Please see the Confirm your eligibility section of the standard Clinton campaign donation form:

https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/fo rm.html?sc=3

2 questions ,

1) Is there any evidence of that happening here ?

  -  Oh , you already answered it " If "

2) Even if it happened how is the Clinton campaign supposed to control that ? , the person doing the contribution is going to be held responsible for that not the Clinton campaign.

This discussion is becoming boring. The clinton campaign is acting responsible here and has no liability whats so ever .

But if a crime has been committed it is likely there will be a prosecution of someone.  Seems pretty straightforward to me.  You folks get yourselves pretty wound up sometimes.

- That is pretty straightforward , I 'm happy you finally made what you were saying clear enough.

You didn't make yourself clear in the first place.

Do you mean indicted like this?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2007/08/27/post_42.html

Federal prosecutors in Michigan have indicted Geoffrey Fieger, the man made famous for his defense of assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian, for channeling $127,000 in illegal contributions into John Edwards's 2004 presidential campaign. Prosecutors said the activity was concealed from Edwards, and he has cooperated in the probe.

The 30-page indictment, which was unsealed Friday, lays out, check by check, a blueprint for how Fieger raised money and then, allegedly, reimbursed those donors with money from his law firm or with personal checks. In one instance described by the indictment, Fieger solicited donations for the Edwards campaign from two long-time friends, their spouses, and their family members. The two friends, identified only by their initials in the court papers, each produced $8,000 in checks for Edwards. Fieger than wrote each friend a check for $8,000, and had his law firm reimburse him for approximately $20,000. "The recorded reason for the check was 'repayment Edwards campaign," according to the indictment.

Edwards has said that his campaign will return the money only if Feiger is convicted:

While we do not know if these charges will ultimately prove true, if he is found guilty, we will return this money in compliance with the law, FEC regulations and our own high ethical standards."

I know that would probably make your day if that scenario ever plays out , you just wish it does.

Shaun, I think you're being slightly disingenuous here.  I respect you and consider you to be a fair-minded person, but your implication seems to be that Clinton is somehow dirtied by (and responsible for) this.  Your choice of words has been very careful. You state that Hillary won't be prosecuted for this, but you say a crime may have been committed.  Only when pressed on the issue do you say there won't be any prosecution of Hillary (again, carefully worded), but you don't say that she didn't do anything wrong - a significant difference.  That's what people are picking up on, and that why they continue to press you about this.  Your choice of words and tone indicate that you think Hillary is somehow party to this, but has insulated herself so she doesn't get caught, such as here:

I trust her to have established plausible deniability on all of her bundler contributions in any case.  Still, as I said, it's a crime.

We don't know that there has been any crime committed.  If there was, the guilty party is the person who collected the money and sent it in.  Your phrase plausible deniability is a clear indication of your true meaning. In other words, she is well aware of any illegal activities, but has no direct hand in them and thus can deny any knowledge of it.

Candidates cannot be expected to know everything that happens with regard to donations, especially at this level.  If I send a bunch of money to Obama under several different names, the Obama folks may or may not catch it.  If they do, they would certainly ask the appropriate questions and act accordingly,  But that doesn't stain the Obama camp, it stains me.  They did exactly what they should do, and they should be applauded for  it.  The same rules apply for the Clinton campaign and everyone else.  The candidates can't be held responsible for activites by every person who contributes money - all they can do is follow due diligence procedures, which is exactly what they did.

Tell your friends to stop with their shit. When they call us Bush, Cheney, equate us with Lieberman, call us neocons, whore, bitch, ass, say your dumb etc, it gets old and there comes a point when you have to use the same dirt on them.

BTW, why do you keep telling me about your life? I don't care.