Replies

It is somewhat complicated, but if the expenses were reported honestly, they would have taken away a huge amount of hard money she had available to spend in New York in the final weeks of the campaign. If you remember, during one of the debates, Rick Lazio walked over to her on the stage and demanded that she sign a soft money agreement. Eventually, she made that agreement. Had she accurately reported the in-kind contribution from Peter, the amount of money left to spend for commercials in the final critical weeks could have damaged her.

But the Clinton philosophy has always been to do what they want, drag it out, and the effect will be blunted later. What was the FEC going to do for cheating, take away her senate seat? Nope.

There is something else she didn't report -- the value of the performances of Cher, Diana Ross, and others. That was reportable. They knew they had to report it because of the reporting they did for famous photographer Annie Leibowitz. She charges 25 grand for high end clients for a private sitting. But the Clinton campaign only declared $2,000 for the photos taken of some of the Hollywood elite. Why declare that and not the performers?

I hope the Clintons will be unhappy about it, but it is going to take us doing something to advance the story. Pirro has not wanted to touch this. I hope Edward Nixon will.