stanford stuff, in one post.

canuckrookie · Feb 18, 2009

Quote from lolatBushites:

Sanford is a huge fund raiser for the Bush Clan.

Under Bush II, SEC supposedly investigated Sanford for several years and found nothing wrong. How interesting. Under Bush II, all the worlds scum and lowlife crooks did very well at the expense of law abiding citizens.
More...

He's a smart crook who played both sides of the fence. If he donated money to McCain's camp then you can bet he was donating money to the Bush camp during his presidency. Once again the SEC looks like a complete joke, not that they have any credibility left.

canuckrookie · Feb 18, 2009

Quote from lolatBushites:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/business/18stanford.html?_r=2

The current S.E.C. charges stem from an inquiry opened in October 2006 after a routine exam of Stanford Group, according to Stephen J. Korotash, an associate regional director of enforcement with the agencyâs Fort Worth office.

He said the S.E.C. âstood downâ on its investigation at the time at the request of another federal agency, which he declined to name, but resumed the inquiry in December 2008.

Just pure speculation on my part, but it's very possible that if the SEC were told to stand down by another agency. That other agency could have already been investigating him for ties to drug cartels. If that was the case then clearly they didn't want to scare him off before they could follow the money trail further. Either way the SEC still look bad.

The presidents office controls all federal agencies.
More...

Log in or Sign up

stanford stuff, in one post.

canuckrookie

canuckrookie