What does Spiderman creator Stan Lee have to do with Hillary?

"Doug from Upland" has the answer:

Yesterday morning I had the pleasure of speaking on the phone with legendary superhero creator Stan Lee. The creator of Spiderman acknowledged to me information that could become a sticky situation for one Hillary Rodham Clinton, the smartest woman on the planet.

On the link above - 4th false FEC report - turn to page 34. You will see that a $225,000 in-kind contribution is attributed to Stan Lee personally.

Lee was very surpised when I told him that, on the 4th FEC report from the Hillary 2000 campaign, he is listed as the largest donor -- $225,000. He could not understand how that could be. He has testified under oath that he never gave any money. He didn't have any money to give. He told that to the FBI, to the FEC, and to the Justice Department.

Treasurer Andrew Grossman, Hillary, and, of course, David Kendall, know very well that this is the fourth fraudulent report. They know very well that Lee gave no money. This continuing crime is being pulled off in broad daylight, and the Justice Department does not seem to want to do anything about it.

That report is the 4th time that Andrew Grossman and Hillary Clinton have had the opportunity to tell the truth to the FEC. Four strikes and you're out? Apparently, not in Hillary's world.

As someone over there points out, if I were Stan Lee I'd sue her Highness for defamation of character, for accusing me of such a thing.

This is amusing as well:

Note: although Hillary has been removed as a defendant (it will be appealed) in the case Paul v. Clinton, she will be ordered to testify. She and her defendant husband are expected to be in Los Angeles for a sworn deposition in as soon as 60 days. Does anyone remember the last time William Jefferson Blythe Clinton testified under oath?

No, actually. I have no recollection of that...

"Does anyone remember the last time William Jefferson Blythe Clinton testified under oath?"

Well, that depends on what your definition of "does" is.

One note... "in-kind" generally means non-monetary, which implies that he showed up for a fundraiser or something, and that appearance was valued at that.

However, if he's contesting it, then there's something fishy like him not actually *being* there, or the money in question being real cash rather than "in-kind" services.

That also seems like a heck of a lot of money for in-kind valuation of an appearance by Stan Lee. How many non-Marvel fans know who he is these days?

> One note... "in-kind" generally means non-monetary, which implies
> that he showed up for a fundraiser or something

It means paying for the fundraiser. That fact does not seem to be in dispute. The controversy is over who paid for it. Lee's former partner, Pete Paul, claims to have mave donated more than $1.2 million through companies he controlled (including Stan Lee Media). Hillary has denied knowing Paul, who has a criminal record dating back to the 70's, or taking money from him. Her organization attributes the donations to other people, including Stan Lee.

I suggest Mr. Lee contact Matt Murdoc ASAP.

I will not have sexual relations with the deposition typist, the judge or any lawyers. My wife however is attempting to "F" the American People for 4 years beginning in 2009.

re: One note... "in-kind" generally means non-monetary, which implies that he showed up for a fundraiser or something, and that appearance was valued at that.
===========================================

In this case, in-kind means that Peter Paul actually spent about 1.6 mil in hard dollars to put on a series of events for Hillary.