Newspaper article St Louis Post-Dispatch (MO)

White House Gives Disingenuous Answers to Serious Questions

Newspaper article St Louis Post-Dispatch (MO)

White House Gives Disingenuous Answers to Serious Questions

Article excerpt

A profit of $6,498 for Hillary Rodham Clinton instead of a loss of $1,000. A "forgotten" $20,000 loan to his mother by Bill Clinton, which he remembers only after reading her autobiography. Now there are new revelations that Mrs. Clinton was far more deeply involved in the Whitewater real estate venture than she has previously acknowledged. Two former Clinton campaign workers say that documents detailing hundreds of thousands of dollars in money transfers between Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan and the Whitewater real estate venture were hidden from public exposure after a New York Times story first reported cozy financial relationships between the two entities in March 1992.

More than profit and loss, what is at issue is the credibility and integrity of the president of the United States and the first lady. Are they telling us the truth?

Either the Clintons had one of the worst accountants ever to pick up a calculator, or they kept their investment records on the back of grocery store receipts stored in shoe boxes. Could these latest revelations, allegations and explanations be further signs that lies are being told and cover-ups engaged in?

It requires a leap of faith to believe that Mrs. Clinton's virgin entry into the highly speculative commodity futures market could have produced the kind of profits she made on a small investment. Obviously she had considerable inside help, and perhaps something more than the kindness of friends who wanted to assist her, with no expectation of reciprocity, in raising money for the unborn Chelsea's college tuition.

Commodity experts and some opinion writers are beginning to speculate that Mrs. Clinton's cattle deals were "covered" or protected by other traders, who may have absorbed the losses that frequently come with such transactions. Portfolios may have been "adjusted" so that other investors would take losses they might write off on their tax returns. There are questions about the legality of this practice. Were benefits to Mrs. Clinton being chalked up as investments in possible future influence-buying with the wife of an Arkansas government leader? …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.