Prosecutors Tell Judge Not to Buy D’Souza’s Fake Contrition

Dinesh D’Souza recently threw himself on the mercy of the court in the case in which he pleaded guilty to election law violations, telling the judge in a letter how terrible ashamed he is of what he did. Prosecutors have filed a response to that plea, pointing out that D’Souza has been saying very different things to the public than he is to the judge.

In his letter to the judge, D’Souza said, “I cannot believe how stupid I was, how careless, and how irresponsible…I took a short-cut, knowing that there was a campaign limit and trying to get around the limit. This should not have happened, and I am ashamed and contrite that it did.” But that stands in stark contrast to what he said when he was indicted, which was that he’s being selectively prosecuted and that he shouldn’t be held accountable because he had no criminal intent.

“Normally, when you charge somebody with a serious crime, in this case two counts of a felony with a maximum of seven years in prison, there has to be malevolent intent, you have to be trying to do something bad,” D’Souza explained.

“In this particular case, they are saying I transcended the campaign limit by $20,000, but even they admit that the motive of doing this is to help a long-time friend, a college classmate of mine, Wendy Long, who is running an uphill campaign for the Senate in New York. But they’re not alleging that I did this with a view to getting an appointment, or quid-pro-quo. I’m not a professional bundler in any way. This was, even if what they say was true, not normally the kind of thing for which you engage in this type of heavy-handed prosecution. It is unusual.”

In fact, he kept up the claim of selective prosecution even after he pleaded guilty and even after the judge ruled against him in trying to make that argument, saying that he had no evidence for it. Here he is in an interview with Steve Malzberg after he pleaded guilty:

Well, uh, from the beginning of this case when the um, uh, the prosecution and I appeared in court, I said that I did exceed the limits of the campaign finance laws. So not from the beginning did I maintain, uh, that I did not exceed them. The case revolved really on 2 points. Uh, one is the issue of selective prosecution. In other words, is it the case that I was being selectively or excessively prosecuted for something that normally doesn’t get this kind of treatment. Remember Steve that this is a case involving no corruption whatsoever. Uh, I gave $20,000 dollars to a longtime college friend who was running for the Senate, and I wasn’t trying to get anything out of it. I just saw that her campaign was flailing. She was flailing, I was trying to help her, and I did it in the wrong way. So I admitted that I did that from the very beginning. The second issue was my intent: did I intend to commit a crime? Did I intend to break the law? What really changed in the case is that the Judge ruled that the selective prosecution issue could not be, could not be introduced in court. Uh, and second, he defined intent in a quite narrow way that made it almost impossible for me to launch a defense based on that. So, those were the things that changed. It wasn’t that I had one story at the beginning, another story at the end.

The issues in this case have been the same from the very beginning.

He said virtually identical things on Fox News the day he pleaded guilty. So to the judge, he’s incredibly sorry and ashamed of what he did and admits that he knew that what he was doing was criminal. But in the right wing media, he’s being selectively prosecuted and he never had any criminal intent. And it’s not a big deal anyway. See, that pretty much negates all that talk of contrition and shame. And the judge isn’t likely to let him get away with this.

"But even so they keep -- mainly -- losing the culture wars. Homos are getting ..."

Wiles: Christians in America Just Like ..."
"Carries on to East German paradeI am well aware of European historyLooks like germany is ..."

Crokin: Trump Was Sending a Message ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • busterggi

    DD wouldn’t lie to a judge, afterall DD’s a Christian. So he must be lying to the rest of the world.

  • daved

    I like the way he nicely poses the question “The second issue was my intent: did I intend to commit a crime? Did I intend to break the law?” Then he doesn’t answer it. In fact, he doesn’t answer it in any of the quoted passages.

    Pfui. Of course he intended to break the law. That’s why he attempted (unsuccessfully, and rather ineptly) to conceal his actions.

  • dugglebogey

    D’Souza loves the shit out of America, but doesn’t love our laws or our legal system very much.

    This is akin to a sixteen year old getting busted for giving an older guy money to buy him liquor and then saying “I wasn’t going to drink it.”

    Just because he didn’t profit (directly) from his illegal activity doesn’t make it okay.

  • Area Man

    Ah, the Party of Personal Responsibility. It must be because they’re so responsible that they’re never at fault for anything.

  • garnetstar

    I think that these people in the RW bubble lose the knowledge that everyone else has that words have meaning. RWNJs lie so often, and change their stories so often, to their audiences and to each other, and there are no consequences at all, everyone still approves of them mightily. So, to them saying something and saying something completely contradictory later, are the same thing: no one will hold them accountable, or even remember, their prior statements. An unfortunate consequence of lying all the time is that you also end up deceived, by yourself.

    Welcome to reality, Dinesh.

  • demonhauntedworld

    The latest bizarre twist is that Michael Shermer apparently wrote a letter vouching for D’Souza as a fine upstanding citizen:

  • John Pieret

    I went and got the Government’s submission on sentencing. I haven’t read it all but this from a transcript of his interview with Steven Malzberg is funny:

    SM: Now, eh, you talking about it like this – you talking about the

    selective prosecution as you see it, uh, even though it wasn’t

    permissible in court. I mean, your lawyers have no problem with

    you doing that now? You don’t think that the Judge will be – is

    listening, or will be influenced, or would care what you say from,

    uh, from this point on to the point of sentencing?

    DD: Well, um, my lawyers raised the issue of selective prosecution in a

    brief that was filed, uh, with the Judge. You have to meet a certain

    legal standard for that to become part of the case. And the Judge

    ruled –

    SM: No, I understand that. Yeah, yeah. But what I’m saying now –

    talking about it now with me. Yeah.

    DD: All – I’m talking about it in general terms. I’m not saying – in other

    words, the Government has all – has information about how they

    made the decision to prosecute. That information was left – was

    excluded from the trial, so we’ll never know who decided to

    prosecute me, and when. All that information is in the possession of

    the Government, but we don’t have it and we’ll never get it. So, all I

    can do is talk about the possibility of selective prosecution, and all I

    can do is look at the world in general, and look at how the Obama

    administration deals with its friends and its critics, uh, and see

    whether they’re applying an even-handed standard or not.

    Arrogant and dumb … a lawyer’s favorite type of client.

  • tacitus

    #6@demonhauntedworld: The latest bizarre twist is that Michael Shermer apparently wrote a letter vouching for D’Souza as a fine upstanding citizen.

    Hmm, so, it’s just one creep and possible criminal writing a letter in support of another:

    Will Misogyny Bring Down The Atheist Movement?

  • Michael Heath

    Consider the level of naivety required to believe anything Dinesh D’Souza asserts.

  • Marcus Ranum

    Ah, Dinesh, how like a weasel you are in your distress.

  • Marcus Ranum

    The latest bizarre twist is that Michael Shermer apparently wrote a letter vouching for D’Souza as a fine upstanding citizen

    I think it’d be awesome if D’Souza writes a letter vouching for Shermer as not a rapist or masher. That way the circle would be complete!!

  • gearloose

    “…awesome if D’Souza writes a letter vouching for Shermer as not a rapist or masher.”

    Yes! Bring on the satirist.

  • dingojack

    HAMLET Methinks it is like a weasel.

    LORD POLONIUS It is backed like a weasel.



    (Sorry just came to mind. Did you know Shakespeare mentions weasels 6 times?)

  • D. C. Sessions

    Did you know Shakespeare mentions weasels 6 times?

    Considering all of the other phallic references from the Bard, I’m a bit surprised there aren’t more.

  • anubisprime


    Pure Shakespearian unto itself methinks!