Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 30, 2016, 07:28:26 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
96189 Posts in 2316 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: Concerned Citizen
* 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 ... 23 24 [25] Print
Author Topic: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history  (Read 151578 times)
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 974


« Reply #1200 on: July 05, 2016, 03:38:00 PM »

FBI: HILLARY LIED AND ILLEGALLY SENT CLASSIFIED EMAILS, BUT WE WON'T DO A THING ABOUT IT

July 5, 2016  Daniel Greenfield  

Is anyone seriously surprised?

Yes all sorts of people might have gone down for this. But the idea that government, in its current state, would hold a presidential candidate from the government party accountable for anything less than choking a nun to death in broad daylight while cackling evilly was always a pipe dream. (And probably not even then.)

Hillary Clinton has a vast and influential network at her disposal. And the current administration backs her to the hilt. Furthermore, Lynch no doubt made it clear to the FBI that no charges would be pursued no matter what. And that made the outcome inevitable.

The FBI investigation provides plenty of ammunition for the election. It makes it crystal clear that Hillary Clinton lied about not sending classified emails. But it also states that it isn't going to do a thing about it.

Here's Comey trying to sum up the classified email abuses

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”


 
But....

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

The clear evidence standard is of course absurd, because Clinton and her people knew the regulations and clearly violated them. That standard would apply to any other employee, yet Hillary is allowed to act as if she had no idea of what the law was or that she was violating it.

So Comey demolishes Hillary's lies about classified emails on the one hand and then shrugs the whole thing off on the other. You can see that as the action of a man in an impossible spot who does his job demolishing the alibi and then walks away having provided the information while knowing that it can be used politically, but not criminally.

Effectively he's blown the whistle but can't do anything about it.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5758


« Reply #1201 on: July 05, 2016, 07:59:56 PM »

Of course we all knew she would get off.

The only surprise to me is how easy it was.

Not only does she get off but the DOJ and the WH too.

Comey certainly did cave.  Not clear why.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 370


« Reply #1202 on: July 06, 2016, 02:56:20 AM »

I'm not certain what to make of it.

https://i.sli.mg/WuG4nP.png
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37319


« Reply #1203 on: July 06, 2016, 09:07:17 AM »

Uhhh  , , , what is that?


« Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 09:12:15 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 370


« Reply #1204 on: July 06, 2016, 10:51:52 AM »

Uhhh  , , , what is that?




It's a person off of 4chan.org (a hacker chat sight) stating that they are an FBI analyst and the converstation that ensued yesterday.

Obviously anyone could just say that, but it would be a crime and the person actually had some interesting things to say.

The truth of their statements will be known shortly. If you click on the link, you have to click the magnifying glass to expand it to where it is readable.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 10:55:19 AM by DDF » Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8108


« Reply #1205 on: July 07, 2016, 05:04:15 PM »

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2016/most_disagree_with_decision_not_to_indict_clinton
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8108


« Reply #1206 on: July 07, 2016, 05:19:06 PM »

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-missing-emails-secretary-state-department-personal-server-investigation-fbi-214016

Among the troubling gaps is the time around her controversial approval of the purchase American nuclear assets by Russia.

"There are more mentions of LeBron James, yoga and NBC’s Saturday Night Live than the Russian Nuclear Agency in Clinton’s emails deemed official.”

(Peter Schweizer is the author of Clinton Cash)

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37319


« Reply #1207 on: July 07, 2016, 06:37:11 PM »

Very interesting, , ,
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5758


« Reply #1208 on: July 07, 2016, 06:39:16 PM »

"Rasmussen: 54% thought Hillary should have been indicted"

And when you subtract the 40 % who love her because she is a Democrat you have 54 % to 6 % who are either right or independent who think she should have been indicted.

The Leftists of course know she should have been they will just never say it. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8108


« Reply #1209 on: July 07, 2016, 07:50:45 PM »

"Rasmussen: 54% thought Hillary should have been indicted"

And when you subtract the 40 % who love her because she is a Democrat you have 54 % to 6 % who are either right or independent who think she should have been indicted.

The Leftists of course know she should have been they will just never say it. 

Who knows?  I think the 54% include the people who love her and will vote for her anyway.

My centrist friends always say they vote for the person, not th party.  As I told my liberal cousin who doesn't like Hillary but will most certainly vote for her, I vote for the direction of the country, not the person.  Hillary is disgusting and despicable, but if you are a leftist liberal, she is all you have left.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5758


« Reply #1210 on: July 07, 2016, 09:38:02 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/07/06/former-congressman-allen-west-heres-why-im-delighted-about-the-fbis-verdict-on-clinton-emails/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8108


« Reply #1211 on: July 08, 2016, 07:49:36 AM »

 Iowahawk:

Possibly the first FBI investigation in history where the FBI director had to testify under oath and the target didn't.

https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/751125019116253184
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5758


« Reply #1212 on: July 08, 2016, 11:28:32 AM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437597/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-fbi-decision-america-lawless-state
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37319


« Reply #1213 on: July 08, 2016, 12:32:15 PM »

Please post in Rule of Law too.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 370


« Reply #1214 on: July 08, 2016, 12:37:31 PM »


This article has a slight error.

"she clearly set up her illegal private e-mail server..."

They should have said "servers."

They make it sound like it's a one time thing.

Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8108


« Reply #1215 on: July 10, 2016, 07:18:44 AM »

Low-ranking soldiers are convicted and sent to the brig for comparatively trivial negligence; the secretary of state is given effective immunity for an offense that was systematic and gargantuan

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437643/fbi-director-james-comey-testimony-clinton-defense-crumbles-under-scrutiny
« Last Edit: July 10, 2016, 12:38:29 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5758


« Reply #1216 on: July 10, 2016, 10:59:10 AM »

On yahoo news she is blaming other officials for sending her classified emails!

This whole DOJ "looking into it " is , we all know , a joke.   Just a show.  Some insignificant aides will be thrown under the bus lest us just watch.  Who does the DOJ think they are kidding?  Not us here.

 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37319


« Reply #1217 on: July 11, 2016, 01:31:39 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/11/clinton-charity-spends-nearly-80-percent-administrative-costs/

IIRC this was the conduit for the deal wherein Hillary sold out 20% of US uranium supplies to Russian interests.

Also IIRC the US Clinton Foundation has an overhead of over 90%.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37319


« Reply #1218 on: July 13, 2016, 12:41:30 PM »

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/07/david-kendalls-deceitful-whitewater-op-ed.php
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5758


« Reply #1219 on: July 13, 2016, 05:06:55 PM »

Again I thank God for Judicial Watch. 

Gotta love this one:

"The State Department claims that no one at the agency really knew anything about Mrs. Clinton’s non-state.gov email system, so there is nothing left to say.

Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, claims that everyone at the agency knew all about her non-state.gov system, so, once again, there is nothing left to say."

Yet we have well known lawyers on the airwaves telling us NO CRIMES WERE COMMITTED when everyone can see from the public record that is simply not true.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/13/judicial-watch-chief-slowly-but-surely-clinton-email-cover-up-is-unraveling.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37319


« Reply #1220 on: July 14, 2016, 02:28:29 AM »

That was pithy.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8108


« Reply #1221 on: July 14, 2016, 09:58:11 AM »


This piece is a keeper.  Like the Cattle Straddles, the only part that falls short of a prosecutable felony is that the facts and evidence were not all available until the Statue of Limitations had expired.  The crime is Obstruction of Justice, concealment of documents under judicial subpoena which means the documents expose even worse crimes.

She is already ineligible to be hired for any federal office, so let's make her President!

I don't want to re-live the 90s and the watching of the hunt down of Clinton crimes like a sports fan, but every opponent of Hillary today needs to be able to answer succinctly the question from Whitewater and the rest of it, 'What did she do wrong?'

The cattle straddles crime was the accepting of stolen money paid to in exchange for crony government favors.  The crime here is obstruction of justice; she prevented the court from doing it's job - in a criminal case where she was part of the conspiracy! 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5758


« Reply #1222 on: July 14, 2016, 11:31:40 AM »

Though that seems enough to buy small thinking voters.

Just like the minimum wage hike.  For a large corporation the total amount can add up.  But, for the individual it is mere chump change.  No one with any sense should take a minimum wage job without thinking that is just a temporary stepping stone anyway. 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/14/dont-wait-for-presidential-decree-to-cut-student-debt.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cheadline%7Cheadline%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=103785689&yptr=yahoo
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8108


« Reply #1223 on: July 14, 2016, 11:49:53 AM »

"she would impose a three-month moratorium on federal student loan payments via executive action"

A 3 month moratorium on a LONG term problem?

Via executive action?  Is that the new Article 1, 2 and 3 of the living, breathing US constitution?!

Someone stop her!

How about instead get the economy going again and let adult education be a market? 

How about start with no money toward gender studies and other fields that produce nothing.

The federal student loan and grant money is what is causing the out of control college costs.  It's not students demanding higher costs with their own money.  The idea you might not have to repay it makes it even more attractive to incur, hold and not pay down.

As usual, do more of whatever caused the mess.  Blame others.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5758


« Reply #1224 on: July 14, 2016, 02:20:35 PM »

"The federal student loan and grant money is what is causing the out of control college costs.  It's not students demanding higher costs with their own money.  The idea you might not have to repay it makes it even more attractive to incur, hold and not pay down."

This is just fine for an academia that is 90% liberal .  Very cozy don't you say?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37319


« Reply #1225 on: July 14, 2016, 06:44:42 PM »

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/13/new-ties-emerge-between-clinton-and-mysterious-islamic-cleric/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37319


« Reply #1226 on: July 18, 2016, 08:47:50 AM »

https://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/clinton-bush-covered-saudi-terror-network-us
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37319


« Reply #1227 on: July 20, 2016, 06:22:24 PM »

Looking for the post about Hillary's commodity trades and not finding it  , , , angry
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8108


« Reply #1228 on: July 20, 2016, 10:42:25 PM »

Looking for the post about Hillary's commodity trades and not finding it  , , , angry

http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1534.msg86824#msg86     
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5758


« Reply #1229 on: July 21, 2016, 07:14:35 AM »

Certainly a lot of what ifs.  But we know the last one is obviously true and the others certainly very possible:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/21/judge-napolitano-what-if-fix-was-in-for-hillary-at-obama-justice-department.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37319


« Reply #1230 on: July 21, 2016, 05:18:44 PM »

Very strong!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8108


« Reply #1231 on: July 22, 2016, 03:15:50 PM »

I said it would be Tim Kaine, now NYTimes says Tim Kaine, Washington Post, too, but he is not liberal enough!  Supported Free Trade!

Cory Booker is black.  That's exciting!  'His' life matters.  But supports school choice.  (

Elizabeth Warren is Cherokee, Harvard's first 'woman of color'!  Too risky.

Hickenlooper supports fracking.  Are there ANY good Democrats available?

It's pretty hard to say her first choice Huma comes from a different state if they are together 24/7/365.

This is a conundrum.

Hillary should pick Joe Biden!  Tanned and tested.

Democrats save bad news they want ignored for the Friday afternoon news dump.
Hillary says she will 'tweet' her choice today.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37319


« Reply #1232 on: July 26, 2016, 07:10:16 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=n3t4NlpxcMc
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5758


« Reply #1233 on: July 26, 2016, 09:48:13 AM »

http://nypost.com/2016/07/25/clinton-practically-handed-her-email-password-to-the-russians/

If Vlad really wanted to torch the Hildabeast he would release her Clinton Foundation corruption just before the election.  We all know what went on.  Since Comey won't do anything and allowed her and her criminal lawyers to destroy evidence Vlad may well have copies.  Would that be great!
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13774


« Reply #1234 on: July 26, 2016, 10:02:56 AM »

http://nypost.com/2016/07/25/clinton-practically-handed-her-email-password-to-the-russians/

If Vlad really wanted to torch the Hildabeast he would release her Clinton Foundation corruption just before the election.  We all know what went on.  Since Comey won't do anything and allowed her and her criminal lawyers to destroy evidence Vlad may well have copies.  Would that be great!

Why would he do that when he can sit on them and use them as leverage if the Dowager Empress becomes president?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5758


« Reply #1235 on: July 26, 2016, 11:07:46 AM »

"Why would he do that when he can sit on them and use them as leverage if the Dowager Empress becomes president?"

Well, if she becomes President, and Russia gains control of EVEN MORE of our uranium , then we will have our answer.  Thanks to the joker smiling beast.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8108


« Reply #1236 on: July 26, 2016, 11:54:34 AM »

http://nypost.com/2016/07/25/clinton-practically-handed-her-email-password-to-the-russians/

If Vlad really wanted to torch the Hildabeast he would release her Clinton Foundation corruption just before the election.  We all know what went on.  Since Comey won't do anything and allowed her and her criminal lawyers to destroy evidence Vlad may well have copies.  Would that be great!

Why would he do that when he can sit on them and use them as leverage if the Dowager Empress becomes president?

Good points.  That was the risk of cheating, of corruption, of deception and of communicating over an unsecured server.  Give an enemy leverage, career ending leverage.  Hillary's only defense against damaging releases is that everyone already knows she is a crook.  There are books out there documenting it.

I believed all along that deleted emails will become public over time from a variety of sources and that the worst ones will come out last.  The tell-all books from her friends will mostly come out too late to matter and most of the media would rather be a co-conspirator than report.  Still, there is more info out there and big secrets are hard to keep.

Assuming Putin has control over these even if it was a private Russian hack, it is an interesting game theory exercise to ponder how he will best use it to his advantage.  First he has to show he has it and is willing to use it:  Check.  Now if they communicate over keeping something secret, he will have that too!

Which candidate would make a better partner for Putin, Trump or Hillary, through his eyes?  The answer is not clear or obvious.  The Hillary side wants us to presume Putin prefers Trump, because what?  The Democrat would be so tough on him?  What did Obama say, tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility after my reelection...  Putin may prefer Trump for reasons different than people think, a more rational person to deal with.  He may prefer Hillary as the pushover.  Or is Hillary more of a hawk than Trump?  Trump would build an arsenal that would make Putin's look puny? 

Also assume that various people, even the Clintons, have dirt on Trump beyond the Trump University, commenting on breasts and business bankruptcies to expose. 

Look for this to keep getting uglier. 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5758


« Reply #1237 on: July 27, 2016, 08:40:36 AM »

And 2,000 others.......

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/bill_clinton_s_long_beautiful_speech_at_the_dnc.html

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37319


« Reply #1238 on: July 27, 2016, 01:12:12 PM »



http://www.dickmorris.com/hillary-bill-left-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5758


« Reply #1239 on: July 27, 2016, 03:13:38 PM »

I didn't know the # 1 Yale law school grad flunked the DC bar!

Dick for some reason is not being hired officially by Trump.  Though he has been writing a book about how Trump can beat Hillary and and doing nice hit pieces on National Enquirer for Trumps cause.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37319


« Reply #1240 on: July 27, 2016, 09:37:13 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/1100-donors-to-a-canadian-charity-tied-to-clinton-foundation-remain-secret/2015/04/28/c3c0f374-edbc-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8108


« Reply #1241 on: July 28, 2016, 08:36:52 AM »

Link below.  I will be working on my own list.

10.  Under Sniper Fire - Smiling and waving
9.  Dead Broke - Total Assets $1.8 million
8.  In Accordance with the Rules - Federal Judge ruled it violated government policy
7.  Grandparents came over here - No so but she thought of them as immigrants
6.  Bin-Laden Was Her Reaction To The Helicopter Crash  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0222nyr
5.  DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act was to stop Republicans from going further
4.  College costs won't be a burden
3.  Campaign will be Carbon Neutral
2.  Veterans Affair Scandals Are Not “As Widespread As it Has Been made Out To Be”
1.   I have been very consistent, Same sex marriage, trade deals, immigration policies
http://choiceorlife.com/hillary-clintons-top-10-lies-exaggerations/2/
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 09:35:42 AM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8108


« Reply #1242 on: July 28, 2016, 12:05:23 PM »

To the top, Previously posted, I had trouble digging out this information.  I will try to weave it all together on the next post, searchable as Hillary's First Felony, Cattle Straddles

http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1534.msg86778#msg86778

he 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

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]
 Anderson, Seth C.; Jackson, John D.; Steagall, Jeffrey W. (September 1994). "A note on odds in the cattle futures market". Journal of Economics and Finance 18 (3): 357–365. doi:10.1007/BF02920493.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8108


« Reply #1243 on: July 28, 2016, 12:25:13 PM »

Hillary's First Felony, "Cattle Straddles"    - Memorize the name for future access to the links and articles.  I have no link fo the 1994 WSJ article; it was emailed to me in pdf by the deputy editor.

1 in 31 trillion are the odds that Hillary told the truth about her amazing commodity trades.  Quoting 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."  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02920493  
Stating it the other way around, the odds are 31 trillion to one that Tyson Foods was buying state government favors from the Governor by depositing rigged commodity trading profits with his wife, with her knowledge.  

Facts of Hillary's trades were analyzed by a former IRS chief prosecutor of commodities trading crimes and published in the WSJ article below.  The commodity trader that Tyson Foods referred to Hillary was convicted of this exact crime for trades done with other clients during this exact same time period.  

Quid pro quo.  It was the NY Times that broke this case in 1994: "During Mr. Clinton's tenure in Arkansas, Tyson benefited from a variety of state actions, including $9 million in government loans, the placement of company executives on important state boards and favorable decisions on environmental issues." http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/18/us/top-arkansas-lawyer-helped-hillary-clinton-turn-big-profit.html?pagewanted=all

The statute of limitations had expired by the time these trades were known.  The crime is otherwise a felony for all involved.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/13  


The Mystery of Hillary's Trades
By David L. Brandon
7 April 1994
The Wall Street Journal

PAGE A14
(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 - copyright, reprinted with permission

Update: 
Bringing more links forward:

A few days after Hubbell’s resignation, 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.”
...
A reporter asked whether her criticism of the Reagan era as a decade of unabashed greed appeared hypocritical in light of her recently disclosed commodities-trading windfall.

“I think it’s a pretty long stretch to say that the decisions we made to try to create some financial security for our family and make some investments come anywhere near” the “excess of the 1980s,” she replied. Inverting reality, she claimed that it was her father’s stubborn frugality and quest for financial security that had helped her succeed at trading commodities.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-emails-pink-press-conferences-115952_Page2.html#ixzz3VDuOabvg

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.

New Records Outline Favor for Hillary Clinton on Trades
By STEPHEN ENGELBERG,
Published: May 27, 1994

WASHINGTON, May 26— The White House today released new records showing that Hillary Rodham Clinton received preferential treatment from her commodities broker in the late 1970's, when she was allowed to trade in cattle futures without depositing the cash that normally would have been required.

Mrs. Clinton ultimately turned a $1,000 investment into profits of nearly $100,000. The records showed that she had earned her initial $5,300 in profits without depositing $12,000 in cash that ordinarily would have been needed for the purchase of a contract for 400,000 pounds of cattle.

In such margin trading, brokerages are required to deposit $1,200 per cattle contract with the commodity exchanges, and they typically demand that their customers put up the money in case, as sometimes happens, the market moves against them and the customers lose more than their original investment. Margin Rules Ignored

Several commodities experts said the failure to enforce the margin requirements had amounted to favorable treatment. But Mr. Kendall said she would have been liable had the market turned against her.

"I don't think it was a favor," he said. "She was under margin, that's true, but she was still on the hook. If they needed the money, they could have gotten it from her. They knew who she was. She violated no rules. Margin is for the protection of the broker."

The documents did not conclusively settle questions raised by some commodity experts about whether her broker had improperly allocated winning trades to her account.

"It doesn't suggest that there was allocation, and it doesn't prove there wasn't," said Leo Melamed, the former head of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, to whom the White House directed press questions. "I told them I couldn't say it wasn't."

Merton H. Miller, professor emeritus at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, agreed. "It doesn't answer the questions people were asking," he said in a telephone interview this afternoon. "It's her account number, but it doesn't necessarily they were her trades." Explanation Changes

Mrs. Clinton earned the commodities profits in 1978 and 1979 with trading advice from James B. Blair, the general counsel of the Arkansas-based Tyson Foods and a close friend of both Clintons. Mrs. Clinton initially said that she had placed all of her trades herself and had made her decisions by consulting Mr. Blair, other advisers and The Wall Street Journal. Later, she acknowledged that Mr. Blair had placed many of her trades.

From the beginning, some experts suspected that Mrs. Clinton's good fortune had stemmed from favorable treatment by her broker, Robert Bone, a good friend of Mr. Blair's. Mr. Bone was disciplined by commodity regulators both before and after Mrs. Clinton's trading.

Mr. Blair and Mrs. Clinton traded with Mr. Bone, 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. Mr. Bone was also accused of "serious and repeated" violations of recordkeeping rules and margin requirements.

Margin requirements, former commodity regulators explained, are a matter between brokerages like Refco and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which wants to make sure the costs of trades are covered. Generally, brokers in turn require their customers to put up the money. But in the late 1970's, Refco permitted many of its customers to trade without putting up their margins in advance.

Earlier this year, the White House made public documents concerning commodity trading from Mrs. Clinton's personal files. Today, the White House released records of her account maintained by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Promises to Buy or Sell

Futures trading is essentially a bet on the price of cattle, soybeans or some other commodity. A speculator enters into a contract promising to buy or sell a given amount of cattle, say, at a certain price on a specific date in the future. The contracts are typically sold and resold months before they expire. Speculators can gamble that the price of cattle will rise or fall, depending on the type of contract. If the prices move favorably, the speculators sell their contracts and reap profits.

In 7 of Mrs. Clinton's 32 transactions, the Mercantile Exchange records are missing at least one segment of the transactions described in her personal documents. Mr. Melamed said this could stem from poor recordkeeping or a mistake by a clerk or it could reflect trading in large blocks of stock.

He said these were unlikely to be part of a scheme to allocate winning trades to Mrs. Clinton's account, since all of the transactions with missing data involved trades over more than one day.

"If this were predominantly day trading, you would hear me saying something different," Mr. Melamed said. "If there was anything wrong, there's no way the Federal Government, the exchange or anyone else would have gone to Mrs. Clinton and said, 'You violated something.' " Constency Noted

Mr. Kendall, the Clintons' lawyer, noted that Mrs. Clinton's personal records and the Chicago Mercantile documents were consistent. "At no point do they contradict," he said.

All of the records released by the White House make clear that Mrs. Clinton ran substantial risks in her trading. On one day in July 1979, for example, she held contracts for two million pounds of cattle, worth around $1.36 million.

What would have happened if the market had moved against her, and Mrs. Clinton had run up large losses? Professor Miller said no records would ever make clear what understandings might have existed between brokers and customers.

"Suppose that first trade had gone the other way and she had lost $5,300," he said. "Would she have paid it? She says she would have, but the question is, Did someone agree to vouch for those trades and say, in effect, 'Don't worry about it'? I'm not suggesting it did happen, but there's no way to say it didn't."
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/27/us/new-records-outline-favor-for-hillary-clinton-on-trades.html
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 03:08:04 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37319


« Reply #1244 on: July 28, 2016, 03:43:34 PM »

Simply outstanding Doug!  Thank you!!!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37319


« Reply #1245 on: July 28, 2016, 03:44:27 PM »

Second post

http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 370


« Reply #1246 on: July 29, 2016, 02:45:08 PM »


Says the liberal couple and their cat (Snopes) http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.mx/2013/05/snopes-got-snoped.html
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8108


« Reply #1247 on: Today at 08:31:33 AM »

Unsolvable mystery:, For all the good they do, including $2 Billion unaccounted for and an FBI investigation in process, can anyone figure out why no one mentioned the Clinton Foundation in the convention...
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8108


« Reply #1248 on: Today at 08:35:07 AM »

Ask not who’s the most qualified to be president

Obama really said this Wednesday night:

“I can say with confidence there has never been a man or woman — not me, not Bill, nobody — more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.”

You don’t say, Mr. President? So why don’t we size up her, uh, qualifications, eminent as they might be, compared to some of the prior, lesser 44 occupants of the office.

Dwight Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander. Hillary ran the Bimbo Eruptions Unit.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Hillary wrote “It Takes a Village.”

Teddy Roosevelt charged up San Juan Hill. Hillary dodged sniper fire on the tarmac at Tuzla.

Honest Abe, Crooked Hillary.

Lincoln slept in the Lincoln bedroom. Hillary rented it out.

Reagan said, “Tear down this wall.” Hillary said, “Delete them all.”

William Howard Taft threw out the first pitch at a baseball opener. Hillary threw the first vase at a president.

Gerald Ford appointed Justice Stevens. Hillary abandoned Ambassador Stevens.

George Washington wrote letters to John Paul Jones. Hillary wrote a check for $850,000 to Paula Jones.

JFK said, “Ask not….” Hillary said, “Don’t ask.”

George H.W. Bush built oil rigs. Hillary rigged elections.

Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address. Hillary delivered three speeches to Goldman Sachs … for $675,000.

Andrew Johnson was the first impeached president. Hillary is the wife of the second.

Washington could not tell a lie, Nixon could not tell the truth, Hillary could not tell the difference.

Harry S. Truman was a haberdasher. Hillary donated her underwear to charity for a $2 tax write off.

James Madison wrote the majority of the Federalist Papers. Hillary served on the Wal-Mart board of directors.

Truman: “The buck stops here.” Hillary: Pay for play.

Calvin Coolidge: “The business of America is business.” Hillary: the Clinton Foundation.

FDR defeated Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Hillary defeated Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley.

James Garfield was shot by a disgruntled office-seeker. Hillary was a disgruntled office-seeker.

William Henry Harrison: Tippecanoe and Tyler Too. Hillary: Me Too.

Lincoln: “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Hillary: “Are you sure about that?”

In 1953, Truman drove his own car back to Independence, Missouri. Hillary hasn’t driven a car since 1996.

Washington turned down the invitation to become king. What would Hillary have done?

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2016/07/carr_ask_not_who_s_the_most_qualified_to_be_president
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!