Jeez, notcynical this is hot stuff! I misunderstood entirely, thought you had reposted something already there.
Wow! After thirty years, the drugs finally took effect! Brain turns to cheese. Your cite, however, only takes me to a page with a teaser (and, oh, what a teaser it is!) because I haven’t got the Salon Primo. Aaaaaarrrgh!
Is there any more in the rest of the article as juicy as this? Is it really Mr. Bush, in the boardroom with the smoking gun? Has Col. Mustard been entirely cleared?
I still can’t see it. I get the first two paragraphs and then a message telling me that the rest is premium content…
It does sound juicy, doesn’t it?
I’m skeptical that he actually has he what he says he has.
It seems like he’s got some blockbuster revelations there, and I’m wondering how come if York has what he says he has it isn’t all over the news? I mean here he is with a smoking gun with the Prez’s fingerprints on it, and the only place you can find it is Salon.com?
I’ll have to reserve judgement till we actually see what he’s got.
Hopefully, it’s not another overeager amateur making spurious claims.
I’m not surprised. What we actually have though is a claim. If the claim is valid, and Mr. York has what he says he has, and it says what he says it says, then I’d agree with you.
What say we actually see what he has before we schedule the impeachment?
Why not be specific after 6 pages? Harken was experiencing liquidity problems. This fact is seemingly public from their regular 10k disclosures, and quarterly reports. Since you haven?t answered my question about where you got ?bankruptcy? from, I?ll assume this claim to degree is spurious. It didn?t look like bankruptcy to me, and I haven?t seen the claim elsewhere.
Again, at this point you need to be specific. That?s certainly how it appears, and I?ll take that as a given unless we have reason to suspect otherwise. Again, we?ve had this resolved several pages ago. We seem to be in agreement. What you consistently fail to see and address is the real question this raises. In whose eyes was Aloha cooked up to obfuscate the liquidity problem?
It is logical to assume that the auditors, the audit committee (which includes Bush,) as well as the general public, are the parties you?d want to deceive. If the auditors or Bush knew that IMR consisted of insiders borrowing corporate funds, than they are a party to the deception. If they didn?t, and had no way of knowing, than they aren?t?
Do we agree?
Well, that?s a toughy. It might be that way, but if you?re hones, you really don?t know. It seems like the plan of the executive committee was to resell Aloha from IMR (I think those are the initials.) Had they done so successfully, they might have netted a nice profit (at the expense of shareholders,) and gotten away with it clean.
You keep saying the same thing again, and again. As I mentioned the first time you said roughly this ?YES!!?
Except, it?s not a ruse. It?s a trap, and a damn good one. It works like this:
You present generalizations and innuendo as fact
I ask you to be specific
You can?t, thus revealing that you are full of shit.
As I also said to you before, I?m not asking you to prove it, and I?ll repeat myself again (God know why you quoted from the relevant section, you must have remembered,)
If you want us to take it seriously, you?ll need to show that there?s a good likelihood that Bush is guilty, and that the investigation is flawed.
So far, nothing has been revealed that is not consistent with the SECs investigation. Until you show something that is (notcynical?s evidence would work,) I can see no reason to doubt the SECs conclusion.
Without that reason, there?s really nothing to investigate.
Not quite. He’s got to show reasonable suspicion that:
a) the SEC investigation was cursory (seems likely), AND
b) there’s a strong possibility Harken and/or Bush illegally attempted to deceive potential stockholders as to the financial health of the company (pretty much proven on Harken’s part) OR
c) there’s a strong likelihood that Bush possessed insider information that Harken was less solvent than it appeared when he sold his stock (more indications keep popping up)
There’s certainly enough information for “us” to take seriously here.
Speaking purely for myself, “reasonable suspicion” was proved long ago and was all but imminent in the facts. The reasonable suspicion of “a” can be inferred from who conducted it; “b” insofar as Harken’s concerned is, as you say, proved; and “c” is obvious from the facts.
I dunno if notcynical’s cite will prove definitive or not–but what’s kept me reading here is the incredible energy with which elucidator seeks to convict, and Scylla to show reasonable doubt.
a. I don’t think “cursory” is the word. The word we should be looking for is “improper.”
b. I don’t know that we can say whether it was illegal or not (I honestly don’t know.) Unethical certainly. I leave the other part to the lawyers. And it’s not enough to have suspicion for Harken (Bush didn’t run the company.) You need to show he was involved or had knowledge of the possible fraud.
c. Not quite it: We actually need to show reasonable suspicion that he acted on material nonpublic information in his posession
Huh. We’re dancing around each other, Scylla. Tell you what; I’ll accept “unethical” and “improper” for Harken’s actions and offer “complicit” for Bush if you’ll accept “cursory” for the SEC investigation.
And I guess we have different thresholds for “reasonable suspicion” of the insider trading charge.
Scylla, how could “cursory” not be “improper” when it refers to the investigation of a president’s son? The word cursory is defined by my dictionary as “hastily and superficially done.”? If it was cursory, then it was improper–even if a more thoroughgoing investigation wouldn’t have found sufficient evidence for indictment.
xeno, “complicit” is, IMO, a controversial one for Bush since his own defense is “clueless.” Is a clueless person complicit? Only if their cluelessness is deliberate as in, “I know you’re about to put your hand in the cookie jar so I’ll just whistle in this corner while you do.” OTOH, I’d say there’s “reasonable suspicion” of that scenario, but, OTOH, I don’t believe the cluelessness and never did. If it were me I’d say that Bush is almost certainly “compromised” as well as probably “complicit.”
No. I’m pretty sure cursory is the wrong word. For example, if there is little cause for suspicion, a cursory investigation is appropriate.
As for my standards for reasonable suspicion, I go by what the law actually is. It’s pretty precise:
In order to commit illegal insider trading one must be in posession of material nonpublic information, and one must act on that information.
The Sec has investigated and found no reason to pursue an investigation against Bush.
In order for there to be a renewed investigation into Bush’s activity, we need to answer the questions that form the test for illegal insider trading:
What is the information in question?
Was that information nonpublic in nature
Was it material? (I did some more review, and material can be addressed in a couple of different ways. It has to be significant and important enough to significantly effect the stock price (if it’s released) and lead a reasonable person to suppose it would (if it remains nonpublic) Since the Harken debacle came public, and the stock was not seriously affected, material becomes a tough test.)
Did the person act based on this information? The information has to be the hinge. A good test case migh be Nord resources in 1990. One of the directors sold a large number of shares, shortly before the stock missed its earning and tanked (a not unsimilar situation to Bush’s). This director knew about it, the information was nonpublic and material, hower the director was building a house , and had a documented preexisting need and plan. He didn’t act based on that info. His having it was incidental. No illegal insider trading occured.
That’s a short explanation of the legal test.
We need a reasonable suspicion of a scenario that fits that criteria.
That’s why I keep asking those same questions. I never get past the first one though.
Hey, I’m not gonna break out Merriam-Webster (that’s so last year), but I would call the investigation rather perfunctory. Particularly since the SEC definitely began from a position of suspicion.
As to the legal test…
The information in question: that the Harken financial situation was worse than was publically known. It’s been demonstrated in this thread that at least two of Bush’s fellow directors who were not on the Executive Committee knew this. (I quoted the two earlier.)
Was the information nonpublic: see above
Was it material: unquestionably
Did Bush act based on this information: who knows? I’ve had to revise my opinion that he probably didn’t know, but I still feel he probably didn’t care. Whether that’s relevant to Bush’s ultimate legal culpability, I don’t know; I’ll take your word for that. But I find the mere fact that he probably knew and sold anyway to be sufficient cause for renewed investigation. Mandelstam: I don’t believe “clueless” either. My operating assumption favors “indifferent” instead. You say “compromised” I say “complicit”, let’s not call the whole thing off.
taggert: It may indeed be moot. I’ve seen Watergate and I’ve seen Iran-Contra; the latter seemed to me at least as nefarious as the former. But Nixon resigned and became the American boogeyman while Reagan was canonized by much of the American public.
I’ve seen the Tower collapse (I’m talking about Sen. John Tower here, btw), Packwater, the Clarence Thomas confirmation and a dozen other “character” investigations, including the hysterically vehement MonicaGate which failed to destroy Clinton.
Whether this Harken deal becomes the undoing of Bush, I couldn’t say, but the horns are calling the hounds in Washington right now, over this and over Haliburton. This aint gonna blow away soon, sez I.
xenophon, your point 4… I’m not sure I understand it. That was the drive behind the initial investigation. Why do it again based off he same suspicion?
erislover, it’s because of the strong indication that facts not considered by the original investigation are being brought to light. The national climate has changed fundamentally since the original investigation. The lightweight son of the past President has become the sitting President, presiding over an administration ostensibly grappling with the phenomenon of seemingly widespread corporate fraud. Today’s revelations give new relevance to Bush’s business practices of the past.
Again, can we be more specific? “Worse than was publically known” In what fashion?
This is why we need to be specific and look at these singly. Could the information have been inferred from public knowledge? It follows logically that somebody at a company is going to talk about it more, know more, and have a more sophisticated opinion about it than someone who just follows the company as an investment. When you look at whether it was nonpublic, we have to determine as to whether it falls into the category of simply “expertise” with the company, or whether the information derives from specific information not available to the public. Insiders buy and sell all the time, and they have all kinds of expert knowledge about their company. This is fine and appropriate. I suppose you could make a case for “general information.” I’ve never heard anything that says you can’t. However, every time the issue of insider information comes up, either in the news, or professionally, It’s always been a specific piece of information unavailable to the public: “XYZ stock was about to get a big contract.” or somesuch.
Unquestionably? This makes me uncomfortable. It is my personal opinion that knowledge of Harkens’ announcement, or specific information that led to their announcement is indeed material, but I could be wrong. So, I agree with you. The SEC contracted a report on materiality of such, and found differently. A Smith Barney analyst that same day said it wasn’t significant. So, while I agree that such information is material, and will give you no argument, it’s going to be tough to prove. Because:
The market didn’t care
The analyst thought it was insignificant
The SEC found it immaterial
All else being said and done, those three facts are a pretty good defense in and of themself, no matter what else is shown. Any substantive argument is going to have to address these issues and overcome them. Yes?
Yup, big question mark.
Let me suggest this:
Elucidator suggested that he wished that somebody with some “expertise” would step from the dark side, and interpret this. I think what he means is to have somebody address it from a prosecutorial standpoint.
Just for fun, let me pretend I’m arguing for a reopening of the investigation, and I’ll make my best faith effort to put together the case against Bush.
If I do that, I don’t expect to have it thrown in my face, or say “Yes! clearly you’ve proven his guilt.” I expect you guys to try to rip it apart with same good faith I put it together.
If I do that, and switch roles, maybe we’ll have some new ideas and a clearer picture.
xeno: You say “compromised” I say “complicit”, let’s not call the whole thing off."
Heck no! Not when things are getting this interesting.
The below article, which is about Halliburton, and mainly recent Halliburton, is, strictly speaking, entirely off topic. But I thought it would be of interest to those reading this thread (and it bears on what I meant many pages ago about credibility issues being a core concern here).
eris, are you asking why not redo a cursory or perfunctory investigation, conducted under dubious circumstances, when reasonable suspicion remains?
Scylla, nobody has to approach this prosecutorially; what elucidator (and a few others, including yours truly) have been doing is approaching this from a standpoint that further investigation is called for. Your prosecutorial standard would require us to make a case against this man before we’ve had a chance to follow up on new evidence!
The purpose of an investigation based on the new revelations (and new national context) would be to either clear him or find cause for indictment (not necessarily in the legal sense, either). This is information crucial to public trust, being specifically pertinent to the crisis of confidence in the US market and to this administration’s handling of it.
You can, of course, attempt your prosecutorial argument if you wish. IMO it’s premature; you’ve no more knowledge of the facts than the rest of us. I’ll stick with observing and commenting on the unofficial detective work being done by journalists, thank you.