Must be more of that irony stuff again.
Aha! So you admit you’re shifty-eyed, eh, erl?
Your objections, BTW, are well-founded as pertaining to the “insider-trading” charge, but I think Bidnessman Bush’s pre-Gov’nor wheelings and dealings have attained some new national relevance nowadays which they didn’t have at the time.
Yeah, peeved.
Give me a break, the way these pundits are going after him on this and misrepresenting all kinds of shit (in much the same fashion you are,) it doesn’t matter what gets released. You’ll only see what you want to see.
Seeing as he would have needed a goddamned time machine to acquire the inside information you seem to insist he had (and you do this without telling us what it was you think he knew for four pages is the most masterful piece of obstinate deceit I’ve witnessed on these boards,) you’d think that’d be enough.
If Jesus H. Christ himself came down from Heaven to pronounce his innocence, there’s no doubt whatsoever in my mind that you and your ilk would just assume it was a kickback.
You’re supposed to prove guilt.
This particular circumstance comes as close to actually proving that Bush could not have committed insider information as is physically possible.
It doesn’t matter what he provides, the pundits will just distort it, because they’re not really interested in the truth. They’re not really interested in whether he did or not. They’re only interest in any information in this is how it can be used to discredit him.
I wouldn’t release anything either. He’d have to be nuts to do so.
eris:
You really want me to post the questions again?
I kind of have given up and backed down.
He ain’t answering, I don’t care, and it was a mistake to offer the benefit of the doubt and take him at his word when he did promise to answer them.
Elucidator LIED to ME!!!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Doubtless somebody is about to whack me on the head for expecting differently.
Nah.
So, poor George has no pundits on his side? No one to present the unadulterated truth of his purity to the 'Merkin public? No reason to release documents which he claims clear him entirely?
I don’t get it.
Sure he does, and they’re equally ridiculous (although you have to admit Anne Coulter is better looking than anything the liberals got, not to mention all the conservative economic babes on CNBC. If you’re into women with glasses, Republican is the only way to go, but I digress.)
The problem is that innuendo and slander are easy, sticky and interesting.
Rebutting it requires work and care, and it’s boring.
The headlines of malfeasance are in bold letters on page 1.
The retractions are in small print on page 7.
Seriously, did you really need me to explain that?
*I tell you once, I tell you twice, what I tell you three times is true. *
I am not convinced that Jr. is guilty of a crime, apart from the filing offense, which I am perfectly content to shrug off.
The scenario I lean to is the “clueless doofus”. And I further suspect (suspect, mind you) that it is precisely this that Jr.s handlers are so anxious to conceal.
Nonetheless - I think there enough ambiguity about this situation to merit further investigation.
Over time, I’ve got quite a little collection of cites/sites. The most recent is this from the Daily Enron
http://www.thedailyenron.com/documents/20020709074849-26033.asp
Sometimes, these sites contradict one another on statements of fact. For instance, this one maintains that the SEC investigation was undertaken by James Doty, who had been Jr.'s personal attorney, and was involved with Jr.'s buy-in to the Rangers. Others say that he recused himself.
I think its fair to say that most reasonable posters would raise an eyebrow if it shown that Mr. Doty was, in fact, connected to the investigation. (I tend to think not, since that would be astoundingly blatant to no real gain. The shadow of a sitting President needs little bolstering to insure than investigators proceed gingerly.) This must be clarified.
(from the linked site)
…At the time Bush sold his Harken stock, the audit committee on which he sat had been working for weeks with outside consultants from Smith Barney on a restructuring plan for the troubled company. The committee’s report may indeed not have been completed by June 22, 1990, when Bush sold out. But the only way Bush could not have known the committee’s preliminary findings is through a failure to attend audit committee meetings…
Well, now, if this is the case, Houston, we have a problem. We have a document submitted to the SEC that specificly states that Bush was in attendance at such a meeting when matters relative to the Aloha were discussed.
(The cite is given previiously, but if you want a repeat, simply say so. It is one of a set of SEC documents in Adobe format made available by the Center for Public Integrity)
As to other, less pleasant matters regarding this thread: suffice to say that vituperation from some sources can be taken as a testimonial of honor. I am appropriately grateful.
I’ve noticed this trend as well. Perhaps if one looked for responsible impartial cites one wouldn’t have that problem. I mean it only takes a clouple of clicks to see how Harken doubled after Bush’s sale. You’d think ti wouldn’t be mtoo much trouble if your pundits were interested in the truth.
NO. NO. NO. It wasn’t the audit committee and it was not to “restructure the troubled company.” It was a special committee looking to create a rights offering.
Finally, Bush was a member of a special committee established in the Spring of 1990 to work with Smith Barney in connection with the rights offering tha Harken announced
-from March 27, 1992 “Bush Investigation Briefing”
Look at your own cites, and cease the misrepresentations, and outright lies please.
What report? What the hell does this have to do with anything?
You are lying. What committee? The rights offering committee or the audit committee? What “preliminary findings?”
“Preliminary findings?” You just made that up on the spot.
Yes we do. He have somebody trying to manufacture a problem.
Yes, talking about a sale, to raise money, which would lead Bush to believe the company’s liquidity concerns were being addressed
Well, you once said “Wrong is wrong.” If you are shown conclusively to have engaged in deliberate lies, misrepresentations, and evasiveness, I don’t really see what the source has to do with it.
Nonetheless if you’re grateful, I’m glad. It’s been my pleasure.
This still fails the smell test. Bush et al have to practice spin control already; the pundits’ charges have already been made, the necessity for public and political response already exists.
Now, I don’t believe for a minute that Mr. Bush thinks he’s in trouble. It’s his sense of privelege that’s offended here (“how dare you question your leader’s moral recki— recta— moral outlook”), which bolsters his natural Republican tendency to stonewall. However, the only rational reason for him to withhold information is if he thinks the information will be damaging to him politically or legally. If he’s as confident as I think he is, it’s pure antidemocratic arrogance that’s motivating him to hold his cards.
Following the same line of thought, I have to believe that if any of his supporters or advisers are recommending the stonewall tactic, it is out of fear of political damage from discovered past chicanery. In the absence of any concerted effort to discredit the president (and really, we’ve seen what that looks like, and this aint it), then the most effective damage control for the squeaky clean boy scout they’d like to portray would be full disclosure.
Xeno:
Well, we’re getting into opinion now, and yours is going to be as good as mine.
I don’t see what he gains by reopening it. It just stays in the news and gets to be pored over more.
Plus, there’s the whole concept of fair play. My ethics suggest that since there seems to have been a full and thorough investigation into the matter that Bush cooperated with to the point of waiving client/lawyer privilege, and that that investigation showed no wrongdoing (other than the late filing,) I don’t think he’s obligated to do it all again.
What the heck is the “smell test?”
BTW:
Craig Columbus of Thompson Financial was on CNBC yesterday re: the late filing.
It seems that the SEC was having a lot of problems with late and non-filing of form 4s. There was a real epidemic of nonfiling.
The SEC changed the law, and instituted a penalty, and sent out notices giving a grandfather period for catch-up filings under which no penalty would owed.
IIRC correctly, Bush filed his 4 in March, the catch-up period ended in May.
This may add more context to the lapse in filing.
It’s also interesting to note that since the SEC offered a goodwill period in which to catch up, and Bush filed during this period. His late filing can no longer be construed as breaking the law
In other words the SEC changed the law specifically so late filers could catch up without penalty.
Probably you can find a link to it at CNBCs website, or I’ll look upon request, but it doesn’t seem a big deal, more a point of info.
Scylla
Responsible and impartial cites? Well, bring them on, lad, bring them on. All my cites are linked, to be examined freely. Where’s yours?
The quote refers to whether or not Mr. Doty recused himself. I note that there is some contradiction amongst sources, and suggest that this needs to be clarified. Further, in the next paragraph (which seems to have escaped your attention) I note my opinion that Mr. Doty likely did, in fact, recuse himself.
By way of crushing rejoinder, you once again insist that Harken stock doubled. How this has any bearing on the status of Mr. Doty is a mystery to me. Clarification?
But now that you mention it……
[from the same Daily Enron site noted above)
…After Bush sold his Harken stock and the company announced its dismal condition, Harken shares dropped 50% a share. What caused the “dead cat bounce” in Harken stock to nearly $8 was the fortuitous appearance of the Texas Bass brothers who shored the company up by investing in Harken’s struggling Bahrain drilling deal. Once the glow of that news wore off, the stock resumed its downward spiral. Today Harken is selling for under 50 cents a share……
(Psssst, Scylla, your quote is presented “as is”. If you typed your posts on a word processing program, you could do a spell check before you post, thus avoiding the impression that your typing is as ham-fisted as your rhetorical devices.)
Your cite only states that he was a member of a “special committee” working with Smith Barney. Does it stretch credibility that he might be a member of more than one committee?
Now, this is a chestnut! Scylla at his best! How can I be lying if I’m quoting? Do you imagine, in your fevered dreams of conspiracy, that I can insert myself into the Daily Enron at will? How, pray, might I accomplish this?
“You just made that up on the spot.” I’ll pass that by lightly. No doubt you are already embarrassed by it. As well you should be. How could I possibly concoct a lie and have it inserted in a site published before I even sat down to type?
Which would also lead one to believe that Jr. was at least somewhat cognizant of the Aloha sale.
Is this one of those “gray areas” Jr. is now sheltering under? That the sale of Aloha is some minor accounting technicality? I note how he emphasizes how Harken complied with the SEC ruling. As if they had a choice? How is it that you know that the Aloha deal was, to use your word “hooey”, and Jr., MBA and all that, did not?
Note how he further points out that not all actions which are “improper accounting” are, in fact, illegal. Is improper accounting ethical? And, if not, how then is it improper? We appear to be in a very Clintonian area as to meaning. “Improper” is neither illegal nor unethical. No doubt you can clear that up for us.
I note you have called me a liar 3 times (or is it 4?) in a single post. For one who is notably prickly as regards your own dignity, you are markedly reluctant to afford the same to others. But I am a tolerant, cheerful sort of fellow, and am quite content to regard this a further heaping of honors on yours truly.
Re: opinions. Absolutely; my last post was nothing but MNSHO.
Re: smell test. What I mean is, if a political machine is valiantly trying to counterspin a story into a non-issue, then any evasion is likely to “smell funny” to a cynical political observer. I suppose it works on the analogy that each political party is trying to “feed” you their particular spin; if what they’re feeding you smells funny, you should ask for more proof before swallowing it. —And in this case, that applies to both major spins here; I’d personally like to know more about Director Bush, CEO Bush and Citizen Bush before I consider my suspicions of President Bush to be validated (or grudgingly let go of some of 'em).
Well, howzabout complete and utter vindication? Seems to me that would be quite a “gain”. Putting his enemies to flight, and all that.
And surely, if these documents show Jr. to be utterly blameless, having them “pored over” would be a positive boon, would it not?
And aren’t these documents, ultimately, the property of the people? We paid for the investigators, the exhaustive investigation, the very paper it is printed upon. They’re ours, aren’t they?
By “smell test”, I think Xeno means to imply that “it stinks”. Which is does.
But it looks as though the Dumbocrats are girding thier loins and might even have the courage to gingerly sidle up to the issue, and, hat in hand, respectfully request a peek.
We’ll see.
elucidator:
Don’t need them. I’m not making a positive argument. You are. Plus, your own cites seem to be doing a great job of disproving you. I appreciate your self-refuting arguments.
The term “dead cat bounce” gets misused a lot, so I’m sure that its misuse here is not your fault, but your cites. A dead cat bounce refers to the end of a precipitous drop in stock price. At the end of such a pattern. The stock will usually recover slightly, just because they think a bottom has been reached creating a buying opportunity.
Picture dropping a dead cat off a high building. When it hits the pavement it will indeed bounce slightly. The term “dead cat bounce” is an implicit warning not to interpret that bounce as a sign of life in the stock anymore than you would in a cat which was dead before you through it off a building.
So, whatever the Bass Brothers did didn’t create dead cat bounce.
For the record, Harkens’ quick recovery the next day was probably due to the glowing Forbes article the next day, and had nothing to do with what the Bass brothers ultimately did.
Next?
I’d respond to the Doty thing, but since you can’t seem to decide whether he recused himself or not, I’m not sure what’s expected in the way of a rebuttal.
It’s a stretch of credibility to state that Bush was on a committee that didn’t exist. It’s a further stretch when you suggest that Bush would have had to review “preliminary reports” prepared by this nonexistant committee which would have shown proof of malfeasance.
I take it back. It’s not a stretch of credibility. It’s an outright fabrication. A lie.
But I eagerly await a cite showing Bush was on a “restructuring committee” working with “Smith Barney” and producing “preliminary reports” showing malfeasance in the Aloha transaction.
Assuming you can’t (And that’s about as safe an assumption as I’ll ever make,) I stand behind my accusation that you’re engaging in misrepresentation, and outright lying.
You produced no quote for that statement referred to. It’s also possible to lie by misrepresenting context deliberately.
No doubt you’d like me to pass it by lightly as well. No deal. Produce the quote showing that Bush was on a “restructuring committee” with Smith Barney producing “preliminary reports” that would disclose the Aloha malfeasance, and I’ll eat crow. Otherwise I stand by “misrepresentation,” and “lie.”
For the 28th time! Because they had no way of knowing that the executive committee had secretly fabricated Aloha’s buyer from Harkens capitol in a dummy corp owned by themselves. The whole reason the EE did it was specifically to hide it from the audit committee and the investors. They had no way of knowing that the offer wasn’t legit.
I’ve been most courteous for four pages. Your well-documented evasions, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications make no other conclusion possible.
If you feel you are suffering a loss of dignity, you have only yourself to blame.
elucidator:
Clearly my poor word processing and proofreading skills are germaine to the discussion and prove the bankruptcy of all the arguments I’ve made herein.
Nice of you to bring it up.
Xeno:
You may be right. Maybe he should open up his records. OTOH, I kind of think that the information that’s out there right now, does a pretty damn good job of clearing him on this issue.
Since that’s not what’s happening, giving more info might just be fuel for the fire.
If I was in his shoes, there’s no way I’d open myself to further scrutiny even if I knew and could prove I was totally innocent. There’s a lot of payback for what happened to Bill Clinton waiting out there and I wouldn’t want to catch it.
But, maybe I’ wrong and it would help. Who knows.
Btw: Don’t worry, I don’t think any opinions need change simply because it looks like Bush was innocent of this particular charge.
He’s still a former drunk, ne’er do well, who’s only real asset has been his family name and connections, which he’s cashed in on repeatedly.
Even so, his business career is undistinguished at best.
Hmm. I think my work here in this thread is done. I’ve managed to side with the “Bush is prolly a crook” faction while getting some agreement in principle from the “Nothing to see here. Move along” party.
Time to become a dot…
.
Well, nothing at all is expected. The question is raised only as one that needs clarification. Frankly, I would be thunderstruck if it turns out that Mr. Doty, who’s objectivity is clearly suspect, was involved in the investigation. That would be brass-balled temerity of the first order. Nonetheless, I ask if anyone has any further information. My quoted cite says that Mr. Doty says he recused himself, but another cite says he conducted the investigation.
Wow! Two accusations of lying in less than a hundred words! You’re going for a “personal worst here”, Scylla!
Now look very very closely. See where I say “(From the linked site)”. See those little dots? (…) That is to state that the quote is taken from a larger context. Stay with me, it gets kind of tricky here. What that means, see, is that I am quoting another source. A “cite”. Follow me so far? So, you see, the only way I could be lying is if I wrote the original cite in the first place.
But I did. As is clearly shown. I even went to the slight trouble of using the dots (called, I believe, an “elision”) I made no representation of the context whatsoever.
Cheerfully done! In fact, it is precisely same cite already quoted. You do read these things, don’t you. But you did not suggest any falsehood in the cite, or any misrepresentation of that cite, you said “You made that up on the spot”. Which is, of course, perfectly ridiculous.
Please advise as to how you imagine that I “made that up on the spot” and managed to have it appear at a cite published before I sat down to type?
(from the linked site)
…At the time Bush sold his Harken stock, the audit committee on which he sat had been working for weeks with outside consultants from Smith Barney on a restructuring plan for the troubled company. The committee’s report may indeed not have been completed by June 22, 1990, when Bush sold out. But the only way Bush could not have known the committee’s preliminary findings is through a failure to attend audit committee meetings…
Which variety of “crow” did you have in mind? An English crow or a European crow?
At any rate, bon appetit Will you be posting pictures of the dining?
I wonder if I can have that Crow sauteed with a light cream sauce.
It seems I owe elucidator an apology in this particular instance.
Please forgive me. That was indeed a direct quote from your cite.
It was simply so false and misrepresentative, that I could not believe it would exist… but there it is.
I kind of wish I had said “credible” cite.
You’re not making this stuff up. Your cite is, or they’re just plain getting it wrong.
As we know from the SEC documents Bush sat on the rights offering committee which worked with Smith Barney, as well as the audit committee.
Your cite seems to be blending these together, somehow misconstruing a rights offering as a restructuring and further misassuming that somehow these committees were preparing a report on the internal funding and consistency of the outside entity (they thought) that was purchasing Aloha.
It looks like it’s based on the same FOIA SEC documents which we have, but it’s just plain flat wrong.
If your cite wasn’t so crappy…
Never mind.
MMMmmm good crow. Want some?
Of course. What I used to say to my son was “If it never happens again, then it never happened at all”. A form of glopnick
I’m roughly twenty years older than you. Rest assured, I am familiar enough with the cuisine. Was that an English crow or a European crow? The main distinction, of course, is carrying capacity…