Hillary profits off defense contractors, pharmaceuticals and big oil

On Friday, the Clinton campaign announced that she and her husband sold their blind trust, which included a plethora of questionable stocks.  So what stocks were they?  Here are some of the companies they cashed in on:

• Defense Contractors: General Electric and Raytheon
• Drug Companies: $250,000-$500,000 in Biogen and Johnson & Johnson; and $100,000-$250,000 in Amgen, Pfizer and Glaxo Smith Kline
• Oil Companies: Exxon, BP and Amoco.
• Other Notables: Walmart (Hillary also served on the Wal-Mart board from 1986 to 1992.), eBay, Walt Disney, and News Corp (parent company that owns Fox news).

If you think this is disturbing, for a bigger emotional fix take a look under defense contractors.  The company Raytheon had successfully lobbied Bush and the Congress to secure an anti-RPG weapon contract, even though the military successfully tested a different weapon by another company called Trophy that did a better job of protecting the soldiers. 

Because Raytheon gave the most money, the Pentagon awarded Raytheon with the contract even though Trophy was 98% effective.  Remember, Clinton is a member of the Armed Services Committee -- which oversees military contracts like these.

Now for the grand question: is this really a blind trust?  In 2005, Bill Frist suddenly sold what he called his 'blind trust' just two weeks before the stocks tanked 15%.  Also, if Clinton's stocks were part of a blind trust, then how come the federal office of Government Ethics warned that her blind trust did not meet ethics standards?  Makes you think!

Comments

[annefrank]

Hillary has refused to apologize for her war vote - and notice who's raking in the corporate moolah and avoiding interviews on Press the Meat, Deface the Nation, This Weak, etc.
Oh - and those News Corp fundraisers for her don't hurt either!
I'm supporting a DC outsider for prez who's moved farrr away from the Beltway warhawks - Go Edwards!

[regroce]

is everybody forgetting what a "blind trust" is? A blind trust is one in which the investor not only has no control over the investments made to which companies and in which amounts, but is NOT EVEN INFORMED of the companies in which such investments are made. ...The Clintons had no knowledge of which companies their money was invested in, and it's a joke to try to hold them liable as if they knowingly invested in such companies.

[granny]

"The Clintons had no knowledge of which companies their money was invested in, and it's a joke to try to hold them liable as if they knowingly invested in such companies."

Nice try regroce, but an ethical investor, particularly one with the kind of power and influence we're talking about here, has absolute/total control over setting the BOUNDARIES for the invetments the trustee is assigned to oversee, and an obligation to do so: it's called..."We do not want any of our money invested in ... " and then you make a list. It's THAT easy. That excuse is nonsense.

And the ownership of those pharmaceuticals sure sheds the light of day on the failure of that administration to push the health care issues (which inevitably pit the efficacy of the program against the monetary interests of the pharmaceutical).

Kind of like refusing to do "Daddy's" bidding, when he's paying the rent.

An IMPORTANT TO BE AWARE added note here:

Are you aware, that when you get your prescriptions filled at a "big box" pharmacy, like, for example, Walgreen, Osco, Walmart...those pharmacies are, through their corporate heads, contracted with certain pharmaceutical companies, to buy only their "brand" of prescription drug. You, as a consumer are not able to select which drug company's product you would like to use.

EXAMPLE: IF you take a drug made by Pfizer, and it works...you're comfortable and satisfied with the outcome ... then you move, and have access only to a "big box" druggist without having to go a distance. That druggist is supplied only by Smith Kline (remember, the names are hypotheticals - only the story is real). You're out of luck. Period. And I, having had this experience, have recently been told by my druggist that one of these companies supplies virtually 75% of the drugs in this country.

WE NEED TO BE AWARE, AND THINKING ABOUT THESE THINGS

[regroce]

that definition from granny is not applicable to a "blind trust"; the executors (not the "investors") of the trust even assign its management to a person UNKNOWN to the investors - that's also included in the "blind" definition. What that trust manager/operator does is at his or her own whim. The executors (in person, that is) can even change, too, unknown to the investors - and the directions that the trust takes, its industries represented, its companies owned, changes to the trust in general, are all unknown to the investors. Again, that's the definition of "blind." Other trusts and investment funds, sure, the investor can set such parameters - but NOT in a blind trust.

Moreover, practically all high-seating government officials (ie, governors) invest in blind trusts. that way, no one can ever accuse him or her of directing government purchases to companies that they have part ownership of, or of affecting the trade of any particular industry for personal gain, because he/she doesn't exactly know what companies from what industries they partially own.

Unless you're name is Bush or Cheney, that is, who send money to companies they know damn well they own part of (ie Haliburton) and even who operates and controls those companies (ie the other Bush brother)

This whole take on Hillary at the moment is just another MSM tactic of knocking down a democratic candidate; I'm especially sorry to see that it wandered its way onto thebluestate.com, which I thought would know better

[Chief Editor: Todd]

So in other words, you are saying that Bill Frist had no knowledge whatsoever about the companies in his blind trust -- even though he sold the blind trust just two weeks before it tanked 15%?

[regroce]

Todd: the case involving Frist has not been identified by media to actually be a blind trust. Frist made statements that he was "totally blind" to the trust's acquisition of particular stocks, true, but that categorization has never been solidified.

Moreover, and actually removing that Frist case from comparision, the stocks acquired by the trust in the particular "I felt totally blind" case *were shares of a company founded by Frist's father and brother* (HCA, Inc). As a result, *even if the trust in question was a blind trust* Frist had many other avenues of acquiring the information in question .... like his own FAMILY, for example, and NOT from the blind trust fund.

[regroce]

From Washington Post, 10/24/05:
"Two weeks before that interview, M. Kirk Scobey Jr., a Frist trustee, informed the senator [Frist] in writing that one of his trusts had received HCA stock valued at between $15,000 and $50,000."

There you have it: Frist got the information from a source outside the trust itself.

[granny]

I'm finding it very hard to believe, that as an investor, I could not specify, at the time the trust was established, that the executor(s) present and future, were prohibited from engaging any management firm that traded in specifically identified stocks - or else would agree to eliminate those stocks from the trust portfolio.

This is not about knowing what investments are being made, it is about prohibiting your money from being used to buy certain stocks. As regroce points out, the object of the blind trust is to keep the investor from knowing what his/her investments are. Not about being "blind" to what you are not willing to invest in.

Now, if it really is the case that you cannot set up a blind trust to eliminate certain types of investments, then there really wouldn't be any point in publishing the stock list - other than to discredit the candidate.

The detail is important.

And at the end of the day, hasn't the whole discussion become kind of pointless with the advent of these statements, in regroce's discussion of the Bill Frist case:

"M. Kirk Scobey Jr., a Frist trustee, informed the senator [Frist] in writing that one of his trusts had received HCA stock "
(which)
"*were shares of a company founded by Frist's father and brother* (HCA, Inc). As a result, *even if the trust in question was a blind trust* Frist had many other avenues of acquiring the information in question .... like his own FAMILY, for example, and NOT from the blind trust fund."

If that is the case, then other avenues of information are always possible in blind trusts ... at which point : it's NOT BLIND, anymore! And that being a given possibility, espousing the inviolability of the "blind trust" doesn't seem to hold much water.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

regroce, I'm sorry, I just don't buy anything you said. Why would Hillary Clinton sell her "blind trust" unless she knew that the defense, oil and pharmaceutical stocks would hurt her in the long run? And it's not because she's running for president. If it was because of that, then why didn't she sell her "blind" trust when she ran for Senate? The Executive and Legislative Branches are co-equals.

As Granny wrote, it is EASY to find "other avenues of information" to help you figure out which stocks you own in a blind trust.

[regroce]

Hillary sold her blind trust after it was "anonymously" released by media exactly what companies that trust had investment in. She didn't know what was in it when she ran for Senate; only learned recently. That's why it was sold. Had she not done so, the very many who know nothing about blind trusts (...and i'm finding more and more of them lately....) would assume that she made those investments with intent to affect their productivity for her personal profit by actions in the senate.
If Clinton had made those investements by direct purchase of those companies' stocks, and then took actions in office that would positively affect the value of those stocks - that would clearly be an indication of misuse of office. You know, sort of like what the White House has been doing for the past 6 years? And that no one has paid any attention to? Even though the only White House response to such a question has been easily proven false (Cheney's ownership of Haliburton stock, and continued annual payment from Haliburton)?
Sorry, but it appears that your only goal in posting that information on the site - and with much smaller and even restricted detail and less information than even MSM included in its airing of this "story" - was to bash Hillary.
After all, did any of those stories say that Hillary knew what companies from what industries were included in the trust? NO! They only said that Hillary recently sold those blind trusts. And this site is only taking what was a mild butterknife stab at Hillary to become a chainsaw swipe at the Democratic party.
thebluestate.com is not including the definition of "blind trust" - it is applying an assumed goal to both the initial and final transaction involving that trust - it is making insinuation that could not in any way every be proven true - it is making analogy to another politician involved in some trust scam, and automatically applying the details of that Frist scam to the Clintons.
Obviously, the inclusion of this story, in that format missing needed information and inclusion of impertinent information, indicates that the only reason it was put up here is because thebluestate.com doesn't like Hillary, and hoped to damage her image. Congratulations - the red state folks are singing psalms in your praise.
And granny, if you don't know what a "blind trust" actually is, then please stop applying your own proposed definition and insinuations, because they are not correct. Even if any old blind trust could be entered with such restrictions, that alone would typify fault and bias in the same format that everyone is attempting to dump right now in this circumstance. "Okay - no petroleum; yeah, i'm gonna give the oil companies a big shake up, so I won't make any money on them. And, oh yeah, I'm gonna allow insurance companies to drop all kinds of prescription coverage...so definitely include healthcare." Can't be done and still be called a "blind trust" - especially when in the ownership of a politician.

[regroce]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2104853,00.html

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Sorry regroce that I got under your skin. Objectively speaking, that shouldn't be a reason to try and personally attack my credibility and diminish the hard work that I have put into this site for the last three years while also going to college. But oh well, I still welcome your opinion on this site. I don't dislike Hillary. She's been a fantastic Senator. She messed up on her war vote, as did John Edwards. But unlike Edwards, she has refused to say she regretted it. In my personal opinion though, I think she's more qualified than John Edwards. That's just me. But since you've already made up your mind in thinking that I am out to get Clinton, then there's probably nothing I can say to convince you otherwise (even though I did mention the phrase "blind trust" three times in this column).

About this story, it is certainly possible for lawmakers to find out which companies they own. Bill Frist is living proof of that...and so is Hillary Clinton, as you just mentioned. She was told about her blind trusts recently (but how recently?), obviously because they could be a political liability. But were they a political liability when she ran for Senate? Of course not. So then why are they warning her about it now if they really are blind?