Posted on 07/09/2002 3:22:07 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:07:57 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Impossible, when the SEC investigated the matter Bush waived his attorney/client privilege so that the SEC could question his lawyer and Harkens lawyers. Not something a Clinton would ever do.
Also, Bush filed his "intent to sell" form in a timely and correct manner.
He sold his stock at 4.00 a share, the next day the stock traded at 4.25. He sold his stock while it was in a year long slide from about 6 bucks down to about 2 bucks. A few months later, the stock climbed to 8.
This is a coordinated smear job by the DNC and their leftist punk pals at the Slimes and the Boston Globe with the usual accessories in the tv media.
You tell me what is suspicious about the facts as I presented them?
If the situation were the same, and Clinton had filed the proper form indicating his intent to sell, and then merely forgot to file the Form 4 for a few months, I'd have no problem with it whatsoever. (Of course, we'd not be able to help wondering about the circumstances under which he acquired the stock in the first place, heh heh.)
In any event, it doesn't matter. This story isn't even going to last through an entire 24-hour news cycle. Once Bush gives his big speech today, this issue will vaporize. All it does is prove more liberal media bias; it certainly won't have any negative effect on Bush's ratings.
The Fed pumped the market even though the price/earning ratios got completely crazy or nonexistent. Now we are suffering the results of the artificial boom. As the economy adjusts to market reality, we have to find someone to blame.
The politicization of the SEC and lack of enforcement procedures is a good place to start looking. In fact, the politicization of all our enforcement agencies is the problem we are facing. Favoritism and cronyism will lead to our downfall if overdone.
With Congressional committees and the Administration looking under every rock to see who they can blame, it appears further efforts to hand off the blame will only increase. This will lead to further deteriation of the economy.
a) It's would be much more likely that Clinton (either he or she) had actually done something "fishy", shady, or outright illegal, and was therefore intent on covering it up.
b) We would not hear about it because the press sycophants would refuse to cover it (old news...not relevant...smear tactics...vast right wing conspiracy...etc.)
And his and Bob Rubins grimy little fingers are all over the dot.com companies with no product, no revenue and no profits but huge market caps.
My boyfriend, an accountant, has been saying that for years. He said a good accountant is one that exploits the 'gray areas' in procedures without breaking laws, which are definitely writ in black and white.
They will flog this story to death to keep the public eye off the real story - How the Clinton administration winked at all of these shenanigans to help out their buddies and to keep the stock market bubble from popping before the election.
Good point, as is the rest of your comment. As I said, I count Bush as an honest and decent man, and I suppose my thoughts are just another example of how the Clintons have poisoned the water.
The Globe is a Party organ. What is good for the Party it prints (without regard for factual content, as in the above batch of innuendo. And without concern for news value). What is bad for the Party it spikes.
During the last election cycle, it spiked its token conservative columnist for the duration of the cycle. ISTR he was replaced by alernating a moderate and a lesbian. (Not that lesbians are strangers to the ed page. Most of the full-timers there are gay, males and females).
One of the biggest laughs is when the Globe, long before it "endorses" the Democrat, runs "factual profiles" on candidates. The Democrat will receive a front page or front-of-section 20,000-word tone-poem of love, with pictures that might have been shot by Bob Guccione and 200 mentions of the candidate's name. Exactly as it will be written on the ballot, and prominently in the headline, which will be something like, "Schoolchildren Admire Senator John Kerry's Greatness."
The Republican gets half the word-count, coupled with a picture that makes him either look "dumb" or "scarily weird" (cf. Coulter, Scandal), and his "profile" hangs under a headline that says something like "Questions About Scandal Stick To Candidate".
The Globe is the "newspaper" that sought JFK's permission to run an article on Ted's ejection from Harvard (and that agreed to downplay the scandal), that bought Ted's pathetic "I kept diving" alibi for Chappaquiddick and shouted down those asking for an enquiry, that unblinkingly accepted John Kerry's changes of story about his "two tours in Vietnam" (he was there but six months, although honourably), his medals (he threw them away for a publicity stunt, and then cooked up a far-fetched story), and his leadership of antiwar and "atrocity" groups. The Globe also was silent when Kerry bribed the city of Cambridge to move a fireplug from in front of his house to in front of a neighbour's, to free up parking on the crowded street for his guests at the expence of a mere citizen's (a word Kerry finds synonymous with "chump.")
Basically, the Boston Globe serves for its Party the same abased, servile role that the minions of the Ministry of Truth served for Big Brother. Any similarity to actual news gathering and dissemination are strictly in the packaging.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Your friend is wrong and its accountants like him that will kill the profession.
A good accountant is one that puts the needs of the users of the financial statements first and uses the "gray areas" for that purpose. A good accountant will have the people skills in order to convince his client to take the high road.
Your friend is the type of accountant that brought us Enron. We don't need that kind of accountant in the profession. He should become a democrat and run for office.
And how does your statement differ from my friend's?
And before you disparage the career of a man you know nothing about, please be advised that he is apalled at the immoral (and probably illegal) flouting of accepted GAP rules by these men. And he also supports legislation to remove advisory functions from audit houses (legislation opposed, by the way, by our own senator Jumpin' Joe Leiberman).
For the press to go berserk over a simple statement of fact is what galls me.
Did you happen to hear Harold Ford (D-Tenn) on Imus this morning? Said that he was willing to 'forgive' Bush in the Harkin case until he heard the 'black and white' statement! Now he is 'shocked...shocked!'
My wife is an accountant and I have heard her say many times that the voluminous rules and regualtions are a nightmare.
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.