And the NYT "expert" who said it was no big deal turns out to have been presented with a very limited fraction of the actual evidence. This reflects more poorly on the NYT than it does the actual perpetrator - what was it they were self-righteously bleating during Watergate, "the coverup is worse than the crime"?
It's open theft, a scheme to divert unearned money to an undeserving recipient. Whether she actually did it (I question if she's smart enough to do even that), she signed her name to it and if Kammy takes a dime, she's guilty.
