"Bush is a crook" says Mr. Krugman

Great Debates
301

The dismissive argument that this is simply going to be payback by the Democrats for the Whitewater investigation (fully exonerative of Clinton, one should remember, as Starr didn’t) doesn’t stick entirely. Consider what standards the Republicans thereby set as being acceptable for investigations into a President, and what standards of personal conduct they think a President should be required to meet. It doesn’t matter if one was an active participant into that or merely acquiesced. Those individuals have no basis for complaint about their own self-proclaimed (often preachily so) standards are simply being met. It might make a difference if they had a long, dark night of the soul in which they realized and accepted that they had been wrong and wanted to improve in the future - but I’m still waiting for the first such admission. IOW, righties, don’t even think about whining, and accept responsibility for your conduct. If consequences there be, they are consequences you have already accepted.

Now, point numero duo, the question at hand is not simply about the legal aspects of a single case, although it’s understandable that a lawyer would try to wrestle an argument onto grounds he’s comfortable on (the cuteness of the argument that we must have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt before a serious investigation notwithstanding). The question is if Bush is a “crook”.

Now, I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt that word appears in any federal law or SEC regulation. It’s colloquial, often and accurately applied to people whose conduct is entirely within the law, but nevertheless immoral or hypocritical according to broader social standards.

This isn’t a legal question, really, but it fits in the broader sphere of political discourse and the nature of leadership. Bush may not be legally guilty (although we don’t know yet, a serious investigation having yet to be carried out, the SEC report being coated with whitewash), but the evidence is already there for the jury of public opinion to declare him a crook. Many of us knew that before the election, too, including the specifics of this incident (thanks to Joe Conason).

302

Xeno:

You know, we’re on opposite sides of this, but I appreciate the fair points you’ve been making. This is an excellent one. What you say is indeed the way it should be.

But, while we’re talking about the way things should be, there also needs to be responsibility for those who make the criticisms and accusations. They should be real concerns that address germaine issues, and not political weapons that exist for no other reason than to humiliate and discredit.

The way the allegations against Clinton were handled were not appropriate. It was not a seeking of justice, it was a political weapon. I think he made his own bed with the Lewinsky thing, but Whitewater, the Commodities and the allegations of rape and harassment should not have been a trial by media circus. At least with Whitewater, and the rape stuff there was a potential prosecutable crime.

There isn’t here.

303

Well said, Xenophon. That’s a sentiment I share. In fact, it’s probably the first thing I’ve read in this entire thread that I agree with one hundred percent.

Which is not to say that it hasn’t been very interesting and enlightening. I congratulate all the participants, especially Scylla and Elucidator, on their determination and thorough research. This is a great thread.

I think the question Elucidator asked deserves a better answer. I don’t have one, unfortunately. If Bush does indeed hold documents that would exonerate him from the accusations, then why isn’t he releasing them? “Because he doesn’t have to,” is a poor answer at best. He is not releasing information that would supposedly free him from accusations of wrongdoing… the question that raises for me is, Why not? What is he hiding?

Alas, I don’t have an answer for that one either. But I do think that he’s hiding something. I just don’t know what.

304

Scylla, I agree completely about the responsibility of the accusers here. And I can’t speak for everyone else’s motives. I’m quite sure that many seek revenge for Whitewater or are just partisanly cheering against the Republicans. And while I’ve been known to toast “Confusion to the Enemy!”, I’m not so vehemently liberal that I consider Republicans the enemy.

I do truly think that Harken has enough relevance, and that there are enough doubts about Bush’s role, that further investigation is warranted. I also believe the President will continue to obstruct needed reform unless he is put on the hot seat over his own business record.

I don’t completely understand the defense of stonewalling, but I do understand how a reasonable person could believe it would be better for the country were the matter to be dropped. However, I think we’re past that point.

305

Time to beat that damn horse…

The statue of limitations has expired. He can go on TV tomorrow, laugh at us all, tell us he intentionally pulled some SEC voodoo, and there is nothing, legally, to be done about it.

Of course, I am in the ‘He did nothing wrong’ camp, but still, it is a bit of an academic argument at this point.

306

Yes, wouldn’t that be inspiring?

307

Hey, sorry about the misquote above. Brutus said “TV”, not “TB”. That was my typo. (I should really cut & paste instead of retyping those short quotes…)

308

Bah, no need to apologize for typos, but thanks.

309

Scylla, I think you make a good case for Bush’s motives in wanting to stall further investigation if he can. However, I must disagree with the following assertion:

"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. "

I disagree. That was undoubtedly true of many of the conservatives who went after Clinton for his BJ-cover-up, knowing full well that they’d seen a thong or two of their own.

But there is no question in my mind that Krugman, Robert Sheer (who wrote a recent Nation column on the matter), and others like them believe it is likely that Bush committed a crime.

I believe it is likely that Bush committed a crime; however, I’m not sure whether an investigation will uncover evidence sufficient to convict.

Whether or not it does I believe that Bush’s credibility on the matter of corporate oversight is a big fat zero.

310

xeno:

I think they have to be seperate things, and I think your quote shows what I percieve to be one of the problems.

If the purpose is relevance, or to put Bush on the hot seat so he doesn’t obstruct business reform (as you put it,) than that’s using the incident and an ivestigation for political purposes (please tell me you understand my point even if you don’t agree.)

I think you have to look at this thing blind. Do the facts of the case itself warrant reopening an investigation on it’s own merit?

That’s my criteria, and right now they don’t.

If someone comes up with a memo or evidence that shows Bush knew about the fraudulent structure of IMR, than I’m all for it. Hold an investigation. Expose what fraud you find, and impeach him based on morals if he’s guilty.

But, I’m still not seeing anything that wasn’t covered by the investigation that occured in 1990-1991. People are asserting that the investigation was a “whitewash,” or “perfunctory,” or conducted improperly, but so far, and you have to agree, they have presented absolutely nothing to back that issue up.

The only support that I’ve seen for such a stance is that Bush had connections. This is surely true, but there’s a big explanatory gap that needs to be filled before someone can say that those connections committed, fraud, conspiracy, or a whitewashing. You can’t just assume it.

311

Mandelstam:

Well thanks for suggesting I made a good point. Your correction bears noting as well. Doubtless there are many who want to see an investigation simply because they beleive it is merited. Not everybody’s playing political games. I think you errr though in suggesting Krugman falls into this category. He really does just hate Bush.

312

Well of course there’s political purpose! That’s part of the “new national context” I’ve been going on about. This President, because of his business history, is not credible as a reformer, and there needs to be credible reform. (Others, including Mandelstam and ElvisL1ves have made this point as well.) That makes the political component extremely relevant.

As far as no new evidence, it’s the old evidence that people are now starting to pay attention to (remember that new context thing?) that is so provocative, and prompts so many questions about the nature of the SEC investigation, the nature of Bush’s role at Harken and the nature of the stock sale.

I’m not just assuming Bush committed fraud. I’m assuming there’s more information that could and should be uncovered.

313

I’m quite willing to trust my own judgement, and my democratic principles insist that I trust the judgement of my fellow citizens. If dat ol’ debbil Liberal Media tries to put one over on us, I am confident it will be found out.

I am sensitive to the argument that no totally exculpatory document can possibly exist. But that is a product of the situation, not one of intent or malice. And if no document can be produced to conclusively prove that Jr. knew anything about the Aloha shenanigans, or any “restructuring committee”, no doubt the question will still arise “If he didn’t know anything at all, what the hell was he doing there?”

So, yeah, its tough spot to be in. Tough noogies, to paraphrase Xeno’s line of thought. If he thought being President was going to be easy, he’s too stupid to be dogcatcher!

But theres a reason beyond this. We don’t know where this road is leading, but it don’t look good. No one has a clue as to how many books have been cooked, how many annual reports are only so much polite fiction. And now we have to know! Because if this trend of dismaying revelations continues, we are going to be in very deep kimchee. European investors are fleeing in droves, the bleeding must be stanched and damn quick, too!

The people are anxious and nervous, and leadership is urgently needed. Is Jr. the man for the job? Well, I have my doubts.

But if he can’t stand up to public examination, he most emphaticly is not.

314

Understatement of the Year™!

315

And the antiparticle band name to No Doubt. Or something.

316

xeno:

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?

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.

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?
elucidator:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

And, if you do think he’s crooked, and you do think he could do something to improve it, than crooked’s what you want. After the last historical round of this kind of thing (and it happens from time to time,) Roosevelt appointed the worst manipulator and crook of the times, Edward Kennedy to clean things up. Now since Ed had already made his money exploiting the loopholes he knew just where they were and closed 'em up so nobody else could. It worked to, and many of those laws and changes are still valid today, and still on the books.

You should pray that he’s a thief.

317

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. Tough sounding speeches and rubberstamping of ineffectual feel good legislation don’t cut it. Avoidance and evasion don’t cut it. Dishonesty doesn’t cut it. Smirking and supercilious platitudes don’t either.

“Pray” that Bush is a thief? No need to pray over something that’s fucking apparent to me.

I pray that enough voters understand it in November and in two years.

318

I owe yet another apology. The cite is indeed from Salon premium, which I have subscribed to, and of course this explains why most is not visible. Here is the first page of the article. I hesitate to print the whole article. Would that violate any SDMB rules?

July 12, 2002 | WASHINGTON – President Bush has said that when he sold more than 200,000 shares in Harken Energy Corp. in June 1990, he did not know the company was in bad financial shape. 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.

Less than two months after Bush sold his stock, Harken announced a $23.2 million loss for the second quarter of 1990. Bush maintains he did not know Harken was going to report the loss and thought he was “selling into good news, not bad,” as close Bush advisor Karen Hughes told the American Spectator in 1999, pointing to the announcement of a new drilling contract in the Middle East island nation of Bahrain. White House spokesman Dan Bartlett reprised the “good news” argument in an interview with the New York Times on Wednesday.

Company memos and SEC documents obtained by Salon offer more insight into what George Bush knew about the financial condition of Harken – where he served on the board of directors and the audit committee – in the weeks leading up to his sale of more than 212,000 shares in Harken stock. And clearly, not all of it was good news.

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.”

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, and another $11.8 million was “in jeopardy,” and said “most companies that have seen [the company’s annual report] are nervous.”

Bush has said he sold the Harken stock to pay back the loan he used to purchase his stake in the Texas Rangers. Luckily for Bush, a buyer came calling. On June 9, according to the SEC’s later investigation of insider trading charges against Bush, Los Angeles broker Ralph Smith “cold-called” Bush and said an institutional client was interested in buying a large chunk of Harken stock. According to later SEC memos, Bush said he wasn’t interested in selling at the time, but that he “might be in a few weeks.”

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.

On June 22, Bush sold 212,140 shares in Harken for $4 per share, netting him $835,807. Bush was eight months late filing the forms for that sale to the SEC. On Aug. 20, 1990, Harken posted a loss of $23.2 million for the quarter. The stock fell that day from $3 to $2.35, but regained that loss by the end of the next trading day.

But Bush maintains he sold his stock as the company was preparing to announce good news. On July 23, 1990, Harken entered into a joint operating agreement with Bass Enterprises Production Company, in which Bass agreed to fund the initial exploratory drilling off of Bahrain to the tune of $25 million. While providing a momentary spike, the announcement failed to boost Harken stock over the long term. By the time of the earnings announcement, Harken stock was trading at $3, down from the one-day, post-Bahrain spike of $4.50. *

319

notcynical:

No, I don’t think you’re supposed to do that. I’d suggest clicking on the “report this post to a moderator” link at the bottom of your post, saying “ooops,” and asking them to remove it.

(It’s a violation of copyright, and a big no no on the board.)

320

Why, Scylla, you scamp, you never told us you were clairovoyant! Reading minds, and all that. Way edgy, dude.

Though you paint a charming picture of a Republican debacle, like all objects of desire, this too has a point where there is too much cost. An economic meltdown would be such a point.

No doubt after all the shit is shaken down from the trees, and financial transparency becomes the norm, things will be better. No question about that. But with this sort of great smoke-out, all the shoes hit the floor at the same time. That worries me.

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.