Posted on 09/26/2005 2:14:45 PM PDT by Embraer2004
"In May, my staff and the Ethics COmmitteee drafted a pre-approval and I issued a letter selling my HCA trust...I will cooperate with the Securities Commission...I had no information about HCA that was not public...I am going back to work, I will answer as much and as fast as possible about these stocks"
Frist might as well forget about his Preisdential ambitions. He is toast, he should resign as Majority Leader, he is indeed a failure in not getting Bush's agenda forward in the Senate.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
As Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) faces probes on whether his blind trust was really blind, the Democrats' Senate leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is placing all of his assets into a blind trust, Roll Call reports in Monday editions.
Reid, who was worth at least $2 million at the end of last year, is setting up a financial arrangement akin to the one being run by his counterpart, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), whose decision to tell his trust to sell stock from his family’s hospital chain has prompted a dual-track federal investigation.
While the paperwork has not been finalized on Reid’s trust, the Minority Leader said that having a financial arrangement in which he wouldn’t know which stocks or other publicly traded assets were being bought and sold would avoid any appearance of conflict on his voting and leadership decisions.
Reid said he already had begun the process of establishing a blind trust when asked about the propriety of Frist’s sale of HCA Inc. stock just before it dropped by nearly 10 percent.
Reid defended Frist’s actions.
“I know he wouldn’t do anything intentionally wrong,” Reid said of his counterpart
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democratic_leader_sets_up_b_0926.html
Mitch stated a little while ago he had the votes to be ML.
I suspect he'll hold them. RINO's may screw up conservative measures, but they don't yet represent the Majority of Republicans in Congress.
Expect him to go after Santorum's seat if he doesn't win re-election though.
Lott doesn't deserve any seat, I'd rather he be challanged in MISS primaries but I will give him one thing. He'll make sure MISS is represented in Congress rather than letting the LA pols suck everything up. Mary & Vitter will lose in a dirty fight against Lott if they are foolish to try.
I see no reason we should kick Frist out and give the Dems a talking point and McCain/Lott a gloat after their sabotage over judges. He's only there a year and a half, might as well ride it out. And I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here. I don't think Frist is corrupt. Weak Majority leader, yes. Great doctor? Absolutely. Corrupt? No.
Frist has been pathetic from day one. I never thought anyone would make me miss Trent Lott. Santorum is also a disappointment. The only man honorable enough to lead the Senate is Tom Coburn.
Well if you say your assetts are in a "BLIND TRUST" then that kinda implies that you DON'T KNOW what your trusted advisor is buying and holding for you. And it kinda implies your not directing the investment yourself. So I find the whole "it was in a blind trust" followed by "I told them to sell" thing .. Clintonesque.
Let me add my voices to those suggesting he resign his leadership position and forget running for President.
Next !
Interesting,,Reid must have done some insider stuff himself or presided over legislation that affected his portfolio.
so now he is all forgiving in advance of Frist and is setting up a trust. I smell a rat.
BTW if Frist had family still big stockholders or or the board or running HCA, in my opinion he should not have owned that stock given the amount of legislation that affects his interests. he knows the effect of any legislation on HCA.
Hopefully this is a tempest in a teapot initiated by the rats that Frist thought would make nice with him when he came out for fetal stem cell research...I lost all my respect for him then. In fact I pity him.
He sent me a form letter explaining very feebly why he supported this gruesome inhuman research.
Damn you must be working for mccain or the demmocommies.
Well, why have an advisor if he doesn't advise? If everything is as you said then the only difference is the advisor had to advise him to sell at which time he said yes. A blind trust doesn't mean you are making yourself an idiot and no one is watching.
I don't think Lott has a chance against McConnell.
"A California-based watchdog group, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, had complained to the Senate Ethics Committee last year that Frist's holdings posed a conflict because of his support for legislation limiting medical-malpractice lawsuits, which could benefit HCA and its subsidiaries if it passed."
The Ethics Committee dismissed that complaint because the Tennessee Republican never worked for HCA, but his office said he chose to sell the stock anyway.
C'mon folks, if they can nail Martha why not Frist? But you can't have it both ways (at least not because Martha is a screaming Democrat and Frist is a moaning Republican). If they had let Martha off, then Frist might get a pass, but when they handcuffed Martha, that should set a precident ... off to naughty school for Senator Frist. Bakin' cookies in jail could be fun.
I think it is worse than Martha because it was a larger amount.
Let me also say that this is probably standard fare. I doubt there is, in actual practice, really any such thing as a blind trust. It's just a legal loophole set up by lawyers. I don't have that much faith in human nature. That doesn't mean that Frist shouldn't pay if he is guilty.
There is no evidence at all that Frist lied to anyone with regard to his stock holdings.
He is planning his run for the presidency and divested himself of all his stock.
It is my understanding that the stock is at or near the price when he sold.
I saw the woman who filed the charges on TV last night.
Can you say demonrat operative, in the mode of Beckel, Schrum, O'Donnell?
Meaning he had the right to issue buy or sell orders.
Who in their right mind would place that huge fortune in the hands of someone else without that qualification.
Please get informed before you start bashing.
Well, I hope you are right, but you aren't very convincing when you accuse people falsely of bashing. I don't want him to be guilty, and I qualified my statement.
His defense is: "No insider information was available . . . "
Do Freepers know the legal definition of "insider trading?" I do because before retiring I worked for Morgan Stanley in NY and also was a lawyer. Many questions need to be answered: Were there any conversations between Senator Frist and his brother during the year 2005? What did they discuss? Did the brother inform the Senator that he might want to sell his stock? How much money did earn from the sale? Was it $ 10 million, $ 1 million or $ 50,000? How much of an economic loss would he have suffered if the stock was not sold? Do Senate ethics rules require that he suffer an economic loss?
Another issue: The Senator did not perceive any conflicts during the period 1994 - 2004. But during that period, bills were presented for vote that impacted health care providers. All during that period, the value of his stock was increasing. Suddenly, the economic picture changed. Why would owning that stock present a conflict today there were no perceived conflicts before?
There are far too many questions that need to be answered. But right now the "appearance of impropriety" is present in the timing of the stock sale. He sold out just before the stock tanked badly. It's almost as strong as res ipsa loquitur or the "facts speak for themselves". Frist may have violated Senate ethics regulations without the intention of profiting, i.e. negligently violating the rule.
I'm not saying he will face criminal prosecution. But he might face formal censure. Democrats will be howling like wild monkeys.
"Martha Lied..." Prove it. People SAID she lied.
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.