[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.

[Dems_R_Losers]

Doug, I have to ask, so what? What did Hillary gain by misrepresenting the true cost of this event on her FEC disclosures? Does this really rise to a jailing offense? Were the in-kind contributions from Peter Paul and others illegal, and hidden for that reason? Is that what you are trying to get at? I'm serious, there have been many many candidates admonished and even fined by the FEC for not disclosing in-kind contributions properly, but to my knowledge none have gone to jail or even suffered much public opprobrium for it.

Oh, and by the way, I know you are pissed about the Post article, but I read it and tried to read it as a dispassionate reader, and I came away thinking Hillary has really sold herself to some scumbags and that the Hollywood crowd she seems so comfortable with and who promote themselves as such caring liberal activists are simply for sale to the highest bidder and are a bunch of greedy starf**king airheads. I thought it was an extremely unflattering article and I can't imagine Team Clinton is very happy about it. And you have to admit that this, er, colorful cast of characters involved in this fundraiser make for a pretty entertaining story.