Impeach George W. Bush

Great Debates
41

The problem with that “republican blast fax” talking point of “the stock rising in value after Bush sold means he did nothing wrong”, is that that is one of the most stupid positions to take when a crime (possibly) was committed. Put this in your brain once and for all:

It does not exonerate ANY illegal insider trading if it occurred.

And yes, I do know that in a court of law he cannot be punished. The only resource now is to turn the screws politically.

What I am saying is similar to the point Vincent Bugliosi said talking about his book “None Dare Call It Treason” his basic point was just because so far we have benefited with the court’s decision in favor of Bush, it doesn’t mean it was a good one, or one without partisan influence.

42

Gigobuster:

Well, you certainly seem to have found a novel interpretation of the insider trading laws.

Of course, if it’s illegal it’s illegal, however how the stock reacts to the news, and how it’s percieved by the public at large and certified financial analysts following it professionally is highly germaine as to whether or not the informaion is material.

The fact that the stock didn’t go down is in fact a valid talking point bearing directly on materiality

43

Cokie Roberts, a leftie with the NPR, has publicly stated that the SEC completely exonerated Bush with respect to the Harken trades. That admission is binding on lefties everywhere. When using her name in longer sentences, I like to call her Crackie.

And impeach Bush for what exactly? Fixing the election? He didn’t do that, the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter. Incompetence? Sorry, but his performance has been stellar. He is even better than Ronald Reagan, the man who singlehandedly ended the Cold War by saying: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” He has given us a great tax cut and headed off real economic disaster thereby.

Clinton, on the other hand, faced a long and troubling Whitewater investigation that allowed CEOs everywhere to believe that they could lie about anything, leading to our current economic woes. They had abandoned their good conservative roots to take a walk on the “wild” liberal side, and now we all pay for it. Any charge to get rid of Clinton would have been well worth it.

44

Your naiveity and willingness to delude yourself when politically convenient is charming, Scylla!

[I do agree with you, by the way, that revenge is not a good reason to impeach a president…But I also find it more than a little bit sad that politics has devolved to the point where the party that has slightly higher ethical standards may well lose because of the advantage that the other party gains by not having any such standards! (People like John McCain excepted.)]

45

OK, assume for a second that Bush and/or Cheney gets impeached - do you really think there is a chance in hell that he would actually be convicted? Both times impeachments of sitting presidents have gone to the Senate the technical strength of the prosecution were actually sound (if not the definition of high crimes or misdemeanors), but when push came to shove the political will to finish the job evaporated. Did Andrew Johnson violate the law (good law or bad is not an issue) in firing that cabinet secretary? Most likely yes. Was Clinton’s ass-covering perjury? Most people (on the street, at least) seem to think it was*. But in convicting them you have the rabid zealots all for it or against it based on partisanship, but when you get to the voices of reason the show ends. So if you can convince me that there is no way that he’d be acquitted I’d entertain the thought, but until then you’re talking about millions of tax-payer dollars thrown down the toilet just for partisan masturbation (sure, it feels good, but what do you get out of it?).

And for the record, I think Bush is a crook and a moron, and I’d get a kick out of seeing him squirm under oath. But ultimately I think he’s doing a good enough job tying his own noose come 2004 and I don’t think he needs any help.
*pleaseohpleaseohplease let that not allow a highjack, it’s already been debated.

46

Jshore:

Take a pretty careful look at the quote to which I responded to. I parsed it pretty carefully and stand by my answer.

It’s not my fault it’s phrased badly.

47

See, normally, someone saying something like this would indicate to me that the person saying it had their tongue firmly implanted in their cheek and would therefore also indicate that the rest of the post was written with the tongue in the same position.

I desperately want to believe this is the case here…unfortunately, I don’t think it is.

48

Scylla:

Well, okay, I am glad to hear your naiveity on the subject has its bounds!

And, as regards to the parsing, I suppose it all hinges on what the meaning of “is” is! :wink:
In regards to taggert’s post: With the Board so slow tonight, “search” ain’t working so I couldn’t get further hints from his/her past posts as to whether that was really what passes for right wing thought these days or whether it was parody of right wing thought. It has become nearly impossible to tell the difference!

[Added in preview: Neurotik seems to be in the same predicament as I!]

49

Hmm. Wasn’t the SEC general counsel for at that time - James R. Doty - W’s former lawyer? The guy who negotiated the purchase of the Texas Rangers for him? Remember he had that alleged “pre-existing plan” to sell off all that Harken stock - he needed cash to buy the Rangers? (And pay his lawyers!)

And Doty’s boss - Richard Breedon - wasn’t he deputy counsel to Bush Sr. when Bush Sr. was Vice-President? Didn’t Bush Sr. appoint Breedon to head the SEC during his Presidency?

Pretty cozy arrangement.

50

Wait a minute – are you claiming that there’s patronage going on in the highest levels of government? Stop the presses!

:rolleyes:

51

jshore, it appears that the general consensus in this thread is that our man taggert is a satirist. A rather subtle and clever one, I might add. Two thumbs up, taggert, for almost perfectly balancing right on the edge without going over the top and being obvious.

52

Even if I grant you that smoke screen, it doesn’t make that point less stupid, if in this case an alleged crook can escape because the would be victims actually benefited from the crime, that IMO shows how twisted the system is when dealing with corporate crime. And that is one big item that needs to be fixed in future reforms.

53

No, no, no, no, no. How many times do I have to say this. I am not a satirist. Satire lacks the moral clarity that I seek because it implies two meanings and the sort of nuanced complexity I despise. I am dead serious. taggert, my “handle” is the character played by Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles, one of my favorite movies. The sig line is from the scene where the fight breaks into the mock musical being directed by Dom Delouise, and taggert screams in response to Dom’s direction to get off his set that he doesn’t take orders from him, “I work for Mel Brooks!” The fact that this was a parody/satire Western is merely coincidence.

So move along, there is nothing to see here. Oh, and I am going to post this same post in another thread that links to this one asking the same question. I apologize for the “double post”, but I do wish to be taken seriously. After all, what would be the point of my posts if the readers didn’t seriously consider what I had bothered to write? Am I Joe Peschi? Am I here to amuse you? I think not.

54

taggert, I advise you to quit while you’re ahead. Frau Bruche might get nervous.

55

Scylla, in his fervent desire to protect and shelter the innocent (or, more exactly, the unindictable) has neglected to reference viewpoints that differ from his own. An exhaustive exploration of same can be found in the thread “Bush is a crook”, with references to cites, etc.

Which is to say “It ain’t necessarily so, it ain’t neccesarily so…”

It would be sufficient to note that Georgies business career is far more inspirational than his military career, as he was disappointed in his quest for Viet Cong aircraft to destroy over the skies of Amarillo.

Georgie’s best defense ala the Harken Incident is an adamantine ignorance, an ignorance as pure and unsullied as Bambi. Memo’s scurried away at his approach, conversations halted instantly when he entered a room, and no informational contamination resulted, the petrie dish of his mind was unclouded.

The man is a mediocrity, a doofus, a pliable front for the same men who told Ronald Reagan where to stand, and which camera to gaze sincerly into.

But - we’re stuck with him. Impeachment is not anywhere on the radar screen. That dog will not hunt. That dog has rung down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible.

The best we can do is hang on til Election Time, and pray the chucklewit doesn’t get us all killed in the meantime.

56

The best part about it all is: who is spearheading this crooked CEO shoot? Not a liberal, but the highly conservative Judicial Watch.

57

Gigo:

It seems to me that in your position should be careful what they call “stupid.”

Insiders are allowed to buy and sell their stock, and they are allowed to do so based on their expertise and knowledge of the company.

What they can’t do is buy or sell based on nonpublic material information.

There’s no smokescreen. If the information is not material then a trade is not precluded, and legal.

Lots of times people have no understanding of something and conclude that it is therefore “Stupid.”

That’s stupid.

58

elucidator:

Alas, this is true, though I do need to note that I am not referencing my viewpoints, but rather those of the SEC which conducted the investigation.

The viewpoints that are in opposition have yet to address these four points, and the fact is that they all must be overcome to suggest that a crime occured.

Therefore, the opposing viewpoints are without merit.

59

You keep saying that. Imagine if the police operated that way:

“Detective Smith, we’ve been ordered to leave the suspect alone!”

“But Cap’n, we’re investigating him for fraud!”

“Has he been proven guilty?”

“Well, we’re gathering evidence—”

“Answer the question, Smith! Isn’t it true we looked at him for this some time ago and didn’t press charges? Doesn’t that mean he’s never been proven guilty?”

“He hasn’t been to trial, sir.”

“That’s what I thought. So you can’t investigate. Now, here’s some nice terrorism cases, where we already know they’re guilty, because the gummint says so. Work on these…”

60

xenophon:

It ain’t like that. Any investigation needs to either start where the old one left off, or show why the old one was flawed.

I suppose you can investigate all you want, however I don’t think you can expect the Government to do so unless you have something that is both significant and new, or you can show that the investigation was flawed.

At some point you have to step back and consider the element of “fair play” and consider that what you are looking at is noprosecutable, over ten years old, and was thoroughly investigated at the time, and shown to be without merit.

If you are going to bring it out as something worth examining in the public eye, and worth reinvestigating public dollars than you should have at least a reasonable possibility of producing a case with merit.

In order to do so, you’re going to need to overcome all four of the points that the SEC cited when they closed their investigation.

If you have no plan, or possibility or scenario for doing so, then what you’re doing is simply political masturbation.

Let’s just say for a minute that you can prove that Bush posessed knowledge that Harkens was going to post those huge losses.

You’re still going to die on materiality and the preexisting liquidation plan. I don’t see anyway around those two roadblocks.

As tough as it would be to prove what Bush did or didn’t know, it’s all moot and academic unless you can show that the information was material and that Bush acted in contemplation of it.

With the preexisting sell scenario, the SECs report on nonmateriality, the market’s non-reaction not to mention the analysts concurring opinion on the information lacking significance, you have no realistic shot at either materiality, or a sale in contemplation of the information.

Failing the windfall of finding a smoking gun, any information you are able to find that Bush knew something he shouldn’t is likely to be circumstantial in nature, and even if it isn’t, the fact that Bush sought counsel before his sale (both legal and from management,) is going to strongly suggest that he acted in good faith.

There are four corners to an illegal insider trade. To show that someone has broken the law you must have all four corners. Those corners are.

  1. The person in question must be in posession of the information in question.

  2. The information must be material

  3. The information must not be public

  4. The person in question must act on that information

The fact is that right now a strong case can’t be made for any of these corners, and you need all four

You keep talking about the need for a new investigation, but what is it you’re going to investigate? What do you hope to achieve?

Can you even create a hypothesis that overcomes the current difficulties and gives you the four corners?

If you can’t you might as well investigate UFOs