i suppose anyone can put a public figures picture where they want.

As for the futures contract, I see your point though it strikes me as a little involved as opposed to just handing her some cash.

Here’s another question: Why is John Kerry’s picture hanging in the room for foreigners who help defeat the US in the Ho Chi Minh City War Remnants Museum?

It was a bribe. Someone ( Tyson foods? ) buys some contracts, as does Hillary. The broker arranges to have long and short positions on the same contract. When enough profit accumulates on one side, that contract is sold and the profits given to Hillary. The other side is also sold and the loss assigned to the briber.

There are other ways of achieving the same effect.

I could speculate that she had inside info, but that would be pure speculation. Maybe she got lucky. For the life of me, I’ve never seen how anyone could make money in the commodities or futures markets. I’ve attempted a lot of foolish things in my life, but betting in those markets is one of the few I’ve avoided.

Now, can you explain how Hillary made $100,000 in cattle futures?

John, your urban legend presentation of this issue intrigued me. As it happens, someone has recently given me a copy of Clinton’s book. Regardless of your opinion, the fact is the book has a very good index which permitted me to rather easily locate his take on this matter. In essence, he says at about page 721 IIRC that Susan McDougal (and Tucker and her husband) had already been convicted at the Whitewater trial. They were awaiting sentencing. Starr wanted Susan to testify about the Clintons’ role in Whitewater and with regard to some illegal acts in exchange for a reduced sentence. Clinton claims that McDougal would not agree to this because she did not want to choose between lying to get the Clintons on the hook or telling the truth and being pursued on perjury charges by Starr. I view this somewhat skeptically, but the fact remains she had already been convicted. She probably would have done some jail time even if she did testify. There was not just one question to be answered. And she probably did not want to implicate her friends. So, it looks like under any scenario whe had valid reasons for keeping quiet and serving the 18 months. Which is what she did.

Ergo, THEY DIDN’T GET NO TAX CUTS (according to Ms. Pelosi, CPUSA/Berkely) and a tremendous social injustice was committed. Didn’t the congress authorize a bribe to that demographic?

Just another day in the Beltway.

33% not 50%!

Still, doubt if Hollywood can answer, though…

You are not only a troll, but a lousy one at that. You hijack the thread with multiple red herrings and come back six hours later with a lame defense for one of them.

So who would have gotten more benefit out of Bush’s plan?

The Bush proposal in 2000 called for lowering the bottom tax bracket from 15% to 10%. It also called for lowering the top bracket from 39.6% to 33%. There were some other wrinkles, but since you are a evidently a simple person, let’s just look at this simple data for a second.

Got your calculator? Okay. What is the percentage reduction from 15 to 10? Correct! It’s 50%.

Now, what is the percentage reduction from 39.6 to 33? Very good! It’s 16.7%.

Okay. I’m not sure if you can do this in your head , but tell me, please, which number is greater, 50 or 16.7? (Scratch paper may help.)

Take all the time you need. I’ll be back in a couple of hours to see how you’re doing.