Ethical is what I'm looking for. Cute doesn't hurt. A bit.

Ethical, eh?



Hmmmmm......perhaps ethics is a good key word for the fall...or Autumn, rather.

Can you say intel failures? Whitewash? Didn't this same man promise an investigation into how the intel was used in the leadup to the war? Or was it a liar from lower in the party?

I'll believe an honest investigation will happen only when all the members of this administration are gone from positions of power.



As Floodwaters Drain, Officials Prepare to Recover Dead
Bush and Congress Pledge Investigations Into Katrina Response

By Timothy Dwyer, Jacqueline L. Salmon and William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 6, 2005; 2:18 PM

NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 6 -- With pumping operations underway to drain floodwaters from New Orleans and evacuations slowing down, officials braced Tuesday for the grim task of recovering the bodies of people killed by Hurricane Katrina.

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin said Tuesday morning that the death toll was likely to horrify the nation. He has estimated that thousands of people died when they were trapped in their homes by the rising floodwaters, but with much of the city still flooded eight days after the hurricane struck, relatively few bodies have been recovered so far.

In Washington, President Bush said he would lead an investigation into the response to Hurricane Katrina, and the Senate's Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs announced hearings to probe failures in dealing with the storm and its aftermath.

"What I intend to do is . . . to lead an investigation to find out what went right and what went wrong," Bush said after meeting with his Cabinet in the White House. "It's very important for us to understand the relationship between the federal government, the state government and the local government when it comes to a major catastrophe." He said Americans "still live in an unsettled world" and that the government must be able to respond properly if the country is struck by a massive terrorist attack or another major storm.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5090600498.html

That statement is going to disappoint a lot of Republicans around here. They're so very sure Bushie is blameless.

So AWOL is going to "lead" the coverup, I mean, investigation eh?


ROFLMFAO!

The last investigation is what resulted in the bureaucracy that triggers this investigation. No doubt the Ds will apoint Mayor Ray to be on the investigation commiteee.

Good Goubment In Action

Can we have more sir?

The UN is so far from being a gubment that you ought to restrain yourself, for once.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=b...ost&btnG=Search

8.5 BILLION lost under Bremmer

as in:

GONE

ZILCH

NADA

SEE-YA

HUH?

DUH

Sept. 8, 2005, 5:45PM
Grand jury indicts panel connected to DeLay
Associated Press

AUSTIN — A grand jury has indicted a political action committee formed by U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and a prominent Texas business group in connection with 2002 legislative campaign contributions.


The five felony indictments, made public today, allege illegal use of corporate money for political influence in the elections that gave Republicans control of the Texas House.

Neither DeLay nor any individuals with the Texas Association of Business has been charged with wrongdoing. District Attorney Ronnie Earle said DeLay was not in his jurisdiction, and therefore couldn't be indicted as part of the ongoing investigation.

A spokesman from DeLay's office said the Republican from Sugar Land was not involved in the day-to-day operations of the group.

The indictments allege that the TAB and Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee worked together in a complicated scheme to circumvent the election code and funnel "massive amounts of secret corporate wealth" into campaigns, Earle said.

If convicted, the two groups named in the indictments could face fines of up to $20,000 for each count. The indictments name 128 counts against the TAB.

The charge against Texans for a Republican Majority, known as TRMPAC, alleged the committee illegally accepted a political contribution of $100,000 from the Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care and $20,000 from AT&T.

Four indictments against the Texas Association of Business include charges of unlawful political advertising, unlawful contributions to a political committee and unlawful expenditures such as those to a graphics company and political candidates.

TAB attorney Roy Minton said the group acted under protections of the First Amendment, which "gives individuals and their businesses the absolute right to inform the public of the conduct of our elected officials and the conduct of candidates for public office, including their public statements and their voting record."

The contributions to the 21 Texas House candidates helped Republicans gain a majority in the chamber. Speaker Tom Craddick then became the first Republican to lead the House since Reconstruction.

Craddick has been subpoenaed in the investigation and questioned about acting as middleman in delivering the $100,000 check from the nursing home group to Texans for Republican Majority. Craddick has not been accused of illegal activity.

Watchdog group Public Citizen applauded the indictments.

"Some of the smartest corporations in Texas invested heavily in these campaigns and their investments have paid off," said said Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of the Texas office of Public Citizen. "As a result, the Legislature passed tort reforms that reduced the liability of large insurance companies, nursing home operators and other big businesses and shifted the cost onto the average citizens."

Minton said he went with TAB president Bill Hammond to a meeting with prosecutors on Wednesday to try to head off criminal charges against the organization or its officers. While Hammond was not charged individually, Earle did not rule out the possibility of more indictments connected with the association.

The statewide business group, which is influential at the Texas Capitol, spent about $1.7 million in corporate money for mailings in 2002. The group said it was trying to educate voters on issues, which is legal, not advocate the election or defeat of any candidates.

Earle has been investigating whether the contributions violate state bans against corporate money being spent directly on campaign activities. He said concentrated wealth, such as that from corporations, can unfairly influence elections.

"To stop such assaults on democracy, Texas law has prohibited political contributions from corporations and labor unions for over a century," he said. "Such use of money to buy the power that comes from illegally influencing elections endangers democracy and imperils the public."

The grand jury last fall indicted three officials with Texans for a Republican Majority. John Colyandro of Austin and Jim Ellis of Washington, D.C., each were accused of one count of money laundering. Colyandro also faces 13 counts of unlawful acceptance of a corporate political contribution.

Washington fundraiser Warren RoBold was indicted on charges of accepting or making corporate donations.

All are now awaiting trial.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3345113

Austin Business Journal - 5:43 PM CDT Thursday
TAB, PAC indicted in fundraising case

A Travis County grand jury on Thursday returned five indictments against the Texas Association of Business and the Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee on charges of giving and receiving over $1 million in political contributions from corporations and labor unions, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle says.


Texas law makes it a felony to do both, Earle says.

Earle's office began its investigation into the association and the PAC in late 2002, after the association "boasted that it had engaged in wholesale flaunting of that law," he says.

Since then, the District Attorney's Office and four separate Travis County grand juries have investigated the use of corporate money to influence Texas state elections in 2002.

The "investigation has so far taken over two and a half years," Earle says.

"A primary factor in the length of time it is taking was TAB's prolonged efforts to stymie the investigation and hide the details of its use of corporate money from the grand jury as well as from the public."

Last September, one of those grand juries returned 32 indictments related to TRMPAC's involvement with corporate money. The investigation continued, however, resulting in the indictments announced Thursday, Earle says.

The indictments charge the association with 128 counts of various violations of Texas' campaign finance laws, alleging it fraudulently solicited and contributed corporate money to candidates and interest groups in the state's 2002 elections.

Roy Minton, an Austin attorney representing the Texas Association of Business, says the fundraising and spending in question are legal under precedents established by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Earle is "ignoring the First Amendment," Minton says, "because the Supreme Court of the United States has concluded that the right of free speech gives anybody or any business the right to inform the public whatever somebody's voting record is or what the person is saying."


The association "did not ever tell anybody to vote for somebody or vote against somebody," he says.



Earle begs to differ.

"The United States Supreme Court has recognized that concentrated wealth can unfairly influence elections," Earle says.

"To stop such assaults on democracy, Texas law has prohibited political contributions from corporations and labor unions for over a century. Such use of money to buy the power that comes from illegally influencing elections endangers democracy and imperils the public."

A representative of TRMPAC couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stori...y38.html?page=2

Cheat, lie, steal, cheat some more, bribe, threaten, cheat again ... is there anything these tele-evangelical Christian politicians won't do to win? When big money infused the evangelical Christian political movement it poisoned and corrupted the faithful. Now? Anything goes. That's how it works in DC, ect, ect. Situational ethics again. Morals and values? Where?


Indictments Added in GOP Fundraising Case


Wednesday, September 14, 2005; Page A17

A Texas grand jury added new indictments yesterday to criminal charges against U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's top political fundraiser and the executive director of a Texas political action committee that DeLay organized to orchestrate a Republican takeover of the Texas House in 2002.

The grand jury alleged that James W. Ellis, who has raised money for DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority political action committee (ARMPAC) as well as for an offshoot known as Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), illegally contributed $190,000 in corporate funds to the Republican National Committee within 60 days of the 2002 state election.



It also alleged that Ellis and John Colyandro, TRMPAC's director at the time, conspired to deliver the funds to Terry Nelson, the Republican National Committee's deputy chief of staff, and that they supplied Nelson with the names of Texas Republican House candidates who eventually received the funds.

Ellis and Colyandro were indicted in 2004 on state money-laundering charges related to the same transaction, which had the effect of pumping corporate money into races that were barred from receiving them by state law. Both men have denied any wrongdoing.

Last week, the same grand jury indicted the Texas committee for having funneled the $190,000 and additional corporate money into Republican campaign coffers, a violation of Texas election law that bars corporate contributions to state campaigns.

Ronald Earle, the Travis County district attorney overseeing the investigation, is laboring under an end-of-the-month deadline to bring forward most indictments related to fundraising for the election due to the three-year statute of limitations governing such crimes.

His probe has led to charges against three individuals, eight corporations, TRMPAC and the Texas Association of Business.

-- R. Jeffrey Smith

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5091301724.html

There has never been a just [war], never an honorable one — on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful — as usual — will shout for the war. The pulpit will — warily and cautiously — object — at first; the great, big dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, “It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.” Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers — as earlier — but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation — pulpit and all — will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will ease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those concience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convice himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after the process of grotesque self-deception.
Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger, 1916

I'm glad to see REPUBLICANS returned ethics and honor to DC. This whole administration and Congress are one huge pack of white collar criminals cashing in at our expense. They got elected partially on ethics, what a sham that is.

Bush Official Arrested in Corruption Probe

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 20, 2005; Page A01

The Bush administration's top federal procurement official resigned Friday and was arrested yesterday, accused of lying and obstructing a criminal investigation into Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff's dealings with the federal government. It was the first criminal complaint filed against a government official in the ongoing corruption probe related to Abramoff's activities in Washington.

The complaint, filed by the FBI, alleges that David H. Safavian, 38, a White House procurement official involved until last week in Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, made repeated false statements to government officials and investigators about a golf trip with Abramoff to Scotland in 2002.


Procurement chief David H. Safavian was connected to probe of lobbyist Jack Abramoff.


It also contends that he concealed his efforts to help Abramoff acquire control of two federally managed properties in the Washington area. Abramoff is the person identified as "Lobbyist A" in a 13-page affidavit unsealed in court, according to sources knowledgeable about the probe.

Until his resignation on the day the criminal complaint against him was signed, Safavian was the top administrator at the federal procurement office in the White House Office of Management and Budget, where he set purchasing policy for the entire government.

The arrest occurred at his home in Alexandria. A man who answered the phone there yesterday hung up when a reporter asked to speak to Safavian.

Abramoff was indicted by federal prosecutors in Miami last month on unrelated charges of wire fraud and conspiracy. He remains the linchpin of an 18-month probe by a federal task force that includes the Internal Revenue Service, the Interior Department and the Justice Department's fraud and public integrity units. His lawyer did not respond to phone calls seeking comment.

Abramoff's allegedly improper dealings with Indian tribes -- which netted him and an associate at least $82 million in fees -- prompted the federal probe. But investigators have found that his documents and e-mails contain a trove of information about his aggressive efforts to seek favors for clients from members of Congress and senior bureaucrats.

Accompanying Safavian and Abramoff on the 2002 trip to Scotland, for example, were Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Administration Committee, lobbyist and former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed and Neil Volz, a lobbyist with Abramoff at the Washington office of Greenburg Traurig.

Like Abramoff, Safavian is a veteran Washington player. He is a former lobbying partner of anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist and previously worked with Abramoff at another firm. Both he and Abramoff have represented gambling clients and Indian tribes with gambling interests.

At the time of the golf trip, Safavian was chief of staff at the General Services Administration, where ethics rules flatly prohibited the receipt of a gift from any person seeking an official action by the agency. When Safavian asked GSA ethics officers for permission to go on the trip, he assured them in writing that Abramoff "has no business before GSA," according to the affidavit signed by FBI special agent Jeffrey A. Reising.

Reising alleged, however, that Abramoff had by then already secretly enlisted Safavian in an effort to buy 40 acres of land that GSA managed in Silver Spring for use as the campus of a Hebrew school Abramoff founded. Safavian also allegedly tried to help Abramoff lease space for Abramoff's clients in an old post office building downtown.

On July 22, 2002, Abramoff sent Safavian an e-mail with a proposed draft letter that "at least two members of Congress" could send to GSA supporting the lease, according to the affidavit. "Does this work, or do you want it to be longer?" Abramoff asked.

Three days later, Safavian forwarded Abramoff an e-mail describing how an employee at OMB was resisting Abramoff's plan to lease space at the post office. "I suspect we'll end up having to bring some Hill pressure to bear on OMB," Safavian messaged Abramoff.

On the same day Safavian discussed the golf trip with the ethics office, he sent an e-mail to Abramoff from his home computer, advising him how to "lay out a case for this lease." Abramoff subsequently wrote in an e-mail to his wife and two officials of the school that Safavian had shown him a map of the property at his GSA office but had cautioned that Abramoff should not visit again "given my high profile politically."

Safavian nonetheless arranged a meeting for Abramoff's wife and business partner with officials at GSA on the day before he departed for Scotland aboard Abramoff's chartered jet. The trip cost more than $120,000 and was paid for mostly by a charity founded and run by Abramoff, the Capital Athletic Foundation.

When Safavian was questioned by The Washington Post about the trip in January, he said he paid his share of the expenses and took unpaid leave. "The trip was exclusively personal; I did no business there. . . . Jack is an old friend of mine," Safavian said.

But the complaint alleges that Safavian lied about his contacts with Abramoff on three occasions after his initial false pledge to the GSA ethics officer. The first was during a 2003 investigation by GSA's inspector general, who was responding to an anonymous tipster's hotline complaint; the second was in a March 17, 2005, letter to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs; and the third was during an FBI interview on May 26, 2005.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5091901859.html

FEC Sues Pro-Republican Political Group

By SHARON THEIMER
The Associated Press
Tuesday, September 20, 2005; 2:55 AM

WASHINGTON -- Federal election regulators have taken a political group to court in what could serve as a test case for how the government will address complaints over millions of dollars in big contributions poured into last year's presidential race.

The Federal Election Commission filed a lawsuit Monday in U.S. District Court in Washington against the Club for Growth, the first case of its kind to arise from high-dollar fundraising during the 2004 elections. The pro-Republican group spent at least $21 million in the 2003-2004 election cycle.


The FEC contends the club spent enough in federal races to require it to file with the commission as a political committee and to follow contribution and spending limits. It wants the court to fine the group and order it to comply with campaign finance rules.

Pat Toomey, the club's president, called the FEC lawsuit "outrageous" and "a bizarre interpretation of the club's mission, the Constitution, the laws adopted by Congress and their own regulations governing nonprofit organizations."

"The club's principle purpose is to advocate for and defend pro-growth policies," Toomey said in a written statement. "We have consulted with counsel every step of the way and have followed the law and regulations that govern our work."

FEC Vice Chairman Michael Toner rated the case "one of the most important suits the commission has brought in recent years."

"At stake is whether Club for Growth will be able to continue raising and spending millions of dollars in soft money for activities influencing federal elections," said Toner, a Republican.

The lawsuit is the first to result from several complaints filed against pro-Republican and pro-Democratic "soft money groups" during the last election, and it could determine whether the commission can rein in such groups without new congressional legislation or FEC rules.

Campaign finance watchdogs contend the groups spent millions of dollars in corporate, union and unlimited contributions despite a new law banning the use of such money in presidential and congressional races.

The FEC investigated the club's fundraising and spending after the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee complained to the commission about it.

The DSCC complaint stemmed from an ad the club ran in the 2003-04 election cycle against then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., over his opposition to a tax-cut proposal. Daschle lost to Republican John R. Thune in last November's election.

President Bush's re-election campaign and the sponsors of the 2002 campaign finance law sued the FEC last year, accusing it of failing to enforce the law and crack down on soft money spending, particularly in the presidential race. Those cases are pending in federal court.

The 2004 election saw the emergence of several partisan groups created by political activists to continue spending five- and even six- and seven-figure contributions after the new law imposed tough donation limits on national parties and congressional and presidential candidates. Under the law, the national parties and federal candidates can no longer raise corporate and union donations in any amount or unlimited donations from any source, and such money isn't supposed to be used by anyone trying to influence a federal race.

The commission's lawsuit accuses the club of failing to follow federal fundraising and spending rules as far back as 2000.


The complaint says the club told prospective donors their money would be used to help elect or defeat specific candidates, and that it raised more than $4 million last year alone from donors who exceeded the $5,000 federal contribution limit. Of that, roughly $3 million came from just 14 donors.

The club spent more than $1 million in the past three elections on ads targeting specific campaigns _ often going so far as urging people to vote for or against candidates _ and raised more than $9 million during that time that exceeded federal limits, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit could be the first in a parade of cases brought against soft money groups by the FEC, said Larry Noble, head of the Center for Responsive Politics campaign watchdog group and a former FEC general counsel.

"We've all been waiting to see what they do with those complaints, and I think it's positive that they have brought suit," Noble said.

However, the lawsuit seems to focus on spending that urged voters to elect or defeat candidates, Noble said. That leaves it an open question how the FEC will deal with partisan groups that intended to influence races but didn't go quite as far as the club did, he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...91901020_2.html

Glad you agree. 'bout time.

Joint Investigation of Response Called Off


By Mary Curtius, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans signaled Monday that they had abandoned their plan to conduct a joint House-Senate probe of the government's response to Hurricane Katrina.

In announcing a joint inquiry earlier this month, the Republican leadership said it would be the most efficient way to investigate the administration's much-criticized hurricane relief effort. But on Monday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) conceded that he had been unable to overcome Democratic opposition to a joint investigation.

Democratic leaders have refused to appoint members to a joint committee, citing the lack of equal representation for their party. Democrats say that would make it possible for Republicans to control the investigation.

As an alternative, Democrats have insisted on an independent inquiry, saying the Republican-controlled Congress cannot be trusted to aggressively investigate the Republican administration.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...eadlines-nation


Well, that's obvious. There is no way in hell Republicans can be trusted to investigate themselves. May as well put Ken Lay in charge of the Enron investigation.

Sounds like a power grab by the FEC davey-doo, but as the targets are Republican, I can see why you are being hypocritical about this.

There's one fair way for the democrats to get their way on this point.


WIN BACK CONGRESS YOU WHINING LITTLE BITCHES.

win?

from diebold?

So awol put rove in charge of rebuilding NO or some such and now he appoints another of his money grubbers to be in charge of the "investigation" of katrina?

Whats the deal is kissenger not available?

LMAO now it's your contention that diebold secured victory for the Republican hopefuls for congress?

Back in '94?

Club for Growth makes a perfect test case. They claim not to be a political organization, but rather an "educational" organization, based on how much they spend on "seminars". Never mind that those seminars are on the voting records of Dems (and Repubs) who disagree with the Club's political philosophy and how those voting records might be characterized in a political campaign, and never mind that those seminars are provided "free" to any student that chooses to enroll. We shall ignore for the moment that only seminar expenses are paid for, and room and board (unless you get a scholarship from the Club) are on the student's bill, or rather, the student's candidate's bill. It's sure not THE CLUB FOR GROWTH's problem that Dem candidates or Dem-leaning poli sci students seem to be uninterested in footing their own room and board bills to attend these seminars.

And it's SURE not the Club's problem that their seminars are marketed to mostly far-right-leaning potential students. The Club very fairly sends their invitations to anyone on any mailing list that's DONATED to them. Odd that so few liberal or moderate organizations see fit to donate a $5,000 or $10,000 single use of a mailing list to the Club for purposes of a mass mailing to potential students...

Can I sell you a bridge? But there you have it.

And if anyone's interested, my own position is that free speech (speech, not money!) and political activity are INDIVIDUAL living-born-over-18-eligible-to-vote personal rights, not possessed by corporations, and specifically excluding politcial corporations like the DLC and RNC and Club for Growth, and that therefore all non-individual expressions, including aggregated donations to air an ad, are subject to SPENDING regulations.

Individuals have freedom of association and to 'petition their government'. But, the association itself, in whatever form, has no individual rights to free speech, freedom of association, etc.

Federal judges and the Justices of the USSC have been way, way, way too 'careless' with recognizing or finding rights and protections for non-living, breathing actual human individuals. The treatment of 'political parties' is BIZARRE.

It's astounding that, as the only counter possible to corporate campaign spending, so many people are trying so hard to shut down PACs.

"Katrina...stripped away any image of competence and exposed to all the true heart and nature of this administration. The truth is that for four and a half years, real life choices have been replaced by ideological agenda, substance replaced by spin, governance second place always to politics."

http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenter...t_and_cost.html

In responding to blistering, legitimate and widespread criticism of gross mismanagement by merely accusing critics of playing politics, the White House demonstrates its unswerving loyalty to spin over substance and politics over governance - and both tactics underlie the administration's overarching, strategic ideology-in-practice of always keeping its agenda safely removed from reality.

So if the feds do an exemplary job with Rita, will your opinion of Bush improve?

As if he'd admit it if the feds DID do an exemplary job.

How could you tell? Does his Spam change?

does your mind?

your heart?

if bush responds better to red states than blue does your opinion of me change?

Do you always answer a question with a question?

Do you?

Well?

yes?

of course not

At least 1000 fold.

4, maybe 5 slightly different posts and a few conspiracy links. That's about it.

nothing for good GOP locksteps to bother with....

I wonder if they'll hold Frist as accountable as they did Martha. He knew what was in his "blind" trust and had his shares sold, right before the price fell.

Now is that a coincidence or was it insider trading. That is the question. I think he should get the same treatment as the rest of the insiders who landed in jail for lengthy sentences.

But, because of his political position, he may get off with nothing.

The WP has a good case against him today.

SEC, Justice Investigate Frist's Sale of Stock

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 24, 2005; Page A01

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is facing questions from the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission about his sale of stock in his family's hospital company one month before its price fell sharply.

The Tennessee lawmaker, who is the Senate's top Republican and a likely candidate for president in 2008, ordered his portfolio managers in June to sell his family's shares in HCA Inc., the nation's largest hospital chain, which was founded by Frist's father and brother.

A month later, the stock's price dropped 9 percent in a single day because of a warning from the company about weakening earnings. Stockholders are not permitted to trade stock based on inside information; whether Frist possessed any appears to be at the heart of the probes.

A spokesman said Frist's office has been contacted by both the SEC and the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan about his divestiture of the stock. HCA disclosed separately that it was subpoenaed by the same U.S. attorney's office for documents that were related to Frist's sale. Frist and HCA said they are cooperating.

Historians said they cannot recall any other congressional leaders who have faced federal inquiries into stock sales. Frist has denied any wrongdoing.

On Thursday, a Frist spokeswoman said the senator had not discussed the stock sale in advance with any HCA executives. On Friday, in a statement from Frist's office, the issue was couched a little differently. It said the senator "had no information about the company or its performance that was not available to the public when he directed the trustees to sell the HCA stock. His only objective in selling the stock was to eliminate the appearance of a conflict of interest."

According to Frist's office, the senator decided to sell all his HCA stock -- held in blind trusts managed by two companies for him, his wife and his children -- on June 13. Under the rules of the trusteeships, Frist had no control over the timing of the sale, Frist spokeswoman Amy Call said.

When the company disclosed that its second-quarter earnings would fall short of Wall Street expectations a month later, the stock price slid steeply. By that time, Frist's shares had been divested. The managers of one of the trusts told the senator on July 1 that his holdings had all been sold; the other trust managers said the shares were gone on July 8.

Frist's financial disclosure statement earlier this year placed the value of his blind trusts at between $7 million and $25 million.

Separately, documents unearthed yesterday by the Associated Press showed that Frist was told about stock trades in his blind trust. In documents filed with the Senate, trustee M. Kirk Scobey Jr. told Frist in 2002 that HCA stock had been transferred to his trust. Scobey, reached by phone last night, declined to comment.

The AP said that the documents disclosed that HCA stock worth hundreds of thousands of dollars was placed into Frist's blind trusts several other times in 2002 as well. Frist maintained in a television interview in 2003 that he did not know how much HCA stock he owned, if any. Spokesmen for Frist did not return phone messages last night.

HCA was founded in 1968 by Frist's father, Thomas Frist, his brother, Thomas Frist Jr., and Jack Massey, the former owner of Kentucky Fried Chicken. Frist's brother Thomas is a director and a former HCA chairman. The senator himself is a surgeon."

For the rest of the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5092301811.html

So, now we have the head of the GOP Congress AND the head of the GOP Senate under criminal investigation?

By a GOP headed DOJ, no less.

Interesting.

First he says he doesn't know IF he has any HCA shares and then he says he told them to sell his shares that he didn't know he had so there would be no conflict of interest, just before the stock tanked. hmmmm.


"Congressional critics questioned the reason Frist gave for selling the stock. Senate rules allow lawmakers to divest all of their shares in a company from a blind trust, but only if they assume new duties and find that their ownership presents the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Frist has held HCA shares in a blind trust since he came to the Senate in 1995. He was promoted to majority leader in 2002. Frist regularly deflected concerns about owning the shares while leading health care debates by saying he kept them in a blind trust.

"I don't know what new duties he would point to above and beyond becoming majority leader, and that was three years ago," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, an ethics advocate.

Call, Frist's spokeswoman, said the stock sale was motivated solely by the senator's desire to avoid an appearance of conflict, but she could not cite any published criticism of his HCA holdings after April 2004."

I think some explanation is in order. I bet he's smiling about Katrina taking all the news shows.

Sunday morning shows may have something about this. I hope.

Send the motherfucker off to Camp Cupcake ASAP !!!!

I didn't know he had sex with his Mother. Do you have a link???

All repugs are motherfuckers according to you.

I never said that, you did. I hate republicans, but not for their sexual preferences.

It's a figure of speech that I use, maam. You may use the one you like best.

So many repugs. So much hate. Must be a 24/7 job to do all that.

It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it.

Maybe Sherry can handle it, with a littlel help from her union goons.