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

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

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

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

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


To: nopardons

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

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


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

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


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