Where's your own curiosity?

Because Sen. Clinton is a 2008 presidential candidate, a government directive from the Office of Government Ethics earlier this year forced her to open her Senate approved blind trust and disclose all of her assets to the public. - Source

And from the AP (via Newsmax, no less):

"As a presidential candidate, Senator Clinton was required to make her assets public. As a result, she had to dissolve her blind trust," Howard Wolfson, a senior Clinton adviser, said late Thursday. "Upon its dissolution, she and the president chose to go above and beyond what was required of them and liquidate their assets in order to avoid even the hint of a conflict of interest."

"Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton liquidated the contents of their blind trust upon learning it contained investments of $5 million to $25 million that could pose conflicts of interest or prove to be embarrassing to her presidential campaign."

mantis is right only if they found out what was inside AFTER they liquidated it. That's not what the article alledges.

Hell, even in the article you quoted it states:

The Clintons opened the blind trust in April under instructions from the Office of Government Ethics

What's your point, again?

a trust that has grown to somewhere between 25 and 50 million dollars from less than 2 million a decade ago ...

Wow, I wonder how much influence you can by from a Clinton for that much money ...

Paul's point is... if you can't find something real to pin on your political opponents just take an innocuous piece of information that means nothing -- and then claim that its a media conspiracy because the media is ... uhm, you know.... errr... ignoring an --- ahhh-- innocuous piece of information that means nothing.

mantis is right only if they found out what was inside AFTER they liquidated it.

Wrong. They found out what was in it once they dissolved the trust. They then liquidated the assets therein.

Full disclosure and they can only guess at "$5 million to $25 million".

That, sounds fishy......if the IRS asked me how much I made and I said 30 to 80 thousand do you think they would accept that full disclosure?

no, it's not fishy, I was just reading about a local rep's financial statements, the problem is that all you have to do is check a box with a huge range, like this account is $1-$10,000 or $5M to $10M, so when they're released you can only draw a conclusion of a huge range. It's not the most revealing sort of statement from what I read.

I believe they don't have to disclose the exact amount, but I have to define the "between-ness" of the amount. I see this all the time in candidates' financial reporting, UP Man, and my guess is so do you - and you only choose to ignore now, when your pathetic party is slipping further and further into the hole and it's politically expedient to do so.... but I digress.

And Lee has already turned to insults and whining. what a surprise.

"The blind trust and a bank account valued in the same range place the Clinton's total wealth at between $10 million and $50 million. "

It looks like this particular check box was "asset is worth between $5 million and $25 million". So, there being two of them, that means they're worth at least 10, but less than 50 mil. Not all that helpful to their constituents, but what do you want from people that get to write their own pay raises.

"The report said all the proceeds of the sales are being placed in a cash account. The massive unloading of stock means the Clintons face large capital gains taxes. "

anybody else find this hilarious? "large capital gains taxes"...boohoo. Imagine how large they would have been under her hubby's tax rates or the tax rates she herself would like to impose.

personally I like the fact that there was up to a quarter million in NewsCorp. now that's comedy.

Just wondering, isn't that the same type of blind trust the Frist had when he was senator and doing video predictions of people's health?

Fine. They had a blind trust where the trustees made them a lot of money investing in things the Clintons have wailed against. That's fine, too - not a problem - they are liquidating - I dont care. All the lefties will defend this action to the hilt. I dont care about that either. But what really pisses me off is you lefties (like Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore, etc) that are still claiming that VP Cheney - who disposed of any remements of his Haliburton holdings/options long before he was required to by law, still say he is somehow making money off the Iraqi war via Halliburton contracts. You guys are sickos. gc

re: Cheney - although this is old, I haven't seen anyone disprove it, and it was written AFTER Cheney had been in office for several years.

link

Sorry, this quote got loped off, link above.

A report by the Congressional Research Service undermines Vice President Dick Cheney's denial of a continuing relationship with Halliburton Co., the energy company he once led, Sen. Frank Lautenberg said Thursday.

The report says a public official's unexercised stock options and deferred salary fall within the definition of "retained ties" to his former company.

Cheney said Sunday on NBC that since becoming vice president, "I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."

Democrats pointed out that Cheney receives deferred compensation from Halliburton under an arrangement he made in 1998, and also retains stock options. He has pledged to give after-tax proceeds of the stock options to charity.

Dick Cheney gives more to charity than the losers in the Democrat primary combined I bet.

Paul, you don't post here often, but this was an especially pathetic display.

pwnt

If anyone is inclined to research what Lee posted and come to the right conclusion, what I've researched on this, back when the accusations started, this is money they owed Cheney after he severed his employment relationship with them. This was before he was chosen as a running mate. They agreed between them that he would recieve it over a period of time. No matter how it was handled, his detractors would have found fault with it. If he had opted to demand a lump sum, he would have been greedy. If he takes it over time, he's making money off the war. The fact that he has pledged to give after-tax proceeds of his stock options to charity escapes many. Those on the left who criticize the right for using technicalities find them convenient when describing the right.

Technically, he still has a relationship with Halliburton. Technically, the accusations of his profiteering through that tenuous relationship are wrong.

Now I'm no economic or investment guru, but I don't see that what the Clintons have done is so wrong. It seems that in this particular instance they're trying to prevent the inevitable cries of a confict of interest. There are many egregious things they and many others have engaged in, but this isn't one of them.

That should have read:

Those on the left who criticize the right for using technicalities find them convenient when describing their own.

Everything is legal for the Clintons.

Wow! I know most of the time the libs miss the point of the post, but today, none of them get it. Why don't you all read it again. ww

AND Paris Hilton.

heh- Mantis I read it 4 times and missed that line every time. -- I even said ther was probably a reasonable explation... But the point is still mostly in tact...

But you can bet your ASSets if this where Cheney the media would be citing it as proof he was the devil.

Brilliant job of back checking you facts paul. Maybe you can do a follow-up story on Vince Foster?

"mantis is right only if they found out what was inside AFTER they liquidated it.

Wrong. They found out what was in it once they dissolved the trust. They then liquidated the assets therein."

Uhhh.... crap. I object to that line of reasoning.

Cause, you know, it undermines my entire argument.

and mantis if you doubt me see also Paul Wolfowitz and the world bank.

Hell, my point is completly in tact.

"But you can bet your ASSets if this where Cheney the media would be citing it as proof he was the devil."

So are you saying that by running misleading and false stories with no substance you are as bad as the em ess em?

Paul,

No argument from me vis a vis Cheney.

On that note, why the hell am I even here? I'm supposed to be retired from this. I guess blogs are like cigarettes; it takes a few tries to quit.

Peace.

Now would be a good time for Bill and Hillary to take profits on those oils stocks. Before she raises the capital gains tax.

Like they never knew what was in their trust. Like it was a plastic Easter egg with a surprise waiting inside that only the Easter bunny managed. Riiigghhht.

Technically, it appears that he lied about severing his ties, Crusty...

A report by the Congressional Research Service undermines Vice President Dick Cheney's denial of a continuing relationship with Halliburton Co., the energy company he once led, Sen. Frank Lautenberg said Thursday.

The report says a public official's unexercised stock options and deferred salary fall within the definition of "retained ties" to his former company.

This report came out long after Cheney assumed office and long after he claimed that he'd in fact "severed ties" with Halliburton.

Oh, I'm soo surprised. Just more White House bullshit.

As to Paul's claim that the Clinton non-story was being ignored by the MSM - check out the long list of news articles on this subject.

Reality -- left-leaning, as usual. Damn, I love this country!

I don't happen to think that Cheney is motivated by a desire to profit directly from Haliburton. However, as an objective principle, being owed deferred money is still a connection, in my opinion. Haliburton does a great deal of business with the government, and the Vice President has a vested interest in the company's survival.

It seems reasonable to assume that he would rather see another company go out of business, rather than the one that owes him money.

And before all you wingnuts start calling me a conspiracy theorist, I'm not saying Cheney is involved in anything. But it's not as simple as claiming that being owed deferred payments does not constitute a financial relationship. For Cheney or anyone else.

From broke (Shrillary's own words) to $50 Million + in 14 years as a government employee? Well, two government employee's. A company starts having a little trouble (politicians taking pot shots) and the 'blind' trust is 'peaked' into and the troubled company stock sold. Could there now be some insider trading going on? Once a criminal always a criminal Clinton. How many millions of dollars did the Chaney's give to Charity? Enough to make several people millionaire's. Haven't heard about millions of Clintons ill gotten money going anywhere except tax exempt off shore accounts. Same for Kennedy and Hanoi John. The democrats are up to their nose in sewage and the waves are breaking.

Frank Lautenberg says something the VP did was illegal? Color me shocked! Why not have a neutral source say it? Maybe then I'll care.

mantis you quit this place too? Missed a few weeks and I missed that. For whatever reason I find once or twice per month I still just gotta say sumthin.

P

We're gonna try to taunt him into retorting. So far, it's working. See, he thought he was retiring, but retorting suits him better.
=======================================

Psssst, oyster I am going to write something so close your eyes. Wee wee lee lee wardie is goofing off again. He is going to get behind on the "swarm" (snicker snort) of comments over at the bluie site. Now that didn't hurt much did it oyster.

Get back on the meds, jhow. Doctor's orders.

lee

"Paul's point is... if you can't find something real to pin on your political opponents just take an innocuous piece of information that means nothing --"

You should certainly know. You and your ilk are pros at criminalizing normal behavior.

You and your ilk are pros at criminalizing normal behavior.

Like blowjobs?

A Vanguard Index 500 Index Fund is no solution for Republicans. Remember how Teddy K pilloried Alito at his confirmation hearing over an alleged and illusory conflict of interest over Alito's investment in that fund, which was his sole equity investment?

Right Jeff B - Cheney's ties to Halliburton fit the legal definition (only the vice-Presindet of the United States wasn't smart enough to realize it so he lied), and Paul's outing of Clinton in this post is pure fantasy, and you're suggesting we invented this kind of crap? How disingenuous.

Like I've said before, Brian and lee are only here to "Clintonize" Republicans. Go to hell losers.

Just listen to the wording they use to defend their criminal fruads and lying masters.

"Paul's outing of Clinton" I always knew BJ Clinton was a faggot.

"vice-Presindet of the United States wasn't smart enough to realize it so he lied),"

"Reality -- left-leaning, as usual. Damn, I love this country!"

This has got to be the most assinine and most common dribble to come out of the mouths of stupid bed wetting democrats.

You have to stupid to actively support democrats . They call their sheep stupid all the time they still support the criminals.

The Right is REAL and the left is LUNACY and Lee , you are a disgrace to this Country you lying sack of shit.

http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_ad_falsely_accuses_cheney_on_halliburton.html

gotcha wee wee lee lee wardie (snicker snort)- bluie skies are here again. Glad you still help pay for my meds-snicker snort snort.

Lee seems to have a "lie" fixation. It's become his new favorite word. He uses it at every single opportunity, even when he contradicts himself.

(only the vice-Presindet of the United States wasn't smart enough to realize it so he lied)

"Lie" requires INTENT. If one is not smart enough to realize something, then by DEFINITION one can not be lying. One can be wrong, but one can't lie unless one KNOWS one is not telling the truth.

I would normally say that Lee is simply too stupid to know what such a simple word means, but that conflicts with his basic philosophy. So I will defer to him and say that he is LYING about Cheney.

J.

Cheney stupid? Boy, you missed the mark with that blast, Lee. Just how was he to arrange his Halliburton affairs that would not have allowed you to insinuate something you don't like?
=================================

Look out, everyone, and not just you downrange. Lee is armed and dangerous.
==============================

ouch!!! thats gonna leave a mark... JT :)

From broke (Shrillary's own words) to $50 Million + in 14 years as a government employee? Well, two government employee's.

Hey, Scrapiron. Forget that Clinton is making bank speaking at public places for 7 years now?

Oh, and the salary of Governor and then President for 8 years is a few million total right there too. Take out your costs, that don't include rent and most expenses because they're paid for by the gov't. Then invest the rest over the same 14 year period.

That's how money's made.