Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (134048)	3/4/2001 6:38:35 PM
From: milo_morai	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570744

March 4, 2001 AMD Says NEC Will Use Its Chips In PCs Sold in European Market By Molly Williams Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal Advanced Micro Devices Inc. announced its first big win with a top PC maker to include its chips in personal computers targeting the European corporate market. ...... public.wsj.com

To: tejek who wrote (134048)	3/4/2001 8:03:49 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570744

Ted, It was only $800,000. I forget to report things under a million all the time. No big deal. Quit nit-picking. This is nothing serious like a welfare cheat using food stamps for beer. Scumbria

To: tejek who wrote (134048)	3/5/2001 1:23:46 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570744

Ted Re...I am not going to bother to reply to your latest post<<<<<<<< Of course you aren't. The GW charges pale in comparison to Whitewater. It's like comparing a speeding ticket to a DWI. In the first place, in order for their to ba a violation of reg. 10b of the Securites Exchange ACt there has to be an intent to deceive. http://www.srz.com/pub/congress.html The Eighth Circuit ruled, however, that the misappropriation theory was not viable under the law because there was no " deception in connection with the purchase or sale of any security" -- a required element of violations in Section 10(b) ó but only a breach of duty to the law firm and its client. The court held that "only a breach of a duty to parties to the securities transactions or, at the most, to other market participants such as investors," gives rise to Section 10(b) liability. This is the decision the Supreme Court is reviewing.<<<<<<<<<< This is the problem with accusing Gw of insider trading. It is not illegal to trade shares of your company as long as it isn't done to deceive. Where is your proof that there was a deception. GW did report the securities sales but not on time. The SEC checked to see if they had a case, and they decided they couldn't prove that a crime was committed because they couldnt prove GW intentionally deceived the SEC by not filing on time. Of the thousands of insider trading violations,which would fit a loosely defined insider trading charge, only 49 charges were actually charged in the US last yr. In GW case; it could simply be an excuse because they didn't want to charge the son of the vice president; but just as likely, the offense doesn't even come close to being in the top 1000, much less one of the top 50 offenses of insider trading. If you have proof that GW offense was in the top 50 for 1991, and should have been prosecuted; provide a link. Whitewater, on the hand was proven to be a scam. 9 men went to jail because of the scam. The question isn't whether a crime was committed, but rather was Bill involved. Bill was marginally involved because he was a silent investor, but that itself isn't a crime. Hillary was involved because she was the lawyer who drew up the papers to scam the people of Ark. out of $300.000. Outside of that though was the fact that Bill as govenor had a moral duty to protect the money of the people he represented. He had a moral duty to tell Hillary and the McDougals not to apply for a guaranteed loan from the state because he was gov. He may not have been legally bound, but he did have a moral duty not to involve the funds of the State of Ark. in his scam. Therein lies the difference. Nobody can say with any certainty that GW selling his shares cost any investor $1, because the US didn't know up until after Saddam invaded that Saddam actually intended to invade. On the other hand the people of Ark. lost $300,000 because Bill failed to protect them from a scam he knew about. Am I saying GW is a saint. No, because almost all politicians are crooks. GW is just as likely as Bill to be a crook. There are 20,000 anti GW sites on the internet. I am sure one of them will contain some juicy information which will justify your vendetta against Gw. Then, when you come up with proof of an actual despicable act done by Gw, we can all join you in expressing our outrage. Bawling about the FL election, when subsequent recounts show GW really did win FL. don't cut it. Whining about insider trading when nobody can say that that trade meet the definition of "intentionally deceiving " the public doesn't cut it. A DUI 25 yrs ago doesn't cut it. Claiming GW is stupid when GW was smart enough to kick Al's ass in the debates doesn't cut it. How about letting us know about his dastardly acts he committed since he was president or at least gov. We want some juice on the real stuff. Why not justify your vendetta so your vendetta has meaning.