Hillary Clinton’s shady dealings are drawing scrutiny.

Her pals at the FBI may have let her walk, but that doesn’t mean she is in the clear.

Someone followed the money and caught her red handed in this financial crime.

A Daily Caller investigation found that after the election, Clinton’s campaign funneled $150,000 to ZFS Holdings, an LLC that Clinton owns.

The Clinton campaign claimed it was for “rent.”

But the Daily Caller’s examination of the payments found an irregular payment schedule of varying amounts.

Former FEC Chairman Brad Smith told Daily Caller the payments sounded “fishy” and required further investigation because it may have violated FEC laws about in-kind campaign contributions.

In-kind contributions are assets of value or goods and services that are not direct money transfers.

If ZFS gave the Clinton campaign a break on the rent and did not report it on their FEC disclosure form, the campaign could be in violation of the law.

The Daily Caller reports:

The Clinton campaign’s rent payments to ZFS vary greatly, despite the consistency of the payments it made to Kamber leading up to the 2016 election. For example, the campaign cut a rent check to ZFS on Oct. 18, 2017, for $36,369, followed by a $9,618 rent payment on Nov. 11, 2017.

“I would think that’s not usual,” Smith told TheDCNF. “That would be something that would cast out as to whether they’re actually paying market value.”

A possible explanation is that ZFS is extending credit to the Clinton campaign. If that were the case, however, that could open up the Clinton campaign to reporting violations, according to Smith.

“You can’t extend credit to a campaign on different terms than you would anybody else,” Smith said. “A landlord can’t say, ‘well, you just pay me what rent you can when you can’ — no, you can’t do that.”

Smith said the varying nature of the campaign’s payments ZFS lead him to believe there likely isn’t a formal sublease agreement in place between it and Clinton’s LLC.

“That’s what it sounds like, they don’t have any actual agreement,” he said.”

Meanwhile, the media has whipped itself into a frenzy over Michael Cohen’s $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels and claims it was an unreported in-kind contribution.

But that case is built on a thin reed because Cohen stated he made the payment to avoid embarrassing the Trump family by having the story break in the news.

To violate the law, a contribution must have another purpose than for the campaign.

That is clearly the case in the Clinton rent payments to ZFS.

Will the media show as much interest in Hillary’s FEC violations as the imaginary ones they are claiming Trump is guilty of?

Let us know your thoughts in the comment section.