Mr. Ham

Members
  • Content count

    12,710
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,420 Excellent

About Mr. Ham

  • Rank
    Footballguy
  • Birthday 08/26/1971

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

10,170 profile views
  1. New campaign slogan?
  2. Semantically speaking, there is no "proof", but there is overwhelming evidence.
  3. Agreed, but you usually get what the tea leaves suggest, and a Hillary Presidency will be dangerous and fraught with fraud. Holy Moly, what I just laid out is an absolutely apparent case of a candidate taking a bribe in exchange for political favors -- and also of an attempt to avoid paying taxes that was discovered and led to penalties (ie tax fraud). That she has a trail of ethical broken glass and accused crimes -- with records obstructed or destroyed at least 3 times to cover it up is immaterial. What more do people need to disqualify her from office?
  4. If you have a 6th Grade understanding of statistics, you can see that there was a strategy to attribute positive trades to her to deliver an income stream as consistently and quickly as possible, with many trades at the highest point of the day. The end result was to deliver an additional $100k in annual income, but 100% of the trades could not be positive. There had to be some negative ones thrown in... Unfortunately, even so, best case was a statistical case where you'd have to buy that Hillary won the Powerball on Wednesday and then the Mega Millions on Friday for her story to hold up. Of course, if she said she did this, I have no doubt you'd be the first in line to say there is no proof something strange occurred. Yeah - I'd be saying, "Hillary rigged the lottery" if that happened. And I'd be right. To the direct point of your eye roll, in reality there would be no meaningful statistical difference between her having the two winning tickets having bought just two, versus having two winning tickets and having bought a million. But the losing trades were essentially the schemers way of casting a modicum of doubt. Hey -- there were a million tickets, so... As opposed to a 100% success rate, which is a little too in-your-face, even when you're committing blatant larceny. Like Hillary did.
  5. "Stop it! Stop it! Stop it! You're ruining my world!!!!" 1:31 trillion she got those returns... At best. Read it. It's all presented above. What clearly happened was brokers were front running trades and attributing gains (with a few selected losses peppered in for show, but not enough to be plausible) so they could deliver the laundered bribe to her for whatever Bill was promising in return. It was an extra income stream in excess of their combined income at the time. Deny it all you want. This is who we're dealing with. And I love that within that there's the casual mention that she was pinged for tax fraud and given penalties later on, such are the heights of Clinton ethics.
  6. Snipets from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy In 1978 and 1979, lawyer and First Lady of Arkansas Hillary Rodham engaged in a series of trades of cattle futures contracts. Her initial $1,000 investment had generated nearly $100,000 when she stopped trading after ten months. In 1994, after Hillary Rodham Clinton had become First Lady of the United States, the trading became the subject of considerable controversy regarding the likelihood of such a spectacular rate of return, possible conflict of interest, and allegations of disguised bribery,[1] Rodham had no experience in such financial instruments.[3] Rodham later said she had been interested in building a financial cushion for the future[4][5] (the ill-fated Whitewater Development Corporation would be another such effort from this time[4]). when Bill Clinton was Attorney General and on the verge of being elected Governor,[1] she was guided by James Blair, a friend, lawyer, outside counsel to Tyson Foods, Arkansas' largest employer, and, since 1977,[6 At one point she owed in excess of $100,000 to Refco as part of covering losses, but no margin calls were made by Refco against her.[5] "I lost my nerve for gambling [and] walked away from the table $100,000 ahead."[4] She briefly traded sugar futures contracts and other non-cattle commodities in October 1979, but more conservatively, through Stephens Inc.[5][8] During this period she made about $6,500 in gains (which she failed to pay taxes on at the time, consequently later paying some $14,600 in federal and state tax penalties in the 1990s).[8][9] The profits made during the cattle trading first came to public light in a March 18, 1994 report by The New York Times, which had been reviewing the Clintons' financial records for two months.[7] Various publications sought to analyze the likelihood of Rodham's successful results. The editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said in April 1994, "This is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later. She took some extraordinary risks."[3] USA Today concluded in April 1994 after a four-week study that "Hillary Rodham Clinton had some special treatment while winning a small fortune in commodities."[8] In a Fall 1994 paper for the Journal of Economics and Finance, economists from the University of North Florida and Auburn University investigated the odds of gaining a hundred-fold return in the cattle futures market during the period in question. Using a model that was stated to give the hypothetical investor the benefit of the doubt, they concluded that the odds of such a return happening were at best 1 in 31 trillion.[14] Bloomberg News columnist Caroline Baum and hedge fund manager Victor Niederhoffer published a detailed 1995 analysis in National Review that found typical patterns and behaviors in commodities trading not met and concluded that her explanations for her results were highly implausible.[16] Possibilities were raised that broker actions such as front running of trades, or a long straddle with the winning positions thereof assigned to a favored client, had taken place.[13][16] These results are quite remarkable. Two-thirds of her trades showed a profit by the end of the day she made them and 80 percent were ultimately profitable. Many of her trades took place at or near the best prices of the day. Only four explanations can account for these remarkable results. Blair may have been an exceptionally good trader. Hillary Clinton may have been exceptionally lucky. Blair may have been front-running other orders. Or Blair may have arranged to have a broker fraudulently assign trades to benefit Clinton's account.[17] CONCLUSION: NOW WHY WOULD BROKERS BE FALSELY ATTRIBUTING POSITIVE TRADES TO A PREFERRED CLIENT? LIKE I SAID, HILLARY TOOK A LAUNDERED BRIBE.
  7. Statue of limitations. Doesn't mean she didn't take a laundered bribe. She did.
  8. And what we have are desirable?
  9. I picture her social media manager as the girl from the Jack in a Box ad. Craze Amaze.
  10. Yeah, no. She took a laundered bribe. Read rhe Wikipedia link. 31 trillion to 1 that she gained those returns, based on an independent economic model. Shenanigans. And yes, they declared the income. Plausible deniability and an alternative to a suitcase of cash. Bribe none-the-less. To put that in perspective, 31 trillion to 1 is roughly 100 million times more emails than she deleted.
  11. We're talking about a candidate burying evidence of a federal crime, not compliance with a voluntary tax return convention.
  12. I've stated before that I will vote for Hillary over Trump -- but I am PISSED that I have these two "choices." PISSED!
  13. This is why I so strongly object to everything Hillary represents. She is applying to work for us, damn it, and we should have access to the truth. The fact we don't, the fact we never will, the fact it is denied to us when she flaunts the truth is not something we should be standing by and allowing.
  14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy As to avoid any biased sources, check out the Wikipedia and decide for yourself. The reason it wasn't prosecuted is threefold: 1. It was not discovered until after the statue of limitations had passed, when reporters were investigating tax returns after other wrongdoing 2. It's likely that it was very common for lawmakers to accept kickbacks and bribes in various forms, and might have been conveniently tamped down -- glass houses and all 3. It was a Clinton at the height of power, and normal rules and extraordinary influence applied But make no mistake -- she took a laundered bribe There have been excellent articles posted with more detail and investigations that link the events to Tyson and suggest that the bribe was in exchange for looking the other way on environmental damage from chicken plants -- which eventually led to an aquifer collapse and poisoning of a town's drinking water. There was a very good expose from the 90s linked a few hundred pages back. Don't have time to look for it -- anyone remember what publication?
  15. In talking about the Herculean efforts required to discover that there was a problem to begin with -- despite Hillary's efforts to bury it. I know you don't find this disturbing. Many do.