Corruption too Blatant to Ignore…But ‘We’ Do It All the Time

 

Current headlines inform us that the driving data used to execute (i.e., manipulate and/or provide cover for a poor excused for a FISA court…and beyond) the single largest hoax in American history was “not technically plausible” and was “user created.” Unfortunately, that is totally believable. Worse, the shrugging off or diverting of eyes by the watchdog press and half the electorate that has been groomed to do just that in the case of Democrats and their activities is all too common.

As a jumping-off point, I will just note that both those quoted phrases above bring to mind some analysis (videos) that I watched shortly after the 2020 election that demonstrated that many of the precinct tallies reported – I believe it was in GA – were very suspicious. I cannot find a link at this point…maybe someone can help with that…but it was clear to those with experience (i.e., subject matter experts) that the  “data” had many of the red flags associated with financial fraud. I took that to mean that someone was making up ledger entries trying to make the numbers look random. Unfortunately, that is not how things work with such things…and the lesson applies to election results too. But, as you all well know, such things that should be “too blatant to ignore” were so easily and conveniently shrugged off by the Democrat-Media Complex and their allies among the Barr disciples during the “truth-be-damned-,-must-get-Trump-out” time crunch after the election.

For the younger members here (and those with shorter memories) it may be worth pointing out that this phenomenon is not new. No doubt it dates back to the beginning of time but it is interesting that the modern American incarnation started and so often until even today circles around the name “Clinton.” Let’s start with the miraculous futures trading:

On October 11, 1978, the future First Lady, a neophyte investor with an annual income of $25,000, opened a commodity-futures account with a deposit of $1,000. Her first trade was the short sale of ten live-cattle contracts at a price of 57.55 cents a pound: a commitment to deliver in December of that year 400,000 pounds of cattle with a market value of $230,200. One day later, she bought the contracts back at a price of 56.10 cents, just 0.15 cent above the low of the day, pocketing $5,300 for a return of 530 per cent.

Mrs. Clinton continued to be a net winner at the game. By the time she closed her trading account ten months later, she had racked up $99,541 in profits, a spectacular 10,000 per cent return on her initial investment of $1,000.

[Emphasis added]

Now, nothing about that doesn’t scream “not technically plausible” and “user created,” in fact the linked article provides some great copy:

Cases of fraud are notoriously hard to prove. … But the clues are there. Despite their best efforts, perpetrators of fraud usually leave a slimy trail — what fraud investigators refer to as badges or indicia.

Insurance investigators have an objective list of marks and signs that they look for when a presumption of fraud exists. … As far as we know, there are no indicia for commodities-trading fraud. So we took it upon ourselves to develop a checklist of fraud indicators that would apply to a broad range of financial trickery. We are confident that any investment activity that scores high on our test merits a red flag.

1. Were the returns excessive as measured against a normal yardstick of performance? Yes. …

2. Has there been any effort to suppress investigation of the transaction? Yes. …

3. Are crucial records of the transaction missing or available only in duplicate form? Yes. …

4. Did the suspect alter his story regarding the activity in question? Yes. …

5. Were a good portion of the purchases and sales executed near the most favorable prices of the day? Yes. …

6. Was there anything unusual about the suspect’s behavior or anything irregular about the activity in question? Yes. …

7. Was the risk in the trading program inconsistent with the customer’s net income and net worth? Yes. …

8. Was the suspect in a position to do a favor for any of the other parties involved? Yes. …

9. Was there any history of illegal, irregular, or unethical behavior on the part of the broker? Yes. …

10. Were rules, regulations, and normal operating procedures violated? Yes. …

But, as some of you will know, to even question this put one squarely in the middle of the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Instead, it is best to ignore the obvious and pretend there is nothing to see here.  I posit that from that point on, Team Clinton was quite confident that they could pull off just about anything with made-up data that was not even technically plausible because the media and their half of the electorate would either believe them or just not care.

From this morning’s reading, I give you yet another example of just how easy this game was/is for Team Clinton:

In Bill’s first term as president, as both he and Hillary faced myriad allegations  concerning unethical conduct, his legal defense fund accepted an anonymous donation of $450,000 through a Little Rock restauranteur named Charlie Trie. Clinton and Trie were close friends. Shortly after the 1992 election, Trie began channeling money to the legal defense fund and into the DNC’s so-called soft-money accounts for the president’s reelection. The DNC became so concerned that the money might be coming from China that it hired private investigator Terry Lenzner to investigate.

As Lenzner later wrote, “I could see why they were concerned; red flags were obvious. For example, the money orders had different names on them, but the word ‘presidential’ was misspelled on all of them – in the exact same way and in the same handwriting.” Lenzner discovered that many of these donations were form people who wer making only $20,000 to $30,000 a year and could not possibly be the source of these large contributions. … – Page 179

[Emphasis added]

I’ll file that bit of document creation and campaign finance fraud  under “user created.” As it turned out, much of this money was returned later but…given how demonstrably easy is was for them to even attempt such a scam, why would anyone…especially an aspiring investigative reporter (yeah, I almost kept a straight face on that one)…ever not question everything about these people and their activities. Yet, we now sit here with more than two decades of Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton speech fees, selling of the Office of Secretary of State, and so much more that is completely unmined by even a cursory glance by our media watchdogs. And there is likely still more to come…

I will cut this holiday post a bit short by briefly tying this back into my greater agenda: The Clintons clearly paved the way. But if you are paying attention now, the perspective today shows that the rest of the Progressive party and a great majority of the beltway crowd tired of watching Team Clinton cash in all by themselves for the better part of a decade and a half. By the late 2000s, the game was spreading…Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein, Obama, etc., etc. (Don’t think for a minute that this isn’t a bi-partisan venture. But I digress.) The corrosive effects of corruption like this necessarily expand beyond just cash…power itself becomes the goal. As a result, the tools of power must be corrupted too. Unfortunately, so little of it even seeps into our headlines…and, when it does, it is met with nothing but a collective yawn from the media and their progressive audience.  Welcome to the shell of a republic that is the U.S.A. of 2022.

Into the abyss…

___   ___   ___

SHORT END NOTE

I borrowed the phrase “too blatant to ignore” in the title above from page 181 of Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash. The fuller context of the line is: “…the pattern of behavior I have established is too blatant to ignore, and deserved legal scrutiny by those with investigative capabilities that go beyond journalism.” Stepping back to my jumping-off point above, carefully worded tripe by Barr aside, so much about the 2020 election smells of corruption to include aspects that are “not technically plausible” and “user created.”. The fact that it was “too blatant to ignore” and yet we, in fact, did just that is a rather pathetic statement about the state of the current We the People.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 20 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. kedavis Inactive
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Excellent.

     

    • #1
  2. DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax)
    @DonG

    philo: Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash.

    That guy deserves all the journalist awards.  I mean all of them for all time. 

    • #2
  3. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    [Sorry, I didn’t realize what you were looking for.]

    But on the other hand, this from R.A.B. CPA Firm:

    In conclusion, Benford’s Law analysis applied to the 67-county vote counts of Pennsylvania for the presidential election of 2020, indicate that the data is manipulated.

    • #3
  4. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    NOTICE: This Member post has been promoted to the Main Feed. Content may have been edited / corrected from the original without attribution by Ricochet.

    (Somewhere along the line it seems we – or I – stopped getting notifications about promotions. For what it’s worth, that is/was an important feature to at least one of us.)

    • #4
  5. kedavis Inactive
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    • #5
  6. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    And this is why I call him pResident Biden.

    • #6
  7. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Comment deleted.

    • #7
  8. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Comment deleted.

    [redacted]

    • #8
  9. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Comment deleted.

    But was it deleted by a moderator or by the commenter himself? If by a moderator, I applaud the quick, proactive workmanship but it should be made clear that that is what happened. If by the commenter, it would be proper to indicate with more clarity what had happened to the original comment. Just sayin’…

    • #9
  10. Michael Henry Member
    Michael Henry
    @MichaelHenry

    Most excellent post, PHILO.  

    • #10
  11. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    philo (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Comment deleted.3 But was it deleted by a moderator or by the commenter himself? If by a moderator, I applaud the quick, proactive workmanship but it should be made clear that that is what happened. If by the commenter, it would be proper to indicate with more clarity what had happened to the original comment. Just sayin’…No, it was deleted by me.  Upon Philo’s request, I will try to recreate it.

    ____________________

    There are still Liberals out there who claim that George W. Bush stole Ohio in 2004 due to their voting machines.

    There are still wack-jobs out there who claim that George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened.

    There are still Anti-Semities out there who claim that “the Jews” knew about 9/11 before it happened and all conspired with each other to not go to work on 9/11.

    There are even a few souls with the Flat Earth Society who claim that the Moon Landings were faked.

    And there are four year olds who will babble on about Santa Claus at length.

    ____________________

    I am looking forward to the trials by Dominion Voting Systems against FNC, OANN, and Newsmax where they will be forced to defend their rantings, or be bankrupted.

    • #11
  12. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    philo (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Comment deleted.

    But was it deleted by a moderator or by the commenter himself? If by a moderator, I applaud the quick, proactive workmanship  but it should be made clear that that is what happened. If by the commenter, it would be proper to indicate with more clarity what had happened to the original comment. Just sayin’…

    A simple “[Deleted by _____]” would be sufficient and appropriate. That is all. Nothing more was requested or wanted from your type. [redacted]

     

    • #12
  13. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Whatever happened to the “thai chicken farmers” who got a WH meeting arranged by VP Gore?  I can’t remember if they were actually with the Chinese Army or some gun runner/drug dealer group.

    • #13
  14. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Whatever happened to the “thai chicken farmers” who got a WH meeting arranged by VP Gore? I can’t remember if they were actually with the Chinese Army or some gun runner/drug dealer group.

    I suspect their check cleared…You know, “no controlling legal authority” and all. 

    • #14
  15. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    Moderator Note:

    This is an editing note that explains the redaction and also locks the comment so that it cannot be edited further

    philo (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Comment deleted.

    But was it deleted by a moderator or by the commenter himself? If by a moderator, I applaud the quick, proactive workmanship but it should be made clear that that is what happened. If by the commenter, it would be proper to indicate with more clarity what had happened to the original comment. Just sayin’…

    Philo,

    When I am doing more than just removing a little profanity, I tend to use the built-in redaction note feature like this post shows.

    Generally, we don’t remove posts for being moronic, insane, or lacking any connection to reality.   We very much try to avoid removing posts just because we utterly despise the poster and their posts.

    • #15
  16. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I am looking forward to the trials by Dominion Voting Systems against FNC, OANN, and Newsmax where they will be forced to defend their rantings, or be bankrupted.

    Yes, I can see why it was rightly withdrawn.

    • #16
  17. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    I was just thanking God.

    What’s the harm in that?

    • #17
  18. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I am looking forward to the trials by Dominion Voting Systems against FNC, OANN, and Newsmax where they will be forced to defend their rantings, or be bankrupted

    I take it back.

    • #18
  19. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Seeing a chart of the Clinton cattle futures trades with arrows for buy and sell is absolutely shocking. No Republican could get away with that. It’s just unbelievably blatant. 

    Act accordingly.

    • #19
  20. kedavis Inactive
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Seeing a chart of the Clinton cattle futures trades with arrows for buy and sell is absolutely shocking. No Republican could get away with that. It’s just unbelievably blatant.

    Act accordingly.

    But it’s the Clintons, so…

    • #20
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.