Posted on 09/25/2006 4:52:53 AM PDT by Mia T
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.
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.
You are one great asset on our side, Mia T.
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.
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.
thanx doug :)
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
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?
Thanks for the explanation.
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.
You can't prove that they colluded in the fraud. There is no "paper trail", nor anything else.
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. :-)
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.
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. ;^)
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?
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.