As evidenced here in this group, liberals remain as dumb as a box
of rocks.

Liberals are still trying to bash President Bush as if Kerry won and we
all know Kerry lost.

Liberals are still bashing America as if America lost and we all know
America hasn't lost.

They are still bashing Halliburton and Vice President Cheney as if
Halliburton and Mr. Cheney lost and we all know both are big
winners.

Liberals are still in the position of what is good for America is bad
for them and what is good for them is bad for America and we all
know it.

There's nothing worse than a bunch of whining, complaining losers
who are too stupid to realize they lost.

CN

Capt. Neal® wrote:

As evidenced here in this group, liberals remain as dumb as a box
of rocks.

Liberals are still trying to bash President Bush as if Kerry won and we
all know Kerry lost.

Liberals are still bashing America as if America lost and we all know
America hasn't lost.

They are still bashing Halliburton and Vice President Cheney as if
Halliburton and Mr. Cheney lost and we all know both are big
winners.

When they start talking Halliburton, they either have an ax to grind, or
they're just too stupid to know any better.

Dick Cheney's probably glad he's had absolutely no financial interest in
the fate of Halliburton for over 4 years. All the information about Cheney
to the contrary is politically motivated jingoism, because the liberal
mouthbreathers fall for it. Cheney gets a standard deferred compensation
from Halliburton, a relative pittance, paid like an annuity. He's paid the
same whether Halliburton goes belly up, or succeeds.

Halliburton's Net Tangible Assets
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=HAL&annual

December 2001: $4,032,000,000
December 2002: $2,835,000,000
December 2003: $1,877,000,000


Bush, Kerry Release Tax Returns
WASHINGTON, April 13, 2004
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in611620.shtml

Mr. Bush reported $822,126 in adjusted gross income for last year, on which
he paid $227,490 in federal income taxes — or about 28 percent, according
to the president's federal returns released Tuesday by the White House.

The president and his wife, Laura, listed as income his presidential
salary, interest and the investment income from trusts that hold their
assets.

[snip]

2003: The Bushes reported donating $68,360 to churches and charitable
organizations.

[snip]

The Bushes' income and tax bill was slightly lower than the previous year,
when the First Couple reported $856,056 in adjusted gross income and paid
$268,719 in federal income taxes. For 2002, the Bushes paid about 31
percent of their income in federal taxes.

The White House also released the 2003 tax return filed by Vice President
Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne. They reported $1.3 million in adjusted
gross income and owed $253,067 in federal taxes. The Cheneys' 2003 tax
bill — much lower than the $341,114 they paid for 2002 on just slightly
less money — represented just 20 percent of their income.

For 2002, the Cheneys paid 29 percent of their adjusted gross income in
federal taxes. Their income includes the vice president's $198,600
government salary and the $178,437 he earned in deferred compensation from
Halliburton Co., the Dallas-based energy services firm he headed until Aug.
16, 2000. Cheney elected in 1998 to recoup over five years a portion of the
money he made in 1999 as chief executive officer of Halliburton.

"The amount of deferred compensation received by the vice president is
fixed and is not affected by Halliburton's current economic performance or
earnings in any way," said a statement released by the vice president's
office — a word-for-word reiteration of the statement he released last
year.

The vice president's office made the statement to explain the deferred
compensation. Cheney's office has repeatedly stated that the vice president
doesn't have a financial stake in the success of Halliburton, nor does he
have anything to do with defense contracts.

The Cheneys' income also includes Mrs. Cheney's income from work at the
American Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank, and
compensation from her service on the Reader's Digest board of directors in
2003.

The White House distributed the Bushes' federal form 1040 for 2003 with
attached schedules two days before the April 15 filing deadline. For
Cheney, only the federal form 1040 was released.

The Bushes reported itemized deductions of $95,043, including $68,360 to
churches and charitable organizations, including Evergreen Chapel at Camp
David, Md., Tarrytown United Methodist Church in Austin, Texas, St. John's
Church in Washington, D.C., the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston,
Texas and the federal government's Combined Federal Campaign.

The Bushes paid $21,352 in state property taxes on their ranch near
Crawford, Texas, up from $19,902 last year.

The Cheneys reported itemized deductions of $454,649. The couple donated
$321,141 to charity in 2003, mostly in royalties from the sales of Mrs.
Cheney's books, "America: A Patriotic Primer," "A is for Abigail" and soon-
to-be-out "Fifty States."

Mr. Bush overpaid his 2003 taxes by $61,451, and elected to apply the
entire amount to their 2004 tax bill.

The Cheneys overpaid their taxes by $5,712 and also directed that amount to
go toward their 2004 taxes.

John Deere wrote:
Dick Cheney's probably glad he's had absolutely no financial interest in
the fate of Halliburton for over 4 years.

That must be why he was censured for conflict of interest.


... All the information about Cheney
to the contrary is politically motivated jingoism

That certainly explains why he was not only censured for conflict of
interest, but by a body with a Republican majority.

Vice President Dick Cheney still has a large ( ~$5 million IIRC,
probably not much to him) stake in Halliburton in the form of stock
options and uncashed bonusses. He has said that he will donate the
entire bundle to charity, but AFAIK has not done so yet.

DSK

DSK wrote:

John Deere wrote:
Dick Cheney's probably glad he's had absolutely no financial interest
in
the fate of Halliburton for over 4 years.

That must be why he was censured for conflict of interest.


... All the information about Cheney
to the contrary is politically motivated jingoism

That certainly explains why he was not only censured for conflict of
interest, but by a body with a Republican majority.

Vice President Dick Cheney still has a large ( ~$5 million IIRC,
probably not much to him) stake in Halliburton in the form of stock
options and uncashed bonusses. He has said that he will donate the
entire bundle to charity, but AFAIK has not done so yet.

DSK

Like I said, only zealots, kooks, and mouthbreathers believe this "Cheney
is a crook" stuff. Cheney and Bush are squeaky clean, and it drives the
left nuts.

John Deere wrote:

Like I said, only zealots, kooks, and mouthbreathers believe this "Cheney
is a crook" stuff. Cheney and Bush are squeaky clean, and it drives the
left nuts.


"Squeaky clean"? Hardly. Bush was never cleared of his insider trading
charges.

Jeff Morris wrote:

John Deere wrote:

Like I said, only zealots, kooks, and mouthbreathers believe
this "Cheney
is a crook" stuff. Cheney and Bush are squeaky clean, and it drives the
left nuts.


"Squeaky clean"? Hardly. Bush was never cleared of his insider trading
charges.

"Not Cleared" is boilerplate SEC language for any investigation that can't
find anything to charge the target with. No legal process ever declares
anyone "innocent." That's for God to decide. Most voters don't realize
that, so that's why the phrase "not cleared" gets repeated over and over
again by Bush-hating crowd.

The Harkin "insider trading" case, aside from the political pressure (on
the SEC) by Texas Democrats to get Bush, was very hard to make, since
Harkin stock sold at double the price just a year after Bush sold it all
(to buy the baseball team.) If Bush had held on to it for just another
year, he would have gotten twice the price. Inside traders usually sell at
the top, and not halfway up. I guess you'd say Bush was just too dumb to do
it right.

Dave wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 21:24:00 -0000 (GMT), "John Deere"

said:

"Not Cleared" is boilerplate SEC language for any investigation that
can't
find anything to charge the target with.

I don't recall ever seeing such language from the SEC, and I do read their
site pretty regularly. If they decide they don't have the goods, they
quietly drop the investigation. Assuming, of course, that the staff has
managed to persuade the Commission to even institute a formal
investigation.
Most often what the popular press calls an "investigation" is a series of
requests for people to talk to them voluntarily.

Dave

SEC's actual language (October 1993):

"must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been
exonerated or that no action may ultimately result"

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 11:45:48 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


Bush was never cleared of his insider trading
charges.


That's not the way the SEC works, Jeff. They don't "clear" anybody of
anything unless they institute a proceeding and actually lose it. If they
don't institute a formal proceeding they simply drop it.

Dave

You're correct from a legal point of view, however, it is clear that he
violated the rules concerning insider trading, and he violated the
regulation required reporting the transaction. The SEC (run by a Bush
Sr appointee, of course) declined to pursue the matter. The SEC General
Council (who would have been in charge of any prosecution) was James
Doty, formerly of the same law firm that represented Bush in the matter,
and in fact had worked for Bush Jr. on other matters.

Some may try to write this off as just an administrative mistake,
forgetting to file some forms, but this was real insider trading - the
same thing people go to jail for. In fact, the company lawyer
specifically advised against it, say that they would be in trouble if
they sold stock after they received this info. Bush apparently figured
that as the son of the president he could get away with anything. And
he was right.

Compare this to the $40 mil spent by the Republicans to uncover nothing
about Whitewater.

John Deere wrote:
Jeff Morris wrote:


John Deere wrote:

Like I said, only zealots, kooks, and mouthbreathers believe

this "Cheney

is a crook" stuff. Cheney and Bush are squeaky clean, and it drives the
left nuts.


"Squeaky clean"? Hardly. Bush was never cleared of his insider trading
charges.


"Not Cleared" is boilerplate SEC language for any investigation that can't
find anything to charge the target with. No legal process ever declares
anyone "innocent." That's for God to decide. Most voters don't realize
that, so that's why the phrase "not cleared" gets repeated over and over
again by Bush-hating crowd.

The Harkin "insider trading" case, aside from the political pressure (on
the SEC) by Texas Democrats to get Bush, was very hard to make, since
Harkin stock sold at double the price just a year after Bush sold it all
(to buy the baseball team.) If Bush had held on to it for just another
year, he would have gotten twice the price. Inside traders usually sell at
the top, and not halfway up. I guess you'd say Bush was just too dumb to do
it right.


You have an odd definition of insider trading. The truth is that on
June 7 1990 Bush was told his company would shut down on July 1 if they
didn't get new funding. On June 15 he was advised that selling stock at
this time would be viewed as insider trading. On June 22 he sold over
$800,000 worth at $4. By the end of the Summer it was down to $3, at
the end of the year it was $1.25.

The fact that a year or so later it was back up is irrelevant. Bush has
to be judged on his knowledge and actions at the time. In reality,
Harlen was up and down a number of times over the years. Just as one
would expect from a company set up for "pump and dump."

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:12:20 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


You're correct from a legal point of view, however, it is clear that he
violated the rules concerning insider trading, and he violated the
regulation required reporting the transaction.


You're hopelessly confused here. Form 4 is filed because of Sections 16(a)
and 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Under those sections, a
company is entitled to, and in fact effectively required to, recover any
profit an officer, director or 10% or more shareholder makes on a purchase
and sale, or sale and purchase, of the company's stock within any six month
period. The recovery is totally unaffected by whether the officer, director
or shareholder had any inside information. Late filing of these forms is so
common, that the SEC has a separate designation for annual reports of a
company where any insider has been late in filing Form 4. I've seen many,
many of these forms filed late, and I've never heard of an insider's getting
so much as a phone call about the late filing. So as to the late form, Bush
was treated just like any other officer, director or 10% shareholder.

As to the insider trading, I just don't know what the evidence was. The
Commission doesn't publish anything when it terminates an investigation
without starting an enforcement proceeding. The mere fact that someone sold,
and adverse information became public at a later date isn't enough to make
out a claim. The Commission would have to show that Bush knew the
information at the time he sold. Having been involved in a few similar
cases, I can tell you that ain't easy in many cases.

James Doty is a widely respected securities lawyer among those who practice
in the area. He'd have been nuts to damage a well-earned reputation by
putting in the "fix." But of course that won't stop the fringe freaks from
making up conspiracy stories.

Dave
You crack me up Dave. You put so much effort into making this sound
respectable, but all you've done is shown why so many lawyers are
considered the scum of the Earth. Are you really trying to claim that
when the president of a company sells a large block of stock a week
after being told that the company may fold in two weeks is not the very
definition of "insider trading"?

OK Dave, how about some more double-talk. That will really convince us.