PDA

View Full Version : Perry the crook?



Qtec
10-01-2011, 01:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Rick Perry Faced Federal Scrutiny For Insider Trading, Criticism For Land Deals</span>

WASHINGTON -- Since announcing his run for the presidency, Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) has had to fend off allegations of crony capitalism. Such critiques have revealed the governor's easy relationships with lobbyists, and his awarding campaign donors government contracts and influential positions on state boards. But Perry has also personally profited from these same relationships. His own deal making has helped him become a millionaire, and it has not gone unnoticed.

In the late '90s, federal law enforcement authorities investigated allegations that Perry had engaged in insider trading, sources involved in the inquiry tell The Huffington Post.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>On Jan. 24, 1996, Perry purchased 2,800 shares of stock in a company, Kinetic Concepts, Inc., owned by a San Antonio businessman soon to be one of Perry's top donors, James Leininger. <u>It was great timing. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Later that day</span>, a group of investors bought up 2.2 million shares in the company,</u> sending the price soaring and netting Perry a nice gain.</span>

On the day of the stock purchases, Perry had given a speech before a group founded by Leininger. Both Perry and Leininger later admitted talking on the day in question but denied discussing the stock. Perry would go on to sell his Kinetic Concepts stock -- a total of more than 8,000 shares -- <span style='font-size: 14pt'>a month later for a $38,000 profit.</span>

It took at least two years for an Austin attorney to uncover the suspicious trade. The attorney, who would only discuss the matter on condition of anonymity because he continues to have dealings with the U.S. Attorney's Office, said he spoke with two sources who corroborated that Perry and Leininger had met on the day in question and that the donor had advised the politician on the stock purchase.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Perry bought immediately," the attorney recalled. "I mean it was immediately. It was immediately after that that the transaction was announced and the stock went up considerably. My source was telling me that Leininger told [Perry] to go buy some stock."</span>

"I was told that such a private conversation took place and in that private conversation, Leininger told him he needed to invest a little money," the attorney added. </div></div>

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/30/rick-perry-insider-trading-land-deals_n_988207.html)

Q

Gayle in MD
10-01-2011, 08:11 AM
Where there is a Republican, there is corruption.

Soflasnapper
10-01-2011, 11:31 AM
Back in the day, a Bebe Rebozo helped his friend Richard Nixon by arranging real estate sales to Nixon at discounts, which he could later sell in the near term for a substantial gain. This was standard practice for a politician with a financial patron.

Later, the method of semi-legal bribery expanded to duking in politicians into IPOs, with insider information that the IPO would do very well, even right away, that maybe it was oversubcribed, and likely to double the initial investment as soon as the auction to the market took place.

There is a long line of politicians from both sides of the partisan divide who profited greatly from exactly this kind of thing, repeated many times over, with 100% and greater returns on initial investments in privately arranged IPO offering participation offers.

It's clearly bad optics, but it may not exactly be illegal. If it is illegal, it's only more recently been made illegal (and maybe not; I'm not aware that it is strictly speaking a forbidden practice).

So rather than a legal charge of a criminal activity, I think this will be more an optics problem, and people will either find it disquieting and discomforting, or not, depending on the aggravating circumstances of the quid for this pro, and how bad that looks.

To date, Obama has pretty much skated on the charge that he benefited from his patron Tony Rezko, in that low-ball sale of part of an adjoining property to the property the Obamas own in Chicago. It was brought up, briefly, either in the primary season or the campaign in chief, but it didn't really stick as a corruption issue.

IF Perry wins the nomination, and these arrangements to his financial benefit become an issue, I'm guessing that Rezko transaction will be brought back to a higher profile.

Qtec
10-01-2011, 12:49 PM
Noted , but this is as clear a case of insider trading as there ever was one.

Q

Soflasnapper
10-01-2011, 01:03 PM
Yes, but it is in the past, and now beyond the statue of limitations to pursue.

So, this is interesting history that may prove a powerful negative for his campaign if it continues for some more time, but it appears that it cannot result in any prosecution.

And mainly, however bad it appears, it appears legal, and only subject to an electorate's disgust, if they find it so unpalatable and shady that they'd decide this man is too corrupt. (He may be, but I don't think this will be a deciding factor in this race.)

Qtec
10-01-2011, 01:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, but it is in the past, and now beyond the statue of limitations to pursue. </div></div>

If he gets the nomination, it will become a major topic.

Perry has a<u> lot</u> of baggage.
Q

LWW
10-01-2011, 01:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, but it is in the past, and now beyond the statue of limitations to pursue. </div></div>

If he gets the nomination, it will become a major topic.

Perry has a<u> lot</u> of baggage.
Q </div></div>

I have issues with this deal.

Now, why is it that you give dear leader a pass for doing the same thing?
JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2011/09/22/lightsquared_poster_child_for_crony_capitalism/page/full/)

cushioncrawler
10-01-2011, 03:46 PM
It can be dangerous on top.
http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/a432/cushioncrawler/Garden/Dec4022.jpg

Soflasnapper
10-01-2011, 04:08 PM
There doesn't appear to be 'the same thing' going on in the case to which you refer.

And as for either of these guys' actions being criminal, they are probably not criminal, just political scandals, if/when people decide they are scandalous, if they are scandalous, as opposed to partisan opponents SAYING they are scandalous. I've already yawned over any criminal aspects as to Perry's far more egregious and personally profitable actions.

Shelton's leaned-on testimony is reported to have included:

General Shelton testifed to Congress about the results of tests showing that LightSquared’s signals would interfere with military equipment and jam vital GPS receivers. He said GPS would “be completely unusable” for aircraft 500 feet above the ground in the Washington, D.C. greater area. He said it could take a decade or more for LightSquared to mitigate the effect of its proposed network on military GPS.

This is hardly an endorsement of that company's project, and is rather critical of their project. Meaning at least to me, that the pressure was light, and what was asked that he say was a boilerplate administration policy position. He did say what they asked him to say, so far as we know, and he ALSO said the above.

eg8r
10-01-2011, 11:01 PM
You really need to wake up and smell the roses. Instead of telling us about investigated allegations why don't you just skip ahead and tell us the outcome. Insider trading is illegal was he convicted?

eg8r

eg8r
10-01-2011, 11:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So rather than a legal charge of a criminal activity, I think this will be more an optics problem, and people will either find it disquieting and discomforting, or not,</div></div>It was from 1996, I think the people have spoken quite a few times.

eg8r