No. This is still a falsehood and is not what your article says. It says “a flood of cheap, imported crude oil drove many small, domestic producers out of business. Bush was at the helm of another struggling company seeking a bailout. Spectrum 7 was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy”
Where is something that can be construed as “run into the ground.” One might argue that Bush was successful as a businessman by finding a buyer for his company.
[quote]
Later, Harken was failing. Under Bush’s watch. And it was using Enron style accounting, (which was praised by Dick Cheny in an Arthur Anderson video) to cook the books.
[That’s not really a factual cite. It’s more an opinion piece. “Harken hypocrisy?” This is supposed to give you a balanced recitation of facts? Enron style accounting? Cook the books? Give me a fucking break.
Harken in fact did not fail, nor was it Bush’s “watch” in terms that he was not in charge of the company if it had. He had responsibilities within the corporation but was not at the helm, and can’t take credit for success nor responsibility for failure outide of his purview.
No. It really really didn’t. I know more about rule 144 stock transactions than anybody should be forced to know. We’ve seen that memo. Elucidator found it, iirc. It’s boiler plate. That means it’s standard fare that’s produced whenever a corperation get involved in investment banking transactions. The fact of the matter is that Bush actively sought a legal opinion regarding the sale of his stock from the legal department before he sold the stock. He received one. While the legal department cannot clear him (since it’s the SEC that will determine after the fact whether it was legal,) he was presented with a favorable opinion regarding the potential sale with all the pertinent disclaimers and caveats. He had a preexisting need, and the SEC determined after the fact that there was no possibility for illegal insider trading since there was no material nonpublic information, as can be clearly demonstrated from the subsequent action of the stock.
Rule 144 stock transactions are commonplace. This article is attempting to create the appearance of impropriety where no impropriety exists. I see this definitively. It is difficult to prove a negative, but in this rare instance, it is possible. Since there was no material nonpublic information, Bush could not have sold his stock based on it.
In fact, the stock offering helped Harkens as it provided much needed cash and the stock went up as a result of the news. Look at a chart on the stock. Or, better yet, read the 12 page trainwreck on the subject wherein we go into excruciating detail.
I’m an expert on rule144 stock sales. Here’s how it works. Insiders always have inside information. There’s nothing wrong with them posessing it. There’s nothing wrong with them selling their stock either. What they cannot do is sell their stock based on material nonpublic information (or buy it for that matter.)
Since Bush had a need for capital for his Rangers venture it would be tough to make the argument that Bush’s sale was predicated on any information he had regarding Harkens immediate future.
“Material” means there has to be real losses by investors who did not posess the information available to the insider. There were none as the offering was a positive for the company that drove the price up.
You need to demonstrate that an investor without the information Bush had would have acted differently and been injured through doing so.
The information in question was related to an offering that raised money for Harkens getting it over the hump. This is a positive. Hardly news that would provoke one to sell.
I already wasted time trying to educate people about rule 144 stock sales in a seperate thread when this issue came out. I’m not going to do so again. If you wish to show that Bush broke the law you need to demonstrate that he posessed material nonpublic information and acted on it generating losses to other investors.
- What specifically was the information?
- Prove that Bush posessed it.
- Show that Bush acted on it.
- Demonstrate its materiality.
- Show the losses.
Your article says differently. “Bush and DeWitt quickly assembled a team of investors”
Untrue, according to your article:
"“George W. Bush deserves great credit for the development of the franchise,” Ueberroth said. “However, the bringing together of the buying group was the result of Richard Rainwater, Rusty Rose, Dr. Bobby Brown and the commissioner.”
Note that this contradicts my previous quote (the article is contradictory on this topic.) In the interests of fleshing it out, here’s more context for the first quote:
“They hit a snag when Peter Ueberroth, then commissioner of Major League Baseball, told them he wouldn’t approve the sale without more investors from Texas. Ueberroth believed that local owners would be less likely to relocate the team. The commissioner, a GOP donor himself, wanted the deal approved before his term expired at the end of 1989, and so he and then-American League president Bobby Brown took it on themselves to line up Fort Worth financier Richard E. Rainwater.”
So, it appears that Ueberroth got involved in the deal, but Bush had lined up investors as well, just not, in Ueberroth’s opinion enough (actually it look like Ueberroth simply wanted in.)
Listen, this is a hack job article. You know it. I know it. The article sets off trying to make Bush look bad and so it presents things in that fashion.
The question is whether you could say he was unsuccessful. You can’t. He had some success. His story is not particularly uplifting or laudatory, nor do I find his career distinguished or a model for emulation, but we’re trying to be accurate here.
You want to call him a failed business man. He wasn’t.
I’m going on vacation in about five hours for a week so I won’t be able to answer. Sorry to cut and run.
