The Apprearance Of Impropriety

Mickey Kaus and Mark Coffey (1, 2) have coverage of the TimesSelect-sheltered report by Chris Suellentrop about the stock-promotion litigation involving candidate-promoting Netroots guru Jerome B. Armstrong.

The NY Post followed up the Times report - a flavor:

Jerome Armstrong, the political strategist who followed a famous Internet fundraising effort for Howard Dean in 2004 with a book on "people-powered politics," has a sordid past as a shill for a worthless dot-com stock.

Armstrong, 42, touted a dubious Chinese software company, BluePoint, beginning in 1999, without disclosing that he accepted "below-market" shares in exchange for the glowing reports he posted on a site called Raging Bull, according to a 2003 civil suit that named him as a defendant.

...

Armstrong denied to The Post that he did anything wrong and said the SEC made a mistake in charging him. "This was a long time ago and I settled the case without admitting or denying guilt, and I paid no fine," said Armstrong, who refused to comment further.

Armstrong signed off on a settlement of the charges on Dec. 16, 2003, barring him from touting securities. In addition, Armstrong agreed never to deny any of the SEC charges. It was not immediately known if his statement to The Post denying guilt would violate the settlement agreement.

Chris Suellentrop provided the original SEC complaint but let me throw a few more documents into the mix:

(1) Mr. Armstrong's original denial of the complaint;

(2) The consent order (3 page .pdf)

(3) the consent agreement (5 page .pdf)

The Post wondered whether Mr. Armstrong's statement that "This was a long time ago and I settled the case without admitting or denying guilt, and I paid no fine" might be a violation of the consent agreement.  The relevant bit is seems to be on p. three of the five page agreement:

Defendant agrees not to take any action or to make or permit to be made any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any allegation in the complaint or creating the impression that the complaint is without factual basis.

Well.  I would guess that the Post quote is a pretty dry recitation of the facts and would be allowed.  However - has there been any reaction at MyDD or the Daily Kos?  I found some stray comments at DailyKos, but otherwise my search was a failure.

Comments

[clarice]

About the same reaction as the MSM had to their own google checks (if any) about Jason Leopold it would seem.

[Carol Herman]

Hmm. So, in a sense, Armstrong got a "good" agreement; hiding his complicity from view. While Martha Stewart was charged AFTER her broker called her! Why do brokers call you, anyway? They earn their commission when you MOVE on their phone calls, ya know?

Supposedly, the charge was Martha wore a blue bathrobe. And, her broker, whose name escapes me, also wore one just like it. Heck, even if they were in bed with one another, when did her having sex become the issue? And, ya know what else? ImClone got roughed up at the FDA, but it was onto something STRONG, when it came to cancer treatments. The FDA, like the SEC, seems to favor "agreements" that don't sound very tough, when some people are involved. And, yet, the prosecutors are really only aiming at the headlines. AS IF THAT ALONE IS WORTH JUSTICE. Instead of just calling it THE ROPE.

Anyway, Martha is actually fighting back in Civil Court! Did you know that? She's not laying down for the SEC. Whose major interest (and it's been this way since the first), is to destroy her magazine. FOR OTHERS TO ENJOY THE CARCASS of her customers not having her magazine to buy.

Do they get away with it? She's got enough money to fight. And, the phony jail sentence is behind her.

Someday, when Americans peer into this skewed justice system, Martha's case will float the way prosecutors work with judges who get there through skin color and genetialia, instead of competency. What's waiting to lie in ruins? None other than PC, and the Commie Dream of entitlements. Yes, it was quite a gate keeper. It allowed a lot of drek to get credentialed.

Euripides could'a told ya if ya listened. Women were once "equal to men in Greek life." Then came Antigone and Medea. Emotional loons who dispersed reason and logic. Chips the White men, alone, picked up. Oy vey, if history repeats.

Has anyone noticed that Alito, replacing O'Connor, shifted our Supreme'0s just now? No need to knock. Knock-knock.

[Cecil Turner]

Sorry, just can't see it. As far as I'm concerned, buying stock because it was recommended by Armstrong is analogous to voting based on a recommendation by Kos. Anyone dumb enough to do it has problems . . . that certainly outweigh the squandered capital. In fact, assuming some actually learn from the experience, it might be considered a public service.

[topsecretk9]

--About the same reaction as the MSM had to their own google checks (if any) about Jason Leopold it would seem.--

The left patted themselves on the back relentlessly for digging up the goods on Ben Demenche -- plagiarized movie reviews. Additionally, they have always slammed pajama's media and baselessly smeared participating blogs as a GOP payola mouth piece.

The left goes crazy pointing fingers at republicans definingall the wrongs, declaring they are so much better and then? Turnrs out they have a hand deeper in the cookie jar every time -- only THEY hardly ever call it out.

IOW same old S*^%, different day.

[topsecretk9]

via the Armstrong:

Truckin'
by Jerome Armstrong, Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 07:15:35 AM EST

I'm not going to be posting or blogging here any longer while working campaigns. There's no upside and the downside of posting personal opinions, where it's easy to mark it as a political ploy by the opposition, is plenty. If you do see me blogging, it will be with the campaigns or committees sites or blogs I'm working.
And for the umpteenth time. None of the political consulting I do is associated with Markos, which we stopped with the end of the '04 cycle. I'm still working campaigns, with a contracting staff of usually 6 others, at least into '08. Though I thought I could personally blog my opinions while openly disclosing my work-related interests, that seems unrealistic given the competitive situation. So, see you on down the road.

...via the The Plank

Most significantly, Suellentrop links the work Kos and Armstrong have done hyping Howard Dean, Sherrod Brown, and now Mark Warner (while one or both were on said pol's payroll) to an episode from Armstrong's past. Sullentrop notes that:

some people . . . compare the blog boomlet they helped create for Dean to the work of online bulletin-board posters who touted dodgy Internet stocks during the boom market without disclosing that they were being paid for their words.

Which, interestingly, is precisely what the Securities and Exchange Commission, in court documents filed last August, alleges that Jerome Armstrong did in 2000. (The original S.E.C. complaint is here.) In a subsequent filing, the S.E.C. alleges that "there is sufficient evidence to infer that the defendants secretly agreed to pay Armstrong for his touting efforts" on the financial Web site Raging Bull.

Without admitting or denying anything, Armstrong has agreed to a permanent injunction that forbids him from touting stocks in the future. The S.E.C. remains in litigation with him over the subject of potential monetary penalties.

I can't tell, are they working with each other?

[topsecretk9]

--And for the umpteenth time. None of the political consulting I do is associated with Markos, which we stopped with the end of the '04 cycle.--

[Gary Maxwell]

Did he asy his sock puppets would not participate? If not well then you are barking up the wrong tree.

[Barney Frank]

Well the question is did he actually state that the SEC made a mistake in charging him? Is that only the inference drawn by the reporter, from the quote cited or did he say something more explicit which gave rise to the SEC statement by the reporter? The reporter explicitly says that Armstrong 'said' the SEC made a mistake in charging him. If so, that would certainly seem to be a denial of the charges, although a weasel could make good use of the terms involved. He's certainly walking the line, especially if he's still involved with the SEC.

[Jane]

Denial of charges or not, I just can't see the SEC going after him. Since he is not involved with the market, it would look like a witch hunt, and be a huge waste of money. The docs are a (lack of) character reference, at best.

[Jihn Loki]

Wasn't today, according to Marc Ash, supposed to be the day that Patrick Fitzgerald, along with Karl Rove's cooperative testimony, was going to unseal the indictments against Cheney? Or does Cheney have 24 hours to get his affairs in order as well?

[Other Tom]

"Armstrong denied to The Post that he did anything wrong and said the SEC made a mistake in charging him." Too bad they didn't quote his exact words on these two points, but it certainly appears to me that he likely violated the quoted passage from the consent decree.

I, too, have very little sympathy for those who bought stock on his recommendation, but that's beside the point. The point is simply that it is against the law to make such recommendations without disclosing any financial interest you may have in them.

[Jane]

This whole Cheney thing has become a staple for the lefties. It appeared to start as someone's moonbat musings, and has taken on a life of its own.

Is anyone here concerned about Cheney? From what I've seen there isn't a chance in hell that Cheney is at risk. I'm convinced that Fitzy is winding down, and wishing the whole mess would go away.

Maybe that's just my delusion.

[Lurker]

Jane, I hope you're right.

Rick Moran and AJStrata both have excellent posts for today as usual.

[Rick Ballard]

I'm with Cecil on this. If Armstrong is a specialist in bilking suckers the Nutroots Campaign is his natural home.

What's the downside to Armstrong helping to raise money to buy a bigger megaphone so that the braying of Mowlett's Ass may be heard by a wider audience? The more attention on the Kossacks the better.

[Lurker]

And Jane, if you are interested in the opposite side that is staking her claims that Fitzgerald may be zeroing in on proving just that--that Dick and Libby willfully outed Valerie Plame. And there seems to be renewed energy attempting to avoid allowing Fitzgerald to prove just that, check this lefty link

They seem to think Libby still lied and lied about his lies.

I hadn't heard about the pardon discussions since last Oct. Have you?

[Lurker]

Tom McGuire had a long post challenging FT / EW / EH.

[clarice]

Her ;ast graph begins "I could be wrong," lurker, and that may win understatement of the year award.

[Lurker]

ROFL, Clarice! Can you imagine her reaction once the case is dismissed or Libby wins? She , in fact, asks Tom an important question, "Care to explain, then, why the nutters are so worried about Fitzgerald's out of control investigation??"

Her rebut to Tom McGuire is just as credulous as she called Tom. She doesn't think Fitz is done or winding down.

BTW, JMHanes, lurker and Lurker happen to be the same person since I use 3 to n computers at different locations. :)

[clarice]

Perhaps she can explain why the left demonstrates again such reckless disregard for actual infringements of liberty and concentrates so hard on chimerical threats when those "threats" concern national security?

[Rick Ballard]

"since I use 3 ton computers"

I wondered what happened to the old Univacs....

[davod]

Is this part of a Hillary fightback aqainst those who are being critical of her postitions.

[JM Hanes]

Armstrong per the NY Post:

"This was a long time ago and I settled the case without admitting or denying guilt, and I paid no fine," said Armstrong, who refused to comment further.

Hmmm. Sounds like there's still some water yet to flow under that bridge according to the NYTimes, per The Plank:

Without admitting or denying anything, Armstrong has agreed to a permanent injunction that forbids him from touting stocks in the future. The S.E.C. remains in litigation with him over the subject of potential monetary penalties.

[JM Hanes]

Thanks Llurker. I'm relieved to know I won't have to keep your multiples sorted out!

[Gary Maxwell]

So technically not wrong certainly not the whole truth? " I paid no fine." is more complete if it is understood as " I paid no fine, YET."

[Jane]

ROFL, Clarice! Can you imagine her reaction once the case is dismissed or Libby wins?

Sadly her reaction will be that it was a Bush/Rove plot. Halliburton paid off Fitzy in exchange for all of the Iraqi oil profits for the next 50 years.

Or something similar.

[Lurker]

""since I use 3 ton computers"

I wondered what happened to the old Univacs...."

:-) All crunched up, I'm sure. But I'm sure the Crays are still in use. I meant to say 3 to computers, where = many computers.

Jane, how many gallons of oil has been distributed to USA? None, I'm sure. Any facts to disprove this future conspiracy?

"Perhaps she can explain why the left demonstrates again such reckless disregard for actual infringements of liberty and concentrates so hard on chimerical threats when those "threats" concern national security?"

Good question. One explanation that I can think of is to get more votes from the unknowing ones.

[clarice]

Certainly so, Jane--Closed loop world.

[Tollhouse]

They've constructed a bulletproof scenario whereby the white house is guilty in any case.

[Jane]

Jane, how many gallons of oil has been distributed to USA? None, I'm sure. Any facts to disprove this future conspiracy?

When did the left ever care about facts?

If you state a fact they question the source. If they approve of the source then you are a liar. If none of that works they change the subject - every.single.time.

[Rick Ballard]

"I meant to say 3 to computers, where = many computers."

Oh, well that explains it.

[insert gentle tease icon]

[Sue]

BTW, JMHanes, lurker and Lurker happen to be the same person since I use 3 to n computers at different locations. :)

So...JM Hanes and both lurkers are all the same person?

[paul]

Looks like I'll be trying to short sell my Warner stock.

[Rick Ballard]

No, each lurker is the same person but JMH is different from them.

[Sue]

Rick,

::confused::

Okay...

::grin::

[Geek, Esq.]

He was a touter? Ick.

Someone had the cojones to diary this at Kos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/18/102945/512>here.

[Cecil Turner]

Heh.

[kristina]

This is very interesting site

[clarice]

Hillary gets good results:
"The Blogometer can't remember the last time we read anything positive about Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) on DailyKos but barely two weeks into blog outreach director Peter Daou's tenure and already HRC is being praised as a model Dem."

http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/07/75_daous_early.html