Two items in the Times' piece suggest things aren’t alright with the investigation and prosecution of D'Souza
Is there a legitimate reason to make a “Federal Case” out of Dinesh D’Souza’s alleged unlawful donations to Republican-Conservative Wendy Long ?
This rather mundane NY Times article about the D’Souza case starts out rather routinely, like this: “Dinesh D’Souza, a best-selling conservative author and filmmaker, was indicted on Thursday on charges that he used straw donors to illegally donate to a 2012 Senate campaign. *** Mr. D’Souza is an outspoken political commentator who directed ‘2016: Obama’s America,’ a scathing anti-Obama documentary released in the final months of the president’s re-election campaign. *** Federal prosecutors in Manhattan said that Mr. D’Souza encouraged others to give $20,000 to a Senate candidate and reimbursed them for the donations. Election law prohibits such arrangements and caps donations at $5,000 per donor to any one candidate.” (See “Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors” by Matt Appuzzojan, 1/23/14, NY Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/nyregion/dinesh-dsouza-is-charged-with-using-straw-donors-to-give-to-a-campaign.html?ref=nyregion]).
Based on a rather simple investigation of its own, the Times concluded that, even though the name of the Senate candidate was not given in the indictment, D’Souza had donated to only one federal candidate in 2012, giving $5,000 to Wendy Long, a New York Republican who lost her challenge to Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Democrat; and doubtless the donations were to the Wendy Long campaign. later in the piece, there is an apparent confirmation of that by remarks made by Mr. D'Souza's attorney.
The first indication that the Times might be somewhat skeptical about the handling of this case is this: “It is not clear from the court documents what led investigators to Mr. D’Souza in a fund-raising case involving relatively small donations, in a race that ended in a blowout win for Ms. Gillibrand. Ms. Long raised about $785,000 in the race.”
The second indicator of the possible suspicion of DOJ motives at the Times is the finish to Times reporter Matt Appuzzojan’s article, which implicitly demonstrates some degree of affinity with the sentiments of the charged defendant: “We are now living in the America that we warned our fellow citizens could come to pass if President Obama were re-elected,” [D’Souza] wrote on his website.”