Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 27, 2015, 11:06:36 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
85503 Posts in 2267 Topics by 1068 Members
Latest Member: cdenny
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] Print
Author Topic: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history  (Read 63465 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6367


« Reply #450 on: March 13, 2015, 09:58:57 AM »

First, Chris Wallace this morning on radio called the move to keep (incriminating) emails on a private server a "genius", "politically genius" (meaning evil genius) move.  She served on the Watergate committee and learned from Nixon's mistakes.  Nixon could have destroyed his own incriminating evidence and didn't.  She faces about a month-long uproar now, a year and a half before the election, but then nothing jumps out later to take her down. 

I disagree.  This has lasting hurt.  She isn't as smart as she thinks she is or as smooth an operator as her slippery husband.  If she thought she was protected, she may have been sloppy with what shouldn't have been put in writing.  Those emails and other skeletons will come back to haunt her. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Famous people caught reading the forum (?), or in this case can we humbly say great minds think alike.  Charles Krauthammer writes with great clarity the same points all of us are making about the HRC email scandal:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/early-onset-clinton-fatigue/2015/03/12/5801a542-c8d8-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html

Early Onset Clinton Fatigue

By Charles Krauthammer Opinion writer, Washington Post (today)

She burned the tapes.

Had Richard Nixon burned his tapes, he would have survived Watergate. Sure, there would have been a major firestorm, but no smoking gun. Hillary Rodham was a young staffer on the House Judiciary Committee investigating Nixon. She saw. She learned.

Today you don’t burn tapes. You delete e-mails. Hillary Clinton deleted 30,000, dismissing their destruction with the brilliantly casual: “I didn’t see any reason to keep them.” After all, they were private and personal, she assured everyone.

How do we know that? She says so. Were, say, Clinton Foundation contributions considered personal? No one asked. It’s unlikely we’ll ever know. We have to trust her.

That’s not easy. Not just because of her history — William Safire wrote in 1996 that “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our first lady . . . is a congenital liar” — but because of what she said in her emergency news conference on Tuesday. Among the things she listed as private were “personal communications from my husband and me.” Except that, as the Wall Street Journal reported the very same day, Bill Clinton’s spokesman said the former president has sent exactly two e-mails in his life, one to John Glenn, the other to U.S. troops in the Adriatic.

Mrs. Clinton’s other major declaration was that the server containing the e-mails — owned, controlled and housed by her — “will remain private.” Meaning: No one will get near them.

This she learned not from Watergate but from Whitewater. Her husband acquiesced to the appointment of a Whitewater special prosecutor. Hillary objected strenuously. Her fear was that once someone is empowered to search, the searcher can roam freely. In the Clintons’ case, it led to impeachment because when the Lewinsky scandal broke, the special prosecutor added that to his portfolio.

Hillary was determined never to permit another open-ended investigation. Which is why she decided even before being confirmed as secretary of state that only she would control her e-mail.

Her pretense for keeping just a single private e-mail account was “convenience.” She doesn’t like to carry around two devices.

But two weeks ago she said she now carries two phones and a total of four devices. Moreover, it takes about a minute to create two accounts on one device. Ray LaHood, while transportation secretary, did exactly that.

Her answers are farcical. Everyone knows she kept the e-mail private for purposes of concealment and, above all, control. For other State Department employees, their e-mails belong to the government. The records officers decide to return to you what’s personal. For Hillary Clinton, she decides.

The point of regulations is to ensure government transparency. The point of owning the server is to ensure opacity. Because she holds the e-mails, all document requests by Congress, by subpoena, by Freedom of Information Act inquiries have ultimately to go through her lawyers, who will stonewall until the end of time — or Election Day 2016, whichever comes first.

It’s a smart political calculation. Taking a few weeks of heat now — it’s only March 2015 — is far less risky than being blown up by some future e-mail discovery. Moreover, around April 1, the Clinton apologists will begin dismissing the whole story as “old news.”

But even if nothing further is found, the damage is done. After all, what is Hillary running on? Her experience and record, say her supporters.

What record? She’s had three major jobs. Secretary of state: Can you name a single achievement in four years? U.S. senator: Can you name a single achievement in eight years? First lady: her one achievement in eight years? Hillarycare, a shipwreck.

In reality, Hillary Clinton is running on two things: gender and name. Gender is not to be underestimated. It will make her the Democratic nominee. The name is equally valuable. It evokes the warm memory of the golden 1990s, a decade of peace and prosperity during our holiday from history.

Now breaking through, however, is a stark reminder of the underside of that Clinton decade: the chicanery, the sleaze, the dodging, the parsing, the wordplay. It’s a dual legacy that Hillary Clinton cannot escape and that will be a permanent drag on her candidacy.

You can feel it. It’s a recurrence of an old ailment. It was bound to set in, but not this soon. What you’re feeling now is Early Onset Clinton Fatigue. The CDC is recommending elaborate precautions. Forget it. The only known cure is Elizabeth Warren.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Peggy Noonan says she looks tired, not hungry.  On the other issue no one else will mention, I have wondered if Hillary's occasional disappearances had anything to do with so-called plastic surgery facial work being done.  Maybe that sounds sexist to ask, but it was fair for the media to ask Reagan if he colored his hair and use his denial as proof of dishonesty.  Below is the photo that ran with the Krauthammer column.  If she had work done, I think we can all agree it wasn't successful.  (Nothing personal against her, I am removing mirrors from my own home as aging sets in.)  Besides sexist, this sounds trivial, but a woman's aversion to photos like this being published, criticisms like this, and the efforts with makeup etc it takes to fight this might become the last straw as to why she doesn't run.





Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32840


« Reply #451 on: March 13, 2015, 10:18:01 AM »

March 13, 2015
Hey, Virginia Republicans, were you looking forward to voting in the 2016 presidential primary? Eh, we may not have one. Read all about the big decision facing the Old Dominion GOP.

Yup. Hillary Chose to Delete Consequential E-Mails

A lot of folks in Right-world think this is an extremely consequential revelation about the Clintons:

The Clintons play by their own set of rules. And in this case, the former Secretary of State explained, those rules bless her decision to erase some 30,000 emails from the family server despite knowing that the emails had become a subject of intense interest to congressional investigators. These were merely “private personal emails,” Clinton averred, “emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.” After she finished taking questions, Clinton’s staff disclosed that no one actually read through those 30,000-odd documents before she “chose not to keep” them.

As for why this might “seem like an issue,” the answer is not complicated. All federal employees have a legal obligation to preserve their work-related email–and the White House advises appointees to accomplish this by using official government addresses. Email sent to and from .gov accounts is generally archived. In this way, a consistent level of security is maintained. The nation’s history is preserved. Open-records laws are honored. And transparency gets a leg up on “Trust me.”

All this once made sense to Clinton. As a candidate for President in 2008, she included “secret White House email accounts” as part of her critique of the Bush Administration’s “stunning record of secrecy and corruption.” Now, however, Clinton is leaning heavily on “Trust me.” For more than a year after she left office in 2013, she did not transfer work-related email from her private account to the State Department. She commissioned a review of the 62,320 messages in her account only after the department–spurred by the congressional investigation–asked her to do so. And this review did not involve opening and reading each email; instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache–31,830 emails–did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be “private, personal records.”

This strikes experts as a haphazard way of analyzing documents. Jason R. Baron, a former lawyer at the National Archives and Records Administration who is now an attorney in the Washington office of Drinker Biddle & Reath, says, “I would question why lawyers for Secretary Clinton would use keyword searching, a method known to be fraught with limitations, to determine which of the emails with a non-.gov address pertained to government business. Any and all State Department activities–not just communications involving the keywords Benghazi or Libya–would potentially make an email a federal record. Given the high stakes involved, I would have imagined staff could have simply conducted a manual review of every document. Using keywords as a shortcut unfortunately leaves the process open to being second-guessed.”
Wait, there’s more, as Allahpundit explains:

Until last year, if you wanted to access State Department e-mail remotely, you needed a secure Blackberry issued by State for that purpose. And that Blackberry only handled department e-mail, i.e. State e-mail accounts actually did require a dedicated device. Apparently Hillary was right in thinking that, if she wanted to read private e-mail too, she really would have had to carry a second device.

But rather than do that and endure the hardship of fitting two four-ounce smartphones in her purse instead of one, she chose to defy security protocols and conduct all of her business, work and personal, from her unsecured private device. She didn’t care enough about security to have an official State e-mail account created for her in the first place so why would she care enough to read sensitive messages on an official, secured State Blackberry?

That adds a whole new level of risk to her e-mail habits, actually, since she was presumably using her personal Blackberry for work during overseas trips, when she was at
greater risk from foreign surveillance. Between that and the fact that State IT techs warned her about the vulnerability of her private server, there’s really no question that she knowingly, willingly created a major hole in national security simply because her selfish political desire to keep her messages away from the voting public was more important to her.

Yes, this blatantly violates the legal requirements.

I want to believe this will have serious consequences. But I don’t.

Who will run a serious investigation of Hillary Clinton over this? Our incoming attorney general? The confirmation vote is next week. Has any GOP senator even questioned Loretta Lynch whether she thinks this is a serious violation of the law and if, or how, the Department of Justice would investigate?

Do you think there’s a single U.S. Attorney -- all of whom were appointed by President Obama -- who wants to prosecute the Democratic presidential frontrunner?

Do you think there’s a jury that would convict her?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32840


« Reply #452 on: March 13, 2015, 03:25:10 PM »

1)
http://www.teaparty.org/16-year-old-girl-claims-former-president-bill-clinton-father-88728/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=16-year-old-girl-claims-former-president-bill-clinton-father

2)
Is Bill Chelsea's dad?
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/06/26/bill-clinton-chelseas-biological-father/
« Last Edit: March 13, 2015, 07:56:37 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32840


« Reply #453 on: March 14, 2015, 03:25:58 PM »

 By
Peggy Noonan
Updated March 13, 2015 6:30 p.m. ET
1369 COMMENTS

Maybe we’re not stuck in Scandal Land.

For a while I’ve assumed Hillary Clinton would run for her party’s nomination and be a formidable candidate in the general election. After Tuesday’s news conference I’m not so sure.

Did she seem to you a happy, hungry warrior? She couldn’t make eye contact with her questioners, and when she did she couldn’t sustain it. She looked at the ceiling and down at notes, trying, it seemed, to stick to or remember scripted arguments. She was shaky. She couldn’t fake good cheer and confidence. It is seven years since she ran for office. You could see it.

Her claims—she stayed off the State Department email system for “convenience,” she thought “it would be easier to carry just one device,” her server “contains personal communications from my husband and me”—were so transparent, so quickly disprovable. Minutes later journalists were posting earlier statements in which she said she carries two devices, and The Wall Street Journal’s report saying Bill has sent only two emails in his life.

This wasn’t high-class spin. These were not respectable dodges. They didn’t make you grudgingly tip your hat at a gift for duplicity. I could almost feel an army of oppo people of both parties saying, “You can do better than that, Hillary!”

This wasn’t the work of a national, high-grade political-response team, it was the thrown-together mess of someone who knew she was guilty of self-serving actions, who didn’t herself believe what she was saying, who didn’t think the press would swallow it, and who didn’t appear to care.

She didn’t look hungry for the battle, she looked tired of the battle.

Everyone knows what the scandal is. She didn’t want a paper trail of her decisions and actions as secretary of state. She didn’t want to be questioned about them, ever. So she didn’t join the government’s paper-trail system, in this case the State Department’s official email system, which retains and archives records. She built her own private system and got to keep complete control of everything she’d done or written. She no doubt assumed no one outside would ask and no one inside would insist—she’s Hillary, don’t mess with her.

She knew the story might blow but maybe it wouldn’t, worth the chance considering the payoff: secrecy. If what she did became public she’d deal with it then. When this week she was forced to, she stonewalled: “The server will remain private.”

Is it outrageous? Of course. Those are U.S. government documents she concealed and destroyed. The press is not covering for her and hard questions are being asked because everyone knows what the story is. It speaks of who she is and how she will govern. Everyone knows it.

She knows it too.

At the news conference she seemed like a 20th-century figure in a 21st-century world. Her critics complain it’s the 1990s returning but it isn’t, it’s only the dark side of the ’90s without the era’s peace and prosperity.

Mrs. Clinton is said to be preparing to announce her candidacy for the presidency in three to four weeks. But did that look like the news conference of a candidate about to announce? It lacked any air of confidence or certitude. For a year the press has been writing about the burgeoning Clinton Shadow Campaign. Where’s the real one?

Defenses of Mrs. Clinton were ad hoc, improvised, flat-footed. It all looks disorderly, as if no one’s in charge, no one has drawn clear lines of responsibility or authority. We hear about loyalists, intimates, allies, pals, hangers-on, Friends of Hill. People buzz around her like bees on random paths to the queen.

In 2008 Barack Obama had impressive, disciplined people around him—David Axelrod,Robert Gibbs,David Plouffe. I remember thinking at the time that they were something unusual in politics: normal. Hillary has people like David Brock, a right-wing hit man who became a left-wing hit man. Who’s he supposed to do outreach to, the other weirdos?

Is this thing really happening? Is the much-vaunted campaign coming together?

After the news conference I thought what I never expected to think: Maybe she doesn’t really want this. Maybe that’s what this incompetence is meant to be signaling.

Here I will speculate, but imagine being Hillary Clinton right now:

Her mother, the rock of her life, died in 2011. In the past years she’s had health issues. She’s tired, having worked at the highest levels of American life the past 25 years. She’s in the middle of a scandal and, being Hillary, knows that others might pop along the way.

Add this: Maybe she thought her ideological hunger, which was real, would sustain her throughout her life, and it hasn’t.

Maybe what happened to her, in part, is the homes of her Manhattan mega-donors. She’s been in the grand townhouses and Park Avenue apartments since 1992. She’d go in and be met and she saw what they had. Beauty. Ease. Fine art of a particular, modern sort, the kind that is ugly, that reminds its owners that just because they’re rich doesn’t mean they don’t understand that life is hard, painful, incoherent. It is protective, cautionary, abstract and costs $20 million a picture.

But what lives they have! Grace and comfort and they don’t have to worry about the press, they don’t have to feel on the run, they don’t have to press the flesh with nobodies.

She’d like those things! But she went into “public service” and had to live on some bum-squat-Egypt Southern governor’s salary.

She wanted what they have. They’re her friends, no more talented than she. But they went to Wall Street and are oozing in dough. She stayed in the lane she was in. And she figures she missed out on the prosperity her husband presided over.

She has her causes—women’s rights, income inequality. But she can advance them in other ways.

Maybe she isn’t really hungry enough for the presidency anymore. And maybe she doesn’t have illusions anymore. She’s funded by Wall Street. Her opponent will be funded by Wall Street.

Maybe she’s of two minds about what she wants. But it’s not really hunger that’s propelling her now, its Newton’s law of inertia: Objects in motion tend to stay in motion.

Maybe she thinks about another line of work, a surprising fourth act. She likes to be served, be admired, be taken care of by staff. But you can get those things without being president. If you are wealthy, and she is now—and maybe that was the purpose of all those six-figure speeches—you can get those things easily.

Maybe she doesn’t, really, want to run. Maybe she’s not sure she can. Or maybe she’ll go for it: It’s what she’s been going toward all her life.

Maybe Democrats who saw that news conference will sense an opening and jump in. There’s the myth of the empty bench, but it won’t be empty if she leaves it. That’s another law of physics: Nature abhors a vacuum.

We all talk so much about the presidency and who’s got the best chance. Maybe it’s not Hillary. Maybe that’s over and no one knows, even her.
Popular on WSJ

   
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32840


« Reply #454 on: March 15, 2015, 02:29:00 PM »

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-15/clintons-furious-obama-after-valerie-jarrett-linked-email-leak
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6367


« Reply #455 on: March 16, 2015, 03:48:33 PM »


White House non-denial denial:
... he answered with just two words: “Utter baloney.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/utter-baloney-wh-shoots-down-valerie-jarrett-hillary-email-leak-story/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32840


« Reply #456 on: March 16, 2015, 04:06:17 PM »

Apparently Pravda on the Hudson is backstroking; the article was "not without fault" , , , rolleyes
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6367


« Reply #457 on: March 17, 2015, 12:24:58 PM »


+ 3) Valerie Jarrett leaked the HRC Clinton email info.

1)  Yes, the cute, blonde 16 year old looks like Bill, sounds totally possible and at least a little bit credible if a court is at least willing to hear the arguments (but they aren't).  A DNA test is either ordered or agreed to, paternity or not is determined quickly.  If this was true, then what happens?  Hillary is the victim which is how she broke out of the doldrums in the first place.  The new girl becomes a star.  Bill takes responsibility and lectures us about how we all need to do that, year of the woman, etc.  In other words, this would not be a political winner if true. In any case, that story disappeared from that link and SNopes says "fiction".  http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/clintonchild.asp.  We need to be careful what we spread...

2)  Yes, if these photos are actual, she is a spitting image of Webb.  But...  it can't be proven, they'll never admit to it, it's totally off-limits politically, and it doesn't amount to anything even if true.  If Arkansas is at all like state law here, the married husband is the legal father of the child no matter the actual DNA. Hillary would be seen as justified, plus Chelsea is 35 now, and a mother.  It can only turn back on the meddling accusers.

3)  Yes, someone like Jarrett and the Obama machine might be one source of some of Hillary's problems.  The author of 'Blood Feud' is just as credible as either the Clintons or the Obamas, which is not saying much.  Again, it won't be admitted to or proven.  NYT isn't giving up sources.  The two camps are bound to split apart if they haven't already.  But our interest IMHO is to paint them both with the same political brush, just as Obama in 2008 was always running against George Bush.

It is important that we defeat these people directly on their failed political ideology, and not get tempted with all the shiny objects that come floating by, Obama's birth certificate and these stories, etc.  Distractions don't change these facts: we are badly over-taxed, over-regulated and are in the process of letting our constitution, sovereignty, national security, fiscal integrity, monetary system, work ethic and culture go to hell if we don't change course pretty soon.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32840


« Reply #458 on: March 17, 2015, 12:56:35 PM »

Hey, I was just having a moment of fun smiley

Anyway, here is today's Dick Morris:

http://www.dickmorris.com/obama-throws-hillary-under-the-bus-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32840


« Reply #459 on: March 17, 2015, 01:18:56 PM »

second post

She’s weighed down with negatives, but do the Democrats have a choice?
by Victor Davis Hanson // National Review Online

466520736-676x450Hillary Clinton will not run in 2016 on the slogan of continuing the hope-and-change policies of Barack Obama. The president has not enjoyed a 50 percent approval rating since a brief period after his reelection. And he is no friend of the Clintons.

Abroad, chaos in the Middle East, failed reset with Russia, leading from behind in Libya, and the deaths in Benghazi are no more winning issues than are, at home, the Obamacare fiasco, $9 trillion in new debt, and the alphabet soup of the AP, IRS, NSA, and VA scandals.

The Democratic party has also radically changed in just the six years Barack Obama has been in the White House, as it suffered the greatest losses in Congress since the 1920s. Other than hoping for a serious Republican scandal, the Democrats can only cling to two assumptions. One is historic voter turnout by minorities. The second is bloc voting on the basis of racial and gender solidarity.

If there is insufficient turnout, or if groups do not vote in lockstep on the basis of their racial or sexual identities, then — witness the 2010 and 2014 elections — Democratic candidates can get walloped.

Why?

A paradox arose in Obama’s efforts at encouraging bloc voting. To galvanize groups on the basis of their race, tribe, or gender, the Obama cadre has resorted to divisive language  — “punish our enemies,” “nation of cowards,” “my people” — that turns off independent voters and even some liberal white voters. When the president weighed in during the trial of the “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman by telling the nation that if he had had a son, that boy would have looked like Trayvon Martin, such an eerie tribal appeal bothered at least as many Americans as it may have stirred. Blacks and Latinos may appreciate Eric Holder’s constant sermonizing about white prejudice or Obama’s riffs on Skip Gates and Ferguson, but just as many other Americans do not believe that Gates was singled out on the basis of race and do not see how the thuggish Michael Brown, who had robbed a store and rushed a police officer, could conceivably become a civil-rights hero.

More importantly, there is no indication that Obama’s knack for firing up minority voters is transferrable in the same measure to other Democratic candidates such as Hillary Clinton. Once one appeals to tribal identity on the basis of race and appearance, one lives or dies with such superficial affinities. Hillary, in other words, is not Latino or black, and her winning 60 percent of the former or 85 percent of the latter would simply not be good enough under the formulaic racial bloc voting that Obama has bequeathed to Democrats. In addition, Obama seems to bestow voter resentment, as much as he does enthusiasm, on other Democrats. In 2014, it seemed that Obama harmed Democratic candidates a lot more than he helped them, especially when he reminded the electorate that his own policies were de facto on the ballot.

Nor are Obama’s bread-and-circuses issues catching on. Most Americans believe that the era of adolescence is over, and the next president will have to be an adult who puts away the golf clubs and ESPN monitors to clean up what will be $20 trillion in debt and a collapsed foreign policy. The public seems to accept that taxes can’t go much higher. No one thinks that borrowing trillions was a sign of government austerity. Too many, not too few, Americans appear to be hooked on entitlements. The borders are too porous, not too well guarded. Spiking the stock market was not the same as creating well-paying middle-class jobs. More gas and oil came despite, not because of, Obama.

What, then, is Hillary Clinton’s strategy for 2016?

Once again, mostly symbolism. Apart from Hillary and the idea of the first female president, the Democrats have little to turn to — which explains why Hillary may well be nominated even if her health and inclinations — and her disastrous performances — lean against it.

What won Barack Obama the presidency in 2008 was public anger over the Iraq war, fear following the 2008 Wall Street meltdown — and his own iconic status as potentially the first African-American president. Had the surge in Iraq succeeded a year earlier, or had the financial markets not crashed, or had the Democrats nominated a Joe Biden or a Howard Dean, then they probably would have lost the presidency.

Unfortunately for them, however, in 2016 there will be no incumbent Republican administration to scapegoat. “Bush did it” is now stale after six years. Blaming the Tea Party or the Republican House is likewise old hat. There is no success story to bandy about — no desire to bring on another Libya or expand Obamacare or borrow another $9 trillion.

There is only the war-on-women mantra that it is past time for a female president and Hillary has the best shot at making it. She is counting on the idea that blacks and Latinos will turn out for her as an icon of oppressed minorities in the manner they did for Obama, and that white working-class voters will forget the Democratic racial and gender pandering that is so often implicitly aimed against them.

On the face of it, the idea of Hillary Clinton as a feminist trailblazer should be ludicrous. Forty-four women have already served in the Senate since the first one did 93 years ago. When Hillary took over as secretary of state in 2009, there had not been a white male secretary since 1997.

Unlike national female politicians like Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina, Hillary Clinton gained public exposure only by virtue of marriage to the powerbroker governor and then president Bill Clinton. Implicit in her messaging is a return to Bill Clinton’s economic good times of the 1990s and the implication that he might well be running half the show — a subliminal and quite sexist message.

Take away the Clinton name, and Hillary Rodham would be no more likely to become president than would Democratic senators like Barbara Boxer and Barbara Mikulski. In her own public and private life Hillary Clinton has had few feminist credentials beyond her self-promotion. She never insisted on pay equity for her female staffers while senator. She did not object much when her husband’s political operatives sought to destroy the reputations of the women with whom he had liaisons — Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey — some of whom made powerful cases that they had been coerced into sexual encounters and then sullied and derided when they complained. For Hillary, if it was a question of believing that her husband had inappropriately solicited sex with a female subordinate or an otherwise vulnerable woman, or ensuring that her own meal ticket was secure, the choice was always a no-brainer.

Hillary has never been a very inspiring candidate. She is petulant when pressed, and appears at once bored and angry when cross-examined. Her stump speeches can be best characterized as high-pitched and punctuated with shrillness.

She does not so much habitually lie, as habitually see no problem with lying, as if she either cannot distinguish untruth from veracity, or simply believes that normal expectations of conduct should not apply to herself. Her mea culpas about the e-mail scandal were historic in that not a single declaration that she made could possibly be true: One does not need two smartphones to have two e-mail accounts; Ms. Clinton uses not just one but, by her own admission, four smart communication devices. The physical presence of security guards does not ensure a server’s security from cyber attacks. Bill Clinton does not use e-mail, and thus Hillary could not have communicated with him by that means as she claimed.

She seems unaware that no one has the right to decide when or if to comply with federal regulations when leaving office. No one has the right to be sole auditor of her own compliance with federal law. No other major Cabinet secretary in the Obama administration failed to have a .gov account. And on and on and on.

In sum, the Democrats have neither a winning agenda nor someone to blame this time around. They are stuck with only symbols and icons — and this time shaky ones at that. In 2016, choosing any candidate other than the potential first woman president would be as futile as running Joe Biden in 2008 instead of Barack Obama as the potential first African-American president. There would be no icon, not even a small chance of massive minority turnout, and certainly less bloc voting on the basis of tribe. In other words, for the Democrats, 2016 would hinge on just defending the Obama record and the principles of liberal theology — and thereby probably falling short on election day. It is either the worn-out idea of Hillary, warts and all, as both victim and trailblazer — or bust.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6367


« Reply #460 on: March 17, 2015, 02:26:08 PM »

Victor Davis Hanson: "...Clinton will not run in 2016 on the slogan of continuing the hope-and-change policies of Barack Obama.

That's right.  They're having trouble coming up with a winning theme. 

Previously, here:  "...[lack of] excitement of kicking off a campaign theme called 'more of the same'.  http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1534.msg86635#msg86635
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6367


« Reply #461 on: March 17, 2015, 03:24:34 PM »


I enjoyed it too.  I have been wondering about the credibility of Blood Feud author Ed Klein, once of Newsweek and referenced by Dick Morris.  Here he was ripped pretty badly for accuracy and sourcing by liberal radio on his 2005 Hillary book.  They are a little unfair to him, but mostly make the point he is willing to just repeat juicy things, unverified, to make a buck.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/watch-ed-klein-author-clinton-obama-smear-books-met-joe-conason-al-franken/

False but true, the overall point stands; there is a divide between the Clinton and Obama camps and it will get worse when she has to define how she is different.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6367


« Reply #462 on: March 17, 2015, 04:15:07 PM »

One more liberal pundit, Washington Post's David Ignatius,  "I'm still not certain she's going to be a candidate."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/17/ignatius_on_hillary_clinton_im_not_certain_shes_going_to_be_a_candidate.html

Me neither.   wink
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32840


« Reply #463 on: March 17, 2015, 05:40:38 PM »

http://freebeacon.com/blog/7-years-ago-today-hillary-said-she-came-under-sniper-fire-in-bosnia-was-called-out-by-sinbad/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6367


« Reply #464 on: March 17, 2015, 11:24:41 PM »

Secretary of the Treasury isn't really a position of slouch.  The position, high in the order of succession to the Presidency, was held by many distinguished Americans including Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Mellon, George Schultz.  Now enter Jack Lew of the most transparent administration.  Did he notice Hillary used an email address not of the state.gov variety.  He was, after all, Undersecretary of State reporting to her.  He isn't able to even say the words, I don't recall.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/jack-lew-clams-up.php

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One other point on Clinton emails.  The system was set up by "President Clinton", is guarded 24/7 by Secret Service, is used presumably to take care of his official duties as former President among other things.  If so, then most likely it was paid for in full or in part with federal dollars, which makes it a public asset subject to oversight by Congress.  No?


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32840


« Reply #465 on: March 18, 2015, 11:45:54 AM »

http://www.dickmorris.com/the-clintons-personally-made-millions-from-quid-pro-quo-with-u-a-e-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6367


« Reply #466 on: March 18, 2015, 10:56:09 PM »


It's hard to fathom the scale of the Clinton misdeeds, but remember the other William Jefferson - the Louisiana Congressman who got caught with $90,000 CASH in his freezer.  It is quite a vivid kickback that people can visualize and remember.  This allegation is to line up 222 of those stocked freezers throughout the Clinton household when the Feds come in to search.  Instead of sneaking in, it is done by wire transfer right under the Feds' watch.

Maybe the new Attorney General will open an investigation.  Lol.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2015, 08:42:06 AM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32840


« Reply #467 on: March 20, 2015, 01:05:18 PM »

Did Foreign Governments Buy Influence With Hillary?
(http://patriotpost.us/posts/34031)

Hillary Clinton may be too mired in international connections to be an
unbiased president -- or hold any other public office for that matter. While
the Clintons couldn't accept donations from foreign governments to the Clinton
Foundation (http://patriotpost.us/articles/33399) while Hillary was secretary
of state, it didn't stop politicians in high positions in the Ukrainian,
Chinese and Saudi Arabian governments from giving millions. The Wall Street
Journal

(http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-charity-tapped-foreign-friends-1426818602)
reports, "All told, more than a dozen foreign individuals and their
foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation in the
years after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, collectively
giving between $34 million and $68 million, foundation records show. Some
donors also provided funding directly to charitable projects sponsored by the
foundation, valued by the organization at $60 million." While every donor WSJ
spoke with claimed they were only giving to a charity they believed in, they
also had the potential to buy Clinton's attention. The Clintons certainly know
how to play this shadowy political game, as Hillary just happened to stall on
disclosing the donors

(http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/19/hillary-clintons-scandal-is-blowing-up-in-the-press-no-the-other-one/)
to her charity.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6367


« Reply #468 on: March 23, 2015, 10:43:25 AM »

My first search to find Hillary commodity trading scandal background information brought up this thread as a top ten search result!  I've looked through some WSJ material from the 1990s but found neither the article Crafty referenced nor the editorial that I remember.  One interesting point at the start is that it was the NYT that first brought forward the story.  Her earliest explanation was that she got her information from the WSJ.  In response, the editors said we're flattered but no, it doesn't work that way.

In fact, the odds of doing what she did without cheating the system are one in 31 trillion against her, best case.  Assuming that the return is made in the most efficient way possible, this probability falls to approximately 1.5×10−16.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02920493
As the joke goes, so you're sayin' I got a shot!

What really was going on?

The person feeding her information and hand placing her trades with hindsight was chief counsel to one of the state's most powerful companies as her husband was Attorney General and leading candidate for Governor.  In crony corruption language, quid pro quo is the exchange of goods or services where one transfer is contingent upon the other.  "During Mr. Clinton's tenure as Governor, Tyson benefited from several state decisions, including favorable environmental rulings, $9 million in state loans, and the placement of company executives on important state boards."  (http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/30/us/hillary-clinton-turned-1000-into-99540-white-house-says.html)


Politico, March 10, 2015
A few days after Hubbell’s resignation [Hillary's law partner who plead guilty for bilking clients], the New York Times ran a lengthy story about Hillary’s commodity trades. Her aides and lawyers had finally provided financial records to the Times, but only after the newspaper made clear that it was preparing to publish a detailed account of her trading profits.

Initially, senior aides to the Clintons said in March 1994 that Hillary “based her trades on information in the Wall Street Journal.” That explanation was subsequently dropped. An aide to Hillary then said she had withdrawn from the market in the fall of 1979 because she had found trading too nerve-racking in the final months of her pregnancy. But another White House aide quickly declared that excuse “inoperative” after it was disclosed in April 1994 that Hillary made $6,500 in a commodities-trading venture in 1980 but failed to report that profit to the IRS.

Shortly after that, Hillary took responsibility—in her standard combination of singular acknowledgment and plural blame—for her aides’ confusing answers to reporters, saying they stemmed from her being away, working on other issues. “I probably did not spend enough time, get as precise,” she explained, “so I think that the confusion was our responsibility.”

[No criminal investigation was made because the statute of limitations had long expired before the tax returns were made available.]


They note the similarity to the private email scandal press conference and a similar one in 1994:

By mid-April [1994], Hillary’s approval ratings had dropped from 56 percent the year before to 44 percent, a historically low mark for a First Lady. Aides knew that Hillary’s stubborn reluctance to speak with the press was one of the sources of the public’s displeasure with her. For weeks, her aides and friends had urged her to con- front the negative reports and innuendos in an open, candid way. It was one thing to stay in the background, but by not providing Americans with an example different from her initially off-putting public appearance, she was leaving it to her political enemies to define her.
In late April, Hillary told her chief of staff, Maggie Williams, “I want to do it. Let’s call a press conference.”
“You know you’ll have to answer all questions, no matter what they throw at you,” Williams responded.
“I know. I’m ready.”
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-emails-pink-press-conferences-115952_Page2.html#ixzz3VDuOabvg



Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32840


« Reply #469 on: March 23, 2015, 12:06:59 PM »

Nice work Doug!

"My first search to find Hillary commodity trading scandal background information brought up this thread as a top ten search result!"

Well done gentlemen!

 cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool 

Very good article, though I would LOVE to find that article that I remember in the WSJ.  Now thanks to this article here we have a much more narrowly defined time range to define our search.   What I remember of the article was that it appeared on the editorial page and was written by the man who had been the IRS attorney in charge of prosecuting tax frauds manipulating "commodity straddles".
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6367


« Reply #470 on: March 23, 2015, 12:39:50 PM »

Mrs. Clinton traded with Mr. Bone[known crook], the chief broker in 1978 at the Springdale, Ark., offices of Ray E. Friedman & Co., or Refco. In 1981, Mr. Bone was fined $100,000 and barred from trading for three years after an investigation of allegations that he had been allocating winning positions to favored clients.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/27/us/new-records-outline-favor-for-hillary-clinton-on-trades.html


Crafty: "...I would LOVE to find that article that I remember in the WSJ.  Now thanks to this article here we have a much more narrowly defined time range to define our search.   What I remember of the article was that it appeared on the editorial page and was written by the man who had been the IRS attorney in charge of prosecuting tax frauds manipulating "commodity straddles".  "

My subscription-based searching powers have expired but I will try with library resources when time permits.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32840


« Reply #471 on: March 23, 2015, 01:39:55 PM »

Excellent find on the NYT article.  Email me about researching the WSJ for that article.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32840


« Reply #472 on: March 23, 2015, 07:29:30 PM »

Hillary Can't Type: Look To Huma's and Cheryl's Emails; See 2016 Buzz

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheDailyHillary.com on March 23, 2015

Don't expect a gold mine of emails on Hillary's private account.  Why not? Because
she doesn't know how to type.  That's right.  She writes everything out in longhand.
 Really.  Anyone who has spent time in meetings with her knows about her endless
yellow pads.

So her emails will most likely turn out to be very short and quick.  She wouldn't
spend a lot of time pecking out long letters.  No way.  That's why the Benghazi
Committee needs to also look very closely at the emails on private accounts that
Hillary's closest aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, maintained.  Anything more
than a few lines were most likely written by someone else on her behalf.  There's a
reason why Hillary set up and used private emails with them for official business:
all the important emails were likely written by her staff.  Without access to them,
we won't know what was going on.

The Clintons never used the White House computer for their own work.  Hillary even
wrote (or copied) her book manuscripts in long hand.  Although ghost writer Barbara
Fineman was paid $120,000 for writing It Takes A Village, she proudly waved hundreds
of hand-written pages on yellow legal pads to pretend she wrote it all herself.  She
never acknowledged Fineman's work.

Bill can't type either.  When I wrote his 1995 State of the Union Speech, I typed it
on an IBM Selectric that the White House dug up from the basement.  He told me that
he didn't want me to put it in the official computer system, because then his staff
would see it.

So, he carefully copied every word in his distinctive left hand penmanship.  I still
have a copy of it.  Then he pretended that he had written it himself.

The Clintons have figured out every which way to avoid disclosure of what they want
to keep private.  So don't expect a smoking gun in Hillary's emails.

Look, instead, to Huma, Cheryl, Jake Sullivan, and Philippe Reines -- if they still
exist.


Here's Exactly Why Hillary Kept Secret Email Accounts In Her House: See How Justice
Dept. Defends In Court

HERE'S EXACTLY WHY HILLARY KEPT SECRET EMAIL ACCOUNTS IN HER HOUSE: SEE HOW JUSTICE
DEPT. DEFENDS IN COURT

By EILEEN MCGANN

If there is actually anyone on the planet who has any doubts about why Hillary kept
a secret email server in her Chappaqua house, guarded by the Secret Service, a quick
look at the Justice Department's response to Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information
request for Hillary's emails will clear things up.  You can read it here:
http://list.dickmorris.com/t/687253/613051/7757/2/

Judicial Watch wants emails related to the Iran sanctions.  In defending the State
Department for failing to produce and records and not disposing Hillary's secret
emails, the Justice Department makes the case that any documents that are not under
their control are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act and, therefore, the
State Department has no obligation to search them.  Since Hillary -- and not the
State Department -- controlled them, they have no obligation to do anything with
them.

The government relied on a U.S. Supreme Court case against Hillary's newest pal,
Henry Kissinger.  Kissinger had his secretaries listen in to all of his phone calls
and take notes.

Hillary knew that would be their response and that's precisely why she went to the
trouble and expense of creating her own server.  The notoriously cheap Clintons,
used to the government and rich friends paying their tabs, made a point of leaking
that President Clinton paid for the server.  That's a first.  But it's important
because, presumably, if the Government paid for it, they could assert control.

Hillary and her lawyers thought of everything.  And now the Justice Department is
following the script that Hillary anticipated when she set up the secret system in
2009 just before she was sworn in as Secretary of State.  She wasn't taking any
chances that some government document could undermine her anticipated presidential
campaign.

And so far, it's working.  Here's what the Justice Department argued to the court:

"FOIA creates no obligation for an agency to search for and produce records that it
does not possess and control. See Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the
Press, 445 U.S. 136, 152, 154-55 (1980); Nat'l Sec. Archive v. Archivist of the
U.S., 909 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Office
of Science and Technology Policy, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2015 WL 967549, at *4-5
(D.D.C. Mar. 3, 2015). It certainly provides no basis for a court to issue a
subpoena for such documents." (Emphasis added.)

That's what Hillary is counting on.

But now the State Department has the emails that Hillary hand-picked to turn over.
So, it's hard to argue that they don't have to search at least those documents.
Instead, they want to be able to post them all on a web site.  Why?  That way we
will be the ones who have to search through 55,000 pages, not them.  If they were
required to comply with FOI, they would have to identify the responsive documents.
Oh, and by the way, Hillary's decision to hand over hard copies, instead of
electronic files was another ploy to make searching the documents more difficult.
There's no way to do a word search on manual documents.  She's not going to make
this one easy. It's typical Hillary -- hide, obfuscate, delay, stretch the legal
boundaries while screaming about the rights to keep private emails about your
mother's funeral.

The government's reliance on the Kissinger case is interesting.  Although the
Supreme Court recognized that transcripts of Kissinger's phone calls were official
records that were wrongfully removed, it found that only government agencies -- and
not the press or individuals -- could sue for their return.  Kissinger had taken the
transcripts from the State Department and placed them in a safe on the estate of
Nelson Rockefeller. (Conspiracy theorists, take note).  Eventually, he gave them to
the Library of Congress, which is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act.  He
signed an agreement barring public access until either 25 years after the donation
or 5 years after his death -- whatever is later.  But just recently, Kissinger
agreed that the transcripts and other papers of his can be made public.  Even
Kissinger finally came around to recognize the public's right to documents created
in the course of official government business.  Hillary should follow in his
footsteps.

Things are definitely heating up, but it's just the beginning.  Judicial Watch also
requested access to Hillary's server.  Last week, the Benghazi Committee subpoenaed
the server.  There are multiple pending Freedom of Information requests for her
emails, And the Benghazi Committee is looking at other people's emails, too -- like
Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin.  Stay tuned.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32840


« Reply #473 on: March 24, 2015, 11:47:33 AM »

Hillary’s Record: Free of Accomplishments, Full of Setbacks
by Thomas Sowell
March 24, 2015 12:00 AM

The case for her in 2016 boils down to demographic symbolism. It is amazing how a simple question can cause a complex lie to collapse like a house of cards. The simple question was asked by Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel, and it was addressed to two Democrats. He asked what has Hillary Clinton ever accomplished. The two Democrats immediately sidestepped the question and started reciting their talking points in favor of Hillary. But O’Reilly kept coming back to the fact that nothing they were talking about was an accomplishment. For someone who has spent her entire adult life in politics, including being a senator and then a secretary of state, Hillary Clinton has nothing to show for all those years — no significant legislation of hers that she got passed in the Senate, and only an unbroken series of international setbacks for the United States during her time as secretary of state. Before Barack Obama entered the White House and appointed Mrs. Clinton secretary of state, al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq had notified their higher-ups, stationed in Pakistan, that their cause was lost in Iraq and that there was no point sending more men there. Hosni Mubarak was in charge in Egypt. He posed no threat to American or Western interests in the Middle East or to Christians within Egypt or to Israel. But the Obama administration threw its weight behind the Muslim Brotherhood, which took over and began terrorizing Christians in Egypt and promoting hostility to Israel. In Libya next door, the Qaddafi regime had already given up its weapons of mass destruction, after they saw what happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But President Obama’s foreign policy, carried out by Secretary of State Clinton, got Qaddafi removed, after which Libya became a terrorist haven where an American ambassador was killed, for the first time in decades. The rationale for getting rid of Middle East leaders who posed no threat to American interests was that they were undemocratic and their people were restless. But there are no democracies in the Middle East, except for Israel. Moreover, the people were restless in Iran and Syria, and the Obama-Clinton foreign policy did nothing to support those who were trying to overthrow these regimes. It would be only fair to balance this picture with foreign-policy triumphs of the Obama-Clinton team. But there are none. Not in the Middle East, not in Europe, where the Russians have invaded the Crimea, and not in Asia, where both China and North Korea are building up threatening military forces, while the Obama administration has been cutting back on American military forces. Hillary Clinton became an iconic figure by feeding the media and the Left the kind of rhetoric they love. Barack Obama did the same and became president. Neither had any concrete accomplishments beforehand besides rhetoric, and both have had the opposite of accomplishments after taking office. They have something else in common. They attract the votes of those people who vote for demographic symbolism — “the first black president” to be followed by “the first woman president” — and neither is to be criticized, lest you be denounced for racism or sexism. It is staggering that there are sane adults who can vote for someone to be president of the United States as if they are in school, just voting for “most popular boy” or “most popular girl” — or, worse yet, voting for someone who will give them free stuff. Whoever holds that office makes decisions involving the life and death of Americans and — especially if Iran gets a nuclear arsenal — the life and death of this nation. It took just two nuclear bombs — neither of them as powerful as those available today — to get a very tough nation like Japan to surrender. Anyone familiar with World War II battles in the Pacific knows that it was not unusual for 90 percent of the Japanese troops defending Iwo Jima or other islands to fight to the death, even after it was clear that American troops had them beaten. When people like that surrender after two nuclear bombs, do not imagine that today’s soft Americans — led by the likes of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton — will fight on after New York and Chicago have been reduced to radioactive ashes. Meanwhile, ISIS and other terrorists are giving us a free demonstration of what surrender would mean. But perhaps we can kick the can down the road, and leave that as a legacy to our children and grandchildren, along with the national debt. — Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His website is http://www.tsowell.com. © 2015 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415855/hillarys-record-free-accomplishments-full-setbacks-thomas-sowell
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32840


« Reply #474 on: March 25, 2015, 08:24:16 AM »

http://conservativetribune.com/gowdy-threatens-hillary-arrest/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6367


« Reply #475 on: March 26, 2015, 12:32:23 PM »

...  I would LOVE to find that article that I remember in the WSJ.  Now thanks to this article here we have a much more narrowly defined time range to define our search.   What I remember of the article was that it appeared on the editorial page and was written by the man who had been the IRS attorney in charge of prosecuting tax frauds manipulating "commodity straddles".

Emailed to me this morning by James Taranto, Deputy Editor of the WSJ.   )

The Mystery of Hillary's Trades
By David L. Brandon
1724 words
7 April 1994
The Wall Street Journal
J
PAGE A14
English
(Copyright (c) 1994, Dow Jones & Co., Inc.)
As former head of the IRS chief counsel's Commodities Industry Specialization Team in the mid-1980s, I have followed with great interest the media stories on Hillary Clinton's excellent adventures in the commodities markets. As a proud capitalist and free market proponent (and an avid beef eater), I would be the first in line to salute this woman's success with cattle futures. But based on my years of experience with these markets, her story just doesn't add up. In fact, the chances of someone making almost $100,000 in the futures markets on her first try are about as great as walking into a casino in Las Vegas, hitting the million-dollar jackpot on your first try at the slots, then walking out never to play again. It just doesn't happen that way.

For those unfamiliar with the details of Mrs. Clinton's remarkable venture into the commodities markets, she allegedly made more than $99,000 in cattle futures (and other commodities) in late 1978 and 1979, withdrawing from trading just before the markets went bust. No explanation has been offered of how Mrs. Clinton managed to satisfy state laws that require futures investors to demonstrate a minimum net income and net worth, nor how a novice could have such uncanny timing.

There is, in fact, a much more probable explanation for Mrs. Clinton's good fortune. The media have already suggested that trades may have been moved to Mrs. Clinton's account after gains had been realized. However, the stories thus far have not clearly focused on a common trading strategy called a "straddle" that was very much in vogue at the time.

Straddles have the unique ability to produce exactly equal and offsetting gains and losses that can be transferred or used by the straddle trader for a variety of purposes. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, straddles were used for all kinds of illegal activities, ranging from tax evasion to money-laundering and bribes. In fact, this activity prompted a number of legal and regulatory changes by the Reagan administration to curb the abuses.

Although it sounds somewhat esoteric, a commodities straddle is a relatively simple trading device.

A commodities futures contract is nothing more than an agreement between two parties to buy or sell a certain type of commodity (in Mrs. Clinton's case, cattle) for a stated price on some date in the future. If the price of the commodity goes up before the contract delivery date, the individual who agreed to buy the commodity will realize a gain equal to the difference between the current price and the contract price. The individual who agreed to sell will realize a loss in an equal amount. Conversely, if the price goes down, the buyer will lose and the seller will gain.

A straddle is created when an investor enters into contracts to both buy and sell the same commodity. In this case, any gain on one contract will be exactly offset by a loss on the opposite contract. While straddle trading today is used in a variety of legitimate ways, these transactions lend themselves to all sorts of abuses as well. Before regulatory changes in the 1980s, it was common to enter into straddles to wipe out large capital gains for tax purposes. For example, an investor who realized a $100,000 capital gain in the stock market might enter into a large straddle in the commodities market. When the commodity price moved, the investor would close the loss leg of the straddle and realize a $100,000 loss, which offset his gain in the stock market. The investor was not required to report the unrealized $100,000 gain in the opposite leg of the straddle until that leg was closed in the following year. Typically, the investor entered into another straddle in the following year, thereby indefinitely rolling over the capital gain into subsequent years.

Another ploy common during that time required the assistance of a friendly broker. An investor could create a straddle using two separate investment accounts with his broker. After the straddle had moved, so that a gain and an offsetting loss had been created, the friendly broker simply wrote in the name of the investor's tax-exempt retirement fund on the account that held the gain leg of the straddle. The result was that a loss was realized that was reported on the investor's tax return, while the gain went unreported in the tax-exempt retirement account.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the IRS began noticing large numbers of individual tax returns that curiously showed commodities losses just big enough to wipe out unrelated capital gains; no corresponding commodities gains, which would suggest a straddle, ever appeared on subsequent returns. Even more curiously, the profile of these investors always had one thing in common, which was limited experience or no prior experience in commodities trading. In the early 1980s, an IRS agent in Chicago thought to look into one taxpayer's retirement fund and, of course, found the hidden gain leg of the straddle.

After that experience, the IRS redoubled its efforts to seek out thousands of missing straddle gains. It found them in retirement accounts, in London, in the Cayman Islands -- almost anywhere a taxpayer thought he might hide them from the IRS. With respect to these thousands of mysterious, isolated commodities transactions that showed up on tax returns, the IRS uncovered some form of questionable trading in virtually 100% of the cases it investigated. Well before the close of the 1980s, the IRS had assessed more than $7 billion in delinquent taxes and penalties attributable to these transactions and eventually settled these cases out of court for approximately $3.5 billion.

While most of the IRS's efforts were directed at finding hidden gains of the ubiquitous straddle, the trading device could just as easily be used to openly transfer gains while hiding the offsetting loss. If someone desired to make an illicit payment to another party, a straddle could be used to accomplish this purpose with no incriminating or suspicious-looking bank withdrawals or deposits. In fact, the IRS found numerous incidents of straddles being used for money-laundering purposes.

Does Mrs. Clinton's trading activity fit the profile of the illegitimate straddle trader? She was a novice in the commodities markets who, against all odds, realized large gains. Although she intermittently realized losses, it does not appear that she ever had to risk her own capital beyond her initial $1,000 deposit, which itself may have been insufficient to cover even her first transaction (which netted her $5,300). According to the trading records released by the White House, most of Mrs. Clinton's gains were recorded as intra-month transactions. This means that these records include no information regarding key elements of the trade, such as the type and quantity of the contracts, acquisition dates, acquisition prices, etc. Such information is needed to determine whether trades were part of a prearranged straddle.

It also appears that Mrs. Clinton's broker, Robert L. "Red" Bone, was no stranger to the spicier practices of commodities trading, according to The Wall Street Journal's front-page article last Friday.

It seems more than coincidental that Mr. Bone was a former employee of Tyson Foods and that Mrs. Clinton's investment adviser, James Blair, was the company's legal counsel. Tyson, the poultry concern, is one of the largest employers in the state of Arkansas. The fact that the Clintons withheld disclosing only those tax returns that included their commodities gains until the transactions were reported by the New York Times in February also appears quite suspicious. From my standpoint as a former government staff attorney with extensive experience in these matters, Mrs. Clinton's windfall in the late 1970s has all the trappings of pre-arranged trades.

How would a straddle have been used in Mrs. Clinton's case? The Journal has already reported that gains theoretically could have been transferred to Mrs. Clinton's account, while "others" may have absorbed losses. Such a transaction could be accomplished with a straddle.

A party desiring to transfer cash to another's personal account for legal or illegal purposes could enter into a straddle in a particularly volatile commodity, such as cattle futures in the late 1970s. After gains and losses were generated in the opposite sides of the straddle, the gain side would be marked to the beneficiary's account, while the loss side would remain in the account of the contributor. The contributor might even be entitled to use the loss to offset other gains. Such a transaction would be not only well-hidden from government authorities but potentially tax-deductible.

No direct evidence of wrongdoing has been produced in the case of Mrs. Clinton's trading activity. In fact, no conclusive evidence of anything has been produced. In order to settle the legitimate questions surrounding her trades, a satisfactory explanation is needed for her apparently low initial margin deposit and whether the requirements relating to an investor's minimum net income and net worth were satisfied. In addition, the details of her numerous intra-month trades should be provided, as well as the details of the trades of persons who may have had a special interest in how well she did. If it is discovered that certain interested parties happened to realize losses in cattle futures at the same time, and they were comparable in size to the gains reported by Mrs. Clinton, this would amount to a "smoking gun."

This is not a matter of partisan politics. Even if the public had never heard of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the circumstances surrounding her unusual good fortune would still appear suspicious to anyone awake to abuses of the commodities markets. In this writer's experience, the normal trading world just doesn't work that way.

---

Mr. Brandon was a career attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service from 1983 to 1989. During that time he also served as head of that department's Commodity Industry Specialization Team, which was responsible for coordinating and developing the IRS's legal positions on tax issues arising in connection with commodities transactions.

Dow Jones & Company

Document j000000020011029dq470095u

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4414


« Reply #476 on: March 26, 2015, 01:21:23 PM »

None of this stuff will stop the Clinton machine.  No matter what we hear the first response is, "no laws were broken".  Every single time and the machine rolls ahead.

The MSM fawns and the opposition just twists and wrings our hands in frustration.   

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6367


« Reply #477 on: March 26, 2015, 04:04:50 PM »

None of this stuff will stop the Clinton machine.  No matter what we hear the first response is, "no laws were broken".  Every single time and the machine rolls ahead.
The MSM fawns and the opposition just twists and wrings our hands in frustration.  

Yes, but laws WERE broken.  

That was Politico and NYTimes bringing it up again.

The Clinton machine was impotent in 2007-2008.  Their last national win was in 1996 when the youngest voters of 2016 were -2 years old.  Even then, with Bill's magic and a very weak opponent, they never won 50% of the vote.  

And she doesn't have his skills.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2015, 04:08:18 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!