If it were political it would mean that the United States was a borderline totalitarian state. We are here talking about whether there were any political considerations in the over-the-top prosecution of Dinesh D’Souza for an illegal campaign contribution. Mr. Brafman is D’Souza’s lawyer and he has filed an application to have this prosecution stopped.
In his filing, Mr. Brafman argued there was “good reason for concern” that Mr. D’Souza, the author of the best-selling 2010 book “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,” was “selectively targeted for felony prosecution because of his outspoken, vigorous and politically controversial criticism and condemnation” of the president and his administration.
Mr. Brafman said that a review of similar campaign finance violation cases shows many were typically not referred for felony prosecution and where they were, it often took several years. “The speed with which the authorities responded to the conduct in this case is virtually unprecedented,” he wrote.
The above report is from The New York Times so they only refer to his book and not to his documentary 2016: Obama’s America which was released in the middle of the last U.S. presidential election in 2012. Because if they mentioned the documentary you might come to the conclusion that there is the possibility – very slight, but still a possibility – that D’Souza really was targeted for his outspoken views.
Here is a more straightforward report, Pundit Dinesh D’Souza says his illegal campaign finance charges may be retribution for criticizing President Obama.
The prosecutors say this claim of political bias is “entirely without merit” and so it must be. Because if there were any merit in this claim, the U.S. really would be a borderline totalitarian state where the rule of law has been replaced by the rule of personal revenge.