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
Yes, I too have been a huge fan of the Brookhaven National Laboratory for many years now.
Exactly.
Yes, very strange formulation here.
WHAT is wrong with this? This is your evidence of why the establishment dislikes him? This is brilliant and accurate reasoning.
Do you not understand that the phrase “Blame America First” as you use it here is odd? He wasn’t blaming America — he was blaming anti-Americans whether they are Americans or not. The “Cultural Left” is international by definition.
This is a very odd post.
This post is so on the one hand and on the other hand that it does make sense why a topic like Dinesh D’Souza would be put up on the main feed. I was surprised at first until I read the equivocation.
Martha Stewart?
Point taken, Lucy.
I don’t see the parallel here. Bill Clinton was guilty of the crime of perjury yet remained a free (and feted) man.
I fear you have totally missed the issue. The question is: What do you think Dinesh’s punishment should be? He contributed $15,000 over the max allowed, $5,000.
He sentence: $30,000 fine; Community Service; 8 months of nightly detention at a work-release Community Confinement Center to undergo “therapeutic counseling.” 5 years probation.
d’Souza completed the sentence, the therapeutic counseling. The court-ordered psychiatrist concluded no evidence of depression; no need for medication. Another Probation Dept-approved pychologist provided written statement d’Souza was normal, well-adjusted, needed no further counseling.
The judge overruled both therapists because he considered there must be evidence of psychological problem, so ordered 4 more years of psychological counseling and of community service. You see, the judge was a psychology major, so he was only “trying to be helpful,” not to punish.
It’s not about left or right. Dinesh took the punishment. And now more torture until he begs for forgiveness? Does the continuing punishment fit the crime, that’s the question. Or is this judge out of control?
Don’t you think the wives of the country get a vote? Many wives admire Hillary, but that does not mean we want to vote her into the presidency. Pardon the ****, but where is the Democrat Party bench?
I think it is meant to be read as “as treasonous as the NYT is, even they called it treason.” I don’t know, I didn’t write the piece, but that is how I read it.
Dinesh is one of the truly great thinkers on the Right right now. His one book, while missing the mark, had a grain of truth to it. The Left does hate this country, and on some level, they do encourage its demise by not seeing the enemy before them when there are threats. Need I point to the nuclear deal with Iran as an example, or the very real possibility that we have a Leftist president who has spent the better part of his administration building a database comprised of every American’s information while Muslim after Muslim has carried out attack after attack on American soil? It’s clear that to the Left, average America is the greatest threat on the planet and must be dealt with on their terms.
Perhaps not.
But your example fails because nothing Bill Clinton was ever prosecuted for in any way is comparable. Had Bill Clinton been prosecuted for something that an entire political class does with impunity, you’d have had it.
Your unnamed lefty funneling money to Kucinich is the exact analogy. And I would be critical of prosecution if there was a suggestion of retaliatory political prosecution.
You’ll find that conservatives tend to be suspicious of government power no matter who is in charge. Perhaps you yourself are a conservative.
Would D’Souza funnel a relatively small amount of money illegally to a candidate just to prove that certain laws are only diligently applied to noisy people on his political side ? He does seem like the type to be so motivated by his cause that he’s reckless with himself—nutty like those dissidents the Soviets used to lock into loony bins and drug during, I think, the 1970’s .
Richard Anderson, you now have me curious enough about this book ( The-Enemy-At-Home… ) to check it out for myself.
If you are right then D’Souza will do the big reveal the day after Obama is out of the White House.
I hope you are right.
Either way, though, he will do a movie on this, I’m pretty sure. He’s playing rope-a-dope for now until they get their fangs out of him.
We’re workin’ on it.
Let’s say you check out Dinesh’s book, and you really disagree with, maybe, even hate what the book says. Does that mean Dinesh must have a psychological problem? And the judge should just ignore his own designated experts’ professional assessment that Dinesh is well adjusted, needs no further counseling; but then impose 4 more years of counseling (torture) until Dinesh cries “I have a psychological problem for giving $15,000 more than allowed”?
This is not about any of Dinesh’s books, and what he did, for which he has already served his sentence. It’s all about the judge; whether he has abused his judicial power, by imposing essentially 4 years of mental torture until the citizen cries “uncle” and submits to the judge’s narrow political biases.
If you step back, think about it a little, it’s really no longer about what Dinesh’s offence is. It’s about the judge that’s out of control. Please do not get distracted.
All judges are out of control. All judges and prosecutors, etc abuse their positions and abuse their powers as they see fit. That is how the system works.
Great. There goes any possibility of reining in abusive judges and prosecutors.
First, judges have elevated themselves to the position of cultural spokesmen with the Obergefell decision. Now, judges believe they are qualified to be social workers. They are now the judge, executive, bureacracy, representives of the people, prophets of social change and justice, all rolled into seemingly harmless little fuzzballs.
[Edit: Hard to believe some did not see this as criticism of the situation.]
Wait a minute. You can’t possibly take that as given, acceptable? (I don’t think you do but from your comment, it feels different. What’s happening to Dinesh is an outrage!)
I love your worldly perspective. I am wondering what cave you would crawl under when Judge Berman comes after you for your “psychologically problematic: views which really needs 4 more years of counseling to get it straightened out.
And you know, he is really just trying to be helpful, because, you know, he was a psychology major in college, and well, he knows there is really something wrong with people like you.
@koolie: Dinesh’s issue is he was/is not publicly contrite enough. When dealing with the law one must show remorse, render clothes, grovel, public admit that they are wrong and the almighty system (and its keepers) are right. Every con knows you don’t spit in the judges eye, it just gets you more time, you have to go and kiss their legal buttocks. In a courtroom every judge is king, and every king requires respect. By Dinesh not being properly publicly contrite he indicated that he did not respect this king/judge thus he got more punishment. For a smart man he did something very dumb. But that is most likely due to his inexperience with the real legal system as opposed to the fictional one we are all taught about.
Let me see. This king judge says Dinesh has to go through 8 months of therapeutic counseling. Dinesh goes through that, the psychiatrist and psychologist pronounce him normal and well-adjusted. The judge slaps down his own designated experts and sentence Dinesh to 4 more years of counseling, because the judge/king thinks Dinesh must have a psychological problem
Can you step back and try to figure out why your “king judges” may be out of control?
Re comment 45
First of all, I agree with just about everything you said. But I’m not getting distracted. I figure the one very minute way average people might do what they can do to discourage this kind of political persecution is to buy, read, and respectfully discuss the books of the targeted person.
Also, with what he’ll have to pay lawyers, the money from book sales would be helpful. And it might be good for his morale to know his arguments are being evaluated by people who don’t ask themselves what they’re supposed to think before responding to them. You have any better ideas?
Don’t think I don’t know that everyone, including people who vehemently disagree with D’Souza, should be alarmed by the fact that a judge can do this.
If a judge is like that, he/she should be impeached.
Also, you are establishing excellent arguments for returning to the law of revenge as opposed to law in books.
Anyone who is in a position to wield power over others while at the same time unanswerable for his actions is a danger. Some judges feel that this is the world they inhabit. I’ve seen the same kind of mentality with tenured professors who think they answer to no one, and so they abuse their authority over students and over junior colleagues.
The system needs to be changed. Judges need to be answerable. I know that their decisions can be appealed to a higher court (some of the time) but that is a very expensive way for a victim of the judge’s overreach to get justice. And even if the judge’s victim is ultimately successful on appeal after the expenditure of years and all his fortune, nothing happens to the judge.
Maybe the simplest answer is to have 3-judge tribunals for all cases, to limit the ability of a single judge like Berman to be so egregious. Or maybe have much more timely and inexpensive appeals.
@omegapaladin#54: I agree, some people could use killing, or maybe a good butt kicking. The problem is that we have too many people with power over others that never have to pay for their stupidity and abuse. Thus they keep doing improper actions in larger and larger degrees.
There are times I feel that the safety of civilization needs to be just a tad less safe, just so these folk would consider their actions.
Real Jane Galt
There you go, now you’re getting to the nub: you stop a bully by knocking his teeth out.
Conservatives lost the knack of exercising power a long time ago, but our rivals for social dominance never did. They enjoy it and so will continue to find ways to do so, up until the time we make it hurt.
That’s what tarring-and-feathering the tax collector – or the judge – is all about.
Freesmith,
I think you nailed it. The problem with fear of the mob is that it only runs one way. If the John Doe prosecutor in Wisconsin was worried that he’d have his house firebombed or his car destroyed by irate conservatives, he might have been less willing to flagrantly violate the Constitution. If this judge thought he might have a date with an angry mob and a rail, he might have rethought his decision.
I greatly prefer the rule of law to the law of revenge and mob justice. However, we need to avoid unilateral disarmament. People respond to incentives, after all. Being a judicial dictator should be a somewhat dangerous proposition.
Re # 58
o
We at least need to do whatever we legally can to make political and religious persecution cost the people who engage in it as much as possible. I don’t know, but I suspect conservatives haven’t been diligent about that. We make the mistake of falling into a kind of ” unilateral disarmament” —doing nothing—because we think anything we can do is futile.
And it isn’t….yet.
Omega Paladin
There’s a great scene in the classic movie “Elmer Gantry.” Near the film’s conclusion the title character, played by Burt Lancaster, enters a room and sees a pimp bitch-slapping his whore. Gantry goes up to the pimp, taps him on the shoulder and, when the man turns around, Gantry says, “Don’t you know that hurts?”
And then Gantry shows the pimp that it does.
Twenty five years ago Rush Limbaugh burst onto the national scene with a program that explicitly aimed to “defend the the values and traditions that made this country great.” Unfortunately, when you’re defending, you’re losing.
Enough defensiveness. Enough with the apologies. Attack, Attack, Attack!
Remember, when we were putting Reds in front of congressional hearings and juries and sending them to jail, the charge of racism had no power in America.