Clintons sell off stock that could have proved a political time bomb

[BeHereNow]

Imagine that, Lady Walmart covers her tracks as so to not
upset the herd where her hypocrisy is concerned...
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article2663737.ece

"Yesterday it was revealed that the Clintons sold off most of their investments last
April fearing that they would become a political liability in the 2008 presidential race.

For a couple who have always stressed the value of public service over
the money-grubbing private sector, the revelation that much of their
wealth comes from arms, oil and pharmaceutical companies,
will come as a shock to many Democratic activists."

AND...

"The Clintons have always sided with America's put-upon working man
and woman over corporate interests. But thanks to their investments,
books and Bill Clinton's speaking engagements, they are now part of America's wealthy elite.
They got there thanks to a portfolio of investments in the arms trade, Big Oil and Big Pharma,
all high on the hate list of many Democratic voters.
They made more money investing in Wal-Mart and Rupert Murdoch's News International -
owner of Fox News- two bogies of the liberal activists."

Two party system my ass,
more like the ELITES, and the rest of us.

The hypocrisy is mind numbing.

BHN
On edit, I would like to add that I found this story on the
same page as the Chinese Child Labor story...WALMART anyone?
As in MS. Clinton's 6 year seat on the board?
Jeezus, will Americans NEVER wake up to the CORRUPTION on
BOTH sides of the aisle?

[maddezmom]

1. not to defend either Clinton, but I thought the purpose of a blind trust

was to make sure you didn't know what the investments were while you were making decisions in gov't.

[BeHereNow]

4. AS IF, they didn't know.

Would you be interested in a piece of the London Bridge I have for sale?
BHN

[Herman Munster]

6. where is your proof

Otherwise, it's just hillary hate we should ignore coming without proof.

[alittlelark]

30. Where is your proof?....

...or are you just 'blindly' trusting the corporatocracy? "Oh, no, a blind trust is invisible to it's owner....." blah blah blah....:puke:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. I'm Not Surprised You Have Pieces To Give Away.

It appears you've bought some yourself.

But do you have any supporting evidence, or even anything even vaguely compelling whatsoever, towards your assertion that they knew full well? I'd appreciate hearing it. If not, is it safe to assume that your motives are simply to denigrate the Clintons with this charge just for sake of doing so, without any other basis?

[alittlelark]

33. Do you KNOW anyone w/ a blind trust?

I know 2 ppl - one openly discusses her investments. She has investments outside of the trust , but the bulk of her $$$ is within it.

Kinda strange.


I guess it depends on who you know (or have friends that know) within the firm that organizes you 'blind trust'.


OKAY - 'blind trust' quite often means the $$$ was given to a 'family friendly firm'. I said it.

[maddezmom]

35. no thanks, moving back to TX

have no use for the London Bridge anymore ;)

[ElizabethDC]

5. You're correct

the money was in a blind trust, but the blind trust had to be opened since Hillary is running for president. Now that she's aware what the investments are, she's getting rid of them so as to avoid a conflict of interest.

[EFerrari]

25. I don't know much about it but wasn't that also Bill Frist's

argument when he was caught out in a conflictual investment?

The way we fund our elections invites abusiveness. If this is a hit job on Senator Clinton, imho, the rest of the candidates need a light shone on their finances as well.

[maddezmom]

36. no Frist was notified about what his investments were before he sold them

Letters Show Frist Notified Of Stocks in 'Blind' Trusts
Documents Contradict Comments on Holdings

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 24, 2005; Page A01

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) was given considerable information about his stake in his family's hospital company, according to records that are at odds with his past statements that he did not know what was in his stock holdings.

Managers of the trusts that Frist once described as "totally blind," regularly informed him when they added new shares of HCA Inc. or other assets to his holdings, according to the documents.


Since 2001, the trustees have written to Frist and the Senate 15 times detailing the sale of assets from or the contribution of assets to trusts of Frist and his family. The letters included notice of the addition of HCA shares worth $500,000 to $1 million in 2001 and HCA stock worth $750,000 to $1.5 million in 2002. The trust agreements require the trustees to inform Frist and the Senate whenever assets are added or sold


more:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102301201.html

[EFerrari]

42. Do we know this wasn't the case in the Clinton blind trust?

I despise these hit pieces -- seems to me, anyway, that's what this is. On the other hand, it's good to have facts in hand. And I wish we had public financing for our elections. :(

[maddezmom]

43. clinton sold off all at once because since she is running for "P" it becomes public

he was given info while it was supposedly still a blind trust and looks like made decisions about what would be sold off in order to gain from the sell off. Seems like there is quite a difference between the 2 to me.

[EFerrari]

45. I don't want to make a fuss but we don't know what info the Clintons

had before they divested.

In any case, I guess we can expect a lot more of these pieces before this next election. :(

[maddezmom]

46. they divested once it became public

who knows what info the did have before. I just don't think having a blind trust means your a bad person, there are legitimate reasons for them. Bottom line to me, they made the right decision now. Other people may see it differently, but comparing this situation to Frist's seems a bit like mixing apples and oranges. :)

[tammywammy]

2. It was a blind trust

[Herman Munster]

3. bullshit bullshit bullshit

She had a BLIND trust. BLIND means she had no idea or control over the investments. When she ran for president, the rules changed. She had to see what her holdings were. Therefore, they weren't blind anymore so she is doing the prudent thing.

What is the problem here other than your biased Hillary hate?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xipe Totec]

13. Non sequitur

stick to the point and the facts.

If you have any.

[aquart]

8. None. She behaved promptly and correctly.

Even though there was financial loss. This is what just KILLS the rabid little dears.

[aikoaiko]

22. self-delete; wrong spot.

[live love laugh]

38. You are right Herman. Another hit piece. n/t

[Scooter24]

9. I hold some of the same stocks as the Clintons...

including a large number of pharma and oil stock.

If that makes me a bad Democrat, then so be it. Oh well, thankfully I'm not running for President.

This is starting to get a bit ridiculous.

[Raine]

19. I do too

I inherited them from my aunt. I not a supporter of Hillary but I think it's unfair to dump on her about this.

[RB TexLa]

26. When the markets reopened after Sept. 11 I sold all North American stocks except oil and a few

financials my wife and I have business ties with.

[Scooter24]

27. I took a loss as well through 2001/early 2002.

but my losses were marginal. Thankfully I didn't own any stock in travel or airlines. It could have been much worse.

[supernova]

10. The Clintons did the judicious thing

here, IMO.

They didn't know what was in those trusts before they sold them. That's the whole point of them being in a blind trust. Somebody else manages it for you. Edit: "Somebody else manages it for you" literally means someone else making the buy/sell trade decisions and you, the owner, stay out of it completely.

I think anybody criticising the Clintons here doesn't know a whole lot about investing and working with investment tools.

[dogday]

11. I don't know why but she just gives me

a feeling like she talks out of both sides of her mouth... I don't like that, and I don't need that from my President... I like Hillary, I just don't like her for President.....

[Cha]

17. Yeah,

I hear ya!

[alfredo]

12. It was in a blind trust, and has been since 93. They dissolved it to

remove any appearance of dirty dealing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19215534/

The documents reviewed by The Washington Post provide the most complete accounting of how the Clintons accrued $5 million to $25 million in wealth -- nearly all since leaving the White House -- through investments in foreign companies, oil giants and drugmakers without their input or knowledge and without public disclosure.

Your framing of the issue sounds like it came from the office of Karl Rove by way of Rush.

[Lerkfish]

14. c'mon, I'm no hillary fan, but this makes no sense as an indictment

it was a blind trust, and once she found out it was a conflict, she sold it off.

I don't see anything wrong here.

[napi21]

15. Free speech is your right, but this is a very slanted opinion of the facts.

So many other things SHOULD be important in choosing a President, and some people resort to immaterial so;;y stuff l;ike haircuts, the size of someone's house, and what stocks are in their portfolio. If someone is not a majority stock holder, it doesn't matter!!!! If you have your 401K $$ in a Mutual Fund, there are lots of company stocks in there you most likely hate, and they change all the time! That's what mutual fund managers are paid to do...pick the best stocks to make money for the fund investors.

Son't you think it would be better for all of us to find out:

Who are the candidate's friends, because they will most likely be in the Cabinet!

Ask what criteria they will use to select SCOTUS nominees?

What methods would be used to convince the opposite party congressmen to vote for what you want?

If someone had asked questions like that in 2000, we might not be in the mess we're in NOW!

[Jillian]

16. Is this what we have to look forward to?

Putting all of our candidates under a microscope?

There is dirt that is going to come out on all of them.

[CatholicEdHead]

18. Doesn't matter, it will still be an attack talking point

many times over, time is irrelevant.

[Chemical Bill]

20. They should have bought Halliburton stock.

There's never a problem when a politician owns that.

Bill

[KoKo]

21. I'm not a Hillary fan...but I wish the M$M spent more time on Tom DeLay/Dick Cheney

and some of the rest of the crowd of crooks & liars who have ripped our TaxPaying dollars off dirty dealing. The Blind Trust of the Clinton's might go for companies I wouldn't buy stock in...but there's no evidence they were ripping tax payers off in that Trust. Some of their policies or lack of policies might have contributed to what we are dealing with...Hedge Funds and CEO Rip Offs....and for that they should be held accountable by Dems who aren't "high rollers" enjoying the spoils.

But, the press coverage over this is Dem Bashing covering up all the crimes of the Repugs. Sad...that we get caught up in it. Are the Clinton's hypocrites? But, are they criminals like what we are dealing with in the Bush crime family. :shrug:

[aikoaiko]

23. I own guns, take medicine, drive a gas car why shouldn't I or the Clintons own these stock

Maybe more democrats should and attend shareholder meetings.

[unblock]

24. since when is owning stock "corruption"?????

are you really saying that any democratic candidate must invest their money 100% in nicey-nicey green companies or else they are CORRUPT?????

:wtf:

[diamidue]

28. Getting out of stocks

before the crash? A comment on urbansurvival.com got me to wondering about this. The Clintons taking all that money and putting it into cash & paying huge capital gains taxes to do so. An estimated 10 - 25 million dollars in cash? hmmm.

We know Cheney put millions of dollars into the European bond market last year. Do these guys know something we don't?

[BeHereNow]

29. Short answer- yes. n/t

bhn

[illinoisprogressive]

32. don't forget the clintons championing the outsourcing of our jobs.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. What a stupid attack...

it was a blind trust.

When it was revealed, they sold.

Do you even know what a blind trust is?

[William769]

37. How many times is this going to get posted?

If you don't know what a blind trust is go back to school! Sheesh! :eyes:

[lonestarnot]

39. Yeah, what he said!

[maddezmom]

44. until some people understand a blind trust

or quit hating Clinton, which is never. :shrug:

[tbyg52]

40. It's the corporations, stupid!

I keep hoping to get someone to take that up.....

[Wiregrass Willie]

41. You are so right.

Two party system my ass,
more like the ELITES, and the rest of us.

Now if we can just convince the rest of Boobus Americanus of this fact -- we would all become Populists and make some progress.