Now remember the Mo filmmaker isn’t targeted by the authorities because Muslims want him in prison. It’s just a technical probation issue. And it’s completely normal for the Chief of the Criminal Division in Los Angeles to show up for a probation violation for a man who was never that important to begin with. Completely normal.
Robert Dugdale, the criminal division chief for the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, personally handled Nakoula’s hearing, contending misrepresentations by Nakoula had caused “real harm” to those who signed on to work on the film.
They caused real harm for reasons having nothing to do with the aliases, but because of Muslim reaction to the movie, so Dugdale is still prosecuting Nakoula for upsetting Muslims.
Dugdale is the Chief of the Criminal Division of the central district of California, a position that he has apparently held for nearly twenty years. The last time this guy was making headlines it was over the Whitey Bulger case and the Mexican Mafia case. This is not a guy who handles parole violations.
Now Dugdale might have been attracted to the headlines and his district office has put the Nakoula case at the top of its cases of interest, so clearly there is the usual attempt by prosecutors to promote their own careers. But this goes well beyond just publicity. The Nakoula case is about scoring points by putting away someone who has become a nuisance regardless of the charges.
This is standard procedure in this game. Capone was prosecuted on income tax violations, even though that was not the real issue. Nakoula is being hit with probation violations for the same reason. There were obvious reasons for wanting Capone put away. And it’s a telling sign of the country’s descent into Islamist appeasement and tyranny that Nakoula has become another Capone and a high profile Federal prosecutor is doing everything possible to put him away on whatever charges he can throw together.
“Certainly the sequence of events looks very much as though this man has been arrested and held on account of his producing a film,” said Michael W. McConnell, a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit who now directs the Stanford Constitutional Law Center. “It sends exactly the wrong message abroad, because when people are becoming violent to try to pressure the U.S. to violate someone’s constitutional rights, we ought to be going out of our way to make it clear that we will not accede to that kind of pressure.”
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote on his blog that the case “raises obvious concerns that the Administration is again defending free speech while quietly moving to punish those who cause religious strife.”
In an interview, Turley, a criminal defense attorney who has represented high-profile terrorism suspects accused of violent speech, said the charges against Nakoula had “common elements of pretextual charges.” He said the government could have been hoping that putting Nakoula behind bars would appease those incensed by the film.
He said the arrest could send the wrong message to the public: “Even if you have a right to say something, the government can still choose to punish you on other grounds.”