Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Continuing Prosecution of Dinesh D’Souza
Once, he was a darling of the mainstream conservative community. An Indian immigrant of Goan ancestry, Dinesh D’Souza snagged a place at Dartmouth, where he helped found the legendary Dartmouth Review, before gingerly moving onto an editorial gig at Policy Review and then a staff position in the Reagan White House. After a series of scholarly books, D’Souza’s Illiberal Education shot him to national prominence in 1991.
Carefully researched and cogently argued, Illiberal Education was a prescient take-down of the political correctness regime on college campuses. The rest of 1990s saw him become one of the most widely known and respected conservatives writers in America. It’s a position he likely would have retained to this today if not for his notorious 2007 book The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11.
Taking the contrarian tendencies of a successful pundit to a bizarre extreme, D’Souza blamed the American Left for the 9/11 attacks. The book was littered with such observations as:
In faulting the cultural left, I am not making the absurd accusation that this group blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world. The Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks were the product of this visceral rage—some of it based on legitimate concerns, some of it based on wrongful prejudice—but all of it fueled and encouraged by the cultural left. Thus without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened. …
And it went down hill from there. His absurd twist on “blame America first” was so shocking even The New York Times called it treason:
I never thought a book by D’Souza, the aging enfant terrible of American conservatism, would, like the Stalinist apologetics of the popular front period, contain such a soft spot for radical evil. But in “The Enemy at Home,” D’Souza’s cultural relativism hardly stops with bin Laden. He finds Ayatollah Khomeini still to be “highly regarded for his modest demeanor, frugal lifestyle and soft-spoken manner.” Islamic punishment tends to be harsh — flogging adulterers and that sort of thing — but this, D’Souza says “with only a hint of irony,” simply puts Muslims “in the Old Testament tradition.”
The reaction of mainstream conservatives was even more strident. Not since William F Buckley “read” the Birchers out of the conservative movement was a prominent pundit so quickly dumped from respectable commentary. The better part of a decade later D’Souza concedes that: “Look, I may be wrong about it…I am attracted to arguments that have a certain plausible originality to them.”
The arguments in The Enemy At Home did have a certain originality, but “plausible” they were not. In the years, since D’Souza has reinvented himself as a somewhat recherché critic of the Obama Administration. His 2010 book The Roots of Obama’s Rage painted the 44th President as the product of the anti-colonial ideology of his absentee father. Two hit documentaries followed: 2016: Obama’s America and America: Imagine The World Without Her. The films gave D’Souza a sort of cult status in some conservative circles.
There he might have remained, little noticed beyond his devoted fan base, until January 2014 when he was charged with making an illegal $20,000 campaign contribution to an old friend. Using a series of straw donors D’Souza had funnelled the money to Wendy Long’s unsuccessful bid to unseat junior New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand. The use of straw donors — illegal under the Federal Election Campaign Act — has been a common political tactic for decades and is very rarely prosecuted.
The unexpected nature of the prosecution, the smallness of the amount involved and D’Souza’s strident anti-Obama output have triggered suspicions across the political spectrum. Alan Dershowitz went so far as to describe the case as an example of “selective prosecution.” Whatever one’s opinion of D’Souza’s politics, his prosecution was a chilling moment. Last week, it got worst.
In an almost Stalinistic twist to the saga, Judge Richard Berman, ordered that D’Souza continue psychological counseling:
“I’m not singling out Mr. D’Souza to pick on him,” Berman said at the hearing Monday. “A requirement for psychological counseling often comes up in my hearings in cases where I find it hard to understand why someone did what they did.”
WND reported that at the Sept. 23, 2014, sentencing hearing, Berman said he could not understand how someone of D’Souza’s intelligence, with credentials that include college president, could do something so stupid as to violate federal campaign contribution laws.
Probably because the contribution laws are as scrupulous observed among political activists as the speed limits on the I-95. Justice Berman also expressed puzzlement at D’Souza not feeling terribly guilty about committing his crime:
The psychological case notes indicate that while Mr. D’Souza is highly intelligent, he has remarkably little insight into his own motivations, that he is not introspective or insightful, but that he tends to see his own actions in an overly positive manner.
Perhaps because D’Souza views his actions — circumventing an arguably unconstitutional law — as perfectly rational given the context and that his prosecution is politically motived. In other words he doesn’t feel guilty because he doesn’t think what he did was a real crime. Apparently that’s not good enough for Justice Berman’s peculiar sensibilities. The good judge, like the inquisitors of old, wants D’Souza to truly repent of his terrible sins.
Whatever you think of Dinesh D’Souza, his unusual public career or his controversial views, his story is warning sign of what might be ahead for the rest of us.
Published in Law
I think the judge has an unnatural interest in Mr. D’Souza, and the judge should seek counseling. I wonder if this is a pattern of behavior on the part of the judge. I think Mr. D’Souza should seek an appeal of this decision, if that is possible.
Otherwise –great fodder for his next book. Wicked thought -maybe the judge is an investor!
I keep seeing his “I’m not crazy” posts on facebook. This is a sharp little recap of the whole story. Thanks.
I like him. Feel he’s being persecuted (though it was very foolish to do the straw donor thing). He’s was one the few that landed a punch on Obama and the Left (they are self-loathing and hate this nation ) and the Preezey punched back twice as hard.
His defenders on the Right and in the GOP, driving by like a wreck on he freeway. Nothing to see here…
It reminds one of the tiff between Elizabeth Warren and Mary Jo White over where the latter is doing enough to extract confessions of wrongdoing from companies in SEC lawsuits. Mary Jo White has introduced Stalinism show-trialism into the legal process, but Warren thinks she is not doing enough of it.
Richard,
The law isn’t an ass in this case. Justice Berman is the ass. Dinesh should do whatever is legally necessary to break free of this ludicrous junk rap.
Regards,
Jim
One phone call to Trump is all it would take. Just sayin’.
Who do these judges think they are?
Swap out the nouns:
Seriously—would you be defending Dinesh if Dinesh was a lefty? Who’d used straw persons to funnel money to, say, Dennis Kucinich?
TPTB — The Powers That Be
They can take your stuff, lock you up, send you to mental institutes, and gag you from saying anything to anybody. Basically they are living gods on earth.
Would not have to. Dinesh would have never been brought to trial if he was on the left.
He concealed his own contributions to a candidate who had no shot. D’Souza was far clumsier than those who routinely launder contributions and clearly did not have the assistance of a pro in laundering this money.
For example, the Obama campaign knowingly accepted millions in credit card donations that were not reported because the campaign knowingly refused to collect the FEC-searchable information on the website portal.
D’Souza could have formed a bogus front group and bought the ads or any number of time-honored dodges. He probably believed no one would care because his guy was never gonna win.
The prosecution, sentencing and silly parole abuse by an old lefty judge is all entirely political payback for the anti-Obama movie. Like the Milwaukee fascist DA John Chisholm, liberals believe they are always right to use government power against political adversaries. For liberals, onscience left the building about the time Hubert Humphrey retired.
I would defend anyone, even Stalin, from having to make a Stalinistic forced confession.
Dorothea writes of Judge Berman’s “unnatural interest” in Mr. D’Souza. That is a kind interpretation.
In a word – YES. I am against any instance of the Courts unfairly punishing an individual. If it can happen to Dinesh it can happen to any of us.
There are obviously crimes that are committed due to decreased mental capacity, most of them horrific. But introduction of psychology or psychiatry into cases of a political nature ventures into very dangerous territory.
One only has to look at the abuses of the profession in Russia and Chile to understand how this can spiral out of control. The left has long made the case that conservatism is a sickness. At every chance they take our objections to things and slap the suffix “phobia” on them.
Berman’s comments do have the feel of the old Soviet Union. Not only jail the opposition, but then throw charges of mental instabilty at them to further diminish their political effectiveness. I guess the left is always true to form.
On the other issues of Dinesh himself, I was pretty impressed with his assessment of Obama in his “Roots” book. He seemed to have found an important key to understanding Obama and his motivations. Even Michael Orin in Ally seems to favor that view of Obama. The later stuff mentioned in the post is new to me and sad to read since it speaks of a certain derangement of thought.
“How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’ ‘I don’t know. I don’t know. You will kill me if you do that again. Four, five, six — in all honesty I don’t know.’ ‘Better,’ said O’Brien…A needle slid into Winston’s arm. Almost in the same instant a blissful, healing warmth spread all through his body. The pain was already half-forgottenNo MartyrsNo!’ exclaimed O’Brien. His voice had changed extraordinarily, and his face had suddenly become both stern and animated. ‘No! Not merely to extract your confession, not to punish you. Shall I tell you why we have brought you here? To cure you! To make you sane! Will you understand, Winston, that no one whom we bring to this place ever leaves ”
Welcome to the Hotel California.
There is one major difference, Lying is morally wrong in most religions regardless of what the law says, voluntarily giving to much money to someone apart from the law is not morally wrong. However apart from that huge difference I think the statement is correct other than the whole conspiracy idiocy.
I thought impeaching Clinton was dumb as a teenage because no one with any sense would want Gore as president over Clinton. Especially for prosecuting him on something the political class does on a regular bases, they just don’t do it under oath. It was such a waste of resources and time. Republicans should of spent the time on more useful pursuits such as impeaching out of control federal judges. That would of actually done a lot of good.
18 years later knowing way more about politics and human nature than I did when I was 15 and my opinion has not changed a bit on the subject.
Reminds me of a line from “Bank Job” by BNL.
D’Souza ran afoul of what happens with any broad government regulation: big established parties have the means and connections to work the system, and small upstarts get locked out.
Either the judge is acting in bad faith by harassing D’Souza for being insufficiently contrite, or he holds cognitive dissonance large enough to land a private jet (filled with Russian energy oligarchs and union bosses).
Actually, people on the right criticized the prosecution of Martha Stewart, who is a Democrat, as politically motivated. I don’t think we’re as partisan in our distrust of overzealous prosecutorial discretion as you think we are. But I’d argue that this is a bit more dangerous than the prosecution of Martha Stewart, because it seems to be a direct attempt to stifle political discourse.
Please note that a Ricochet member has several times suggested that Barronelle Stutzman should be treated as mentally incompetent for refusing to bow to the state of Washington on the wedding flowers issue. We are further down that slippery slope than you might think.
The rest of your post was much better than that statement. I have not read the book. But the passages you cite seem well within the bounds of civil discourse and hardly the “aid and comfort” of treason.
“even the NYT…”? As distinguished from what? “even” should modify something like “Sean Hannity”, not the NYT.
Lucy,
Barronelle Stutzman is the florist in Richland, WA. Tho I don’t think this changes your point.
Old joke:
Q: What’s the difference between God and a federal judge?
A: God doesn’t think he’s a federal judge.
Good point, Ctlaw,
I have not read the book in question, either, that put him out of favor. However, I was personally shocked to see how many people of the Left –in America as well as Europe –were so quick to say “America had it coming” on 9/11. All that “Why do they hate us?” sort of stuff. Was the book a variation of that theme?
Thanks. Fixed it.
Can we get some psychological counseling for all the liberal politicians who flout federal laws and establish their municipalities as “sanctuary” cities? Why don’t they understand that what they’re doing is wrong?
I cannot believe that I just saw a referenceI’ve to BNL on a US political site, how cool is that?
I’ve been a BNL fan since “Grade 9”
Domo
Given the limited resources of the court system and parole offices, mandatory psych counseling for a clearly high functioning non-violent white collar offender who has already completed his incarceration and halfway-house stint without issue seems like a weirdly gratuitous slap.
Also, under the terms or the order, if D’Souza were to publicly criticize any aspect of how his case was handled, that would be both evidence of the psychological problem alleged, grounds for extending custodial supervision and this even a parole violation. In other words, it is both an insult and a kind of gag order. Tres Alinsky. Hail Obama!
Liberals generally have a problem understanding conservatives. Leftists don’t care – anyone not on board their policies is Satan Evil Hitler etc – but liberals tend to be stunned that clearly intelligent people disagree with them. This goes beyond just “Why would you believe that?” to the level of disbelief you would get if you said that we literally lived in the Matrix and nothing we saw was real. Conservatism seems like 2 + 2 = corndogs for this crowd.