Pharmacist Files Suit Over Firing »« Beck: God Has Miracles for Me!

D’Souza’s Amusing ‘Aggressive Defense’

Dinesh D’Souza is mad as hell and he’s not going to take it anymore. Okay, in reality Dinesh D’Souza is using his prosecution for campaign finance violations to promote a new documentary he’s releasing in a few months by striking the “I will not be silenced” pose. And here’s his strong defense of those charges:

He said he’s planning an aggressive defense of the criminal charges.

“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.”

Really? That’s your aggressive defense? You do realize that, like your attorney, you’re basically admitting that you violated the law, don’t you? Your motives don’t matter, you broke the law. And they won’t help you in court one little bit.

Comments

  1. fmitchell says

    “But officer, I assaulted the man to save him from all those trans-fats he was about to eat. I’m innocent.”

    In some crimes intent and circumstance reduce the charge or provide a defense. In others, they don’t. I’m guessing campaign finance laws are the latter. In any case, “I’m special” is never a defense.

  2. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    “In this particular case, they are saying I transcended the law which makes torture and murder illegal, but even they admit that the motive of doing this is to help a long-time friend, a college classmate of mine, Joe Blough, who is running an uphill battle against demonic possession. But they’re not alleging that I tortured and killed him with a view to gaining anything material. I’m not a professional murderer 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.”

    I wonder how that would go over in a court of law? Honest, judge, I tortured and killed him to help him get rid of the demon in his head so I shouldn’t be prosecuted.”

  3. raven says

    No matter what happens to D’Souza, it won’t matter to the christofascists.

    Look what happened to Mark Sanford, the disgraced former governor of South Carolina. He is now an elected congressman from SC. Or Newt Gingrich, whose marriages are so sacred, he has had three of them.

    Hypocrisy is one of their three main sacraments.

  4. Al Dente says

    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

    What D’Souza considers malevolent and what normal people consider malevolent are two different things. Breaking the law is usually considered malevolent when done for partisan political reasons.

  5. zenlike says

    In this particular case, they are saying I transcended the campaign limit by $20,000 helped bury the body, 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.”

  6. zenlike says

    Damn, strikethrough doesn’t work:

    In this particular case, they are saying I helped bury the body, 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.

  7. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    zenlike:

    You did what I was trying to do. With more coherency. Thank you.

  8. Drew Smith says

    Knowingly violating campaign finance laws *is* “malevolent intent”. It’s malevolent intent against a fair democracy.

  9. says

    Now, look, this isn’t even a crime. All he did was kick in a bit extra in an attempt to ensure that the Republican candidate won. He’s not a criminal. He’s a hero. Dinesh D’souza: saving America twenty grand at a time. When are you people going to learn that we’re trying to save this country from you people?!
     
    Alternately:
    See? He cheated, destroying the integrity of our vaunted election system! This is why we need voter ID laws!

  10. Phillip IV says

    Normally, when you charge somebody with a serious crime (…) there has to be malevolent intent

    Translation: An undeniable crime should only count as a serious crime when it’s been committed by a member of the criminal classes (e.g. dirty hippies, muslims, gays), not a good, conservative Christian like me, whose motives are pure by default.

    His fans might think that’s an ironclad defense, but it’s not terribly likely to get him anywhere in court. Especially in a case like this, where the mere fact that he tried to circumvent those donation limits already proves that he was aware of them and consciously chose to break the law.

    As for the “friendship” defense…well, let’s just say that it’s basically the same as the “I only killed him out of respect and love for my Don.” defense. It’s never really flown well as a high-minded motive for a crime.

  11. sigurd jorsalfar says

    He seems to be confusing ‘malevolent intent’ as that term has been used in tort law – whereby an otherwise lawful act can become an actionable tort if the defendant acted through malevolence or malice – with intent in criminal law, which requires only that an intent to commit the act be proved, not that the intent be malevolent.

    It really makes no sense to add this additional malevolence requirement into the criminal law because the intent, as someone posted above, to commit a criminal act is deemed malevolent anyway given that the act is criminal.

  12. tsig says

    Raven #4
    “Hypocrisy is one of their three main sacraments”

    The other two are hypocrisy and hypocrisy.

  13. says

    I love the wording “transcended the limits…” As if he were doing something lofty, or even holy, by deliberately breaking the law in an attempt to rig an election.

    Try “violated the limits…”

    Personally, I don’t think we treat electioneering and public corruption seriously enough. It amounts to an attempt to sabotage the foundation of American government, and ought to be treated as treason.

  14. John Pieret says

    a long-time friend, a college classmate of mine, Wendy Long, who is running an uphill campaign for the Senate in New York.

    The more correct terminology would be “sacrificial lamb” or “quixotic campaign.” Which makes the violation even less understandable. Twenty grand was going to make no more difference than five. Was it some sort of quid pro quo for something Long had done for him?

    I do agree that the lack of obvious financial/political motive is a mitigating factor but hardly a “defense.”

  15. shouldbeworking says

    @3 “In some crimes intent and circumstance reduce the charge or provide a defense. In others, they don’t. I’m guessing campaign finance laws are the latter. In any case, “I’m special” is never a defense.”

    However, “I’m a republican” should always work!

    /snark mode off

  16. says

    I do have to say that it strikes me as a bit of a travesty that D’Souza is being prosecuted for doing far less damage to US ‘democracy’ than the Koch bros or many other more wealthy kingmakers.

    Still gotta laugh, though. Pass me another slice of schadenfreude pie, please?

  17. dingojack says

    My Dear Mr D’Souzaphone -
    I regret to inform you it is necessary to kill you. I only do this to increase the average IQ of Americans. Do not attempt to resist or engage law enforcement in any way. I’m sure you understand that my motives for killing you are not malicious in any way, but rather only to benefit Americans as a whole and therefore ‘perfectly legal’.
    @@
    Dingo

  18. rabbitscribe says

    #13 Sigurd: I bet that’s exactly what he’s thinking. And you are correct: it’s not a valid defense to the charges against him (or for that matter, to any criminal charges). If he was saying he accidentally broke the law, that might be different. But he’s admitted he specifically intended to do so, so his motives are irrelevant. You can’t knock over a liquor store to feed your crack habit and you can’t knock over a liquor store and donate the proceeds to Doctors Without Borders. Either might be a factor in mitigation at sentencing, but neither are defenses of any kind.

  19. felidae says

    Dinesh’s chant:
    Oh shit! I got caught, I really really didn’t mean to do anything bad, please believe me , I was just doing a favor for a friend, no harm-no foul, I’ll never do it again, please just let me off, I’m not a BAD person…..

  20. Sastra says

    D’Souza sounds like he’s trying to play what I’ll call the “Daley Defense.”

    Back in I think the ’60′s Mayor Richard J Daley of Chicago was charged with nepotism. Apparently he had hired his son, who was a contractor, to do some work for the city and hadn’t bothered with any of the petty legal processes regarding submitting concealed bids to a committee, etc. His defense? Brazen admission.

    “Yeah, I hired my kid. Damn right. So what? Wouldn’t any father do the same for THEIR kid?”

    The public loved it. He hit the right button. “If it were my kid? Sure I’d give him a hand. Okay,” thought the voters. The press had a hard time nailing him for it.

    I do not remember whether the courts bought it; almost certainly not. But it didn’t hurt him politically. It actually helped.

    D’Souza was just coming to the aid of a friend. Right? You’d do that, right? C’mon, the law is for bad people. Not us.

    The Daley Defense.

  21. mikeyb says

    I don’t know who is more utterly repulsive, D’souza, Deepak Chopra, or Glenn Beck. I’ll call it a tie. What all three have in common is that they dream up the most far fetched asinine conspiracies and idiotic reasons to explain their totally fucked up wrong headed views about the world, and they have armies of morons drooling for every pearl of insanity dripping from their lips gladly handing over their wallets in the process. Only in America can the art of the con be so supremely perfected.

    Let’s see how well this smarmy know it all attitude keeps him out of jail.

  22. Mark Weber says

    D’Souza is sort of correct that most crimes have a mental component. He is wildly mistaken about what that means, though. One need not have a “malevolent intent” in committing a crime, but a “mens rea”, a criminal intent. One must have had the intent to commit the action which is a crime. In this case, he intended to give $20,000 over the limit and thus committed a crime. Nice try, dumbass. Next time consult with your lawyer before making a public statement against interest which can and will be used against you in a court of law.

  23. anteprepro says

    If “yes, I intentionally violated the law, but I didn’t mean any harm, and it isn’t really that big of a deal” counts as a valid defense, we might as abolish the legal system right now.

  24. lorn says

    You mean I might have gotten out of that speeding ticket by claiming I didn’t intend to speed? I mean D’Souza is no dummy. He has enough brain cells operating to fill out a basketball bench. And he thinks this makes sense. So the kicker, the underlying flaw as to why he thinks this makes sense, must have to do with his commitment to conservatism. Knowing law enforcement tends to lean conservative I should have tried it out on the state trooper.

    New rule: Conservatives are apt to excuse violations of law if you claim a lack of intent.

  25. brucegee1962 says

    Ah, the classic “Everyone else is doing it” defense. It worked so well for Martha Stewart.

Leave a Reply