Post #225,918
9/22/05 8:29:33 AM
|
Re: No proof
All circumstantial Come on Beep, this is circumstantial in the same way that seeing somebody run out of a room with a gun just after hearing a gun shot is circumstantial. There may not be enough evidence to convict, and there is a small chance that there is something else going on that we don't know about. But it isn't likely. The way it reads, he made a smart investment decision. Didn't know what he had or how much...but knew he had some...and it had reached an all time high. Any investor would sell. It may have reached an all time high but it wasn't that much above what it had been trading at recently. And this was his families buisness, stock it seem he would be unlikely to sell unless he had a good reason to. Jay
|
Post #225,924
9/22/05 9:53:23 AM
|
Methinks you are missing the point
Without any proof that information was shared, the decision he made to ask the trustee to sell (which, by the way, it took over 3 weeks to actually implement) can easily be explained as the man making a decent investment decision, all by himself.
If anybody is going to know what a good value for the stock is at any point in time, it is going to be Frist and other family members involved in the business. His brother, by SEC rule, cannot trade the stock 30 days before or after a financial reporting date because he is actively working within the org.
The Sen actually gave notice to sell on the day before that requirement...actually meeting the rules of the SEC for an insider.
The only way they can convict him of insider trading is to have a recorded conversation with his brother saying "our finances suck and we're going to miss"...and even that may be hard to do if they have scheduled investor calls (many companies do) where they hinted at missing or having difficulty meeting targets.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #225,939
9/22/05 10:48:41 AM
|
And I think you are missing the point also
The only way they can convict him of insider trading is to have a recorded conversation with his brother saying "our finances suck and we're going to miss"...and even that may be hard to do if they have scheduled investor calls (many companies do) where they hinted at missing or having difficulty meeting targets. I don't doubt that a conviction is unlikely. But being convicted in court is not the same thing as being guilty, which is not the same thing as being morally wrong. Also, keep in mind that Frist is not taking the "it was at a high point" defense, because that would violate his blind trust. His defense is that he got rid of the stock to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, despite having gone to some length over the years to keep the stock. Jay
|
Post #225,950
9/22/05 11:36:03 AM
|
But we started this with
a "send him to Martha's West VIrginia Getaway" comment (she called it Yale, as opposed to jail according to her Letterman appearance).
Thats what I thought funny.
We have an "appearance of impropriety" that is difficult or near impossible to prove and we start with "throw him in jail".
After all, he's a republican.
"You guys are funny".
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #225,958
9/22/05 12:29:31 PM
|
I say, that was a joke, son
Definitely merits insider trading investigation - looks fishy and he's being evasive/lying about his reasons.
Last celeb convicted of lying on insider trading suspicion was you know who.
If in fact he did issue the sell order within the trading window, he's golden. If not, he's toast. Its that simple (or so I've been told - I'm subject to insider trading restrictions at my employer because I have access to lots of interesting numbers).
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #225,971
9/22/05 3:03:48 PM
|
Depends on his access..
and the date of the order. It must be proven that he told them when the story says he did. The actual trade by the trustee was made well inside the blackout period...big no no...and it made this stink very badly, I agree.
And I can't remember specifically...thought Martha ended up convicted in the trial...but not on the insider trading charge. I suppose I could look it up...but its not that big a deal.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #225,975
9/22/05 3:13:54 PM
|
Linky on Martha in #225806. ;-)
|
Post #225,976
9/22/05 3:15:37 PM
|
Thanks. Thats what I thought
Got the broker..couldn't prove it on her.
Its really not an easy law to enforce.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #226,002
9/22/05 5:55:55 PM
|
I seemed to recall her jail time was from lying to the Feds
|
Post #226,008
9/22/05 6:24:58 PM
|
Or...
...like having a stain on an intern's dress is circumstantial?
jb4
shrub●bish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #226,012
9/22/05 6:54:59 PM
|
Depends
DNA could have been checked.
Perjury and obstruction are not, however, circumstantial.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #226,173
9/23/05 1:50:33 PM
|
Perjury...like:
"There are Weapons of Mass Destruction in Baghdad", or perhaps, "The aluminum tubes have only one purpose: To enrich Uranium to make Weapons of Mass Destruction"?
Naw...that couldn't possibly be perjury....
jb4
shrub●bish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #226,185
9/23/05 2:18:33 PM
|
no. like I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth..and then >not<.
Different class of lying all together.
Not to mention obstruction. Amazing how boxes and boxes of records stay lost for months...only to miraculously end up in the White House...or parked in an abandoned car at a garage.
Current admin is not angelic by any standard...but the things you mentioned weren't done under oath.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #226,189
9/23/05 2:28:41 PM
|
How about
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Can you say Patriot Act?
|
Post #226,195
9/23/05 2:46:22 PM
|
I can say Congress, too.
Complicit.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #226,196
9/23/05 2:50:30 PM
|
Yup.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #226,204
9/23/05 3:10:26 PM
|
So?
He pushed the bill making it political suicide not to pass it. He signed it. Besides, are congress critters sworn to do anything but collect lobbyist donations? If they are guilty of the same, I'm for jailing the entire House and Senate. No problem there...
|
Post #226,205
9/23/05 3:19:11 PM
|
I'd gladly replace most-all with a class of Jesuit undergrad
students; too inexperienced to yet have the dogma fully-set into concretized jelloware - and at very least: able to Debate, in grammatical sentences with subjects and predicates.
(And some.. may even be fully-checked-out in Listening. First.. Bonus, that.)
|
Post #226,212
9/23/05 3:40:48 PM
|
Mega-dittoes ;-)
Line them all up and start shooting.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
