And that guy is actually confirmed in jail and still there? Or dead? Surely to goodness they would just make us think he went to jail and not actually punish a real life human for something as stupid as this. Pray to Allah. Mf'ers. There's no way. Like, if this is true, man. Sigh.
Apparently the filmmaker is now out, and living in a homeless shelter according to
this. Knowing the man had nothing to do with it, they threw him in jail and ruined his life. Just to coverup a pending scandal.
What an injustice done by our country to one of its citizens. Maybe the worst in modern times. This or Snowden.
I feel so sorry for that guy. Obama and Hill put a huge target on his back too, I hope hes living secretly and changed his name. No doubt Isis would love to kill him. Unreal that Obama and Hill literally took a political prisoner and no one gave a shit.
He was actually convicted for violating his probation because he was convicted (probably a plea) for bank and credit card fraud causing $800,000 in losses.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/08/b...didnt-cause-benghazi-just-got-a-year-in-jail/
So while the impetus for the probation violation counts in 2012 was almost certainly the video ("The Innocence of Muslims"), he wasn't charged for anything related to the video. Is that a distinction that matters? Maybe. If someone like me, that's not out on probation, was in the same circumstances, I could not be charged with the same violations. So to jail me would be drumming up something else.
Please find one example of a voter ID keeping a minority from voting. Just one. You lefttards claim this all the time but I've yet to see one example of this happening.
It's a hard thing to measure and prove, just like in-person voter ID is hard to show is a pervasive enough problem to serve as justification for voter ID laws in the first place. The GAO concluded that it made a difference in voter turnout: "GAO’s analysis suggests that the turnout decreases in Kansas and Tennessee beyond decreases in the comparison states were attributable to changes in those two states’ voter ID requirements. GAO found that turnout among eligible and registered voters declined more in Kansas and Tennessee than it declined in comparison states—by an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee— and the results were consistent across the different data sources and voter populations used in the analysis."
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665965.pdf.
An MSNBC article noted that "there's no clear evidence that requiring voter ID significantly reduces turnout," and that other factors - like making it more difficult to register and vote early - "are likely to have a bigger effect."
http://www.msnbc.com/news-nation/why-voter-id-wont-save-the-gop.
Both sides the debate on voter ID are arguing through dubious facts. I don't think it's crazy to suggest that 1) some in-person voter ID fraud happens (often? not really), 2) some people would be disenfranchised with voter ID laws, 3) Republicans are motivated to suppress D voters, and 4) Democrats are motivated to make sure D voters get to vote. No one really gives 2 craps about anyone's constitutional rights (on any matter, really).
Frankly, the affidavit route the Wisconsin case judge implemented was a pretty reasonable solution, at least temporarily. I don't doubt voter ID is the future, but I don't know we're ready for the future, either.