Holy crap*, Stoid! I was only kidding about the pretzel thing!
(I think the Pres was just hangin’ out, watchin’ the game, drinkin’ a Bud… It was the long ‘Whazzzuuuuuupp!’ that made him inhale that pretzel.)
*[sub]Not a religious statement.[/sub]
It doesn’t have to be – it’s only precedent if it happens a second time.
If there are sound reasons to impeach the President, by all means, do so. If it’s just for revenge, elevating minor crimes to the level of removal from office? No way. I believe it would precipitate a serious Constitutional crisis.
Dubya’s alleged infractions occurred in 1990. My associate in our white collar crime practice informs me that the statute of limitations has expired.*
In any event, regardless of how much political pressure was on the SEC back then, any defense lawyer in the world would have a field day with the fact that his/her client had already been investigated and cleared.
But don’t give up hope!! None of these factors would prevent impeachment against Cheney, if more dirt is uncovered.
Here’s hoping …
Sua
*caveat: my friend says he hasn’t put any deep thought into exactly what Dubya could be charged with, so he could be wrong.
Guys- you are aware that the whole Bush Harken affair WAS investigated by the SEC when it happened, and a huge part of the reason nothing came of it is: by the time of the investigation, Harken stock was worth a lot MORE than Bush had sold it for!
So, if you’re going to argue that Bush is a crook, you might want to explain why he dumped his stock for a lot less than he could have gotten had he held on to it.
Too late! The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision rendered ex post haste has approved a Motion to Fuhgedabboutit. The motion stipulates that Pres. Bush is “completely non-guilty of anything, at any time, under any circumstances whatsoever.”
One thing to remember about the Whitewater fiasco: at least part of it was due to a rather apathetic defense of Clinton by the Dumbocrats. He had shown that his politics were politics only, uncluttered by any principles or ideological foundations.
(When he flew back to Arkansas to sign off on a death warrant for a retarded man, he lost me for good. I am convinced that he did it for no other purpose but to stifle the “soft on crime” murmur being orchestrated. Shit like this makes the Baby Jesus puke his little guts out…)
Bushie-poo has no such lack of support. Rather than let this happen, the Pubbies will roll about on the floor of the Senate, shrieking in porcine rage. They will committ hara-kiri en masse on the floor of the House. They will face certain defeat at the polls with calm equanimity, and…
Certain defeat? Well, lets not be too hasty. Baby and the bathwater, and all that…
Didjaknow that Orrin Hatch, that wild eyed radical lefty, has come out in favor of releasing The Documents?
Haven’t had this much fun since they shot Ol’ Yeller!
astorian, I’m so glad you find it comforting to think the President to be not a crook, just a fool.
Didn’t know Rehnquist was a Brooklyn Law School grad. 
Sua
But Grem, you didn’t answer my question. You said:
I asked for a number, you gave me a parable.
As for your question:
After parsing that, I will answer it literally and truthfully:
0%
(Sorry, I thought it was rhetorical)
Grem:
Allrighty, I’ll go with that.
Whitewater was revenge for Ollie North, Clarence Thomas, and… ummm. Hell, Richard Nixon!
Yeah, it was all a Democratic scandal. Tricky Dick was innocent!
Now we’re even and can all be nice. No need to perpetuate the hate.
Remember, a bird in the hand is better than an impeach in the Bush.
(While we’re trading colloquiallisms)
elucidator:
The supreme court really did that???
You got a link to the opinions, or story.
On the face of it, that scares me more than that crazy lady in FL. who certified the vote.
I’m going to probably want to chew off my own face for asking a straight question about Bush to you, but… where the hell did you get this from?
From this:
IOW, he didn’t commit insider trading because he foolishly guessed wrong about what direction the stock price was going to go.
Scylla - re: elucidator’s post:
Woosh!!
Sua
Speaking as just one member of that rest of the world, I really don’t think impeaching America’s President or VP would lower many people’s views of the United States.
I think what faith the world had in the American electoral system plummeted during the last election, raised somewhat after September 11, then plummeted again after a series of foreign policy disasters and domestic scandals. Bush regularly appears in the French press as either someone to be laughed at or someone to be feared. In Germany and Britain, there’s building resentment against America’s influence over domestic and foreign policy.
Here, he managed to anger the Canadian Left with the war in Afghanistan, the “Axis of Evil” comments, the rejection of the Kyoto accord, and his fervent push for globalisation. And he won the ire of the Canadian Right for his protectionist stance on softwood lumber – as if Free Trade only goes one way.
In Israel, it almost seems like he’s alienated all sides.
The battle over the war-crimes court at the UN just seemed sleazy. The financial scandals, ditto. Impeaching him and/or Cheney might do some good for America’s credibility.
None of the allegations Mambolists in the OP occurred while President Bush was president. All of the articles of impeachment brought against President Clinton were for things he did while president (e.g., perjury and obstruction of justice).
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/resources/1998/lewinsky/articles.of.impeachment/
Oh fair suck of the sauce bottle Hamish. That’s tosh and humbug.
Bush’s policies on foreign affairs and trade (be they good, bad or indifferent) may be a reason to remove him from office at the next election. (FWIW they won’t count for a bean). Impeachment is an internal affair. To an outsider it’s slightly macabre and provides lots of good copy.
woolly prediction: During each of the next 10 US Presidents tenure there will be strident calls (and with some arguable grounds) for impeachment. It’s now a standard hardball political tactic.
Actually he did commit “insider trading.”
What is pretty clear to anyone looking at the facts of the case is that Bush did not commit illegal insider trading.
This conclusion is drawn from documents made available from the Freedom of Information act.
In one of the SEC’s summary papers on the investigation, they test the criteria for illegal insider trading against Bush’s actions.
To commit illegal insider trading, one must be in posession of material nonpublic information and act on that information.
They concluded that their was no further cause for investigation, and that they did not believe Bush committed an illegal trade.
Their conclusions against the test:
-
The information was not material. On the morning that the news was announced the stock continued to trade at its previous days close. Later that afternoon it dropped, but recovered quickly over the next couple of days to its preannouncement price. Within a year it had doubled.
-
Bush was not in posession of knowledge of Harken’s large impending loss. The materials he posessed would lead him to believe that Harken would announce losses consonant with previous quarters. Only members of the Executive committee (of which Bush was not a member, being only an outside director,) had any knowledge of the structure of the Aloha transaction that led to the restatement. Even they did not know since the SEC itself had not yet so ruled.
-
The sale of Harken stock was consonant with a preexisting plan and a series of stock liquidations Bush had made prior to and after the Harken sale in order to raise capital to buy the Texas Rangers.
-
Bush sought counsel before the sale both from the firms lawyers and from management to make sure that he was in posession of no material nonpublic information that would prevent him from selling, and he was so advised.
-
Bush filed his intent to sell on time, but was late with his followup. The late follow-up is an administrative issue at worst.
For these reasons the SEC thought no convincing case against Mr. Bush could be made and they dropped the investigation.
Though some claim that the investigation was perfunctory or cursory, I have yet to see anyone offer any information or evidence to suggest that this is actually the case.
My experience suggests that the investigation was unusually thorough and deep based on the paucity of evidence to suggest that a crime occured.
My opinion is that they were extremely careful and thorough because of who George Bush was.
In all the accusations and innuendo that has been spread, and all the discussion that has occured on this topic , I have yet to see a credible or even serious refutation of the five facts reported above. Nor have I seen any credible argument made that the SEC acted improperly in their investigation.
In light of these facts, those that continue to hold that Bush committed a crime in regards to his Harken sale, are either making their claims from a postion of ignorance, or, worse yet, have not interest in the merits of their accusation, but only in the results that the accusation itself can obtain.
My opinion will likely remain that way until somebody seriously refutes the points above, or has reason to cast doubt on the SECs integrity in this matter.
Oh, and re: #1, I forgot to mention that a Smith Barney analyst stated that the Harken announcement was “not significant” on the day it happened.
Any new serious allegations or calls for a new investigation, will need to overcome all the points 1-4, if they are to be credible and responsible.
I’m currently looking at the Dick Cheney thing.
Does anybody have a substantive and detailed link about what the problem is.
Projected cost overruns can be accounted for in two different manners.
-
They can be ignored until they are payable, and land as a windfall in the year they are payable
-
They can acrue along the way.
To give a simple example of #2, let’s say you contract a job for an estimated 1 million dollars, that will take place over two years. Your contract will give you an upfront payment (let’s call it 20% or 200k) at signing, and the balance upon completion. You receive the 200k as revenue in the year your get it. Simple so far.
Let’s say at the end of the first year you are 20% overbudget, and that the other end of the contract is going to be liable for that overbudget. How do you handle it?
It depends on how you handled the original contract and what you’ve done in the past. There are several different ways of doing it, and all are valid as long as you’re consistent.
For example, if the contract is non-terminable or requires full payment on termination, and you booked the whole thing as revenue in year one, you might very well have another 200k added to your revenue in year one. It would indeed go properly under accounts recievable. This method is especially appropriate if the company is engaged in a business where the large portion of cash needed to complete the contract is spent in year one.
Such an arrangement makes the accounting more transparent, than if you spent all the money in year one buying materials, and transport, and hiring with only the 200k, and in year two you complete the contract with very little expense.
If you didn’t do it this way the contract would show up as a huge expense in the first year, and as a huge windfall in the second.
The problem is trying to accurately reflect contracts and payments that occur over multiple years so that the results of those contracts and the total cost of fulfilling them is budgeted and reflected as they occur. The methods of doing this are varied, but several are valid, and proper as long as they are used consistently and accurately.
Of course if you were taking as earnings budget overruns that really weren’t occuring or which were not payable, or you were being inconsistent in your accounting than that would be fraudulent.
Does anybody have a cite or info to suggest that that is in effect what occured?
Mambo; . . . . . .Foxtrot Oscar.
I laugh at hypocrites on the left.