President Trump on Thursday tweeted out
Will be giving a Full Pardon to Dinesh D’Souza today. He was treated very unfairly by our government!
Now, I notice the press covering this event is diligently not reporting the salient facts.
D’Souza was indeed guilty of a technical violation of the law, did confess to the crime, and did serve his sentence. All that is true.
D’Souza is a vocal conservative. Also true. The press, even allegedly conservative press, is calling this an abuse of the pardon power, and claiming it is partisan playing favorites. Not true.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said: “Mr. D’Souza was, in the President’s opinion, a victim of selective prosecution for violations of campaign finance laws. ”
This is something of an understatement.
D’Souza wanted to give twenty thousand dollars to candidate Wendy Long.
He was only allowed to give five thousand dollars, which he did. Four friends of his donated the remaining fifteen, and he paid them back. This is a technically a “conduit payment” hence a violation of campaign finance restrictions.
While this may seem like a large amount to you or to me, it is chump change in the world of politics.
I found this from a Reuters blog article:
Dominic Gentile of Gordon Silver, who represented Nevada campaign finance defendant Harvey Whittemore, conducted exhaustive research on so-called conduit payments of the sort D’Souza is accused of making. In Whittemore’s sentencing memo, he documented civil and criminal penalties in “straw donor” cases.
“Twenty thousand dollars?” Gentile told me. “I’ve never heard of a $20,000 criminal case” for campaign finance violations.”
And at D’Souza’s arraignment Friday in Manhattan federal court, his own lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, told U.S. District Judge Richard Berman that whatever D’Souza did, his conduct wasn’t criminal.
What is the usual penalty for such misdeeds? It is not jail time. The article also mentions:
Arkansas trial lawyer Tab Turner, as Overlawyered recounted in 2006, reimbursed donors of $8,000 to John Edwards’ 2004 presidential campaign and just had to cough up a $9,500 civil fine.
We are not allowed in America to do what we like with our own money that we earn. That the law convicting D’Souza is unconstitutional is nowhere mentioned by the press.
In any case, even if the law were just and fair, the selective enforcement thereof makes this an abuse of power, and a notorious monument to hypocrisy.
There is no case on record of anyone ever getting jail time for this offense. Even to be brought to trial is absurd; these things are usually handled like parking tickets, and the perpetrator gets a fine, no more.
Now any president of any party with an iota of fairness or objectivity in his soul would pardon this outrageous miscarriage of justice. Whether Trump is doing it for personal reasons or not is immaterial.
Equal protection under the law, the very concept of the rule of law, demands that the Obama’s personal enemies not be singled out for lopsided sentencing, even when technically guilty of the underlying unconstitutional law.
In other news, the President fulfilled another campaign promise: he has signed into law the “Right to Try” bill. The bill amends Federal law to allow certain unapproved, experimental drugs to be administered to terminally ill patients who have exhausted all approved treatment options and are unable to participate in clinical drug trials.
Eligible drugs must have undergone the Food and Drug Administration’s Phase I testing. Any manufacturer or sponsor of an eligible investigational drug must report to the FDA on any use of the drug on a “Right to Try” basis.
The FDA will post an annual summary report of “Right to Try” use on its website.
The bill limits the liability of drug sponsors, manufacturers or dispensers that provide, or decline to provide, an eligible investigational drug to an eligible patient.
