Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 20, 2014, 10:00:31 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83727 Posts in 2261 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* 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 ... 6 7 [8] Print
Author Topic: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history  (Read 48555 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #350 on: November 05, 2014, 11:45:26 PM »

Reality check for the Clintons.  Bill Clinton put it all on the line for Alison Lundegren Grimes.  ANd Grimes called herself a "Bill Clinton Democrat".
Grimes spent $20  million and lost by 16 points.


For Hillary, she put it all on the line for who?  Kay Hagan of North Carolina.  The more Hillary went there, the more we knew Hagan's lead would evaporate.
Hagan and backers spent $48 million and lost by 2 points.


HILLARY PRACTICES FOR 2016 AT RALLY FOR KAY HAGAN
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/25/Hillary-Practices-for-2016-at-Rally-for-Hagan

Hillary Clinton — politician and grandmom — plays to Kay Hagan’s base in North Carolina
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/10/26/hillary-clinton-politician-and-grandmom-plays-to-kay-hagans-base-in-north-carolina/

Hillary Clinton, Kay Hagan make appeal to women during Charlotte rally
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/10/25/5266798/clinton-hagan-make-appeal-to-women.html#.VFoMIFOJW-J

The Clinton magic never did transfer over to anyone but Bill Clinton.

Another election observation is that 28 of the 60 Senators who voted for Obamacare are now out.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4213


« Reply #351 on: November 06, 2014, 08:10:49 AM »

Twisting, contorting, illogical "logic", stretching the truth, word games (what is is?) should make this guy a great candidate for a job with the Clintons:

http://news.yahoo.com/how-hillary-clinton-won-the-2014-midterms-075943434.html?amp
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #352 on: November 09, 2014, 01:52:44 AM »

It's nice when George Will expresses my view for me since he gets paid for it and I don't.

Hillary will be the next President if people want an Obama third term, a nearly unimaginable scenario.

http://www.nationalrevcom/article/392246/rethinking-hillary-2016-george-will

Rethinking Hillary 2016
Her candidacy makes sense only if voters will be in the mood for a third Obama term.
By George Will

Now that two of the last three Democratic presidencies have been emphatically judged to have been failures, the world’s oldest political party — the primary architect of this nation’s administrative state — has some thinking to do. The accumulating evidence that the Democratic party is an exhausted volcano includes its fixation with stale ideas, such as the supreme importance of a 23rd increase in the minimum wage. Can this party be so blinkered by the modest success of its third most recent presidency, Bill Clinton’s, that it will sleepwalk into the next election behind Hillary Clinton?

In 2016, she will have won just two elections in her 69 years, the last one ten years previously. Ronald Reagan went ten years from his second election to his presidential victory at age 69, but do Democrats want to wager their most precious possession, the presidential nomination, on the proposition that Clinton has political talents akin to Reagan’s?

Advertisement
In October, Clinton was campaigning, with characteristic futility, for Martha Coakley, the losing candidate for Massachusetts governor, when she said: “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.” Watch her on YouTube. When saying this, she glances down, not at a text but at notes, and proceeds with the hesitancy of someone gathering her thoughts. She is not reading a speechwriter’s blunder. When she said those 13 words she actually was thinking.

You may be wondering, to use eight other Clinton words that will reverberate for a long time: “What difference at this point does it make?” This difference: Although she says her 13 words “short-handed” her thinking, what weird thinking can they be shorthand for?

Yuval Levin, whose sharp thinking was honed at the University of Chicago’s Committee on Social Thought, is editor of the National Affairs quarterly and author of two books on science and public policy and, most recently, of The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left. He is one of conservatism’s most sophisticated and measured explicators, so his biting assessment of Clinton is especially notable:

She is smart, tough and savvy and has a capacity to learn from failure and adjust. But . . .  people are bored of her and feel like she has been talking at them forever. . . . She is a dull, grating, inauthentic, over-eager, insipid elitist with ideological blinders yet no particular vision and is likely to be reduced to running on a dubious promise of experience and competence while faking idealism and hope — a very common type of presidential contender in both parties, but one that almost always loses.

Her husband promised “a bridge to the 21st century.” She promises a bridge back to the 1990s. Or perhaps to 1988 and the “competence” candidacy of Michael Dukakis, which at least did not radiate, as hers will, a cloying aura of entitlement.

The energy in her party — in its nominating electorate — is well to her left, as will be the center of political gravity in the smaller and more liberal Democratic Senate caucus that will gather in January. There is, however, evidence that the Left is too untethered from reality to engage in effective politics. For example:

Billionaire Tom Steyer’s environmental angst is implausibly focused on the supposed planetary menace of the Keystone XL pipeline. His NextGen Climate super PAC disbursed more than $60 million to candidates who shared — or pretended to in order to get his money — his obsession. The result? The gavel of the Environment and Public Works Committee is coming into the hands of Oklahoma’s Jim Inhofe, the Senate’s most implacable skeptic about large-scale and predictable climate change driven by human behavior.

Is Clinton the person to maintain her party’s hold on young voters? Democrats, in their misplaced confidence in their voter-mobilization magic, targeted what have been called “basement grads.” These are some of the one-third of millennials (ages 18–31) who, because of the economy’s sluggishness in the sixth year of recovery, are living with their parents. Why did Democrats think they would be helped by luring anxious and disappointed young people out of basements and into voting booths?

The last time voters awarded a party a third consecutive presidential term was 1988, when George Herbert Walker Bush’s candidacy could be construed as promising something like a third Reagan term. A Clinton candidacy make sense if, but only if, in 24 months voters will be thinking: Let’s have a third Obama term.

— George Will is a Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated columnist. © 2014 The Washington Post
« Last Edit: November 09, 2014, 07:02:02 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4213


« Reply #353 on: November 09, 2014, 08:06:12 AM »

"A Clinton candidacy make sense if, but only if, in 24 months voters will be thinking: Let’s have a third Obama term."

Having served as SoS may have not been a smart move in retrospect for her.  While it was supposed to give her the additional line on her resume that gives her more of a "dubious promise of experience and competence" it will closely tie her to Obama.  This may have been a strategic political gamble that now looks like a huge blunder.

Suppose she sat out the last 6 and next 2 years.  She could have been the ambassador for the Clinton Foundation instead (also dubious as to it's real intent) and she would have been able to avoid being tied to Obama.

Will sometimes has some great writings.  I used to agree with him maybe 80% of the time but now I think somewhat less.  I like this article too but I am a bit confused by it and not entirely clear what he means

I am not sure what he says about Hillary's liberalism on the political spectrum meter.  Is he saying she is not as liberal as Obama and the far left
base of the party?  I think she certainly is but she knows that is a political  loser so she like Bill feint to  a more "moderate" position more to towards the center.   

If she is not liberal enough (again I think she is) than why would she be an Obama 3rd term?    Not that I disagree with him but just there is a bit of inconsistency in what he is saying. 

In any case she is already desperately trying to separate herself from the one on foreign policy.   So far I don't think she has even tried on domestic policy.   


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31829


« Reply #354 on: November 09, 2014, 12:04:19 PM »

The SoS gig will be used to present her as "presidential".  She has plenty of establishment heavyweights sucking up to her on this point already and her agents are busy planting/spreading the word about how she disagreed with the decision not to leave troops in Iraq.

IMHO, a good and sound strategy for us is to paint her with Libya and the lead from behind overthrow of Kaddaffy that has led to a black hold of AQ anarchy.  Baraq jetted off to Brazil and Hillary, aided and abetted by Samantha Powers and Susan Rice put the whole thing together.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #355 on: November 09, 2014, 10:48:49 PM »

Excellent points on the specifics which can be used to prove the more general point, but it is the general point that is crucial.  Her candidacy will be perceived as the third term of Obama, and that just got poll tested and failed miserably.

She ran in 2008 with the exact same positions as Obama on the exact same issues.  There wasn't a micron of distance between them.  She wanted the same healthcare plan and supported his.  She supported all the Fannie Mae, CRAp of government particpation and interference in housing finance and everything else.   She ran in support of the tax rate increases that triggered the collapse. She and Obama were both the co- de facto Senate and Congressional Leaders of the country from the peak to the meltdown, down it went, and she favored everything that went wrong.  She ran the commercials against Obama that questioned who was ready for the 3 am phone call.  She got that call at 5 pm - and did NOTHING.  She never even explained or apologized.  What difference does it make.  She has her fingerprints and DNA all over his failed foreign policy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Russia, China, North Korea, ISIS and the setup for whatever goes wrong next.  To the extent that she wasn't in charge of negotiating things like the non-existent Status of Forces Agreement or anything else, it was because he never did trust her and instead relied on 24 special envoys who reported to the White House, to Pres. Obama or Valerie Jarrett maybe, but not to Hillary Clinton.  http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1534.msg83023#msg83023

As ccp suggests, she is trial ballooning a little distance between herself and Obama and it is not going well.  She must choose between two opposites and both are career ending.  She is his third term, or she can run against the policies she supported and the incompetencies she was part of.  She supported nearly all of it so running against is phony, won't convince anyone, AND it will piss off the Obama machine that just won the last two Presidential elections.  They own the big voter ID, data mining, and get-out the-vote operations that are tied to the inner cities and expanding social spending roles of identified, government-dependent persons.  You don't piss off the (other) powers that be and then expect them to go all out for you.  It doesn't work that way.  

As George Will suggests, she was elected twice in 69 years, none in the last 10, and all in a totally, uncontested, 'blue' state.  The first time was with all the sympathies and popularity of being the First Lady and humiliated spouse, and the other was as an unchallenged incumbent in totally Democratic environment.  When she was tested, she failed.

She doesn't own the 98% black vote that Obama got.  They don't own the Hispanic vote anymore, it is slipping away at the margins.  At 69 and running on a return to the 90s, she doesn't own the young vote that already turned on them.  With gay marriage a fact, gays who happen to be enterprising and seek liberty are free to start voting pocketbook and economic issues.  She doesn't have a positive economic record.  She voted against the policies that succeeded earlier in her time in the Senate.  She tried foreign policy and failed badly.  

A resume is a list of capabilities and accomplishments, not a list of past work addresses.

Electing her as a presidential and national failure is not an advancement for women.  They are losing married women (and all men) by double digits.

She can't count on paybacks from Alison Grimes, or Mark Pryor, Kay Hagan, Begich, Michelle Nunn or Sen. Udall, Gov. Crist ... or Pres. Obama, Axelrod or Joe Biden.

There are SO many fundamentals running against her right now.  If the Clintons are so smart and shrewd, then they know all of this.

On the other hand, with as little as a friendly softball press conference bombshell, she can walk away from this and never face an unpleasant reporter or question, ever again.  I know everyone else says she's in, including herself talking to herself, but the other choice has got to look tempting.

Don't get me wrong.  Our side might be better off with her in and running against a known, failed candidate instead of seeing one more newcomer step forward and re-package the same old big government BS as if it is new and exciting again.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2014, 01:48:04 AM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #356 on: November 10, 2014, 12:13:23 AM »

No intent to obsess on her, just saying that I am not the only one saying this...

"Hillary Rodham Clinton must be wondering whether she really wants to run for president. Unless there are some serious readjustments to the Democratic operation, she is going to lose."   - Willie Brown, SF Chronicle, 11/7/2014.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Don-t-say-Obama-s-blocking-caused-5879675.php
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12169


« Reply #357 on: November 10, 2014, 12:48:42 AM »

No intent to obsess on her, just saying that I am not the only one saying this...

"Hillary Rodham Clinton must be wondering whether she really wants to run for president. Unless there are some serious readjustments to the Democratic operation, she is going to lose."   - Willie Brown, SF Chronicle, 11/7/2014.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Don-t-say-Obama-s-blocking-caused-5879675.php

Doug's prediction looks better every day.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12169


« Reply #358 on: November 10, 2014, 07:15:30 AM »

http://freebeacon.com/columns/the-biggest-loser/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #359 on: November 24, 2014, 10:07:45 AM »

"I was hopeful that the bipartisan bill passed by the Senate in 2013 would spur the House of Representatives to act, but they refused even to advance an alternative. Their abdication of responsibility paved the way for this executive action, which follows established precedent from presidents of both parties going back many decades."
    - Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Not exactly putting a lot of distance between herself and the failed President.

Friends and supporters of Hillary say she will make and announce her decision in mid January.  If she is out, people will need to know.  If she is in, that is too early.  As a candidate people might expect her to have a view on the issues.  The one above she come to regret.  On Keystone XL pipeline?  6 years of study and still no opinion.  Can a candidate for President really not have a position on something that very simply needs just a yes or a no?

Everything she is doing now looks like she is preparing to run.  And every piece of news and feedback that comes back to her says don't do it.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #360 on: December 11, 2014, 10:49:35 AM »

Sec Clinton:  I want to say a few words about the events unfolding in the world today. We are closely watching what is happening in Yemen and elsewhere, and we certainly hope and expect that there will be steps taken to avoid violence and prevent the escalation of protests into violence.  I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries."  http://nicaragua.usembassy.gov/sp_120914_secstate_on_video_that_has_caused_violence.html

WSJ reported on her remarks at 11:34 am ET, Sep 13, 2012, Saturday morning.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/13/hillary-clinton-denounces-the-video-and-the-violence/

The barrage of Susan Rice appearances occurred Sunday, Sept 14, 2012.  Those talking points were given to Rice on Saturday afternoon, Sept 13, 2014.  Rice was asked late in the day Friday to be the White House mouthpiece.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/04/29/white-house-email-reinforces-benghazi-talking-points/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31829


« Reply #361 on: December 11, 2014, 02:05:17 PM »

Ummm , , , wouldn't this be legit with regard to events in countries other than Libya?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #362 on: December 11, 2014, 07:50:26 PM »

Ummm , , , wouldn't this be legit with regard to events in countries other than Libya?

Interesting point.  Are you saying that makes it legit, or that it gives her cover?

The topic of the day, on that day, IMHO was Benghazi.
Pres Obama made an address with HRC at his side on Sept 12.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nu6VZ9DeVc
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya
No mention of a video.  No mention of Yemen. etc.

By Sat. am with HRC speaking, we were back to the video.

Sunday, I watched Susan Rice to find out what happened in Benghazi, not various other protests.  Same with the questioners on the various shows.


Here is wikipedia on the "video" protests:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims
It was a big deal across many nations, however...  In Cairo, the leader/organizer didn't know the name of the video.  Egypt's prime minister Hesham Kandil said "a number" of protesters later confessed to getting paid to participate.  None had seen the video; organizers were trying to show protesters the trailer.  Yemen was a copycat and most of the others followed that..  Benghazi was an organized terror attack.  My point is that this video did NOT cause these protests.  The video trailer was a pretense to protest.

Back to Hillary.  My point is that she and/or her people likely wrote the 'blame the video' script.  But let's take it the other way around; take her at her word.  The video IS to blame.  This is the prequel to empathy for the terrorists.  It is something WE are doing that makes them want to kill us.  In the Sept 13 remarks and when she met the deceased families, she vowed to get the video maker, not the terrorists.  That view is not a political winner.  Take down free speech; leave terrorists in place.  Seems to me these views or her sloppy expressions leave her politically culpable.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31829


« Reply #363 on: December 11, 2014, 08:12:29 PM »

I'm saying that your quote of her is in reference to Yemen and other countries.

SOMEONE got the idea that this meme could be blended into the Benghazi cover up, but this quote, as best as I can tell, proves nothing with regard to whom that may have been.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #364 on: December 12, 2014, 09:43:29 AM »

I'm saying that your quote of her is in reference to Yemen and other countries.

SOMEONE got the idea that this meme could be blended into the Benghazi cover up, but this quote, as best as I can tell, proves nothing with regard to whom that may have been.

Fair enough.  Same thing here, HRC speaking at the Benghazi killings memorial:

...video of the memorial service
Clinton comments occur from 16:25-17:45:
“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing do to with."

Crafty, her separation of these events is technically valid, but her effort to merge them is pathological IMHO.  It took me multiple readings of this to see that separation as she stood over the caskets from Benghazi.

She reportedly told the victims families, we will get the people responsible for this video. No separation there.  http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/25/Fallen-Seals-Father-Hillary-Told-M-Dont-Worry-Were-Going-To-Arrest-The-Man-That-Did-This

If this isn't smoking gun material, it is at least a peak into a character flaw you wouldn't want (again) in a President.  Unlike Susan Rice, she can't say they gave me the talking points.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2014, 09:58:58 AM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31829


« Reply #365 on: December 12, 2014, 11:41:30 AM »

"Crafty, her separation of these events is technically valid"

How , , , Clintonesque of her  cheesy

"but her effort to merge them is pathological IMHO."

I would say it is amorally purposeful.

"It took me multiple readings of this to see that separation as she stood over the caskets from Benghazi."

Precisely her intention I suspect.

"She reportedly told the victims families, we will get the people responsible for this video. No separation there."

EXACLTY SO!!!  I have hammered this point for quite some time now.

-This

"If this isn't smoking gun material,"

It is.

"it is at least a peak into a character flaw you wouldn't want (again) in a President."

EXACTLY SO.  For me, this is the ideal point o the spear to use on her with regard to Benghazi.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #366 on: December 17, 2014, 10:41:28 AM »

I wonder if the Clinon's want the Bill Cosby story to continue to rise throughout the campaign?  The Statute of Limitations does not prevent one's public image from being destroyed.  If they go through with this, it's hard to say which Clinton scandal or weakness will finally catch up with them.



http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/15/why-hillary-is-not-inevitable-bills-sordid-past/
Why Hillary Is Not Inevitable: Bill’s Sordid Past

The new public scrutiny of Bill Cosby is problematic for Bill Clinton. I am not talking about consensual sex but, in some cases accusations of sexual assault, torn clothing, and at least three victims who say he bit their lips as a disarming move and to get them to remain silent. In short, Bill Clinton has a Bill Cosby problem.

Eileen Wellstone, a 19-year-old English woman, said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where Clinton was a student in 1969. In fact, Clinton was expelled from Oxford and earned no degree there.

Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape. Broaddrick gave a stunning interview to NBC’s Lisa Myers about the assault.

Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met Gov. Clinton at a political fundraiser and was invited to his hotel room. “When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room,” she said.

Elizabeth Ward Gracen, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state title. Gracen later told an interviewer that sex with Clinton was consensual. Her roommate Judy Stokes has said the ex-Miss Arkansas told her she was raped after the incident.

Paula Corbin Jones, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones with an $850,000 payment.

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, D.C., political fundraiser, said Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation’s capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She fled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oddly, the rationale for the Hillary Clinton campaign is empowerment of women.  People's tolerance of all this, especially Hillary's, is abominable.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12169


« Reply #367 on: December 17, 2014, 03:29:20 PM »

If you have a D next to your name, it isn't really rape.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31829


« Reply #368 on: December 19, 2014, 04:34:02 AM »

I can't blame Bill for straying, after all, look at Hillary (and Huma Abedin).  As the joke goes, Bill and Hillary met when they were dating the same girl in law school.

That said, the examples listed are far from complete; missing are some of the most sordid:

a) Paula Jones, a state employee brought to Governor Clinton's presence by a state trooper;

b) I forget her name (Juanita Broderick or something like that) but she was a big fundraiser and her husband worked for Bill.  Something had happened and she was afraid for her husband's job and she came to the White House to plead for it.  Working from memory, she has formally stated that Clinton pushed her up against the wall and forcefully groped her.  Turns out that while she was there, her husband was commiting suicide.

c) there's plenty more.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #369 on: December 19, 2014, 10:05:11 AM »

"I forget her name... but she was a big fundraiser and her husband worked for Bill.  Something had happened and she was afraid for her husband's job and she came to the White House to plead for it.  Working from memory, she has formally stated that Clinton pushed her up against the wall and forcefully groped her.  Turns out that while she was there, her husband was commiting suicide."


Kathleen Willey was a White House volunteer aide who, on March 15, 1998, alleged on the TV news program 60 Minutes that Bill Clinton had sexually assaulted her on November 29, 1993, during his first term as President.  Willey's second husband, Edward E. Willey Jr., committed suicide on November 29, 1993 — the day she claimed Clinton's sexual misconduct took place.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Willey

Who knows the veracity of that story or any one encounter.  The point with the analogy to Bill Cosby is that there is too many unrelated incidents in a pattern to just shrug it off.  The point with Hillary Clinton is that she knew or she should have known.  Juanita Broaddrick alleged very strongly that Hillary knew.  http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Juanita.htm

NBC News held the Lisa Myers Juanita Broaddrick interview for 35 days, played it opposite the Grammys - after the Senate had acquitted Clinton in his impeachment trial.  http://observer.com/1999/04/nbcs-vetting-of-juanita-broaddrick-clintons-accuser-discusses-agonizing-weeks-as-nbc-dragged-it-out/

There was Whitewater, the FBI files scandal, travelgate, and the hurried removal of documents from Vince Foster's office.  There was the failure of her healthcare task force and of all their own policies before adopting the success of the Gingrich initiatives.  But none of it matters.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2014, 07:53:23 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31829


« Reply #370 on: December 19, 2014, 06:59:29 PM »

Thanks for finding the info on Kathleen Wiley.

Also, amongst our long and still very incomplete list is the $97,000 made from $3,000 in commodities futures matter.  There was a very long and very serious piece on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal written by the man who was the IRS's attorney for tax fraud in commodities futures at the time.  I WOULD TRULY LOVE TO GET MY HAND'S ON THIS PIECE.  IT IS VERY POWERFUL.

Working from memory, the gist of it was this:

It occurred while Hillary's husband was running for governor of Arkansas.  This was the late 70s and the top tax rate was 70%.  In this environment it made sense to play lots of games to minimize taxes.  One of them was called a "straddle" which meant that the high income earner bought both buy and sell futures.  Why?  Wouldn't the gain on one offset the loss on the other?  Yes, BUT the losing trade would be taken in December (offsetting income tax to be paid by the following April 15, whereas the gain would be taken in January, with the tax thereon not to be paid by the April 15th of the following year.  In other words the 70% that was to be paid in taxes was availble from making money for 15 months.

This is the sort of nonsense to which the Regan tax rate cuts effectively put an end.

In Hillary's case in went like this:

She purchased her initial contracts (i.e.made her initial bets) in chicken feed grain without actually meeting SEC requirements for this high risk sort of investment at a brokerage firm that also represented Tyson Foods, the largest employer in the state of Arkansas.  Her bets were in very short term trades (30 days or less).  Coincidentally, the reporting requirements for this sort of trade were essentially non-existant and the federal commission in charge of this sort of things was notorious for usually being asleep at the switch anyway.   However, in a rare moment of being awake, the commission had charged the brokerage firm in question with allocating winning and losing contracts at the end of the day.   In the course of a few months Hillary, an attorney (focused at servicing banks IIRC) had miraculously profited in trading short term chicken feed contracts (an area of obvious expertise for Tyson Foods) over 3,000% (double check my math here!).  Her miraculous run came to an end shortly before Bill was elected governor.

Translating this into ordinary English:   

Tyson Foods, the largest employer in the State of Arkansas, funnelled $97,000 (laundered too!) into the pocket of the wife of the next governor via winning and losing trades that were allocated at the end of the day by a small brokerage firm that was not likely to turn down this request from its largest client.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 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!