General Discussion

ND-Dem

(4,571 posts)

188. lol. "guided by james blair, futures trader & counsel to tyson foods"

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 01:15 PM

Feb 2015

Rodham had no experience in such financial instruments. Bill Clinton's salary as Arkansas Attorney General and then Governor of Arkansas was modest and Rodham was interested in building a financial cushion for the future[3][4] (the ill-fated Whitewater Development Corporation would be another such effort from this time[3]).

Starting in October 1978, when Bill Clinton was Attorney General and on the verge of being elected Governor,[1] she was guided by James Blair, a friend, lawyer, outside counsel to Tyson Foods, Arkansas' largest employer, and, since 1977,[5] a futures trader...

Blair in turn traded through, and relied upon cattle markets expertise from, broker Robert L. "Red" Bone of Refco, a former Tyson executive and professional poker player who was a World Series of Poker semifinalist.[6][4]

Rodham later wrote that she educated herself about the market and followed it closely, winning and losing money.[3] By January 1979, she was up $26,000;[4] but later, she would lose $16,000 in a single trade.[4] At one point she owed in excess of $100,000 to Refco as part of covering losses, but no margin calls were made by Refco against her.[4]

Near the end of the trading, Blair correctly sold short and gave her a $40,000 gain in one afternoon.[4] In July 1979,[1] once she became pregnant with Chelsea Clinton, "I lost my nerve for gambling [and] walked away from the table $100,000 ahead."[3]

She briefly traded sugar futures contracts and other non-cattle commodities in October 1979, but more conservatively, through Stephens Inc..[4][7] During this period she made about $6,500 in gains (which she failed to pay taxes on at the time, consequently later paying some $14,600 in federal and state tax penalties in the 1990s).[8][7] Once her daughter was born in February 1980, she moved all her commodities gains into U.S. Treasury Bonds.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

239 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

HRC is NOT a member of a dynasty (Jeb Bush is, of course) [View all] planetc Feb 2015 OP

And don't forget Senator Prescott Bush, the Nazi-assister who began the dynasty. pnwmom Feb 2015 #1

... napkinz Feb 2015 #2

No, yet I suppose she could be a co-founder of a dynasty only time will tell... HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #3

Editorial Stinks billhicks76 Feb 2015 #105

We certainly need choices going in to the primary... HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #122

yes she is. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #4

Two people, not of the same blood, don't make a dynasty. pnwmom Feb 2015 #5

they make a political dynasty. and it is of little moment whether they were "elected through ND-Dem Feb 2015 #7

No. Two highly-qualified people don't constitute a dynasty. And Hillary Clinton is a former Secretary of State pnwmom Feb 2015 #13

she got to be Senator/SoS because of having been the President's wife, in the last analysis. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #25

Whatever. the circumstances: two people, separated by 16 years, don't constitute a dynasty. n/t pnwmom Feb 2015 #36

according to you ms webster. apparently other linguistic masters disagree. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #42

Yup that's the only reason she was qualified for that... Agschmid Feb 2015 #88

If she hadn't been first bill's wife as governor, then his wife as president, it's unlikely she'd ND-Dem Feb 2015 #127

Hear Hear! Aviation_Semi-Pro Feb 2015 #151

She had a law degree from Yale and many years of campaign experience before pnwmom Feb 2015 #161

campaign experience on bill's campaigns. yale degrees are nice, but lots of people have ND-Dem Feb 2015 #164

You think her activities as First Lady didn't provide her with valuable knowledge and experience, pnwmom Feb 2015 #167

of course they did. but she wouldn't have had them, had she not been first lady. that's the ND-Dem Feb 2015 #168

Her efforts had a lot to do with Bill getting elected, so it works both ways. n/t pnwmom Feb 2015 #173

of course. but again, as potential first lady. i believe her efforts included something about ND-Dem Feb 2015 #174

What I remember is people criticizing her for getting too involved in policy. pnwmom Feb 2015 #175

The policy people got mad about was ... HEALTH CARE. She wanted people to HAVE it!!! Oh, the huge MADem Feb 2015 #199

Yup. And Children's health care was the worst of all! (CHIP) But don't forget the lobbying she was pnwmom Feb 2015 #204

Don't bother listening to someone who doesn't even realize that she worked in DC MADem Feb 2015 #198

Her boss TERMINATED her & refused to recommend her for any other jobs! Divernan Feb 2015 #203

All these claims were made by a conspiracy theorist who switched sides and now writes for outlets like NEWSMAX, pnwmom Feb 2015 #208

I love it when they unintentionally OUT themselves--and this was a doozy. MADem Feb 2015 #213

Here's another long piece written by Zeifman about how much he loathes Ted Kennedy. pnwmom Feb 2015 #214

The Big Z has been caught in lie after lie after lie--only someone who was just so anxious to MADem Feb 2015 #218

Yup. Agschmid Feb 2015 #215

Good GAWD, you sure are a selective reader--but thanks for OUTING yourself so robustly!!!!! MADem Feb 2015 #211

She never would have been elected to the senate if she hadn't been first lady tularetom Feb 2015 #37

Thank you for this good example of "Hillary-hate." Someone else was claiming not to ever see it pnwmom Feb 2015 #39

Pity a jury let this blatantly sexist statement stand. Lancero Feb 2015 #43

That was juried and not hidden? F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #49

As it should have. It was a misogynist post if I've ever seen one. eom BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #71

Oops. I meant to refer to the results. Editing it. nt F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #75

Whoops. I thought you were being sarcastic. My sincerest apologies. eom BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #84

It was was very poorly worded F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #89

Thank you for the out, F4IconF16! BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #96

It's a bullshit comment... Agschmid Feb 2015 #92

I apologize if you were offended by my comments tularetom Feb 2015 #69

That was hate. Pretty black and white IMO. Agschmid Feb 2015 #95

So we are defining hate now as being critical of a politician? zeemike Feb 2015 #87

No.But you apparently define a sexist, nasty attack as being "criticism." pnwmom Feb 2015 #90

Yup. Agschmid Feb 2015 #97

Well I fail to see how that is sexist. zeemike Feb 2015 #99

This remark would be sexist no matter what party was being discussed. pnwmom Feb 2015 #101

Well it is not to me. zeemike Feb 2015 #106

What is deeply offensive is the poster's suggestion that Hillary's sleeping with the man who "got a BJ" pnwmom Feb 2015 #108

Well as long as we are offended by things zeemike Feb 2015 #112

Except here you are playing it. Agschmid Feb 2015 #115

Why?...because not being offended by words is emotional? zeemike Feb 2015 #120

Right, you're not into that game. pnwmom Feb 2015 #118

Yes. Agschmid Feb 2015 #102

If you're going to make the ridiculous claim that Hillary Clinton is not part of a political dynasty Marr Feb 2015 #116

It's a sexist slur that is justified by nothing. But you're right in the sense pnwmom Feb 2015 #117

Yup. Agschmid Feb 2015 #91

you think that's a good example of 'hate'? ND-Dem Feb 2015 #153

Accusing her of sleeping her way to the top is sexist hate. Yes. n/t pnwmom Feb 2015 #158

Wow, Winner of DU's most sexist post ever! FSogol Feb 2015 #70

I'm not sure about that, but it IS a blatant expression of what, IMO, is at the root pnwmom Feb 2015 #98

"... But she did sleep with the guy who got a BJ in the Oval Office." DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #107

Hillary got 48% of the delegates in the primaries. No one "wiped the floor" with her. pnwmom Feb 2015 #178

"She hasn't "earned" squat. But she did sleep with the guy who got a BJ in the Oval Office." WOW.. Cha Feb 2015 #222

It's up to you, but I would ask you to please consider self deleting this comment. KMOD Feb 2015 #223

No she isn't and besides, the false accusation comes from Republicans in 1994 wyldwolf Feb 2015 #8

+1 joshcryer Feb 2015 #10

i have no argument. all those families = political dynasties, same as the clintons. i'd never ND-Dem Feb 2015 #23

Except they don't wyldwolf Feb 2015 #24

so? ND-Dem Feb 2015 #26

So did Bill Clinton bestow the presidency on Hillary? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #28

i think you're confusing royal dynasties with political dynasties. did bush sr. "bestow" ND-Dem Feb 2015 #32

I'm not confusing anything wyldwolf Feb 2015 #35

you seem to be the one making up your own rules. i've cited dictionaries and news items. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #46

You cited dictionaries and then misapplied the definition wyldwolf Feb 2015 #53

how's that 'wyldwolf'? ND-Dem Feb 2015 #57

Easy 'ND-Dem' wyldwolf Feb 2015 #62

so the adams family was not a political dynasty because they didn't succeed each other ND-Dem Feb 2015 #124

Based on YOUR definiton, the one you keep pasting here wyldwolf Feb 2015 #126

uh, i don't think so, 'wyldwolf' ND-Dem Feb 2015 #128

you don't either, huh 'ND-Dem' wyldwolf Feb 2015 #130

be that as it may; it's the same one i quoted earlier. and a standard definition. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #132

Yeah, you used it with someone else. You called Wikipedia a 'linguistic master." Bwahaha. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #134

websters says that? can you link me to the direct succession part? dear? ND-Dem Feb 2015 #137

What? Again? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #138

I don't see anything like this there: ND-Dem Feb 2015 #139

Quote me where I said "a political dynasty meant direct succession to the same office," wyldwolf Feb 2015 #143

you quote my earlier quote: ND-Dem Feb 2015 #145

oh. So I DIDN'T REALLY say it. You just assume I meant it. Got it. LOL wyldwolf Feb 2015 #147

No, your comments assume it. There's no other possible interpretation of your comments. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #148

My comments assume it? ok, got it. LOL. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #149

yes. & you also claimed it was in websters. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #150

I claimed what you just admitted I didn't actually say was in webster's? LOL. Got it. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #152

here's one where you more directly say it, though to someone else. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #154

You're making a judgement of what's implicit in my statements. OK, got it. LOL. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #156

in that case, it's explicit. it was my error to type 'implicit'. got it? ND-Dem Feb 2015 #159

Is it implied, explicit, implicit, direct, assumed... ? You're tying yourself in knots. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #160

.... ND-Dem Feb 2015 #162

.... wyldwolf Feb 2015 #163

so you admit that you think "succession" is synonymous with "direct succession"? ND-Dem Feb 2015 #165

when have I ever denied it? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #183

Pay no mind. MADem Feb 2015 #196

Yes. Orsino Feb 2015 #191

Really? When was hillary elected? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #193

When the Clintons became beloved and the money aligned accordingly. n/t Orsino Feb 2015 #197

Imagine that. Hillary has been president this whole time! wyldwolf Feb 2015 #201

Incorrect. She's been First Lady, then senator, then SecState. Orsino Feb 2015 #221

wait, you said she'd been elected president. You're confusing everyone. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #224

I don't think there's an everyone here. Orsino Feb 2015 #227

She's secretly been the president since 2000? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #228

Nope. She coasted into the Senate, Sec State, and has been anointed president. Orsino Feb 2015 #229

So she's President now? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #230

She is your next president. Orsino Feb 2015 #231

Oh glad you clarified that (snicker) wyldwolf Feb 2015 #232

You may recall a previous eight-year gap. n/t Orsino Feb 2015 #233

It's been close to 14 years, has it not? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #235

I'm referring to the 41/43 gap. Orsino Feb 2015 #237

One minute she's the president and one minute she isn't wyldwolf Feb 2015 #238

That's just a consequence of the Clinton dynasty. Orsino Feb 2015 #239

Tell us again about the smiling North Koreans, Hannah... SidDithers Feb 2015 #14

Persistant... Hekate Feb 2015 #56

Ah, geez...they're one and the same?? BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #93

^^^THIS^^^ VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #6

You doth protest too much. aikoaiko Feb 2015 #9

That response was neither clever, applicable or original wyldwolf Feb 2015 #11

You're no one to put down another's post. aikoaiko Feb 2015 #15

I'm someone to put down another's post wyldwolf Feb 2015 #16

You're something. aikoaiko Feb 2015 #17

that's for sure. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #21

Don't let pesky facts get in the way of perfectly good outrage...nt SidDithers Feb 2015 #12

I will try to clap harder Ramses Feb 2015 #18

Not yet she isn't Fumesucker Feb 2015 #19

I think if Hillary became president, we can safely say its a political dynasty dissentient Feb 2015 #20

I think if Hillary became president, we can safely say its not a political dynasty wyldwolf Feb 2015 #22

Why not? Drunken Irishman Feb 2015 #31

Post #8 wyldwolf Feb 2015 #34

By definition... Drunken Irishman Feb 2015 #50

Check the definition of succession wyldwolf Feb 2015 #55

So you don't consider the Bush family a dynasty? Drunken Irishman Feb 2015 #76

I do not and have never made the argument. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #82

I do. Drunken Irishman Feb 2015 #83

It's a free country. The bottom line is, some American's don't like the idea of being ruled over by dissentient Feb 2015 #38

most don't apparently. everything hill did, she did on her own merit. in theory. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #27

If she was a woman solely where she is by her own making and not Bills... cascadiance Feb 2015 #33

Semantics billhicks76 Feb 2015 #109

Triangulation at it's best- Hillary would be proud. peacebird Feb 2015 #29

Yeah. It's gonna be an interesting lead-up to the primary (assuming, of course, silvershadow Feb 2015 #45

If she were elected, yes, she would be LittleBlue Feb 2015 #30

There have been 16 years during which this non-dynasty did not maintain its power. pnwmom Feb 2015 #40

Wrong LittleBlue Feb 2015 #51

Can you do us all a favor and tell us what authority your definition of 'political dynasty' has? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #59

Merriam-Webster is my authority LittleBlue Feb 2015 #61

paste the definition from Merriam-Webster of 'political dynasty.' Or better yet, I will wyldwolf Feb 2015 #63

There is no precise definition of a political dynasty LittleBlue Feb 2015 #72

so what you're really doing is making up your own definition wyldwolf Feb 2015 #74

... LittleBlue Feb 2015 #79

... wyldwolf Feb 2015 #81

+1, well said nt F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #78

so what? few political dynasties have uninterrupted runs of power. at least not at the ND-Dem Feb 2015 #54

where do you get your definition of 'political dynasty' from? Oh, yeah, you made it up. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #85

Intellectual dishonesty? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #41

Bush didn't succeed his father LittleBlue Feb 2015 #52

So? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #65

So those are both unquestioned dynasties LittleBlue Feb 2015 #67

those don't meet the definition of 'dynasty' either wyldwolf Feb 2015 #68

Yes, they do. I'm sorry you have to defend Hillary at all costs LittleBlue Feb 2015 #77

No, they don't. And this isn't a 'defense' of Hillary wyldwolf Feb 2015 #80

It's funny, isn't it? Marr Feb 2015 #123

Perhaps you would like to reconcile the definition with your 'progressive' made up one? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #125

Thanks, I'm familiar with the english language. Your pained parsing is entertaining, though. /nt Marr Feb 2015 #133

Apparently enough to 'create' definitions. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #135

intellectual dishonesty seems to be the order of the day around these parts. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #47

+1 there are many types of dynasties. nt F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #58

Very astute. She also is not from the more "traditional" Democratic wings of the party- silvershadow Feb 2015 #44

"traditional" Democratic wings of the party? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #73

No. I explained what I meant. The labor the party embraced for the last 100+ years. silvershadow Feb 2015 #86

ok, so YOUR definition of 'traditional Democrats.' I'll play wyldwolf Feb 2015 #94

NAFTA is an albatross around both their necks. (Hill and Bill). I will make you a deal, silvershadow Feb 2015 #100

how is NAFTA an albatross around Hillary's neck? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #103

Perhaps not. I thought my vote was for who I think is the best candidate. silvershadow Feb 2015 #113

again, how is NAFTA an albatross around Hillary's neck? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #114

Sorry, poor example. Thanks, got it. Her views aren't anything at all unlike her husbands. silvershadow Feb 2015 #119

Apparently 60%+ Dem voters don't share your concern. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #121

LOL. You are fun. Doesn't matter to me, my vote doesn't count. Well, unless I withhold it from silvershadow Feb 2015 #129

Says the guy rooting for a sure loser. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #131

Hmm... remind me again-- which one of them has lost a national primary? Marr Feb 2015 #176

hmmm... remind me again what year we're discussing? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #182

"Maybe you can just redefine the word 'lost'" = lol. They seem to think word games are more ND-Dem Feb 2015 #187

Agree with the 60%+ Dem voters or else, silvershadow. You have no choice. RufusTFirefly Feb 2015 #144

I will choose the Democrat when the so-called "primary" gets to me. The one who is left in silvershadow Feb 2015 #184

I never quite understood why some people referred to SoS Clinton as part of a dynasty, either. BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #48

One little Ignore... sendero Feb 2015 #60

An ostrich-like approach to things. But if it works for you. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #66

1/3 of US Senate is relative of another public official. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #64

Neither is she a legacy./NT DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #104

lol. Marr Feb 2015 #110

Oh goody. Thanks for that clarification! I feel so much better! RufusTFirefly Feb 2015 #111

You seriously think that ... 99Forever Feb 2015 #136

I'd say the hair-spliting is a really good sign RufusTFirefly Feb 2015 #141

hair-splitting indeed. it hurts the head. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #155

I don't care about her bloodline, as much nichomachus Feb 2015 #140

Yes, but aside from that stuff, she's like, really, really great. RufusTFirefly Feb 2015 #142

as long as she doesn't succeed bill directly and is only a clinton by marriage, ND-Dem Feb 2015 #157

Great!! That's truly inspiring! Vote for Hillary because (technically) she's not part of a dynasty RufusTFirefly Feb 2015 #166

it is inspiring, isn't it? i feel my heart warming as we speak. (though it may be heartburn. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #169

It depends on what the meaning of is is, er I mean Dynasty /nt Dragonfli Feb 2015 #170

exactly. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #172

Uh, What? Aviation_Semi-Pro Feb 2015 #146

Maybe time for me to retire MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #171

She was Hillary Rodham until she got bullied by the backwards media into becoming "Mrs. Clinton." MADem Feb 2015 #177

So the brains of the family believed Smirk was smart and Sneer was honest Fumesucker Feb 2015 #180

Smirk and sneer? nt MADem Feb 2015 #192

... Fumesucker Feb 2015 #202

Smirk was smart--he was smart enough to steal an election and keep power for eight years. MADem Feb 2015 #206

She's also the most successful cattle futures investor of all time. N/t. Calista241 Feb 2015 #179

lol. "guided by james blair, futures trader & counsel to tyson foods" ND-Dem Feb 2015 #188

Who has his own 1000% ROI in less than 10 months to show as well right? Calista241 Feb 2015 #189

and blair in turn had help from... ND-Dem Feb 2015 #195

First time trader, HRC turns $1,000 into $109,600 - it's a Cattle Futures Miracle! Divernan Feb 2015 #205

:^) ND-Dem Feb 2015 #210

Of course she is. And her agenda is corporatist and predatory. woo me with science Feb 2015 #181

The thing that really struck me about the "Clinton dynasty" talking point was ... planetc Feb 2015 #185

Fair enough. Though it would be nice if the Democratic Party's standard-bearer was a Democrat. n/t backscatter712 Feb 2015 #186

The Clintons are a dynasty. Orsino Feb 2015 #190

and clinton married into another office-holding political family with money, which widens the ND-Dem Feb 2015 #194

Chelsea's father in law still owes nearly $10 million to his fraud victims. Divernan Feb 2015 #207

The in-laws still appear to be living the life of wealth and connections, however. I don't ND-Dem Feb 2015 #209

How can it be a dynasty when she hasn't even been elected yet? n/t pnwmom Feb 2015 #212

It can't. Agschmid Feb 2015 #216

And yet she's already nearly anointed. Orsino Feb 2015 #219

She's not... Agschmid Feb 2015 #220

A distinction without a difference in my book. n/t Throd Feb 2015 #200

Dynasty Schmynasty, the problem is she isn't just a member of the Oligarchy but TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #217

+1000000 woo me with science Feb 2015 #225

+1 LWolf Feb 2015 #234

Taking away another meme. How dare you! William769 Feb 2015 #226

Politics is all about who you know. alarimer Feb 2015 #236