Like us on Facebook (don't let them censor another conservative site!):

Dinesh D’Souza prosecutor accused of misconduct

Preet Bharara is a U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and has been assigned by the Obama regime to go on a witch hunt against Dinesh D’Souza. There are also some other interesting tidbits about Preet Bharara. He is a big Obama donor, and was widely considered to be Hillary Clinton’s Attorney General if she runs and wins in 2016. But that may be a long shot now as the Obama donor U.S. Attorney is being accused of “fostering disrespect for the rule of law” for allegedly failing to enforce a housing desegregation ruling. Typical liberal-extremist Democrat.

Dinesh D’Souza prosecutor accused of misconduct
Dinesh D’Souza prosecutor accused of misconduct

The Obama donor prosecuting conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza is being accused of “fostering disrespect for the rule of law” for allegedly failing to enforce a housing desegregation ruling.

Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is an Obama donor and prospective Attorney General in a Hillary Clinton administration. But his career ambitions might face some opposition from the left. (RELATED: What You Need to Know About The Obama Donor Prosecuting Dinesh D’Souza)

The New York-based group ERASE Racism joined with the Equal Justice Society and the local housing group Enhanced Section 8 Outreach Program to accuse Bharara of failing to enforce a desegregation court order issued in 2009 against New York’s Westchester County.

The groups wrote an August letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, which was obtained by The Daily Caller. The letter claimed that Bharara’s failure to “enforce all the provisions of the consent decree is fostering disrespect for the rule of law and makes clear to other jurisdictions that the Government is not prepared to force structural change even where it has the maximum leverage provided by a court order.”

“Most troubling,” according to the letter, Bharara’s office “has taken the position that it is defendant Westchester, not the Court, that decides whether its most critical obligations have been triggered.”