- This topic has 1 reply, 3 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Whilst Hillary Clintons suspect Futures trading in the late 70’s wherein she managed a $100,000 profit on a $1,000 investment in five days is long forgotten in the public’s memory, her latest scheme is more shocking in its audacity.
Her plan to give each new child a $5,000 credit is a sure vote winner; who wouldn’t vote for someone else’s money?
It seems clear that her access to the inside information from friends in Government enabled her to time the market to perfection and achieve massive gains on each of her trades. She then closed her account and took the spoils; why would a first time commodity investor who clearly has such talent at it suddenly close her account? Who knows, perhaps she found making such obscene profits somewhat boring….
Her ability to come up with schemes to use her contacts to make money seems to be endless, but her ingenuity to come up with bribes to lure in voters puts her right up there with any other decent street hustler and for that we have to admire her.
Edited on Nov 18, 2007 18:06
Hillary is just another politician to me and I most likely won’t be voting for her. You appear not to value the premise of innocent until proven guilty, and when it comes to senator Clinton you have an obvious disdain. But I am curious why a non-American has so much interest in American politicians? Also the $100k was made over a period of about 7 or 8 months not 5 days. Reactionary so called right wingers and libertarians should stick to the facts not gross exaggerations of them to get there particular opinion across. Why not leave the reckless mud slinging to the “professionals? lol..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm
Edited on Nov 18, 2007 19:19
Lotus – You mean she managed to do this for eight months? Wow, that sounds so much better! If so, I stand corrected and on that basis I retract the insinuation that she did anything wrong. Just because she knew the guy who gets the commodities info before the general public and made perfect trades over such a protracted period doesn’t mean she traded on insider info.
She was just lucky I guess; five days could have been a fluke, but your version is much more plausible!! Perfect trades as a novice trader, buying and selling at near to the daily highs and lows of each day for eight months? This story is better than I thought…thanks for the info!!
Yours the bigger fool……..
First, simondg, thank you for standing corrected and, by clear implication, for retracting your insinuation. You are, indeed, a seeker of truth.
Second, if there actually had been anything of substance to this allegation, why did not Ken Starr and his team of investigators who spent many years and many millions of dollars looking for something, anything, to pin on the Clintons not turn it up? If Sen. Clinton were guilty of your now retracted allegation and if she is smart enough to hide it from all the eyes that have pried, maybe she’s really the best choice to figure out how to turn the country around, eh?
I’m just quoting the facts, you insinuated she made $100k in 5 days, the facts are she made $100k in approx. 10 months; that’s quite a difference. The man advising her was a friend and veteran commodities trader, what information do you have that proves he received information from inside sources? Do tell… Why is it that you will give a property developer that won’t return deposits, has dozens of people testifying to this fact the benefit of innocence? But when it comes to Hillary Clinton making some money trading(perfectly legal here in the US) Making $100k in 10 months is not exactly killing it, and if you read the article she also had losses. Why do you assume she is a crook and the trades were made with inside information…again based on what facts? What US court has convicted her. I’m sorry I’m not interested in he said she said legal practice. What I find interesting is that here is an article from the Washington Post detailing why Clinton was innocent of illegal wrong doing concerning these trades. But because of your apparent hatred of the Clinton’s you ignore it all, make some flippant comments and all is well with the Simon’s view of the world again. Did you even read the article?
Edited on Nov 19, 2007 05:00
Davidcmurray – I was wondering when I could rely on you to come up with another erroneous assertion to bring some amusement to the debate.
First you claimed in our Bill Clinton argument that Ken starr was the guy investigating the Lewinsky affair, now you say he’s the guy investigating Hillary’s insider trading too! Don’t you recall you already got this wrong once and that I pointed out to you that he investigated White Water? I’ve got a bad memory so I do sympathise….
I’ll give you an opportunity to retract your claim before proceeding…
Ken Starr and his staff cast a very, very wide net in their investigation of the Clintons and came up emptyhanded. They looked at much more than the erroneous Whitewater allegations. Now, if somebody else is currently investigating Sen. Clinton’s futures trading, could you supply us a name and an affiliation? Otherwise, no chance for a retraction.
Lotus, he won’t address the core of the issue he raises when challenged on the facts, so why don’t we just drop it?
Edited on Nov 19, 2007 18:43
David – I gave you a chance to retract this spuriuos assertion and you instead reassert something that you know yourself to not be accurate. Why don’t you try and retain a little of what’s left of your credibilty and admit you have not one shred of evidence that Ken Starr has ever investigated Hillary’s Futures insider trading activities.
The moment you produce just one reference to the effect above I will apologise in a most humble fashion.
Edited on Nov 20, 2007 15:01
Just as I thought. I think 20 days is enough time to come up with something David, anything, but no you are not able to since it doesn’t exist. Well at least we resolved one thing and that is, you are full of bluster and not much else.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
