Posted on 04/11/2006 7:35:31 AM PDT by doug from upland
And the trial date is?
Excellent news.
If it's not too much trouble, could you explain why The Hildabeaste was excused as a defendant? Is this unusual?
She was released based on an anti-SLAPP provision in the law. That is designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits during campaigns that could chill free speech. It certainly should have had nothing to do with this case --- this was a case of business fraud.
I appreciate your interest in determining what an inkind contribution would be that cost $225,000- Under FEC law, if a contributor pays expenses of a campaign, e.g. the expenses to produce the biggest fund raising event of the campaign, those payments to third parties that save the campaign the need to expoend its money, is a cash, in-kind contribution. I paid more than $1.2 million in these types of expenses for Hillary's campaign so she could raise $1.5 million in net donations from others, much of it hard money. Hillary is attempting to attribute $225,000 of my $1.2 million in payments for her benefit to Stan Lee even though he has maintained he never donated anything, because Stan made a loan to my holding company and I wrote on the check I was using the money for her campaign. Because I comingled the loan proceeds from Stan with more than $2 million in other money I had, the FEC agreed that it couldnt even try to attribute a loan as a contribution. But that didnt stop Hillary from lying to the FEC and the voters yet again.
bttt
IMPERIUS REX!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.