Replies

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?