I’m pretty disapointed by Krugman’s misrepresentation of the Merrill Lynch issue, and Oxley’s subsequent comment, which I detailed in my first post in this thread.
I don’t think that such a misrepresentation can be called an honest mistake.
I didn’t say he failed to divulge it; I said he didn’t like to advertise it, which is correct.
It was indeed a sort of consulting arrangement. The $50,000 was an annual retainer for advice, not speaker’s fees. Under the terms of the arrangement, Krugman received the $50,000 per year, whether or not he actually did something to Enron.
There’s nothing illegal about Krugman taking money from Enron. However, since he’s using allegedly suspicious circumstances to sling mud at Bush, it’s worth noting that Krugman himself would be vulnerable to this sort of attack.
December:
I don’t think turnabout is fair play. If your accusation is bullshit innuendo, it’s still bullshit innuendo no matter what the other guy said first.
And, I think there’s a wealth of legitimate criticism of Klugman’s article that doesn’t need to be obscured by mudslinging.
How so?
Firstly, what is the “its” thats pretty ridiculous? MediaWhores or the Public Integrity cite. Both? Neither? On what basis do you make this extravagant claim? Please keep in mind that “bwah-ha-ha-ha” is not, in fact, an argument.
“Fragmentary” In what way? The document is two pages long, and ends with a clearly marked page 2. In what way is this “fragmentary”? Are we to believe that you suspect there is a missing, and highly exculpatory, page one and a half? Advise.
“Dubious”? Not according to the latest White House briefing, which speaks of the document as fact. QED: the argument as to the document is smoke and mirrors, devoid of any substance whatsoever. I mean, if we cannot rely on the legendary candor of Ari F., we are lost!
The plausible deniability has shifted, however. The filings were not “lost” by the SEC, the corporate lawyers dropped the ball and failed to file for months.
But I don’t wish to put too much emphasis on the document in question. It is merely the dangling string that causes the sweater to unravel.
Scylla is at some pains to avoid the crux of the question, which is outlined rather starkly in the Public Integrity piece.
To wit: in an apparent (not to say “bald-faced”) attempt to create an image of profitability, Harken pulled an Enron. The created a sham organization with a loan from thier own resources. They then “sold” an asset to that same organization and claimed the result was a “profit”.
It would be rather like me claiming that my a shadow was seperate being. My shadow writes me an I.O.U for several millions of dollars in order to purchase my shoes. I then announce I have sold my shoes for millions of dollars.
That is, of course, a crock. The SEC called them on this naked fraud with a stern “tsk-tsk, naughty” and Harken was then forced to amend its statements with an additional $8 million loss. Harken says “Ooopsy! Silly us! Whatever were we thinking?” and accepts the enforced correction.
Shall we not bandy words? “Fraud” is the word. Is there another word less fragmentary or dubious?
And, of course, this “amendment” took place after Lil’ George had already unloaded his stock. The transaction took place while Lil’ George was on the BoD, and the aforementioned, much belabored, “audit committee”.
And Sargeant Schultz knew nothing. Bob Crane and crew disassembled the prison camp and reassembled it as an armored division. And Schultz knew nothing.
I put it to you baldly, sir. If he did not know of this massive fraud, shouldn’t he have? And if he did know, isn’t that a criminal act of the first water?
So, what would you have it be, “Stonewall”? Irresponsibly ignorant or criminally culpable?
Where was this document at? I remember you saying it was a couple links from MWO… I am really curious to see the document (in Adobe Acrobat).
I am siding with Scylla et. al. so far. I mean, it does seem like some shady things had gone on, but I don’t think it’s right to point the finger at Bush. Since the SEC conducted an investigation and ended up STOPPING the investigation, without pressing charges or anything (or just pursuing), I don’t see any room for confusion on that part of the matter.
Maybe after work I will be able to add a little more to the debate than this. 
LilShieste
“I didn’t say he failed to divulge it; I said he didn’t like to advertise it, which is correct.”
Um he mentioned it twice in his columns in Fortune and NYT; what exactly do you expect, that he run Supebowl commercials about it?
Here is K’s side of the story and frankly it’s convincing.
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/enronfaq.html
The bottom line is: it wasn’t a lot of money for someone as well-known as Krugman and Krugman was completely upfront about it.
Andrew Sullivan made a complete ass of himself trying to skewer Krugman on this issue while compartively going easy on the the likes of Kristol who IIRC didn’t disclose their Enron connection at all.
As for K in general, he does get excited sometimes and perhaps inaccurate but he is an honest commentator . His NYT columns ,while still quite good, have dropped off in quality compared to his Slate days though.
Well, now that the much-esteemed Mr. Fleisher has ackowledged the completeness and accuracy of the aforesaid document, has that any impact on your position?
Whoa! We’re getting off track here:
The SEC report said Bush was four times a crook. What’s Krugman got to do with anything – besides (re) breaking the story?
Here’s what Ari had to say:
If there was a “It’s a forgery, incomplete, and misleading” argument there, I missed it.
From the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19419-2002Jul3.html
Now, about that “audit committee”.
The esteemed Scylla challenges my assertion that Lonesome George, as a member of the audit committee, was in a position such that he either was or should have been cognizent of the true financial position of Harken. He states, quite without substantiation, that it is common for “audit committee” members to have no actual awareness.
Further, he demands that I supply proof that “audit committee” means…well, what it means.
Careful what you wish for…
DALLAS MORNING NEWS
October 11, 1994, Tuesday
(excerpted and fragmentary)
…Richards wants Bush to reveal documents from SEC inquiry; GOP challenger denies insider trading with Harken Energy stock
Charlotte-Anne Lucas, Austin Bureau of The Dallas Morning News
Mr. Bush and his attorney said he was not aware of the impending losses when he sold the stock.
“I absolutely had no idea and would not have sold had I known,” said Mr. Bush.
Another Harken director at the time, E. Stuart Watson of Richardson, who served on the company’s audit and restructuring committees with Mr. Bush, said they were constantly made aware of the company’s finances.
“You bet we were,” said Mr. Watson, who says he supports Mr. Bush in his race against Ms. Richards. “We were both trying to keep that company on the straight and narrow.”
Mr. Bush said Mr. Watson “is mistaken.” …
Mr. Watson, the former director who served on two key committees with Mr. Bush at the time, said they were kept current on the company’s finances and knew that losses were to be announced.
Earnings reports at Harken ***“were never a surprise to us,” ***said Mr. Watson, who joined Harken’s board after retiring as a senior executive with Arco USA in 1982. ***As members of the audit committee, the two were briefed by the company treasurer and the inside and outside auditors, Mr. Watson said.
***…
(emphasis gleefully added)
Is this the kind of evidence you had in mind, Stonewall? Being, as it is, eyewitness, first-hand testimony?
(If I were a kinder, gentler person I probably wouldn’t be enjoying this so much. Hell, I haven’t had this much fun since they shot Ol’ Yeller!)
I’m enjoying this thread a lot but wanted to insert a couple of brief comments.
Yes, Krugman is far from perfect. IMO he idealizes Clinton too much; so much so that I sometimes think he has a crush on the guy ;). And I happen to disagree with some of his free trade positions; although in other respects I think he’s right-on.
Let’s not forget, though, that the point of Krugman’s column wasn’t to insist that there was sufficient evidence to indict Bush way back when. His point was that the “outrage” now being expressed by Bush and Cheney is the transparent hypocrisy of two multi-millionaires who have spent their lives enriching themselves, and doing precious little to protect the interests of average investors.
I think it’s pretty strange that, whether she’s indicted or not, Martha Stewart has already done damage to her credibility as a marketer of K-Mart toilet accessories. Yet, so far, the Bush bro’s have been at least as apparently shady but have succeeded in marketing themselves as virtuous and able political leaders.
I’m not sure whether anyone’s had the time to check out that 1992 article I posted above. To my mind there’s no question that the Bush brothers, especially Neil “Savings and Loan” Bush, are a clan of C students with A+ wealth and connections, and they’ve been cashing in on the latter all of their lives. Indeed, what’s really telling is that despite these tremendous advantages, none of them seems to have enough talent, imagination or even basic business acumen to enrich himself without shady dealings of one form or another.
How can such mediocrities seriously aspire to, much less gain, the presidency of the United States?
For some thoughts on why, check out this article on political dynasties (including an interesting section on Bush family Enron connections).
Granted, the majority of Americans didn’t vote for Bush (in fact, the majority of eligible voters didn’t vote for anyone at all, IIRC).
But here’s the thing. Back in the Clinton days, there were plenty of centrists and some lefties who were able to distinguish between their minimal love of Clinton, and their readiness to support him because of a political agenda with which they mainly agreed.
I can understand why Republicans might want to support Bush on political grounds. By why squander one’s credibility in order to flack for this man’s virtue?
Now please return to your regularly scheduled gladiatorial spectacle… 
Gotta admire ol’ Ron Ziegler’s, er, excuse me, Ari Fleischer’s attempt at spin there. Seems it’s all just about a late filing date on some paperwork, not about insider trading and related securities fraud at all. Thanks for clearing that up, Ari.
I trust you have a cite and a quotation.
at the top of yesterdays MWO article, there is a link to The Center for Public Integrity
which in turn, contains thedocument
Ace:
There’s no reference whatsoever to the memo in any of what you’ve posted.
No, it’s actually about going 60 in a 55mph zone ;).
**
Mediawhores. They make you seem like an understated right winger.
**
The sentence beginning on page two does not follow from the last sentence on page 1. Page 1 does not appear to be a full page of text. If you read it continuously, it is clear that something is missing.
**
Well, I’ll happily accept the document as if it were the 10 commandments handed directed to me by God for a cite of Ari Fleisher referring to the stolen document as fact in the latest White house briefing, And, I’ll send $20 either directly to you or through a moderator as payment for such good ignorance fighting.
On the other hand, I’ll expect a retraction if you can’t.
**
You keep repeating yourself and ignoring my rebuttals. What ball was dropped? Please explain why it was improper for the SEC not to file charges.
**
I’ll ask you for a retraction because that statement is both unfair and unworthy. I’ve tried to address every issue you’ve brought forward in good faith, and I’m sincerely insulted that you’d suggest otherwise.
**
It ain’t quite so simple. As an individual with a retirement plan, you can do much the same. You can borrow money from yourself and pay back interest and make a profit. Such is right and proper.
A corporation can do far more. It is right and proper for a corporation (Which is often a conglomerate of several corporations as in the case of Harkens) to have various subsidiaries and departments. Those entities perform accounting as if they were seperate entities which are then aggregated into the whole so that a profit analysis can be done by cost center. It actually helps auditing and financial analysis if done properly and in accordance with GAAP.
For example if you buy a new car and have warranty repairs done, the service department will bill corporate. The service department can then be examined indepencantly for its profitability and efficiency, as can sales, infrastructure, and the company as a whole.
So, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the potential structure at all.
**
Your hyperbole is nothing short of pure misrepresentation. It didn’t happen like that at all. I’m not familiar with the details of the transaction in question, but I’ll try to take a responsible guess as to why the SEC forbade it:
While the structure itself is fine, it served no other real purpose than to mask losses and was therefore disallowed. This is not the smoking gun you seem to think it is either. A corporation’s job is to maximize profits and a legitimate part of that is to use GAAP to show a corporations financials in the best possible light that can legally be done. Apparently the transaction was approved by an independant auditor but rejected by the SEC. Again, not unusual, and not illegal. It happened with RJR and their tracking stock in '91 or '92 IIRC, and the SEC was looking at these kinds of transactions and cracking down on them. A year earlier it might have been allowable (or not, I really don’t know.)
EK did a nice job with creative accounting boosting profits by switching inventory from FIFO to LIFO.
It’s creative accounting, and pushing the limits, and the transaction probably shouldn’t have cleared the audit and gotten to the SEC in the first place, but there’s nothing here illegal.
**
No. It was not “fraud,” unless you can show that the company was not going to account for the losses. As long as there accounting for them it’s not fraud. It’s a question (and a big one) of methods.
**
You do know that this actually works in George’s favor, don’t you? If the transaction cleared the audit than George would have no foreknowledge or expectation that the SEC would disallow the transaction causing the restatement of earnings and subsequent stock drop.
First off, please don’t call me Stonewall. I’d appreciate it if you dropped the deprecatory name-calling when you’re addressing me.
Secondly, you have a major problem with your thesis, and I’d appreciate it if you addressed it.
The problem is that you have a large explanatory gap.
What you have is the following.
- George owned stock was on the BOD and the audit committee.
- He sold stock at an opportune time prior to the Sec’s disallowing a questionable transaction that caused a restatement of earnings and was the likely cause of the subsequent stock drop.
These are not in dispute.
What I do dispute is that this in and of itself is a statement of guilt. There are many scenariors to describe these circumstances:
-
Bush was smart - He saw the stock was trading at a high and decided to get out without the use of any material nonpublic information
-
Bush was lucky - He wanted the money for something else and just happened to sell at a fortuitous time.
-
Bush had a proxy - An investment advisor either advised him to sell or did so with power of discretion
-
Bush was an idiot - (this one’s yours) He had no idea what was going on and since he was the President’s son he was taken care of.
-
Bush committed a crime - He acted on material nopublic information in his posession and sold his stock.
We can make up some more, but you get the idea. You have arbitrarily decided to go with number 5 in spite of the fact that the SEC investigated this possibility and decided not to pursue it.
So, number 5 posits conspiracy on the part of the SEC officials involved as well.
The explanatory gap is how you get from undisputed facts 1 and 2, and select conclusion 5 in preference to other possibilities. Occam’s razor would suggest that this is not a logical conclusion, so if you wish to go with it you need to fill the explanatory gap. Please do so.
elucidator:
Again, I’d appreciate it if you dropped the “Stonewall” moniker when referring to me. I know I just posted that request so you didn’t see it in your subsequent posting, but I thought I’d mention it again for emphasis.
Your cited article actually helps Bush. If he was on the audit committee and was informed of the companies finances as Watson describes than he would have known that the transaction had cleared the independant audit and be expecting profitable earnings to be declared for Harken which would have been good news for the stock.
It was only when the SEC later disallowed the transaction, and caused harken to restate their profits into losses that the companies stock tanked.
So, in order for Bush to have committed insider trading it would have been necessary for him to have foreknowledge of what the SEC’s findings would be in regards to the transaction in question.
Since he was on the audit committee and it cleared the audit, it is reasonable to assume that his expectation would have been that the transaction was proper, adn the company would declare profitable earnings. This is hardly the scenario for an illegal insider sell.
So, in order for illegal insider trading to have occured, you will have to credit Bush with the prescient ability to second-guess the auditors with uncanny perception and accuracy as to what was permissable as far as the SEC was concerned, or posit a conspiracy with either the auditors, the SEC or both.
I will likely be unable to cover all your points, Scylla, in one sitting. So please be assured I will get to them. Just going to hit the highlights for now.
As to “Stonewall”, I thought this rather a mild joke, but …whatever.
Jeez, Scylla, this is gonna be embarrassing. Sorry, guy, but you totally blew it. Look again. You will note, if you look closely, that the first page has two footnotes that refer back to the body of the text. That’s what threw you off, that and seeing exactly what you hoped to see. If you track carefully, you will see that the last sentence ends with “and a form 3 with regard to LCM three days” and the first line of the second page is “late on January….”
It’s the footnotes that threw you off. There is no fragmentation. You simply misread. A lesser man would rub your nose in this. I, however, have far too much dignity. To stoop that low, I mean.
Well, by now you probably know that this dog won’t hunt. This dog is dead.
I don’t know the correct procedure for citing a press conference broadcast on CNN, but I watched it, as apparently did at least one other poster. I’m quite sure you can satisfy yourself as to the facts of the press conference, without further interference from me. The facts are precisely as I state them therefore, of course, no retraction is forthcoming.
Now….about that $20. You’re on the honor system here. Fold up a $20 bill, and tuck it in your wallet, rather like blindly optimistic young men of my generation used to carry condoms. One day…today, tomorrow, next week….you’ll see a man who looks like he hasn’t had $20 in one chunk for some time. I enjoin you to commit a random and senseless act of kindness. Good karma for you, him, and I. Win, win, win. Can’t beat it. For is it not written, “that whatsoever shall go around, therefore shall it come around”? Amen.
The alibi, as presented on today’s press conference, was that George presumed that the corporate lawyers were dealing with the requisite filings, when they had not. Hence the phrase “dropped the ball”. That this is at variance with George’s previous explanations regarding the late filing is another fact that you may explain at your leisure. Mr. Fliesher, in the honored tradition of Ron Ziegler (who can forget!), simply declared the previous statement “inoperative”. Poof! Gone!
The filing or non-filing of charges by the SEC has no bearing. Who knows? It is sufficient to note that the SEC forced Harken to acknowledge their “error” and restate the earnings correctly, which is roughly $8 million dollars in, ah, “error”. Further, an official of the SEC advised George’s lawyer that the cessation of investigation could not be construed or interpreted as an exoneration. The investigation simply wandered away, with no resolution. Surly left wingers, such as myself, are prone to suggest that the fact that the alleged miscreants father happened to be President might have some bearing. And in fact, that is precisely what I do believe.
Any suggestion that a interrupted or curtailed investigation equates to innocence is, of course, ludicrous. You should be embarrassed to drag out such a mangy argument in polite company.
You then enter into an argument that is rather confusing. You seem to be suggesting that if the audit committee declared the proceedings legitimate, then George was perfectly within his rights to assume that Harken was entirely on the up and up, and his sale of stock was entirely innocent.
But George was on the audit committee, hence, he is talking to himself! Its rather like saying that George is innocent, because his imaginary friend told him it was ok!
All of the principles on both sides of the preposterous “asset sale” were Harken people! It can be concocted for no legitimate purpose, unless hiding debt is somehow legitimate.
Are you seriously trying to suggest to me that George would have gotten the same price for his stock if it was common knowledge that Harken was four times more in debt than they pretended? Or that George Bush of the audit committee is a different entity than George Bush the stockholder?
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
The “sale” of actions was nothing more than a financial fairy-tale. We have first-hand, eye-witness testimony that George was aware of the financial dealings of Harken, and updated frequently. Testimony that , I urge you to note, puts the lie to your pretence that the “audit committee” in this instance was somehow untainted by fiduciary responsibility. According to him, the audit committee was just that. A committee that oversaw, updated, and verified the fiscal health of the Harken company.
Beyond your determined insistence, you have yet to offer a single cite, shred of evidence, or public document to support any of your claims, up to and including your laughable claim that this is somehow very much like Uncle Fred “borrowing” for his IRA
Your arguments lie in shards and tatters at your feet. Your fantasy of George’s utter innocence is unsupported by anything but negative evidence, to wit, your admantine insistence that if I cannot prove it false in each and every particular, it must stand as gospel. Let the record show that no statement of fact that you have offered can be proven to that standard. And, in fact, most of the statements you offer as facts are not, and have been definitively shown to be false.
That’s my definition of losing an argument. Clearly, you have another. I do not flatter myself that I could change any of your dearly held opinions, nothing short of walking on water will accomplish that.
On the gripping hand, if you follow through on that $20, good will have been accomplished. “Sufficient unto the day……” and all that.
No doubt, you remain my adversary and I remain,
Yours,
Elucidator
Elucidator:
Thank you for clearing that up. I stand corrected regarding the fragmentary nature of the document, and retract that statement of mine.
Unfortunately the rest of the issues need to be cleared up regarding the document’s provenance (count on Collounsbury to find the proper word.)
I don’t an opinion concerning the verity of the facts contained within the document, nor it’s genuiness. I am simply skeptical that it was what you purport it to be. What does this document have that suggests we should consider it credible?
I’m sorry. Simply your word that the document is an authentic original is not good enough. Similarly your word that your summary of the press conference is accurate won’t do either. I will need a quote, or a cite regarding the press conference, and something… anything regarding the credibility of your “original” document.
The press conference is a matter of public record. You really don’t expect me to do the work to win your bet for you, do you? Your statement that Ari vouched for the documents veracity is a bold one, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to request that you verify it. Particularly as $20 is on the line.
Thank you for the clarification. I’d misinterpreted what you’d said (your habit of colloquiallisms and hyperbole intermixed with your actual argument doesn’t help your clarity when us stodgy conservatives try to decipher your liberalise (if you can accept a constructive criticism.)
Again, I’m confused. I though we were talking about the filing of charges against Bush, not Harken. As I understand it (and I understand this pretty well,) Harken had not committed an illegal act in attempting to structure the transaction as they did. The SEC simply did not allow that accounting when it reviewed the financials.
Whether or not they filed charges on Bush is about as germaine as you get. Presumably if they had a case, they would have proceeded. The fact that they did not leaves two possible conclusions:
- They had no case.
- They ignored the strong case they had for political reasons, because pressure was exerted on them to do so, or for some other reason. If it is your position that this in fact is what happened, than the people involved and perhaps Bush himself would be guilty of conspiracy after the fact which would be a pretty serious and devastating revelation. Of course if one were to take such a position, one would need to show a credible reason why that is the best choice. Again, Occam’s razor suggests strongly that are presumption should be the former, absent evidence to the contrary.
If you have evidence or an argument, please show or make it.
[quote]
Further, an official of the SEC advised George?s lawyer that the cessation of investigation could not be construed or interpreted as an exoneration.
[quote]
Well this is a bit of a muddle really. When William Lucas went (probably further than he should,) and stated “There was no case there,” that sounds suspiciously exonerating, perhaps justifying Bush’s comment. However, as I stated earlier, I am in agreement with you on this point. The cessation of an investigation does not equate with exoneration as Hiler rightly clarified.
What you don’t seem to understand is the corrolary which is that an investigation being held does not equate with guilt, nor that one being ceased equates with conspiracy.
Since I am publically in agreement with you on this point, I fail to see its relevancy.
Is the crux of it then? Your immediate presumption of guilt is founded upon your political preference? Would this mean that if the party in question was a liberal Democrat you would presume he was innocent?
Am I to take it that your actual argument is “Because I am a liberal and don’t like Bush. I will automatically presume he is a criminal and interpret all data based on that presumption?”
Because that kind of invalidates you whole thesis here, does it not?
Indeed I would. Seeing though as earlier in this thread I’d already publically stated our concurrence in this issue, I think the misunderstanding (and the embarassment,) is yours.
I’ll try to clarify for you:
Neither Bush, nor the audit committee declares anything legitimate. The Independant auditors (who are an outside firm) review the company’s financials for accuracy and compliance with GAAP, and then render an opinion on both issues for which they are accountable. This opinion goes into a report which is then delivered to the members of the audit committee. If any issues have been raised regarding accuracy or compliance the audit committee must either remedy them or issue unaudited financial statements and earnings (which would be a bad thing.)
The whole purpose of the audit is to have an independant firm that is unattached and unacountable to the company in question, and who is licensed to conduct such an audit, come in, review the books, and make an assurance that the figures presented and the means used to present them are reliable.
Once that is done, the company can then announce its earnings publically.
The is precisely what happened the independant auditor made no issue with the transaction that the SEC disallowed.
Then, Bush sold his stock.
At this point in time not only can we presume that Bush thought that financials were Kosher, we can assume that he felt he assumed very strongly that they were because he sat on the committee which had recieved a second opinion verifying that this was so.
So to put it in Laymen’s terms, not only did Bush probably think that Harken’s was healthy, he had a written second opinion, to prove it.
After Bush had sold his stock, and after all the auditing and announcing of earnings had occured, the SEC reviewed the companies audited financials and disagreed with the auditor’s assesment. That disagreement provoked the restatement of earnings.
What is illegal to do is to sell a stock based on material nonpublic information. If you wish to make a case that Bush engaged in illegal insider trading, it is necessary to demonstrate that Bush posessed material nonpublic information and acted upon it.
As a member of the audit committee the information Bush posessed was Harken’s financial statements, and the auditors opinion. Both of these were public information at the time of the sale. Both presented a sunny view of the earnings position, and based on the auditor’s review of the earnings Bush would have logically presumed that that sunny view was indeed correct.
So, the question is what material nonpublic information did Bush posess at the time of the sale that would lead him to suspect that the SEC would disagree with Harken’s audited financials and force them to restate their earnings as a loss?
Please don’t take this as an insult, but their is a certain amount of knowledge necessary in order to understand what is being referenced by the term “audit commitee.” You don’t appear to posess it. Hopefully I’ve cleared it up for you. I’ve gone to an effort to do so.
Neither.
Perhaps time for a new tag line?
I’ve just taken pains to explain to you for the second time what the nature of those “updates on financial dealings” were. George’s updates as well as the second opinion of the auditor would have led him to believe the company was both earning money and compliant with GAAP.
The fiduciary responsibility of the audit committee is to hire a firm to conduct an audit, review its findings, and address any issues found in the audit as to the accuracy or compliance of the company’s financial statements. And that is what they did. Apparently the transaction in question passed the audit. If it had not, the company would not have been able to issue audited financials, which they did.
That is the responsibility of the audit commitee.
That’s because I am not the one making the assertion that something illegal occured. You are. It’s not up to me to disprove Bush’s guilt, or to disprove the audit committee’s failure. It is up to you to prove them. I’m not making an argument. I’m just showing that yours sucks.
I think that’s my underwear.
Two things:
-
I have not made the argument that Geoge is innocent. As I’ve said before, and I quote, “I don’t know.” I am simply showing that your argument for guilt sucks because it is built on falsehoods, circumstantial evidence, and the presumtpion of guilt because of your “stodgy liberallness” as you put it.
-
What is negative evidence?
I have no idea what that means. It sounds nice. Are you waxing into hyperbolic preachiness here?
I’m having trouble parsing this part, but I don’t want to be accused of dodging an argument again, so I’ll just say its a bunch of bullshit, ok?
Absolutely. I will. All I need from you is that quote and I’ll pony up. Failing your ability to come up with it, I’ll simply assume it’s because you statement is false and you’re unwilling to admit it.
You’re flattering yourself. You’re not my adversary.
elucidator:
Was perhaps the conference you saw referring to the SEC memo that said:
From this cite:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16302-2002Jul2.html
And here’s an interesting cite:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/13/president.2000/jackson.bush/
While not particularly complimentary of Bush, it points out the transaction was a poor one after all. Four days after the dip, the stock was back to what Bush sold it for. A year later it was double.