Impeach George W. Bush

Great Debates
61

I am certainly not a democrat but I felt Clinton’s pain during the impeachment proceedings. It was very clearly a witchhunt to find anything to grasp at. There was, throughout the Clinton years, a visceral hatred of him by his Republican opponents. The claim, at the time, by the Republicans was that the investigations were only intiated to gather information. To let the American Public know the facts. Yet now, when there is reason to believe that the President and Vice President commited criminal activities, regardless when they occured, there is stonewalling.

For the record, the following bother me much more than blowjobs:

  1. letting your biggest campaign contributors pilot American military submarines and getting the country into an international incident when a donor accidentally kills some people;
  2. Insider trading;
  3. Artificial book-keeping
  4. Closed door policy-making meetings that allow donors a voice but ignore the voice of the public interest groups;
  5. Having cozy relationships w/ crooked businessmen (who weaken confidence in the US economy), denying being friends with these men, and then not letting these crooks feel the heat of the law;
  6. Refusing to answer anything at anytime
  7. Taking a 30 day vacation when you haven’t been on the job for 6 months and then telling the public they’d better get used to it, one month before the September 11 attacks

It seems that the Bush family, et al., are only concerned with their own power, wealth, and image. Issues concerning the American Public are irrelevant.

62

I know what you mean. Elect 'em President, and they don’t call, they don’t write, they just completely disapear. You send 'em cookies and they don’t even say thank you. You ask “Did you like them?” and they don’t even answer.

(Just so you know, they will answer. Send a letter to the White House, and you can get a bio of Bush and his accomplishments, and a signed autograph!)

63

Boy, he’s got you there, Xeno. In order to convince Scylla, you have to overcome his Four Points. You cannot convince Scylla, therefore Georgie is a moral paragon, a paladin of all that is good and noble , a statesman and leader, the reborn Churchill, a collossus that bestrides the world…

“Gee, this sure is a swell job! Nice chair, whole buncha pencils all sharpened and everything! So what is it ya’ll want me to do?”

“Nothing, George. Don’t touch nothing, don’t say nothing, don’t read nothing, and for the love of God, don’t sign nothing!”

64

They’re not my four points. It comes from the SEC and it’s what makes an illegal insider trade.

If you don’t have them, you might as well be in Houston.

65

Scylla, Scylla, Scylla, where to begin…

I didn’t think your question was directed to me since my question to you was my first post in this thread.

BTW, what I gave you was an aphorism or adage, not a parable.

Credit where credit’s due, this cracked me up.

Okay, here’s the part where I cheerfully admit my ignorance and ask to be enlightened. Please explain the logic behind the parsing of my question that led you to an honest answer of 0%. While you’re at it, I would sincerely appreciate it if you could rephrase the question to match my intent (which I think you understood perfectly in spite of the Clintonesque answer) and then answer it. In return, I’ll answer your original question (even though it was not to my knowledge directed at me):

0%. My personal ire and desire for action against Bush is based on my feeling that he is an over-privileged, do-nothing (or least do-nothing-right), hypocritical puppet. He is not now, nor has he ever been a leader. He is a follower and a figurehead.
To forestall the coming comparison of that with my original statement, let’s parse that statement carefully:

emphasis added
“may be” = not required to be, not necessarily endorsed by the author, just may be.
“most valid” = does not imply that there aren’t other valid reasons for the same.

However, I would like to apologize for a poorly worded statement. Upon re-reading, I can absolutely see where people would assume I was expressing my own feelings rather than an understanding for the feelings of others. Pray let me rephrase,
“I can see how the Democrats would feel that revenge for Whitewater is a perfectly valid reason (perhaps even the primary reason) for forcing Bush through the wringer regarding every questionable business transaction particularly this one.”

Gee, I feel better. Anybody else?

66

Grem:

I’m not sure what the original intent of your question was. It’s a little confused.

I think you could ask the question better from a different perspective, like this:

What percentage of the money spent investigating White Water was done so in good faith by people making legitimate inquiries into credible allegations of wrongdoing?

My answer: 60-75%

Go further:

How much of that money was effectively spent?

My answer: 5-10%

I base that on an estimated 100 million dollar tab for the whitewater investigation.

I think the investigation should have been done, but not as a media circus.

67

Well, stupid is as stupid does, It is obvious now that the enforcement of those rules was very lax when victims benefited. That is one element that caused the current meltdown. Your position is not to see anything wrong in that?

The current rules are going to be changed.

My general point in all this is, that by the current rules, there is very little to do against Bush, Telling the American people that Bush was exonerated is silly (The SEC letter), the investigation just stopped. END of legal matters, Politically and by the press it is a new matter, items that never saw the light on the last election have surfaced that paint an ugly picture of the former business dealings of the administration.

And by the look of things we have only scratched the surface.
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020713Baker.html

Hey, if Scylla is happy to suck on the old rules that is ok. It pacifies him, even if the market and those old rules are screwing him.

As Harry Truman said: “How many times do you have to be hit on the head before you find out what’s hitting you?”

68

Gigo:

There is no motion to change what constitutes an illegal insider trade to the best of my knowledge. You’re mistaken.

I don’t know much about stupid. I think I’ll leave that in your expert hands.

I’m still trying to figure out how someone can be victimized by a benefit, and how that applies here, but perhaps this particular howler is better left unexamined.

Listen Huckleberry, as laws go, this one is pretty simple, straightforward, and sensible.

To commit an illegal insider trade you must be in posession of material nonpublic information and you must act on it.

That’s it.

How a stock reacts to a given piece of news is one direct measure of its materiality.

The significance an analyst attributes to it is another.

Both of these factors suggest that Harken’s larger than expected loss announcement was not material.

If the information is not material enforcement is of course lax because there are no victims and there is no crime.

It is perfectly acceptable for an insider to trade while in posession of nonmaterial information.

There is nothing for an investigation to stand on in the issue of materiality
Here let me help you to understand:

Not material = no crime

You got that, FOrest?

69

Got it in one. IMO, you didn’t need to go any further than “show why the old one was flawed.” I understand that you disagree with the label “cursory” to describe the SEC investigation. ( In that other thread --you know; the short one we were discussing this subject in the other day-- you quibbled about it rather strongly.)

Reasonable people disagree with you. (Well, actually it’s me. Sounds better when I characterize myself as reasonable people.)

70

Xeno:

It was a long thread. Can you remind me again what the flaw(s) is/are with the SEC’s investigation?

71

Scylla

Thanks for the rewording and the answers you gave. While I personally find it hard to believe that any objective party examining the situation would find your 60-75% credible, I appreciate your willingness to give your honest opinion.

Now for the amazing part, I actually agree with you (for the most part) about the Harken situation. Bush probably did not have any material nonpublic information when he made the Harken sale. I would like to ask the following questions (apologies in advance if they’re worded poorly :wink: ):
[list=1]
[li]Do you think that there is valid evidence to begin an investigation into a charge of obstruction of justice related to the aborted SEC investigation into the Harken trade? [/li][li]If you do, would you support the funding of this investigation with 5-10 million dollars (100M spent on Whitewater times 5-10% spent “effectively”)?[/li][/list=1]

I am not an attorney and I am not aware of the Statute of Limitations on obstruction of justice so this may be a moot point. It is my understanding that an investigation does not have to result in an indictment or conviction for obstruction of that investigation to still be a crime. If I’m wrong on this, I would appreciate the correction.

72

Grem:

For question #1, no I have not seen any valid evidence to begin an investigation into a charge of obstruction of justice related to the aborted SEC investigation into the Harken trade?

The only thing I recall seeing Presented is that some of the people in the SEC had close ties with Bush and his family.

By itself that is neither surprising, nor illegal. Nor is it the foundation for an investigation.

To all appearances and evidence, the investigation against Bush ended because they came to the conclusion that they had no shot at creating a case.

That’s exactly the way it’s supposed to happen.

Nobody has even attempted to overcome the rather serious problems inherent in a case against Bush as identified by the SEC.

Unless and until that happens, their ain’t Butkus.
I don’t know, and I’m not arguing whether Bush committed or didn’t commit an illegal act re: Harkens. I don’t know.

What I do know as a fact is that the case against him is just about as weak as it could possibly be.

73

Accounting Industry Reform bill (identified by CRS) Passed by the Senate 7/15/2002
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SN02673:@@@L&summ2=m&

Many sections and other ammendments prode the SEC to do changes that will modify the Insider rules.

Right bubba! :slight_smile:
Regarding materiality: you are preaching to the legally converted. what we needed was more trip wires to get it. Even Harken tought the old rules were not enough to inspire investor’s confidence:

Once again my general point has been political, and impeachment is a political process. It has constitutional, and therefore, legal implications; but this is not the whole point, as much you would like it to be.

74

Gigo:

And, in which of those sections you quoted is their a motion to change what constitutes an illegal insider trade?

You don’t read very well.

75

::shrug::

Just by logic, many of those regulations will affect the current rules, particularly title IV and title V, they give the SEC plenty of room for change, To be fair even more amendments have not been published yet, but what do you think congress was doing if not moving to change things?

You don’t follow news do you?

Like the last link on Harken?

76

Still don’t see any call or noise to change the definition of what an illegal insider trade is.

Like I said. You’re not reading well.

A lockup letter is voluntarily signed by insiders in the event of a new stock offering and tradittionally gets their agreement not to sell the stock for 180 days after the offering becomes effective.

The Harken offering was scrapped and never came close to going effective.

Bush was no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to hold onto his stock.

Even if it had gone effective, there’s this:

It’s another yawner. The letter is basically meaningless in the context of what occured.

More BS.

77

The question is who gave that permission? The answer will give us more information about what the people will think about the whole deal and about Bush. You are still stuck in the legal matters, this thread is about politics. Stick to the “Bush is a crook one” and everything will be ok.

78

Scylla, are you really of the persuasion that if anything that isn’t obviously illegal is perfectly alright? And are you also of the persuasion that impeachment is actually a legal process, and not a political one wrapped in legal trappings? I would have thought both questions to be answered in most active minds a couple of years ago, if not in 1974, and in the negative.

79

The ltter bush signed is a promise not to do A if B occurs. B did not occur so Bush was free to do A. There are no moal, legal or ethical issues to discuss because the letter was and is nonoperative.
he did not need permision to sell because of that letter. He would have only needed permission had B occured.
Exactly what political conclusions would you attempt to draw from this moral legal and ethical nonoccurrence?
This one takes the cake.
You’d be better off seeking to impeach him based on his toothpaste choice.

80

Elvis:
Well, if impeachment is strictly political why bother with the legal aspects? Why not impeach bush simplybecause you find him distasteful?
No. I don’t beleive that anything that is not strictly illegal is somehow ethical. Getting a blowjob from an intern would be an example of unethical, yet not strictly illegal.
I se no ethics concerns from that letter, nor legal concerns. He agreed not to sell f an oferin went effective. An offering did not go effective. He was free to sell and had no legal or ethical constraints vis a vis that letter. It should be simple enough to grasp.