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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (271388)	7/8/2002 3:17:47 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

well all I can say, bill gates is in real trouble. billy has been selling millions of shares of msft for billions of bucks and the price of msft keeps going down. well, billy has none of my money... I figure billy has billions of john q publics bucks from insider selling of msft stock. billy last transaction was enough to buy all of President Bushes harken stock a 100 times over. $99,000,000 his june sales total. 1/2 BILLION with a B bucks. I know with metaphysical certainty that all the above is true.

To: jlallen who wrote (271388)	7/8/2002 4:12:34 PM
From: ThirdEye	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

What I accept as a metaphysical certainty is that the system works on family connections, information passed around to insiders either in the board room, the bedroom or the dining room, the cocktail party or the golf course. In that context, it may be accurate to say that Bush did not participate directly in a scheme that was of questionable legality(and by the way, Andersen was Harken's auditor) and we may not be able to say he directly intended to defraud investors any more than we can say Enron executives "intended" to defraud investors. But that was the effect of their actions. In Bush's case, we may be able to establish with metaphysical certainty that he directly and knowingly benefited from someone else's fraudulent adventure in creative accounting by the timing of his stock sale. Those who suggest that Bush knew nothing and wish to rest on the technicality of the law should recall that Bill Clinton told us with a straight face that he never had sexual relations with that woman, he actually believed in some twisted metaphysical dark corner of his own mind that he was telling us the technical truth--even though any sane person, upon hearing such a lame declaration, could say with certainty that Clinton was lying and playing us for fools. Bush may have technically followed the law in the manner of his stock sale, but to suggest he didn't have key insider information that the company was presenting a false financial face to investors when he did it is insulting my intelligence. If he had to personally sign off on the finances of Harken at that time with fraud charges and possible jail time looking him in the face if he was caught in a lie, do you think he would have done it?