“Why should you go to jail for a crime someone else noticed?” asks the character of Bob Loblaw, an attorney, in the sitcom “Arrested Development.”
That line, which was written as a joke, is being repurposed to defend President Trump’s pardon of political provocateur Dinesh D’Souza, who pleaded guilty in May 2014 to using straw donors to funnel an estimated $20,000 to a New York Senate candidate.
It would be one thing to argue D’Souza deserves a pardon because he is penitent or that he has done his time. But he hasn’t really “done time” (well, he has if you think community service and eight months in “community confinement” count), and he certainly isn’t penitent.
Here’s the thing, though: These aren’t even the most maddening aspects of this episode. That particular honor goes to the people arguing that the real scandal of D’Souza’s admitted crime is that he was “selectively prosecuted” for being an outspoken critic of the former President Barack Obama’s administration.
This isn’t just conservative cranks, it includes Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas!
“Bravo!” tweeted Cruz, who reportedly put Trump up to the pardon, which would appear to contradict the president’s claim that “nobody asked me to do it.”
“Dinesh was the subject of a political prosecution, brazenly targeted by the Obama administration bc of his political views. And he’s a powerful voice for freedom, systematically dismantling the lies of the Left—which is why they hate him. This is Justice,” Cruz’s tweet added.
Talk radio host Mark Levin added elsewhere, “Hat’s [sic] off to the president, who’s going to pardon Dinesh D’Souza. His prosecution and imprisonment by a hack Democrat prosecutor was outrageous. And there aren’t many GOP presidents who’d have the guts to do this, either.”
The White House itself explained Thursday that, “Mr. D’Souza was, in the President’s opinion, a victim of selective prosecution for violations of campaign finance laws.”
These are just three high-profile examples of people making this argument. There’s much more where this comes from.
A few quick points:
First, there is no actual evidence that D’Souza was “selectively prosecuted” for making anti-Obama movies. D’Souza himself has only ever provided speculation and innuendo, much to the irritation of the judge who heard his case.
“The Court concludes that the defense, respectfully, has presented no evidence that he was selectively prosecuted,” U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman ruled in 2014. “The burden, at this motion stage, is some evidence…There is no evidence of discriminatory effect nor of discriminatory purpose. “
He added at the same hearing that the defendant’s political targeting claims were, “legally speaking, all hat, no cattle,” which is a very polite way of saying “bullshit.”
Second, and this is really important, D’Souza himself disputed the “selectively prosecuted” allegations in 2014.
“I have never even said I am being selectively prosecuted. I feared that I was being,” he said in court.
D’Souza continued, adding he only worried that he was being politically targeted because, “I’m one of the rare people in the United States who has been attacked by … by the sitting President.”
The attack to which he was referring is a blog post that appeared on Obama’s campaign website characterizing one of D’Souza’s films as, “a deliberate distortion” of his “record and world view.”
Chilling indeed.
Lastly, even if it were true that D’Souza was the victim of “selective” prosecution, that doesn’t absolve him of the wrongdoing to which he admitted when he pleaded guilty! It would only mean there are more unethical actors in this scandal than originally thought.
“No fair, you peeked!” is a defense one would expect from children, not sitting U.S. senators.
