Dave wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:01:34 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


No, Jeff, you're trying to pull a fast one here. What you were responding to
was my "We need to know more." Presumably that's why you quoted it. As I
pointed out, the words "squeaky clean" were not mine. If you intended to
respond to those words, I suggest you should have quoted the author of those
words, not me.

So you didn't really have any point at all in your first comment? That
figures.


Not sure what "first comment" you're referring to, but the point of noting
we need to know more is that without the facts one is left, as you
apparently were, blindly accepting the characterization of folks with an ax
to grind, rather than being able to assess their claims.


The facts have been out for about 10 years and have never been disputed.





Yes he admitted to the failure to report the sale. He also admitted to
the sale itself. When the president of a company sells a large block of
stock a week after being informed that the company may have to shut down
in two weeks, its is considered by many "insider trading." It is no
surprise that you consider it a wise move.


There you go again--making up fairy tales about my views. "Considered by
many" is simply another way of saying characterized without much knowledge
or thought.

No. Its a way of saying "honest people would consider this dishonest."
I know that crooks all believe they are innocent even after convicted.
This was a simple case:

Accountant: "Your company is tanking!"
Bush: "Quick, sell my stock!"
Lawyer: "But that could be considered insider trading."
Bush: "Quick, sell my stock, but don't tell the SEC!"

Having dealt with the SEC for years, my experience tells me that
when they drop an investigation without starting an enforcement proceeding
it really means they don't have a case.

Having watched SEC investigations for a number of years its pretty clear
to me that if you're "connected" you don't get prosecuted. All it takes
is a thin veil of deniability to get off the hook. I was witness to a
case where the CEO was investigated for cashing in millions of options
the week before he announced a major delay in the company's primary
product. He swore he didn't know, but that would have meant he was the
last person in the company to find out.







Other stock manipulations,
if they existed, have nothing to do with that issue. Forgiveness of loans to
officers, if they occurred, have nothing to do with that issue. Sales of
stock at less than the market price have nothing to do with that issue.

You're right. Those were different crimes that the SEC did not pursue.





Neither forgiveness of loans to insiders nor sales of stock at less than
market are crimes, Jeff. In fact even if they were civil wrongs they aren't
even civil wrongs the SEC has any authority to pursue.


What's your point?


While market manipulation is a violation, neither forgiveness of loans to
officer nor sale of stock at a discount in a private placement is.

That's odd, on the front page of the Boston Globe Monday was a story
about how the SEC is investigating the timing of stock option grants
relative to good news. And these were long term vesting grants offered
at full value, not 40% discount.

Its true that many of the sleazy manipulations that Bush's company was
involved in were not strictly illegal. What's the point? Are you
claim that morality is the same as legality? Are you claiming that
morality is the same as avoiding conviction?



And
unless the market manipulation can be tied back to specific members of
management it says nothing whatever about the integrity of any member of
management. Manipulation often occurs in a thinly traded stock without the
knowledge or involvement of management. Again, ya gotta gave the facts
before empty-headedly slinging the mud stirred up by folk with an agenda.

blah blah blah. So his defense is that he was too stupid to see what
was going on around him? Are you saying that a bunch of crooks placed
the President's son in this position because they knew he'd never figure
it out?




Your suggestion was that the SEC somehow did Bush an undeserved favor.
That's just plain silly when you're talking about things that (a) aren't a
violation of law, or (b) aren't within the scope of the SEC's power.


Silly isn't the right word, Dave.




Really, Jeff, the securities laws are fairly complicated. You ought not to
get into discussions in an area you know nothing about.

Why? Your only point has been that some of the sleazy practices Bush
engaged in can't be prosecuted under particular laws. Your argument has
been totally irrelevant to my original comment, which is that Bush is
far from being "squeaky clean." In fact, you've demonstrated exactly
the attitude that makes 49% of the country think that Republicans and
lawyers are crooks.


No. My point is, not to put too fine a point on it, that you don't know what
you're talking about in this area, and your rants on the topic have zero
credibility.

I never claimed to know the law. In fact, I never made any claim as to
the legality of the actions or what laws might have been broken. You
tried to re-cast the discussion into a legal argument so you can show
off your modest knowledge in that area.

I never claimed that Bush should or could be prosecuted under any
particular law. On the contrary, you've been claiming that because Bush
hasn't been convicted he must be innocent. While is is legally true, it
is fat from proving he is "squeaky clean." What you've been doing is
the same as the Enron executives who claim they have done nothing illegal.

Anyone who wants to consider the fact and allegations should check out:
http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/bush_harken.html