[Liz]

Wow---Benjamin Brat was D'Souza's lawyer?

Brat is brilliant---he actually got a bigtime Ponzi schemer off w/ no jail-time---negotiating a deal promising the con artist would return the $5 million scammed.

Sure enough the guy started another Ponzi scheme and used the proceeds ---other people's money---to payback the original penalty.

Yes, he went to jail for violating the deal.

==============================================

Brat was also the lawyer for the wife of Jacob the Jeweler who went to jail for money-laundering.

The wife was being scammed by the infamous----Ken Starr "accountant to the stars." Brat had her record her phone calls w/ Starr which was potent evidence of the scam.

Starr scammed the Hamptons crow---but what is most memorable is that Starr married a pole dancer/stripper. He tried to sucker his clients into getting pole dancing recognized as an Olympic event.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Starr married a pole dancer/stripper

Are you talking about the former impeachment prosecutor and current President of Baylor University?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The movie's only questionable note is the egocentric turn at the end when D'Souza shows himself in handcuffs and notes his own prosecution for making $20,000 in straw donations to a U.S. Senate race in New York. D'Souza has a point about selective prosecution under Obama, but it loses its punch when the accuser has admitted his guilt.

Admitting guilt was IMHO (and IANAL) a mistake. He should be challenging the legitimacy of the law - and of the FEC in general. “Campaign Finance Reform” presumes that journalists have rights superior to those of (other) citizens. They do not legitimately have any such right; the First Amendment does not create a class of people who have presses. Rather, it establishes the principle that you or I have the right to pony up our own money and buy - and use a press. Well, if I can buy a printing press, I certainly have a strong case for having the right to rent one.

And it is no excuse to say that “press” does not include radio and TV (and movies). The press was merely the mainstream technology for using money to promote people’s opinions at the time of the ratification of the First Amendment - and the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to " promote the progress of science and useful arts.” Thus, the Constitution as ratified is most clearly understood as codifying a right to freedom of expression in any technology/medium which happens to exist at a given time. It follows that there is no legitimate, constitutional law against D’Souza’s $20,000 contribution - and D’Souza should have pleaded "Not Guilty."