I dug up a diary I wrote on January 15th wherein I expounded on the one significant piece of Hillary Clinton's past that I personally knew was a lie at the time she told the lies.
Many now see what was obvious to me because I happened to know a bit about what to most people is an arcane subject, commodities trading in the late 70s.
It is funny to look back on all the attacks I received here for daring to "repeat Republican Attacking points". I was even TR'd for daring to repeat what I actually knew from my own personal experience.
My diary follows...
I was once very positive on the Clintons. I was – perhaps like many of those who are drawn to Barack Obama's candidacy – 28 at the time of Bill's election and seduced by the idea of a younger president, one who would would change Washington. Over time, I came to view the Clintons as typical politicians, concerned more with their own position and power than with the job they came to do.
But it was the commodities scandal that made me believe that the Clintons were corrupt. After learning of this, I stopped being a supporter.
You see, I am an expert commodities trader so...
I know the subject matter well.
I knew that the meat pits where Hillary's trades took place had a reputation for being corrupt. I knew that there was no way that Hillary could have done what she claimed to have done. I also knew how easy it was to use the commodities markets to make transfers of money from one person to another in a way that would be virtually untraceable.
At the time of her trading, commodities transactions were completed in a trading pit where individual people made buy and sell offers using hand gestures and kept track of their trades using paper. At the end of the day they would enter their transactions into a computer system and the commodity exchange would attempt to reconcile all the transactions of buyers and sellers. If two parties, buyer and a seller, agreed that a certain transaction took place no one else would question a trade. So to transfer money all one had to do was transfer profitable trades at the end of the day from one account to the beneficiary account. There would be no way of tracing this unless one of the two people talked which would be very unlikely since they were committing a crime.
I am personally convinced that this is what happened with Hillary's trading account. No beginner would have lasted a week trading the way she traded with an account as small as she opened. In fact, her account would have been closed out many times for using too much leverage had she not received special treatment. The actual trades follow no pattern or recognizable strategy and many of them took place at very improbable points during the day. (See the article by a commodities expert who examined all the trades in detail for more specifics if you are interested)
I have no way of knowing if Hillary knew that the transfer was going to take place before she opened the account or not, but I have no doubt that she knew something illegal had taken place as there is no other reasonable explanation for why she closed the account after such a great run of "luck." How many people do you know who win big on their first visit to the Casino and never come back?
I simply refuse to believe that Hillary is so naive as to believe she could make that kind of money without any prior experience. She started with a $1,000 account and earned almost $100,000 dollars in less than a year. This was equivalent to four times her salary as a lawyer for the Rose law firm at the time which was reported to be about $25,000 per year.
So either:
She was naive and received the money without knowing that it was going to happen ahead of time and she shut the account down after such an amazing run of wins because she didn't want to get caught. I think this is unlikely or she would have done it much earlier.
Or she knew the transfer would take place ahead of time and shut it down after the agreed-upon profits had been achieved. This seems the most likely if one assumes as I do and as her future actions have clearly shown that she is very intelligent and not the least bit naive.
Either way, this is something I could not ignore then and cannot ignore now. In either case, she shows qualities which disqualify her for the nation's highest office.
UPDATE: Here's another article from a more trusted source, the Washington Post, for those of you who can't believe anything written in the National Review.
It is understandable that the left wouldn't publish this kind of thing in their magazines. Victor Niederhoffer was at the time a famous trader. The specifics about trading in the National Review article are accurate.