SkyDekker 1,465 #51 January 29, 2007 QuoteAccording to the documents he signed to set it up. and what is the penalty for breaking those? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #52 January 29, 2007 QuoteQuoteAccording to the documents he signed to set it up. and what is the penalty for breaking those? First, you need to explain how an IRREVOCABLE trust can be broken... Dude, give it up - there's no foul play here, regardless of how much you want there to be...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #53 January 29, 2007 QuoteFirst, you need to explain how an IRREVOCABLE trust can be broken... I don't know anything about irrevocable trusts. That's why I am asking the question. Thank you for your help Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #54 January 29, 2007 First, you need to explain how an IRREVOCABLE trust can be broken... He doesn't have to break the agreement. The agreement states that he can withold the award of the options if he wants to. It's on page six, section 8(c) Dude, give it up - there's no foul play here, regardless of how much you want there to be... Also, he's already exercised the options on all but 50,000 of his shares, most of which (~$6.9 million) has gone to the Cheney Cardiac Institute and George Washington University. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,077 #55 January 29, 2007 >Dude, give it up - there's no foul play here . . . I am amazed at the mental gymnastics that allows someone to believe that when an elected official is paid by a company that he is sending enormous amounts of business to, there is absolutely no conflict of interest. I have zero doubt that had a democrat had such an arrangement he would have been impeached by now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #56 January 29, 2007 Quote>Dude, give it up - there's no foul play here . . . I am amazed at the mental gymnastics that allows someone to believe that when an elected official is paid by a company that he is sending enormous amounts of business to, there is absolutely no conflict of interest. I have zero doubt that had a democrat had such an arrangement he would have been impeached by now. Nice Catch 22 - Halliburton doesn't pay him the DEFERRED SALARY from before he went into office, they're in breach of contract and can be sued. If they DO pay him the deferred salary, they're in collusion and "he's sending them enormous amounts of business". (I'm still waiting on that document he signed awarding the contract in Iraq, btw).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #57 January 29, 2007 Quote First, you need to explain how an IRREVOCABLE trust can be broken... He doesn't have to break the agreement. The agreement states that he can withold the award of the options if he wants to. It's on page six, section 8(c) Dude, give it up - there's no foul play here, regardless of how much you want there to be... Also, he's already exercised the options on all but 50,000 of his shares, most of which (~$6.9 million) has gone to the Cheney Cardiac Institute and George Washington University. Ok... where's the foul play? Got a link to the info?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,077 #58 January 29, 2007 >Halliburton doesn't pay him the DEFERRED SALARY from before >he went into office, they're in breach of contract and can be sued. Right. So? I'm not saying that it can't be done, or that it would be bad for Cheney to not get all that money. You're proving my point, though - he is being paid by a company who is benefitting from his actions. I don't really care what legal tricks he used to ensure he would receive the money, or to try to shield himself from the appearance of bribery. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #59 January 29, 2007 Quote>Halliburton doesn't pay him the DEFERRED SALARY from before >he went into office, they're in breach of contract and can be sued. Right. So? I'm not saying that it can't be done, or that it would be bad for Cheney to not get all that money. You're proving my point, though - he is being paid by a company who is benefitting from his actions. I don't really care what legal tricks he used to ensure he would receive the money, or to try to shield himself from the appearance of bribery. I'm still waiting for proof that they profited from his direct action. You all keep tossing that out there with no proof that he had any involvement. The deferred pay situation is no different than if he had gotten dividend payments from Halliburton stock - it was payment from BEFORE he took the office. The stock option situation is covered by the irrevocable trust - he CANNOT make any personal profit from those options being exercised.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #60 January 29, 2007 I am 110% certain that if the political parties were switched in this situation, you'd switch your principled approval to vitriolic disapproval. Note: Of course I could post this in response to nearly every Speaker's Corner post. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #61 January 29, 2007 QuoteThe stock option situation is covered by the irrevocable trust - he CANNOT make any personal profit from those options being exercised. But he sure does get some nice bennies from the tax writeoffs...which turns out to be some VERY nice profits on taxes he does NOT have to pay. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #62 January 29, 2007 QuoteQuote>Dude, give it up - there's no foul play here . . . I am amazed at the mental gymnastics that allows someone to believe that when an elected official is paid by a company that he is sending enormous amounts of business to, there is absolutely no conflict of interest. I have zero doubt that had a democrat had such an arrangement he would have been impeached by now. Nice Catch 22 - Halliburton doesn't pay him the DEFERRED SALARY from before he went into office, they're in breach of contract and can be sued. If they DO pay him the deferred salary, they're in collusion and "he's sending them enormous amounts of business". (I'm still waiting on that document he signed awarding the contract in Iraq, btw). Just to clarify Cheney's position so we'll know where he stands, From a 2003 "Meet the Press": "Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now, for over three years." Sounds pretty definitive, almost as directly worded and accurate as his comments on aluminum tubes and meetings in Praque Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #63 January 29, 2007 Quote Ok... where's the foul play? Got a link to the info? I'll go with "smarmy", seems to be popular with my peeps these days. If you want the contract I can email the pdf to you, I don't have a link handy. Wait, this is lame......hold on, someone has to have it posted............ok, found it. Sorry, you might not like the messenger but here you go. http://www.giveitupcheney.org/CheneyGiftAgreement.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #64 January 29, 2007 QuoteQuote>Halliburton doesn't pay him the DEFERRED SALARY from before >he went into office, they're in breach of contract and can be sued. Right. So? I'm not saying that it can't be done, or that it would be bad for Cheney to not get all that money. You're proving my point, though - he is being paid by a company who is benefitting from his actions. I don't really care what legal tricks he used to ensure he would receive the money, or to try to shield himself from the appearance of bribery. I'm still waiting for proof that they profited from his direct action. You all keep tossing that out there with no proof that he had any involvement. The deferred pay situation is no different than if he had gotten dividend payments from Halliburton stock - it was payment from BEFORE he took the office. The stock option situation is covered by the irrevocable trust - he CANNOT make any personal profit from those options being exercised. Try the "duck" test.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #65 January 29, 2007 QuoteI am 110% certain that if the political parties were switched in this situation, you'd switch your principled approval to vitriolic disapproval. Note: Of course I could post this in response to nearly every Speaker's Corner post. I doubt anyone gets their panties in a wad (I know I don't) over the complex series of trusts and who-knows-what that Jay Rockefeller currently enjoys while in the Senate. The family is only worth somewhere in the vicinity of $10Billion. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,077 #66 January 30, 2007 >I'm still waiting for proof that they profited from his direct action. Google how much money Halliburton has made from this war. Not hard to look up. >The deferred pay situation . . . . is pay. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumprunner 0 #67 January 30, 2007 QuoteYou know i think this plan would actually work if they allow it to run it's course. but of course the senate will find anything to get us out of it. and by getting us out of it will only fuel the fire for future attacks on America. But what do i know. Im one of the kids that got stuck in Iraq (according the Sen. Kerry) Blues I keep getting lost on this recurring issue. Exactly, what is it they are trying to accomplish over there? For instance, Bush keeps saying something about 'winning', winning what? Winning Iraq, as in Iraq is to become a US territory? Im lost. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #68 January 30, 2007 QuoteFor instance, Bush keeps saying something about 'winning', winning what? Winning Iraq, as in Iraq is to become a US territory? Im lost. You're in good company. LOTS of people are lost. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,077 #69 January 30, 2007 >Exactly, what is it they are trying to accomplish over there? To 'win.' No one knows what that means, and thus it will be defined by politicians to mean whatever they need it to mean. Right now they want war, so 'winning' is something we have not achieved. Once it becomes politically expedient to exit (and once it aligns with the administration's political goals) then we will have 'won.' I hope we don't spend too many more lives getting there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #70 January 30, 2007 QuoteI am 110% certain that if the political parties were switched in this situation, you'd switch your principled approval to vitriolic disapproval. Note: Of course I could post this in response to nearly every Speaker's Corner post. And you'd be wrong...but I can understand why you might feel that way, as I make a hobby out of showing the Dems are every bit as bad as the Reps...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #71 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe stock option situation is covered by the irrevocable trust - he CANNOT make any personal profit from those options being exercised. But he sure does get some nice bennies from the tax writeoffs...which turns out to be some VERY nice profits on taxes he does NOT have to pay. Um, yeah...why don't you diagram that out for us. I'd like to see how he's getting a break, since he's not getting any profit from the options.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #72 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuote Ok... where's the foul play? Got a link to the info? I'll go with "smarmy", seems to be popular with my peeps these days. If you want the contract I can email the pdf to you, I don't have a link handy. Wait, this is lame......hold on, someone has to have it posted............ok, found it. Sorry, you might not like the messenger but here you go. http://www.giveitupcheney.org/CheneyGiftAgreement.pdf Ok... that's the same contract I saw... care to point out the foul play? You've still not shown any benefit to the Cheney's from the sale of the options...still no foul play, sorry.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #73 January 30, 2007 Quote>I'm still waiting for proof that they profited from his direct action. Google how much money Halliburton has made from this war. Not hard to look up. >The deferred pay situation . . . . is pay. And? You've still not shown how he is profiting from this, or his direct involvement in the contract process. The amount of deferred pay and the options were set when he left Halliburton - before he went into office - Halliburton could have gone up to 5k/share the day he took office and he still wouldn't have gotten any more from the deal. Nice try, though.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #74 January 30, 2007 Quote Ok... that's the same contract I saw... care to point out the foul play? You've still not shown any benefit to the Cheney's from the sale of the options...still no foul play, sorry. He has a financial interest in Halliburton. Whether he cashes in the remaining 50,000 shares for his retirement mad money, or you consider the Richard B. Cheney Cardiac Institute, or the tax write off that Halliburton gets from the exercise of the options, or his deferred salary, or any future position he may hold with the company, he still has a significant financial interest in the company. He specifically stated that he did not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #75 January 30, 2007 QuoteQuote Ok... that's the same contract I saw... care to point out the foul play? You've still not shown any benefit to the Cheney's from the sale of the options...still no foul play, sorry. He has a financial interest in Halliburton. I'm still waiting on that one...you saying it doesn't mean it's so. QuoteWhether he cashes in the remaining 50,000 shares for his retirement mad money, He can't touch them nor derive any profit from them - how that's a financial interest is beyond me... so you "retirement mad money" comment is out the window. Quoteor you consider the Richard B. Cheney Cardiac Institute What about it? A charitable bequest is some sort of foul play, now? Quoteor the tax write off that Halliburton gets from the exercise of the options, Cite, please - I'm not aware of any benefit to HALLIBURTON from the sale of his options. Quoteor his deferred salary, Show how that is foul play, too - that is deferred salary and bonus money from 1999 - I'd LOVE to see how you equate salary from BEFORE he took office being a financial interest, since there was nothing he could do AFTER he was in office to affect the amount received. Quoteor any future position he may hold with the company, Irrelevant Quote he still has a significant financial interest in the company. He specifically stated that he did not. You've still not proven it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
