Papers offer info on Bush knowledge (still trying to find something on Harkin)

MSNBC/Washington Post ^ | 7/14/02 | Mike Allen and George Lardner Jr

[Brian Mosely]

WASHINGTON, July 14

[Brian Mosely]

Rest of the story at link above. Looks like they don't want to let this one go.

[okie01]

"Looks like they don't want to let this one go."

They won't admit that one of their own was dirty.

They'll not stop until they've painted Bush dirtier.

There is no conscience. There is no shame. There are no ethics, no principles. No right, nor wrong. Only politics.

Lenin taught them well: "Everything is political."

[JohnHuang2]

Looks like they don't want to let this one go.

I read this story earlier. The bottom line? No there, there, the Democrats are desperate and Bush's approval ratings will remain in the stratosphere.

[JohnHuang2]

The attempt by the media to tar Bush as a white collar criminal isn't resonating with the public -- at all.

Americans, by overwhelming majorities, give Bush extraordinarily high marks for ethics, character and trustworthiness, despite the press' best efforts to convince them otherwise. As an "issue", Harken is the quintessential dead horse.

[CatoRenasci]

A key point in this which I have not seen properly emphasized is that Bush had a legitimate business reason for selling the stock when he did and cleared the sale with the Company's counsel. In looking at these sorts of insider trading claims, the absence of a legitimate external business reason to sell (not just liquidity) is often a tip-off of bad behavior. On the other hand, where an insider sells for an external business reason, such as Bush did, there is less likelihood the sale will be seen as a problem. In this case, the Harkin stock was apparently about the only readily marketable asset Bush could liquidate in order to pay his debt on the Rangers note.

[JohnHuang2]

Bull's-eye, my friend.

[Southack]

"Bush had many family connections to the investigation. The SEC’s general counsel at the time was James R. Doty, who represented Bush in his purchase of the Texas Rangers. Doty recused himself."

Oh boy, Bush had "many family connections to the investigation," but the connection recused himself.

Republicans can only hope that the Democratic Press will continue to hang onto this anchor as it drags them to their lonely destination on the bottom of the sea.

Does anyone even remember a SINGLE Clinton judge recusing himself from all of the scandals in the 1990's?!

[Brian Mosely]

True...but how much do you want to bet this isn't going to come up on the Sunday news shows in the morning?

These people NEVER give up.

[JohnHuang2]

These people NEVER give up

hehe, I would wager Karl Rove is hoping they don't.

If the Democrats want to waste the fall campaign beating this dead horse, I say, bring it on! =^)

[Vidalia]

Ever heard the joke about Mole's Asses?

Just another form of the joke.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

I challenge any Democrat or Newsweek reporter ( guess I am being redundant) lurking here-to explain some things to me-seriously. If a private citizen, legally sold stock in 1990-what does that have to do, with the stock market of the next millenium??? What does the fact that Harken closed at 41 cents on Friday, 12+ years after a private citizen sold his shares-have to do with today's stock market?? I must be missing something, because I absolutely cannot understand how a private citizen's stock trades,over a decade ago, relates to today's stock market. I also sold some stock in the 90's-guess that makes me responsible for last week's bear market.

[RoseofTexas]

I pray you are right. I'm afraid that the sheeple might be stupid enough to believe the garbage the RATS are spewing. You know the saying, repeat the lie enough times and you'll get them to believe it. Unfortunately, that qualifies a lot of Americans, dumb enough to believe the lie. My only problem with the pubbies is WHERE are they? I haven't heard not a peep from them. They should have immediate come out defending the president the moment he was attacked. I really like that line you use on one of your articles about the president fighting terrorism and the democrats fighting the prez...something like that. That should be ammo for the pubbies to wage war against those bastards!

[JohnHuang2]

I'm afraid that the sheeple might be stupid enough to believe the garbage the RATS are spewing.

Bear in mind, the Rats have been painting Bush as a crook since the Enron "scandal", back around mid-January, to no avail.

I wrote the following and posted it as a reply on another thread:

What stuns Democrats and the media elite is how Bush's standing in the polls has proven so stubbornly impervious -- indeed, hidebound, tenacious, appallingly unyielding -- even against sustained media/Democrat attacks.

The fact that his popularity has withstood the brunt of the most uninterrupted, unremitting raking fire his enemies could muster tells me there must be some unusual dynamic at work.

I'm convinced the phenomena is nothing more than the typical 'rallying 'round the flag' effect.

The colossal political capital and credibility President Bush has amassed for his formidable performance in the 9/ 11 aftermath essentially insulates him from partisan attacks. His steady hand, even-tempered and unflappable poise amid circumstances which would easily test the skills of the most experienced leader won him the hearts and minds of many who, pre-9/11, were more or less on the fence. By so personally attacking the President as a drooling halfwit, pre-9/11, Bush's adversaries basically sealed their own fate.

In the eyes of most Americans, Bush's chorus of critics, having lied about him pre-9/11, don't have much credibility today.

In short, the more fire the President draws from partisan enemies, the more the American people rally behind him, particularly if the attacks are generally perceived as unfair and/or politically motivated.

The principle is doubly true during times of war.

Essentially, that's what I think is happening, and why, despite their best efforts, Bush-haters have failed to make any headway..

[Brian Mosely]

If a private citizen, legally sold stock in 1990-what does that have to do, with the stock market of the next millenium???

Answer: It doesn't. It's just another issue for the dems to bitch about and another attempt to hurt the President during war time. That's all. End of story.

[olliemb]

I thought that the SEC head recused himself and had a democrat do the investigating. Is that true?

I thought that Clinton had the SEC look into the Harkin mess again. Is this true?

[an amused spectator]

Spot on.

[CaptBlack]

By the way, the guy who wrote the article left his e-mail. I gave him a piece of my mind.

[JohnHuang2]

Thanks, friend.

[CatoRenasci]

I remember a matter some years ago when I was practicing in NYC. The SEC wanted to investigate our client for a sale of a big block of shares a couple of weeks before the annual report was due, which had bad news in it causing the stock predictably to sink. All fire and brimstone to start off with, it turned out the guy had reached a settlement with the IRS on an audit that he needed to pay, other taxes about due, a payment due on his divorce settlement and was leveraged to the hilt. And the amount he sold was only about 3/4 of what he had to pay out, the rest he paid out of current cash flow. Needless to say, the SEC blessed the transaction and told him to go and sin no more.