Is Hillary dumping stock to avoid embarassment / attacks from Obama and Repubs?

Question

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.
The blind trust held stock in pharmaceutical companies, including $250,000-$500,000 in Biogen Idec and Johnson & Johnson and $100,000-$250,000 in Amgen, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline. It also invested in General Electric and Raytheon, two leading defense contractors. The trust had a varied portfolio, with investments in numerous other companies, including Exxon Mobil, BP Amoco, Walt Disney and eBay.

Hmmm...Defense (WEAPONS) contractors, Drug Companies and Big oil.............

They should have bought stock in Hypocrisy Inc.

http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/99848.html

It's soo funny to watch you apologists come to her DEFENSE, you'd think I'd DRUG her under the bus and poured OIL on her.....
ROFLMMFAO

This is what's funny, you all think the hypocrisy comes from her selling it....
It's about owning stock in companies she's made a living off castigating........... Duh.......

"It's all about "fairness," says Hillary. And "fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies.""

"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices.... Government has to make those choices for people"

Yeah, a capitalist in socialist clothing......

Jl_Jack...sorry I'm an independent, so I get to diss bush and hillary..... But I wonder if she'll take away the tax cuts on all her rich Hollywood friends.

Yeah bert...nothing like sticking to the question at hand is there???

Go Hillary......She doesn't do her own cleaning.....
"You know, I'm going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I'm going to start thinking of her as a human being" -Hillary Clinton
(From the book "The Case Against Hillary Clinton" by Peggy Noonan, p. 55)

Answer 1

It would not suprise me.

The Clintons engaged in scandal after scandal for their entire 8 years at the White House. This is yet more of the same.

Why does this suprise anyone?

Answer 2

NO - To Avoid Conflicts, Clintons Liquidate Holdings
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/us/politics/5clintons.html?

According to the financial disclosure documents, the couple’s total net worth falls between $10 million and $50 million.

The Clintons had investments in several pharmaceutical companies, including Abbott Labs, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Genentech, Genzyme, Novartis, Pfizer and Wyeth. The assets in each company ran from $100,001 to $250,000. The trust also had assets in BP Amoco, $50,001 to $100,000; Chevron, $15,001 to $50,000; and Exxon Mobil, $100,001 to $250,000, as well as common stock in Raytheon and Wal-Mart Stores, $100,001 to $250,000 each.

And now you know why Hillary's Health Plan for America is based on "Big Pharma" kickbacks!

Answer 3

If it was in blind trust, then they wouldn't know of the assets in there and it shouldn't have influenced any of their decisions.

However, as you have shown, the facts don't interfere with innuendo and smear, so they are smart to liquidate to even avoid the APPEARENCE of influence.

Good lord, a stock portfolio with successful companies? Isn't that the point of owning stock? Wouldn't it be more damning if they were so stupid as to invest only in failed stocks? Actually, it's a blind trust, so that would say more about the trustee.

They can give very general direction when establishing the trust, but then they should have no influence or knowledge of actual transactions. They can instruct to divest in any companies with heavy government contract business, or companies that have benefitted heavily from legislation, but they can't say "show me what I have, and I'll tell you what to sell." Their trust had been in place since 1983 - almost 15 years, so they had no idea what was in it.

In order to be allowed to look, they were required to liquidate ALL of the stocks into a cash fund, which will be put back into a new blind trust, and new stocks will be bought. I guarantee you that there will be stocks in successful companies, again, and, again, the Clintons won't be aware of it.

Of course, as Bill Frist showed us, the purpose of the trust being blind vs. the reality of how blind it really is doesn't always match the rhetoric. As with most laws concerning their own behavior, the Congress passed standards that sound reasonable, but don't actually match what they claim to do.

I'm not sure how having a trustee that has bought stock for you without your knowledge rates as hypocrisy. Somehow, I doubt that you know, either.

Answer 4

It was a BLIND trust which means they did not know what the trustee was investing in. The trustee's duty is to make as much money as possible and these were profitable stocks. No hypocrisy is involved since they could not direct the investments. The only reason we AND they, know what was in the portfolio is because the old trust had to be dissolved and a new trust had to be set up. Why? Because Hillary is running for President and this is what the law requires. Rather than put their money into another blind trust which would likely make the same types of investments, they chose to keep some of the money in cash and they put the rest in US treasuries.

Answer 5

In an interview recently, and in reports by the NY times and other major national and international papers, the Clintons CLEARLY STATED they they were doing this for 2 reasons: 1) to avoid it becoming an issue in the campaign, and; 2) to avoid accusations of the potential for conflict of interest when elected and then being asked to veto or sign legislation that affects their portfolio. The Clintons, and all elected officials, are not permitted to vote on legislation in which their investments are housed... they are required to recuse themselves from voting. This, of course, is not how it happens. Love or hate them... this was the thing to do by law!

Understand that 90% of the answers here will be based on opinion and hatred or love of the Clintons (as clearly was your question). This question deserves an honest answer. It applies to all elected officials, regardless of party or politics.

Answer 6

Although I am against everything about the Clintons, they have a right to invest their money anywhere they want. It is when they go public and have speeches against these companies that it makes it seem odd. It is just more of the double talk from her campaign. It is too bad that the American public does not care about if a person speaks out of both sides of their mouths.

Answer 7

The Clinton's are dumping the stocks to avoid the justifiable attacks that are sure to come from Obama and the Republicans

They are justified; with the Clinton's constantly running their attack machine they should not act like wounded puppies when someone fights back.

Answer 8

You must be a Republican, you cry if they sell it, you cry if they don't sell it, either way you cry. In 2008 you will be saying "Madam President? Hillary will raise the $500 million needed to win and Obama and Edwards will not. Speilburg, Oprah and Bill Gates support Hillary..

Answer 9

It was in a blind trust, as, many political leaders do. Do yoiu think that Democratic political leaders should not own investments in publicly owned companies? Are you a communist?

Answer 10

Anyone who becomes president must divest his portfolio of stocks which may be construed as a conflict of interest.

The Clintons are doing the ethical thing, in anticipation of the upcoming elections.

Thus, no hypocrisy or impropriety.