A new all time low for partisan politics

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The CRS did not say that deferred salary "did" amount to a "continuing financial interest". It said that it "could", meaning that it's a grey area. The bottom line is that they found no wrongdoing. It said to avoid conflict of interest that the relationship needs to be disclosed, and that in fact was does in this case. Here is the whole paragraph from your article:

In response to an inquiry from Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reported last year that an official’s deferred salary and stock options could amount to “a continuing financial interest” in the company involved. The report did not mention Mr. Cheney by name or say that such an arrangement was improper. To avoid conflict of interest, the service said, any official with a continuing interest in a company should include the relationship in public financial disclosure statements, a step Mr. Cheney has taken.

Rupert. How can you possibly argue that someone doesn't have a continuing financial interest in a company when they have stock options yet to be exercised?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Rupert. How can you possibly argue that someone doesn't have a continuing financial interest in a company when they have stock options yet to be exercised?

Stock options surely worth more when a company suddenly moves up about 19 spots on the top contractor list. I'm sure that just happened on its own, that it has nothing whatsoever to do with its former CEO being VP...with money still to come from his former company.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Rupert. How can you possibly argue that someone doesn't have a continuing financial interest in a company when they have stock options yet to be exercised?

If you read Danzig's article from the NY Times, it said that the issue was looked into and that no wrongdoing or conflict of interest was found. Until reading the article, I did not know that he still had stock options and that any profit made would go to charity, but according to the article there is nothing improper about that. Cheney did everything by the book in terms making sure that he would not personally profit and in terms of disclosing everything.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If you read Danzig's article from the NY Times, it said that the issue was looked into and that no wrongdoing or conflict of interest was found. Until reading the article, I did not know that he still had stock options and that any profit made would go to charity, but according to the article there is nothing improper about that. Cheney did everything by the book in terms making sure that he would not personally profit and in terms of disclosing everything.

I see, you didn't know and your entire knowledgebase was that link. At least you weren't wrong

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by jms62

I see, you didn't know and your entire knowledgebase was that link. At least you weren't wrong

That's not fair. He never claimed to be an expert.