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

[dissectingaorticaneurysm]

The TS said it's only Republicans though. Hmm...

No, and I was the first in this thread to provide evidence incriminating Feinstein. Stop getting your panties in a knot because her sale didn't come to light when this thread was made. Implying that I would defend that evil crone is the gravest insult ever directed at me in this forum.

 

[skysolo]

 

[My Spot]

No, and I was the first in this thread to provide evidence incriminating Feinstein. Stop getting your panties in a knot because her sale didn't come to light when this thread was made. Implying that I would defend that evil crone is the gravest insult ever directed at me in this forum.

And yet you still refuse to edit your title and OP for some mysterious reason. Hmm...

 

[dissectingaorticaneurysm]

And yet you still refuse to edit your title and OP for some mysterious reason. Hmm...

I also didn't include Richard Burr in the title because I made this thread as Loeffler's story broke. Do you want me to add the 2 additional Republican senators as well?

My god, you're an irritating pedant.

 

[My Spot]

I also didn't include Richard Burr in the title because I made this thread as Loeffler's story broke. Do you want me to add the 2 additional Republican senators as well?

My god, you're an irritating pedant.

And of course no Dems mentioned still for some mystical reason...

 

[K1levelgrappler]

lmao

 

[Oceanmachine]

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.

Her case isnt as bad as Burr. Burr lied to the masses. She didnt. I am not mad about her sale but am about Burr

 

[PEB]

Lol at the guy who asked the question and even better Trumps lol again answer. This country is a joke around the world.

Trump: I never met this reporter in my life.

 

[Madmick]

No, and I was the first in this thread to provide evidence incriminating Feinstein. Stop getting your panties in a knot because her sale didn't come to light when this thread was made. Implying that I would defend that evil crone is the gravest insult ever directed at me in this forum.

You didn't provide any incriminating evidence. All you demonstrated was your inability to comprehend the very laws that you attempted to cite.

 

[cincymma79]

You didn't provide any incriminating evidence. All you demonstrated was your inability to comprehend the very laws that you attempted to cite.

Are you saying that perhaps people on this site are spouting off shit they don’t understand in the slightest but still have a firm opinion on?

 

[dissectingaorticaneurysm]

You didn't provide any incriminating evidence. All you demonstrated was your inability to comprehend the very laws that you attempted to cite.

Here are the indisputable facts- she dumped shares immediately following the meeting, in which she gained access to information that gave her an unfair advantage in the markets. You previously defended this very act as insufficient as a violation of the STOCK act. But Loeffler is now attempting to absolve herself by claiming the trade was made by "third party advisors".

Why would she come up with this excuse if she did not realize scrutiny of those sales would lead to prosecutable evidence?

If you were anywhere near as impartial as you like to present yourself, you would be demanding an immediate formal investigation into those sales instead of arguing on her behalf.

 

[Madmick]

Here are the indisputable facts- she dumped shares immediately following the meeting, in which she gained access to information that gave her an unfair advantage in the markets. You previously defended this very act as insufficient as a violation of the STOCK act. But Loeffler is now attempting to absolve herself by claiming the trade was made by "third party advisors".

Why would she come up with this excuse if she did not realize scrutiny of those sales would lead to prosecutable evidence?

If you were anywhere near as impartial as you like to present yourself, you would be demanding an immediate formal investigation into those sales instead of arguing on her behalf.

First, I still haven't seen anyone confirm the specific information that was supposedly conveyed at that meeting, and second, you are now attempting to portray the fact she is distancing herself from the sales-- something associated with optics-- rather than explain what language in the law would render what we know at this stage about what happened to be illegal. You've asserted that. You are the one positing a claim, and yet you can't substantiate it.

Stop playing toy lawyer. You suck at it.

 

[My Spot]

Here are the indisputable facts- she dumped shares immediately following the meeting, in which she gained access to information that gave her an unfair advantage in the markets. You previously defended this very act as insufficient as a violation of the STOCK act. But Loeffler is now attempting to absolve herself by claiming the trade was made by "third party advisors".

Why would she come up with this excuse if she did not realize scrutiny of those sales would lead to prosecutable evidence?

If you were anywhere near as impartial as you like to present yourself, you would be demanding an immediate formal investigation into those sales instead of arguing on her behalf.

Meanwhile, you give a pass to your beloved Feinstein.

 

[Javelina]

Meanwhile, you give a pass to your beloved Feinstein.

didn't that cunt leak the christine ford hoax as well?

 

[chardog]

Here are the indisputable facts- she dumped shares immediately following the meeting, in which she gained access to information that gave her an unfair advantage in the markets. You previously defended this very act as insufficient as a violation of the STOCK act. But Loeffler is now attempting to absolve herself by claiming the trade was made by "third party advisors".

Why would she come up with this excuse if she did not realize scrutiny of those sales would lead to prosecutable evidence?

If you were anywhere near as impartial as you like to present yourself, you would be demanding an immediate formal investigation into those sales instead of arguing on her behalf.

Her excuse was that she doesn’t handle the trading account due to conflict of interest she is clearly aware of.
Trading is a numbers game and she’s clearly a high level player, unlike Burr, who looks like hands are dirty.
she was on Tucker and handled everything he threw at her, and he was definitely hunting. Buy low and sell high, her account managers did this, looks like great managers to have. Another way of looking at this, markets were at all time highs, it was a great time to sell. Hard to believe they would know a month later trump shutting down the US. A bit hard to prove.

 

[Skarr]

First, I still haven't seen anyone confirm the specific information that was supposedly conveyed at that meeting, and second, you are now attempting to portray the fact she is distancing herself from the sales-- something associated with optics-- rather than explain what language in the law would render what we know at this stage about what happened to be illegal. You've asserted that. You are the one positing a claim, and yet you can't substantiate it.

Stop playing toy lawyer. You suck at it.

how is anyone on sherdog going to know what information was conveyed at that meeting? thats your best point?? and youre going to tell other people they suck at playing toy lawyer??

there is clearly enough smoke here to warrant an investigation, particularly into Burr....

what do you gain by opposing that? Be specific here....

 

[dissectingaorticaneurysm]

Her excuse was that she doesn’t handle the trading account due to conflict of interest she is clearly aware of.
Trading is a numbers game and she’s clearly a high level player, unlike Burr, who looks like hands are dirty.
she was on Tucker and handled everything he threw at her, and he was definitely hunting. Buy low and sell high, her account managers did this, looks like great managers to have. Another way of looking at this, markets were at all time highs, it was a great time to sell. Hard to believe they would know a month later trump shutting down the US. A bit hard to prove.

That could be a plausible excuse if not for the fact that she made no stock sales since being sworn into office until immediately following the briefing.

She is also facing opposition from within the party, including a close ally of Trump:

 

[DivineMind]

Here are the indisputable facts- she dumped shares immediately following the meeting, in which she gained access to information that gave her an unfair advantage in the markets. You previously defended this very act as insufficient as a violation of the STOCK act. But Loeffler is now attempting to absolve herself by claiming the trade was made by "third party advisors".

Why would she come up with this excuse if she did not realize scrutiny of those sales would lead to prosecutable evidence?

If you were anywhere near as impartial as you like to present yourself, you would be demanding an immediate formal investigation into those sales instead of arguing on her behalf.

This isn't non-public information - people have been tweeting about this coronavirus since way early on, experts sharing their expert opinion with Congress is not material, non-public information. Technically, any member of the public could have found their own experts and obtained similar information.

The only issue here is with the one GOP Senator that downplayed the virus, got the briefing, dumped stock, and then remained silent instead of sounding the alarm. And this isn't even a legal issue, it's more of a moral / democratic issue.

 

[DivineMind]

That could be a plausible excuse if not for the fact that she made no stock sales since being sworn into office until immediately following the briefing.

She is also facing opposition from within the party, including a close ally of Trump:

The trades were made by a third party advisor. It's likely that the same advisor directed all of their clients to make those same trades, not just the Senator.

And the trade idea has been public since January, anyone could have put 2 and 2 together and made those same trades.

 

[Lots]

So I’m kinda ignorant with stuff like this. Can someone fill me in?

Is she not allowed to sell her stocks if she learns about something that could be bad for the company?