Nakoula Basseley Nakoula Is Not A “Political Prisoner”

Debunking a conservative myth that has arisen in connection the Benghazi story.

Nakoula Bassely Nakoula

Among the side characters that arose during the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, which coincided with unrelated protests that developed in various Muslim countries over a YouTube clip purporting to be from a film called Innocence Of Muslims is a man named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Nakoula is the producer of the film under the name of Sam Bacile and, in the immediate aftermath of the attack and the protests became of interest to Federal law enforcement. Nakoula, it seems, had been convicted several years ago of multiple counts of bank fraud in Federal Court. As part of his probation, Nakoula was barred from using any aliases and was also barred from using the Internet during the time that he was under probation. When the film itself and his role in it first became public, Nakoula was brought in for questioning by Federal authorities. As I noted at the time, under the terms of his probation Nakoula was required to comply with all requests from law enforcement so there was nothing per se improeper about the fact that the L.A. Sheriff’s Office escorted him from his home to the Federal office where he was questions. Despite this, the mere fact of Nakoula being questioned caused some conservatives to go off the deep end. Glenn Reynolds, for example, absurdly said that it was grounds for President Obama to resign his office. Eventually, Nakoula was arrested on charges that he had violated the terms of his probation by using at least one alias while raising money to make his “movie,” and by using the Internet in the process of doing so. Later, he was  sentenced to one year in a Federal Prison for violating the terms of his probation, a sentence that is set to expire in November of this year.

Bizarrely, throughout this whole process, Nakoula has become some kind of a cause celbre for conservatives, who apparently believe him to be a victim of the Obama Administration’s efforts to cover-up the true story behind the Benghazi attacks. The latest version of this can be seen in a column published at Politico by National Review’s Rich Lowry:

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula deserves a place in American history. He is the first person in this country jailed for violating Islamic anti-blasphemy laws.

You won’t find that anywhere in the charges against him, of course. As a practical matter, though, everyone knows that Nakoula wouldn’t be in jail today if he hadn’t produced a video crudely lampooning the prophet Muhammad.

In the weeks after the attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, the Obama administration claimed the terrorist assault had been the outgrowth of a demonstration against the Nakoula video. The administration ran public service announcements in Pakistan featuring President Barack Obama saying the U.S. had nothing to do with it. In a speech at the United Nations around this time, the president declared — no doubt with Nakoula in mind — “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

After Benghazi, the administration was evidently filled with a fierce resolve — to bring Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to justice. Charles Woods, the father of a Navy SEAL killed in Benghazi, said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told him when his son’s body returned to Andrews Air Force Base: “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

Other conservatives have, in the past and now in the wake of yesterday’s testimony before the House Oversight Committee, referred to Nakoula as a “political prisoner.”

This is fundamentally absurd.

Without getting into the circumstances by which Nakoula came to the attention of Federal law enforcement late last year, let’s just make a few things clear. As I noted above, Nakoula was convicted on multiple fraud charges in 2010 and ended up with a sentence that placed him on probation, a very generous outcome to say the least. Among the terms of his probation were the requirements that he not use aliases and not use the Internet. When the existence of the film and his involvement in it came to light, it obviously would have raised the interest of his Probation Officer, which is probably the most likely explanation for why he was brought in for questioning to begin with. When he was charged with  violating the terms of his probation he was granted, as the law requires, the right to a public hearing where he was represented by counsel. After that hearing, he received his sentence. That, apparently, isn’t good enough for Lowry:

A violation of probation, though, usually produces a court summons and doesn’t typically lead to more jail time unless it involves an offense that would be worth prosecuting in its own right under federal standards. Not for Nakoula.

This wasn’t a case of nailing Al Capone on tax evasion. As Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute points out, Al Capone’s underlying offense was racketeering and gangland killings. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula’s underlying offense wasn’t an underlying offense. He exercised his First Amendment rights.

His case has symbolic significance in the ongoing battle over whether the Muslim world will embrace modernity, and the panoply of freedoms associated with it, or whether it will continue to slide backward by adopting blasphemy laws punishing expressions deemed offensive to Islam. The administration has been dismayingly willing to accommodate the latter tendency. Nakoula’s jail time appears indistinguishable from what the 56-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation, devoted to pushing blasphemy laws around the world, calls “deterrent punishment” for “Islamophobia.”

There’s just one problem with what Lowry says here, and it’s that it doesn’t comport with either the facts of the case or what actually happens in probation violation proceedings Federal Courts. Popehat’s Ken White. an attorney in California, explains: [Emphasis mine]

I’ve observed, and participated in, federal supervised release revocation proceedings since 1995. In writing about Nakoula I’ve drawn not only on that experience but on the actual documents from his case and on the law. My premise has been this: anyone on supervised release for a federal fraud conviction and owing more than $700,000 in restitution would face supervised release revocation if the Probation Office discovered that they were using aliases, engaging in unreported financial transactions, and using computers in those transactions, all in violation of their terms of release. Most federal judges would issue arrest warrants, not summonses, and most federal judges would order jail time to such a person if they found he had obtained and used a false driver’s license and concealed transactions from the Probation Officer. Rich Lowry’s claim that “[a] violation of probation, though, usually produces a court summons and doesn’t typically lead to more jail time unless it involves an offense that would be worth prosecuting in its own right under federal standards” is quite frankly pulled straight out of his ass. Supervisees are routinelyarrested rather than summoned, particularly when there are indications they might be a flight risk — like using a false identity. Supervisees areroutinely returned to prison for offenses that would never be prosecuted federally as separate crimes.

Is Nakoula in federal prison because he made the “Innocence of Muslims” video? Superficially, perhaps, in the sense that his behavior may have escaped detection if he hadn’t become famous. It’s even possible that someone in the Obama Administration tipped off — or pressured — the Probation Office about his conduct. (If that’s what happened, there ought to be a Congressional investigation.) But Nakoula’s conduct is the sort that would absolutely be pursued if detected by his Probation Office and would routinely result in a revocation of supervised release and a return to federal prison. People saying otherwise don’t know what they are talking about or don’t care, or both.

In other words, in the context of a typical Federal probation revocation hearing and assuming all facts being the same, there’s likely no reason to believe that Nakoula’s imprisonment is an unusual outcome that can somehow be ascribed to an effort by the Obama Administration to establish this producer of an incredbly badly made YouTube video as the fall guy for the murder of an American Ambassador and three others. The available public  facts all establish that he used an alias, accessed the Internet, and engaged in secret financial transactions, all of which he hid from his Probation Officer. While I’m not an expert in Federal criminal law, I can say that I’ve learned to trust Ken White’s judgement on these issues enough to think that his opinion that a probation revocation resulting in a one year prison sentence is really not all that outrageous is likely correct. Moreover, if it was, I’d have to wonder why Nakoula’s attorney’s aren’t screaming to the rooftops about how their client is being railroaded by the Federal Government. Instead, they’ve been largely silent and, as far as I can tell, have not filed any kind of appeal of this sentence.

The ironic thing about all of this is that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is someone who has been convicted on multiple fraud charges, and who then went on to violate the terms of his probation. And, yet, conservatives trust him more than they trust the President of the United States.

FILED UNDER: Crime, Law and the Courts, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    All of which, of course, makes him entirely fair game for the federal government to also accuse him of causing the deaths of four Americans, even though the offiicials accusing him knew full well that those accusations were false. Further, for them to make those accusations before the whole world, knowing that would immediately put him in danger from the same fate as many others who have chosen to speak out and criticize Islam.

    He’s a con man and a crook, so who cares what happens to him?

  2. @Jenos Idanian #13:

    He was not accused of causing anyone’s death.

    He is a convicted Con Artist who was brought back into court because he blatantly violated the terms of his probation.

    I thought conservatives were in favor of law and order.

  3. wr says:

    “The ironic thing about all of this is that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is a someone who has been convicted on multiple fraud charges, and who then went on to violate the terms of his probation. And, yet, conservatives trust him more than they trust the President of the United States.”

    What’s so ironic? Is there one Republican leader who actually isn’t a fraud and a conman?

  4. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: “All of which, of course, makes him entirely fair game for the federal government to also accuse him of causing the deaths of four Americans, even though the offiicials accusing him knew full well that those accusations were false.”

    Here’s a hint, Brain Boy: When the federal government “accuses” someone of causing the deaths of four Americans, they actually, you know, accuse him.

    Let us know when you dig up the court documents with the murder charges against this paragon.

  5. mantis says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    All of which, of course, makes him entirely fair game for the federal government to also accuse him of causing the deaths of four Americans, even though the offiicials accusing him knew full well that those accusations were false

    Which officials accused him of that, and how? Names and quotes/documents.

  6. michael reynolds says:

    I always wonder how far forward right wing nuts have thought about their Muslim hatred. What do they think the end game is? We have several million here in the US. In their generic hatred of Muslims are they thinking concentration camps? And how about the billion Muslims around the world. Are we talking genocide? Are we going to war against forty or fifty countries all at once? What exactly do they think they’re on about?

  7. @michael reynolds:

    Ann Coulter once did famously talk about conquering and converting them.

  8. michael reynolds says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    Shouldn’t be a problem. In fact, I think it will self-finance. Over by Christmas.

  9. john personna says:

    It is a sad case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

    A very sad case.

  10. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Doug Mataconis: He was not accused of causing anyone’s death.

    I apologize; I forgot that I was speaking to a lawyer. I didn’t mean “accused” in a legal sense, but in a layman’s sense.

    Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Jay Carney, among others, all repeatedly declared that the Benghazi attack was a result of riots over Nakoula’s video, and Clinton even promised the victim’s families that he’d be punished for their deaths.

    Long after they knew it was false.

  11. john personna says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    This guy is scum, but you love him … because Obama.

    We all get it.

  12. Lit3Bolt says:

    Johnathan Bernstein calls out conservatives for their self-referential myth-making in this nice op-ed.

    The point is, the Republicans have completely lost the narrative on this and are only being inflated by a bored and/or slavish press. If you want a genuine scandal, they could talk about the million other things Obama gets wrong, like the Drug War, Plan B, Guantanamo, sequester, etc.

    But they won’t, because today’s Republicans are totally uninterested in domestic governing, and 2, they are apparently the worst rubes for their own propaganda and merchandise, leading any “-gate” scandal by Obama, regardless of its real life impact, to be instantly hijacked by conservative profiteers selling evidence of alien autopsies, gold coins and safes, and tracts of how fluoride in the water turns people into homos.

  13. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Here’s an article showing Barack Obama’s Press Secretary, Jay Carney, pushing the “blame Nakoula” meme repeatedly.

  14. David M says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    For the eleventy-billionth time. So what? You’re getting all worked up over a press secretary saying something you don’t agree with…and well, why should we care?

  15. Latino_in_Boston says:

    And he doesn’t even really say what he says he does. He refers to the video for a few days after the fact, but that’s it.

    This only makes sense as a “scandal” if you truly believe that whole meme on the right, that Obama likes to side with terrorists and doesn’t like to call terrorism, terrorism.

  16. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @David M: I don’t disagree with that Obama’s chosen spokesman said. The truth does.

    In other words, he was lying.

  17. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Latino_in_Boston: This only makes sense as a “scandal” if you truly believe that whole meme on the right, that Obama likes to side with terrorists and doesn’t like to call terrorism, terrorism.

    Which is, you know, true. “War on Terror” became “overseas contingency operations.” The For Hood jihadist was “workplace violence.” Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, unrepentant terrorists and his old buddies.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that, right?

  18. David M says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    Really? All this because you think think the press secretary was lying? Even if you’re right, isn’t that part of the job description? You still haven’t shown why this was remotely important.

  19. @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I apologize; I forgot that I was speaking to a lawyer. I didn’t mean “accused” in a legal sense, but in a layman’s sense.

    Jeno didn’t the mean the term in any sort of concrete sense, that would be subject to the rules of evidence or logic, but in a vague sense that can’t be countered, making it possible to maintain the talking point regardless of truth or accuracy.

  20. Latino_in_Boston says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Right. Obama is so friendly to terrorists. Osama, Al-Awlaki, Al-Shahri are so glad he’s in charge and not McCain or Romney.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/the-terrorist-notches-on-obamas-belt/

    The Fort Hood incident was not called terrorism because it didn’t fit the description of terrorism, which is attacking CIVILIAN targets (soft targets) with the intent of creating terror with the aim of advancing some political agenda.

  21. David M says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    “This only makes sense as a “scandal” if you truly believe that whole meme on the right, that Obama likes to side with terrorists and doesn’t like to call terrorism, terrorism.”

    Which is, you know, true.

    We need the hide/ignore option again, this is trolling, and brings nothing to the discussion.

  22. anjin-san says:

    We need the hide/ignore option again, this is trolling, and brings nothing to the discussion.

    Or you everyone could just stop feeding the moron. He does not want an intelligent argument, he wants people to pay attention to him.

  23. anjin-san says:

    And how about the billion Muslims around the world.

    I always come back to this. I don’t want to fight a billion Muslims. A. I have nothing against them. B. it’s an incredibly stupid thing to do.

  24. Surreal American says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    This only makes sense as a “scandal” if you truly believe that whole meme on the right, that Obama likes to side with terrorists and doesn’t like to call terrorism, terrorism.

    Which is, you know, true.

    Wow! This is some kind of stupid that’s deep fried in stupid batter and generously smothered in stupid sauce.

  25. Andre Kenji says:

    @michael reynolds:

    In their generic hatred of Muslims are they thinking concentration camps? And how about the billion Muslims around the world. Are we talking genocide?

    Errr, many of US Movement Conservatives ARE talking about things like that.

  26. bill says:

    he was a sleazy guy who made a crappy movie and wound up being a scapegoat for something he had little to do with. i don’t think about him or his plight all that much, but people who have things like this happen to them usually wind up on some news story about injustice. again, i don’t care about him anyway so save the rhetoric.

  27. giantslor says:

    Sadly, the idiocy of Jenos Idanian’s comments here is representative of today’s conservative movement. There was a time, decades ago, when conservatives used facts and logic. Now even mainstream conservatives like Rich Lowry spew complete B.S. as a matter of course.

  28. gVOR08 says:

    There are 1.8 billion Muslims, 26% of the worlds population, but I’m sure they’ll welcome us with flowers in the streets of Jakarta.

    Conservatives have made a cause of Nakoula because the sheriff is a…Obama, and because they think Muslim bashing should be mandatory. But it is encouraging that Doug has come to regard the guy as a common criminal.

  29. Caj says:

    Republicans are from the land of Conspiracy! They see cover-ups and conspiracy’s everywhere. One word that they may hear and don’t like could be twisted like a pretzel into a cover-up of some sort! As for facts, who cares about them? Certainly not Republicans and their counterparts Fox News! They are desperate to find something that in their pea brained minds will bring down President Obama!

  30. @Lit3Bolt:

    If you want a genuine scandal, they could talk about the million other things Obama gets wrong, like the Drug War, Plan B, Guantanamo, sequester, etc.

    Which exactly are scandals that the GOP can complain about and how?

    That Obama isn’t executing drug dealers like Newt Gingrich wants? That the Obama administration is lawless because they won’t follow a court order and allow Plan B to accessible to any woman? That Guantanamo is bad and violation of our laws, treaty obligations, and morals; how exactly is a Republican supposed to do that? Ditto for the sequester, which was supported whole heartily by the GOP?

  31. Barry says:

    @michael reynolds: “I always wonder how far forward right wing nuts have thought about their Muslim hatred. What do they think the end game is? ”

    War itself is the end state.

  32. gVOR08 says:

    @Barry: War against Eastasia.

  33. grumpy realist says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: You don’t know much about law, do you? There’s a reason why we have things like grand juries and trials and Due Process. There’s a reason why we have official charges of murder and don’t depend on loose talk over the internets.

    Doug has consistently from the beginning pointed out that this guy was a convicted crook and did not satisfy the terms of his probation. It’s the not satisfying the terms of his probation that got him back in hot water, not the silly video he put out. The only use the video had in the whole mess is that had he not manufactured it, he would have never popped up on the radar screen of the authorities again.

    Rich Lowry knows law about as well as he knows anything else–that is to say, not very well.

  34. MarkedMan says:

    Some things are complicated. This isn’t.
    – A Con man made a whack job anti-muslim video and posted it on youtube under an alias.
    – Since he was on parole on the condition that he a) not use aliases and b) not use the internet, he was bought in for questioning. Since the movie was a POS it probably would never have been noticed by the police except:
    – Whack job religious fundamentalists, Islamists, from around the world eventually discovered the video. They stirred crowds into rioting resulting in the deaths of innocents as well as significant property destruction.
    – At the same time as these riots were breaking out, and perhaps coincidently, an attack by muslim extremists in Benghazi ended up with 4 American diplomats killed.
    – Some people thought these two things were related to some extent (and that may be true).
    – Hillary Clinton, who was the overall boss to those killed and was no doubt angered by it, called the scumbag con man… well basically she called him a scumbag conman in slightly more diplomatic language. And wanted him arrested and probably wanted to kick him in the nuts herself.
    – Fox News and the Republicans… well what they did with all this certainly isn’t complicated, but it is dishonest, cynical and un-American. And for those who need further justification, a good reason never to vote Republican. Because even if your Republican congressman is “one of the good ones” it doesn’t matter because this what their party will spend its time on if they have any power. Not jobs or health or education. Benghazi and gays and savaging of any all regulation.

  35. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    OK, let’s bring up the inconvenient truth once more, and see if folks can continue to ignore it:

    The Obama administration blamed Nakoula and vowed to punish him for his video before they knew who he was and that he was violating his parole.

    They must have been doing handsprings when they ID’d the guy behind the video and discovered that they had a ready-made excuse to toss him in jail.

    It’s dreadfully inconvenient that there’s nothing inherently illegal about “insulting Islam” and upsetting Muslims. However, Muslims are special.

    People who insult Christianity and Judaism are often lauded by the left, called brave and heroic for taking such tough stances (see the cable TV thread for those who don’t mind bashing Christians casually for a handy example). However, insulting Muslims is a strict no-no.

    Because, unlike Christians and Jews, Muslims have been noted to take offense at such insults. And “take offense” often means “taking heads.”

    So, go ahead and mock Christians — Bill Maher wins awards for doing it. Mock Mormons — you’ll get Tonys galore.

    Just don’t mock Muslims, because the leftist champions of free speech will gladly hand you over to the bloodthirsty mobs.

  36. NickTamere says:

    @MarkedMan: You make several excellent points that I’d like to expand upon.
    – Whack job religious fundamentalists, Islamists, from around the world eventually discovered the video. They stirred crowds into rioting resulting in the deaths of innocents as well as significant property destruction.
    They had a lot of help on this front from “pastor” Terry Jones who declared the anniversary of September 11th “let’s intentionally offend Muslims day” or something to that effect. the year before he burned a bunch of Korans which led to protests; most everything that comes out of his mouth will likely be used by muslim extremists to show that christians are crusaders who are attacking Islam. In 2012 he choose to promote “The Innocence of Muslims” which led to it being disseminated in the Middle East which led to…..
    – At the same time as these riots were breaking out, and perhaps coincidently, an attack by muslim extremists in Benghazi ended up with 4 American diplomats killed.
    If you followed only conservative “news sources” you’d have no idea that there were actual protests at other embassies that day (Wikipedia: ” The movie led to protests in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia and Libya.”). That same day rioters stormed the Cairo embassy and tore down the US flag, prompting the embassy to release a response distancing the US government from the film, a response that was widely mocked by republicans. The Atlantic called it “The Movie So Offensive That Egyptians Just Stormed the U.S. Embassy Over It”- the day that it happened.
    – Some people thought these two things were related to some extent (and that may be true).
    Look at republican blogs that day and the following few, they certainly did.

    The elephant in the room is the “secret” CIA facility that was being referred to as an embassy annex that was just down the street (the one that Rep. Jason Chaffetz accidentally disclosed on national television). I’m willing to bet that a lot of what we heard that day was vetted for our consumption at their request.

  37. matt bernius says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    So again, your entire argument boils down to (a) feeling like your a victim, (b) sweeping aside any facts that inconvenience your deep persecution complex, and (c) using your sense of victimization to justify your own bigotry.

    Stay classy sir.

  38. 11B40 says:

    Greetings:

    As a former altar boy, no matter how false the god, I appreciate a good genuflection. I just hope that you’re not rubbing up one of those head bumps.

    I mean, who could not trust the most open and transparent President in the history of history.

  39. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @matt bernius: I’d LIKE to talk about Nakoula, but for some reason everyone wants to talk about me.

    Maybe I should make a film insulting Islam. Just don’t tell my parole officer…

  40. Surreal American says:

    @11B40:

    Amusing. The Party of Reagan presumes to lecture others on worshipping false gods.

  41. Epicurus says:

    Everybody wants to talk about you? Does a little thrill run down your leg as you type those words? Everyone is MAKING FUN OF YOU, idiot. Please keep posting your little non sequiturs and baseless allegations. I always enjoy a nice fable…or maybe you could stop ignoring the facts, as presented. This a-hole violated his Federal probation and is paying the price. Exactly which part of this is confusing to you?? Yet another member of the Fightin’ 51st Keyboarders squadron; your mother must be so proud of you. What’s that? She’s telling you to get out of the basement and get some fresh air? Excellent advice, for once. Enjoy your life of fantasy, it must be a swell world you live in.

  42. mantis says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    The Obama administration blamed Nakoula and vowed to punish him for his video before they knew who he was and that he was violating his parole.

    Citation needed.

    Just don’t mock Muslims, because the leftist champions of free speech will gladly hand you over to the bloodthirsty mobs.

    The criminal justice system is not a bloodthirsty mob, you shitheel liar.

  43. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: “Maybe I should make a film insulting Islam”

    That would require you to actually accomplish something in your life.

  44. Ebenezer_Arvigenius says:

    All of which, of course, makes him entirely fair game for the federal government to also accuse him of causing the deaths of four Americans, even though the offiicials accusing him knew full well that those accusations were false. Further, for them to make those accusations before the whole world, knowing that would immediately put him in danger from the same fate as many others who have chosen to speak out and criticize Islam.

    So let me get this right: They accused Nakoula of causing the death of several Americans and that put him in danger of being killed by the Islamists? The Muslim world must have gotten much more Americanophile than I suspected. Probably a late offshoot of democratization in Iraq :-).

  45. Rafer Janders says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    The Obama administration blamed Nakoula and vowed to punish him for his video before they knew who he was and that he was violating his parole.

    Um, how exactly could they blame Nakoula before they knew who Nakoula was? If they didn’t know who he was, then they couldn’t very well blame him, could they, since…they didn’t know who he was.

  46. Alan says:

    @Doug Mataconis:
    Secretary Clinton said the following:

    To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage. But as I said yesterday, there is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence. We condemn the violence that has resulted in the strongest terms, and we greatly appreciate that many Muslims in the United States and around the world have spoken out on this issue.

    I interpret that to be saying that the video resulted in violence. That violence caused the deaths. I think it plausible to equate those statements with the statement that the video indirectly caused the deaths. Flame away.

    Actually, I came here because of the Copts. I wanted to learn about the videographer. Thank you for your research, it sounds like he was rightfully prosecuted.

    Here’s my takeaway. A scumwad made a video. In response, two things happen; the scumwad goes to jail, and the video is wrongfully blamed for violence. It is too bad that no one acted on behalf of the Copts.

  47. matt bernius says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I’d LIKE to talk about Nakoula, but for some reason everyone wants to talk about me.

    @You’re the one who built his entire argument around *his own* emotional beliefs and feeling of victimization… not us.

    But this is your general MO. You’ve said that birthers are wrong but it’s Obama’s fault because he could have released his birth certificate. You’ve said Ted Nugent was wrong for threatening the President, but it’s really Obama’s fault for making stuff up. You said that Trump shouldn’t have pushed the birther thing, but the real person out of line was Obama for sinking to Trumps level. And once again, you say that Nakoula is a criminal, but the real criminal is Obama for persecuting him.

    And when it comes time to justify this last one all you can say is “libruls hate Christians and Jews, but love Muslims… so I’m just trying to be fair.”

  48. @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Maybe I should make a film insulting Islam. Just don’t tell my parole officer…

    Thanks for letting us know that you’re a convicted criminal.

  49. mantis says:

    @Alan:

    I interpret that to be saying that the video resulted in violence. That violence caused the deaths. I think it plausible to equate those statements with the statement that the video indirectly caused the deaths. Flame away.

    It did result in violence, and deaths. Just not in Benghazi. It happened in many, many other countries. That’s what Clinton was talking about. Do you deny that there were violent protests surrounding the video that resulted in deaths?

  50. Rob in CT says:

    Obama likes to side with terrorists and doesn’t like to call terrorism, terrorism.

    Which is, you know, true.

    This actually made me smile.

  51. David M says:

    @mantis:

    It did result in violence, and deaths. Just not in Benghazi. It happened in many, many other countries. That’s what Clinton was talking about. Do you deny that there were violent protests surrounding the video that resulted in deaths?

    Silly mantis, thinking the actual events and facts matter unless they make Obama look bad.

  52. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Rafer Janders: Um, how exactly could they blame Nakoula before they knew who Nakoula was? If they didn’t know who he was, then they couldn’t very well blame him, could they, since…they didn’t know who he was.

    Hillary Clinton, speaking to the families of those killed in Benghazi, assured them that the maker of the film in question would be punished for causing their loved ones’ deaths. They blamed “the filmmaker,” then found out that he was a two-bit con artist who had violated his parole. Voila! Ready-made excuse to toss the filmmaker in jail, and not talk about terrorists killing a US Ambassador on September 11 in a country where we fought to toss out the old regime.

  53. David M says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Hillary Clinton, speaking to the families of those killed in Benghazi, assured them that the maker of the film in question would be punished for causing their loved ones’ deaths.

    Um, your link doesn’t actually show that.

  54. mantis says:

    Here’s the quote from the video Jenos, lying little shitstain that he is, dishonestly describes:

    “This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”

    As you can see, she says nothing like what Jay Tea/Jenos the f*ckstick claims. Nobody blames the filmmaker for the deaths in Benghazi. Nobody promises punishment of the filmmaker. Jay Tea/Jenos is a liar, through and through.

    He’s a lying little troll.

  55. 11B40 says:

    Greetings:

    Of course, and on the other hand, I’m sure that the US Department of Justice has plenty of available data on crimes and convictions, paroles and probations. And if one of, say, a scientific bent were to ask US Attorney General Eric Holder, who is an honorable man in spite of that contempt of the House of Representatives finding, for the relevant information about how others, similarly situated, have been treated, I’m sure that after a couple of Freedom of Informations requests, a year or two of delay, or perhaps a US Supreme Court ruling, all the information a citizen would need to properly asses the performance of the current administration would flow down like the waters of justice, or some such.

    So, what do you say?

  56. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @mantis: You really ought to switch to decaf. You get so worked up, you lose your composure and get all intemperate and potty-mouthed.

    Maybe you should see a therapist about your unresolved penis envy issues.