I was under the impression that the blind trust was not to divulge to the trustor (Frist) any details about the contents of the trust or the trading activities in the trust.  I would assume that would also extend to not taking orders from the trustor.  He isn't supposed to "know" what is in the trust, so how can he tell them to sell stock that he shouldn't know he has?

This doesn't sound very good for Frist.  Martha went to jail and got to wear a charming ankle bracelet for much less.

[quote=skeedaddy]I thought the purpose of a "Blind Trust" was to not know what is in your
portfolio? Shouldn't the trustees have disposed of the HCA stock prior to
Frist's instructions?
[/quote]

From reports he knew what was there because he knew what went in and he was told when things were sold. He was under no obligation to sell the staock of HCA, nor was the trust.

Again, from reports, what's he's alleged to have done donesn't seem like an issue. What bothers me are his earlier comments that said things like "I don't know what's in the trust" when that really doesn't seem to be the case.

[quote=babbling looney]

This doesn't sound very good for Frist.  Martha went to jail and got to wear a charming ankle bracelet for much less.

[/quote]

Hmmm, I think you overstate this one a tad. Martha lied under oath to the Feds.

I’ll bet that in the end, Frist looks like a choir boy next to DeLay…what a hypocrite…

Let me get this straight, I have a blind trust so i don’t have any conflicts of interest and i get to tell the administrator what to sell and when?  What a joke…

Martha lied under oath to the Feds

Maybe so, but Martha isn't an elected official whose decisions and ability to make laws can affect the finances of businesses and entire industries.  That ability and the fact that lawmakers can make laws that would benefit themselves is the reason behind a blind trust.  "Supposedly", they can then make laws that may or may not have a beneficial result on their own finances, but if their assets are unknown to them in a blind trust, the potential conflict of interest is removed.

Blind trust means no peeking.

[quote=babbling looney]

Martha lied under oath to the Feds

Blind trust means no peeking.

[/quote]

Perhaps, but I can't say for sure. He says he got ethic committee approval on everything, we  will see. We do have a resident annty in this area, maybe he'll chime in with the law's details. It may be silly to assume, but if the guy really did consult with attnys in the Senate and the ethics committee, it's hard to imagine he broke a law. I'll wait for the facts to come out clearly.

But until then, it's only fair to say that Martha lied to the Feds. They were pretty nice to her to not give her the same treatment they gave Sam, the guy that supposedly gave her the tip.

What bothers me more than the concerns about how "blind" a blind trust really is under the law, are Frist's comments in the past when questions were asked about it and he said he didn't know anything about the inner-workings of the trust. Clearly he DID know.

Am I the only one who feels this is an issue because of who Frist is?  He clearewd everything through the Ethics Committee...well ahead of time.

His family built FCA.  Of course he knew he still owned shares...blind trust or not.

Another example of anything to attack Republicans.

FYI...the prosecutor in TX persecuting...opps...prosecuting Delay is a DEMOCRAT!  Surprise!

Some people just can't accept THEY LOST!

From my understanding, it is not a blind trust.  The best way to describe it is a "visually impaired trust".  Senators know what they own, but they don't know the amounts of their individual holdings.