# "Bush is a crook" says Mr. Krugman **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 2, 2002, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087 "2002-07-02T19:33:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/321 "2002-07-14T03:53:39Z")
But make sure you do a really good summary. Not all of us want this information to disappear. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/322 "2002-07-14T04:11:17Z")
xeno: > [@](#): > > I expect a leader to provide direction away from a narrow ideology that benefits only the most well off, and to try and take the steps necessary to move us in that direction. That sounds great, but what does it mean and how does one do it? (it’s not a facetious question. I’d like to know what you think.) elucidator: > [@](#): > > Why, Scylla, you scamp, you never told us you were clairovoyant! Reading minds, and all that. Way edgy, dude. Nyahh, it’s just that you’ve done a great job communicating your poitical agenda! > [@](#): > > At some point, somebody stands up and says “That’s it, we got all the sharks out of the water. Your mutual fund can go play in the water now.” That man’s credibility must be very solid. At this point in time, that man is not Jr. No, and it never has been and never should be. If it’s anybody, it’s a Greenspan or a Buffet, but probably it should never be anybody. Your “sharks in the water” metaphor is a good one. The fact is there will always be sharks in the water. The great thing about this whole deal is that it serves a real purpose. Part of the market’s job as a discounting mechanism is to take money away from foolish people. That sounds harsh, but it’s true. We had speculative excess, and people bought into things that were simply too good to be true. Should they have known better? Yes. (BTW, I own Enron personally. Rode it into the ground.) Go look at Warren Buffet, he didn’t get burned. Quite a few equity mutual funds have done quite well. If you weren’t greedy you could tell that something was fishy in some of those reports and 10-ks. I smack myself in the head for Enron, because I **did** no better. You only have to look at the organizational chart to have known something was fishy. Go look at AMECX, and see how that mutual fund did. They’ve been focused on accounting issues for years. Go look at the Pioneer High Yield Fund which wisely decided the telecom sector was looking too good to be true. This isn’t to say that companies should be allowed to decieve, but there is an element of buyer beware there too. There will always be sharks. Anybody who says different is lying or a fool. The thing that’s going to get us next isn’t channeling funds through LLC’s. That’s minor league. The big shoe that we have to worry about dropping is the actuarial assumptions of pension accounting. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/323 "2002-07-14T04:13:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\*But make sure you do a really good summary. Not all of us want this information to disappear. \*\* That’s not nice. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/324 "2002-07-14T04:37:55Z")
> [@](#): > > That sounds great, but what does it mean and how does one do it? > > (it’s not a facetious question. I’d like to know what you think.) Well, I’m kinda moved that you’ve such confidence in my national leadership skills you’d ask for my guidance on behalf of Mr. Bush. I fear to be too specific, as some of my admitted ignorance of Washington realpolitik might show. However, others, including the erstwhile Mr. K, have offered some suggestions I agree with. See a basic road map for the short term in [this Molly Ivins column](http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0703-08.htm) (mentioned on page 2 of this very thread). There’s lots of other good advice out there, **Scylla**. It’s not a mystery what must be done. It would just take a complete abandonment of Bush’s entire CEO oriented ideology. That’s all. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/325 "2002-07-14T04:38:47Z")
notcnical: > [@](#): > > But memos from the company show in great detail that he was apprised of how badly the company’s fortunes were failing before he sold his stock – and that he was warned by company lawyers against selling stock based on insider information. Looks like this first part is relating to a document we saw yesterday. More on the second part in a moment. > [@](#): > > On April 20, 1990, just two months before Bush sold his Harken stock, Harken president Mikel Faulkner warned the board of directors, writing that “two events have occurred which drastically affect Harken’s current strategic plan with regard to seeking public funds to reduce our debt and provide equity for current capital opportunities,” and that the development “greatly intensifies our current liquidity problem.” Ok, what are the two items? It seems curious that they’re not identified in the article as it seems from context that they are in the memo. > [@](#): > > The memo warned of a “Harken International shutdown effective June 30, unless third party funding [is] obtained,” and discussed plans to lay off 40 employees. The memo said the company had lost $28.5 million in trade credit since Jan. 1, and another $11.8 million was “in jeopardy,” and said “most companies that have seen [the company’s annual report] are nervous.” I’m not sure what to make of this. I’d love to see the memo. FYI, trade credit would not be an earnings loss, but would certainly effect liquidity. The warning about needing third party funding would be consistent with the EE’s trying to get the board to approve the sale of Aloha, which would supposedly help ameliorate this problem. It would suggest that by the term “third party funding” that they were not apprising recipients of the memo that IMR was an internal construct. The last sentence is puzzling. I doubt that the memo’s referring to the annual report as the parenthesis indicate. Giving your annual report to other companies before its release is highly irregular, and IIRC highly illegal. It’s so blatantly a boner, that I doubt it happened and York misinterpreted what was meant. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, Bush and his Harken colleagues received a warning about selling based on insider information. On June 15, 1990, one week before Bush’s sale, Harken attorneys at the firm of Haynes and Boone sent a memo to Harken staffers with the subject line “Liability for Insider Trading and Short-Swing Profits.” > > “If the insiders presently possess any material non-public information, a sale of any of their shares could be viewed critically,” the memo states. Whee! Sounds like the standard piece they send out to all directors and managers every quarter. It probably also warns insiders to check with management and counsel before selling shares to make sure they are not in posession of insider information, which Bush had already done. He’d hardly been warned by Haynes and Boone, he’d basically gotten permission. This is a big misrepresentation. It seems to imply that Bush went against legal advice and warnings when he sold his stock. It’s just absolutely not true. He sought counsel of these people before he sold. That sentence that I said “more about later,” is highly mirepresentative and irresponsible. It paints a false picture of what happens. I challenge York’s credibility because of this, the annual report statement, and the fact that so far only [Salon.com](http://Salon.com) seems to have these memos, and nobody else has picked up the story. Let’s see the memos. It looks to me like we’re just misrepresenting the FOIF act documents we’ve already seen. > [@](#): > > The stock fell that day from $3 to $2.35, but regained that loss by the end of the next trading day. This contradicts what is in my charting records, what is available at [www.bigcharts.com](http://www.bigcharts.com) (symbol HEC) and the report on materiality which analyzes the stocks reaction, published by the SEC and available as a previously cited FOIA document. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/326 "2002-07-14T04:49:08Z")
Xeno: That article isn’t exactly a bastion of nonpartisan sentiment, and it doesn’t look like much of a roadmap to reform, either. I agree with some of the items, but am put off by the tone and string of mistatements in the opening paragraphs (Harken went bankrupt?) harping on the non-event late filing? And what’s this shit about estate taxes? What the hell does that have to do with corporate accounting malfeasance. I see your point though, which I take it is that you’d prefer somebody else probably a democrat in office, as a lot of the issues are drawn pretty clearly on party lines. Well, I asked a stupid question… ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/327 "2002-07-14T06:14:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > My point exactly! You don’t investigate somebody for political purpose. You **must** be blind to it. The reason being is then who decides what purposes we serve with our investigations? You weren’t saying this during the Clinton years. > [@](#): > > The **only** reason we should be conducting legal investigations is to uncover crimes that we can then prosecute. Doing it to pressure the President into doing what you want is nothing more than blackmail. Strawman, no-one is calling for a legal investigation. We are asking to know the facts of the investigation that already happened, or to know that there was a whitewash. > [@](#): > > A lot of the laws were different and it was a very different regulatory environment. Holding up somebody’s past record to different standards than existed when he did his actions is irrelevant. > > The only question is did he commit a crime by the standards and laws of the time of his action or inaction? Nonsense, that isn’t the only question, that isn’t even the main question. The measure of a mans’ character isn’t a just a list of the laws broken or not broken. Lying isn’t against the law in the vast majority of situations, but it’s a very important measure of the character and trustworthness of the man. It’s especially important to know about the trustworthiness of **this** administration since they are so prone to working behind closed doors. > [@](#): > > Quite the contrary, I think you know exactly where it leads and as far as your concerned it couldn’t look better. Get a nice investigation going and headlines for a year as credibility gets chipped away, by the time the next election rolls around the man’s presidency has been rendered impotent by the scandal and he doesn’t have a chance in hell of getting reelected, and the Democrats have a landslide. It doesn’t really matter whether he did anything or not, if you can force him to deny it. The more he has to deny it, the more shrill the denials seem. Or he can release the details of the SEC investigation and make the headlines go away in a few days. Even if it turns out he DID break the law, it’s too late to prosecute. The only possible harm he could be concerned with is political. > [@](#): > > Actually I think we have a pretty good idea. These things are the exception not the rule, and we know what to look for. The fact is that really don’t need the Prez for this other than to rubberstamp what the regulators say, and institute some stiffer penalties for corporate misconduct. Stiffer penalties isn’t a solution, that’s a band-aid. What the market needs is reform designed to reduce the upside to cheating, and increase the likelihood of getting caught. What we need the pres to do is throw the weight of his bully pulpit behind legislation that will do that. **And** to have him put someone in charge of the SEC who actually (and believably) wants to catch the cheaters. > [@](#): > > We have the best system for dealing with this stuff, that we possible could: a free market. People aren’t going to buy stocks of companies that don’t have highly transparent financials anymore. Probably they never should have in the first place. By and large the market is self-correcting, and now a company’s accounting is acquiring a value every bit as important as its pe. ratio. We’re building a new standard as we speak. This is such bullshit. **the system failed** , and while companies are now convinced of the need to **appear** transparent, there is still just as much pressure to substitute appearance for reality as there was before. Shareholders never **wanted** a lack of transparency. It’s not like the CEO’s were filling some shareholder demand for obfuscation. > [@](#): > > You’re kidding, right? The Nasdaw has lost 70% + of its value, we’re in the third year of a bear market, and blue chips like GE are trading at less than half price, and you’re worried that at some point we’re going to be in deep kimchee? > > The bleeding is stopping, if for no other reason than we’re bled out. We’re in the final stages of capitulation, bros. This is as bad as it gets. Also bullshit, it could still get **a lot** worse. What has happened up til now is that much of the ‘bubble’ value has evaporated. But **Microsoft** , for instance still has a P/E of [44](http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=msft&d=5d). What happens to that stock if people start to suspect that their earnings aren’t really what they say they are? What if they start to think the _real_ P/E is 400? [sub]Example only, I happen to think that MS’s numbers are legit[/sub] Sure NAS has lost 70% of it’s value, but what if it was overvalued by 300% before the bubble burst? If we can’t trust the public numbers that companies put out then how do we know the market isn’t **still** inflated? > [@](#): > > You’re going to have to trust me on this: The people were anxious and nervous a year ago. Now they’re in despair. Yet not so sad and unrealistic have they become that they beleive some Presidential action is going to turn things around, and magically make it all good again. Sorry, no trust for you. But I will buy the premise. Presidential action is not going to restore confidence in the market all by itself. But presidential **inaction** is definitely going to make things worse. It’s one thing to suspect that the game is rigged in favor of insiders, it’s quite another to discover that the President is committed to making sure that the game stays rigged. > [@](#): > > What do you expect a leader to do, other than make a tough speech about reform, rubberstamp the experts’ plan, and lobby for more stringent penalties? More strawmen. That’s mostly what you do, did you know that? We don’t expect Bush to fix the trust problem all by himself. That will take action by congress. But he’s certainly capable of being an _impediment_ to corrective action. And so far, that’s exactly what he seems to be doing. Talk tough, while trying to torpedo actual corrective action behind the scenes. > [@](#): > > You should pray that he’s a thief. Oh, my. That’s got to be the stupidest thing youve said in the last 7 pages. If he were a **repentant** thief, he might be of use, but it’s pretty clear that whatever else he is, he’s not repentant. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/328 "2002-07-14T14:13:55Z")
tejota: > [@](#): > > You weren’t saying this during the Clinton years. Yes. I was. > [@](#): > > Strawman, no-one is calling for a legal investigation. We are asking to know the facts of the investigation that already happened, or to know that there was a whitewash. A strrawman is when you create a flawed position and ascribe it to your opponent simply to knock it down. That’s not what I did. I don’t know what thread you’re reading, but it can’t be this one since a new investigation is the crux of what we’re arguing. Sheesh. > [@](#): > > Or he can release the details of the SEC investigation and make the headlines go away in a few days. Even if it turns out he DID break the law, it’s too late to prosecute. The only possible harm he could be concerned with is political. The SEC documents out there do a pretty foddamned good job of clearing him they conclude that all four tests ofr illegal insider trading have failed. according to the sec: 1. The information in ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/329 "2002-07-14T14:35:41Z")
tejota: > [@](#): > > You weren’t saying this during the Clinton years. Yes. I was. > [@](#): > > Strawman, no-one is calling for a legal investigation. We are asking to know the facts of the investigation that already happened, or to know that there was a whitewash. A strrawman is when you create a flawed position and ascribe it to your opponent simply to knock it down. That’s not what I did. I don’t know what thread you’re reading, but it can’t be this one since a new investigation is the crux of what we’re arguing. Sheesh. > [@](#): > > Or he can release the details of the SEC investigation and make the headlines go away in a few days. Even if it turns out he DID break the law, it’s too late to prosecute. The only possible harm he could be concerned with is political. The SEC documents out there do a pretty foddamned good job of clearing him they conclude that three out of four tests for illegal insider trading have failed. according to the sec: 1. The information in question (the announcement,) was not material. 2. It was nonpublic 3. He was not in posession of the info, and it may not have been possible that he could have been, since it didn’t exist. 4. He didn’t act on it, since he had a preexisting liquidation plan. Clearly what you say is not true. The release of documents that show he is not guilty is not helping this go away. Quite the contrary. Bits and pieces of them are consistently pulled out of context, misrepresented and used against him. Even in this thread my opposition seems to have abandoned the position that Bush knew about the preannouncement (which is the insider information in question,) and seem to have taken on the position that Bush had general nonspecific information that the company was in very poor health (nigh on Bankruptcy if their to be believed.) This is sufficiently vague that it’s almost impossible to disprove. The conclusion: Well since we can’t disprove it, let’s reinvestigate! > [@](#): > > Stiffer penalties isn’t a solution, that’s a band-aid. What the market needs is reform designed to reduce the upside to cheating, and increase the likelihood of getting caught. How do you specifically do that? > [@](#): > > This is such bullshit. the system failed, and while companies are now convinced of the need to appear transparent, there is still just as much pressure to substitute > appearance for reality as there was before. > > Shareholders never wanted a lack of transparency. It’s not like the CEO’s were filling some shareholder demand for obfuscation. No. The system didn’t fail. More accurately it became inneficient. It is now correcting that. What yo say about not wanting a lack of transparency is false as well. Investors wanted, and rewarded superior earnings growth, and they didn’t really care how they got it. Transparency was not desirable (witness AMECXs '99 performance.) Fast growth was. Companies like Enron were lauded for the shrewd accounting and management. I was there. > [@](#): > > Also bullshit, it could still get a lot worse. What has happened up til now is that much of the ‘bubble’ value has evaporated. But Microsoft, for instance still has a P/E of 44 Sure. Microsoft can go down more. It’s always been a rule breaker. CSCo, EMC, AOL and just about everybody else in high technology are down 80-90% though. There’s not much left besides MSFT and one or two others in tech with significant downside. IMO. > [@](#): > > it’s quite another to discover that the President is committed to making sure that the game stays rigged. Let me know when you can prove that instead of just saying it. > [@](#): > > More strawmen. You don’t what that term means. > [@](#): > > But he’s certainly capable of being an impediment to corrective action. And so far, that’s exactly what he seems to be doing. Talk tough, while trying to torpedo actual corrective action behind the scenes. Such as? [quote] Oh, my. That’s got to be the stupidest thing youve said in the last 7 pages. If he were a repentant thief, he might be of use, but it’s pretty clear that whatever else he is, he’s not repentant.[/'quote] No, when I had to retract against elucidator because I didn’t check his cite was the stupidest thid I said in these 7 pages. At least read the thread if you’re going to comment. This is also false if we grant it. I backed up the statement with the Ed Kennedy example. ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/330 "2002-07-14T16:00:40Z")
Just thought I’d provide this link on the matter of how bad things _might_ get. **Scylla** , your point that investigations shouldn’t be done for political reasons is valid: ideally there should be a split between Citizen Bush, who should no more be subject to otherwise unwarranted investigation than you or me, and President Bush. But, first, the relentless and deeply politicized investigation of Clinton constituted such utter disregard for even the appearance of this ideal that the Republicans have, in effect, made this bed. Second, **xeno** ’s point, that the “new context” creates a new relevance for examining whatever dirty laundry our leaders may have, in effect, defines “political” in a different way. What xeno seems to be saying isn’t that Bush should be investigated for partisan political advantage, but that the political health of the nation depends on clearing the air. I agree with him. Third, I think that President Bush–as President Bush–owes us a lot more information about his past business dealings and, so long as the latter doesn’t violate the constitutional rights of Citizen Bush, I see no problem of unwarranted investigation there. As **elucidator** indicates, this kind of scrutiny, especially post-Clinton, is part of the territory. If Foxes are indeed guarding the Henhouse–or, conversely, if that’s an exaggerated view–then the public needs to know–much more than it needed to know what Clinton does with his cigars. On the free market stuff, **Scylla** , IMO you’re just spouting pure ideology, and we might as well have **Sam Stone** here to witness for that creed. There are mechanisms superior to the so-called “free market” for ensuring prosperity for the widest possible swathe of Americans, and not just for a few lucky guessers and insider plutocrats. Not all of us have the time or the skills to devote to studying Enron as does Warren Buffet and even some who do can err. (Just yesterday I heard the Wharton guy who wrote an influential book on long-term investment in the stock market–Seigel–admitting that he lost big on WorldComm). The government insures banks, sets interest rates, builds roads, sets safety standards–to name just a few functions–because in these cases the “free market” left to its own devices sucks bigtime and always will. Plutocrats themselves depend on each and every one of these regulatory mechanisms even though most like to chant the “free market” mantra whenever it directly benefits them at the expense of ordinary citizens. The older Americans whose retirement plans have been utterly fucked by the market weren’t, to be sure, the wisest or luckiest investors: they should have been more cautious at their age, to be sure. But the fact remains that these people made the decisions that they did because they didn’t know that there was widespread fraud. They’re not victims of some predictable business cycle; they’re victims of having believed that the system was honest; they’re victims of deep-seated corporate bilking that has been fostered under a deliberately deregulatory political climate, and paid for by corporate plutocrats. And if Bush/Cheney have beeb and remain part of the problem rather than part of the solution, let’s find out now. All of that said, **Scylla** I still think you’re doing a superb job of making the most rational and rhetorically effective defense of Bush’s position I can imagine. I think you should e-mail your end of the thread to Karl Rove and ask to be put on the payroll ;).l ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/331 "2002-07-14T16:41:34Z")
This thread is bordering on absurdity for all its length and whimsical exposition.[ul][li] **It is possible that Bush broke a law.** Yes. A determination of this requires an investigation. An investigation requires just cause: this is the nature of our law.[_] **Presidents should be held to higher standards.** They are. Their position is only held at the sufrance of a popularity contest. That popularity in some respects is reflected by executive decisions made, but in this case it is clear that executive decisions are not everything.[_] **But Bush should, in holding to higher standards, take deliberate action to exonerate himself!** Remember that next election, and sing it from the tree-tops so others remember it, too. Otherwise, he is a citizen of the United States and should be treated as other citizens are, including yourself, when it comes to investigations of criminality.[_] **But that’s impossible, he’s the president!** That sword cuts both ways, of course, though people who cry “conspiracy” are quick to forget it. The same force which serves to cover up possible criminal allegations will be met by a counter force happy to serve up justice on a silver platter if only to gain political power.[_] **He should just release the documents if he has nothing to hide.** As a president and politician, yes, he probably should. But there is no law that says he should, and if an investigation can’t get steam rolling then that is the end of that. **This “case” ties directly to how he will handle the dirt being flung at corporations** (rightly flung, IMO, lest anyone try and spin that to their own nefarious ends). This point is absolutely true; this point does not cause criminal investigations.[/ul][/li]Did I miss anything? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/332 "2002-07-14T17:51:18Z")
> [@](#): > > Second, xeno’s point, that the “new context” creates a new relevance for examining whatever dirty laundry our leaders may have, in effect, defines “political” in a different way. What xeno seems to be saying isn’t that Bush should be investigated for partisan political advantage, but that the political health of the nation depends on clearing the air. Thank you, **Mandelstam** ; yes, that’s what I mean. And I suppose I owe **Scylla** a better answer to the leadership question. So I’ll give one example of what I think a leader might do in this particular case, within this particular national context. Bush could get on TV and say to us “This is what happened in 1990 when I sold my Harken stock, and here’s why I thought it was proper and aboveboard at the time.” He could make public _all_ records regarding the sale and the subsequent SEC investigation. He could talk about the Aloha deal, and how it was a product of a corporate culture which encouraged the personal enrichment of executives over responsibility to the coroporation. He could speak about his own example, how it shows some of the flaws in the system and that he means to help Congress fix them. And most of all, he could promise the American people transparency of government accountability to go along with transparency of corporate accounting. That’s what I think a leader might do, or something similar. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/333 "2002-07-14T18:12:14Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. He was not in possession of the info, and it may not have been possible that he could have been, since it didn’t exist. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1447-2002Jul13.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1447-2002Jul13.html) A confidential Harken chronology, obtained by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, said that 16 days before he sold the stock, Bush was sent the company’s “weekly flash report,” giving “information provided by subsidiaries regarding estimated historical and projected earnings.” > **[Bush squirms in sleaze scandal](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jul/14/usa.globalisation)** > > The tide of sleaze engulfing corporate America lapped closer to President Bush this weekend with the revelation that official documents appear to show he provided a misleading account of a controversial share deal. The SEC concluded that in March 1990, months ahead of the share sale, Bush realized Harken faced loses of $4.2 million in the year’s second quarter. And buried in the papers were memoranda written by Harken executives warning one another of a ‘liquidity crisis’ facing the company. One was from company president Mikel Faulkner to the board of directors on which Bush sat. Dated 20 April - two months before Bush sold his stock - it warned of ‘events which drastically affect Harken’s current strategic plan with regard to seeking public funds’. One of Harken’s leading banks, says Royce, was looking to withdraw its loan. Two weeks before Bush moved to sell, on 7 June, Faulkner provided Bush with minutes of an executive committee meeting warning of a ‘shutdown effective 30 June unless third-party funding is found’. Harken, it said, had lost $28.5m in trade credit since the start of the year. Bush sold on 22 June; on 20 August, Harken posted quarterly losses of $23.2m. > [@](#): > > Even in this thread my opposition seems to have abandoned the position that Bush knew about the preannouncement (which is the insider information in question,) and seem to have taken on the position that Bush had general nonspecific information that the company was in very poor health (nigh on Bankruptcy if their to be believed.) This is sufficiently vague that it’s almost impossible to disprove…. see above. > [@](#): > > …The conclusion: Well since we can’t disprove it, let’s reinvestigate! Attributing dishonest motives to your opponents is pretty low stuff, **Scylla**. About the only thing lower is to call your opponent a “liar”. Repeatedly. Before you mount the podium to deliver a lecture on rhetorical honesty, a bit of house cleaning is in order. Your latest tack actually stuns me. Surely you’re not seriously putting forth the “set a thief to catch a thief” scenario. This is another example of drollery, right? Pulling our leg, right? And finally, from the article sited above” ‘…It helps to be the son of the President,’ said the firm’s founder, Phil Kendrick, explaining the otherwise senseless splash-out for Bush’s Spectrum. ‘He’s worth $120,000 a year just for that….’ Well. That certainly clarifies that. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/334 "2002-07-14T18:46:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Surely you’re not seriously putting forth the “set a thief to catch a thief” scenario. Hey! Will youse guys quit stealing your material from real life.:eek: **Bush watchdog was on board of company hit with charges of fraud** from [http://www.msnbc.com/news/779716.asp?0dm=B17SB](http://www.msnbc.com/news/779716.asp?0dm=B17SB) ---
**Author:** ![JDM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90db22/32.png) [@JDM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JDM)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/335 "2002-07-14T19:00:15Z")
Words of wisdom from [Paul O’Neill:](http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/po3241.htm) > [@](#): > > On television these days we see executives at scandal-ridden companies who pumped up share prices and cashed out their options before the axe fell. And then we see faithful employees and duped shareholders and pension funds left behind to gape at their losses. That’s wrong, and it must not continue. > **When I was at Alcoa I never sold a single share of Alcoa stock. I wanted my financial success and the company’s success inextricably linked.** Other executives should do the same. Stock options are not a short-term reward, they are a long-term incentive to do the right thing. Gorsh- maybe he spent a little too much time talking to Bono? OTOH much of the rest of the speech is boilerplate BUSH GOOD DEMOCRATS BAD drivel. Can you say: “cognitive dissonance,” Mr. Secretary? JDM ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/336 "2002-07-14T22:05:45Z")
elucidator: > [@](#): > > A confidential Harken chronology, obtained by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, said that 16 days before he sold the stock, Bush was sent the company’s “weekly flash report,” giving “information provided by subsidiaries regarding estimated historical and projected earnings.” Jesus Christ man! Take a look at the fucking context of your quotes, use your brain and ask yourself if they are presenting new information or if you are just same Goddman thing over and over again like a stuck record! Of course Bush had that Flash report. **That’s in the SEC’s report!!** It was a part of the investigation. > [@](#): > > One was from company president Mikel Faulkner to the board of directors on which Bush sat. Dated 20 April - two months before Bush sold his stock - it warned of ‘events which drastically affect Harken’s current strategic plan with regard to seeking public funds’. One of Harken’s leading banks, says Royce, was looking to withdraw its loan. > Two weeks before Bush moved to sell, on 7 June, Faulkner provided Bush with minutes of an executive committee meeting warning of a ‘shutdown effective 30 June unless third-party funding is found’. Harken, it said, had lost $28.5m in trade credit since the start of the year. Bush sold on 22 June; on 20 August, Harken posted quarterly losses of $23.2m. Did you just copy that from York’s article? Let’s see; from York: > [@](#): > > On June 7, two weeks before Bush’s stock sale, Faulker provided Bush with a summary of a June 5 meeting of the company’s executive committee held in New York. The memo warned of a “Harken International shutdown effective June 30, unless third party funding [is] obtained,” and discussed plans to lay off 40 employees. The memo said the company had lost $28.5 million in trade credit since Jan. 1 Yotur a broken record. > [@](#): > > Attributing dishonest motives to your opponents is pretty low stuff, Scylla. About the only thing lower is to call your opponent a ?liar?. Repeatedly. No. They’re low if their merely empty rhetoric. When I cite your lies and misrepresentations chapter and verse, it’s not low. It’s simply accurate. I’ll give you a clue. It’s the lying, misrepresentations, and dishonesty that are low, not a warranted statement of fact. [quote] Surely you?re not seriously putting forth the ?set a thief to catch a thief? scenario. This is another example of drollery, right? Pulling our leg, right?[/quote[ Was Roosevelt pulling our leg when he appointed Ed Kennedy? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/337 "2002-07-14T22:11:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by samclem \* > \*\* > > Hey! Will youse guys quit stealing your material from real life.:eek: > > **Bush watchdog > was on board > of company > hit with charges > of fraud** from [http://www.msnbc.com/news/779716.asp?0dm=B17SB](http://www.msnbc.com/news/779716.asp?0dm=B17SB) \*\* You’re kidding, right? Larry Thompson is about as pure as the driven snow. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/338 "2002-07-14T22:41:13Z")
elucidator: I mean look at the thing! What exactly do you think this confidential chronology that they **obtained** is? It’s the FOIA chronology that Harken sent to the SEC, and that we’ve been looking at for almost a week. Your article says nothing new. It’s recycled crap. This is one of the primary documents that the SEC used in its investigation against Bush, and found no evidence of wrongdoing. And, it even looks like he got it wrong, and confused a credit line for an earnings number. At least York got that much right. In typical fashion the reporter pull some tired piece of old information, and rewraps it to pretend he’s got something new and exciting. It’s a blatant one-sided misrepresentation, and not even original. New lamps for old? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/339 "2002-07-14T23:02:46Z")
The quote above, beginning with “On June 7…” lays out evidence that Jr. cannot shelter in a presumption of pristine ignorance. Unless you intend to refute what is stated there. “You’re a broken record” is no more a refutation that “You’re a liar”. It is a characterization of one’s opponent. Usually, when this sort of thing is done, it is an indication of the poverty of one’s evidence, or argumentive skills. How, in your opinion, does this square with Jr.s insistence that his sale of stock was in good faith, as he was convinced that he was selling “into good news”. If the above cite is accurate, then that is a, well, “mistatement”. Whether I state the truth once, twice, or ten times is quite irrelevant, since you provide nothing to refute it. > [@](#): > > No. They’re low if their merely empty rhetoric. When I cite your lies and misrepresentations chapter and verse, it’s not low. And you did this when? You needn’t cut and paste quotes, if that is tiresome. Just merely point out where you refuted my “lies”. And, of course, evidence (other than your firm assertion) that I was cognizant of falsehood and proceeded out of a dishonorable motive. I will of course, release all the relevant documents. **I** have nothing to hide. I take it that your kindly offer to assist me in “refining my scenarios” is withdrawn? Alas. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087/340 "2002-07-14T23:35:20Z")
**Scylla** said > [@](#): > > You’re kidding, right? At first, I was. But after reading the link I provided, I noticed that > [@](#): > > LARRY D. THOMPSON, deputy attorney general and head of a new multi-agency corporate-crime task force, was a Providian Financial Corp. board member and chairman of its audit and compliance committee from June 1997 until his unanimous confirmation by the Senate on May 10, 2001 Chairman of the Audit Committee. Here we go again. These titles must mean nothing. [Schultz] I know _nothing_. [/Schultz] Maybe it was Arthur Andersen again. If he truly knew nothing, then he was an “Uncle Tom” stooge for a company who preyed on poor people, certainly many of whom were African-Americans. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-is-a-crook-says-mr-krugman/117087.md?page=18)