None So Blind...

The Times ponders Bill Frist's controversial stock sale and gives us some background on "blind" trusts:

Federal ethics laws make it virtually impossible for members of Congress or top White House officials to set up trusts fully beyond their knowledge or control. While officials may choose to set up a conventional blind trust under the control of an independent administrator, ethics laws require the annual public disclosure of its contents.

So the laws provide for the creation of special "qualified blind trusts" like Mr. Frist's that are exempt from public disclosure. The laws strictly limit communications between the trustee and the beneficiary, but they also mandate disclosure of the original holdings and notification to the beneficiary whenever an original asset is sold.

And the rules give beneficiaries like Mr. Frist, Republican of Tennessee and the Senate majority leader, the power to order the sale of all of a stock or other asset at any time in the name of eliminating a potential conflict.

...Elected officials cite their creation of blind trusts as insulation against conflicts of interest. When asked about the influence of his multimillion-dollar stake in HCA, the hospital company his family founded, Mr. Frist often said his blind trust kept him ignorant of how many shares he owned. Occasionally, he even said, "I don't know if I own HCA," as he told The National Journal in an interview two years ago.

Though choosing to create a blind trust might help candidates politically, ethics rules do not require one. Many other government officials and members of Congress own or even trade stocks directly.

Well, then - Dr. Frist may have a political problem if his "I don't know if I own HCA" statements come back to haunt him.  However, it does not sound like his knowlege of his HCA holdings will be part of his legal problem.

Comments

[Steven J.]

Maybe Frist and all the other senators should abstain from participating when the Senate is considering legislation that will materially affect their holdings.

[kim]

He's having his cake and eating it too. He is pretending to be as blind as the meaning evoked by the word to the public, while retaining as much vision as the law allows.

Still, this is more cheap shot than anything. I believe that his holding the shares in the face of large legitimate insider selling constituted taking excessive risk by him...er, uh, by the trustees. In other words, rather than acting like that of an insider, this trade was apparently done for other reasons. Perhaps to eliminate a conflict of interest? And had he really had insider information, he'd not likely have sold right before a drop, because that might certainly raise the question of a conflict of interest. Quite frankly, I distrust his ethics less than I do his leadership ablility.

Now was the other sell-off by HCA insiders in anticipation of poor earnings? Now that may be illegitimate.
===================================================

[kim]

SJ: A Vow of Poverty would settle it. At least as far as issues of greed go.
======================================

[Dwilkers]

So Kim has it right then, and the only question is whether his sale was improper. /Shrug. I'd guess it wasn't, from what I saw of the timing on another website.

Just another Washington shell game though, the sort of thing that causes people that care about this sorta thing to rip their hair out.

Is doesn't mean is, blind doesn't mean blind, speech doesn't mean speech. Since kim apparently understands all this, I suspect him/her of being a Rove plant.

[kim]

This was all Harold Ford's idea.
=================================

[Cecil Turner]

"the only question is whether his sale was improper . . ."

There sure doesn't appear to be much "there" there. That said, there wasn't much to Trent Lott's leadership-ending comment either . . . but it was a very good opportunity to throw an underperforming incoming majority leader over the side. (Sen Frist, please note, especially if someone at the White House starts using terms like "offensive".)

After years of Dem obstruction, I had high hopes for this Congress--and have been less than impressed --especially on confirmations and the watered-down travesty of an Energy Bill. The Senate especially needs to pick up the pace . . . and Frist can either get stuff moving, or, as the Captain put it:

We need a strong Majority Leader who can keep the Democrats on the hot seat for their obstructionism . . .

[mark]

Frist is the biggest crook in Washington.

TennCare was an idea, when investment from the good doctor began. By buying health care facilities at the margin, which would receive an influx of government funds, it was a 'no-brainer'. When HCA setteld for 1.8 billion dollars for defrauding the government, within weeks of Frist getting the Senate Majority leadership spot, the press just let it go.

Later I saw a reporter on MSNBC, draw a small inferential link between the two. For the first time, I saw a retraction the next day on MSNBC-apparently Frist has a pack of well paid lawyers ready to cost you millions for asking too many questions.

The comparison between Halliburton/Cheney was a luagher compared to Frist/HCA. Frist reportedly gave his shares to his father, or had them in a blind trust. Did Frist game the system while in his Senate spot? Probably not. Is Frist hundred's of millions gained by fraud relevant? Yes.

This whole State (TN) needs to have someone come in and look at politcians who made a killing off of matching federal funds.

The state would write off the debt, because it would overcharge on everything, or allow their contractors to overcharge, and let the Federal money kick in...The fact that no federal investigation has gone after suggests how wide spread the corruption is.
I'm a conservative, and Frist may be a conservative too...but he got rich off of fraud.

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/health/columb_2003.html

Good luck finding me, Frist lawyers.

[Harry Arthur]

Cecil, After years of Dem obstruction, I had high hopes for this Congress--and have been less than impressed --especially on confirmations and the watered-down travesty of an Energy Bill. The Senate especially needs to pick up the pace . . . and Frist can either get stuff moving, or,... I, too had high hopes for the republican congress back in 1994 but they have become what they replaced. They have been co-opted by avarice and power.

Take a look at the latest highway bill for another example. Bush has done no better. Not a single pork-filled bill vetoed, nor even a realistic threat of a veto. Spending out of control. Agree with your assessment of a failure of leadership in the senate, especially on judicial nominations.

It seems that the republicans have difficulty setting an agenda and leading. What ever happened to the pursuing principles like they did with "The Contract With America"? I'm so totally fed up I may vote libertarian or just stay home in 2006 and 2008. Bush and the republicans need to lose a few - perhaps that will give them a good shot of reality.

[Crank]

Of course, it's ridiculous on its face to say "I don't know about the HCA stock" when people keep asking you about all that HCA stock you own. Frist couldn't be ignorant of those holdings if he tried.

But you are correct that this is not part of Frist's legal problem, unless he's dumb enough to lie to the SEC about what he knows about his holdings.

[Syl]

"Bush and the republicans need to lose a few - perhaps that will give them a good shot of reality."

I see your point, but turning control over to Democrats during these times doesn't seem like a smart move.

Threaten though. Threaten all you want. Let's just be sure Iraq is fixed first. And we have bin laden in the can.

[Jerkweed]

Who says it has to be Dems who get control Syl?

Maybe conservatives could actually do something for once. Operation Offset is a rather pathetic start, but a start nevertheless.

[Harry Arthur]

Syl, and I also see your point. That's what makes the choice so excruciating for me. If the republicans would only stick to their principles I'd be comfortable giving them my vote. It's the total lack of fiscal responsibility that may be more of a threat to the republic in the long run than islamofacists.

If the democrats would actually run a Lieberman I believe the republicans would be in trouble. Instead we'll probably end up with Hillary and hubby in the WH and who knows what that will get us on national security. Given what we've seen in the last five years we couldn't do any worse fiscally.

So how do we get their attention?

[kim]

First get a big stick, like the Club for Growth. Then start laying about with it.
=================================================

[Harry Arthur]

J & k, thanks for the note on Operation Offset I found in the Washington Times. If the conservatives in the House are successful then I may change my mind. Delay's response regarding the Transportation bill does not encourage me.

The Club for Growth is from all appearances an excellent organization. If only Bush and the republicans would listen ... You can bet the MSM and the spenders will lie about.

And social security is still broke (literally and figuratively).

[vch]

attractive fighette anale fotti
attractive fighette fotti
attractive fighette merda
attractive fighette sex
attractive fighette urinate
attractive idraulico succhi
attractive infermiera dildo
attractive infermiera inculate
attractive infermiera prostituta
attractive infermiera succhi
attractive inglese spogliarello
attractive lesbiche amore
attractive lesbiche doppio penetrazione
attractive lesbiche merda
attractive lesbiche sex
attractive lesbiche urinate
attractive nonne amore
attractive operaio masturbate
attractive pulcino doppio penetrazione
attractive ragazze amore
attractive ragazze figa fotti
attractive ragazze masturbate
attractive ragazze sesso
attractive ragazze ubriache
attractive segretaria amore
attractive segretaria fotti
attractive segretaria merda
attractive segretaria spogliarello
attractive soldato inculate