Kerry demands a retraction from Sweitzer

[karynnj]

Here is the Boston Herald article - that positions Brown as presenting legislation to outlaw it, and Kerry demanding a retraction.

http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1381618&format=comments&cnum=2

It seems highly likely that Sweitzer's book is the SBVT book in the 2012 race to win the Senate. There are far more Democratic incumbents up and this is clearly designed to lower the already historically low approval of Congress - and Pelosi and Kerry appear to be big targets.

I looked at many articles late yesterday and the attacks against Kerry are asinine, but like the SBVT, they list several instances - none of which are compelling - and know that simply the fact that there are many charges convinces some.

The three I saw for Kerry were:
1) Selling stock in a drug a few weeks before Medicaid and Medicare opted not to cover them. It is not clear how a Democratic Senator, on the Finance committee, has inside information here. This is something done by the Bush HHS department with no consultation with Congress. (Not to mention, even if they needed to inform Congress, it would be the HELP committee.)

2) He states that in 2003, Kerry chaired the Health subcommittee of the Finance committee which wrote the drug benefit law. The fact is the Republicans controlled Congress and Kerry spoke against the bill and voted against it. (Not to mention it passed in June 2003.) From another time when Kerry stocks were questioned, one thing I remember is that THK had a lot of J&J stock. It is not unexpected that their would be some healthcare stocks in her huge pportfolio - and they - like most of the market - increased in 2004.

3)He speaks of the Kerrys dumping health insurance companies and buying drug companies in 2009, making capital gains in 2010. There is no insider information here. Any broker in the country knew the Democrats were striving to pass a healthcare reform bill - and in fact - even at the end of 2009, it was not a sure thing. In fact, even someone like Rahm Emmanuel was pushing in early 2010 to go with something smaller because he didn't think it could pass. Not to mention, almost EVERYTHING in the market was moving up from 2009 to 2010. (Note from this chart that had the Kerry's instead bought United Healthcare sometime in 2009, they would have had a big capital gain in 2010 - http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=UNH+Interactive#chart1:symbol=unh;range=5y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined;

The Dow Jones increased over 57% from its low in 2009 (below 7000) to April 2010 (above 11000). The fact is the ONLY way the Kerrys would not have made capital gains in that period is to either have taken their money out of the market at the bottom or to have picked only a few companies that failed - something neither they or their money managers would have been dumb enough to do.

Incidentially, from the comments, Sweitzer et al anticipated the truthful and reasonable responses and said that this is what people would say.

[karynnj]

1. Boston Globe article - fairer but doesn't allow comments at this point

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2011/11/17/book-about-insider-trading-raises-questions-about-kerry/Za2jnLUa3lo6u14wuBf9WL/story.html

If they did, I would post that it was not "secret" that a healthcare bill was in the works - in either year. All that information was public. I would also point out that, in the same interval, insurance stocks soared.

Insider trading requires that you can prove that something was know by the individual AND NOT KNOWN by the rest of the world. On the 2003 or 2009 HCR bills, it was common knowledge. As to medical devices, the law added a tax not there before. So, you can argue that the HCR hurt these companies compared to the bill not passing

It is true that the size of the tax was reduced from the original amount in the Baucus markup and then again in the reconciliation package - and Kerry, representing Massachusetts well, fought for that reduction - publicly in the Finance committee. (Note Brown had an amendment to end it altogether which failed when they were doing amendments to the reconciliation bill - he argued that would help MA (and other state's) companies. )

[Mass]

2. I am not sure I see the Globe article as fairer.

The Herald article focuses on Kerry's protesting and shows the flakiness of Schweizer's claims (he did not ask for comments from Kerry, he does not really say this is insider trading because he does not have a proof,...).

The Globe article, on the other hand, focuses its title on the allegation, and Kerry's protesting comes as a subtitle. Then. he spends a lot of time giving credibility to the writer.

This is the most important part of the Globe's article, which, if true, shows that Schweizer slandered Kerry (with a lot of oratory precaution, so that he cannot be sued for slander), and if not, says that Kerry is a liar

Kerry fired off a letter Monday to the book’s publisher, Houghton Mifflin, asking the company to publicly retract statements in the book that Kerry says are “unequivocally false.’’ In the letter he asserts that the trades were undertaken by independent trustees of his wife’s trusts.

“I do not know the trustees, I have never spoken with these trustees, and I have no knowledge of any investments they make at any time,’’ he wrote.

You would think that it would take the lead in this article, with a minimum of confirmation. Guess what, it is at the very end of the article, while the Globe basically puts some free ads for Schweizer.

[karynnj]

4. You are correct - not to mention they have no comments

I had seen the business insider article yesterday, which had a lot of detail on the charges which were laid out with as written. The information you had on the author shows that this really is the start of another Republican smear campaign.

The fact is that the methodology (if it deserves that word) will find capital gains for almost any transaction made in 2010. He then calls them "lucky", because of course, having a gain over an interval where the market rose as much as 57% is all "luck" or "coincidence".

The same goes for the stock market from 2003 to 2004, where it went from 8054 on 1/1/2003 to 10490 by 1/1/2005. Again when the market increases about 30%, it is not "luck" or coincidence.

As to Amgen, no matter when they bought it, they would have done better to sell it a month later or to have kept it until today! In retrospect, this was a bad transaction.

[karynnj]

3. I looked into Amgen more - and there is absolutely nothing there

Sweitzer says the Kerrys sold a few weeks before the "government" decided not to cover it. The problem here is that the senate did not decide this - the Bush HHS did. It was a function of the executive branch. Not to mention, if the Senate did want to question decisions of that type, it would be the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, not the Finance committee, that would have oversight. Kerry is not on that committee. This sale would look suspicious if Kerry were the Bush Secretary of HHS rather than Senator from Massachusetts.

Out of curiosity, I looked at the chart. This shows how desperate Sweitzer was to make a case. Amgen went from 73.27 the week of January 7 to 63.74 the week of April 30 to 56.30 the week of May 7 to 54.04 the week of May 14. The public at large clearly was aware that there were problems - as it had already lost over a quarter of its value. http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=AMGN+Interactive#chart4:symbol=amgn;range=20061122,20111116;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

Incidentally, the stock was HIGHER at 59.03 the week of June 11, a few weeks after the government decision. This might be why Sweitzer does not bother to estimate how much the Kerrys saved by the "inside information" they very almost certainly did not have from the Bush administration.

Now, try this. On the financial chart, click the box events and select "key developments". The government decision is not even mentioned from what I can see - obviously this drug was not a big money maker for them.

So, in summary:
- there was plenty of information that the stock was troubled
- the Kerrys sold near the bottom for that time interval - and could have sold for more the next month.
- Kerry likely had no information as he was not a BFF of the HHS
- Even had he known of the government action, it was not a major event for the stock.

All in addition to the part of it being Teresa's and he has never communicated with the people overseeing her money.

[karynnj]

5. The Boston Globe allows comments now if you pay 99cents a week

I signed up and posted in three posts some of the things I said here. I think only people signed up can see the comments. This really is pretty unfair.

[Luftmensch067]

8. Thank you for your research and comments!

It's interesting, if I'm seeing this correctly, that many of the Usual Suspect Haters are not flooding the piece with nasty comments -- guess they're too cheap to pay! So far. Your arguments are logical and sourced, but I'm wondering if the larger strategy might have to be smear the smearers, or at least concentrate on exposing their funders and loyalties. If MA voters feel that an outside force is trying to influence them, backed by big money, my instinct is that they'll balk, even if they're used to the swill habitually thrown around in the MA media about JK.

I doubt the MSM here will ever go after Sweitzer and his ilk, but I wonder if the Democratic blogosphere could take on the task of spreading the word about who these people really are and who's paying/supporting them.

[karynnj]

11. Hmm,

I think I should use the good info that Mass dug up on Sweitzer and post that to the BG threads. One advantage of just a small number of responders is that you don't get lost - and at least it gets solid links to any really trying to understand.

Unfortunately, this plays to the biases of the left blogosphere. They are against Senators being rich, have - for the most part - little understanding of the stock market and this was set up as hitting both parties. The Rep Bacus one sounds pretty bad, though I haven't heard his side. I have to admit that it took a few minutes before I realized that a Senator would not know of a HHS ruling before it happened - and this was before I read that he does not buy or sell any stocks. Most people in the upper middle class know the stock market recovered and in doing so grew 57% from the low in March 2009 to April 2010, but there are many here who don't know that and see these double digit gains as obvious red flags. We have a small amount of a company stock that my husband once worked for that increased over 250% in that interval - and was still lower than it had been in September 2008!

I think Kerry's letter was excellent, but note how the BG used it.

[karynnj]

6. Like clockwork, the MA GOP chimes in

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2011/11/17/mass-gop-kerry-come-clean/L5rS6vCqfTjUOd5JbgYG0M/discuss.html

This really is swiftboating and this time Senator Kerry does not have the resources of a being a Presidential nominee.

Now this,

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2011/11/17/scott-brown-stock-bill-may-ended-causing-collateral-damage-colleague-john-kerry/LRVt6wGYzokhYLP42CKyTK/story.html

The Boston Globe is actively engaged in swiftboating Kerry.

[Mass]

7. Glenn Johnson - What a surprise!!!

I saw your comment. Good comment, that they will dislike as much as the one in the Herald.

You can see the comment without a subscription, but you cannot comment or like/dislike a comment.

[karynnj]

10. Thanks - I wasn't sure if people could read

I think I will go back and put the link to JK's entire letter. I wonder if they should try something bold - like buying time to refute the charge as he did in the letter, He needs to defend his and Teresa's reputation.

[ProSense]

12. It's all

very transparent. It's time for the media to shill for the GOP.

Scott Brown and Republicans need all the help they can get...enter the media.

[karynnj]

9. Here is Kerry's letter (from Business insider)

http://www.businessinsider.com/insider-trading-congress-john-kerry-retraction-peter-schweizer-2011-11

Every one of these transactions is from Teresa's accounts. Kerry details that they all are from trusts set up long before he knew Teresa and benefit her and others. She is not a trustee in any of them - so she also has no control.

From reading the letter, the BG really did a super poor job (likely intentional) in explaining how completely unconnected Senator Kerry is to them.

[Inuca]

18. Thanks for the link to the actual letter

He is indignant. I hope that there will be at least SOME coverage of his reaction (not very likely with all the things that are happening + holidays). I did not follow this story much, but I was shocked a few days ago when it was mentioned in the news and saw his face in the crows of politicians supposedly implicated. Pelosi's too.

[karynnj]

19. I've been following the story - except for a weekend in NYC

The coverage has been very patchy and it is very very political. In the MSM, other than in the Boston papers, Kerry is not really all that highlighted. They have very briefly summarized his letter, but they treat it as "Kerry says" the transactions were all in the Heinz trust. However, that information is in the public disclosures, which I have not bothered to try to find. The disclosure does separate out whose income it is. There is no reason to write Kerry says these are from the Heinz trust - they ARE undeniably from the Heinz trust.

My point the articles take Weitzer's allegations and do not preface them as "Sweitzer says" - yet they do this with Kerry's. This leads a reader to take the former as facts, the later as excuses. Also as Mass pointed out the title in the BG and the order favors Sweitzer.

Then there is the story as a whole. I really do not understand how 60 minutes got pulled into this given that Sweitzer is part of the Palin pack and just reading the Kerry accusations, very sloppy errors are made (ie control of Congress - now ask yourself if this is innocent - especially as they then speak of Kerry spearheading the 2003 bill. Is this the same man they accuse of passing nothing? It is amazing that they write this as if the Bush 2003 drug bill were a Democratic one. That is pretty mind blowing.) In addition, Palin had an op-ed in the WSJ this Sunday (that I heard of rather than read). She is leading this charge against corruption. :vomit:

On the right blogs, this is swiftboating and it works the same way - they have a long list of things they declare likely insider trading. They either ignore that these are in the Heinz trust or pretend that Teresa runs the Heinz trust (using info her husband gives her). The problem is that going through each of the accusations and pointing out errors, ends up with a long post - that no one is likely to read. Just listing errors - to show the poor quality of work leads to people saying that they were beside the point (yet - as in one case morphing Kerry's seat on the Health subcommittee of the Finance committee into one on the Health committee - is the entire basis of assuming that he could have had insider info.) There, I am not sure it helps to even comment because these are clowns who still believe Kerry gave himself all the Vietnam medals he got - a pretty powerful 25 year old! (One new meme is an article that had a Clinton Democrat saying in 2004 that Kerry needed to have everything in blind trusts. The fact is the bulk of their money is in family trusts that they are not the only beneficiary of and have no control of. )

I was more concerned last week, though things have become noisier on this. I am not concerned with the Lieberman, Brown, Gillibrand posturing that an investigation is needed. I agree that there might be cases where it is needed - but there is nothing I saw that looked remotely bad in the Kerry ones I saw. Tightening standards can't be a bad idea.

It is interesting that the Daily Kos article shows a much simpler case of a legislator's decision directly benefiting his own pocket in Brown's actions in favor of the banks. Yet, I really doubt that was the motivation. I have not seen the Boston papers point out that the same connect the dots work here.

[karynnj]

13. Sarah Palin says she will shake thinsg up and expose the dark side of gov't with Sweitzer,

who is in "her pack" This was on Sean Hannity - I was switching channels and had the misfortune to see these two together. She then spoke of Obama as a vetting failure with an invisible past. ( Gee, I know who was the unvetted person on a major ticket.)

[Inuca]

21. To laugh or to cry, that is the question

when I hear/see things like this. I am not of the "all Rs are EVIL" school of thought, but so many things that I hear these days are beyond amazing, truly parallel universes. To have the horror from Alaska refer to Obama as a vetting failure is beyond belief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[karynnj]

14. Slimy Sweitzer refuses to retract "facts"

- even though his facts are demonstrably wrong. No surprise from the RW, for whom truth is what they think it should be.
http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_1118authors_reply_to_kerry_demand_no_retraction_2

[Mass]

15. MA-Sen: Scott Brown held Bank of America stock while saving big banks $19 billion

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/18/1037854/-MA-Sen:-Scott-Brown-held-Bank-of-America-stock-while-saving-big-banks-$19-billion

[MBS]

16. yup. n/t

[karynnj]

17. Interesting - that is a much closer link between stocks held by Brown

that benefited by the actions of Brown alone. (In Kerry's case, there is not a real example of an action that benefited a stock that even the Heinz trust held. It is asinine to count all healthcare buys in 2003 and 2007 - as ANY large portofolio likely had some. )

BUT, even here, it also shows how unfair the methodology is. You could make the case that he did it to get WS support and money for his campaign (a common accusation) or I think the real truth is that his action fit his simplistic ideology - that any taxes are bad - even if the tax was to set up a $19 billion fund to deal with any future to big to fail financial institution. It apparently escapes him that his action means that he set things up so that the US taxpayer again will pay for the failure - through some or all of the $19 billion recovered TARP money.

So, Brown either legislated:
- for personal gain
- for campaign contributions
OR
- because he things the taxpayer should pay if banks make bad decisions.

How much do you want to bet that THIS story stays out of the Boston papers?

[karynnj]

20. Powerline (very RW) questions the Kerry accusations and states that the Jodi Seth/Kerry

facts should be included. A RW site reviewed the book and summerizes other reviews. Interestingly, after raising the question of if Sweitzer spoke to the lawmakers he notes Kerry disputes them and then has the Jodi Seth explanation - which they say should be in the book and said it undercuts Sweitzer's point. (He is unimpressed with Peolsi's response)

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/11/dont-throw-them-all-out-take-2.php

[karynnj]

22. Kerry is one of the cosponsors of Gillibrand's bill on this - thought it might be good to post

in case the issue comes up that he is not on Brown's.

S.1903
Latest Title: Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act
Sponsor: Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. (introduced 11/17/2011) Cosponsors (15)
Related Bills: H.R.1148, S.1871
Latest Major Action: 12/1/2011 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Hearings held. COSPONSORS(15), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)

Sen Baucus, Max - 11/30/2011
Sen Blumenthal, Richard - 11/17/2011
Sen Brown, Sherrod - 11/30/2011
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. - 11/28/2011
Sen Durbin, Richard - 11/17/2011
Sen Johanns, Mike - 12/1/2011
Sen Kerry, John F. - 11/29/2011
Sen Klobuchar, Amy - 11/17/2011
Sen McCaskill, Claire - 11/17/2011
Sen Nelson, Bill - 11/18/2011
Sen Reed, Jack - 11/18/2011
Sen Rubio, Marco - 11/17/2011
Sen Snowe, Olympia J. - 11/18/2011
Sen Stabenow, Debbie - 11/17/2011
Sen Tester, Jon - 11/17/2011

[karynnj]

23. Excellent BG analysis of the entire insider training issue - and found that Schweitzer relied on

cherry picking (and no surprise JK was a target of Palin's former adviser)

(Oddly found this link offered to refute the problem on a Boston Herald article that is again making Brown a superstar (when the better bill is Gillibrand's) and inferring Kerry was an insider trader.)

http://articles.boston.com/2011-12-14/bostonglobe/30516909_1_insider-suspicious-trades-portfolio

Posting here so I can search for it - No need to bother people on new DU unless the issue comes up again.

[karynnj]

24. For future reference - a great reply by a CO Democrat

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_19801816

The author is a hack. (This here to add to archive)