Frist and Insider Trading

[aps]

And the investigation continues

I am loving that Frist is in the hot seat. Look at him defending himself to his fellow repubs. Isn't that cute? When you're innocent, you have nothing to hide......

WASHINGTON IN BRIEF
Wednesday, September 28, 2005; A05
Subpoenas Authorized In Frist Stock-Sale Probe

Securities and Exchange Commission officials have voted to authorize the SEC enforcement staff to send out subpoenas in an investigation of the sale of stock in the HCA Inc. hospital chain by a blind trust held for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and his family, a few weeks before the share price fell 9 percent in one day.

An SEC spokesman declined to comment on the investigation. The vote, by two Republican and two Democratic commissioners, makes the probe a formal one and gives the staff the power to subpoena telephone records and other materials.

Through spokesmen, Frist and Nashville-based HCA, which was founded by the senator's father and brother, have said they are cooperating with investigators. The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York is also investigating.

The Senate's 54 other Republicans rallied to the majority leader's defense yesterday, applauding him after he used a private luncheon in the Capitol to explain his role in the stock sale.

"He basically walked through everything that he went through" in selling the stock, Sen. John Ensign (Nev.) told reporters. "And based on what he told us in there, he did everything by the book. There's no chance for anybody if he did anything wrong."

George V. Voinovich (Ohio), chairman of the Senate ethics committee, told reporters: "I don't think this is an ethics question . . . It's an SEC question."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/27/AR2005092701981.html

 

[Stinger]

Re: And the investigation continues

I am loving that Frist is in the hot seat. Look at him defending himself to his fellow repubs. Isn't that cute? When you're innocent, you have nothing to hide......

What's he hiding, everything about it is public. And the investigation into such a sale is typical. What is it you are trying to claim Frist did and what evidence leads you to that assertion?

 

[aps]

Re: And the investigation continues

What's he hiding, everything about it is public. And the investigation into such a sale is typical. What is it you are trying to claim Frist did and what evidence leads you to that assertion?

He may be hiding that he spoke to someone with "inside" information on the upcoming negative announcement.

I am claiming he may have done some insider trading.

Hey, if I am wrong, I'm wrong. But if I am right, he can kiss his bid for the presidency good-bye.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

So every congress person should have sold any and all health care related stocks so that none of them would have a conflict of interest?

How about the highway bill? Should every member of congress have sold any and all highway construction related stocks they may have owned.

How about the energy bill? Should every member of congress have sold any and all energy stocks they may or have owned?

Any banking bills up for a vote? How about those stocks?

Are you capable of reason and common sense?

Bill Frist did not own a small amount of stock. He owned literally millions of dollars worth of HCA stock. If you own millions of dollars worth of stock in a company that stands to benefit financially from legislation that is before the congress then you have a conflict of interest. If you are the majority leader, then you have a huge conflict of interest.

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
So every congress person should have sold any and all health care related stocks so that none of them would have a conflict of interest?

How about the highway bill? Should every member of congress have sold any and all highway construction related stocks they may have owned.

How about the energy bill? Should every member of congress have sold any and all energy stocks they may or have owned?

Any banking bills up for a vote? How about those stocks?

Are you capable of reason and common sense?

Yes I'm trying to see if you are. I see yo dodged the question.

Bill Frist did not own a small amount of stock. He owned literally millions of dollars worth of HCA stock. If you own millions of dollars worth of stock in a company that stands to benefit financially from legislation that is before the congress then you have a conflict of interest. If you are the majority leader, then you have a huge conflict of interest.

Same would apply to committee chairmen and anyone in congress voting on these issues. How about Reid and Pelosi have they sold all their stocks and bonds, what about their conflicts? So what is the dollar amount that this requirement kicks in and where is this rule/law written so I can read it and does it apply to all of the above.

 

[Stinger]

Re: And the investigation continues

He may be hiding that he spoke to someone with "inside" information on the upcoming negative announcement.

I am claiming he may have done some insider trading.

Hey, if I am wrong, I'm wrong. But if I am right, he can kiss his bid for the presidency good-bye.

From what I heard on the news yesterday he actual began the process of selling his shares back in the spring long before the announcement. It was also public knowledge that 1. The stock was hitting historical highs and 2. Many insiders were selling off the stock. But even at that long term the anyalist say it's a hold at least indicating to me that it might be a good time to buy it right now after the minor price adjustment it just had, go look at the chart.

Seems to me the sharks are trying to feed on this one.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Re: And the investigation continues

From what I heard on the news yesterday he actual began the process of selling his shares back in the spring long before the announcement. It was also public knowledge that 1. The stock was hitting historical highs and 2. Many insiders were selling off the stock. But even at that long term the anyalist say it's a hold at least indicating to me that it might be a good time to buy it right now after the minor price adjustment it just had, go look at the chart.

Seems to me the sharks are trying to feed on this one.

Did they not just bump this up to a formal investigation? These are Republicans who are investigating him you know. Oh how money and corruption so often go hand in hand.

 

[gordontravels]

I read the New York Times and the Washington Post which is quoted extensively by some here. These are not friendly to Republicans; any Republicans and I have often found more agenda driven opinion in what they call reporting, even if that comes down to simply leaving part of the story out if it doesn't fit that agenda. Last year a memo surfaced from the New York Times that specifically stated to it's editors that if it was good for the Bush Administration maybe they should look farther instead of simply reporting it. That told me a lot.

I also read Media Matters which is as far left a site as you can find on the web when it comes to their take on the news.

I also read the Media Research Center and NewsMax which is as far right as far as sites you can find on the web when it comes to their take on the news.

My point? I have two:

First - if you read something you are happy with and agree with that point of view, you are purely partisan and fair means nothing to you. That goes for Republican/Democrat or liberal/conservative. You limit your knowledge even if you come to the same conclusion and opinion. The only way to get the entire story is to read both sides and realize they both are as slanted as we have allowed our media to get. It's our fault for supporting them in the first place, your fault and mine.

Second - I don't care whether it's a Republican, Democrat or my neighbor who is accused of a crime. They are innocent until proven guilty unless I saw them do it. It is shameful for any of you or me or your pet politicians to declare anyone guilty before trial when our country is based upon the principles of law. Those who don't understand that are less than good citizens. Where do you fall in that statement?

Partisan politics feed the media and they feed it right back to us. Hungry? :duel

 

[aps]

I read the New York Times and the Washington Post which is quoted extensively by some here. These are not friendly to Republicans; any Republicans and I have often found more agenda driven opinion in what they call reporting, even if that comes down to simply leaving part of the story out if it doesn't fit that agenda. Last year a memo surfaced from the New York Times that specifically stated to it's editors that if it was good for the Bush Administration maybe they should look farther instead of simply reporting it. That told me a lot.

I also read Media Matters which is as far left a site as you can find on the web when it comes to their take on the news.

I also read the Media Research Center and NewsMax which is as far right as far as sites you can find on the web when it comes to their take on the news.

My point? I have two:

First - if you read something you are happy with and agree with that point of view, you are purely partisan and fair means nothing to you. That goes for Republican/Democrat or liberal/conservative. You limit your knowledge even if you come to the same conclusion and opinion. The only way to get the entire story is to read both sides and realize they both are as slanted as we have allowed our media to get. It's our fault for supporting them in the first place, your fault and mine.

Second - I don't care whether it's a Republican, Democrat or my neighbor who is accused of a crime. They are innocent until proven guilty unless I saw them do it. It is shameful for any of you or me or your pet politicians to declare anyone guilty before trial when our country is based upon the principles of law. Those who don't understand that are less than good citizens. Where do you fall in that statement?

Partisan politics feed the media and they feed it right back to us. Hungry? :duel

GT, I read an article in the New York Times today that laid out the facts pretty well in Frist's stock selling and what the SEC would need to prove in order to find that he was guilty of insider trading, which it found doubtful. I didn't see much partisan reporting here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/business/29place.html

Where is this memo to which you refer? The editorials in the NYT are definitely anti-Bush, but I find the articles to be pretty objective, in my opinion.

I agree with your first point. As to your second point, why the lecture?

 

[gordontravels]

GT, I read an article in the New York Times today that laid out the facts pretty well in Frist's stock selling and what the SEC would need to prove in order to find that he was guilty of insider trading, which it found doubtful. I didn't see much partisan reporting here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/business/29place.html

Where is this memo to which you refer? The editorials in the NYT are definitely anti-Bush, but I find the articles to be pretty objective, in my opinion.

I agree with your first point. As to your second point, why the lecture?

Yes, even if you read the New York Times regularly you will note the bias. A perceived liberal woman writes a derogatory book on the Bush Family and it gets front page articles before it comes out; front page articles when it comes out and a glowing review in the book section the week it comes out. It is number one for 3 weeks.

A books come out (four books) come out by a perceived conservative (O'Reilly) and there isn't a mention in the times. One never gets a review even though it is in the Number One position on the New York Times Bestseller List for over 6 months. Not even a review. Oh there are articles buried in the paper on other pages but no where near the front page. Don't you wonder why?

Every now and then the New York Times does print the actual news with little or even possibly rarely no slant. It's like how many conservatives are labeled conservatives while liberals are just called by name. Again, if you like the New York Times you should subscribe to the Times Tracker at tracker@mail.timeswatch.org. This is a good place to get a conservative look at what the Times reports. More information helps when you only read the publication.

Many of the articles are as your opinion notes, fair. Many of the articles aren't. As for the memo go to the Wall Street Journal and do a simple search under New York Times Memo back about 18 months and you will find it. You can also do that on the MRC. I don't stockpile. In fact, find any conservative publication and you will probably find a link. It's good practice and I'm surprised that if you have strong opinions of the New York Times you didn't get this information when it happened. No offense, we all miss things sometimes.

As to your take on my "lecture"? It isn't lecture unless you need it. It is opinion as is yours based on what I read other posters writing here; saliva dripping for the next Democrat or Republican to find themselves under investigation or indictment. Clintons guilty; Bush is a liar; Tom Delay conspired; Frist didn't make a legal decision; Harry shouldn't have dropped the bomb. My point was that in this context, if I didn't see them do it I am not going to take a partisan stance. I'm going to allow the investigation or court action (if it happens) to go forth to a conslusion.

Republicans and Democrats. Conservatives and Republicans. I like to try the non-partisan approach so I can vote the person, issue or take solace in the fact that we have systems and they should work. I figure someone will notice if they don't. Maybe I will. Maybe you. :duel

 

[Stu Ghatze]

We have our majority leader in the House with all sorts of ethics violations, so I guess it should not come as a surprise that our majority leader in the Senate could possibly be unethical as well.

Frist was told way back then that his ownership in these stocks was a conflict of interest. He became majority leader in 2002. There were allegations that he felt that as majority leader, he thought he should have sold those shares. So why did he wait until 2005? What facts changed since either 1995 or 2002 that made him decide that there might be a conflict of interest? As pointed out in the article, Frist's spokeswoman's statements were very carefully worded. It seems highly suspicious to me. Anyway, we shall see what happens.

The article points out that even if he is exonerated, it will not be good for him in his possible run for president. Awww, isn't that too bad?

SEC, Justice Investigate Frist's Sale of Stock

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 24, 2005; Page A01

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is facing questions from the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission about his sale of stock in his family's hospital company one month before its price fell sharply.

The Tennessee lawmaker, who is the Senate's top Republican and a likely candidate for president in 2008, ordered his portfolio managers in June to sell his family's shares in HCA Inc., the nation's largest hospital chain, which was founded by Frist's father and brother.

A month later, the stock's price dropped 9 percent in a single day because of a warning from the company about weakening earnings. Stockholders are not permitted to trade stock based on inside information; whether Frist possessed any appears to be at the heart of the probes.

A spokesman said Frist's office has been contacted by both the SEC and the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan about his divestiture of the stock. HCA disclosed separately that it was subpoenaed by the same U.S. attorney's office for documents that were related to Frist's sale. Frist and HCA said they are cooperating.

Historians said they cannot recall any other congressional leaders who have faced federal inquiries into stock sales. Frist has denied any wrongdoing.

On Thursday, a Frist spokeswoman said the senator had not discussed the stock sale in advance with any HCA executives. On Friday, in a statement from Frist's office, the issue was couched a little differently. It said the senator "had no information about the company or its performance that was not available to the public when he directed the trustees to sell the HCA stock. His only objective in selling the stock was to eliminate the appearance of a conflict of interest."

According to Frist's office, the senator decided to sell all his HCA stock -- held in blind trusts managed by two companies for him, his wife and his children -- on June 13. Under the rules of the trusteeships, Frist had no control over the timing of the sale, Frist spokeswoman Amy Call said.

When the company disclosed that its second-quarter earnings would fall short of Wall Street expectations a month later, the stock price slid steeply. By that time, Frist's shares had been divested. The managers of one of the trusts told the senator on July 1 that his holdings had all been sold; the other trust managers said the shares were gone on July 8.

Frist's financial disclosure statement earlier this year placed the value of his blind trusts at between $7 million and $25 million.

Separately, documents unearthed yesterday by the Associated Press showed that Frist was told about stock trades in his blind trust. In documents filed with the Senate, trustee M. Kirk Scobey Jr. told Frist in 2002 that HCA stock had been transferred to his trust. Scobey, reached by phone last night, declined to comment.

The AP said that the documents disclosed that HCA stock worth hundreds of thousands of dollars was placed into Frist's blind trusts several other times in 2002 as well. Frist maintained in a television interview in 2003 that he did not know how much HCA stock he owned, if any. Spokesmen for Frist did not return phone messages last night.

HCA was founded in 1968 by Frist's father, Thomas Frist, his brother, Thomas Frist Jr., and Jack Massey, the former owner of Kentucky Fried Chicken. Frist's brother Thomas is a director and a former HCA chairman. The senator himself is a surgeon.

Democrats were quick to pounce on Frist's problem. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged the agencies involved to "fully and vigorously investigate Frist's suspicious stock trade." He added: "Republicans in Washington have made their culture of corruption the norm."

"Bill Frist has this all upside down," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the House Democrats' campaign committee. "He thought Terri Schiavo could see and his trust was blind."

Watchdog groups also lashed the lawmaker. Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said she intends to petition the Senate Select Committee on Ethics to look into Frist's actions and determine whether he ran afoul of ethics rules involving blind trusts. A spokesman for the committee said the panel does not disclose whether it is investigating a senator.

In addition, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights urged congressional leaders to appoint an independent observer "to ensure a thorough, transparent investigation."

Analysts said that Frist's White House hopes might be harmed by the probe and that Republicans in general might be penalized politically. Because few voters know Frist well, learning about him through an investigation "would not be a good way to be introduced to the American public," said Stuart Rothenberg of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report.

In addition, Rothenberg said the Republicans that Frist leads could also be tarnished. The probe "adds to the general Democratic ammunition," Rothenberg said.

"I do think this hurts his future ambitions, even if he's exonerated," agreed Jennifer E. Duffy of the Cook Political Report.

Congressional critics questioned the reason Frist gave for selling the stock. Senate rules allow lawmakers to divest all of their shares in a company from a blind trust, but only if they assume new duties and find that their ownership presents the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Frist has held HCA shares in a blind trust since he came to the Senate in 1995. He was promoted to majority leader in 2002. Frist regularly deflected concerns about owning the shares while leading health care debates by saying he kept them in a blind trust.

"I don't know what new duties he would point to above and beyond becoming majority leader, and that was three years ago," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, an ethics advocate.

Call, Frist's spokeswoman, said the stock sale was motivated solely by the senator's desire to avoid an appearance of conflict, but she could not cite any published criticism of his HCA holdings after April 2004.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/23/AR2 005092301811.html

Yea, ...sing us all a song. There are more phoney dem hacks working as prosecuting attorney's at the behest of the democratic party whos SOLE ambition is to DESTROY the power base of the republican party to help enhance the resumes' of the democratic party hopefuls BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS CANNOT EVER GET IT THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS, because the majority does not want the democrats!

You talk of ethics....GEEZUS, the democrats are the most notorious at having a lack of ethics.

The democratic party cannot ever win UNLESS there is some scandal INVENTED, or focused upon by the ever so helpful & convenient democratic party hacks that are well placed!

The whole Kennedy family fortune came by way of Joseph P. senior's affiliation with the EARLY La Casa Nostra, & INSIDER trading; except for the good forrtune of Joseph P. there were not any laws against insider trading back then, of course Daddy Kennedy did not ever have any morals himself to pass on to his boys.:2wave:

 

[gordontravels]

Anyone can find corruption in both the Republican and Democrat Parties. I mean, aren't any of you concerned with the billions of dollars going to Louisiana or don't you at least watch movies from time to time.

Money from the Corp of Engineers, over 2 million, went to build a fountain in a town square in New Orleans. Who authorized that or should we blame the President for not stopping by once a week to see if the Democrats running the show were doing right? What about the Democrats that were running the show. Shouldn't they be trusted or at the least, held accountable for OUR money? What would 2+ million do for a levee in New Orleans? Not much? Or is something better than nothing - or just build a fountain and feel good?

When anyone here or anywhere says how bad, corrupt or stupid the Democrats or Republicans are I just laugh and say yep - the Republicans and Democrats. :duel

 

[Stinger]

Re: And the investigation continues

Did they not just bump this up to a formal investigation? These are Republicans who are investigating him you know. Oh how money and corruption so often go hand in hand.

With the publicity I'm not surprised. But can you point to anything that even hints of something ontoward? And can you deny the fact that if he still held the stock he would still be being hounded by calls of conflict of interest for holding it? So what's he suppose to do? Is he required to lose money in order to shut people up?

 

[aps]

Re: And the investigation continues

With the publicity I'm not surprised. But can you point to anything that even hints of something ontoward? And can you deny the fact that if he still held the stock he would still be being hounded by calls of conflict of interest for holding it? So what's he suppose to do? Is he required to lose money in order to shut people up?

When was the last time he had been told it was a conflict of interest. I find it suspect that he would wait until 3 years after he became Majority Leader to sell. Also, a bunch of executives sold their stock at the same time. Hmmmmmm

 

[gordontravels]

Re: And the investigation continues

When was the last time he had been told it was a conflict of interest. I find it suspect that he would wait until 3 years after he became Majority Leader to sell. Also, a bunch of executives sold their stock at the same time. Hmmmmmm

His stock may be in a blind trust but he knows exactly how many shares he has because he bought them. His stock ownership is a matter of public record so tell me where he used his "conflict of interest" that surely a Hillary, Teddy or John K. would have howled about.

Then he sells his stock and you Hmmmmm over a "bunch of executives" from the company selling theirs? That is probably why he sold his. When company insiders sell their stock it is reported immediately and publically. You can pick up the Wall Street Journal or turn on CNBC or Bloomberg and they will tell you. If you own the stock - SELL SELL SELL. This is the way it works legally. Frist is being painted but, water will clean it all off so not to worry. I think Bill Frist is an honorable man and a caring doctor. It's good he knew executives were selling; shows how smart he is. I'm not saying I'm smart but... I've sold for the same reason in the past. Please, don't turn me in lol. :duel

 

[aps]

Then he sells his stock and you Hmmmmm over a "bunch of executives" from the company selling theirs?

That's right. I am hmmmmmmm-ing. Is that okay with you?

 

[gordontravels]

Then he sells his stock and you Hmmmmm over a "bunch of executives" from the company selling theirs?

That's right. I am hmmmmmmm-ing. Is that okay with you?

Of course it's ok but..... I would prefer you did it in tune. Understanding that company insiders selling their stock AND a stock holder knowing they did AND because that stock holder knows they did AND that stock holder sells his stock..... it is perfectly legal.

While you are relaxing and hmmmmm-ing, maybe you would consider that all Democrats and Republicans that come under investigation, whether seemingly warranted or simply from a political outcry - doesn't mean they have done anything wrong. I think the most important thing whether it be Bill Frist, Mayor Nagin, FEMA, Karl Rove, Governor Blanco or any poor soul who stands on the edge of giving up their lifelong reputation simply because they chose to enter politics and avail someone else the opportunity to smear them.....

Lets see the investigation through for all Democrats and Republicans just as if it were you or me hoping that justice would be done and we could clear our good - what might be left of it - name.

Remember what happened to Trent Lott when he praised Strom Thurmond saying this country would have been better off if he had won in 1948? Trent paid the price for being nice to a 100 year old man at his birthday party. The media calls it a "firestorm" and the media has the matches.

Robert Byrd said, when he was the Grand Cyclops and known for being able to sign up new members, that the Ku Klux Klan was a "fraternal organization" populated by "quality people" and have you heard it reported?

What's fair is fair unless it's unfair and then it's only unfair if those being treated unfairly don't have a fair hearing. Trouble is they get smeared on page one and then the surly retraction comes in section c, page 26 next to the SUV ads.

Sorry, someone is going to call me cynical because I smell a conspiracy but what if it was you or me instead of them? Wouldn't you want justice if only for yourself? :duel

 

[Stinger]

Re: And the investigation continues

When was the last time he had been told it was a conflict of interest. I find it suspect that he would wait until 3 years after he became Majority Leader to sell.

He is about to announce that he is running for President.

Also, a bunch of executives sold their stock at the same time. Hmmmmmm

Which was public knowledge.

 

[aps]

While you are relaxing and hmmmmm-ing, maybe you would consider that all Democrats and Republicans that come under investigation, whether seemingly warranted or simply from a political outcry - doesn't mean they have done anything wrong.

Gordon, to me, "hmmmmmmm" means that I am wondering if there is anything wrong here--it does not mean I have found him guilty. I may say things like I hope that Frist is guilty, but I know that I cannot say he is. Why are you getting bent out of shape? You think he's a good person--I do not. And it's okay if we have differing opinions.

Yeah, Stinger, so what that he's thinking about putting in a bid for president? Have you read up on the laws regarding conflicts of interest? Because that law applies to members of Congress and the President equally. So suddenly he thinks that he should be held to a higher standard? And in 2005? The election isn't for 3 years.

I am not saying he is guilty--I am merely saying I think there are issues raised by the timing of his selling his stock. That's all.

If you two were so confident that he is innocent, my accusations and questioning of motives wouldn't be bothering you so much. That's my take.

 

[Stinger]

While you are relaxing and hmmmmm-ing, maybe you would consider that all Democrats and Republicans that come under investigation, whether seemingly warranted or simply from a political outcry - doesn't mean they have done anything wrong.

Gordon, to me, "hmmmmmmm" means that I am wondering if there is anything wrong here--it does not mean I have found him guilty. I may say things like I hope that Frist is guilty, but I know that I cannot say he is. Why are you getting bent out of shape? You think he's a good person--I do not. And it's okay if we have differing opinions.

Yeah, Stinger, so what that he's thinking about putting in a bid for president? Have you read up on the laws regarding conflicts of interest? Because that law applies to members of Congress and the President equally. So suddenly he thinks that he should be held to a higher standard? And in 2005? The election isn't for 3 years.

What law concerning conflict of interest was he breaking? None. There was bogus ruckus being raised because he own some stock, I don't see all the rest of congress having to sell all their holdings, now that he has decided to run for President I guess he decided to nip it in the bud because surely the Democrats would try to make a phoney issue of it. And I bet you would be one of the people here harping on it.

The camaigning begins after the new year, why not sell now?

I am not saying he is guilty--I am merely saying I think there are issues raised by the timing of his selling his stock. That's all.

Well let's see what those issues are.
He has been harped on to sell them anyway.
It's at historical highs.
Insiders are selling taking some profits.
The anyalist lean towards hold or mild buy probably a long term hold, but in light of the above.

Why NOT sell it now?

If you two were so confident that he is innocent, my accusations and questioning of motives wouldn't be bothering you so much. That's my take.

What makes you think I am "bothered" by anything you have said? Perhaps I am curious as to why you are so confident he is guilty of something even though there is no evidence of any such thing.

 

[Stinger]

>>
Of course it's ok but..... I would prefer you did it in tune. Understanding that company insiders selling their stock AND a stock holder knowing they did AND because that stock holder knows they did AND that stock holder sells his stock..... it is perfectly legal.

They demand he sell and then when he does they come up with such misinformed conspiricy's. Amazing isn't it.

 

[gordontravels]

While you are relaxing and hmmmmm-ing, maybe you would consider that all Democrats and Republicans that come under investigation, whether seemingly warranted or simply from a political outcry - doesn't mean they have done anything wrong.

Gordon, to me, "hmmmmmmm" means that I am wondering if there is anything wrong here--it does not mean I have found him guilty. I may say things like I hope that Frist is guilty, but I know that I cannot say he is. Why are you getting bent out of shape? You think he's a good person--I do not. And it's okay if we have differing opinions.

Yeah, Stinger, so what that he's thinking about putting in a bid for president? Have you read up on the laws regarding conflicts of interest? Because that law applies to members of Congress and the President equally. So suddenly he thinks that he should be held to a higher standard? And in 2005? The election isn't for 3 years.

I am not saying he is guilty--I am merely saying I think there are issues raised by the timing of his selling his stock. That's all.

If you two were so confident that he is innocent, my accusations and questioning of motives wouldn't be bothering you so much. That's my take.

Then I think it's sad that you would put yourself above the very legal principles that separate our country from the rabble of the world but expect someone else to be held accountable or dismissed by them. My reference to sad is the depth of your partisanship and that's why I say the two party system is abusive to our freedoms, rights and getting the work of our country done.

I can't grasp the concept of "hoping someone is guilty" without thinking of what I would have to compromise with my own humanity. I don't care whether someone is a Republican or Democrat. To want someone to be guilty? How distorted is that outlook. Hope you are never accused although it might be the best lesson for you. :duel

 

[aps]

What makes you think I am "bothered" by anything you have said? Perhaps I am curious as to why you are so confident he is guilty of something even though there is no evidence of any such thing.

This is what I said: I am not saying he is guilty--I am merely saying I think there are issues raised by the timing of his selling his stock. That's all.

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

 

[gordontravels]

This is what I said: I am not saying he is guilty--I am merely saying I think there are issues raised by the timing of his selling his stock. That's all.

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

I surely don't have a reading nor a comprehension problem and here's what you said:

QUOTE: Gordon, to me, "hmmmmmmm" means that I am wondering if there is anything wrong here--it does not mean I have found him guilty. I may say things like I hope that Frist is guilty, but I know that I cannot say he is. END QUOTE

Yes, you may say things like you "hope Frist is guilty" which is so far from the concept of law in this country that I hardly know what to say. Even a prosecutor is supposed to actually not only believe in the guilt of the accused but have evidence to back it up. This is the premis of an investigation. If there is evidence that will pursuade a judge or grand jury to charge then there will be an indictment.

You're not wondering, I comprehend that. You're a partisan hoping for the worst for another man you dislike. That speaks volumns of why you take the positions you do. If nothing more it tells me where your arguments come from and when I read your words I comprehend partisan prejudice and nothing more. Sad. :duel

 

[gordontravels]

From the Washington Post, October 1, 2005:

QUOTE: Private e-mail between Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and his advisers reflects that Frist began discussing the sale of his HCA Inc. stock in April, months before it became clear that the hospital firm's shares would decline in value, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post. END QUOTE

This is what an investigation is for. :duel