Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHEN CATTLE FUTURES ARE THE FUTURE: HILLARY CLINTON'S COW TRADES AS PROGNOSTIC
National Review ^ | 9.25.06 | Mia T, Caroline Baum

Posted on 09/25/2006 4:52:53 AM PDT by Mia T

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-98 last
To: GreenHornet; toomuchcoffee
Hillary investing in cows should be considered insider trading.

Allow me to ruminate on that one. ;)

51 posted on 09/26/2006 5:12:37 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GreenHornet; toomuchcoffee; OklaRancher; All

I was sure this thread would get some of the missus clinton cow graphics. ;)


52 posted on 09/26/2006 5:15:22 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: AZLiberty; All

bump ;)


53 posted on 09/26/2006 6:30:26 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance

ping ;)


54 posted on 09/26/2006 6:34:07 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Its easy to find any fraud. If HRC was making money on short positions. Then someone was selling very large lots. They would tell her to buy short. Then they would sell a very large position. Then she would buy back her short.

Now its possible that somebody only rumored the large sale and didn't actually do it. But for her to be so valuable it would be safer for them to sell.

Look at the large trades that day. Of course that was 1978 and the information may not be there.

The reason for doing something like this. Is to fund a whole governor's race without worrying about campaign finance limits. Back then, $100,000 was a huge amount of money and the Arkansas Governor's race would not have cost very much.
55 posted on 09/26/2006 6:50:42 AM PDT by poinq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T; Gail Wynand
Doesn't matter...the SEC did its job, the way it is supposed to do. Anything "EXTRA" fell outside of its venue. One would suppose that IF any other criminal proceedings were to have followed, it would have been a state matter. Bill Clinton was the governor, so expecting that criminal proceedings would have then been taken up by law enforcement, is delusional.

This one time fraud, FOR Hillary, was NOT something out of the ordinary for Red Bone, or the guys who "ran him". It was a way to handle "payoffs" and had been done for a very long time. But this kind of security fraud, while nothing "new", has been cut down ( if not completely off ), because of in house exchange rules and federal laws.

I'm just telling all of you the facts of the matter. Most people don't know them and therefore make all kinds of erroneous statements and complain that Hillary wasn't punished. Well, NOBODY that was involved in this fraud ( and Hillary was NOT the only one who illegally profited !) was punished except for the perpetrator. That's just how it worked.

56 posted on 09/26/2006 1:27:30 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: poinq
You have NO idea what transpired. You're hypothesis is so wrong, it's amazing.

In this case, it is NOT "easy" at all, to find the fraud. And no, Hillary wasn't just going short and in point of fact, she didn't do a damned thing, but hand over $1,000 and then reap the benefits of the fraud.

The trader, in this case RED Bone, made trades for a group of people. Of course not all trades are "winners"; but, some people were made to eat a lot of losses and others, including Hillary, were given the profits, when there were profits and never shown to have a loss. Neither was she made to pay up, when she had a margin call.

This was NOT a one day, nor even a few days of trades. It had absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with "rumors"; not even "insider" info.

Nor did this have ANYTHING at all to do with "funding a whole governor's race"!

Since you don't know the story, I'll catch you up on it.

Because Bill was not in the private sector, his pay was not all that much. Hillary was just starting out as a lawyer and money was pretty tight. She has ALWAYS been VERY greedy, grasping, and wanted big bucks. She complained and complained and berated Bill about not having much money ( this is also WHY they went into the WHITEWATER deal ), until she made him nuts.

One day, someone came to visit him ( I think that it was from Tyson ), or he visited them ( this part is in one of the many books about Clinton I have and if you REALLY need to know, I'll look it up for you ) and he brought up his "money problem". In a quid pro quo kind of deal, miraculously, Hillary was told to give her investment money to XXXX, who passed it and instructions to Red Bone, to make SURE that her account had a profit, and viola, there it was and whatever the person pulling the strings wanted, was covered.

It is best to actually KNOW the facts, before one posts. :-)

57 posted on 09/26/2006 1:47:31 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

She and Bill committed cognizable crimes in relation to the cattle futures, regardless of any SEC or similar policy at the time not to bring an action against the trading client, the public corruption crimes should have been charged and tried. Her incredulous and shifting explanations of these circumstances would have warranted a conviction for anyone else under the same circumstances.

Your assertions that the prosecution of the broker was in keeping with law enforcement practices at the time, is incorrect in so far as the trading was simply a means to deliver a payoff for purposes of political corruption. Such cases are and have been regularly prosecuted in any jurisdiction where those with prosecutorial authority are awake and breathing. You are frankly wrong to try and dispell the instincts of average citizens, that she should have been prosecuted. Clearly, she is far more guilty than Martha Stuart for example who did not "sell out" her state or federal government in the process of making her investment returns.


58 posted on 09/26/2006 2:01:01 PM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand
While Governor and as president Bill and his mob committed a gigantic amount of crimes, only one of which was prosecuted.

Martha Stewart committed various crimes and was prosecuted for one of them; another one is pending.

OTOH, not a single person, whom Red Bone profited, has ever been prosecuted and Hillary was neither the only one, nor the one who was given the biggest payout. And WHY do they get off Scot free? BECUASE NONE OF THEM TOLD RED BONE WHAT TO DO!

IIRC, some of those who had BIG losses, due to the fraud, did sue Red Bone, in civil court, once he was prosecuted.

I don't know if there is a statute of limitations, on prosecuted this kind of crime. If there isn't, she, Hillary, no matter WHAT she has said in the pasts, is still off the hook, since she did NOT actually DO anything. And not a single other person, who did profit, at the same time, has been prosecuted; yet, they ARE as guilty as she is.

My "assertions", as you call them, are accurate facts about this matter. You don't like the facts, but they ARE the facts and I am NOT making excuses for Hillary!

You are frankly wrong; not on wrong, but damned dead wrong and are posting from emotion...not treason.

Bill Clinton was the governor, when the SEC prosecuted Red Bone. He/his cronies would have been the one to have prosecuted Hillary. You expect that he would have done that? If not, are you claiming that some FEDERAL agency should have stepped in? WHICH ONE?

At the time, not a single name of any of Red Bone's clients were made public. Just about nobody outside of the Chicago exchanges even knew about the case. It wasn't until Bill Clinton was running for president, that any of this even saw the light of day, vis-a-vis the general public.

Hillary did NOT "sell out" any state nor the federal government, with the cattle futures sale. Nobody, NOBODY hate the Clintons more than I do; however, it doesn't do anyone any good, to use the hyperbole that you have, nor to make wild accusations, that make no sense. The facts are bad enough, without trying to make them worse.

59 posted on 09/26/2006 2:44:38 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

For the record, proof of Hillary's complicity can be accomplished by reasonable inference such as the source and timing of the tip, the mathematical improbability that her gains occured by chance, and especially her misleading and conflicting explanations when questions...all of which add up to consciousness of guilt.

She could and should have been prosecuted during the applicable statutes of limitations, which are extended potentially for as long as any co-conspirator is actively engaged in covering up the crime, by any state or federal prosecutor with jurisdiction.

yes, it does seem she engaged in many other criminal activities, but the cattle futures profit/payoff is exceptional in the fact that no one, apparently, as a novice retail commodity investor has ever matched her supposed record. The only explanation is that it was a bribe, her only defense that she was too dumb to realize she was being bribed.

There were no legal barriers to her prosecution, throughout the full duration of the applicable statutes of limitation as extended by any cover up. Crimes outside the jurisdiction of the SEC for which she could have been held liable were bribery and wire fraud, for example.


60 posted on 09/26/2006 3:57:55 PM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand
Okay, let me explain this to you on the lowest possible level, since talking to you like an adult, is not getting through to you.

A trader works on or through an exchange.

A trader buys or sells futures.

A future is something that happens at a point in time, that is anywhere from a day to many days, which make up a month or many months that have yet to have come to pass yet.This is called the future. A day or many days or months, that we have already lived through, is called the past.

People buy and sell futures. Some people go short, betting that a commodity will be worth less, in a certain time period. Some people go long, betting that prices will rise. But regular people, such as Hillary Clinton can't exercise a deal. They must go through a broker, who in turn goes through his or her firm, who in turn has someone on the floor of an exchange OR used a floor trader/broker or the person who keeps "the book" on the floor. This is true of any and every stock/bond/commodity/and option exchange.

NEITHER HILLARY NOR ANY PERSON FOR WHOM RED BONE WAS WORKING, TOLD HIM WHAT TO DO; TOLD HIM WHAT TRADES TO MAKE!

Yes, once it came to light that she had made a ridiculous amount of money on cattle futures, she came up with all kinds of explanations and excuses. It's the Clintonian "thing"; Bill suffers from it too. But, in actual fact, Hillary NEVER did anything at all, but to hand over $1,000 and reap the benefits of a fraud, which is sometimes called "fronting". That was the whole point of having Red Bone do the trading...he knew what he was doing and how to pull off this scam. But IF she had told the truth, she wouldn't "look" like "THE SMARTEST WOMAN IN THE WORLD" and she would have had to admit that she was a part of a fraud.

Was she a part of a criminal enterprise, from which she benefited? YES!

Is any part of ANY of your posts factually correct, re what she did, vis-a-vis the actual trading? HELL NO !

Please go look up ALL of the cases that have been brought to trial, of the people who were given profits that they were NOT legally due, who were in the group that Red Bone was trading for. He has been prosecuted several times; the final time, when Hillary was in the group, was NOT his first conviction. When you have found each case, pleased post them to this thread. Until then, I suggest that you stop posting your delusions.

FYI.........It is NOT true that nobody else, novice or not, has never, until Hillary, be a part of this kind of fraud. As blatant a scam as this was, good old Red had pulled this same fraud off, for others, before.

61 posted on 09/26/2006 5:36:08 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

You are one great asset on our side, Mia T.


62 posted on 09/26/2006 5:39:08 PM PDT by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nopardons; Gail Wynand

Your analysis concerns SEC fraud. But you are neglecting the overarching crime. The cattle futures fraud was simply the means of payoff. But there was an overarching crime outside the purview of the SEC that was prosecutable irrespective of whether or not the cattle futures fraud was prosecutable.


63 posted on 09/26/2006 6:52:32 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Mia T; Gail Wynand
I am ignoring NOTHING; I am simply stating the facts of the matter! I have explained, as an INSIDER, who knows exactly what happened, how it happened, who WAS prosecuted, and what the punishment for the crime was. Unlike the rest of you, I was there, figuratively speaking and knew, yes, KNEW, at the time, when Red Bone was caught and for what. It was local, inter"street" knowledge. And no, nobody knew that Hillary was one of his clients, at that time.

This ridiculous argument, about prosecuting Hillary, holds even less water than the posters who are still screaming about and angry at President Bush for not going after Slick Willie, for all of the crimes he perpetrated whilst he was president. It just isn't done.

I thought that you, at least, were interested in the facts.

The supposed "payoff" is suppositional. Nobody knows what the direct "payoff" was. And as a matter of fact, this was just one very teensy "favor", that was done, by Arkansas "elites", for the Clintons. In the entire scheme of things, this was trivial. It got Hillary off Bill's back, for a bit, but didn't do much else. But it DID make Bill even more beholden to others.

64 posted on 09/26/2006 7:12:23 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

thanx doug :)


65 posted on 09/26/2006 7:34:53 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

You repeat yourself, you employ large size print but you fail to address the issue. She was susceptible of prosecution for numerous serious felonies for her involvment in the cattle futures scheme. Many have been convicted and served time for similiar deliberate unwitting participation in criminal activity. Sorry you are stuck on your self importance derived from your detailed knowledge of the brokers history and prosecution. These facts do not defeat HRC susceptibility to prosecution. But feel free to repeat yourself again.


66 posted on 09/26/2006 7:39:48 PM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand
I am "stuck" as you call it, on the hard, cold, facts.

Talk of repeating one's self....go look into the nearest mirror. You repeat the same erroneous claptrap, over and over and over again, without given a single example. P;ease name every other governor's wife who engaged in this sort of thing, who was caught, tried, convicted, and sent to jail. Of course, since there are none, you can't give any. Okay, no governor's wives, so how about wives of mayors, Senators, V.P.'s, alderman's?

I post facts, you post from your imagination.

67 posted on 09/26/2006 8:00:39 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

the first refuge of the intellectually dishonest is to try and change the subject.

you have not shown a single reason Mrs. Clinton could not have been prosecuted.

You have expressed your opinion that since no one else other than the broker was prosecuted, and your opinion that since you dont have a written order from Hillary directing the fraud, that she could not be. This is simply not true.

As I pointed out for you three times, it is quite common to prosecute fraud and bribery crimes by indirect evidence, which is in ABUNDANCE in the cattle futures case.

Go ahead, ignore the obvious and repeat yourself again.


68 posted on 09/26/2006 9:09:14 PM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand
Goodness gracious, looked in the mirror, as you typed all of that...did you?

Come on, step up to the plate, post each and every case, since there are many of them,*snicker* that will prove what you have been claiming. Is that asking too much of you, to post some facts for a change?

Even when I wrote as simply as I could, it was still over your head.

What I posted is not true? It is not accurate, factual, nor true? Then prove it, prove it with citations.

You just keep repeating the same thing, word for word, while claiming that it's true and yet, that is what you accuse me of doing, even though I posted specifics, which at the beginning of this, you didn't know. LOL

69 posted on 09/26/2006 9:41:59 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

Hillary Clinton committed several felonies through her participation in the cattle futures payoff. These include accessory to bribery and accessorie to mail fraud.

Do you contend she did not commit those crimes?

Do you contend she could not be prosecuted for those crimes if not why not?

The answers are obvious, of course she committed the crimes, and of course they were prosecutable.

Your position that because no one else who received payoffs through the broker was prosecuted, therefore Hillary could not be prosecuted is a non-sequitor.

Your position, no matter how often repeated nor how much feigned amusement you attach to it, is, frankly, suggestive of some kind of intellectual or characterological impairment.

Go ahead repeat yourself again without addressing the real point i.e. what factual or legal barrier existed to prevent prosecution of Hillary for the cattle futures payoff?


70 posted on 09/26/2006 10:02:28 PM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

Hillary Clinton committed several felonies through her participation in the cattle futures payoff. These include accessory to bribery and accessorie to mail fraud.

Do you contend she did not commit those crimes?

Do you contend she could not be prosecuted for those crimes if not why not?

The answers are obvious, of course she committed the crimes, and of course they were prosecutable.

Your position that because no one else who received payoffs through the broker was prosecuted, therefore Hillary could not be prosecuted is a non-sequitor.

Your position, no matter how often repeated nor how much feigned amusement you attach to it, is, frankly, suggestive of some kind of intellectual or characterological impairment.

Go ahead repeat yourself again without addressing the real point i.e. what factual or legal barrier existed to prevent prosecution of Hillary for the cattle futures payoff?


71 posted on 09/26/2006 10:02:31 PM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand
You can't prove bribery.

It isn't mail fraud.

Straw man arguments is all that you have.

Look up what non sequitur means, how it is spelled, and memorize it.

Personal insults aren't going to make your rambling any more factual. Neither is repeating yourself, endlessly, with NOTHING to back you up.

You've long ago lost this debate; stop digging and go back to sleep.

72 posted on 09/26/2006 10:24:49 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

What specifically makes you think one cant have proven bribery nor wire against both the Clintons in regard to the cattle futures scandal? That is what element of proof of each crime do you contend was missing?


73 posted on 09/27/2006 2:13:46 AM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: johnandrhonda

Thanks for the explanation.


74 posted on 09/27/2006 2:21:03 AM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

Here I ll help you out...

go ahead, explain why Hillary could not have been convicted for one or more of the following CRIMES in relation to her cattle futures dealings, including underaccessory or conspirator liability theories :



  5-52-101. Abuse of public trust.




(a)  A person commits the offense of abuse of public trust if the person: 
    (1)  Solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept on behalf of any person, political party, or other organization any benefit from another person upon an agreement or understanding that the other person will or may be appointed a public servant or designated or nominated as a candidate for public office;  (2)  Offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit and the receipt of the benefit is prohibited by this section;  (3)  Solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit as compensation or consideration for having as a public servant given a decision, opinion, recommendation, or vote favorable to another or for having otherwise exercised his or her discretion in favor of another; or  (4)  Offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit upon a public servant and the receipt of the benefit is prohibited by this section.  (b)  It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or use of discretion, except for the benefit, was otherwise proper.  (c)  Abuse of public trust is a Class D felony. 
History. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 2701; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-2701; Acts 2005, No. 1994, § 328.




   5-52-104. Soliciting unlawful compensation.




(a)  A person commits the offense of soliciting unlawful compensation if he or she requests a benefit for the performance of an official action as a public servant knowing that he or she is required to perform that action: 
    (1)  Without compensation, other than authorized salary or allowances;  or 

(2)  At a level of compensation lower than that requested. 

(b)  Soliciting unlawful compensation is a Class A misdemeanor. 


History. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 2704; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-2704.





   5-42-204. Criminal use of property or laundering criminal proceeds.




(a)  A person commits the offense of criminal use of property or laundering criminal proceeds if the person knowingly: 
    (1)  Conducts or attempts to conduct a transaction involving criminal proceeds that were derived from any predicate criminal offense, or that were represented to be criminal proceeds from any predicate criminal offense, with the intent to:  (A)  Conceal the location, source, ownership, or control of the criminal proceeds;  (B)  Avoid a reporting requirement under state or federal law; or  (C)  Acquire any interest in the criminal proceeds; or  (2)  Uses or makes available for use any property in which he or she has any ownership or lawful possessory interest to facilitate a predicate criminal offense.  (b)  Any person who is guilty of criminal use of property or laundering criminal proceeds commits a Class C felony.  (c)(1)  Upon conviction, the prosecuting attorney may institute a civil action against any person who violates this section to obtain a judgment against any person who violates this section, jointly and severally, for damages in an amount equal to property, funds, or a monetary instrument involved in the violation as well as the proceeds acquired by any person involved in the enterprise or by reason of conduct in furtherance of the violation, together with costs incurred for resources and personnel used in the investigation and prosecution of both criminal and civil proceedings.  (2)  The standard of proof in an action brought under this subsection is preponderance of the evidence.  (3)  The procedures for forfeiture and distribution in the asset forfeiture law, § 5-64-505, apply.  (4)  A defendant in a civil action brought under this subsection is entitled to trial by jury. 



5-36-106. Theft by receiving.




(a)  A person commits the offense of theft by receiving if he or she receives, retains, or disposes of stolen property of another person: 
    (1)  Knowing that the property was stolen; or  (2)  Having good reason to believe the property was stolen.  (b)  As used in this section, "receiving" means acquiring possession, control, or title or lending on the security of the property.  (c)  The following give rise to a presumption that a person knows or believes that property was stolen:  (1)  The unexplained possession or control by the person of recently stolen property; or  (2)  The acquisition by the person of property for a consideration known to be far below the property's reasonable value.  (d)  It is a defense to a prosecution for the offense of theft by receiving that the property is received, retained, or disposed of with the purpose of restoring the property to the owner or another person entitled to the property.  (e)  Theft by receiving is a:  (1)  Class B felony if the value of the property is two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) or more; 



   5-2-403. Accomplices.




(a)  A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of an offense, the person: 
    (1)  Solicits, advises, encourages, or coerces the other person to commit the offense;  (2)  Aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid the other person in planning or committing the offense; or  (3)  Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make a proper effort to prevent the commission of the  offense.  (b)  When causing a particular result is an element of an offense, a person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of that offense if, acting with respect to that particular result with the kind of culpable mental state sufficient for the commission of the offense, the person:  (1)  Solicits, advises, encourages, or coerces the other person to engage in the conduct causing the particular result;  (2)  Aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid the other person in planning or engaging in the conduct causing the particular result; or  (3)  Having a legal duty to prevent the conduct causing the particular result, fails to make a proper effort to prevent the conduct causing the particular result. 
History. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 303; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-303.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 63 > § 1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television 2004-08-06

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.




75 posted on 09/27/2006 3:05:19 AM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand

You can't prove that they colluded in the fraud. There is no "paper trail", nor anything else.


76 posted on 09/27/2006 1:34:43 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand
You can't prove collusion. Case closed.

If Hillary had been the ONLY one who had profited, then there would be a stronger case against her. Since she was one of many and there never was anything written ( though the absence of payment for the margin call/s look really BAD ), no prosecutor would have taken this case, nor would they now.

Go play with yourself some more and this time, go find me actual cases. :-)

77 posted on 09/27/2006 1:39:55 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

your arguments are conclusory and circular. They therefore make no sense. To say there is no proof of collusion without a factual argument is pointless, as is your ongoing unfounded obstinancy.

collusion is not even a required element of all the crimes.

she is for example, an accessory to wire fraud. The predicat crime is the conviction of the broker which you have certified. All that is required is that a) there was a fraudulent scheme, and b) that she participated in it.
She gave the $1000 and she took the $100,000 back.
In addition, she has conflciting and no credible explanation for how the profits occurred. A reasonable person who honestly believed they had made money this way, honestly, would not have stopped at $100,000. To an average Arkansas jury, not to mention a yale educated business lawyer, her transaction does not pass the smell test. No additional evidence is needed for conviction.

No prosecuter would take the case? YOu have no basis for this conclusionary statement either. What about the prosecutor, for example, that is after Tom Delay? How much evidence does he have. Delay raised money for pacs. Pacs gave money to Delay. Its leagal as long as there is no quid pro quo. They have no evidence of any, but there is still a prosecution.

The case against is provable, by available evidence. You have falsely tried to mislead readers of this article that she could not have been prosecuted. Your arguments are entirely conclusory and baseless. You have expressed opinions in areas where you lack knowledge. I gave you the list of numerous specific criminal violations, all you can say is there is no proof of collusion. The proof is that she gave $1000 to the broker after Tyson met with Bill and that she accepted the $100,000 as if it was a reasonable outcome, not to mention the big profits were on trades against the market. This is equivalent to the drug mule who says I took $10,000 to carry a paper bag accross the border, I had no idea what was in it. You know where they are? They are spending 20 to life in federal jail. And in many cases it was true, they didnt know. All that was required for prosecution was that their ignorance of the crime in which they were assisting was UNREASONABLE, and they are doing life for it.

Go ahead keep repeating your vacuuous conclusory nonsensical unspported illiterate ignorant opinions that she could not have been prosecuted. Enjoy your perverse thrill as a would be know it all. Just dont think it wont be refuted logically and factually in increasing detail each time you do it.


78 posted on 09/27/2006 2:13:33 PM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand
The case against DeLay is harassment.

Don't you know that "you" can do ANYTHING/say ANYTHING about a GOPer, but not a damned Dem? LOL

You aren't a lawyer, I bet, and neither have you ever worked in any financial market. Yet you feel compelled to post about topics you neither know nor understand.

Are you having fun? I certainly hope so. :-)

I have posted the facts of the matter.

I have also told you the history of such cases.

I have asked you for specifics, OF ALL OF THE MANY CASES YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY CLIMED HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED and you have failed to list even one.

You can NOT convict a person without hard evidence; supposition and probability don't count in this kind of a case. You have to PROVE, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person is guilty. You can't prove that Hillary told Red Bone what to do. You can't even prove that she knew what he was doing. He was referred to her; she didn't search for him.

And hearsay doesn't count either.

But hey..............knock yourself out, have fun making up all garbage and posting it, all the while pretending that you know what you're talking about. I'll just sit here and laugh AT you. ;^)

79 posted on 09/27/2006 2:35:42 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

laugh away clown lawyer but for example

you have consused your self invented "shadow of a doubt" standard of proof with "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is the true standard of proof. and as I said earlier many drug mules are doing time (life) when the only proof against them was that there defense of ignorant participation was UnREASONABLE.

trying to change the subject again (trying to get out of the hole you have dug for yourself) realy wont do. Your contention is she could not have been prosecuted. I have demonstrated repeatedly that she could and should have been. No hearsay (if you have a clue what that means) is needed. Her own words are enough (conflicting explanations support inference of guilt; incredible explanations support inference of guilt) Shall I start posting the damn jury instructions for you?


80 posted on 09/27/2006 2:59:48 PM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand
I'm not a lawyer and I doubt that you are.

There's no such word as "consused"; at least it isn't in any dictionary I own and I own good ones.

"there" should be THEIR.

It is VERY "reasonable" to claim ignorance and is what Hillary should have done originally and would do, if this ever went to trial.

I haven't changed the subject, but you have. You never mentioned "drug mules" to me, in any previous post.

Getting upset, are you? Finally realizing that you've dug that hole so deep, that you will never be able to climb out of it, have you? LOL

81 posted on 09/27/2006 3:22:39 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

yes, i can tell you are not a lawyer at least not one of any training and experience. Thank you for admitting it.

Spelling errors - this thread as this point doesnt warrant spell check..my interest is substance

"Drug Mules" contrary to your assertion, see post 78 zeven lines from bottom. Youre not paying attention.

apparently if you were on the jury you would acquit hillary clinton for her participation in this fraudulent scheme, its weak minded jurors and prosecutors like that that have allowed these criminals to run amok for so long.


82 posted on 09/27/2006 4:19:40 PM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand
You know what? I've been on FR longer than you have. I have a VERY good memory and remember the nics of most old timers. Your nic isn't familiar to me. You appear to crave attention, ANY kind of attention and you also appear to be completely unable to take factual refutation.

I never once claimed to be a lawyer. I have; however, asked it YOU are a lawyer and you never answered that query. But you are NOT a lawyer, though you are trying to pretend that you are. LOL

You've back pedaled, you've changed topics, you have refused to show ANY proof to substantiate your position, and throughout this entire thread, your Clintonian posts have been stunningly devoid of anything even remotely credible. So let's play it your way, since my straight forward way, appears to confuse you utterly.

Apparently, if you were on any jury, you would be the one person who threw they entire proceedings into a cocked hat, because of your inability to follow instructions and directions. It's weak minded people like you, who instead of recognizing your own inadequacies, pretend that you are the expert. Not only would you have freed O.J., but you would have, instead, tried to convict the dog.

And now, ramble on, post and post and post and post some more replies........the last word is your's; spurious though they surely will be.

83 posted on 09/27/2006 6:42:26 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

No facts
No argument
No value

Your posts are weakening substantially.
You have no idea how long I have been on FR. Robinson has reset the servers and lost old data. Really old data.

When you spoke of the details of how the fraud was committed you had credibility because you do appear to understand the mechanisms of how trading profits are boxed.

Your speculation as to the prosecution or inability to prosecute Hillary was an extrapolation of your knowledge that at that time investors were not routinely charged based upon a brokers use of illegal trading techniques.

What you failed to realize or accept when told is that Hillary was not a routine commodity case, it was a proveable case of a disguised political payoff which triggers a host of crimes outside the scope of the commodity issues.

You are clueless as to standards of proof, evidentiary principles, elements of the crimes and defenses and the kind of jury instructions that are available allowing conviction when as much as is known today based upon Hillary;s own comments which can be used against her to prove scienter or conciousness of guilt, which is basically all that is required.

If you want to continue to be obstinant I can play this game indefinitely, or not, as I please.

You erred in propounding convictions outside your area of knowledge and in your obstinancy you have demonstrated you havent a clue what the differnce is between conclusory arguments and circular reasoning on the one hand vs. actual weighing of real evidentiary facts against the elements of the crimes and the standard of proof required for conviction.

She could have been prosecuted successfully on the known facts of the case, and she should have been. We are all familiar with the lengths the Clintons have gone to put up barriers to and interfere with obtaining a fair assessment of their activities. When all else fails they simply go on the attack, as if Ken Starr was some kind of religious fanatic out to prosecute sex crimes, and Kathleen Willey was part of the "right wing conspiracy".

I have chosen thus far to challenge your position only to the extent and specifically because you have authoritatively pontificated that she could not have been prosecuted for the cattle futures because a) only brokers were prosecuted; and b) because she lacks in your view provable knowledge of the conspriracy. As I explained by analogy with reference to the prosecution of drug mules, their is no requirement in deception crimes to prove the conspirators and accomplices had firm knowledge of the crime, rather disproportionate rewards and unreasonable ignorance (i had no idea what was in the bag) are enough to create evidentiary inferences sufficient to convict.

While continuing to challange me and try and reframe the question based on extraneous factors, you have not refuted an iota of the argument I have presented as supported by the posting of specific state and federal crimes for which she should have been held liable and the explanations by analogy to activities which have resulted in life sentences for far more hapless, uneducated, and sympathetic criminals than Hillary.

What bothers me about your ignorance is that by self assuredly repeating your conclusions in strong terms, you mislead some readers who are unfamiliar with the legal principles in this area and who might be confused about the injustice of her having gotten away with this flagrant criminal activity.

Your speculations about my professional qualifications are amusing.


84 posted on 09/28/2006 12:11:41 AM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand
I know that I said that you could have the last word, but you're lying about Jim Robinson, FR, and "lost data".

Your sign-up date is 1999. Mine is 1998 and I lurked for almost a full year before I joined. Ergo, I've been here longer than you have, or if you lurked as well, as long.

Yes, some of the archives have indeed been cleaned out; however, nothing, NOTHING, has been "lost" from our individual posting records, which ARE attached to our personal page and have been kept since 2000.

I usually do NOT ever look up someone; however, I did look up your posting record. It is VERY sketchy, with the vast majority of your replies being made to threads posted by Mia T and several years of NO posting whatsoever. In other words, you aren't a "regular". Neither have you had much to say, for months on end.

I may have been born at night, but it most certainly was NOT last night!

What YOU refuse to admit, is that Hillary's little payoff, no matter HOW you want to spin it, whilst impugning my character and knowledge, was NOT prosecutable according to SEC standards and rules and...here's the BIG and, devoid of federal prosecution. Suck it up......that's just the way it was.

The list of Red;s clients was never 1) made public 2) not handed off to any other agency 3) never saw the light of day until the statutes of limitations had run out.

Keep right on patting yourself on the back, with both of your broken arms and telling yourself that you and you alone know what;s what and have "proven" your case. You are wrong, but your ego won't allow you to accept nor admit that.

You have failed and failed miserably! CCPing laws, or whatever else you've posted ( most of it bloviation and calumnies ), you have not ever posted proof. I have repeatedly asked you to cite the case of the wife of another governor, alderman, or other politician, who was prosecuted for the same thing. In two days, you've post exactly....................................NONE.

85 posted on 09/28/2006 12:38:10 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

Tsk Tsk.

More distractions. You must be quivering with anxiety that someone is keeping track of the substance of our differences.

The SEC has nothing to do with the crimes I have listed for you, and which you avoid analyzing.

You set up staw men in order to distract... SEC , Other celebrity prosecutions, etc. These have nothing to do with your unsupported unsupportable position.

It now appears conclusive, you wouldnt know a FACT if it fell through your roof and knocked you on your butt.

Your analysis of my posting record is also amusing.

I havent bothered to look at yours. You seem an insignificant fellow.


86 posted on 09/28/2006 12:59:12 AM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

Comment #87 Removed by Moderator

To: Gail Wynand

Changing the topic to another set of clinton crimes, the rape of--and threats against-- Broaddrick by the clintons:

  1. Because Broaddrick was both explicitly and implicitly threatened by the clintons during the period of legal exposure, cannot the argument be made that the statute of limitations in this case should be extended?

  2. There is a movement afoot to remove the statute of limitations on rape.

    This change would, it seems to me, differ in kind from the usual change in statute as it relates to the very issue of the time limit for legal action. It seems logical that in this case grandfathering should be the default condition. Has anyone ever made this argument?







88 posted on 09/28/2006 5:13:55 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Statutes of limitations or "repose" serve a useful function in ridding society of disputes and threats of disputes even though they are arbitrary and will inevitably do injustice in particular cases.

Certain cicumstances are recognized a tolling a statute of limitation or functionally doing so. I believe but am not certain that the general rule is the statute runs from the time when the crime is complete, and further that as long as the perpetrators of a crime are actively engaged in concealing it, the crime continues, but this should be verified before anyone tries to leverage it to any particular conclusion.

If for example, a rape occurred 20 years ago and the rapist said, if you report this I will kill your mother, then finally the mother dies of natural causes, so now the victim reports the rape.. well thats a scenario that would test what I am saying may be a grounds for arguing the statute never really ran.

Although the powerful position of Bill Clinton, and the very nature of the assault, help explain the victims decision not to report the incident for twenty years in this case, its probably not enough to support a late prosecution. Implied threats could render statutes of limitations meaningless if they were sufficient basis for ignoring the limitations period.

I would be against dropping statutes of limitations altogether even as to rape. Understanably murder has no SOL. But citizens need to not live in fear that hard to prove or disprove stale allegations might be brought against them by government long after key witnesses have died, facts are naturally forgotten, and the potential for a meaningful defense had evaporated.

Whats missing from the Broderick story is not a prosecution, but a responsible MSM, which would have been askng WJC on any occassion on which he presented himeself to the press whether or not he denys the rape allegation. If he says anything other than he did it, it opens the defamation option, but Broderick may now be a "public figure" so thats problematic. Nonetheless, it is the MSM which is giving WJC a pass at this point that is the real problem on this issue now.


89 posted on 09/28/2006 8:19:18 AM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand
Of course it's understandable why Broaddrick did not come forward. It was the 70s and the rapist was the chief prosecutor of Arkansas!

Listen to Broaddrick. hillary threatened her 3 weeks after the rape by clinton. Prosecutable?

To my mind, the dynamics (e.g., power, sustained threat) of the crime of rape to which you allude argue for just the opposite, i.e., there should be no statute of limitations (SOL) for rape.

You say it's understandable that there is no SOL for murder. But you argue against dropping the SOL for rape: '[C]itizens need to not live in fear that hard to prove or disprove stale allegations might be brought against them by government long after key witnesses have died, facts are naturally forgotten, and the potential for a meaningful defense had evaporated.

As those objections would apply equally to a murder charge, why the different conclusion? Are you implying that the egregiousness of the two crimes generally are of different orders of magnitude?

Do you recall that Broaddrick was certain clinton would send his henchmen up to the room after the rape to "get rid of the body."

Wasn't rape a capital offense at one time?

90 posted on 09/28/2006 9:13:46 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

i think virtually everything was a capital offense at one time in feudal england, the only question was whether they merely killed you (and perhaps your family) or whether you also got the torture regime, such as featured in the climax of Braveheart.

Statutes of repose serve a public policy function just as attorney client privilege and the fifth amendment privlege which do not directly further truthseeking or justice in a particular case. There are are considered countervailing policies that protect important interests.

Broderick is an interesting situation given the arguments that can be made that her fears were reasonable. I doubt they would be successful if presented in overcome a statute of limitations.

My understanding of Hillary's threat is that it was typical Hillary speak and that only the double meaning was threatening, the other being defensible on its ostensible interpretation.

My own view is that as to crimes other than murder, the issue is where to set the statute of limitations, not getting rid of it. Also debateable are the standards for exceptions, tolling, or from what point it should run.

One can understand that a victim of sexual assault could easily be intimidated into silence. On the other hand I think it is documented that Joe Kennedy Sr. for one, used trumped up allegations of rape to intimidate and controll political and business enemies. Injustice can lie on either side of these cases. An SOL simply says there has to be a time limit in which bring a prosecution.

Generally the climate and procedures for reporting rape are better than they were thirty years ago. Women especialy young women need to know that they should report rape, and that they should do it immediately. It is clear, however, that that does not occur, and it is understandable.

We would need the help of an experienced criminal law attorney to know for certain the status of stale claims by someone in Brodericks position. It might turn for example on the question of whether her fears were objectively reasonable, or it may be that she simply cannot overcome the statute no matter what.

I would like to think that the policy of no SOL on murder but some SOL on rape, would result in more fathers getting their injured daughters back at least alive than might occur if there was no SOL on rape at all. Its really just a guess though as to how these policies affect criminal behavior.


91 posted on 09/28/2006 1:26:46 PM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand

One doesn't have to go back to feudal England. ;)

The Supreme Court in 1977 (Coker v. Georgia) struck down as a violation of the 8th Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment the last state statute making rape a capital offense.

It is unfortunate that the issue of the death penalty for rape suffers historically from a racist context: Extra-legal lynchings and then state-sanctioned executions took place in the segregated South. This historical context clouds the legal and moral issues and results in the unjust treatment of all women in our society today.

And the clintons incarnate this unjust treatment--this gross maltreatment--of women. I would be very interested in getting the opinion of an experienced criminal law attorney regarding Broaddrick's stale claim.


92 posted on 09/28/2006 2:26:34 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Republic; yoe; YaYa123; doug from upland; malia

the clintons' rape of broaddrick fyi


93 posted on 09/28/2006 2:32:27 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: UWSrepublican

fyi


94 posted on 09/28/2006 2:33:22 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Here's one for which the Statute of Limitations has not run out ---


CALL IT WHAT IT IS. CLINTON ASSAULTED CHRIS WALLACE. WHO DOUBTS IT WAS NOT HIS FIRST OFFENSE?


In the now famous, recent, "purple rage" interview on fox news an apparently enraged Bill Clinton leaned toward his interviewer, Chris Wallace, pointed his finger menacingly and went on a rant about Fox, Rupert Murdoch and Wallace's motives. The scene was broadcast and has been digitally replayed throughout the internet. Based upon Mr. Wallace's description of his experience later the same day, "utterly surprised...I felt like a mountain was coming down on me." as well as the video itself, there appears to be strong grounds for a legal civil claim of assault against Mr. Clinton. As noted below, civil assault may consist an act intended to or which reasonably does cause in another person an apprehension of an imminent unconsented unwanted touching (contact) which is neither consented to, excused or justified. Indeed, because Mr. Clinton's wagging finger in fact was poking the papers in Wallace's hand, the additional unlawful act of battery was probably committed. If Mr. Wallace decided to persue it, it appears he has a very credible claim for civil assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, based upon Mr. Clinton's reaction to Wallace's question during this interiew.



The tort of assault consists of an act intended to cause either harmful or offensive contact with another person or apprehension of such contact, and that creates in that other person's mind a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 21 (1965); Friend § 6.3.1 at 226; Fowler V. Harper, et al., The Law of Torts § 3.5 at 3:18-:19 (3d ed. Cum. Supp. 2003).



The tort of battery is an unwanted touching which is neither consented to, excused, nor justified. See Washburn v. Klara, 263 Va. 586, 561 S.E.2d 682 (2002); Woodbury v. Courtney, 239 Va. 651, 391 S.E.2d 293 (1990). Although these two torts "go together like ham and eggs," the difference between them is "that between physical contact and the mere apprehension of it. One may exist without the other." W. Page Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 10 at 46; see also Friend § 6.3.



"I began the interview with 2 questions about Mr. Clinton's commitment to humanitarian causes. His answers were cogent and good-humored.

Then--I asked him about his Administration's record in fighting terror--fully intending to come back to CGI later (as indeed I did).

I asked what I thought was a non-confrontational question about whether he could have done more to "connect the dots and really go after al Qaeda."

I was utterly surprised by the tidal wave of details--emotion--and political attacks that followed.

The President was clearly stung by any suggestion that he had not done everything he could to get bin Laden. He attacked right-wingers--accused me of a "conservative hit job"--and even spun a theory I still don't understand that somehow Fox was trying to cover up the fact that NewsCorp. chief Rupert Murdoch was supporting his Global Initiative. I still have no idea what set him off. Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward--wagging his finger in my face--and then poking the notes I was holding--I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me.

The President said I had a smirk. Actually--it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing."


95 posted on 09/28/2006 2:34:17 PM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: joanie-f

the clintons' rape of broaddrick - fyi


96 posted on 09/28/2006 2:35:52 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Mia this has been great!

I'm so glad sooo many have not forgotten what the clinton's
are.

But, I wish I didn't feel like having to scrub clean after reading about the scums.


97 posted on 09/28/2006 11:03:22 PM PDT by malia ( Bush said he would not engage in “finger-pointing.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand
What a pathetic reply. I hope it made you finally feel competent and important.

My statement about your posting history is a completely accurate one. And should we all be lucky, you will go back to it. :-)

98 posted on 09/29/2006 12:22:25 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-98 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson