Author:
The facts are on the record at any number of news sources
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 13:41:58 06/30/02 Sun
Author Host/IP: 67.25.97.214
In reply to:
Dave/Ken/Jack/1st Amendment/ etc, etc,...lol. Dumbass libs
's message, "Newswek, the mag that headlined "WHAT BUSH KNEW!" while showing WTC disaster." on 13:02:26 06/30/02 Sun
these facts on the RECORD, are what the FEDS are going on in their investigation.
you're so hilarious!
>Was this the same NEWSWEEK that said the the Democrats
>were rigging the counts in Broward County, FL?
>
>Just wondering. Bet you didn't know about that.
>
>That was...UH.. NEWSWEEK!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>And my source was, uh, NEWSWEEK Ken.
>>
>>Check out the circumstantial evidence. It warrants an
>>investigation, which is exactly what's happening.
>>Shewas very close with both the broker and the CEO.
>>There's also a trail of phone calls logged and plus
>>the broker's assistant now says there was no agreement
>>with Martha to sell if the stock dropped below $60 a
>>share and that he was pressured by the broker to say
>>that there was. Hence the broker's suspension from
>>Merrill Lynch. You don't find that warrants an
>>investigation?
>>
>>Also, your argument is that she wouldn't have done it
>>because she would have known in advance it would come
>>out? I doubt it. It is possible she didn't consciously
>>think it through or realize it was privileged inf she
>>got. If so, she should say so and come clean not
>deny.
>>
>>As for your point that it was inconsequential sum,
>>Anyone that rich manages every cent of her money.
>>
>>I have always LIKED Martha. I admire her business
>>savvy and hard work and spunk. So I'm sorry to see
>>this but the fact is it smells fishy.
>>
>>
>>
>>>It was 20K difference between when she sold it, and
>>>when everyone else found out about the FDA flunking
>>>them out.
>>>
>>>In other words, if she had waited until the general
>>>announcement was made, she would've gotten 20K less
>>>for her stock. Big deal.
>>>
>>>She's lost MILLIONS on HER stock as a result of the
>>>bad press. But that ain't enough. The politicians
>>>wanna grandstand.
>>>
>>>No, insider trading isn't good. However, if she
>>>wanted to really do some insider tradiing, she sure
>as
>>>hell could've made more than 20K.
>>>
>>>I mean, the damn woman's a millionaire a hundred
>times
>>>over. Do you really think she'd risk losing
>MILLIONS,
>>>which is what happened to her own stock, over a 20K
>>>savings?????????
>>>
>>>Grandstanding in front of a scapegoat. That's what
>>>it's all about.
>>>
>>>"Insider trading" didn't seem to be a problem when
>>>Hillary made 50K off of a single investment, and
>never
>>>invested again. Sheer luck?
>>>
>>>Senate libs need to worry more about getting their
>>>jobs done, than Martha's 20K.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>So, just to make sure I understand your position--
>>you
>>>>think insider trading is ok?
>>>>
>>>>yes or no?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 