[Bob J]

Doug, I've read the report and posts and this is my question.

The Hillary campaign was made aware (in a way they cannot deny) of the "alleged" actual cost of the event with the serving of Paul's lawsuit papers. Their FEC report was filed after receiving that information.

I assume the original numbers they received were from Cohen, who was found not guilty of FEC violations in his criminal trial. I assume because the jury bought the assertion that he was fed those numbers by Paul and Tonken and further that he was duped by them.

Won't the Hillary campaign say;

1. The information they received was in relation to a civil lawsuit being filed against them and therefore might be prejudicial

2. Until those numbers are verified and proven (they would have to get each and every celebrity who received a "gift" to testify in court) that it would be irresponsible to take them at face value, and therefore would have to rely on the original numbers presented by Cohen.

I think the problem here is that Cohen was found not guilty. It seems that breaks the link flowing back to the Hillary campaign and the Clintons.

Is there any other evidence the campaign or the Clintons knew about the real numbers other than "he said, she said"?

Don't get me wrong, I believe they all knew and just played the campaign finance shuffle of funds, but it's about what you can prove in court.

[doug from upland]

Great questions, Bob.

5 - Smoking Gun Demand Letter
6 - Gary Smith, the Concert, and Another Smoking Gun
7 - Home, Home at Le Dôme
9 - Hillary Responds Through Official Mouthpiece in WASHINGTON POST

Documents sent to attorney, hand delivered demand letter, news conference for all to see at National Press Club, civil lawsuit, Tonken will testify that he told Hillary everything, Rosen - "the costs won't be the costs", documents I saw in court that had been altered, and Hillary's conversation with Gary Smith in which she convinced him to lowered his concert fee from 850K to 800K.

This time in open court we will at least hear the transcript if not the recording itself of David Rosen with Ray Reggie. Peter has lots of evidence. Let's see what happens in court.

Hillary has made her final desperate appeal to stay out of court based on some bizarre First Amendment claim that, as a candidate with First Amendment speech rights, she cannot be sued for a business fraud. Bill has already been told by the California Supreme Court to get ready for discovery.

The trial of David Rosen was a sham. I counted six jurors asleep on the final day of arguments. They believed that Rosen was not the right one to charge.

The campaign treasurer, Andrew Grossman, cannot simply say, "Oh, I was confused. I didn't know what the expenses really were, so I guess I just won't report any of them." (that is me putting words into his mouth, not an actual quote from him). The treasurer has the affirmative duty to seek out the information and make a factual report. He did not do that, so he certainly has a big problem. Grossman should have been indicted and faced trial in Los Angeles.

The candidate has no legal jeopardy if the candidate does not know a fraud is occuring. There is plenty of evidence that she knew. She had an affirmative duty to see that accurate reporting was given to the FEC. Hillary absolutely knew that $401K was not accurate in the final amended FEC report. Absolutely.