Replies

In 1991 the Securities and Exchange Commission investigated the sale and took no action against Bush or anyone else. "I don't remember a lot about it, other than there wasn't a lot about it," says William McLucas, who was the SEC enforcement chief at the time. "The facts just didn't support any judgment that this was something that would result in a serious enforcement proceeding."

Mayhap these should also be investigated?

The Holiday *Best* of Bill Clinton & his Friends!

FOB and FOFOB... the clinton friend files

Hodgepodge O' Hillary

-DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON --

Bush has been remarkably restrained in his treatment of the Clintons.

It should be noted that this flurry of articles flew in the face of a strong July 4 Holiday Weekend wind - the sort of trial-balloonism the WashPost and NYTimes engage in to see how many other outlets pick up the story.

If the story dies a quiet death, as this one's going to, then the Times and the WashPost will draw little fire for running it - burying it in a holiday weekend when no one's paying attention. In fact, it appears that only CNN has picked up the sordid DNC banner on this one - and on a holiday weekend, it's hard to imagine an outlet with lower viewership. Other outlets have simply rolled their "old-news" eyes and file-13'd the story.

This does, however, accomplish a couple of things. The WashPost and the NYTimes can tell the DNC, "Hey, we ran 'em, but no one saluted." The fact that both papers ran the stories when they did indicates that they knew ahead of time that no one was going to get too wound up about them.

The other thing publication of these stories across a holiday does for the Times and Post is send a message to the DNC and its various and sundry arms, tentacles, etc., that if they expect the Times and Post to carry their water this time around, it had better be a better story than this one. If the papers thought this story would really go anywhere, then they would have held it until after the holiday. Running it ON a holiday gives it the half-hearted imprimateur of a pitchman not really believing his own spiel.

Of course, the DNC must have been heartened by CNN's treatment. Aaron Brown's return from vacation (in which he alluded to the fact that many more viewers seemed to like his replacement, Mole host Anderson Cooper, than Brown himself) featured Brown laying it on thick as chopped liver at a Bar Mitzvah. Brown had Bush thoroughly tarred, discredited, and driven from office by the end of his first evening back. I hope Anderson Cooper wasn't watching.

This story and the way the two dailies played it is a perfect example of how they send signals to the DNC without saying it in so many words. There may be a couple of ripples left to play out, but as THIS article says, this is really really OLD meat, and no one bit on it before.

Michael

Oddly, though the law requires prompt disclosure of insider sales, he neglected to inform the Securities and Exchange Commission about this transaction until 34 weeks had passed...more lies by half-truths - the law requires two notifications - once before the sale is made, which notification Bush did comply with personally, and once after the sale is completed - this is the notification which was delayed, because, Bush says, he thought the corporation lawyers had made it for him when in fact they had not - by then the sale was already on the record so it's imbecilic to insist this was some sort of coverup or attempt to dodge the law - just one more attempt at character assassination by the 'rats and their fellow travelers, but since when did the truth ever stand in their way?!......

Since the president began his political career, there have been a number of meticulous examinations of the Harken sale, first in Texas newspapers, then in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other national publications.

And, of course, no wrongdoing was found. But that's the whole point. No wrongdoing needs to be found...as long as some is implied, the regurgitation of non-stories like this will continue to sprout up in rags like the Post and the Times. It's the only thing they can find that they believe will have traction against this president. Nothing else seems to work. This won't either.

On Face The Nation today I heard Gloria Borger make the statement that small investors were unwilling to invest in the stock market because of the "constant corporate scandals". Oh really?! Well, I'm a small investor and I had no problem whatsoever doing my part to help the market go up 324 points last Friday especially in light of the pounding it had taken prior to that. But the more interesting point is that Ms. Borger's statement only went to prove why liberals are usually piss-poor when it comes to investing. They simply don't understand the concept of "Buy low, sell high"!

They're flailing. It's a good thing.

"Democrats sense in the corporate scandals an issue that might finally dent Mr. Bush's approval ratings," the New York Times breathlessly reported Wednesday. "We, I mean, they are making a case that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, during their time in the corporate world, would not have been able to live up to the policies they are advocating now." Indeed, talking points released Tuesday by the Democratic National Committee, from which the New York Times takes its cue, said, "If it's corporate penalties the president prefers, perhaps he should take a look in the mirror."

(Yawn)
So the Gray Old Whore is at it again.
That liberal toilet paper is about as relevant as any Euro-scum tabloid.

If Bush would have held on to the stock for another 18 months he would have doubled his money. Bush was stupid to sell when he did, although it would have taken some guts to stay invested in the hard times.