Bush's illegal spying started in February 2001

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It was never about fighting terrorism:

From the Washington Post

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/13/124458/17


It was never about fighting terrorism. Bush completely ignored the August 6, 2001 memo titled  "Bin Laden determined to strike in US."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

jfern, get your stories from somewhere else, please. dailykos is not the most neutral of sources out there.

Get a clue, it's from the pro-war Washington Post.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

You can get to the Washington Post article in about 2 seconds, but no, you'd rather mindlessly bash me.


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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Amazing how everyone avoided discussing the actual issue.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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?

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

With all due respect, jfern, that's an allegation. This guy has been convicted by a jury.

So in other words, the Scottsboro Boys are more giulity than any non-convicted criminal?