1) Dinesh D'Souza is guilty; end of that discussion.
2) Selective prosecution is unpersuasive in an ordinary criminal case; the mitigating feature, if any, of selective prosecution should be applied to sentencing.
3) laws concerning campaign contributions are not laws against inherent evil, at least as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States which upheld in some instances the payment of money to affect elections as a constitutionally protected free speech.
4) if there is a politically motivated selective prosecution in a political case is more persuasive than a defense of selective prosecution in a case involving a crime, for example, of violence.
5) selective prosecution in a political case approaches a moral equivalence of the wrongdoing originally complained of which is not true in a case of ordinary crime.
6) Dinesh D'Souza is a first-time offender and should be treated as such and in that context one notes that Democrats have received only probation for similar offenses.
I would be grateful if you would point out which of these propositions you find disagreeable. I am not clear how this defense supports the concededly wrongheaded arguments of Jackson and Sharpton nor, if it does, how it then can be distinguished from the arguments advanced by the patriots who fought the American Revolution.
