Bush's illegal spying started in February 2001

[MODU]

Sorry, I didn't read that bit. Post the WaPo link next time, please.

He won't.  We've asked him numerous times, but he doesn't listen.  But since he's a DKos-devotee, I wouldn't expect much independent thought/action on his part anyway.

[MODU]

The laziness on the part of both of you is appalling.  I said it's from the Washington Post in my original post. I know you'd both rather bash me than spend 5 seconds reading what I said, or 2 seconds clicking on a link, but that is unacceptable.

The only laziness I see here is you who never just copy/paste the link to the news article, which, takes 0 seconds more than it does for you to copy/paste the DKos link.  Oh, but wait, that is too much of an effort on your part, isn't it?  

Have you ever questioned yourself as to why we ask you for the source link?  Have you ever considered that some of us choose not to click on DKos links because of the language and pictures which are posted on that site (and not because we merely find them offensive but because they get picked up by certain server screening programs)?  One of these days it will sink into that skull of yours.  I haven't given up hope on you yet.

[MODU]

Do tell, MODU.

hahaha . . . well, it's not a secret that companies screen web traffic (as well as e-mail traffic) for key words which aren't "professional."  So, whenever words like nude, sex, or any of your classic swear words pop up on a site or an e-mail, the activity is logged in case a file on inappropriate activity is occurring through company property.  And you don't even have to scroll down on a DKos page without seeing at least one of those words on the screen.  Of course, with the maturity (or the lack there of) over there, it isn't surprising.

[MODU]

So, you're saying that Bush is forcing your company to keep tabs on porn and whatnot in your company without a warrant as part of his moral crusade to make America a better place, right?

HAHAHAHA

[MODU]

Amazing how everyone avoided discussing the actual issue.

I guess MODU ran out of excuses to defend Bush.

hahaha . . . I don't need excuses nor need to defend the President in this case.  In this case, it is based on hearsay by someone convicted of insider trading, who as CEO, sold stock before failing to win a major contract (which can be perceived as insider trading).  I haven't seen any evidence that verifies his claims, and nothing has been declassified yet which would either prove nor disprove his claim.

[MODU]

So inside trading is only OK when your daddy's SEC declines to convict you?

I think proven cases of insider trading should be prosecuted with punishments based upon the degree of violation and the impact made on the market/share holders.  In the case you are implying, what won Bush the case was the fact that stock price had been falling for over a year and he sought counsel on the transaction.  Even though the counsel said that the transaction might hint at insider trading, the transaction itself wasn't illegal.  While trading laws a heavy on insider trading, there is nothing that states a shareholder, even one who works in the upper levels of the company, cannot sell his personal stock while the stock value declines. 

The problem around the transaction wasn't the fact that he sold the stock but that one of two filing documents wasn't filed until months after the transaction.  Conspiracy theorists point to this as guilt for insider trading.  However, that isn't the case because the declaration of sale (the other filing document) was filed the day of the sale, becoming public record.  This, coupled with the "check list" for insider trading, cleared Bush of any wrongdoing in the sale.  However, if Bush failed to file both documents, the SEC could probably create a case for insider trading, and at that point charge him accordingly.

Anything else I can educate you on tonight?

[MODU]

2. If it is "hogwash" then why was it redacted from documents?

The problem you come up against when referencing classified materials and/or meetings during a case is the lack of disclosure can be viewed as guilt or cover-up.  However, it usually is far from the truth.  Say we had a classified meeting about making a new hammer, and in the course of talking about the hammer, we also talk about unclassified nails and maybe even some unclassified screws.  Since a screw doesn't really go along with the other two items, it can be viewed as questionable in its dealings with hammer and nails, even though a screw in its own right is normal item.  So, in the court case someone refers to screws being used with nails as a means of calling forth a questionable activity.  Even though nails and screws were discussed, they wasn't a discussion of screws being used with nails as implied.  Unfortunately, since the hammer is classified, the whole discussion of screws and nails can become sensitive as well, so the items become redacted from the documents.

It's not an easy thing to explain, but I hope you get the general idea.

[MODU]

The reason why Bush sold his stock was because daddy had given him classified information that Saddam told daddy that he was going to invade Kuwait.

Uh, ok.  Whatever you say, son.