Mediamatters lied. The convervative pundits have written about Rosen's acquittal. We address it in the film.
Mediamatters has not reported that Hillary lied in the 4th FEC report. She knows that Stan Lee is under oath testifying that he gave no money. When will Soros report that?
Doesn't surprise me. I just picked out the first thing I could find that used Rosen's acquittal as a logical springboard to the idea that there is no "there" there.
Is Hillary scheduled to be deposed yet? A marathon session of Hillary claiming "I don't recall" would address the claims that she is the "smartest woman alive".
Otherwise, of course, it will just be perjury about campaign donations. Everybody does that, don't they?
At this point, I don't expect to find that Hillary is any less slippery than Gotti.
BJ Klinton was caught on tape committing perjury before a grand jury. But it was only perjury about obstructing justice in a sexual harassment suit. I'm not sure that the average person quite understands the conspiracy that was afoot.
Does the average person understand the concept of "in-kind" contributions? Will they be willing to believe that such contributions could be overlooked in the heat of a campaign?
There is also the additional problem of having to believe people who were motivated to donate out of their own self-interest. Peter Paul wasn't motivated by a burning desire to see Hillary in elective office. He was motivated by the desire to have influential people working on his own behalf in the future. This predisposes people to question his statements. He obviously didn't get what he wanted and his disappointment provides a motive to hurt the Clintons. It's little different from the situation of Dick Morris.
I can understand fully a candidate's unwillingness to be the test case for trying to hold Hillary accountable. Others have tried with only limited success.