“No Earthly Ideaâ€: Frist Continues To Mislead on Stock Sale
“No Earthly Ideaâ€: Frist Continues To Mislead on Stock Sale
Majority Leader Bill Frist is facing two federal inquiries into his abrupt sale of millions of dollars of stock in HCA Inc., his family’s hospital corporation, shortly before a company announcement sent the price plummeting.
Frist claimed this morning on Fox News Sunday that, for the last decade, he has had “no earthly idea†how much HCA stock he owned:
For the last 10 or 11 years, I have no idea no earthly idea at any point in time how much stock of anything, not just that particular stock [HCA], but all of the stocks that I’ve owned in the past. And that’s good, because I’m able to put it aside and not worry about it.
That’s not true. During the last five years, he was aware of both the general value of his holdings in HCA and substantial purchases of additional HCA shares:
DECEMBER 2000– FRIST INFORMS SENATE HIS HOLDINGS IN HCA ARE VALUED BETWEEN $5 MILLION AND $25 MILLION: “The value of HCA stock in Frist’s trusts at the end of 2000 was between $5 million and $25 million, according to a disclosure he filed with the Senate ethics committee when he established the accounts.†[Bloomberg, 9/23/05]
MAY 16, 2002 – TRUSTEE TELLS FRIST HE PURCHASED $750K TO $1.5 MILLION IN HCA STOCK: “On May 16, 2002, Scobey advised Frist that four investments were contributed to a Frist blind trust, including HCA stock valued at $500,000 to $1 million. A second letter the same day mentions the same four investments going into a different trust, but with different valuations, including HCA stock valued at $250,000 to $500,000.†[BusinessWeek, 9/24/05]
EARLY JANUARY 2003 – TRUSTEE TELLS FRIST 15K-50K OF HCA STOCK HAS BEEN CONTRIBUTED TO TRUST: “Just two weeks before those [January 2003] comments, the trustee of the senator’s trust, M. Kirk Scobey Jr., wrote to Frist that HCA stock was contributed to the trust. It was valued at $15,000 and $50,000.” [BusinessWeek, 9/24/05]
If Frist didn’t do anything wrong, why can’t he be honest about what he knew?
UPDATE: Crooks and Liars has the video.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
89 Responses to ““No Earthly Ideaâ€: Frist Continues To Mislead on Stock Sale”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Why has the media stopped following this story. It's amazing how short their attention span is.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:35 am"between $5 million and $25 million..."
That sounds like he had no idea exactly how much his trust owned, Judd. I know how the value of each stock I own to the penny. Nice try, but no cigar, as Bill Clinton would say. :()
December 11th, 2005 at 10:41 amHe didn't say he didn't know "exactly" how much stock he owned. He said he had "no earthly idea." The fact is he knew he owned a substantial amount of stock during that period of time. He is trying to pretend otherwise.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:44 amThe trustees are sending him broad ranges, so he has no real idea how much he owns. You're nitpicking and grasping at straws, Judd.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:51 amIf you know you have at least 5 million in stock, that's a significant peice of information. It's also relevant, because it indicates that fluxuations in the stocks price would have a significant impact on Frist.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:57 am"Broad ranges"?
That's correct: somewhere in the MILLIONS of dollars!
That kind of a broad range makes it perfectly, indisputably clear where Frist's self-interest lies.
This is a meaningless dodge.
December 11th, 2005 at 11:00 amJust an FYI:
December 11th, 2005 at 11:01 amThere are other stock sales, that benefit the Frist family, and that took place at the same time as the HCA stock sales. As far as I can tell, the SEC has not said whether they will investigate the sale of American Retirement Corporation stock as well. ARC was founded by Frist's father, and the stock was held in his son's trusts.
Given the multitude of accounting methods of determining the value of any stock at any given point in time the value of "between $5 million and $25 million" can be finite and a damn good idea of what the stock is worth to the Penny. If the stock is valued at the purchase price at time of purchase it has one value (say $5 million) and if it is valued as the market price at the time it has another (say $25 million). Given that Frist and his trustees have agreed on the method to be used the trustees are not sending him "broad ranges" but are telling Frist to the penny the value of the stock in view of the accounting method used. Keeping the method secret allows Frist some degree of deniability when asked about the stock value. To say he has "no earthly idea" is an out-and-out lie that depends on what your definition of "earthly" is is.
December 11th, 2005 at 11:07 amSenate ethics rules provide for reporting in ranges rather than exact values. One of those ranges is $5-$25 million. Frist could know the value to the penny and still report $5-$25 million.
December 11th, 2005 at 11:30 amwwallace,
December 11th, 2005 at 11:40 amread #9 and now justify this guys actions. He's in political freefall but you just keep on drinking the kool-aid, okay.
You liberals are just trying to take down a good man, and failing. Don't whine about there not being coverage. There's no story here. Most Americans agree with me. Suck it up.
December 11th, 2005 at 11:48 amHmmm...I think Frist is actually taking himself down pretty effectively. Yeah, you're right wallaace, the American people don't care about this scandal. Thats probably why he's still considered the GOP frontrunner in '08...wait a minute.
December 11th, 2005 at 11:53 amWallace,
December 11th, 2005 at 11:57 amTake a break from watching The Passion for the 105th time and check out the scene in The Naked Gun where Frank Drebbin is holding the megaphone saying "Move along, there's nothing to see here!" The similarity with your post is striking.
Judd, #11 is not from me, as you'll probably be able to tell from the IP numbers used. I believe impersonation violates the Terms of Use, corrrect?
Now, to the subject at hand, you have provided no evidence that Frist knew at any particular "point in time" how much HCA stock, or any stock, was in the trust.
#12, Frist was never considered the frontrunner, you simply made that up. Clearly you cannot be trusted.
December 11th, 2005 at 11:58 am#13 is clearly a result of anti-Christian bigotry. Your baseless, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks violate the site Terms of Use, Bandar.
December 11th, 2005 at 12:02 pmLets put it this way. He won't be making any more exploratory trips up to New Hampshire.
December 11th, 2005 at 12:03 pmI think that what "wallace" is trying to say is that since Frist owned millions of dollars worth of HCA stock, that being as he is such a nice guy and all, dumping the stock based on probable insider information and saving himself tons of money in potential losses is not a story which interests Americans. And of course "wallace" is wrong. Americans are interested, and so is the SEC.
What matters most to "wallace," the exactness of the amounts reported, is not essential to the story nor the crime. It's a dodge. It's like a man defending his infidelity by claiming that he indeed has never "slept" with that other woman... good enough for "wallace," but hardly good enough for the reality-based community.
December 11th, 2005 at 12:12 pmWhy would shrimp lie so blatantly about what I actually said? Only he can know that.
My comments were narrowly focused on Judd's misrepresentation of Frist's statements, not on the FEC investigation itself.
Try to be more honest and literate in the future, shrimp.
December 11th, 2005 at 12:19 pmDemon-o-cracy!
December 11th, 2005 at 12:25 pmWallace You would justify the murder of you mother for these dicks.
December 11th, 2005 at 12:27 pmyou are simply not credible!
What makes Frist such a good man? Is he giving you some?
Frist is a straight up crook and you are his whiney little water carrier.
Honesty, wallace, would be admitting that your reasoning in your original post (#1) fell apart by the info in #9. But thats apparently too much to ask from a hypocrite like yourself. That is not an ad hominem attack because its relevant.
December 11th, 2005 at 12:31 pmearl, your ad hominem attacks violate the site Terms of use. Why don't you try thinking and then making an argument instead?
Bandar, #9 says Frist "could" know. Merely asserting something "could" be true is worthless. And you apparently don't know the meanings of the words "hypocrite" or "ad hominem" either.
December 11th, 2005 at 12:38 pmThe hypocrisy was when you called shrimp dishonest and yet you were not honest about the failure of your argument.
When I called you a hypocrite it was not an ad hominem attack because your personal character was in issue at that point.
Sorry I had to spell it out for you but I forgot that you might have trouble with the more subtler points.
December 11th, 2005 at 12:49 pmWallace, this is off topic a little but I'm curious:
What burns you up more--Happy Holidays or Merry Fitzmas?
December 11th, 2005 at 12:52 pmobviously the appearence of impropriety means nothing to you, unless it is attached to a democrat.
December 11th, 2005 at 12:52 pmYour "good" man looks guilty as sin but refuses to clear it up forthwith. he has lied about his involvement in maintaining and selling his stock. he should be held to a higher standard. No? being that he is the leader of the senate.
and you are still his whiney little water carrier.
People so deep in cognitive dissonance, such as you, deserve scorn and ad hominem- deal with it.
But none of my arguments have failed, Bandar.
earl, none of your assertions about Frist have been proven. There's been no demonstration that he's guilty of anything, or that he's lied about anything.
Calling me names will not change those facts.
December 11th, 2005 at 1:03 pmLet's get to brass tacks here wallace. Do you or do you not think that if an elected official knew he had between $5 million and $25 million dollars in stock in a corporation that this constitutes an "earthly idea"? If you do not think it constitues an "earthly idea" then what, in your estimation, would constitute an "earthly idea"?
December 11th, 2005 at 1:18 pmMike is misrepresenting what Frist actually said, just like Judd did. Are there any on the left capable of basic honesty?
December 11th, 2005 at 1:25 pmFrist was squirming, and his lies were so transparent. I hope the Princeton jerk spends some quality time as Bubba's Bitch!!
Wallace...go the hell away!! Why monopolize the discussion here. Go to redstate.org...you could certainly improve the level of dialogue over there, and they are your people!!
December 11th, 2005 at 1:38 pmA person whose family began the business, and who retains a large amount of stock in that company, is not being truthful if he says he has no earthly idea of how much stock he owns. Blind trust or not.
December 11th, 2005 at 1:44 pmHe obviously has a pretty good idea of the value of his stock. This is a man who can diagnose via tele- camera telling us he has no idea how much money he has in his portfolio.
Politicians are only required to report their assets in those broad ranges so as not to inform the public of their specific net worth. It's done by all of them and for all categories -- income, investments, property value, taxes, etc. Just because Frist reported in those numbers to the Senate does not mean he wasn't aware of the specifics. Nor, quite frankly, that he was, but as pointed out above, most of us are aware of the specifics of our net worth. I assume the President knows his net worth when he reports his tax information in broad numbers to the public. I also assume Frist had some earthly idea of his financial value. By the way, all of those disclosures are required by law, which is why the broad ranges were put in place.
December 11th, 2005 at 1:47 pmDS, but Frist put his holdings into a blind trust, even though he was not required to do so. If you have some evidence he kept track of the specific values of specific holdings in that blind trust, then post it. Mere conjecture has no value. Misrepresenting what he said, as Judd did, is just dishonest.
December 11th, 2005 at 1:57 pmMike is misrepresenting what Frist actually said, just like Judd did. Are there any on the left capable of basic honesty?
wallace, from the Bloomerg article:
Again I ask, what constitutes an "earthly idea" in your opinion? This time, simply answer the question instead of dodging.
December 11th, 2005 at 2:06 pm#32, I refer you back to your own comment (emphasis mine for the point):
“between $5 million and $25 million…â€
That sounds like he had no idea exactly how much his trust owned, Judd. I know how the value of each stock I own to the penny. Nice try, but no cigar, as Bill Clinton would say. :()
Comment by wwallace — December 11, 2005 @ 10:41 am
December 11th, 2005 at 2:09 pmMike, Frist did not say this morning that he had no idea in 2000. Wht does your quote from five years ago have to do with what Frist said on December 11, 2005?
DS, quoting me in no way provides evidence of that Frist knew at any particular time. Feel free to try again.
December 11th, 2005 at 2:21 pm#13 is clearly a result of anti-Christian bigotry.
Best laugh I've had all week.
December 11th, 2005 at 2:41 pmFrist's financial advisors reported they had sent him regular summaries. Frist is known to have instructed is trustees regarding purchases and sales, and that is what's under further investigation. The ranges reported in official government statements are a means of providing a bit of privacy. The filer often knows exactly what s/he owns and owes. If Frist really chooses not to know, don't you wonder why? Would YOU voluntarilly keep yourself in the dark about your multi-million dollar fortune and your family's billion dollar corporation? Why, if the law doesn't require it?
Actually, thaough Frist had said his assets are in a blind trust, but has not documented that that is so--i.e., no signed, notarized trust statements have been released, nor have trustees confirmed what Frist says about his total lack of communication with them. Wwallace obviosly lacks any curiosity about what's going on with Frist's convenient memory lapses, which makes him haoppy but makes his running commentary worthless.
December 11th, 2005 at 2:50 pmW Action obviously wishes to lie about what I said, and make up things I did not say.
I have no idea how the investigation will turn out, and neither does anyone else here. My comments have only been about Judd's willful misrepresentation of Frist's comments today on FNS.
December 11th, 2005 at 3:20 pmI does'nt matter how the investigation turns out.
All that ultimately matters, is if he's guilty or not.
December 11th, 2005 at 3:26 pmYou are completely misrepresenting what Senator Frist said. You people need to find someone else to attack. He has done nothing wrong.
December 11th, 2005 at 3:30 pm"I does’nt matter how the investigation turns out.
All that ultimately matters, is if he’s guilty or not. "
Some respect for due process, not to mention basic logic. ROFL
December 11th, 2005 at 3:31 pmAhh, so your looking for another asswhoopin like the one I just gave you over in the "Bush Delagation stages walk out at Climate Talks" blog?
I am quite aware of your warped, twisted values wwallace.
See, my logic says that just because someone is able to avoid prosecution, or be found not guilty, it does nothing to negate their guilt.
If their guilty, they are guilty.
But in your twisted world, men like O.J are innocent apparently innocent. At least, thats what you are arguing for.
Yes numbnuts, it does'nt ultimately matter how the investigation turns out, if he did it, he did it.
December 11th, 2005 at 3:43 pmHave you heard Frist's has opened a hospice for cats... run by a Chinaman!
December 11th, 2005 at 3:51 pmWallace,
December 11th, 2005 at 4:56 pmWhether he knew or didn't know is immaterial. The fact that the stock was sold/dumped so close to it tanking is what the SEC is interested in.
Now imagine your reaction if this affair had happened to Bill Clinton, Wallace. What do you imagine your reaction would be in that case? Sure we all want to believe that "our guy" is a paragon of virtue but some times we just have to face facts. Like we did when Clinton lied about a blow job.
Of course 2000+ soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children didn't die because of Bills libedo. How many investors got screwed by Frist?
Face the facts; you're backing the wrong team.
......FREEDOM
December 11th, 2005 at 4:59 pmBob, "Whether he knew or didn’t know is immaterial. "
To the contrary, what one knows or does not know is central to any accusation of insider trading.
"Of course 2000+ soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children didn’t die because of Bills libedo."
Perhaps if he had concentrated on his job instead of ignoring terrorism and abusing women who worked for him, 9/11 would not have ever happened.
December 11th, 2005 at 5:17 pmBush style FREEDOM: National ID Cards with RFID can track every citizen nationwide. FBI can search, even kill as with Miami incident, if one is merely perceived as a threat.
The Senate has a bill that could authorize forced vaccinations, "Lone Wolf" provision, US Military on US Soil = Martial Law, that's what Bush declared he needed to protect us, in the wake of his Katrina failure... Blackwater mercenaries, people herded into "concentration camps" and forced to stay at gunpoint, as per the "Challenges Facing African-American Evacuees from Hurricane Katrina" (still on c-span.org) testimony before congress.
Bush is the end of freedom- unless we arrest him.
December 11th, 2005 at 5:42 pmSerena really needs to loosen her tinfoil hat pronto. ROFL
December 11th, 2005 at 5:45 pm#35 Mike, Frist did not say this morning that he had no idea in 2000. Wht does your quote from five years ago have to do with what Frist said on December 11, 2005?
December 11th, 2005 at 6:44 pmFrist says that "For the last 10 or 11 years, I have no idea no earthly idea at any point in time how much stock of anything, not just that particular stock [HCA], but all of the stocks that I’ve owned in the past."
That includes 2000 dick.
#41 “I does’nt matter how the investigation turns out.
All that ultimately matters, is if he’s guilty or not. â€
Some respect for due process, not to mention basic logic. ROFL
I'll bet you fest that way with Clinton as well.
Fine, fine, he's guilty. Can't you guys just leave me my innocence every once in a while.
December 11th, 2005 at 6:51 pmI can't some of you people have to continue to resort to impersonation to try to invalidate my comments. Terms of Service?
Anyways, the lying liberals has got to stop. If only you guys could face the truth. Conservatives such as myself believe what we believe and no polluting of this discussion with "facts" is going to change anything. Senator Frist is good honest man with hard working values. And nothing you and your "facts" say is going to change that.
December 11th, 2005 at 6:57 pmNeat,
Where did wwallace say anything hate-filled? You're throwing boulders in that glass house of yours again.
I'm not up to speed about this whole Frist thing, because I really couldn't care less if he stays or goes, but is it that he supposedly knew something was up with the stock, and then that particular stock was sold right before the value tanked?
Certainly looks suspicious, but who was the one doing the trading? Was it Frist? Or was it his trustees or his fund handlers?
Being a supposedly rich guy like Frist, do you guys really think he knew? His comments about not knowing his exact holdings in HCA stock, saying that he had $5-25M doesn't exactly merit implying that he's a liar.
If he's like most rich guys, he has no clue what's going on with his stocks, because he would be paying other people to take care of all that for him. Ya dig?
December 11th, 2005 at 9:15 pmThey simply aren't interested in the truth here, Seixon.
December 11th, 2005 at 9:47 pmWallace, define a "liberal". I have never supported liberal views, nor have I been in favor of fiscal irresponsibility - hence you could say I used to be a conservative. However, I know a crooked establishment when I see one. Delay, Abrimoff, Randy "DUKESTER" Cunningham, and now this? Tip of the iceberg, there will be more scandals than we can count when it is all said and done. What scares me is that I am now a liberal all of a sudden, in your clouded eyes. I feel that there are others like me, who used to be conservative, but now have no where to go - because of people like you. I refuse to allow my integrity to be tarnished by the corruption of this faux government. They are where they are because they know people like you are so stupid as to believe their lies, without question. THEY KNOW THIS!! And so, I am not a "liberal", but I sure am not staying-the-course with this party, even if it means switching teams in the coming elections. This is the only way we can rid this filth from our democracy....
December 11th, 2005 at 9:55 pmI don't believe you, spatula.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:00 pmI know wwallace is a troll, but never mind.
"I have no idea no earthly idea at any point in time how much stock of anything" means Frist doesn't know if he has $5 million, or $25 million, or $500 million, or $1 or nothing whatsoever.
But Frist reported he had between $5 million and $25 million in HCI stock. That is not "no earthly idea" but "between $5 million and $25 million."
What is scary is that there are still people out there who try to defend liars like Frist. Understandable if wwallace is Frist or one of his aides, but totally inexplicable otherwise.
Hey, wwallace, you have excrement for brains.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:25 pmBrian obviously can't put a sentence together without hurling insults, but never mind.
Your translation of what Frist said does not follow from what he actually said. Your dishonestly spinning. That seems to be the basic MO of the left these days.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:29 pmFirst Doctor Frist committed witness malpractice in the Schiavo affair.
Now, Frist join the Most Wanted Banana Republicans on a post office wall near you:
December 11th, 2005 at 10:46 pmHe didn't say "between $5 mil and $25 mil" because he didn't know the amount. He used that range because he's required to indicate ownership of stock within certain specified ranges. He provided the minimum required information, he didn't provide all that he knew.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:57 pmYour conjecture is worthless, JM.
December 11th, 2005 at 11:05 pmWWallace...
your thinking lacks clarity, focus or integrity. You simply repeat the rhetoric of those trying to defend their chosen leader. Frist, like Cunningham, Delay, Ney, etc. is a crook. For god's sake, he experimented on cats! He took cats from neighbors and disected them. This man deserves to go to jail where he will join Cunningham, Delay and a host of others from your party.
December 11th, 2005 at 11:44 pmI don’t believe you, spatula.
Comment by wwallace — December 11, 2005 @ 10:00 pm
He believes you, Spatula. He just wants us to think he doesn't. He's like the spoiled brat kid covering his ears and making nonsense sounds (blah! blah! blah!) to keep out the awful truth. The truth that he is a spoiled brat kid defending the most corrupt politicians in modern American history. It would be funny to watch if the damage they are doing to the country in every way were not so serious.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:51 amOn your film clip he said he could have anywhere between $1000 and $10,000 in the blind trust and then he said that he had $1,000 or maybe much more. How about 5 to 25 million? This is unbelieveable! But what can we expect when he viewed a brain-dead person and said that she looked like she could be okay? The GOP is brain-dead. Loyalty is the only ethic they care about, but the loyalty need to be to the GOP.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:53 amFrist is headed for a substantial SEC fine (no jail) and political disgrace. Let him babble all he wants. No one is listening.
December 12th, 2005 at 2:38 amJust read up the line. Anyone who pays any attention to WWallace is simply being baited by a masochist. What is it with these wingnuts clamoring to be beaten up?
December 12th, 2005 at 2:43 amThat sounds like he had no idea exactly how much his trust owned, Judd.
Comment by wwallace — December 11, 2005 @ 10:41 am
You are changing the subject.
He might not have known exactly -but that's not what he said. He said that he had "no earthly idea at any point in time" of how much stock he owned.
The trustees are sending him broad ranges, so he has no real idea how much he owns.
Comment by wwallace — December 11, 2005 @ 10:51 am
Oh, but First has an idea -between $5 and $25 million. That's a range. A broad one, but a range nontheles.
(...)you have provided no evidence that Frist knew at any particular "point in time" how much HCA stock, or any stock, was in the trust.
Comment by wwallace — December 11, 2005 @ 11:58 am
Let's see:
DECEMBER 2000– FRIST INFORMS SENATE HIS HOLDINGS IN HCA ARE VALUED BETWEEN $5 MILLION AND $25 MILLION
MAY 16, 2002 – TRUSTEE TELLS FRIST HE PURCHASED $750K TO $1.5 MILLION IN HCA STOCK
EARLY JANUARY 2003 – TRUSTEE TELLS FRIST 15K-50K OF HCA STOCK HAS BEEN CONTRIBUTED TO TRUST
Are his own filings no evidence?
My comments were narrowly focused on Judd’s misrepresentation of Frist’s statements, not on the FEC investigation itself.
Comment by wwallace — December 11, 2005 @ 12:19 pm
You only have stated that Judd has misrepresented what Frist said without explaining why that is so. It would also be helpful if you explained how First statement about having "no earthly idea" should be understood instead.
Frist put his holdings into a blind trust, even though he was not required to do so. If you have some evidence he kept track of the specific values of specific holdings in that blind trust, then post it.
Comment by wwallace — December 11, 2005 @ 1:57 pm
You insist on changing the subject.
Again, this is not about exacty or the specifics. Frist said he had no "earthly idea".
From the 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. "
If the trust is indeed blind, the beneficiary (in this case, Frist) should have no knowledge. But Frist did have knowledge. This trust was not so blind.
Also from the wikipedia: "Blind trusts are generally used (...) to avoid conflict of interest between the beneficiary and the investments."
Frist was involved in health care initiatives, and in shaping the US health care system. His holdings in a hospital chain are a conflict of interest, which is one of the reasons he cited for creating the blind trust and for later selling his HCA stock. Frist might also be guilt of insider trading:
Frist Stock Sale Raises Questions on Timing
Letters Show Frist Notified Of Stocks in 'Blind' Trusts
Frist's 'blind trust' was quite open
December 12th, 2005 at 2:58 amThe squirming and weasel words of republican apologists and sycophants cannot hide the basic fact that is plain for the rest of the world to see.
In 2000, Frist did not advise the senate "I have no earthly idea of the amount of HCA stocks I own - sorry about that", he advised holdings valued at between 5 and 25 million.
Therefore, his claim he has had no earthly idea about his HCA stock for the past 10 or 11 years is nonsense.
December 12th, 2005 at 3:12 amYes, but what heppened to the cat?
December 12th, 2005 at 9:03 amI refuse to allow my integrity to be tarnished by the corruption of this faux government. They are where they are because they know people like you are so stupid as to believe their lies, without question. THEY KNOW THIS!! And so, I am not a “liberalâ€, but I sure am not staying-the-course with this party, even if it means switching teams in the coming elections. This is the only way we can rid this filth from our democracy….
Comment by spatula
Why should anyone take your word or trust your judgment that we have a "faux" government? That one side is all lies and the other speaks the truth? You know this because....?
The truth is "you have nowhere to go" because you don't know where you should be. You are confused and therefore untrustworthy. You were once a conservative but now you show up on a Progressive website making baseless charges and spouting idealistic nonsense? You were never a conservative because you obviously don't know what conservatism is. If you did you wouldn't be spouting the idiocy of the fringe loons on the left. Moderation in all things boy.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:10 amGee guys, I don't know what the problem is, I mean I often can't remember how nuch money I have in my checking account. Was that $2.50 or do I still have $12.00 ? Did that check clear yet? When do I get paid again? You know, I was recently voted president of the local white trash club based on my average checking account balance alone.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:24 amSo, when do Frist go to jail?
December 12th, 2005 at 10:06 amHopefully, before the Alito hearings.
No jail almost certainly, but credit here in TN - NONE. Don't believe the goofball trolls, I am right here in the thick of it and you can stick a fork in him. President? Never!
December 12th, 2005 at 10:53 amBush - Constitution
'Just A Goddamned
Piece Of Paper'
By Doug Thompson
Capitol Hill Blue
12-9-5
Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."
And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."
Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn't matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn't matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine  in the end  if something is legal or right.
Every federal official  including the President  who takes an oath of office swears to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a "living document."
""Oh, how I hate the phrase we have-a 'living document,'" Scalia says. "We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake."
As a judge, Scalia says, "I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else."
President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a "union between a man and woman." Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.
Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.
"We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones," Scalia warns. "Don't think that it's a one-way street."
And don't buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.
But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just "a goddamned piece of paper."
© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
Disclaimer
Email This Article
MainPage
http://www.rense.com
This Site Served by TheHostPros
December 12th, 2005 at 11:47 am#74 "Moderation in all things boy"
Some examples of IRIs moderation:
"I hate the French, they pretty much invented the Filthy Left.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — October 1, 2005 @ 10:28 pm
Hey, what does a Mexcian know about ethics anyway?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — September 25, 2005 @ 12:41 pm
I think the lesson here is that if you can’t say something nice about the Negro in New Orleans, don’t say anything at all.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — September 7, 2005 @ 9:43 am
[Mexican corruption] is a problem but nothing a little Puritan Fundamentalist Christianity couldn’t cure. Ever notice that everything the Catholics touch turns to shit?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — September 22, 2005 @ 2:17 pm
Left wing non religious Jews are the problem. Period. I wonder if the Germans had the same problem with y’all?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — October 20, 2005 @ 4:04 pm
There’s nothing wrong with the South that a few thousand dangling from the nearest light pole Leftists wouldn’t cure.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — September 4, 2005 @ 1:08 pm
We need more women in the kitchen cooking dinner.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — November 1, 2005 @ 2:47 pm
[Women should NOT vote] Because they f e e l , they don’t think. There are exceptions to the rule and they all agree with me.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — November 2, 2005 @ 5:39 pm "
IRI exercising moderation? ROTFLMAO
December 12th, 2005 at 12:55 pmOh that reminds me of a song...
December 12th, 2005 at 12:57 pmCome on guys, stop wasting your breath on the likes of wwallace and IRI. The fact is, ethics and morals don't even enter into their thinking. Its all about power. Have you guys read "1984" recently? To people like this, any act is acceptable in the pursuit of power and the only sin is failure to achieve that power. Frist and Dubya could be violating widows and orphans in front of people like this and they would still deny that it happened, if doing so suited the purpose of pursuing power.
December 12th, 2005 at 3:00 pmLet's get back on track here, shall we?
The main issue here was whether or not Frist has knowledge of the value of his stocks in what is allegedly a blind trust. From the evidence, it appears that Frist was updated on the stocks on a regular basis, so it is questionable at best that he had "no earthly idea" regarding how much he had.
A bigger issue, it seems to me, is where Frist claimed he got his information. His contention is that he used "publicly available" information as the basis for selling his stock. This seems pretty unrealistic. His family started the company, Frist has major holdings in it, and the only information he has is from "public" sources? He does not receive any information whatsoever regarding the company's viability? Again, this seems very far-fetched.
Regarding wwallace, I cannot understand all the invective people are directing his way. Let's stick to dealing with arguments, shall we?
December 12th, 2005 at 3:06 pmI have one other request to make: can people please dispense with the vacuous usage of the terms "liberal" and "conservative"? I have yet to see anyone yet give a reasonable explanation of what they mean when they are using them; instead, they are typically used as simple pejoratives. This also means that the old chestnuts about "how I used to be a conservative, but learned to be smarter" and such should probably be ditched as well. Testimonials do not convince many people in cyberspace since others do not have the requisite experience with the person testifying in order to determine the veracity of the narrative.
Just a suggestion.
December 12th, 2005 at 3:14 pmTheoryhead
Liberal means you think, are open to change, and care about facts.
Conservative means you 'think' you already know the answer, therefore you don't care about the facts, listening or changing.
December 12th, 2005 at 6:23 pmWallace: Frist is a politician, all politicians are corrupt. There is no exception.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:53 pmHas anyone noticed how sensitive the neocons get when there is any mention of religion in a discussion. There seems to be this complex they have regarding any discussion where the mention of religion comes into play. I think it is called an inferiority complex. You may have noticed that the lefties can usually offer a well thought out response in a discourse where as the righties usually blast back with name calling and insults.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:58 pmSince Republicanism, conservatism, right wing, Christian fundamentalism, or what ever you want to call it are essentially all the same it shouldn't come as a surprise. It has been documented time and time again that the blue secular states are the least religious, more educated, have lower crime rates, fewer abortions, fewer sexually transmitted diseases, longer life spans, have more teeth in their mouths and fewer refrigerators and junk cars on the front lawn.
Lefties shouldn't even waste their time trying to establish an intelligent discourse with the righties. The neocons have no understanding of, nor solutions to the problems of our country. They are the problem. What the lefties should be doing is reserving their discourse to other progressives so that we can work together to change things for the better.
Indeed Roger, our objective should neither be preaching to the choir, nor attempting to convert opposed partisans, as neither is productive. It is the unconvinced who need our efforts. It is the those who have not yet committed themselves to one side or the other who need to know about this Republican corruption. That said, the site already does most of the work in that regard. I suppose our roll here should be to expand on a topic where possible and otherwise just try to spread the message as far and wide as possible elsewhere.
December 13th, 2005 at 12:04 amhttp://www.dopcampaign.org/historypage.htm
December 13th, 2005 at 4:02 amRoger
December 13th, 2005 at 9:07 amDon't blame everybody in the so-called "Red States" for the mess we're in. Not to reach out and try to inform people would be the real crime.
I think there is enough evidence against Frist for the SEC to take him to a secret secure site for intense interrogations, in say, Romania. I’m sure his relocations will become clear in a few days.
December 13th, 2005 at 2:19 pmI take back all my fraudulent and trolling comments and turn to God for forgiveness, knowing that hell awaits me if I refuse.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:27 am[...] Eric Ueland, “berated†and “bullied†AP reporter Jonathan Katz for asking whether it was true that Bill Frist had “no idea” how much HCA stock he owned before he sold it. Bill Frist claimed this weekend that he had “no earthly idea” how much HCA stock he owned for the last 10-11 years. An extensive paper trail contradicts his story. 12:11 pm | Comment (0) [...]
December 14th, 2005 at 12:12 pmmy goodness - so many people missing the point. $5 million, $25 million, $100 million - what does it matter? the real issue is that frist explicitely instructed the "blind trust" to sell all his hca stock - potentially after receiving inside information about it's future performance. insider trading laws don't distinguish between a $1 transaction and a $100 million transaction. just ask martha stewart. it doesn't even matter whether frist had 'any earthly idea' - he knew he owned the stock, he gave orders to sell it, and if he did so based on inside information he is probably in big legal trouble.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:50 pmMay I interject regarding some of the above serious and not so serious comment.
Progressive: "We're honest men having a reasonable discussion."
Regressive: " You're saying I'm unreasonable. You're dishonest!"
Progressive: Make Peace Not War!
Regressive: Make War Not Peace!
Progressive: Let Freedom Ring!*
Repressive: *that is only in the "free speech" zone with a conditional use permit, after determining whether such action may violate the "Patriot" Act definition of terrorism or treason thereby posing a potential threat to national security.
Bless us all all the time.
especially me - Neil
December 14th, 2005 at 4:12 pm