• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

Their boy Ron is an empty plastic cup that will never know pudding.

Cancel the cowardly Times and Post and set up an equivalent monthly donation to ProPublica.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

No Kings: Americans standing in the way of bad history saying “Oh, Fuck No!”

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

They punch you in the face and then start crying because their fist hurts.

The arc of the moral universe does not bend itself. it is up to us to bend it.

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

The snowflake in chief appeared visibly frustrated when questioned by a reporter about egg prices.

The Supreme Court cannot be allowed to become the ultimate, unaccountable arbiter of everything.

The words do not have to be perfect.

The real work of an opposition party is to hold the people in power accountable.

They don’t have outfits that big. nor codpieces that small.

Republicans firmly believe having an abortion is a very personal, very private decision between a woman and J.D. Vance.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

One lie, alone, tears the fabric of reality.

The fundamental promise of conservatism all over the world is a return to an idealized past that never existed.

There are no moderate republicans – only extremists and cowards.

Republicans don’t lie to be believed, they lie to be repeated.

Mobile Menu

  • 4 Directions VA 2025 Raffle
  • 2025 Activism
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Domestic Politics / The Frist Investigation

The Frist Investigation

by John Cole|  October 13, 20059:20 am| 113 Comments

This post is in: Domestic Politics, Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

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.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Paying Paris Hilton
Next Post: Busy/Open Thread »

Reader Interactions

113Comments

  1. 1.

    Lines

    October 13, 2005 at 9:27 am

    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.

  2. 2.

    John Cole

    October 13, 2005 at 9:49 am

    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…

  3. 3.

    Shygetz

    October 13, 2005 at 9:50 am

    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.

  4. 4.

    Lines

    October 13, 2005 at 10:00 am

    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?

  5. 5.

    Bob

    October 13, 2005 at 10:05 am

    “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?

  6. 6.

    neil

    October 13, 2005 at 10:12 am

    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.

  7. 7.

    John Cole

    October 13, 2005 at 10:24 am

    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.

  8. 8.

    Veeshir

    October 13, 2005 at 10:29 am

    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.

  9. 9.

    Ancient Purple

    October 13, 2005 at 10:33 am

    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.

    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?

  10. 10.

    neil

    October 13, 2005 at 10:53 am

    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.

  11. 11.

    Steve

    October 13, 2005 at 10:54 am

    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.

  12. 12.

    Mike

    October 13, 2005 at 10:54 am

    It is a witchhunt. By this time next year all will be forgotten

  13. 13.

    farmgirl

    October 13, 2005 at 10:59 am

    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.

  14. 14.

    p.lukasiak

    October 13, 2005 at 11:05 am

    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….

  15. 15.

    Pb

    October 13, 2005 at 11:23 am

    Umm. I defended Martha Stewart and said it was complete bullshit that she was going to jail. I thought it was a witch hunt.

    Good for you, John!

    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.

    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.

  16. 16.

    Marcus Wellby

    October 13, 2005 at 11:39 am

    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.

  17. 17.

    John S.

    October 13, 2005 at 11:43 am

    Mike portends:

    It is a witchhunt. By this time next year all will be forgotten

    When you wish upon a star, midterm elections seem so far…

  18. 18.

    Bob Davis

    October 13, 2005 at 11:48 am

    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

  19. 19.

    Steve

    October 13, 2005 at 11:59 am

    Everyone wants to be DougJ these days.

  20. 20.

    Lines

    October 13, 2005 at 12:00 pm

    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!

  21. 21.

    Faux News

    October 13, 2005 at 12:13 pm

    Folks WHY are we NOT talking about the fact that Clinton LIED about getting a blow job????

  22. 22.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 12:54 pm

    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

    Behold such brilliant insights. Tell us Pb, what did Frist “lie” about regarding the sale of his HCA stock?

  23. 23.

    KC

    October 13, 2005 at 12:55 pm

    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.

  24. 24.

    Lines

    October 13, 2005 at 12:59 pm

    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.

  25. 25.

    Steve S

    October 13, 2005 at 1:18 pm

    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.

  26. 26.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 1:19 pm

    Lines Says:

    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.

    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

  27. 27.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 1:22 pm

    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

  28. 28.

    Lines

    October 13, 2005 at 1:24 pm

    Here you go:

    Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., was updated several times about his investments in blind trusts during 2002, the last time two weeks before he publicly denied any knowledge of what was in the accounts, documents show.

    and later in the same article:

    Frist sold his HCA stock from several blind trusts this summer, at a time when insiders in the company also were selling off shares worth $112 million from January through June. Frist aides say he sold his stock to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.

    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

  29. 29.

    Pb

    October 13, 2005 at 1:28 pm

    Darrell, see above.

    farmgirl Says:

    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.

    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. :)

  30. 30.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 1:29 pm

    So at one point, you claim its blind, you have no idea whats in it

    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

  31. 31.

    Shygetz

    October 13, 2005 at 1:32 pm

    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.

  32. 32.

    space

    October 13, 2005 at 1:40 pm

    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.

  33. 33.

    Shygetz

    October 13, 2005 at 1:40 pm

    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.

  34. 34.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 1:45 pm

    If Frist knew that HCA stock was held, it is not (by definition) a blind trust.

    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

  35. 35.

    Elinor Dickey

    October 13, 2005 at 1:58 pm

    Excuse me but *how* exactly is this different from Travelgate? *How* exactly is this different from Hillary Clinton making $100,000 in hog futures?

  36. 36.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 2:03 pm

    How exactly is this different from Hillary Clinton making $100,000 in hog futures?

    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.

  37. 37.

    Elinor Dickey

    October 13, 2005 at 2:06 pm

    And why weren’t they investigated? It makes you wonder, huh?

  38. 38.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 2:12 pm

    Elinor Dickey Says:

    And why weren’t they investigated? It makes you wonder, huh?

    Why should Hillary be investigated just because she was savvy enough to make $100,000 trading pork bellies on margin?

  39. 39.

    Elinor Dickey

    October 13, 2005 at 2:15 pm

    Why should Frist be investigated for something far more innocent than what Hillary did?

  40. 40.

    space

    October 13, 2005 at 2:19 pm

    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.

  41. 41.

    Steve

    October 13, 2005 at 2:20 pm

    Obviously the SEC is just on a partisan witch-hunt.

  42. 42.

    Elinor Dickey

    October 13, 2005 at 2:21 pm

    Obviously the SEC is just on a partisan witch-hunt.

    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.

  43. 43.

    Elinor Dickey

    October 13, 2005 at 2:24 pm

    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.

    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?

  44. 44.

    space

    October 13, 2005 at 2:26 pm

    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?

  45. 45.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 2:27 pm

    Let me explain Travelgate. The Clinton administration fired an incompetent and partisan hack, named Billy Dale

    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

  46. 46.

    space

    October 13, 2005 at 2:28 pm

    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.

  47. 47.

    space

    October 13, 2005 at 2:42 pm

    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.

  48. 48.

    Mike

    October 13, 2005 at 2:45 pm

    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).

  49. 49.

    Ancient Purple

    October 13, 2005 at 2:46 pm

    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

    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.

  50. 50.

    space

    October 13, 2005 at 2:50 pm

    There is nothing like the name Clinton to make you realize what real criminal politicans are

    Really, Cole, is this the kind of insanity that you want to associate with?

  51. 51.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 2:55 pm

    But if he knew, that it isn’t a blind trust. Period.

    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

  52. 52.

    Steve

    October 13, 2005 at 3:00 pm

    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.

  53. 53.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 3:03 pm

    Steve Says:

    Do I need to quote chapter and verse from the Senate Ethics Rules to you?

    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

  54. 54.

    Shygetz

    October 13, 2005 at 3:04 pm

    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.

  55. 55.

    Shygetz

    October 13, 2005 at 3:06 pm

    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.

  56. 56.

    Elinor Dickey

    October 13, 2005 at 3:07 pm

    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.

    That’s what it seems like to me. They’re like an alcoholic stuck drinking cough syrup after 8 years of cognac.

  57. 57.

    space

    October 13, 2005 at 3:09 pm

    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.

  58. 58.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 3:10 pm

    The timing of the sale suggests that he was involved in insider trading

    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

  59. 59.

    Lines

    October 13, 2005 at 3:17 pm

    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.

  60. 60.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 3:19 pm

    Lines Says:

    Hey Darrell, how about the payoff in the suit for HCA (the family business) stealing tax dollars?

    You kooks trying Frist for that too?

  61. 61.

    Lines

    October 13, 2005 at 3:24 pm

    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.

  62. 62.

    Ancient Purple

    October 13, 2005 at 3:26 pm

    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

    Yes, I did. My response was to this tidbit you posted earlier:

    he wanted to dispel any rumors of conflict of interest.

    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?

  63. 63.

    ppGaz

    October 13, 2005 at 3:27 pm

    Umm. I defended Martha Stewart and said it was complete bullshit that she was going to jail. I thought it was a witch hunt.

    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.

  64. 64.

    Steve

    October 13, 2005 at 3:29 pm

    Let’s go right to the source since both sides seem to be under a serious misconception about what the Senate Ethics Rules say.

    (v) an interested party shall not receive any report on the holdings and sources of income of the trust, except a report at the end of each calendar quarter with respect to the total cash value of the interest of the interested party in the trust or the net income or loss of the trust or any reports necessary to enable the interested party to complete an individual tax return required by law or to provide the information required by subsection (a)(1) of this section, but such report shall not identify any asset or holding;

    (vii) the interested parties shall make no effort to obtain information with respect to the holdings of the trust, including obtaining a copy of any trust tax return filed or any information relating thereto except as otherwise provided in this subsection.

  65. 65.

    crg

    October 13, 2005 at 3:43 pm

    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.

  66. 66.

    DougJ

    October 13, 2005 at 3:45 pm

    n his background and he was elected president twice.

    Well, once anyway.

  67. 67.

    Tim F

    October 13, 2005 at 4:00 pm

    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.

    You win. In all things Rightwingers are and forever will be the victims.

  68. 68.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 4:03 pm

    (v) an interested party shall not receive any report on the holdings and sources of income of the trust

    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?

  69. 69.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 4:06 pm

    You win. In all things Rightwingers are and forever will be the victims.

    Just like all the leftwingers who whine about those evil Republicans “stealing” elections

    n his background and he was elected president twice.
    Well, once anyway.

  70. 70.

    Blue Neponset

    October 13, 2005 at 4:15 pm

    I think there is much less to this than will be made of it, actually.

    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.

  71. 71.

    Lines

    October 13, 2005 at 4:22 pm

    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.

  72. 72.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 4:28 pm

    Lines Says:

    At the very least there are ethical problems

    Such as..?

  73. 73.

    Lines

    October 13, 2005 at 4:32 pm

    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?

  74. 74.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 4:44 pm

    It clearly wasn’t a blind trust

    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

  75. 75.

    DougJ

    October 13, 2005 at 5:12 pm

    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.

  76. 76.

    Shygetz

    October 13, 2005 at 5:41 pm

    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?”

  77. 77.

    DougJ

    October 13, 2005 at 5:48 pm

    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.

  78. 78.

    Ben

    October 13, 2005 at 5:49 pm

    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.

  79. 79.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 6:05 pm

    The fact that he asked permission from the ethical committee has nothing to do with the timing of the sale

    You’re mistaken.

    Frist said yesterday that he began taking steps to unload his HCA stock five months ago: “In April, I asked my staff to determine if Senate rules and relevant laws would allow me to direct the trustees to sell any remaining HCA stock. In May, my staff worked with outside counsel and with the Senate ethics committee staff to draft a written communication to the trustees. After obtaining pre-approval by mid-June from the Senate ethics committee, I issued a letter directing my trustees to sell any remaining HCA stock in my family’s trust.”

  80. 80.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 6:09 pm

    members of congress are NOT supposed to be making investment decision while in office

    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

    Copies of Frist’s blind-trust agreements, established in 1999 and filed with the Senate ethics committee, indicate they were modeled on examples published on the committee Web site. The Senate Ethics Manual allows a lawmaker to direct his trustees to sell all of a given asset to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest due to the senator’s “assumption of duties” after the trust was established.

    Oh my

  81. 81.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 6:18 pm

    He just went too far with sucking up to the religious right

    Worse, he went too far with sucking up to the kook-wing of the religious right

  82. 82.

    DougJ

    October 13, 2005 at 6:27 pm

    Worse, he went too far with sucking up to the kook-wing of the religious right

    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.

  83. 83.

    DougJ

    October 13, 2005 at 6:28 pm

    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.

  84. 84.

    Tim F

    October 13, 2005 at 8:11 pm

    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.

  85. 85.

    Darrell

    October 13, 2005 at 8:28 pm

    Democrats moral leadership

  86. 86.

    John S.

    October 13, 2005 at 8:59 pm

    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

  87. 87.

    Dexter

    October 13, 2005 at 9:57 pm

    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.

  88. 88.

    demimondian

    October 13, 2005 at 11:23 pm

    The Frist story makes me more sad than outraged.

    (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.

  89. 89.

    ImJohnGalt

    October 13, 2005 at 11:36 pm

    space said:

    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.

    Didn’t you see Trading Places? They stole the crop report from Clarence Beeks.

    “Looking good, Billy Ray!”
    “Feeling good, Louis!”

  90. 90.

    Shygetz

    October 14, 2005 at 8:43 am

    Actually, Frist was an excellent doctor. He just went too far with sucking up to the religious right.

    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.

    Worse, he went too far with sucking up to the kook-wing of the religious right

    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?

  91. 91.

    Shygetz

    October 14, 2005 at 8:50 am

    Frist said yesterday that he began taking steps to unload his HCA stock five months ago

    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.

  92. 92.

    Dexter

    October 14, 2005 at 8:54 am

    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.

  93. 93.

    John S.

    October 14, 2005 at 9:02 am

    Shorter Dexter: The eternal sunshine of a spotless mind.

  94. 94.

    Tim F

    October 14, 2005 at 9:06 am

    DeLay—I don’t think the devil had to ask him to sign.

    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.”)

  95. 95.

    Shygetz

    October 14, 2005 at 9:14 am

    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.

  96. 96.

    Shygetz

    October 14, 2005 at 9:15 am

    You sell enough stocks, you get some good timing.

    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.

  97. 97.

    Dexter

    October 14, 2005 at 9:16 am

    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.

  98. 98.

    Tim F

    October 14, 2005 at 9:26 am

    It seems most unfair that we’re not tarring Senators as insider traders just because they get lucky in the stock market.

    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.

  99. 99.

    Shygetz

    October 14, 2005 at 9:52 am

    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.

  100. 100.

    Shygetz

    October 14, 2005 at 9:53 am

    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.

  101. 101.

    Tim F

    October 14, 2005 at 11:54 am

    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.

  102. 102.

    ppGaz

    October 14, 2005 at 12:35 pm

    Are you joking? Let me explain Travelgate. The Clinton administration fired

    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.

  103. 103.

    Dexter

    October 14, 2005 at 1:55 pm

    He’s already sunk; politically-speaking a trial would be gratuitous.

    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?

  104. 104.

    crg

    October 14, 2005 at 4:58 pm

    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.

    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.

  105. 105.

    Dexter

    October 14, 2005 at 5:56 pm

    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.

  106. 106.

    Dexter

    October 14, 2005 at 9:42 pm

    If conflict of interest is such a big deal, does Ted Kennedy recuse himself from voting or considering any water safety legislation?

  107. 107.

    Jcricket

    October 15, 2005 at 1:19 am

    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.

    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.

  108. 108.

    Jcricket

    October 15, 2005 at 1:22 am

    But what has Frist done to make you assume he’s guilty?

    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.

  109. 109.

    goonie bird

    October 15, 2005 at 9:04 am

    is nothing private from the prying eyes of our imperial court?

  110. 110.

    Dexter

    October 15, 2005 at 9:55 am

    It all starts with the cat killing

    I may not agree with you, but that is funny.

  111. 111.

    Darrell

    October 15, 2005 at 11:29 am

    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

    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.

  112. 112.

    Jcricket

    October 15, 2005 at 6:50 pm

    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.

  113. 113.

    skip

    October 16, 2005 at 3:20 pm

    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.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - dmkingto - SF Bay Area Scenes 7
Image by dmkingto (7/31/25)
Donate

Recent Comments

  • Miss Bianca on Unraveling (Open Thread) (Jul 16, 2025 @ 10:19am)
  • Nora on Unraveling (Open Thread) (Jul 16, 2025 @ 10:18am)
  • mrmoshpotato on Unraveling (Open Thread) (Jul 16, 2025 @ 10:14am)
  • Math Guy on Unraveling (Open Thread) (Jul 16, 2025 @ 10:13am)
  • Baud on Unraveling (Open Thread) (Jul 16, 2025 @ 10:13am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!