The law provides for a deduction up the the fair market value of the property contributed. The law also provides for a tax on the sale or purchase of tobacco products by a state resident. If Clinton claimed a deduction in excess of the fair market value that was illegal. If 20 is the FMV then its not illegal. The FMV of used underwear is a subjective value.
If Clinton knowingly took a value greater than the FMV even though he could support it then it would be morally wrong but not legally wrong.
If you knowingly purchase cigs' without paying the tax that is both illegal and morally wrong.
WOW, I'll make note of your screen name. (in case any deep moral issues present themselves - I'll need to consult)
You are going to find it very difficult to bitch-slap us inveterate tax avoiders back into line after we have witnessed Hillary taking down an ILLEGAL $100,000 bribe from the Tyson folks through her bungling Cattlegate mess and, at the same time, reducing the Clinton income tax burden by claiming the undies that had touched her Governor husband's wonderful hind-end had risen in value to $20 per pair. Wow, such brazen disregard for their own responsibilty as citizens, and no consequences, whatsoever. I also remember back in the early seventies when Richard Nixon's federal tax liability of a little over $500 for the prior year made the papers. I, for one, am damned sick of politicians, bureaucrats, and government employees living high on the hog, constantly squeezing the sheep for more money, while seemingly ducking responsibilty for their own actions. Anymore, I simply don't care who screws the government out of taxes. It'll be better spent by the private citizen, even if he (or she) blows it on whiskey and hookers, in my opinion.