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

We can definitely trust these people in govt to legislate UHC/free college/UBI. They would put the public's best interest first, not use it asan opportunity to enrich themselves.
 
Wonder why the TS didn’t include Diane Feinstein. Hmm...
 
Simple.
resign and face the criminal consequences accordingly. if shey/they are guilty. Fuck em.
 
bobgeese said:
She definitely should have left it in, and lost everything, just to appease jealous leftists.
Click to expand...
Not if it was insider information. if it wasn't it's still shady and a selfish thing to do. She used her position to save herself over others.
 
KONG-D'SNT-TAP said:
I love how people still defend this activity. Defend bankers and the criminal enterprises they operate.

HSBC, Wells Fargo, Lehman, the list is endless. And you’ll still find rubes defending these mafia types.
Click to expand...

That we agree on
 
Lubaolong said:
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.
Click to expand...
it doesn't have to cause a big change in stock price to be insider trading.
 
bobgeese said:
She definitely should have left it in, and lost everything, just to appease jealous leftists.
Click to expand...

116d90df9f940d40b572f14ad118d43c.jpg
 
Overseas, the US government must follow the "No Double Standard Law" when it comes to warning people about potential threats.

In other words, if Americans on official orders are told about a credible specific threat, then they must also let the general public know this information as well.

Did Burr break the law?

https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam0050.html
 
This isn't insider trading for several reasons. They aren't allowed to use non-public information for personal gain, and they neither gained nor were they privy to any new laws or policies that would have caused stocks to rise or shrink, and the evidence is that they didn't even sell for another 3 weeks after this "secret meeting".

Even though there was no gain, it would probably still qualify if they were informed of some new law or bill that the rest of us didn't know about that would cause the stock market to move. AFAIK, the public already knew about coronavirus before the briefing, they didn't set any federal policies at the meeting, otherwise they wouldn't have waited 3 weeks to sell, and most of the measures have been at the state and local level, and senators work for the federal government.

The complaint would have to be that they withheld information from the public, and based on the 3 weeks it took them to sell a relatively small amount of stock holdings, it doesn't appear that they had any more information to give that the rest of us didn't already know about.
 
Last edited:
nostradumbass said:
This isn't insider trading for several reasons. They aren't allowed to use non-public information for personal gain, and they neither gained nor were they privy to any new laws or policies that would have caused stocks to rise or shrink, and the evidence is that they didn't even sell for another 3 weeks after this "secret meeting".

Even though there was no gain, it would probably still qualify if they were informed of some new law or bill that the rest of us didn't know about that would cause the stock market to move. AFAIK, the public already knew about coronavirus before the briefing, they didn't set any federal policies at the meeting, otherwise they wouldn't have waited 3 weeks to sell, and most of the measures have been at the state and local level, and senators work for the federal government.
Click to expand...
That said and all probably true, it does raise a salient topic of discussion...not that insider trading occurs all the time and rarely ever gets addressed (also true)...but rather, our system on how we determine and bestow wealth is bonkers and the idea of fairness is very much incompatible in many ways...so people need to adjust their expectations.

I don't have a "fair" system in mind, but this is just one of many unbalanced ways in which our system operates...this isn't insider trading by law perhaps, but nobody would bet against these senators who are accused having done exactly that. There is enough to investigate them.
 
andnowweknow said:
That said and all probably true, it does raise a salient topic of discussion...not that insider trading occurs all the time and rarely ever gets addressed (also true)...but rather, our system on how we determine and bestow wealth is bonkers and the idea of fairness is very much incompatible in many ways...so people need to adjust their expectations.

I don't have a "fair" system in mind, but this is just one of many unbalanced ways in which our system operates...this isn't insider trading by law perhaps, but nobody would bet against these senators who are accused having done exactly that. There is enough to investigate them.
Click to expand...
IMO, public officials shouldn't be allowed to trade stocks in the first place. It's ludicrous that the people regulating businesses can invest in them. I don't think it would technically be insider trading to take your existing stock holdings, and base your decisions on regulations on what you already hold. IMO, they should be made to cash out as soon as they take office and maybe or maybe not be allowed to invest again after leaving office.

An "investigation" would be pretty damn simple for this case. Just find out what was said in the meeting, and if there was anything that wasn't publicly known that would have caused them to sell. I doubt there was considering the timeline and none of the other senators told the public about anything from the meeting they didn't know either. Otherwise, this would be forcing them to hold stock forever even after information is public.
 
Last edited:
nostradumbass said:
IMO, public officials shouldn't be allowed to trade stocks in the first place.
Click to expand...

At the very least there's no way to prevent conflict of interest for them, and thus they should be prohibited from it.
 
nostradumbass said:
IMO, public officials shouldn't be allowed to trade stocks in the first place. It's ludicrous that the people regulating businesses can invest in them. I don't think it would technically be insider trading to take your existing stock holdings, and base your decisions on regulations on what you already hold. IMO, they should be made to cash out as soon as they take office and maybe or maybe not be allowed to invest again after leaving office.

An "investigation" would be pretty damn simple for this case. Just find out what was said in the meeting, and if there was anything that wasn't publicly known that would have caused them to sell. I doubt there was considering the timeline and none of the other senators told the public about anything from the meeting they didn't know either. Otherwise, this would be forcing them to hold stock forever even after information is public.
Click to expand...
Rogan has a funny but true take on the topic...

Those who run for political office are normally exactly the people who should be automatically disqualified from running.

Basically speaking to the idea of power and the sorts of people it draws. I think even those who get in it for the right reasons are understandably susceptible to becoming jaded and corrupted.
 
Aren't all members of government required to have a blind trust? So they didn't sell the stock the trust-or sold the stock?
 
Entire thread is head slapping moment. The point is them knowing that a mass death event was coming and lying to their voters, not selling stock. Jesus christ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,882
Messages
55,451,177
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top