In the first instance, you sneer at me, and in the second, offer me the option of answering a fatuous and facetious question. If you dont care to engage the issue, well and good, what purpose is served to insult me?
No, I don’t like Mr. Bush. So what? I assure you thus: I have not yet knowingly posted a falsehood. Take it or leave it, or go pound burdocks, it’s up to you.
The question was a serious one, for reasons that Scylla fleshed out.
I haven’t accused you of lying. You are, however, practicing the politics of innuendo – posting true but innocuous facts and trying to spin those facts into something sinister. You continue to do so even after being shown repeatedly why those facts are not in fact sinister.
Well, Scylla, just as you say, it might all be utterly innocent, certainly in a legal sense, it will never be proven otherwise. But you have expended considerable effort in explaining away facts that imply an unpleasant insight into either Mr. Bush’s character or his intelligence.
Common sense suggest that where there is smoke, there is fire, that all these suggestive things are, at least, suggestive. You would pick up each fact, one at a time, and if said fact is not damning in and of itself, you insist that the aggregate is no more suspicious. From a legal sense point of view, that is valid enough. As a gentleman and a Doper, I am honor bound to accept your word that you see nothing whatever suspicious in all this.
As to letting it go, I have no means to drag you into this conversation, if it is beneath your level of discourse, well, then, here’s your hat, what’s your hurry?
From the cited article:
‘‘It would certainly have raised a question in the mind of a reasonable investigator,’’ said Theresa Gabaldon, a professor at George Washington University and author of the textbook ‘‘Securities Regulation.’’
Gabaldon, who reviewed the documents at the request of the Globe, also examined company minutes related to the move to split up Harken through what is called a ‘‘rights offering’’ and concluded that they would have been worthy of further examination by securities regulators. But, she said, ‘‘I don’t think [the SEC investigators] were looking at the rights offering at all.’’
It would seem, then, would it not, that this is not all merely the baseless speculation of the ignorant and mailicious elucidator. It would seem that the Boston Globe regards Ms. Gabaldon as something of an expert, what with the position at the University, and all. Seems that this stuff raises an eyebrow, as far as she’s concerned.
Of course, she might not like Bush either.
Anything can be considered “worthy of further examination.” That’s a safe thing to say when asked. If a reporter asks “could a reasonable investigator have inquired further?” it’s quite safe to reply “yes.” That doesn’t mean anything untoward happened.
I note that Ms. Gabadon doesn’t say she thinks the transaction was unusual or untoward – and she’s reviewing key source documents (the agreements for the rights offering, the law firm memo, and the minutes of the board meetings).
Elucid, you’re continuing to cast aspersions without making a concrete accusation. You just say “these facts stink” without making a plausible, concrete accusation against Bush. *Why]/i] do they stink? What do you think the President did, exactly, that was wrong?
It is easy to make vague allusions to wrongdoing, and much harder to make things concrete. Enough. Shit or get off the pot. Make your argument or shut up already.
Dewey nobody is dragging your sorry ass in here! You cannot wear the umpires shirt and play quarterback at the same time! I neither need nor crave your approval. I will speak when I please, shut up when I please. I will phrase my arguments any way I bloody well like, and if you don’t like it, you can go bowling, go pound sand, whatsoever you choose.
I offer cited expertise, expertise that I dare to suggest might even be on a par with your own Olympian probity. You suggest that her statement be ignored because she didn’t say “George should be dragged in front of the nearest Federal judge, toot sweet.” Well, whoop-de-fuck-adoo! Now theres a testimonial to unsullied innocence if every I’ve heard one!
**
First off, this guy is the President. There’s a lot of people rubbing sticks together trying to generate smoke so they can call “fire!” It happened with Clinton, and now it’s happening with Bush.
Speaking of Clinton (just as an example,) Whitewater, looked a lot worse than this, dead bodies and all. Hillary’s commdity trades were horribly suspicious as they involved the “parking” of trades that were later moved into her account when they became profitable (the unprofitable ones went to less connected people.)
There was a legitimate crime going on there. However, even though Hillary was the beneficiary of the transactions there was not a credible link to suggest that she had knowledge of the parking that was occuring for her benefit by the managers and brokers in question.
Compared to the string of suppositions you place together for the Harken non-crime, this is a pretty damning thing.
However, there is no proof, nothing besides circumstantial evidence to suppose that she acted illegally or unethically.
But I disagree with your “where there’s smoke there’s fire,” theory of guilt by implication.
It has not been shown that she has done anything illegal or improper, therefore it is flat out wrong to treat her as if she had, or impugn her integrity as if she had.
The same applies to George and the case of Harken, the difference being that no crime could have been committed as there was no materiality. The worst we could say is that is possible that Bush acted on bad faith, or unethically.
But, we don’t (or at least we shouldn’t) crucify people over possibilites.
Before you can assign guilt or blame, you have to demonstrate it. As you seem to agree, in the Harken/Bush case no such demonstration is possible.
This leads me to put forth the thesis that is your desire to impugn the man simply on the possibility.
This is balderdash and Tommyrot of the worst kind!
Oh. That wasn’t for me. I’ll try for a polite and sincere criticism.
The equine quadruped appears nonvital, so why the persistant attempts at percussive resuscitation?
If you catch my drift.
Oh, I don’t contest your right to say whatever damned fool thing you want. Just expect to be called on it.
Your accusations lack credibility in part because they are not concrete. You are accusing Bush of…what, exactly? That is a legitimate criticism, and it is not “umpiring” to point that fact out.
Scylla if you dont mind, I’m simply going to overlook the sidetrack into Clintonville. Dont even know why you bothered to type it but, hey, they’re your fingers.
Possible, indeed. Glad to have your support.
Certainly not. What is called for is a complete, thorough public investigation, with all relevent documents released. To prevent such an unfortunate result.
Well, not without all the evidence. Then, of course, its Anything Can Happen Day! You have expressed reservations as to this course of action, as I recall. Not polite, or something.
Ah, the Leap of Faith! From A to B to C, thence to Z, sproing! If I am suspicious, it can only be because of my personal animosity. Hey, have it your way.
Too many big words for a poor ol’ country boy like me. But if he my horse is dead how come you’re bitching about him pissing on your shoes?
So, ok, we are in agreement, yes? The best way to resolve this is with a thorough and complete public investigation, all cards on the table. Given Our Leader’s born-again committment to rooting out all corporate type corruption, surely we can count on his unstinting support! Well, that’s all settled then.
Dewey:
I think I can guess what elucidator is accusing Bush of.
He’s accusing Bush of unethical behavior in regards to his sale of Harken Stock.
He is saying that there was bad news on the horizon for Harken, and that Bush was asissted in circumventing the law so that he could dispose of his stock at what he expected to be an inflated price.
The fact that their was a series of ups and downs in the co’s fortunes cancelled out the effects, so that no argument can be made for materiality is besides the point. Legally, there can be no crime. Ethically though, if Bush expected the stock to act negatively, that is just as bad as if it had.
Elucidator also thinks that there is a tinge of a conspiracy here. He’s at times suggested that the investigation was peremptory, perhaps because of his political connections. He’s also suggested that Bush had the help of the board clearing the way for him to sell his stock, and perhaps even finding the buyer (who might have been Harvard, thus deepening the conspiracy.)
The major reason to think that something like this is (I really can’t call it evidence,) is because Bush clearly did have political pull which translated into the business world, and it is unreasonable to think that someone would have that kind of influence and power and not use it. Such might not even be possible as the simple posession of that kind of power would bring unusual favorable treatment from people either looking to cozy up to, or afraid of offending that power.
I can see where elucidator is coming from. What I don’t think elucidator understands is that to a person involved in the industry, who helps conduct these kind of transaction from time to time, it is utterly innocuous.
Thousands of these kinds of sales go off every day, and , in all honesty, this is one looks a lot less suspicious than average. It has none of the hallmarks of an illegal insider transaction.
If you are trying to identify an illegal insider transaction, the first thing you look for is a transaction that is unusual and doesn’t appear to fit into a pattern of activity, or make good economic sense. Bush had a clear need for the money, and liquidated several other holdings as well. The trade is consistent.
The second thing you look for is an “impulsive sale.” If a man suddenly decides to liquidate a vast quantity of stock for no particularly reason without consideration, that may suggest that the transaction is based on a piece of information that has just come to light. Bush had been considering this sale for several months. He’d been called by a broker on more than one occasion soliciting a sell, and he had told that broker that he might be looking to sell in a few months.
The third thing you look for is discretion. Generally if one is in posession of material inside information, one also knows that one should not act on it or that person may face legal consequences. In order to get around this one uses discretion. This would be like exactly what Martha Stewart is trying to say. She says that she gave the order to sell if it reached a certain price, long before she posessed specific information. The broker than transacted the order at a future point without her awareness. More typically, this discretion takes the form of a money manager who manages assets, conducts buys and sells without the principle’s knowledge.
There was no attempt to make this a discretionary order. Bush placed it himself.
The fourth thing that you look for is specificity. You have to have the seller posessing specific and clear information that a prudent manwould construe would have a significant impact on the stock. Imclone would be another good example here. Their big drug was aout to be announced as having failed a significant clinical trial. Anybody would know that this piece of news would cause the stock to tank.
The fact is that the information that Bush posessed was not specific or clear. There were a number of generalized positives and negatives that might or might not actualize; The Aloha sale, the Harvard bailout, the Bahrain situation, the rights offering and probably a lot more. None of these though had materialized to the point where they could be expected to have a clear cut impact on the stock.
Elucidator sees that these things were on the horizon and feels that they are suspicious. I think any layman would at first glance, but, if that person had familiarity with the ongoing operations of typical smallcap wildcat and exploratory oil companies that he would realize that such a state was standard operating procedure. One only has to look at Harkens peers, companies like American International Petroleum, Noble Drilling, and others from harkens peergroup to see that this is so. By their nature, these companies are always on the edge of trouble. They are always recapitalizing, and buying each other or selling assets.
Really, the first real interesting piece of news is that memo. It is the first suggestion that something was improper. Harken told the SEC that they were not warned by council against the transaction, but that might not be true.
What will clarify it is if we see the memo, and can ascertain whether the warning was a standard disclaimer, or a specific advisory, and that should be pretty apparent once we see it.
Having seen a hundred of these things, I’ll bet it’s a standard disclaimer and that it lists the rights offering as one of several possible issues to be aware of in regard to an insider sale and purchase of the stock.
The letter from counsel will show two things. First off it will render an opinion as to whether it is legal or not to sell the stock.
The second thing it will do is list the relevant insider issues.
I’ll bet $100 it renders the opinion that it is legal for Bush to sell the stock, and only mentions the rights offering in the latter part.
Any takers?
elucidator:
You’ll recall from El threado previouso is that my stance on this is that private individuals, press, or organizations may feel free to investigate to their hearts content, but that we should not conduct investigations with taxpayers dollars without the possibility of building a legal case and prosecuting it.
Furthemore, it is my reasoned and utterly logical position, that you do not simply investigate something because it is a possibility.
The reason for this is that possibilities are infinite!
What you investigate are likelihoods. The likelihood that Bush did something illegal or unethical in regards to his sale of Harken appears to pretty damn small.
I bring up the Clinton thing because of the obvious parellel. Do you also support going after Hillary until we’ve exhausted every possiblity?
Even after Ken Starr, there are quite a few (possibilities left.) Don’t you think we should also finish the job with Hillary and drag her name through the mud and rehash the whole thing over and over, until we’ve conclusively exhausted the possiblities?
The circumstantial evidence is much much greater against Hillary then it is against Bush since we already know that an actual crime occured in her account.
How can you ethically go after Bush on a possibility without also investigating a much stronger possibility concerning Hillary?
It’s only fair. Both have only been investigated once.
Don’t you believe in equal treatment?
So the bet is, does Dewey agree with you, or does he really agree with you. A Republican gamble. Head I win, tails you win, lands on edge and sings Dixie, elucidator wins.
(Scylla, honest injun, you haven’t already seen this thing, right? Honor bright?)
Oh yeah, you know how I love to look things up.
Haven’t seen it. That’s the truth.
Boy, did you pick the wrong guy for that one, Scylla. Want to investigate Hilary? Rock on! I dont especially like or dislike Hillary. But she’s a damn sight smarter than George, on his best day. If we call in Columbo, looking for that one fatal screw-up, that little blunder, that minor oversight - George is toast. Hillary skates. And you can take that to the bank.
PS: your lawyerly scenario sounds like a mutual butt covering. The court hassles the client: “Hey, I asked my lawyers, they didn’t say it was illegal?” Hassles the lawyers: “Hey, we said there might be issues!” Everybody wins, nobody loses.
Isn’t that kind of what your betting on?
It’s really not much of a bet, buddy. I’ve seen a lot of these opinions.
What it will almost surely say is in the opinion of counsel there is no legal reason preventing Bush from selling his shares and that they beleive such a sale falls within the boundaries of law.
Then they will list 200 reasons why it doesn’t.
To give you an idea of what I’m talking about, if you’ve ever bought a house and had a deed search done, you’ll understand.
The deed search attempts to find out if their are any liens or easances or other things against the property you are buying.
When you read it, your first response will be “Holy Shit!” They’ll list every easance, and right of way, and emminent domain issue with your poperty for page after page, and you’ll be under the impression that half the world owns a piece of your property, or has rights concerning it.
This they’ll tell you is a “clear title.”
Similarly, if you’ve ever read a prospectus for a stock offering, it will list to you a thousand reasons why the stock is doomed to failure and you shouldn’t buy it.
That’s just they way they do it. It’s proving due diligence, that they’ve looked at and considered the ramifications of all the issues.
So when you’re telling my all this stuff about proving my case, you know you’re dealing from a stacked deck. Because you know that they are. The game is rigged, the fix is in. Because they have talented and intelligent men to insure that it shall remain so.
You wonder why I’m a radical. I wonder why you are not.
'Luce:
Sometimes the title search comes back with a real issue, and you don’t buy the proper.
Sometimes the legal opinion is that you shouldn’t sell.
All these things, sellers responsibility, the prefiling with the SEC, the board’s permission, and the legal opinion are part of the checks and balances to make sure the sale is legal, and that the insider is not selling based on material nonpublic information.
It makes it very tough to do so, as the board, the lawyers, and the guy in question are all on the hook if he does break the law.
Now granted, all these guys could gang up and make a conspiracy and maybe they’d get away with it. Maybe not, though. They would be taking a big risk.
The fact is that this thing was done pretty much by the book, there was nothing material that occured immediately after the sale that we can point to as a motivation for the sale, and, the SEC investigated it anyway. It is my opinion that they investigated because he was the son of the pres. If he was just a normal Joe, it probably wouldn’t have gotten that much attention (that’s my unsupportable opinion though.)
It’s not a fix. I have a pretty good idea what it will say, because it will be consistent with what else we know. If it says something different I’ll be very much surprised. If it did, the board would have advised Bush in writing not to sell the stock, and he would not have received permission to do so from the CEO.
To me, all these checks and balances, and the way this thing worked, and the fact there was so much information available on the transaction shows me that the insider trading system seems to work.
It is my opinion that the SEC is government as it should be. These guys are good. They have good controls and they catch these guys. They also do a great job of preventing illegal trades because they make it so hard to get away with.
There’s no fix. I have a good idea what it will say, because their is going to be no smoking gun, because it doesn’t appear that anything wrong happened. If something illegal did happen, there sure as shit is not going to be a legal opinion telling them not to do it floating around. That would be like attempting to register a handgun you were about to shoot somebody with.
I think that you beleive there is a crime here, and that all this means is that somebody gets to get away with it.
I see a vast paper trail, and series of assurances before, during, and after the sale to ensure that there was not. And, it just simply adds up.
I’ll tell you true. I’m sure Bush has done some unethical things in his business dealings. I’ll even wager that a few laws have been stretched or broken. The guy’s not a saint. As we’ve discussed before, Bush’s purchase and subsequent sale of that team reeks to high heaven of crony capitalism. That doesn’t seem ethical to me. He made a lot of that money from taxpayer’s unwitting pockets. It may have been legal, but it sure as shit wasn’t fair, and it doesn’t seem right. He capitalized on his political connections.
The world is not fair, it’s just round, and in the same shoes, I would have done the same thing. You and I both lead lives of privilege far beyond that of the average citizend of the world and we’ve done nothing to deserve it. We don’t through it away.
What Bush did with his team was the same thing, only a little bigger and a little worse.
So, I don’t think Bush is a Saint, or an ethical hero. He’s done some good things and he’s done some shitty things, some I’m sure were unethical and maybe even borderline illegal if not overtly across the line.
But, I truly beleive you, and the reporters are barking up the wrong tree. I’m experienced in this area. I’ve been a trader, and I’ve worked with investment bankers, and I do something similar on a smaller scale now. I’m telling you, not as a Republican but as a professional in this area that this thing looks pretty clean and straightforward. Really really.
I suspect that the reason that this is being focussed on is threefold:
Well, you got one thing right for damn sure, and that is the stuff with the ball team. Little guys got thier property taken, the local gov foots the bill for the stadium and the cronies grab the goodies and run for it. That one stinks to high heaven, you damn sure betcha! If the Man Who Fell Up had even a shred of common decency, we would track down every one of those guys and give them thier money back, doubled and with interest.
I know I would, I believe you would. It never occured to him. Never crossed his mind.
We don’t have to be ruled by men like this! It is not Written, it is not Fate. No revolution is required, no blood need be shed, the power is already in our hands. It can be done, it should be done. What excuse can we offer?
Kind of thing that reminds me that I have yet to meet a cynic who didn’t think of himself as a hard headed realist.
Boy, step away from the computer for a little while and the discussion zooms past you…
Scylla has adequately addressed your points, so I’ll just add a couple of supplemental comments.
Re: legal opinions – of course the law firm inserts caveats and carve-outs and exceptions out the wazoo. That’s CYA. Why? Because they don’t want their client to have grounds to sue them. That’s true whether it’s a big corporate deal or, as in Scylla’s analogy, the sale of a private residence. Malpractice insurance ain’t cheap, after all.
Let me give you an example common to my area of practice. When corporations decide to do an acquisition, both sides to the transaction require an opinion letter from the other side’s counsel stating that the transaction is legal, that the agreements are legally binding, that all regulatory requirements have been met, etc, etc, etc. In other words, if I’m representing XYZ in its acquisition of ABC, I will have to provide an opinion letter to ABC.
Now, I’m even more afraid of being sued by ABC than I am of XYZ. After all, XYZ is my client; presumably, we have a good working relationship and if there are problems down the road we can work them out amicably. That is not the situation with ABC; they are much more likely to sue as a first course of action. Thus, I try to limit my exposure in the opinion letter as much as possible – I include all of my assumptions in great detail, carve out as many areas of the law as I can, and generally try to limit the scope of the opinion. ABC, of course, will want us to issue a broad opinion and we will negotiate a solution somewhere in the middle (ABC will refuse to close if our opinion is unsatisfactory to them). Opinion lettters are negotiated over literally to the last comma.
The point of all that is to say that Haynes & Boone (Harken’s outside counsel) would have tried to limit their exposure by including every possible issue. There is nothing suspect about that. If anyone should be upset about it, it’s Harken. And so long as the ultimate conclusion of the memo is that the sale is OK, they won’t be upset (unless it turns out the ultimate conclusion is wrong and the SEC goes after the client – which isn’t the case here).
Scylla’s right: at the end of the day, everything was disclosed to investors promptly, all the parties that needed to review and approve the transaction did so, and all the checks worked as they are supposed to.
Re: the stadium. While I tend to agree that public financing of stadiums is a bad idea, IIRC the funds for the Ballpark at Arlington were raised via a bond offering that was approved at the ballot box. If the good people of Dallas agree democratically to fund a stadium, that’s their perogative. It isn’t like Bush misled Dallas voters about the stadium costs or anything.
It’s nice that you think such nice things about me. Even if they’re not true.
My relative success comes at the expense of others and there is nothing I’ve done to deserve it. I am a well-off person in the richest, strongest country in the world, because of opportunities and knowledge and privilege which I have not earned.
There are 3 billion people beneath the poverty line. Am I better than them? Do I give it back? Do I help?
No. No. No.
WIth the exception of some token feel good stuff. I use my abilities and privilege and power for my own benefit and that of my family, building my world on the backs of others.
It ain’t fair, and it ain’t right.
What Bush did was capitalize on his power and privilege and make some moulah.
My hypocrisy only goes so far. While the benefits and opportunities of privilege and power are unfair and undeserved, your not going to catch me denouncing another for it. I’ll call a spade a spade, that’s all. If you live well in this country though, it’s probably best not to complain about these too loudly lest a lightning bolt strike.
Mother Theresa isn’t running for Pres, you know?