written for the outsiders and peons, people who the government does not like.
edit on 26-1-2014 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   

amfirst1
reply to post by nataylor
 


Those r two different cases. One was about accepting gifts. The other is making campaign donation of $20g. This is clearly selective enforcement because there are hundreds of people making donations in hundred thousand and millions going unregulated. Remember the laws are written for the outsiders and peons, people who the government does not like.
edit on 26-1-2014 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)
No, they're pretty much the same thing. Both Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. D'Souza were/are accused of "funneling." That is, encouraging other people to make donations to a candidate and then reimbursing them for the donations. Even though O'Donnell was indicted on fellonies, he ended up taking a plea agreement and plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge. The poster jjkenobi was saying that because O'Donnell's case involved donations to a Democrat, he somehow faced reduced charges compared to D'Souza. That's not true. In fact, the charges O'Donnell originally faced were, in fact, harsher than the charges D'Souza has been indicted for. Of course, we'll have to wait and see how D'Souza's case plays out, but I certainly suspect he'll be given the opportunity to plead guilty to reduced charges just as O'Donnell did. It'll probably be a while before that happens, though. It took three years between O'Donnell's indictment and his eventual guilty plea. But at this point in their cases, there's no evidence that the two have been treated any differently.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


O'Donnal received gifts he was a governor. Mr. D'Souza was a donor he sent donations to his friend running for the senate that lost.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   

amfirst1
reply to post by nataylor
 


O'Donnal received gifts he was a governor. Mr. D'Souza was a donor he sent donations to his friend running for the senate that lost.
you're talking about something different than poster jjkenobi was talking about. He and I were talking about attorney Pierce O'Donnell:

articles.latimes.com...




Attorney Pierce O'Donnell was indicted by a federal grand jury in Los Angeles on Thursday on charges of funneling $26,000 in contributions to the campaign of a candidate in the 2004 presidential election through employees of his law firm and other people, according to the indictment.

O'Donnell, 61, is accused of soliciting employees and others to make the contributions and then reimbursing them.

Known as "conduit" contributions, such donations hide the identities of the true contributors and violate federal law, prosecutors said.

Though the name of the presidential candidate does not appear in the indictment, several sources familiar with the investigation said the contributions were made to the campaign of Democrat John Edwards.

O'Donnell is charged with three felonies and faces a maximum of 12 years in prison if convicted of all counts, according to prosecutors in the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Maluhia
 


I'm failing to see how D'Souza getting busted for breaking campaign finance laws is the white house trying to get back at him for making a movie and writing a book. He got busted because he broke the law. Why isn't that enough?



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by moresco
 


Because this type of campaign finance fraud is easy and rampant - in much larger dollars. Why don't we hear about the bigger fish being fried for it? Instead, they go after a $20k guy who happens to be a major league outspoken critic of our dear leader.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Wrabbit2000

Kali74
reply to post by beezzer
 


You mean union dues going to political donations? Nothing illegal about that. Unions fall under the same campaign donation laws that Corporations do.


If you don't mind, I'm going to quote you on that when Citizens United comes up to complain about for SCOTUS decisions.


Honestly, that's been my whole position on the dirty money flowing into politics all along. Corporations are rotten to the core in how they buy leaders like they buy anything else...but Unions represent the flip side and other end of the political spectrum for doing precisely the same thing, in the same way. Masses of people passing little dollars up to make big big big dollars which then go to buy politicians for what those original little people may or may not agree with or be totally against.

Indeed... have both or have none...and I'm more for the latter, all things being equal.


I don't believe money should equal free speech, regardless of who is throwing the cash around. I was only making a point. The other bunny was alluding to Unions doing something shady I was only countering that they do exactly what Corporations do.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by amfirst1
 


I shouldn't encourage the prosecution of people that break the law? I don't care what letter comes after their name or which group of lap dogs they donated to. My problem here is that Conservatives are trying to play victim, that these groups/persons are being targeted without reason and that simply isn't true.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 



I don't believe money should equal free speech, regardless of who is throwing the cash around.


I'm simply agreeing with you.


If we are both of the opinion that big money is not something to be used to buy politicians and political outcome, either by corporation OR union focus? We have nothing to disagree on at all. It's institutional corruption no matter the source of combined financial power brought to buy people.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It is corruption. We the people get screwed, corporate workers get screwed, union workers gets screwed. Money, money, money! Among all of the things we need desperately, somewhere near the top would be campaign finance reform. There should be an election fund (voluntary) for every elected position in the US, from sheriffs to POTUS, from which each candidate running receives an equal share of to run their campaigns on... and only those funds may be used.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 



There should be an election fund (voluntary) for every elected position in the US, from sheriffs to POTUS, from which each candidate running receives an equal share of to run their campaigns on... and only those funds may be used.


I could get 100% behind that. It hasn't always been the case and for a long time I felt that it wasn't the business of taxpayers to support politicians for election.

However...seeing the corrupt mess and horror the alternative supplies? I can't think of many ways which public money could be BETTER spent and ...limited. They get xx amount based on costs and level of race and that's it. Run out? too damn bad....no one hears from you after that, as everyone starts with equal funds.

That could really work if it wasn't hung up by corruption needed to make it happen on new laws. That kinda kills the chances...but not for lack of logic or support.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Maluhia
 


So how does that mean that he was targeted because he disagrees with POTUS? Shouldn't we instead be happy that at least some campaign finance law is being enforced instead of trying to say (with no evidence) that D'Souza is being targeted by the white house? Still seems like people are reaching to find something, anything, that they can pin on Obama to make him look like a tyrant. There are plenty of things about the current POTUS that I don't like and don't agree with but, I doubt that Obama really cares what D'Souza thinks, writes or, says.

This is hitting the news because D'Souza is a well known media figure, not because this type of crime rampant. He's apparently guilty too. That's why he was indicted.
edit on 27-1-2014 by moresco because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2014 by moresco because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join