elkmtngear's Link
Annony Mouse's Link
Annony Mouse's Link
Annony Mouse's Link
FEC Complaint Lodged Against Hillary Clinton and the DNC, for Breaking FEC Disclosure Requirements By Deliberately Concealing Their Payments to FusionGPS —Ace
It works like this:
Hillary and the DNC didn't want to be tied to the FusionGPS, the smear firm.
So they had their lawyer pay them. Then no one can ask the lawyer about it, because he'll claim -- dubiously-- that he has a "lawyer-client privilege" extending in both directions, from his client to the person he hired for his client.
Then in Hillary's FEC filings, she lists her payments to the lawyer for "legal services," omitting to note that those legal services including the not-at-all-legal-services of paying FusionGPS to dig up dirt.
Is this legal?
A complaint filed with the FEC says it's not legal, as the law specifies that any payment of $200 or more by a campaign must be specified as to its use, and this, obviously, was done with the intent to hide the money's use.
John Sexton says you just can't read the article here, but you have to read the filing, which he says makes a compelling case with little wiggle room in the noose for ol' Hilly.
Check at Hot Air later. He'll be posting about this, with his own commentary and citing the best parts of the filing.
I was waiting for him to post, but I want to get this up now, as more and more people are re-reporting it.
But do check in to see what he has. He did actual work, going through the filings.
I'm not as well-versed in federal criminal law, but I'm comfortable on the legal ethics and Colorado criminal law issues.
