Shut Up Or Get Cut Up

Gerald Molen – who co-produced Dinesh D’Souza’s 2016 as well as Schindler’s List– on the politically-motivated harassment of D’Souza:

“I’m a little bit taken aback by the whole thing because he’s such a great American,” Molen said of D’Souza on Newmax TV’s “Steve Malzberg Show.” The conservative writer and commentator understands the process in America and how it works, Molen said. Molen, who also produced the Academy-award winning “Schindler’s List,” said he has not spoken to D’Souza since he learned of the indictment, and wouldn’t make comments about the specific case until he’s learned all the facts. Still, he said he would not be surprised if the probe is politically motivated. Asked by Malzberg if he ever felt threatened or had any feelings they should not have been making the film, Molen answered, “No. This is America. I’ve never had that feeling,” adding, “I’ve never had the occasion to think that I had to fear my government. I never had the thought that I had reason to think I had to look over my shoulder until now.”

I think that’s exactly the effect the Obama Administration is looking for.

6 thoughts on “Shut Up Or Get Cut Up

  1. This situation proves once again that the Democrats are the true racists and intolerant commies!

  2. It will be doubly unfortunate if D’Souza is actually guilty; and guilt will probably not be difficult to prove or disprove. Of course true guilt will be harmful to the right’s message, but it will also embolden the left’s “ends justify the means/ if it saves just one life” crowd and minimize any claims politically motivated persecution. I hope it gets resolved quickly.

  3. Regarding his guilt, it’s only open and shut if they got the evidence freely and with probable cause. Otherwise, you’re going to get a heck of a debate in court over whether the evidence is admissable. Since the lawyer is already characterizing it as a “misunderstanding”, I’m thinking they’ve probably got something on him–again, the question is simply how the evidence was obtained.

  4. I agree that the court case will likely become quite convoluted.

    However, many who choose to follow the case will make their own personal determination of guilt or innocence based strictly on the facts, with no allowance for PC, rules of evidence, or whatever else the court uses to determine the end result. Consequently, even if found not to be guilty, the public may still consider him as guilty. That’s why I hope it goes honestly, but also quickly with little theatrics. The MSM will automatically convict him, but hopefully impartial public opinion will go his way.

  5. If Able convinces Baker and Charlie to donate their own money to Candidate, Able can “bundle” those donations and it’s perfectly legal. Every individual can donate their own money up to $2,500.

    If Able reimburses Baker and Charlie for making those donations, it’s a campaign finance violation. Baker and Charlie aren’t giving their own money, they’re helping Able launder his money (think Buddhist nuns and Clinton).

    The tricky part comes when Able is Baker and Charlie’s boss. Able convinces Baker and Charlie to donate their own money to Candidate, who then votes to award the company a government contract, which increases company profits, which Able shares with Baker and Charlie. Violation?

    The entire notion of campaign finance limitation is a violation of free speech and ought to be replaced with unlimited donations followed by immediate disclosure. If Able gives Candidate $1million but it’s immediately disclosed to the voters, they can decide for themselves whether Able bought Candidate and whether they want Able’s puppet in office.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.