Payback? The FBI Indictments of Dinesh D’Souza
Is the recent indictment of Dinesh D’Souza political payback for his successful 2012 anti-Obama film? Speculation abounds inside and out of Washington. If the Obama Administration and his cronies didn’t have such a bad track record of going after their political enemies, we probably wouldn’t be asking such a question. The conservative-destroying attack machine has been in overdrive for so long, we just don’t know who or what to believe these days. Pres. “Lie of the Year” could personally assure us himself that this isn’t an abuse of governmental power, and we would have a very hard time believing him. And who can blame us?
Just look around. It starting to seem like everywhere we turn these days, our friends on the right are under attack. If you’re a vocal or active conservative, Obama may decide to unleash his agency dogs on you. He’s done it before…
Catherine Engelbrecht was one of the key witnesses during the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s investigation into the IRS scandal. In her testimony, she described how her nightmare began in 2010 after she submitted applications for the non-profit statuses of True the Vote and King Street Patriots. Engelbrecht was targeted and harassed by 15 instances of audit and inquiry at the hands of federal agencies including the IRS, OSHA, FBI, ATF, and EPA. Shockingly, she was representative of numerous other victims caught the same intimidating bureaucratic dragnet. If you need to refresh your memory, watch the video BELOW.
In May of 2013, it was reported that in order to obtain warrants during a Department of Justice investigation into a questionable leak case, James Rosen, the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News, was identified as “an aider, an abettor, and/or a co-conspirator” in an Justice Department affidavit. As part of the probe into who provided Mr. Rosen with classified information about North Korea in 2009, the DOJ subpoenaed his e-mail and phone records including the home phone records of his parents in Staten Island.
Dr. Ben Carson, the former Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon, criticized President Obama’s healthcare plan at the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2013. The next thing he knew, Dr. Carson was being subjected to an IRS investigation of some of his investment properties. When they found nothing suspicious, the IRS then proceed to conducted a full audit. Once again their fishing expedition turned up nothing; therefore, the IRS audited Dr. Carson’s tax returns for another year. If this is just another “coincidence,” then the stars must definitely be aligned against conservatives. Truth is, you don’t need to be a brain surgeon to figure out what’s actually going on here.
The political climate under the Obama Administration is rife with partisan corruption. And the vindictive retaliation during the Government Shutdown was vintage Obama. Among other things, they barricaded the open-air WWII memorial, terminated White House tours, and even temporarily suspended the Amber Alert. This president has a penchant for inflicting the maximum pain on his political enemies.
However, for those who are simpatico with Pres. Obama or the liberal cause, it’s quite a different story.
Pres. Obama has repeatedly made end runs around Congress through the brazen issuing of executive orders. For example, with the stroke of a pen the president halted the deportation of immigrant children who were brought to the U.S. illegally following Congress’ failure to pass the “Dream Act.”
The Eric Holder Justice Department also dropped the intimidation case against the New Black Panthers Party despite strong video evidence that their members were menacing voters at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008.
That brings us back to the indictment of Dinesh D’Souza. Why now all of a sudden? The film’s theatrical release was July of 2012, but it took almost a year and half for the federal prosecutors to finally announce their charges against the conservative author and filmmaker? Well, not actually. D’Souza says that he first became aware of the investigation by the feds in “mid-2013, months after his anti-Obama documentary earned roughly $33 million at the box office.” It wasn’t until Jan. 23, 2014, however, that Dinesh D’Souza was formally indicted in New York on charges that he violated campaign finance laws. Given the anti-Obama sentiment of the film and its box office success, many have speculated that the documentary may have played a role in the investigation and subsequent indictment.
Imagine what would have happened if President George W. Bush had indicted Michael Moore after the 2004 election. The Fahrenheit 911 documentary filmmaker and his liberal supporters would have most certainly cried foul. Without a doubt, the Democrats would have also called the motives and integrity of President Bush into question—they did that anyway.
President Obama was certainly upset by D’Souza’s film, and he leveled a ferocious attack against the movie. Posting his comment on barackobama.com, the presided called the film “an insidious attempt to dishonestly smear” him by engaging in “subterranean conspiracy theories and false, partisan attacks.” Nevertheless, the film continued to rake in the money, eventually becoming the second biggest political documentary of all time.
D’Souza was charged with two felony campaign finance violations—one count of making illegal contributions in the names of others, and one count of causing false statements to be made. It is alleged that he had people donate a total of $20,000 to New York Republican Senate candidate Wendy Long, who ran to fill Hillary’s old Senate seat, and then secretly reimbursed them.
Four United States Senators have recently written a letter to FBI director James Comey questioning the indictment of Dinesh D’Souza. The four senators include Charles Grassley, Jeff Sessions, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee. Each of these senators is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the agency. The letter inquires as to whether there was some degree of targeting behind the indictment.
The Washington Post reported that the investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which eventually lead to the indictment, was the result of a ‘routine review by the FBI of campaign filings with the FEC of various candidates after the 2012 election.’ The senators have asked for more information on how and why the D’Souza review was initiated.
In the letter the senators quote Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz as saying, “I can’t help but think that [D’Souza’s] politics have something to do with it. … It smacks of selective prosecution.” After some initial comments about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Prof. Dershowitz comments on the D’Sousa case in the video BELOW:
The letter continues, “To dispel this sort of public perception that Mr. D’Souza may have been targeted because of his outspoken criticisms of the President, it is important for the FBI to be transparent regarding the precise origin of this investigation.”
Before presenting a dozen specific questions to the FBI director, the senators wrote, “During your confirmation hearing, you pledged that you would carry the values of transparency and try to spread them as far as you could within the FBI. To explain the details of these routine reviews and provide context to those who may be skeptical of the origins of this investigation, please provide answers to the following questions regarding FBI’s regular review of campaign files.”
The questions then follow:
1. It appears from U.S. Attorney’s Office comment that the FBI conducts regular, perhaps random reviews of campaign filings. Is this correct? If so, what methodology does the FBI use to conduct these reviews?
2. Please identify and describe all methods by which a review of campaign filings may be initiated.
3. Please identify all other government entities involved in the FBI’s review of campaign filings and describe their involvement.
4. How and why was this particular review initiated?
5. What criteria involved in this particular review led to the suspicion that warranted further inquiry?
6. What the guidelines under which the FBI conducts its review of campaign filings?
7. Please describe how the FBI’s reviews of campaign filings are conducted.
8. How many campaign filings has the FBI reviewed in each year from 2008 to the present?
9. On average, how long does it take to complete a review of a campaign filing?
10. How many agents are assigned, per case, to review campaign filings?
11. On average, how many man hours are spent reviewing campaign filings?
12. When did the FBI begin routinely reviewing campaign filings?
Unfortunately, these four senators will probably never get any prompt or honest answers to their questions. The American people will get an answer to these questions about as soon as the Obama Administration tells us whose idea it was to “push the video” on the Benghazi fiasco. Or about as quickly as Eric Holder comes clean on the “Fast and Furious” “gun-walking” scandal. To date, the policy on such things has been evade, evade, evade. Does anyone really think for a moment that the D’Souza indictment will be any different? I sincerely doubtful it will be. In particular, nobody should ever expect a truthful answer to question number four, “How and why was this particular review initiated?”
Besides the fact that routine reviews of FEC filings would be a colossal waste of time and resources, it’s very unlikely that such a review would have generated any suspicion with regards to D’Souza. The charge that D’Souza is facing would have actually required further digging to discover the relationships between him and the friends for whom he allegedly reimbursed campaign donations.
So, is it payback? Ultimately, we will probably never know, but something sure smells fishy. Four Republicans are also suspicious, and at least they’re demanding answers. That’s a start.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.