Stupid Prosecutors Tried To Get Prison Time For Felon Dinesh D'Souza, Unfair!

Tuesday was the day of reckoning for fish-lipped poop goblin Dinesh D’Souza to stand tall before The Man and learn his sentence for funneling illegal donations to a friend’s senate campaign. Both prosecutors and defense lawyers had submitted sentencing memos arguing for particular punishments ahead of time. Prosecutors wanted to send D’Souza up the river to the big house for 10 to 16 months, while Fish Lips’ own attorney argued for probation. This was the perfect opportunity for our favorite Girl Friday, wingnut sock puppet Katie Pavlich, to again prove that she knows nothing about the legal system by completely twisting ordinary legal maneuvering into nefarious and unethical machinations by the Justice Department to silence a prominent Obama critic. Let’s lawsplore for our latest edition of That’s Our Katie! :

[F]ederal prosecutors excluded and misrepresented the facts of “similar” cases in the Government's sentencing proposal to Judge Berman, leaving out crucial facts key to fair and equal sentencing for D’Souza compared to other cases. The prosecution has a duty to present comparable cases and crimes when arguing for a prison sentence. In their presentation of “similar” cases to the Judge for consideration during his deliberation, the prosecution ignored all truly similar cases without prison time but did present cases that included prison time without a full set of facts to justify sentencing.

Yr Wonkette is not a fancy law-talking guy, but we are friendly with a few. So we emailed one -- technically, a law-talking lady -- and asked her about arguments lawyers usually make in sentencing memos. As if we were “journalists” who knew nothing about our subject and needed to research it. Imagine that!

Our friend, after first probably suppressing the urge to slowly push a rotating power drill through her skull until it tore into the soft meat inside, broke it down for us. The lawyers on both sides are trying to frame these cases in ways that are most favorable to their own position. It is classic analogical arguing: In the issue of X, we think the most important factor is Y. The other side thinks the most important issue is Z. If the prosecution is arguing that Y makes D’Souza look bad, it is under no obligation to point out that Z might make him look good. That is the job of the defense. The government excluding Z does not mean it is doing something unethical or immoral in the eyes of the court.

For crying out loud, our friend added as the drill bit touched bone, everyone has access to the same cases to pull information from. If the cases the government cited were not “truly similar” to D’Souza’s, the defense could cite other cases it feels are much more like its client’s. It did not do that. Which logically leads one to the conclusion that both sides found these cases were similar enough to this one to serve as appropriate guidelines for sentencing. Any arguing otherwise by the defense is an attempt to frame the discussion to make its client look better.

Or think of it like this: If we want to argue that Katie Pavlich does not have the brain function that god gave a rutabaga, we would point to her "journalism" always being wrong about everything to support our case. The opposing side might point to a fact we deliberately ignored, namely that even if our argument regarding her writing is true, brain function also encompasses autonomic activities of the nervous system such as breathing and sweating. No rutabaga we produce for the court will be breathing or sweating, but Katie will. Ergo, our argument loses. Court rules Katie does have brain function at least equal, if not superior to, that which god gave a rutabaga. Court is adjourned!

In D'Souza's case, the judge agreed with the defense, sentencing the Dickhead of Dartmouth to five years of probation, eight months of which he must spend living in a “community confinement center” (basically a halfway house). D’Souza must also perform community service teaching English to new immigrants, and attend therapeutic counseling, which seems wasteful. Therapy can help with many issues, but we don’t know if it can help with being a naturally smarmy asshole.

As a bonus, here is that smarmy asshole on Fox Tuesday night, spilling his tale of defiance and woe to Megyn Kelly. You’re a real Count of Monte Cristo, Dinesh. Which we guess would make Katie Pavlich a real Alexandre Dumas, except the court didn’t cite her writing in ruling against us on the rutabaga argument.

[ Townhall / New York Times ]