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.
