Posted on 07/10/2002 2:30:15 PM PDT by kattracks
Democrats and their media allies have for days been complaining that President Bush failed to make timely notification to the Securities and Exchange Commission when he had sold his stake in Harken Energy 12 years ago.
Even the Wall Street Journal, no friend of the Democratic National Committee, has picked this mantra, reporting Wednesday that Bush "was 34 weeks late in reporting his sale of 212,140 shares of company stock."
But according to the National Review's Byron York, nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, there were two forms Bush was supposed to submit to make the legally required notification. One, Form 4, was required a month after the sale. The other, Form 144, was due immediately.
It was Form 4 that Bush failed to file on time, says York. That was the form Bush referred to during Monday's press conference, when he told reporters, "As to why the Form 4 was late, I still haven't figured it out completely."
But Bush filed Form 144, known as the "Notice of Proposed Sale of Securities," the very day of the sale, exactly as required by law. According to a former SEC commissioner cited by York, Form 144 is by far the more important of the two documents.
"The 144 is probably the more market-informative form," said Edward Fleischman, who headed up the Wall Street watchdog agency at the time of Bush's Harken stock sale. "It gives market-watchers an indication of what is coming."
Form 4, the one Bush filed late, is "totally retrospective and was originated for a very different purpose," the ex-SEC commissioner said.
If Bush wanted to conceal his sale of Harken stock, he certainly couldn't have done it by holding back Form 4, while complying with the regulations regarding Form 144's notification of stock sale.
Yet for days, Bush critics have pretended that's exactly what happened.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
The Rats controll the media and we must get the word out somehow.
...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." ...
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. ...
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.
...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. ...
July 30, 1999
This was reported on network news. Except: it mentioned that the first form had to be completed a month prior to the sell.
I did not read that as an insinuation against Bush, but as a charge against the Democrats who are purposefully lying about the situation, misleading the public on several issues, playing the same games themselves (Terry MacAuliff/ Hillary) and then trying to focus negative attention against the Republicans in general and against Bush specifically, all for the sake of trying to improve their political position.
The more I observe the Democrats in action, the more convinced I am that they would do anything, legal or illegal, immoral or maybe even moral and would destroy anyone, just to forward their Socialist agenda.
They are beyond disgusting
"An election"
Your interpretation was: an election = 2000, Florida Fiasco
My intepretation was: an election = any and all future elections
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.