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.
The fact that she wasn't prosecuted is not evidence that there was nothing to it. Trump wasn't prosecuted either and you don't treat that as a reason to think there was nothing to the charges against him. You don't have a reason to think there was nothing to the accusations against Clinton, other than partisanship.
Trump has been prosecuted for housing discrimination, illegal lobbying, and SEC violations. His greatest hits may be yet to come for his more recent epic scams: The Trump Foundation, and Trump University. He has escaped jail thus far, but he has paid several times more in fines than Hillary ever made trading commodities.
KeepTalking said:
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.
Nothing came of it because the circumstance that someone obviously cheated doesn't magically cause anyone to be able to prove she cheated, and it doesn't magically cause going through the process of proving she cheated to be a smart career move.
If her trading was as irregular as you claim, you would think that they would have noticed.
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.
You have gone off the deep end. Where the bejesus do you imagine you see me claiming it wasn't a bribe?
Yes, I guess you do keep saying that Tyson bribed her, it's just that nothing you can come up with seems to have anything to do with Tyson. You keep saying Tyson bribed the Clintons, but when the rubber meets the road you switch to Refco, which has nothing to do with Tyson. The trades weren't even in Tyson stock, but cattle futures in general. So, make up your mind, was it Tyson or Refco, and if it was Refco, how did they benefit?
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.
Their association with Tyson is the prima facie explanation; but if you have one, I'm open to an alternate explanation for what motivated them to help her cheat.
That would be acceptance that she cheated, and that someone helped her to do so. I do not agree with either statement.
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.
"No matter the odds" is a phrase that means you don't give a hoot what's plausible.
It is a phrase that means despite quite long odds, people often beat those odds. The odds against winning the lottery can be astronomical, but that does not mean that no one wins the lottery.
She got out at the right time, that is why she made the money.
"Got out at the right time" is a phrase that can account for one-in-a-hundred luck, not for one-in-thirty-one-trillion luck.
It can account for either. Just like someone can win the lottery when the odds are one-in-a-hundred or one-in-thirty-one-trillion
That would also account for the difference in the statements she made.
How do you figure that? According to Wikipedia, "Clinton initially told aides that she had made the futures gains by studying the financial news and placing trades herself, but later acknowledged the help of Blair." In order for "She got out at the right time" to account for the difference in the statements, you'd have to imagine that she said she studied the financial news and got out, not that she studied the financial news and placed trades.
I notice you provide a paraphrase, and not a direct quote from Hillary. You and I have no idea of exactly how she phrased it originally. My stab in the dark is just as good as yours.
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.
And the goalpost shifting goes on...
Goalpost shifting? I never set up a goalpost in the first place, how could I have shifted it? What I did is known as contrasting.
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?
Oh, for the love of god! We were talking about prosecution. You offered lack of prosecution as evidence of innocence, so I pointed out Trump hadn't been prosecuted either, so you changed the subject to private lawsuits by injured individuals, so I showed why that wasn't evidence of innocence either, so now you're changing the subject back to prosecution. Is all your dancing back and forth supposed to make readers forget Trump wasn't prosecuted either?
Trump has been prosecuted, several times, and it likely isn't over for him either.
The most obvious reason the FTC wouldn't have gone after her is they didn't become aware of what she'd done until 1994. The statute of limitations had run out.
So your proof that she was cheating is that the FTC didn't notice, so they couldn't prosecute her? You should probably come up with a different angle.
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. ...
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?
Everyone who beat thirty-one-trillion-to-one odds with the assistance of Refco, yes. What Bone was doing in other trades was making multiple cattle-futures trades on a given day when multiple clients had ordered trades with him, and then, after the fact, picking which trade went with which client. So he could assign a profitable trade to a favored client while making a disfavored client have an unprofitable trade. But nobody proved he did that specifically in the case of Clinton's trades; therefore, I guess, we're all supposed to take for granted that he didn't.
So, once again, no proof is proof. What an interesting world you must live in.
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.
I.e., when it's Clinton you make criminal prosecution the standard; when it's Trump the fact that he hasn't been criminally prosecuted means nothing to you. Your double standards are showing. What I have is that Trump and Clinton both obviously cheated and got away with it. That's not nothing, except to those drinking partisan koolaid.
He and/or his business entities have been prosecuted. He settled in one case for $250,000, or 2.5x the amount that Hillary made in her entire time trading commodities. It is not a double standard when Hillary has had one possibly nebulous deal 35 years ago, and Trump has a history spanning nearly 50 years of shady deals, prosecutions against him and his businesses, and lawsuits against him by the thousands.
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.
Squeaky clean in the eyes of those who want to believe it's squeaky clean.
No. The Clinton Foundation is a highly regarded charitable foundation, and 87% of the money it takes in goes directly to helping people. Contrast that with the Trump Foundation, which Trump uses for a personal slush fund, and has used less than 5% of the money it has taken in for actual charity.
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.
Which implies you think what I'm trying is a Moore-Coulter; which implies if I'd proven my case to your satisfaction you think it would still just have been a Moore-Coulter; which implies you think bribery is a less serious matter than scamming investors.
You have not shown the "bribery" scandal to be credible, and if it were shown to be, it would be a single negative blip in a long career of public service. Donald Trump has made a career of defrauding investors, failing to pay contractors, losing billions of dollars of other peoples money and turning it into his own personal gain. He has paid a $250,000 fine for illegal lobbying, made illegal forays into Cuba, was prosecuted for housing discrimination, settled with the SEC for doctoring earnings reports, set up a fake university designed to bilk working class people out of their money, set up a fake charity designed to bilk more wealthy people out of their money, and is also apparently a sexual predator.
Calling the list of bad, wrong, and illegal things Trump has done a "laundry list" would be an understatement. He is among the worst that capitalism has to offer, and yet there are millions of idiots out there who are willing to put him in the oval office.
