"Bush is a crook" says Mr. Krugman

Great Debates
461

OK. For the last time (really). You are the one saying “significant possibility”, not me. I’ve no idea why you keep doing this, but I’m not going to accept the term as a valid substitute for my argument. I’ve said the probability is not insignificant, and I phrased it that way for a reason, which I’ve already explained. “Not insignificant” means “can’t be automatically discounted”. This differs from “significant” in that I’m not assigning a positive value to the probability, merely stating that it can’t be summarily dismissed.

Also, you keep asserting that no material information regarding potential devaluation existed at the time Bush sold his stock, and even if it did, it didn’t, because the SEC said the information that existed wasn’t material. I think maybe you’re focusing on the word “significant” because you’ve got fundamental problems proving information “didn’t exist”.
Be that as it may, I honestly have no desire to keep answering your insults and misdirections. It’s nasty and tiresome. My posiition isn’t intractable, no matter how you strive to portray it so. Your position, however, appears to be that poor Mr. Bush should be above our suspicion because you and the SEC are uninterested, and any calls for investigation are merely crass, partisan witch-hunts. That charge has been adequately demonstrated to be false, IME.

462

I’m terribly sorry for having misconstrued the great difference between “not insignificant possibility,” and “significant possibility.”
Since its still pretty much lost on me, I’ll just take you at your word that the difference is somehow… not insignificant?

Likewise the difference between “significant,” and “material.” I’ll be sure and inform Roget’s that they’re not synonyms.

You’re projecting. I called you partisan. It wasn’t an insult but an observation. You’re the one that told me to stick it, and called me a boor.

Your little attempt at semantical gymnastics is about as blatant a misdirection as watching a five year try to palm a deck for the first time.

You’re trying to make a judgement on Bush’ character based on his posession of information which didn’t exist, and which if it did exist has been demonstrated innocuous.

And, now you get your buns in knot when I suggest that that might be a partisan stance?

So sorry.

Well then feel free to take your nasty and tiresome ass elsewhere, and God bless.

If you’d ever like to discuss the issue of whether there’s a case worthy of further investigation on George Bush concerning his Harken’s transaction, then, y’all come back, here?

I’ll just be noodling.

463

I can’t not respond to the gross distortions and outright lies in that last post.

Putting aside the fact that no such demonstration of innocuousness has been made, you lie when you assert that I’ve based any argument on the sale of Harken stock. Demonstrably, I’ve gone out of my way to state as explicitly as I know how that my evaluations of Bush are based on much, much more than a simple charge of insider trading. I’ve also stated almost a dozen times since I joined this discussion that I think the sale of his Harken stock was, in fact, probably not an indictable case.

So sayeth the shuckster caught at his own game.

Why, will there be someone here who actually wants a discussion without sophistry? Until that happens, you can stroke your own noodle.

464

Apparently you didn’t see the report the SEC commisioned on materiality that was available online through the FOIA. You remember, the one we were all talking about?

So you’re saying you haven’t made any arguments based on harken stock?

Forgive me if I beg to differ. First there’s the obvious: You’ve been arguing in this thread, and the bulk of it has been about Harken. It would have been kind of hard not to participate. Then the… well, this is pretty damn obvious too: All that proselytizing about how Bush handled the Harken and want went is germaine to his ability to handle current problems, and how there’s all these foul odors from it which call into question his integrity, and the rest of that crap you were going on.

I’m not lying. You’re suffering from selective memory. Take your own advice and read the thread.

Hopefully you’ll have the class to retract this accusation of lying. I’m not even going to bother to cite your Harken/Bush judgements/arguments. They’re literally all over the place. Ridiculous that you would make such a blatantly false accusation.

Which has nothing to do with your argument for judgement and further investigative reexamination.

Oh, I’m a shuckster all right. I won’t deny that. It’s what lets me know when the guy I’m sitting across from is playing an honest game or not. But when he’s trying to tell me an inside straight beats a full house it doesn’t take any special talent to know who’s pulling the shuck.

I’ve been wondering that myself.

In order to have an illegal insider trade one must be in posession of material nonpublic information and act on it.

(You may recall I’ve mentioned that a few times)

I think to make the allegation, or to call for an investigation based on the possibility to be completely partisan and disingenuous when one is unwilling to even present a scenario wherein it would be possible, is dishonest sophistry in the extreme.

You don’t like it, tough titty. It’s your bed.

465

and I don’t proofread nothing.

466

What??!!

Did anyone read the first three pages of this thread besides Scylla and me?

467

[George Michael]All we have to do now,

is take these lies

and make them true

somehow[/George Michael]

468

I read them (though I don’t remember them as well as I would have to take part in this latest stage of the debate). FWIW, I’d still like to hold to the idea that what we’ve gotten in this thread, at its most noble, was the best kind of partisan case for further investigation, and the best kind of partisan case that no such further investigation is warranted. Both sides have demonstrated tremendous rhetorical skills–and a fair bit of ad hominem.

I think the arguments on both sides have been exhausted but what we have now seems to me an argument about whose argument was the most tainted by partisanship. Can we agree that both arguments were partisan? But that both arguments, for all that, were, for the most part, made in earnest?

Believe me, I don’t say that that’s always going to be the case. I strongly believe that in some debates there is a manifestly more right and manifestly more wrong side of the debate. But this is a special case.

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire, the old saying goes.

Here we’ve been debating how much smoke is there? Wasn’t the smoke cleared long ago? Is there any fire just because there’s smoke? How can I tell if I don’t call in the fire department?

Again, I think those arguments have been exhausted and now a more personal kind of debate is taking place.

May I suggest a temporary cease fire so you both can get some work done, catch a re-run, read the paper, kiss your baby?

469

Since I’ve been invited to retract a statement, I’ll respond.

Scylla: Yes, I try to behave with some class, and in some of my remarks in this thread I’ve failed in that endeavor. But the fact remains, in my view, you lied. In my estimation, you deliberately misrepresented my stated reasons for faulting Mr. Bush’s character.

To wit: “You’re trying to make a judgement on Bush’ character based on his posession of information which didn’t exist, and which if it did exist has been demonstrated innocuous.”

I am confident you understand what I mean when I talk about the bases of an argument. I have not based any argument regarding Bush’s character on the details of his sale of Harken stock. You know this, but attempted to represent things differently. That’s commonly called a lie, in my experience.

But, in the interest of full disclosure, I admit that I have indeed based one argument on the unknown details of that sale, and it is that further investigation of the sale is a desireable thing for the American public. Period.

My major argument in this thread has been, and remains, that the business histories of Mr. Bush and the members of his administration are germaine to the current national focus on reform of corporate accounting practices.

One secondary argument has been that public examination of the Harken deal is appropriate, whether or not Bush did anything indictable under existing SEC regulations. It was my position at first that he probably couldn’t have had the insider knowledge to accurately predict the upcoming losses. Scylla, that was a position I adopted in large part because of your expert opinion that the outside director’s position did not afford Bush such knowledge. Since then, I’ve seen internal Harken documents that sure make it look like Mr. Bush was more involved than your early picture had painted him as being. So I’ve softened that position from “probably didn’t know” to “could have had specific knowledge”. More support for the argument that further investigation is appropriate.

Another secondary argument, offered in support of further investigation, has been that the SEC investigation in 1990-1991 was cursory. (Note: not “improper” in some direct manner, just not as stringent as I -admittedly not familiar with SEC investigations- would like.) Yes, lots of documents were asked for and cited. According to some of those documents, Bush was included in discussions held in May 1990 regarding expected losses related to the terms of the note held by IMR on Aloha. (Bush was chair of the special committee to review those terms.) Yet the SEC memo of August 1991 which recommended no action claims that Bush “could not have known” in June of 1990 about those losses. This, to my uneducated eye, seems to indicate that perhaps some possibilities may have been left unexamined.

Any different arguments presented as being made by me should be accompanied by direct quotes, as I don’t recall any other major arguments I’ve made in this thread.

Mandelstam: I don’t know what you mean by “partisan”, but I know how I understand it, and I believe I know how Scylla intended it. That is, a partisan argument would be one which attempts to put the best face on an outlook favored by one’s particular ideological group, regardless of the inherent value of that outlook.

I don’t think I’ve ever towed the party line on anything that I didn’t believe.

470

xeno, to clarify, I think Scylla’s use of partisan has been misleading. He’s used it impugn your objectivity. I believe that’s unfair to you. The truth is that all of us engaged in this debate are partisans, but in spite of that we’ve made arguments that have objective merit.

Because of the particular nature of what’s being debated here, there’s a case with some degree of objective merit to be made both for further investigation and for no further investigation.

I for one believe that there’s a strong case to be made for investigating this and all other “smoky” areas of Bush’s past: on the grounds that the political health of our democracy depends on it. That is the “large” reading of the context.

I believe that there’s a different case to made that an investigation of this particular aspect of Bush’s past has already been done and that further investigation is desired on primarily partisan grounds. That is the “narrow” reading of the context.

I believe that Scylla should acknowledge that his presentation of the second case is no more or less partisan than xeno’s (and other’s) presentation of the first case.

While it makes sense to debate about the objective merits of each case, it also makes sense to recognize that there’s a certain point at which partisans will tend to disagree.

I don’t predict that there will be further official investigation into Bush’s Harken past though there will probably be more journalistic investigation. I will welcome further investigation of any kind because I believe that Bush’s business record is relevant to his credibility as president even if no indictable offense is ever found. Again, that’s the large issue.

But I do recognize the merits of the “narrow” reading and I do expect that most Bush partisans will hold to it.

471

Mandelstam: OK. I see what you mean about the “narrow” meaning.

Scylla: I’ll admit that on the facts of the case itself, absent the national context, the June 1990 sale of Harken stock by George W. Bush does not merit further investigation. My advocacy for further investigation has been based on Mandelstam’s “large context”.

472

On reflection, I think I’d better note that the “national context” includes not only the current reform fervor, but also the fact that Bush is the sitting PoTUS, and in 1990 was the son of the sitting PoTUS. “Absent the national context” means if we examined the SEC report as an anonymous “Citizen Doe.”

473

Xeno:

I really don’t even understand the distinction you’re trying to make when you’re claiming I lied… So whatever.

How about we try to set a precedent?

I’ve enjoyed this debate, and arguing with you, and it feels to me like one of those deep involved arguments that you have with good friends over beer.

But now we’re arguing about the argument itself and devolving into semantics which is something you, I, and elucidator have avoided for ten pages. We’ve been throwing ad hominems at each other, but nothing serious more like spice for the argument.

What say we drop the bullshit? Hopefully you wouldn’t have been doing this if it wasn’t fun. I know I wouldn’t.

Therefore I owe you and elucidator thanks for offering me the fellowship of good debate and the enjoyment it brings.

If I met you or elucidator I’d love to buy you guys a beer.

So what say we set an unusual precedent for the board and tone it down and return to civility, and fellowship?

You’re going to have to explain where you think I lied, because I’m not seeing it. If I see that you’re correct, I’ll express my regrets, and try to do better.

You seem to be saying that you take the disclosure that Bush helped with the financing of Aloha to IMR as an indication that he knew more than has been revealed.

I can see where you might find that to be the case and believe it sheds suspicious light on the SEC’s report.

The fact is though that it really doesn’t change anything.

As an audit committee member he would have had to have been aware that Harken was selling Aloha to this entity, IMR. he would have had to have been aware of the terms of the sale, and the financing.

That’s not been in question.

The key question is whether Bush knew that IMR was made up of insiders who were borrowing money from Harkens to purchase IMR at an (ostensibly) inflated price.

As it seems that whole purpose of the EE in setting up IMR was to hide where the money was coming from, and who was controlling it, from the auditors and the public at large, it hardly seems logical to assume that this would have been disclosed to Bush during arrangements of financing.

So to show you what has happening:

  1. Insiders from Harken on the EE borrow money from Harken at advantageous rates based on their position.

  2. They move this money to IMR of which they are in control, but who’s actual ownership is obscured.

  3. They use the money they’ve borrowed as a down payment to purchase ALOHA at an inflated price, and IMR finances the remainder through Harken.

ok so far?

As far as Bush is concerned IMR would appear to be a completely seperate entity to Harken, and he would have no reason to suspect otherwise, nor would the auditors or the shareholders unless someone told them otherwise.

The only reason the SEC was able to pick it up, was because IMR would have had to disclose its ownership to them. They wouldn’t have had to to anybody else.

So, the fact that Bush chaired the financing committee for the sale is hardly surprising, nor does it shed any new light on what knowledge we would expect Bush to have.

Now, why would the EE do it this way.

  1. It will show a big windfall from the sale of Aloha on Harken’s books giving them a nice looking quarter, and solves the current liquidity problem, thus protecting their own asses.

  2. It will cost them nothing since they’re financing it back to Harken with Harken’s own money (They were borrowing on what they were borrowing, and all to the same entity at root.)

  3. They may have been making money on the differential of interest being paid on loans from and to Harken through IMR

  4. They may have had plans to sell Aloha at a better price and keep the money for themselves, thus using Harkens’ own capital to defraud shareholders of the rightful proceeds of a genuine sale.

Those would be the possible motives for the EE in doing what they did. Perhaps there are others that I don’t see, but in every one of those it is absolutely imperative that they hide the ownership of IMR for the whole thing to work. The people they would most want to hide it from were the auditors and those responsible for disclosing germaine information to the auditors (the audit committee.)

You also wouldn’t want to tell the chair of the committee doing the financing, or allow him to know for the same reasons. He could blow the whistle (or worse yet demand a cut of the scam.)

You probably especially wouldn’t want to do it if the person in question was the son of the President, and in tight with the SEC.

If Bush had known, why wasn’t he in on the scam with IMR? You wouldn’t want to tell anybody who wasn’t in on it.

Also, it would have really really good for Bush to have blown the whistle if he had known.

Clearly Bush had political aspirations at the time, and it would have been a perfect opportunity to sacrifice a pawn (his position in Harken,) to win big points as a man who was cleaning up bad business. It would have looked really good for his Dad, the POTUS, too.

If Bush had known he would have been stupid three times:

  1. To not use his knowledge to cash in and try to get a piece of it (his liability would have stopped at knowledge and not have been increased by participation in the scam. He had everything to gain and nothing to lose)

  2. By not blowing the whistle. It would have made him and his Daddy look real good at a very opportune time, and wouldn’t have cost much in terms of influence or contacts since Harken was small potatos. The Bush’s would gain a lot of clout.

  3. By selling his stock publically at a time that would bring suspicion and an investigation down on him. If he was afraid Harken was going down their are other almost foolproof methods an unscrupulous person can avail themselves of to dispose of the risk of ownership. They would have been available to him, and he could have easily implemented them (again, I’m not going to post them. I’ll happily email Manhattan, and he can vouch for their workability as he’s familiar with these things, but I can’t post methods for breaking the law for obvious reasons.)

The SEC’s conclusion that Bush did not and could not have known follows logically from this. You see, even if we grant his stupidity and say he knew the ownership and financing of IMR itself, he would have had no real reason to suspect that the scam (and it looks more and more like scam it was) would be caught by the SEC and undone in the near future. There’s really no reason why it shouldn’t have worked, and the SEC did a really good job in catching it.

If only they had done so well at catching these things more recently perhaps there would not have been an Enron.

My personal guess is that the SEC got lucky in catching this, but it’s just a guess.

That’s pretty much why I’m pretty confident he didn’t know.

It would have been in the party’s involved best interests to hide it from him, and his actions are not consistent with someone who did know (someone of reasonable intelligence and/or scruples.)

And I don’t think Bush is that stupid that he would have played it the way he did if he did know.

Do you see?

474

I’ve been arguing the narrow meaning. Since we are agreed, I’ll move one.

As for the larger context, I think private individuals and the press should feel free to investigate what they will about their representatives to satisfy themselves that those in power are using that power properly.

I wouldn’t support the use of Federal funds, or Federal agencies or resources in the pursuit of such investigations, nor would I feel that it was incumbent upon those elected individuals to assist. That would be their personal choice.

If you agree with that then Mandelstram’s the hero of the thread for understanding both our views and helping them to reconcile them.

475

Thank you, Scylla; that was a genuine argument. I’m about to leave work and meet my wife for dinner (and may not have computer time this evening), so I will wait to respond (with civility) when I have time to treat it fairly.

As far as the lying goes, my point is that the characterization “xeno’s based his loathing of Bush on the possibility that he may have improperly traded stocks” is patently untrue. I felt that such a rank misrepresentation of my comments constituted imposture. Had you presented the argument you just have, in brief (sort of: “xeno’s call for renewed investigation is based on a faulty understanding of the real possibilities of fraud that were involved”), then you would’ve had an arguable and honest point of argument. I’m sure you see the difference, but I’ll drop the accusation that you lied, and request that you admit the inaccuracy of your presentation.

And I’m willing to drop the acrimony entirely. I really do find it unpleasant. (I hope in return you can drop the charges of lying you directed at elucidator earlier, which were at least no better supported than my charge to you.)

I also want to examine Mandelstam’s contextual analysis with you. I think it’s an accurate summary of how we’ve each been framing the argument, and reduces somewhat the feeling that either side has been dissembling.

(On preview, I see that you’ve addressed this while I’ve been attempting and reattempting to post. Great. See you tomorrow.)

476

Your argument has no obvious fatal flaws, but a few weaknesses.

Foremost is a matter of scale. I have read a number of descriptions of the Aloha deal, and all are in agreement that if Aloho had been sold to a “real” outsider, it would not have been sold for nearly the amount that the phantom transaction was valued at.

Posit this: I come home from work and my son says “Dad, I sold that old bike of yours.”

“Good. What did you get for it?”

“Five thousand dollars”

Would I say

“Shrewdly done, son.”

or, more likely, “Who the hell paid $5K for that broken down POS!”
Therein lies the problem. Bush certainly knew the sale had taken place, he knew the price allegedly paid. Why, then, were his suspicions not aroused? Why didn’t he catch the whiff of rodent in the air?

To belabor my previous analogy, if my son saunters in the door carrying every X-box game on the planet, and I ask no questions, I could maintain a defense of ignorance if he had not told me about the $5K. Technicly, that would be correct: I didn’t know. But I would be rather a fool, no?

Ignorance may well be a defense against criminality but it is not an adequate defense for negligence and/or irresponsibility. Most especially for a man who claims the moral authority to lead.

477

xeno:

I appreciate the good feelings. I don’t feel like I lied, but clearly my summation of your stance was too cavalier in your eyes. So, sorry.

(and there’s absolutely no sarcasm in this next part)

And, I’d love to clear the air with Elucidator too. I can easily just wipe off the mischaracterizations as errors of summation or his hyperbolous style, but I do feel it was a pretty rotten trick to lead me on in answering all his questions based on a promise to answer mine and then to not follow through. It’s no longer an issue, and I bear no ongoing ill-will (it’s about up there with getting stuck with a bar tab, like I just got stuck tonight,) but nevertheless I don’t think I can go back and say I was wrong to say he lied in that. Because from where I’m sitting, I don’t know what else to call it. It’s not a big lie, though. More like a dirty trick.

I hope that doesn’t dispel the new good faith. I’d still buy him a beer since he was sympathetic about the fact that I had to go to Houston.

Elucidator:

Yes, I see what you’re saying. Please note I alluded to the possibility that it was an inflated price in my post. It’s been said that the price was high, but I haven’t seen anything to back up that statement. I don’t in general have any cause to doubt it, but not having seen an asset sheet, or taken a swing at attempting a valuation I really have no idea whether the price was high fair or low.

If it was high, that does preclude the resale scenario, but it leaves others open.

It makes it more sleazier as well. The fact is that it almost doesn’t matter what IMR paid for Harken since they were using Harken’s own money, borrowed on twice apparently.

They may have done it simply to cover up losses, or they may have been making a cut of the interest differential between what they were borrowing and lending at, or they might have just been stupid and thought Aloha was worth more than they paid for it.

I don’t know, and it really doesn’t matter.

I’m sure you agree that they didn’t just do the whole complicated mess because it sounded like fun. There was a reason behind it, and that reason probably has dollar signs in front of it.

Valuing an asset is a tough thing. It’s like a house. Often it’s a question of finding the right buyer. I don’t know whether the board should have been suspicious of the price Aloha went for, that it was too good to be true.

I’ve seen a couple of papers and articles say that the price was high, but I haven’t seen an attempt at a valuation of what the market price should have been.

It may have been high, it may not have been. I think I make room for the possibility that it was high within my scenario. At what point it would have been so high that it should have set off alarm bells, I really don’t know and can’t judge.

We’d need a valuation to make a good judgement, and I think our chances of getting a good reliable valuation on a ten year old asset that would have been difficult to value in the first place is poor, and I suspect that the people who are saying the price was high are just guessing.

Without better information we should probably just make allowances either way and not make assumptions about the price.

478

Well, I don’t entirely agree. I think a few obligations exist for our elected individuals.

The primary obligation, in my view, lies with the Chief Executive, to provide an open accounting of something so relevant and recent (this was no ‘youthful indiscretion’); especially if there is no reason to view the transaction as unlawful. And while I completely understand the unwillingness to look like some of his predecessors (“I am not a crook.” “I did not have sex with that woman.”), he could certainly open up all relevant documents and request Harken to do the same, and say “I will not hide from examination. Ask me whatever you want, America.”

Another obligation is carried by the legislators; their branch is supposed to act as a watchdog over executive power. I expect them to, at minimum, keep the issue open until more complete answers are provided. If answers are not provided, if the President stonewalls, then I think their obligation to their constituents is to find out what’s behind the wall. I would support, under these circumstances, an investigation limited to the Aloha dealings within Harken and the subsequent sale of stock by Mr. Bush.

But I totally agree with the props to Mandelstam!

[Barry Manilow]
*Oh, Mandy…
You came and you gave without taking…
[/Barry Manilow]

:wink:

Hear! Hear! Let’s get better information.

In the mean time, I’d like to ask a third party (manhattan? Anybody?) to comment on this set of documents (particularly the March 14 Shareholder’s Notes and General Resolutions, and the May 18 letter to the Special Committee) and tell us if they appear to them to contradict the judgement by the SEC that Bush “couldn’t have known” about the write down of $7.2 million due to the “impairment and restructuring” of Aloha (or indeed about the write down associated with restructuring of Harken Marketing Corp.).

(The more I look at these papers, the less sure I am of what information existed when.)

-Scylla, it’s not that I definitely disagree with your supposition above (your post of 7/24, 5:12 pm), I just don’t see it as likely that the Harken EE was all that cagey about what they were doing, and I’ll tell you why: It looks, to me (admittedly ignorant of corporate board-level thinking), as if the Harken executives were aware that what they had structured with Aloha was dodgy in the sort of sleight-of-hand mitigation of earnings the deal afforded, but they weren’t overly concerned that anything illegal was being done. I think they trusted Bush, and the rest of the board, to see things the same way, and I think that’s pretty much what occurred. (But I’d love to be shown more definitely either way.)

479

Xeno:

We may be drawing in a couple of impasses. You’re not specific as to exactly what kind of government involvement you’d wish to see beyon legislative, and probably our differences come down to ideology. Personally, I think the Government’s job is to enforce the rule of law. Their responsibility begins and ends there. It shouldn’t be investigating morality or trying to legislate it. Such intrusion becomes a slippery slope.

If legislators want to have a hearing on his ethics and subpoena documents, I suppose they can do that.

As for Whether or not Bush should participate and open things up for examination, Well, I maintain that it’s his choice and should be. Some accusations have merit and are sincere, others are mere mudraking. The idea that he should have to open and address every potshot taken at him is repugnant to me.

I support his ability to not dignify it with a response or action and essentially say “Do your worst.”

I certainly don’t expect that he should be using his presidential powers to make life easier for people who are out to get him.

We’ve talked about this earlier and I guess it will have to remain a difference of opinion.

As for the “Did Bush know” discussion.

It could be as you say. I lead to my stance for reasons already cited.

If you read those documents again without knowing who owned IMR you would be very much under the impression that it was a seperate outfit.

Confirming in my mind the strong possibility that this is deliberate is that no where in the documents does it mention who owns IMR. It’s just referred to as IMR.

Yet in the general resolutions where a sale of IMR’s stake in Aloha is discussed the principles behind the new buyers are freely mentioned.

In the minutes, the two insiders who are principles in IMR never disclose that, nor is it mentioned, which considering the circumstances would be odd if that info were common knowledge.

I’m not really seeing Bush’s involvement with the rights offering committee or the refinancing commitee as being particularly germaine.
In other words, I feel pretty strongly that my scenario is stronger than yours, but I can’t exclude yours.

If we look at it that he didn’t know who owned IMR than the rest of the scenario follows through as I say.

If we look at it that he did know, then I wonder why neither he nor the auditors found it objectionable.

One simple reason may be that they thought it was ok. The fact is that accounting is complex and often counterintuitive. There may not have been reason for them to think that it was untoward then, though it certainly seems that way by today’s standards.

So, if we assume Bush knew about it, and let’s say it leaves a distaste in his mouth?

What then?
You do see that there is still a huge leap of logic to be made from that point before you can say he had foreknowledge of the devaluation.

How was he to know months in advance that the SEC would do what they thid?

480

So he gets a pass because of his “dignity”? Huh?

So he gets to stand there and talk about all this “Stuff” and gets to do his cute little smirk cause everybody knows he means “shit”. He then gets to say, in essence, that “you’d have to look at the minutes”. And then, once he’s off the stage, has somebody come out and say, “No, you can’t look at them.”

He makes a big deal of being sure that everybody has a copy of the documents that he claims exonerate him…“you got a copy? We’ll get you a copy”…and then slams the lid down on the rest.

And, if he is, as he claims, totally vetted and exonerated and all, how would it be offering aid to his enemies if he were to offer proof?

Perhaps it is my suspicioius nature, but I figure when somebody hides something, he’s hiding something.

I sympathize to some degree Scylla. It must be damn difficult to come up with a plausible reason why he’s hiding facts. Which is what he is doing.

Now, my guess is that the documents would underline the “clueless doofus” scenario, which would be embarassing. It must be very depressing to realize that those guys who were slapping you on the back and telling you what a sharp bidnessman you are were playing you for a chump.

This is boiling down to one or the other: chump or crook. Is that an important distinction? Hell yes!

I want to know. How come you don’t want to know?