WHEN CATTLE FUTURES ARE THE FUTURE: HILLARY CLINTON'S COW TRADES AS PROGNOSTIC

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?
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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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."

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.