James Hirsen gets all conspiratorial in his Jan. 28 Newsmax column:
When reports surfaced regarding Dinesh D’Souza’s inictment on charges of violating federal campaign finance laws, some serious questions were raised about the criminal investigation of the author and filmmaker.
Although the FBI and Justice Department did not explicitly reveal to which election the charges had referred, Federal Election Commission records indicated that the only political candidate to which D’Souza had ever donated was Wendy Long, a former New York senatorial candidate.
An intriguing question is why an individual with the educational background and intelligence of D’Souza would risk criminal prosecution to make a relatively small donation in a contest that involved tens of millions of dollars. After all, much larger sums of money are routinely given to campaigns through other legal vehicles including political action committees and nonprofit entities.
It may be because the violation was too blatant to ignore. Gawker examined the campaign contribution records of Wendy Long, the candidate D'Souza apparently donated to, and found that large donations well over the legal amount were made to Long's campaign on the same day in the names of D'Souza's personal assistant and (we are not making this up) the husband of D'Souza's mistress. Long’s campaign later reattributed half of the mistress’ husband’s donation to the mistress, then for some reason ultimately returned it to her. That refund is what appears to have triggered the routine FBI review that led to the charges.
But Hirsen is apparently not familiar with Occam's Razor, for he continues his conspiracy-mongering:
The discovery of D’Souza’s alleged wrongdoings are claimed to be the product of routine FBI investigations of campaign filings by various candidates. Questions remain, however, as to how investigators made the decision to look into D’Souza’s activities in the first place.
D'Souza’s prosecutor is an Indian-American Democrat, Preet Bharara, who formerly worked for New York Sen. Charles Schumer. Schumer’s close ties with the Obama administration helped to place Bharara in the powerful U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York.
Becuase D’Souza is best known for having produced the documentary “2016: Obama’s America,” which portrays President Barack Obama in a rather unflattering light, Gerald Molen, who was a co-producer on the project, expressed the suspisions of numerous Obama critics regarding the idictment, saying that it amounts to a “selective prosecution,” implicitly raising the spectre that the criminal charges may be a political retaliation against D’Souza.
Because the charges against D’Souza surfaced following the highly visible media reports surrounding the Internal Revenue Service’s alleged targeting of Tea Party groups, the timing of the indictment is somewhat curious.
Additional questions still linger as to why the administration is launching a public prosecution of a high-profile critic over a relatively minor amount of money that was given to an insignificant candidate in a no-win political race?
The existence of so many questions indicate a lack of curiosity on Hirsen's part. Or, as with his defense of Mel Gibson, he may be running interference for a friend.
In an August 2012 Newsmax column, Hirsen slobbered all over D'Souza's anti-Obama film "2016: Obama's America," praising its box office performance and quoting its producer, Gerald Molen. Hirsen also touted the film, as well as Molen's credentials as a producer of "Schindler's List," in an April 2012 article as well as a July 2012 article.
Hirsen was obviously clued in about the film early enough to do some pre-release publicity for it. That suggests an undisclosed relationship between him and Molen and/or D'Souza.
Hirsen waited years -- and admist continued bad behavior by the star -- to disclose his relationship to Newsmax readers. If he has such a relationship with Molen or D'Souza, the time to disclose it is now.