What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
squistion said:
You keep repeating this lie several times a day, but his each repetition does not make it any more it true or win you any converts -  it only makes you sillier and more delusional.
Click to expand...
So you regard 31 trillion to one as reasonable odds?  That's what you're saying here.

 
The thing that should worry Clintonites is that she normally loses ground in the polls when she is out campaigning.  For her to lose ground without being out there for the public to see why they don't like her is not a good sign.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Already out of the running.

Hillary's considering an Admiral, shows where her head is at.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Warren given a speaking spot at the convention does not rule her out, as HP noted:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/veepstakes-not-over-tim-kaine-other-vp-frontrunners-get-invitations-to-speak-at-convention_us_57864704e4b08608d3325156

No matter what slot a politician is scheduled for, sources said, they can quickly be moved if they are named VP. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
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?
Click to expand...
Thanks Ham. Appreciated. 

I think #2 is the primary reason for no conviction. I do not have the inclination to research it, but I have heard that Congress is exempt from insider trading. If true, then it is more the system that is broke. Doesn't excuse her actions.

 
32 Counter Pass said:
Thanks Ham. Appreciated. 

I think #2 is the primary reason for no conviction. I do not have the inclination to research it, but I have heard that Congress is exempt from insider trading. If true, then it is more the system that is broke. Doesn't excuse her actions.
Click to expand...
Um, there were no charges filed against Hillary. There wasn't even an investigation. Have to charge someone with a crime before you can get a conviction. From the Wiki piece:

There were no official investigations of the trading and Clinton was never charged with any wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

 
squistion said:
Um, there were no charges filed against Hillary. There wasn't even an investigation. Have to charge someone with a crime before you can get a conviction. From the Wiki piece:
Click to expand...
Statue of limitations.  Doesn't mean she didn't take a laundered bribe.  She did. 

 
squistion said:
Um, there were no charges filed against Hillary. There wasn't even an investigation. Have to charge someone with a crime before you can get a conviction. From the Wiki piece:
Click to expand...
Squiz would you say it was a bad idea to take a tip from inside Tyson on the eve of Bill being elected governor?

 
timschochet said:
It's astounding. Donald Trump has a real chance to be our next President and you guys are discussing this 30 year old crap. 
Click to expand...
Tim, she's part of the problem. You think Trump fell out of the sky like a meteor? People have lost faith in government and you put up the least trusted candidate since Nixon and then at that very moment she does this really screwed up thing? Look in the mirror.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Um, there were no charges filed against Hillary. There wasn't even an investigation. Have to charge someone with a crime before you can get a conviction. From the Wiki piece:
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited:
squistion said:
Quit repeating that lie, you have no proof.
Click to expand...
"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.

 
Last edited:
Mr. Ham said:
1:31 trillion she got those returns...  At best.  Read it.  It's all presented above. 

What clearly happened was broker 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. 

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.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

 
squistion said:
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited:
Holy cow, Squiz, how about the cattle futures event is proof Hillary doesn't see anything wrong - or DUMB - with taking a stock tip from an executive at a company her husband would be regulating shortly? Seriously has anything changed? Bernie called a spade a spade on that question. 

 
BeaverCleaver said:
It shows just what a terrible candidate Hillary is.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

Practicing that line already? This is the same line used when they couldn't defend why they voted Bush in.....2x. "Too bad there wasn't any other good candidates". No, Gore and Kerry would of been better than Gdub, and Hillary would be eminently better than Trump. You don't have to be Nostradamus to foresee what a train wreck a Trump presidency would be.

 
ericttspikes said:
:lmao:

Practicing that line already? This is the same line used when they couldn't defend why they voted Bush in.....2x. "Too bad there wasn't any other good candidates". No, Gore and Kerry would of been better than Gdub, and Hillary would be eminently better than Trump. You don't have to be Nostradamus to foresee what a train wreck a Trump presidency would be.
Click to expand...
Truth hurts doesn't it. Hillary should be running away with this based on how terrible his detractors make him out to be.

 
ericttspikes said:
:lmao:

Practicing that line already? This is the same line used when they couldn't defend why they voted Bush in.....2x. "Too bad there wasn't any other good candidates". No, Gore and Kerry would of been better than Gdub, and Hillary would be eminently better than Trump. You don't have to be Nostradamus to foresee what a train wreck a Trump presidency would be.
Click to expand...
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?

 
Last edited:
timschochet said:
It's astounding. Donald Trump has a real chance to be our next President and you guys are discussing this 30 year old crap. 
Click to expand...
It's astounding.  Donald Trump has a real chance to be our next President because you guys won't discuss this 30 year old crap.

 
squistion said:
Quit repeating that lie, you have no proof.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand what the word proof means.  There is plenty of proof (i.e. evidence) that she took a bribe.  She wasn't charged or convicted, but lots of people commit criminal acts every day for which they are never charged or convicted.

 
Rich Conway said:
I don't think you understand what the word proof means.  There is plenty of proof (i.e. evidence) that she took a bribe.  She wasn't charged or convicted, but lots of people commit criminal acts every day for which they are never charged or convicted.
Click to expand...
Semantically speaking, there is no "proof", but there is overwhelming evidence.

 
Rich Conway said:
I don't think you understand what the word proof means.  There is plenty of proof (i.e. evidence) that she took a bribe.  She wasn't charged or convicted, but lots of people commit criminal acts every day for which they are never charged or convicted.
Click to expand...
There is no proof of bribery. None.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
252K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top