I was watching a small portion of a FauxNews panel discussing Frist and his Martha Stewart behavior and Morton Kondracke said that First could have learned his holdings weren't doing well from any newspaper or news program.
The rest of the panel agreed. Now, how the hell is a person who has holdings in a "blind trust" supposed to be able to follow his or her investments in the paper or on the news if they are not supposed to know what they are?
How can these pundits say this crap with a straight face? Or am I missing something?
4. Blind trust: You aren't supposed to know what your holdings are
- this was not a blind trust - this was more like a money manager. Frist knew what was in the trust, he could tell the trustee to sell shares. What exactly was blind?
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.