Clinton Derail from "How Donald Made a Fortune by Dumping His Debt on Other People"

[barbos]

It's a clear case of fraud and insider trading. But then Donald was a friend of the President who happened to be Hillary's husband

 

[Bomb#20]

It's a clear case of fraud and insider trading. But then Donald was a friend of the President who happened to be Hillary's husband

Which raises the question, does this thread have a point? Are people here seriously trying to prove Trump is a bad bad man? Are there any TFT members who weren't already aware that Trump is a bad bad man? Seems to me the evidence from the other threads heavily favors the hypothesis that the ostensible targets of such education attempts are voting against Clinton far more than they're voting for Trump. So what's the point of belaboring "Donald's Dirty Dealings"?

Donald will sell you out for 1.7 billion dollars; Hillary will sell you out for one hundred thousand dollars. Vote for Hillary because Donald is seventeen thousand times more immoral?

 

[Horatio Parker]

It's a clear case of fraud and insider trading. But then Donald was a friend of the President who happened to be Hillary's husband

Which raises the question, does this thread have a point? Are people here seriously trying to prove Trump is a bad bad man? Are there any TFT members who weren't already aware that Trump is a bad bad man? Seems to me the evidence from the other threads heavily favors the hypothesis that the ostensible targets of such education attempts are voting against Clinton far more than they're voting for Trump. So what's the point of belaboring "Donald's Dirty Dealings"?

Donald will sell you out for 1.7 billion dollars; Hillary will sell you out for one hundred thousand dollars. Vote for Hillary because Donald is seventeen thousand times more immoral?

Nice hand waving.

 

[KeepTalking]

It's a clear case of fraud and insider trading. But then Donald was a friend of the President who happened to be Hillary's husband

Which raises the question, does this thread have a point? Are people here seriously trying to prove Trump is a bad bad man? Are there any TFT members who weren't already aware that Trump is a bad bad man? Seems to me the evidence from the other threads heavily favors the hypothesis that the ostensible targets of such education attempts are voting against Clinton far more than they're voting for Trump. So what's the point of belaboring "Donald's Dirty Dealings"?

Donald will sell you out for 1.7 billion dollars; Hillary will sell you out for one hundred thousand dollars. Vote for Hillary because Donald is seventeen thousand times more immoral?

Yes, this thread has a point. The point is to show just how terrible Trump is from a business perspective. At least one TFT poster has announced his intent to vote for Trump, and there are a couple of others who claim to be undecided. You, of course, are welcome not to participate if it offends your sensibilities. But you chose to wade in and provide your obligatory attack on Hillary nonetheless. Why is that?

Donald has a track record of selling people out (or not paying them what he owes), just because he feels like it. Who has Hillary sold out, or stiffed for the money she owed them? Why don't you back up your attack with something substantial?

 

[RavenSky]

Which raises the question, does this thread have a point? Are people here seriously trying to prove Trump is a bad bad man? Are there any TFT members who weren't already aware that Trump is a bad bad man? Seems to me the evidence from the other threads heavily favors the hypothesis that the ostensible targets of such education attempts are voting against Clinton far more than they're voting for Trump. So what's the point of belaboring "Donald's Dirty Dealings"?

Donald will sell you out for 1.7 billion dollars; Hillary will sell you out for one hundred thousand dollars. Vote for Hillary because Donald is seventeen thousand times more immoral?

Yes, this thread has a point. The point is to show just how terrible Trump is from a business perspective. At least one TFT poster has announced his intent to vote for Trump, and there are a couple of others who claim to be undecided. You, of course, are welcome not to participate if it offends your sensibilities. But you chose to wade in and provide your obligatory attack on Hillary nonetheless. Why is that?

Donald has a track record of selling people out (or not paying them what he owes), just because he feels like it. Who has Hillary sold out, or stiffed for the money she owed them? Why don't you back up your attack with something substantial?

But he needs to do it in a different thread rather than derail this one

 

[KeepTalking]

Yes, this thread has a point. The point is to show just how terrible Trump is from a business perspective. At least one TFT poster has announced his intent to vote for Trump, and there are a couple of others who claim to be undecided. You, of course, are welcome not to participate if it offends your sensibilities. But you chose to wade in and provide your obligatory attack on Hillary nonetheless. Why is that?

Donald has a track record of selling people out (or not paying them what he owes), just because he feels like it. Who has Hillary sold out, or stiffed for the money she owed them? Why don't you back up your attack with something substantial?

But he needs to do it in a different thread rather than derail this one

Fair enough.

 

[laughing dog]

It's a clear case of fraud and insider trading. But then Donald was a friend of the President who happened to be Hillary's husband

Which raises the question, does this thread have a point? Are people here seriously trying to prove Trump is a bad bad man? Are there any TFT members who weren't already aware that Trump is a bad bad man? Seems to me the evidence from the other threads heavily favors the hypothesis that the ostensible targets of such education attempts are voting against Clinton far more than they're voting for Trump. So what's the point of belaboring "Donald's Dirty Dealings"?

There are other candidates than Trump to vote for if one's motivation is to vote against HRC. Which raises the question - what is the logical point of your response?

Donald will sell you out for 1.7 billion dollars; Hillary will sell you out for one hundred thousand dollars. Vote for Hillary because Donald is seventeen thousand times more immoral?

So the real point is for you to try to confuse people with incredibly stupid unsubstantiated attacks on Hillary Clinton?

 

[Bomb#20]

Yes, this thread has a point. The point is to show just how terrible Trump is from a business perspective.

That's a fair point. Not really what Ravensky has been focusing on, though.

Donald has a track record of selling people out (or not paying them what he owes), just because he feels like it. Who has Hillary sold out, or stiffed for the money she owed them? Why don't you back up your attack with something substantial?

Did "one hundred thousand dollars" fail to narrow down which financial scandal I was referring to? Sorry. What I meant was, Hillary will sell you out for $98,540.00. She appears to have sold out the people of Arkansas, by taking a money-laundered bribe from Tyson Foods, in return for her husband going easy on their dumping of toxic waste.

"But the state never enforced the order, and in May 1983 the waste from the plant seeped into the town's drinking water. Residents became ill, and 15 months later Governor Clinton declared the town a disaster area." (Source)

But he needs to do it in a different thread rather than derail this one

You're out of line. Your OP didn't say a word about what your point was. I asked, and you just passed up a perfectly fine opportunity to answer. So you have zero standing to accuse me of derailing your thread. When you leave it to your readers to figure out for ourselves what your point is, we get to. See how it works?

As far as I can tell from the content of your posts and their placement in the "Election 2016" forum, the point of your thread is "Donald Trump is a criminal. Don't let the Presidency fall into the hands of a criminal." To that point, the fact that Hillary Clinton is also a criminal is highly relevant.

There are other candidates than Trump to vote for if one's motivation is to vote against HRC.

And I will. Living as I do in a non-swing state, I have the luxury of getting to vote for the candidate who'd be the best president and not needing to decide who would be the second worst.

Which raises the question - what is the logical point of your response?

I'm pointing out that the apparent argument of the OP and many other thread posts is unsound. Since both major party candidates are criminals, those who find themselves needing to vote strategically will have to choose on some other basis than "The other candidate is a criminal!!!".

So the real point is for you to try to confuse people with incredibly stupid unsubstantiated attacks on Hillary Clinton?

I'm not seeing what's confusing about Clinton taking a bribe. The incredible stupidity is all in your mind. As for substantiation, I had been under the impression that Ms. Clinton's cattle futures scandal was common knowledge. I guess politics makes for short memories. If the above NY Times link is insufficient substantiation, google it.

This isn't merely dirty dealings. It was something I would have thought would have landed him in jail for years and am shocked that he didn't land in prison for defrauding so many people in this single instance.

And Clinton should have landed in prison for her trades. Whether the two of them got off scot-free because their respective crimes are hard to prove or because prosecutors were unmotivated, who can say?

 

[whichphilosophy]

That's a fair point. Not really what Ravensky has been focusing on, though.

Donald has a track record of selling people out (or not paying them what he owes), just because he feels like it. Who has Hillary sold out, or stiffed for the money she owed them? Why don't you back up your attack with something substantial?

Did "one hundred thousand dollars" fail to narrow down which financial scandal I was referring to? Sorry. What I meant was, Hillary will sell you out for $98,540.00. She appears to have sold out the people of Arkansas, by taking a money-laundered bribe from Tyson Foods, in return for her husband going easy on their dumping of toxic waste.

"But the state never enforced the order, and in May 1983 the waste from the plant seeped into the town's drinking water. Residents became ill, and 15 months later Governor Clinton declared the town a disaster area." (Source)

But he needs to do it in a different thread rather than derail this one

You're out of line. Your OP didn't say a word about what your point was. I asked, and you just passed up a perfectly fine opportunity to answer. So you have zero standing to accuse me of derailing your thread. When you leave it to your readers to figure out for ourselves what your point is, we get to. See how it works?

As far as I can tell from the content of your posts and their placement in the "Election 2016" forum, the point of your thread is "Donald Trump is a criminal. Don't let the Presidency fall into the hands of a criminal." To that point, the fact that Hillary Clinton is also a criminal is highly relevant.

There are other candidates than Trump to vote for if one's motivation is to vote against HRC.

And I will. Living as I do in a non-swing state, I have the luxury of getting to vote for the candidate who'd be the best president and not needing to decide who would be the second worst.

Which raises the question - what is the logical point of your response?

I'm pointing out that the apparent argument of the OP and many other thread posts is unsound. Since both major party candidates are criminals, those who find themselves needing to vote strategically will have to choose on some other basis than "The other candidate is a criminal!!!".

So the real point is for you to try to confuse people with incredibly stupid unsubstantiated attacks on Hillary Clinton?

I'm not seeing what's confusing about Clinton taking a bribe. The incredible stupidity is all in your mind. As for substantiation, I had been under the impression that Ms. Clinton's cattle futures scandal was common knowledge. I guess politics makes for short memories. If the above NY Times link is insufficient substantiation, google it.

This isn't merely dirty dealings. It was something I would have thought would have landed him in jail for years and am shocked that he didn't land in prison for defrauding so many people in this single instance.

And Clinton should have landed in prison for her trades. Whether the two of them got off scot-free because their respective crimes are hard to prove or because prosecutors were unmotivated, who can say?

It's not clear whether this was legal or not, but it seems they had people doing the work for them. Susan McDougals and Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, who served as governor after Clinton, were convicted of fraud.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/18/u...y-clinton-turn-big-profit.html?pagewanted=all

If I were a voter I would be concerned about her CV showing achievements while in office, and there doesn't seem to be much at all in other articles I read in the past

Hillary served as US senator from New York from 2001 to 2009, but her accomplishments are thin. No piece of legislation bears her name. Her tenure came to be defined in the 2008 presidential primaries by her vote for the war in Iraq — which Barack Obama, who had opposed the war, used to chip away at her foreign policy bona fides.

Her accomplishments as secretary of state are as unclear. She traveled to 112 countries, but again, she has nothing of consequence to her name: no peace treaty, no accord, no summit of consequence. Her defenders say she helped restore America’s reputation in the wake of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; critics say she was too afraid to make a mistake that would affect her presidential run in 2016.

 

[KeepTalking]

That's a fair point. Not really what Ravensky has been focusing on, though.

Donald has a track record of selling people out (or not paying them what he owes), just because he feels like it. Who has Hillary sold out, or stiffed for the money she owed them? Why don't you back up your attack with something substantial?

Did "one hundred thousand dollars" fail to narrow down which financial scandal I was referring to? Sorry. What I meant was, Hillary will sell you out for $98,540.00. She appears to have sold out the people of Arkansas, by taking a money-laundered bribe from Tyson Foods, in return for her husband going easy on their dumping of toxic waste.

You are correct, I was unaware of the "scandal" from the time preceding Bill Clinton's election to the Governorship of Arkansas. Apparently Hillary made a lot of money trading commodities futures starting three months before the election, and she got out early the next year. Correct me if I am wrong, but she was not even accused, much less convicted, of insider trading in the stock trades. I fail to see how making money on the stock market from a company before your spouse was elected to statewide office constitutes a bribe from that company. It's not even clear from the article whether she invested directly in that company, or in the commodity they produce in general.

 

[James Brown]

It's curious how Republicans get so bent out of shape when a Democrat makes money using capitalism.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's curious how Republicans get so bent out of shape when a Democrat makes money using capitalism.

I think it's also the same if a Republican makes money where the Democrat reaction could be similar. This is after all politics.

 

[Bomb#20]

That's a fair point. Not really what Ravensky has been focusing on, though.

Donald has a track record of selling people out (or not paying them what he owes), just because he feels like it. Who has Hillary sold out, or stiffed for the money she owed them? Why don't you back up your attack with something substantial?

Did "one hundred thousand dollars" fail to narrow down which financial scandal I was referring to? Sorry. What I meant was, Hillary will sell you out for $98,540.00. She appears to have sold out the people of Arkansas, by taking a money-laundered bribe from Tyson Foods, in return for her husband going easy on their dumping of toxic waste.

You are correct, I was unaware of the "scandal" from the time preceding Bill Clinton's election to the Governorship of Arkansas. Apparently Hillary made a lot of money trading commodities futures starting three months before the election, and she got out early the next year. ... I fail to see how making money on the stock market from a company before your spouse was elected to statewide office constitutes a bribe from that company.

When you say "the time preceding Bill Clinton's election to the Governorship of Arkansas", what you are referring to is the time when Bill Clinton was the Attorney General of Arkansas. (An elected statewide office, since apparently that's important to you.)

From Wikipedia:

The best-known Arkansas Attorney General is Bill Clinton, as he later became President of the United States; he was elected to the position in 1976 and served until he was elected governor in 1978. ... According to the official website, the duties of the Attorney General include representing state agencies and commissions in courts of law, giving opinions on issues presented by legislators and prosecutors, handling criminal matters and habeas corpus matters in the state, and advocating for citizens on issues pertaining to the environment, antitrust, and consumer protection.​

With respect to Tyson Foods, Clinton does not appear to have done his job.

It's not even clear from the article whether she invested directly in that company, or in the commodity they produce in general.

Nobody said she did. Here's a summary of what she "invested" in.

It's not clear how her extraordinary returns were achieved. It may have been by frontrunning; it may have been by switching. Frontrunning is a type of insider trading -- somebody executing a large trade knows the large trade will affect the commodity price, so he puts the smaller trade of a favored client through first, so that that client gets the benefit of his advance knowledge of the price movement, before that information becomes available to the public. Switching is a type of money laundering -- it's making a trade at an outdated price and then falsifying the timestamp in the record of the trade, to make it appear that the trade was made back when that was fair market value.

Correct me if I am wrong, but she was not even accused, much less convicted, of insider trading in the stock trades.

Of course she was accused -- why else do you imagine you can google thousands of articles about it? If you mean she was not even accused, much less convicted, by an official law enforcement body, and? Correct me if I am wrong, but Trump was not even accused, much less convicted, of defrauding the other people Donald made a fortune by dumping his debt on, by an official law enforcement body. If I'm not qualified to point out that she took a bribe merely because the government didn't bring a case against her, what makes you and Ravensky et al any more qualified to point out that Trump is a con man the government didn't bring a case against? Trump and Clinton were both accused by random members of the public, whose lack of official capacity does not magically blind us all to blatant wrongdoing by powerful public figures. Got a problem with that?

 

[Bomb#20]

It's curious how Republicans get so bent out of shape when a Democrat makes money using capitalism.

It's curious how people who don't like capitalism get so bent out of shape when people who do like capitalism don't consequently magically approve of every random goddamn thing the people who don't like capitalism decide capitalism is.

FYI, "capitalism" means people get to sell their stuff. It doesn't mean people get to sell stuff that doesn't belong to them. The responsibilities of the office of Attorney General are not the office holder's wife's private property, to be sold to whom she pleases.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This isn't merely dirty dealings. It was something I would have thought would have landed him in jail for years and am shocked that he didn't land in prison for defrauding so many people in this single instance.

And Clinton should have landed in prison for her trades. Whether the two of them got off scot-free because their respective crimes are hard to prove or because prosecutors were unmotivated, who can say?

The Republicans looked and looked and looked and nothing, so it is hard to get upset when the Republicans turned over every rock to find anything to plant on the Clintons in the 90s.

Meanwhile, was Trump even investigated for his grossfully unethical actions regarding his company?

 

[KeepTalking]

That's a fair point. Not really what Ravensky has been focusing on, though.

Donald has a track record of selling people out (or not paying them what he owes), just because he feels like it. Who has Hillary sold out, or stiffed for the money she owed them? Why don't you back up your attack with something substantial?

Did "one hundred thousand dollars" fail to narrow down which financial scandal I was referring to? Sorry. What I meant was, Hillary will sell you out for $98,540.00. She appears to have sold out the people of Arkansas, by taking a money-laundered bribe from Tyson Foods, in return for her husband going easy on their dumping of toxic waste.

You are correct, I was unaware of the "scandal" from the time preceding Bill Clinton's election to the Governorship of Arkansas. Apparently Hillary made a lot of money trading commodities futures starting three months before the election, and she got out early the next year. ... I fail to see how making money on the stock market from a company before your spouse was elected to statewide office constitutes a bribe from that company.

When you say "the time preceding Bill Clinton's election to the Governorship of Arkansas", what you are referring to is the time when Bill Clinton was the Attorney General of Arkansas. (An elected statewide office, since apparently that's important to you.)

I was making the point that it was a time before the Clintons rose to national prominence. A time when I was not in the least interested in politics, and apparently not many people on this board were aware of this "scandal".

From Wikipedia:

The best-known Arkansas Attorney General is Bill Clinton, as he later became President of the United States; he was elected to the position in 1976 and served until he was elected governor in 1978. ... According to the official website, the duties of the Attorney General include representing state agencies and commissions in courts of law, giving opinions on issues presented by legislators and prosecutors, handling criminal matters and habeas corpus matters in the state, and advocating for citizens on issues pertaining to the environment, antitrust, and consumer protection.​

With respect to Tyson Foods, Clinton does not appear to have done his job.

The issues with Tyson Foods did not happen while Clinton was Attorney General, but rather much later when he was Governor. If you want to lay this on the Attorney General of Arkansas, you will have to lay that blame on one of Bill Clinton's successors to that position.

It's not even clear from the article whether she invested directly in that company, or in the commodity they produce in general.

Nobody said she did. Here's a summary of what she "invested" in.

It was heavily implied by describing Hillary's risky commodities trading as a bribe from Tyson Foods.

It's not clear how her extraordinary returns were achieved. It may have been by frontrunning; it may have been by switching. Frontrunning is a type of insider trading -- somebody executing a large trade knows the large trade will affect the commodity price, so he puts the smaller trade of a favored client through first, so that that client gets the benefit of his advance knowledge of the price movement, before that information becomes available to the public. Switching is a type of money laundering -- it's making a trade at an outdated price and then falsifying the timestamp in the record of the trade, to make it appear that the trade was made back when that was fair market value.

It is known, she made risky trades, made some money, lost some money, then made a shit ton of money and got out at the right time. The people you want to accuse of facilitating this "bribery" both lost their shirts in the same trading by staying in too long. The Wikipedia article you linked lays it all out for us.

Correct me if I am wrong, but she was not even accused, much less convicted, of insider trading in the stock trades.

Of course she was accused -- why else do you imagine you can google thousands of articles about it?

The continual smearing of the Clintons. She was not accused in any legal sense of the word. From the Wikipedia article you linked:

There never was any official governmental investigation into, or findings about, or charges brought regarding Hillary Rodham's cattle futures trading.

If you mean she was not even accused, much less convicted, by an official law enforcement body, and?

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Anyone can accuse anyone else of anything, until a legal entity does so, we normally do not say that they have been accused of a crime.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Trump was not even accused, much less convicted, of defrauding the other people Donald made a fortune by dumping his debt on, by an official law enforcement body.

This thread is not about Trump's legal woes, though there have been plenty of those. Trump has had more lawsuits filed against him and his business practices than anyone of whom I am aware. How many times has Hillary been sued for her business dealings. This is about the ethics of his dumping debt on others, not to mention Trump University, or the Trump Foundation.

If I'm not qualified to point out that she took a bribe merely because the government didn't bring a case against her, what makes you and Ravensky et al any more qualified to point out that Trump is a con man the government didn't bring a case against?

You don't appear to know what a bribe looks like. Trading commodities on the stock market is not bribery. I know what a morally bankrupt (and often legally bankrupt) con man looks like, and that image is of Donald J. Trump.

Trump and Clinton were both accused by random members of the public, whose lack of official capacity does not magically blind us all to blatant wrongdoing by powerful public figures. Got a problem with that?

Yes. In the case of Trump, they are not random members of the public. He has been sued by his business partners, contractors, lawyers, and just about anyone who has had the misfortune of doing business with him. This goes way beyond mere random accusations with no legal standing stemming from commodities trading over 30 years ago. A civil suit is a legal proceeding, and Trump has faced so many of those it is hard to believe he is still thought of by some as a successful business man. Nice try at the Moore-Coulter though.

 

[jab]

It's a clear case of fraud and insider trading. But then Donald was a friend of the President who happened to be Hillary's husband

good point

 

[Bomb#20]

Sorry about the delay -- real life stepped in.

You are correct, I was unaware of the "scandal" from the time preceding Bill Clinton's election to the Governorship of Arkansas. Apparently Hillary made a lot of money trading commodities futures starting three months before the election, and she got out early the next year. ... I fail to see how making money on the stock market from a company before your spouse was elected to statewide office constitutes a bribe from that company.

When you say "the time preceding Bill Clinton's election to the Governorship of Arkansas", what you are referring to is the time when Bill Clinton was the Attorney General of Arkansas. (An elected statewide office, since apparently that's important to you.)

I was making the point that it was a time before the Clintons rose to national prominence. A time when I was not in the least interested in politics, and apparently not many people on this board were aware of this "scandal".

Why do you think that point matters? Between 1979 and 1994, when the NY Times broke the story, did Clinton grow a moral compass?

It was a national scandal in 1994 instead of in 1979 because at the time it happened, people outside Arkansas had little reason to care about run-of-the-mill corruption in a minor flyover state. Nobody but Hillary knew that Bill was going to be President one day. The rest of the country probably never would have heard about it if it weren't for Whitewater, which started a lot of reporters looking around to see what else the first couple might want forgotten.

With respect to Tyson Foods, Clinton does not appear to have done his job.

The issues with Tyson Foods did not happen while Clinton was Attorney General, but rather much later when he was Governor. If you want to lay this on the Attorney General of Arkansas, you will have to lay that blame on one of Bill Clinton's successors to that position.

Hey, I only pointed out he was AG because you claimed he hadn't been elected to statewide office yet. Which office he held on what date doesn't make much difference in the end -- he was powerful either way, and Tyson was buying the man, not just the AG office. They were buying a man whose future governorship was a foregone conclusion. He ran against a sacrificial lamb and he won the vote for governor almost 2 to 1.

It's not even clear from the article whether she invested directly in that company, or in the commodity they produce in general.

Nobody said she did. Here's a summary of what she "invested" in.

It was heavily implied by describing Hillary's risky commodities trading as a bribe from Tyson Foods.

I'm sorry I gave you that impression then; but I don't see how you inferred it. Are you under the impression that corrupt business executives dealing in inside information have inside information only about their own companies? That's not how it works. I called it a bribe from Tyson because the people who made it happen were Tyson people, and the company that most spectacularly got kid-glove treatment from governor Clinton was Tyson.

It's not clear how her extraordinary returns were achieved. It may have been by frontrunning; it may have been by switching. ...

It is known, she made risky trades, made some money, lost some money, then made ... money and got out at the right time. The people you want to accuse of facilitating this "bribery" both lost their shirts in the same trading by staying in too long. The Wikipedia article you linked lays it all out for us.

Not sure why you think their losses matter -- crooks often miscalculate and end up hurting themselves. According to an academic analysis, the odds against Hillary achieving her result were thirty-one trillion to one. Moreover, Clinton made inconsistent statements about how she did it. First she claimed she made her own decisions; later she admitted Blair told her when to buy and sell. Why would she lie if she got that money honestly?

If you mean she was not even accused, much less convicted, by an official law enforcement body, and?

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Anyone can accuse anyone else of anything, until a legal entity does so, we normally do not say that they have been accused of a crime.

Hey, Trump wasn't accused of debt-dumping by a legal entity either. Sauce for goose, sauce for gander.

Trump has had more lawsuits filed against him and his business practices than anyone of whom I am aware. How many times has Hillary been sued for her business dealings. This is about the ethics of his dumping debt on others, not to mention Trump University, or the Trump Foundation.

Well, that's the thing. Which person would have legal standing to sue Clinton for being harmed by her business dealings? A poisoned inhabitant of Green Forest? Proving cause and effect would be impossible. Clinton could have been sweet on Tyson even if his wife had never gotten a hundred thousand dollars from them.

The crooked deals themselves were cut with other criminals who served as intermediaries between Clinton and the people who wound up on the wrong end of her trades. She appears to have made money because her broker Refco fraudulently apportioned trades in her favor at the expense of some of its less valued clients. But if one of those clients tried to sue her over it, surely any competent judge would tell the guy he had to sue Refco, not Clinton. So the proper question isn't how many times Clinton has been sued, but how many times Refco has. And the answer is, Refco has been sued a lot. Refco bigwigs have gone to jail. In 1980 the particular Refco broker who handled her cattle future trades -- former Tyson executive Robert Bone -- was suspended by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for three years for various violations.

If I'm not qualified to point out that she took a bribe merely because the government didn't bring a case against her, what makes you and Ravensky et al any more qualified to point out that Trump is a con man the government didn't bring a case against?

You don't appear to know what a bribe looks like. Trading commodities on the stock market is not bribery.

Are you under the impression that "what a bribe looks like" is a suitcase full of cash? What, do you think if a casino owner whispers to an industry regulator "At 2:15, go sit down at blackjack table 6, play five hands, and then walk away.", and the official follows the instruction and walks away a rich man, that doesn't look like a bribe?

I know what a morally bankrupt (and often legally bankrupt) con man looks like, and that image is of Donald J. Trump.

If you aren't seeing two images of moral bankruptcy side-by-side then you are selectively blind.

Trump and Clinton were both accused by random members of the public, whose lack of official capacity does not magically blind us all to blatant wrongdoing by powerful public figures. Got a problem with that?

Yes. In the case of Trump, they are not random members of the public. He has been sued by his business partners, contractors, lawyers, and just about anyone who has had the misfortune of doing business with him.

As has Refco. And Clinton was accused by reputable publications like the New York Times and the Washington Post, not just by internet cranks or "a vast rightwing conspiracy".

This goes way beyond mere random accusations with no legal standing stemming from commodities trading over 30 years ago.

Unless you have evidence that at some time in the intervening 30 years, Clinton swore off influence peddling, I can't see how the passage of 30 years makes a particle of difference.

Nice try at the Moore-Coulter though.

Well that's an odd thing for you to say. "Moore-Coulter" is a phrase that means "Yes, Moore is pretty bad; but his badness is like nothing in comparison to Coulter's". Are you granting that Clinton has done some pretty bad stuff in her time, and just saying it's not in the same league with the bad stuff Trump did?

So here's the problem. Why on earth would you perceive selling government policy decisions to the highest bidder to be the slightest bit more ethical than tricking rich people into buying a 1.7 billion dollar debt? If Clinton has made less money off moral bankruptcy than Trump, it appears to be because of the details of their respective skillsets and opportunities, not because she's any less of an opportunist.

 

[KeepTalking]

Sorry about the delay -- real life stepped in.

You are correct, I was unaware of the "scandal" from the time preceding Bill Clinton's election to the Governorship of Arkansas. Apparently Hillary made a lot of money trading commodities futures starting three months before the election, and she got out early the next year. ... I fail to see how making money on the stock market from a company before your spouse was elected to statewide office constitutes a bribe from that company.

When you say "the time preceding Bill Clinton's election to the Governorship of Arkansas", what you are referring to is the time when Bill Clinton was the Attorney General of Arkansas. (An elected statewide office, since apparently that's important to you.)

I was making the point that it was a time before the Clintons rose to national prominence. A time when I was not in the least interested in politics, and apparently not many people on this board were aware of this "scandal".

Why do you think that point matters? Between 1979 and 1994, when the NY Times broke the story, did Clinton grow a moral compass?

You seemed incredulous that no one here was aware of this "scandal", I was explaining why I had not heard of it. Also, the stock trades happened more than 30 years ago, and absolutely nothing about it raised any eyebrows at the time. Fifteen years later, a stink was made about it, but no legal action whatsoever came out of it. There was nothing to it then, and there remains to be nothing to it now.

It was a national scandal in 1994 instead of in 1979 because at the time it happened, people outside Arkansas had little reason to care about run-of-the-mill corruption in a minor flyover state. Nobody but Hillary knew that Bill was going to be President one day. The rest of the country probably never would have heard about it if it weren't for Whitewater, which started a lot of reporters looking around to see what else the first couple might want forgotten.

And nothing became of this "scandal", because there was nothing there. Frothing at the mouth Hillary haters have had 35 years with this, but they have nothing.

With respect to Tyson Foods, Clinton does not appear to have done his job.

The issues with Tyson Foods did not happen while Clinton was Attorney General, but rather much later when he was Governor. If you want to lay this on the Attorney General of Arkansas, you will have to lay that blame on one of Bill Clinton's successors to that position.

Hey, I only pointed out he was AG because you claimed he hadn't been elected to statewide office yet. Which office he held on what date doesn't make much difference in the end -- he was powerful either way, and Tyson was buying the man, not just the AG office. They were buying a man whose future governorship was a foregone conclusion. He ran against a sacrificial lamb and he won the vote for governor almost 2 to 1.

I still fail to see how Tyson "bought" the Clintons. You claim Tyson made a bribe, but that it wasn't a bribe at the same time. Make up your mind.

It's not even clear from the article whether she invested directly in that company, or in the commodity they produce in general.

Nobody said she did. Here's a summary of what she "invested" in.

It was heavily implied by describing Hillary's risky commodities trading as a bribe from Tyson Foods.

I'm sorry I gave you that impression then; but I don't see how you inferred it. Are you under the impression that corrupt business executives dealing in inside information have inside information only about their own companies? That's not how it works. I called it a bribe from Tyson because the people who made it happen were Tyson people, and the company that most spectacularly got kid-glove treatment from governor Clinton was Tyson.

They were not "Tyson people", one was an outside counsel to Tyson, and the other was a former Tyson executive turned stock broker, and apparently professional poker player.

It's not clear how her extraordinary returns were achieved. It may have been by frontrunning; it may have been by switching. ...

It is known, she made risky trades, made some money, lost some money, then made ... money and got out at the right time. The people you want to accuse of facilitating this "bribery" both lost their shirts in the same trading by staying in too long. The Wikipedia article you linked lays it all out for us.

Not sure why you think their losses matter -- crooks often miscalculate and end up hurting themselves. According to an academic analysis, the odds against Hillary achieving her result were thirty-one trillion to one. Moreover, Clinton made inconsistent statements about how she did it. First she claimed she made her own decisions; later she admitted Blair told her when to buy and sell. Why would she lie if she got that money honestly?

People make windfalls on the stock market, it happens no matter the odds. She got out at the right time, that is why she made the money. That much at least would have been her decision, and it was a wise one, as the people who were initially giving her advice stayed in, and lost a ton of money as a result. That would also account for the difference in the statements she made. The decision that ultimately ensured her windfall on the commodities market, the decision to get out, was obviously hers.

If you mean she was not even accused, much less convicted, by an official law enforcement body, and?

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Anyone can accuse anyone else of anything, until a legal entity does so, we normally do not say that they have been accused of a crime.

Hey, Trump wasn't accused of debt-dumping by a legal entity either. Sauce for goose, sauce for gander.

Trump has a very long history of this type of behavior. With Hillary you can only point to a period of time, lasting less than a year, over 30 years ago, where there is some fuzzy accusation of insider trading, or bribery, or something bad if you squint really hard at it.

Trump has had more lawsuits filed against him and his business practices than anyone of whom I am aware. How many times has Hillary been sued for her business dealings. This is about the ethics of his dumping debt on others, not to mention Trump University, or the Trump Foundation.

Well, that's the thing. Which person would have legal standing to sue Clinton for being harmed by her business dealings? A poisoned inhabitant of Green Forest? Proving cause and effect would be impossible. Clinton could have been sweet on Tyson even if his wife had never gotten a hundred thousand dollars from them.

The FTC does not need anyone of standing to file a suit in order go after someone for insider trading, just ask Martha Stewart. That is how you are claiming the "bribe" happened, so why wasn't she charged?

The crooked deals themselves were cut with other criminals who served as intermediaries between Clinton and the people who wound up on the wrong end of her trades. She appears to have made money because her broker Refco fraudulently apportioned trades in her favor at the expense of some of its less valued clients. But if one of those clients tried to sue her over it, surely any competent judge would tell the guy he had to sue Refco, not Clinton. So the proper question isn't how many times Clinton has been sued, but how many times Refco has. And the answer is, Refco has been sued a lot. Refco bigwigs have gone to jail. In 1980 the particular Refco broker who handled her cattle future trades -- former Tyson executive Robert Bone -- was suspended by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for three years for various violations.

So, everyone who made stock trades with the assistance of Refco is on the hook for the things that Refco did? Is that your final answer?

If I'm not qualified to point out that she took a bribe merely because the government didn't bring a case against her, what makes you and Ravensky et al any more qualified to point out that Trump is a con man the government didn't bring a case against?

You don't appear to know what a bribe looks like. Trading commodities on the stock market is not bribery.

Are you under the impression that "what a bribe looks like" is a suitcase full of cash? What, do you think if a casino owner whispers to an industry regulator "At 2:15, go sit down at blackjack table 6, play five hands, and then walk away.", and the official follows the instruction and walks away a rich man, that doesn't look like a bribe?

Your fantasy poker game aside, I think the FTC knows what insider trading looks like, and they never went after Clinton for it.

Trump and Clinton were both accused by random members of the public, whose lack of official capacity does not magically blind us all to blatant wrongdoing by powerful public figures. Got a problem with that?

Yes. In the case of Trump, they are not random members of the public. He has been sued by his business partners, contractors, lawyers, and just about anyone who has had the misfortune of doing business with him.

As has Refco.

Clinton is not Refco, she was a client of theirs for less than a year. Refco is not Tyson, the person who started Refco was a former Tyson exec. There was never anything to this "scandal", which is why there were not charges brought against the Clintons, not for insider trading, not for receiving bribes. You have nothing.

And Clinton was accused by reputable publications like the New York Times and the Washington Post, not just by internet cranks or "a vast rightwing conspiracy".

Accusations that went nowhere.

This goes way beyond mere random accusations with no legal standing stemming from commodities trading over 30 years ago.

Unless you have evidence that at some time in the intervening 30 years, Clinton swore off influence peddling, I can't see how the passage of 30 years makes a particle of difference.

So now you are taking a jab at the Clinton Foundation? I'm sorry, but that boogeyman has been proven false time and time again. The Clinton Foundation has been a force for good in the charitable world. They have done exemplary work, and has been shown to be squeaky clean despite the right wing trying to find dirt on it since its inception. Meanwhile, Trump set up a charity that takes illegal donations, uses them for illegal purposes, has been shut down because of it, and is currently facing legal scrutiny that has the potential to land in Trump in jail.

Nice try at the Moore-Coulter though.

Well that's an odd thing for you to say. "Moore-Coulter" is a phrase that means "Yes, Moore is pretty bad; but his badness is like nothing in comparison to Coulter's". Are you granting that Clinton has done some pretty bad stuff in her time, and just saying it's not in the same league with the bad stuff Trump did?

Well that's an odd thing to say when what I said was "Nice try at the Moore-Coulter", which indicates that you tried, but failed, with the Moore-Coulter.

So here's the problem. Why on earth would you perceive selling government policy decisions to the highest bidder to be the slightest bit more ethical than tricking rich people into buying a 1.7 billion dollar debt?

Because I don't believe that Hillary has been, or will be, in the business of selling government policy decisions to the highest bidder. I believe that she has weathered the storm of a decades long smear campaign against her, and I admire her for her perseverance.

 

[Elixir]

Donald will sell you out for 1.7 billion dollars; Hillary will sell you out for one hundred thousand dollars. Vote for Hillary because Donald is seventeen thousand times more immoral?

Sheesh, no! You'd make a lousy capitalist.
Vote for Hillary because Trump is seventeen thousand times more expensive!