notcynical:
So, you are posting that Bush had insider information which he had acted on regarding the liquidity crunch?
(I can’t find that quote in the linked salon article from Conason.)
Not be picky Notcynical but you missed it. A little further down the page he outlines his evidence that the purchaser of Jr.s stock sale was Harvard Management.
(From link noted above, Joe Conason article)
…Lewis reports that “at the bottom of a spreadsheet Smith used to record his calls to Bush was the name of Michael Eisenson, along with the telephone number of Harvard Management.” In 2000 when Lewis was working on his book, Eisenson didn’t return his calls…
All in all, it doesn’t seem particularly intriguing. One has to wonder what would prompt them to make such an investment. Did they thoroughly investigate Harken Energy and declaim “Boy oh boy [or some Harvard equivalent] the Harken stuff is primo! Gotta have some of this sound, well-founded, fiscally secure firm”
Wonder if the guys is still working there after that splendid example of executive decision making. I think it is a notable, even odd, coincidence that the decision allows Jr. to unload in a block, obviating the potential embarrassment and/or revelations that might ensue if somebody notices a big chunk of Harken stock hitting the market.
Boy, what I really wish we had in reviewing these documents (posted above) is a renegade MBA, someone who speaks the language but has turned away from the Dark Side.
Note with special interest the document dated July 25, 1991. It is an exhausting list of document, notes, etc. requested from Joe Cialone III, who is attorney for both Bush and Harken. See also the document dated July 17 that notes on July 8 the SEC received “…Harken and Bush’s response to our second request for voluntary production of documents. Harken has asserted the attorney-client privilege and refused to produce documents concerning it’s policy concerning the purchase, sale, or ownership by officers or directors. Bush has produced a small amount of additional documents which provide little insight as to what Harken nonpublic information he knew and when he knew it….”
(emphasis mine)
You know, I had gotten the impression from the spin on this that Jr. had implied a complete cooperation with the SEC investigation. And yet this. As best I can tell, there isn’t anything in these documents to state that the SEC’s list of stuff was ever turned over, or when. Given this paper trail, it is hard for me to understand how conclusions could be drawn without them, i.e., an decision to proceed/not proceed.
Is this the kind of thing that Our Leader means by “thoroughly vetted”? Apparently.
Not a prob, Mandy Our collective enthusiasm and fervor oftimes creates cross-postings, etc.
I understand them just fine.
There’s nine items on that list. In looking at the SEC’s conclusions (previously cited documents,) it seems clear that they recieved items 1-6 by the time they published thier conclusions.
The other items requested aren’t referred to in the later documents that we’ve seen, but it seems likely that they got the information they wanted, as the requests were pretty innocuous (the only one that’s any issue is the one of the handwriting. I have no idea what that’s about.)
and yet what? I’ve seen nothing inconsistent with total cooperation from Bush. Note that Harken has invoked client/attorney privilege, not Bush.
We don’t have a paper trail, elucidator. What we’re getting released to us is neither complete nor comprehensive. As I’ve mentioned, based on the Sec’s later findings it seems clear that they received items 1-6. We really can’t judge 7-9, but it seems likely they received those as well.
We’ve certainly seen nothing to indicate they hadn’t.
Can somebody point me to notcynical’s quote? I don’t see it there at all.
My apologies to all. My quote is NOT from the Conason article, but from this Salon article by Anthony York.
Not there either.
Although, that one makes an interesting statement. I’d love to see an internal Harken memo from Harken’s lawyers telling him not to sell because he posessed insider information.
That would run directly to the opposite of what the SEC found to be the case in its (previously cited) investigational summary.
Well, yes… One hopes that your vulnerable dignity is not greatly offended by this unworthy one’s wish for a second opinion? Not to imply that your rather intemperate desire to win an argument might overwhelm your thirst for truth.
Or anything.
Quite so. No doubt, when Operation Total Exoneration swings into action, and all those documents are released, then you will have a chance to do the victory boogie in the end zone. That is, if Jr. is no longer “peeved”.
You are, of course, eager to see that, yes?
“…Bush has produced a small amount of additional documents which provide little insight as to what Harken nonpublic information he knew and when he knew it….”
And what are they? Where are they?
One further notes that letters are addressed to attorneys who are acting as lawyer for both Bush and the Company. How can one attorney, in the same breath, refuse cooperation for one client and profer cooperation for another client, if he is acting for both. Does he remove one hat and don another?
Are you still maintaining that Jr. was unaware of the financial difficulty, bordering on bankruptcy, that was Harkens true condition when he sold his shares? Or does this fall in that delicate area of “improper but not illegal”?
Oh, I quite forgot. Several writers have remarked on the cursory nature of the SEC investigation, citing an absence of any interviews with either Bush or any of the other directors.
So far, if there is any reference to any such interviews taking place, it has escaped my notice. Is there any such?
And, in thier absence, wouldn’t that imply that the investigation was, in fact, rather shallow? And the lingering, unanswered question about Mr. Doty. Recused or no?
Please excuse me, I’m going to take a minute and see if those excellent managers over at Harvard are interested in buying a bridge.
And this just in…
http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=la-na-aloha12jul12
Excerpts:
"…Harken’s executives came up with a novel plan to ease the pain. They would sell a small chain of Hawaiian gas stations called Aloha Petroleum to a group of investors that included Harken’s chairman and one of its directors. The buyers would pay $1 million up front, but the accountants would record an immediate $7.9-million profit, enough to erase most of Harken’s losses for the year.
They made a point of seeking the approval of directors who were not participants in the investor group. Bush, a member of the board’s audit committee, signed off on the deal, according to Harken documents. So did the company’s outside auditor, Arthur Andersen & Co…"
(emphasis gleefully added)
…“Based on a review of publicly released Securities and Exchange Commission filings, meeting minutes, memos and correspondence from that period, there is no evidence that Bush, or any of the other directors, raised objections or expressed concern about the Aloha deal…”
"…The Aloha sale was so similar to what Enron Corp. did to hide its losses that Harken could have served as a model for the now-disgraced company, one accounting expert said.
“The people at Enron could have gone to school on this thing,” said Alfred King, former managing director of the Institute of Management Accountants, vice chairman of Milwaukee-based Valuation Research Corp. and former advisor to the Financial Accounting Standards Board.
“They sold to themselves and recorded a profit,” King said. “That’s exactly what Enron did on a number of those off-balance-sheet transactions. On this one transaction at least, it’s almost identical…”
“…Of the seven Harken directors who served on the board with Bush, five declined to discuss the deal or did not return calls seeking comment. Executives at Aloha, now a privately held company, also declined to comment. So did past and present officials at Harken, Arthur Andersen and the SEC…”
Why, it seems almost every time I look, there is another one! Darned old liberal media, huh?
Seems like the only way to halt thier endless innuendoes, lies, misrepresentations, etc. would be for Jr. to release all those documents.
Right, Scylla?
I don’t know. When did you stop beating your wife? Or, are you still in denial.
(please stop misrepresenting my statements. Please. Please.)
Bankruptcy? Where’d you get that?
elucidator, why are these new quotes damning? I’ve been reading this for awhile now, and it’s repeating the same information over and over.
-
Harken’s executives conspired to sell to themselves in order to declare profit.
-
Bush, company auditors and Arthur Anderson signed off on the SEC fillings after this fact.
None of these quotes address the same question which Scylla’s been asking you all this time, namely that the subjects of #2 knew in advance the entire plan of #1.
I don’t understand your expressed glee, or in fact, your reason for bringing these kinds of quotes up again. Is there any new information?
inkblot
Nice article from the times. Can’t wait to see if the internal documents actually say what he thinks they say. I wonder if these are new “internal documents,” of if he’s just spinning hte ones we’ve already seen.
Again, looks like nothing new.
We knew Bush sat on a committee that gave authority for the sale of Aloha.
We knew, the auditor and audit committee signed off on the transaction as part of the audit.
::Yawn::
Didn’t we cover this on page 1?
Xeno: I humbly apologize. I had thought that debate was a series of factual premises connected by logic to reach a conclusion, but that what is going on hear is mere gainsaying of what the other person says, along with casting aspersions about their character. I, of course, take my definition from the Monty Python sketch, The Argument Clinic. “Oh, I’m sorry, this is abuse. Argument is next door.” I’ve seen a couple of people make reference to supposed facts, which I don’t dispute. As Bush said on July 4, 2001 to a woman who complained to him at a public event: “Who cares what you think?” Bush and his SEC are in charge, and so is his Justice Department. I cite Crackie Roberts of the the NPR as my source for saying that Bush was exonerated by the SEC. If you choose to disagree, that is too bad. Cokie (shorter sentence uses Cokie, not Crackie) is always right and very unbiased.
Just out of fairness (and 'cuz I think Bush is looking more and more schmuck-like on this, anyway), here’s the opposing spin from former Bush colleagues (end of the article):
Well, by golly, if his former partners in cr— I mean, fellow executives think he’s a straight up guy…
As far as having known about this already as Scylla tells us, well, I plead guilty to inattention if we’d already established that he knew and approved. What Bush knew about the Aloha deal and when he knew it have been my primary questions. I’m now much further along in considering my suspicions validated.
So I take it from your cogent analysis you feel this is a dead issue and we should all talk about something else then, taggert?
Look again (paragraph 5).
Xeno:
The Aloha transaction would have gone past the auditors and the committee. It’s not like they wouldn’t have noticed a multimillion dollar sale.
The question of course is what form of transaction did they see when they were shown Aloha?
Did the executive committee say “hey look at this cool insider scam we put together,” or did it look proper and reasonable?
In other words, the question is, and the question always will have to be “What material nonpublic information was Bush acting on when he sold his stock?”
It kinda looks to this observer as if they said “hey look at this proper and reasonable insider scam we put together.” YMMV (and obviously does), but it highlights the President’s approach to “reform”.
Scylla, page 1
I suggest such new evidence veritably abounds.
Page 3
We have evidence before us to suggest that Jr., whether in his role as an audit committee member, or simply as a member of the BoD, was informed.
See above
Is this the kind of insider knowledge of which you speak? Seems to me that it is.
That he knew Harken was in serious trouble. That the Aloha scheme was cooked up with no more purpose that to obfuscate that fact. Clearly, such could only be a temporary measure, sooner or later the truth will out. And Jr.’s stock, he must certainly expect, would be much less valuable.
And within that window of opportunity, he makes his sale. Hell, his own Mamma would find that suspicious!
As I’ve said before, I think your repetition of the “insider trading” question is nothing more than a ruse to maneuver me into a position that is unsupportable. You would demand proof beyond reasonable doubt, which could only be based on the information I wish we could all obtain.
You continually don the umpires shirt and tell me what the rules are. It’s like Scylla poker: all my cards are face up, and you get to draw twice. As evidence of your willingness to stoop to such devices, one need only note that you continually state that I am a “liar” from no other evidence but my continued opposition.
So…are we to take it you now support a complete release of all documents in this matter?
Scylla, did you have a chance to go to the Salon article that I quoted back on page 5? Here are some more quotes that I believe are relevant to the charges of insider trading. For those who might have missed it, I repeat the link.
*
…memos from the company show in great detail that [Bush] 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.
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.”
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. *
If indeed these are not relevant to accusations of insider trading, then I, being as far from an expert on what constitutes such as I can imgaine, apologize for bringing them up.