Discussion in 'The War Room' started by dissectingaorticaneurysm, Mar 19, 2020.
Fuck any of them that profited off this info.... unfortunately for us nothing will come of it
If they don't know and can't reproduce what was conveyed at the meeting how can they posit with certainty that a law was broken? Yet this is exactly what has been asserted.
Self-ownage is always the best ownage.
That was like two weeks of no trading, a bit of a stretch to conspire a grandiose scheme. Maybe her handlers were on vacation? Purely speculation.
Doug is speculation, bad optics, doesn’t automatically make you guilty. Stocks will always be someone profiting off the lots of others. I got in some shares recently, I’ll be profiting as much as I can, is normal
yeah...self ownage is the best if you have the need to gloat and pretend you didnt catch what the person was talking about just so you could make a point to them that they were wording something wrongly....instead of just saying ...hey man....youre wording that wrongly....its obvious that there needs some oversight investigation into these matters.......thats all that really matters no matter how someone speaks of it "get the torches and pitchforks!" kind of thing, we all know the person bringing it up isnt on some commission/jury so of course they arent going to be convicting or even investigating the people.....so why come at them like this is a court of law....its a sherdog thread....
I really have no idea what insider trading even means. Is there a good definition out there?
No, "any member of the public" did not have access to the information presented at that meeting. The markets were still churning along healthily at that time, and would continue to do so for a few more weeks.
Insider trading is notoriously hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court, even with egregious violations. I've read that most prosecutions rely on tangential charges like obstruction of justice rather than proving direct complicity in insider trading.
Right, so under a proper investigation a forensics accountant would scrutinize her trades before taking office to find anomalies from her usual behavior.
And your trades are acting on public knowledge. You have no special advantage when you make your plays, unlike the senators at that meeting.
admission to being a low esteem pedantic dick in this particular case.... accepted
I'm pretty sure that people are less concerned with the idea that actual laws were or were not broken, and more troubled by the ethical behavior of people who are supposed to be public servants.
Hitler didn't break any of his own laws either. It really doesn't tell us much about him when the law is only as perfect as the men who write it.
By far the largest executive seller was Amazon. AMZN 1.96% com Inc. Chief Executive Jeffrey Bezos, who sold a total of $3.4 billion in Amazon AMZN 1.96% shares in the first week of February, shortly before the stock market peaked, allowing him to avoid paper losses of roughly $317 million if he had held the stock through March 20, according to the Journal analysis.
The sales represented roughly 3% of Mr. Bezos’s Amazon holdings, according to the most recently available regulatory filings. He sold almost as much stock during the first week in February as he sold during the previous 12 months.
Amazon didn’t immediately provide a comment on behalf of Mr. Bezos.
Last time I checked unless something changed, Bezos is not an elected official.
I sold stock in February as well, but the difference between me and Leoffler is I did not call the virus a hoax and say everything was fine after my sale.
They way she was selling stock, makes her a fucking hypocrite.
The ones I sold I did because I heard they stopped production because of the virus in China. I knew that would cause a supply shortage.
You fucking retard, she traded it on privy information, its insider trading.
Some of you people are stupid, you would defend anything in the name of Trump and his grifters.
Have they lost their security clearances yet?