Should O'Donnell be treated like D'Souza?

[Moonbeam]

What should her punishment be?

Will Rosie O'Donnell Serve Time Like Dinesh D'Souza?

Should O'Donnell be treated like D'Souza?

Which question did you want answered and why?

The answer to the first question would be the sentence a judge gives her after a trial in which she is convicted of some crime.

The answer to the second will depend on how much alike the two judges see the two convictions if a second occurs which may depend of the judicial temperament of the judges and the actual similarity of the two cases.

The answer to the third is just a matter of whatever personal opinion one may have and means pretty much nothing.

One thing that does seem apparent in the answers given so far is that there is a suspicion that you are on a fishing expedition, as if you expected liberals to reflexively defend based on party identification. The evidence of this thread seems to mimic peer reviewed scientific discoveries in the neuroscience field that shows liberals more able to logically reason without emotional bias causing the to rationalize. I hope the responses didn't disappoint you because it's never a good idea to presume everybody is equally biased in their judgments. That would be like walking around with you nose in your armpit saying the world stinks.

 

[Jhhnn]

We have one defender. Someone we never expected to come to the rescue in a million years.



Using different names and addresses looks like an attempt to conceal to me. Her excuse is really bad as well. She assumes the campaigns will reject if she goes over the limit. lol ok there Rosie.

Don't jump to conclusions. From the article-

Filings show O’Donnell gave a combined $5,400 in contributions over the limit to the five candidates, and used five different New York addresses and four variations of her name.

She can use 5 different addresses & 4 name variations with 5 different candidates can't she? The article isn't clear if that's what happened or not. If all of the contributions to a given candidate came from the same name & address then the contributions were merely over the limit w/o intent to deceive. See how that works?

D'Souza, otoh, was convicted of giving money to other people to donate to candidates in their names which is a clear violation of the law.

 

[Moonbeam]

We have one defender. Someone we never expected to come to the rescue in a million years.

Using different names and addresses looks like an attempt to conceal to me. Her excuse is really bad as well. She assumes the campaigns will reject if she goes over the limit. lol ok there Rosie.

Campaign contribution laws are stupid and should be repealed, however since they are on the books they should be enforced.

I agree with some of your points here. Must be a bad hair day. The notion that bad laws have to be enforced is mandatory because only vigilante justice allows individuals to say what good and bad laws are. In a lawful society the law is the law and bad law must be amended by legislation. The best that can happen is prioritizing enforcement based on resource limitations. I also agree that one can't make excuses for breaking the law and expect non-enforcement to result, but the assumption you make that her excuse is bad or not likely is personal to you. It could be factually true as far as I am concerned. It's just that it doesn't excuse anything legally.

 

[boomerang]

Which question did you want answered and why?

I want them all answered because I deserve it. But one of those questions is not my own. If you can figure out which one, your mommy might give you a gold star for your forehead.

(She told me that I can ignore the rest of your psychobabble because it's probably just your usual sarcasm.)

 

[glenn1]

LMAO. Who in the everliving fuck thinks that laws that should be repealed should, in the meantime, be enforced.

Because unlike you I believe we should live under the rule of law. We obey laws that are stupid while working to change them, or willingly break them and publicly suffer the consequences in order to bring attention to their unjust nature and get them changed. The alternative is opening up an administration you disagree with to not bothering to enforce laws they think should be repealed, like equal rights or pollution or whatever. The fact you think we should just leave unjust laws on the books but not enforce them tells me all I need to know about how you see the world.

 

[fskimospy]

We have one defender. Someone we never expected to come to the rescue in a million years.

Using different names and addresses looks like an attempt to conceal to me. Her excuse is really bad as well. She assumes the campaigns will reject if she goes over the limit. lol ok there Rosie.

I would very much like to see the variations of her name as that would tell you a lot. If it’s Rosaline vs. Rosie or whatever that’s pretty innocent. If it’s something else, maybe not.

 

[Blackjack200]

The fact you think we should just leave unjust laws on the books but not enforce them tells me all I need to know about how you see the world.

Ha!

If you were a police officer in the '50s, would you have arrested a black person for drinking at the wrong water fountain?

Spoiler

I already know the answer to that.

 

[Starbuck1975]

She can use 5 different addresses & 4 name variations with 5 different candidates can't she? The article isn't clear if that's what happened or not. If all of the contributions to a given candidate came from the same name & address then the contributions were merely over the limit w/o intent to deceive. See how that works?

That’s a sh!t ton of rationalization and benefit of the doubt. Having said that, if there is ample evidence to bring charges, she should face them in a court of law.

 

[hal2kilo]

I agree with Skorpio. See how that works?!

Seems he was looking for a different reaction. I wonder why that was. Oh yea, it's called projection.

 

[Moonbeam]

Ha!

If you were a police officer in the '50s, would you have arrested a black person for drinking at the wrong water fountain?

Spoiler

I already know the answer to that.

Well consider the fact that if nobody enforced such laws they would have never been changed. Just imagine if black people just sat anywhere in the bus that they pleased. Rosa Parks would have never happened.

 

[Moonbeam]

That’s a sh!t ton of rationalization and benefit of the doubt. Having said that, if there is ample evidence to bring charges, she should face them in a court of law.

No it isn't. It's what you do before you decide on a person's guilt. You run down every possibility you can think of as to why they may be innocent and close them one at a time if facts say otherwise.

 

[Blackjack200]

Well consider the fact that if nobody enforced such laws they would have never been changed.

I don't think that can be assumed at all.

Just imagine if black people just sat anywhere in the bus that they pleased. Rosa Parks would have never happened.

No, but sit ins, freedom rides, marches, speeches, assassinations, Brown, et al. would have.

So just imagine if black people sat anywhere, went to any school, drank at any fountain, married any spouse, etc. etc. without having to suffer and die for those basic rights?

Yeah, I'd be okay with that.

 

[fskimospy]

That’s a sh!t ton of rationalization and benefit of the doubt. Having said that, if there is ample evidence to bring charges, she should face them in a court of law.

I’m not so sure, the information we have so far comes exclusively from sources that are long known as as unreliable and sometimes intentionally dishonest.

Again, she may have committed similar manipulations to D’Souza and in that case should be prosecuted but it’s important to remember just how bad the sources are so far.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Well consider the fact that if nobody enforced such laws they would have never been changed. Just imagine if black people just sat anywhere in the bus that they pleased. Rosa Parks would have never happened.

True, still sad that it had to happen

 

[umbrella39]

What I am starting to sense here is the profound difference between liberals and Trump supporters... One side always willing to indict their own party when they have done something wrong and the other that no matter what is done wrong, it's fake news...

There will be a cost for all this...

 

[ch33zw1z]

Lock her up, but like....seriously, if they can prove intent, and guilt, toss dat lady in the slammah

 

[HomerJS]

Left: We want equal justice for all
Right: We want justice except when our team is guilty

any more questions?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Left: We want equal justice for all
Right: We want justice except when our team is guilty

any more questions?

Is the cake and punch coming soon, I was told there would be both.

 

[Jhhnn]

That’s a sh!t ton of rationalization and benefit of the doubt. Having said that, if there is ample evidence to bring charges, she should face them in a court of law.

I haven't rationalized anything. The article is vague in the respects I mentioned so a variety of possibilities exist. I pointed out one of them. There are obviously others. We can't say for sure at this point.

 

[fskimospy]

What I am starting to sense here is the profound difference between liberals and Trump supporters... One side always willing to indict their own party when they have done something wrong and the other that no matter what is done wrong, it's fake news...

There will be a cost for all this...

It would be interesting to look back at the D’Souza thread and see how many conservatives were declaring some sort of conspiracy against him because he got busted blatantly violating finance laws. Hell, the author of one of the linked opinion pieces already declared a liberal conspiracy to protect O’Donnell in advance despite all the relevant prosecutors being Trump appointees.

We have well and truly jumped the shark on crazy paranoid conservative conspiracy theories when federal law enforcement of all things has now joined the scientists, the courts, the celebrities, the newspapers, the news networks, the lawyers, the deep state, the professors, and nearly all other foreign governments in the conspiracy against conservatives. Lol.

 

[Genx87]

I would very much like to see the variations of her name as that would tell you a lot. If it’s Rosaline vs. Rosie or whatever that’s pretty innocent. If it’s something else, maybe not.

She donated this through a website called Act Blue. A website with an account tied to your CC or Bank account. That means she or somebody created 4 different accounts with variations in her name and different addresses. That takes a little more work than writing out a check using a differing name. Now, I don't think a major fine or jail time is warranted over such a small amount. But I think if this article is true. She or somebody was trying to deceive. You do not go through that much work if you are on the up and up. She mentioned a relative or friend was managing some of this. Which is why she cant recall how much she donates. Don't let others donate on your behalf and stuff like will not happen.

 

[glenn1]

Ha!

If you were a police officer in the '50s, would you have arrested a black person for drinking at the wrong water fountain?

Spoiler

I already know the answer to that.

Yes, that's how positive social change happens. For one example, because anti-sodomy laws were left on the books but commonly not enforced, that's how we got the Lawrence v. Texas ruling that was one of the key steps towards legalized gay marriage. Because a demonstrably false police call of "domestic disturbance and potential weapons violation" led police to entering an apartment without a warrant and arrest the occupants for nothing more than having sex, we got a huge step forward in civil rights. With your example of blacks and water fountains, what led to social change was arrests for acts of disobedience to Jim Crow laws. Do you think it was "better" when those laws were simply de facto (in the north) vs codified (in the south)?

https://www.salon.com/2014/12/14/th...m_and_segregation_above_the_mason_dixon_line/

 

[fskimospy]

She donated this through a website called Act Blue. A website with an account tied to your CC or Bank account. That means she or somebody created 4 different accounts with variations in her name and different addresses. That takes a little more work than writing out a check using a differing name. Now, I don't think a major fine or jail time is warranted over such a small amount. But I think if this article is true. She or somebody was trying to deceive. You do not go through that much work if you are on the up and up. She mentioned a relative or friend was managing some of this. Which is why she cant recall how much she donates. Don't let others donate on your behalf and stuff like will not happen.

Where are you getting your information that she set up multiple accounts? Where are you seeing that she used multiple different accounts to circumvent limits?

I’m simply saying the sources have a long history of dishonest reporting. It would be foolish to take what they say at face value and unfortunately I haven’t seen those questions answered by a real news source yet.

 

[Genx87]

Where are you getting your information that she set up multiple accounts? Where are you seeing that she used multiple different accounts to circumvent limits?

I’m simply saying the sources have a long history of dishonest reporting. It would be foolish to take what they say at face value and unfortunately I haven’t seen those questions answered by a real news source yet.

Like I said, if this article is true. She has an account with Act Blue she used for these donations. Unless this site allows for multiple names and addresses per account. Which should raise some red flags given it is a site that acts as an intermediary for donations to candidates. She or somebody would had have to setup multiple accounts to make these donations with variations in her name and different addresses.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Again, she may have committed similar manipulations to D’Souza and in that case should be prosecuted but it’s important to remember just how bad the sources are so far.

I haven't rationalized anything. The article is vague in the respects I mentioned so a variety of possibilities exist. I pointed out one of them. There are obviously others. We can't say for sure at this point.

Very true, but we’ve seen Twitter mobs form for less, and I can’t help but wonder the response if this was Roseanne and not Rosie.

Regardless, it warms my heart that we’re willing to be patient, evaluate context and advocate for due process.