Democrats, Political Prisoners, and Double Jeopardy

If there was ever a case that cried out for a pardon it was Dinesh D’Souza’s.  Imprisoned for a relatively trivial campaign contribution violation that normally receives a fine, it is obvious that his real crime was his 2012 anti-Obama movie, 2016: Obama's America.  In short, he was a political prisoner sent up by Clinton appointee Judge Richard Berman and one Democrat U. S. Attorney Preet Bharara.  

Yet instead of praising Trump’s pardon of D’Souza or at least having enough shame to be quiet, some Democrats are doubling down, vociferously opposing the pardon and even advocating putting D’Souza in double jeopardy and trying him again, even though he has already served his time!  Imprison political opponents!  Then imprison them again!

Among these is the New York State Attorney General Barbara Underwood.  I will let you read some of the legal details of that here.  But it is alarming how Democrats, even prosecutors who should know better, are openly eager to abuse their political power and to tear up basic Constitutional protections such as the prohibition of double jeopardy in order to attack and even imprison political opponents. 

Do you like having political prisoners?  Vote Democrat.

---

NOTE: Yes, I am aware that the Supreme Court has ruled that one may be tried for the same crime in both state and federal courts.  It is a very questionable ruling that decent prosecutors should not use except in extreme cases, such as when one court is clearly a kangaroo court rigged to free the perp. (Courts in some Southern states before the 1960s come to mind.)  And I doubt it is right to do so even then as it goes so much against the intent of the Fifth Amendment.

This is one of many instances in which prosecutors have been given too much power in this country.  I fear for our freedoms if too many Democrats like Barbara Underwood get ahold of that power.

Young C. S. Lewis Near the Beginning of WWI

I have begun to read/skim The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, edited by Walter Hooper (And be sure to get his edition.  Other collections may short-change you.).  And I am glad I have.  I am still in Lewis’ teen years.  But he was a pleasure to read even back then.

I also appreciate getting slices of life from the early 20^th Century, particularly during World War One.

Among the passages of his youthful letters that stand out is one from a letter to his closest friend Arthur Greeves.  He steps outside himself and observes himself remarkably well at age 15.  After some negative boarding school experiences, he is happy under the tutelage of W. T. Kirkpatrick even as The Great War begins:

So great is the selfishness of human nature, that I can look out from my snug nest with the same equanimity on the horrid desolation of the war, and the well known sorrows of my old school.  I feel that this ought not to be so: but I can no more alter my disposition that I can change the height of my stature or the colour of my hair.  It would be mere affectation to pretend that sympathy with those whose lot is not so happy as mine, seriously disturbs the tenour of my complacence.  Whether this is egotism of youth, some blemish in my personal character, or the common inheritance of humanity, I do not know.  What is your opinion?

So he asks Greeves in November 1914. 

How would you answer young C. S. Lewis?