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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (16528)	7/3/2002 1:43:31 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 21057

See post #16538. Hey, you keep telling how dumb and ignorant he is. Then maybe he DIDN'T understand what was going on!

To: E who wrote (16528)	7/3/2002 1:51:20 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

The law in most states I believe is that Directors are entitled to rely on the advice they receive from competent professionals. I rely to a great extent on my accountant's advice when it comes to tax and reporting matters because it is not my area of expertise. Unless Bush had a reason to doubt the competency of the accounting folks, he did nothing wrong in treating the transaction as he did since the accountants had blessed that treatment. The area of tax and accounting law is arcane at best. The beef on Bush on the sale is not insider trading as I understand it but rather that he failed to make a timely filing of the sale of his shares. This is quite a bit more common than the liberal media would lead one to believe given the complexity of the laws in this area. And reporting violations are quite a different matter from insider trading violations. This whole brouhaha is also over ten years old. Time of the dems to try a different smear. I think this teds to show just how desparate they are to find an issue to beat Bush with...Its really pathetic...