Hold onto your hats, folks -- Prakazrel "Pras" Michel, a founding member of the Fugees, just got slapped with a 14-year federal prison sentence for funneling foreign cash into a presidential campaign, Fox News reported.
Michel, convicted in April 2023 on multiple federal counts, was found guilty by a Washington, D.C., jury of illegally channeling millions from overseas into Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection effort, a scheme prosecutors say involved over $100 million and secret influence peddling.
Let’s rewind to the beginning: Michel, born in Brooklyn to Haitian parents, skyrocketed to fame with the Fugees alongside Lauryn Hill and Wyclef Jean, selling millions of albums and snagging two Grammys.
But fame didn’t keep him grounded—prosecutors allege Michel took over $120 million from Malaysian billionaire Low Taek Jho, using straw donors to gain access to Obama campaign events.
They didn’t stop there; Michel is accused of meddling in a Justice Department probe into Low, tampering with witnesses, and even committing perjury to keep the scheme under wraps.
Low, a fugitive reportedly hiding in China and linked to financing “The Wolf of Wall Street,” denies wrongdoing, while Michel’s trial drew star power with testimony from Leonardo DiCaprio and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
DiCaprio, who met Michel backstage at a Fugees concert in the 1990s, testified about Low, saying, “I understood him to be a huge businessman with many different connections in Abu Dhabi and Malaysia.”
Interesting, isn’t it, how Hollywood glitz intersects with political grime—yet DiCaprio’s careful vetting of Low’s funding raises questions about how deep the due diligence really went.
Prosecutors weren’t buying any excuses, declaring Michel “betrayed his country for money” and “lied unapologetically and unrelentingly to carry out his schemes,” painting a picture of greed over patriotism.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly handed down a 168-month sentence, despite Michel declining to speak in court before the gavel fell.
Michel’s defense attorney, Peter Zeidenberg, called the verdict “unsupported by the evidence” and the sentence “completely disproportional to the facts alleged,” especially when compared to lighter punishments for others in similar scandals.
Zeidenberg pointed out disparities, arguing there’s “no justification for Mr. Michel being singled out like this except for the penalty for opting for trial,” and vowed to appeal both the conviction and sentence.
From a conservative lens, this case reeks of selective harshness—why does Michel get 14 years while others, like Elliott Broidy who was pardoned, walk away unscathed?
Prosecutors pushed for a life sentence, claiming it matched the breadth of Michel’s crimes, but isn’t there a whiff of overreach when a non-violent musician faces such a draconian penalty?
While justice must be served for betraying national trust, the sentencing guidelines—criticized by Michel’s team as easily manipulated—seem to disproportionately punish those who dare to fight their case in court, a principle conservatives should champion against bureaucratic overreach.
