One reason why the press doesn’t give you-know-who the benefit of the doubt

Somehow — I can’t imagine why — this financial matter has fallen down the memory hole as of late.  Here are a few paragraphs from Wikipedia:

In 1978 and 1979, lawyer and First Lady of Arkansas Hillary Rodham engaged in a series of trades of cattle futures contracts. Her initial $1,000 investment had generated nearly $100,000 when she stopped trading after ten months…

Various publications sought to analyze the likelihood of Rodham’s successful results. The editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said in April 1994, “This is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later. She took some extraordinary risks.”[3] USA Today concluded in April 1994 after a four-week study that “Hillary Rodham Clinton had some special treatment while winning a small fortune in commodities.”[9] According to The Washington Post‘s May 1994 analysis, “while Clinton’s account was wildly successful to an outsider, it was small compared to what others were making in the cattle futures market in the 1978–79 period.” However, the Post’s comparison was of absolute profits, not the percentage rate of return.[14] In a Fall 1994 paper for the Journal of Economics and Finance, economists from the University of North Florida and Auburn University investigated the odds of gaining a hundred-fold return in the cattle futures market during the period in question. Using a model that was stated to give the hypothetical investor the benefit of the doubt, they concluded that the odds of such a return happening were at best 1 in 31 trillion.[15]

Financial writer Edward Chancellor noted in 1999 that Clinton made her money by betting “on the short side at a time when cattle prices doubled.”[16] Bloomberg News columnist Caroline Baum and hedge fund manager Victor Niederhoffer published a detailed 1995 analysis in National Review that found typical patterns and behaviors in commodities trading not met and concluded that her explanations for her results were highly implausible.[17] Possibilities were raised that broker actions such as front running of trades, or a long straddle with the winning positions thereof assigned to a favored client, had taken place.[14][17]

That said, I fully grant such matters are not closely correlated with ultimate political performance.  But I am seeing so, so much apologia, selective event citation, and wishful thinking these days…

What is also interesting is that this is another case where — relative to actual legal priorities — one can correctly suggest that an actual prosecution was not warranted.

Please do note I regard it as my first priority to try to understand and also explain the (rather dire) situation we are in, rather than to put maximum thumb weight on the outcome I would most like to see happen.


Comments for this post are closed