Mandelstam, that’s interesting reading.
xeno:
IMO, the new national context isn’t enough reason to cause a reinvestigation. He did what he did years ago. If his actions, or those of the investigators can be shown to look improper, it should be reinvestigated.
I haven’t really seen any new revelations either. What I’m seeing universally are old documents held by the SEC in the process of its investigation being released under the freedom of information act.
If we’re going to spend the money for a new investigation I want a reasonable shot at indictments, and a reasonable shot at showing fraud, obstruction of justice, and illegal insider trading.
erislover:
Me too. It’s simply been stated, as if it were a fact. So far, a couple of liberal columnists have suggested that it looks perfunctory. What they base that on, I have no idea. My personal opinion is that they really looked at this thing hard, probably a lot harder than they would normally have done for somebody who wasn’t the President’s son.
Of course, I have no more to back that view up, than the liberal columnists.
The fact is that the SEC is pretty inscrutable in what they decide to investigate, and how far they go with it. What the SEC is trying to do is investigate enough to produce a case that they can hand over to the Department of Justice, which will then presecute it. Ultimately the DOJ is the one who decides whether to prosecute. So, at times the SEC may feel they’re developing a very strong case, but the DOJ may not be interested in prosecuting it (so the SEC just stops investigating.) At other times they may get into an investigation and determine that their chances of developing a good case are poor, at which point they’ll stop as well. Once they get past the probe phase though, they tend to get the DOJ involved to see if they want to go with it. Most of what the SEC does when they look at these things is pretty perfunctory. They investigate a little and if they don’t see aggressive signs of a violation in a fairly clear-cut manner they usually just drop it.
In this light, the investigation into Bush’s trade seems pretty large in scope for such a tough and ambiguous case.
Seeing as the news hasn’t jumped on York’s revelations, I’m going to assume that he construed his conclusions erroneously from the Freedom of information act documents, and that he’s not in posession of anything new. Of course, I’ll happily modify this view in the event of any actual revelations.
Except of course for those interviews of Bush’s two former colleagues on the three-member audit committee. From the LA TImes article, writer Warren Zieth reports former chair of that audit committee Talat M. Othman as saying:
So, at minimum, Bush seems to have known about the full nature of the Aloha deals, and that without the illusory profits Harken looked a good deal worse.
Also in the article appears this uncredited opinion:
Obviously, experts may disagree.
And what about the simple fact that the SEC’s chairman at the time was a George H. Bush appointee, and the general counsel to the SEC Bush’s own lawyer? While that doesn’t necessarily prove that the investigation was superificial, cursory, or even perfunctory, it certainly gives one grounds for reasonable suspicion. I think that the same American people who paid for Whitewater and Monica would be willing to fork over to clear up this matter once and for all. If the government is short on money, the administration can start by putting a cap on Halliburton’s tab with the military ;).
If W. has nothing to hide then he’s got nothing to hide.
Are you always this abusive when you lose an argument?
And others, who find some merit in my argument, are they equally full of shit? And “liars” as well?
http://dailyenron.com/documents/20020712093134-26708.asp
Excerpts:
…James Doty, SEC general counsel during the 1991 SEC investigation into Bush’s Harken stock deals, denied today that Bush had been warned in writing by the SEC not to claim he had been exonerated. It proved to be a short-lived denial.
In an interview this morning on NPR, Doty at first denied that the SEC’s letter to Bush forbid him in writing to claim that by closing the investigation he had been exonerated.
The NPR announcer was prepared with a copy of the letter. He read the 1991 SEC letter to Doty, including the line he denied was in it.
Doty quickly explained that such statements are common language in all such letters. Unfortunately Doty’s explanation may now cause Bush new problems.
“That statement is put in the letters to warn people that the SEC can reopen the investigation at any time if new information surfaces,” Doty tried to explain. “and to let them know that that they are forbidden from using the letter to claim they had been exonerated.”
If Doty’s characterization is correct, it would appear that President Bush’s contention that he was cleared of any wrongdoing violates SEC rules.
Another contradiction between Bush’s explanation of events surfaced today. Bush has maintained that he fully cooperated with the 1991 SEC investigation. That contention has now been contradicted by a memo from the very SEC officials who conducted - or tried to conduct - that investigation.
Three months into the 1991 investigation, SEC rank and file investigators complained to their politically appointed bosses that Bush had provided little more than already public information to the SEC about his sale. The allegation was contained in a 1991 SEC memo released yesterday by the Center for Public Integrity…
Just love that Daily Enron site. So entertaining!
Xeno:
Both your quoted excepts are entirely consistent with what I’ve been saying. The first quote suggests that a single outside director doesn’t control the company. That’s certainly true.
Certainly Bush heard of Aloha, and knew of the pending sale as his committees were cetainly involved in the decision to sell and in the accounting of the transaction for auditing purposes.
The likelihood of those two things being true, is so high let’s just call them facts.
From those two facts we can make one of two assumptions:
- During the discussions about the sale, and in the auditing process, the fact that IMR was comprised of insiders who were borrowing money from the corporation was disclosed.
2, The makeup of IMR was not disclosed, and where it was getting its money was not disclosed
Now, if #1 is true, we’re starting to move into some shady areas. We have a reasonable suspicion.
However, the fact is that there is every reason to suspect that #2 is the actual case.
Here are the reasons:
- The whole point of doing this kind of thing is to hide stuff from the rest of the board, and particularly the audit committee. You start an LLC to get stuff done off the books. They didn’t tell the audit committee for the same reason you don’t tell the guy your stealing from how you’re doing it (much less even tell him your stealing.)
This is a pretty basic and difficult objection to overcome.
-
Part of the reason that Enron had audited financial statements showing it was doing great for so long was because of this exact trick. The stuff wasn’t on the books, the auditors and the audit committee didn’t have a clue. They were deceived by the CEO and top executives.
-
In their summary of their investigation, the SEC looks into this and concludes that only the Executive committee itself was ever aware of the specifics of the transaction.
Now elucidator, even if number one is true we still got a ways to go before we have a scenario that implies illegal insider trading. You’re going to have to show that he was able to conclude something material from knowledge of IMR. Bush is not a CPA, nor is he a licensed auditor. He was simply on the audit commitee. If he had knowledge of the transaction and was assured by counsel or the auditors that it was legal and appropriate than it is the counsel and the auditors that are at fault.
Oddly enough you quote an argument that I’ve been saying almost verbatim since page 1, and that elucidator kept challenging me on:
Precisely. The audit committee much less Bush doesn’t rule on what they find. Auditors and counsel do. The audit committees primary job is to make sure the auditors have what they need to do their job. Now, if Bush knew about the structure of IMR with regards to Aloha, and he withheld or conspired to withhold that information from the auditors, we have something really juicy.
So far, nobody’s suggested that he had.
Now for the first part of the quote:
This is true. Whether or not this failure is due to incompetance, conspiracy, or was beyond his control though is an entirely different question. One can do one’s best, do everything properly and still fail. It happens. It’s not wrong or criminal or even necessarily a fault when it does.
The test for this is “due diligence.” If Bush and the audit committee acted properly and responsibly, and performed their job as audit committee members with the diligence that that job was due, and they still fail to catch something, they are not at fault.
Mandelstam:
Yes, we had an investigation of Clinton that was embarassing, so it seems only fair we have one for Bush to get even. I get your sentiment. I’m afraid that a lot of it is out there coloring this thing.
elucidator:
Have you quit drinking yet or are you still in denial about your alcoholism?
Jesus Christ elucidator. How could you have won the argument when you haven’t even made one?
only you.
It’ll sure be interesting to see who gets most emabarassed by this one.
BTW, are you planning on continuing the denial of probable cause to reinvestigate? Just wondering. I remain convinced that further investigation is inevitable. -And obviously, I find the argument for further investigation more and more compelling. I would not pronounce Bush guilty of anything more than the same arrogant disregard for the public that we already knew about, but I certainly share 'lucidator’s intuition that Bush is dirty.
This is getting curiouser and curiouser.
elucidator:
Re daily enron:
First the Doty stuff.
Yup. He screwed up, and they got him. Embarassing. It doesn’t really mean anything except to make Doty look bad. It seems that we are previously in agreement on the whole “exoneration” thing.
To repeat:
It looks like some of the boys at the SEC aren’t really clear as to what they do. They neither pronounce guilt nor innocence. What they do is monitor transactions and try to build cases. When they build one they give it to the DOJ.
Much of the SECs official corresponcance is loaded with standard disclaimers. There’s disclaimers on red herring’s that state that the SEC’s review of the transaction (usually a new offering) cannot be construed as an opinion of the security.
There’s also standard disclaimers that go out on correspondance in an investigation (I think there’s an example on that faxed letter to the CEO of Harkens requesting a detailed timescale.) These say that an investigation is neither a pronouncement of guilt nor innocence and that neither the termination nor the beginning of an investigation can be construed as either.)
Bush though is pretty safe in his claim that he was exonerated. Some people at the SEC (Doty included) over stepped their bounds and said some pretty exonerating things, and even put them in writing without the disclaimer. That’s their fault.
Clearly Bush should not have been “exonerated” as a result of the SECs investigation, but it sure likes some people screwed up and said as much.
Again, this is a repetition of something we’ve already covered. We’ve discussed the documents in question, and they can only be interpreted in that fashion by a very ummmmm …liberal (yes that’s the word,) reading.
The memo in question says that Harken invokes Client attorney privilege and that Bush has provided some additional documents which aren’t particularly enlightening.
::Yawn::
And this just in…
Speaking from Little Big Horn, General G.A. Custer claimed victory in the famous battle. Asked about his absence of hair, Gen. Custer blamed male pattern baldness and the pro-Indian liberal media…
A lot of this centers on judgement of character. I have been leaning to the “clueless doofus” view from the beginning, but some of these revelations are having an impact. I had always gone on the assumption that those Texas Awl Bidnessmen had cozened Jr. and given him the “mushroom treatment”. Put baldly, I didn’t think him smart enough to be really crooked, and assumed that this was what his handlers are so anxious to conceal. That remains my view, but I’m not as certain anymore.
Scylla’s contention that I haven’t made an argument is a bit odd, coming from one who has spent pages ferociously, and somewhat boorishly, rebutting an argument he claims does not exist.
As to drinking, well, this line from Willy Nelson says it all, as far as I’m concerned.
“I gave up whiskey for weed in 1975. Might be the only smart thing I ever did.”
elucidator:
I just can’t let this ring ding go.
Let’s see what is your argument?
Your original argument seems to be: If everything Krugman says is true than Bush is a criminal.
Technically this is correct, but by the same token if everything Anne Coulter says is true, Clinton is a murdering sink masturbating rapist.
It’s a big if. So you kind of lost that one.
Then your argument seemed to become Bush is a criminal because he failed to file on time. As it turns out Bush filed legally during a grace period that the SEC instituted for catch up filing. So you lost that one.
Then it became Bush is guilty of illegal insider trading. Despite repeated requests you never told us what inside information Bush was in posession. Eventually even you seemed to realize that insisting he was guilty without saying what he was guilty of was kind of silly.
Now your argument seems to be: Damn, this sure looks suspicious! Now that Bush is Pres, and all important and stuff, and trying to clean up business we should investigate this whole thing again.
The main reason that I’m able to discern is because you intuit that Bush is crooked, and it’ll be fun.
Oddly, I think this is the standard rational.
There’s payback waiting out there for Clinton’s investigation, and it’s always good political strategy to impugn your future opponent as much as possible.
But, I think those are bad reasons.
I think if you want a reinvestigation at this point, you’d better be able to show that something went very badly wrong with the original investigation, i.e. that it was a travesty, and that a reinvestigation has a good likelihood of uncovering guilt.
But, so far nobody’s been specific about what it is we’re looking for, and what it is that went wrong. We’re just throwing innuendo and bullshit around.
Xeno:
Yes, I’m still so maintaining that a new investigation is not merited.
One ugly fact stands unchallenged: Jr. adamantly refuses to release documents that, presumably, would wholly exonerate him. Can anyone come up with a plausible reason?
Xen m’lad, you may shorten or paraphrase my name in any way that pleases you. Be advised that calling me “liar” is a privilege exclusively reserved for Scylla.
He doesn’t have to?
Damn big “if”. Friggin’ huge. Let me get this straight: if Paul Krugman is a journalist/pundit on an approximate level with “Anthrax” Coulter, then my argument is false? That dog won’t hunt. That dog is dead.
There must be a correct rhetorical term for the statement of an argument like “Resolved: Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot”. Just can’t think of it at the moment. At any rate……That is the nature of the OP. Your attempt to claim that an “argument” that I lost is laughable. As well as typical.
Trivia. We all pretty much agreed that a technical violation had occurred, but it was of no real consequence.
No, that’s your trap, lain carefully in my path in the hope I would take an obviously indefensible position: that proof positive of insider trading exists. I said “Not that stupid. Pass”. If you wish to characterize that as “losing” an argument, it would be surly of me to deny you that meager comfort.
Now you got it! Atta boy, I knew you could do it!
Fun? Hell, yes! I haven’t had this much fun since they shot Ol’ Yeller! When I feel a bit glum, all I need do is picture Karl Rove rolling on the carpet, moaning in pain, and damn! The day is brighter!
Well, it might well be that an investigation could be rendered moot by the simple expedient of releasing all the documents and all the facts in the matter. If, after a thorough poring over by the ravening liberal media, there is nothing to warrant attention, then, by golly, I would publicly proclaim Jr. absitively, posolutely one hunnerd percent Not Guilty, Period, End of Discussion!!
What accounts for his reticence, one has to wonder. Doesn’t one?
I think you’re getting it.
Elucidator:
haven’t we covered the whole document thing? I can think of all kinds of reasons:
-
It’s not worth dignifying.
-
Since Bush was a private citizen at the time, was investigated, was not prosecuted, and the statute of limitations is up, it is now immaterial, and nobody’s business.
-
You don’t help people with an agenda against you. If Bush releases info, and 99% shows he was innocent, and 1% points towards his guilt, guess which is going to be the issue?
-
The information almost certainly does not exonerate him. What possible document could prove that somebody didn’t pick up the phone from the SEC on June 19th and say “Hey Dubya, you better sell your stock, we’re about to make Harkens restate their quarter?” What are you thinking there is that could possibly exonerate him? What there certainly will be will be a lot of information that will lend itself to the same kind of abuse we’ve been seeing for the last few days.
The claims that have been made based on some of these documents by the press are absolutely irresponsibly wrong. You’ve brought up a couple of them, and I’ve shot them down. They jump to irresponsible conclusions based broad misinterpretations.
i.e. The restructuring committee that never was.
York’s irresponsible bullshit
etcetera.
- It’s pretty clear that much of the press and the liberals who are going after Bush are not really interested in whether or not it seems likely Bush committed a crime. The primary interest is how far they can go with it, and how much muck they can rake, and what damage they can do to his credibility. What is true, or accurate, is immaterial.
I mean look at the dailyenron article and how that misconstrues the very documents we were looking at yesterday.
Bush would absolutely have to be insane to feed this thing with any information, or dignify it further.
- and if all else fails, the 5th ammendment. He is not required and he’s under no moral imperative to help his enemies go after him, regardless of guilt or innocence.
erislover, you’re a truly nice individual. I believe you’re having trouble with the concept of a man being forced to readdress an issue he believed himself cleared of long ago. And that’s a good, compassionate and libertarian way to feel. I almost felt similarly about Clinton when he was forced to answer questions that shouldn’t even have been asked. But the thing that made me withhold my pity for Clinton is the same thing that keeps me from weeping for Bush.**
There are obligations that one assumes in any position of leadership. These obligations include the obligation to provide forthright response to criticism. This holds true for a boy scout troopleader, a factory foreman, a squad leader and most especially for the “leader of the free world”.
Facing responsibility for one’s past is an aspect of true leadership that failed Clinton. You and Scylla, apparently, would give Mr. Bush a free pass on it. I demand it.
**Or would, if I had any warmth towards the rotten bastard to start with.
Yes, I’m sure that will happen. I can just see the media pouring over all these documents and saying “Oooops! Boy oh boy, we’ve done a bad thing here. It’s pretty clear this fine upstanding man is completely innocent. We better go right a bunch of stories about ho everything was proper and it’s no big deal.”
Sure. I can see it. Yup. That might happen.
Who are you kidding?
Scylla, I thought you were Master of Irony… 