About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Chicago Tribune linked Obama stock purchase and legislation, leaving out his denial that he knew of purchase

March 09, 2007 5:25 pm ET
image

41 Comments

In a March 9 article on Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) February 2005 purchase of stock in AVI Biopharma and SkyTerra Communications, whose investors included donors to his 2004 Senate campaign, the Chicago Tribune reported that "two weeks after Obama purchased" stock in AVI, which was working on an avian influenza drug, "he introduced legislation to increase funding to combat the virus." The Tribune also reported that "SkyTerra received government permission to build a national wireless network on the day Obama purchased his shares." The article went on to note that "Obama has said he was not involved in selecting the stocks and said they were held through a 'quasi-blind trust.' " Obama, however, did not simply say he "was not involved in selecting the stocks" -- he claimed he was unaware that he even owned stock in either of the two companies until the fall of 2005, at which point he sold the stock for a net loss of $13,000. His denial that he even knew about the stock purchases is relevant to whether there is any significance in the timing of the legislation he introduced or of the approval of the SkyTerra request -- but the Tribune did not report the denial. Moreover, the Tribune also offered no indication as to whether Obama was in a position to influence -- or even know about -- the government's decision to allow SkyTerra to build a nationwide wireless network, despite suggesting a link between the decision and Obama's stock purchase.

Additionally, the Tribune again failed to note that there exists no evidence that either company benefited as a result of Obama's actions, as The New York Times reported in its original March 7 article on the stock purchase.

The Tribune reported on March 9:

The investments that stirred concern involve two speculative stocks with business interests influenced by the government: AVI BioPharma, a biotech company, and SkyTerra Communications, a satellite communications company. The transactions were first examined by the Web site thestreet.com. The New York Times later disclosed the involvement of Obama campaign contributors in the companies.

AVI was developing a drug to fight avian flu, and two weeks after Obama purchased the stock he introduced legislation to increase funding to combat the virus, which was spreading in Asia at the time. SkyTerra received government permission to build a national wireless network on the day Obama purchased his shares.

Obama has said he was not involved in selecting the stocks and said they were held through a "quasi-blind trust." His staff has stressed that the trust, which invested only in the two stocks, suffered a net loss of $13,000, even though Obama made a 28 percent profit on his investment in AVI.

Still, the selection of two small-capitalization, speculative stocks is peculiar given the investment instructions provided by the legal document establishing the trust, which Obama named the Freedom Trust.

However, as the Times reported on March 8:

Senator Barack Obama said Wednesday that he did not believe it was a conflict of interest to seek investment advice and use the brokerage services recommended by a friend and political contributor. He said he had not been aware that his broker had invested up to $100,000 in two companies backed by some of his top donors.

"At no point did I know what stocks were held," Mr. Obama said. "And at no point did I direct how those stocks were invested."

[...]

According to pricing data released by Mr. Obama's campaign Wednesday, it appears that his investments, both made in February 2005, included up to $90,000 in SkyTerra, a satellite communications company, and $9,000 in AVI BioPharma, a biotech company.

Both amounts are higher than previously estimated, though Mr. Obama's aides have said he sold the stocks eight months later for a net loss of $13,000.

Records show that the SkyTerra shares were bought the same day a ruling by the Federal Communications Commission supported the company's effort to create a nationwide wireless network and caused a temporary spike in its stock price.

The AVI BioPharma shares were bought just before Mr. Obama began to push for more federal spending to battle avian flu. At the time, the company was seeking to develop a drug to treat the disease.

But Mr. Obama said Wednesday that he had no idea that he owned the shares when he took up the flu issue, and there is no evidence that either company has benefited from his actions.

Mr. Obama said he had wanted to hold the stocks in a blind trust to avoid any conflicts of interest. He said he did not know anything about what he owned until he received a prospectus from one of the companies in the mail in the fall of 2005.

''It was at that point that I became concerned that I might not be able to insulate myself from knowledge of my holdings, that this trust instrument wasn't working the way I wanted it to,'' Mr. Obama said. ''So it was at that point that I told my attorneys to go ahead and liquidate the stock and put it into mutual funds.''

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by tommy (March 09, 2007 5:34 pm ET)
         

      What?  The article clearly says that "Obama said he was not involved in selecting the stocks......."  What's different about that and not knowing of the purchase or the stock ownership?

      The answer is none........again, nothing here.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by DorisRussell (March 09, 2007 5:37 pm ET)
           

        Tommy- You believe this story is a non story as well?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (March 09, 2007 5:49 pm ET)
             

          Doris, I don't know if it's a relevant story or not.......in the scheme of important stories at the moment, probably not.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by shoes89 (March 09, 2007 8:50 pm ET)
               

            Tommy, you are 100% correct. I read the post and immediately came to the same conclusion.

            MMFA: "Chicago Tribune ... [left] out his denial that he knew of purchase."

            CHICAGO TRIBUNE: "Obama has said he was not involved in selecting the stocks and said they were held through a 'quasi-blind trust'."

            There is no difference, as you say, Tommy.

            Does MMFA have to stoop this low to make its case for "conservative misinformation"? It appears so. If "conservative misinformation" were really a problem, MMFA would have much better content than this.

            My 2 cents. Thank you.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by mefirst (March 09, 2007 9:18 pm ET)
                 

              uh no, he could be "not involved in the selection of the stocks", but still be aware of their purchase. he denied even knowing they were purchased. two different things. keep trying, you might get one right sometime. maybe if you predict the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by autopsychic (March 10, 2007 8:44 am ET)
                 

                " Does MMFA have to stoop this low to make its case for "conservative misinformation"? It appears so. If "conservative misinformation" were really a problem, MMFA would have much better content than this. "

                 I hope you don't mind that I mirror your 2-cents. There is certainly a lack of misinformation out there if this is what we get. And, there seems to be a lot of it lately.

               

                  Now, back on topic. There is no way Obama did not know he owned stock in these companies. He even admitted receiving statements from each company (which he claimed he never actually read, just threw them away). Right. We were all born at night, just not last night. The many liberals who are trying to get this story off the headlines are only trying to hide the fact that Obama is guilty of ethics violations that Pelosi plans on catching each and every republican for. Didn't take long for a democrat to get caught, huh?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by DorisRussell (March 10, 2007 8:55 am ET)
                   

                Autopsychic you say:

                Now, back on topic. There is no way Obama did not know he owned stock in these companies. He even admitted receiving statements from each company (which he claimed he never actually read, just threw them away). Right. We were all born at night, just not last night. The many liberals who are trying to get this story off the headlines are only trying to hide the fact that Obama is guilty of ethics violations that Pelosi plans on catching each and every republican for. Didn't take long for a democrat to get caught, huh?

                So you know what Obama thinks and could do? And you drag Speaker Peolosi into this smear? You are just as bad as the MSM and the media outlets reporting this story. It reminds me of the made up airplane story that the MSM spewed out on us. 

                No Democrat has been caught, but one Republican VPs chief of Staff has been found this week of being Guilty to a Felony , do you feel that is a "Ethics issue on the Administration"?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by autopsychic (March 10, 2007 9:24 am ET)
                     

                    Sure he was found guilty of lying. Although, since no crime was comitted that was the only charge they could make stick. Since everyone and their brother knew the person was a spy I have no idea why he would lie about it. Maybe, being a politician, he just got so used to lying and that he didn't really know how to tell the truth. Yes, an ethical violation.

                     You think Obama did nothing unethical? Let's see... you purchase a stock, then use your power in government to get legislature passed that benefits the company you just bought stock in and make a few bucks in the process. You think that IS ethical? I think when a republican is found doing the same thing you liberals will have a hanging party. The guy received quarterly statements on the stocks, how can you say he didn't know about them? Are you saying that he threw the envelopes away un-opened? Would YOU do that with envelopes from a company you just bought stock in? Pelosi is the one who dragged her own but into this "smear". She is the one claiming to lead the ethical party, then when a democrat is immediately caught in an un-ethical scandal, you liberals all claim innocence because he doesn't read his mail and doesn't control his own money and since one of the companies lost money it makes it ok. Yes, this is also an ethical violation.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (March 10, 2007 6:13 pm ET)
                       

                    Do you ever consider, oh I dont know REALITY, when making a post? Exactly HOW do you know no crime was committed? Oh you heard it from a bloviating rightwing screechmonkey? Imagine my suprise. I guess since Capone was only convicted of tax evasion there was no St Valentines day massacre and those guys all lived to a ripe old age. No everybody and their brother did not know she was an intelligence agent that is a lie. Her neighbors didnt know, Fizgerald said DIRECTLY that it was NOT well known outside the intelligence community. Why do you just repeat these lies? They wont become true no matter how many times you repeat them. Your talking points are stale, trite and WRONG.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by autopsychic (March 10, 2007 8:20 pm ET)
                         

                        " Her neighbors didnt know, Fizgerald said DIRECTLY that it was NOT well known outside the intelligence community. "

                           Refresh my memory, "who" was told that made this crime a crime? Was it someone inside the "community" or outside? Was this crime ever announced as a crime? Why wasn't it followed through with? From what I've heard the only crime committed was when the guy lied to investigators. Which I don't know why he would do, other than because he is just so used to lying that it became habit and he just felt like lying again. It just seems to me that if there was a crime of exposing a spy to danger like you and many other claim, then it would be a little more public. But, since that isn't what this entire deal is about, I have to go with he just lied to investigators. I don't think the comparison to the valentine day massacre is correct, though. This is in no way similar or as serious.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (March 11, 2007 5:43 am ET)
                           

                         Wow.what a textbook illustration of brainwashing and ideological blindness.This is a standout;

                        "It just seems to me that if there was a crime of exposing a spy to danger like you and many other claim, then it would be a little more public."

                        see: the meat of this entire case.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by autopsychic (March 11, 2007 10:49 am ET)
                             

                            Ok then, explain why Armitage isn't being agressively prosecuted. From what I've read he was very anti Bush/Cheney. Is that why he isn't under indictment? Is this case simply about attacking those that are pro-Iraq-war? A 'do-whatever-needs-to-be-done' case by the democrats to sway public opinion against the war on terrorism? And since the main figure (the actual person who leaked the information) gets off scott free and the only people being prosecuted are Bush-bots then it will only make sense that the Obama case will go nowhere. Since the press will stop doing stories on Obama's unethical financial failures, he will be free to do whatever he wants. But, should a republican who supports the war do the exact same things...he will undoubtedly be crusified by the press and democrats. I'm sure Pelosi's "ethical government" only means going after republicans, not the democrats.

                           

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by solon (March 11, 2007 11:14 am ET)
                               

                            Armitage did leak. There are however OTHER elements that need to be present to make it a crime. Was it purposeful? Did he KNOW she was covert? Armitage convinced Fitz that it was an inadvertant leak or at least he couldnt prove otherwise. The fact HE leaked doesnt mean no one else could leak anymore than because the bank down the street was robbed no one else could ever be charged with robbing it again. Libby was the original source for Cooper for instance.

                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (March 11, 2007 11:11 am ET)
                           

                        That is a good question. Bravo. Who decided this was a crime? Well I would say the CIA did since it was THEY who forwarded it to justice dept to make the legal decision now exactly who would be more qualified to say if someone were a covert agent or not some guy posting on a website or the very organization that MAKES that very designation? And who would be better decide that outing her was potentially a crime than the justice dept who looked into it. The bottom line is that just because it was decided the elements of a crime could not be proven is not proof no crime was committed so that is nothing more than a baseless assertion. That St Valentines day massacre makes that point. The SCALE of the occurance is not a valid criteria to criticise an analogy. I think it was a good analogy because it makes the same point. The massacre obviously WAS a crime but the man everyone knows was behind it Capone was never charged, that doesnt mean no crime occurred.

                        I will give you one about the lying though it is actually a good reasoned argument. It is logical.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by autopsychic (March 12, 2007 8:46 am ET)
                             

                            " . The massacre obviously WAS a crime but the man everyone knows was behind it Capone was never charged, that doesnt mean no crime occurred. "

                             The analogy will fit when you tell me who was charged in that crime (other than the actual suspect). If you don't have charges (un-related to original crime) to indignificant non-participants in that crime, then the comparison doesn't work. Remember, in this case you had a leak by one person (never charged) and charges brought against someone else (unrelated to original crime). Your example says that a crime was committed by someone, but they ended up charging him for something totally different. This case is very different in the aspect of "who" got charged is not even the suspect in the original crime. And, without this 'non-crime' the person charged would not even had been put in the position of being charged.

                             If the government had decided not to charge Armitage for the crime he committed, then they should have flat out dropped the entire case. Instead they pursued it until they 'created' a crime that would allow a charge against a 'politically unpopular' person.

                          Report Abuse
              • Author by CaseySpring (March 10, 2007 1:37 pm ET)
                   

                Pelosi is in the house, Obama is in the Senate.

                You are really reaching.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by DorisRussell (March 10, 2007 6:08 pm ET)
                     

                  Casey, not only is it reaching its just someone trying to defocus from the issue. Every reasonable person knows that Obama did nothing wrong, and there is nothing to this story, its made up. 

                  Report Abuse
      • Author by ChristianDemocrat (March 09, 2007 5:42 pm ET)
           

        You really need someone to explain the difference?  Seriously?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (March 09, 2007 5:48 pm ET)
             

          Outside of a silly semantic mini-difference, there is none......that I can see. 

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by ChristianDemocrat (March 09, 2007 6:17 pm ET)
               

            Consider that the mini-difference is enough for some - particularly politicians - to claim it as a defense.  E.g.,

            Broker: I've selected Company X stock for your trust.   SilenceBroker: Any questions?Politician: Nope   Politician introduces legislation beneficial to CompanyX. Later...Politician: I was not involved in the selection of stocks!

            Ah, but he did know of the selection.  So his behavior wasn't ethical in light of that knowledge.  Ok?

            Thus the distinction between claiming to not be involved and not knowing is important...and I just hope Obama is being truthful.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by ChristianDemocrat (March 09, 2007 6:18 pm ET)
                 

              Ugh...the example previewed correctly, but posted all messed up.  Hopefully it's still understandable.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (March 09, 2007 6:25 pm ET)
                   

                I maintain that if you didn't know the stocks that were being selected, then it's perfectly logical to believe that you didn't know you owned them.  That is not a stretch.  The article clearly says he wasn't aware of the stocks being selected, according to Obama.  

                I agree with you, I hope he is being truthful.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by mefirst (March 10, 2007 6:42 am ET)
                     

                  except his broker could have purchased them and then given him a call and said i bought this stock. obama said he did not know they were purcahsed.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by autopsychic (March 10, 2007 8:23 pm ET)
                       

                      Except Obama has said that he did receive quarterly reports from these companies. Did he read them? Who knows. But, if I receive quarterly reports from stocks I own, I read them.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by DorisRussell (March 10, 2007 10:48 pm ET)
                         

                      What is your point? Is it to spread and smear Obama ? Do you have any proof of what you are saying? Why did you attach Pelosi with Obama? Are you smearing both of them?

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by autopsychic (March 10, 2007 11:37 pm ET)
                           

                          " Obama said at some point in fall 2005 he got a stockholder letter from AVI or Skyterra, but he couldn't remember which company. " http://www.topix.net/content/ap/0752565711273516734002781373692465665195

                            Not to smear Obama, just to bring to light misinformation brought concerning his unethical transactions. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. But considering that the democrats (Pelosi) took over the government with a promise to bring "ethics" back into government actions, I thought it strange that this case is being ignored by most democrats as meaningless, when it has some meaning. So, you tell me, are we going to have ethics brought into all of the government or only the republican side of it?

                         

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by solon (March 11, 2007 11:19 am ET)
                             

                          That is a good point. It doesnt show however that Obama knew. It is a blind trust. There are good reasons not to get too knowlegable about what stocks he owns. He does want to vote on things and he surely doesnt want to have to recuse himself too often. At this point, and I am big on ethics from either side, I am willing to give Obama the benifit of the doubt, he DID set up a blind trust. I am sure you think I am very partisan but I am not. I am very liberal they arent the same thing. I am not a democrat. If evidence comes forth that shows corruption I will throw a fit like I did about Rostenkowski back when I WAS a Dem.

                          Report Abuse
                • Author by ChristianDemocrat (March 12, 2007 10:21 am ET)
                     

                  Whether it's a stretch isn't important.  Not being involved is still not the same as not knowing.  Saying that Obama was not involved is not the same as saying he didn't know.  That you assume that not being involved equates to not knowing doesn't change the fact that they are not the same. Others may not make the same assumption.

                  Report Abuse
    • Author by DorisRussell (March 09, 2007 5:34 pm ET)
         

      This is obviously a non story. The Tribune and other MSM outlets will talk about this but ignore the war crimes of our administration. Amazing.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (March 09, 2007 7:05 pm ET)
           

        tommy/doris, in spite of your attempt to sing your same old "non-story" song, the article said that "obama purchased" the stock. he did not. his broker did and he did not even know he owned it. the article appears to show a conflict of interest that is not there.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by DorisRussell (March 10, 2007 12:00 am ET)
             

          I agree with everything you said, which is why I said it is a non story. Another diversion tactic by the MSM to derail Obama . 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (March 10, 2007 6:40 am ET)
               

            tommy questioned this item by mmfa, saying there was "nothing here". you agreed it was a "non-story as well".

            Report Abuse
            • Author by DorisRussell (March 10, 2007 8:28 am ET)
                 

              No I did not.

              It is a non story for the MSM to cover, MMFA deserves kudos. I have a different view than Tommy. That was why I asked him the question.  You however like to twist things since you have an agenda to disrupt the board and spew hate toward other posters. It is obvious and disgraceful.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by mefirst (March 10, 2007 6:00 pm ET)
                   

                yet you never have a problem with tommy's disruptions. somewhat strange.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by DorisRussell (March 10, 2007 6:06 pm ET)
                     

                  What you call a disruption, I call a debate and freedom of expression. I find that strange that you are so much against others who have different views than you.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mefirst (March 11, 2007 7:24 am ET)
                       

                    i have nothing against a different point of view. i have something against people who constantly claim of almost every other article on here that there's "nothing here" [as in this case]. or "where's the misinformation", or "it's better just to ignore this". i'm hardly alone in that.

                    Report Abuse
    • Author by savagerocks (March 11, 2007 12:16 pm ET)
         

      "didn't know of the purchase" - Obama

      "Ignorance is no defense" - the law

      Now, I'm not saying Barrack DID break a law, or take a bribe or whatever, but I AM saying if he did break the law I don't want to hear a peep out of the Libby Bashers if he gets put away or just crucified in the media

      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (March 11, 2007 12:38 pm ET)
           

        Ah no you misquoted that ignorance of the LAW is no defense. You cant say I didnt know that was illegal. There is no crime at all if he was ignorant of what stocks he had and therefore acted in ways that helped the companies whose stock he owned. He wouldnt be able to say he didnt know it was agains the law if he DID know he was helping the companies whose stock he owned. You do know that  you arent very good at this right?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by savagerocks (March 11, 2007 12:44 pm ET)
             

          I used the Law as the source of the quote but perhaps because my post contained no implications of people bedding animals you didn't notice that.  My point is that IF he owned stock in companies he helped and DOES get in trouble/bad pub for it I just don't want the same "He lied about sex/crucify Libby" hypocrites to try to write if off.  I never said he definately did something wrong I said IF he did, ignorance is no defense

          Report Abuse
          • Author by savagerocks (March 11, 2007 1:09 pm ET)
               

            And yes I understand that it's "of the law", my point is should it not at least be investigated?

            Report Abuse
    • Author by Romario (March 12, 2007 1:27 am ET)
         

      So when did Pelosi start presiding over the Senate?

      What an idiotic non-story.

      Report Abuse