>>>Looks like a duck
>>>Waddles like a duck
>>>Sounds like a duck
>
>Quoting an expert: "Only four explanations can account for these remarkable results. Blair may have been an exceptionally good trader. Hillary Clinton may have been exceptionally lucky. Blair may have been front-running other orders. Or Blair may have arranged to have a broker fraudulently assign trades to benefit Clinton's account."
>
>Of those 4 ducks, 2 are legal and one would involve an implausible conspiracy theory. But you act as if the remaining #3 is the only duck in sight.
>
>Quack.

The broker was caught and punished for this exact duck.
It was his pattern of behavior.
Occam's Razor:
"Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."

Putting up 4 alternatives in a neat trick.
It looks on first glance like odds are 1 out of 4 for each alternative.

Front running would produce smaller profits, so we can rule that out. Zero odds
Blair as an exceptional trader is remotely possible - small odds
Hillary as exceptionally lucky is all but impossible - very small odds
Having a broker fraudulently assign trades - The broker was caught and punished for this exact behavior. - large odds.

Let me repeat: The broker was caught and punished for this exact behavior
Nothing implausible about that.

Quack Quack