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: jlallen who wrote (17337)	7/12/2002 4:18:11 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 21057

Not now. Not ever. Case closed. No conditions. No footnotes. Based on the facts. Bush exonerated. "The staff does not believe that an enforcement action is appropriate in this matter." "Based upon the facts surrounding Bush's stock sale, the staff does not intend to pursue the investigation further or to recommend any action." public-i.org

To: jlallen who wrote (17337)	7/12/2002 4:23:15 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

You know, if you have as you claim, that they do not issue "exoneration" letters and that this is the functional equivalent of an exoneration....... I do know the former. But a functional equivalent of an exoneration this ain't, although I can see how you might read it that way. It's the functional equivalent of "you're off the hook."

To: jlallen who wrote (17337)	7/13/2002 11:16:49 AM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

I hope you're having a fun weekend. (I myself have other plans.) I suppose that, if this report from Salon is true, this is why the SEC made sure no one would think Bush had been exonerated (as the Dallas Morning News says, quoting the SEC letter I haven't seen personally but the WH has not denied existed.) This is only part of the report because I'm not signed up. I assume we'll be hearing more. I wonder if Bush will be questioned under oath. That sort of thing is not good for the country, of course. I suppose the dems won't care, though.................... Memos: Bush knew of Harken's problems Contrary to the president's statements, company memos show he knew the firm was headed for trouble. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - By Anthony York July 12, 2002 \| WASHINGTON -- When President Bush sold more than 200,000 shares in Harken Energy Corp. in June 1990, he said he did not know the company was in bad financial shape. But memos from the company show in great detail that he was apprised of how badly the company's fortunes were failing before he sold his stock -- and that he was warned by company lawyers against selling stock based on insider information. Less than two months after Bush sold his stock, Harken announced a $23.2 million loss for the second quarter of 1990. Bush maintains he did not know Harken was going to report the loss and thought he was "selling into good news, not bad," as close Bush advisor Karen Hughes told the American Prospect in 1999, pointing to the announcement of a new drilling contract in the Middle East island nation of Bahrain. White House spokesman Dan Bartlett reprised the "good news" argument in an interview with the New York Times on Wednesday. salon.com