Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist has had his records subpoenaed:
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has been subpoenaed to turn over personal records and documents as federal authorities step up a probe of his July sales of HCA Inc. stock, according to sources familiar with the investigation.
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the subpoena within the past two weeks, after initial reports that Frist, the Senate’s top Republican official, was under scrutiny by the agency and the Justice Department for possible violations of insider trading laws.
I think there is much less to this than will be made of it, actually. In the case of DeLay, I think he is a crook, but I don;t know if the indictments will hold.
Any way you look at it, though, it isn’t good for Republicans and will be yet another distraction. Considering what Congress has been up to lately, that night be a good thing.
Lines
If you believed it was ok for Martha to go to jail and spend time with the ankle bracelet for a meager sum of cash, then Frist must also pay, as his insider trading is worth much more than Martha’s. Of course, since he’s got that R next to his name, that just gives him a free pass.
John Cole
Umm. I defended Martha Stewart and said it was complete bullshit that she was going to jail. I thought it was a witch hunt.
And I guess you will have to forgive me if I wait to see if Frist actually engaged in any insider trading before I vote to throw him in the slammer.
And guess what- it had nothing to do with whetehr or not he has an R next to his name or not.
Again, I don’t know whose site you guys think you are reading. if Powerline had comments, maybe some of your remarks would make sense there, but really…
Shygetz
From what I’ve read, Frist’s activities in a supposedly blind trust are particularly damning. If he did what it seems like he did, I hope they throw the book at him.
Lines
John, Frist has lied about this at every turn, from claiming that it is a “blind trust” to “I didn’t know what was in there” to “I never touched it”. Every time one of these Republican’s gets into trouble the very first thing they do is lie. Lie lie lie lie lie. They double up the lies, the lies start to get complex, and all the sane people are just sitting back shaking their heads at the fool.
So why lie about it, John? Why did he lie immediately? Why, after his lies have been uncovered and denounced, does he not come out with a statement that at least appears to be truthful?
Bob
“I’m not sure if the indictments will hold.”
I’m not sure what that means. After a quarter century of doing most of the judicial appointments, I’m not sure if any crime committed by anyone in the kleptocracy will hold. That goes for impeachments, too.
Considering that Mr. Earle’s indictments are only the first airplane to land and there are a bunch more up there in a holding pattern, circling like vultures above a dying animal, if one were concerned that DeLay might escape conviction for something then I think they can rest assured that he won’t.
Any new info on the Boulis hit case? Have either of the “two Tonys” rolled over yet? And does anyone here know whether or not “Old Sparky” is still in service down in FLA?
neil
Saying “There is much less to this than will be made of it” is a pretty Powerline-ian twisted phrase, actually. They love to pre-emptively condemn the Democrats and the media for things they suspect they might want to do in the future.
John Cole
Neil- I don’t know if that is a Powerline-esque turn of phrase, but I do think Frist is in much less jeopardy than some are portraying him to be in.
If I am wrong, I am wrong.
Veeshir
No John, you are wrong and you’re wrong because you’re a partisan hack.
Geez, get with the program and start playing your paleocon/neocon part.
Ancient Purple
Can you expand on this a bit? I guess I need a marker on what you think the jeopardy is versus anyone else.
Just from Frist’s statements, I think the man is well over his head in this debacle and probably won’t survive as Majority Leader.
Would anyone deny that insider trading is at least as unpalatable as saying Strom Thurmond should have been President?
neil
Well, OK, but I doubt that that ‘some’ includes any of the dread MSM. So what’s the point? Why let this lunatic fringe dictate the agenda such that you have to spend your posts pushing back against it?
I know that Powerline et al. do it because they would much rather rant about the evils of liberal commentators than they would analyze the lies and corruption of the Republican leadership. I don’t think this is your motivation, but maybe the technique is rubbing off a bit.
Steve
Politically speaking, DeLay is far more effective a leader than Frist. The Democrats probably love Frist in that chair. The only benefit is another bullet point on the theme of Republican corruption.
The comparison to Martha Stewart is kind of weird because Martha wasn’t prosecuted for insider trading (although there’s a good chance she did it). Frist’s lies to the public won’t get him in trouble with the law like Martha’s lies to investigators did.
Insider trading is a difficult crime to prove so the smart money is still on Frist to beat the rap. As for DeLay, his media campaign has been excellent, but one shouldn’t confuse that for a likelihood of success on the merits. All of the grandstanding about prosecutorial misconduct, seeking to take Earle’s deposition, etc., is part of the game and will likely be denied flat-out by the judge.
Mike
It is a witchhunt. By this time next year all will be forgotten
farmgirl
The problem isn’t just the “seeing-eye” trust. He held and sold other HCA shares *outside* that trust, during a time period when he repeatedly claimed not to have any knowledge of owning any of that stock.
p.lukasiak
I think there is much less to this than will be made of it, actually.
in terms of “criminal intent” I would have to agree with you.
But this is not just about “criminal intent”, its about the arrogance of the kleptocracy as symbolized by Frist.
The problem here is that the GOP kleptocrats actually believe that its a good idea to favor the massive corporations that provide health care, so when Frist supports legislation that enriches him, he is not doing so in order to enrich himself, but because he really believes its good policy. And since Frist isn’t doing it “for the money”, he doesn’t perceive any ethical conflict….
Pb
Good for you, John!
Why? Martha didn’t. I think it can already be demonstrated that Frist has lied to the government and the American people. Shouldn’t that be enough, or is that only reserved for heinous criminals like Martha Stewart.
Marcus Wellby
Did anyone watch Bush addressing the troops over a TV this morning? Great hoogidy-boogidy! Who thunk that was a good idea or visual????
The only thing that would have made that a worse photo-op would have been if Bush was hiding under the covers the whole time he spoke.
Oh yeah, Frist and Martha both suck. But John is consistent in his defense of both, so I will support his principles, even though I’d like to clunk both their heads together like a pair of coconuts.
John S.
Mike portends:
When you wish upon a star, midterm elections seem so far…
Bob Davis
I believe that Bill Frist is a good man who did what anyone would do – protect his investments. Since when is that against the law? Everyone does it. I sell stock when I think it’s about to go down the tubes, don’t you?
He’s a good Senate leader and he should be thanked, not harassed. Same with Harriet Miers. She’s been a good company lawyer, and she should be thanked and not harassed. And Delay too. They’re all good men. And women too. They do god’s work for us in government service. And in return they get an Abramoff slush fund on the side, as they should. Good things should happen to good peoples, and they are good peoples, so the president tells us too.
My only fear is if Hillary ever gets back into the Whitehouse, she’ll use the same system to enrich the D’s instead of the R’s. Then that would be bad, because then bad peoples would be getting good things. Bad peoples should not get the same good things as good peoples like Frist and Delay and Abramoff and Miers too.
a modest experiment
Steve
Everyone wants to be DougJ these days.
Lines
Wait, wait, I get it! Liberal over-the-top critisism of Frist is what has caused him to participate in what only LOOKS like a crime!
its all so clear now. Of course it all has a rose colored hue to it, but its clear!
Faux News
Folks WHY are we NOT talking about the fact that Clinton LIED about getting a blow job????
Darrell
Behold such brilliant insights. Tell us Pb, what did Frist “lie” about regarding the sale of his HCA stock?
KC
I’m with John on this one pretty much. There’s just no reason to crinkle our shorts over Frist. People get audited and investigated all the time and nothing comes of it. It may be no different for Frist.
Lines
He lied when he said it was a blind trust, he lied when he claimed it was totally hands off, he lied when he claimed that he had no idea what was in the trust.
Steve S
If I stole $10,000 from the bank, I’d be sent to jail for a life sentence.
Steal $10,000 from the stock market… and it’s no big deal.
Darrell
Is there solid evidence that Frist was anything other than “hands off” or did you pull that accusation right out of your ass. SEC inquiry does not = guilt
Darrell
Did Frist tell anyone he had “no idea” what was in the trust? Given that HCA is his family’s company, I find that doubtful
Lines
Here you go:
and later in the same article:
So at one point, you claim its blind, you have no idea whats in it, but then your own aides tell the press that he did it to avoid a conflict of interest?
Ummmmm, LIAR!
And it was so easy to google, almost 3 seconds and the first article was clear as a bell.
ABC News Article
Pb
Darrell, see above.
And no, I’m not going to get into a pointless semantic debate with you, O Thread Derailer. However, due to this policy of mine, I will graciously concede to an alternate theory that Frist may be a total moron who actually has no idea what his stock holdings are, even when he sells them himself–but only with the proviso that this makes him totally incompetent, and therefore, he should resign his post in shame forthwith, and let a competent Democrat run things instead. :)
Darrell
A blind trust does not = having no idea what’s in it. It’s a mechanism to distance the owner of the trust from the day-to-day management decisions involving the investments.
I hope this helps
Shygetz
Darrell–I’m typing this slowly out of deference to your impairment. A blind trust is a trust where you have no knowledge of the investments being made. If Frist knew that HCA stock was held, it is not (by definition) a blind trust. The purpose of a blind trust is to avoid the actuality and appearance of conflict of interest; the fact that Frist knew that he held HCA stock (in his supposedly blind trust) proves that there was at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, which is against Federal ethics rules. The proof that he was not “hands off” of the blind trust was that he knew about the holdings and ordered the sale of HCA stock (one month before they reported lower-than-expected earnings, no less). And HCA is not his family’s company; they founded it, but it is a public company, and as such is subject to insider-trading laws.
space
Frist is a lying sack of shit. He lied, repeatedly, about the trust being blind. We know that for a fact.
Frist is also an unethical tool. He repeatedly acted as a legislator on matters in which he knowingly had a financial stake. We know that for a fact.
Now, you want to discuss his criminal exposure? Fine.
Frist may not be guily of insider trading. He is legally innocent until proven guilty. However statements like “I think there is much less to this than will be made of it, actually” make me want to laugh. Cole has absolutely NO BASIS for such a statement. Cole is not privy to ANY of the evidence which would exonerate Frist. Moreover, Frist has repeatedly engaged in deceptive behavior that should make us raise our eyebrows, not lower them.
Aside from repeatedly lying about the stock being in a blind trust, Frist has floated completely bogus defenses for his actions. He has suggested that he could not be guilty because he sold his stock before negative information became public. Wow! That is some of the most brazen bullshit I have ever heard. The definition of insider trading is acting on nonpublic info before it becomes public. That Frist would argue that he is innocent because he sold his stock before the bad news came out only makes me more suspicious, not less.
Once again, Cole’s knee-jerk contrarian nature lets him down.
Shygetz
No, Darrell. From Wikipedia:
“A Blind trust is a trust in which the executors have full discretion over the assets, and the trust beneficiaries have no knowledge of the holdings of the trust.”
It is true that the Senate rules do not require a true blind trust (although they should), which is why the mere fact that he directed the sale does not require a Senate ethics investigation. But it was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a “hands-off” blind trust, as Frist claimed it was. And the strange timing of the sale does bring about true concern of insider trading. In short, Frist lied about having a blind trust, he lied about being hands-off in its management, and the timing of his sale of stock that he had held for a long time previously strongly suggests insider information.
Darrell
I believe at the time he publicly declared that he was selling assets in his trust because he knew it contained HCA stock.. and given his family’s connections to HCA (still the largest stockholder) he wanted to dispel any rumors of conflict of interest. It just so happened he made that sale(s) of stock at a time before the stock tanked, hence the controversy
Elinor Dickey
Excuse me but *how* exactly is this different from Travelgate? *How* exactly is this different from Hillary Clinton making $100,000 in hog futures?
Darrell
Hillary Clinton was a savvy investor for sure. So was Terry McAuliffe, who made million in global crossing while other GC investors lost their shirts.
Elinor Dickey
And why weren’t they investigated? It makes you wonder, huh?
Darrell
Why should Hillary be investigated just because she was savvy enough to make $100,000 trading pork bellies on margin?
Elinor Dickey
Why should Frist be investigated for something far more innocent than what Hillary did?
space
Excuse me but how exactly is this different from Travelgate?
Are you joking? Let me explain Travelgate. The Clinton administration fired an incompetent and partisan hack, named Billy Dale, who comingled federal money with his personal money, “lost” thousands of dollars, and generally ran the WH travel office with the adminstrative skill that a 10 year old runs a lemonade stand. The GOP concocted a bullshit scandal because the firing involved Hillary which was of political, but not legal, significance because the GOP was then trying to demonize her as a Lady MacBeth with an agenda.
The WH press largely took the GOP’s side because Dale had been giving them kickbacks and allowing them to save thousands of dollars by bringing back items from abroad without bringing them through customs and paying duties. Several WH reporters infamously mulled over creating a Billy Dale Defense Fund.
That was travelgate.
As for Hillary Clinton’s success in the futures market, what are you alleging? Yes, she made money. Commodity futures are volatile. Hence people frequently make (and lose) large sums of money.
I do not claim to be a commodities expert. Far from it. But I do not even know how you can be an insider trader of a commodity. The whole purpose of speculating on commoditities is to go find information that is not widely known and capitalize on it.
Is there ANY evidence that Hillary acted on information that she was not legally entitled to capitalize on? Any? Who provided it to her? What was the information? What prevented her from using it?
All I have heard in the last 15 years are Republicans making the preposterous argument that Hillary was guilty of something nefarious while proffering not a shred of evidence to support that accusation. Yawn.
Steve
Obviously the SEC is just on a partisan witch-hunt.
Elinor Dickey
It does seem that way. And there are probably a lot of hold-overs from the Clinton administration there still. So I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some political motivation here.
Elinor Dickey
And all that was okay with you, but Bush hiring Michael Brown is a federal offense. Every single thing you’ve criticized the Republicans in Washington for — cronyism, perjury, insider trading, giving too power to lobbyists — the Clinton administration did in spaces. Why does it only bother you when republicans do it?
space
Good Lord, Dickey. Clinton holdovers in the SEC are on a witch-hunt against the Senate Majority Leader? What planet are you living on? Do you even have the faintest grasp of how the appointment process works?
Darrell
Dale had worked in the WH travel office for 3 decades, and it’s a lie to assert they fired “only” Dale, as there were 5 or 6 others fired too. The clintons tried to give the travel business to Clinton’s cousin. As if that wasn’t enough, the Clintons illegally obtained Billy Dale’s FBI records. It’s how they ‘conducted business’ under the Clinton administration
space
Dickey, are you retarded? Clinton didn’t hire Billy Dale. He fired him as soon as his Michael Brown nature was known. And the GOP whined about it, calling it an impeachable offense.
space
Dale had worked in the WH travel office for 3 decades, and it’s a lie to assert they fired “only” Dale, as there were 5 or 6 others fired too.
Dale was fired because he was embezzling funds. Others were accused of misconduct as well. Yes, a distant cousin of Clinton’s was given a position in the travel office. Yes, she was retained after others were let go because she was the one who reported the misconduct. No, she did not get the travel business after Dale was booted.
Yes, Dale had worked there for many years. However, that is irrelevant. The travel office staff serves at the pleasure of the president. Although, Dale was accused of criminal conduct, Clinton had the right to fire him for any reason or no reason.
Yes, there were discussions about outsourcing the business to Clinton’s friends (unrelated to his cousin). Yes, that would have been appropriate had it been not subjected to a competitive bidding process. No, it would not have been (remotely) an impeachable offense, as the GOP hysterically whined.
Yes, some FBI records were mishandled (by Craig Livingston). Yes, it was investigated. No, there was no evidence that such records were collected with the intent to create an enemies list. Nor is there any evidence that any of the records were illegally obtained at the request of any senior WH official. Nor is there any evidence that any of the records were used for any nefarious purpose. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Democratic partisan Ken Starr.
Mike
There is nothing like the name Clinton to make you realize what real criminal politicans are. The media got addicted to the continous scandals of the Clintons years, so when ever they even catch a scent of one now they are all over it. Once they realize there is nothing there except left over stench from the 90’s they will move on. In another year Hillary will be running for President – that will satisfy there need for scandals until she loses the election (if they even pay attention since she is a Dem).
Ancient Purple
But if he knew, that it isn’t a blind trust. Period.
I am sure you will find some way to call Barron’s reputation into question, Darrell, but here is the definition of a blind trust from the Barron’s Financial Guides Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms (2003, Sixth Edition, Barron’s Educational Series):
“Blind Trust: a trust in which a fiduciary third party, such as a bank or money management firm, is given complete discretion to make investments on behalf of the trust beneficiaries. The trust is called blind because the beneficiary is not informed about the holdings of the trust. Blind trusts often are set up with there is a potential conflict of interest involving the beneficiary and the investments held in the trust. For example, a politician may be required to place his assets in a blind trust so taht his votes are not influenced by the trust’s portfolio holdings.”
If it was truly blind, he never would have known.
space
Really, Cole, is this the kind of insanity that you want to associate with?
Darrell
It is by the Senate rules. Frist obtained written permission from the Senate ethics committee to sell. Did you know that? Of course not, it’s why so many of you morons are babbling over non-relevant definitions of blind trust
Steve
Do I need to quote chapter and verse from the Senate Ethics Rules to you? The subject of a blind trust is forbidden to make any efforts to learn the contents of the trust, period.
Darrell
Please do. And while you’re at it, reconcile your ‘evidence’ with the Senate ethics committee’s written permission to Frist giving him their approval to sell
Shygetz
The not-blind trust shows that he lied to the public (it’s not a blind trust, and it certainly wasn’t “hands-off”). The timing of the sale suggests that he was involved in insider trading. Both stink, but only one is illegal. The other is just a good reason not to vote for him. The fact that the Senate rules for conflict-of-interest are more lax than the rules for Federal employees doesn’t make it stink less; rather, it makes it stink more.
Shygetz
Steve–Unfortunately, Darrell is right about it being within Senate ethics rules. See here. It stinks (badly), but it is within Senate rules. Now, if he sold the shares knowing that the upcoming reports were going to show lowered earnings, then that is illegal AND unethical. That’s what has the SEC interested.
Elinor Dickey
That’s what it seems like to me. They’re like an alcoholic stuck drinking cough syrup after 8 years of cognac.
space
Frist, asked in a television interview in January 2003 whether he should sell his HCA stock, responded: “Well, I think really for our viewers it should be understood that I put this into a blind trust. So as far as I know, I own no HCA stock”
The man, if nothing else, is a LIAR. Incidentally, what pissed me off about Bill Clinton was not his evasive behavior during the Jones Deposition. I don’t blame him for being evasive when asked questions by lawyers. No, what pissed me off was the finger wagging to the American people when he wasn’t under oath.
Similarly, Frist may skate free of legal and ethical charges on this. But he will always be — clearly — a lying scumball.
Darrell
Total speculation on your part. The fact that he didn’t sell first ask questions later, but instead took the time to go throught the process of seeking and receiving permission from the Senate ethics committee, suggests he wasn’t acting on insider information which has a very limited shelf life
Lines
Hey Darrell, how about the payoff in the suit for HCA (the family business) stealing tax dollars?
Oh, how about the fact that this in no way is a blind-trust? You seem to have conveniently ignored that part of the argument for awhile now..
If they arn’t going to hold him on ethics violations for lying to the public, what good are the Republicans? Party above country, just more and more proof.
Darrell
You kooks trying Frist for that too?
Lines
No, I’m not saying try him for it, I’m just saying that the HCA company doesn’t exactly encourage ethical behavior. Why not distance yourself from that before you enter the senate?
If he had honestly put it into a blind trust, they would have sold the balance of the HCA stock and then re-invested in stocks appropriate for that trust, without telling Frist about its contents. Claiming you have a blind trust but then knowing that you need to sell its contents to avoid a conflict of interest is, well, a conflict and ethically unsound behavior. Stop defending him for it and put the country before party for once.
Ancient Purple
Yes, I did. My response was to this tidbit you posted earlier:
If the HCA stock was truly in a blind trust, there is NO conflict of interest because he wouldn’t have known about it. Why sell if you are already protected?
ppGaz
Didn’t see the original material, but Steward didn’t get slammed for the stock trade. She got it for trying to play footsie with the investigators. She’s an officer of a publicy traded corporation — it is not permissable to try to outsmart the government in these situations.
If she had come clean and cooperated fully with them, I seriously doubt that she’d have been treated the way she was. She and her toadies made everyone, including the jurors, feel that she thought she was above the process somehow. I think the reaction was, screw her. As a stock owner, I say, screw her. I am tired of the games these people play. Their positions are privileges, not rights.
Steve
Let’s go right to the source since both sides seem to be under a serious misconception about what the Senate Ethics Rules say.
crg
I can’t imagine this will actually hurt Frist, unless he actually goes to jail. Insider trading rules don’t make a lot of sense to people who haven’t done substantial investing or been insiders. Heck, GWB had an SEC investigation in his background and he was elected president twice.
DougJ
Well, once anyway.
Tim F
You win. In all things Rightwingers are and forever will be the victims.
Darrell
Steve, any proof Frist received any report as to what exactly the holdings were? I assume he turned over his investment portfolio to a trust which at that time had HCA and other healthcare investments. It’s reasonable for Frist to assume that the portfolio still had some amount of these investments. Now if you have solid evidence that Frist attempted to obtain a detailed accounting I’d like to see it. Because otherwise what is your point?
Darrell
Just like all the leftwingers who whine about those evil Republicans “stealing” elections
Blue Neponset
I am interested to know why you think that.
The SEC isn’t in the habit of issuing subpoenas of a person’s records if it thinks that person is innocent of any wrong doing.
Lines
At the very least there are ethical problems. Apparently, however, we arn’t to discuss mere ethical issues, especially when they are Republicans. To do so is…. partisan.
Give me a break. Its an interesting point that the SEC has subpoenaed his records, and the facts of the case definately appear shady.
After his performance with Terry Shiavo, I’m hoping this is just karma come to bite his ass.
Darrell
Such as..?
Lines
Lying to the American Public, for one. It clearly wasn’t a blind trust. That right there shows a huge lack of ethical awareness on his part, don’t you think?
Darrell
I’ll grant you that one.. he mislead by referring to it as a blind trust. I hope this ‘scandal’ derails Frist’s presidential aspirations, as I think he would make a very uninspiring candidate
DougJ
To be serious for a moment, I think it is unfair to compare Frist to DeLay. Whatever Frist did, it was at worst the same thing Martha Stewart went to jail for, which in my book isn’t that bad. If he broke the law, fine, send him to jail. But he is not a serial liar and manipulator of the system like DeLay is.
Shygetz
Frist is a terrible doctor (the Sciavo tele-diagnosis, the whole AIDS-may-be-transmissible-through-tears thing), an unethical senator (blind trust my ass), and a total spineless sell-out (stem cells–yes or no?) But no, he is no DeLay.
And Darrell–He held that stock throughout his entire tenure as a senator, all while making important votes on health care-related issues; don’t you consider it odd that he decided that maybe it would be a conflict of interest a week before it lost almost 10% of its value, and a month before a bad quarterly report put the prices into the tank? Or is it more likely that he had insider information about his family-controlled company? The fact that he asked permission from the ethical committee has nothing to do with the timing of the sale–you think as majority leader he had to wait a long time to get an answer? This whole thing stinks to high heaven, but you hold your nose and say “What smell?”
DougJ
Actually, Frist was an excellent doctor. He just went too far with sucking up to the religious right. It’s kind of sad, really, to see a top-notch doctor trying to curry favor with people who believe the earth is 6000 years old.
Ben
Bob Davis (aka Darrell, aka Gilligan),
It is against the law… members of congress are NOT supposed to be making investment decision while in office… you know, so they don’t further corrupt themselves and the system by allowing gifts from corporations with pending legislation (like insider info). Totally stupid comment and if my sarcasm meter is broken, my apologies.
Darrell
You’re mistaken.
Darrell
There is no evidence that Frist was making day-to-day investment decisions. However, Frist, like other Senators, is allowed to make the decision to sell assets in his trust
Oh my
Darrell
Worse, he went too far with sucking up to the kook-wing of the religious right
DougJ
But I don’t really think he’s a crook. I don’t think this investigation will go anywhere. I don’t think it is politically motivated in the sense that SEC is “out to get him”, though. On the other hand it will definitely hurt him politically.
DougJ
It’s true he did lie about the nature of trust on more than one occasion. Maybe I’ve gone soft, but I still can’t get that worked up about this one.
Tim F
IMO DougJ has the best read. The Frist story makes me more sd than outraged. Spiritually-speaking DeLay didn’t have to fall that far to reach the head of the Republican party; his dirty little soul was already there. The fall of Frist, OTOH, is a bit tragic. He might go to jail or he might not, doesn’t matter much either way. He’s gone as far as he ever will go in the town of DC.
Darrell
Democrats moral leadership
John S.
Great links Darrell…
Fantasy sure is more fun than reality, isn’t it?
Can you link to something that is:
a) Not cartoonish in nature
b) More recent than several decades
c) Newsworthy
Dexter
Frist has been weak and ineffectual as leader in any case. I have a hard time believing he’d be dumb enough to do something blatantly illegal, though.
demimondian
(Tim — I’m not claiming your pedant’s card back for the correcting the typo. Just to show you how generous I am.)
I agree. I have a personal animus towards Frist and HCA for what they did to me and my wife on the day our second child was born, and then how they treated him while in neonatal ICU — but I think he’s made a Faustian bargain without understanding it. DeLay — I don’t think the devil had to ask *him* to sign.
ImJohnGalt
space said:
Didn’t you see Trading Places? They stole the crop report from Clarence Beeks.
“Looking good, Billy Ray!”
“Feeling good, Louis!”
Shygetz
Which makes him a bad doctor. Never said he was always a bad doctor, but the fact that he is willing to endanger people’s health and well-being for his personal gain sure as hell makes him a bad doctor now.
Is there another wing of the religious right? I’m not talking about conservatives who happend to be religious (most liberals are religious too), I’m talking about people who consistently vote their religion. What is this sane religious right wing? Who are its leaders? What do they stand for?
Shygetz
Yeah, and he sold the stock four months ago, just before the quarterly report came out saying that the company wasn’t doing as well as it projected. Considering he has held this stock for over a decade without being concerned about conflict of interest, this is highly suspicious.
Dexter
You don’t think there could be an element of coincidence with Frist’s timing? Every time you sell a stock, there’s about a one-in-five chance you’ll sell it at the high for that year. You sell enough stocks, you get some good timing. That doesn’t make Frist a crook anymore than it makes Warren Buffet a crook. He always seems to sell stocks when they’re high. I call that being a good investor. I guess you call it being a criminal.
John S.
Shorter Dexter: The eternal sunshine of a spotless mind.
Tim F
I think the devil pinched his nose and wondered what he was getting himself into.
(Winston Churchill: “A dangled preposition is something up with which I will not put.”)
Shygetz
Dexter–But there is not a one-in-five chance that you will sell all your stock (and these were significant holdings) in a company on which your close relative is on the board just before a quarterly report comes out stating that earnings were lower than predicted, after you had held that stock for years and years and years. How much coincidence am I supposed to swallow here? Jesus, you people seem to demand a confession before you will believe insider trading took place. Rule of law, my ass.
And how in the hell do you get a one-in-five chance that you will sell it at the high for that year? Considering that the sale is not based on information not available to the market and is small enough not to affect the overall price, there is a one-in-twelve chance that you will sell the stock within one month before it peaks.
Shygetz
This was a blind trust (at least, by the crappy Senate standards). The point was that he was not involved in the day-to-day management of the assets. He didn’t “sell enough stocks,” and he hasn’t since he took office.
Dexter
Okay, shygetz, I’ll give you one-in-twelve. I was using quarters and then marking it down to 1 in 5 to be conservative.
If it turns out Frist was just lucky, where can he go, as someone once asked, to get his reputation back? It seems most unfair that we’re not tarring Senators as insider traders just because they get lucky in the stock market.
Tim F
No need t tar him for insider trading when tarring him as a liar will do. He’s already sunk; politically-speaking a trial would be gratuitous.
Shygetz
If it was coincidence, then Frist is just a victim of it (one who is now richer by several millions of dollars because of it). He won’t be the first to be falsely accused–hell, he’s been accused with more evidence against than many people. Price you pay for the rule of law, terrible tragedy, and couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
And what reputation does he have to get back? He blew his reputation by lying and saying that it was a “hands-off” blind trust, and by going against his Hippocratic Oath for political purposes and saying AIDS can be transmitted through tears. We know he’s a liar, and we know he’s willing to put people at risk to further his career. The only thing that this accusation would tell us is that he’s also willing to lie and cheat for financial gain, rather than political. If he’s being wrongly accused for that, well, forgive me but I won’t lose any sleep over it.
You know what would redeem this for me–if the Republican Senators would stand up and say “You know what–none of this would have happened if we had to have truly blind trusts. Let’s change the rules to eliminat the peeking and given America back its honest government.” If they did that, I would stand up and applaud, and bitch out any Dems who dared disagree. And I would be willing to forgive Frist for this instance of apparent insider trading. But I’m not holding my breath.
Shygetz
Tim F–You underestimate (or perhaps overestimate) my former home state of Tennessee. He’s not sunk; I’d give him 50/50 odds to win his reelection bid if he doesn’t go for higher office, and that’s probably selling Frist short.
Tim F
Frist has already announced taht he won’t run for reelection. For him it’s either the White House or K street, and I’ll lay down any sum against anybody who thinks he has a chance at the former.
ppGaz
Yes, and we left out another relevant fact: White House staff serves entirely at the pleasure of the president. These people can be fired at any time without cause or notice. In the case of the Clinton travel office, it was clear that the thing had been turned into a private good old boys club between the staff and the press corps, and any new sherriff in town should, and would, have fired them summarily. The press ginned up the phony “controversy” because they were pissed at seeing their dear friends in the travel office sent packing, and with them, the press’ ill-gotten spiffs.
Dexter
That’s my point: he should be innocent until proven guilty like everyone else. I understand why you guys hate DeLay and Rove so much and assume they’re guilty. They walk a very fine line ethically. I can see why some on the other side might think they’re unethical, though I would disagree. But what has Frist done to make you assume he’s guilty?
crg
Wha? Stocks set 52wk high and lows at the end of trading days, not once a month. Now that the major exchanges price to the penny, a stock with normal volatility is not likely to repeat closing numbers very often over the course of a year. There are roughly 250 trading days in a year – the odds of you happening to hit the high one is not good.
Dexter
Frist’s was near its high, not *at* its high. I’m not even sure it was the same month as it hit its high.
Dexter
If conflict of interest is such a big deal, does Ted Kennedy recuse himself from voting or considering any water safety legislation?
Jcricket
Glad you’re not out there working for the SEC (or acting as their legal counsel). The fact is, the stock tanked after Frist sold, and not coincidentally (i.e. along with other market issues), but because of bad financial results, which he likely new about. The fact is, that Frist categorically did not have a blind trust. He new the nature of his assets and had indirect control over them. That is not a blind trust. The fact is, that Frist also accumulated, held and sold HCA stock outside of the “blind trust”, which is even more suspect.
Whether Frist is guilty of insider trading remains to be seen, but he is absolutely guilty of lying about his investment strategy and holdings. And his actions clearly warrant SEC investigation. I’d expect the same if anyone claimed they held a blind trust which they actually controlled, sold stock outside that trust and had a direct, close, personal, material relationship to the board of directors of a public corporation.
Jcricket
It all starts with the cat killing… And then the “remote diagnosis” of Terri Schiavo, and the inability to state the medical facts about AIDS (i.e. claiming you can get AIDS from tears/sweat). If he’s willing to lie about issues of a medical nature, when he constantly refers to his medical background as his big “selling point”, then why should we trust him on anything else?
If you’re going to make cracks about Kennedy’s actions 30+ years ago, then certainly the more recent actions of Frist are equally, if not more, germane to his veracity.
goonie bird
is nothing private from the prying eyes of our imperial court?
Dexter
I may not agree with you, but that is funny.
Darrell
I hadn’t read about Frist accumulating and selling HCA stock outside of the trust. Do you have more info/links on that? Frist set up his trust under the Senate rules which apparently routinely approve these types of ‘blind’ trusts. Those singling out Frist for that are nothing but partisan hacks. Frist is guilty though, of dishonestly misleading the public by trumpeting the ‘blind trust’ aspect of his investments, knowing that most people aren’t familiar with the details on Senate rules involving trusts which are not truly blind trusts.
Jcricket
Boston Globe article
Nobody’s singling out Frist except the SEC, who routinely investigates allegations of insider tradings. Frist has done himsself a pretty big disservice in the way he’s handled this, even if it turns out he did nothing illegal.
You are correct that Senate rules don’t require blind trusts. He could have simply said, “There’s no conflict of interest, I will continue to hold HCA stock”. That’s what other senators say (i.e. they don’t call their holdings a blind trust unless they actually are). He did not say that. He claimed he had a blind trust, and he did not. So, that’s at least a lie right there.
Plus, his other HCA stock holders and the lying about the true nature of the trust are possibly a violation of both SEC and Senate rules.
skip
Blind Trust/ Blind Thrust
It reminds me of what Frist did in medical school while pretending to adopt kittens and puppies in order to experiment on them. Once caught in the act, Frist agreed to change his method to a “blind thrust” policy. Therafter he always blindfolded himself while picking an animal before administering the fatal stab, syringe or hammer blow, so he could say under oath that he didn’t ever intentionally kill any specific pet.
This one-step-removed policy was taken even further in the Shaivo case, when he divined her mental activities by video at a distance of 600 miles.
Washington insiders say NASA plans to employ Frist’s preternatural talents to look for life on Jupiter’s moons, in lieu of a costly manned probe.