Crime Sen. Kelly Loeffler Sold Millions in Stock After Coronavirus Briefing

[Lubaolong]

Worth $500 million. Sold $1-2 million in stocks. Not trying to downplay it, but I'm honestly not sure how significant this is. I've read insider trading is only illegal if the insider information would cause a big change in the stock prices and if it is unknown to the public. So you would have to make the case that whatever these lawmakers knew at the time was significantly different than what was available publicly. I'm not sure if that's the case or not. Some people have been preaching how dire the situation was from the beginning.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

It is not shocking. The rich and powerful scumbags will find ways using the coronavirus to gain even more wealth and influence.

 

[TheLastSpartan]

You guys should probably work this contradiction out amongst yourselves.

Or better yet, I can stand by my own statement. It doesn't even make sense for you to try to conflate someone else' post with mine unless its partisan bs in the first place.

 

[blaseblah]

She definitely should have left it in, and lost everything, just to appease jealous leftists.

Can't take anything you say seriously after this post.

 

[dissectingaorticaneurysm]

Someone worth $500 M selling $3 M in stocks is nothing.

But it's a big problem that Congress is legally allowed to participate in insider trading. It's one of the mechanisms for companies to buy off legislators - mega corporations probably give them stock tips in exchange for favorable legislative action. This needs to be shut down.

Worth $500 million. Sold $1-2 million in stocks. Not trying to downplay it, but I'm honestly not sure how significant this is. I've read insider trading is only illegal if the insider information would cause a big change in the stock prices and if it is unknown to the public. So you would have to make the case that whatever these lawmakers knew at the time was significantly different than what was available publicly. I'm not sure if that's the case or not. Some people have been preaching how dire the situation was from the beginning.

That's their combined net worth, and we won't know what her husband did until a formal investigation digs it up. They wouldn't be dumb enough to sell off tens of millions at once without fear of scrutiny.

The fact that she's already wealthy and violating her congressional privilege so soon after taking office speaks to the shadiness of her character. A million might be nothing to her but it's enough to break the law to grift a few dollars more at the expense of the public's trust?

 

[DivineMind]

That's their combined net worth, and we won't know what her husband did until a formal investigation digs it up. They wouldn't be dumb enough to sell off tens of millions at once without fear of scrutiny.

The fact that she's already wealthy and violating her congressional privilege so soon after taking office speaks to the shadiness of her character. A million might be nothing to her but it's enough to break the law to grift a few dollars more at the expense of the public's trust?

Can you explain what you mean by 'violating her congressional privilege"? Insider trading is business as usual for congresspeople, to my knowledge.

I know it's now illegal (technically, with the law passed within the last 10 years), but I haven't seen any evidence that they're being prosecuted as aggressively as average people.

 

[Madmick]

So your immediate reaction is to defend insider trading violations to trigger the libs? They are getting bipartisan condemnation, even your boy Tuck is calling for their resignation.

This is where you tap out and accept you've become nothing more than an immoral partisan shill.

What is the "insider trading" violation, here?

Be specific, and show me the evidence.

 

[PEB]

The issue due to their position it's perfectly fine to profit off of insider information. This has been a huge problem for years in both houses of Congress. Heck even Nancy Pelosi even said during an interview admitting she had at times were she may have crossed a line but it's still not illegal.

 

[DragRacer]

Exactly.
You think Epstein became a billionaire because he was a brilliant investor?

But it's a big problem that Congress is legally allowed to participate in insider trading. It's one of the mechanisms for companies to buy off legislators - mega corporations probably give them stock tips in exchange for favorable legislative action. This needs to be shut down.

 

[Holic]

Or better yet, I can stand by my own statement. It doesn't even make sense for you to try to conflate someone else' post with mine unless its partisan bs in the first place.

Someone said the complaint is exclusive to republicans, you claimed it isn't, someone else said it is. By definition one of you is full of shit, you can work out who.

 

[dissectingaorticaneurysm]

What is the "insider trading" violation, here?

Be specific, and show me the evidence.

Do you recall the "Pelosi Provision" added to the STOCK act inspired by Pelosi's profits made in her purchase of Visa stock in 2008? Ever since then, the purchases of congressmen were scrutinized for undue gain made through special insider access. The STOCK act attempted to make the finances of all members transparent.

Section 4
Declares that such Members and employees are not exempt from the insider trading prohibitions arising under the securities laws, including the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to declare that such Members and employees owe a duty arising from a relationship of trust and confidence to Congress, the U.S. government, and U.S. citizens with respect to material, nonpublic information derived from their positions as Members or congressional employees or gained from performance of the individual's official responsibilities.​

Loeffler and Burr not only sold their stocks immediately following the meeting -a clear violation of this rule- but Loeffler also used the proceeds to purchase shares in Citrix- a software company that specializes in remote teleworking solutions. This was in early February before quarantines would sweep the nation forcing everyone to work from home. Meanwhile cheerleading about the strength of the economy and telling her constituents to place their trust in Trump. It can't be any more clear cut than that.

Oh, btw, she did not sell a single stock during office until that day.

Another fun tidbit- the STOCK act passed 96-3. Richard Burr was one of the nays.

 

[Limbo Pete]

She definitely should have left it in, and lost everything, just to appease jealous leftists.

This is a bad look even for you, Bobert lol

 

[AndroidRage]

She definitely should have left it in, and lost everything, just to appease jealous leftists.

No cuck. She should have informed the American people first. Also, insider trading is illegal for the rest of us. So they both should face charges.

 

[Thepaintbucket]

This is why it's always questionable when you put a super rich person in a position of government power. You just simply don't know if they are using their status to gain financial benefits on the side with such knowledge.

Instead of trying to help the country during a panic, she might be too busy moving her millions around in the stock market.

 

[deltapapha]

The question is not whether her statements are believable but whether she abode by the letter of the law. If so, there's nothing the state can do. If they want to legislate new rules, fine, but if she didn't break the current ones there's nothing to see here.

 

[Madmick]

Do you recall the "Pelosi Provision" added to the STOCK act inspired by Pelosi's profits made in her purchase of Visa stock in 2008? Ever since then, the purchases of congressmen were scrutinized for undue gain made through special insider access. The STOCK act attempted to make the finances of all members transparent.

Section 4
Declares that such Members and employees are not exempt from the insider trading prohibitions arising under the securities laws, including the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to declare that such Members and employees owe a duty arising from a relationship of trust and confidence to Congress, the U.S. government, and U.S. citizens with respect to material, nonpublic information derived from their positions as Members or congressional employees or gained from performance of the individual's official responsibilities.​

Loeffler and Burr not only sold their stocks immediately following the meeting -a clear violation of this rule- but Loeffler also used the proceeds to purchase shares in Citrix- a software company that specializes in remote teleworking solutions. This was in early February before quarantines would sweep the nation forcing everyone to work from home. Meanwhile cheerleading about the strength of the economy and telling her constituents to place their trust in Trump. It can't be any more clear cut than that.

Oh, btw, she did not sell a single stock during office until that day.

Another fun tidbit- the STOCK act passed 96-3. Richard Burr was one of the nays.

What? My God, you don't understand the very rule you're citing. No, it's not a "clear violation of this rule". Congressman have meetings every day. They wouldn't be able to buy or sell stock if a peri-meeting timetable is all that is required for that to construe a violation. Furthermore, it's obvious you didn't read that statute:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.10b5-1

She didn't sell a single stock in office until that day? Source that. It's irrelevant, but I find that very hard to believe.

Unless Citrix was specifically mentioned at the meeting with regard to government provisions intimated there that would boost its specific stock you're playing a dumb game, here. That doesn't violate the section you're citing. Furthermore, you haven't produced evidence that those meetings in February contained any specific government edicts that would force people to work from home. Your attempt to use positive rhetoric about the market as a whole intended to cushion the economy from a panic, something that would help all Americans, while calculating a panic would occur anyway, also doesn't construe a violation of that statute.

Frankly, I find your bar for a crime, and the so-called evidence that would prove it, to be terrifying. You're an authoritarian in search of a justification for your tendencies.

It's going to take a lot more investigative digging by real journalists to uncover legitimate malfeasance, here. I predict nothing will come of this.

 

[Prokofievian]

 

[PEB]

 

[K1levelgrappler]

There's always more and it's always worse

 

[hillelslovak87]

There's always more and it's always worse

Drastic times.....

.....or just fun times, fuck it.