There is nothing in that document to suggest that is original or official anything. No signatures, no seals, no letterhead, nothing that simply couldn’t be written up by anybody with a typewriter, nor is any of the information it presents particularly startling. It is simply not credible.
Ignoring that, assuming for the moment that it is credible, it is only a fragment. There are sections missing from it and the conclusions and contexts of the information presented is not discernible. So, even if it is what it purports to be, it’s not particularly useful as the substance of it is missing.
It’s pretty pisspoor.
The only thing that gives it any credibility is it’s mundane nature. All it says is that Bush was a director in such and such companies, he made such and such transactions, and on some he filed in timely fashion while in others he did not. A file was opened and closed to look at the transactions and filings.
That’s it.
The only credibility it has is that if you were going to make something up, you might as well make something incriminating or that reports wrongdoing. This fragment does neither.
Jeez, Scylla you are a target rich environment. I’m at least six misstatements, innuendos, and outright evasions behind!
The “blind trust” stuff doesnt become relevent until Our Leader became Governor. Years later. I had that “pertinent information” before I “made the accusation”. You, apparently, did not.
As to whether he was the “decision maker”??? Well, of course, it was his stock. Who else is gonna make the decision?
So being on the audit committee doesn’t neccesarily mean any awareness of any actual audits? So you mean that unless I can prove that the words “audit committee” do actually mean “audit committee”, Bush gets to cop a plea of Collossal Ignorance? Did your dog tell you this?
Just caught the latest. You’re on a roll for sure, now. Now, it would seem that I must also prove that the document is not a forgery.
Which is, of course, technicly illegal. Unless, of course, the document is a forgery. Boy, Ol’ George will sue their pants off, huh? Real soon.
Jeez. Scylla Forgery? Can’t you do better than that?
This may never be resolved without some pretty strong intervention. My waning confidence in this administration would surely be much bolstered by a thorough investigation, conducted by specially assigned investigator, with powers much like a prosecutor.
Whats that you say, Scylla Well, yes, I agree! A special prosecutor is exactly what is called for! Splendid suggestion! After all, if he lied to the American People…
Whats Ol’ James Carville doin’ these days.
Yes sir, nothin’ but blue skys and sunshine ahead!
Jeez, SCYLLA, why do you bother? When this is the premise:
There’s no place to go but down.
Seriously. Go hit your head with a hammer until you can’t see straight and you have a blinding headache. You’ll get the exact same effect and it will take much less time and typing.
If you say so. I didn’t know, and said I didn’t. That however only applies to the Harkens transaction. Your cites cover several including a pharmaceutical transaction that was in the blind trust.
[quote]
As to whether he was the “decision maker”??? Well, of course, it was his stock. Who else is gonna make the decision? many board members, and others who are in the public eye as well as elected officials and relatives of them turn their investments over to Registered Investment Advisers who have power of discretion over the account, and actively manage it even if its not a technically blind trust. Many if not most wealthy individuals hire independant money managers to manage all or a portion of their investments.
It seems likely to the point of certainty that Bush had one or more of these at the time, and where the assets were and who was handling them for him and what discretion they had is germaine to the issue. Control freaks like Martha Stewart excepting most wealthy and famous people do not manage their own investments for a variety of reasons. For example Bill Gates is an almost monthly seller of huge chunks of Microsoft stock. He however doesn’t make any of the decisions and takes pains to seperate himself from the investment process to avoid any appearance of impropriety, as well as because his time is spent making money and running Microsoft, not managing investments. This tends to be the norm, and it would be surprising if Bush did not have such an arrangement.
You know, I went to some trouble and effort to explain how these things actually work. If you want to ignore it that’s fine, please do me the service of not misrepresenting what I said.
Do you know what’s involved in the audit of even a small-sized corporation’s financials? Financial statements and 10ks are difficult enough to study. The audit documents of a publically traded corporation involve a review of every single transaction that corporation makes both for accuracy and for compliances with GAAP. It is a collosus of paperwork. What your typical audit committee does is higher the auditors (who by definition are supposed to work independantly of the committee and officials and reveal their own independant results,) provide access, answer broad questions, and make decisions when information could be accounted for by more than one method. It is the most tedious mundane thing in the world. It’s a job for the benchwarmers on the board. The most interesting thing an auditing committee does is try to explain to the auditors why they choose to do things a certain way when they could have done it a better way. Than next year they do it that way.
This is not the committee that hides illegal activity. That gets done when the transactions are structured in the first place. I’ll repeat again, being on the audit commitee doesn’t necessarily mean shit. It doesn’t mean you stucture fraud or participate in it’s complicity ) Just caught the latest. You’re on a roll for sure, now. Now, it would seem that I must also prove that the document is not a forgery. although it doesn’t mean that you don’t.) What it actually means is that you’re supposed to hire and deal with the auditors. Period.
::Shrug:: it’s from your cite. It’s not my fault that it’s neither complete, nor credible, nor “original”, nor particularly meaningful. It sure as shit ain’t an “original document” which is what you advertised.
(referring to the late filing)
Yup. No argument there. I guess you could say that technically he did file late, that that was not in compliance with legal requirements and that he is therefore a criminal, thus validating your OP.
But, as PLD states, and I repeated, it doesn’t look like it’s a big deal, or an issue of any kind. And, really, if you’re going to commit insider trading, you file your documents on time for the same reason that if the trunk of your car is full of reefer, you don’t speed.
There was an investigation. The SEC does have broad powers, even broader than a prosecuter since if they go after you, the onus is not on them. They don’t have to prove your guilt. You have to prove your innocence. They investigated it. They dropped it as not worthwhile.
If there was new evidence, or new reason to suggest that there was fraud, or insider trading I would support a special prosecuter to look into the merits of a potential case.
But that’s not what’s happening. All were doing is rehashing tired old shit that’s been done to death. Yes, Bush was involved in this and that, and yes he did transactions that looked suspicious, and yes, they were investigated.
What you seem to be missing is the fact that the investigations ceased because there was no reason to pursue them, and “everybody agrees” that it had nothing to do with Bush’s dad being President.
OK. Find evidence to suggest that the investigations ceased prematurely or ceased because of political pressure, and we have something worth talking about.
Simply rehashing tired old dirt without anything new to add, and pretending that it’s a startling revelation, lacks…
here Mostly just quoting the Center for Public Intgrity, which it calls
Which is, of course, one of the links that elucidator provided and a site that Media Whores Online linked to. I trust that the next time someone cites MWO, Scylla will be less quick to ridicule the cite.
I will generously assume here that you are referring only to this specific law and these specific types of class-action shareholder lawsuits. Otherwise we will be forced to revisit your thoughts on Ken Starr, Bill Clinton, and politically-motivated lawsuits.
Gosh, Scylla, if George ever gives you a nickname, I’m gonna recommend “Stonewall Scylla”!
From the Center for Public Integrity Report
(which is not, so far as I know, forged)
On June 22, Bush sells his Harken stock at $4 a share, for a total of $848,560. He uses most of the proceeds to pay off a loan he had taken out the previous year to buy a partnership interest in the Texas Rangers for $600,000.
(Shortly thereafter, his partners awarded him an extra 10% of the team cause he’s just a heck of a guy! But that’s another story.)
On Aug. 22, Harken files a second quarter report disclosing for the first time that it is hemorrhaging. Total losses for that quarter are $23.2 million. Stock plunges to $2.37 a share
(Later that year, worth about $1.)
That fall the Securities and Exchange Commission discovers that Harken had effectively concealed earlier losses in its 1989 annual report, before Bush sold his stock, by claiming a capital gain on the Aloha sale even though it was financed through a loan. It directs Harken to recast its balance sheet for 1989.
(When George was on the board, on the audit committee, knew nothing)
On Feb. 5, Harken files an amended 1989 report, asserting that after “discussions” with the SEC about its method of accounting, it was recasting its losses for that year from a modest $3,300,000 to a whopping $12,566,000. But by then Bush had already sold.
(When George was on the board, on the audit committee, knew nothing.)
Boy, I sure would like to get the perspective of the buyer of that stock, the guy who got stuck with that probably thinks he got a rather brisk rogering, what? Worth about half what he paid for it a month later. Half again less than a few months after. But, hey, that’s business, right? Shouldn’t have picked up the soap.
But, after all, its possible that 12 million bucks turned to pixie dust without George knowing. And just because he is about to sell out his holdings, that’s no reason to think he might check into the financial status of Harken. That would be a lot of work for a bear of little brain, even one with an MBA. After all, he isn’t required by law to actually know, so why should he bother?
So he went to meetings in his nice new suit, they looked into his bright, trusting brown eyes and said “Everythings jes fine, George. Don’t worry your pretty little head about it.” Even though the company was bleeding money like a gut-shot pig.
So he didn’t. What, me worry?
And he really was meaning to get around to making those gosh-darned filings with the SEC, but there’s so much too do, screw up a ball team, read more DeToqueville, picks the kids up from detox…
You really gonna stick to that scenario?
They did? Says who? Nowhere have I read of any statements whatsoever as to the reasons for the cessation of investigation. Yet you aver that the reason was that there was nothing to pursue.
Therefore, you must know something they don’t.
And that part about how “everybody agrees” it had nothing to do with Bush I. They do? Who are they, and how do they know this?
Heck, Scylla, just a couple of cites to cover these two stunning revelations. These are important facts that the so-called “journalists” have missed, you have an obligation to share.
Well, I’m not as particular. No need to go get fancy brand new evidence for me, old evidence is still perfectly good, along as its serviceable. Just call me old-fashioned.
The more you paint yourself into a corner, Scylla, the more it looks like you have to cop to one of two scenarios: unindictable co-conspirator or clueless stooge. Ain’t a lot of middle ground left.
This could get interesting. Oh, yeah. Very interesting indeed. I’ll be sure we keep in touch, Usual Suspects, as things develop.
The following post is as devoid of sarcasm as I can manage. There is no subtext, whatsoever.
The more I think about it, the more plausible the “clueless stooge” scenario becomes.
Young George takes off to be a part of the Awl Bidness in Texas, falls in with a bad crowd. That is to say, Texas Awl Bidnessmen.
They take him in (as it were), seeing him as a well-connected twit who is easily manipulated. They give him the “mushroom treatment”, keep him in the dark and feed him bullshit. Pat him on the butt ever once in a while and tell him what a shrewd bidnessman he is.
So when he sells his stock, he does so with the “calm confidence of a Methodist with four aces”. He knows the company is doing great, Uncle Bubba just told him so. Which is why he says he’s not guilty. Because he believes he isn’t. And, in fact, he isn’t. He didn’t have “insider knowledge”, he did’t have any knowledge!
In which case, he must be wholly exonerted.
They are trying to cover up the truth. Ironicly, the truth is that he’s not guilty!
The world can be a strange and frightening place for us sane folks.
Scylla, all I can say is that I’ve been a Bush supporter for a good long time, and this stinks pretty bad to me.
Hanging one’s hopes of Bush’s non-criminality in this issue on possibilities of forgery, ignorance or the stock’s being in a blind trust (for no apparent reason, since he was not in politics at the time) is pretty desperate.
I was quoting the end of Krugman’s article (your cite,) for the first and your third cite for the second. Again, they’re your cites. And, Tejota seems to have found a link to the same information just above.
No. Bush is not exonerated as he claims. An Sec investigation doesn’t pronounce guilt or innocence. It simply determines whether there’s a case or not. So, he can’t truthfully claim exoneration but he can say “They got nothing on me!” or “They’ll never make it stick!” which is almost as good.
Bush’s error here is implying that a lack of proof of guilt is proof of innocence, which it clearly isn’t.
CmKeller:
Just for the record, I have no idea whether or not Bush is guilty of this stuff. There is not enough evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion about.
AS to the substance, I agree with PLD in re Krugman. He’s an excellent, actually great Trade Economist of real brilliance. His political commentaries, however much I sympathize with his line of analysis tend to take a step beyond the evidence.
The facts available suggest investigation might be warrented, but screaming Bush is a crook seems excessive.
Now I do feel moved to comment on Brutus’ ignorant characterizations:
Krugman is hardly a ‘far Left’ democratic, being one of the leading proponents of Free Trade and a leading free market economist – to make such a characterization really is stunningly ignorant.
The NYT is the very picture of a centrist newspaper with a touch of a liberalness to it.
Scylla, I salute you for your ability to continue posting in GD despite the horrific thrashing at the hands of Elucidator.
The last time I heard the “Forgery” argument was when the Palestine representative was asked to explain the “Arafat funds terrorist document.” C’mon.
Now we’ve got proof that both our V.P. and our Prez knew firsthand about the accounting quality of Arthur Andersen. There’s a video of Cheney stating how much he likes that A.A. goes above and beyond the call of duty. Wonderful – our corporate enforcement, if all these are true, is a corporate crook from Andersen client Haliburton, a corporate crook from Andersen client Harken, and a corporate shyster for Andersen. No wonder they’ve been so quick with the indictments.
It’s no wonder that Arthur Andersen complained they were being given the “corporate death sentence,” – it wasn’t so much the verdict, so much as being made the scapegoat by their corporate buddies in the administration.
I suggest the conservatives among us wake up – our administration isn’t for any principle except for class warfare by the rich – and they’re winning.
You’re not reading very well. I haven’t said it was a forgery. I have said it is not credible, useful, or complete.
It’s not for me to disprove the document’s originality. If it’s being presented as an original document, someone actually needs to demonstrate that that’s what it is.
What has been presented is easily falsifiable, it has nothing to speak for its originality, no context, and is incomplete and fragmentary.
There is essentially nothing that would it seperate it from a claim made by me that I had a partial copy of a typed note from Ted Kennedy saying he drove off the bridge on purpose. Naturally my claim would be met be skepticism, and I would be asked to substantiate that I did in fact have what I claim before it could be considered by a reasonable person.
Same thing here.
But, though the document isn’t credible, I’m happy to consider it. It has two things to recommend it.
It doesn’t really say anything particularly damning or incendiary.
The fragmentary nature. These “original documents” appear to be scans of a photocopy from the first and last pages of a memo. Fine, I can understand why some spy or activist didn’t have time to photocopy the whole thing, but what I don’t understand is why we only have partial images of pages. Shouldn’t we have the whole page?
By what reason do we have only fragments of a page?
The only reason I can imagine is editing for content.
Which even if it is what it says it is, it’s not useful if it’s been manipulated for content.
But, let’s all ignore all that, put our blinders on and simply accept it for what it claims to be with a blithe lack of skepticism.