The Seeds of Corruption: Hillary Clinton in Arkansas

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11152007.html

November 15, 2007
The Seeds of Corruption
Hillary Clinton in Arkansas

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

"When things were looking bleak for the Clintons after the Arkansas voters threw Bill out in 1980 after his first term as governor (Arkansas had two-year gubernatorial terms until 1986), she fanned her friendship with James Blair, general counsel of Tyson Foods. Bill Clinton's Little Rock chief of staff, Betsey Wright, recalled that Hillary "loved Jim Blair. Blair was her money man". It was Blair who set up an account for Hillary Clinton with Refco, a small brokerage firm run by Robert "Red" Bone, Don Tyson's former bodyguard and a professional poker player. "Red" Bone got her into cattle future trades. She put up $1,000 and left the trading to Mr. Bone who's often assumed to have arranged the trades with Blair, to Mrs. Clinton's advantage. Nine months later, the $1,000 had swollen with miraculous speed into a profit for Mrs. Clinton of $99,000.

When Bill Clinton ran for the presidency in 1992, reporters noted a mysterious spike in the couple's net worth in the early 1980s and quizzed Mrs. Clinton about it. Her first untruthful explanation was that there had been a windfall in the form of an unexpected gift of cash from her parents. But, aware that the questions wouldn't stop, she issued ferocious order to her staff about any leakage of her tax records. She told them that if they released the tax records showing the commodity trades, they'd "never work in Democratic politics again".

The records were stored in the Clinton Campaign headquarters in Little Rock, in a locked room for which only Hillary, Bill and Betsey Wright had keys. Also in "the Box Room" under lock and key were details of Bill's sexual capers and Hillary's dealings at Rose Law. An internal '92 campaign memo, quoted by Gerth and Van Natta, cited 75 "problem files" in the materials in the Box Room, two-thirds of which related to them as a couple or to Hillary alone. When David Ifshin, the campaign's legal counsel, asked for the key to the room to assess the likely problems, Bill Clinton told him: "We can't open our closet, we'll get crushed by the skeletons".

But two reporters in particular kept pressing: Gerth of the New York Times and James Stewart of the Wall Street Journal. Gerth finally got evidence of the $99,000 profit on a $1,000 trade and confronted Mrs. Clinton. Shorn of the family gift story, Mrs. Clinton avowed that she'd spent her days poring over cattle prices in the Wall Street Journal, that the $99,000 was the fruit of these studies and that she'd quit commodity trading in 1980, after she'd got pregnant with Chelsea, because the trading "was too nerve-wracking". Unfortunately for this story, details later surfaced amid prosecutor Kenneth Starr's investigation during the Clinton presidency, showing that in 1981 Hillary had made a trade netting her $6,500 and she hadn't reported the profit to the IRS."

More . . . http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11152007.html

Try and learn, as you say. How did she make the $99,000 trading profit? Studying pork bellies? Somehow, I doubt it.

Has Obama ever been convicted of anything? If conviction is the standard, then there should be no accusations on either side.

I have problems with all three candidates (I think Edwards is the best), but the holier than thou attitude of the Clintonites really turns me off.

Who needs freepers when you have DUers who spout the same things?

Obama supporters can't defend him on issues so they attack and turn into republicans.

not in THIS country . . . in fact, probably not in ANY country . . . not only are they good at circumventing/flouting the law, they're also very, very good at getting away with it (see George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as prime examples) . . .

you get away with it.

He got a paycheck so the answer is no using your logic. Of course having a father to cover his ass helped.

this is just sad...

that's near and dear to freepers, and that's been discusses and investigated to death!

Don't you think they will raise these issues too? Has Hillary ever adequately explained how she made so much money so quickly and effortlessly?

This is the old and easy stuff. There's more, it's new and it's bad. I'm not going there but like Babylonsister says, be careful.

She endorses it!

your canned pathos is noted.

Zippo.

then you should not say a word about any other candidate.

He's never been indicted or convicted of anything.

please do remind me, 'K?

"Barack's bragged before about his "Chicago Style" politics.

Let's see if Obama dumps Antoni "Tony" Rezko in da lake."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4153519#4153649

I'll feel free to discuss whomever I please, thanks.

Personally, I think the constant regurgitation of old news about our candidates is pointless. I don't care if Hillary was a Goldwater Girl in 1964. I don't care if Obama did coke when he was a kid. I don't care if Edwards had the nerve to become a successful attorney in a society obsessed with success.

I'm certainly not going to get worked up about the pointless waste of time that Ken Starr spent $70 million on and then decided that he didn't have enough proof of ANYTHING to pursue charges. So, no, my limit doesn't start at "tried and convicted". It starts at "there's nothing there."

How did she do it? Commodities trading is difficult and risky. And first she lied about the money - she said it was a family gift. These are facts.

Look, my point in posting this is to give Clinton supporters a bit of their own medicine, not to destroy Hillary. If I wanted to do that, I would use contemporary, unreported ammunition. And it exists - that's one reason the Repukes want to run against her so badly.

LOL!!!

Hint. They are politicians, they all lie. It's a matter of which lies you are willing to stomach. Personally I can't stand the way Obama has tossed the Ideals of the Democratic party under the bus lately to try and gain enough votes to beat Clinton. You don't see Edwards or Clinton doing that. emo. I will also say in Obama's defense that he is no were near as much of a lier as those two faced sacks of shit that people call the republican Candidates, and in the end if forced to I will hold my nose and vote for Obama.

And tout Obama on the issues? Ever?

Yeah, it's pretty hard for you to defend someone as dishonest as Hillary Clinton, isn't it?

"rightwinger"; "freeptard". You can't say anything negative about the Sainted Clintons on this site without being "labelled".

Perhaps it should be renamed "Clinton Underground"?

when Edwards easily wins every DU poll?

the Latest & Greatest pages with attacks, mostly unsubstantiated. They are ingracious when they win, and even moreso when they lose. I've got about six of them on ignore right now, because you're basically told to go back to freeperville if you're not a Clintonite.

This place is littered with unsubstantiated attacks and garbage from supporters of most of the candidates, plus a bunch of third-party people who don't support *any* of the remaining candidates chime in nearly constantly about how horrible all of our candidates are.

If you think it's just Hillary supporters, you might want to widen the field of your microscope.

And, again, Edwards dominates the DU polls and dominates the Greatest Page, so I would have to disagree with your assessment that DU should be renamed in Hillary's (dis?)honor.

reserved for those who don't support the Clintons. Not all of us are "neocons", "rightwingers" & "freeptards", and to be summarily dismissed by Clintonites as such is insulting, and does nothing to further the debate.

I make no bones about it, I despise them both, and nothing I've seen in the recent past has happened to change that. Bill Clinton was on his way to becoming a world class statesman, and now he's just bitter & angry, and pitching hissyfits because someone else stands in the way of this "third" term.

There is a special vitriol reserved for Hillary Clinton. I haven't seen any of the other candidates called a "cunt" on DU.

and veiled references to her gender. I have to say, you're not as venomous as some of her supporters here. Thanks for that......

staffers? That's quite an accusation, I'm just supporting the woman and I believe most others here are doing the same thing.

board. I have sources who think otherwise.

Or must they too remain anonymous? And would you happen to have similar sources for all the campaigns or just ones that can reveal that Clinton supporters are paid shills?

Seems to me DU is an equal opportunity shill site, paid or not.

well that sounds way more impressive on first inspection than it actually is.

:eyes:

i can't believe this crap. i have a blank absentee ballot on my desk that is blank and unsent because i have not decided whom i'm voting for. quite possibly the guy in your avatar, or not.

so if i'm revealing something, it's something i don't even know.

I've blocked the six most offensive ones. I realize that there are folks here who vigorously support their chosen candidate, but the Clintonites jump on any unflattering post about HRC, and start accusing others of being "freepers" or "dittoheads", etc. (you get my drift). They are insufferable.

for that I cannot wait.

Their main spiel is "Vote Hillary or YOU WILL DIE!!!" or at least be complicit in electing the Republican as Pres.

The only way they get any satisfaction is by bullying others, just like the Commisars of the Soviet Union.
If she happens to win, it will only get worse, they will be worse than the most oppressive Bushbots.

I have called these people neocons because they have been sucked into lying. They tell the same stories about the Clintons that Ken Starr tried to prove using supposedly top investigators and big tax bucks. He could not do it. They were lies set forth by neocons trying to bring down the Democratic party.

If you don't like Hillary's economic plan, critique it.
If you don't like her health plan, say which part.
If you don't like her stated foreign policy, list the reasons.
If you don't like her green jobs program...tell us why.
Whichever policy you disagree with, state which and why.

But stop dishing slop. Or go back to freeperville and leave us to discuss the policies of each candidate.

Listen, Flower, I've worked in Democratic progressive campaigns for years. And I've been on this site since 2004. I'm just giving the Clintonites on this site a taste of their own medicine.

I have never been to "Freeperville", and have never even followed a link there, so I can't be accused of being a "freeper".

Newsflash: Not everyone who dislikes the Clintons is rightwing.

very curious.

have trashed every Democrat you'd care to name at some point or other.

They may paint themselves as on the left, but it sure can be hard to tell the difference between their drivel and that spewed by the Rush Limbaughs of this world.

Counterpunch is not a credible source, period - it has nothing to do with the Clintons.

Clintons is quickly labelled as "something". Markos and The Huffington Post are the latest victims. Anyone who tells any grain of truth about, or speaks of this power mad couple in less than glowing terms is dismissed as (fill in the blank).

does not stick anymore. A few Clinton haters love this trash
but they will not vote for HRC anyway.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Real Threat is Al Gore, Not Ralph Nader



Whatever Gore was in 2000, the notion that it was Nader or Bush is sickening.

But if counterpunch sez it, let's go at it again :eyes:

This old pile of crap again? First some idiots were dragging Clinton's dingle into the fray, now this crap. Why not challenge her on her voting record or policies? There was NEVER any there THERE with this. Let it die since this was nothing.

Give up trying to dig up anything from the Clintons' past -- it's all been done. Teams of people and tons of cash went into the effort, and they came up with nothing.

That's one thing about HRC -- any damage the GOP could do has already been done. Their cards are played out and their hands are empty now.

You have 4 posts.

Go away, sock puppet.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Haven't heard that one before.

OK, let's compare resumes:

*Member of Democratic City Committee
*Member of Democratic County Executive Committee
*Member of Democratic State Committee
*Member of Young Democrats of America National Committee
*Three term Democratic state representative
*Sponsor of groundbreaking victim rights legislation
*Secured funding to save state program asssisting victims of domestic violenece
*Sponsor of ethics reform and lobbyist disclosure legislation
*Field organizer for Sen. Joe Biden
*Press aide for Sen. Paul Simon

Take your pseudo-Democrat crap and slam it, pajama boy.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Probably because the MSM never touches on it, and because it began with Reagan/Bush. All other Clinton-related corruption is designed to be smoke and mirrors: oh look over there at the bright shiny thing with sexual innuendo, never mind that the REAL corruption involves $billions and $billions and the poisoning of many, not to mention corruption of our judicial branch.

You may be wondering what the hell I am talking about:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0707/S00058.htm

There's much more where that came from and it extends to the present administration, involving the FBI and NSA as well. Stay tuned.

There are other accounts on some of this from reputable sources, but from the bit I read - this is taking the worse possible view of everything.

This is not a source I would believe independently if they dredged up an Obama story, so I will not click it to read the rest on Clinton.

travelgate.

OK, lets clean the slate. Start with a 100,000,000 fund and an investigative force of FBI & Blackwater. Lets take a close(I mean CLOSE)look at Obama.

What do you think would surface?

Another nonsensical Hillary-hating thread.

There were many things that were not solid enough to justify a President or First Lady's indictment, but they were not completely clean. I'm sure the Clintons, the media and the Republicans are all investigating Obama.

I spoke against this because I've seen the 2 authors trash Gore and Kerry, both very clean, honorable men.

Danny Casolaro.

recognition". Sounds familiar.

K&R

story....

:yawn: