Althouse: "I did reimburse them," Dinesh D’Souza admitted, pleading guilty in federal court yesterday.

May 21, 2014

"I did reimburse them," Dinesh D’Souza admitted, pleading guilty in federal court yesterday.

"I knew that causing a campaign contribution to be made in the name of another was wrong and something the law forbids. I deeply regret my conduct."

64 comments:

Freder Frederson said...: OMG, he was persecuted!

Kind of makes you all look like idiots for defending him, doesn't it.; 5/21/14, 7:34 AM
Tank said...: Yes, he's an idiot for breaking the law. Of course, the law is an idiot too. Why shouldn't he be allowed to give $30K directly himself? WTF? Stupid laws.

The idea that he might go to jail for this "crime" compared to _____________ (a thousand things we could all name) is bizarre.

If he goes to jail, can anyone argue that this is not a political hit job (incidentally, all the more reason he was an idiot to do this)?; 5/21/14, 7:44 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Kind of makes you all look like idiots for defending him, doesn't it."

I think the discussion was about whether he was selectively prosecuted. Is that at all a concern of yours?; 5/21/14, 7:47 AM
Ann Althouse said...: If this is validly criminalized, I want everyone who does it discovered and prosecuted. If it's worth trying because it's rarely prosecuted, then it deters rule-followers from doing things other people do with impunity. If it's selectively prosecuted, that's the worst of all possible situations!

Analogize to speed limits to think about the problem.; 5/21/14, 7:49 AM
Matt Sablan said...: An investigation was done, and he's copped to it? The system, in this case, worked. The question now is whether or not this, like the fact some abnormally high percentage of tea party members were targeted by the IRS, Gibson, etc., etc., whether this was a TARGETED prosecution... though I see Althouse beat me to that punch.

I don't like thinking that conspiracy theories exist, but with yet ANOTHER fringe conspiracy I would have dismissed out of hand ("The VA is deliberately delaying treatment of veterans!") turning out to be... less theory and more fact, my faith in government policing itself without special prosecutors is really low.

We have an inbuilt system to ensure the government isn't abusing its powers, we should use it.

I'm all for law and order, but law and order without impartiality is not justice.; 5/21/14, 7:59 AM
damikesc said...: I think the discussion was about whether he was selectively prosecuted. Is that at all a concern of yours?

The Far Left never seems to question what happens if they aren't the ones in power. Because if a Republican did what Obama has been doing, they'd scream bloody murder.; 5/21/14, 8:08 AM
garage mahal said...: Kind of makes you all look like idiots for defending him, doesn't it.

They think that's what their side does, so why wouldn't Democrats?; 5/21/14, 8:12 AM
Gahrie said...: I think the discussion was about whether he was selectively prosecuted. Is that at all a concern of yours?

Are you kidding? The current administration is the poster child for selective prosecution.

Holder should be impeached for this alone.; 5/21/14, 8:25 AM
Freder Frederson said...: Is that at all a concern of yours?

Not at all. Violation of this particular law requires a toxic mixture of hubris, arrogance, and narcissism. One must believe that laws are only for the little people if you so blatantly and transparently violate individual contribution limits.; 5/21/14, 8:26 AM
MayBee said...: Refreshing honesty.

What do bundlers do? If all they do is get credit for someone else's contribution, why are they so richly rewarded?; 5/21/14, 8:26 AM
jr565 said...: If he's going to be punished for doing this what should we do when, for Example, the Obama adminstration disables address verification so that people could essentially donate with up impunity to his first campaign?; 5/21/14, 8:28 AM
jr565 said...: Althouse wrote:
I think the discussion was about whether he was selectively prosecuted. Is that at all a concern of yours?

I think in Freder's case! the answer would be no.; 5/21/14, 8:28 AM
Michael said...: To his credit he is taking responsibility. He was clearly singled out for his politics.

But our turn will come shortly and perhaps we can extend this game a few innings and look ever so carefully at the Fredersons of this world, turn the bureaucracy towards the left, pull a few "random" tax filings for extensive audits.

Keep thise receipts, Frederson.; 5/21/14, 8:51 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Stop "playing the victim," Dinesh.

God, I LOVE telling conservatives that,...; 5/21/14, 8:52 AM
Illuninati said...: Freder Frederson said...
"OMG, he was persecuted!

Kind of makes you all look like idiots for defending him, doesn't it."

This is typical lefty thinking. Which is a bigger crime, selective prosecution for political purposes or giving a few thousand too much to a political campaign? A conservative would say criminalizing political opposition is worse, the lefty thinks that as long as it is their guy there are no limits. In the lefty mind no matter how egregious the crimes on their side might be if they can wrangle a conviction of their enemy that means that everything their side did is righteous. Same goes for conservatives who apologize. So long as they have an apology all crimes on the lefty side are washed away.; 5/21/14, 8:54 AM
Mark O said...: Is there really any question that he was selectively prosecuted. This by the same crew that caused the video producer to go to jail?

Everyone should be afraid of this Administration.; 5/21/14, 9:07 AM
FullMoon said...: If this is validly criminalized, I want everyone who does it discovered and prosecuted. If it's worth trying because it's rarely prosecuted, then it deters rule-followers from doing things other people do with impunity. If it's selectively prosecuted, that's the worst of all possible situations!
It would be nice to see a Republican administration use the same tactics against the opposition. This is another example of intimidation. Like the seemingly crazy Koch brothers attacks, it is a warning to others.
It is Gangster behavior.; 5/21/14, 9:20 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Not at all. Violation of this particular law requires a toxic mixture of hubris, arrogance, and narcissism. One must believe that laws are only for the little people if you so blatantly and transparently violate individual contribution limits."

So, if, say, 50% of drivers are going 10 mph over the speed limit, and the police always only ticket those who are actually speeding, but 95% of the drivers ticketed for speeding are black, you have no problem at all, because exceeding the speed limit reflects a mindset that the law does not apply to you?

Please do not display hubris, arrogance, or narcissism in an effort to find a way that the rules of reason are for other people.; 5/21/14, 9:22 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Note that with the comments needing to go through moderation, Michael made his point without having seen what Freder had written.; 5/21/14, 9:24 AM
Tank said...: The Crack Emcee said...
Stop "playing the victim," Dinesh.

God, I LOVE telling conservatives that,...

Then it's good that you did not see him on Kelly last night where he did not in any way act like a whining, crying titty baby, the way you always do.; 5/21/14, 9:28 AM
garage mahal said...: Wesley Snipes was singled out by Bush because he is black. Clearly. How can anyone question that?; 5/21/14, 9:30 AM
traditionalguy said...: D'Souza was acting as an influence broker. That is done all of the time and is called acting as a donation bundler. It is rewarded when your candidate wins.

It is also a way to appear powerful among the Party you want to influence, win or lose.

So his crime is either stupidity for breaking election law prohibitions laws for a hopeless candidate, or it is not picking sophisticated co-conspirators for your group.; 5/21/14, 9:31 AM
Robert Cook said...: "One must believe that laws are only for the little people if you so blatantly and transparently violate individual contribution limits."

Effectively, laws are only for the little people. Unfortunately or not, as a little people, I am subject to the law. It's time we demand that the big people also be subject to the law.

I neither know nor care anything about this particular case, so I cannot comment on it, other than to suggest that D'Souza is a very small "big people," and I'd rather see application of the law--including prosecutions--be applied first to the big big people. There are more than enough of those swine breaking the law with impunity--and causing grievous damage to the rest of us--to occupy us for a long time. That D'Souza is being prosecuted simply shows how small-time he is.; 5/21/14, 9:33 AM
Harold Boxty said...: "Dinesh D’Souza wasn’t allowed by the Judge to contest the selective prosecution of his case, so he basically had no defense and was forced to take a deal. The government agreed to drop the more serious charge if he’d plead guilty to the lesser charge, something he readily admits he did, however naive he was."

http://therightscoop.com/dinesh-dsouza-explains-why-he-plead-guilty-to-illegal-contributions-charge/; 5/21/14, 9:36 AM
Freder Frederson said...: "The VA is deliberately delaying treatment of veterans!"

This statement is deceptive at best. There is no evidence that the problems at the VA are a deliberate attempt to delay treatment out of animus. What is happening is that the system is swamped and administrators have cooked the books to make it appear that service goals are being met.; 5/21/14, 9:39 AM
Ann Althouse said...: I suspect that what D'Souza did he did because he thought it's what goes on all around all the time. If that's true, then the problem is disturbingly large.

I hate systems with lots of complicated rules that exclude honest people and facilitate those who know how to play the game. Should I celebrate when one player is caught? Not if the game goes on with an even more elite set of players.; 5/21/14, 9:39 AM
Freder Frederson said...: So, if, say, 50% of drivers are going 10 mph over the speed limit, and the police always only ticket those who are actually speeding, but 95% of the drivers ticketed for speeding are black

What does this statement have to do with the situation at hand? Are you now asserting that racial animus had something to do with the prosecution?

Where is the evidence that this was a selective prosecution? Please provide any evidence that this is a selective prosecution. The last time there was a high profile case like this it was a Democratic donor during a Democratic administration.

I would assert that it is much more likely that the reason this particular crime is rarely prosecuted is because few people are stupid (or arrogant or clueless) enough to so blatantly violate the law, especially since it is so easy to legally support your candidate financially through other means.; 5/21/14, 9:51 AM
Freder Frederson said...: He was clearly singled out for his politics.

And you know this how?; 5/21/14, 9:52 AM
grackle said...: … my faith in government policing itself without special prosecutors is really low.

Yeah, but if every alleged offense gets a special prosecutor there would soon be too many special prosecutors. There would have to be a selective process in choosing which things to prosecute and you end up with the same problem – selective prosecution. Perhaps the answer is to just not break the law even if all around you are breaking it and especially if the instrument of justice is controlled by political opponents.

This is typical lefty thinking. Which is a bigger crime, selective prosecution for political purposes or giving a few thousand too much to a political campaign?

I don't think selective prosecution is particularly typical of either Left or Right. They both do it from time to time if the opportunity arises. Case in point: ex-President Bill Clinton. Slick Willy was prosecuted for something a multitude of politicians in DC probably do everyday: Screwing vulnerable women whose heads are turned by power and prestige. They couldn't get him on anything else so they got him on that. I believe the obvious hypocrisy helped keep Clinton popular.

Are you kidding? The current administration is the poster child for selective prosecution.

Agreed. However, doesn't that very abundance make a case for the relative scarcity in general of selective prosecutions?; 5/21/14, 9:59 AM
Michael K said...: "What is happening is that the system is swamped and administrators have cooked the books to make it appear that service goals are being met."

Says the lefty who has no idea about how the VA really works .

For perspective, 60% of cardiologists reported seeing between 50 and 124 patients per week, according to a 2013 survey of medical professionals’ compensation conducted by Medscape. On the low end, the average single private practice cardiologist who participated in the study saw more patients in a week than the Albuquerque VA’s entire eight-person cardiology department.

"Swamped. " Every physician who has ever had anything to do with the VA know this.

Fortunately, stupidity is not a crime.; 5/21/14, 10:02 AM
Drago said...: The Crack Emcee: "Stop "playing the victim," Dinesh."

LOL

How. Rich. Is. That?; 5/21/14, 10:03 AM
grackle said...: There is no evidence that the problems at the VA are a deliberate attempt to delay treatment out of animus. What is happening is that the system is swamped and administrators have cooked the books to make it appear that service goals are being met.

No, not out of animus. The administrators responsible probably do not care about the welfare of veterans one way or another. But isn't it interesting that the books were cooked all apparently using the same method?; 5/21/14, 10:04 AM
Drago said...: Freder: "This statement is deceptive at best."

No.

Your attempt at obfuscation of this known fact is deceptive. Period.; 5/21/14, 10:05 AM
Drago said...: If only Dinesh had solicited and received donations from Buddhist nuns who have nothing (due to their vow of poverty) within the confines of a religious institution.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2000/02/07/272816/

I wonder where the penniless Buddhist nuns got the money to give to Gore?

Nothing to see there though.

Or how about simply using the taxpayer provided phones at the white house to solicit campaign donations?

We all know how much garage hates that!

"No controlling legal authority" indeed.; 5/21/14, 10:09 AM
Drago said...: Ann: " If that's true, then the problem is disturbingly large."

The "problem", if you want to call it that, is gargantuan.

Of course, it only exists since the members of the gov't have been spending decades coming up with incumbent protection laws that simply make it more difficult for challengers.; 5/21/14, 10:11 AM
Drago said...: Freder: "What does this statement have to do with the situation at hand? Are you now asserting that racial animus had something to do with the prosecution?"

Is Freder playing dumb, or actually this dumb?

Why can't it be both I say.

Bundling and reimbursement of donations is ubiquitous.

It's everywhere.

It's now akin to turning off the credit card checks to allow for unlimited and untraceable foreign donations by the obama-ites.

With nary a peep from the left.

Wait until a republican does that though and then you'll hear the little piggies squealing!; 5/21/14, 10:15 AM
mccullough said...: How is it fair for Jesse Jackson Jr to go to prison for using campaign funds for personal expenditures but Harry Reid gives his granddaughter campaign money as a personal expenditure and just says "oops I'll reimburse the campaign with my personal money" when he gets caught?

Why is D'Souza prosecuted but not Reid? The amount of money was almost the same?

Why in the world are teenagers being prosecuted for drug possession when our current president and his predecessor did the same thing with no consequence?

Most laws are stupid, which causes disrespect for the law. But so does selective prosecution. You can't catch everybody, but of those who are caught, there needs to be a transparent process as to why some but not others get prosecuted. If Harry Reid gets to pull this shit, it tells me even a Obama and Holder think campaign finance laws are bullshit.; 5/21/14, 10:46 AM
garage mahal said...: The "problem", if you want to call it that, is gargantuan.

Don't forget Benghazi; 5/21/14, 10:49 AM
Andy Freeman said...: > What is happening is that the system is swamped and administrators have cooked the books to make it appear that service goals are being met.

Frederson "forgets" that the folks cooking the books were given performance bonuses for meeting said service goals.

Lying to the govt for financial gain is considered a crime in most circumstances. Why is this one an exception?; 5/21/14, 10:56 AM
Drago said...: Yes garage, we can see that you are being diligent in repetition of the talking points.

You'll probably get a cookie.

There's a good lad.; 5/21/14, 11:17 AM
Michael K said...: "Don't forget Benghazi"

Says the lefty who could not care less about US servicemen and diplomats who used to expect the US to come for them.

"“TR sent an ultimatum to Morocco by having the message, “We want either Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead.” Perdicaris was released."

You have no idea what this is about. And you think it is a joke.; 5/21/14, 11:19 AM
Michael said...: It will be interesting to see what penalty D'Souza will face.

If he got life it would not be as bad as being relegated Freder Frederson's "brain" for a day.; 5/21/14, 11:34 AM
Dr Weevil said...: Freder Frederson writes (9:51): "The last time there was a high profile case like this it was a Democratic donor during a Democratic administration."

If he gave us a name and (even better) a link, we could easily judge whether D'Souza is being treated fairly or unfairly.

Was FF's Democratic donor ever handcuffed? Was he made to post $500,000 in bail? Was his passport taken away from him? Because all that was done to D'Souza. My impression is that dozens of people have been caught doing this sort of thing in the last 30 years, that most were Democrats, and that all they had to do was pay a financial penalty after their candidate had safely won or lost.

If FF has an example of a previous illegal donor being treated like DD, he needs to show his work.; 5/21/14, 11:37 AM
Michael said...: Crack:
"Stop "playing the victim," Dinesh.

God, I LOVE telling conservatives that,"

If you read the article you would see that he was taking responsibility and was not "playing the victim."

You might have wanted to think and write: "Conservatives, stop acting like Dinesh was a victim." In which case your assertion would have made sense.

Cheers; 5/21/14, 11:39 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Laws aren't for the little people, they're for the not David Greggories of the world.; 5/21/14, 11:54 AM
Will said...: This is why I love the Althouse blog. Always thought-provoking & challenging!!

The Dinish story and the Univ Texas " Who Graduates" are both issues that really challenge one's thinking!!

Thanks for airing this one Ann!!; 5/21/14, 12:02 PM
PowderSpringsCityCouncilWatch said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/21/14, 12:03 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Freder & his ilk:

You've (all) given up on the idea of "disparate impact" now, right? We won't ever have to listen to arguments based on that horseshit anymore, right?

Ann Althouse said...
I hate systems with lots of complicated rules that exclude honest people and facilitate those who know how to play the game.

Listen to Prof. Small Government over here! If only there were a movement (or even a Party) that supported reducing the size and scope of the central body promulgating rules and programs that fit your description of what you dislike.; 5/21/14, 12:04 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "This statement is deceptive at best. There is no evidence that the problems at the VA are a deliberate attempt to delay treatment out of animus. What is happening is that the system is swamped and administrators have cooked the books to make it appear that service goals are being met."

Note the beauty in the deception here. Freder takes the alleged claim, then adds to it. He states that there is no evidence that there is animus. Look again at the claim: "The VA is deliberately delaying treatment of veterans!"

There is no claim of animus. Next, he states that people are merely cooking the books, not that people have actually been denied treatment. The most recent revelations show this to be false, but he can be forgiven for not knowing about this memo, since it only came out... er, yesterday evening in the WaPo [and who knows how many other places.]

If you want to talk about current policy, be up to date on current policy. For example, the memo tells people to stop turning veterans away who are not early enough for their appointments. Clinics canceling appointments on patients and reporting them as canceled by the patient, despite having the capacity to see the patient, can be seen as nothing more than denying treatment.

Block Scheduling more patients than can be reasonably seen in a time, then turning them away, is the same.

You simply do not know what is going on.; 5/21/14, 12:07 PM
readering said...: Complete waste of my tax dollars to put this guy behind bars. I think his actions reflect badly on his character and I don't believe his prosecution was politically motivated, but this is one of a gazillion over-severe criminal laws in this country. Let him pay a fine (which he could better afford if he hadn't had to pay a high priced lawyer to bargain down the charges and prepare for trial) and move on to the bankers who brought down the financial system.; 5/21/14, 12:09 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "Frederson "forgets" that the folks cooking the books were given performance bonuses for meeting said service goals."

No, he didn't forget that. He has no idea what is going on. This isn't just them saying "Oh, we saw 200 patients that week," when only 50 showed up. They actively turned patients away, canceled appointments and made it impossible to schedule things in a timely manner -- some places refused to schedule more than 30 days out.

It wasn't just bad or malicious book keeping: It was flat out denial of service in many cases. The sorts of things that if a private hospital did, people like Freder would rightly wonder if it was criminal.; 5/21/14, 12:09 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Another practice the memo states happened: They would schedule Test Patients, showing their calendar to be more full than it was. Sometimes, apparently, they'd cancel the Test Patient when a real one came along. But necessarily all the time.

But, Freder's statement [I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe it was made out of ignorance of the facts], would make you believe, all that happened is some people said they saw more people than they really did.

Anyone who spins that to you is uninformed or lying.; 5/21/14, 12:18 PM
David said...: Of course he was selectively prosecuted. All prosecutions are selective to some degree.

The question is, what were the selection criteria?

The answer to that is pretty obvious.; 5/21/14, 12:47 PM
David said...: Freder Frederson said...
Is that at all a concern of yours?

Not at all. Violation of this particular law requires a toxic mixture of hubris, arrogance, and narcissism. One must believe that laws are only for the little people if you so blatantly and transparently violate individual contribution limits.

There you go again, Freder.

Hubris, arrogance and narcissism?

For a moment I thought you were talking about the unprosecuted sexual assailant and perjurer William Jefferson Clinton.; 5/21/14, 12:50 PM
Patrick Henry was right! said...: But Crack, I don't understand - Dinesh D'Souza is a "person of color" who has been victimized by the micro and macro aggressions of the white man. Is he not therefore on your side and excused from all criminal misconduct because racism made him do it?; 5/21/14, 1:12 PM
holdfast said...: I like D'Souza, but he messed up. He had to know (or should have known) that he's have a target on his back because of his film work, and yet he gave the Obama Admin "crime" it needed to come after him.; 5/21/14, 1:24 PM
Drago said...: Basil: "But Crack, I don't understand - Dinesh D'Souza is a "person of color" who has been victimized by the micro and macro aggressions of the white man. Is he not therefore on your side and excused from all criminal misconduct because racism made him do it?"

Crack will explain that Dinesh is not a "real" person of color.

No woman/person of color who disagrees politically with Crack or the left is a "real" woman/person of color.

This has long been axiomatic on the left.

Therefore even white males, as long as they are liberals, are free to attack these non-politically liberal women/persons of color with immunity.; 5/21/14, 3:08 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm glad that he took responsibility for what he did.

Instead of saying he took responsibility, which is what Democrats do.; 5/21/14, 3:54 PM
machine said...: Claiming "taking responsibility" while crying "selective prosecution" is "playing the victim."

FTFY; 5/21/14, 4:08 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: machine,

Claiming "taking responsibility" while crying "selective prosecution" is "playing the victim."

They're delusional, dawg:

Read them for humor,...; 5/21/14, 4:56 PM
Original Mike said...: "Listen to Prof. Small Government over here! If only there were a movement (or even a Party) that supported reducing the size and scope of the central body promulgating rules and programs that fit your description of what you dislike."

I hope you're referring to Libertarians.; 5/21/14, 5:25 PM
Jupiter said...: "traditionalguy said...
D'Souza was acting as an influence broker. That is done all of the time and is called acting as a donation bundler. It is rewarded when your candidate wins."

Since no one seems to know much about this case, let me point out that D'Souza's contributions went to a "candidate" who was a friend of his, had very little chance of winning, and in fact lost in a landslide. Basically, he gave some money to a friend with a weird hobby.

In the country I grew up in, it was rightly recognized that political campaign contributions are a form of political speech, and that freedom of speech, including political speech, is the most important freedom of all.; 5/21/14, 9:26 PM
Drago said...: For a taste of REAL delusion, take a gander at this crack-ism:

Crack: "Because, once you go, you're surrounded by people who say things like:
"Nothing can happen in Utah."
That becomes self-fulfilling prophesy.
OR
"You're going to RULE this town!"
This is usually said by a jealous someone, who can't hold other's interest, before they sabotage your efforts.
Squelching true creativity:"

Wow.

Just wow.

Poor crack.

His "genius" and "creativity" just cannot be appreciated by the mere mortals in flyover country.

It's not enough the white man is keeping crack down, but the flyover folks simply REFUSE to recognize the brilliance that is crack.

Too. Funny.

If not simply sad.; 5/21/14, 9:53 PM
Matt Sablan said...: I know this is on the second page now, but, Whistle Blowers were retaliated against in the VA scandal [much as occurred during F&F.]

So, not only were books being cooked, services denied and people killed through negligence/laziness, the very system we use to check government was being undermined.

So, keep that in mind if anyone tries to sell you a bill of goods like Freder did that there's nothing to this story.; 5/23/14, 6:59 AM