Convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza joined Megyn Kelly to discuss his plea deal on campaign finance laws that also kept him out of a second charge that carried a maximum five year prison term.
D'Souza: I was facing two charges Megyn, the first one was exceeding the campaign finance limits. The second one was causing the government, the election commission to file a false report and that second charge carried a maximum of five years in prison so what happened is I pleaded guilty to the charge.
So we now know for sure that Dinesh D'Souza, a conservative golden boy is nothing more than a cheap hood. He knew what he was doing the whole time and got caught like so many other white collar criminals. Megyn was equally laughable in this segment when she tried to frame his conviction as if he was pure of heart all along.
Kelly: There was really never any doubt that you did it. Your defense in this case was not, "I didn't do it." It was, "I didn't do it with any intent, I didn't do it with the right requisite state of mind and it's selective prosecution by the government who doesn't go after anybody for this kind of crime.
Kelly is wrong of course because his first defense was that he pleaded not guilty. And let's not forget this nugget:
Cohen also said Long had told government investigators that D'Souza lied to her about the source of the contributions.
He's a liar too, oh my. It appears his whole defense was to get Fox News and any other conservative media outlet to blame the Obama administration for zealously prosecuting him because he's meanie and a critic. He's only been trying to rehabilitate his reputation so that the rubes will see his movies. he must know that conservatives that like his dribble will only feel exhilarated at his conviction because it'll prove to them that the evil librul's did this to poor, goodhearted Dinesh.
And there's also some comedy gold in there from Megyn, who tries to paint him like his attorney did -- a man without bad intentions. Hahahahaha. He knew he was breaking the law to help his friend so what kind of intentions are those?
↓ Story continues below ↓
The facts of the case, I induced two of my close associates to contribute, I reimbursed them. I did do that and actually that was wrong
When he says "induced," what do you think that means? He either lied, hypnotized them, gave them roofies, paid them off or pleaded with them to break the law with him. And I love all this "selective prosecution" business. The judge threw that defense out because he broke the law, period. Nothing else mattered. It's like he's arguing that he got unfairly targeted when he was pulled over for a sobriety test and blew a 1.8. He's still drunk even if he was being followed by the police all evening.
From now on I will always refer to him as the convicted felon. And he still may face jail time for the crime he did admit to committing.