Wow. Was that $50K in US dollars?
If this is being used as an attack on Krugman’s credibility(and yes, he doesn’t have much), I’m missing something. Is it the fact that he was probably the lowest paid person at Enron, or is it that he simply worked there that makes this tidbit of information relevent?
Continue…
Well, then, there you go, Apos. He filed his 4s late, and probably benefitted from insider training. (Two different crimes, of course.) The late filing of the 4s is purely an administrative violation, and I can’t imagine it’s punishable (or, in any case, frequently punished) by jail. Insider training is, obviously, far more serious. But if the SEC chose not to prosecute, there’s not much we can do about it now.
Is there a statute of limitations on these classes of securities violations? I’m searching the U.S. Code to try to find out.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 20a, subsection b, item 4:
“No action may be brought under this section more than 5 years after the date of the last transaction that is the subject of the violation.”
Since the purported infraction occured in '89, it is a moot point, legally speaking.
So technically, Elucidator, no, Bush is not a crook, according to the hoopajoo that Krugman spewed out.
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
Technically, according to same, he is a crook who cannot be prosecuted.
You guys serious? Bush isnt a crook ‘cause he got away with it? C’mon, you’re kidding, right? Pulling the ol’ Elucidator’s leg, right?
No way you would put forth such a lame argument with a straight keyboard.
First, you ask to presume all of this rot that Krugman spews is true.
Then, you ask us to decide whether or not he is a crook, but not to base it on our legal system?
Tell you what. Go ahead and create a new fantasyland legal system that we should use when discussing law with you. Obviously, our current legal system is not up to par, according to you.
Oh, wait, heres another one!
http://www.public-i.org/story_01_040400.htm
Same story, more detailed, easy to dance to, I’d give it a 93.
It gets better! Media Whores Online
http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/
has a looooooong article with copies of original documents and all kinds of fun stuff!
Hey! Usual Suspects! Over here! Joe Bob Elucidator says “Check it out!”
elucidator:
That second cite you provided is actually quality.
You do know that the SEC looks at thousands of transactions every day, don’t you?
It also see,s to me that it was fairly apparent that Harkens energy was a piece of shit before Bush sold his stock.
There is also absolutely nothing wrong with making use of expertise and knowledge to make a timely trade.
The only thing that would be illegal was if the information was material, nonpublic, and the decision maker was in posession of it, and knowingly made the transaction based on that information.
As the article says, it seems likely that Bush was not aware of those losses.
Earlier in his campaign Bush was lambasted for making bad business decisions and investments, and he certainly made a few of those, some appallingly bad. No surprise here that he also made some good ones and eprhaps some lucky ones.
On the other side of the coin, there’s this whole issue of the blind trust. In case you don’t get it, what it means is that Bush doesn’t know what he owns, how much he makes, have any knowledge of his investments, or make any decisions regarding them.
So, if you are analyzing Bush’s transactions, you have to decide who exactly you are accusing of what. For example, Bush can have all the material nonpublic information in the world, but since he can’t talk to the guy who manages his money, or give him any direction it won’t do him any good.
You need conspiracy here, to make something stick. You need to accuse Bush, McClellan, the officers of his trust, his auditors, and the supervising firm of conspiracy, Federal and state violation of the blind trust, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and insider trading. No one has so far seen fit to impugn McClellan’s fine and longstanding reputation, doubtless because as a registered investment advisor such a remark directed at him without the substance to support it would be highly actionable slander. Bush on the other hand is a legitimate target for half-assed unsupportable and irresponsible accusations.
The fact is, that in order to give these accusations, (and lets’s face facts, nobody here is even making a fucking accusation. All that’s going on is innuendo,) any weight at all a very large and sweeping conspiracy that includes multiple parties who have absolutely no interst or gain, but everything to lose from participation.
The game that’s being played here is a very simple and straightforward.
Let’s make up something, or misrepresent the facts irresponsibly in order to sling mud, and try to get somebody to deny it. If we keep doing it, maybe people will beleive there’s something to it.
It’s a pretty well-documented, and longstanding liberal trick (and now the Conservatives are picking it up to so I guess the irresponsible bullshit is becoming bipartisan.)
In other words elucidator, Nobody has had the fucking guts, or felt that they had enough information to actually raise the innuendo to and actual accusation worthy of scrutiny.
So, until somebody wants to come out with some evidence that they are willing to stand behind, it’s all bullshit.
I just did. Perhaps you should have. There are no original documents there. As for your source mediawhoresonline?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I mean really. Why don’t you just say your dog told you?
Got a cite for that? I am quite sure it was a comment in a nation article that made that mistake.
I also don’t have much recolection of Krugman vowing to find the evidence that Bush tried to save enron. As far as I know the only people claiming this is an issue are Bush supporters. Reasonable people knew that it was too late to help at the point that enron was imploding. This is called misdirection. The real issue they hope to obscure by redefining the question is how much they helped before, like not doing anything to prevent enron from raping california consumers.
Drom your cite, re: late filing.
You keep asking for relevant, while offering nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
How about we ask you for something responsible?
No, he says it had the effect of blocking legitimate suits. Intent is irrelevent, what matters is what actually happens.
Fucking amazing.
And no, I won’t explain that. The choir understands me.
Ummm, Enron is about as complicated a case as your likely to find. The one thing that seems truly consistent from all acounts, and what is truly scary about Enron is that nobody had any idea what was really happening.
Enron senior executives along with the complicity of their auditors did a truly amazing job of hiding what was really going on with the company.
I have no idea what “reasonable people” knew that Enron was imploding. Almost to a man every Chartered Financial Analyst (who get compensated on whether they are right or not, got taken in hook line and sinker by Enron, and retained buy ratings as the floor fell out.
The whole problem was that we believed these independantly audited statements. Even though they were largely fabrications they were so sophisticated that they were verifiable to four or five degrees.
The true horror of Enron is that it was possible to lie so well, so consistently for so long.
So, who do you think knew?
So, Scylla et al., it depends on what the meaning of “insider trading” is, huh? You’re upset about anonymous posters on a message board meeting legal standards of evidence, as if that were the only way you could face the possibility of a man you desperately want to admire being a “crook”, a word which has colloquial meanings too?
Puhleeze. What did you people have to say about the legal representation in a failed land deal not so long ago? Gotta be real careful about hypocrisy here - it gets revealed mercilessly, as you well know.
These facts aren’t new to the public domain, although Krugman thought it appropriate to repeat them. But the public’s interest in them may be, and the yahoos’ willingness to face them also may be. About time we did restore honor and integrity to the White House, huh?
Why, yes, I did. Probably scads of them involve the sons of sitting Presidents. Easy to overlook.
Yeppers. Sure 'nough. Wasn’t worth nearly what he sold it for.
"In 1990, Bush was a member of Harken’s board of directors and one of two members of its audit, fairness and special committees. "
Wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect a member of the firm’s audit committee to be aware of the financial prospects of the company?
Him being a Harvard MBA. And all.
Or is the “audit committee” the designation afforded those who are in charge of refreshments at the company picnic?
Your last post is a gold mine, Scylla, but I must break and conclude later.
For some interesting reading on W. and his brothers, check out this 1992 article My Three Sons. The Neil Bush story alluded to at the end also makes good reading.
Damn Scylla you could’a been Clinton. What you say is absoultely true, and completely misleading.
Media Whores is a site dedicated to commenting on the whorish nature of the ‘mainstream’ media. They put major anti-bush spin on all of their prose. but they also link to all of the stuff they comment on
So, of course, there while there is no factual content on the site. There is plenty available in their links. Since It’s the links that elucidator is actually referring to, technically, you are both right. But only one of you gets points for honesty…
Actually you make a point. The “original document” is actually two links away from what elucidator provided, and I missed it. I’m downloading Acrobat reader now so I can view it.
Technically I am correct. There are no original documents on that site. There is only one, and it’s on another site. I’m sure elucidator didn’t make a deliberate misrepresentation, so that particular comment while technically correct was not honest if I had knowingly misconstrued it. You can decide that for yourself, but my apologies for the misconstrual.
elucidator:
Again, you miss my point.
If Bush was not the decision maker for that transaction and it was in a blind trust (and I don’t know whether it was or not, but it seems to me that this would be pertinent information to have before making the accusation,) then it doesn’t matter what he knew.
Secondly, there is nothing wrong, unethical, or illegal with the actions you have described and I have quoted. Insiders sell their stock all the time. People invest in companies and buy and sell shares in companies in which they have an interest and are knowledgeable. It is perfectly ethical and legal, and proper.
It is not illegal unless it can be shown that they are both in posession of material nonpublic information, and acting on it. Being on the audit committee doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it means. It can mean everything from being involved with the hiring and payment of the auditors, to a rather intense scrutiny and review of the books and the audit. It depends on the company’s methods and practices.
It does not follow that because you are on the audit committee that you will have knowledge of fraud or questionable practices within the audit itself. Nor does it follow that you are in posession of material nonpulblic information if and when you do a transaction in the company on which you are a board member.
Board members buy and sell a lot of stock in the companies they sit on as a matter of course. Being a huge stockholder is one way of getting on the board in the first place. This is as it should be since as a large stockholder you have a direct interest in the management of the company.
It’s representative ownership and it’s the way the system is supposed to work. If you own a lot of the company, you have a lot of say in it.
The transaction may certainly appear circumstantially suspicious. Many of them do. The difference is that you don’t really have anything to talk about until you have some kind of evidence.
So far, what we have is a not unusually suspicious transaction, that was investigated, and later the investigation stopped. Most of them do “just stop,” because it is determined that their is nothing there that particularly merits further investigation. This does not clear the person who made the transaction in any way. It simply means that at that time, there’s no merit in continuing.
I have no idea whether or not Bush engaged in illegal insider trading, but so far there hasn’t really been any kind of a case made that he has.
Bush’s transactions, both winning and losing ones, are not inconsistent with what you would expect from a fairly wealthy and privileged stockholder and insider.