Enron's Skilling Convicted of Insider Trading....and Mr. Bush ? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 05-27-2006, 11:40 AM

I see no difference in the insider trading crimes committed by Enron's Jeffrey Skilling and Harken Energy's George W. Bush. Aside from the connections and political influence that allowed Mr. Bush to avoid prosecution, doesn't the reported record make a persuasive case for an argument that Mr. Bush should at least have been tried in court, as Mr. Skilling was.....for insider trading?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2700490_2.html

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052700490.html
Lay, Skilling Gambled and Lost on Stand

By ERIN McCLAM
The Associated Press
Saturday, May 27, 2006; 1:10 PM

.......Skilling and Lay are to be sentenced Sept. 11, and both are likely to get double-digit prison terms. Outside court, Skilling's lawyer and Lay himself both insisted the men were innocent.

Analysts said staying off the witness stand may have been less of an option for Skilling, who was forced to defend himself against 10 insider-trading counts related to his sale of Enron shares.

Jurors acquitted him on nine of those counts but convicted him of one _ a $15.5 million sale six days after Sept. 11, 2001. Skilling initially told investigators he sold because of market fears after the terror attacks, but he had tried on Sept. 6 to sell 200,000 shares. On the stand, Skilling said he simply forgot that attempt.

Skilling was also convicted of 18 counts of fraud, conspiracy and lying to auditors. Some jurors said they could not reconcile Skilling's testimony with his reputation as a hands-on manager.

"It's hard to believe someone, such a hands-on individual, could not possibly know some of the things going on in the company," jury forewoman Deborah Smith said.

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200211010...ck_saleP.shtml
Board was told of risks before Bush stock sale

Harken memo went to SEC after probe

By Michael Kranish and Beth Healy, Globe Staff, 10/30/2002

WASHINGTON - One week before George W. Bush's now-famous sale of stock in Harken Energy Corp. in 1990, Harken was warned by its lawyers that Bush and other members of the troubled oil company's board faced possible insider trading risks if they unloaded their shares.

The warning from Harken's lawyers came in a legal memorandum whose existence has been little noted until now, despite the many years of scrutiny of the Bush transaction. The memo was not received by the Securities and Exchange Commission until the day after the agency decided not to bring insider-trading charges against Bush, documents show.

The memo, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe, does not say directly whether Bush would face legal problems if he sold his stock. But it does lay out the potential for insider-trading violations by Bush and other members of the Harken board, and its existence raises questions about how thoroughly the SEC investigated Bush's unloading of $848,000 of his Harken stake to a buyer whose name has not been made public.

The SEC cleared Bush after looking into whether he had insider knowledge of an upcoming quarterly loss at Harken. But the SEC investigation apparently never examined a key issue raised in the memo: whether Bush's insider knowledge of a plan to rescue the company from financial collapse by spinning off two troubled units was a factor in his decision to sell......

....''Bush has produced a small amount of additional documents, which provide little insight as to what Harken nonpublic information he knew and when he knew it,'' the memo said.

The SEC nevertheless cleared Bush on Aug. 21, 1991. One day later Bush's lawyer - Robert Jordan, now the US ambassador to Saudi Arabia - turned over the legal memorandum outlining concerns about insider trading. The nine-page memo, dated June 15, 1990, was titled ''Liability for Insider Trading and Short-Term Swing Profits'' and addressed the possibility that Harken board members might know more about the spinoff plan, which included a stock rights offering, than the general public did.

The memo, did not instruct the board members whether to sell. One week after the memo was written, Bush sold his stock. In the following six months, the stock price dropped from $4 per share to $1.25 per share, although the price later recovered.

White House spokesman Dan Bartlett said the memo does not suggest that Bush refrain from selling the stock. Bartlett also said that the memo was sent to the Harken board, of which Bush was a member, but did not mention Bush by name.

''This is a general memo that goes through the perfunctory guidelines of a rights offering,'' Bartlett said. ''It was not specific to the transaction that the president was contemplating.''

SEC reports on the case make it clear, however, that the memo was written in response to Bush asking Harken executives whether he could sell his shares. Bartlett said he did not believe that Bush had seen the memo, but instead thought that Bush was told about the advice by a company lawyer.

The memo raised a specific concern about the insiders' knowledge of the rights offering, which split Harken into three entities. The plan was recommended by Harken board member Michael Eisenson, the Harvard Management executive in charge of the university's Harken investment. Eisenson was trying to save the company from bankruptcy, according to board meeting minutes. Eisenson has declined to be interviewed......

.....Meanwhile, Bush was pondering the sale of most of his own Harken holding, which he came into in 1986 when Harken bought out his interest in another failing oil venture, called Spectrum 7. Bush has said that a Los Angeles stockbroker, Ralph Smith, called him in early June 1990 to ask if he would sell his Harken shares to one of Smith's clients. Bush said no, but said he might be interested in selling ''in a few weeks,'' according to the SEC memo.

Shortly after the Smith call, Bush asked Harken's general counsel for advice. The counsel, in turn, asked Harken's law firm, Haynes and Boone, whose advice included this warning: ''The act of trading, particularly if close in time to the receipt of the inside information, is strong evidence that the insider's investment decision was based on the inside information. ... Unless the favorable facts clearly are more important than the unfavorable, the insider should be advised not to sell.''

The memo notes that in Harken's May 22 announcement, it ''does not disclose the purchase price for which the rights will be offered and expressly states that `additional terms of the proposed rights offering are currently being formulated.'''

The price would not be announced until Oct. 3; that's when investors would know how much they would have to pay to buy shares in spun-off companies. The Globe could not determine when Bush and other board members learned what the price would be.

One week after the memo was written, Bush sold his shares on June 22 via the broker, Smith. Smith could not be reached for comment, but has been quoted as saying the buyer was an institution that he would never reveal.

Nearly a year would go by before the SEC investigated the transaction, a delay caused in large measure because Bush was late in notifying the agency of his insider sale.

During the SEC investigation, Bush's lawyer was asked by the SEC what advice was given to Bush about selling. The Bush lawyer told the SEC that no objection to the sale was made by Harken's law firm. ''Haynes and Boone informed [Bush] that they had met internally to consider the issue and, based upon the information they had, they saw no reason why Bush could not sell his shares,'' the SEC report said.

The summary was released a day before the agency received the legal memo in which Harken and Boone offered much more cautious advice to Bush and the board. Jordan could not be reached to discuss the apparent conflict. The SEC investigators also declined to comment.

Harken remains financially troubled, with its stock trading at 22 cents a share. It is currently in the middle of another effort to raise capital.

As for Bush, he has often said that he could not be faulted for insider trading because he was selling into good news; the prior January Harken had entered into a deal to drill for oil in the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain.

Michael Aguirre, a California securities lawyer who filed the original Freedom of Information request that led to the release of some of the documents, said he is astonished that the SEC did not investigate the rights offering.

''It was something they either overlooked or consciously avoided,'' he said. ''It appears that Mr. Bush had insider information, that he was told that such insider information could be considered material, [and] was given express warnings about what the consequences could be.''

Thus, Aguirre said, it is ''imperative'' that Bush allow the buyer of his stock to be identified because that would clarify whether Bush knew the buyer and conveyed inside information to the buyer.

Michael Kranish can be reached at kranish@globe.com.

The following article was reported two years before the Boston Globe reported on the newly revealed (as of Oct. 30, 2002) memo, described above.....

Quote:

http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/09...07005881.shtml
Web posted Thursday, September 7, 2000
Crisis at Bush's oil company

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- George W. Bush, before he sold his stock in a Texas oil company, was fully aware that the firm was suffering from a severe cash crisis and was poised to lose millions, according to newly released records of a closed insider trading investigation of the sale.

"The full capacity of the company is dedicated toward resolving this liquidity crisis," Harken Energy Corp. President Mikel Faulkner told Bush and the other members of the board of directors two months before the $850,000 stock sale in June 1990.....

.....Insider trading allegations have been an issue in both Bush's run for governor in Texas and his presidential bid. The SEC in the last month released several hundred pages of corporate documents from its investigation under the Freedom of Information Act.

Bush has said he had no knowledge the Texas-based company would report a $23 million loss two months after he sold his stock. "I absolutely had no idea and would not have sold it had I known," he said during his 1994 campaign for governor.

SEC investigators concurred there was no evidence Bush knew the loss would be of that magnitude. At most, the investigators found, Bush was aware of a projected $4 million loss, which was "consistent with Harken's publicly reported trend" of losses, states an SEC investigative document obtained by The Associated Press.

The Harken documents released under FOIA detail Bush's knowledge of the company's problems.

As a Harken director, he received memos in spring 1990 that referred in stark terms to the company's cash-strapped condition as banks demanded it pay down its debts. One document said the company was in the midst of a "liquidity crisis" and another told Bush the company was "in a state of noncompliance" with its lenders.

Bush also was informed that a company plan to make a public stock offering to generate cash was being abandoned because one of its lenders objected.

"On the eve of filing this offering, the Bank of Boston refused to grant waivers and consents necessary to allow the offering to proceed," Harken said in a letter to the SEC in 1991. "Bank of Boston refused to alter its position and instead made demands that it be removed from the company's credit." The company solved the crisis when two of its biggest stockholders loaned it the $43 million it needed.

Even after his stock sale, Bush remained on the company's board of directors until 1993.

The SEC investigators never interviewed Bush about what else he might have known about the company's financial situation before selling the stock.....

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200012130.../bush0817.html

Report: Bush's business partners benefit from state business

HOUSTON (AP) -As Texas Gov. George W. Bush developed the group to buy the Texas Rangers baseball club for $86 million in 1989, he began an association with the businessmen who would figure in many other deals.

Two in particular were among the 70-member partnership: Fort Worth billionaire Richard Rainwater and Dallas investor Edward "Rusty" Rose.

The Bush partnership's purchase of the Texas Rangers was completed in April 1989, about three months after Bush's father became president

Government actions favorable to Rainwater and Rose began almost immediately and have intensified since Bush became governor, the Houston Chronicle reported Sunday.......

.........After Bush became governor, he voluntarily set up a blind trust and put most of his financial holdings into it. In such a trust, Bush should never know whether his official actions are benefiting his personal finances.

However, Bush's general partnership interest in the Texas Rangers never went into the trust, and that interest, known as GWB Rangers Inc., was involved in negotiations for the team's sale.

So through GWB Rangers Inc., Bush always knew he was in partnership with Rainwater, Rose and others. And Texas Rangers President Tom Schieffer kept Bush abreast of negotiations between Rose and Tom Hicks for the team's sale when Hicks bought the Rangers this year for $250 million.

When asked about his associates' complex dealings with state and federal governments, Bush angrily denied any involvement. Bush said he has sought to bring a "higher standard" to public service and public policy.

' "I didn't - I swear I didn't - get into politics to feather my nest or feather my friends' nests," Bush said.

Bush also was brought into some of Rainwater's oil and gas deals, as well as the purchase of a downtown Fort Worth office building, Continental Plaza. Those investments all were placed in Bush's blind trust.

About the same time Bush took office, Rainwater set up a commercial real estate investment company called Crescent Real Estate Equities Inc.

Bush became an investor in Crescent when Rainwater added Continental Plaza to Crescent's real estate portfolio. Bush's trust manager sold his interest in Crescent in January.

Rainwater is chairman of Crescent. The vice chairman, John C. Goff, and president, Gerald Haddock, were limited partners in the Texas Rangers with Rainwater and Bush. Crescent's vice president for administration is William D. Miller, the lawyer who put together the financial package for The Ballpark at Arlington.

Crescent will receive a $10 million bonus payment when a new Dallas sports arena is built using legislation that Bush signed into law last year. That new arena also will enhance the value of a hockey team owned by Hicks, the financier who bought the Rangers from Bush and his partners.

Several state actions during the past three years have benefited Crescent.

Bush sold his interest in the Rangers this summer for $14.9 million. He had invested a total of $606,302.27 and was one of two managing partners.

Further reading here:
<a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00178.htm">UQ Wire: Harken Energy Chronology</a>

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...or#post1473717
Did Bush evade $2.4 million income tax on his 1998 filing?

.........In 1998, Bush and his partners sold the Texas Rangers baseball team. Although Bush originally invested just 1.8% of the purchase price for the team, his partners "rewarded" Bush by compensating him with an additional 10.2% ownership interest. When the team was sold, Bush allegedly filed a federal tax return that stated all of the $14.9 million that he received from the sale, as a "capital gain", taxed at just a 20% rate, instead of the 39.6% rate that $12 million of his income should have been taxed at, since the IRS classified this portion of Bush's "ownership" of the team as compensation, and not as the "basis" for a capital gain:

Elphaba · 05-27-2006, 02:20 PM

This does quack like a duck. Does anyone else find it curious that George's father was president at the time of both the Ranger's and Harkin transactions?

Unfortunately, I doubt there will any interest in reviewing these past irregularities. There is likely a statute of limitations that applies as well.

SteelyLoins · 05-28-2006, 01:25 PM

Bush was cleared. Get over it.

While you're at it, get over the election results as well. Bush won.

host · 05-28-2006, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelyLoins

Bush was cleared. Get over it.

While you're at it, get over the election results as well. Bush won.

I am offended by your tone, SteelyLoins....all the more because you brought nothing to the table to back your claim that "Bush was cleared". The "record" indicates that this is a legitimate and timely topic to discuss. Enron's Mr. Skilling has been convicted, by a jury of a crime that mulitple news reports, appearing in the nations newspaper "of record", over a pan of time from at least 1999 to 2002, indicate is very similar to allegations that Mr. Bush has....contrary to your claims....never been officially cleared of doing.

Bush has never been "cleared" after any official investigation into whether or not he made illegal "insider trades" of his Harken stock when he served on that company's BOD and audit committee.......

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...bush073099.htm
Bush Name Helps Fuel Oil Dealings

Bush's Texas building
The old Petroleum Building in Midland, where George W. Bush had his oil company offices.
(By Susan Biddle – The Post)
By George Lardner Jr. and Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 30, 1999; Page A1

Sixth of seven articles
As world oil prices plummeted in the winter of 1985-86, George W. Bush faced the most serious crisis of his 11-year career as a West Texas oilman..........

....... Full-Time Oil Days Over, Son Turns to Dad's Campaign
With the sale complete, Bush's days as a full-time oilman were over. He spent most of his time in the next two years working for his father's election campaign. He remained on the Harken board, and former board member Stuart Watson describes him as "a straight-arrow type ... very able and capable."

But four years later, his sale of his Harken stock prompted an SEC probe into whether he had engaged in insider trading. The probe centered on Bush's sale of all of his 212,140 shares of Harken stock for $4 a share on June 22, 1990, just before the conclusion of a second quarter that produced huge losses. The transaction was to net Bush $835,307, according to the "notice of proposed sale," signed and dated June 22, that Bush was required to send to the SEC as a member of Harken's board.

Bush said he made the move because he wanted to pay off a $500,000 bank loan he had obtained in 1989 to buy his slice of the Texas Rangers. "I didn't need to pay it off," he said in an interview. "I did it because I just don't like to carry debt."

Eight days after Bush's stock sale, Harken wound up its second quarter with operating losses from day-to-day activities of $6.7 million, almost three times the losses it reported for the second quarter of 1989.

The public didn't learn of this until Aug. 20, when the company, now known as Harken Energy, announced in a press release that its overall losses for the quarter, including non-recurring expenses as well as operating losses, totaled $23.2 million. Harken's stock had slipped to $3 a share earlier that month when Iraq's invasion of Kuwait stirred fears that it would endanger a potentially lucrative offshore drilling contract with Bahrain. On Aug. 20, the stock dropped to $2.37.

Did Bush know of the impending losses when he sold his stock in June? Federal securities law prohibits corporate "insiders" from trading "on the basis of" material information that is not publicly known.

Bush says he did not know, even though he had a seat on Harken's three-member audit committee as well as its eight-member board of directors. He said he had no idea Harken was going to get an audit report full of red ink until weeks after he had made the sale.

"I wouldn't have sold if I had," Bush said. "I got clearance by the lawyer [Harken general counsel Larry E. Cummings] to sell this stock. I was mindful that this transaction would be completely scrutinized. I knew the law and I sold at a time that I was cleared to sell."

Bush said he didn't seek a buyer, but was approached by a Los Angeles broker, Ralph D. Smith. Now retired, Smith said he had an institutional client who wanted a large bloc of Harken stock. Smith said he called other Harken officials before calling Bush on June 9, 1990.

"I had no takers until I got to him," Smith said. "It was just like a shot out of the blue."

Bush's lawyer, Robert Jordan, who also represented Harken in the SEC inquiry, said Bush and other board members were not informed until July 13, 1990, in a communication from Harken president Mikel Faulkner that "operating losses were incurred in the second quarter, which will be further quantified and explained." Even then, Jordan said, Faulkner did not provide details. Many companies project and announce expected profits and losses before the end of a quarter, but Jordan said this was not done at Harken.

Asked for a copy of the July 13 communique, or permission to inspect it, Jordan checked with company officials and said they would not allow it. He said Harken has "a policy of keeping internal documents private."

Before Bush's stock sale, Harken's audit committee – Bush, Watson and another Harken director, Talat Othman – met on June 11 with Faulkner and auditors from Arthur Andersen & Co., Harken's accountants. Jordan, however, said the committee "did not discuss operating losses that might be coming up, because that would be in the realm of conjecture and speculation." The minutes of the meeting, Jordan said, "show that."

Asked for a copy of the June 11 minutes or permission to inspect them, the company, through Jordan, again declined to make the records available. Jordan said company officials felt that granting the requests would put them on "a slippery slope."

Before giving Bush clearance to sell his stock, Jordan said that company counsel Cummings "checked with Mr. Faulkner at least and maybe others" to see if there was "any material, undisclosed information out there that would prevent the sale." The answer was no, Jordan said.

Faulkner, a certified public accountant who used to work at Arthur Andersen and who has spoken frequently with reporters over the years, declined through Jordan to be interviewed. So did Cummings.

The SEC investigation was launched in April 1991 when it found that Bush apparently failed to submit notice of actual sale of the stock (as distinct from the separate "notice of proposed sale") until eight months after the deadline. Bush said he is sure he did, but the filing couldn't be found.

The inquiry became an issue in the 1994 governor's race when Richards, the incumbent Democrat, challenged its thoroughness, calling it "at best, incomplete, and at worst, a coverup."

Bush was prepared, having obtained a letter from a top SEC official, associate director for enforcement Bruce A. Hiler, a year earlier.

Dated Oct. 18, 1993, three weeks before Bush announced his candidacy for governor, the carefully worded letter was addressed to Jordan and said that "the investigation has been terminated as to the conduct of Mr. Bush, and that, at this time, no enforcement action is contemplated with respect to him."

Bush took that as vindication. "The SEC fully investigated the stock deal," he said in October 1994. "I was exonerated." Supporting Bush, the head of the SEC's enforcement division, William McLucas, went beyond the letter and stated publicly that "there was no case there."

Hiler, however, was more cautious. His statement said it "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the staff's investigation."

How thorough the SEC inquiry was remains unclear. Jordan said Harken provided investigators with "thousands of pages" of documents, including the June 11 minutes and Faulkner's July 13 communique. Investigators interviewed Cummings, stockbroker Smith and a member of the Arthur Andersen auditing team, but they did not talk to Faulkner or any other officers or directors of Harken.

In an interview, McLucas said the investigation was handled "the same way we would handle any inquiry as to [insider] trading or delinquency in reports," but such matters are usually not accorded high priority.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
Bush Sold Stock After Lawyers' Warning
SEC Closed Probe Before Receiving Letter From Harken's Outside Attorneys

By Peter Behr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 1, 2002; Page A04

A week before George W. Bush's 1990 sale of stock in Harken Energy Co., the firm's outside lawyers cautioned Bush and other directors against selling shares if they had significant negative information about the company's prospects.

The sale came a few months before Harken reported significant losses, leading to an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The June 15, 1990, letter from the Haynes and Boone law firm wasn't sent to the SEC by Bush's attorney Robert W. Jordan until Aug. 22, 1991, according to a letter by Jordan. That was one day after SEC staff members investigating the stock sale concluded there was insufficient evidence to recommend an enforcement action against Bush for insider trading.

The president's sale of his oil company shares has become tied to a broader political debate about business ethics in the wake of the Enron Corp. scandal and other cases of corporate wrongdoing.

The delay in delivering the law firm's report to the SEC -- Harken executives had previously withheld it citing attorney-client privilege -- indicates that regulators did not have a full picture of the Bush transaction when they finished their investigation, said Michael Aguirre, a securities lawyer in San Diego, who obtained the documents in the case last summer after filing a Freedom of Information request.

"There was a failure to deal with the most important piece of evidence," he said.

Dan Bartlett, White House communications director, said the timing of the letter's delivery should not have had an impact on the investigation.

"It has been made very clear that the SEC had the right to reopen the case" after August 1991, he said. "Whether it was a day after, or a week after, if career prosecutors received information that was material and relevant, it's safe to say they would follow up on it."

The Boston Globe, which reported Wednesday on the late delivery of the law firm memo, said four former SEC officials who worked on the case did not recall receiving it. Several of those former officials did not return telephone calls yesterday about the 1991 inquiry.

Bush sold 212,140 shares of Harken on June 22, 1990, for $848,560, using the funds to pay off a bank loan that financed his investment in the Texas Rangers baseball team.

The SEC memo closing the case in August 1991 reported that Bush had been given approval to sell the shares by Harken's general counsel Larry E. Cummings and Harken's chairman Mikel D. Faulkner. Cummings told the investigators that he had also checked with Haynes and Boone attorneys, who said they saw no reason why Bush should not sell. In light of the approvals Bush received, it would be difficult to establish that he acted with fraudulent intent, the SEC memo concluded. The SEC memo does not mention the Haynes and Boone letter.

Bartlett said the attorneys' letter was not specifically addressed to the stock sale that Bush was considering at the time. "It was a very general, broad set of guidelines to board members," he said. Bartlett said President Bush does not recall receiving the lawyers' warning but does specifically recall seeking and receiving approval to sell.

In their letter, the Haynes and Boone attorneys noted they had been asked for advice on whether Harken directors and executives who sold company stock could be accused of securities law violations. At the time, Harken, a small, Dallas-based energy company, was in dire need of funds to avoid bankruptcy and had decided to sell shares in two subsidiaries that would be split off from the parent company in what is called a "rights offering."

The offering had been announced publicly, but the price of shares Harken would sell had not been set. Thus, the potential value of the deal could not be immediately assessed.

The lawyers' memo said that if directors had any unfavorable information about the company's outlook, their sale of Harken shares would be viewed critically if the stock price dropped following the rights offering. "Unless the favorable facts clearly are more important than the unfavorable, the insider should be advised not to sell."

Bush and two other directors attended a June 11, 1990, meeting of Harken's audit committee, where Harken's outside auditor, Arthur Andersen, reviewed the proposed rights offering. An Andersen partner told the Harken directors that the offering might lead to a potentially significant reduction in the market value of the subsidiaries, although the amount could not be determined right away.

The attorneys' letter did not conclude whether directors' information about the rights offering was favorable.

Bush has said that his decision to sell his shares was based on good news -- the January 1990 announcement of Harken's deal to drill for oil in Bahrain, in the Persian Gulf region.

Bush received $4 a share for his stock in June 1990. The price dropped sharply following the October 1990 disclosure of the rights offering price, to a low of $1.25 a share in December 1990, but then recovered.

Harken Energy shares now trade at 20 cents a share -- equivalent to 2 cents a share in 1990, before a reverse stock-split in 2000 in which investors received one new share of Harken for each 10 held previously.

The record indicates, that....at the least, Mr. Bush is ethically challenged. Is it better...on a political forum, to simply "let it pass", when a senior executive of a prominent company that had close political ties to Mr. Bush, is convicted of a crime that seems remarkably similar to something that Mr. Bush himself was reported to have been investigated for doing, and, according to the SEC official who investigated, made a determination that, "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the staff's investigation."

This thread sits on much more solid ground than much of what you watch on foxnews....if the reported record in my posts, is any indication!

aceventura3 · 05-29-2006, 04:56 PM

Guess what - I agree with you. Being investigated for insider trading is like being audited by the IRS. If they look hard enough they can find a violation of the law and convict.

Is Bush "ethically challenged"? No. If he traded in the proper trading windows for insiders what is a person to do when they want to get out of an investment? Sell to someone who has hope, skills to do a turn-around, or sell to someone who did not do their homework. I think that is o.k., don't you?

Well-actually, I guess I might be "ethically challenged" like Bush, what about you? Have you ever taken advantage of an opportunity at the cost of someone who did not do their homework? Don't answer, I don't want to put you on the spot

SteelyLoins · 06-14-2006, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I am offended by your tone, SteelyLoins....all the more because you brought nothing to the table to back your claim that "Bush was cleared". The "record" indicates that this is a legitimate and timely topic to discuss. Enron's Mr. Skilling has been convicted, by a jury of a crime that mulitple news reports, appearing in the nations newspaper "of record", over a pan of time from at least 1999 to 2002, indicate is very similar to allegations that Mr. Bush has....contrary to your claims....never been officially cleared of doing.

Bush has never been "cleared" after any official investigation into whether or not he made illegal "insider trades" of his Harken stock when he served on that company's BOD and audit committee.......

The record indicates, that....at the least, Mr. Bush is ethically challenged. Is it better...on a political forum, to simply "let it pass", when a senior executive of a prominent company that had close political ties to Mr. Bush, is convicted of a crime that seems remarkably similar to something that Mr. Bush himself was reported to have been investigated for doing, and, according to the SEC official who investigated, made a determination that, "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the staff's investigation."

This thread sits on much more solid ground than much of what you watch on foxnews....if the reported record in my posts, is any indication!

Au contraire.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york071002.asp

Quote:

The Facts About Bush and Harken
The president’s story holds up under scrutiny.

Recently Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle was asked whether President Bush's 1990 sale of stock in the Harken Energy Corporation undermined his credibility in dealing with today's corporate scandals. Daschle did not answer directly but said, "I think the president would do well to ask the Securities and Exchange Commission to release the file — release it all. Let everybody see just what is there. There have been some real questions, I think, about what happened."

On Monday, after the president's news conference in which he faced a long series of questions about Harken, Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe joined Daschle's call. "Every day, more questions arise," McAuliffe said in an e-mail to reporters and activists. "President Bush should stop refusing to release his SEC files and let the American people, and not his lawyers, decide what is relevant."

The calls for SEC disclosure are the latest tactic in the Democrats' attempt to tie Bush to the issue of "corporate greed." While such statements are intended to suggest that Bush is covering up his role in the Harken matter, they ignore one important fact: There are already many SEC documents about Harken available to the public. The documents deal with the critical issues raised by Bush's stock sale, and they reveal the reasoning behind the SEC investigators' decision not to take any action against Bush or Harken. A close review of the documents supports statements made by the president and answers most, if not all, of the questions raised by his Democratic critics. Together with other publicly available information on Bush's business career, they suggest that Bush was correct when he told the press that as far as Harken is concerned, "there's no there there."

THREE QUESTIONS
In the 1980s, Bush ran an energy company called Spectrum 7. By 1986, with the oil market in a deep slump, the firm was in serious financial trouble. That year, another company, Harken Energy, which specialized in buying distressed oil properties, purchased Spectrum 7. Harken's management wanted Bush on its team — his father was then vice-president, and he had extensive connections, as well as knowledge of the oil and gas business. But Harken's officers did not offer Bush an executive role, instead giving him a seat on the board, a chunk of stock worth at least $500,000 at the time, and a consulting contract.

It was not a full-time job, and in 1987 and 1988 Bush devoted much of his energy to his father's presidential campaign. The next year, Bush got involved with a group of investors who were trying to buy the Texas Rangers baseball team. When the sale went through in March 1989, Bush borrowed $600,000 to purchase his stake in the team. At that time, his biggest single asset was his Harken stock, and he decided to sell the stock to pay off the baseball loan.

On June 22, 1990, Bush sold 212,140 shares of Harken at $4 a share, for a total sale of $848,560. Nearly two months later, on August 20, Harken announced a much larger than expected loss for the quarter that ended on June 30. In the months that followed, Harken's stock price drifted downward, hitting $1.25 per share by the end of 1990. When word of Bush's sale became public, Democrats charged that he had used inside information — he also served on the Harken board's audit committee — to sell the stock while he could still make a lot of money.

Bush denied any wrongdoing, but the allegations led to an SEC investigation. Commission experts looked into three questions: One, did Bush know in advance that Harken was going to post an abnormally large loss in August, 1990? Two, did Bush sell the stock with the intent of getting out while the getting was good? And three, did Harken's loss announcement lead to a stock downturn that hurt ordinary investors who had no inside knowledge of the company's workings?

According to several internal SEC memos written in 1991 and 1992 — they are available on the website of the public-interest group the Center for Public Integrity — investigators examined thousands of pages of documents given to them by Bush and Harken, interviewed several witnesses, and met with lawyers for Bush and the company (Bush waived attorney-client privilege to allow the SEC to interview the lawyers). [When is the last time a Democrat did that?] On the first question, whether Bush knew in advance about the losses, the SEC investigators found that "the evidence establishes that Bush was not aware of the majority of the items that comprised the loss Harken announced on August 20." Most of that loss, according to the SEC, resulted from write-downs and expenses that occurred after Bush sold his stock — events that he did not know were coming. In addition, the investigators found that Bush played a "relatively limited role in Harken management." In that role, he usually did not receive what were called the Weekly Flash Reports on the company's financial condition; those reports were given only to the board of directors' executive committee. The result, according to an SEC investigative memo, was that Bush was not particularly up to date on the company's finances:

The staff's investigation indicates that, at most, Bush was aware that Harken was forecasted to lose approximately $4.2 million in the second quarter. [The actual loss eventually turned out to be more than five times that] Harken's financial reporting was on about a 45-day delay, so that in mid-June the numbers reflecting Harken's actual results in April would be available. Consequently, by June 22 (the date when Bush sold) no actual revenue or loss information was available for the second two months of the quarter ended June 30. Bush, however, did see the Weekly Flash Report for the week ended May 31, 1990, which reflected a projected net loss for April of $1,875,00, a loss for May of $2,029,000, and a loss for June of $327,000 (for a total of $4,231,000)....Flash reports for the first two weeks of June, which would have been in existence prior to June 22, were only circulated to the members of the Harken executive committee (of which Bush was not a member).

On the second question, whether Bush sold the stock deliberately to avoid losing money before bad news was made public, the SEC found that Bush made the sale after being contacted by a stockbroker who had an institutional client who wanted to buy a large block of Harken stock. When Bush decided to sell, he checked with Harken's in-house counsel, as well as the company's chairman, plus another director, and, finally, the company's outside counsel, to see whether there were any reasons the sale could not go through. No one raised any objections. "In light of the facts uncovered, it would be difficult to establish that, even assuming Bush possessed material nonpublic information, he acted with scienter or intent to defraud," the SEC concluded.On the third question, whether the news of Harken's unexpectedly large loss hurt the company's investors, the SEC examined Harken's share price just before and just after news of the loss was made public. The announcement came at 9:34 A.M. on August 20, 1990. When the market opened that morning, according to the SEC, Harken's stock was selling at $3 per share. It stayed at that level until after noon, when it began a slow slide to $2.375 per share. The next day, however, it rebounded to $3 per share. If the loss announcement had been a bombshell, SEC investigators reasoned, the stock would most likely have fallen immediately and stayed down. "The conclusion of the Office of Economic Analysis is that, because the price of Harken did not immediately react to the earnings announcement and there is no news that explains Harken's return to its pre-announcement price of $3 on August 21, 1990, the earnings announcement did not provide investors with new material information," the SEC said. Furthermore, even though Harken stock moved down for the rest of 1990, it recovered its value — and more — the next year, when it hit $8 a share.
FORM 144 VS. FORM 4
In addition to the questions that have been raised about Bush's decision to sell his stock, there are also questions about when he informed federal regulators of the sale. Last week, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote, "Oddly, though the law requires prompt disclosure of insider sales, [Bush] neglected to inform the SEC about this transaction until 34 weeks had passed. An internal SEC memorandum concluded that he had broken the law, but no charges were filed. This, everyone insists, had nothing to do with the fact that his father was president."

The documents tell a somewhat different story. Although Krugman did not mention it, Bush was required to file two disclosure forms with the SEC. One, which was known as a Form 4, was due the month after Bush made the sale. The other, known as a Form 144, was due at the time of the sale. Bush filed the Form 4 several months late, but he filed the Form 144 on time. In the view of some experts, the Form 144 was the more important of the two.

Bush filed the Form 144, officially known as a "Notice of Proposed Sale of Securities," on June 22, 1990, the day of the sale. In the form, he listed, among other things, how many shares he intended to sell, when he had originally acquired them, how much they were worth, and which broker would handle the transaction. "The 144 is probably the more market-informative form," says Edward Fleischman, who was an SEC commissioner between 1986 and 1992. "It gives market-watchers an indication of what is coming." In contrast, Fleischman says, "The Form 4 is totally retrospective and was originated for a very different purpose, to keep track of dates and prices." If the purpose of disclosure was to make regulators and investors aware of Bush's insider sale, then the Form 144 was the more important document.Still, the law required that the Form 4 also be filed, and even though he had apparently done everything by the book up to that point, Bush did not file the form until March 1991, nearly 34 weeks late. Why did he wait so long to file? At various times through the years, Bush's advisers have suggested that he thought he filled out the form and believed it might have been lost, either inside Harken or the SEC. After Krugman raised the issue last week, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer attributed the late filing to "a mix-up with the attorneys." Then, at his news conference on Monday, the president admitted, "As to why the Form 4 was late, I still haven't figured it out completely."

Whatever the reason, the fact that the report was filed late, while a violation of SEC rules, does not seem particularly damning in the absence of any underlying wrongdoing that a late filing might have been intended to conceal — and especially in light of the fact that the Form 144 was filed on time. In addition, it appears that at the time Bush sent his form to the SEC, late filing was not seen as a very serious offense. "If it had come to the SEC's attention back then, somebody would have said, 'Get the bloody form filed,' and that would have been it," says Fleischman. "There was precious little attention paid to a timely or tardy filing of Form 4."

Please note that I have accented the most relevant parts. I believe that many here would appreciate it if you would do likewise, as opposed to posting a great deal of text that has little to nothing to do with the subject matter.

Also, if you had mentioned Aloha, you would be on firmer footing, but since you have focused on Harken, I did likewise.

Originally posted in YOUR article:

Quote:

The SEC cleared Bush after looking into whether he had insider knowledge of an upcoming quarterly loss at Harken.

Cheers. (Unless you now intend to split hairs on the meaning of "cleared.")

Marvelous Marv · 07-15-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelyLoins

Furthermore, even though Harken stock moved down for the rest of 1990, it recovered its value — and more — the next year, when it hit $8 a share.

Then is the OP's position that President Bush relied on insider information to sell his stock at $4/share, so he wouldn't have to sell it a year later at twice that?

Willravel · 07-15-2006, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelyLoins

Bush was cleared. Get over it.

If I went out and killed someone you loved, but I got away with it in court, would you get over it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelyLoins

While you're at it, get over the election results as well. Bush won.

Actually he lost, but that has nothing to do with this thread, and it's OBVIOUS flame bait.

host · 07-15-2006, 11:25 AM

Note to readers: I did not intend to respond to SteelyLoins last post, because it was a poorly documented "hit piece" from conservative contributor Byron York, posted July 10, 2002, on the partisan websire, "NRO". But, since I'm posting anyway...I will say that it comes down to my conclusion that, if you unquestioningly support Mr. Bush's answers as to what he did regarding the sale of his Harken stock, Byron York's article will satisfy you that Bush did nothing wrong. Consider though, that Byron York's version must compete with the contradictory reporting of investigative journalists who worked for the most prominent newspapers in the U.S., who investigated and reported independently, and, it must be mentioned, in fairness to Byron York, that he posted his "report" four months before this disclosure: (full article in my post #4, and partial display, later in this post):

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
Friday, November 1, 2002; Page A04

Bush Sold Stock After Lawyers' Warning
SEC Closed Probe Before Receiving Letter From Harken's Outside Attorneys

Now....on to mu response to Marv's post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Then is the OP's position that President Bush relied on insider information to sell his stock at $4/share, so he wouldn't have to sell it a year later at twice that?

Marv, IMO, this news article supports my conclusion that you have unintentionally reinforced the whole point of the thread. Dana Milbank, on Oct. 11, 2002, makes the case of why the comparison between what Enron's convicted officers did, and what Mr. Bush participated in at Harken, amounted to the same kind of stock price "elevating" machinations. The answer response to your posted comment, is in this article, in bold, and it does not flatter Mr. Bush's ethics:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
Bush Linked to Harken Off-the-Books Deal
President Did Not Profit; White House Says Venture Can't Be Compared to Enron

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 10, 2002; Page A06

When President Bush served as a director of an energy company 12 years ago, he approved the creation of an off-balance-sheet partnership that reduced the company's debts and improved earnings in a transaction similar to those that led to the collapse of Enron Corp.

As a director of Harken Energy Corp. in 1990, Bush, who had sold his own oil business to Harken and was retained as a consultant, made the motion at a board meeting to negotiate the transfer of struggling Harken assets into a partnership with Harvard University's investment arm, Harvard Management Co. Inc., documents indicate.

Unlike Enron, which used partnerships to conceal debts and loss-making operations, Harken's partnership followed accounting rules and was disclosed to investors and regulators. Bush did not profit personally from the transaction because he had sold most of his shares earlier. "There is simply no comparison" to Enron, said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "It was disclosed to investors and it conformed to accounting rules."

But news of the partnership, first reported yesterday in the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Globe after documents were gathered by a group called HarvardWatch that monitors Harvard investments, provides an unwelcome link between Bush and the accounting scandals that have spooked investor confidence this year. After creation of the partnership, depressed Harken shares enjoyed a brief renaissance as the company's financial situation appeared to improve, in part because of the removal of $20 million in debt.

According to board minutes of Aug. 29, 1990, obtained by HarvardWatch, Bush made the motion, which was approved, to "proceed in negotiations . . . toward formulating a letter of intent" creating "a new entity." The entity, which became the Harken Anadarko Partnership, included oil and gas properties to be managed by Harken.

Harvard Management, which invests the university's endowment, was a major investor in Harken, at one point owning 30 percent of its shares. Its investments began at about the time that Bush, the son of the then vice president, became a director of the company in 1986.

According to the Journal, Harvard's support of Harken influenced A. Robert Abboud, then head of First City Bancorp, to take over another bank's loans to Harken in 1990 and rescue Harken from default. Abboud had been a prominent supporter of Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq before the Persian Gulf War. Abboud also had ties to President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father.

McClellan, the White House spokesman, said the ties between Harvard Management and Harken had nothing to do with the Bush connections because talks about a possible Harvard investment in Harken began before Bush became a director. McClellan said the off-balance-sheet partnership was proposed by Harvard, and the university investors "set the terms of the partnership."

Harvard said in a statement yesterday that its investments in Harken "were not inappropriate" and had nothing to do with Bush connections. "The role of the Harvard Management Company is not to curry political favor but to invest well on Harvard's behalf," the statement said.

A phone call to Harken officials seeking comment was not returned.

The partnership significantly improved Harken's fortunes. Its shares, which had fallen to $1.25 in late 1990 from an earlier high of $6, climbed to $8 in 1991. The stock improvement came as Harken's debt and interest expenses fell because of the partnership. Harvard benefited from the higher stock price by selling 1.6 million shares between September 1991 and October 1992, HarvardWatch said.

By December 1992, Harvard Management had bought all of Harken's interest in the partnership. Harvard sold the venture in 1993 to Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. for stock valued at $34.6 million, HarvardWatch said.

The partnership "bears striking resemblance to the partnerships Bush has condemned at Enron," HarvardWatch argued. "It was controlled by and transparent only to Harken insiders, and likely was used to artificially brighten the company's business prospects."

....Marv, the entire Spectrum 7/Harken era in Bush's life, the profits from which "transitioned"
Bush into his next "windfall", a $14.7 million "pay day", resulting from his $800K investment in the Texas Rangers partnership, "sweetened" by a politically influenced taxpayer financed construction of a new Texas Ranger's stadium, seems to fly in the face of the core beliefs of you and other Bush supporters who post on these threads. Does a man who made a career out of using his family legacy to gain admission to Yale and to Harvard, selection into the most prestigious Yale "secret society, then, in his Texas business "career", his daddy's name, rolodex full of influential contacts, bankers, and implied personal access to his daddy in political decisions, right up to and through his 2000 campaign, post Florida election recount (ala James Baker, et al) a sympathetic SCOTUS Dec, 12, 2000 decision that included votes by justices appointed via his daddy's influence in his 12 combined years as VP and POTUS, then in
his intital cabinet appointments, and finally, in his display of his own integrity and ethics,
really warrant or earn your seemingly "knee jerk" support?

Ironically, don't the backgrounds of men like Clinton or Kerry, both emerging from next to nothingness, striving to earn their places in Ivy league universities with no family legacy or fortune backing either of them, seem more in the spirit of what you say that you stand for?

Bush is still the same to this day. Deflecting, sketchy, seemingly oblivious to how disingenuous he looks to the rest of us who do not buy the idea that he is qualified, on his own merit, to head a financially busted oil wildcat venture, much less the presidency of the U.S. Check out his comments last week, to Larry King, below:

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harken_Energy_Scandal
Debt Swap Transaction

In 1990, the US energy company Harken Energy entered into a business partnership called Harken Anadarko Partnership (HAP) with Harvard University which ultimately became the vehicle by which Harken Energy could transfer $20 million in debt to Harvard.

Harvard contributed $64.5 million worth of property. Harken contributed drilling operations valued at $26.1 million, which also carried $20 million of bank debt and liabilities. Harken held a 16% interest in the Harken Anadarko Partnership (HAP); Harvard owned the remaining 84%. The actual operation remained under Harken’s control, however. From 1990 until 1993 the Harvard-run HAP paid Harken about $1 million per year to operate the partnership's oil and gas.

Though made public, investors did not directly equate the transferred debt as a decrease in equity, allowing the share value of Harken stock to rise, and senior Harken managers liquidated their shares. See market liquidity.

Harvard Management, an independent fund that manages the university's endowment, invested heavily (almost $30 million) in Harken beginning in 1986 around the same time Bush was made director, at one point giving the fund one-third control of Harken. Bush, a graduate of Harvard Business School, could well have been what made Harken (a relatively little oil company in Texas) so attractive to Harvard Management.

Bush's Stock Sale

During the early 1990s Harken continued to suffer cash flow problems. On May 20, 1990 an internal Harken memo warned that its financial position was such that it may not be able to meet the June 15 payroll.

On June 8, 1990, Ralph Smith, a trader for Sutro & Co., called Bush on behalf of an institutional client interested in buying a large block of Harken stock. Smith asked Bush if he was interested in selling. Bush said no, but added that he might be interested in about two weeks.

On June 15, 1990, lawyers from the firm of Haynes & Boone, which worked for Harken, sent a warning about selling on insider information. The memo to Harken staffers had the subject line Liability for insider trading and short swing profits.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
Bush Sold Stock After Lawyers' Warning
SEC Closed Probe Before Receiving Letter From Harken's Outside Attorneys

By Peter Behr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 1, 2002; Page A04

A week before George W. Bush's 1990 sale of stock in Harken Energy Co., the firm's outside lawyers cautioned Bush and other directors against selling shares if they had significant negative information about the company's prospects.

The sale came a few months before Harken reported significant losses, leading to an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.....

A week later, Bush contacted Smith, and sold 212,140 Harken shares for $4 per share, netting $848,560. Despite having been put on notice by the company lawyer of the importance of filing timely insider reports only a few months before, Bush waited eight months before filing the required forms on the sale with the SEC. Bush used the money to repay a loan used to acquire his interest in the Texas Rangers, a baseball franchise.

Bush says he was unaware of the company's financial condition, despite sitting on Harken's audit board. Bush was investigated for insider trading by the SEC, but no charges were brought against him.

Things got even worse when the company announced on August 20, 1990 that it had a huge, unexpected loss of $23.2 million for the second quarter and it's stock tanked 20% that day.
[edit]

SEC Investigation

According to SEC documents, investigators concluded that neither Bush nor the rest of the company's hierarchy were aware of the magnitude of the loss at the time Bush sold his stock. The investigation was criticized on several grounds, including the fact that the subject of the inquiry, Bush, was never interviewed by the SEC.

A pertinent point here is that the SEC Commissioner had been appointed by President George Bush Sr., and its counsel had worked for Bush Jr. negotiating the purchase of the Texas Rangers.

On Oct. 18, 1993, an SEC memo declared the investigation has been terminated as to the conduct of Mr. Bush, and that, at this time, no enforcement action is contemplated with respect to him. The letter also stated that the investigation's termination must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the investigation. [citation needed]comment by host: Here is the "citation":

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...bush073099.htm
....Dated Oct. 18, 1993, three weeks before Bush announced his candidacy for governor, the carefully worded letter was addressed to Jordan and said that "the investigation has been terminated as to the conduct of Mr. Bush, and that, at this time, no enforcement action is contemplated with respect to him."

Bush took that as vindication. "The SEC fully investigated the stock deal," he said in October 1994. "I was exonerated." Supporting Bush, the head of the SEC's enforcement division, William McLucas, went beyond the letter and stated publicly that "there was no case there."

Hiler, however, was more cautious. His statement said it "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the staff's investigation.".....

"Kenny Boy", I barely knew ye !! (wink....)

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/06/transcript.bush/
Thursday, July 6, 2006; Posted: 10:53 p.m. EDT (02:53 GMT)

.....KING: Was that whole thing, the whole Enron story shocking to you?

G. BUSH: Yes, yes.

KING: Because, I mean, you knew him pretty well from Texas, right?

G. BUSH: Pretty well, pretty well, I knew him. I got to know him. People don't believe this, but he actually supported Ann Richards in the '94 campaign.

KING: She told me that.

G. BUSH: She did?

KING: She liked him a lot.

G. BUSH: Yes, he's a good guy. And so what I then did was we had a business council and I kept him on as the chairman of the business council and, you know, got to know him and got to see him in action. One of the things I respected him for was he was such a contributor to Houston's civil society. He was a generous person. I'm disappointed that he betrayed the trust of shareholders, but...

KING: Do you know him well, Mrs. Bush?

L. BUSH: Not really. Not really well.

KING: Did you know his wife?

L. BUSH: But I did know him. And I know Linda and I'm sorry for her.

KING: Do you have contact with her?

L. BUSH: I haven't.

G. BUSH: I haven't yet. I'm going to write her a letter at some point in time.........

The "record" reinforces reports that Bush and Ken Lay were good friends:
<img src="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0708042lay1.gif">

05-29-2006, 04:56 PM	#5 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Guess what - I agree with you. Being investigated for insider trading is like being audited by the IRS. If they look hard enough they can find a violation of the law and convict. Is Bush "ethically challenged"? No. If he traded in the proper trading windows for insiders what is a person to do when they want to get out of an investment? Sell to someone who has hope, skills to do a turn-around, or sell to someone who did not do their homework. I think that is o.k., don't you? Well-actually, I guess I might be "ethically challenged" like Bush, what about you? Have you ever taken advantage of an opportunity at the cost of someone who did not do their homework? Don't answer, I don't want to put you on the spot __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-27-2006, 02:20 PM	#2 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	This does quack like a duck. Does anyone else find it curious that George's father was president at the time of both the Ranger's and Harkin transactions? Unfortunately, I doubt there will any interest in reviewing these past irregularities. There is likely a statute of limitations that applies as well.

05-28-2006, 01:25 PM	#3 (permalink)
SteelyLoins Upright	Bush was cleared. Get over it. While you're at it, get over the election results as well. Bush won.